Recent additions | BoardGameGeek

Review: Quarriors!:: Gedanken zu Quarriors!

Lomingen — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:38:26 +0000

Lange ist es her, dass der letzte Bericht von mir geschrieben wurde. Nun aber wieder. Wer sich für meine anderen Berichte interessiert: Es sind Ruhm für Rom und Dampfross. Hier ist der Link: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/browse/boardgame/0?usern....

Nun aber Gedanken zu Quarriors!

Einleitung, Gestaltung und Geschichte.
Beim Spiel Quarriors! von Wizkids stellt man einen mächtigen Krieger dar. Dieser hat Wissen, dass es erlaubt Kreaturen zu fangen und zu beschwören, dass es erlaubt Zaubersprüche zu erlernen und zu verwenden. Also eine Hintergrundgeschichte, die man in wie vielen Spielen schon erlebt hat? Kurzum: Die Geschichte ist völlig egal. Man nutzt Kreaturen um zu gewinnen, doch woher die kommen, oder warum man das tut (um sich bei der Prinzessin beliebt zu machen) hat mit dem Spiel nichts zu tun.
Dargestellt werden Kreaturen und Zauber druch spezielle Würfel. Das ist zwar ungewohnt, nachdem man sich an die Gestaltung gewöhnt hat aber kein Problem mehr. Es ist dann in der Regel schnell klar, was der Würfel gerade zeigt und es geht nur noch um die Frage, wie man den Würfel geschickt einsetzt. Dem Spiel liegen 130 solcher Würfel bei. Es gibt dabei 18 verschiedene, die jeweils auch durch bis zu vier verschiedene Karten repräsentiert werden. Leider sind die Würfel recht klein geraten. Auf einem Würfel steht im Extremfall neben dem Symbol für die Kreatur, die Stufe, der Angriffs- und der Verteidigungswert sowie ein Symbol für Sonderfähigkeiten. Bei 13mm Würfeln ist das viel. Gut, dass die Würfelseiten zusätzlich noch auf Karten abgebildet sind und man so im Zweifel auch schnell mal nachgesehen hat. Aber immerhin sind die Würfel nicht nur bedruckt, sondern geprägt. Das verspricht längere Haltbarkeit.
Das Spiel ist verpackt in einer Dose in Form und Bedruckung eines Würfels aus dem Spiel. Das lässt sich zwar nur schwer im Regal stapeln, aber passt dafür irre gut zu dem Spiel. Einen Wehrmutstropfen gibt es aber dennoch: Viele der Kartentexte lassen Interpretationen zu. Es bleiben auch in der Anleitung einige Fragen offen. Das ist schade und wird hoffentlich durch eine FAQ oder ein Errata korrigiert. Mal sehen.

Spielerzahl und Dauer.
Gemäß der Schachtel spielen 2-4 Spieler etwa 30 Minuten. Wie ist da mein Eindruck? 2-4 Spieler kommt gut hin. Es darum geht, die Kreaturen der anderen Spieler zu besiegen und diese damit zu hindern, dem Spieler Punkte zu geben. Da ist es nun egal, ob man einen oder drei Gegner angreift. Die Kreaturen sind mit jedem Gegner wieder frisch und erholt und greifen mit voller Stärke an. Es ist aber nicht egal, ob man von einem oder von drei Mitspielern selber angegriffen wird. Bei einem Gegner überlebt die Kreatur schon mal schneller. Dem wird Rechnung getragen, indem die zum Sieg nötige Punktzahl bei zwei Spielern höher ist. Funktioniert auch ganz gut. Also 2-4 Spieler kommt gut hin.
Bei der Zeitangabe muss ich klar widersprechen. 30 Minuten Spielzeit habe ich noch nicht geschafft. Wobei das Spiel mit etwas mehr Zeit immer noch ein kurzer Absacker am Abend ist. Ich glaube, so 45-60 Minuten sind treffender. Man könnte nun die Spielzeit über die zum Sieg nötigen Punkte anpassen, das funktioniert aber nicht. Spielt man um weniger Punkte, so kommt das Spiel gar nicht ins Rollen. Man ist noch voll im Aufbau seiner Würfelsammlung und schon ist Schluss. Schade. Und mehr Punkte (wenn der Abend noch lang ist) geht auch nicht . Jemand der am Anfang viel Glück hatte, lässt sich nur noch schwer einholen. Dem seine Kreaturen sind dann einfach viel stärker. Dann ist es besser, wenn das Spiel endet.

Anspruch und Tiefe.
Anspruch sucht man in diesem Spiel vergebens. Es ist zwar möglich und auch sinnvoll, sich gute Kombinationen aus Würfeln zu überlegen und zu versuchen, diese zu bekommen. Aber wirklich viel Einfluss hat man nicht. In jeder Runde würfelt man und kann sich dann Entscheiden (1.), wie viele der erwürfelten Kreaturen man ausspielen möchte. Das kostet Kraftpunkte. Danach kann man sich noch entscheiden (2.) welchen Würfel man mit den verbleibenden Kraftpunkten aus der Mitte nimmt. Das war der eigene Zug. Wenn die Mitspieler dran sind, kann man sich noch entscheiden (3.) in welcher Reihenfolge die eigenen Kreaturen verteidigen. Und das war es dann auch schon.
Klang recht abwertend. Sollte es nicht. Ich glaube, dass niemand bei dem Spiel wirklich Anspruch und Tiefe erwartet. Es ist ein kleines Spiel um den Abend ausklingen zu lassen oder einfach mit ein paar Leuten (und vielleicht etwas Bier) eine nette Runde zu spielen. Anspruch und Tiefe waren wohl nie der Gedanke dieses Spiels. Und das ist auch gut so. Und das wird auch repräsentiert.

Glück.
Würfel aus dem eigenen Beutel ziehen. Da muss man schon Glück haben die richtigen zu ziehen. Dann würfeln. Da muss man schon Glück haben gute und passende Seiten zu erwürfeln. Und dann sind da noch die Mitspieler. Die sollten natürlich nicht das Glück haben, geeignete Kreaturen zu erschaffen. Die sollten meine Kreaturen im Kampf nicht besiegen können. Glück ist also ein wesentliches Element des Spiels. Also lasst uns nicht über Glück reden. Glück braucht man, die anderen aber auch. Es sei nur drauf hingewiesen: Die Strategen, die ein nur leichtes Glückselement mögen, sind hier falsch.

Wiederspielwert.
Es gibt für die Meisten der Würfel verschiedene Karten. Der Würfel repräsentiert also immer wieder mal andere Kreaturen und andere Zauber. Da immer nur eine kleine Auswahl im Spiel zum Einsatz kommt (8 von 50 Möglichkeiten) ist für Abwechselung also gesorgt. Das Spiel kann mal also gut immer wieder spielen. Für mich fürchte ich aber, dass ich mich sehr schnell überspielen könnte. Wenn ich das Spiel zu häufig in kurzer Zeit spiele, dann vergeht mir wohl völlig die Lust. Also lieber etwas seltener, dafür immer mal wieder. Ich glaube in den Runden bei mir zu Hause wird das ein Spiel, gerne mal genommen wird, das aber nicht von vorne herein auf dem Plan steht oder zwingend jedes mal vorgeschlagen wird. Dafür hat das Spiel auch nicht genügend Tiefe und Würfeln kann ich auch gut mit anderen Spielen. So hat man dann noch etwas mehr Abwechselung.

Fazit, Vergleiche und persönliche Meinung.
Quarriors! ist ein Spiel für Zwischendurch. (Das habe ich schon mal geschrieben, oder?). Als solches ist es konstruiert, also solches ist es konzipiert und als solches funktioniert es. Als solches ist es aber nicht ganz billig. Der Preis ist zwar durch die vielen Würfel gerechtfertigt, aber viele andere Spiele, die nur so nebeibei laufen, sind billiger. Ich finde, das Spiel lohnt und ich habe den Kauf nicht bereut. Es wird sicherlich noch ein paar mal gespielt werden. Und die Ausstattung ist ja auch gut und sein Geld wert.
Der Vergleich mit Dominion ist einfach Pflicht in einem Bericht zu dem Spiel. Das Prinzip ist ja identisch. Würfel (Karten) ziehen, geschickt einsetzen um aus der Mitte neue Würfel (Karten) zu bekommen und Siegpunkte zu sammeln. Wer sich im Laufe des Spiel die beste Zusammenstellung baut, der gewinnt. Aber der Glücksfaktor ist viel höher. Und noch etwas ist anders. Bei Dominion muss man sich irgendwann im Spiel entscheiden, das Deck nicht mehr zu verbessern, sondern Siegpunkte zu sammeln. Dieser Wechsel findet bei Quarriors! nicht statt. Siegpunkte bekommt man immer nebenbei und so kann man sich auf den Aufbau des Decks beschränken. Irgendwie fehlt mir da was.
Dann lieber ein Verglich mit diesen anderen Absackern wie Phase10, Heckmeck oder Sitting Ducks. Hier benötigt Quarriors! einfach etwas mehr Zeit. Kann sich in die Reihe aber gut einfügen. Ich freue mich auf die nächste Runde. Es wird noch etwas dauern, bis alle Karten mal auf dem Tisch lagen.

Review: Deadlands: The Battle for Slaughter Gulch:: The Good The Bad & The Ugly A mini slaughter gulch review

Jokerman — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 06:22:59 +0000

by Jokerman

Hi All,
Picked this up recently. Here are my thoughts.

THE GOOD.
The theme of this game is cool and even if you are not familiar with deadlands mythos you should enjoy it.
This is the most kit i have ever seen crammed into such a small box.
Imagine your favorite western combined with scifi and horror and you on your way. Players play one of 6 factions attempting to have the highest score at the end of the game. The game can end in a number of ways so the replay value with 6 factions all playing differently,multiple endgames, so many situations that can occour is of the scale
The game is part placement style,part minis,part rpg. The game system attempts to create a living breathing world for you to play in. events will change the course of play,NPC's will arrive and leave,A deputy may arrive and begin patroling town looking for trouble makers,new stock will arrive at the local shop etc. This is quit cool.On your turn you secretly plot movement and actions for your gang {starting with three until you recruit more} then everyone movs at the same time and once they have all moved the random events occour that can change your plans drastically. After this each gang member carrys out there action in order of priority. There are soooo many things you can do and the situations that occour can be so much fun its mind numbing. Each faction will tend to be better at certain things and are rewarded for doing these things.
and so the next turn begins.

THE BAD
The rule book is not very clear and appears to not have been written in any particular order giving the impression that they were not edited
This is a shame because most of the rules you need are there some where unlike earlier TC releases.
There has been criticism regarding game breaking methods of play that allow you to just concentrate on one or two actions only to win the game. I think this is refered to as "farming " in the computer games community.
I however have played 6 games now with different end objectivs and player numbers and have not encountered this at all. If you think a player has found a loophole its down to you to close it.
If they are gambling well go shoot them or dynamite the saloon.
If they are mining well go mine too or shoot them,stab them arrest them.
If they are robbing the train/stage coach have someone hang around to arrest them etc. the lists of options are endless.

THE UGLY
The components while mainly pretty nice have some obvious flaws.
All the factions are moulded in the same colour plastic so it is hard to tell who is who particularly in games of 5 or 6 players.

The player shield to hide your mini map is to small and flimsy

some people think the figers bases are to small and the figures tend to fall over.
I did not find this a great problem but have fitted tidly wink size coloured bases to the figures more for ID than stability.

Over all I think this is a great value fun game that is worth overcoming its problems as there is a gem of a game inside.
The shear number of options available to the playes is bound to cause some teething problems. Also once you know what you are doing and have some direction the games are never longer than 2 hours sometimes much less.
8/10

Review: Hogwarts: House Cup Challenge:: The Purge: Review 11: Hogwarts: A 4 player Review (and comparision from 2 players)

william4192 — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 06:22:44 +0000

by william4192

]]>

Conclusion: In my last review, I looked at the game mostly from a 2 player perspective, now I want to focus on the 4 player experience. The four player experience is different in that we did fail more adventure cards and it was harder to move around the board (which can be a good thing). There is still quite a bit in luck in what cards you draw and what is played around you. In our latest game, I was able to get way ahead in VP and the three "skills". Everyone else was pretty close which is probably how the game would normally play out if I didn't get so lucky.

2 Player Game: In the two player game, we would pass adventure cards and never fail. There are a couple of fixes with the best perhaps being that you don't get a new "skill" every 25 VP, instead only every 100 VP. This will slow down the players from getting too strong too fast.

4 Player Game: In the 4 player game, you grow more slowly as the main score is moving faster and the VP's are being assigned around to 4 people instead of 2. This makes the game move in a more realistic manner and you can actually fail (and thus hurt your opponent) adventure cards.

Notes about the game: Luck still plays a part in the game as what cards you are dealt can determine where you will be on the board and what you can do. It is odd the characters are just slight variations of each other (their starting scores are different). None of the characters have any unique powers. Nothing really differentiates Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter. Nothing makes me feel like I'm that character as opposed to just a random student wizard at the school (except for the pictures on the cards of course).

It is still odd that we don't work together and compete for points (because the movies/books focus so much on teamwork). The teamwork cards did make more sense in the 4 player game (than the 2 player game), because you may help someone in third (if you are in second) to in effect hurt the player in first. In a two player, it is a zero sum affair.

I still like this game a lot and it has a lot to offer (especially for fans of the movies/books). See my other review on this game to get a more detailed analysis of the game.

Final Conclusions: This is a good game and plays better with 4 players than 2. It is a great game if you are a fan of Harry Potter (which I am). The game is very unique in that the designer actually built a good game around a beloved movie/book license. I congratulate him for that and thank. If you are a Harry Potter fan, pick this game up. You should not be disappointed.

*One Final complaint: I wish the game included the last 2 years in the books/movies. It seems it is ripe for an expansion. I also think this game should have been a co-op or you should have been people from different houses (to make the theme work better). Other than this I have very little complaints.

Review: Owner's Choice:: The Purge: Review #10: Owner's Choice: Stock Market Galore

william4192 — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 05:33:52 +0000

by william4192

]]>

Conclusion: Let's get right down to it. This is a short game and can be made shorter by the players. I don't necessarily like that because someone who is not "getting" the game, may end the game faster just to get it over with instead of continuing to learn the game. Due to the rolling of dice, it can be hard for someone who is behind to have control over whether they can catch up or not. Yes, the stock market may go up or down you need to know when to buy and sell, but the dice roll (not your actions or decisions) that change the price of the market (and thus the stocks).

With that out of the way, I do enjoy this game mostly due to the length of the game. It doesn't stay around too long, actually it could be a little longer. I enjoy the press your luck focus of the game; will you sell the stock while it is higher or see if it can rise a little bit more before you sell it. Money is how you win the game and buying low and selling high is how you win. Of course, if you buy low and the stock tanks and the company becomes bankrupt (as happened in our game), then you can lose your shirt.

]]>

Components: The paper money is a little annoying. I'm not a hater of paper money, but money is flying back and forth a lot so it becomes annoying always making change.

The little pawns are serviceable, but I'd like to see something better. I really like the look of the board and the font. There is a bit of writing on the board I can't figure out why it is there (the square 100 from 190-300). In addition, I like the modular aspect of the 4 L's that make up the squares you land on. This mixes it up a little from game to tame.

You have to sticker the dice and I really, really hate doing this. My dice don't look good, because my hands shake too much.

Overall, this is a cheap, fast game and the components are fine for this game. They are not great, but do the job.

]]>

Rules: The rules are very clear (missing the one thing I mention up above) and we were able to play in five minutes with little rule looking up. There is even a chart that explains the dice rolls (the dice are custom and drive the mechanics of the game). There are not a lot of rules in this game and the book is in full color and explains the game perfectly. The only drawback is that there is not a full component list with pictures.

]]>

Flow of Play: Two steps: 1. You can buy and sell stocks based on prices of the market 2. You move the purple pawn around the "board" and decide which square you will land on (you can move 1-4 squares). If you land on a "stock" you can roll the fund dice and do what it says or roll the stock dice (for $50 that goes into fund) and do what that dice says. If it is an event, you can roll the event dice and do what it says. There are other squares (about 3-4 more) and they all do certain actions.

That is the entire game. Buy/sell stocks and move your pawn and roll the dice. I promise it is more fun than it sounds. If you had to do this for three hours, it would wear thin. For 30 minutes, it is very exciting.

The dice rolls can make stock prices go up or down or not move at all. The dice might give you money, take money, or give you money and move the stock price.

]]>

Should I buy this game?: Yes. This is a pretty cheap game on Tanga (at least as of this writing) and should be a fun filler that your group could enjoy. It seems it might be a better game with more players and because each turn is two very quick actions, there is very little downtown. If you are looking for a fun, dice rolling, stock market game that can be played in 30-45 minutes (maybe quicker with no AP), then this could be your game. It even comes at a great price.

Review: The Big Bang Theory: The Party Game:: A quick review

Mundane — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 04:58:22 +0000

by Mundane

My son and I enjoy the The Big Bang Theory and since the price was right ($20.00) I decided to get it when we saw it at Origins.

The Big Bang Theory – The Party Game is a light game for fans of the show that will remind people of Apples to Apples.

Components:

180 blue “Theoretical” cards.
4 blue “Bazinga” cards.
75 red “Experimental” cards.
12 blank cards
60 point chips (12 each of numbers 1 to 5)
6 cardboard envelopes

The cards are decent quality if a bit thin. They have quote from the show and the blue cards have a picture from the show as well. The point chips are thick glossy cardboard with the numbers on both sides.

Gameplay:

If you’ve played Apples to Apples then you know how to play this game.
Each player starts with seven of the blue cards. One player is the judge and turns over a red card.

Examples of red cards:

Needs a spanking
Handy in case of apocalypse
Bad at Sports
Doable

The other players then select a blue card they think matches what is on the red card.

Examples of the blue cards:
Personal Robot
Sexy Vampire
Psychic
Wonder Woman

After playing a card the players draw back up to seven blue cards.

The judge then assigns a point chip to each answer. For example in a five player game the judge would give one answer a four, one a three, then a two, and finally a one. The player of each answer then takes the chip assigned to their answer.

The judge then rotates to the left and another round is played. The game lasts 12 rounds and whoever has the most points wins.

There are two types of cards that mix the game up a bit.

Some of the red cards are called “Experimental Formula” cards and have a green face. These require the other players to play two cards. The two cards are placed in a cardboard envelope so they stay together when the judge shuffles them.

Examples of the “Experimental Formula” cards:
“The brain of a ____ and the body of a ____”
Super awkward
Weird fantasy

Four of the blue cards are “Bazinga” cards. After all players have chosen their blue card(s) one of the players can play a “Bazinga” card which forces the judge to discard the red card he drew and draw a new card. This can be useful if you had no good cards for the first red card.

Summary:

As you can see this game is a variation on Apples to Apples themed around the TV show The Big Bang Theory. If you have a group that likes Apples to Apples and are big fans of the show this is probably a decent purchase given the low price point. As a word of warning just like the show the game has many sexual references. If you don’t let your child watch the show then you won’t want them playing this game.

Review: The Pillars of the Earth Expansion Set:: Pillars of the Earth Expansion, reviewed by an avid fan

brumbynut — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 04:17:46 +0000

by brumbynut

So first attempt at a review, hopefully it's useful. The review is solely on the benefits and changes the expansion introduces and whether they're worth it (short version, yes!). It's written on the basis that you've played the original game and understand the rules.

The game comes in a box essentially the same design as the originial game but with a brown border. Same dimensions except it's only half depth.

Obviously the expansion is designed foremost to allow 5 or 6 players so you get two extra sets of meeples and master builders (in orange and white), an extra resource card (1 sand for 1 worker), some extra craftsmen (2 per turn) and some more privilege and event cards as well as extra resources (which unfortunately don't quite colour match with the original). The game scales as well so the amount of resource cards and craftsmen available varies depending on how many players you have (so the tight tussle for these remains).

You get a half size board to place alongside the original, the artwork matches and flows well between boards. The board provides a number of other master builder placement options which take place in phase 9 after rolling for taxation. These are:
Tax collector which provides not only immunity from tax but allows you to collect the rolled amount in gold and is key if finances are tight as it's a double win
Crusades, there are four new meeple placement options allowing you to gain victory points for your workers (rather than making any leftovers into shearers for gold)
Shiring privilege card space, privilege cards are split into ongoing effects (which remain in the two spots on the original board) and instant or one off which are placed here
Inspiration in St Denis which is a clever addition that allows you to reuse one of your own craftsmen or another person's craftsman at minus one capacity, very handy if you missed out on a metal using craftsman but have metal available
Lastly is the coast which is similar to the resource market but there's only one spot and you can only sell, the trade off is everything gets a better price.
Across the top of the board is the Master builder track which is used in 5/6 player games and helps balance the order of master builder placement, only two MB's go in the bag and whoever comes out first places their third MB onto position 5/6 on the track, second takes the next highest position and so on until all the MBs are out of the bag and then the track is used from 1 - 6. So if your first MB came out first, your last one will be last.

There are 12 new craftsmen, 2 per turn and without breaking them all down they add flavour to the game without upsetting the balance, there's a craftsman who converts sand into stone, another who provides VPs for MBs placed in the market. Last game there was much humourous discussion about how exactly the beggar (who gains a resource from the market) was gifted with a lump of stone or a handful of sand....

There's also the black master builder who is place in the bag with the other MBs and allows you to reserve a spot on the board and replace him with your next MB, last game he saved me 5 gold and scored me the craftsman I wanted. He can be excellent if he comes out of the bag early but there's a bit of luck involved. You can pick him up with one of the new privilege cards.

Overall it's an excellent expansion, the game remains about decision making and weighing up the benefits of each action and each placement. The expansion provides variety, scales well (there's more things to do but still not quite enough to go around) and retains it's replayability by always having cards that aren't used (there's more privilege, craftsman and event cards than you'll use in a game). Also, unless it's a 6 player game you'll get a different resource mix each turn as well.

It remains a simple game, people who've played before quickly pick up the nuances from the new board and as the mechanics are the same new players learn the rules for the new board at the same time as the original. I've introduced a heap of people to this game and by the end of the first turn they've always understood the rules and are quickly competitive.

I really enjoyed the base game and this has added to that, not only the ability to play with extra players but more choices for a 3/4 player game (although these are generally much higher scoring!). I've given it 9.5 out of 10 cos it is pretty well perfect. Played it with two noobs this week and in turn three one looked at the other and said "This is a great game, I reckon we should get it." I reckon they should too!

Review: 51st State:: The Purge: Review #8: 51st State: Boy, am I going to hear it for this one!

william4192 — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 03:07:35 +0000

by william4192

]]>

Conclusion: I like to start my reviews with the end, so hear I go. I want to preface this review by saying I know people are not going to like what I'm going to write, but this is my honest review of the game. Some may not even consider this a review, but when I learn a game, play a game, think about a game, and discuss a game, then that is my review.

In this case, I could not learn this game. I've read the rules a few times and I just can't put it together. I am not the smartest man in the world, but as an attorney I have to have some level of intelligence (no lawyer jokes! LOL). I am not a meat head, but for some reason I just cannot remember all the icons. I know why. I don't have the time or patience to learn a new language to play a game. I keep trying these games out from time to time, but I always fail.

That the previous paragraph for what it is. I am someone who wants to like this game (I love the theme), but I just don't have the group, time, or patience to learn the language (icons, icons, icons). I'm not a huge card playing guy, although I have have learned to like quite a few. On top of it, I don't have anyone who is going to put the time into to learn this game.

If you are going to learn a game like this (icons, icons, icons), you might want to invest in Race for the Galaxy, only because the number of expansions would give you new cards.

This is a game I'm going to part ways with and wish it luck.

]]>

Components: The cards and chits are of good stock. The cards are interesting because they have at least three uses for each card. This gives you a lot of choices. The scoring track is on the back of the box, which I found to be okay but for some reason it turned me off. Everything is pretty normal to me.

]]>

Rules: Not well written and not easy to understand. The font is very small and there are not a lot of examples. The icon list at the back is a great idea and very helpful. I could never learn how to play this game.

]]>

Flow of the game: The flow of the game seems to be slower pace. You have to know what cards your opponents are putting down and I like this aspect. Each card has multiple uses and the cards are very attractive. I was unable to teach myself the game (mostly due to not wanting to learn the language.

]]>

Should I buy this game?: I know I wouldn't and I am getting rid of my copy. I think Race for the Galaxy would be the better investment (mainly because of the number of expansions). If you are going to learn the language, you are going to want to get the most out of it. If you are a big fan of the theme (and I am!) and have the time to learn the language, I think there may be a pay off. If someone taught me this game, I'm sure I would have fun. With that said, I'm not sure I'd have a regular partner to play with.

Review: Julius Caesar:: JC Components

Gstealer — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:35:39 +0000

by Gstealer

So I ordered Julius Caesar on tuesday and received the game today through the 99 cent special deal Columbia Games is currently offering.

This is a review for the components only.

I'll be rating using a Good - Acceptable - Poor system and giving details.

Rules - Eight pages of color rules. They are ACCEPTABLE in terms of production quality. Without playing a game yet I would rate the rules GOOD in terms of teaching the game.

Dice - four six-sided, plastic, rounded edges. GOOD

Blocks - wooden, very nice. GOOD

Stickers - nice color and artwork. Had a few that were stuck and needed scissors to separate. Took about 10 minutes to get them all put on. GOOD.

Map - the map is great looking but way to thin. I read about this and it was really disappointing to see it. Playability and look on the table is beautiful. GOOD In terms of durability though it looks, and I hate to say it, cheap. POOR

Overall I have mixed emotions on the components. $64 would seem like a great deal if the map were a bit more sturdy. As it is now I feel like it might be priced a bit high, but if the game itself turns out to be good it would still be worth the price.

I hope to play the game to death over the next four weeks before I have to decide to send it back. I'll be posting session reports as I go.

Review: Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas:: A short review

cypar7 — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:29:50 +0000

by cypar7

Disclaimer:
I’ve gamed with Clint and enjoyed each game we’ve played together.

Review:
I’ll assume that the instructions have been read and will not cover the basics of the game. I normally don’t review a game after just one play, but our one play was a bit long (okay very long). But when playing with a teenager and his little brother I have come to expect games to take longer than average. Each time the kids rolled an Anchor or a Barrel they placed it.

When reviewing a game I like to compare and contrast to a game which was published previously. Pirate Dice is an action programming game much like Himalaya, Roborally, The Great Space Race, and Dungeon Lords.

The difference between Pirate Dice and the others is the dice. Himalaya is a programming game which also allows players to determine their own fate with no luck involved. Roborally and the Great Space Race have cards dealt to you which you place to program actions. Roborally’s cards are determined by the number of hits your robot has taken and The Great Space Race determines cards dealt by your speed of your ship. Dungeon Lord’s cards are determined by the card’s you’ve placed. Pirate Dice’s actions are determined by the dice. Players can keep as many or as few as you’d like with a minimum of one kept. This is the aspect which I like. I like being the master of my own fate. I roll the dice and I know it is my fault I can only turn right, not the deck’s fault. If I don’t like what I roll then just anchor one of the dice and roll the rest again. This ability to try again for something desirable decreased the time required to play because the ships are maneuverable (unless Barrel are Anchors are played on you, but that is interaction and everybody likes that).

The games Roborally and the Great Space Race have the same objective, either complete the race or destroy the other ships/robots. And they are the same in the programming aspect. Players make choices without knowing what choices the others are making. If you like that sort of game and need one which can normally finish in under an hour then this may be for you.

Summary:
Someone in the group should own this, but it doesn’t need to be you and you should suggest playing it. (In my group, I’ll be the one to own it.)

Review: Core Worlds:: Core Worlds: Intergalactic Deck Building!

KingKel — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:05:15 +0000

by KingKel

This review originally posted on BOP! Visit www.boardofplaying.com for more reviews like this one! Happy Gaming!

Details
Players: 2-5 (probably best with 3)
Actual Length: 60 to 90 minutes
Age: 10+

We’ve recently had the chance to play Core Worlds here on BOP and we’re now ready to give you the low down on this deck-building game of intergalactic conquest!

Like most deck building games, you can expect cards with a small amount of text you’ll need to read and become familiar with. And of course based off your choices throughout the course of the game, developing a deck of cards that outwits your opponents is way to win; very much like Dominion, Ascension, Race for the Galaxy, Magic: The Gathering and so on.

You start with a personal game matte that keeps track of your actions and energy level. Over the course of ten rounds your action level increases as well as your energy (hopefully!) which allows for bigger and better things to do. Each player starts as a faction with a base deck of mostly identical cards, as well as a few slightly different starting cards with varied special abilities. Some factions special starting cards are arguably more powerful than others but I don’t necessarily think it’s to the point of a balance issue.

The symbols on the cards are easy enough to decipher and are important to pay attention to throughout the game.

A central part of the game is card drafting from the “Central Zone” of cards that come out over the progression of the game. The cards that you draft are composed of units, worlds, and tactics. Units being your military and are the basis for “invading” i.e. drafting additional cards. Worlds generate your energy allotment at the beginning of each round which can be thought of as ‘currency’ and is absolutely imperative for deploying units, playing tactics, and drafting awesome cards. Tactics are action cards that ironically don’t necessarily always cost an action to play, but give bonuses during invasions amongst other things.

A simple explanation of how Core Worlds plays is at the beginning of each round you draw cards, mark your appropriate number of actions based on the round, and calculate your current energy generation from your worlds (also adding any bonuses from cards and such). You take turns playing actions which include :
- Drafting a new unit card or tactic card from the central pool paying the appropriate energy cost and placing your newly recruited card into your discard pile for use later on.
- Deploying as many units as you want from you current hand into your Warzone around your player matte, paying the appropriate energy cost and # of actions for each unit.
- Using those deployed units and/or any tactics cards from your hand to invade Worlds (also paying any appropriate energy costs on your tactics cards). All units and tactics used in invasion are discarded (unless you have a card that allows you to retain any of these units).
- “As an action” cards are cards you can play and then immediately must discard but allow for some cool things. (i.e. ‘Advanced Drones’ allows you to draft 1 card from the central zone at a cost of -4 energy)
In most deck building games, a good idea is to try and thin out your deck by eliminating weaker cards allowing for high reuse of your stronger cards. This can be done after conquering a world, allowing you to tuck one of your played cards, such as a weak starting military unit, underneath it.

During the first nine rounds there is a nice plethora of cards that come out. As the game progresses worlds get harder to conquer and tactics and units get more difficult to draft. Of course the benefits of those cards also get greater. In the last round Prestige cards appear and their only function is to add victory points to your final tally.

Things I liked:
- I thought the difficulty of acquiring cards throughout the progression of the game was challenging enough but not impossible.
- The abilities on the cards were pretty cool.
- Re-playability will be very high if expansions are added, which in Core Worlds case, will be very easy to add expansions to. Even in the base set there is quite a bit of re-playability, especially if your playing with only 2-3 people, which means a great deal of the cards you won’t even see.
- Theme fits

Thing I didn’t like:
- The game seems to end relatively abruptly with little chances to use your really cool cards that you acquired towards the end of the game. Some may see this as positive because it can make decisions at end game harder, but for me, I really want to play with my new cool card at least a few times!

Final Thoughts
How does it compare to other deck building games? Race for the Galaxy for me was a bit abstract for my taste and after many plays I just couldn’t get into it. Additionally I felt the iconography was much too complex which really turned me off after playing it 3 or 4 times and still finding myself struggling over what the different symbols were (although Bopper Scott Linde thought differently, read his review!) Thunderstone is another deck building game that I felt “meh” about, although I really can’t tell you why. Eminent Domain, while kind of fun for awhile, turned out to be sort of light and forgettable (read review). Dominion is a gateway game that many hardcore gamers are “sooo over,” but I still play on a regular basis. It’s an easy game to teach newer gamers and I continue to enjoy it quite regularly with all levels of gamers.

So where does Core Worlds fall? Somewhere in between Dominion and Eminent Domain for me. I don’t like it nearly as much as Dominion but I don’t think it’s forgettable like Eminent Domain.

I’m not sure if we’ll be adding Core Worlds to the permanent BOP collection, but I wouldn’t mind playing it with other gamers who own it whenever the opportunity arises.

Review: Mage Knight: Board Game:: Mage Knight: A Box of Contradictions

davidlhsl — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:06:52 +0000

by davidlhsl

Mage Knight: the Board Game came to my attention when it hit the top of the Geek. There were two things that were fairly unanimous: this game had a monster learning curve, and it is one of the best solitaire games.

The first is a major deterrent for me. I used to play Avalon Hill wargames and was able to learn games up to the intermediate level. However, I’ve since gravitated towards easier games, so I wasn’t certain I would be able to grasp this. The second, however, is a major draw for me. I play mostly solo, so games that play well alone is important for me. I decided to take a chance on it when I found it (first edition) at a local toy/hobby store after it was sold out pretty much everywhere else.

I’m happy to report that this game is a peculiar bundle of contradictions.

Contradiction 1: This game is difficult to learn, but it isn’t complicated, but it’s freaking complex.

Learning the game came in several stages for me. First, I spent a week working through the walkthrough booklet. Then I became comfortable with it and was able to play, but had to constantly stop and look up things. Then I became comfortable with it and was able to play, only to realize in retrospect that I had made some errors in play where I had known the rules but had trouble juggling all the mechanics. Then I became comfortable with it and was able to play, only to realize from reading various threads that I had played certain aspects of it incorrectly where I had misunderstood the rules. My education with the game continues, but I’d like to think I’m making some progress.

There are several reasons for this game’s complexity. Most games are modular in the sense that you can learn parts of the game at a time. You can focus on movement, then you can focus on combat, then you can focus on unit stats, etc. Mage Knight is so tightly integrated that you can’t really learn any aspect of the game without understanding how everything else works. Once you’ve finally graduated in understanding how things tie together, then you can add in the rest of the elements that can be taken modularly. This is, in fact, how the walkthrough is structured and why it is so important in learning the game. But this tight integration is also the reason that finding what you need in the rule book is so problematic. I’ll go into more detail on this later.

Another reason for the complexity is that the different elements aren’t consistent with one another. You can’t really learn a universal rule that applies to everything, because each element introduces its own exceptions. For example, if you don’t defeat all the monsters in some locations, you leave the monster. Others require you to discard the monster and draw a fresh monster when the location is tackled again. There are several offers, but each is handled differently. The game is very procedural and has a lot of technical nuances that have to be learned.

Once you’ve conquered learning the game, you then confront the challenge in actually playing. This is a highly challenging game, and certain elements seem impossible when you dive into it. This is why it’s so important to learn by playing the First Reconnaissance scenario several times.

So Mage Knight is certainly a game that requires a lot of dedication to learn. So that means it’s complicated, right? Well, mostly yes, but not quite. There was a very peculiar part of my learning process where I felt like Dr. McCoy in the Star Trek episode, “Spock’s Brain.” I reached a point where I said to myself, “Oh, of course!” Everything just seemed to tie together at that moment. Once I reached that point, then I’ve been able to play without looking up things constantly, and I can play at a better pace. My current challenge is making certain I apply everything correctly. That is affecting the integrity of my final score, but it isn’t hampering my ability to play. But it doesn’t seem so complicated to me the way other complex games seem.

Contradiction 2: The rule book is very well organized, but it’s difficult to find what you need, but it’s right where it’s supposed to be.

Several have commented on this. If I had written this earlier, I would’ve put my request for an index. However, can this game really be indexed effectively? This goes to a point I made earlier about the tight integration of this design. Every element is pretty much integral to every other element. So if you have an index entry for mana, you’ll have references to pretty much every page anyway, wouldn’t you? Even if you had an item that directed you to one particular page, there’s so much text packed in each page that you’d have to spend a lot of time searching for it anyway. So I don’t think an index is effective.

This situation is pretty much a Catch-22. The time when you really need to research information is during the time where you’re getting acquainted with the game system. So you’re not really familiar enough with the way the game works where you’ll understand the rule book’s structure, Table of Contents or not. That’s the reason it’s so difficult to locate the answers to the questions that arise. When you finally reach the point where you understand the rule book’s structure, you won’t need to look up things as much anyway. But when you do need to look up something, you’ll find it easier to locate.

Contradiction 3: Mage Knight is a solitaire game that can be played by up to 4 players.
Contradiction 4: Mage Knight has 11 scenarios, but it really doesn’t.

The first isn’t an unusual contradiction if you have experience with other games, as there are several games where each player plays without much interaction with other players. There are several games that have rules for both solo and non-solo gaming. Cooperative games can toggle well between solo and non-solo, as one player can simply play several characters.

Mage Knight, however, offers several different ways of playing the game; and each offers varying levels of interaction. It’s really unusual the way the game system adapts so well in both solo and non-solo settings, and even more unusual with the varying levels of competitiveness in non-solo games. The game offers 11 scenarios, but most of these scenarios are simply variants of a main game system. Most games that provide multiple scenarios are ones where you want to work through all scenarios. Mage Knight’s scenarios can really be thought of as styles of gaming, and it’s likely you’ll gravitate towards only a few of them. I’m currently happy with just the Solo Conquest.

Contradiction 5: The game takes a long time to play, but it doesn’t feel like a long game.

Mage Knight is so immersive that the game won’t seem to last a long time. However, the game does take a long time to play. My current rate of play in Solo Conquest is approximately 2-1/2 to 3 hours, which is a bit long compared to what others are reporting. Since I haven’t played it with others, I can’t comment on that experience. Those of you with experience in playing others might disagree with this contradiction.

Contradiction 6: The game tells a story, but it doesn’t tell a story as such, but it does tell a story.

When I think of a game telling a story, I think of the story involving the experience external to the game’s mechanics. For example, I remember a game of Heroscape where I sent Sgt. Alexander grappling up a castle to hack at Jotun, but Jotun kept throwing him off the castle. So I had to keep sending him up the castle until he finally knocked him down.

Mage Knight’s story involves the game’s mechanics, which tends to break the “fourth wall” of my imagination a bit. For example, in my last game, I obtained an artifact that allowed me to exchange my basic actions for advanced actions. That’s a mechanical description, though you can always edit to make it sound more story-like. However, when I complete a game, step back, and look at the board; I can vividly recall the journey. Hey, I conquered a series of keeps, took a brief excursion into a couple of side-by-side monasteries to book up on advanced actions, then made my way to this dungeon where I obtained a really useful artifact. The mechanics still insert themselves into the story you’ve created, but you do feel a sense of the journey itself as well.

Contradiction 7: The game has a luck element, but it isn’t a game of luck.

I would respectfully disagree with a point Tom Vasal made in his review. This isn’t a game where you can do anything you really want. This game is about taking inventory of the resources you’ve gained and the resources you have available to you, and take the best course of action. I’m starting the game and I see a ruin nearby with a fantastic reward. However, I’m not yet equipped to tackle the creatures, so I’ll have to bypass it. I want to move over there, but I will lose valuable time as I still need to uncover those cities before the game ends.

The resources are random. You shuffle the various components, and you deal them as proscribed in the rules. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes the game slaps you down hard. However, you do have ways of mitigating things to work in your favor, and the fact that many of the resources have multiple uses only helps. Ok, so you can’t make it to that Mage Tower without going out of your way. However, there is a nearby Keep on the way that you can conquer to give you a boost to your hand size and a unit. Ok, so you don’t have any block cards for that Orc, but you can take a couple of wounds to get the experience to level up and gain a powerful card that provides both movement and healing.

Other items of note:

I could probably continue this fun contradiction theme, but I’ve already gone long. So I want to mention some other aspects that don’t fit into that format.

First, the replay value is simply off the scale. None of the games I’ve played so far felt identical, even after becoming familiar with the various components.

The pace of the game is phenomenal. The Dummy Player and game objective brilliantly and relentlessly push you forward. You really want to make that side journey to take that Mage Tower, but the sun is setting, and you really need to clear that forest ahead. You need to recruit more units, but you haven’t revealed any Core Tiles yet.

I also love the way your power escalates. You really feel the progression in your ability to conquer sites as you advance through the game. It’s also bizarre the way some of the spells and artifacts are so powerful as to seem almost too powerful, yet you find yourself facing other challenges which you barely escape in one piece where those “too powerful” items saved your bacon. But it never feels cheap, because you really have to earn those rewards.

As many have mentioned, this is a puzzle game at its heart. And it’s that puzzle aspect that keeps you focused, keeps you engaged, keeps you mentally stimulated, keeps you challenged, keeps you pushing forward and taking chances, and gives you that sense of real accomplishment throughout the game and upon completion. When you finish a game, whether you succeed or fail, you emerge with a sense of satisfaction that will make you want to immediately play another game. And each game is a new experience.

Time may alter my view, but I currently see myself playing this game for some time to come. This was definitely worth the effort I’ve put into learning it.

Review: Masters of Commerce:: Prime impressioni su Masters of Commerce (italiano)

dimarco70 — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:06:40 +0000

by dimarco70

NOTA: Questo articolo è comparso la prima volta su ILSA (Informazione Ludica a Scatola Aperta), http://www.ilsa-magazine.net/

Opera prima pubblicata da una neonata casa editrice, Masters of Commerce tenta di mescolare due filoni di gioco solitamente molto distanti, il partygame e il gioco economico, sviluppando meccanismi di mercato fluttuante e di contrattazione in tempo reale in un gioco breve che può far sedere allo stesso tavolo fino ad 11 giocatori. I materiali sono spartani ma funzionali: delle tessere territorio (in quattro colori diversi, uno per classe di rischio), dei gettoni mercante, pennarelli cancellabili a secco, quattro dadi, segnalini, una plancia mercato (che tiene traccia delle rendite della quattro classi), una clessidra e l'immancabile denaro di carta (tutto sommato di buona qualità).

All'inizio del gioco la metà (arrotondata per difetto) dei giocatori assume il ruolo di poprietario terriero, mentre i rimanenti ricoprono quello di mercante. Alla fine della partita verranno identificati due vincitori: uno fra i locatari e l'altro fra i mercanti. Tutti i giocatori iniziano con la stessa somma di denaro; i proprietari terrieri ricevono tre appezzamenti di terreno, i mercanti i gettoni che li identificano.

Una partita dura 5 turni, ciascuno organizzato nelle seguenti fasi:
- Negoziazione. Questa fase dura due minuti, cronometrati dalla clessidra, e consiste nella negoziazione del canone di affitto dei terreni. Tutto avviene simultaneamente (e in modo solitamente concitato). Un "contratto" è valido quando su una tessera terreno è presente il segnalino di un mercante ed è scritto il costo dell'affitto. Finché c'è tempo, i proprietari terrieri possono rinegoziare (al rialzo) l'affitto dei terreni, a meno che non ci sia stato un accordo di bloccare il canone (fatto segnalato ponendo il segnalino mercante dal lato riportante la scritta closed). Finiti i due minuti ogni contrattazione viene interrotta, e quelle non concluse dichiarate nulle.
- Incassi dei mercanti. Vengono tirati i quattro dadi, e i valori di ciascuno delle quattro classi di terreno viene aggiornato. I terreni a minor rischio sono caratterizzati da una varianza del loro valore molto limitata, che cresce (potendo causare anche delle perdite) mentre ci si sposta verso investimenti sempre più rischiosi. I mercanti incassano/perdono, per ogni terreno su cui hanno un loro gettone, denaro pari al valore segnalato dall'indicatore.
- Pagamento degli affitti. Ogni mercante paga ai proprietari terrieri l'affitto concordato durante la fase di negoziazione.
- Pagamento tasse. Ogni proprietario terriero paga alla banca una tassa fissa per ogni terreno che possiede.
- Asta di nuovi terreni. Viene messo all'asta, per i proprietari, un numero di terreni pari al doppio del numero di padroni meno uno. Si tratta di una asta libera, i cui proventi vengono versati alla banca.
Il turno è così finito: ogni contratto concordato nel turno continua ad essere valido anche nel turno successivo, se non viene rinegoziato. Alla fine del quinto turno vincono il gioco il proprietario terriero e il mercante più ricchi.

Masters of Commerce è un gioco semplice, veloce e piuttosto divertente. Innovativa la scelta di dividere i giocatori in due gruppi, che lottano solo al loro interno, ottenendo però i profitti esclusivamente interagendo con i membri dell'altro gruppo. Mercanti e proprietari terrieri giocano in modo molto diverso: più legato all'azzardo il gioco del mercante, più deterministico e studiato quello del latifondista. Da provare, almeno una volta, anche se è sconsigliabile agli amanti del gioco riflessivo e privo di alea.

Review: Jäger und Sammler:: Hey, That's my Mammoth

Futsie — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 17:16:36 +0000

by Futsie

Despite gaining recognition at the 2010 Spiel Des Jahres, Jäger und Sammler (translated into English as Hunters and Gatherers) remains one of Reiner Knizia's lesser known creations. The game gets almost universally compared to Hey, That's My Fish! and indeed it is a very apt comparison, as in both games players move around the diminishing board, grabbing resources and isolating opponents.

Set in the Stone Age, each player moves four prehistoric hunter-gatherers around the board hunting mammoths and (surprise, surprise) gathering food and artefacts. The game is played over two distinct seasons, with a different set of tiles laid out dependent upon whether it is summer or winter. Each turn players have two movement points which are used to move their hunters, when a player moves from one tile to another they claim the vacated tile and take it from the board. Once a tile is removed no one can enter the empty space, as soon as the players have collected all the tiles available the phase ends

There are several different types of tiles;

Food tiles consist of berries, roots and herbs and score between 1 and 3 points
Artefact tiles add a set collection element, in that scoring is dependent on the number of identical tiles collected
Spears tiles are used to hunt mammoths, you can only land on and subsequently claim a mammoth tile by discarding a spear tile from your collection, but they score big points
Paths tiles remain on the board throughout the game and so reduce the chances of becoming completely isolated
Cave entrance tiles form part of an underground network allowing players to quickly move large distances by moving from one entrance to any other on the board

Jäger und Sammler is one of knizia's more thematic games, the wonderful artwork and interesting shift from season to season really helps set the scene. Players can visit four camps during the summer to store supplies for the upcoming winter, and if a player is unable leave supplies at all four then they will have fewer hunters in the following winter phase. During the summer mammoths are rare but there are more spears available to collect in preparation for the mammoth-rich winter phase. You really get a feeling of having to prepare for the inhospitable winter season, although it is a shame that the berries, roots and herbs remain the same regardless of the season.

The key to the game is to prioritise which resources you need to grab before someone else comes along and snaffles them all up. With this in mind, it can be argued that the first player has a bit of an unfair advantage, but allowing the youngest or least experienced player to start the game seems to work fine for us.

Jäger und Sammler doesn’t do anything new and setting up, sorting and scoring the numerous tiles soon gets a little tiresome. However, if you are looking for an easy to learn family game that scales well, and relies on judgement rather than luck then it is definitely worth considering. Initial impressions are that that Knizia has created a weightier version oh Hey, That's My Fish! but on the other hand his is a more forgiving game. The paths and cave teleport system make it easier to avoid getting isolated. Hey, That’s my Fish may have the more family friendly theme but Jäger und Sammler feels much less cut throat and confrontational.

I don’t think that the game got an English release, but it is completely language independent. If you love Zombies then you may wish to consider Zombiegeddon, which is a game based on the same prototype. Apart from the re-theme and that paths are replaced by barriers it plays exactly the same. However, aesthetically it is like comparing Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC with, well with a shambling rotten corpse, so unless you actually must have everything Zombie then I suggest you stick the Stone Age setting.

Review: Carcassonne:: Carcassonne Review

vmp0514 — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:57:26 +0000

by vmp0514

Those wishing to see the full review (pictures included) can do so at the following page:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/carcassonne/

A full list of my board game reviews can be found on the same site here:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/board-game-reviews/

---
Carcassonne, named after a well fortified town in southern France, is a tile laying game that is a lot more strategic than I initially gave it credit for. I have to admit that this was the first tile laying game that I ever played…in fact…this game is what inspired me to take a look into the board game, Acquire, which I reviewed here: Acquire Review.

Carcassonne: 2-5 Players, Ages 8+, Average Play Time = 60 Minutes

Carcassonne tasks players with building a landscape of epic proportions. This landscape will start as a single tile and gradually grow to include cities, roads, cloisters, and fields. Each player will be placing these tiles in ways that would most benefit them so that they can score points. The person with the most points at the end of the game wins. Before I get ahead of myself, let’s take a quick look at the components and rules before heading into the review.

Components

Tiles – All of the tiles are square-shaped, but their contents can change from tile to tile. There is one starter tile that has a different colored back so that it can be easily identified.

Followers - Your followers are represented by meeples. Meeples are short for, “my people”, and serve as the way players earn points. They also double as a score marker for the score track.

Score Track – Players will be earning points throughout the game. As they do, they’ll be moving their colored follower along the track. You’ll more than likely pass the maximum point value of “50″, so you may want to create your own ways to keep track of what “pass” you are on. You could, for example, lay down your follower rather than stand him up, to indicate that you are on your second pass.

Setup

1) Place the starter tile in the middle of the table, face up.

2) Each player picks a color and gets all of the followers of that color.

3) Each player places one follower on the score track.

4) All the remaining tiles are shuffled and placed into stacks, face down.

Gameplay

Players take turns drawing a tile and placing it next to an existing tile on the board. The sides / borders of the tiles must match…that is…roads must connect to roads, cities must connect to cities, and etc.

After placing a tile, that player has the option of placing one of their followers on that tile in an attempt to score. There are four ways followers can score, based on what feature they are placed on.

Knight – When a follower is placed on the city portion of a tile, it is called a knight. When a city is completed, the follower is removed and given back to the player, and that player earns two points per tile that the city occupies plus two points per pennant icon. Scoring is immediate.

Thief – When a follower is placed on the road portion of a tile, it is called a thief. When a road is completed, or goes from point to point, the follower is removed and given back to the player. That player earns one point per tile that contains that stretch of road. Scoring is immediate.

Monk – When a follower is placed on the cloister portion of a tile, it is called a monk. When a cloister is completed, or surrounded by one tile in all eight directions, that follower is removed and given back to the player. That player earns nine points, one point per tile. Scoring is immediate.

Farmer – When a follower is placed on the field portion of a tile, it is called a farmer. That farmer stays there, laying down, until the end of the game. For each completed city the farmer’s field touches, they earn three points. Again, scoring is NOT immediate and only occurs at game end.

During the game, there are a few rules to keep in mind when placing followers. The main one is that you can’t assign a follower on a feature that someone else already has claimed. You couldn’t place a thief onto a road already occupied by another thief, for example.

There are instances where two separate segments of a feature occupied by different colored followers end up connecting. In this case, the person with the MOST followers on that completed feature earns the points. In case of a tie, all players get the points.

You can also only place one follower per turn and you cannot take followers back until they are scored…so place your followers wisely!

The game ends when all of the facedown tiles have been used. Additional scoring takes place at this point, which allows players to score the followers on the features that were not completed. Players also score their farmers and finally compare their final scores. The player with the most points at the end of the game wins.

I know I skimmed the rules a bit, but the above should give you an idea of what you would be in for. You can check out the full rules here: Carcassonne Rules.

The Review

As I mentioned above, I was very surprised by how much this game grew on me. At first, I was skeptical by the fact that you didn’t have a hand and were at the mercy of whatever tile you drew. In the beginning of the game, you won’t have that many choices in terms of placement, but towards the end, you’ll be trying to screw up your opponent’s scoring chances while trying to resolve your own.

Keeping along those lines, I personally enjoyed how strategic the game turned out to be. I was constantly thinking of ways to extend my son’s city (the one he had a follower on) so that he’d never be able to complete it. He’d still earn one point per city tile at game end, but that was significantly less than the two points per tile he could have earned.

Resisting the urge to place all of my followers in the beginning became a real challenge. I saw a lot of potential fields that future cities might connect to, but I had to make sure I had enough in reserve to score on the more immediate opportunities. Since you and your opponent are limited to how many followers you have, it becomes a battle of wits to see who claims what first and who is able to save enough for when it counts.

Out of all of the game mechanics, the scoring was the hardest for me to pick up on. At times, I was scratching my head on how farmers scored and what fields were considered theirs. Once you overcome this initial learning curve, play is relatively fluid. Luckily, the manual is fairly easy to understand when trying to put it all together.

I should also mention that this game has a TON of expansions, which shoots up this game’s replay value tenfold. It seems like there is always something new to keep the game fresh and interesting. Not all of the expansions will appeal to everyone, but having the option alone is a plus in my book.

Carcassonne is a great game to introduce to players that are new to the wonderful world of board games, especially if you have an experienced player on hand to help with the scoring and flow of play. It’s also a great game for players of all ages (within reason), so if you are in the market for something relatively easy that provides a fair amount of depth, then you may want to look into this game further.

Review: Arkham Horror:: I'm not Batman: An arkham Horror Review

Wahoffelmadenga — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:39:02 +0000

by Wahoffelmadenga

Nyarlathotep, Shub-Niggurath, Cthulhu, Azathoth, if you recognize any of these words with more consonants than a Welsh village you will know they are the names of the Ancient Ones; god-like aliens who look upon humanity as we look upon insects. You will also know that this game has nothing to do with Batman. Arkham is the name of the fictional town in Massachusetts in which HP Lovecraft based many of his horror stories. In Arkham Horror the fabric of space and time is falling apart and portals to other worlds are opening, spitting strange creatures onto the streets and one to eight players take on the role of investigators who must battle these monsters, close the gates and prevent the Ancient One from ripping a hole in the space time continuum and destroying the world.

The first thing you notice when you pick up a box of Arkham Horror is how heavy it is. This is a game crammed full of counters, cards, character sheets, Ancient One sheets and a huge board. Each one of these components is of the superior quality you expect from Fantasy Flight Games and the artwork is second to none. With all these bits and pieces you are going to need some time to set up. There are several decks of cards all of which need shuffling and setting up and then there are tokens for health, sanity, money and clues that need distributing.

Once you have finally set up the game players have to choose an investigator to play. There are 16 different characters in the base game and all covering various Lovecraft and 1920’s archetypes. There are artists, writers, mobsters, hobos and even an Indiana Jones inspired archaeologist complete with bull-whip and fedora. Each one has their own back-story and unique characteristics and abilities. These characteristics are represented by the skill sliders. Each of the character’s six statistics is grouped into one of three pairings. These statistics govern your character’s ability to complete various actions such as fighting, casting spells and sneaking past monsters. At the beginning of each turn, players can adjust their statistics based on these pairings. There is always a trade-off; as you raise one skill its opposing skill lowers. For example, the speed and sneak characteristics are linked so if you want to move further across the board you need to reduce your ability to sneak past monsters. This forces players to make careful decisions about their skills and to plan what they are attempting to achieve each turn. Skill checks are based on a dice pool mechanic, players role a number of dice equal to their skill level, minus any penalties for the skill check. Success requires a five or a six on a dice and some checks will require more than one success.

]]>
A fully set up Arkham Horror takes up a lot of space (image from tpancoast)

To explain all the rules and mechanics in the game would take a long time. To put it succinctly the game is broken up into 5 stages. The first is an upkeep phase where players can adjust their investigators’ statistics as described above. Player then move around the board in the second phase, fighting or trying to avoid the monsters. The third and fourth faces are the Arkham and Other world encounter phases; here players resolve the action on the space they currently standing on. This typically involves drawing a random card based on their current location and resolving the instructions on the card. The final phase is the mythos phase where all the nasty stuff happens; monsters move, clues appear and a new gate opens.

]]>

Skill sliders allow you to adjust your skills ready for the turn ahead, even then a University Professor isn't much use in a a fight.

The rules of Arkham Horror aren’t too complicated; as long as you adhere to the phase structure then the game flows relatively smoothly. The issue is the sheer quantity of rules to remember and layers of rules coming from various effects. Once you’ve learnt the basics you will then have to apply effects based on the Ancient One chosen, the mythos cards in play and spells and equipment that the players hold making it easy to forget about something. The rulebook isn’t quite as maddening as the dreaded Necronomicon but still isn’t an example of a well written rulebook. The order in which rules are quoted is sometimes nonsensical and the format of the rulebook itself makes it difficult to reference during a game (and during the first few games you will be referencing it a lot). A big oversight is the lack of a summary or crib sheet. Before playing the game I suggest printing out one of the third party summary sheets such as the excellent Headless Hollow game sheet, not only are they a handy reference to use during the game they also present the rules in a no-nonsense fashion making them easier to comprehend.

]]>
Azathoth stands ready to devour the world.

With Arkham Horror being a co-op game these problems with the rules don’t cause as many issues as they could in a competitive game. Unfortunately there are very few co-op mechanics built into the game. Players can swap equipment and spells if they share the same spot but they can’t gang up on monsters or combine their skills when attempting to close a gate. The other big issue is that players cannot swap clue tokens. Clue tokens are the major currency of the game; they take the form of little green magnifying glasses and represent knowledge of the occult and Cthulhu mythos. They can be picked up from the board, where they appear randomly throughout the game, or they can be gained via various encounters. They are used in one of two ways; players can spend one clue to re-roll a failed skill check or spend five tokens to seal a gate. Sealed gates mean that a gate cannot re-open in the same location and help slow down the onset of the Ancient One which is key strategy in the game.

]]>
Mini cards are used for items and skills your investigators can acquire during the game.

Within a few turns gates and monsters are popping up everywhere and players have to start managing the game. Arkham Horror is a game that plays you. A lot of the game is random and there’s no way that you can prepare for every eventuality. This can also make it extremely difficult, especially if the players don’t work together. These issues nicely fit in with the theme and can make the game more interesting and more rewarding when you do actually beat the old one. However, some players will find the randomness frustrating and may not get on with the games difficulty. Arkham Horror also has some issues with momentum. It typically takes three turns for a player to go through the requirements of closing a gate. That’s three chances for more gates to open. With this many gates opening quickly the initial part of the game always seems very hectic. As players start sealing gates locations the rate at which they appear slow, this means that the middle of the game can feel a bit of a drag and the pace lessons as players feel they’ve managed to control the game. Its only when the doom track, the mechanism for controlling the when the Ancient One awakens, nears its end that the pressure is ramped up again.

]]>
There are tokens for health, wealth, sanity and clues.

If players don’t close the gates quickly enough then the Ancient One will rip a hole in space and time and the players will have to battle it. In the majority of cases this is an extremely difficult fight as the Ancient Ones are incredibly tough adversaries. Most investigators won’t be able to accomplish this task and it often feels like a futile effort and adds extra time to an already long game. If Azathoth is the Ancient One then this fight doesn’t happen as the game is automatically lost when he awakens and one speculates whether all of the Ancient Ones should be treated this way.

]]>
Flying monsters can swoop down and antagonise your investigator if you're daft enough to stand in the street.

If you’re going to play Arkham Horror make sure you set aside plenty of time. Fantasy Flight suggests this game takes two to four hours but a rough guide of over one hour per player is more appropriate. However, the random nature of the game means that this value can vary widely, sometimes the game can be set against you and it takes six hours for a four player game, other times you may be lucky and finish a game in as little as 30 minutes! This randomness, although often frustrating is what gives Arkham Horror its uniqueness. The game is a story that you are creating and its shared adventures will bring you together as players. It will also create unique moments that you will find yourself discussing long after the game has finished.

It is worth pointing out that Arkham Horror is based on the Cthulhu mythos as seen from the Call of Cthulhu role-playing game. This means that it is not just based on Lovecraft’s writings but also those of writers such as August Derleth and Zealia Bishop. The game is subsequently full of theme. Allies are based on characters from Lovecraft’s stories, the Ancient Ones are taken direct from his writings, every monster in the game can be traced back to a particular story and even the dreaded Necronomicon makes an appearance. Readers of Lovecraft’s writing will love to find all the little nods. However, if you’ve not read a Lovecraft story many of aspects of the setting are left unexplained. This doesn’t exactly hinder the game, in fact knowing nothing about the other worlds or indescribable monsters that emerge from them fits nicely with theme but it would be nice to have some of the thematic elements explained in more detail.

]]>
Encounters in the other worlds are generally bad.

Arkham Horror is a lot of fun but it is also a game that doesn’t hold up well to critical analysis. If you take apart the concepts of the game you are left with a series of random events held together by theme. It’s a like a beautiful looking garment of clothing that, when you pick at the loose threads falls apart and you’re left with some random squares of cloth; you’ve ruined the item and it’s your own damn fault for picking at it. The same is true of Arkham Horror, looking too deep at the mechanics or peeling away at the corners of the theme and you’re going to spoil that enjoyment you could have had.

]]>
If you go down to the woods today, you're sure of a big surprise.

Arkham Horror is a beast of a game, it’s unforgiving, its rulebook is messy and badly written and it takes a lot of investment to play, in understanding the rules, in setting up the game and play time. It’s a cruel game that throws everything it can at you to confound, disorientate and cripple your will. Which is what makes this game so rewarding, when you do defeat the Ancient One you’ve experienced a shared victory and mutual struggle. It’s definitely not a game for the faint hearted and those players who love mechanics over theme will hate this game. However, if you are a fan of theme driven games then this is the very definition of its genre and even with its difficulty and frustration you can’t deny just how much fun this game is.

Pros
• Great fun, in-spite of all its flaws
• RPG -like rewarding gameplay
• Plenty of variation in characters, adversaries and events
• Dripping with theme

Cons
• Lots of rules and no summary sheet
• Difficult and unfair
• Playtime fluctuates and can take anything from 30 minutes to 8 hours.

This review can also be found at my blog: http://polyhedroncollider.blogspot.com/

Review: Mansions of Madness: House of Fears:: Not without issues, but still worth checking out.

salty53 — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:54:15 +0000

by salty53

If you're considering picking up a Print-On-Demand expansion, you've obviously played Mansions of Madness before, so I'm going to assume in this review that you are familiar with the base game, and perhaps with some of the previous expansions. I will be going out of my way to avoid major spoilers for House of Fears (though minor spoilers are fair, so if for some reason you really don't want to hear whether or not this scenario contains Startling Evidence, stop reading), but I will mention a few objectives from previously-released scenarios when they are relevant.

The major gimmick here is the Lost Souls, which are... pesudo-monsters, you could say. They cause Horror tests, they can "attack" (a pop-up monster appears, makes one attack, and then vanishes), and they can move. They're not exactly like normal monsters, though. They inhabit rooms instead of spaces, and move one room at a time, so how fast they pursue you varies based on the size of the rooms you're running through. Their manner of spawning is unusual (and something I'm not going to spoil). Also, you can't attack them - the only way you can directly influence them once they've appeared is with Unreflecting Mirror, an item you get at the very start that pushes them away a room. They're a cool element, and the fact that they pursue you with irregular movement and can't be directly killed makes them interesting.

Thematically, they represent... something.

I don't usually talk about the storylines in Mansions of Madness very much because they're almost always "passable" - very rudimentary, but still enough to set the stage and get the players somewhat involved. The plot of The Fall of House Lynch is hardly outstanding - a guy wanted to bring back his dead wife, turned to dark arts, went crazy and created some zombies - but it's understandable and it's all the game needs. In the Inner Sanctum, a cult can summon otherworldly monsters and is going to conduct some really bad ritual tonight that needs to be stopped; that story isn't going to be winning any awards anytime soon, but it does exactly what the game needs it to do.

Here, the story is that your agent calls you to a mansion where they're doing a first screening of a movie based on you and your fellow Mythos investigators. When you get there... something bad has happened, I guess? The guests are missing or acting oddly or whatever a "Lost Soul" is supposed to be, the director is missing or dead, and... there are monsters for some reason? (And quite a variety - of the base game monster types, only Cult Leaders, Zombies, and Chthonians are absent.) At least two of the "Investigators Win" ending texts note that the other guests don't realize what horrible fate they only narrowly avoided - and I don't blame them, since I never had any idea what was supposed to be going on here either. At least in other scenarios where it's not clear what's going on, like the Green-Eyed Boy, the Clues and Events are about an active investigation process; here, the Clues consist primarily of you randomly overhearing small talk by party guests / lost souls? / someone??? telling you where to go next. It's especially jarring because I get the sense that the game thinks I know what's going on and what the Lost Souls are (and my character certainly seems to know how an Unreflecting Mirror can move them around), but... I don't. It's the first time that not understanding the plot has actually broken my immersion in this game.

Presumably, making a movie based on your Mythos adventures caused something bad to happen, but I haven't a clue what the Bad Thing was other than that Lost Souls and a weird variety of monsters appeared. Nor do I know why it happened - the Story So Far (which is actually really fun and flavorful if you have someone who can read it in the right voice - and Iammars certainly can!) mentions using some items from your adventures as props, but since no such items are ever plot-relevant, I assumed that was just an explanation for why certain exploration cards are present - why else would this director have a Symbol of the Elder Light in her house? (And even if Cult Robes isn't all that useful here with almost no cultist presence, of course a cultist costume would be needed for the movie!)

I'm really surprised that this problem is in this of all scenarios, since one of its other gimmicks is that the backs of the Event deck contain extra flavor text - you can have the keeper read it out to you by going to the central Chapel (where the film is being screened) and asking what part of the movie is currently playing. While this could have been really cool, the opportunity is squandered - the flavor text doesn't give any plot details at all, it just tells you where one of the Clues is. And the Clues already do that, so the Event deck's hints are redundant. And even if they weren't redundant, they'd still be too slow to be useful - Event 3 points at Clue 3, Event 4 points at Clue 2, Event 5 points at Clue 1, and so on. After the very start of the game (where you actually need the text to point you at Clue 5), this text is utterly useless. It's a cool mechanic, and I'd like to see it used again in future scenarios, but squandering it on "Hey if you bought a POD expansion and yet you still haven't learned to interpret Mansions of Madness's extremely straightforward Clues yet, here's a bonus hint" is disappointing.

The Keeper Actions are Evil Presence, Command Minion, Darkness, and two new ones that basically let the Lost Souls move and attack. Notably, none of these let the keeper actually summon monsters (well, the one that lets Lost Souls attack does so by dropping temporary monsters that only last for one attack), so the keeper is dependent on Clues and Events to get proper monsters. Between that and the presence of Darkness, it's tempting to call this a fixed version of Classroom Curses. The primary difference is that this isn't a boring piece of garbage, and is actually very well-balanced... mostly.

1C, unfortunately, is a Save Up Threat And Win (let's call it SUTAW for short) objective.

SUTAW objectives are basically what the name implies. They're objectives where the keeper can win by sitting back, doing nothing, saving up Threat the entire game (tapping Evil Presence once per turn and playing any Mythos or Trauma cards drawn that can be played and cost no Threat), then spending all of the Threat in one turn to win. The SUTAW strategy, in the appropriate objectives, is extremely non-interactive, gives the investigators no chance to respond (since they don't get any turns between the keeper doing all of this and the game ending), and is pretty much an autowin for the keeper. This is one of the easier types of problems that can occur when writing scenarios, and it shows up distressingly often in official scenarios; this isn't the first time we've seen one:

* One Inner Sanctum objective basically requires the keeper to drive an investigator insane and surround them with cultists. Getting Clue 1 will eventually require an investigator to go up to an Altar. When they enter a room with an Altar, the keeper activates Summon Worshippers over and over again (depending on the target's Willpower, perhaps mixing Summon Worshippers with Summoning for Shoggoths); by that stage in the game, the keeper has enough leftover Threat to drive the victim insane this way. Congratulations, someone is now insane and surrounded by cultists. (It may be worth tapping Dark Ritual a couple of times beforehand, grabbing nothing but Trauma, with the intent of grabbing Spectrophobia.)

* I haven't tried it out personally, but I have been told that Pyromaniac can easily do this for the default "kill everyone" win condition in Blood Ties by suddenly lighting up the whole board, and I believe it.

* I think Season of the Witch had one involving the Altar endgame but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head, so I may just be confusing it with the Inner Sanctum.

* Return of the Reanimator has Pyromaniac doing this again (which I have actually seen firsthand). It's even worse this time because the awkward Campfire location makes it almost impossible for Pyromaniac to be used for anything else. It's especially bad in 1A, where the boss can hide behind a Sealed Door while the helpless investigators burn.

* Yellow Matter has the "someone has more mutation tokens than health" objective. Since the Keeper Action that gives investigators mutation tokens isn't once-per-turn, it's easy to wait for someone to go for Clue 1 (which is always at an Altar), then summon cultists, drop 10 Mutation tokens on the victim, and knock out the last few relevant health points with a 6 Cultist + 2 Byakhee army if the victim's health is higher than 10.

Now, some of these are abusive strategies in otherwise-fine objectives that can be played enjoyably by ignoring these exploits - you can play Blood Ties and just not activate Pyromaniac more than a couple of times per game. 1C here, sadly, is not like that. Even without using the SUTAW strategy, the objective is still effectively "The keeper spends 16 Threat"; SUTAW just lets the keeper do that all in one turn.

So 1C is unplayable, which makes House of Fears a 2-objective scenario. But that's not so bad - most Mansions of Madness scenarios are at best 2-objective scenarios (I think the Fall of House Lynch might be the only exception). Unfortunately, House of Fears needs 1C to exist. The investigators have... a very simple potential strategy in this scenario (which I won't be stating) that could make life quite difficult for the keeper, due to the way the scenario's mechanics work. One of the big deterrents against this strategy is 1C, which ends up being easier for the keeper if the investigators have been employing this strategy. But "easier" here just means "spend 4 Threat instead of 16 Threat"; it's an autowin either way, so it makes no difference. So if you pretend 1C doesn't exist, this strategy becomes much more viable, which helps the investigators a lot.

There's a cascade effect - 1C being bad hurts 1A and 1B in turn.

Because of that, I would recommend repairing 1C instead of scrapping it altogether. While revealed, Objective 1C lets the keeper do something involving a monster; my current recommendation (which I confess has not been tested) is to make that "something" once per turn, and to require that "monster" to not be a cultist or a witch.

On the other hand, while 1C sucks, 1A and 1B seem very well-balanced and made for tense, enjoyable games. One hinged on Joe Diamond killing a Shoggoth bare-handed; another hinged in Michael McGlen solving a puzzle in a single turn. (Considering how much work seems to have gone into those two, 1C's obvious lack of testing - or even reading, given that Iammars noticed the problem while first sleeving the expansion before even playing it once - is surprising.) So if you can forgive the need to repair one of the objectives, this scenario is definitely worth your while, and is by far the best of the POD scenarios (it's one of the best MoM scenarios released so far in general, really).

The items include a lot of classics that you'll recognize from other POD's. There's Capsules of Tranquility, Smith & Wesson, Symbol of the Elder Light, Brass Knuckles... it's like they want the POD's to collectively feel like a single expansion, so they all share a bunch of items that would have been included in that expansion if it actually existed. Actually, what's surprising is how few new items there are. Aside from Unreflecting Mirror, the only new ones are Keys, and even then they're basically just "a Key that gives +1 Willpower" and "an Axe that is also a Key". But I'm not complaining. (Actually, what I'd really like to see is Symbol of the Elder Light included in a scenario without the Darkness Keeper Action. Its Action isn't usually worth using when the darkness token can be so easily replaced at will, but if darkness tokens were spawned off of Events or from some new Keeper Action that limited where the darkness token could be placed, it might be more interesting? But I digress.)

The event deck provides a good example of why the keeper should be allowed to read the Event cards before the game starts. Here, some Events give the keeper the one-time-only option of paying Threat to buy permanent monsters, which are some of the only permanent monsters the keeper can possibly get in the game. But if the keeper doesn't know this, and spends all their Threat during their Keeper Action Step are normal, they can be screwed out of their monsters. It's a newbie trap, and a particularly mean-spirited and unthematic one at that, and one that will make the game less interesting for all concerned if it's fallen into.

While it's not without its flaws, House of Fears is still one of the best Mansions of Madness scenarios that has been officially published so far, and if you already have Forbidden Alchemy and are looking to pick up a POD, this is definitely the one to go for.

Review: Virgin Queen:: First Impressions

Jfuller — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:54:11 +0000

by Jfuller

The Virgin Queen
Our group is a big fan of Here I Stand, and The Virgin Queen was P500’d immediately. It arrived last week, and since then we’ve had the opportunity to play two games. In terms of components, the board and units are excellent, and the cards are themed perfectly. The game has quite a few chits, but storage was not too much of a problem as GMT always provides ample baggies.
For the first game we managed to get six people together. Needless to say, the game was interrupted constantly by players learning the rules and by nightfall we had only done three turns. We all agreed we enjoyed the game. It does a mighty good job of making you feel like the leaders of a major power. A major sea war between the Ottomans and Spanish dominated the Mediterranean, while the Spanish had their hands full dealing with English raiding of the New World and the Protestant Rebellion. France took an isolationist policy and focused on the arts and sciences, causing the Holy Roman Empire to declare war. Not much else was achieved.
The second game was played the following day, with three players instead of six. We decided to play the Tournament scenario, and it went very smoothly and was quite enjoyable. Spain lost, having failed in her war with France and the Netherlands even with the Holy Roman Empire’s help, and French narrowly beat the Protestants, coming down to a successful marriages vs. a failed rebellion. The following is what I can say about the additions of the Virgin Queen.
It’s Detailed: Like Here I Stand, there are a lot of one-time events and chits. Game-play was stopped constantly the first game to recheck rules. The second game was much faster, but there was also half the number of players. The Player Aid Cards do a good job, and I’m sure this delay will pass in time, just like it did in Here I Stand. In my opinion, the level of detail is what makes the game so sweet.
Arts & Sciences: This new addition allows for powers to invest in VP-awards in the form of artistic and scientific achievements. It felt similar to the colonies of the previous game, in that you spent CP on the action and then waited to the end of the turn. Science also brings with it the ability to obtain ‘bonuses’, which is like investing in a new technology. The VP awarded from such endeavours seemed to add up fast, especially with France (who also gets bonuses from Marriages and keeping Paris Catholic). Some of the sciences look like they could aid a power very well, but most people focused on the Arts as it brought with it greater VP rewards.
The New World: The extra-level of detail in the new world leads to a new theatre of war. Spain receives treasure (extra CP, VP, or card) unless it is pirated by opposing players. France, the Netherlands, and England were all active the first game and Spain did not receive much treasure. The second game, patrol boats succeeded in eliminating a very unlucky Drake (who causes hell for the Spanish). We enjoyed the addition of trade winds and dangerous zones, and a Dutch explorer was lost going around South America. Ottoman Explorers remained inactive in both games, so we have yet to see how they play out. Regardless, the New World is a chance for all sides to gain VP, CP, and cards, and remained a contentious area throughout both games.
Religious Conversion: The streamlined rules in our opinion really better the game. Gone are the painstakingly long turns of the Protestant vs. Papacy. Religious conversion is fast, with sides often switching back and forth in a fury. The ‘super 6’ is an easy way for players to feel satisfied that they truly are the better side. All in all, I feel there is less conversion in this game – there seemed to be more war for the Protestants, which suited us just fine.
Rebellion: The Protestants have the ability to rebel, which leads to a France and Spain having to deal with armies popping up all around their lands. It’s done quite well, with the Protestants having the ability to target Catholic units or not, in exchange for potentially failing. The rebellions are small, but we found them to be a frequent thorn in the side of France and Spain, and are unable to be fully put down. These are the Wars of Religion, after all.
Inactive Powers - I thought the game did this very well. Diplomatic Status would be checked through card events. A status check would see if the powers would activate/deactivate based on a die roll. A player’s current diplomacy – CP spent through the Diplomatic Influence action – would form the modifier on a dice off between the powers applicable to effect the inactive power. The Ottomans, Holy Roman Empire, and Venice saw themselves fought over. The major powers never seemed too powerful. They indeed cause reasons for concern, but in practice the Ottomans were checked by the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire proved ineffective against the Dutch. Still, their entry was a strain on their opponents.
Espionage – Espionage wasn’t in the first game, but was rife with the second. The French and English have home cards involving these activities. The French were performing assassinations all game. An attempt against Elizabeth failed to kill her but resulted in the loss of cards for England. The Spanish felt the worst of assassination, with the Duke of Guise, head a large Spanish Army, was struck down in France. Without a leader, the army fell apart. Indeed, killing enemy army leaders is a good way to prevent them from marching on you! However, when they fail it is truly horrible, as the Spanish’s botch attempt against Henry of Navarre proved, leading to revealing his hand and losing a card. Finally, informants were placed and neutralized throughout the game. There were no Catholic Rebellion attempts.
Marriage - Marriages are a nice addition. A dowry is often appreciated and we saw cards being traded for good wives. A marriage is truly a random act, though with high eligibility something nice should come of it. The French, aided by their home card, had spectacular weddings. Since they get VP for marrying off their women, it was this act of marrying that won them the game. It was hard to convince people not to marry with them if they were guaranteed a VP! Marriages were even performed to be followed by war. However, marriages can be sour – William of Orange met his death through his ill-fated marriage with Louise of Lorraine.

All in all, we had a terrific time playing Virgin Queen. It definitely makes you feel like a leader of a major European power. Combat and movement have been left untouched from Here I Stand, and battles are often bloody affairs, with leaders marching their army of mercenaries to some new hot-spot and hoping for the best. The addition of assassination makes going to war a bit more chaotic, but it didn’t prevent us from doing so! All the powers are embroiled together, more so I believe than Here I Stand, and there was always overlapping wars and alliances at play. France and the Netherlands proved to be the main battlegrounds, with France winning despite having a large Huguenot presence in the South and Brest and the Northeast Spanish. The Holy Roman Empire and the Ottomans clashed frequently, but that didn’t stop them from allying to go to war with Spain! Diplomacy is also enhanced with the addition of marriages, and there is a bit of competition for wives. True to form, Elizabeth was fickle as ever, and people tended to attempt to wed her as they did kill her.

Review: The Rivals for Catan:: We like Settlers, and we now like Rivals!

BMinNY — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 09:19:33 +0000

by BMinNY

Hello fellow Geeks! This is my first review, so please bear with me...

I recently picked up this game at a local game store that was having a 25% off your entire order sale. As my family really likes Settlers of Catan, and my wife and I end up doing a lot of two-player gaming, this seemed like a safe bet for $15 (I didn't do the normal research I do before picking this one up).

As is the standard, I brought the game home and immediately began to read the rules. See, it is ALWAYS my job to read the rules and explain them to the others in the group. Apparently I am the only one with any reading comprehension skills , but I digress...

The rules were well written, and easy to follow - especially since I was so familiar with Settlers. I could follow along without having to get all of the pieces out and following along step by step. The diagrams were good and I could completely see the whole thing in my head.

I taught the rules to my wife which took maybe 10 minutes, and we were off on our first game. We immediately could see the connection to the original Settlers. One thing that caught my wife's fancy was the resource management system. In this game, instead of having actual resource cards or chips, you simply rotate your card to denote how many of each resource you have. We both loved this as it cut down on the number of pieces to manage (aka lose).

The next big thing we loved was the Action and Enhancement cards. These added great flavor and customization. This is a great addition - as it adds depth to the gameplay without making the game overly complex. It is a very nice step up from Settlers.

Last, was the dice. The production die was not very nice to me (but it rarely is), which is one reason I usually stray away from dice games, however, again given our familiarity with Settlers we had some idea this was coming. The only addition to the game I am not fond of is the Event die. When reading the rules I was very excited about this added element of intrigue, but it seemed to have very little impact on the game, but we have only played one game, so perhaps this was just dumb luck.

Overall - I am extremely happy with this purchase, and foresee it getting much play in our house. The two-player aspect is great. Currently when it is just the two of us we seem to either play Agricola (with Agricola: Farmers of the Moor expansion) or Hive. This seems like this will be a nice middle game that won't take nearly as long to play (or setup) as Agricola but will offer a little more depth than Hive. Again, I love the depth of decisions and customization added by the enhancements!

After one play I give this a solid 8 out of 10.

~Brad

P.S. As this is my first review, please feel free to offer comments not only on the content of the review, but also on the format of the review. Thanks!!!

Review: Kittens in a Blender:: Kittens in a Blender Review

BloodyIgor — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:23:11 +0000

by BloodyIgor

Kittens in a Blender Review

Published by Closet Nerd Games

Horrible, gruesome, terrible, disturbing and sick are all words to describe the theme of Kittens in a Blender, or so you may think. But after you see the box cover and upon further inspection of what is inside you will realize this game cannot be described as any of those words.
It is a very simple game. The instructions are only one page, most of which is explaining cards that are already self-explanatory. The game is for 2 to 4 players. Each player picks a color. There are 16 kitten cards for each color. The object is to keep as many of your kittens safe as possible, at the same time sending your opponents kittens to the blender.

The box itself becomes part of the setup. Oversized cards, one is “The Blender” the other is “The Box”, fit into the lid and bottom of the box. These are placed on the table with some space in between that will be “the counter”. Players start the game with 6 cards and will always draw up to 6 cards. Each turn players will play 2 cards. Kitten cards can be played anywhere (blender, counter or box). Some cards can move kittens. Others like “Dog’s in the Kitchen” force player to pass card hands around. The two other main cards are the Blend and Blend/pulse. When a Blend card is played all kittens in the blender will blended (ok maybe it’s a little sick) and are placed underneath they will be worth -1 points at the end of the game. All kittens in the box are safe and are placed underneath they are worth 2 points. Blend/pulse can be played just like a blend card except they can also to cancel a Blend card thrown by an opponent. The game continues until all Blend and Blend/Pulse cards have been played.

Overall I enjoyed the game. It’s a light crazy themed game. The game is fast and can be cut throat. It was fun sending opponent’s kitten to the blender. One problem I had is especially early on in the game it always seemed that someone had a Blend/pulse card every time someone tried to play a blend. If you’re in the mood to a game that is a bit different plays in 20 minutes and is good silly fun give this game a look.

Review: Wacky Wacky West:: The Purge: Review #7: Wacky Wacky West: Or is that all there is? Oh more? Great!

william4192 — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 05:15:57 +0000

by william4192

]]>

Conclusion: No ball hiding here. This is a sub par quick filler game. As a two player game, there doesn't seem to be a lot of game here. If you guess the wrong building, you can quickly lose the game. I would find a better game to play than this if I had an extra 15-20 minutes. With that said, for a quick game, it has tile laying and that will appeal to some people. For a game from 1991, this game has not aged well. Just play a game of Carc instead of this.

]]>

Components: The gang works are parts from Sorry (or something similar). They do not look like people (I assume they are meant to be people working on the railroad). The board itself is nice and colorful. The cards are all the same regardless of what player you are with the same artwork. The tiles are nice, but don't vary much and at time it is hard to see which way the river is flowing or the roads are going. The tracks are pretty clear, but we had a couple of questions we had to agree to answer. Overall, I'm not real happy with the components, but the game is meant to be a quick filler game and with quick filler games I don't expect great bits.

]]>

Rules: We read and learned the rules while we played our first game and I don't believe we made any mistakes. I guess that means the rules did their job. With that said, I'm still unsure of the end of game scoring whether the numbers by the buildings are just numbering the amount of buildings or if you get 3 VP for that building and 5 VP for that building (so a scored of 8 VP or 2 VP). The rules are not clear on this at all (and there is no example of final game scoring). There is a lack of examples throughout the rule book (to be fair, there are a couple of examples).

]]>

Flow of Game: This game is easy to play. You get a group of tiles and you play one at a time alternating with the other players. Roads go with Roads, water with water, and rails with rails. Simple. When you lay a tile, you move the worker to the end of the tile. At the start of the game, you get a card with a building on it. You want to prevent that building from being built over. If an outhouse is built over you vote (via your cards) on whether the tile will be laid or not. That is pretty much the game and it can be taught in 2 minutes.

]]>

Should you buy this?: I will say no. While a short game, I would recommend playing Carc instead or any numerous other games. I am not sure my copy will stay in the house or if it will be shipped out. I'm leaning towards letting this one go to a new house. I'd say unless you get it really cheap you should pass (and even then buy a candy bar instead).

Review: Zombies at your Heels:: A He Says, She Says Reveiw: Zombies at your Heels -- I won with a handicap, Thanks Dr. Gordon Ross!

Magus And Princess — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:21:49 +0000

by Magus And Princess

Getting your survivors to the safety of the bunker is the object of Zombies at your Heels. This is a fast, simple card game for 2-4 players. Each player is given an identical set of 13 survivor cards (outside of their color). Each survivor has a speed value, a point value, an armed indicator (or lack thereof) and ability text. Each player will shuffle their own survivor deck and randomly select two cards (three if only a two player game), put them in the middle of the table face down and shuffle the deck. A Bunker card is placed one side of the table and the Zombie Horde card on the other. The space in between the two cards is where the survivors will be ordered. The space next to the bunker is considered first place. The order in which the cards are placed are according to the speed value on the card. The higher the speed value, the closer to the bunker the survivor is originally placed. Zombies at your Heels follows the core rule—starting from last place (next to the Zombie Horde card), compare the speed value of the new survivor with those of the survivors in play, and place the new card directly behind the first survivor you find that is the same speed or higher. If all survivors are slower, the new card takes first place. Once all of the starting survivors have been placed, players will draw a hand of three cards from their own deck. The turn goes as follows: Placement phase, activation phase, escape phase and draw phase. The player must place one survivor from their hand onto the table according to the core rule. Then the player may choose to use the ability of the newly placed card, a survivor already played or both in either order. This will rearrange the order of the survivors. The escape phase is where the survivor will either be safe in the bunker or eaten by the zombie horde. If your own colored survivor is in first place during your escape phase, then YAY! they have made it into the bunker. If not, the survivor in last place is eaten by the zombies. The player must then draw back up to three cards. The game ends when all players can not draw a card from their deck. The survivors in the bunker have their points totaled and the player with the most points wins. So, did Zombies at your Heels make us want to be survive to play another game or just let the zombies eat us?

Components – We cannot fairly judge this category as we have only played the prototype. However, we know that the cards we received are close to the finished product and the cardstock seems to be pretty typical.

Value – Fair to good. You are essentially just getting a standard size deck of cards. We have bought games with similar amount of components for more and similar amounts for less. For the $15 we will be paying, we certainly feel that this is a fair value.

Setup/take down - Fast. You split up the cards by color to give each player their own deck, shuffle your deck, set up the survivors in the middle and begin playing in 2-3 minutes.

Length – 15-20 minutes. The game goes very fast with just two player, but does increase when you add more players. Analysis Paralysis is not a large concern for ZAYH, which keeps the game brisk.

Luck to skill ratio – Amanda feels that it is 80/20 on the skill end because in order to win, you have to have the skill to play what you are given. However, Ryan believes that it is 50/50 but he has had particularly bad hands (or he is just bad at this game and will not admit it!).

How often does it/will it hit the table? – We disagree on this section—Amanda believes that she will play this game only once a month and Ryan believes that because this game plays so quickly, he would like to play this a couple times a month.

Accessibility & Rules- Great and Easy. This game is a very easy game to both comprehend and teach though the theme may turn some people off. The rule set is only two pages long and is very easy to understand.

He likes
--------------------------------------------------------
Playing with the different character abilities- Every survivor has their own unique abilities. It is a lot of fun trying to manipulate those abilities in combination with others to make the line order the way I want it to be.

Simple + Portable- With ZAYH being able to fit into your pocket and being so easy to teach, I feel that it is a great game to just carry with me. I can play this game on a lunch break or spontaneously between classes even if my opponent does not know how to play this game. It really is that simple to understand and teach.

Tragic Teens are a very cool concept- The tragic teens are survivors whom are only worth one point a piece when they escape to the bunker. They are worth bonus points if you can get both of them to be eaten by the Zombies. It’s both clever as a thema and as a game play mechanic.

Lots of good reasons to back this project- Other than being a game that is worth the $15, Zombies at your Heels profit is going 100% to charity (as stated above). In addition to this, there is also free international shipping and the game designer has said that this game will not be released outside of this project. This will make ZAYH a rare, difficult to find game.

She likes
----------------------------------------------------------
Having to be conscious of both sides of the line- When I first played this game, it heavily reminded me of Guillotine. I really enjoy that game because of the line/queue management. ZAYH is much like that game but adds an awesome twist. Players must be vigilant of the fact that you can gain points from the front of the line but can also have your survivors meet a horrific fate by being at the end of the line.

Scales well- While we primarily spent our time playing ZAYH just the two of us, the three player game adds a new twist to the game. Playing with more people makes the game a bit more frenzied and gives a better sensation of trying to shove your way into the bunker at the front of the line. Not to mention, trying not to be near the end of the line, as you have one more extra turn before you can move your survivors.

Card layout is clear- There is not a lot of clutter on the card—everything is very easy to understand. I can quickly look at someone else’s card and know exactly how much speed and points they have.

Fun variants- The developer has already suggested a fun advanced play variant called the “Seven Days Scenario”. Ryan and I also have found ourselves making variants of our own. We enjoyed the base game and the more strategic “Seven Days Scenario”, but we also enjoyed drafting and several other homemade variants. I feel the duel sided line gameplay mechanic combined with the simplicity of ZAYH makes it a game that is very easy to created fun new variants.

He dislikes
-------------------

The Tragic Teens can really disrupt the game- The tragic teens have two of the highest speed values in the game and yet you are trying to get them eaten by the Zombies at the end of the line. This means that as they are moved farther back, new cards played to the table are at a higher and higher risk of getting eaten themselves. It also means that because every turn a new survivor must be played to the table, the tragic teens are generally pushed forward. While I think that they were a cool concept, they can really screw up the flow of a game.

Luck can destroy your whole game- I personally found ZAYH to be one of those games where a bad hand can not only make it hard to win the game, but near impossible. You can start the game with survivors with automatic abilities already on the table and/ or with both tragic teens in your hand. You don’t want to play them because you gunk up the order of the cards on the table, but if you keep them in your hand there is only one survivor you can play. Then if you get the pilot card (whose ability is only effective on the last turn of the game), what card are you supposed to play? This is listing just a few ways that luck can really bone your chances of winning. Maybe I am just a whiner, but I felt that there were quite a few games where X-factors made it impossible for me to win.

She dislikes
---------------------------

Automatic abilities- I really dislike that there are quite a few survivors that have automatic abilities that are activated upon hitting the table. The issue that I have here is that sometimes these survivors are in the opening set of survivors, meaning that you lose the opportunity to ever activate their ability.

It is hard to keep track of the score- With so many line changes and survivors being put into the bunker, it can be very difficult to get a sense of who is winning. This can be frustrating because you cannot tell if you should be playing more dangerously or more cautiously.

He says
---------------------------
Yes the luck in ZAYH does bug me at times and yes, it can completely ruin a game from time to time. Overall though, I really enjoyed this game and for $15 it would be very hard not to recommend it. Adding in that the game is for charity, and that there is free international shipping backing this project became a no brainer for me. ZAYH is a good game that I would have bought even if not for the charity factor. But with that, and knowing that this game will be hard to find after launch, I can’t stress enough that people should give this a look.

She says
--------------------------
As I said before, Zombies at your Heels reminds me a lot of Guillotine. I take pleasure in moving my survivors forward and really enjoy trying to get Ryan’s survivors ate. A nice aspect of ZAYH is that each player has a small deck of survivors. That means that eventually players can memorize what survivors are left to play and how they can utilize them. While I am not great at tactic, I can sometimes use this to my advantage. However, I do believe that this game is just ok. It is better than Guillotine because you have to watch both sides of the line, but there really is not much else to the game. It is a pretty good filler game though. I would really like everyone to at least think about purchasing this game because as we said before, 100% of the profits are going to charity and I think that that is pretty cool. The $15 price tag is a good value. If you don’t want to buy this game, just donate the $15 to the developer anyways so he can help those kids!!

As a note: Zombies at your Heels was sent to us for free by the developer. The copy we were sent was a prototype copy not the finished product. We have since backed a copy of the final product ourselves and will try and update this review and our geeklist to reflect the final product if changes warrant it. If you too would like to back Zombies at your Heels, you can do so until the 9th of July by following the link below. $15 gets you a copy of the game at release shipped to your door and 100% of the profits from Zombies at your Heels will be given to Special Effect, a charity that develops technology and initiatives that help injured and disabled young people to enjoy video games they would not otherwise be able to! [url]http://www.indiegogo.com/zayh [/url]

Shameless self plug -Enjoy this review? Maybe you would enjoy our other reviews or perhaps our interviews! Check out our geeklist to find a list of everything we have done as well as see what our next weekly review will be.

Reviews
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/102808/a-he-says-she-says-...

Interviews
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/142628/a-he-asks-she-asks-...

Review: The Battle of Stalingrad:: Review in Spanish

Gameluis — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:09:43 +0000

by Gameluis

THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD
Interesante y curioso proyecto el que nos propone Turning Poing Simulations: crear una colección de juegos de tablero basándose en el libro Twenty Decisive Battles of the World, de Joseph B. Mitchell y Edward Creasy, y escogiendo cada uno de los conflictos del volumen para trasladarlo al mundo del wargame. Cada título está diseñado por un autor diferente y no reúne necesariamente un reglamentos común o genérico con el resto. La única premisa que compartirán todas las entregas será su sencillez, tanto en presentación como en complejidad. Está programado que la gama se complete a lo largo de cinco años, a razón, pues de cuatro juegos por año, existiendo un vigésimo primer título extra para aquellos que compren la colección completa de golpe.

Los cuatro primeros juegos en aparecer este 2012 han sido o van a ser The Battle of Tours, Joan of Arc´s Victory, Poltava´s Dread Day y este The Battle of Stalingrad que ya está en mis manos, creado por Hjalmar Gerber. Es en realidad el nº 20 de la colección, ya que están ordenados cronológicamente, aunque no en orden de aparición.

Tablero, componentes y presentación
Para los que no lo sepan, Turning Point Simulations pertenece a los editores de la revista especializada Against the Odds y, ciertamente, esta nueva colección de 20 batallas decisivas casi se puede considerar una especie de variante algo más lujosa de los juegos que acompañan a la mencionada publicación. The Battle of Stalingrad se presenta en un curioso formato: una bandeja de plástico negro semiduro con compartimentos para las fichas, con una tapa también de plástico pero transparente para cubrirla. Sobre esta, una cubierta en papel con la ilustración de portada y extendiéndose a la contraportada, y un precinto que, una vez abierto, deja la anterior hoja suelta. Dentro de la bandeja/caja encontramos el resto de componentes del juego: reglamento, dados, fichas a destroquelar y varias láminas para organizar los ejércitos y los turnos.

El mapa es muy sencillo y pequeñito, de tan sólo 28 x 43 cm, sobrio pero efectivo en lo que a estética se refiere y, además, montado en cartón duro. A pesar de todo, la mesa de juego acaba bastante llena al desplegarse las tres láminas tamaño folio de las que dispone cada uno de los jugadores. Las fichas de unidades son funcionales antes que especialmente bonitas. Sorprende que el ejército alemán y sus aliados vengan en un color blanco, en lugar de su habitual gris (¿cuestión de economizar?). Una vez más, nos encontramos con que la bandera nazi ha sido censurada, algo que me parece muy lamentable en juegos que presumen de rigurosidad histórica.

Organización y movimiento
El juego propiamente se adapta a la premisa de la serie de ofrecer wargames de reglamento y mecánicas sencillos. Al principio parece lo contrario, y las reglas asustan con las advertencias iniciales, pero en general es fácil de entender para cualquier persona que haya jugado a algún juego de este tipo. Personalmente me chocan algunas características más atípicas o que yo había visto menos, como que la composición de las unidades y su fuerza de combate se lleven aparte en unas hojas que se mantienen en secreto. Así, en el mapa vemos las unidades de cada jugador con sus factores de movimiento (hay varios), pero no sabemos su fuerza real ni los efectivos que las apoyan (tanques, artillería, etc) hasta que combatimos con ellas. Esto obliga a los jugadores a estar consultando las mencionadas plantillas constantemente, y puede ser la única y pequeñísima traba que tiene el juego, que quizás pierda un poco de agilidad por ello.

Debido al modesto tamaño del tablero, no hay una cantidad exagerada de fichas sobre él, más aún cuando se suelen apilar unas con otras para constituir grupos más fuertes. El movimiento sobre el mapa es también muy limitado, existiendo básicamente dos factores diferentes según se vaya a mover de manera normal, o según se vaya a atacar, salir o entrar en zona de control o en terreno dificultoso (básicamente ríos). El jugador alemán dispone de un tercer factor de movimiento que puede utilizar dentro de la zona sombreada en gris en el tablero. Algo más complicado resulta el movimiento entre éste y una serie de casillas especiales que representan zonas geográficas fuera del mapa como el Cáucaso.

Combate, objetivo y valoración
El combate es también bastante estándar: ambos bandos suman la fuerza de las unidades que se encuentran en un mismo hexágono, añadiendo también la de sus efectivos. Se divide la fuerza del atacante por la del defensor y el resultado nos da la tabla en la que los dos mirarán (es decir, el defensor también responde). La única diferencia es que cada uno mirará en la fila correspondiente a la fuerza de sus unidades. Se aplican algunos modificadores como cruzar río, luchar en ciudad o la existencia de artillería antitanque, aunque éstos sólo afectan a los efectivos, nunca a las unidades propiamente (otra curiosidad del juego).

El objetivo final del jugador alemán será alcanzar el Volga o cualquiera de sus dos ciudades principales, Stalingrado y Astracán. Además, puntuará por varios objetivos secundarios y el resultado total determinará el impacto de su victoria, que puede resultar menor, material o decisiva.

Mencionar también que hay una ligera diferencia entre la secuencia de juego de rusos y alemanes, recibiendo refuerzos y reemplazos antes de mover y atacar los primeros, y haciéndolo tras haber movido y combatido los segundos.

Como valoración final, decir que este The Battle of Stalingrad es un wargame sencillo y chulo que puede servir casi hasta para iniciarse en esta variante lúdica. Se puede jugar en una tarde, y personalmente sólo echo de menos una presentación algo más trabajada, principalmente en el mapa y en la “caja” en la que viene el juego. Hubiera preferido una de cartón, pero hay que entender y asumir lo humilde de muchos de estos proyectos de un mundo tan minoritario como es el wargame. Aún con todo, voy a seguir en un primer momento la colección, y hasta es posible que la complete.

Review: Jurassic Dinosaurs:: A meditation on those times when divorce and arson are the only answer... (a review)

RedMonkeyBoy — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:01:41 +0000

by RedMonkeyBoy

As always, this review (complete with pictures) can also be found on my blog at AlwaysBoardNeverBoring

My wife is a very understanding woman. Not only does she tolerate my hobby, she actively encourages it. She plays games with me, but more importantly, she buys games for me.

My wife also knows me well. She knows I love out of production games, she knows I love dinosaurs, and she knows I love a good bargain. That's why, when she saw a copy of Jurassic Dinosaurs in a charity shop for 50p, she purchased it for me.

The divorce papers are being finalised.

Okay, I'm kidding. We're not really getting divorced. Mainly because I immediately realised how bad this game was, and I never played it.

Yes, you read that right. This is a review for a game I've never played. Sue me. Actually, don't. I can't afford it.

I've never written a review about a game I've never played before, but in this case I've made an exception. You'll see why.

The first thing that struck me about Jurassic Dinosaurs is that it seemed much older than it really is. The art design and component quality looks like something out of the late 70s, and yet, it was made in 1993, that's four years after Heroquest was released!

So yes, I was slightly suspicious of this game before I even opened the (slightly crumpled) box. I was also slightly annoyed because the charity shop had written the 50p price on the box lid with a freaking permanent marker. Seriously? I'll never say a bad word about tape monkeys again, because they are no longer my number one enemy.

Once I got the box open, my suspicions were confirmed. The board consisted of two pieces that fit together like a jigsaw to reveal a hideous map overlaid with a linear path. Each space on the path is shapeed like a footprint, and some of those footprints contain text like "Trapped by lava, miss a go," and "throw again!!" There are also cerain spaces linked to other spaces by arrows. Some arrows point up, and some point down.

My heart sank. It's Snakes and Ladders.

Snakes and Ladders!

By this point, my interest had pretty much bottomed out; but I thought I would take a look at what the playing pieces were like. Unfortunately they weren't any more interesting: There is a thin card insert in the box, and the dinosaur pieces are printed on that. You punch them out and pop them in little plastic stands.

The pieces for the copy I have are still attached to the card insert, and that means the poor kid who had this game before me didn't bother to play it either.

However, I was intriqued to see two other pieces printed on the insert that needed to be punched out and assembled, and for a moment I was almost interested again. Almost.

The first is a larger t-rex piece. A quick look at the rules (which consist of four paragraphs printed on the bottom of the box!) revealed that when you roll the dice to move, you also move the t-rex. If the t-rex moves over a playing piece, that piece is moved back six spaces; if the t-rex lands on a playing piece, then that piece moves back 12 spaces. Spectacular!

It should also be noted that there are shortcuts printed on the board that only the t-rex can move on. The idea is that you can cleverly use these spaces to use the t-rex to attack your opponents while making sure it doesn't end up in a position to attack you. Of course, I just made that sound much more exciting that it really is.

The other piece printed on the cardboard insert is a 3D volano that is supposed to be assembled and sat on the start space of the board. The "storyline" behind the game is that the dinosaurs are trying to escape the erupting volcano, and that is the sole reason the three-dimensional volcano piece exists. It doesn't actually do anything. It is just there to look cool and 3D. Unfortunately, it just looks cheap and badly made. Something of a missed opportunity really.

And that's your lot. Roll the dice. Move. Move the t-rex. Stare at the volcano.

The pieces for this game remain unpunched. The board was assembled only so I could take a picture for this review (which you won't have seen if you aren't reading this on my blog). And no, I am not keeping this game.

I think I will burn it.

Okay, okay... I'm being unfair. Snakes and Ladders has it's place in the world. It is a great first game for kids, and it helps to teach counting, fair play, and social skills. I don't have a problem with Snakes and Ladders as such, and I would rather see a family playing any game rather than watching television. What I have a problem with is a cheaply made knock-off of Snakes and Ladders with a recommended age of six and up.

Children are not stupid. Children should expect better than this.

They could have at least included some plastic dinosaurs or something to play with...

Review: Ascending Empires:: Thank You, Ian Cooper!

Dredry Toenail — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:22:40 +0000

by Dredry Toenail

Introduction to the Game

I didn’t want to play this game when I first heard about it. A friend said that he had this awesome new game that he really wanted to show me and it involved flicking your spaceships across the board. WHAT?!! Flicking ships across the board?! I could not imagine a sillier concept in a seriously good space-themed board game. Many images came to mind. I imagined flicking Carrom pieces, or Sorry Sliders, or even the paper football flicking we did in elementary school.

This friend is an hour drive from me so we don’t get together for board gaming very often. When we finally connected at another friend’s house, the first game on the agenda was Ascending Empires. “Oh, boy,” thought I. “This is going to be a waste of time.” I thought this because I had recently sat through a few games with this same friend that he thought were just wonderful games but I was very indifferent about them. They were usually too long, too complicated, or just not a lot of fun to me. And they were certainly not games that I could bring to the table with my wife and family. However, I was willing to learn it and approached it with a semi-open mind. He explained the rules. I got most of what he was saying, but some of it washed over me without clicking, like game rules tend to do when you first start.

Components

First of all I noticed that the game board looked kind of like a puzzle when put together. He showed me that the different quadrants are clearly marked from the middle piece to the central side pieces. However, the corner pieces were not marked and when he had them together in the right position, he wrote Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gamma in black ink right on the front of the board near the edge. It didn’t show up unless you were looking for it and I hadn’t noticed it until he pointed it out. So that is a quick and easy way to identify those corner pieces – although writing on the back of the board makes sense, too. He also showed me that it was legal to hold down seams on the board if you need to flick your ship across them. It was his opinion that space is treacherous and if the seams get in your way, it represents a rip in the fabric of space that sends your ship in another direction, or stops it altogether. Par for the course, in his opinion. That made sense to me and I had no more issues with the board at all. Later, I would see several people’s homemade game boards here on this website. They inspire me to make one, too, but I haven’t had the time, nor a real need to do so as of yet.

The planet disks seemed really well made and the stickers looked nice on them. He showed me the extra sticker sheet and applauded Z-Man for thinking ahead on this point. I will agree that they made a wise move, there. He showed me the wooden starship disks with the stickers on them and the other wooden components which look like any other Euro that I own. He had made a few modifications to the game pieces such as using glass beads for the starships instead of the wooden disks. He said they were a big improvement in flicking and he got the idea from this Forum. He also purchased 2 copies of Monopoly: Star Wars, The Clone Wars and painted the houses and hotels to match the 4 colors of the game. They were used in place of research facilities and cities in the game, which are simple wooden cylinders as it comes in the box. He didn’t modify the colonies yet. I really did like the way the game looked, and the modifications that he made were very nice and added to the game play. I suggest to Z-Man Games to improve these components in the same manner. The troops are finely details plastic miniatures and look better with those plastic Monopoly bits than they do with wooden cylinders. But I’ve played the game both ways and I don’t think it’s a major issue at all.

Gameplay

I was immediately impressed that the game play was pretty quick. It flowed nicely because each player is only allowed to do one action per turn. Certainly the movement action can take a little longer because you are allowed 2 movements, and then quickly get 3 movements when you get the first level of gray technology. But overall, you are not sitting there waiting for other players to complete multi-phase game turns which can cause a lot of down time – which is one thing I didn’t like about some of the games he’s shown me in the past.

I could also quickly see how the game play was working and different strategies started forming in my head that I wanted to use. The technology tree was easy to understand because all you need to do is discover the right-colored planet and build research stations on them, then research the technology to move up the tree. Your player card said exactly what each higher level of technology would give you. I also was the victim to endless blockades by my opponents which prevented me from moving up on some of those technologies. They simply need to move a starship into orbit of one of my planets with the research facility and that shuts down research for that colored technology - possibly because the scientists need to duck and cover under their desks and hope that certain death does not rain down upon them from the orbiting starships. They stay there way until I get my own starships into orbit and blast the enemy into oblivion, or they move more of their fleet into orbit and blast my buildings into dust. This did happen to me and I was not pleased.

Ship Flicking

And what about that aspect that I feared so much? Was flicking ships across the board as bad as I had imagined? In a word, NO. It’s actually quite fun. Who would have thought? It’s called Navigating, in the game, and it really makes sense with the theme. As any fan of sci-fi movie, TV, or literature knows, there have been plenty of ways to overcome the problem of Faster Than Light (FTL) travel to reach across the vastness of outer space. Sometimes you just jump through hyperspace and instantly appear in other part of space using a technologically advanced FTL drive. Sometimes you travel through wormholes that link specific parts of space. The USS Enterprise warps the space in front of it making the actual physical space smaller and allowing the ship to move more quickly across vast distances. I had the book Dune in mind when I flicked my ships. The Spacing Guild Navigators use the spice Melange to look into the future and foresee safe travel of ships through folded space. Of course, in many of my flicks, those Navigators were dead wrong. Sometimes I was able to flick clear across the board in one shot, but other times I ran into enemy ships on very short and easy flicks that were not executed very carefully. That caused both my ship and the enemy ship to be destroyed and returned to our respective supplies. Thankfully I never did flick off the edge of the board and lose my ship in space forever like the Jupiter 2.

Much to my surprise I really liked flicking spaceships in this game. As many have posted before, it is really the only random element in the game. There are no dice to roll badly which cause you to crash or lose battles. It’s all a matter of how well can you flick, and it can go very well for beginners and it can go very badly for experienced players. It makes the game exciting and unpredictable. Many times the whole group shouted in awe or in “Awwwww…” - depending on how spectacularly or how tragically a flick was executed.

Game Time

We got through my first game with 3 players in about 2 hours. I have introduced this game to new people when I purchased my own copy and it seems to clock in at around 1.5 to 2 hours with the noobs. If all players are experienced it can last anywhere from 1 to 2 hours, depending on how aggressive the players want to get.

Conclusion

I see my review is getting lengthy, and thanks if you’ve stayed with it this long. I came away from that first game with nothing else on my mind but Ascending Empires! It really scratched an itch that no other game before has done in my experience. I love old-school sci-fi themed games, but they never really did it for me. Starfarers of Catan came the closest until this game came along. Starfarers centers around civilization building but there’s no real conflict. Other space games all seem to be based on combat but leave me wanting more. This game does the job. It’s the right balance of civilization building and combat that I wanted – and I didn’t even know I wanted it until I played this game.

I took my friend’s advice and bought a bag of glass beads at Hobby Lobby on the day that my copy of Ascending Empires arrived at my local game store. I spent that night putting my stickers on the beads and they have adhered very well. I also found a few people on e-bay who were selling Star Wars Monopoly spare parts for a great price. I bought them but I still need to paint them and put them into play, but it will be done soon. I might even paint my troops like those awesome ones painted by Chris Miller.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/692341/painting-the-troo...

The problems that people have with the game board have not been a problem for me because I just accept those space anomalies. I am sure that using glass beads has made it an easier issue for me to deal with. I haven’t ever encountered a starship rolling across the board because glass beads don’t do that. Nothing has warped and I’ve been very happy with the game with my enhancements. Maybe Z-Man should have done more testing and made those enhancements part of the stock game, and maybe they will at some point in the future. But it was really no trouble at all to pick up the glass beads and since I really LOVE this game, I will put in that little extra effort – as I would with any board game that I love.

I want to thank Ian Cooper for being such a great game designer and giving us this fantastic offering. I hope he has a long and fruitful career as a game designer and brings us more wonderful games. It has quickly risen to the top of my favorites list.

AWESOME GAME!

Review: Sentinels of the Multiverse: Rook City:: A GFBR Review: More Awesome for your Sentinels Game

MyParadox — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:37:02 +0000

by MyParadox

Not too long ago, I had the great pleasure to review Sentinels of the Multiverse. I liked it. I liked it a lot. It continues to impress with every single play, and it garnered my Game of the Year award last year. One of the great things about the game is the extreme replayability. With four villains (each directing the game entirely differently) and ten heroes to choose from, there were near limitless experiences contained in the core game.

Then Rook City came out. Rook City featured new environments, new heroes, and new villains. But rather than just more of the same, Rook City pushes the game with better mechanics, new ways for heroes to work, and villains that bring very new challenges to the game.

The Basics. Mechanically, Rook City plays nearly identically to the base game. The expansion introduces the concept of “irreducible” damage. It functions just as you might think. But the best innovation is the H symbol. In the base game, difficulty was achieved by simply choosing a harder villain (or playing on the “Advanced Mode”). Baron Blade, for example, is simply not as difficult or punishing as Citizen Dawn. However, the heroes in Rook City scale with the H symbol. So the Villain might do H minus 1 damage where H is always defined as the number of heroes in the game. That way, the Villain is able to provide a challenge for any number of heroes, and the players have an additional metric to alter (if they choose) in order to increase or decrease the difficulty by simply selecting an H value at the beginning of the game.

The Feel. Rook City brings four villains, two environments, and two heroes to the game. The environments are both interesting experiences. Pike’s Laboratories is a deadly environment filled with mutagenic rats and vats of game-altering power. The other environment, Rook City itself, is filled with corruption, and tends to be the most punishing environment yet available.

The two heroes are Mr. Fixer and Expatriette. Fixer is a former martial arts instructor turned mechanic. His cards have mixed both worlds. For example, rather than a stance called “Monkey Fist,” his stance is called “Grease Monkey Fist.” He tends to be a Jack of all Trades in that he has cards that are situationally helpful, but he has a card in his deck somewhere for every situation. Expatriette, on the other hand, is all guns all the time. She uses guns and ammo to do tons of damage. She has guns for single targets, guns for multiple targets, guns with high damage, and ammo that adds effects. And, best yet, a card called “Unload” that lets her shoot every one of them on her turn.

The Villains of Rook City, however, tend to be much more difficult than base game villains. Plague Rat is a complete DPS race. Other than one starting card, he has absolutely no minions. So the Rat simply damages the heroes over and over and it is a race to see who can bring the other down first. He can also infect heroes and force them to fight one another.

Spite, likewise, is also without minions. Instead, he continually brings out victims and drugs. The drugs power him up until he has all five and then is a mean, mean entity to deal with. As he brings out victims, the players must engage in some undesirable action (like playing an extra villain card or discarding their own cards) to save them.

The Matriarch is a bird lover, and due to her combos, she can be an extremely nasty foe. Depending on which side of her card is up, she may bring out multiple birds each turn. All birds do something bad and they all have only one hit point. But whenever a bird is killed, Matriarch damages the heroes or otherwise darkens their day. Oh, and she heals herself. Did I mention that? Playing against her is a careful balance of direct damage, bird mitigation, and killing particularly difficult birds while gritting through the pain.

The Chairman is the crime kingpin of Rook City, and he’s really two villains in one. In addition to the Chairman, he also has an Operative. As long as the Operative is alive, the heroes cannot win, and numerous Chairman cards do more damage or more negative effects when the operative is alive. The Chairman calls out various “underbosses” who in turn call out various thugs. The Chairman’s network grows quickly and the heroes have to manage it quickly or be pulled under.

More than just adding in the specific cards, Rook City begins expanding the storyline of Sentinels. While there is no official storyline page in the rulebook, you understand that Expatriette is the daughter of Citizen Dawn. You find out that Spite and the Wraith have a history. You learn that a single event caused the Operative and Mr. Fixer to follow different paths. With Rook City, the world expands and, like more traditional comic characters, the Sentinels heroes become more three dimensional and interesting.

If I had to find a nit to pick, it would be that some of the new villains, especially Spite, are very fiddly. They bring a number of effects to the table and it can be difficult to remember, at the start or end of a villain turn, all of them. The villain’s innate powers, then the powers of minions or drugs, then additional powers that take place through the game. Plus, at least with Spite, there are a number of plus damages and minus damages that must be remembered. Not impossible, and very manageable, but worth noting for those who dislike the more mathy aspects of Sentinels.

Components: 4.5 of 5. While the base game had serviceable cards that I still use and love, Rook City went another direction. It included cards on much thicker stock: probably about the feel of a pack of regular Bicycle playing cards. In fact, standing up a deck of Rook City cards next to a deck of the original demonstrates that the difference in thickness is significant. I still think the base cards are fine, but the Rook City cards are definitely a step up in development. The artwork, in the same style and by the same artist, continues to be fantastic. If anything, I’d say it’s better in Rook City. And the new environments now have full art as well.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 3.5 of 5. This score remains unchanged from the base game. The players must work together to defeat the Rook City villains, something that I appreciate in this co-op game. But the challenge often comes from getting a particularly bad card draw at just the wrong moment (or a good one at the right time from the villain’s perspective). You’ll need to be comfortable with card draws and the whims of fate to enjoy Rook City and Sentinels.

Mechanics: 5 of 5. With the inclusion of the H symbol, Rook City improves over the base game. The scalability is very welcome and makes the villains able to challenge different numbers of heroes. That said, some villains still respond differently to different numbers of heroes, but the H scaling goes quite far in ensuring that you get a similar experience no matter the player number.

Replayability: 5 of 5. Sentinels had tons of replayability to begin with, but this just explodes things. The four new villains especially shake up the experience since each one really brings a different game. The new heroes and environments are good as well for variety, but the villains drive the main game play. This expansion doubles the available villains for that purpose.

Spite: 0 of 5. Still a co-op. Still no spite. Although there is a villain named Spite. Maybe that merits a higher spite score since the game now has Spite in it. Hmm…

Overall: 5 of 5. As an avid Sentinels fan, I could not be happier with Rook City. It allows you to incorporate new experiences into the Sentinels game, it addresses scaling issues, and the villains are crazy tough. I really enjoy the challenge and, even though I have lost to them (I’ll get you next time, Plague Rat!), it’s such a great feeling of success when you down any one of the Rook City villains, especially Matriarch or Chairman. If you enjoy the base Sentinels game, then Rook City is pretty much a must buy.

(Originally posted, with pictures, at the Giant Fire Breathing Robot)

Review: Dungeon Petz:: Cracking the Code: The key to a great gaming experience

Madcapmartini — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:19:14 +0000

by Madcapmartini

I played my first game of Dungeon Petz (DP) last night and wanted to share my thoughts on it. I’m sentimental about this game since I won it here on BGG, and I was really excited to try it out, so I was heading into it with all kinds of positivity and anticipation. After finding out about winning it, I started reading and watching reviews, trying to get a sense of how the game played, what it compared to, if it’s the type of game I typically like, etc. I should say at this point, that there are some excellent video reviews for this game by any standard, but none of them provided a full picture of how to play it. They discussed rules and objectives, but I still had no idea how to get from A to B, or in the case of this game, from A to ZZZZ. Once I received the game, I read through the rulebook and was pretty overwhelmed by the game’s complexity. I admit that I don’t learn games well from rulebooks. I tend to learn them better from seeing them played. So it wasn’t until I watched this great video walkthrough by rahdo, that I could finally say, “Oh, I see now.”

And that’s where I would like to start my review. This game is unique to my somewhat limited gaming experience in that it’s really hard to learn, but easy to play. For example, I had a relatively easy time learning to play Le Havre, a game that offers great depth, but actually has only a few rules, and is easy to teach. DP also offers great depth, but requires a pretty large front-end investment of rules-learning. It’s not like Stone Age where you can teach/learn it by sitting down and playing. You have to understand a lot about the “language” of DP before you can play (knowledge of Dungeon Lords helps only slightly in this regard).

This takes me to my next point: Le Havre uses many icons to dictate game setup and flow -- once you know what you’re looking at, you know what to do next, the cost of things, how much food is required, etc. DP does this to the extreme! So much so, that your eyes forget where to look and/or what they are looking at. It’s easy to lose track of what’s going on. We eventually chose to remove cards from previous rounds to reduce the distraction. Every step of every phase, every action, every round, every player, every card, and every corner of the multiple boards has symbols to understand and process. Now I know that with further plays, this will all go away and no longer be a negative aspect to the game. But the point I’d like to make is that this game is difficult to learn, therefore, difficult to teach, and thus, difficult to get to the table. And I really want this game to make it to the table again! We were lucky because I had a pretty good sense of how the game flowed from phase to phase before we sat down to play it, and another player had a good sense of specific rules and the wonky aspects of setup such as moving the dummy imps that block action spaces in a two or three-player game (we had three players).

The iconography of DP detracts from the game in another way. Several reviews talked about the “cuteness” of the theme and how adorable the game is, but these comments were frequently followed by how entertaining the rulebook is. Yes, it is a fun rulebook, but we don’t play the rulebook, we play the game, and the game’s extensive, and pervasive iconography does not deliver the same light-hearted and fun-loving entertainment value as the rulebook does. It’s more like a code to crack than it is a source of thematic value. I found myself having internal dialogues like, “Okay, yellow bowl, red teeth, purple play, purple magic, green poop. Good!” Does that sound like you fed, and played or interacted at all with a cute magical pet?

I assure you, this is not a negative review. I’m not beating up on this game just for the sake of it. I really liked it. But I feel like the heavy-handed theming ended up defeating its own purpose and getting in its own way. I started with these points because they are the ones that surprised me.

What did not surprise me was that this game was great fun. Once you crack the code of this game, it plays very smoothly. It does all make sense eventually, and the many aspects of the game work together beautifully. The order in which you do things is logical and thorough. The steps of each phase are designed to insure you don’t miss or overlook anything (very important given my earlier comments).

The production and components of the game are lovely. The two separate player boards are great, all of the bits and chits are great. Worth a special mention are the translucent plastic suffering cubes.

]]>

Ironic that such a cool component is one you never want to use.

The pets themselves,]]> as you can see, are awesome. The art is excellent and the functionality of the egg-dials is seamless. My only complaint is the two main boards are quite thin and one of mine is slightly warped. I would have liked to see a bit more quality there, but that is a very minor gripe.

There was very little down time between rounds and turns, and the three of us were constantly engaged in what was happening and/or what needed to happen next. This mounting suspense, tension, and anxiety as the rounds progress is where this game really pays off. There is tension during the bidding phase when you REALLY need a specific action and aren’t sure what the other players will do or how they will prioritize their needs. There is suspense when you are drawing cards and you desperately need a specific trait to satisfy a contest or a buyer. And the anxiety comes when you have to care for your pet and are forced to mutate it, make it suffer, dirty its cage, risk escape, or make it sick. These three areas are the game’s greatest strength.

I am really looking forward to playing this game again. And yes, the fact that you are taking care of pets does emotionally resonate with the players. It’s a great and very effective theme, and I think the designer simply put too much frosting on an already delicious cake.

Review: Word Winder:: The Willy-Nilly Wordsearch from Here to There

zefquaavius — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:22:42 +0000

by zefquaavius

Word Winder is a willy-nilly wordsearch game fused with a connection game: On your turn, find a word by whatever meandering connections (orthogonal and/or diagonal), then mark it with your chips (without revisiting the same space in the same word, but you can reuse your claims later in other words). You are trying to connect any two opposite sides of the playfield in order to win. The game takes about ten minutes for two people to play (analysis paralysis notwithstanding). Its connection nature causes it to have strategy akin to Twixt, but because the pieces you put down depend entirely on the words you can find, it has much less of an intense, Go-like feel. The longer the word, the better, because you irrevocably clutter the playfield with your claimed property. You must be very aggressive with your plays, lest you find yourself needing to block in a territory where you can't build a wall of a word that would prevent that opponent from making the final connection.

This should make a good family game, with the replay value boosted by the configurable playfield. Each tile is two-sided, and each side bears a 4×4 display of letter spaces. With these, you build a playfield of whatever practical shape you like; a 4×4 square is kind of the default, giving you a 16×16 grid of letters to search and claim, but you can go nuts with the setup, which is a pleasant liberty. Yes, this is yet another wordsearch game, and yet another wordsearch game with a configurable search space (almost necessary to have a viable product), and yet another wordsearch game in which you mark your finds with translucent Bingo-style chips; however, the connection goal elevates this above the others. It is such a specific, visible goal, that it really ratchets up the tension. Make no mistake: This game is a race — a slap-your-neighbor-out-of-the-way race to make a transcontinental railway, built out of words.

Review: Mage Knight: Board Game:: Solo Player - First Impressions

TheRiddler1976 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:45:33 +0000

by TheRiddler1976

SO let's start with a bit of background. I'm relatively new to the modern boardgame scene, and tend to like the simpler games out there.
Also, other than playing games with my 4 year old son, I play alone.
So when I first saw Mage Knight I was immediately intrigued - here's a game that plays solo, and yet is deep and complex.

Sadly I missed it first time round, and had to wait for the reprint before getting my hands on it, which I finally did last week.

Opening the box was a nervous moment - having heard so much about the poor quality of components, I spent an hour checking through all the pieces, and sleeving the cards - happy to report, no defects, and everything present and correct.

Being away in a hotel gave me a chance to play the solo walkthrough. Had a great time playing, even if I was cross checking the rules every 2 minutes, and with my last card I was able to play enough movement points to reveal the second (out of three) core tiles - and it had the city on, yay!!

So what are my thoughts so far?

General:
Components aren't great quality, but neither are they the worst thing ever - maybe I was lucky, but I haven't had any warping (and the game was left sealed in the boot of my car when the temperature was up to 29 degrees).
Strategy - this isn't a hack and slash adventure by any means, each turn needs to be carefully considered and planned, keeping in mind what cards you have in your deck.
Deck-building - there isn't much deck-building in this game, I'd say it's more card-drafting. However, there is an element of ensuring your chosen skills complement your chosen advanced actions and spells
Story - I'm not sure I found much 'story' in this - I guess you could create a retrospective story as a session review, but that doesn't bother me in a board game. After all, playing ticket to ride or small world doesn't really conjure up much of a story for me either.

Pros:
Limited luck involved - you know exactly what will happen if you know the enemy, no unlucky dice rolls scuppering your plans (looking at you Death Angel!
Variety - different board layouts, skill tokens, and cards I think will provide lots of different options in each game, and that's without considering all the different scenarios
The theme - I know others don't consider this thematic, but for me I love the way the hero gets more powerful. I love the mechanics of the mana dice in the source, and the difference between night and day

Cons:
Space - you need a big table to play this, I resorted to playing on the floor
Time - it's not a short game by any means, you'll need about 2 hours to play solo.

Summary:
Early days yet, but for me I love this game so far. It has the right blend of strategy - as someone who likes logic puzzles, each turn in MK:BG feels like a mini logic puzzle. How do you play your cards to achieve what you need to most efficiently.
I'm not sure I'd suggest this if you're looking for a game like Arkham Horror, or the D&D games, but if you're looking for a game that you can immerse yourself in for a couple of hours, a game that will really challenge you and cause you to think, than I can recommend Mage Kinght.

Review: The Lord of the Rings: Nazgul:: LOTR Nazgul Review after 1 play

zenmazster — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:35:24 +0000

by zenmazster

It's late, we just played LOTR Nazgul. I'm writing a review dammit!

Now I wouldn't say that I'm the CEO of clan Ameritrash. But I'm definitely one of it's biggest investors! Add LOTR to the title, and I'm a sucker for giving it a go.

To date, my favorite LOTR title is War of the Ring, followed closely by Middle Earth Quest. Big fan of questing in games, and this new offering doesn't dissappoint in the area.

LOTR: Nazgul is Wizkids latest big box release following the wildly successful Mage Knight board game. Wizkids is definitely putting their flag in the 'licensed Ameritrash' games, right next to it's big brother Fantasy Flight Games.

In fact, I'd introduce LOTR Nazgul as the latest in a popular trend of 'Eurotrash' games, much like Lords of Waterdeep, Mage Knight, and Dungeon Lords: Euro mechanics set in a highly thematic world. At it's heart, it's a clever bidding game with a co-op engine under the hood.

Basic gameplay:
You are a Nazgul. Your mission from big S himself: "You must worth together with the other Nazgul to stop the cursed Hobbits and destroy the resistance of men. You are faced with three campaigns you must conquer before the Ring-Bearer carries The One Ring to Mount Doom."

On a typical turn, players will spend 'favor' which is the basic currency of the game. You can place this favor in one of six spaces on your player board:

(in most spaces if you're the highest, you get the best something, but as long as you put 1 you at least get something. Sort of reminds me of Dragon Rampage a bit).

6 spaces:

(1) You can get Cards of Power which give you great boosts of favor and power

(2) Get a handful of favor, pick the turn order, and swap a quest, fun spot!

(3) Take the Witchking, which essentially acts as another Nazgul character during that turn

(4) Take a (hopefully weak) hero captive to plant him in a battle. Use this spot when you draw a high ranking hero at the beginning of your turn!!

(5) Clix up! Your Nazgul has 10 max 'clix' that will power up and increase his stats, essentially leveling up. Nothing new here if you're familiar with the clix world, but fantastic use of the mechanic.

(6) Buy creatures to aid in battle. This part isn't bidding, more purchasing.

After your bidding is revealed, you take your rewards. You then place your Nazgul in either:

(a) One of the three campaigns. Place your mini on the first space of a campaign that has not been 'cleared' or defeated. Each campaign has 4 such spaces, and get progressively more difficult. Each campaign differs slightly, but mostly feel the same.

(b) quests. These are random cards from a quest deck that minis can battle instead of focusing on quests. the benefit is that they're generally pretty easy (just battling a few angry townsfolk, the scum!) and there's usually a decent little reward (vp). The bad news is that you're ignoring the campaigns. If you ignore the QUESTS however, then the campaigns get harder. Very interesting dynamic full of tough decisions and tension

After you place your minion, then battle occurs. This is 'cubes in a cup' battle, which is very interesting. Reminds me of the battles in Shogun/Wallenstein. While I do like the tower better in Shogun, I think the cup works fine and makes for very fun battles around the table.

At a very high level, each Nazgul gets one round of battle in their location. They put one cube in for themselves, and a few cubes represeting their trolls, orcs, etc. Then the free people (blue cubes) get put in, as well as any heroes (white cubes).

For every white cube, a hero card is assigned and does Very Bad Things' depenind on the rank of the hero (1 being best: gandalf) worst being a weak soldier or something.

Damage is resolved, and free people and heroes are destroyed. If you completely wipe out an area, much favor is spread between all who participated. If you personally defeated a hero, you're awarded VP (which sorta reminds me of Cutthroad Caverns or Dungeon Run a bit).

Then check for game end. If you haven't defeated all three campaigns, the hobbits move forward on their track, sometimes triggering small boosts to free people. If you don't win by the 10th round, all players lose!

THOUGHTS ON THE GAME

First of all, we only played on game, and the 4 players were:

myself, a fairly seasoned gamer I'd say

a friend Bruce who equally shares my love for adventuring Ameritrash faire

a 13 year old kid Josh, quite possibly one of the smartest kids I've met, coming from the world of Heroscape. This kid got rules quickly, was way ahead of the curve, and you can tell was thinking 3 moves in advance, really cool kid.

And his mom Kathy. I expected that she was at our meetup (st louis board game meetup group) just as his mom, and that 'maybe she'd play a game with my son'. At first I was thinking we'd have to break out Tetris Link or something, but she wanted to dive right in. She actually was very sharp, had a keen mind for gaming, and kept up with the rest of us very well!

We played regular rules (non full co-op variant as suggested for first play) on 'moderate/normal' rules setting.

FUN
I'm a big fan of FUN in games, and this game is so much fun to play. We all had a great time, and were totally engaged the entire time. I don't think that anyone felt like there was any down time between turns, as we were all impacted by what each other were doing. This game is just good old fashioned super duper fun, and if you even remotely like the LOTR world, you'll have a great time playing.

Playing from an evil perspective (to me) has the same level of fun as playing Chaos in the Old World. You can't help to delight in the perils of the 'good' folks of the land, curse them to eternity!

After the game, Josh said he had a GREAT time (huge smile on his face) and that he coudln't wait to play again.

10/10

-COMPONENTS-

NAZGUL MINIS
First off, the thing that impressed me the most about the entire experience were the Nazgul minis. MAN OH MAN are they awesome. Only two colors (black and grey) but they are very hard and sturdy, extremely durable, and great texture like they doused it in spray matte for 100 years. They're all unique, look VERY scary, and just add so much to the gameplay. Really great job Wizkids.

10/10

CARDS
The cards were another story. After playing Mage Knight a few times, it became obvious quickly that you had to sleeve the cards, as they were basically notebook paper.

In LOTS Nazgul, I don't feel like I need to sleeve the cards (as normally I'm a fairly compulsive sleever). The 'hero cards' were the same quality of Mage Knight, however you don't use them in the same way, so I think they're ok.

The rest of the cards weren't amazing, but they're a lot better than the previously mentioned notebook paper. They're like a deck of playing cards really. C'mon Wizkids, please don't get a reputation for cheaping out on the cards. Gamers are looking for quality here. I think in an already $80 game like this, that you may as well charge us a few dollars more for decent quality cards. It's worth it trust me.

The art and design of the cards were really well done. I think the choice to use photos of the actual characters from the movie was a fantastic choice, and really added to the game play. Even kind of messes with your mind a little. You're so used to associating the movie characters with heroics and goodness, that when the tables are turned and you're the evil one, just can't help to grin with evil delight in their destruction.

03/10

GAMEBOARD
The game board was... functional. I dunno, I still need to think on this a bit. It worked for what we needed to do. It was good, it just wasn't great, and I was hoping for great. It was functional in the same was the gameboard for Defends of the Realm was functional.

Minor gripes: Since so many of the cards reference a campaign by name, it would have been helpful to have the name of the campaign on the gameboard. Those familiar with the world can figure it out from the locations, but no where did it just tell you the name of the campaign on the board, kinda strange ommission.

Also, when you are battling in a location, there's no real dedicated space to place your favor as you're doing battle. We just kinda throw it close to the area, but gets crowded quick, so not as elegent, but just a first-game gripe. I'm sure it gets more familiar as you play it.

07/10

THE CUP
Oh yes, the cup. The battle cup was very sturdy quality, and looked good, however it just wasn't quite big enough. I think anything bigger would have seemed too big and a little out of place, however funcationally it was too small to get your hand in. I mean Josh could fit his hand in. I think Kathy could do. I just don't think a 'normal adult male gamer hand' can fit in the cup. So a few fingers have to go in to scrape out the cubes. Which is fiiiine. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad, it just left me REALLY appreciating innovative alternatives, again like the tower in Shogun. This game really could have used something like that, but alas the cup worked just fine. The interesting battle system made up for the lack of elegance of reaching into a cup. But I think ultimately another...device...could be used, but for the life of me I just can't think of anything at the moment to suggest.

07/10

THE CUBES

Wow, just wow. As gamers, we're so used to using LWC. Little wood cubes are the main resource in our lives right? Everything is wooden cubes, just so used to it in our Euros. So this game had cubes. About a million of them. And they were all slightly larger, and hard plastic! Very cool to the touch and to move back and forth. Was a GREAT pimpage to the game. So when I say the following, please enjoy the fact that your cubes in this game are so awesome. So wizkids: why not just use regular wood cubes, and make good quality cards? Just sayin guys.

Ok, again, the cubes are wonderful and make me want to carry them around with me separately to pimp every game I play, along with my bag of minis, and my bag of metal coins.

10/10

THE CARDBOARD CHITS
The rest of the cardboard was fairly thin and basic, nothing fancy. In fact the vp chits were extremely small and of the most basic of quality. I swear, it's like parts of this game are above and beyond, unbelievalbe pimpage, and some parts are less than average. Just strange production choices,

03/10

PLAYER AIDES

I'm not a big fan of player screens in a game. They take up too much space, they're clunky, and they generally just get in the way. These are no exeption. However they're AMAZING player aides. They have everything on one page. And you really only use them for player screens for a short time in phase one. After than just toss them to the side and use them for an aid. The game's footprint is huge enough as it is, that don't let these get in the way. Really awesome player aide though.

08/10

RULEBOOK

Really well done rulebook, very great job. It's difficult to write a rulebook well. This one is fairly short at 16 pages, and only took 10 minutes or so to read, and I believe I got every rule after one reading. Anything I had to refer back to we just checked our player aides, as it was mostly the ORDER of resolution of stuff we had to check.

09/10

-YES BUT HOW DID IT PLAY?-

Co-op games are also interesting becuase it's 'everyone against the game' I have a love hate relationship with co-ops, as there are a few I really enjoy (flashpoint, defends of the realm), however afterwords (if playing with others) you're at risk of feeling like you 'didn't personally win'. Yay everyone won. It's a great moment, but you personally get no glory.

There are several games that have come out lately that try to break out of the mold. I know Defenders of the Realm has the 'kings favor' and Dungeon Run is 'cooperative until it's not' and Cutthroat Caverns is 'cooperative while you need it and then you backstab someone'. I tend to like those kinds of games much better than a pure coop like Pandemic.

I think LOTR Nazgul shines in this area and carves out new space for experimenting with the genre. I will say that LOTR N has felt the least like a co-op of any co-op game I've played. That's becuase there is a huge focus on personal victory obtaining victory points along the way. Defeat a hero? Gain vp. Beat a quest? Gain vp. There is a mad dash for personal vp which scratches the 'I win' itch, while still maintaining the 'we should all go here or we'll never beat this area' feel as well.

To this part of the game is seemless and elegent and done very well, so bravo on the dynamics of the design.

The box says 90 minutes. I think you'll find this is a longer game than this. I think this will take every bit of 2 hours to play, if not longer. Like any game, once you gain familiarity, I'm sure this will get better, but there are a ton of moving parts, and lots of little things to keep track of, so plan for 2 hours of game play.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

For the most part the compenents were great. The cubes and Nazgul minis were off the hook amazing. The game was VERY fun to play, and excelled at setting you deep in the world, looking at everything through the evil eyes of The Nine. Setting/theme: very well executed.

This has an overlay as a 'sort of a co-op game' but really shines as a game where you can focus on your own path to victory obtaining victory points in any method you choose. Just make sure to meet the end game condition or else you all lose! So as a co-op game, it shines, and is very high on player interaction.

One very cool part of battle that I forgot to mention above but deserve mention is the fact that: during battle, if your Nazgul gets injured, you're allowed to assign the damage to another players Nazgul in the same battle! This sounds really evil and 'take that', but comes off very cool. Besides the Nazgul minis, this was my second favorite part of the game. A cool rule that promotes 'who's really your friend' player interaction. 'semi cooperative' is right.

Overally I really liked it. It didn't blow me away like Mage Knight and Lords of Waterdeep did, but I'm highly intrigued, and I definitely want to play again as soon as possible to further explore the world and all of the games possibilities.

Review: Scarab Lords:: The Purge: Review #6: Scarab Lords: I have no idea how to say the name of this game and other random thoughts

william4192 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:32:49 +0000

by william4192

]]>

Conclusion: I refuse the hide the ball. This is a good, light filler. We did not see all the cards in any game played (some games are automatically discarded to never be seen again). This is a fun little game that can be played with 2-4 players. Scarab Lords is an interesting game like Battle Line, except some of the cards give you powers (or an advantage) and the use of curses are different. There are other similarities and differences and there is enough different where you can enjoy both games.

Scarab Lords is a good game, but not great. I wouldn't play it more than 1-2 times in a night (maybe playing each side once) and it should stay fresh. The theme is interesting (Egyptian) but it is pasted on (it is a Kneisa game after all!

Overall, this is a fun little game; don't expect too much and you may have fun. You can play as a starter game or to end a good evening. It is easier to teach by doing a quick overview and then play a round. There will be some AP as you get used to the cards as you have to read each card for its power (if there is one).

There is luck involved in the game. The two sides (from what I can tell), do not have the same cards. Based on when and what cards you draw, can make or break you at times. Some cards are more useful late in the game and if you draw them early you lose their potential powers.

]]>

Components: The components are okay and maybe even good for a card game. The cards are small and not of great stock (but not horrible either; just middle of the road at best). The curse markers are okay chits and the pyramids are just a piece of plastic with no artwork on it. The little divider of the cards has nice art, but it is nothing to write home about. The components are fine for this type of game, but some will be disappointed. The art work on the cards is small, not detailed, but I have seen much worse. In other words, you won't buy this game for the components.

]]>

Rules: The rule book itself is very bland. It uses an ugly brown and white motif and the pictures are not in color. It is not greatly organized, but it is passable. You will learn the rules okay from the book, but it lacks examples (it has a couple). The big missing point to me was a description of the cards. Some of the text was ambiguous and I had to look it up on the geek to figure out what it meant. Serviceable at best.

]]>

Flow of Play: Each side starts with some cards. A divider is placed on the table to divide each side. There are three markers on each end (totaling 6) and a middle place for the Gods. You can play up to 3 Gods on your side, but if the other team plays a Gods all of yours is discarded. Gods merely give you extra powers and break the rules of the game.

Otherwise, you will have 4 things to do on your turn. Play "0" cards (as many as you like), Play one "1" card, Play one "2" card, and then supremacy. Cards will have a 0, 1, 2, or S (or nothing) on them. This signifies which round they can be played it. In addition, each card will have blue, red, or green on it to specify where on the board it can be played (these colors represent religion, military, and economic). These colors match the divider. As you play the cards, your side becomes more powerful. After playing the 3 rounds, you move to the supremacy where you simply calculate how powerful each side is and if they are the most powerful they get a pyramid on it. If you get 2 out of 3 on each side of the divider, you win (or your opponent runs out of cards).

I've left a couple of rules out (like curse cards; which prohibit you from scoring from a card if it is cursed), but this is the main flow of the game.

The game moves fast with little down town (except for reading your cards). There are three decks of cards, but only two are used in the normal game. The third deck is the advanced version where you play the best of three games.

Once a card is discarded, the discard pile is never reshuffled or used again. This was an interesting dynamic. Also, some of the cards had powers when you played them and still fewer allowed you a power if you used an action.

]]>

Should I buy this game?: This game is pretty cheap second hand. If you have a need for a filler game that has some bite, this might be the game for you. Bang for the buck should be high on this game and I'd recommend it. If you have Battle Line and like it, this might be a great variant for that game. I'd recommend this game, but understand you are not getting a top 10 game, but there is some thought and strategy to it.

Review: Befuzzled:: Befuzzled Be Fun - The Board Game Family Review

TheBoardGameFamily — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:26:17 +0000

by TheBoardGameFamily

Our family had a great time the other night playing Befuzzled. And though we’ve had this card game for a while, we haven’t yet posted a review of it. Well, it’s time to change that because Befuzzled is a fun family game.

Even though I just mentioned Befuzzled as a card game, it feels more like a party game. Mostly because everyone’s acting out at the same time and there’s a lot of laughing.

Befuzzled is a very simple game. The quicker you are at doing the correct action, the better chance you have of winning. The catch is knowing what action you need to perform.

How to play Befuzzled
Like many party games, Befuzzled is played in turns with a different judge each turn. The job of the judge is to notice who does the correct action first. The rest of the players just act out.

First you randomly choose 8 Action cards and place them face up on the table. These are the potential actions players will be performing. Next, you take the 8 Shape cards and randomly place them face-up on the Action cards you just placed so that you can see/read the action to perform.

Then you’re ready to roll.

The first judge takes a secret look at the top Flip card (which has 1 of the 8 possible shapes) so he/she has advanced knowledge of what action to be watching for. Then he/she flips over that card and the rest of the players match that Shape with the associated Action and perform it as quickly as they can.

The first one to perform it gets the Flip card and the role of judge moves to the next player. After you go through the Flip cards, the round ends and each player adds up the number of cards they won. Play 5 rounds and see who has the highest total score.

Nice and simple. But it’s also simply fun.

Can the whole family enjoy Befuzzled?
Befuzzled is definitely a family friendly game. It’s all about simple, light-hearted, fun.

While the recommended ages for the game are 7+, children younger than 7 could play but we’d highly suggest they play against similarly aged players.

Since the crux of the game is all about how quickly you can recognize a shape and perform the matching action, speed is of the essence and older kids will definitely have the advantage. You could also adjust it for younger kids to put less Action cards in play so they only have 3 or 4 actions to remember or think about.

Notice that I didn’t include adults in the age advantage category. That’s because we don’t see any clear advantage for adults over teenagers. At least in our family, it was pretty evenly matched with our two oldest.

And we have some great laughs. Jaden was pretty quick to test pre-selecting an action to take and hope the Flip card matched the action. But with 8 actions on the table, the odds aren’t so great. So then he’d resort to seeing how many of the actions he could combine together as quickly as possible, such as: Shouting “boo” while barking and touching his nose on the way to making binoculars that would morph into antlers – getting a quick run on 5 of the 8 actions.

How does Befuzzled score on the “Let’s Play Again” game meter?
Because Befuzzled is such a quick game to play that keeps everyone actively engaged the whole time, it scores high on the “Let’s play again” game meter. It’s a game that will make frequent appearances at family night and extended family gatherings to keep an energetic mood.

Thanks Fun Q Games for another fun family game!

]]>

Follow The Board Game Family:
A list of all our family board game and card game video reviews can also be found on BGG in this Family Video Reviews GeekList.
www.TheBoardGameFamily.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BoardGameFamily
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheBoardGameFamily

Review: Give Me the Brain!:: Good Help Is Hard To Find

Mr Bassman — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:26:10 +0000

by Mr Bassman

Editor's Note: The following review can also be found on the blog Amateur Teratologist (http://amateurteratologist.blogspot.com) which is devoted to an analysis of movies of the horror genre. It is intended for readers whose experience with games is largely limited to bringing along an Uno deck to keep the kids occupied while waiting at the airport for a flight to board.

Nowadays you not only find zombies lurching across the cinema screen, but you can also discover them lurking in the boxes of games like Last Night on Earth, Mall of Horror, and Zombie State: Diplomacy of the Dead. Yet in the mid-'90s, the only zombie themed game you were likely to find was SPI's Dawn of the Dead, a hex-and-counter style combat game with rule set complex enough to scare off all but the most ardent wargamer.

In 1995, game designer James Ernest reasoned that the most important parts of a game are its rules and not the components, so he founded Cheapass Games to inexpensively publish a line of games which usually contained nothing more than a sheet of rules, cards, and sometimes a game board. Give Me The Brain is his game about zombies working in a fast food franchise.

If the only card games with which you are familiar are various incarnations of Uno, then playing any of the Cheapass games will be a novel experience. Give Me The Brain starts with players using humorous bidding cards such as "The pickles are staring at me," and "I'm locked in the fleezah!" to get the brain. Getting the brain is important because task cards with the brain icon on them can only be played by the player who has the brain. And emptying your hand by playing all your cards is how you win.

Give Me The Brain also includes a rudimentary action point system in the form of the hand icons on the cards that determines how many tasks a turn you can play. You can't play cards that contain a total of more than two hands during a turn--unless you are fortunate enough to find a third hand in the back

Unlike George Romero's zombie classics Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead which make gory social commentary about brainless mass consumerism, Give Me the Brain pokes fun at that high school rite of passage, the food franchise job. While it may be politically incorrect now to ridicule minimum wage employees, the mid-90s were the boom time when hamburger joint counters were manned by bored teenagers who had trouble making change without counting on their fingers.

Give Me The Brain is not terribly deep, nor is there pulse pounding tension as you desperately search for another ammo clip to refill your pistol. Instead, you will experience the frustration of one step forward and two steps back as playing cards like "Who, Me?" force you to draw more cards, because obviously you don't have enough to do. As for theme, well, the cards do have pictures of zombies on them. And you can play the game mindlessly.

Review: Zooloretto Würfelspiel:: [Voice of Experience] An Excellent Board Game to Dice Game Conversion

scottredracecar — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:27:18 +0000

by scottredracecar

Zooloretto Würfelspiel is an excellent distillation of the Zooloretto board game that strips out some of the chrome, but leaves the fun "I split, you choose" mechanism.

Lineage

Coloretto existed on its own for a few years and had become a prominent filler game by the time that the Zooloretto board game was released. Michael Schacht released alternate takes on the "*retto" franchise, but they did not make such a splash as Zooloretto which won the 2007 Spiel des Jahres. Zooloretto was expanded upon endlessly, but these were typically minor rules tweaks. Spinoff games Aquaretto and Zooloretto Mini added more of the same style of gameplay. However, in the wake of the dice game explosion currently underway (Bohnanza Dice, keltis wurg), Zooloretto Wurfelspiele incorporates the Zooloretto theme, while using dice in an interesting way.

Aspects that Zooloretto Würfelspel Improves Upon

I have always felt that Coloretto was a little too light and depended on the card draw more than I would have liked. Zooloretto Würfelspel improves upon this by offering a more transparent set of options.

My most significant problem with the Zooloretto board game was that it was difficult to track the current score. The few times I played, I could usually not guess the winner and I could not track the game tempo. This problem is retained with Zooloretto Würfelspiel, but the online implementation on yucata.de keeps track of the current score. I recommend keeping track of the current score when playing the physical game as well. Also, the option for direct player interaction (pay another player for an animal from their barn) did not strike me as fitting with the rest of the board game. Zooloretto Würfelspiel has a simple coin mechanism that removes this interaction.

Player Count. The game plays fine with multiple players, but I feel it is unquestionably best with two players. The competition is most direct and the dice allocation can be performed ruthlessly. Additional players add player chaos and a little more downtime. Luckily, most games on yucata.de are played as 2-player and it is easy to find and finish a game.

Dice Mechanics. I prefer the dice as a randomizer to the cards in Coloretto or the tiles in Zooloretto. In those games, there is a pool of hidden information (unrevealed tiles or cards) and a pool of open or trackable information. However, in Zooloretto Würfelspel, there is no hidden information and the current game state is easily understandable from reading the other players' score cards.

Real Decisions.While Zooloretto Würfelspiel is a short game, it contains real decisions that begin very early. There are usually not obviously correct moves. In fact, there are often situations where many reasonable options are available. Once some dice are on the wagons, there are usually about seven or eight ways to allocate the dice. Some can be immediately discarded, but there are usually three or four reasonable options.

Baiting the Opponent. One of the primary strategies is to set out a tasty combination of animals or coins to bait the other player into taking an early wagon, leaving you to allocate the rest of the dice optimally without interference.

Pacing. Zooloretto Würfelspiel revolves around setting the right pace for loading the animals. The game ends quickly, so it is important for players to keep pace with the leader. A bonus is given to the player that first fills a given animal's pen. This encourages players to compete in small races and offers additional tension in the "I split, you choose" decision space.

Tracking the Current Game State. One problem with the game as played with the physical components is that it is somewhat difficult to ascertain the current score with a quick glance. It is possible to add up another player's midgame score easily, but it is clumsy. However, the sheets have been designed to easily facilitate endgame scoring. Luckily, the interface on Yucata.de clearly tracks the current score. Ideally, the physical game could come with such a convenient method for tracking scores. I recommend bringing your own scoring track to the game.

Physical Production. The game's production is simple--10 dice, a not-quite-necessary board and the scoring pad. All the dice are the same. The dice are made of wood and are well produced. Although it would be less fun, it would be possible to substitute D6s.

Availability. Zooloretto Würfelspiel is currently available as an import from Germany and is playable for free on Yucata.de.

Final Thoughts

Zooloretto Würfelspiel is cutthroat, but contains enough luck and variability to keep me coming back for more games. I have played over 100 times on Yucata.de. Because the game state can be immediately understood, it is an ideal game for asynchronous play. It is the best of the board game to dice game conversions I have played because it retains the theme, but builds upon the gameplay and exceeds its predecessors.

Review: Those Pesky Humans!:: Those Pesky Humans! Review

vmp0514 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:18:27 +0000

by vmp0514

Those wishing to see the full review (pictures included) can do so at the following page:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/those-pesky-hum...

A full list of my board game reviews can be found on the same site here:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/board-game-reviews/

---
It’s been a while since I’ve played a dungeon crawler themed board game. The last one I remember playing was HeroQuest, featuring that menacing barbarian on the front of the box that looked like he had skipped his regular morning dose of Zoloft. I don’t recall ever playing that game correctly either…I just enjoyed making the plastic figures fight each other. I’ve always wanted to get into D&D and other RPGs, but as I got older, I found myself losing patience for things that were overly complex in nature. If I had to spend days understanding the three hundred page rulebook, I tended to just file the game away to be addressed later…much, much later.

Those Pesky Humans!: 2-4 Players, Ages 13+, Average Play Time = 90 Minutes

Fortunately, I came across “Those Pesky Humans!” and I was able to understand the game mechanics fairly quickly. Before we get started, I wanted to extend another “thank you” to James Mathe from Minion Games for sending me a free copy to review…the same person who sent me Nile DeLuxor, which I covered here:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/nile-deluxor/

“Those Pesky Humans!” is a two to four player game where one player takes on the role of the monsters while the other players take on the role of the humans. The humans are attempting to find three magical gems hidden throughout the dungeon and escape before the monsters slay them all. Let’s take a look at what comes in the box and how the game is played before heading into the review.

Components

Hexagonal Room Tiles – Room tiles serve as the main playing board. Monsters and humans alike will be moving through these rooms, each trying to accomplish their own objectives. There are also smaller hex tiles that indicate starting positions for both sides.

Doors - Doors mainly serve to slow down the humans. The base covers the status of the door so that the humans don’t know what kind of door it is until they attempt to open it. Doors can be locked, regular, or trapped.

Resource Tokens – Resource tokens are placed facedown throughout the dungeon for the humans to reveal. Three of those tokens are the gems that the humans need to collect before making their escape.

Character Sheets – Both the humans and monsters have their own character sheets. There are four sheets for the humans and one sheet for the monsters.

Decks – There are two decks that players will be drawing from throughout the game, one for the monsters and one for the humans.

Special Ability Cards – The monster and human avatars have a set of special abilities that they can choose from at the beginning of the game and play them as the game progresses.

Counters – These tokens are placed on the appropriate character sheet as the humans and monsters take damage.

Dice – The dice are rolled during combat and as needed during special circumstances. The red one is given to the monsters and the blue one is given to the humans.

Avatars – These cardboard figures represent the humans and monsters that will be making their way through the dungeon.

Please be advised that the below is simply an overview of the rules and does not cover every little detail found in the manual. There are also minor differences based on how many players are playing the game. For purposes of this review, I’ll cover the rules for the normal two player game, though the pictures will feature us playing the three player variant.

Monsters Setup

(This setup is for the player controlling the monsters)

1) Shuffle the ten room tiles and flip them at random. Arrange them any way you like, assuming that there is a path leading to every room. Place the doors between the rooms however you’d like, up to ten doors.

2) Pick out ten resource tokens, making sure that three are gems and two are secret passages. Place them strategically throughout the dungeon, as you like, one resource token per room.

3) Place the starting tiles for the humans and monsters on opposite ends of the dungeon. The monster avatar goes on the monster starting location.

4) Pick out three special ability cards…they are used once per game, so choose wisely!

5) Shuffle the monster and human decks and place them near the board. The monster deck has four encounter cards…put those aside. Draw five cards from the monster deck.

Humans Setup

(This setup is for the players controlling the humans)

1) Pick out three human avatars, then three special ability cards for each human.

2) Place the human avatars on the human starting location.

3) The human avatars all share one hand and draw five cards from the human deck.

4) The humans go first.

Gameplay

The monster player and the human player take turns performing the following actions:

Phase One: Draw – The human player draws one card and places it in their hand while the monster player draws two. Regardless of who’s turn it is, both sides can play cards, with a few exceptions. Minion cards, for example, can only be played on the monster player’s turn. There is no limit to how many cards you can play during this phase or how many cards you have in your hand.

Phase Two: Movement – Only the player who’s turn it is can move their avatars / monsters. Each avatar can move as many hexes as is indicated on their move stat. There are quite a number of rules regarding movement so I’ll skip that in the interest of getting to the review.

Phase Three: Combat – You can initiate combat if you are adjacent to an enemy avatar. The goal of combat is to score hits against the other party…which can be accomplished by comparing the attacker’s total attack value with the defender’s total defense value. Both sides will roll a die, add their character sheet’s appropriate attack or defense stat, and finally add in any special abilities or resources they may have. If the attacker wins, they score a hit and a counter is placed on the defender’s character sheet / card. If the number of hits equals an avatar’s life points, they die.

Both sides will continue taking turns until either the humans have escaped back to their starting tile with all three gems or until the monster player is successful in slaying them all.

The Review

First, I’d like to comment that the artwork is great. The game manages to maintain a dungeon crawler theme while still being light and somewhat silly…and I say silly in the best way possible. My eleven year old son Vinnie Jr. commented on how funny some of the cards were, which only served to draw him in more than he already was.

I personally love how flexible the game allows you to be. I prefered playing the role of the monsters for a couple of reasons…the main one being that I could change the rules as I needed to in order to keep things fun and fair. If I thought that the kids were having a tough time with the monsters, I’d back off and not spawn as many, giving them a little breathing room. If I thought that they were having an easy time, I’d continuously spawn monsters until I felt that their egos were put back into check. This game allows me to adapt to the current situation and control everyone’s play experience…as both a parent and “dungeon master”, that turns out to be a lot of fun.

You can also play solo, if you’re willing to be creative. One person could hypothetically play both sides and make up their own rules as far as how aggressive the monsters are and etc. As you’ve probably gathered by now, I’ve always been of the belief that one can bend the rules (in regards to games) to make their play experience best suited for them. Who knows, maybe you’ll come up with a great variant that others might enjoy adapting…use your imagination!

The game only takes between an hour or two to play, which significantly ups its appeal in my book. As a full-time accountant and full-time dad, time is a precious commodity. I simply don’t have the time to devote entire weekends to one long dungeon crawler. This game progresses at just the right pace…that is…producing the end result fairly quickly while maintaining the feeling that you just embarked on an epic journey. The quick play variant included in the manual is also a welcome addition.

My son particularly liked managing a party and slaying a bunch of monsters…who wouldn’t? Out of all of the humans, he favored the magician class, mainly because he could teleport and “fry” a monster instantly with his special powers. Anthony Jr, the sixteen year old, enjoyed playing the rogue because she was able to get out of a lot of bad situations. He ended up using her to grab the gems and make a quick dash for the exit while using his paladin and a distraction card to pull my monsters away…quite ingenious.

I highly recommend this game for people who enjoy light dungeon crawlers. There are certainly others out there that are much deeper and take a lot longer to play, but if you aren’t the kind of person that gets enjoyment out of spending two hours to resolve one combat action, then “Those Pesky Humans!” is right for you.

You can learn more about Minion Games by visiting their official site here:

http://www.miniongames.com/

You can learn more about and purchase the game by visiting Minion Games, Amazon, or Board Game Geek here:

http://www.miniongames.com/those-pesky-humans.html

http://www.amazon.com/Minion-Games-Those-Pesky-Humans/dp/B00...

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/76442/those-pesky-hum...

Review: Lords of Waterdeep:: Lords of Waterdeep: Mostly Harmless

navajas — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:00:19 +0000

by navajas

DISCLAIMER: I am an adult and I speak and write like an adult. This means I occasionally use naughty words. Either deal, or click away.

This is only my second review on the geek, and my first of a game anyone might actually play. I’m going to go ahead and give you a spoiler or two right off the bat; 1) This is not a very good game at all, and; 2) I like it a lot.

I’m not a fan of rules in reviews, but since this game can be explained to any off the street in five minutes, and anyone who has ever played a worker placement game in about 60 seconds, I’m tempted to do so anyway.

RULES
Each player in turn places an agent on a space on the board for which they receive some game commodity. Already occupied spaces are typically off limits. When everyone’s done, scoop them up, perform one minor bit of upkeep (placing VP chips on buildings), and do it all over again. Eight rounds and you’re out.

COMPONENTS
The Box: Is horrible. There are a couple reasons for this. I think Josh Dribble, better known by his internet handle as KLLrzST-18/00, that 10th grader from down the street who wears nothing but black t-shirts with dragons and metal bands on them, had to have painted the cover art. It is, literally, fucking embarrassing, two dimensional and amateur. And I’m talking Larry Elmore could have done better. *shudder* It’s the kind of thing jock/nerds like me who have trouble accepting their nerdy half, especially in front of other straights, would hide from view at all costs. Secondly, the cardboard is pretty flimsy compared to just about every other box I own save AEG’s (God those suck, eh what?): One corner is already shredded.

The Insert: I have no idea from where the people who complain about this insert are coming. I packed this thing up as intended, stuck it sideways in my carry on and took it to Florida. (I live in Washington state.) When I unpacked at the vacation house each and every of the five 100 point VP tokens had fallen out. And that was it. Maybe, maybe, Earth Reborn could have performed as well, but it’s sure as hell ain’t fitting in my carry on.

Rule Book: Beat you on the head level thorough. I think they could have been printed on a 3x5 card, but I understand you have to go in with the idea that maybe this is a person’s second ever game purchase after having played nothing but Hi Ho Cherry-O.

The Bits: All the pieces, from the cards, to the buildings, to the chits, to the wooden cubes are entirely adequate. The five gold moon shaped pieces are the only stand out for me, are pretty dang cool and happen to be far and away the chief relay between you and the theme. Wait. Did I just type the word theme? Ha. Theme?

THEME
This game has no theme. (I’m tempted to simply stop there.) And I mean that. No. Theme. What it has is art, yes. There are griffons and wizards and shit on the cards. That’s not “theme” any more than I feel like I’m a student at Hogwartz if I sip Dr. Pepper out of a plastic cup from 7-11 with a picture of Harry Potter on the side. Art != theme.

I’m a thematic game player. I’ve played Road Kill Rally exactly three times, the first more than a year ago, and I remember the entire narrative of every race. I remember individual missions in Space Alert. I remember hosing my cousin out of a huge load of alloy in Star Trader, leaving him holding his dick in an empty spaceport wondering what the hell happened. Theme conveys narrative, and narrative creates memories. That’s what I love about games. I’ve played Waterdeep six times in the past couple months. I’m four and two. That’s it. That’s what I remember.

My wife couldn’t fucking care less about theme for the most part. (We’re a sort of gender bent family.) When I insisted we call them “Wizards” she, literally, pointed at me, laughed, and kept on calling them “purples”. When I make her read the through the text on the mission cards, she rolls her eyes at me. I can’t really blame her: THERE IS LESS THEME HERE THAN STONEAGE.

Dig it?

Trying to sell this game as a “Euro with theme” is pathetic. Fans pandering to this notion is, I feel, likewise embarrassing. The only caveat I can possibly see is that IF you’ve read these D&D books (you’re a nerd) and you take the time out of your turn to read the missions, they might hold some personally reference for you. However, even you precise few should NOT purchase these game thinking you’re getting anything other than a bare bones, stripped down, mechanical cube pushing mathematic exercise.

GAME PLAY
As a genre, Eurogames suffer from the feeling that if you’ve played a few, you’ve played them all. That applies here in spades, however, there are sparingly few novel ideas in this game. The “Waterdeep” harbor space is an interesting decision. It allows you to play your intrigue cards (which come in three varieties; good for you; bad for them; good for you and a friend) and, since these cards, while handy, are almost never worth playing your agent elsewhere, puts you in a queue for later actions. These actions are taken in order of arrival at the Harbor after all other agents have been placed. There are a few special abilities and intrigue cards that let you do some pretty nifty/sneaky things with this mechanic and I haven’t come across it elsewhere.

The other nifty / unique thing about the game is… wait. Nope. That’s it.

I find the game entirely tactical as your strategy is literally handed out to you randomly at the beginning of the game in the form of your “Lord” card. As should be obvious by now, these are purely mechanical in nature, though the standard limp attempt at theme is attempted: There’s some very poor art on the card, and a throw away blurb. What the card does is give you two mission types that give you an extra four points. There’s one card that instead gives you six points per building. That’s it. That’s your strategy. Get those two types of missions almost at the exclusion of all others to score those points.

Why? Well, most missions offer very little return on investment. All cubes, er, adventurers, are worth 1 VP is left unspent at the end of the game. Even cursory analysis will show that very often you’re not getting a whole lot more than that on missions, and even if not, the marginal gain from those four bonus points is indispensably huge, and ignored at your peril. Occasionally you will certainly have left over cubes, or a particular combo via intrigue cards which suggest a non-bonus mission, but those are rare.

The game is then distilled into who can acquire these predestined bonus point missions with the greatest economy of actions and weigh that against the typically Euro passive aggressive denial moves to hamper that in your opponent. That, in a nutshell, is the whole game.

SCALABILITY
I've played the game with four and with two. I find that while the game is certainly different with the two groups, it is no more or less fun or interesting. It is ever so slightly harder to nail down everyone's two bonus mission types, and that's about it.

EXPANSION
My guess is this game has a few expansions ready to go. It’s possible that some of its shortcomings are already resolved and waiting for the marketers to give the call for the printers to get it on shelves. I’d be amazed if the first isn’t out before the year is up.

CONCLUSION
To keep your reading through the above I already told you I like this game despite knowing intellectually it’s kind of crap. There’s not really a single element of the game about which I don’t have at least minor gripes (save those wicked cool five gold moon coins). I don’t have a lot of love for Euros. I think they are soulless and somewhat of an artistic and industrial dead end. I have Agircola (made my own Fimo piece a blog for which is on the Geek), Stone Age (which I respect a lot for helping me home school my six year old into easy multiplication, probability and division), Constantinopolis (which my wife always wins), etc…

In other words, I’m not ignorant of the style. In fact, I like playing them for the most part. I just think they lack the emotional investment and involvement that I maintain makes a great experience. I call Euros “brain dick” games. I find the usual Euro ultra champions, “Hell, you can keep your pansy ass theme, I’ll play Stone Age with a handful of pennies on a board scribbled in sharpie on the back of an old Amazon box”, to be akin to your average short man syndrome dude in the locker room boasting about his package: “My brain’s dick is WAY bigger than your brain’s dick!”

All that said, Waterdeep is currently my favorite Euro. It isn’t the best game. In fact, it’s not even really a good game. But, it fits nicely into a lot of really helpful niches;
1)Ultra easy to teach.
2)Short playing time.
3)Easy to set up.
4)Easy to play.
5)Easy to put away.
6)Sort of fun.

In short, the above list means, Waterdeep has an extremely high return on investment. Yeah, there are lots of other WAY better games, but few if any require so little of you for the amount of (admittedly most banal and mundane) fun you net out of it, it’s hard to turn it down. It is just fun enough, it is just quick enough, it is just deep enough, it is just easy enough, it is just… It is just so pleasantly somewhat above average. And when get a game that is so undeniably inoffensive, that has basically NO overhead, you end up with a pretty decent product.

Lords of Waterdeep: Mostly Harmless.

Review: Troyes:: A Friest, a Fax Correcer, and a Gerdsmert Walk Into a Bar…

stevetrpi — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:20:54 +0000

by stevetrpi

Troyes (pronounced “twa”) is perhaps the script-fontedest game I’ve played so far this year. This is a euro game through and through and a bit on the heavier side, but if you are in for a challenge involving both little cubes and actually affecting your opponent’s board position, maybe Troyes is the game for you. Let’s find out, shall we?

]]>
The board from above -
yes, it is a bit confusing, isn’t it?

In Troyes, each player represents a wealthy and influential family in the French city of Troyes during the Middle Ages. There are three main aspects to life in Troyes which you must battle for control of, in order to get the respect your family so richly deserves: The Military (represented in red throughout the game,) The Church (white,) and The Lowly Toiling Peasants (yellow.) The player who accomplishes this most efficiently will gain the ever-present victory points needed to win any euro worth its salt.

Before the game-proper begins, there is sort of a little drafting mini game in which each player gets to place two citizens (meeples) onto the board. Starting with the first player, each person gets to place one citizen into one of the three buildings: the religious building called the Bishopric, the military headquarters called the Palace, and the home of the poor rabble, the City Hall. This continues as a serpentine draft until each player has put down four citizens. As each building can hold only six citizens total, there is some jockeying for position here. Any spots not claimed by a player are filled in with gray non-player citizens. Position in the buildings can be very important: there are ways in the action phase to knock citizens out on their painted wooden butts – more on this later.

]]>
Fempsar? Tamplet? Temalar?

The game is broken into rounds and each round is further broken into phases. Phase zero (yes, there is a phase zero) simply involves flipping over one activity card for each of the three domains (military, religious, civil) and trying to parse the names of each one through the dense fog of their baroque typeface. This phase is called phase zero because it only happens in the first three rounds of the game with subsequent rounds beginning at phase one. Once you’ve figured out the names of the cards, you can see what they actually do. Each one provides two areas onto which players can put citizens which allow them to use the card’s ability and score some points at the end of the game.

Next is phase one: each player receives an income of ten Deniers (coins) and then has to pay his or her citizens, depending on what building they are in: Palace workers cost two coins each and Bishopric workers one, while those in the city hall apparently survive on air and children’s dreams as they are completely free to employ.

Phase two is called “assembling the workforce.” Or perhaps the more heroic “Workforce ASSEMBLE!” In this phase, each player rolls one die for each citizen he or she has in a building, according to the color of building it occupies. So with two citizens in the Palace, one in the City Hall, and one in the Bishopric, you would roll two red, one yellow, and one white die. This can be a bit confusing the first time you play, but you’ll get into the swing of it pretty quick. Each player has their own section of the town square at the center of the board where they place their dice, including the unplayed gray team whose dice are always rolled by whoever happens to be the first player for the round.

Next is the “everything goes to poop” or “events” phase. Every round, the players are bombarded with at least three event cards: the permanent “Marauding” card which always stays on the board, a freshly drawn military card, and a card which will either deal with religious or civil affairs. In addition to this, you also have to contend with any events you didn’t get rid of in the previous rounds. All event cards are universally “bad” – that is, their effects are usually bad to someone. But they can definitely be manipulated to do more damage to your opponents than to yourself.

]]>
Blue’s citizen has been kicked out of the
City Hall and just lays there like a lump.

Many of them have a one-off effect that triggers each round, like adding a gray citizen to a building (and kicking out someone else) or making all players pay three coins to the bank. The rest show some number of black dice. The first player rolls all of the dice shown and then has to counter at least one (the highest one) using dice from his or her own pool of red, yellow, or white dice by discarding dice with an equal or higher total (although for this purpose, red dice count as double their rolled value.) For each one he or she counters, they get an influence point which can be used to manipulate dice rolls or hire more citizens. Any black dice he or she doesn’t counter get passed to the next player who must then counter at least the highest remaining one and so on. Choosing which ones to counter and which to pass is a key concept that can only really be understood by playing the game. How much do I need influence? Which dice will my opponents discard to counter a die? Should I use a lower value red die, or a higher value white or yellow? As you can guess, this makes for some tough decisions.

After all of the black dice are defeated comes the real meat of the game: the actions phase. All of the actions (except passing) require a player to use from one to three dice, but the interesting twist here is that you can use your opponents’ dice as well as your own. Say what? Yes! By paying your opponent some cash (the price of a die goes up the more you intend to use for your action) you can take one of his or her dice and use it for some nefarious purpose.

]]>
The Cathedral goes up, cube by cube.

Actions include using the activity cards that were flipped up in phase zero, adding cubes to the Cathedral which nets you points and some influence, getting rid of event cards, putting a citizen on a building, or trading in for cash. The color of dice used is always determined by the action you are taking: building the Cathedral uses white dice, while fighting off brigands uses red dice. I won’t go through all of them here, but the basic premise is to get resources like cash and influence and convert them into points using the action cards, build the Cathedral, and defeat the event cards, which gives you an immediate points payoff.

Remember how I mentioned earlier how you can boot citizens out of the three buildings? Well, the action phase is where this happens. Whenever you use a die to place a citizen into a building, it will kick another one out faster than an over-zealous fire marshal at a New York rave. But WHO you kick out depends on the number on the die you used to place your citizen. Placing a citizen into the City Hall and Bishopric will push one or two meeples to the right, dropping the last one into the abyss and putting a new citizen in peril, while each spot in the Palace is associated with a single die roll, always ending in a one-for-one swap. On the bright side, a citizen dropped from a building stays on the board until the end of the round to signal that no player may bump another of that color meeple from that building – until next round.

Unlike just about every other game out there even passing in this game is an interesting decision: as soon as you pass, you start to accumulate some free cash. As long as the other players keep taking actions, you get more free cash. The round ends as soon as all of the dice in the city square have been used or everyone passes in a row. At that point the next player becomes First Player and the next round begins.

At the veeeeeery beginning of the game each player is also given a secret character card. The characters are famous personages from the history of France who represent ideals that yadda… yadda… basically, they are secret victory conditions that give you bonus points at the end for meeting specific criteria such as having a certain number of influence points or cash. When the final red event card is drawn, the game ends at the end of the current round and each player reveals his or her character. But, like a blueprint from an over-excited F1 track designer, there is yet another twist. Each player scores bonus points based on meeting the requirements for ALL of the revealed characters. This means that some hawk-like vigilance during the game itself can really pay off: What are my opponents trying to do that might relate to their characters?

]]>
Blue finishes off some brigands. Defeating
event cards is a good way to net some big points.

Players add up their accumulated victory points, bonus points from characters, and points from citizens they placed on activity cards. The high scorer is the winner, with no tie breaker (as we discovered in our first game this past weekend!)

Troyes is a cool game with a lot going on. There are plenty of things to do – a plethora of points to be scored – but you can only do so much during your turn. Like most euros, Troyes is about efficiency of motion: you have to try to get everything you can out of each action, with the minimum cost. For fans of other euros, this should fit right into the middle of your difficulty curve. For AT fans, this won’t be your bread and butter, but I could potentially see some enjoyment here due to the screwage factor of the building bumping. I would never try this with new gamers, but I do plan on getting it out more with my more experienced friends. WORKFORCE ASSEMBLE!

Thanks for reading! This review and lots more can be found at my blog: www.TimWinGame.com

Review: Qwirkle:: Every 100 Games Series - Qwirkle

ooogene — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 01:25:33 +0000

by ooogene

My 3,100th game played was Qwirkle. Well, to be exact it was something like 3,098, but since I’d already reviewed Invasion, I went with Qwirkle. A couple thoughts I’ve just had. First, I should really finish my Geeklist that shows all these “Every 100 Games Series” reviews. Second, I should come up with a standard starting paragraph, now that I’m 31 reviews in.

]]>

My First Experience
My first and only play of Qwirkle came at the end of the 2012 Regional Warhammer: Invasion tournament. We were waiting on the tourney to end and so a few of us who had been eliminated, picked the game up, learned the rules and played. Since then I’ve downloaded Mind Feud on the iOS, which is essentially Qwirkle plus some double & triple scoring similar to Scrabble. So my plays of the game are somewhere closer to 12 or 13 if you count Mind Feud.

The Components
The game comes in a smaller white box, with a bag, and nice chunky wooden black pieces. There is no board, which I really like, so you just lay your tiles out on the table. These tiles probably should be called blocks instead of tiles. They are really thick, so thick in fact you can just set them on edge and display them in front of you, so that you do not even need a tile display that might come in a game like Scrabble or Rummikub. Each of these tiles has 1 of 6 different types of images that are in 1 of 6 colors. I believe there are three of each tile, so you have 108 different tiles.

]]>

The Game Play
On their turn a player can do one of 2 things. They can trade out any number of tiles from their hand (which consists of 6 tiles) for that many tiles from the bag or they can play tiles. When a player plays tiles they have to be the played so they attach to a column or row that is already in play (think Scrabble here). They can play as many tiles as they’d like, but they all have to share either the same color or same shape. When adding to the board, you cannot ever have the same shape & color appear twice in a row or column of six. So in other words, there cannot be two green circles in a single row or column. Players then score 1 point for each tile in a row or column they added to. If, they put the 6th tile in a row, then they get a “Qwirkle” which is worth an additional 6 points. At the end of their turn, the player draws back up to 6 tiles in their hand. The game ends when 1 person runs out of tiles and can’t draw anymore. That person gets a bonus 6 points.

]]>

What I Think
I was pleasantly surprised by this game. I knew that it had recently won the German Game of the Year award, despite being an American designed game from 2006. I also had some friends that had recommended to me. I figured I wouldn’t like it so much, with it being so much like Scrabble, if you hadn’t already gathered that from this review. However, I DO like it. The reason I like it much more than I like Scrabble are two fold. First, as I already mentioned, there is no board. You just build how you see fit. The added “board” in the iOS version actually is a detriment I think. The second reason and the biggest is that I don’t have to know some crazy, unheard of, and unique word that uses a “Q” & “Z” that lands on a triple score. I just make plays and try not to set my opponent up to make plays. But if I do set them up, at least they aren’t score a bajillion more points that I will be able to my next turn. I heartily recommend Qwirkle to any person, gamer or non-gamer, because I think it’ll go over well with family with young kids, gamers looking for a 30 minute experience, or old Aunt Milly who you can’t ever beat at Scrabble because she knew the word “quixotry”. I don’t even know what that means or want too.

Okay, if you look it up and want to tell me, I’d listen.

*Originally posted at http://theologyboardgameslife.blogspot.com/2012/05/every-100...

**Images are here from BGG. Please click them and give their posters a thumb!

Review: Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas:: Father Geek's Review of Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas (prepublished version)

fathergeek — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 01:25:17 +0000

by fathergeek

Please Take Note: This is a review of the game’s final prototype. The art, game bits, and the rules discussed are all subject to change. The game is being reviewed on the components and the rules provided with the understanding that “what you see is not what you might get” when the game is published. If you like what you read and want to learn more, we encourage you to visit the game’s official web site or visit the Kickstarter project page to back it and get yourself a copy! Now that we have all that disclaimer junk out of the way, on with the review!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Basics:
o For ages 7 and up (designer suggests 12+)
o For 2 to 4 players
o About 30 minutes to complete

Geek Skills:
o Counting & Math
o Logical & Critical Decision Making
o Strategy & Tactics
o Risk vs. Reward
o Visuospatial Skills
o Hand/Resource Management
o Emotional Coping Skills

Learning Curve:
o Child – Moderate
o Adult – Easy

Theme & Narrative:
o Set sail on the high seas for adventure and profit! Be the first to find the treasure and return to your home port to win, while avoiding your opponents and their cannon fire at all cost!

Endorsements:
o Gamer Geek approved!
o Parent Geek approved!
o Child Geek approved!

Overview

A’hoy dar, Matey! You be lookin’ fur adventure, be ye! Well dat be a good thing, boy-oh, as we set sail on de tide! Dar be treasure to be found and I got me’s a map! But ye best slap dat smile off yer face! Ain’t no thing for free and I know it to be true dat der be more den one pirate on these waters! Navigatin’ be one thing. Bringin’ home de treasure to spend be anut’er! Grab yer sword and spyglass, ye swab! We got work to do!

Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas is comprised of 20 Navigation dice (in 4 different colors, 5 per players), 1 Treasure die (a bonus die to be captured!), 4 Player Mats, 4 Ship dice (in 4 different colors, one per player), and 6 Map boards (on which would-be-pirates set sail). Note that the final game might contain more and I cannot comment on the quality as we were given a prototype which does not represent the final product.

Preparing to Sail

To set up the game, each player selects the 6 dice of the same color (5 navigation dice and 1 Ship die) and 1 Player Mat. Find the starting and ending Map boards (Treasure Cove) and set them aside. Shuffle the remaining Map boards and select 2 at random. Put these Map boards with the starting and ending Map boards. The remaining Map boards are removed from the duration of the game.

Now build the open seas on which adventure and danger await! This is done by creating an “S” shaped playing space using the 4 Map boards as shown in the following image.

Visual example of Map board set up

Place the Treasure die on the “X” position located on the ending Map board (Treasure Cove). The players now roll their Ship die and the player with the highest value rolled chooses their starting position, followed by the next highest and so on until all players have placed their Ship die with the “6″ value at top on one of the four starting positions facing any orthogonal direction they choose. These spots are referred to as the player’s “home port” and indicate the final position the player must be in with the Treasure die at the end of the game to complete one of the two game’s winning conditions.

You are now ready to set sail!

Under the Brave Black Flag I Fly

All players take their turns simultaneously unless a specific action by one player contradicts or is direct conflict with another player’s action. Regardless, all players will complete a round by completing three simply phases.

1. Roll and Place Dice
2. Reveal and Resolve
3. End-Turn

Roll and Place Dice

This is the first phase in which all players will roll their dice and use the results to determine how their ship moves on the Map boards. This is done by first rolling all the dice. The player must always select one dice per roll to place on their Player Mat, but a player is always welcome to select more than one, too. Once a die is placed on the Player’s Mat, it can no longer be rolled and must remain in the space it was set until the second phase.

The dice values rolled will determine the maneuvers the player’s ship will take on the water. Changing direction, spaces moved on the Map board, and a few maneuvers also indicate that a player will fire their cannons while moving and skullduggery to confuse and hamper a player’s opponents. In short, a single roll of the dice gives the player a lot to consider.

The Player Mat has 4 columns (meaning that 1 of the 5 die will not be used) and 3 rows. Each of the columns represents a specific maneuver and the order in which they are executed (the left most column being first, followed by the next column to the right, and so on). The three rows indicate how the maneuver on the dice are used by the player. The three rows are represented with a Ship Wheel, an Anchor, and a Skull. The Ship Wheel indicates that the die maneuver is a command the player’s ship will take during that column’s resolution. The Anchor indicates that the die maneuver is a command the player’s ship will ignore during that columns resolution. Dice cannot be placed on the Skull row by the player. The Skull row is reserved for “locking dice” when the ship takes damage.

Optionally, a player may choose to lower their sails and go about repairing their damaged ship. If a player chooses to do so, they do not roll any dice this round and simply wait until the second phase. All dice previously placed on the Player Mat remain and are not picked up.

This phase lasts until all the players have completed their dice placement. Once everyone has, continue to the second phase.

Reveal and Resolve

This is the second phase in which all the players now reveal their dice placement and resolve the die maneuvers starting with the left most column and continuing right until all the die in all the columns are accounted for. Only those dice on the Ship Wheel and the Skull row are considered commands. Any die maneuvers on the Anchor row are ignored and the player simply does nothing during that columns resolution. The only exception to this rule is skullduggery dice values (the Rum Barrel and the Anchor). If these are placed on the Anchor row, they are considered “always active” and negate any command of the same type delivered by another player.

All players complete the manuever at the same time by moving their Ship dice. The only time player’s must stop to consider the outcome is when two or more players are moving into the same spot or their maneuver in question has an outcome that is dependent on the order in which it is given. To determine which maneuver goes first, simply look at the priority number (a number on the maneuver). The maneuver with the highest value always goes first. For the most part, priority numbers will only be necessary when Ship dice are on the same Map board and where ship collisions are a concern.

If the player completes a maneuver that indicates the ship opens fire immediately afterwards, resolve any damage and continue to the next column but only after resolving the Map board features.

The Map board features occur only after all players have completed the manuevers noted in the column. Then all ships become susceptible to the natural currents and dangers of the sea. First, any ship that is on a whirlpool square will be rotated 90 degrees in the direction indicated by the arrows. Second, any ship that is on a wind square moves one square in the direction the wind is blowing.

This phase lasts until all the player’s have completed their dice resolution. Once everyone has, continue to the third and final phase.

End-Turn

This is the third and final phase of the round in which all players now open fire on each other. The left and right (port and starboard) sides of all ships now fire all their cannons. Cannonballs will continue in a straight line until they hit a ship or an island.

The Map board is now reviewed to check if the end game conditions have been met. If not, the game continues. All ships that lowered sails and survived the round now repair.

The game continues with a new round starting with first the first phase.

Example of two of the Map boards the players might be sailing on

Combat and Skullduggery

As if navigating the choppy waters, avoiding whirlpools, and strong currents weren’t enough, all player’s have opponents who have guns and the ability to ram their ship. Combat is done simply and quickly when it comes to cannon fire. If the ship is in the direct line of fire, it takes damage. Damage is recorded by the player flipping their Ship die to the next lower value. Recall that all ships start at a “6″ for hull strength. The first damage they take will reduce it to “5″ and so on until it reaches below 1 and sinks beneath the waves. The only way to avoid cannon fire is being behind another ship who takes the damage or behind an island. Reefs do not block cannon fire.

Technically, a cannon can fire more than once per round, but they will always fire at least once at the end of the round. Navigation dice in the Ship Wheel position with an asterisk (*) indicate that the cannons fire at the end of the column’s resolution. This is the only other time cannons will fire, but not he only way a ship can take damage.

Ships can also ram each other, causing damage to the other ship’s haul. Unfortunately, ships can also take damage by hitting solid objects such as reefs, islands, and other ships. If a ship hits another ship, the ship that is struck takes the damage. If a ship hits an island or a reef, the ship takes the damage and the island and reef barley notice. The amount of damage applied is one less than the ship’s current speed. Therefore, a ship going the speed of 1 will not do any damage, but a ship going the speed of 2 spaces will inflict 1 damage to another ship or suffer the damage if it strikes and island or reef. If two ships hit each head on, then both ships take damage. If hit by another ship, the ship that is struck is moved in the direction of the ramming ship, which might cause problems when navigating in the very near future.

Inflicting damage is not the only way to inflict misfortune on an opponent. There are two skullduggery (trickery) dice a player can place on their Player Mat. The Anchor will cause an opponent’s Navigation dice in the same column to be ignored (as if it was in the Anchor row) and the Rum Barrel will force an opponent to re-roll the Navigation die for that specific column, forcing that player to use whatever is rolled. Both are nasty and can ruin even the most skilled captain’s orders and day.

If a Ship die hull value is ever reduced to zero, the ship sinks. At the start of the next round, player starts with a new ship and places it on any valid space in the Map board that it was previously on before it was sunk in the current Map board. The Ship die can be rotated in any valid direction but starts with a hull value of “5″ instead of “6″. Note that a player can only do this three times during the game. If they lose a third ship to Davy Jones, they are out of the game.

Repairing at Sea

When ships take damage, the Ship die is flipped to a lower number indicating the damage the ship has taken. Once the Ship die indicates “4″ (having taken 2 damage in total), the Navigation die in the right most column becomes “locked” and is shifted to the Skull row of that column. Whatever the maneuver is on that Navigation die is now completed (if applicable) when that column is resolved. At “3″, two columns are locked. At “2, three columns are locked. At “1″, all four columns are locked and the player no longer has any say on the maneuvers the ships will execute.

The only way to fix this is to drop sails at sea and repair the ship. Of course, this makes the ship vulnerable to other players during that round, meaning there is some risk involved. A ship that drops sails also does not fire at the end of phase 3. At the end of the round, however, the ship will repair 3 damage, flipping the Ship die value to +3 higher than it currently is, unlocking any die in the process.

That is, of course, unless the player has the Treasure Die.

Treasure and Curses

When a player ends their turn on the Treasure die, they collect it. The Treasure die acts like a 6th Navigation die and is one of the two ways a player can win the game. However, it comes at a cost. First off, the player will take 1 damage for stopping and collecting the Treasure die which might lock some of the Navigation dice. Second, the Treasure die decreases the benefit of repairing the ship at sea by reducing the total number of hull points to be repaired to “2″ instead of “3″. You see, the treasure is cursed and will cause misfortune to anyone who holds it.

A player looses the Treasure die if their ship should sink. The Treasure die remains in the space where the ship sank waiting for the next lucky/unlucky player to pick it up.

Winning the Game

If a player ends their turn on their starting location at the end of the round, has the Treasure die, and has at least 1 hull point left they immediately win the game! Alternatively, if the all but one player have been sunk three times, that player wins by default, being the only pirate left at sea.

To learn more about Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas, see the game’s official web site or visit the Kickstarter project page.

Prediction

Pirate Dice is a tough game to predict. The game play is very straight forward (roll dice, place, resolve), but the game is more complex than that. A player must think ahead of their current position and visualize where their ship will end up after each column resolution and how the other ships might or might not interfere. This is a skill that even Gamer Geeks have a hard time with, sometimes. It’s all about foresight and logical thinking based off what you assume will occur on the board.

Perhaps hardest of all is watching, helplessly, as your ship executes commands that you placed but no longer benefit you because your ship was bumped or because you accidentally miscalculated. Yes, this is a game that has fantastic Geek Skill strengthening opportunities, but none more so than emotional coping. And you just know I’m going to get grief for saying so, but consider how even adults can feel very disappointed when their plans go horribly wrong. Adults know better than to flip the table. Not so much with the little geeks.

When I introduced this game to my 7-year-old, I did so with some caution. I had no doubt that this game was too much for my 4-year-old and knew that the endorsement of this game was balanced on a razor’s edge. If my little geek thought the game was “unfair”, it would fail. On the other hand, if my little geeks thought the game was “difficult and challenging”, it had a shot. I therefore took my time and made sure my 7-year-old knew all the ins and outs of the game, showed him how the game would reward as well as punish poorly decided moves, and ultimately how even the most detailed of plans could go horribly wrong.

This took about a day, off and on, to fully get across to my oldest. He got it, however, and was eager to play the game. He recognized the game as one that should not be taken lightly and was ready to give it a try. And so, as I set the game Map boards up, I asked him his thoughts on the game so far.

“You really got to watch what you do in this game. I like that, but am worried about how well I’ll do.” ~ Liam (age 7)

Wise thoughts and concerns. I personally think he’ll do well but will also be suffering vapor lock from time to time. But we are in no rush and the point is to have fun. Let’s set sail and see where the wind blows us.

Final Word

This game proved to be exceedingly challenging for my little geek but also a door of opportunity. He played the game and lost, but he played the game very well. I was exceedingly pleased to see how he evolved during the game, taking into account locked die, navigating around obstacles and other players, and even taking offensive moves to better his position and take advantage of another player’s weaknesses. In total, he grabbed the Treasure die twice and did very well navigating and causing me and the other players trouble. In the end, he walked away from the table feeling very good about the game and was ready for more, but only after a good night’s sleep.

Parent Geeks also enjoyed the game, recognizing its potential as a game that would challenge the players to think ahead and would also serve as a fun game for the family. A few Parent Geeks were not big fans of the Rum Barrel (one in particular thought that any reference to tobacco or alcohol was terribly unnecessary), but the very large majority enjoyed the theme and had no issue with the die or game play. Non-gamers wilted in front of the game, however, with their minds melting out of their ears. It was simply too much for those with little game experience. One poor player spent 3 rounds doing nothing but circles in the starting Map board.

Gamer Geeks were very pleased with the game, saying it reminded them very much of the classic board game, RoboRally. Like RoboRally, this game challenges the players to think ahead, take advantage (or avoid) points on the map that influences movement, and the fun combat that plays out that is more about near misses and terribly lucky hits than anything else. However, Pirate Dice was seen as a more flexible game as the player had more room to maneuver instead of narrow corridors. The only aspect they didn’t like was the lack of special abilities, equipment, and other piratey things that could be done to give the player an advantage as well as strengthen the game’s theme.

My little geek moves his ship, looking all serious...

Gamer Geeks, this is a challenging dice game that gives the player a good deal of choice at first and then limits what a player can do as the game continues. This forces the player to really think ahead and making every choice very important. Add in the combat and player interaction and you have a game that will keep you on your toes and engaged from the start of the game to the bitter end. It is a race, of sorts, and the winner is the player who can best think through and guess what his opponent’s might or might not do. This ends up providing an interesting meta game as players attempt to “read” other players and make choices accordingly.

Parent Geeks, this is a fun and challenging game that won’t be right for your family unless you have older little geeks. At 7-years-old, my little geek was able to play the game and enjoy it, but just barely. Keep in mind that my little geek has many, many hours of game play under his young belt. The suggested age of 12+ will most certainly allow anyone at 12-years-old and older to play it, but you know your little geeks better than anyone. Choose to play this game accordingly.

Child Geeks, this is a game you have to work at to play well, but so do the adults. I highly suggest you do not just jump into this one. But when you do play it and when you have the right Geek Skill set, prepare for awesome.

As for me, I greatly enjoyed Pirate Dice: Voyage of the Rolling Seas. It really made me think and really got me angry. Words cannot describe the level of white-hot rage I would feel when another player would strike my boat and send me off course, forcing me to now move my ship in directions I did not intend and sail far off my mark.

I loved it.

The game is very much like RoboRally in the sense that is makes the players think ahead of visualize what the game will look like in the near future. I personally love games like this and Pirate Dice is no exception. Each game is different, even when playing with the same opponents. The random map set up and the random available maneuvers makes each game feel fresh. I couldn’t be happier with the game and expect it to become one of the top pirate games played in my house for many years. What it lacks in-depth it makes up for in strategy and tactics. Your brain will burn after playing it and the heat will feel great. Do check out this game when you get a chance.

This game was given to Father Geek as a review copy. Father Geek was not paid, bribed, wined, dined, or threatened in vain hopes of influencing this review. Such is the statuesque and legendary integrity of Father Geek.

Respectfully submitted by the Father Geek
fathergeek.com

Review: Eragon:: I'm sure this film had a dragon in it... (a review)

RedMonkeyBoy — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:21:06 +0000

by RedMonkeyBoy

Just so you know, this review is also available on my blog AlwaysBoardNeverBoring where you will also find a couple of pictures, and reviews of other crap games.

Having already reviewed Star Wars Episode I Customizable Card Game, Indiana Jones Akator Temple Race Game, and Operation: Aliens, I thought I would continue the theme by reviewing another game based on a movie: Eragon.

To be more exact, this is a game based on a movie based on a book. I love a good franchise. Unfortunately, Eragon is not a good franchise. The film is a tragic waste of human endeavour, managing to suck all the fun out of an adventure story involving knights, monsters, and dragons. I didn't even think that was possible.

It's not entirely the film's fault. The CGI is ropey, the acting is bad, the action sequences are boring, and some of the casting is way off (Rachel Weisz is not the person who springs to mind when I am asked to think up a good actor to voice a dragon); but the biggest problem is it's based on a book that simply isn't very good. The theme is a rehash of Star Wars, the plotting and characterisation is severely lacking, and it's all just a bit dull. I actually have a lot of respect for the author, Christopher Paolini. Not because he is good; but because he has managed to be so incredibly successful without actually being any good. However, he hasn't had everything his own way, and he has taken a lot of abuse for his writing "style" over the years (just like he is right now).

I am sure he sits in his mansion, surrounded by his piles of money, and cries himself to sleep.

But we aren't here to talk about the merits of the book or the film. We are here to talk about the merits of the shameless board game cash-in that came out off the back of movie. With such great source material to work with, I am sure you can imagine how this is going to go...

At first glance, the production quality seems really rather good; but it very quickly becomes apparent that things haven't been thought through very well. The box is good enough: It's nice and glossy, with a cover featuring all the actors from the movie looking suitably surly (but no picture of the dragon, which is clearly because this game was made using promotional artwork from before the movie's special effects had been completed); but once you remove the box lid, you start to realise what sort of game this is.

The game board is big, and features a series of paths overlaid on a map of Alagayseewhatsit (the fantastically not Middle Earth world in which the story unfolds). It seems very nice until you look closely, and you notice:

•All the text is written in spidery italics and is almost impossible to read without pressing your nose against the board.
•The bit of the board used for the game could actually fit on a board one-third the size, meaning that the rest of it is just for show.
•It's covered in stupid words from the book, which have ridiculous umlauts and apostrophes scattered over them like fairy dust.

The other interesting thing about the board is that there are little punch out sections in the four corners, so that when the board is laid on a table, there are little "wells." The aim of the game is to collect cute little plastic crystals, and the "wells" on the board are where you place the crystals. The need for the "wells" becomes apparent as soon as you place one of the crystals on a flat surface. The crystals look impressive enough, but they are rounded, and they roll. Fast. You can't just pile them up beside the game board, not unless you want to spend most of the evening rummaging under the sofa for them.

The problem is, the "wells" are only big enough to hold about six crystals. Not nearly enough. I would say that's a massive design fault. But it isn't. The massive design fault was including crystals that were so difficult to control that it became necessary to cut "wells" in the bloody board in the first place. Seriously... Why not just cubes? Or cardboard chits? They probably would have been cheaper, and the publisher wouldn't have needed to pay for diecut game boards.

The game also ships with a deck of cards. Despite having a gloss finish, they still manage to be cheaper and flimsier than most of the other cards I have seen (including the ones in Hasbro games). Furthermore, the printing is terrible. All the character images are grainy; it's actually difficult to figure out who some of the people on the cards are supposed to be.

However, the components are not a complete bust. The game includes three good quality dice (six-sided, 10-sided, and 20-sided), and four really nice player pieces designed to look like the hilt of a sword. Each playing piece has a translucent plastic "gem" in the pommel with a matching colour base. They are sturdy, and look great. Makes you wish they had used them in a better game.

Ah yes... the game. The game isn't much of anything really. It's a simple roll-and-move game where you interact with the spaces you land on, ocassionally get to draw a card, and need to roll the exact number to land on the final space of the path. (Really? Why do people still design games that require you to roll an exact number to win?)

As already mentioned, the aim of the game is to collect the horrible, rolling crystals. On your turn you roll the dice, and move that number of spaces (unless you land on a "stop" space, in which case you... er... stop). Occasionally you may have a choice of two directions to chose from, but all roads lead to Rome, so it doesn't matter which way you go.

If you land on a "challenge" space you get to challenge an opponent to a contest of magic or strength. It doesn't matter which you pick, it just determines if you roll the red dice (strength), or the green dice (magic). Both players will roll the same dice, so there is no real advantage to picking one ability over the other.

Before rolling the dice, you both wager some crystals, then the person who rolls the highest gets to keep the crystals. Re-roll ties.

I'm not kidding.

Sometimes you will land on a "draw a card" space. Guess what happens then?

There are three types of card:

Battle cards: Drawing one of these means you are involved in a bit of a scrap. You will either lose or gain dragon crystals (with no chance to do anything about it), and you may also get moved a few spaces forwards or backwards.

Action cards: Do pretty much the same as battle cards, except sometimes they ask the players to do mental things like "pass this card over your forehead three times." Oh yeah... and they say "action" on them.

Protection cards: You keep hold of these cards, and use them to block challenges. Some block strength challenges and some block magic challenges. The existence of these cards seems to be the only reason there are two types of challenge at all; and as you will never know if an opponent has a protection card against your selected challenge, it all seems rather random and pointless.

And that, my friends, is the game.

Roll the dice. Move. Do what it says on the space you land on (unless you got lucky and landed on a blank space). Apart from the blank spaces, "challenge" spaces, and "draw a card" spaces, you may have the good fortune to land on the thrilling "take another turn" space, or the earth-shattering "raid" space that allows you to roll a dice(!) and take crystals equal to the number rolled from one of your opponents (assuming you found anyone willing to play the game with you in the first place).

The game ends when someone reaches the end space on the board. That player collects five bonus crystals. Then everyone counts up their crystals (while trying to stop them rolling off the table), and the person with the most crystals wins. Although they don't, because everybody who has taken part in this sorry waste of time loses something (precious moments of life, a piece of their soul, their minds, whatever).

I think one of my favourite things about the game is the small section entitled "strategy hints" in the rules. The hints include gems like: "When playing with more than two players, it might be important to keep one player from getting too many Dragon Crystals in his or her possession." Surely, that is also the case in the a two-player game?!

Anyway, enough of this nonsense. This game has drained more of my life than it has any right to: First, because I played it; and now because I've written this review. This game is one of those typical movie tie-ins, quickly thrown together without due care and attention. It was designed to sell while the movie was popular (which it never was) before being relegated to the bin.

Having reviewed this game, I am now getting rid of it. It doesn't deserve a space in The Vault. It barely deserves a space at the local land fill.

Review: Civilization:: Ancient Wonders - One of my top ten games

Ken_Nicholson — Thu, 31 May 2012 22:59:37 +0000

by Ken_Nicholson

There are four elements that I seek in a game:

- Theme
- Attraction
- Mechanic
- Engagement

If a game scores high in any one of these areas then I'll enjoy it and more than likely want to play it again. But if a game comes along that scores highly in all of these then that is a truly great game that'll I'll always want to play again.

From my subject line you've already guessed the ending of this story and maybe you agree with my sentiment, maybe you don't share my view or maybe you're undecided. I hope that if you agree with me you'll enjoy my observations, if you don't agree hopefully I can encourage you to take another look and if you're undecided then this is a chance to influence you.

Advanced Civilization

"an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached."

That’s one of the definitions of a Civilization and it certainly gives you a flavor of what Advanced Civilization gives you. This is a game of epic proportions in so many ways not least the length of game (you do need about 8 hours to do it justice) but its epic-ness does not take detract from how good this game is all it does is restrict when you can play it. Technically Advanced Civilization is the expansion to Civilization but to my mind it is the game as without it Civilization loses too much.

Theme 9/10

In Advanced Civilization you’re trying to take your ancient nation of choice (Egypt, Rome, Babylon etc) and turn it into the great civilization of yore. You do this by running the gamut of Stone through Bronze age building cities and playing civilization cards to make your nation greater. You also do quite a bit of pillaging, rampaging and generally conquering bits and pieces of Southern Europe. This is a game that lives up to its theme by the end you certainly feel like you’ve created a civilization, you’ve lived with it as your nation has had up and downs, attacks and defenses, developments and expansions this is a game that takes you through the wringer of time and leaves you with the success or otherwise of your choices.

Attraction 10/10

I will admit that this is a game I played as a child and so there is that twinge of nostalgia that draws me into this game. But I think what really draws me more than anything is my love of history and of human development. This is a game like Republic of Rome that gives you the taste of being there to see your nation ebb and flow across time. With each turn representing generations of people you could feel disconnected from what’s going on. But the excitement of pushing your people along the path to civilization whilst fighting off the competition really attracts me and so whenever I have the time and the players this is a game I think off. A game I long to play again. (I played it recently at Conpulsion 2012 and as always it lived up to its greatness)

Mechanic 10/10

There are a number of neat mechanics that have since passed into common use that as far as I can tell started here. The trading is one of the best elements, you get commodities for each city you have in play, these commodities represent the essential trading goods of the day such as papyrus, salt, gold or hides. These you trade and the more you have of a type the more valuable they get. The only danger being one of the other great mechanics, Calamities. In each pile of commodities hide calamities that mess with just about everything in the game, these represent natural and man-made disasters such as Earthquakes, Floods , Riots and even Civil Wars. It’s these two things that are the heart of this game, clever trading will give you the points to develop your nation but even cleverer dealing with calamities (most are tradable) as well as managing them is how this game is won or lost. Unfortunately as the calamities can have a huge impact on players some people hate the game because they feel picked on. My point of view is that the calamities and how you deal with them is the fundamental point of the game, how civilizations deal with set backs tells you everything you need to know about them and how they stand out from the rest. (could even be a metaphor for life)

Engagement 10/10

Do you feel like your leading your nation through history? Yeah I do and it’s that drive to see what happens next in the game and how you can help your people meet the demands of history that makes this game so much fun. Also unlike many games there is virtually no downtime, or at least the way I’ve played it, as most phases of the turn can be simultaneous and when it comes to moving there’s always something you can be thinking about whilst someone else is going. You always feel like your doing something in the game and trying to work out the best plan for your people. Having said all that because the game does take a longish time to play breaks are good every so often though the best games are the ones where you eat and play.

Conclusion

This is a game that’s like marmite some people love it and others try an avoid it. I can understand this, long games near time to play them and a long game you’ve never played means you might get a bad start and regret it all the way through, Civ does have mechanics that try to avoid this as much as possible but it can be a problem. Having said all that this is a game that really rewards the playing of it. You really feel you’ve played a game, that you’ve competed and won out over the game and the other players. Each element of the game lends itself well to the overall theme of the game and even though it is an older game without all the modern mechanics it still plays like a modern game. I’ll always go the extra mile to play a game of Civ and I hope my review persuades others to do the same.

PS I played Adv Civ at uni once with two archaeologists, two classicists and two ancient historians (me being another archaeologist) with each of us trying to play each the nations as they happened at the time. And it’s one of my most favourite memories.

Review: Lords of Vegas:: Games With Two - What Happens at the Game Table...

jmoslander — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:52:21 +0000

by jmoslander

Originally Posted at http://gameswithtwo.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-happens-at-gam...

Ever wanted to own a casino in Vegas? Ever wanted to gamble in a casino and take the house for all their worth? Ever wanted to take over smaller casinos as you become the owner of some of the largest casinos in Las Vegas? Vegas, a town where luck can be your best friend or your worst enemy, and where you need to do whatever it takes to get to the top. You need to be the Lord of Vegas.

Lords of Vegas is an area control and dice rolling game for 2-4 players that plays in 60-90 minutes. The game was published by Mayfair Games and was designed by James Ernest and Mike Selinker. In the game, you are a entrepreneur who has just come to Vegas in the 1940s. You are trying to purchase property on the newly formed Las Vegas strip and build the biggest and best casinos that you can. You will be competing against your fellow players to see who will become the Lord of Vegas. The game board is separated into blocks of property. Each block is given a letter designation and then each block is separated into properties. There are six blocks labeled A-F and then each block's property is given a number. So, you have A1, B4, F6, etc. At the beginning of the game, each player draws two cards from the deck that contains all of these properties and each card also has a different color. These two properties will become the players starting properties. They can then build casinos on these properties on their turn. On your turn, you will draw a card from the top of the deck. The player gets to claim the territory on the card, and then the color casino on the card pays out and each property without a casino also pays (casinos will pay the amount on each dice in those colored casinos; if yellow is drawn, every yellow casino pays, those properties without a casino pay $1 each). Each casino also gets points (these are given to the casino boss at each casino. This is the player who has the highest dice number in the casino). You get a point for each tile in the casino. After money and points are handed out, you can do a number of actions: build, sprawl, remodel, reorganize, and gamble. A game of Lords of Vegas ends once the Game Over card is drawn. A final round of scoring is done for all the casinos that have at least one lot on the strip (this is done instead of a single color casino. There are also several other cards called Pay the Strip cards that score this way as well). The player who ends with the most points is the winner, unless someone is able to score 90 points then the game automatically ends.

Let's do a quick overview of the actions and then onto the review. With build, you can build on any land spot that you own. The cost to build is on the board and ranges from $6-$20. Sprawl allows you to build on adjacent land spots that are not owned for twice the building price. You also risk losing this property if someone else draws the card for that lot. Remodel allows you to change the type of casino you have. So, you can change a yellow casino to brown or brown to green, etc. This can be done to play the odds to get more money on cards that haven't been drawn, or you may use this to overtake smaller surrounding casinos. Reorganize gives you the chance to become the new casino boss or increase your income. Each casino tile has a die face associated with it, and the highest dice face receives the points for the casino. You pay $1 for each pip on each die in the casino and re-roll all the dice. This can cause big changes, which can make your casino a giant that is almost impossible to stop, or change make it the weakest joint on the strip and is just waiting for the other players to take it over. Finally, you can gamble at other establishments on the strip. You roll two dice and the casino pays you your bet for rolls 2-4 and 9-12 with 2 and 12 paying double. If you roll 5-8 you pay the player with whom casino you were at. All actions can be performed as many times as you like on your turn, less gambling. This can only be done once and you are limited to a $5 bet per casino tile in the casino you are gambling in.

The component in Lords of Vegas are both good and bad. First, let's take a look at the positives. The box is what has become the standard size of designer games. The casino pieces are nice and thick and a dice fits nicely inside each of them. The die are a little smaller than standard die, but this is needed so that the board didn't have to be expanded. The game also comes with lots of dice which is always a plus. As for the negatives, the box insert seems to be a stock insert that Mayfair is using in some of their games. I would have preferred either a custom insert for the game or a cardboard insert that could have been easily removed. Secondly, the money is paper money. I think the game would have benefited greatly with some card board poker chips as the currency instead, and it would have helped with the Vegas theme. I used some poker chips I had on hand and it really made the theme and game come alive. Finally, the markers for keeping score and marking territories are very simplistic and are difficult to see for the color blind player.

As far as game play, this game is a blast to play. The game does a good job of making the theme come alive, and gives the feel of being in a casino. The game is filled with luck, as you rely on the right cards and die rolls to go your way, however, you still have to use enough strategy to make it intriguing. Can you pull off a trade that benefits you more than your opponent? Can you remodel and reorganize your casinos as the right time? Can you maximize your points in the most efficient way possible? And do you have luck on your side? Lords of Vegas gives you all of this.

However, this game is not for everyone. The Eurogamers out there will not enjoy this one. There is too much luck and too many dice. However, the Ameritrashers will thoroughly enjoy the strong theme and the luck of the dice. I also felt that the games we played suffered somewhat from a runaway leader. This was partially due to the cards that were drawn and decisions that players made, but those who have big casinos continue to get bigger and stronger and push out the weaker players. I believe that the unique scoring system is supposed to help with this some, but it can also cause players to get stuck and left in the dust. If you are considering purchasing this one, you need to decide what kind of gaming group you play with and if they will enjoy the excitement of a luck driven casino themed game, because not everyone will enjoy it.

Lastly, this is not a good two player game. With two, the game just fell flat, and was boring and dull. It was like playing poker or blackjack without money. The thrill just wasn't there, however, with three or four, the game thrives. In my opinion, the game should have been made for 3-4 players without the 2-player option. I wouldn't mind seeing an expansion that allows for 5 players. This could easily be done with a board extension and an additional casino color. I don't know if this is in the cards, but I could see it happening. Therefore, if you were wanting this to play mainly as a two player game, I would avoid this one, but if you are playing with a larger group, it is an exciting game that embraces the feel of a casino in your living room. And remember, "What happens ~~in Vegas~~ at the game table stays ~~in Vegas~~ at the game table."

See more at www.gameswithtwo.com

Review: WHY?!:: Father Geek's Review of Why?!

fathergeek — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:43:36 +0000

by fathergeek

The Basics:
o For ages 7 and up (publisher suggests 8+)
o For 1 to 5 players
o About 15 minutest to complete

Geek Skills:
o Counting & Math
o Logical & Critical Decision Making
o Risk vs. Reward
o Visuospatial Skills

Learning Curve:
o Child – Easy
o Adult – Easy

Theme & Narrative:
o Help your chicken cross the road and avoid traffic at all costs! Or…*splat!*

Endorsements:
o Gamer Geek rejected!
o Parent Geek approved!
o Child Geek approved!

Overview

Why did the chicken cross the road? Many scholars since time immemorial have ponder this. To this very day, heated debates among learned men and women rage in academic arenas. The Human Race might never know and perhaps that is for the best. Until that day comes when the greatest mystery in the universe is solved, have fun simply trying to safely cross said chicken across said road. Do so, and breathe a sigh of relief. Fail, and…well…there are plenty of chickens in the world.

Why?!, by Victory Point Games, is comprised of 1 game board that represents the road, 35 cardboard square game pieces (15 fast cars, 15 slow cars, and 5 chicken characters), 20 Event cards, and 1 small six-sided die. The entire game comes in a small plastic bag which makes it exceptionally portable, easy to put away, and even easier to store.

Game Set Up

To set up the game, unfold and place the game board in the middle of the playing area. Shuffle the Event cards and place, face-down, on the “Event Card Draw Pile” space on the game board. Randomize the car squares (30 in total) and either place them face-down to the side of the game board or (the preferred method) place the square game pieces in a bag or a cup. Regardless of the method selected, this area is referred to as the “car pool”.

Chicken character selection and placement will depend on the number of players. If the game is being played by one person (solitaire), all 5 chickens are used and placed on the start space of the game board. For a 2-player game, each player takes 2 chickens. For a 3-player, 4-player, and 5-player game, each player takes 1 chicken and places them on the start space of the game board. There is no difference in the chicken other than the artwork.

Next, draw the first three Event cards and resolve the noted car movement and traffic rolls. These Event cards are discarded after use and seed the game board with the initial traffic. None of the chickens are moved at this time.

Choose the first player (or if playing solitaire, choose yourself), and get ready to play!

Playing Chicken

On a player’s turn, they will draw an Event card. The Event card provides three important pieces of information: car movement, traffic rolls, and chicken moves. Once the Event card is resolved and all players have moved their chickens (if possible), the Event card is discarded.

Example of one of the Event cards in the game

Car Movement

The Event card identifies the color of the cars to be moved in each of the six lanes and the number of times they will be moved. For example, if the Event card shows 2 red cars, then all red cars currently on the board will be moved 2 spaces. When cars move, they must maintain a safe driving distance of at least 1 space between each car at all times. A car must stop prior to entering a space right behind the car in front of it even if the noted movement would allow it to go further. Cars that move off the board are simply added back to the car pool.

All red cars move first (being the fastest) and then all green cars move. This is repeated in lanes 1 through 6 until all cars have a chance to advance. If there are no cars of that color in the lane, then there simply is no car movement of that particular type for this round.

Red cars are more frequently displayed on the Event cards and move further. Green cars are less frequent and move shorter. This turns out to be just enough information for the player to do some simply risk analysis when determining where they should or should not move.

Traffic Rolls

Traffic is constant on the road and the Event cards make certain there is always a supply of new cars to duck, dodge, and run from. The Event card will show 1 or more die icons. The number of icons is important, not the number on them (i.e. you do not add the values noted on the dice faces). Each die icon represents the number of times the die is rolled (i.e. 2 dice means roll the six-sided die twice). The rolled value on the die will indicate which lane on the road will be get a new car. For example, if the die value rolled is a “4″, the fourth lane gets a new randomly selected car from the car pool.

For each roll, the player will randomly select a single car square from the car pool and place it on the starting position of the rolled lane. Note that cars must always maintain legal distance (as noted in the car movement above). If the car being added cannot maintain the distance of one space between it and the car in front of it, the car is not added to the lane and the die roll is not done again.

Chicken Moves

The number of chicken icons on the Event card identifies how many moves each chicken, starting with the player who drew the Event card, can now move their chicken square on the game board. Chickens can move sideways 1 or 2 spaces at most. When moving forwards or backwards (in relationship to the Victory Lane on the game board), they can only move 1 space. This means that a chicken must zig-zag its way across traffic to get to the other side of the road. Moving forward means the player’s next movement must be to the left or right and vice versa.

Obviously, chickens cannot move into or through a space with a car, but they can move through a space occupied by another chicken as long as they don’t end their movement in a chicken occupied space. Chickens are welcome to go anywhere else that is free on the road, but most follow the movement rules. This means that sometimes the best way to move forward is to go backwards. This is especially true when traffic is getting close and moving to a previous lane makes more sense.

Once all the chickens have moved, the current Event card is discarded and a new Event card is drawn by the next player.

The game board is comprised of 6 lanes of traffic - each as deadly as the one before it and after it

Chicken Death Most Fowl

Despite a player’s best intentions, their chicken might become roadkill or simply panic and keel over from the stress.

If a car should ever end its movement or pass through a space where a chicken is currently located, it is instantly flattened in a cloud of feathers.

If a chicken cannot move on its turn at least once (forward, backwards, or sideways), the chicken keels over from the stress and collapses right there on the road.

When playing a 2 or more player game, the chicken is taken off the board and returned to its initial starting position. When playing a solitaire game, the chicken square is flipped over revealing a flattened chicken. This space can be moved through by other chickens, but cannot be stopped on. Cars are oblivious to the chicken pancake now on the road and pass through it or end their movement on it without a care in the world.

Victory!

As soon as a player moves all of their chickens into the Victory Lane (successfully crossing their chicken across the road), the game ends and that player is declared the winner. For a 3, 4, and 5-player game, this means only one chicken needs to make it to the Victory Lane to complete the game. For a 2-player game, the player must successfully move both of their chickens to the Victory Lane.

For a solitaire game, once all the surviving chickens have crossed into the Victory Lane, the player calculates their score. Every surviving chicken is worth 20 points. Roadkill chickens are worth the number of points equal to the lane they were flattened. For example, a roadkill chicken in lane 3 is worth 3 points. Add up all the numbers and record the score. Try again to attempt to score higher. A perfect game is a high score of 100 points.

To learn more about Why?!, see the game’s official web page.

Prediction

Now here is a game that is going to provide the player an overwhelming sense of accomplishment or a smart kick to the stomach leaving the player feeling bruised and disappointed. The game is random to the extreme, but not to a point where a player is left without any decisions to make. From just reading the rules, I think this game is sounding like a real brain teaser where logical and critical decision making is a must. The trick is going to be getting my family and friends to see it for what I think it is versus them falling into the assumption that this is just a terribly random game.

Teaching the game takes all of 2 minutes to explain and the icons on the Event cards make it easy for players of all ages understand what actions are required. My little geeks understood the game rules and were ready to get started in less than 5 minutes. The only questions I had was about chicken movement which was quickly addressed and successfully answered to the satisfaction of all who asked.

As my 7-year-old set up the game, I asked my two little geeks what they thought of the game so far.

“Why did the chicken cross the road, Dad? To win the game!” ~ Liam (age 7)

“My chicken is going to win the race!” ~ Nyhus (age 4)

Chickens, to your mark! Ready, set, RUN!!!!

Final Word

My 7-year-old had no problem playing this game. He was able to anticipate the movement of the traffic and put a safe distance (when possible) between his chicken and car bumpers. My 4-year-old did not do as well. While he was able to grasp the movement rules with no issue, he simply moved his chicken where it was possible and not to a location that was logical. As a result, his chicken was run over more times than he or I cared to count. This left him exceedingly frustrated and he eventually walked away from the table.

The adults also enjoyed the game. The Parent Geeks liked how the game randomized itself and made the players constantly react to the ever shifting traffic lanes. More than once, adult players stated that the game reminded them of the 1980′s video game, Frogger. I, too, also recognized the similarities and actually enjoyed the game more because of it.

Gamer Geeks, laughed at the idea of chickens being run over and never took the game seriously. They said it was a “good enough” game, but not one that really allowed them to do anything other than react and make choices given a very limited playing field. When a chicken died, it just started over which they found to be tedious. Victory simply went to the luckiest player, in their opinion, and not the most skilled. They also didn’t care for how the traffic roll icons were represented. They commented that the rules were confusing on this point and the icons didn’t clearly communicate what the action should be. For example, having three dice with a total value of “6″ (if counting the die face values) was nowhere near what was really intended, which was roll the dice three times. I agree on this point and think this can easily be improved by simply putting three dice icon (like a cube with no numbers) repeated a number of times to communicate required die rolls.

As my little geek contemplates his next chicken move, his grandma geek looks on

Gamer Geeks, this is a pretty random game but it does require a good deal of logical and critical thinking. Unfortunately for you, the level of thinking is not very high. Choices are limited by random card draws and the challenge comes in making choices that allow for forward movement while balancing the possible risk of being run over. Lighthearted and fast, but not deep or rewarding. At best, a game to be played as a quick filler, but for the most part, a game to be missed for those who are searching for a more challenging and rewarding game experience. Considering this is a game designed with the intended players being kids and their parents, this should come as no surprise.

Parent Geeks, this is a fast and easy game to play with the family. The rules are light and the game play is simple enough for gamer and non-gamers alike to quickly understand and play. The game is tongue in cheek, but don’t be surprised if players throw their hands up in disgust. The random traffic makes the game difficulty the same for all players and the only thing that separates victory from flattened defeat is lucky foresight. The game will be thoroughly enjoyed as a quick game to play at the table as it takes little time to set up. Because of the solitaire play, you can sit down with your youngest little geeks and play the game as a cooperative experience, where both you and your little geek talk about what moves to make. This is a great way to get your children interested in games without having them feel overwhelmed.

Child Geeks, your chicken will be hit. It is inevitable. There is simply too much traffic for a chicken to be crossing the road safely. Luckily, you are smart enough to help them cross. It’s just too bad the chicken wasn’t smart enough to NOT attempt to cross the road in the first place. You might find the game frustrating at first as you learn all the different ways the traffic moves. But don’t get too bothered by it. Even if your chicken gets hit, it is easy enough to recover and start again.

Why?! is an interesting game to put in front of the family. The game plays you, to a certain extent, and you are simply trying to move within the cracks of where the game does not dictate the action. As a Gamer Geek, this frustrated me beyond measure. I found the game to be exceedingly random making all of my choices trivial. This left me with a bad taste in my mouth from a gamer elitist’s point-of-view. As a Parent Geek, however, I loved it. The game is chaotic and fun with the little geeks and with adults. It moves fast and I found myself standing up in excitement and apprehension when a new Event card was drawn. The little geeks also really enjoyed the game, but I think it is not one they would play again and again. The game takes its toll on you and leaves you feeling winded and somewhat abused, depending on how badly your chicken was treated on the road. Still, the game left me feeling satisfied and I ended up rethinking and playing a few games of solitaire to try out some different tactics. Of strategy, there is none to be used. There is never a “safe lane”, only “safer lanes” in comparison to the other lanes around it. The true tactical mind will quickly realize that victory can be found by making haste to move to positions where the probability of being hit is less likely, but never avoidable. Understanding the probability of car movement based on their speed is the only way you can hope to avoid being hit. Hardly a “sure thing”, but enough to make somewhat important choices.

So why did the chicken cross the road? We might never know. Until this question is answered, I am more than happy to keep playing this game with my little geeks and with friends when a light game of risk and luck is just right for the mood and the players.

This game was given to Father Geek as a review copy. Father Geek was not paid, bribed, wined, dined, or threatened in vain hopes of influencing this review. Such is the statuesque and legendary integrity of Father Geek.

Respectfully submitted by the Father Geek
fathergeek.com

Review: Tokyo Train:: Tokyo Train: after drinking moonshine, and before stripping to down to underwear to run down the street victorious!

xitoliv — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:21:24 +0000

by xitoliv

So last week a went to a buddy's house warming party, and played a game of Loco Motive that, for me, illustrates the beauty and genius of this game.

-----

When I first spent the holidays with my wife's family, her father would bring out small, 100-piece children's jigsaw puzzles that he had procurred from the dollar-store, her grandfather would offer up a roll of nickels, and in teams of 2 or 3, you'd race to put them together, "Speed Puzzles" we called it. It was fun. Not unlike the first half of Galaxy Trucker - but: in teams (a +), and there was a right answer - which, though it could be hard to find the right piece, it was rewarding when you did, and, well, they were 100 piece kids puzzles, it wasn't that hard.

It was more about the team-work and the divison of labor with a little bit of speed puzzle solving.

And one thing that struck me when I picked up some of these puzzles to continue this tradition elsewhere, is it that it doesn't work on an individual basis. The key is playing in teams, and it does more than its fair share to even out the individual skill levels of the puzzlers.

Tokyo Train is all about the team-work and the division of labor with a little bit of speed puzzle solving.

You play in teams of two - one person the train conductor, the other the passengers. But the passengers got on in the wrong order (huh?), and the conductor needs them to sit in a specific arrangement (what?). I'm not a fan of theme in my games, but I love the theme of my games - and even when I'm learning some new edition of Tier auf Tier, or Geistes Blitz, I insist on knowing what the theme is. The theme here is absurd, but serves its purpose dutifully, and I would have difficulty explaining the game without it.

(I'd played Tokyo Train/Loco Motive on 26 occasions prior to this evening. I had a friend who was attending Essen for the first time in 2009, and my sole request was to return with a copy of Tokyo Train. Though I like the name and packaging of the original better, I enjoy the extra language cards that LM comes with. Really, either set is sufficient, and that's enough talking about the different versions.)

I'm a quiet person, who hates games where I have to perform. I can move my cubes and play my cards, but I'm going to steer clear of things like Times Up, because that's too much performance.

I'm a quiet person, though, who loves to have sudden bursts of screaming. Especially if its about being right. And if I can beat you.

And that's what I find here: can I frantically wave my arms and shout ambiguous words better than my opponents.

And this game is a drag race. Each team on your mark, set, (Wait! We're not rea-) 123GOOOO!! And you're off to the races, and then its over.

I like games with multiple paths to victories. That is, do I wait and plan out an optimal strategy, or issue more commands more quickly? Is it better to do a few adjustments with different colors each time, or more adjustments, but that may use the same color and likely occur faster because they require less mental translation?

I like that this game is a balance beam where I can't afford the time to see how other teams are doing. We have no time for that. And each time you pause to think about how to give directions, or wait on your partner to provide direction - there is this sinking feeling in your stomach as you fear your team is about to fall.

Such anticipation.

This game can struggle with that performance anxiety. Sometimes you pull out the box, and bodies sulk away from the table. Guys, where are you going? Guys, come back? Please? We can play something else, I guess....

But a few months ago, I discovered something I love: playing this game with drunkards at around 1 AM.

I was at a party at my friend Josh's house (These are not going to be people's real names). And he's into board games, but recently had a child, and his wife has been in school, so he yearns to play more games, but has other priorities. But sometimes he throws parties. And while these aren't centered around board games, there are usually enough people that we can rangle together a few small games of something.

During our high school years, we'd go to his house, and it was a basement full of video games, and, though I moved away during college, they continued to play video games into the morning most nights. Blake was tells story of how there was a standing policy that a hole-in-one during a game of Mario Golf resulted in the player stripping down to his boxers and running down the street. (He noted one encounter with the police during such a run).

At a recent party, I squeezed in some games of For Sale and Parade, but talking and drinking and loudness usually overcome any attempt at meatier games. But, around one AM, there was some request for Tokyo Train. I, of course, had brought it, and obliged. I'm not a drinker, and I counted one other sober person, and several people having trouble standing at this point. In this house, Josh had a small round kitchen table, but I set the game up for three teams of two, and, being the only person who had played before, set myself up with the girl having the most trouble standing upright.

And it was a blast. Like I said, normally, I have trouble rounding people up to play, but on this night, on this occasion, when I grew tired of playing, and put it away, they asked to get it back out! Even the time my partner failed to give me any correct directions before another team achieved the card, it was a blast. It was a loud party, and required that much more screaming, was that much harder to hear your opponent, and that much better for the wear.

So Josh moves into a bigger house, gets a large square dining room table, and has a housewarming party. Somebody tells the story about Mario Kart, and somebody brings moonshine.

I had assumed that the memorable and joyful late night drunken game of Tokyo Train was a flash in the pan, and unreproduceable event, that I would savor in my memory, but never try to reproduce because I could only be disappointed. But, it turns out, I was wrong.

I was about ready to leave the party, turned to my wife, gave her the I'm-ready-to-go-home signal, but then the requests came to play Tokyo Train. Josh had acquired his own copy since the last party. There were 8 of us left, and we set up 4 sets on his table. Six of the eight of us had been drinking, drinking some moonshine, and then Blake drank some more moonshine.

Now, I may not play this game completely by the rules. It feels a little like Telestrations to me in that regards - who knows how to keep score. We play a set, play another set, switch roles, play two sets, then switch partners, then switch partners, then switch partners.

My team(s) won most of those games, with Blake getting increasingly agitated. And the game getting louder. Something about that night, or the acoustics of that room... but that was the loudest game I've ever played. We were all shouting as loud as we could, and each person could hardly make out what there partner was saying. It was a little dim and difficult to tell the yellow apart from the brown.

I realized that the partners were in a set rotation, and I wasn't getting to play with several of the people, so I called everyone into the kitchen, then we all went back to the table at different spots. Played a round, then rotated. I was the passenger's to Blake's conductor. 123GOOOO....TOKYO TRAIN!!!

He flexes, raising his fists in victory, and growling.

Then he's in the kitchen taking his pants off, and then he's out the door as the rest of us make it on the porch to watch him run down the street.

Tokyo Train, you're the best.

Review: Kingdom Builder:: Kingdom Builder after 30 plays

qwertymartin — Thu, 31 May 2012 13:30:05 +0000

by qwertymartin

Kingdom Builder seems to be a particularly divisive title on BGG. For me, it is comfortably my favourite game of 2011 and has raced past 30 plays in a mere 6 months. Several of my most-trusted geekbuddies enjoy it too, and it looks like the favourite for the Spiel des Jahres. However, many BGGers seem to have found it mediocre or worse, judging by the number of derisive reviews and comments. I want to take a look at what makes the game tick and why it is still working for me after 30 plays. This would have been my entry for the Voice of Experience conetst, if I were not organising it!

My gaming preferences

Over my five years in the hobby, I have developed a good sense of what I like in games and where that differs from the BGG mainstream. I think declaring this perspective upfront will help readers decide whether they are likely to agree with my conclusions or not. I strongly favour elegance over fiddliness, and enjoy games in which the complexity emerges from reasonably simple rules. I think board games (as opposed to card games) should have all players interacting on a shared area, preferably with a strong spatial element, rather than mostly focusing on individual player boards. I am very keen on inter-play variability and games that can continue to offer surprises. Often I find this preference draws me towards games with imperfect information and some randomness, though this must be manageable and not descend into chaos. I like constrained choices, which force me to do the best with what I have, often by managing a hand of cards.

Brief summary of the game

As the follow-up to Donald X Vaccarino's enormously successful Dominion, Kingdom Builder was a hotly awaited release. It shares enough significant features with Dominion to identify a distinctive Vaccarino style, which I will talk more about later. Unlike Dominion, it is a board game. Players take turns to place some of their 40 settlements onto a hex map made up of various terrains, in order to work towards three scoring objectives randomly selected from ten at the start of the game.

]]>The basic mechanism is very simple: the terrain on which you can place settlements each turn is dictated by the draw of a single card, and a player's settlements must be placed adjacent to his existing ones where possible. This single card 'hand' has been the subject of much of the scorn directed at the game and I will address this later.

]]>Variability between plays is provided not only by the randomised scoring cards, but also by the setup of the map. Four boards are chosen from eight, and set up in a 2x2 grid. Each contains one or two locations which offer bonus power tiles when settlements are placed adjacent to them. These tiles provide an ability, unique to each board, that can be used once per turn for the rest of the game. In the base set, they all involve adding an extra settlement or relocating an existing one. This makes the game something of a spatial engine-builder. In early turns it will be important to acquire bonus tiles, while later in the game, play will focus almost entirely on gaining points from the scoring cards.

What a turn feels like

To me, each turn feels like a miniature puzzle. The card you have drawn tells you where your three mandatory settlements must be placed. By the mid-game, you will probably have two or three bonus tiles to use in addition. Given these constraints, you must identify how best to place your settlements by balancing several factors.

1. Immediate rewards, such as placing adjacent to a new location and thus gaining another bonus tile. Some locations, called castles, do not offer a bonus tile, but simply 3VP at the end of the game.

2. Working towards scoring objectives. Aside from the castle locations mentioned above, the only way of scoring VPs is through the three randomly selected scoring cards, which are resolved at the end of the game. Some of these behave like immediate rewards, while some require mid-term or even game-long planning.

3. Managing terrain connectivity. Since you must place adjacent where possible, early in the game it is best to be connected to as few terrain types as possible. This grants flexibility and makes you less dependent on card draw. In the mid-game, it will become impossible to avoid touching all the terrain types. Instead you will switch to maximising connectivity, in order to guarantee that there is something useful to do with any given terrain card.

While some would have you believe that there are no choices in this game because of the single card draw, I find that there are many possible ways of playing each turn, depending on how you prioritise the three factors above. As described, this prioritisation also shifts through the game, which will usually last around 10 turns per player. I suspect that the "no choices" critics have not appreciated the third point, in particular, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Failing to manage connectivity on one turn will restrict your choices on subsequent turns, giving the appearance of an overly prescriptive game.

Scoring card types

]]>This is probably a good time to give a brief breakdown of the scoring cards. I classify them according to a 2x2 matrix. One axis describes whether the goal is related to the specific geographic layout of the terrains or not, while the other describes whether the scoring is linear i.e. a reward for each settlement placed, or non-linear i.e. dependent on completing some kind of multiple settlement structure over time.


           | Terrain-dependent    | Non-terrain-dependent   
-----------|----------------------|-----------------------
Linear     | Fishermen            | Knights
           | Miners               | Discoverers
           | Workers              | Citizens
           |                      | Hermits
-----------|----------------------|-----------------------
Non-linear | Merchants            | Lords
           |                      | Farmers

The simplest cards are linear and terrain-dependent. These just give one point for placing adjacent to water (Fishermen), mountains (Miners), and locations (Workers). If these were the three goals in play, the board would effectively become a simple heat map of hexes worth 0, 1, 2 or 3 points and the game a race to occupy the best positions.

The linear non-terrain-dependent goals come in two antagonistic pairs. Knights rewards players for each settlement placed in the horizontal line in which they have most settlements; while Discoverers rewards players for each different horizontal line which they occupy with at least one settlement. Citizens rewards a large contiguous group of settlements, while Hermits rewards each discrete group of settlements.

For me, the game comes into its own when at least one of the non-linear goals is included, as they reward medium- to long-term planning in a way that the linear goals do not. The terrain-dependent one is Merchants, which gives a large reward for connecting a pair of locations with a chain of houses. The non-terrain dependent ones are Lords and Farmers. Lords makes each of the four boards into a separate sector for area majority scoring, with 12VP awarded for most settlements in a sector and 6VP for runner-up. Farmers pays homage to Knizia by awarding 3VP for each settlement a player has placed on the board on which he has placed fewest.

Bonus tile types

]]>The bonus tiles powers can be broken down into a similar matrix. Again, one of the dimensions is whether or not they are keyed to specific terrains, but the other dimension is whether they allow the addition of an extra settlement or the moving of an existing one.


           | Terrain-dependent    | Non-terrain-dependent   
-----------|----------------------|-----------------------
Addition   | Oasis                | Tavern
           | Farm                 | Tower
           | Oracle               | 
-----------|----------------------|-----------------------
Movement   | Harbour              | Paddock
           | Barn                 |

The simplest bonus tiles allow the addition of a single settlement to a specific terrain: Oasis to desert; Farm to grass; Oracle to whichever card was played this turn. Next are those which allow movement to a specific terrain: the Harbour, which is the only way settlements can be located in water; and the Barn, which allows relocation to the terrain of the card played this turn.

Non-terrain-dependent addition tiles allow a straight line of three or more settlements to be extended by one (Tavern) or a settlement to be added to the outer perimeter of the board (Tower). Like the terrain-dependent ones, the settlements placed through these tiles must still follow the adjacency restriction.

Most game-warping in the base set, and the only non-terrain-dependent movement ability, is the Paddock. This is the only power which breaks the adjacency rule, by allowing a settlement to 'hop' two spaces in any direction, including over obstacles such as mountains, water and other players' settlements.

Interaction between goals and powers

It will already be apparent that the interaction between the set of powers available and the set of goals drives much of the inter-play variability of the game. From the start, players must assess which powers should be prioritised for acquisition, given the scoring cards. For a simple example, the Hermits goal (separated settlement groups) is far, far easier to achieve with the Paddock's adjacency-breaking power than without it.

The game ends at the end of the round when one player has exhausted their supply of settlements, so having several addition powers can force a quick game in which you end with more houses on the board than your opponents. This is useful for several of the scoring cards, such as Lords, the area majority goal. However, movement powers offer a surprising amount of flexibility, often more because of where you move the settlements from than where you move them to. In particular, they allow better management of terrain connectivity, by permitting the removal of an unhelpful adjacency prior to placing the three card-driven settlements for the turn.

While some critics have argued that the game boils down to simply identifying the most important scoring card and working towards it, in fact the winner of the game will be determined by efficiency. Where possible, settlements should be placed to work towards several goals simultaneously. While some scoring cards may look more important because they typically give a higher absolute VP score, in fact it is only the differential between players within each scoring card that matters. For example, connecting to four castles when your opponents only managed one gives an absolute score of 12 but a relative gain of 9, while scoring 20 for Discoverers when your opponents managed 18 and 19 is fairly insignificant.

Addressing the biggest complaint

A recurring complaint from critics of the game is that the single card hand robs players of meaningful choices, and dictates an 'obvious' place that they must play each turn. Several variants have been proposed to correct this 'problem', helpfully summarised in the Kingdom Builder FAQ, and often involving either a hand of more than one card or some way of choosing the next card you will draw.

I have already explained that I think this criticism is based on a poor understanding of the vital skill of managing terrain connectivity. But furthermore, I think that these variants fundamentally change the nature of the game into something that the designer did not intend and that is at odds with my personal preferences.

With a single card, each turn is a constrained optimisation problem, or puzzle, as discussed above. You start from the card you have drawn, construct various possibilities and assess them against the three factors of immediate reward, scoring potential and terrain connectivity. Allowing a choice from multiple terrains inverts this exercise. You would have to identify first where you would ideally like to play, and then which card you need in order to achieve this.

As someone who enjoys doing the best with what I have, this does not appeal. I also suspect that it would add an undesirable amount of additional downtime (see below) while players pondered their expanded set of options. In my experience, a single card, in combination with some bonus tiles, still allows for plentiful choice and creativity. Indeed, Russ Williams' clever experiment demonstrated that the "single obvious placement" criticism is erroneous.

Where the criticism may have some validity is with the very first placements of the game. Each player will almost always want to grab a bonus tile on their first turn. The first card drawn will determine which ones you can access, and late in the turn order you can be left with little choice. A string of two or three of the same terrain right at the start can also leave a player feeling stuck in their initial location, but this can usually be countered by choosing your first bonus tile to be one that guarantees access to a second. I have some sympathy for variants that allow extra choice in the first turn, and I try to advise new players when I think they have made a poor initial choice, usually by connecting to too many different terrain types.

The unique selling point

Having explained why I see the most common complaint about the game as a feature not a bug, I will turn to what I regard as the game's USP.

In a recent interview, Vaccarino gave this interesting quote:

I think of games as having three main pieces: mechanics, flavor, and data. And usually I make them in that order. The mechanics are, you know, what you do, the main part of it anyway. Flavor is the theme. And then data is just the information in the game. For example in Puerto Rico the mechanic is “pick an action, we all do it, it’s better for you.” There are other mechanics but they are secondary. The flavor is plantations in the New World, and then the data is, you have a certain amount of money and corn and indigo and colonists and so on, you have a certain set of plantations and quarries and buildings, and pairings of colonies with buildings.

I had previously broken down games mainly in terms of mechanics and dynamics. Mechanics are the explicit rules of the game, while dynamics describes the emergent gameplay that arises from these rules. I would have considered Vaccarino’s ‘data’ to be a subset of the mechanics of a game.

However, it is a hallmark of Vaccarino’s games in particular that the distinction between mechanics and data is very clear. The mechanics of Dominion are as simple as ABC, but the heart of the game comes from data injected on the cards. Similarly, Kingdom Builder has a simple mechanical framework that allows for large variability in both the goals of the game (scoring cards) and the tools used to achieve them (bonus tiles). For example, a game with only addition bonus tiles feels very different from one with lots of movement tiles, just as traditional abstract games are often divided into games of placement and games of movement.

What I find most remarkable about Kingdom Builder is that the data introduced into the game doesn’t just introduce new mechanics, but also new dynamics. With the Lords card in play, there is a vying interaction between players that is not present without it. With Merchants in play, suddenly blocking other players’ connections becomes hugely important.

You can choose a set of linear, terrain-based goals and race to the key positions. You can choose a set of non-terrain-based goals and use the map as the background for a weird abstract dance of settlements. You can combine the two and have to strike a balance between short-term gratification and long-term planning. It’s almost like the game system is a machine for mixing and matching mechanics and dynamics to generate new games or simulate the feel of existing ones.

I find this variability delightful, and I enjoy looking back at the board at the end of the game and reflecting on how the morphology of settlements that has emerged over the course of the game has been driven by the goals in play.

Minor drawbacks

All that said, there are a few minor drawbacks to the game that stop it being a perfect 10 for me. One is downtime. I generally prefer games with many short turns, or with turns in which all players are active. In the mid-game, once players have several bonus tiles, turns can become quite lengthy and there is nothing for other players to do during them.

Relatedly, the game is not generally high on interaction, although this does vary between the scoring cards, as mentioned above. On the plus side, the relative lack of interaction means the game scales well from 2-4 players, though I suspect the 5th player allowed by the first expansion would exacerbate the downtime problem to an unbearable level.

Finally, much like Dominion, the game is highly abstracted. The generic medievalism is used almost purely as a setting, with some weak connections to the mechanics and none to the dynamics. This is not a problem for me, as a Euro-phile and die-hard Knizia fan, but some will be put off by it.

Comparisons to other games

A couple of games are commonly brought up as comparisons, so I will briefly share my thoughts on those.

Dominion
Inevitably, Vaccarino’s subsequent games are going to be compared to his breakthrough hit Dominion. I’ve already mentioned a few similarities that identify a DXV style, the clearest being the separation between data and mechanics. Important parts of how the game works are chosen from a larger set at the start of each game, allowing a huge number of possible combinations. Thus in both games, initial board assessment is important, to work out which strategies to pursue. Both games also have an engine-building arc, with early turns focusing on acquiring powers and later ones switching to a scoring focus.

Where Kingdom Builder succeeds over Dominion for me (comparing base sets only) is that the game isn’t so entirely focused on the board assessment. Once a strategy is chosen in Dominion, how to play your cards each turn becomes auto-pilot. In Kingdom Builder, I find that later turns still retain the puzzle-like aspect described earlier. This means that in Dominion, it can feel like there is a disconnect between the part where you get to be clever (initial board assessment) and the final outcome. Kingdom Builder provides opportunities to feel clever and creative on each turn.

Unlike Dominion, Kingdom Builder is not really about combos. One reason I tired of base Dominion was that it seemed that there were only a handful of really game-changing cards and most cards in a given set were ignored once the killer combo was identified. If you want to win Kingdom Builder, it’s impossible to ignore any of the scoring cards.

I also find the variability in the Kingdom Builder scoring cards more radical than that of the Dominion cards. A game of (base) Dominion gives you different tools but the same goal of filling your deck with point cards by the end of the game. Kingdom Builder allows the goals and dynamics to be altered too, as I described above.

Finally, the downtime, interaction and theme complaints about Kingdom Builder could equally be levelled at Dominion too.

Through the Desert
The other oft-cited game is Knizia’s Through the Desert. On a surface level, this seems apt. Both games have players placing pieces on a hex grid in order to connect to specific locations and to achieve longer-term goals. However, I find that the two games feel very different to play.

As described, Kingdom Builder’s single card hand makes it a game of doing the best with what you have. In contrast, Through the Desert is a perfect information game where the tension comes more from a Go-like assessment of what you need to do now versus what can safely be left for later. There is also no engine building element in Through the Desert, nor does it have the variability that Kingdom Builder offers.

It would be possible to design scoring cards for Kingdom Builder that make it feel more like Through the Desert. For example, I was half expecting the Nomads expansion to introduce an area-enclosure element, and I still wonder if this will show up in a future expansion. For me, this demonstrates the flexibility of Kingdom Builder as a game system that can easily incorporate dynamics from other games.

Expandability

Like Dominion, the separation of data and mechanics makes the game a prime target for expansions. Indeed, the first one has already arrived, and my last five plays have incorporated it. This review has grown long enough that I don't want to discuss the way Nomads expands the strategic space, but I may write a supplementary review after a few more plays.

Kingdom Builder is remarkably well suited for fan-created expansions, as they can be playtested without any new components being created. Several have already been proposed and I have a few ideas of my own.

Conclusion

I hope this review has set out why the game has been such a success for me, given my particular preferences. If, like me, you value elegance and emergent game play, spatial interaction and high variability, and are happy with reasonably high levels of randomness and abstraction, the game may well be worth considering. I think it would make an excellent selection for the 2012 Spiel des Jahres. In my experience it has worked very well with non-gamer friends and family, while retaining interest for the hardcore gamer too.

[Thanks to chaddyboy for images]

Review: Hagoth: Builder of Ships:: The Purge: Review #5: Hagoth: Whistle while you work! Whistle while you build a ship?!?

william4192 — Thu, 31 May 2012 05:20:29 +0000

by william4192

]]>

Conclusion: I won't hide the ball. Hagoth is a filler at best. If it goes too long, it will lose its charm. I've heard a 4 player game can drag (looking for the perfect card!), but I've only played it two player. For a two player game, I can play rather quickly if you are willing to adapt. In a four player game, I can see building the smaller ships might be the better strategy. My conclusion is this is an okay filler. I think I got my copy for 2 bucks and that is not bad. If I had 15-30 to play a game, I could find worse games. With that said, you are doing the same thing over and over. Just don't play it too many times in a short span of time.

There is a lot of luck in this game: when, who, and what cards are drawn. If you can relax and change your strategy based on what cards you are dealt, then you will do well at this game. You can only build two ships at a time, but there are only 2 variations of ships to build (5 total ships, but three are a variation of one type and the other two are a variation of another type).

If you can get this cheap, then grab it to combine shipping or get free shipping. It is a game I'll hold on to for a little bit longer.

]]>

Components: I usually don't like small box games, but this was is okay. The box is really, really small and yet everything fits in it. The player tokens (and ships!) are of decent quality (although they don't quite feel solid). The cards are alright (I have sleeves on mine) and the board is of fine quality. The artwork is nothing to write home about. There are about 4 different types of cards (except for the ship blueprints) with the same pictures on each (ala clip art). It is not the least pleasing game, but not even very good. If you like a nearly naked man with a skirt on, you will love the front of the box.

]]>

Rules: The rules are short, clear, and concise. Nothing too difficult to understand and you can read it while you play for the first time. No preparations needed. There isn't a whole of rules to this game. We played with the variant and I recommend doing so (instead of being forced to play at least one card, you can discard two cards and draw two cards and that would be our turn).

]]>

Flow of Play: Basically, you are building blueprints (from your cards), then chopping down and building a ship. After the ships is built, you sail it to get VP. You get VP for building the ship and then get VP for sailing it across a body of water.

You get 5 cards, you can play two and then draw two (that's your turn) or take one action (your other option). The actions are pretty much just things you can do with your cards (but if you don't have the card you can do one instead of two). This rule keeps the game moving and keeps one person from having to cycle to get the perfect card.

Your options are: play two cards to fill a blueprint (there are five possible ships to build). Cut down a tree to get wood, if you have wood, take the wood and build the ship, and sail the ship. There are a couple of cards that skip a turn, take wood from someone or even take a card from their blueprint (take that!).

For the most part, you do your own thing and there is occasional screwage. The first one to 25 VP wins (there is a track on the board for record keeping).

]]>

Should you buy this game?: Great question. For five bucks or less and just as a filler, yes. By this review, you should be able to see if you like this sort of game or not. If you find 5 bucks hard to come by (and are not trying to get free shipping or the like), save your cash for a better game. This is a game you could enjoy with small kids as it is pretty easy to learn the rules and play.

Review: Ticket to Ride: Europe:: Last Stop

San Il Defanso — Thu, 31 May 2012 03:16:31 +0000

by San Il Defanso

Keep following the tracks back to my blog, The Rumpus Room.

Let’s travel back in time to the fall of 2007. That was when I first got into board gaming in a serious way, and I was smack in the middle of my “buy-everything” phase. Among my many purchases was a game that most nascent gamers buy, Alan Moon’s Ticket to Ride. I liked a lot of games, but I genuinely loved Ticket to Ride. We played it at every game night, almost without exception. It was the game I was known for playing, my absolute favorite. So it was not a surprise that for my 25th birthday, my future wife bought me Ticket to Ride: Europe. So began my collection of most of the Ticket to Ride line. I bought the Switzerland expansion map, the 1910 expansion for the original game, and the third version of the original game, Ticket to Ride: Marklin. I even got the card game version. I was neck-deep in Ticket to Ride, and I loved it.

But as we all do, I moved on. In late 2008 and early 2009, I discovered Ameritrash games, particularly Cosmic Encounter and Battlestar Galactica. Suddenly the family-style Ticket to Ride games felt rather quaint and reserved. There was no sense of narrative or drama that I now discovered I really loved in games. And besides that, I was rapidly learning that unless you really love a game, it’s never worth owning more than one version of it. Having four different versions of Ticket to Ride meant that none of them got played all that much. I began to slowly trade away the various games, and I wondered if maybe my time with this simple train game was at an end. Eventually, there was just one Ticket to Ride game on my shelf, and that was Ticket to Ride: Europe, with the Switzerland map tucked in the box.

This is usually where I take a moment to explain a game, but odds are it’s not really necessary in this case. (But it’s not like that will stop me.) It’s the same rummy-like gameplay from the original. You collect sets of colored cards to occupy different spots on the map, in an attempt to connect different cities and complete routes listed on your ticket cards. The Europe map introduces a couple of new wrinkles to the game. The most obvious is the board itself, which is now a map of Europe. There two new types of routes, tunnels and ferries. Ferries require a certain number of wild cards, and tunnels require a flip of three cards to see if any of them match the cards you are playing. If they do, you will need to pay some more cards of that color. There are also little train stations which allow you to get into a city using someone else’s route. My favorite change is one with the tickets. The six 20+-point tickets are dealt separately to the players, so that each person is guaranteed at least one long ticket.

The general feel of the game is one that is more balanced and even. Usually I think that’s a bad move, but Ticket to Ride was never a game where interaction and screwage are a big factor. A bad draw on tickets had the ability to sink you in the original game, if you only got routes running north-to-south. The increased balance makes the game feel a little less luck-dependent and a little more open to changing strategies. The Europe map is also a little more crowded in the middle. There are more small-point connections on this map, and far fewer big “jackpot” routes. The long routes that are there are mostly along the periphery of the board. That means that it’s a lot more difficult to just rack up points from connecting cities around the board. The stations also give an option to someone who has gotten crowded out of a city simply because they were the last ones to get there.

But even as its more balanced, I suspect that the game is also a little more competitive. Because the map is more radial and less grid like, almost every ticket has to go through the middle of the board. That means you’ll be racing as fast as possible to get those valuable center routes, and you’re much more likely to get in each other’s way. And as in the original game there’s the inherant tension of wondering how long you can wait to lay down a route before someone else swoops in and snatches it away. The tunnels also provide a brutal form of risk-taking. The rush to claim routes often makes you try for a tunnel before you are able to absorb the extra cost, but the extra turn to get more cards is one more turn where someone else can pre-empt you. The result is a finer balance between a fair shake for everyone, and increased tension and tactics between players. Because of this, I think the game handles larger groups better than the original. The equal balance and abundance of small routes means that a five-player game is far more reliable. The flip-side is that two-player games aren’t as interesting, which is why I held on to the 2-3 player Switzerland map.

So what made me hold on to Europe after getting rid of the other versions? I find that for me it strikes the best balance between what I need from this series. I really don’t play games like Ticket to Ride anymore, so the slight increase in complexity is appreciated for my more gamer-ish tendencies. At the same time, it remains an intuitive straightforward game. You can play it with your grandparents without much difficulty, and that’s good. If it were much MORE complex, it’d be virtually useless for me. I generally only play Ticket to Ride with casual crowds, so Europe strikes just the right spot between being complex enough to engage me, while still being simple enough to enjoy with non-gamers.

And besides that, I have a lot of fond memories associated with the game. It’s part of my history in the hobby, and I don’t think I could ever totally cut it out of my gaming diet. At the same time, I just don’t love the series like I once did. That’s not a reflection on the game, but rather on my own shifting tastes. It’s a little like the old D&D player who keeps his 2nd Edition books around. To get rid of them would be to forget where you came from, and Ticket to Ride has been too good to me to completely move on. And if the game is still occasionally enjoyable after several years, that’s reason enough.

Review: Filipino Fruit Market:: What you need to know and what people think about Filipino Fruit Market

EndersGame — Thu, 31 May 2012 03:11:37 +0000

by EndersGame

Filipino Fruit Market is one of the early and lesser known games distributed by Indie Board & Cards along with Bambus Spieleverlag. Designed by Peer Sylvester, designer of König von Siam and Singapore, it appeared at Essen 2009, and contains two different trick-taking games for 3-5 players, Tindahan and Bastos, both of which are themed around Philippine fruit markets.

I've scoured the personal comments and skimmed through some reviews and other articles, and carefully organized some key quotations to bring you the important things you need to know and what other people think about Filipino Fruit Market. The parts in bold express my own conclusions, which are then expanded upon and substantiated by the citations that follow, to give you a feel of what most people are saying on each point. Perhaps you could call this a kind of "consensus of opinion", somewhat biased because I'm the one who gets to pick the quotes to include, but overall a well-rounded and fairly objective viewpoint. So here you have it, an at-a-glance overview of some of the majority opinions that you need to know about this game.

NB: For more reviews like this, see this list.

]]>
]]>
1. The box contains two different trick taking games, Tindahan and Bastos.
“2 mindwarping trick taking games in one box.” – Dave O’Connor
“Two quite original trick-takers.” – Andy Parsons
“Neat little set of card games.” – Charles A. Davis
“Quite an original game no matter which version you play!” – Tim Thomas
“Two solid unique trick-taking games.” – Tim Mierz

2. Tindahan is the better of the two games.
“Bastos is not bad, but Tindahan is far better -- definitely Tindahan has something new.” – Taiju Sawada
“Tindahan is better, but Bastos is really good too! As a TT fan, 2 clever, unique games in one package was a can’t-miss for me.” – Lucas Hedgren
“I give Tindahan a 9 and Bastos a 7.” – Dave O’Connor
“I much prefer and really like, Tindahan, the five-player trick-taking majorities game.” – Larry Chong
“Tindahan is about a 7 and Bastos! is about a 5. Bastos! is just too reminiscent of other trick-taking games, and there isn't a huge amount you can do with a bad hand. Tindahan does more interesting things.” – Dan Blum

Tindahan

3. Tindahan is a cross between trick taking and majority control.
“It's a trick taking game where 2 games are going on at the same time, area of majority and trick taking.” – Eric Pietrocupo
“Standard trick taking rules with a few additions of the option of changing trump as your action instead of laying a card if you are the lead player, and then other players can often play a cube in the lead suit which will score for majorities and runner up at the end of the round when someone runs out of cards.” – Larry Rice
“There's a little bit of area majority mixed into a trick taking game without an opening trump suit. Tricks are worth two points and cards left in your hand are minus one each. You can forgo a opening a turn to change the trump suit. Again, forgo your turn to place a cube in the cart for the current suit.” – Lindsay Scholle
“This is definitely a trick-taking game, but it has some other aspects to it that make it different from the many, many variations on that theme that already exist.” – Isaac Bickerstaff
“Trick taking meets area majority.” – Mandy Heiser
“Tindahan is a mixture of trick-taking & majority control. Basically, in each trick you choose between playing a card or increasing your influence in the fruit that was led. Points for tricks plus 1st/2nd majorities in market, penalties for cards left in hand.” – Steve Kearon
“A traditional trick-taking game meets area control. It is a clean merger of two mechanics, and a decent game.” – Eric Lund

4. There are mixed reactions as to how well the meshing of mechanics in Tindahan works, but mostly positive.
]]>
Positive comments
“Clever trick-taking game with some really neat ideas.” – Rick Baptist
“I've played Tindahan and found it enjoyable.” – Larry Rice
“Something different in the trick taking genre that's fun and spices it up a bit is very welcome indeed. Light and yet offering interesting decisions.” – Lindsay Scholle
“At first glance, these mechanisms sound chaotic, but there's more control over your fate that the summary suggests. It's a neat game, and one that I look forward to playing again.” – Isaac Bickerstaff
“One of my top picks for 5-player trick-taking games!” – Larry Chong
“The novelty of the game comes from the area majority game in the market stands. Not only are players trying to wrangle their way into taking the most tricks but they are also trying to manipulate the fruit stand availability. It's a simple game but it's also a lot of fun.” – rayito
“Tindahan is a terrific little trick-taking game where not only do players can earn points for taking tricks, but also for controlling majorities in the suits. An extremely clever and deep game, and one of the more innovative trick-taking games I've seen in some time.” – Terry Egan
“I'm generally not a fan of majorities, but it worked fine.” – Tim Mierz
“If you like trick taking games, this is a must have.” – Joel Weeks
“The new wrinkles that has been added to a traditional trick-taking game keeps this game feeling fresh and exciting. For me, Filipino Fruit Market is already worth getting for Tindahan alone.” – Gordon Yu

Negative comments
“Although I do love my trick taking games, this one left me feeling like the extras added to it actually ruin the trick taking.” – Michel Condoroussis
“I have yet to see a compelling reason for an area control mechanic in a trick taking game. Honestly, the mashed-up mechanics just don't work well.” – Jason Cheng
“I love trick taking games but this one just doesn't seem to bring anything interesting to the table.” – Matt Loter
“Very strange game that cannot choose between a traditional cardgame and a majority game.” – Koen Verstraete

Bastos

5. Bastos gives each player a suit that can’t win tricks but can change values for won cards.
]]>“It's a trick taking game where each player chooses an anti-trump suit. When a player plays an anti-trump card they cannot win the trick. Another cool element is a fluctuating market. Cards of each fruit suit are worth points at the end of the hand based on current market value. Market value fluctuates based on card play through out the hand over a range of negative and positive numbers. So it's kind of like a stock market trick taking game.” – rayito
“Bastos, is more about manipulating suit values. There's more to learn about how to play well, but strangely less satisfying.” – Patrick Brennan
“Bastos has a cool market going on, where everything that's good for you is actually bad, and vice versa. Lots of cool tradeoffs, but a decent number of choices are practically made for you.” – Tim Mierz
“Fun card game - with the option of saying "Bastos!" at regular intervals. Choosing your bastos suit is an interesting balance between wanting to influence the value of cards won and wanting to actually win tricks eg by leaving a long trump suit. However this process is somewhat negated by what suit others choose so you can overthink it. A nice game with an interesting twist.” – Eddy Richards

6. The overall reaction to Bastos is cooler, but some people really like it.
“I played Bastos!, which is an interesting trick-taking game. I would certainly play it again, though there are probably other trick-taking games I enjoy more.” – Rishi A.
“Bastos! is just too reminiscent of other trick-taking games, and there isn't a huge amount you can do with a bad hand. Tindahan does more interesting things.” – Dan Blum
“Not sure how much control there is here but most card games are about doing the best with the hands you're dealt and this seems quite amenable to aggressive play, which was fun.” – Uisge Beatha
“Bastos! is the gem here with some amazing strategy present that I don't know exists in another game--You can slough a trump (which in this game is negative pts.)! Very, very clever. If I can find people to play it, I can see this becoming one of my favorite card games.”

General comments

7. Trick taking games just aren’t for everyone, but if you do like them you'll likely enjoy these.
“I just do not like trump taking games.” – WenMorJ
“It might be better than other trick-taking card games, but I find most of them to be annoying.” – Chris R.
“I enjoy trick taking games and both of these are different renditions/variations of trick taking.” – Larry Rice
“Playtested both games--fun and different for those who like trick-taking games. Great to have both included in one box!” – Jeffrey Allers

8. The components are merely average.
“The component isn't too great. The box is pedestrian. The card is colorful and nicely illustrated. The cubes are not nicely painted.” – Starsunsky
“The fruit carts are terribly designed, especially considering the fact that the fruit cards are actually pretty nice.” – Martin Ralya
“The fruity card artwork is quite nicely done.” – Andy Parsons
“I don't love the light-weight cubes, but they are certainly functional.” – Steve Wood
“The rules read a bit awkwardly in spots - at least for us.” - vandemonium

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

The bottom line: what you need to know

If you enjoy trick-taking games and want to try something original, the two games included in Filipino Fruit Market are well worth a look, especially the unique mix of majority control and trick-taking in Tindahan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete list of Ender's "What you need to know and what people think about..." reviews:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/37595

Review: Brass:: Northern Greatness - One of my top ten games

Ken_Nicholson — Wed, 30 May 2012 23:32:55 +0000

by Ken_Nicholson

"Where there's muck there's brass!"

The northern expression that gives this game a name and what a game. There are four elements that I seek in a game:

- Theme
- Attraction
- Mechanic
- Engagement

If a game scores high in any one of these areas then I'll enjoy it and more than likely want to play it again. But if a game comes along that scores highly in all of these then that is a truly great game that'll I'll always want to play again.

From my subject line you've already guessed the ending of this story and maybe you agree with my sentiment, maybe you don't share my view or maybe you're undecided. I hope that if you agree with me you'll enjoy my observations, if you don't agree hopefully I can encourage you to take another look and if you're undecided then this is a chance to influence you.

Theme 10/10

I'm not one for needing lots of background and detail to a game to give it depth and interest but I do want games to be about something; which is not to say that I don't like abstract games, but it does mean I prefer theme to abstract games. Brass is the industrial revolution. That's the game and to my mind it really achieves it's aims here. The board shows the North (of England) and all the great towns and cities that have such resonance when it comes to the 19th century revolution that changed our world so much. The game has enough turns and with the clever two phase game (canel phase and rail phase) you really get the feel of the passage of history as the board fills up with mines, railways and "dark satanic" mills. This is an excellent theme that really works, oh and by the way I love railways and industry so it really hits my buttons.

Attraction 10/10

Games can so easily be about thinking and planning and that all to easy analysis. But games are also brilliantly emotional; and for me there is no difference between the desire to listen to great music, see great films or hang out with great friends and the desire to play great games. I long to play some games and when I have the expectation of playing a game there is no better feeling (though no doubt my wife might have words about that). So where's the attraction in Brass. Brass gives me the hit of balancing efficiency game goodness with the chagrin of competing for the right places to play; Brass gives you that sense of being the industrial magnate with the frustration of not quite having enough turns to do the things you want to do. This game hits so many of my gaming needs that the attraction is turned up to max.

Mechanic 10/10

The mechanics of games can make or break them. Without mechanics that work and make the game run smooth and achieve their aims you might as well go home. There are a number of neat mechanics in Brass. First are the cards these either show locations in the North or industries in your turn you play two cards to either build in the location on the card or build an industry as shown on the card in a location your connected too. This allows you to do almost everything you want to do but sometimes just not quite enough which to my mind fits very well with the business situation industrialists found themselves in. The industries have a clever mechanic as well where you can develop them to get more points or income from them and as they become more developed they become more dependant on each other which means that sometimes you have to take resources from other players which helps them along. The railways/canals work really well at connecting your industries and the income/exporting cotton balance the game so that there are multiple ways of winning (always an important element to a game).

Engagement 10/10

The last element of importance is the way a game can keep you interested as you play and at its best make you feel you're in the situation you're acting out. Brass has this in spades. The turns aren't too long so you always feel engaged with what's going on. The turn order is dependant on your spend in the previous round which changes things up each turn. There's lots for you to consider between turns that keeps you thinking. You really get a sense of your expanding industry and with the neat move from canal phase to rail phase and the removal of obsolete tech means that the board cleans up a bit but if you've developed your tech you'll still have some of your industry on the board. There is a slightly artificial element in the canal phase of no town allowing a player to have more that one build there but this does mean you can't fall too far behind. Also as most of the points are gained in the rail phase you never feel out of it early on and newbies can adapt as they go.

Conclusion

Brass gives me all the key elements that make, for me, a great game. I freely admit that I'm slightly swayed by the fact I'm from the North originally and the game gives me a bit of a homely feeling; also this was the first game my girlfriend (now my wife) bought me so there is a sentimental element to my attraction. But even so I do think this is a truely great game it makes me feel like an industrialist, it engages enough thinking to make it fun without making it painful, it's fun with some unexpectant twists that can happen and the mechanics really make it quick without taking away the sense of being in the moment. Add to this the fact it was designed by the mighty Martin Wallace and want more do you want from a game.

Review: Malta!:: Review for Malta! A game that needed an unbiased review.

stpauler — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:45:03 +0000

by stpauler

This game is up for sale cheap on Tanga right now and it just happened to be part of a pile of games that was on sale for 75% off at one of my local FLGSs. The one review up for it has accusations of bias so here's one with no bias. Or at least, my bias. Fine, it's got bias.

What is it?
The best way I could describe this game would be Fluxx with teeth. It's random and any plans you make can be torn to shreds by other cards before the turn comes back to you. Fluxx is more hugs and this is definitely a take-that type game. It's played on a moving "game board" made up of circular tiles, pawns are moved about, and cards are drawn. Run out of cards and you've lost.

Components
49 round tiles make up the game board. These are thin and got a little bit dinged up on the sides already from a couple plays.
108 cards which are not the typical linen style that I like in Z-Man games so this was a little more cheaply done.
6 plastic pawns that I've seen before in the game Landslide!
Instruction booklet which should be updated with the errata listed in the rules forum here. (Allemande left was interpreted per the card and not the instructions here).

Set-up
This is a little lengthy and undesirable. 49 round tiles need to be placed down on a table with the numbers all facing one direction. It's a bit tedious (especially for those persnickety fellow players). These need to be rather exact as some cards can rotate a tile 45 degrees making for an off-kilter card's intentions to be misinterpreted.

Players pick a pawn, a starting point, and 4 cards are dealt out with "the youngest" going first.

Very basic rules
Player follows the following order:
1) Draw a card or cards based on the number of the tile they are on. (If you're on a zero-draw no cards, on a two-draw two cards, etc).
2) Count the number of cards in your hand and play 1/2 of them by rounding up. (If you have 6 cards in your hand, you play 3. If you have 7 cards in your hand, you play 4). If you have one card in your hand and play it without drawing new ones, you lose.
3) Then move one space. If you can't move one space, you lose.

How does it play?
]]>
I played several times with my lunch group who are mostly very light to light gamers and they loved it. One of them really liked the "take that" cards and she just enjoys revenge, so this was just up her alley. Her favorite card was the "Glimpse of the Future" which allowed her to see the top five cards on the draw stack, take one and rearrange the order to help/hurt the next players. What was interesting was how you could see yourself get into corners and then a card later, you could be in the lead. Speaking of which, some cards are rather "silly". Cards that make you change seats or change seats-cards-and-token made even short-term strategy worthless. The first game lasted 7 minutes with training and lots of reading of the cards and re-reading of the rules. The next game lasted 31 minutes. A third game was 21 minutes. So think in terms of Fluxx where some games can be short or long.

Final summation and who's it for and who's it not for.
It turns out to be an ok game for what it is. To help you out, I think this chart will help:
]]>

Review: Space Maze:: We are not alone....

Flashly — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:04:05 +0000

by Flashly

This is my first review on boardgamegeek, so bear with me. As with everything I post on boardgamegeek; input is always appreciated.

Space Maze

If I’m in a philosophical mood I’ll ask myself some of the more profound questions of life. What is our purpose on earth, what is the meaning of life and what do women want? These are some of the more profound questions we can ask ourselves. According to Wacky Works one of life’s more profound questions has been answered. We are not alone in this universe….. Aliens do exist and they spend their time trying to find and obtain secret relics!

A couple of months ago I entered an online contest in which the prize was an copy of Wacky Works ‘Space Maze’. I had read the rules of the game and was very interested in this game. And to my surprise I won. After the game was delivered I decided to treat myself to the mini expansion ‘The Rollercoaster’ which I bought at the boardgamegeekstore. The mini expansion adds action cards to the game.

After playing this game these are my findings.

What’s the purpose of this game?

Basically you play one of the existing four alien races. You get three aliens (each with a different color) in your UFO and you enter a maze (which is floating in outer space) with your aliens. Then you’ll have to find a way to the middle of the maze where a secret relic is hidden. After you’ve reached the middle of the maze, you steal the relic and make your way back to your UFO.

The player whose alien enters his or her UFO with the relic on it’s head, wins the game. Also if a player obtains the relic three times during a game he or she also wins the game (this is possible because aliens can steal the relic from each other).

How does it work?

The gameboard is made up of maze tiles. Each tile represents a room and each room has four doorways and one computerconsole in it. Each doorway is either red, blue or yellow (the primary colors). Because the tiles are next to each other an alien has to get through two doorways to get to another room. The tile in the middle is a relic tile. In this room you’ll find the relic. Doorways in this room are gray.

The aliens you are playing are either green, orange or purple (the secondary colors) and these aliens can only pass through a doorway if the two ends of this doorway form the color of the alien (for example: a green alien can pas through the blue and yellow doorway).

In your turn you and your opponents get to choose some dice which are thrown by the startplayer. You get to choose a movement-die and two power-die. The movement-die represents how many steps your aliens can make if they can pass through the doorways. Also you can activate the computer in a room with a movement-die, which will give you extra action cards.

These action cards are what makes this game interesting, because with these action cards you can alter the maze. You can - for example - rotate a room 180 degrees, you can switch two rooms with each other or you can get extra movement by playing an action card. But you’ll need the right power-die to activate your action cards.

Once an alien has obtained the relic (which is put on top of it’s head) that alien can pass through any doorway regardless of the colors of the doorways, which gives this alien an advantage over the other aliens trying to stop him from reaching his UFO.

My findings

Let’s start with the components of the game. They look absolutely great! Once you’ve build your maze, placed our aliens in your UFO and placed your control panel in front of you’ve got a great looking board in front of you. It’s very colourfull and makes you want to play (I actually get very happy when I see boards like this).

The tiles are very firm and rotate easily. You don’t have to worry about damaging the tiles. The same goes for the action cards and your control panel.

The only ‘problem’ I’ve got with the components is the way the aliens look. The different races of aliens look pretty much alike. So you’ll have to watch carefully which aliens on the board are yours (especially because all players have the same colour aliens).

The gameplay is good. It’s easy to learn and doesn’t take up a lot of time (one game can be played in 30-45 minutes). Your tactical choices do matter and make a difference. Look at what your opponents can do with the dices and block their actions. Also block the way your opponent wants to take by rotating the tiles around him. And don’t forget your action cards! Your first idea is to rush to the middle of the maze. But if you don’t stop and use some of your movement points to activate your computer, you won’t be able to get new action cards. And without action cards you’ll have no way to alter the maze in your advantage.

Once an alien has obtained the relic the game gets real ‘wacky’. This alien can move easier than other aliens so you and your other opponents have to do everything in your power to stop the alien with the relic. When playing with two players the alien with the relic is – in my opinion - to powerfull. Because he can move without worrying about colours he can concentrate on getting home and blocking his opponent. It’s nearly impossible to intercept the relic and bring it home. The only way to avoid this is to move one or two of your aliens on your opponents side of the board at the start of the game. When playing with four players the aliens are ‘in balance’. The alien with the relic has a good chance to get home, but the other players have plenty opportunities to intercept the relic.

Basically Space Maze is a fun game where you’ll want to block an thwart your opponents. There will be a lot of laughter around the table when your opponents scream in frustration when you’ve blocked their way yet again. As I explained I like this game better with four players. The game looks absolutely great.

I’m very curious how Wacky Works next game(s) will be!

Review: Cards Against Humanity:: A Year With Cards Against Humanity

DoomTurtle — Wed, 30 May 2012 18:51:00 +0000

by DoomTurtle

I can't quite remember how I found out about Cards Against Humanity, there must have been a post here on BGG that lead me to look into it. It was sometime in December of 2010 that I took a look at their webpage and Kickstarter campaign, and thought it looked funny enough that I would print it out for our upcoming Christmas party.

It was such a hit that the next day I went to the Kickstarter page to pledge for a professionally created copy.

I've played the game a total of 11 times so far, which may not seem like a lot since that first Christmas party, but it often doesn't get repeated plays with the same groups. The reason for that is the game is such a hit with our friends, that we often end up playing until we run out of cards. After a few plays, they have seen most everything that the game includes, which means it doesn't get requested too often, for as much as everyone likes it. I do love sharing this game with new groups, and I still have plenty of people to introduce this to, just have to find the right time and place.

The Premise:
This is a party game in the same vein as Apples to Apples. Players will answer questions or fill in the blanks with cards from their hand, hoping to have the best answer out of all the players. Many of the questions/statements as well as the answers are often dirty, racist, sexist, blasphemist, etc., so those that find humor in such things will have a great time. This game is definitely for the more mature (immature?) gamer.

The Components:
The game comes with a stack of about 80 black question/statement cards and 400 or so white answer cards. Also includes some black and white blank cards for those that want to create their own.

The cards are on a nice stock and should last through repeated playing.

The Gameplay:
Each player will be dealt 10 white answer cards. The black cards are shuffled and placed in a pile on the table. One player will be the Card Czar for the round and draws a black question/statement card to read to everyone. All the other players will hand in an answer card from their hand to the Card Czar. The Card Czar will shuffle up all the answers (so he can't deduce who gave which answer) and read them all aloud to everyone, and then choosing the best answer. The player that gave the answer takes the black card which now becomes a point.

The players draw more white cards until they are at 10, and the next player clockwise will become the Card Czar and read a new question/statement. This will continue until a player has a predetermined number of points, in which case they win.

Once you have at least one point, you are allowed to wager it in order to increase your chances of winning the next card. You simply throw in one of your previously won black cards, which allows you to give the Card Czar an extra white card (only one extra allowed). If the Card Czar selects either of your cards, you win the original point, plus all points wagered from the group. If someone else gets selected, then they will also win all the wagered points.

Some cards will need two or three answers, so in this case, the players have to select that many cards from their hand in the order of their choosing to the Card Czar. Players will always draw back up to 10 cards at the end of each round.

Final Thoughts:
If you can handle the subject matter, than this game is absolutely hilarious. I started getting tears in my eyes from just cutting out and assembling the cards in the version I made for my Christmas party. Some of the answers are just so absurd, they make me laugh. And then when you combine the answers with some of the fill in the blank statements, it is borderline genius. When it finally came time to play at the Christmas party, we had 13 people crying tears of laughter, with one almost passing out from being unable to breath from laughing so hard.

Not every card is pure filth made to offend everyone. Some cards are very innocent, and when used well, the answers to the questions/statements are quite clever and witty, compared to some others that are played just for their shock value. This game has quite a great mix of humor.

There are a couple of questions in the deck that we have had to reword in order for the answers to make sense. I think the question just wasn't in the right tense as compared to all the others, so the answers seemed off until it was reread in the right tense. Other than that, no complaints with what has been provided. As I mentioned earlier, the game may start to get stale if you play it with the same group over and over, and start to see the same cards come up too often.

A lot of the statements and answers are based on pop culture, that some players just may not be familiar with or understand the meaning of. This is just something to be aware of when playing with others that may not be native to North America and understand the language well, or just don't keep up with certain aspects news, current events, or entertainment.

Following the guidelines provided by BGG, I give this game an 8. I don't opt for party games too often, but this is one I can never get tired of, especially when there are new people in the group. The game is simple, but is an absolute riot.

Thanks for reading my review, you can find more games I've had for at least a year at A Year With My Games.

Review: The Great Space Race:: TGSR: an Italian Review

air show — Wed, 30 May 2012 18:14:15 +0000

by air show

Ambientazione:

In uno spazio-tempo lontano, L'Imperatore Galattico organizza alla fine di ogni ciclo stellare una corsa tra i rappresentanti delle razze più tristi e sfigate della Galassia: in palio c'è la sopravvivenza della specie, infatti solo la razza vincitrice sarà risparmiata, mentre tutte le altre verranno epurate dal macrocosmo!

Componentistica:

La plancia di gioco è molto grande, molto colorata, decisamente robusta. Le plance delle navi e degli eventi (Amoeba, Buco Nero) lo sono altrettanto, mentre la stessa qualità non è riscontrabile nelle carte, che sono davvero molto sottili e richiedono obbligatoriamente la protezione in bustine, possibilmente rigide (stile Fantasy Flight). Tantissimi i segnalini in cartoncino lucido ma sottile.
Le miniature sono gradevoli ma non differenti tra loro se non per il colore, peccato.
La grafica riprende quello che è lo spirito del gioco, ovvero divertente e funzionale ma non certo dettagliatissima o “realistica”: c'è quello che serve, non molto di più, ma alla fine l'impatto al tavolo è comunque notevole.

Set up:

La plancia viene posta al centro del tavolo: griglia totalmente esagonale, rappresenta un percorso non eccessivamente tortuoso. I giocatori scelgono una delle 8 navi disponibili e ne prendono la relativa scheda (grande come un A4), la miniatura del loro colore, mine e decisioni di comando in base al numero di giocatori e i dischetti per segnalare i livelli iniziali di scudi (10), velocità (1) e scafo (6). Le carte sono divise in 3 mazzetti in base al tipo: Carte Azione, Eventi Speciali, Equipaggiamenti. Una volta scelto il primo ordine di gioco si piazzano le miniature sulla linea di partenza, e si è pronti ad iniziare.

Il gioco:

L'obiettivo del gioco è sopravvivere per 3 giri e arrivare per primi al traguardo. Ogni turno è diviso in varie fasi, che tutti i giocatori eseguono in ordine di iniziativa, determinata casualmente tramite cittini numerati pari al numero dei giocatori. Il motore centrale è dato dalle carte, che determinano movimento, equipaggiamento, attacchi ed eventi che possono capitare durante la partita. Ogni nave ha indicati sulla plancia il numero di punti vita, scudi, una abilità speciale specifica, 2 spazi per carte equipaggiamento e 5 slot per le carte movimento/manutenzione.

Le fasi:

1) Iniziativa: ognuno pesca un numero e quello sarà l'ordine di gioco per quel turno.
2) Potenziamento scudi: se il livello degli scudi è inferiore al massimo si ricaricano di 2 punti.
3) Aumentare/diminuire velocità: si parte a velocità 1, dal secondo turno in poi si può scegliere di aumentarla (di 1) o diminuirla (di 1 o 2): è importante perché più è alta la velocità, più è alto il numero di carte da pescare e giocare. La velocità massima è 5.
4) Eventi: ogni pilota pesca tante carte quanto il suo livello di velocità. Nel mazzo “Azione” ci sono carte movimento, carte manutenzione e carte eventi: le prime due tipologie vanno tenute per la fase di movimento, mentre tutte le carte evento devono essere giocate immediatamente nell'ordine preferito, quindi rimpiazzate da nuove carte prese dal mazzo. Gli eventi sono di varia natura, spesso bastardate contro gli avversari. Quando si hanno in mano solo carte movimento e manutenzione, la fase viene eseguita dal giocatore successivo.
5) Pianificazione: in contemporanea tutti piazzano le carte a disposizione (coperte) negli slot in base alla velocità: gli slot sono numerati da sinistra a destra e rappresentano l'evoluzione temporale in cui saranno risolte le carte. Le carte movimento evidenziano di quanti spazi e in quali direzioni la nave si muove. Non è consentito muoversi in maniera diversa da quanto evidenziato sulla carta, quindi bisogna stare molto attenti a valutare la rotta. Le carte manutenzione permettono di riparare gli scudi,rifornirsi di meine o pescare una carta equipaggiamento (armi e bonus vari).
6) Risoluzione: per ogni slot a partire dal primo di sinistra le carte vengono rivelate in ordine di iniziativa, quindi se ne applicano gli effetti: se è un movimento la miniatura si sposta secondo le indicazioni, se è una manutenzione si applicano gli effetti descritti. Se un giocatore non ha carte in uno slot, non fa nulla. Tenete a mente che gli slot si risolvono in fila, ma si riempiono secondo uno schema particolare (a velocità 2, ad esempio, si riempiono gli slot 2 e 4; a velocità 3 gli slot 1,3 e 5 e così via) e questo è molto importante ai fini del gameplay.

Durante i movimenti è possibile urtare le barriere, lasciare o colpire mine, sparare razzi, saltare nei wormhole, investire altre navi...insomma, può succedere di tutto.
Gli scontri e i danni sono determinati da tiri di dadi in base al tipo di danno/attacco. Normalmente più si è veloci e più è facile farsi male.

Terminati tutti i movimenti le carte usate si scartano e il turno finisce. I cittini iniziativa vengono ripresi, mescolati e distribuiti nuovamente a caso per il turno successivo.

Considerazioni:

Il gioco è molto divertente e leggermente tattico: è possibile giocare conservativi, evitando il più possibile gli scontri oppure cercare di vincere bersagliando continuamente gli avversari. La sopravvivenza è il primo obiettivo da perseguire, scappare da subito può essere controproducente a causa degli eventi che a inizio turno i giocatori più indietro possono concentrare sul leader.
Le abilità delle navi sono interessanti e influenzano abbastanza lo stile di gioco.

Errori e colpi di scena sono dietro l'angolo, anche perchè quando eventi e collisioni obbligano i giocatori a perdere velocità, l'ordine delle carte negli slot viene modificato e rischia di stravolgere i piani. Per questo sono disponibili un certo numero di “command decision” che permettono alcune azioni particolari da usare in casi disperati.

L'interazione è massima, vuoi per le carognate da farsi con gli eventi, vuoi perchè spesso in traiettoria trovi gli avversari o loro regali poco gradevoli.
Le partite non sono brevi, soprattutto all'inizio: almeno 2 ore in 4, anche se è possibile personalizzare il numero di giri e gli eventuali tiri per gli impatti per calibrare la difficoltà.
L'alea è fortemente presente (carte e dadi in quantità) ma in un titolo simile non infastidisce.

Meno riuscita a mio parere la modalità di risoluzione degli eventi: se un giocatore ne pesca tanti in fila li deve eseguire tutti, e questo sposta inesorabilmente gli equilibri della partita.

In conclusione questo è senz'altro uno dei migliori racing game in circolazione: è divertente, da' il meglio se giocato in tanti e non è affatto banale, come purtroppo molti giochi di corse.
Il regolamento è chiaro ed è molto divertente da leggere, certo la dipendenza linguistica si sente, soprattutto nelle carte, ma non è insormontabile.
Di contro non è facile da reperire, ed il costo è piuttosto alto nonostante una componentistica che funziona ma non è proprio il massimo.

Pro:

Divertente, caotico, imprevedibile.
Tanti modi per distruggere gli avversari.
Interazione massima.
Regolamento chiaro e spassoso.
Un racing game in cui c'è anche da pensare.

Contro:

Talvolta incontrollabile.
Tanti modi per essere distrutto dagli avversari, dal gioco, dai tuoi stessi errori.
La fortuna incide abbastanza.
Il leader viene preso di mira con facilità.
Costa parecchio e le carte sono delicatissime.
Niente italiano.

Review: Flash Point: Fire Rescue:: Nintendorks review of Flash Point: Fire Rescue

Stumpy Joe — Wed, 30 May 2012 17:39:06 +0000

by Stumpy Joe

(pulled from http://www.nintendorks.com/index.php?itemid=631)

Thanks to the Double Fine explosion, more and more people are starting to take notice of Kickstarter projects. While the site certainly seems to be a go-to method for funding independant video games, it's turning out to be a great resource for funding board and card games as well.

Successfully funded in August last year, Flash Point: Fire Rescue is a cooperative game for 2 to 6 players who take the role of firefighters attempting to save people (and pets) from a burning building. The fire spreads after every turn, so it's up to players to work together, coordinating between fighting fires and saving lives. Pun a little bit intended, it's a blast to play.

The gameboard is the floorplan of a single-story house on a 6 by 8 grid of squares with doors and walls defining the different rooms. The artwork is simple, but not boring, and it's pretty easy to understand what's going on at all times during the game. The 6 by 8 grid is important, because events in Flash Point are determined by rolling a red six-sided die, and a black eight-sided die. For example, during the game's set up, you need to determine the source of three explosions before you enter the building. Roll a 2 (red) and a 7 (black), and there's the spot of your first explosion.

At all times during the game there will be three Person of Interest markers, or POIs, on the board. Rescuing 7 POIs is the goal for victory, and on the flip side if 4 POIs die by fire the game is over. POI markers are a question mark until you reach their spot to flip over the marker, and some are false alarms; so you could conceivably fight your way through a fire only to flip a POI marker and find out it's nothing. If a POI is removed from the board for whatever reason, you roll the dice at the end of the turn to determine where the new POI(s) will be located.

Each player has 4 Action Points (AP) per turn, and can use those points to do anything from moving, carrying people, fighting fires, chopping holes in walls, and a bit more. Reference cards showing all the actions you can perform (and what they cost) are supplied, but after a few turns it's pretty easy to remember what all you can do as a firefighter with 4 AP. One nice rule is if you don't use all 4 AP on your turn, you can save up to four extra AP tokens for future turns.

There's also eight different specialist cards that modify your playstyle and how you spend those APs on your turn. For example, the CAVS Firefighter only gets 3 AP per turn, but gets an extra 3 points just for extiguishing fires. Another nice rule is you aren't stuck with your role for the whole game. If you make your way outside to the fire truck, you can spend 2 AP to switch your role at any time. The roles themselves add a nice layer of strategy, but the ability to switch roles adds even more to the planning and strategy of making it through the game victoriously.

Speaking of the fire truck, each side of the house has parking spots outside for a fire truck and an ambulance. Once a POI has been carried outside the house, the ambulance needs to drive by to pick them up and carry them to safety. Fire can explode to spaces outside the house, so no one is truly safe until the ambulance picks them up. Along with being where you go to switch roles, the fire truck also carries the powerful deck gun. For 4 AP you can shoot a blast of water at a space in one of the house's four quadrants in the hopes of extinguishing multiple fires at once. These vehicles can be driven around to the next parking spot for 2 AP (the fire truck needs a player to drive, whereas the ambulance can be controlled from anywhere), so not only do they serve important functions in saving people and putting out fires, but they're a good method of quickly getting from one side of the house to another. When a fire gets out of control on the other side of the house these vehicles can be your best friend.

And boy can that fire get out of control. Each turn, after spending your 4 AP, you roll the dice to advance the fire. If you roll a spot that has nothing, you place a smoke token on the board. If you roll a spot that already has smoke, you flip the smoke to fire. If you roll a spot that already has fire, you create an explosion. Explosions shoot fire in all four directions until the fire hits an empty spot or a barrier such as a wall or a closed door (and say goodbye to that door). If the explosion slams into a wall, you place a black damage cube there. Once a wall has two damage cubes on it, it becomes a hole. Holes in walls can help firefighters travel quickly from one room to the next without using a door (hence the ability to spend AP on chopping), but it can also help the fire travel quickly from one room to another. Good or bad, there are only 24 black damage cubes to place during a game--if all 24 cubes are used, the house collapses and everyone loses.

During the game's set-up phase, hazmat container tokens are placed in the house which can be carried outside (or removed instantly if someone is playing as the Hazmat Technician), and it's a good idea to do so because if fire hits one of those containers it creates another explosion that shoots fire in every direction. There's also little "hotspot" markers on some spaces of the board. Should you roll to advance fire and roll one of these hotspot locations, you have to resolve that fire roll, then roll again to advance the fire yet another time (and another time if that location has a hotspot marker). New hotspot markers are added to the board at the end of chained hotspot rolls, or via hazmat container explosions.

On top of all that, any smoke adjacent to fire at the end of a turn becomes fire--so what was once a semi-safe room filled with smoke could instantly become an out of control fire. You can begin to imagine how quickly fire can spread and turn the board into chaos with a few unlucky rolls, and if there was one complaint about Flash Point, it would be just that: the dependance on luck and the roll of the die. Some games could seem like a cake walk thanks to rolling fire locations that only add smoke, or placing POIs right next to your firefighter to be easily carried out; whereas other games could be over before you know it thanks to explosion after explosion after explosion being rolled. I've yet to play a game where we felt like we never stood a chance, and the unpredictability of fire certainly ties in to the roll of the dice, so this mechanic never bothered me.

The dice rolling and unpredictability of the fire also works well in adding to Flash Point's strongest area, which is its theme. I've seen players in other co-op games have their turns played by other players--whether it's just someone new learning the rules, or an alpha personality wanting the game to go a certain way, it can be annoying sitting there and having someone else say what to do and how to play. This doesn't happen nearly as much in Flash Point thanks to the firefighter theme. If you see a pet POI sitting in a room slowly filling with fire, you don't need to be told by anyone that rescuing that pet is a priority. Your natural instincts help you decide what actions to take, and that's thanks to the game's theme.

I've played the game many times with 2 to 5 players, and each game has been a great time. When there's one damage cube remaining, and only 6 POIs rescued, each roll of the dice becomes a real nail-biter. It's a great accomplishment to the game and its mechanics where those tense moments occur throughout each game. When smoke appears next to a hazmat container or POI you really get the sense of the players rolling up their sleeves to get the job done. When you lose, you'll discuss strategy and what might have worked better, then play again to give that a shot. Thanks to the different classes and randomness of the dice, no two games feel the same. Adding to the replayability, you can flip the board over to play through a different (slightly more difficult) floorplan.

Games last 30 to 60 minutes, and there's little to no downtime between turns which keeps the game moving at a nice pace. The rules offer a basic game variant as an introduction to the game which leave out the different classes and focuses mostly on how to spend AP along with how the fire advances, but experienced gamers will have no problem starting off with the advanced rules. If you're looking for a fun, new co-op game, you won't be disappointed with Flash Point: Fire Rescue.

Break it down now! (ratings out of 5)

Quality: 4
Role cards have fantastic artwork, tokens are sturdy and easy to read, board isn't cluttered and the colors are nice. Player pieces (generic) and vehicles (2D cardboard cutouts) could have been more in tune with the game's theme, but that's a minor gripe.

Theme: 5
I'm not going to pretend to know the sacrifices and bravery actual firefighters go through when rushing into a house to combat a fire, but Flash Point does a fantastic job making it easy to imagine those moments.

Learning Curve: 4
Rules are easy to follow with very minimal confusion. The game is easy to teach, and also easy to learn after a couple of turns. Some specialist cards require extra effort keeping track of specialized AP, but nothing major.

Replayability: 5
As stated above, the two different floorplans combined with the 8 different classes combined with various difficulty levels combined with the randomness of the dice make for a very replayable game that feels different every time.

Mechanics: 4
Even though the dice adds a luck factor some may not enjoy, there's still a nice balance thanks to the strategic cooperative nature of the game. Advancing the fire and resolving explosions works great and really makes it feel like you're playing Backdraft: The Game.

Gameplay: 4
I've yet to play the game with someone who didn't enjoy it right off the bat. Games never feel like they drag out, and win or lose a good time will be had by all. The luck (or lack thereof) of the dice has a chance of making a game too unforgiving or too easy, but in my experience that's a rare occurence.

Overall: 4
If you dig co-op games but think Pandemic can be too cruel whereas Forbidden Island can be too simple, Flash Point: Fire Rescue might be the perfect happy medium for you. It's my favorite co-op game out of the three, and that's saying something, because those other two games are pretty dang good.

Review: Elder Sign:: Ancient Evil is not so Tough! [Unboxed Review]

The Duke BGG — Wed, 30 May 2012 17:09:25 +0000

by The Duke BGG

A review from www.UnboxedtheBoardGameBlog.com

A couple of months ago I went out and bought myself a nice Android Tablet. Primarily I was sick of carrying round my massive 17” laptop and then only using it to browse the internet. However a nice side effect of that purchase was the ability to download and play board games on the go.

I had no interest in Elder Sign, in fact I have no interest in the Cthulhu Mythos or the works of H.P. Lovecraft in general but I am a fan of Fantasy Flight and for £2.50 I couldn’t resist adding Elder Sign to my tablet.

Fast forward about two weeks and I’ve ordered the board game, it’s sitting on my bed still wrapped in brown paper and I’m forcing myself to not open it until Easter!

Fast forward a few more months and it finally comes the time to break that seal and get the real thing to the table… Did I like it after months of anticipation? You’ll have to wait and see!

Theme

Something terrible has awoken within the museum, a dark presence that seeks to reek terrible hardships on all of humanity. Only a brave band of intrepid adventures can hope to stop it and seal it away forever behind the elder sign. Only through judicious use of ancient lore and careful investigation can you hope to best the terror and the peril that awaits…

Unboxed

Elder Sign packs a lot into a small space. In the box you’ll find:

Rulebook
Clock
6 Green Dice
1 Yellow Die
1 Red Die
1 Entrance Reference Sheet
16 Investigator Cards
8 Ancient One Cards
48 Adventure Cards
8 Other World Adventure Cards
12 Common Item Cards
12 Unique Item Cards
12 Spell Cards
8 Ally Cards
32 Mythos Cards
16 Investigator Markers
30 Sanity Tokens
30 Stamina Tokens
15 Clue Tokens
22 Monster Markers
5 Mask Monster Markers
12 Doom Tokens
17 Elder Sign Tokens

As always, everything, including the box, is really nice quality, the rule book is well laid out and there is some awesome artwork included. However, as this is a dice game, we should probably talk about the custom dice. Awesome quality, really clean, really clear, far better than Quarriors, for example, where you might struggle to tell the difference between a 1 and 2. Overall FFG has done an excellent job here and considering I picked the game up for only £2 more than I paid for Citadels, I think that it’s great value for money!

How to Play

To set up the game give each player an Investigator and choose an Ancient One. Place six Adventure cards in a 3 x 2 grid in the centre of the table. Set the clock to Midnight and draw one Mythos Card and resolve it.

Play then begins, Each player takes it in turn to place their Adventurer token on one of the available adventure cards or on the Museum Entrance.

If they choose the adventure cards they now take all six green dice and roll them, adding in yellow or red dice if they choose to spend cards and/or special abilities. Using the results they roll they can now complete one line on their chosen card, if the card has an arrow on it the lines must be completed in order starting at the top and working down.

If they failed to complete a line they can choose to lock-in one die on their character (once per turn maximum), then they must discard 1 dice and roll again.

Completing a line locks-in all dice that were used to complete it, the rest of the dice are rerolled to complete further lines. If the player completes all the lines on the card he can claim the rewards in the white section of the card, if he fails he suffers the penalties in the red section of the card.

The player then advances the clock by quarter of an hour and play passes to the next player. If the clock strikes midnight a Mythos card is drawn and resolved.

Play continues in this fashion until the adventurers have acquired enough Elder Signs to vanquish the Ancient One or until the Ancient one has filled up all their Doom Spaces with Doom Tokens, at which point he awakens.

If the players can gather enough elder signs or defeat the awakened Ancient One they win the game.

Thoughts

Elder Sign: Omens is a great implementation of the board game, although it strips out some elements of the game for the sake of simplicity, such as battling the awakened ancient one. However, it is a pretty tough game, my win rate is probably less than 50/50.

The same cannot be said about Elder Sign itself. I have yet to lose a game. Admittedly we forgot a fairly important rule in our first eight games. When an investigator dies you get a new one, with full health and full starting equipment, economically it made more sense to get yourself killed off when you were out of good stuff to play so that you were reborn as a badass. We however didn’t notice the “add a doom to the doom track when an investigator is killed” rule.

However, even playing with this rule has not caused us much further issue as we can vanquish foes quite quickly. That said, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad game, it still requires co-operation and we still need to make tactical and strategic choices in which adventure cards you take out to avoid taking doom tokens.

The issue with the game being too easy could be fixed very simply by changing the Mythos deck. Every time the clock strikes midnight (every four turns) you draw a card and apply it’s effects, however most of these cards can be avoided if the adventurers have or discard certain cards. Harder Mythos cards will lead to a harder game.

I don’t like the fact that you can buy your victory, there’s nothing more anticlimactic than a player handing in 10 tokens and ending the game, surely it’s more fun to wait with baited breath to see if that final die comes up in your favour!

I also dislike the Ancient One battles. Essentially you are required to roll the dice and achieve certain results to remove doom tokens from the ancient one and every 4 four turns the Ancient One attacks back. This is fine while you have four or more players in the game, but when it gets down to one there are a upto 24 dice rolls between Ancient One attacks, making the end a rather slow march to victory or defeat rather than an awesome climatic battle.

Final Thoughts

It might sound like I don’t like Elder Sign, but that’s not true. I like the fact that it’s not another co-op that just grinds you down until you want to cry. I like the production values and the game play and the sensation you get when your last roll comes up just the way you wanted it to.

I also like the potential the game has for thematic expansion, if the Cthulhu expansion for the tablet version is anything to go by.

In short I like the game, but for gamers who like a challenge, get the ios/android version with the expansion.

Unboxed is a Proud Member of The Uk Gaming Media Network

Review: Pantheon:: What you need to know and what people think about Pantheon

EndersGame — Wed, 30 May 2012 15:15:36 +0000

by EndersGame

Pantheon is a 2011 release by Bernd Brunnhofer, alias Michael Tummelhofer who is best known as the designer of Stone Age and Saint Petersburg. In this 2-4 player game, you’re collecting raw materials over six rounds, in an effort to help your Mediterranean people worship their gods, and of course earn points.

I've scoured the personal comments and skimmed through some reviews and other articles, and carefully organized some key quotations to bring you the important things you need to know and what other people think about Pantheon. The parts in bold express my own conclusions, which are then expanded upon and substantiated by the citations that follow, to give you a feel of what most people are saying on each point. Perhaps you could call this a kind of "consensus of opinion", somewhat biased because I'm the one who gets to pick the quotes to include, but overall a well-rounded and fairly objective viewpoint. So here you have it, an at-a-glance overview of some of the majority opinions that you need to know about this game.

NB: For more reviews like this, see this list.

]]>

1. Pantheon has a solid pedigree in Stone Age and St Petersburg, two other great games from designer Brunnhofer.
]]>“I love both St.Petersburg and Stone Age. Pantheon is a good design made by the same author.” – Bun Sham
“The best Brunnhofer game so far. Very entertaining and always a tense game.” – Tom Hilgert
“Another fine game by Bernd Brunnhofer...special powers, money to buy stuff, moving around on a map to get stuff, variable cards, tiles and tokens...not a civ game, but more of a game about exploiting tactical opportunities” – Adrian Montoya
“Excellent! this game along with Stone Age made me a fan of Mr. Brunnhofer. It is a family game but also a gamers game, a rare quality also found in Stone age. You did it again Mr Tummelhofer/Brunnhofer!” – Dimitris Vasiadis
“Superb game - similar weight to St Petersburg with similar level of decision-making.” – Ian Fleming
“It has echoes of Stone Age, which is one of my all time faves.” – Gary Querns
“Delightful, but I was expecting a good game from Tummelhofer after Stone Age. Pantheon delivered.” – Mikko Saari

Not everyone agrees that Pantheon lives up to the high standards of its two esteemed and successful Brunnhofer predecessors.
“Highly disappointing, can't believe this was designed by the same guy who did Stone Age or St-Petersburg, those games are in another league.” – William Hunt
“I love Stone Age and St. Petersburg, but this fell completely flat.” – Ross Gerke
“It doesn't feel as tight and consistent as Brunnhofer's other games (Stone Age, St. Petersburg) which I consider to be classics. Unlike those games, the decisions in Pantheon seem uneven.” – Bien HBB

2. In many respects it fits the definition of a classic euro game.
“Fine quintessential eurogame.” – Surya
“Most appealing straight Euro I've played in some time. A game of timing and tempo...and getting lucky, perhaps.” – garygarison
“Good medium weight Euro with some pleasing mechanisms.” – jond
“Lots of different strategies to pursue, with a good balance between fast actions and important decisions. A great Euro!” – Brian Brokaw
“Very well-designed and fast paced euro.” – Martin Cassell
“By the same designer that brought us Saint Petersburg and Stone Age, Parthenon is a different beast...far more classic Euro than the other two and less calculable to be sure.” – Neil Thomson

3. The theme in Pantheon isn’t very meaningful or strong, and the gameplay itself is arguably quite abstract.
“I do like the theme, although it is not implemented to a degree I would have prepared it to be.” – Henrik Schunk
“The whole thing does come across as a bit bland and abstract.” – Jens Hoppe
“This is in its core an abstract game, the Europe map isn’t needed or referred to at all.” – Peter Schott
“If a credible theme is important to you, then note that Pantheon is at the "this makes no sense" end of the spectrum. We represent members of various civilizations. We wander about, collect some bonus tiles and then disappear, to re-emerge, as members of another civilization.” – Andy Parsons
“Nice theme and pretty artwork, but the game underneath is a quite abstract system with a mix of common mechanics.” – Glaucio Reis
“Mechanics of this game don't mesh well together or take advantage of the theme.” – Zachary Smith
“And don`t think a second about the "theme". There is none. It`s just "chrome", even more than in most Euros.” – Daniel Danzer
“It borders on being abstract.” – Dave Shapiro
"Despite being pasted on, the fact that the game's theme requires players to please false gods by worship and offerings will prove to be a deal-breaker for some faith-based gamers." - EndersGame
“Thematically it is not so interesting, the theme is only vaguely attached to the game and you rarely feel like you're involved in dealing with a Pantheon.” – Giacomo Leoni
“Lack of meaningful theme.” – Jeremy Avery
]]>
4. The gameplay consists of a blend of mechanics which are mostly derivative but combine in an interesting manner.
“It’s like a little sampling of everything in a game. You've got collecting card sets, recruiting for special powers, racing to locations. Fast, fun and very well done.” – Brian Modreski
“Interesting mix of area control, set collection with several avenues to success. Multiple card/tile decks should provide lots of replayability and tactical variety.” – Bob Rademaker
“Like most "Bernd Brunnhofer" games, this feels like a mashup of other games: sets redeemed for bonuses like Stone Age, moving thru random regions like Taj Mahal, establishing presence in various cities like Thurn and Taxis. I find that it works though.” – Jeremy Avery
“In the end, there's nothing new here, but everything is blended in a good way to create an enjoyable experience.” – Bayushi Sezaru
“Feels like a smorgasbord of Brunnhofer's leftover design ideas.” – Stephan Valkyser
“While there aren't a lot of new concepts here, I have a hard time comparing it to anything else. There's hand management, set collection, and a little bit of engine building and route building.” – Dan Casey
“Not much new here -- a standard light-medium euro. Bernd Brunnhofer designs are always polished, and though Pantheon suffers from "mishmash syndrome", with many different kinds of god tiles and tokens to explain, it plays well.” – Sam Rand

Some gamers find the mix of mechanics too bland and unsuccessful.
“An incredibly dry, bland, and derivative game. Not a single original mechanic. It does work pretty well, and the designer chose many nice mechanics to steal, but the overall package just didn't do it for me.” – Tom Hancock
“Too many mechanics just don't mesh as well as they should. Overall, not a terrible game, just not balanced or fun enough to be great.” - Meredyth

5. There is a fairly significant element of luck, which will prove frustrating to more serious gamers.
“There are some interesting mechanics, but at the end of the day, it seems like the luck overwhelms good decision making.” – Michael Schwerdtfeger
“The luck of the draw is magnified because of the unpredictable turn end.” – GeoMan
“Nice concept but too much luck.” – Inge Struye
“There's a much larger element of luck than I like.” – Sam Rand
“Luck of the card draw is enormous.” – Miguel Sanhueza
“The luck factor is considerable. Some powers are clearly more valuable than others, and it seems that if a player gets lucky early on there is little hope to prevent a run-away leader. For a game of this length that is fairly irritating.” – Jens Granseuer
“The game concept is quite interesting and that the game flow itself is ok. However, the luck factor and the potential for frustration is far too high for a game of +90 minutes.” – Gerald Ruscher
“Interesting mechanism, but the luck might decrease the rating after a while.” - Carl-Gustaf Samuelsson

6. Despite the luck factor, there are lots of possible strategies to explore for those willing to give it a chance.
“Some randomness but more strategy than initially meets the eye.” – Josh Martin
“A high luck factor included, but I guess there is still enough space for the skill-play.” – Tero Hyotylainen
“Medium-light weight with a substantial amount of randomness. Plenty of fun decisions.” – jellynut
“Don`t expect strategy. Expext the necessity of flexibilty. On steroids. You always handle the possibilities like a juggler. This is more a roller-coaster, than streamlined resource management empire building. Enjoy.” – Daniel Danzer
“Different strategies are possible, the luck of the draw is here, but seems not dominant.” – Christian Brunner
“Nice game with intelligent design decisions that forces you to think about and adjust to new situations.” – Frank Hakstege
“Attractive and fun, certainly has a fair degree of luck, but is not random.” – John Mitchell
“The luck factor is significant, but there is plenty of strategy to keep you engaged. Lots of options to look at.” – Jerry Haerle
“This is more like what I think of as an HiG game than the likes of Maori - there's randomness, but enough to even out, and it's a real gamers' game, with lots to think about, hard choices every turn and a number of possible routes to winning.” - Uisge Beatha
“Good tactical game with lots of options to collect victory points. Luck of the cards, but not really annoying as you should adapt in function of your card draws.” – Koert Debyser
“Kind of fiddly and lots of luck, but also lots of possibilities for clever moves and skillful play.” – Mikko Saari
“I have noticed a few comments that the game is too dependent on the luck of the draw – cards, gods, bonus tiles. For me that is missing the point of the game. – The random nature of the draw is one of the games strengths because it poses a new challenge game by game and epoch by epoch.” – Paul Lister
]]>
Particularly the element of timing and pacing is important.
“Timing is also important, with rounds tending to accelerate towards the end as players accumulate the feet and godly bonuses to build routes quicker and longer.” – Andy Parsons
“Somewhat high levels of luck, but I really enjoy the timing aspects.” - oskari
“Timing your actions is very important.” – Koert Debyser
“The timing of your actions is ultra-important.” – Martin Cassell
“Being able to control the length of the rounds was enjoyable.” - jond

7. The role of luck in relation to the amount of decisions does mean that Pantheon is more suitable as a family strategy game than as a more serious strategy game for gamers.
“Fine family-strategy game in the wellknown HiG-tradition.” – Mik Svellov
“There is a lot more luck in this game than there first appears. This is good for a family market.” – Jonathan Badger
“Very nice family game from Brunnhofer, in the same class as Stone Age.” – Peter Hein
“Rules can be explained easily. It's a very good gateway game for beginners. Experienced boardgame players will enjoy it too if they want to look for something shorter and lighter after a couple of Agricola games in the late evening.” – Bun Sham
“There is luck in the game but because of this, the game becomes more attractive in this particular case.” – Paul Nomikos
“A really nice and easy family game that can be played with more involved gamers too.” – Andreas Klaes
“Pantheon is a both a heavier family game and a light gamer's game, so it is targeted at the same players as Stone Age.” – Bayushi Sezaru
“The random elements were a turn off to some in our group but I believe that is because they were expecting something closer to Rise of Nations, Mare Nostrum, Olympos, etc. It is closer to Stone Age than any of those games.” – Dave Shapiro
“As they have for the last few years., Hans Im Gluck has released a beautifully produced family game ... up there with ‘Stone Age’ as a great medium weight game that takes about an hour and a bit to play – so much so that I think this might be in the running for 2011’s main Spiel Des Jahres award.” – Paul Lister
“This one should've garnered serious consideration for the SdJ this year, but of course wasn't even nominated (what a joke).” – Josh Martin

8. Some will find that it has the potential to drag on a little too long given the luck factor.
“In my opinion a little bit too long for its essence.” – Herbert H.
“Game feels a bit too long to what it is and sometimes you have to wait for your turn.” – Tero Hyotylainen
“I like some of the elements (mostly the board play), but as a whole it is much too long for what it is.” – Dan Blum
“The game lasted much too long for what it is, I was glad it was finished.” – William Hunt
“A game can be random or a game can be long. It cannot be both and remain a good game. I love so many of the concepts here, but I can't imagine this being played much faster than 2 hours, when it should have been 45 minutes for what it was.” – Jesse McGatha

9. Overall the components are quite pleasing.
]]>“This is a great game with great components.” – Paul Nomikos
“Gorgeous 'bits'.” – Tim McCloskey
“Production quality is up to HiG's usual standards. The artwork is very kitsch indeed.” – Andy Parsons
“The components are very nice, with nice solid tiles, and full-sized(!) quality cards, and feet-meeples!” – Josh Martin
“As to the components and artwork: this is the standard quality that we've come to expect from games assembled by LudoFact. Thick cardboard, and nice custom-shaped wooden bits. The artwork is nice, if a bit generic, but it conveys the theme without distracting the player, so I commend it.” – Martin Manning
“Beautiful components.” – Martin Cassel
“The production is gorgeous (as always with HIG). I also think the Franz V. artwork is superb too.” – Gary Querns

As is often the case, not everyone shares this positive assessment of the components.
“The art is pretty terrible and the suits could just as well be colours.” - jond
“The art may prove to be Pantheon's undoing ... The bigger problem is the comic book-style box and the deliriously busy board, which conspire to make the game look juvenile.” – Trip Godel

]]>

The bottom line: what you need to know

Pantheon is certainly not for everyone, and the amount of randomness given the game’s length plus the somewhat thin theme means it won’t quite match the heights of success achieved by Brunnhofer’s Stone Age and St Petersburg. However it does feature a pleasant mix of mechanics that - while not strikingly innovative - does have the potential to please those willing to approach it less seriously and as a family friendly or more casual medium weight game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete list of Ender's "What you need to know and what people think about..." reviews:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/37595

Review: Earth Reborn:: Earth Reborn - The Miniatures Mission Simulator Sandbox, Complete With Kitty Cigars

superflypete — Wed, 30 May 2012 13:56:57 +0000

by superflypete

After the smoke cleared, Jack Saw emerged from his bunker and saw a Superfly Circus billboard. He immediately realized the importance: THAT is what Willis was talking about. www.superflycircus.blogspot.com

Well, this is the last of the Nate reviews; if you recall, Nate, a F:AT user sent me some games to review as a tribute to a dear friend of his that he lost. I thought it fitting to save the best, or at least the most in-depth, for last, notwithstanding the fact that he was most interested in hearing how I felt about this game, particularly as a two player game. Sorry it took so long, Nate; to get through the tutorials and then play three games using the scenario generator is a tremendous amount of time investment. Earth Reborn, quite simply, is the single most realistic tabletop skirmish game that I have ever set my paws on. It has more chrome than a full-dresser Road King being ridden by the Silver Surfer. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that there's NOT a rule for virtually anything you could conceive of. Don't take that as a criticism, though, because this game is perfect for those who want to play with cool little toys in a mission-based miniatures skirmish, but also want the depth of options normally found in a RPG or PC simulation game.

What shocked me the most is that this is not only from Z-Man, a company not inclined to do "15 pound coffin box" games, but that it was designed by a man who I consider to be one of the greatest designers of our time, Chris Boelinger. What didn't shock me was that it is truly remarkable as a design, and the ambition and sheer scope of the game has set the bar quite high for all other games of its ilk to come. This is, I suppose, the next step in the evolution of games like Space Hulk and Descent, and this is mere inches from being so complex that it really should be an iOS app or full-on PC game. In fact, about 3/4 the way through the scenarios I was thinking to myself that this game is the analog version of the Jagged Alliance series.

The core story behind the game is there is a big nuke-ya-ler war and everyone dies, aside from the people who hid in big, underground cities for 500 years or so. Think "Fallout" without the radscorpions, raiders, and Pip Boy. As an aside, just for the record, the half-life of Cs-137, the longest-lived radioactive element in nuclear fallout, is ~30 years, so they essentially hung out underground more than 10 times longer than they needed to. Anyhow, out of the ashes, when the planet has once again become inhabitable on the surface, the people emerge to rebuild their planet, but things aren't as peachy as one might hope. There's two factions, the NORAD folks, who were the scientists and soldiers, and the Salemites, who are essentially folks who went mostly completely mental and read way too much Lovecraft, came up with absurdly bad names such as Franck Einstein and Jack Saw, and started reanimating their dead for what I can only assume are necrophiliac purposes.

Now, the back story is actually pretty slick and interesting, centering on alternative energy sources, with the best bit being about that Greenpeace is the one who really starts the whole royal rumble that ends up with the near extinction of all life on earth. Really, though, the long and short is that the two sides are hell bent on duking it out because their world views are so askew from one another that they can't possibly live in harmony. Without being too coy, all I can say is that "war never changes." The scenario guide has this eleven page u-chronic timeline that lays everything out and describes the characters and factions in great detail. I have to admit, they went to great lengths to come up with an interesting, albeit implausible, story with which to get players into the mood and make you care about what caused the strife surrounding the game play.

[img[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6VSG3ft9y9M/T8YQh3IV4KI/AAAAAAAABE...[/img]
But enough about the back story and that bollocks, let's get to the "product". First, while there is SO MUCH SHIT IN THIS BOX that it took me damned near two hours to punch, bag, and otherwise organize it, there's not a tremendous amount of battle space. Part of this time was trying to get everything to fit in the box, which was met with utter defeat, and I summarily tossed the insert into the skip because it's much easier to get everything back in the box without it. Each tile is double sided, though, so while you're not going to be making anything even close to the scale of a Space Hulk setup, you can certainly outpace Incursion as far as the size of the place where the characters can tool around. A large amount of the volume of the tiles are one-space and two-space tiles and counters, wee bits, and, of course, the command tiles that make up the control mechanism in the game.

We're talking about a top-notch production here, although I have to admit that I found most of the art outside of the cover art fairly lackluster. I'd put it just above mediocre, but not bad by any means. It gives Descent a run for its money as far as "bits", and there's more than enough stuff in the box to play for a very, very long time. All that said, the miniatures are the centerpieces, though, because they are beautiful. There's only twelve of them, but all are great, and just like Dungeon Twister, come in two colors so you know which side the character is on. All that said, this wonderful little sandbox is not without some serious kitty cigars buried within.

The most irritating flaw in the entire affair is that the spent eleven pages of story to immerse you in the theme and feel of the game, and unfortunately, it fails to get you over the hump because of a truly bizarre graphic design choice: the icons and text. On almost every single room tile, card, and other bit of this game, there are a ridiculous amount of these over sized, gaudy icons. There was a debate on Fortress: Ameritrash about the icons back when this game was released and the reviews started stating this was the game of the millennium; one camp said that they are intuitive and easy to use, another camp said that they were ugly as a witch's grizzly pubic region. I stand by my assessment of the latter, and now that I've finally played this enough to have an informed opinion about the product as a whole, I'm telling you that the icons damned near ruined the whole experience.

The terrain tiles are simply so busy with iconography and text that it takes you out of the immersion that otherwise exists and painfully reminds you that you're a portly, balding guy sitting across from someone else playing a game. It's as if the graphic design team assumed that every person who played would be nearly blind, and so they put huge, bright orange icons and big, black, bold text all over everything, just to be sure you wouldn't miss anything. It's quite a disappointment, really. How about instead of labelling something "Kitchen", you hire a good artist and make it look like a kitchen? And if you're going to spend 10 full scenarios, at an hour or more per, to teach me a game, how about you ditch the icons all over the place, and print a small booklet that has each room's special abilities, or at the minimum, just make the icons about half the size of a pencil eraser?

What makes Space Hulk so incredibly immersive is that you have Dudes, Alien Dudes, Corridors, and nothing more. There's no icons or room identifiers all over the place on the tiles, making what is beautiful and concise into something busy and fugly. It does its level best to allow you to FEEL like a Space Marine in the service of the God-Emperor or an insidious alien swarm bent on assimilating all life in the universe. In Earth Reborn, this policy of slapping icons everywhere simply halts the suspension of disbelief like a supersonic F/A-18 into the side of the Carl Vinson. I understand why the icons are there, or at least why they felt they needed to be there, but I think the game would've been far better served with a couple of pages in the back of the book explaining what each special room's options are rather than printing the distracting icons all over the otherwise very thematic and awesome tiles. Or maybe some very small icons rather than huge, bright, gaudy ones. What they did is the equivalent of having "THIS IS JUST A BOOK: THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS GREAT OLD ONES" written on the margins of every page in every HP Lovecraft book.

And this design concept doesn't stop at the tiles, it continues onto everything, with the character cards being the most apparent. I mean, these are, hands down, the most complex, ugly, too-much-shit-on-a-shingle set of hieroglyphics-laden cards I've ever seen. Even the item cards are loaded. After several plays, you get to know what they all mean, but honestly, the graphic designer who worked on these did no favors to players due to the density of the icons on the cards. The information most assuredly had to be there, but I believe that there was a better way to do it, as evidenced by some player-made cards that are infinitely superior. The graphic design is simply ugly as a muddy fence on a rainy day, and it could have, again, easily been avoided by shrinking the icons or simply thinking a little harder about the look of the game as it applies to suspension of disbelief. A saving grace is that there are player shields which act as a sort of Rosetta Stone, with all of the icons laid out in understandable terms for all to see.

Now, all of the graphical complaints said, none of them in any way take away from the fact that the game is brilliant in almost every sense. The brilliance starts with the teaching method, which amounts to a scenario guide that walks you through the game, beginning with simply moving around, all the way through advanced combat tactics, and shamefully, ending in a scenario where one side has to torture secrets out of another side's character. Why the hell they decided it would be a good idea for board gamers to be able to faithfully re-enact torture is beyond me. It may raise the bar on things you can do in a game, but in this respect, it lowers the bar in what SHOULD be available in a game. Worse, it's not even optional. It's a required part of the learning process to run through the torture tutorial. Replace the word "torture" with "interrogate", and all of the sudden the game loses that repugnant feature that does nothing to elevate the game. And Jesus wept.

Once you're past the not great art, the bad graphical design, and the torture, the game itself is ridiculously good, from a design standpoint. The game is played using randomly drawn command tiles, each with their own point values for different action types such as moving, shooting, and searching, and command points, which are effectively the meat of the game, and are used to allow the activation of characters and subsequent allocation of the command tiles. The neat thing about the command tiles is that the numbers on the tiles are, essentially, how many dice you roll to try to pass a skill check, for lack of a better term. You can spend extra command points in order to get an extra die, but doing so limits the available actions you can take on your turn. This resource management mechanic is quite different than the usual "action point" systems that other games use; it's almost a mashup of the "push" mechanic from Heroclix and the action system of Dungeon Twister, but with huge random elements dropped in and an innovative interrupt system built in. It's truly one of the most clever action systems I've ever seen, and I hope to see it implemented by other games in the future, because it works really well.

The thing that really makes this so neat is that it's complex at the macro level, but simple at the micro level. There's only really five actions you can take in a turn; move, fight, shoot, interact with something, or search. But, due to the layout of the boards and the scenarios, there are several quadrizillion things to interact with and search for. Everything is resolved easily through dice throws, and what I really love is how you can press your luck and just roll using the command tiles you have, add to a value using command points, or burn a command point to swap out a command tile. That's really the driving force that provides the tension in the game; you really never seem to have enough resources to do what you want to do at any given time, and so you are constantly having to re-evaluate your position and compromise with yourself. I think this is the one thing that shines brightest in the game, and what makes it worth owning; this simple, straightforward mechanic, layered with the terrain, tokens, and destructible terrain make this an incredibly smart, tight design that provides you with a ton of tension and hand-wringing.

To add to the tactical depth and sheer tonnage of awesome in the box, each character has its own bad ass little miniature with its firing arcs printed on the base and specialties listed on the card. Some characters excel at hand to hand combat where others are crack shots, where another is an expert with computers and devices. In the game context, this means that they get to roll more dice than other characters, meaning there's a higher probability of success. Surprisingly, it's a lot harder to shoot and kill people than you might think, but, as you start hitting combatants, their cards are flipped to their "wounded" side, which generally makes them less able to do things effectively. To quote Career Sergeant Zim, "The enemy can not push a button... if you disable his hand." Some have complained that there's just too few characters in the game for the long term, but I'm not sure I agree. On Board Game Geek, in the files section, there are some HeroClix customs that people have made to extend the menu of characters, but honestly, I'm not sure that having too many more characters would be all that valuable, since this is a game played with two to four figures per side, maximum, in a two player game. In a four player game, we usually play with only one.

There are a large variety of items in the game, from smoke grenades to infra vision goggles to machine guns, and this game is packed to the gills with unique and inventive ways to accomplish tasks. In fact, I think there are more item cards than anything else. Each item allows different abilities or augmentations, and while most amount to allowing you to roll more dice to perform a task, some do other things like allowing you to obscure line of sight. The level of detail is, as I keep saying, astounding, and if one were to take the time to come up with a bad ass campaign, I'm sure that you could utilize everything and really make the game shine. The website, www.earthreborn.ludically.com, even has a bad ass map builder flash app that allows you to come up with maps and whatnot. Unfortunately, there's not a campaign available anywhere because nobody has posted one. Not there, not on Board Game Geek. So, as it turns out, as much hype and love from the adoring press as this game got, nobody seems to give enough of a shit about it, including Ludically, to bother to put together a follow up campaign after more than a year in print. For as much effort as they expended to come up with a neat story, they completely neglected to cash in on it by putting together a campaign that exudes a narrative that is in line with the back story.

Thus, unfortunately, once the pre-made learning scenarios are done, you're left with a "random dungeon generator" mechanism, which the scenario guide goes into great detail to explain, and does a good job in creating a scenario to sit and play, but does nothing to carry a narrative. This is a game that demands a well designed, thematic campaign and while the tutorial scenarios do provide one, the SAGS (Scenario Auto-Generating System) only provides you a way to create fairly rich one-off scenarios. In actuality, the auto-generating namesake is a misnomer, because there's little automatic about it, since each player takes turns placing a tile back and forth, more or less, until a frame is completed, using a counter track to use points, and then continue to add layers, starting with characters through equipment, and finally ending with each player taking four secret mission objectives. It's actually a very smart way to create asymmetrical, but balanced scenarios because both sides participate in its creation. Further, it's a hell of a lot easier to take turns placing tiles than trying to assemble one from a diagram, because it takes forever to do.

In the end, Earth Reborn has a lot of really cool stuff going on, and it allows players a great deal of freedom in designing scenarios due to the tremendous flexibility built into the game. It also has a vast wealth of replayability due to the aforementioned SAGS and the flexibility within, but it suffers greatly in a number of ways for the same reasons. While the sum of its parts is more complex than any individual aspect, the simple fact that the game is nearly unlearnable without running through the learning scenarios means that you will have to have dedicated players. This is not a game that you're going to crack out with people that haven't played it before and expect to just jump right into SAGS, because there is a fairly steep learning curve. I think once you've mastered it, you can probably effectively teach it, but the fact is that to a newbie, the sheer magnitude of shit to learn in one sitting is daunting at best. If I had to level one charge as the cardinal sin of the game, it's that Chris put too much stuff in the game, in too scatter shot a manner, and so it requires a certain level of dedication to play it. The same can be said of Arkham Horror, but the payoff is much richer there because that game tells a great story where Earth Reborn is set in a great story but doesn't actually tell one.

Now, one thing I have to mention about the physical design is the way they have a puzzle-board frame design that all of the terrain tiles fit into. It's brilliant. With most tile games, they interlock and the edges inexorably start to fray and get ugly. But this design is such that it truly fits together seamlessly into what might, to an outside observer, look like a standard bi-fold game board, at least from a slight distance. If there's one thing other than the command point system that should be passed on to future generations of games, it is this. Granted, as I said, trying to assemble a map from the book takes a long ass time, even if you're an irrationally anal game organizer like myself.

If you have a group, or really, just one other battle buddy who you like to play very heavy thematic games with, this game is an excellent mission simulator. There may not even be another mission-based miniatures game that is as deep and rich as this. In comparing this to Tannhauser, which I think is the closest living relative, so to speak, Tannhauser is checkers where this is not only chess, but that Star Trek three dimensional chess. There is simply an abundance of awesome ideas in the box. Even despite the art being just better than mediocre and the iconography being overwhelming and gaudy, this is truly an epic game both in scope and vision. It is simply not for the lighthearted or someone who is not willing to devote some serious time into learning the game in its entirety.

To rate this properly and in accordance with the policy of the site, We had everyone sit in on sessions so they could learn the game, and we rotated out people during the process so everyone could have a go, over the span of weeks. Then we did some three and four player action, which is neat too since instead of it being a two versus two affair, it is an all-for-themselves game. In the end, there's a minimum of ten to fifteen hours of game play in the box. There's not that many games that you can get on Tanga for 30$ that are going to provide you that kind of value, so really, it all comes down to whether you dig the depth of this game or not. As far as a "Dudes In A Corridor" type game, it's easily among the top ranks, but honestly, after playing the scenarios through, using SAGS several times, and looking back, it lives up to some of its hype, but not even close to all the hype it originally got. It is most certainly not the best Ameritrash game ever, not the best "Dudes In A Corridor" game ever, and it is sure as fuck not the cardboard equivalent of the second coming of Christ.

It is indeed a smart, big game with great ideas. But there's a lot of effort involved to get to the point where those ideas are realized, and the amount of time involved to get the map set up is actually worse than that in a Heroscape map since the tiles are not generic. Add to that the problematic graphic design choices that clutter everything in the game with symbols, and it just isn't going to go down as the Space Hulk killer like people have said. In that regard, it's a bit like an overly long joke with a great punchline; sure, the laugh you get at the end is worth it to the people that can appreciate it, and it will certainly be memorable to them, but many others will simply lose interest and wander off. But boy, if you hang around, I'm not kidding, the punchline is one that you're going to appreciate. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to play the hell out of it, and while not all the Circus folks were insanely ga-ga over it, we all thought it was very unique and as close to a rich mission simulator as we've ever seen.

What Brings Earth Reborn To Life:
- The SAGS system is the best scenario generator ever, allowing infinite replay value.
- The miniatures, while few, are superbly sculpted and designed, and the in-game art is better than mediocre
- The learn-as-you-play technique, lifted in part from Space Alert, is genius
- The overall production value is simply outstanding and sits in the top of the class
- You can actually act out "Lay Smoke, You Dick, And Use Overwatch"

Why It Could Have Been Called Earth Stillborn:
- The complexity can be overwhelming and the learning curve is steep
- Ludicrously poor graphic design eliminates all hope of suspending disbelief
- Requires dedicated players; not a "toss it on the table" affair in any regard
- The great back story is abandoned after the tutorials as SAGS doesn't adhere to it
- No figure expansions, no item expansions, no campaign, and little support

Overall:
This is a simple call for a prospective buyer, in my mind. If you like Tannhauser but want something deeper, with even more tactical options and a more complex system, AND you have a lot of time on your hands, this is a no-brainer. Just surrender your wallet at the door. But if you want a light "Dudes In A Corridor", mission-based game, this may be too much meat for what you're looking for. At the end of the day, what you get in the box amounts to a very fun tutorial with an excellent random dungeon generator, complete with everything you could possibly want as far as game play options, perhaps just shy of an RPG-grade tactical mission simulator.

Rating:
4/5 Stars

You can learn more about this game at Z-Man Games page on it: http://www.zmangames.com/boardgames/earth_reborn.htm

And you can check out the map builder here: http://mapdesigner.earthreborn.ludically.com/ but only if you use Chrome, Firefox or Safari, because this doesn't run on Internet Explorer.

Review: Micro Monsters:: Tiddly win?

Toasty — Wed, 30 May 2012 12:43:46 +0000

by Toasty

Well, our lad got Micro Monsters for his Birthday and little did we know that we'd be playing this game every evening since. For clarity, we've not played any previous incarnation of this game.

Micro Monsters are basically 4 races comprising armies of 3 big dudes, 3 small dudes and 2 rectangle dudes that defend a players portal base and attack opponent bases.

All the monsters are shaped tiddlywinks that you flick across a table cloth hoping to squob an opponents monster or take a life from a base. Squobbed monsters are out of the game and a landed on base loses a life. When there are no lives left, next hit takes the player out of the game. Last player standing wins, that's basically it.

You roll your armies die to see which Monster you are going to flick and maybe utilise an individual power if you roll your armies special ability symbol. Powers are simple, such as as move twice or place a counter on an opposing Monster to stop them moving.

The first play or two were a little underwhelming. Some table cloth tweaking was required as a hard surface doesn't produce flick height and shiny tablecloths weren't much better, but a reasonable quality cloth did the trick.

It also took some practice trying to hit anything. Initially we were frustrated, but it wasn't long before some great shots were taking out monsters and bases at will. A true game of dexterity and giggles. This is helped along by two rules, you only need to partially cover an opponent to squob them and whatever happens happens. This means there's no arguments if there is a small overlap or if pieces get knocked in unexpected ways.

What is also nice is that the 3 monster shapes do act differently and subsequently are used differently too. As an example, the small monsters go further and are harder to squob, so swooping in for a quick base stealth attack is ideal. Whereas the rectangle monsters seem clumsy in comparison, but are great in defence and can even take out two opponent monsters in one shot if played right.

Needless to say that the Lad really enjoys this game, he has asked to play it each day he's owned it and at the moment, we have no problem saying yes. It takes no time to set up and you can play 3 games in half an hour with all the ooh's, ahh's and laughter you'd want, even the odd look through fingers as your base is being attacked from 5cm.

This is a true family game that may not appeal to an older audience, but its quick, fun and it may be just our house, but it's a game that has us humming the Star Wars soundtrack each time we go into battle, which is probably the biggest plus we can give it..

Review: 1989: Dawn of Freedom:: Subject: Re:draft A historical review by a person who witnessed some of the events that 1989: Dawn of Freedom portrays Your reviewer in the year 1989 and the game 1989 Howdy everyone! I hope you are sitting comfortably in your chair with your coffee or

judoka — Wed, 30 May 2012 12:38:49 +0000

by judoka

Your reviewer in the year 1989 and the game 1989

Howdy everyone! I hope you are sitting comfortably in your chair with your coffee or any other drink. Relax, and let yourself be taken back into the amazing and magical year of 1989, and even more precisely in the region of Eastern Europe! ]]>
Citizens of those countries had been asleep for forty years, but that year was the year of awakening for them! A year of unexpected and exciting changes! This involved various events, personalities, politicians and civil movements. One way or another everyone was involved and could not be impartial to these changes.

The following montage is of the Revolution in Hungary in 1956. I chose this for the introductory part because we always saw 1989 as a continuation and the end of the process that started with 1956. The Hungarian radio station played this Beethoven piece while the Soviet tanks entered Hungary.

Youtube Video

I grew up in Hungary under the Communist regime, during its lighter years; those years are referred to as "Gulyash Communism." However, we still had to face restrictions - no freedom of speech or freedom of religion; we were allowed to travel to Western Europe only once in every three years; education and culture was influenced by Communist ideology, although we knew much of what was taught had to be looked through under critical glasses.

About three years ago I made a geeklist about boardgames featuring Hungary. When I posted the list, one of my geekbuddies found the game 1989: Dawn of Freedom. It captivated my attention immediately for various reasons. A game that centres around the year and happenings when Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe? Cards with events that I witnessed in person? In 1989, I was a university history student in Hungary, studying history and literature, so it was only natural I wanted to learn and play the game, and see how much it resonates with history.]]>

In this review, I am going to write about the historical background of the game and explain how the theme is reflected in the game mechanics.
I started to write this review when only the P&P version was available. Since then, GMT published the game, and now, it hopefully will go out to a greater audience.

The history in the year 1989 and the game 1989

What happened in 1989 in Eastern Europe? Let me quote a historian who witnessed many of the events firsthand, Timothy Garton Ash. "The year 1989 was the biggest in world history since 1945. In international politics, 1989 changed everything. It led to the end of communism in Europe, of the Soviet Union, of the Cold War. It opened the door to German unification, .... the enlargement of NATO, two decades of American supremacy, globalization and the rise of Asia." ]]>

The events in 1989 ended 40 years of Communism in that region. Why and how did these changes happen? The economy was failing, people were tired of the system and were starting to form opposition groups and make their voices heard in different ways. It became clear to both politicians and ordinary people that Communism as a political and economic system had failed. The Communist governments recognized that they had to make changes if they wanted to maintain some level of power. This unique interaction and progression of events led to the transition from Communism to Democratic systems in Eastern Europe. Each country in the region had its peak events and key figures, but changes, on the whole, happened through negotiations and demonstrations.

In the game, both the Democrat and Communist player try to gain more control than their opponent by using different actions and fighting Power Struggles – all these are driven by cards and die rolls.

How the game 1989 reflects the history of the year 1989

How the map reflects the history

The game stimulates the events that happened simultaneously in that region. The board features Germany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania. In each country there are a number of spaces of which some are special "Battleground" spaces. Spaces also represent various segments of society such as Elite, Bureaucrat, Farmer, Worker, Intellectual, Student, Minority and Church Space. Proportionally, the spaces accurately reflect the different segments of society, with the Workers in the biggest portion. Even in 1989, there was a battle going on behind the scenes between the Communists and Democrats for the support of various segments of society. It was not at all certain that the Democrats were going to win. The political situation and balance was very delicate and uncertain.

]]>

The board reflects the battle for influence very accurately. It was not enough to gain the support of just the Workers; both Communists and Democrats needed the support of the Intellectuals, Minorities, Elite, etc. During the years of Communism, various segments of Eastern European societies gained strength and also became islands of opposition. The year 1989 was exceptional, because these groups gathered their strength and acted together either through demonstrations or around the Round Table where the main negotiations were held. The map nicely mirrors all these segments and their strength in the various countries.]]>

You, as a player, try to advance on the board with the cards, and much depends on how you chose to play your cards. The board changes all the time as various groups become stronger and others weaker. For a while, in 1989, it was uncertain whether there really would be a transition of power.

The cards reflecting history

The cards feature key events, persons, and agreements in each country. When you play a card you stimulate history with the person, event or other significant feature that is featured on a card. If you do not use the event on the card, you will use its Support Points to try to shift influences to your favour. The level of benefit on the card or the extent of the drawback on the card corresponds with the historical significance of what the card depicts. There is a lot of tension when you have to play a card that will trigger an event in the favour of the other player. Many times you cannot avoid or prolong the activation of that card any longer. Events had to happen and decisions had to be made.

Whatever card you play, you are right in the heart of 1989. You are making and recreating history. A lot of research must have gone into making the cards and this improves the game considerably. Kudos to the designer to come up with such accurate and close description of events.

Example 1: Walesa & Solidarity Legalized

]]>

These two cards show the great influence and popularity that the Polish trade union (Solidarity) and its leader had in Poland in 1989 and long before that as well. In 1989, Solidarity achieved a landslide victory in free elections. As the leader of Solidarity, Walesa was a key figure in those events and bridged the gap between workers and intellectuals. Likewise these cards in the game are powerful, and the Democratic player can gain significant power in Poland with them. These are the cards the Communist player wants to avoid playing!

Solidarity can be played only if Walesa had been played as an event before. Walesa was a heroic figure in Poland who was able to unite various segments of society and kept the hope in these people for years; the hope that there would be positive economic and political changes taking place in Poland. Solidarity were operating underground for years and when they were allowed to operate openly it signed the beginning of important changes in Poland, but also for the rest of Eastern Europe as well.

Example 2:Nagy Reburied

]]>

Imre Nagy was the PM in Hungary during the short revolution in 1956. For all those years after 1956, no one really knew where he was buried, but we knew he was buried in an unnamed grave together with other participants in the revolution. His heroic figure became a symbol to fight for changes. When he was reburied on 16th June 1989, we knew something decisive was going to happen in Hungary and in the region. On that day, not only people who had taken part in the revolution or had suffered under the Communist regime, but even young people who knew the truth about Imre Nagy and the true nature of the revolution felt that, finally, justice was done for the revolution, its legacy and its leader. On that day, most of our nation was united, and we felt, the legacy of 1956 was lingering among us. That day was an emotional and decisive one for Hungarians. Although we followed the whole ceremony on TV, it was still hard to believe this was allowed to happen. But even in the ceremony, there were still a few Communist politicians who took part in doing away with Imre Nagy in 1956....

Example 3: Fidesz

This card shows how the Young Democrats were trying to get their voices heard and push for Democratic developments. The Young Democrats were among the first civil forums that were allowed to operate legally. They were young, full of energy and meant renewal of life and revitalization to us besides the mostly old and boring apparatchiks. The card contracts the old and boring way of Communists leaders with the youthful energy of the young democrats. The card says:"Let us chose!" - between two old kissing Communist leaders and two kissing young people.
The Young Democrats did an act of bravery that was also humorous: not long before the the changes took place: we had to celebrate the 7th November to commemorate the anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. That day was a public holiday, and as an act of disobedience, the Young Democrats went out to sweep the streets. ]]>

In the first free elections, The Alliance of Young Democrats gained quite a few seats in 1989. This was partly due to the powerful speech of their young and brave leader, Orban Viktor, delivered when Imre Nagy was reburied in June 1989. In his speech, Orban Viktor demanded that the Soviet tanks and soldiers go home. At that time it was seen a daring and brave speech. I remember visiting my father in his office and him saying, if this guy is not going to be arrested, then there are serious changes coming in the country and in the region.

Example 4: Pozsgay Defends the Revolution and Hungarian Democratic Forum

Many things evolved around discovering information about the country's recent past; information that was deeply forbidden from being publicly talked about. We all knew that the Revolution in 1956 was not a counter-revolution but an uprising against the Communist Regime, but when it was publicly announced by a leading party official Imre Pozsgay, it carried a lot of weight and we could feel the winds of change in the air. This was just one attempt at how the Communist were trying to maintain credibility and power. On the other hand, a new political party with a strong nationalistic agenda, the Hungarian Democrats, demanded that the Russian soldiers leave Hungary. This is what the card says on the hat: "Comraderies, caput!"

]]>

For us, these were all exciting and revealing moments that rewrote our past and our perception of it. These two cards show very well how both sides were trying to gain support from people addressing crucial issues of the day, such as the presence of the Russian soldiers in Hungary and the issue of the Revolution in 1956. A Hungarian writer, Sandor Marai, who emigrated to Canada in 1948, did not allow his body of work published till the Soviet Army left Hungary.

Example 5: Massacre in Temesoara: an interesting connection between the cards

]]>

With the massacre in Temesoara in 1989, the Communists tried to break the opposition. However, they were not able to do so. The Laszlo Tokes card allows the play of the Massacre in Tmisoara. These two cards are strongly connected in play, accurately mirroring the historical situation. Laszlo Tokes raised his voice against the Communist Regime and his house arrest and unshaken resistance led to the demonstrations in Temesoara (masses rallying against the Communist regime), and then to the massacre when the rioteers were suppressed by the Communists.

Example 6 : Power Struggle cards

With the Power Struggle cards the players can gain more influence in each countries. There are different kinds of Power Cards corresponding to the different forms of opposition that the Democrats were using. There are strikes, marches, proclamations, rallies, and leaders cards. For each type, we can mention a particular event to illustrate the Democrats’ struggle to make changes. Examples include the rally when about a million people came to Alexanderplatz in November, or the students' demonstrations in Prague that marked the beginning of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia.
]]> The Power Struggle Cards are all based on real events in 1989. These cards represent the movements and efforts of the common people or student leaders who were not able to officially partake in the changes, but felt compelled to having a voice in the changes. The various forms of demonstrations were organized in support of the transition from Communism to a Democratic state.
The person on the card is Orban Viktor.

How the Tiananmen Track reflects the history

The Tiananmen Track symbolically represents the struggle between Communists and Democrats on a broader scale. The track gives both players various advantages. At the beginning of the game, it is easier for the Democrat to progress, but later on it becomes easier for the Communist player.

]]>

How the USSR Track reflect the history

The USSR Track reflects how important it was for the positive progression of the Democratic events that the USSR seconded the changes the local Communists leaders were planning to implement to modify the system. If the USSR stability reaches 1, there is a possible coup.

How the gameplay reflects the history

It was a time of much uncertainty, and this is reflected in the game. The gameplay offers delicate choices and you constantly have to survey the board so that you can make the most out of your actions. Are you going to play your card as an event or go for Ops? But if you go for Ops and the card has your opponent’s event, that event is triggered! So will you instead try to advance on the Tienanmen track? But if you fail you can try it again only in the next turn!

]]>

You usually do not know what card your opponent has, and his cards can change the dynamics on the board.

Even the dice rolls reflect the uncertain situation at that time in those countries. No one could really foresee what the USSR was going to approve, how ordinary people would react and what result the different events would bring. In this sense the real 1989 was a year of various battles with uncertain outcomes – just as you have it in 1989 the game. Each game is different as you always have a different set of cards in your hand and you usually try to experiment with various and new strategies. Even if you use the same strategy there will not be a single game that is the same.
Another thing I find fascinating about the game is that when the Communist wins it is still true to history, as in every country that is on the map, the former Communists came back to power either right after the changes or some time later.

Conclusion

For all these reasons 1989: Dawn of Freedom is an exciting and entertaining game. There is a learning curve as you have to get to know the cards, and how to use them best at the given time and with the given board position. But this is the beauty of the game - discovering the best synergies, the timing of the cards and trying to give appropriate answers to the ever changing board. You will see a lot of plays from this game before you reach the point when it does not challenge or excite you anymore. ]]>

For those gamers who are not familiar with this part of history, this game offers an excellent opportunity to learn about an interesting period while facing challenging decisions and having a lot of fun. For those of us, who lived through these events, the game takes us back right into the heart of that unforgettable year.

Review: Desperados:: What you need to know and what people think about Desperados

EndersGame — Wed, 30 May 2012 05:47:00 +0000

by EndersGame

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 Desperados. 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.

NB: For more reviews like this, see this list.

]]>
]]>
1. The theme is about mining and prospecting.
“Players are prospectors who open mines and then extract gold, silver or copper. Then they hire gun-toting hoodlums to steal mines from the other players.” – Matt Drake
“Build up control of the mines and then close em down.” – Marc B.
“Card game where one opens mines then play bronze, silver or gold cards to score points. Bandit cards can steal mines, however.” – Norbert Chan
“It is a simple to understand, somewhat more difficult to manage game of prospectors and outlaws.” – Nicolai Broen Thorning
“For some reason themes that revolve around prospecting always resonate with me, thus I really enjoy this game.” – Rob Howlett

2. It’s a partnership card game.
“Great partners game. We need more partners games.” – David Fair
“Okay partner game with a push-your-luck feel.” – Robert Carroll
“An interesting game of partner communication via card passing.” – Doug Orleans
“Quite fun partnership game.” – Ken Shoda

3. The only way to enjoy the game is with exactly four players.
“No good as a two-player game. Much better if played as intended, as a four-player partnership game.” – Rick Holzgrafe
“Probably only really playable as a 4-player partnership game.” – Eric Landes
“Works well only with FOUR players!” – Silvano Sorrentino
“You absolutely need 4 players even though the box suggest you can play with less.” – Rob Howlett
“Better played as 4-player partner game.” – Tom Blasczak
“Play only with four players teamplay. With two, it's a bit pointless.” – Stephan Koehr

4. It has considerable luck.
“Highly luck-based, early Knizia game.” – Bryan Johnson
“Decent partnership game with quite a bit of luck and nothing extremely inspiring.” – Luke Iennaco
“Heavily dependent upon the luck of the draw.” – Greg Schloesser
“Not much to think about in this very easy to play game. Lot's of luck.” – Paul Jordan
“I'm not convinced I made any meaningful decisions in this game, but it's mostly harmless.” – Jason Arvey
]]>
5. But is very light and quick.
“It plays fast and has a light feel.” – Rob Howlett
“Very easy and fun game to play with kids.” - Darin Kelsey
“I played this one quite often. A nice quick and easy game to pick up and play. Clear and simple rules.” – Steven Robinson
“Nice cards, nice quick little game.” – Christian Killoran
“Fast playing and light fun.” – Tim Benjamin
“Only mitigating factor is the fact it takes 5 minutes to explain and 15 minutes to play.” – Nicolai Broen Thorning

6. This makes it best suited as a quick filler, or for new gamers and non gamers.
“This game is a lot of fun for how simple it is. I play this with friends and family often. Especially those who are resistant to new games.” - Ladysniff Hartrench
“A light fast card game that makes a good filler.” - Marc B.
“Has been a good filler for our group several times.” – Ricco van Prooijen
“Pretty decent game. Plays quickly. Fun theme. Nice filler.” – Stewart Tame

7. Designer Reiner Knizia has made better games.
“Not one of Reiner's best.” – Dan Bosley
“Knizia at his worst, which is still better than any American game on its best day.” – Tom Rosen
“One of the rare flops from the good doctor.” – June Hwang Wah
“Not one of Reiner's greatest.” – John Garrett
“One of Knizia's lamer efforts.” – Patrick Brennan
“I have great respect for the good doctor, as he has designed some excellent and often highly creative games. Sadly, Desperados is not one of them.” – Greg Schloesser

8. Be aware of some rules differences between editions.
“Use German rule that one closing one's own mine under attack causes loss of most recently played ore on that mine.” – Jeff Myers
“The "trivial" rules tweak referred to in the game summary is not so trivial. Do yourself a favor and track down the translation from the Game Cabinet (they are now on the Geek as Digging.doc). This game is a good partnership filler game and the original rules add decisions to the game.” – David Vander Ark
“Play the original German rule which penalizes you a card for closing a mine which is being attacked by bandits!” – EndersGame
“The game is definitely flawed when played with the Avalanche Press rules. It encourages opponents to immediately close your mines to keep you from getting points. When playing by Reiner's original rules or a home variant that mines can't be closed when under attack by a claim jumper, the game works better.” – Michael Shuck

9. The new Gryphon Games edition has nice artwork and good components.
“Nicely produced in the new Gryphon edition.” – Shannon Appelcline
“The art in Desperados is awesome. Instead of flipping through the standard book of stock images that seems to get used in nearly every Knizia game, Gryphon hired a really good illustrator. It's cartoony as hell, so don't think you're getting a Van Gogh here, but the pictures (particularly the bandits) are a boatload of fun.” – Matt Drake
“Originally released two decades ago, the game was once again published several years later under the name Digging. It has now been republished by Gryphon Games in a nifty compact tin.” – Greg Schloesser

]]> ]]> ]]>

The bottom line: what you need to know
Even though this is by far not one of Knizia’s best, if you’re looking for a simple light card game that plays quickly, is suitable as a filler or for non-gamers, and don’t mind some luck-of-the-draw, Desperados makes a good choice in view of the unique partnership play for four players, and the attractive components of the new Gryphon Games edition.

]]>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete list of Ender's "What you need to know and what people think about..." reviews:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/37595

Review: Aladdin's Dragons:: The Purge: Review #5: Aladdin's Dragons: Why am I having fun with this old game? Are there not better games?

william4192 — Wed, 30 May 2012 03:08:40 +0000

by william4192

Conclusion: No reason to hide the ball. I wasn't expecting much with Aladdin's Dragons as it was mostly a throw in on a bigger purchase in a geek auction. I must admit I am a big fan of worker placement; I am not sure why but I am. Something about few places to "work" and few people to "work" and other people taking my spot just does it for me. It is not the only mechanic I like, but I have noticed most of my favorite games have this mechanic. No surprise, Aladdin's Dragons has this mechanic and I like this game. We had a lot of fun playing this game and it came down to the very last artifact that everyone (all 4 players) was going for and that decided the game.

]]>

Components: The game has an old look to it. Like 1980-90 look. I do not know how to put it, but the colors are bland, the artwork is "fat" and cartoony (not like Glory to Rome). I actually like that, but the colors are bland (it is not ugly by any stretch of the imagination). I actually like the board. The cards (for Magic) are not of the best stock, but not horrible. The jewels are interesting and there are big and small in four different colors. They are actually very nice. The chits you bid with (more on this later) are very nice and serve their purpose. Overall, the components are very good (not FF good, but good).

]]>

Rules: The rules are oddly set up, but work very well. There is a stater game that takes up the majority of the rule book. The last few pages explains the "gamer" version that use the magic cards. I've never played the starter game and I do not think most people would, so it is odd it takes up the majority of the rule book. Other than this odd fact, the game is very easy to understand from the rule book. The rules are laid out well and I do not remember any ambiguities when we played the game. Everything flowed and made complete sense.

]]>

Flow of the game: The basic idea is you place your "workers" on certain places of the board that allow you to do different things. The unique part of this game is you blind bid on the things to do. Everyone had chits with 1-10 (no 3 though) and you bid. The highest bid gets to do the action. The trick is you can see how many chits a player plays, but not the numbers. This is an interesting mechanic and added a lot to the game (Vasco Da Gamo has a similar mechanic with a twist). I liked this part about it a lot and it made you bid differently based on what you needed and what you thought others were bidding.

After the bidding is done, you then get to get the reward. At the bottom in the Dragon caves, you get jewels. Based on the distribution for the round, you may get something or nothing; the highest bidder gets the best (or most) jewels. There are 5 caves for each of the 5 colors and some may have jewels and some may not (you know before bidding).

Then, the city rewards are determined. This could be exchanging jewels, playing cards, playing artifacts, and/or becoming first player. These rewards allow you break the rules of the game.

The third area is the palace. This is where you can get VP via the artifacts. You win by having the most artifacts (artifacts also let you break the rules via their powers). You must bribe the guard to be able to get a shot at the artifacts (unless you use the key artifact). You would bid your workers hoping you have more than the number on the guard (guard number can be a number between 1-10 but you do not know the number until after you bid). If you fall short, you can pay in jewels.

On top of this, there are magic cards you can play at anytime.

This is almost the entire game. It is very fun and it works very smoothly.

]]>

Should you buy this?: If you like worker placement, then yes. I'd rate this with other worker placement games and it is much easier. This is more like a light worker placement, but not a filler. This could be the main event of the night and there are a lot of hard decisions to be made. The game is not overly complicated and that is a plus for the game. If you like Ameri-Trash games (I still hate that name) and like to play the occasional Euro-Game (I hate this name also), this might be the right game for you. Not too much of a brain burner and it is still a tight game. I highly recommend this game.

Review: Robber Knights:: The Purge: Review #4: Robber Knights: Abstract? Theme? Why even bother? Nothing makes sense...

william4192 — Wed, 30 May 2012 02:49:18 +0000

by william4192

Conclusion: I won't hide the ball. This is not really my type of game. I'm sure there is a ton of strategy and someone will post and tell me how this game is so deep, but laying a tile (of two in my hand) and moving some circle woods around is not my type of game. I realize it is a filler (and I like Airships; see my other review), but I'm not a huge fan of tile laying. I'm not a huge fan of pasted on theme (but I did say I liked Airships!). To be fair, I'm not sure I understood the theme. I get the circles were knights and it took them longer to go over a mountain than a plain. But why must they stay there? Why must people be built on top of them? I won't go on; it just made no sense. It sort of bothered me to be honest. Why not just make this a strict abstract?

I digress. Overall, the game was not enough to keep my interest. I've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Queen Games. Nothing personal, but I like Airships and Thebes so far. They are good decent games, just not great. I understand Queen Games is very popular, so maybe I just need to try more of their games.

]]>

Components: The artwork on the box is very good (although not related to the game in the box) and the box is a good size. Not too big for what it is and since it is small it does not take up much room. The tiles are of good stock and the wooden circles (knights) are well made and seem to be very even. Not a lot of components, but everything is just fine.

]]>

Rules: The rules are straight forward and easy to understand. The game is very simple and the rules get the job done. I wish the rules would have made me understand the theme a little more, but that is more wishful thinking than a requirement. You should be able to learn this game from the rules in five minutes and not have to refer to them again.

]]>

Flow of the game: You get two tiles (after placing the initial starting tiles) and you play one and draw one. You can play a max of three tiles per turn. If you play a castle tile, you can add up to five circles and then move them around. There are restrictions on movement depending on the artwork on the tile (3 simple rules) and 3 ending scoring from certain tiles. Nothing to fancy and nothing hard; very simple.

]]>

Should I buy this? I.e. Is it fun?: This is the big question with Robber Knights. If you want a quick filler that plays alright with two and you like an abstract, then yes you could do worse. The games works good and the game we played were pretty tight. Overall a decent game. If you are trying to get free shipping and it was 10 bucks or less, then pick it up. Anything more and I would guess you are pushing the value button. You would not invite your friends over for a fun night of Robber Knights. With that said, you could bring this to Thanksgiving and play a couple of games with your non-gamer friends/family.

Review: The Battle of Red Cliffs:: Coming Soon: A Preview of The Battle of Red Cliffs

xcrun55 — Wed, 30 May 2012 00:11:26 +0000

by xcrun55

A few months ago I wrote of review of Tien Zi Que. It is one of my favorite card games and I was honored when the designer commented on my review. Then, to my further amazement he asked me to play test a game he had been designing in the same line of Tien Zi Que and his game the Battle of Red Cliffs.

Of course I took him up on the offer and soon had the prototype for Red Cliffs in my hands. With the help of friends and family we played the game and tried to offer our best praise and criticism (though there wasn't much of this). It has been amazing to be a part of this process and I am excited about seeing this game published.

Goal of the Game:

Battle of Red Cliffs is a card variant of mahjong. Like Mahjong, each game of Red Cliffs takes several rounds of play.

What is unique about the Battle of Red Cliffs is that during the round, players collect sets of cards and keep one card from each set. These are used for end of round scoring. When one player has five or six score cards, the round continues until the last player finishes his/her turn. Each player adds victory points to the score board based on the combinations of the score cards. Play then continues to the next round. The game ends when one player, or a team, reaches a certain Rank level. The player, or the team, with highest score wins the game.
Components:

Because I am play testing this game I can't comment on exactly what the final version will look or feel like. I am excited because I like the anime and Asian style of the artwork. Fans of he older version of The Battle of Red Cliffs will recognize the artwork as being very similar is design. There are a lot of cards (117), a score board and more coming with this game.

Number Cards

- Zero- 16 total (4 Red, 4 Blue, 4 Green, and 4 White)
- Numbers 1 to 9 - 63 total (18 Red, 18 Blue, 18 Green, and 9 White)

Special Cards

- Beauties - 28 total (8 Red, 8 Blue, 8 Green, and 4 White) The beauties are called warrior, dancer, maiden, and damsel.

- TZQ - 9 total (These are the black cards)

- Event - 1

There are also 9 Command cards that give players special abilities, 9 player aides, one score board, and 7 score tokens.

Game Setup:

Players must first choose which game type they are playing: man on man or teams.

- Man on Man for 2 to 7 players
- Teams of Two for 4, 6 or 8 players. (Team members must sit at least one or more seats away from one another.)
- Teams of Three for 6 or 9 players. (Team members must sit two seats away from one another)

Next, players must place the score tokens on the Score Board accordingly.

For Man on Man each player chooses a color and places the token on the "Level 1" space of the score board. For teams of two each team chooses a color (red, blue, green or white) and places it on the "Level 1" space of the game board. Or, for teams of three each team chooses a color (red, blue or green) and places the score token on the Level 1 space of the scoreboard. The remaining tokens are placed back in the box.

Now, each player randomly takes one Command Card and one the Player Aide card for his/ her team color. The remaining cards are removed from the game. The youngest player will be the Starting Player.

Round Setup:

For the first round of a new game, each player takes one TZQ card into his/her hand and then shuffles all remaining cards face down to form a Draw Pile. Make sure to leave extra space for three discard piles next to the draw pile. For all other rounds, each player takes one TZQ card from the Trash Pile into his/her hand. Remember, you DO NOT shuffle cards to form a draw pile at the end of a round.

Now each player draws five additional cards from the draw pile into his / her hand. If an event card is drawn, draw another card. Then, shuffle the event card back into the draw pile. When this draw pile is depleted at any time during the game, shuffle the Trash Pile face down to form a new draw pile. Players do not reveal their hand cards to other players, including team members.

Game Play:

The round begins with the starting player, and each player takes a turn proceeding clockwise. During each turn, the active player takes four steps in specific order. These steps are:

Peng!
Draw
Actions
Refill

Step 1: Peng!

Peng! is an interpretive action. Players take two hand cards an a top card from Discard Piles B or C to create a Trips Set. After creating the trips set, the interrupt players chooses one cards as a score card and places the two other cards in the trash pile accordingly. The active player then continues with his are her turn.

The interpretive player may not refill their hand cards until the Refill step on their turn. But there is no limitation of Peng! actions hat player may make per round. Sometimes more than one player may be able to take a Peng! action. Priority goes first to the active player. After this the player who sits closest to the active player has the priority.

Step 2: Draw

The active player now draws one card from the draw pile and takes it into their hand.

Step 3: Actions

The active player may create 1 or 2 sets and play at least on action card. This may be done in any order. For example, the player may play an action card, create a set, and then play another action card. If the active player does not create a set or play an action card they may discard 1 or 2 hand cards.

Creating a Set: A set contains three cards. These cards by be a straight or a trips set. A Straight Set is three consecutive numbers. For example 1, 2, 3 or 7, 8, 9. 1 and 9 are NOT connected and cannot be used to create a straight set. Three different Beauties may also be used to create a set. When creating a set with three Beauties the players may choose to take one set action from one Beauty. If they use a TZQ and two Beauties they may still only take the action from one Beauty.

A Trips Set is a set of three cards of the same card. For example three ones or three beauties. After creating a beauties set, the player may, if they wish, take the (Set) action on the card.

Sets may be created from the players hand or by taking two cards from the players hand an a top card in either discard pile B or C. Color is irrelevant when creating a set. A great feature of Red Cliffs are all the special cards. The Zero card is a numerical wild card that can be used when creating a straight set. For example, using 0 as a number 3 to create a straight of 2, 0, and 4. Three zeros can also be used to create a trips set.

The TZQ card is a super wild card, and it can be used as any of the beauties or any number including 0. But, a player cannot create a trips set with three TZQ cards.

After creating a set, the player chooses one card as a score card and places it in their play area. The other cards are discarded. There are a few rules when discarding. TZQ cards and 0 cards are always discarded to the A pile. Remember, players may not take cards from the A pile to Peng! or create sets. If both cards are not wild cards, players may place them in pile B or C in any order of one in pile B and the other in pile C. If either pile B or C are empty the player must discard to the empty pile first. Players may look through the discard piles at any time during the game.

Playing an Action Card: An action card is also the number 0 card. When playing an action card, follow the description on the card. When a player finishes, discard the action card in discard pile A.

Step 4 - Refill

Now the player draws cards form the top of the draw pile until they have six cards in their hand.

Event Card

When a player draws and even card during the turn, first redraw another card, and then resolve the description on the event card. When finished, place the event card in the trash pile.

When the active player finishes their turn, the player to the left continues with a new turn.

If the active player has five or six score cards at the end of the turn, the round continues until the last player or the player sitting to the right of the starting player finishes his or her turn. When the round ends, follow the instructions in the End of Round and Scoring.

End of Round and Scoring

When the round ends all players put their hand cards and all the cards in the discard piles into the trash pile. Trash pile cards are kept facing up, and no one can look through the pile during the game.

]]>

Each player uses the Player Aid / Score Card as a reference and then based on their score cards, accumulates victory points (VP) from the following sections.

- 2 or more cards of the same numbers
- 2 or more cards of the same Beauty
- 2 or more Beauty cards
- 3 or more cards in Red
- 3 or more cards in Blue
- 3 or more cards in Green
- 3 or more cards in White
- 3 or more cards in Black
- 4 or more cards in different colors
- 4 o more cards in a straight

There are no wild cards in scoring. Number 0 is a ZERO with a color. TZQ is simply a black color.

After calculating the victory points, each player adjusts their score token accordingly.

For example if a player has 2 blue sevens, 1 green six, 1 red 8, and one blue 9 they would receive 10 points. They would get 2 victory points for having 2 or more cards of the same number (7s), 2 victory points for having 3 or more cards in blue (7s, 9), and 6 victory points for having 4 or more cards in a straight (6,7,8,9).

In a team play game, a team's victory points are a collective of its members. For example, in the beginning of the round, Team A has 6 points. At the end of the round, Mike from Team A receives 4 points, and Kristen from Team A receives 8 points. The team would then score 12 points (4+8) total in this round. With the six points from previous rounds, Team A now has a total of 18 points.

If any one player or team's token reaches the End of Game Conditions, the game ends immediately. Other wise:

- Move all score cards to the trash pile
- The player who sits on the left of the starting player becomes the new starting player for the next round
- If the score token is not on a ranking level, (first number on that row) move the score token to the next lower level. For example
- If the score token is on "4," then more the token to "3," of the second level.
- If the score token is on "10," then do not move the token
- Follow the Round Set-up to begin a new round

End of Game Conditions:

- Man on Man: When one player reaches 20 points or higher
- Optional Rule: For a 2 or 3 player game, when on player reaches 30 or higher
- T
Photo Credits: Ta-Te Wu, Johnny L (Sabruquitas)eams of Two: When a team reaches 30 points or higher
- Teams of Three: When a team reaches 50 points or higher

Game End

When the game ends, the player or team with the highest score wins the game. In case of a tie, the one who scores the most points in the last round wins. If there is still a tie, the last player or team belonging to the last player of the last round wins.

My Thoughts

I already said that I really enjoyed Tien Zi Que but it just may be surpassed by Red Cliffs. Red Cliffs feels like a grown-up version of Tien Zi Que. There are more options on your turn, a deeper strategy, the special abilities of the Command Cards. It is also able to support up to 9 players now! The fun, push your luck element I so enjoyed from its predecessor is still there. It is also easy to learn and quick to play. I'm sure I'll end up with multiple copies of this games to go along with Tien Zi Que collection.

During your turn you have the option to play one or more sets and play an action card. Tien Zi Que limits you to creating only one set, so even if you have two sets you could create you couldn't. With Red Cliffs you can Peng!, and create two more sets on your turn if you play your cards right. It is a lot of fun when you are able to complete that move.

When I first started playing I wasn't sure that I would like the two different wild cards, the Zero and the TZQ. Won't that make it to easy too make sets I thought? But instead it actually adds a lot more strategy to the game. Each round you get a TZQ card but it must be used wisely. Use it to early and you may end up wishing you add it later on in the round. Hold on to it for the perfect combination and it may just sit in your hand the entire round.

Zero also being wild for just numbers adds another layer as well. If you have a lot of Beauties and want to go for that score a zero may not prove very useful. Plus, you may want to use the Zero for its action rather than as a wild card. Both the wild cards go into Discard Pile A and therefore can't be used to Peng! or make a set from the discard piles.

This brings me to the strategy of using the discard piles. You wouldn't think that where you discard a card would matter but it does in Red Cliffs. Choose the wrong card to place on top and you just may give your opponent a chance to create a set. Of by placing strategically you may be able to use the same card over again to create a second set or to Peng! during the next round. It really does take some thought even when discarding.

I also love games that give players different special abilities so I was very excited about the Command Cards. The Command Cards are just fun. I like breaking the rules sometimes in games and being able to do something other players cannot. It's fun to say with my Command Card I'm drawing back up to my hand limit after I Peng!.

I am very excited about seeing this game on Kickstarter soon. It has been a privilege to see this project thus far and I can't wait to see the final version. The Battle of Red Cliffs will be on Kickstarter toward the end of June so please support this great game by a wonderful designer.

Quick Stats

Publisher: Look for it soon on Kickstarter!
Designer: Ta-Te Wu
Artist: Ta-Te Wu
Players: 2-9
Time: 30 Min
Age: 10+
Mechanics: Partnerships, Set Collection

Photo Credits: Ta-Te Wu, Johnny L (Sabruquitas)

Review: Disaster Looms!:: Disaster Looms! Preview

vmp0514 — Tue, 29 May 2012 20:50:36 +0000

by vmp0514

Those wishing to see the full review (pictures included) can do so at the following page:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/disaster-looms-...

A full list of my board game reviews can be found on the same site here:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/board-game-reviews/

---

It’s Armageddon for real this time, and Bruce Willis is nowhere to be found…what can be done? Well, for starters, you can take control of a major spaceship corporation and charge an arm and a leg to ferry customers off of Earth and onto other habitable planets. I know, sounds cruel…but the Ferengi’s 22nd Rule of Acquisition states that “A wise man can hear profit in the wind” and Star Trek hasn’t let you down yet. It’s a dog eat dog galaxy, and you’re out to be the biggest asteroid in the belt.

Disaster Looms! Preview: 2-4 Players

In, “Disaster Looms!”, you’ll be doing just that. As a major corporation, you’ll be trying to collect resources by evacuating the population of Earth onto other planets. You’ll be buying ships and researching technologies to help you do this, but you’ll up against other corporations trying to do the very same thing.

I’d like to thank Eric from Break From Reality Games for sending me a free demo copy. Please be advised that the pictures that you see in this article (pictures included in the above link) are prototypes and are not part of the final product. Since the game hasn’t been released and the rules and components aren’t final, the below will simply be a preview of what’s to come as well as my first impressions.

Setup

The Earth tile will be placed in the middle of the table at the beginning of every new game. Players will be adding new, random exploration tiles adjacent to it as the game goes on. There are six starter technologies that are also placed on the board that everyone will have access to from the get go.

The research cards and exploration tiles are each categorized into tiers…specifically the A, B, and C decks. Players will shuffle each deck separately and arrange them so that ALL players draw from A first, then B, then C.

Each player gets a corporation of their own color (along with their colored ships) and two resource tokens. Players will place their smallest ship on Earth and put one customer token on their player dashboard in the appropriate cargo hold space.

Players decide randomly who goes first.

It’s worth noting that there are multiple variants inside the prototype manual to help balance the game for two, three, or four players. The above is an overview of the four player game, though being a prototype, these rules are subject to change.

Gameplay

Players will be taking turns during each phase of a round. The different phases in a round can be summarized as follows:

Phase One: Research Phase – Players will be able to research or license technologies and are limited to researching one time per round. It costs resources to research technology, and you can only have up to three. Players also have the ability to buy licensing rights to someone else’s technology, for a fee, allowing them to use that technology for that round only. The player owning the technology can’t refuse this transaction.

Phase Two: Fleet Phase – Players will take one action with each of their ships in play. Ships will be able to perform various actions: explore, establish colonies, and ferry customers…just to name a few.

Phase Three: Management Phase – Players will sell technologies to Earth, build ships, and/or build warp gates.

Phase Four: Revenue Phase – Players will collect resources from Earth and from their respective colonies, profits, and trade routes.

Phase Five: Check for Game End Phase – If the Cataclysm exploration tile is revealed or there are no more customers in the pool, then game over.

Phase Six: Auction Phase – The bidding begins on who will be the first player during the next round.

The winner of the game is the person with the most points after it’s been determined that the game is over in Phase Five. Points are awarded based on a player’s number of colonies, customers inhabiting said colonies, resources owned, and unsold technologies.

I won’t go into the specifics since the game hasn’t been finalized yet, but the above should give you a general idea of what you would be in for.

First Impressions

“Disaster Looms!” is a lot of fun. I personally like how the drawing of random tiles when exploring helps to give players a new experience every single time. You may end up with a bunch of asteroid fields around you one game and have habitable planets surrounding Earth the next…this mechanic adds to the game’s replayability tenfold.

The idea of owning technology and then having someone else pay to license it is a neat mechanic. It helps to prevent one particular person from hoarding all the of the good technologies for themselves, while adding a strategy element to the game. Some folks may not want to acquire the tech but only use it when they need to…making licensing viable and freeing them up to purchase and own other technologies.

The threat of someone else taking over one of your fully colonized worlds adds a bit of strategy to the game as well. Do you keep your ship above the planet to prevent others from taking that colony away from you? You could, but you might be missing out on other opportunities by keeping your ship in one place.

Based on what I have played so far, I’m anxious to get my hands on the final production of this game. As of 5/29/12, ”Disaster Looms!” has reached its minimum funding goal, though more content is provided as they reach their stretch goals…so if you like what you see, feel free to pledge your support using the links below. If I end up acquiring the final production of this game, I may do a separate, full review to show you what the final components look like among other things…so keep an eye out!

You can learn more about Break From Reality Games on their website here:

http://www.bfrgames.com/

You can pledge your support for “Disaster Looms!” by visiting Kickstarter here:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/996972475/disaster-looms

Review: Incan Gold:: A Filler and/or Family Fun!

Nikoms — Tue, 29 May 2012 17:27:26 +0000

by Nikoms

We purchased Incan Gold for 3 reasons:

1) We were looking for a game that would be fun for our 15 & 16 year old, but was still playable with our 6 year old.

2) We wanted a game that could play at least 5 players (3 kids + 2 parents)

3) We noticed that the co-designers have produced games we already own and like. Bruno Faidutti did Citadels and Alan Moon, of course, is the author of the TTR family.

Enough about why, let's talk about the game...

First off, we own the Gryphon Games version pictured below:]]>

COMPONENTS: Nothing extraordinary - but not cheap either. The cards are decent quality, the gems are a nice touch and the tents are fairly durable. The insert for the box (pitcured below) is nicely functional: ]]>

We have added mini-zipper bags for storing the individual gems sorted by color. Just a bit of a time-saver in set up.

The box itself is nice and small - good for fitting on a crowded game shelf!

GAMEPLAY: I will not go into a ton of detail on the rules, as that has been done in many other reviews. As a general summary, each player decides after each new card is drawn from the deck whether to continue on - hoping for more riches and larger share (but risk losing all) or to play it safe and head back to camp with what treasure they have gathered to that point. This "round" happens 5 times.

There are a few fun aspects of the game mechanic that adds to the intensity. First off, in a large multi-player game, there are 2 factors at play in the decision to go back or press on: 1) How many people are continuing (i.e. if there are 6 people playing, but 4 have already headed back - all that much more gold, as it is divided between only those left at that point) A 17-gold card is one thing split 5 ways - quite another divided by 2 daring souls!

A second is the tension in the later rounds between a possible build up in artifacts (ones that haven't "come out" can do so in later rounds), their increase in value in rounds 4 & 5 (from 5 gold to 10) AND the possible lessening of certain threats, as rounds ended earlier in the game by threats have had one of those hazard cards removed from the game.

STRATEGY? Not really - although keeping an idea of how much the leader has is a good idea and knowing when to "duck out" - and preferably at a time when no one else does so can snag the "extras" on the path back - are important. It is interesting to me that for the most part, either my wife or I has won most of the time when playing with our 3 children (2 teens and a 7 year old) - although the 15 year old daughter has pulled out a victory every now and then. Her older brother is simply too greedy - sometimes we jokingly suggest he doesn't even need a tent. While the youngest often is afraid to push his luck too much.

WHY IT'S GOOD:
* As was mentioned at the outset, it plays well with a group (we love it with 5 and have played with more to success).
* It is simple to teach and a fast play. Which makes for a nice "filler" that doesn't feel like one, and a nice family game that's not too heavy or too long for school nights.
* The components are nice and the tension makes it a good time.

WHY YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE IT:
If you're looking for a deep dtrategy game, this aint it. There is a touch of planning, but mostly just good, tension-filled, press your LUCK and randomness.

CONCLUSION: As I stated at the outset, we purchased Incan Gold for some very specific reasons - and it has met those needs with flying colors. Our 7 year old begs to play - and then his older brother and sister usually ask for another go (especially if they didn't win or at leat do well). It's got just enough to it to not "feel" like a filler (at least not a weak one) - and usually creates some tense but fun moments for all. If you're looking for a good filler, or a nice, quick family game at a reasonable price, go on a quest for some Incan Gold!

Review: Jungle Speed:: [Voice of Experience] JUngle Speed - an exhaustive review

Bezman — Tue, 29 May 2012 12:20:33 +0000

by Bezman

Voice of Experience is a competition that you can read about here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/793054/voice-of-experience-s...
I've been meaning to review this game for a while but might not have ever done so if it weren't for this competition. So ta. Hopefully, I can do what-is-one-of-my-favourite-games justice.

Parts of this review, namely ages of players, may not be completely accurate. Maybe, like Adrian Mole, I'm being childishly pedantic to need to point out that I'm not 100% sure about everyone's age. But in any case, do not fear. The rest of the review is accurate, to the best of my knowledge. Also, I love you all.

I love this game. Unless you hate the concept, I think you should buy it. I hear it's fun for children but with over 100 plays of the base game under my belt, I can attest to the enjoyment that it gives adults.

This is an exhaustive review but sections are clearly labelled and more objective/subjective parts grouped together. Feel free to skip sections or jump to a section if you're only interested in some aspects.

{picture of cards}

An overview: "Like Snap, but psychotic."
That's how a friend explained the game when I was asking another person if he wished to join in.

I first heard about the game via a podcast that described it as 'the game most likely to cause physical harm'.

I would describe it as a solid (if unexciting) set of rules, made brilliant by the graphic design.

Whilst you're trying to match patterns, all are similar to at least on other set of patterns. All non-identical patterns can be distinguished within around 5s BUT when the objective is to claim a Snap before your opponent, you probably won't have that long in-game. Is it a match? You'll find hands hovering near the totem, unsure whether to grab or not. There will be misgrabs. There will be mocking. There will be triumphant near-instant pattern recognition.

The special cards add to the insanity.

To be honest, you probably already know if this is a game for you or not. If you think you might enjoy it, you almost certainly will. If you hate the concept of pattern matching under a time pressure, this won't change your opinion. But if you're still unsure (or just want to read a bit more), please read on.

Jungle Rules
A deck of cards is divided equally amongst all players to create multiple face-down 'decks'. A wooden totem is placed in the centre of the table. Players take turns to turn over the top card of their deck, creating a face-up discard piles for each player. If the top card of your discard pile ever matches the top card of someone else's discard pile in terms of pattern (colour being usually irellevant), the two of you try to GRAB THE TOTEM as fast as you can! The player who successfully grabbed the totem first gives his face-up cards to the other, who then places both discard piles below his deck (face down).

If you ever grab the totem incorrectly (or commit any other foul), you must collect ALL face-up cards.

The player who finishes their deck AND their discard pile wins.

The special cards are:
ARROWS POINTING OUTWARDS - all players simultaneously turn over one card. There may be a match and an ensuing 'duel'!
ARROWS POINTING INWARDS - the first player to grab the totem gets to put their discard pile under the totem - this is an 'additional penalty' for whomever next picks up cards.
COLOURED ARROWS - duels are now triggered by identical colours, instead of identical patterns. A duel could be instantly triggered!

{picture of special cards}

my experience with the game, summarised
I bought the game in 2009 after hearing a review on a podcast. I loved the concept and brought it along to play with a wednesday gaming group. These folk are mainly into eurogames and though it was tabled one more time, bringing it on subsequent wednesday nights elicited nothing but groans and disdain.

By contrast, I introduced it to some new friends at a Newgrounds 'meet' in London and during the subsequent bi-annual meets, folk were often clamouring for a game. Similarly, later friends I introduced the game to were either enamoured or - at worst - willing to play multiple games in succession. Maybe it was due to the younger age range (16 to 30 as opposed to 26 to 50). Maybe it was the general disposition (folk who play fewer boardgames, or maybe want a game to be about the folk playing rather than an exploration of the space defined by its rules and mechanics).

As I played it more, I found myself with an unfortunate advantage over others - resulting in less exciting games. So I bought 'La Totale' to play with those who had not played before. Indeed, it levelled the playing field a bit. This was just a temporary fix however - if I played it more, I'd know the patterns the best and the expansions are finite without any more on the horizon. I adopted a handicap system, accepted that I'd be better and went back to the base game as my go-to option. Carrying both was too cumbersome whilst the base game can fit in the pocket of my jacket.

I've introduced it to a fair few folk, usually playing 3-5 players, sometimes going as high as 11.

I ran the 2011 official world championship on my last birthday, having gotten in touch with one of the designers. To be honest, I just wanted to make my greatness official. Instead, I actually finished 5th - the top 4 in order being:
Joel (my best friend, who had played about 5 times but is an artist and so probably naturally good at this)
Doug (a competitive euro/ameritrash gamer. He borrowed a copy of the game to practise with for a week preceding the tournament.)
Grant (played tens of times)
Diana (my then-girlfriend, who was annoyed by me having beaten her so often at games. She put all her energy into beating me)

One friend expedited an intercontinental flight to attend but the tournament was mainly locals from a 60 mile radius - about 20 friends or friends of friends. I imagine that there must be other competitors from England or other countries who would rank in the top few but deemed it too costly to attend (or didn't hear about it).

The tournament started off with big (8-player) games, 1st and 2nd place both being given points. During each round, a certain number of points were required to progress and once enough folk had qualified, the remainder were eliminated. Though a friend had volunteered to be the head judge, I enjoyed judging after my own disqualification and the 4p game, 3p game and final round were all tense affairs.

Joel and Doug had won one game each in a best-of-3 final round as they got to grips with the 2p rules. The excitement was palpable and the atmosphere started approaching that of a majorly important tennis match, the crowd clapping after successful grabs. Everyone seemed impartial but visually arrested.

Though I massively enjoyed the remainder of my birthday party - various band performing live music, limbo, balloon games, presents and a surprise birthday cake - watching the last game of the final match is the strongest memory from that day.

I stopped playing for a while afterwards. I'd maybe overplayed it. Maybe I was not-so-secretly disappointed by my own performance. Folk were disappointed I didn't have the game with me at the following Newgrounds meetup.

I played with some old friends in Edinburgh recently (one of whom did compete last year but dropped out) and whilst it was enjoyable, the difference in our skill levels made the results almost a foregone conclusion. I plan on bringing it out again soon though, when hosting a Thursday night 'board game party'. If I win first, I can tell folk to play to 2nd or 3rd whilst I go to brew tea. I'm no longer able to enjoy the game as much as I originally did when introducing the game to folk - familiarity affects the game too much for that. Whilst I only know about 7 folk who can compete against me (nearly all of whom live in another city), it will remain a fun filler.

Watching Jungle Speed (how other folk react)

Everyone knew a title was on the line at the 2011 World Championships, but I firmly believe that even a usual match of Jungle speed could be an exciting spectacle if players are fairly evenly matched.

Rules are simple to pick up, even if no-one explains them. Or they can be summarised in seconds. Seeing a crowd of 10 folk in the park playing jungle speed is fun in itself, witnessing all the chaos with limbs flying around, energetic shouts of triumph or cries of despair.

One nice aspect is that because it's simple to explain and has an obvious tone/mood, you won't spend much time explaining it to folk who then realise they don't want to play. If someone asks or agrees to join in, they're almost certainly going to have fun.

It really is a game that does one thing very well and it's relateable since most folk are aware of 'Snap'. They will

handicaps

Though this is a variant, it is possible to handicap one or more players by giving them 2 piles, treating each hand as a separate player (like the 2p rules).

This soon became something I'd usually do when playing with others to balance the field a bit. It doesn't make as big a difference as I'd like though - I beat my ex using this method, who went on to beat me in the world championships.

I once tried playing with 3 piles (the central pile can use either hand whilst matches for the outer piles must be grabbed with the coresponding hand). That was just far too much to process for me.

Maybe it's misguided to try and handicap a party game but this is definitely a game that can cater for a competitive spirit.

{picture of different totems}

Different totems

Both wood and plastic is available (made plastic to avoid lawsuits in the US, I believe). There is photographic evidence of these totems but despite having bought 6 copies of the game (a gift, 2 newer versions for the official 2011 championship, one 'La Totale'), I have only been greeted with one version of the totem.

For the record, my copies have been bought from the UK or France. You should check the totem in your box before buying if it really matters to you.

Wood feels nicer. Plastic is safer. The choice is yours. Though this is one aspect I cannot talk about from experience, I doubt it would affect the game much.

components

A nice drawstring bag can hold all other contents - the rules, cards and totem. As long as you don't mind the rules being slightly bent, the box is superfluous and can be thrown away, making this an easily portable game.

The totems that I have recieved have all been made from a single piece of wood, with a nice burnt-in logo on the 'top'. One copy I bought was made incorrectly - logo on both sides. This matters when implementing the anti-riot rule (see below).

Cards are made from decent stock, similar to that of MtG if a bit glossier. There are 20 patterns (all similar to at least one other), each in 4 colours. After about 80 games, the cards will probably start showing signs of wear around the edges but will probably still not be 'marked' in a way anyone can easily distinguish, let alone remember when facing in-game pressure. The glossy finish makes them slightly resilient to moisture but you will still need to wipe tables before playing. I've played on grass various times and dew is not a problem.

2011 update

In 2011, the game recieved a significant overhaul.

Most importantely, the backs of the cards are completely different - having changed form red, blue, black and white to a lower-contrast red and yellow.

This means that the newer version of the game is incompatible with old expansions and despite suggestions in the rulebook that expansions are available, compatible expansions have yet to have a release date confirmed.

The fronts are similarly altered - card borders are now 2-tone dark grey and darker grey. Curves add visual interest without being as distracting as the original ornate designs. Purple patterns are now blue, green is more lime and yellow is more orange.

Backgrounds - instead of being plain white - now have similarly subtle 2-tone design. Patterns have a drop shadow. The special card backgrounds are now an orange-hued version of the usual off-white background. Arrows all 'come out' of the borders and coloured arrows are more distinguished by virtue of a white (as opposed to orange) border. Though I feel the original borders were more visually interesting, I'd say that the cards now look far better as a cohesive whole and shows the value of restraint in graphic design - specially in the choice of colours (shifting away from non-red/orange hues and abstaining from white/black except for black outlines around patterns).

The box is bigger and now contains a great big plastic insert that will virtually guarantee everything comes undamaged. I think I'll throw away these boxes to conserve space so for me, it's just more waste. If you choose to keep it though, it is more damage-resistant. When cards are in the bag, they won't fit in the box anyway though and as said before, the bag is a functional container for everything else, more portable and thus just more practical.

The bag is redesigned - black/red tiger stripes replaced with stylised african masks, totem and logo - the masks forming the basis for the background of the card fronts. I appreciate the use of altered, previously seen designs. It gives the whole thing a nicer cohesiveness.

The rulebook was rewritten with fewer ambiguities, a few more jokes and altered layout.

There is one major difference in the rules - the anti-riot rule, previously just something mentioned on the official website, is now an official rule.

anti-riot rule
If 2 people simultaneously grab the totem, the instinct can be to snatch it away from the competing hand. Now, the rules explicitly state, 'Winning a duel is a test of speed, not a trial of strength!' The winner is the one with most fingers touching the totem or - in the case of a tie - the player whose hand is closest to the bottom.

Only 1st place matters!
Continuing the game to determinine 2nd and so forth is merely an official variant. As the number of players dwindles, the possibility of a match will be reduced (with fewer cards to match at any time) and so unless playing with more than 4, I'd STRONGLY advise against continuing the game - just start another game if you must.If playing with 6 or more, I think it's fine to determine 1st, 2nd and 3rd. But you should maybe decide this before the game starts to avoid hurt feelings, tantrums or irritation.

official 2p/3p variants
To increase the possibility of making matches with fewer folk, the following variants exist:

With 3 players, the suggestion is to exclude coloured arrows. Instead, whenever all 3 discard piles, it counts as a duel. (This is another change for the 2011 version - originally it counted as arrows-inward. The new rule goes further to raise the number of duels, increasing the probability that even a small difference in skill or attention will result in a winner relatively quickly.)

With 2 players, each players' hand is treated as an individual 'player'. Officially, the order is
player 1's right hand
player 2's right hand
player 1's left hand
player 2's left hand
but unless you have a judge, it's easy to mess up the order. Personally, I'd just play in a 'circle', starting with player 1's left hand (so they get one turn before the other player gets 2).

If one player gets rid of both hands, they win. If both players have only one hand left, compare the cards on your side. Fewest wins, of course.

luck vs skill
The more players there are, the more chance is involved. With 10 players (8 cards each), one player can win with a single grab. Most wins only involved about 3 'duels' being won. Those duels might be against the weakest players. Depending on how the game plays out, some folk can get fewer turns. One game finished with multiple people having never taken a turn.

A 2 player game is almost entirely down to skill whilst 3 is similar in that regard (and is my favourite way to play). There's no cut-off point - it's a gradient. But the more folk you're playing with, the more you need to accept that the victor is increasingly down to chance and curb your competitive spirit.

game length
This is obviously affected by whether or not you play to 2nd etc. Assuming you only play to 1st, the length of play is inversely proportinal to the number of players. I find that a 10p game is about 2-5 minutes to get to 1st. Maybe 10 minutes if you play until 3rd place is determined.

A 2p game - if against similarly matched opponents - can take 25 minutes. All other player numbers fit somewhere in between those ends of the spectrum.

I think this is greatly fortuitous - the more random the game, the faster it plays! This ensures you can fit in quite a few 10player games in if you wish and no-one is overly bothered about the result of any single game.

2-player games against evenly matched opponents can be epic tales of cards moving back and forth until one player manages to eke out a victory. A close 2-player game of Jungle speed will be an event you'll remember for years to come.

playing with different (numbers of) players
Apart from game length and luck:skill ratio, the only other differences created by different player numbers are the obvious mood changes: increased feelings of intimacy and competition arising when more play.

I think I'd now most enjoy playing it either 2 or 3p against equally matched opponents or 5+. If I'm competing, I'd find it annoying to have the luck of a 4+player game. If I'm playing it as a party game, I'd want to have at least 5 folk there so others could carry on playing to 2nd.

When you first get the game, though, it's likely that you won't have such a big advantage and any player number will work well.

Originally, the game claimed that 2-80 could play. Then 2-15. Now 2-10. 10 is a reasonable upper limit recommendation but if you do end up playing with 11, you can still have fun. We did.

playing in different environments
Though this is a card game, it's still something you can play in a bar or in a less-fancy teashop. Make sure that breakable/spillable things are out of the way. Give the table a wipe if it's wet or filthy. But if cards were to get marked, it wouldn't be the end of the world. It's not like in Magic, where you get to examine the back of a deck for minutes. If cards have scruffy edges, like mine showed since after around the 80th play, it's not going to be marked in a way you'll remember.

a note about the potential for injury
Long nails are the likeliest cause of injury and if playing with official rules, a scratch is likely to be the worst you'll suffer.

The first game I ever played, I didn't mention the rule that dropping the totem or knocking it over is a foul. Only in that game did it go flying multiple times.

There have certainly been games since where multiple simultaneous grabs caused the toteem to fly away - potentially hurting someone (but never actually doing so). Wood would certainly hurt more.

However, knowing that the penalty for a foul is to pick up ALL face-up cards, most are careful to grab well and not risk the repercussions.

a brief note on expansions
As mentioned, only older versions (as opposed to the 2011 versions) are compatible with existing expansions. However, Asmodee suggest that there will be newer expansions released, with card backs identical to the 2011 revamp.

Personally, I'd love to see this become something akin to a LCG. If each year 80 new cards were released, I'd love to buy them all, playing them individually and enjoying the pattern-matching afresh. And when the new set started to become familiar to me, I'd enjoy different combinations of different expansions

The existing expansion
If you choose to buy a copy of 'la totale' or even 'just' the basic expansion, you'll be able to enjoy a fuller game with more folk. You'll find that the differences between patterns become more subtle and confounding.

I'm slightly irritated that 2 of the loops are only distinguishable by their black outline showing they 'overlap' in a different manner when every other shape is distinguishable by the negative space around it. That seems like something to be learned, which I'm opposed to in a game meant to be about fast reactions.

Apart from that, all shapes remain easily distinguishable when checking but not when under pressure, which is exactly how it should be.

it's about the game, not the people (comparing other party games)
One major improvement over 'Snap' is the presence of a stick to grab. There is no need to ask yourselves who shouted first.

Clearly, this is something that could be called a party game but at the same time, it's one that remains about the mechanics, not the people involved.

Most party games require you to agree to some unwritten rules. Here, there is a question of 'how quickly must you turn over your card?' - some groups would probably do it faster than others. I implemented a house rule that if someone is taking too long, anyone else can quickly count to 5 and failing to turn over by '5' is a foul.

Most folk will play fast enough but it can be a great advantage to take your time - checking everyone else's shape carefully before revealing your own. So the houserule above can be unfortunately required.

compared to snap
The totem is one thing that makes this playable. Trying to get rid of cards rather than collect them all means that multiplayer games are possible without it ending in a 1v1 that drags on and on. As discussed, games end in a reasonable length of time.

The intentionally confusing shapes are really what gives this the 'spice' that it requires. No longer is the game simply about fast reactions - identifying identical shapes being trivial in most snap games. Instead, it becomes about fast THINKING with potential to fail and judge a match incorrectly.

Even if folk are careful to avoid fouls for multiple games, the risk is what gives the games their tension - the knowledge that if you're not careful, you could knock yourself out of the running. As piles grow ever higher, the stakes increase and asessing whether or not a pattern matches before your opponent grabs the totem becomes critical.

If it weren't for the similar shapes, you would never experience that tension interfering with your thinking. You'd never experience the glee as you check to see - yes! - it IS a match! You'd never experience the disappointment as you grab the totem only to lose far more than you would have gained.

Really, the graphic design IS the game.

rules covering every possibility?

In all the games I played, four things came up that weren't covered by the rules. Once, a player went to grab the totem just as the player following turned over a card, covering up a match. When the totem was grabbed, there was no match visible. We agreed it should count as successful and when I was preparing for the world championship, I prepared rulings for a few corner-case scenarios.

Once, when folk were compelled to play to 2nd last, the game ended with 2 discard piles and no deck.

Deliberately slow play meant the house-rule above needed to be developed.

But in around 150 games, I have never seen another situation that lay outside the rules. The designers provide rulings for every situation - multiple matches, combinations of special cards and special cards as your final reveal. This should be expected but - unfortunately - it requires special mention.

Really, Jungle Speed is a SOLID game.

strategy/skills used
(Marginal spoilers)

When first starting, fake grabs or just shouting 'Snap' were enough to encourage a misgrab.

If 50% sure, don't grab. A foul is worse than failing at a duel. Double check.

I like the idea of visually distracting folk but it's usually more distracting to yourself. Unless you use something that doesn't require cumulative effort like flashy painted nails or garish clothing. Unless your group is special, ticking is probably out. For me, this is more theoretical than something actually done.

It's hardest when turning over your own card - others are checking for one thing (to find out if their card matches yours) whilst you need to check for a match with ANY other visible card. When others have their turn, it pays to not only check for matches with your card but also attempt to remember their shape. That way, you can reduce the risk of failing on your turn.

It's worth paying special attention to larger discard piles.

Identically-coloured cards CANNOT be a match.

However, the game is tactical rather than strategic (if it can even be labelled 'tactical'). The thing that will help the most is developing personal 'tricks' to aid your visual memory, remembering the possible differences between shapes in the 6 'families'.

Reactions can be improved upon.

Stay alert.

You need to focus! No downtime!
If someone turns over a card that matches yours, it pays to pay attention at that moment! So the game becomes one of constant attention. If you try to talk to someone else, find your thoughts straying or need to blink a few times, you can find yourself recieving a pile of cards.

This is clearly not a game to play when you wish to casually socialise - rather, it's a game to play with folk who enjoy physicality, have a bit of a competitive streak and are willing to wrap themselves up completely in a game for 20 minutes with few words exchanged until the game is concluded.

colour blindness

If you are colour blind, it may be impossible to distinguish between the colours since they are of similar brightness. You could still play the game though, simply taking out the coloured arrows, so that you only need to match patterns. However, this reduces the likelihood of a match arising and so increases the probability that the game will drag on or even end in a tie (with everyone extinguishing their deck, discard piles remaining).

With many players (certainly with 8 or more), excluding the coloured arrows would leave you with a fantastic game, playable by colourblind folk. With 4, the colourblind variant loses a fair bit of drama. With 3, you're likely to run into issues. I'd personally play the game in this manner even with 3. However, I'm more excited by the concept of pattern-matching than most folk and so wouldn't actually playing this game colourblind unless you have at least 5.

Special cards
I wish to finally appraise the choice of the 3 special cards in the base game.

Arrows inwards can have one player putting their cards under the totem only to get them again when they lose the duel that arises on their very next turn. Hilarity and memorable stories!

The card does slightly increase the focus on skill - a theoretical player who never lost a duel might never be involved in one. However, this card provides an alternate method, increasing the possibility that any given person has a chance to get rid of cards. This is specially true in larger games, where the benefit of taking the next turn is far more vital.

Since the other arrows can be confused with this (specially arrows outward if not paying enough attention), there is still the requirement for a tiny bit more mental processing than you'd find in Snap along with the knowledge that a mistake needs to be actively avoided - theoretical risk generating tension and excitement even if it's rarely messed up.

Coloured arrows help increase the probability of matches (with 4 colours as opposed to 20 patterns). These are probably most important in smaller games (excepting 3p of course), where the possibility of ANY player getting a match is reduced.

Arrows outwards don't actually provide more grabbing opportunities like the others do. There's little difference between everyone turning over cards simultaneously or going around the circle.

In the case that a match or inwards arrows pop up, there will be a few extra cards flipped, but the net effect is low.

Having said that, in a 10-player game, a single card being flipped is 1/8 of your deck so the card does actually speed up the game, helping to move it towards its conclusion.

Most importantely, this card provides drama and variety. A pattern might match but be a foul due to a coloured arrows simultaneously turned over. You can have multiple duels happening at once. You can have a chain of outwards arrows. These things may not actually affect who wins but they do create stories and add texure to the games.

It also - for a moment at least - puts everyone on an equal footing, getting rid of the disparity in difficulty between your own turn and others'.

a tip to enjoy the game more
If you can avoid it, never look at the cards except when playing. I took out the cards a few times to study and marvel at the differences implemented. However, this just increased my familiarity and reduced the lifespan of the game.

The cards do come pre-sorted so it's worth splitting the deck card-by-card into 12 piles before shuffling for your first game

If you do start to win consistently, use the handicap of 2 'hands'. And maybe give a copy to a friend. It's inevitible that owners will play it more.

Conclusion
As mentioned at the top, the concept is one that you'll know if you might like. The execution of that concept is fantastic with interesting shapes that you generally can't easily memorise in a verbal form.

The frantic nature will rule out folk with shoulder injuries or back problems, or those folk who simply prefer something more sedate and strategic from a boardgame.

Be aware that the first few games will test you in ways that later games simply won't, as shapes will already have been analysed. There's also the joy of 'discovery' - of seeing the shapes for the first time. That is soon lost.

I think that you'll get your money's worth though. Even if it's now been 'demoted' in my collection (it used to be a game I'd usually have in my pocket), I know I'll always enjoy it as a light 'filler' game with 5+ and I'll always love to play it against worthy competition.

Review: Typ-Dom Super:: Typ Dom – A German Review oder warum man eigentlich auf diese viel zu große Scrabble-Schachtel verzichten kann

PzVIE — Tue, 29 May 2012 11:13:09 +0000

by PzVIE

]]>
Mit Scrabble ist es wie mit Monopoly (oder Das kaufmännische Talent im Falle von uns Österreichern). Jeder hat eines und keiner spielt es. Zumindest in meinem Umfeld ist das so. Und außerdem habe ich – neben zig anderen Wortspielen – auch ein Typ Dom zu Hause. In Wien, der Heimat von Piatnik, hat dich früher aus jeder Spieleabteilung eines Kaufhauses diese kleine Schachtel angelacht. Und irgendwann ist sie dann auch in meiner Sammlung gelandet. Es war die nebenstehend abgebildete Edition. Und von der schreibe ich hier.

Was kriegt man für sein Geld?

80 quadratische Plastikbuchstaben, ca. 2x2 cm groß, mit einem puzzleförmigen Fortsatz an allen vier Kanten. Die Selbstlaute sind in Rot, die Mitlaute in Schwarz gehalten. Und eine kurze Spielregel mit Beispielen und Spielvarianten.

Das Spiel selbst

Wenn man Scrabble kennt, kennt man auch Typ Dom. Einer legt ein Wort, der nächste – im Kreuzworträtselstil – legt waagrecht oder senkrecht eines dazu; als Bedingung bleibt, dass er einen bereits im Spiel vorhandenen Buchstaben mit verwenden muss.

Vor dem Spiel bekommt jeder 5 rote und 5 schwarze Buchstaben. Falls man keine Idee hat, was man mit seinem Buchstabensalat anfangen könnte (die Spielregel spricht von einem vorher vereinbarten Zeitlimit), zieht man einfach verdeckt einen Buchstaben nach und der nächste Spieler ist an der Reihe.

Wer als erster alle seine Buchstaben los wird, gewinnt die Partie; die anderen schreiben Minuspunkte abhängig von der Menge an Buchstaben, die noch vor ihnen liegt und die nächste Runde kann beginnen.

Ein Beispiel
]]>
Im Beispiel rechts könnte ich zum Beispiel mit „Board“ anfangen, während der nächste Mitspieler unter Verwendung meines „A“s „Game“ legt, und der nächste wiederum, das „E“ aus „Game“ recycelnd, den „Geek“ dazupuzzelt.

Freilich sind die Buchstaben durch ihre Verteilung auf die deutsche Sprache gemünzt, mit einem Typ Dom in Englisch zu spielen könnte sich, durch fehlende „Y“s und andere bei uns nicht so häufig genutzte Buchstaben, als eher schwierig erweisen. Dafür bleibt man vermutlich auf ein paar „K“s sitzen.

Die Varianten

Die Spielregel hält noch drei weitere Varianten parat:

Bei Presto werden die vorhandenen Steine auf die Spieler aufgeteilt und jeder puzzelt solitär vor sich hin. Sobald der erste fertig ist, endet die Runde, Punkte – je nach Anzahl verwendeter Buchstaben – werden vergeben und die nächste Runde kann beginnen.

Point-Typ-Dom verwendet Punkte für jeden einzelnen Buchstaben – und damit kann man Typ-Dom als nahezu reinrassige Scrabble-Variante verwenden. Naja, „Doppelter Wortwert“ und solche Spassetteln gibt’s halt nicht.

Mit Wer behält recht? bauen alle Spieler an einem Wort. Einer legt einen Buchstaben in die Tischmitte und sagt gleichzeitig ein Wort an, das man damit bilden könnte. Der nächste Spieler setzt einen weiteren Buchstaben vorne oder hinten dran, unter Nennung eines anderen Wortes, welches nun beide Buchstaben beinhalten muss. Und so weiter. Kann (oder will) ein Mitspieler nicht mehr setzen, so muss der letzte Nenner eines Wortes dieses auch vollenden. Und wehe er kann’s nicht, dann scheidet er aus der Runde aus. Ist das Wort fertig, wird in Kreuzworträtsel-Manier ein neues Wort begonnen.

Fazit

Wer Scrabble mag, wird auch Typ Dom mögen. Die Spiele bieten mehr oder weniger das Gleiche, wobei Typ Dom den Vorteil hat, dass man es auf Grund der Schachtelgröße leichter transportieren kann.

Mein persönliches Geek-Rating für dieses Spiel ist „5“ – das mag zwar nicht im Einklang mit meinen 119 gespielten Partien stehen, aber meine Ex war von diesem Spiel recht angetan. Und nachdem ihr Advanced Squad Leader zu komplex war, habe ich’s halt bei Typ Dom belassen.

Danke für’s Lesen. Und auch ein „Danke“ an BGG User Wernazuma für das nette Foto (auch wenn das Weinrot-Schwarz der Buchstaben sich mit der Farbe der darunter liegenden Decke nur unter Protest verträgt ).

Review: Heim-Wintersport-Spiel: Abfahrt:: Rolling down the Hill

PzVIE — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:38:33 +0000

by PzVIE

There are many games in the Geek database. Some of them were uploaded by me. Like this one. And after a year or so, I’m still listed as the only owner and the forum is empty.

Time for a review!

Skiers and Motorists

You already know downhill skiing events, don't you? No? Well, this is a sports event pretty easy to explain. A bunch of slightly crazy guys stand on skiers on top of a mountain and try to get as fast as possible downhill to a finish line without breaking all the bones in their body. Most of the tracks in this competition allow doing this in approximately 2 minutes.

Here in Austria, this is extremely popular to watch on TV. In fact, it’s even more popular than car races, because in a car crash, with all the safety equipment, the driver crashes into the wall, becomes a ball of fire, overturns a few times and then exits the wreck while shaking his fist in the direction of the fellow driver, who pushed him off the track. Safety car phase, removal of the wreck, and the race goes on. Rather boring.

In downhill skiing, there is no safety equipment. Your deformable zone is not some high-tech chassis, but your own body … so “crashes” are much more dangerous and – let’s say it plain here – enjoyable to watch. And they show it over and over in slow motion. Because that is what we all want to see. Cars in flames and skiers in pain … isn’t it?

No of course not. We all enjoy the sport and the competition, not cheap sensations. And will we enjoy this game also? Hmmm, let’s see.

The Game
]]>
The board consists of some infantile graphics and six spaces, conveniently numbered from 1 to 6. Every player gets a pawn in his favorite color and when his turn comes, he visits all six spaces, rolling the set of special dice on each of them. A highly complicated formula (using addition, subtraction and multiplication) gives a time fraction measured in hundredths of a second. This is added or subtracted from the approximate time of 2:00:00 minutes. Do this six times – for each space on the board. And after this high-tension rolling, your skier crosses the finish line in the calculated time. After each player did this, just rank your results and crown the winner.

The Dice
]]>
The image above shows the four dice included in the game. The green one is our ordinary, plain d6. But the other three are special! So, drool you dice collectors out there!

While the two small ones simply add or subtract time, the big one is the “risk” dice. You are not allowed to roll it on spaces 1, 3, 5 and 6, but you may use it on space 2 and you have to use it on space 4.

So, what’s that secret formula here? Simple: Just add and subtract all the “+” and “-“ numbers and then multiply the sum with the result of the green dice. In the image above, the result would be -24. Then use the procedure described above under “The Game” and move your skier (or pawn) to the next space, repeating this procedure.

The faces of big “risk” die are +10, +15, +20, -15, -30, and “Sturz”, meaning “Fall” – if that side comes up, you’re out of the race. Bye bye, you’ve lost, game over. So I can’t see any reason to roll that thing voluntarily on space 2.

The Target Audience

That’s a hard one.
Small children? Naaa, they can’t do with all the adding and subtracting and multiplying of fractions of seconds.
Elementary school children? They will become bored quicker than watching an old Star Trek rerun on TV.
Teenagers? Come on! They prefer the other gender to play with.
Twens? Not really. They have a life – and a great one at this age!
30 and up? Definitely not, as time becomes the most precious commodity at this age and playing this game is really a waste of it.
Senior citizens? Showing each others your x-ray photographs is much more interesting and fun than rolling the dice in this stupid game. So I guess not (although I haven’t reached that age by now – so I can’t say for sure).

So that leaves me – the collector and the skiing-fan. And even I find this game extremely annoying (although I own it …)

The final Rating

You want a rating? Alright. Here it comes:

I rated it “2” here on the Geek (I can’t rate it “1”, because the game is not “broken” – it’s just stupid).

On a scale from 1 to 5 stars, I’ll rate it (that would be zero).

There. So thanks for reading and now move on to a real game. There’s nothing to see here

Review: Alchemist:: Crítica em português

Pedrator — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:38:16 +0000

by Pedrator

ALCHEMIS

Sinopse

Fogo, ar, água e terra… naaaa, só estava a brincar! Isso de quatro elementos serem a fundação de toda a existência é coisa de alquimista supersticioso e ortodoxo… nada disso! Aqui trabalha-se com material a sério: patas de de ave, cogumelos, veneno de cobra, olhos de trol e aranhas! Com este material a sério faz-se coisas sérias: poções! Mágicas ou não ninguém sabe ao certo, mas não fosse alguém acusar-nos de nada perceber do assunto em mãos, é melhor atribuir valores a estas receitas maravilha para que os seus autores possam validar-nos como entendido na matéria! Então em Alquimista, os jogadores representam uma de 5 famosas escolas que vão, no decorrer do jogo, criar novas receitas ou copiar outras já existentes com diversos ingredientes para ganharem fama (pontos) e assim vencerem o jogo.

Como se joga?

Em Alquimista, cada jogador representa uma de 5 escolas. Estas têm cada uma afinidade especial com um dos cinco ingredientes do jogo (patas de ave, cogumelos, veneno de cobra, olhos de trol e aranhas) e no início do jogo é atribuído secretamente a cada jogador um desses ingredientes o que determinará a afinidade desses jogadores. Agora desdobramos o tabuleiro e colocamo-lo no centro da mesa ao alcance de todos os jogadores. O tabuleiro apresenta-se-nos com um aspeto sinistro remontando ao estilo renascentista e ilustra 10 caldeirões do tipo usado pelas bruxas.
Estes caldeirões têm espaço para um total de 5 ingredientes e um círculo no qual os jogadores colocam um disco seu a demarcar a sua autoria sobre a receita daquele caldeirão. Por cima de cada caldeirão tem ilustrado dois ingredientes diferentes, que representam o resultado da receita desse caldeirão e ainda um quadrado vazio no qual será colocado um marcador, o qual determinará o valor desse mesmo ingrediente.

Existem 10 marcadores de pontuação que vão de 1 a 10. Cada jogador recebe um visor que vai bloquear a curiosidade dos adversários e por trás do qual vai esconder os ingredientes que atualmente possui, assim como o marcador que identifica a sua afinidade e ainda terá ao seu dispor 5 discos da sua cor, estes são utilizados para marcarem os caldeirões nos quais publicaram as suas famosas receitas. O tabuleiro será portanto uma espécie de almanaque de receitas alquimistas.

Os ingredientes são pequenos cubos de madeira em 5 cores diferentes. O jogo vem ainda com uma bolsa de tecido dentro da qual serão colocados um determinado número de ingredientes de cada cor dependendo do número de jogadores a participar no jogo (que pode ser qualquer número entre 2 a 5) os restantes cubos são colocados no mercado público e organizados por cor. No início do jogo, cada jogador retira secretamente 12 ingredientes dessa bolsa e coloca-a atrás do seu visor para que ninguém veja o que lhe saiu. Quando todos tiverem os seus 12 ingredientes, estamos prontos para jogar. O jogo é jogado à vez, no sentido dos ponteiros do relógio, e na sua vez cada jogador tem 4 possibilidades de jogo:

- Publicar uma nova receita
- Copiar um receita já publicada
- Passar e adicionar 2 ingredientes da bolsa à sua “dispensa”
- Passar e adicionar 1 ingrediente à escolha do mercado público à sua “dispensa”

Publicar uma nova receita: Se um jogador decidir publicar uma nova receita, esse jogador vai escolher um dos 10 caldeirões, vai colocar até 5 ingredientes nesse caldeirão e atribuir-lhe uma pontuação à escolha! Pois leu bem! O jogador que publica a receita é que escolhe quanto essa receita vale! “Então nesse caso”, oiço-o a pensar, “ele vai dar-lhe sempre a pontuação mais alta”, sim sim claro, mas há um pequeno truque:

Quando um jogador cria uma receita nova, coloca lá os ingredientes que quer utilizar, escolhe a pontuação que valerá essa mesma receita, e depois pontua esses pontos, MAS! A partir de agora, nunca mais poderá copiar essa receita porque é sua!! Os jogadores só podem copiar receitas publicadas por outros jogadores, o que nos leva à segunda opção de jogo:
Copiar uma receita já publicada: em vez de criar posso copiar. Para isso o jogador terá que remover de entre os ingredientes que possui a combinação daqueles que perfazem a receita a ser copiada, e entre esses ingredientes são todos retirados de jogo (devolver para a caixa do jogo) exceto um à escolha de quem copia, esse cubo vai como doação para o autor da receita. Depois, quem copiou, pontua o valor que tinha sido atribuído a essa mesma receita e ainda recebe os dois ingredientes que dela resultam. A regra de ouro nesta opção é que só se pode copiar uma receita que seja dos adversários! E é por isso que não é tão fácil quanto isso decidir a pontuação a atribuir quando elaboramos uma nova receita, é que só a pontuamos 1 vez no jogo e os outros, tantas quanto conseguem/querem imitar!

Se não pudermos/quisermos publicar ou copiar, podemos simplesmente passar e escolher adicionar 2 ingredientes aleatórios da bolsa às que já temos, ou adicionar 1 à escolha do mercado público às que já temos.
Depois de executar qualquer uma destas 4 ações, é a vez do próximo. O jogo termina quando 3 ingredientes do mercado público estiverem esgotados. Depois são reveladas as afinidades e os ingredientes ainda existentes por trás dos visores de cada jogador, determina-se qual o ingrediente mais utilizado durante a partida e o jogador com afinidade por esse ingrediente ainda recebe pontos adicionais, também o segundo mais gasto, etc. exceto o menos gasto que não leva pontos bónus. No final, quem tiver mais fama, ganhou!

O que penso do jogo

Este jogo é no mínimo original. E isto merece, só por si, que ao jogo seja dado uma hipótese antes de o descartar. A Amigo é conhecida pelos jogos de cartas que publica, não pelos jogos de tabuleiro. Estes são por norma medíocres, mas de ora em quando lá aparece um que vale bem a pena (Elfenland e Walhalla por exemplo) e Alchemist é um deles a meu ver. Não conheço nenhum outro jogo onde o autor de uma ação decide também sobre o valor da mesma; adicionemos a isto a penosa decisão a ser feita sabendo que estaremos a beneficiar os outros e temos um jogo que gera algum nervosismo. É também pouco convencional no sentido de ter uma forma de desenvolvimento inversa à do normal. O habitual num jogo é termos poucas opções inicialmente, e estas virem a aumentar conforme o jogo se desenvolve. Aqui é o oposto, na primeira partida é difícil ter noção sobre o que fazer, há os 10 caldeirões disponíveis, podemos fazer qualquer receita e só conforme se vão ocupando os caldeirões, isto é, vão se reduzindo as possibilidades de jogo, é que vamos tendo mais perspetiva sobre o que fazer. Esta orgânica torna o jogo muito interessante mas requer que seja jogado pelo menos umas 3 vezes antes de se decidir sobre se se gosta dele ou não, daí que a minha recomendação seja: 3 partidas obrigatórias.

O que menos gosto no jogo: o amarelo (aranhas) é uma cor demasiado escura no tabuleiro. Nos cubos não há qualquer problema, mas no tabuleiro, o amarelo é tão torrado que parece laranja, e por vezes acontece um jogador fazer mal uma receita por causa disso, só memso quando as duas cores estão justapostas é que nos relembramos de que é amarelo e não laranja…

O que mais gosto no jogo: a mecânica original e o design muito obscuro. O tabulerio é simplesmente belo (e sinistro… aquela mão perturba…).

Componentes 8/10
Grafismo 9/10
Interesse 7/10
Global 8/10

Artigo originalmente publicado em:
http://jogoeu.wordpress.com/

Review: The Name of the Rose:: Revisão em português

Pedrator — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:38:09 +0000

by Pedrator

O NOME DA ROSA

Sinopse

Em 1327 o monge Franciscano Guilherme de Baskerville e o seu aprendiz Adso de Melk chegaram ao isolado mosteiro Benedetino no Norte da Itália. O propósito da sua deslocação era um debate teológico. Porém, ao lá chegar, o mosteiro é abalado por um suicídio e sucessivas mortes. Guilherme na sua desenvolvida capacidade de dedução lógica, é incumbido pelo Abade a investigar estas misteriosas mortes e desvendar o seu aturo e suas motivações. É nesta história que se baseia o jogo, porém, aqui os jogadores não querem desvendar o assassino, pois os jogadores são todos eles os suspeitos! Cada jogador é um monge na mira de Guilherme, que suspeite de todos eles enquanto possíveis autores dos crimes que atormentam a comunidade, e cada um quer atrair a menor atenção possível para que não seja, no final, acusado de ser o criminoso.

Como se joga

Antes de começar a jogar, cada jogador recebe uma carta de identidade. Esta carta vai determinar a cor do monge de cada jogador, identidade que de resto é desconhecida aos restantes jogadores e não deve ser revelada a ninguém até o jogo terminar. O tabuleiro, a ilustrar o mosteiro como descrito no livro, demonstrando os seus vários edifícios, é colocado no centro da mesa.
As figuras de monge são colocadas de forma aleatória no tabuleiro e agora cada jogador recebe 3 cartas de ação. Estas cartas são o motor do jogo e existem 3 tipos de cartas:

- Cartas de monge
- Cartas de edifício
- Cartas de Guilherme/Adso

O que os jogadores fazem, é escolher uma carta de entre as 3 que têm na mão jogá-la, executar uma ação, receber uma carta nova e passar a vez.

- Assim, se um jogador jogar uma carta de monge, terá que deslocar o monge da cor dessa carta, para um qualquer edifício à sua escolha.
- Se jogar uma carta de edifício, terá de movimentar um qualquer monge à sua escolha para esse edifício.
- Se jogar uma carta de Guilherme/Adso, terá de movimentar um dos dois monges para um qualquer edifício à sua escolha.

Ora qual é a ideia? No mosteiro, os monges têm de cumprir diariamente as suas tarefas. Isto é representado por pequenas peças que coincidem com as cores dos diferentes monges e que têm também um determinado valor. Estas peças representam as tarefas, assim, se um monge branco for colocado num edifício que contém uma dessas peças brancas, é porque tem uma tarefa a cumprir nesse edifício, e então vai diminuir o seu valor de suspeita em valor igual ao da peça branca, podendo agora recolher essa peça.

Se pelo contrário, o edifício para o qual o monge branco foi movimentado não conter uma peça da mesma cor, significa que nada tem a fazer ali, levantando por isso suspeitas! Assim, o valor de suspeita sobe em função das peças presentes nesse edifício.

Este é o princípio básico do jogo. Como ninguém sabe quem é quem, a ideia é cada jogador dissimular a sua identidade o melhor que pode, para que no final de cada dia, seja o menos penalizado. Isto porque, durante cada dia (ronda de jogo), os monges acumulam ou subtraem pontos de suspeita que no final do dia se convertem em pontos de incriminação! E como ninguém sabem quem é quem, mas todos podems movimentar todos… eis o nó! Após sete dias, o monge mais incriminado, será considerado o assassino!

Para quem conhece o mundo dos jogos de tabuleiro, saberá estabelecer de imediato a comparação mais óbvia: Heimlich & Co. Um jogo no qual cada jogador é um espião cuja cor apenas os próprios jogadores conhecem. Poder-se-ia dizer que o Nome da Rosa é uma versão “kitada” desse mesmo jogo que foi vencedor do prémio “Jogo do Ano de 1986”.

Alguns pormenores que distinguem o Nome da Rosa do seu antecessor:

- no início de cada dia (ronda) é revelado um evento, esse evento altera as regras do jogo pela duração desse dia, assim, os jogadores são obrigados a adaptarem-se a novas situações de dia para dia.

- O relógio! No canto superior do tabuleiro está representado um relógio do sol que tem um pequeno cubo a marcar as horas. Sempre que um jogador jogar uma carta, vai ter que avançar o cubo por um número de “horas” igual ao valor que consta na carta. Como já explicado, os jogadores vão recolhendo as peças nos edifícios se a cor do monge coincidir com a cor de uma das peças; estas têm no seu verso o desenho do relógio do sol. Sempre que um jogador for obrigado avançar horas no relógio, pode devolver essas peças para atrasar o avanço do dia em uma hora por peça! Isto é importante porque o jogador que termina o dia será penalizado! Pois até parece que quer fugir de alguma sinistra suspeita…

- Guilherme e Adso são dois monges neutros! A função deles é causar atrito entre os monges na expetativa de assim revelar algo mais! Sempre que um destes dois monges for movimentado para junto de outro(s) monge(s), todos os monges que se encontram na sua presença aumentam ou diminuem pontos de suspeita no caso de Adso, ou mesmo pontos de incriminação no caso do mais astuto Guilherme, a subida ou descida é à vontade do jogador que deslocou a respetiva peça.

- Dar pistas! Cada jogador tem um conjunto de 6 peças e cada uma delas tem a cor dos seis monges (sem contar com Guilherme e Adso). No final dos dias 1, 3 e 5, cada jogador tem que virar para cima uma dessas peças que tenha uma cor que não seja a do seu monge.

E assim se vão jogando 6 dias para que no final, no sétimo dia, se façam umas últimas acusações! Neste sétimo dia já não se deslocam monges. Ao invés disso, e conforme aquilo que se foi sabendo e observando durante o jogo, cada jogador vai tentar adivinhar a cor de cada um dos outros jogadores, e por cada jogador que adivinhou a cor há incriminação adicional, uma vez que isto indicia “comportamento pouco dissimulado”. Finalmente, depois de contabilizada toda a incriminação, saberemos quem foi o assassino, sendo esse o grande derrotado da partida, e o vencedor, aquele monge que menos suspeitas levantou no correr do jogo.

O que penso do jogo

Sendo fã do livro, confesso ter comprado o jogo sem ter feito grandes pesquisas. Não estou arrependido, pois o jogo não só é agradável de jogar como é também agradável de ver! O aspeto visual é definitivamente um ponto forte, e qualquer pessoa que passasse por um tabuleiro destes, teria curiosidade em saber mais. Um outro aspeto claramente favorável são os eventos, não só pela diversidade que trazem ao jogo, mas também porque há bem mais eventos do que rondas de jogo, o que significa que com cada partida poderá haver surpresas inesperadas. O fato de os jogadores não poderem divulgar a sua identidade (até podem, mas não convém mesmo nada) torna o jogo muito tenso e propenso ao bluff, e se não tiverem cuidado, estes bluffs podem correr muito mal, para grande divertimento dos restantes jogadores. É um jogo interativo, tenso e o elemento da dedução, embora subtil, é altamente motivador. Uma excelente proposta para um dia de chuva ou aquando de um piquenique no parque. Recomendação especial para os fãs da obra de Umberto ECO.

Aspeto mais negativo: Para o tipo de jogo que é talvez demore demasiado tempo, especialmente para jogadores ocasionais ou crianças. Felizmente foram surgindo várias recomendações que aparentemente em nada comprometem a qualidade do jogo, assim foi recomendado remover um evento e jogar 5 dias mais o da revelação em vez de 6 dias mais o da revelação. Para isso teriam os jogadores que revelar cores não correspondentes às do seu monge depois dos dias 1, 3 e 4. Ou até reduzindo para 4 dias mais revelação, portanto cores reveladas depois dos dias 1, 2 e 3. Outra questão é que o jogo é recomendado para adultos e crianças de 10+ anos, embora não tivesse ainda possibilidade de o experimentar com uma criança de 10 anos, custa-me a crer que seja fácil de captar a essência do jogo, já para quem leu o livro,penso não ser nada difícil.

Aspeto mais positivo: O material! Madeira de qualidade, cartas bonitas e tabuleiro de se emoldurar! Belíssimo!

Componentes: 9
Grafismo: 9
Interesse: 8
Global: 8

Revisão originalmente publicada em:
http://jogoeu.wordpress.com/

Review: In Magnificent Style:: In Magnificent Style - "General Lee, I have no division."

Amnese — Tue, 29 May 2012 07:22:04 +0000

by Amnese

What is In Magnificent Style?

In Magnificent Style, is a solitaire game designed by Hermann Luttmann, and published by Victory Point Games (VPG) as the first title in their 'Death of Glory!' series.

]]>
Image: What you get inside the 'bag'.

The game 'simulates' part of the Confederate attack on Union positions on 3 July, 1863, at the Battle of Gettysburg. The attack, more commonly known as 'Pickett's Charge', saw, in effect, three confederate divisions (nine brigades) crossing three-quarters of a mile to attack Union defensive positions.

In the game, you control those nine brigades (in three divisions) as they cross that ground and attempt to capture the Union positions. The game system 'manages' the Union defences and throws random events at you (both positive and negative). In doing so, you effectively 'push your luck', trying to advance your brigades as far as possible and consolidating each turn, without allowing them to 'crack' under the pressure and retreat.

How does it feel in general?

In Magnificent Style has been described as a 'push your luck' game. Each turn you get to command each of the nine brigades (one at a time), as they cross open ground. For each brigade, you attempt to move them forward by rolling on a table. Most results will advance your brigade towards the Union defences; however, there are a few results that will cause losses, or cause your forces to retreat back to their rally point. As such, you need to 'push your luck' and advance as far as possible before you get a 'retreat' or 'rout' result on the dice. Each attempt to move (each roll of the dice [2d6]) is thus a gamble. It will most likely move your brigade forward, but there is also a good chance they will retreat, and fall back several spaces to where they started.

This makes the movement aspect of the game feel a lot like the game Can't Stop (this is not a criticism, it is a compliment - Can't Stop is a great game that I own and love, and the movement aspect of In Magnificent Style does wonderfully to recreate the tension and excitement of Can't Stop but within a broader environment). To win the game, you really need to press forward hard. At the same time, you need to say 'stop' when you feel you've advanced enough (ie: and don't want to risk a 'Rout!' if you continue to advance further).

]]>]]>
Image: The movement of brigades in In Magnificent Style recreates the tension and excitement of Can't Stop.

There is a strong sense of luck in the game, each movement roll results in a 'random' outcome. There are various events throughout the game that can really hurt your units, or really help your units. As a result, you feel like you are constantly riding a roller-coaster of ups and downs. Some events really help you, others really hurt. Sometimes you get on a great roll of advances and helpful (Confederate, grey-coloured) events, other times you get on a roll of heavy-fire, routs, and painful (Union, blue-coloured) events.

This shifting of luck has a large part to play in the game, however, I feel it is well-complemented by the sense of narrative that develops throughout the game. Each game 'tells a great story' to the player; one really does feel like they're getting inside the shoes of Longstreet or Lee, pushing their three divisions (nine brigades) hard and fast across the open ground. In my head I'm screaming "Come on Brockenbrough, push your brigade harder across that ground! ADVANCE ADVANCE ADVANCE!!!" (okay, it's not always in my head, sometimes I whisper a quiet "YES! That's the way boys" under my breath. At other times I'm thinking in frustration "UGH! Armistead! What is your brigade doing routing back all that way! You fool!".

What is the appeal?

It is an easy-to-understand, easy-to-play (ie: fast-playing) war-themed game with an exciting and engaging narrative that plays in 45-60 minutes.

This is not a 'deep, strategy, simulation', it is a 'light, fun, game'.

It will not appeal to gamers easily put off by random (and at times quite damaging) swings of luck (last night I had Brockenbrough's Brigade adjacent to the Union defenders, I rolled to launch my final advance, but instead got a 'Rout!' result, which sent them ALL THE WAY back to the starting lines; another time I lost 9 Strength Values [close to the equivalent of a full strength brigade] across three brigades because they were all based in the same 'Area').

What decisions do you make?

The bulk of your decisions are short to mid-term tactical decisions, based more on the situation currently at hand, rather than 'what you hope to do in the future'). You basically 'roll with the punches'. You can plan to charge with Pickett's Division, but ultimately if your movement rolls go badly, they could all end up sitting on the start line after two turns. Instead, Trimble's division may have had a few lucky advances, so you may favour them with certain events that benefit Trimble's brigades (eg: open fire allows brigades to cause 'hits' on the Union defenders facing them).

At the start of each turn, you'll review the situation and decide 'how far' to push your luck. If Brockenbrough's Brigade looks weak, you may want to regroup before reaching the 'Red Zone' (a particularly deadly area where casualties are high) and hope for a reinforcement event to strengthen them. Alternatively, you may think 'God damn it Brockenbrough, rally your men, get across that red zone, and STORM THOSE UNION DEFENCES!!!' - I took the latter decision in my game last night, and (as noted above and illustrated below) got all the way up to the space adjacent to the union defenders before Brockenbrough's Brigade ROUTED all the way back to the start!

]]>
Image: The situation at the end of my last game. Note the position of Brockenbrough's routed brigade on the start line.

Specifically, the type of decisions you make are a combination of:
* Whether to advance (roll 2d6 and tempt fate) or regroup (consolidate your position) - the basis of the 'push your luck' feel of the game;
* Where to place Fire! markers on Union defenders (this will potentially weaken the defenders - do you weaken those already weak, or try to damage the strong units);
* Where to place both Confederate and Union reinforcements (the former is the more critical issue, should you help those really weak units and give them a fighting chance, or strengthen those units about to charge the Union defences);
* Where to place random events, such as:
- Obstacles (which will hinder the movement of your units;
- Cover (which will give your units protection)
- Rebel Yell/Heroic Action (which will significantly help the units you place these with)
* Where to place your Generals AND how to use them - generals can be used in various ways, such as re-rolling movement dice, adding to combat, or reducing losses, but ONLY with the brigade they are placed with.

Ultimately it is the combination of the above decisions, combined with some random 'events', that will determine your fate. As you can probably gather, you're making a lot of decisions. One does not get the feeling that the game is 'playing them', rather, there is the sense that one is 'in control' for the most part (random events just hurt your control).

Practicalities of playing

One of the great strengths of the game is its ease of playability and, from what I can gather after a few plays, its replayability. It sets up in 2 minutes (literally), and plays to completion within an hour (your first game may take a little extra as you learn the rules). Because of the random circumstances that evolve, each game feels different. Within 1-2 turns the situation that you are faced with will be very different from the last time you've played. You may respond to situations differently (maybe next time I'll consolidate with Brockenbrough's Brigade instead of charging in).

A playing chart comes with the game, and the map also features the 'Sequence of Play'. As a result, within 30-40 minutes of starting the game you probably won't ever look up the rulebook again (except perhaps to clarify some of the events). This means that in your second game you just 'play', without having to check the rules at all.

It also takes up minimal table space, and as it's a 'ziplock' game (ie: no box, just the bag) it is very portable and would be a nice game to take away with you on holidays.

Conclusion

In sum, and to repeat my earlier statement, this is not a 'deep, strategy, simulation', it is a 'light, fun, game'. Judging this by what it is, I think the designer has done brilliantly. It is nice to play a solitaire war-themed game in under an hour without having to check the rules, and at the end of it all feel like I've really engaged in an epic battle. At the end of it all I feel like I want to chastise Brockenbrough, and praise Armistead. I then want to immediately re-set the gameboard and try it all over again. As set-up only takes two minutes, this is easy and practical.

The biggest issue is luck. It can be frustrating at times, glorious at others. It has its highs and its lows, and one must simply accept the bad with the good. Ultimately, I think this will be the key 'sticking' issue that determines whether people like it or not. For me, I feel the sense of narrative that develops as a result of the random factors is enough for that luck not to be a 'game-breaker', but I can appreciate that it will be an issue for others.

Additional Note:

I live in rural/regional Australia, and ordered my copy last week direct from the VPG website for $24.95. It shipped the following day, and traveled all the way around the world and to my letterbox within four working days!!! I didn't even know that was possible!!! It typically takes three working days for mail to get to me from anywhere in Australia!!!

In addition, it should be noted that I generally don't care about 'component quality'. I favour 'gameplay' over 'aesthetics'. However, for those who care, the components in this game are AMAZING. The laser-cut counters are about 3mm thick with rounded corners (no need for clipping) and are a beauty to handle. The rulebook is clearly written and illustrated with a detailed example of play (but to be honest, I didn't feel the need to read the example of play).

Review: Innovation:: [Voice of Experience] Innovation: A Game for Those Who Meld

shikosaki — Tue, 29 May 2012 07:20:10 +0000

by shikosaki

[Initially posted for the Voice of Experience Contest, April- May 2012]

Welcome to:

]]>

I received Innovation as a birthday gift from a close friend of mine in mid-November of last year (2011). Innovation, along with Dominion, transported me to the “good olde days” of playing The Settlers of Catan in 2000 (my first experience with a board game other than Monopoly). After playing Innovation three times on the first night I received it I came away charmed by the gameplay and the inviting theme. Shortly afterward I logged on to BGG and rated the game at a ten out of ten. Now, six months and 15 plays later I have come to wonder: Does my initial rating hold up or upon deeper analysis will my once shining review undergo a radical shift? Read on and you shall find out.

Innovation in a Snapshot

The game Innovation is centered on the idea of using various innovations from the annals of history to be the first to claim a set number of achievements for your civilization. The game includes 105 cards each representing a unique technological/social/agricultural/political innovation. Each card belongs to one of ten ages that spans from pre-history up through modern times. Players use these cards to gain achievements, score points and acquire the potential to utilize the various powers that each innovation card represents. These powers are embodied by the text of each card and instruct the player to carry out specific action(s).

As the game progresses players will be placing their cards on one of five colored piles. This is considered the board for each player. Cards come in five colors red, blue, green, yellow, and purple. Additionally, each card has four icons that represent the symbol of that power present in each players civilization. There are six different ‘suits’ which are calculated by adding up the same icons in each suit present on your board. If you have more icons in a given suit than your opponents then you control that icon and may use that card’s text based effect without providing the opportunity for your opponent to use your card’s text based effect before you get to. Use your cards wisely to gain achievements and be the first to bring glory to your civilization. But be careful, the road to victory is not always as simple or as peaceful as it may initially seem i]insert mad scientist laugh here[/i.

Turn Overview

On your turn you may take up to two actions from the following options:

1)Meld a Card: Play a card from your hand to your board
2)Draw a Card: Draw a card from the same age as the highest top card on your board.
3)Use a Card’s Dogma: Follow the instructions for each card’s text. Dogma effects can be of two different types a)”I demand…” dogma effects make it so that every other player with fewer icons of a particular symbol must complete the stated demand. These effects are not shared by other players. b) Other dogma effects instruct you to either: score a card, meld a card from your hand, draw a card from another age, etc. or a combination of two or more of these actions.
4)Achieve: There are two ways to achieve a) you have enough score to purchase an achievement (5 x the age number) or b) you meet the requirement for a special achievements through using a card’s dogma action (there are 5 special achievements in total).

Graphic Design and Game Art

The Asmadi Games version of Innovation [used in this review] is a lightly decorated yellow box that is decidedly "quiet" compared to many of the games currently out there on the market. The box is simple, not ugly; instead it appears rather lightly adorned. The box seems to contrast itself markedly with the game held within. Put plainly, the box is simple and is nothing to get excited over. The game inside however pushes past this aesthetic boundary and has the potential to satisfy many an avid gamer.

As with the box-art, the graphic design of the cards is simple and leaves much to be imagined. The backs of each card contain an image of a person from the corresponding age of the card; pre-history has an image of a caveman, the classical age has a man in a toga, etc. The art used to represent these ages are really quite basic and, while accurately representing each age, had the potential to enhance the thematic presence of the game by including some more inspiring card art.

Similarly, the face of the cards could do well to be fitted with some stimulating art as the card consists of: a background color, 4 icons, and a smattering of some uninspiring typeset. In my opinion this is largely a missed opportunity on the publisher’s part as the game pays homage to humanity’s most sacred inventions and ideas: Agriculture, The Compass, Gunpowder, etc. How are these marvels of human ingenuity honored? Well, other than a small hex based image on each card, they aren’t. My assumption is that the publisher decided to hold back on additional card art to drive the cost of the game down; and at the attractive $25 (CAD) price-point it is hard to complain. I look to the IELLO version of the game as a shining example of how the Asmadi version could have been dramatically improved.(See these links for a base comparison: 1) http://boardgamegeek.com/image/628399/innovation 2) http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1062555/innovation )

Gameplay

Managing the cards that you acquire and timing when to use the available actions really make or breaks the game. Players must always be aware of who has control of what icons and when control or, conversely, lack of control will play in their favor. In play, choices are intimately guided by what your fellow players have on their board, in their hand, or in their score pile. If you need points and have a card that would steal points from another player’s scoreboard yet the other player(s) don’t have anything in their score pile, playing this card would generally not make sense. However, if playing said card would provide you with more of, say, the crown icon and you need crowns for another dogma effect, then playing this card may be an effective tactical decision. Players must constantly be aware of what is on the board, how it affects them, and what choices they have based on the information in front of them. This is Innovation in a nutshell.

What makes Innovation interesting is that it the game plays out differently each time you play. Each player starts with cards that may allow the player to control a different icon. This creates a different experience each time as there are four different symbols in the age one cards, set in different combinations. As players acquire and play cards the icons that they control can shift dramatically. In one game you may start by only controlling the leaf symbol and within a few turns you control both the light bulb and the castle icons. There are always three symbols on each card. Typically, each card has a mix of different symbols (For example: The card “Paper” has 1 crown and 2 light bulbs) other cards have all one type of icon (The Card “Optics” has only 3 crowns). Controlling the icons that are of maximum usefulness to you and provide a minimal benefit to others is an intriguing facet of this game. This max-min concept tends to escalate the tension between players; which in my perspective is a plus. Most plays tend to be a head to head battle for supremacy. Players who acquire achievements early may find that mid to late game they are struggling to get back on top. The game can be ruthless as some dogma effects a heavily weighted to player interaction. Therefore, if you don’t mind confrontation this game is likely suited to your tastes.

Innovation can walk the fine line between being a balanced head-to-head game and an out and out uninspiring experience. Personally, I have had a number of games where I thought I was dead in the water and all of a sudden I gained a few cards like “Gunpowder” and [the infamous] “Anatomy” which worked well with my board and bam! The game flips and I am back on top: king of the world, the leader of the troops, the lord of the land, etc.

While this ‘turn-of-the-tides’ aspect of the game can really play out well, Innovation can run into the unfortunate circumstance where one player becomes the ‘runaway’ and other players are helpless but to watch that player plow ahead and leave them in the dust. As players become more proficient at blocking each other and decreasing the ‘runaway player effect' this occurs less often. Regardless of experience this effect does, at times, arise and the game can have a “pipeline” feel where one player is just chasing the leader and, despite all attempts, is perpetually stuck behind their fellow gamer. This effect has been observed most frequently in the four player game. Therefore I find myself leaning away from suggesting Innovation when there are four people at the table. In fact, nearly every time I have taught the game with four players the game has been a flop. On the contrary, playing with two to three players has generally been well received and has prompted additional plays. Therefore in my experience, playing with two or three players offers a more balanced gameplay and provides a more ‘back-and-forth’ feel between players. Other gamers may have a different take but in my opinion is that the four player game is uninviting for new players and in general the game is at its best with two to three. For an alternate four player experience there is the option to play Innovation in teams of two players. This, unlike the regular four player game adds a unique twist to the game and can be a lot of fun without the disappointing runaway element.

Another aspect of Innovation that can bother some players is the difficulty found in interpreting some of the dogma effects. There are a number of cards in Innovation that hinge on the precise wording of the cards. The rulebook, while easy to read, is short and has a miniscule FAQ section. Generally speaking most cards can be clearly understood without complaint but there are a number of cards that can be difficult to understand, especially for new players. To prove this, one only has to look at the disproportionate number of rule clarifications on the Innovation forums and compare it to the rules section for another popular game. For example, the game 7 Wonders has 166 posts for rule clarifications with 14000+ game voters on BGG (http://boardgamegeek.com/forum/748792/7-wonders/rules). Compare this with Innovation’s 255 posts for rule clarifications with only 3000+ game voters (http://boardgamegeek.com/forum/676160/innovation/rules). By proportion players of Innovation are far more likely to need assistance in interpreting the rules than compared to another popular game. Does this mean that the people who play Innovation are illiterate? No, although this answer is debatable. This does indicate that, especially in the first few plays, prospective gamers can spend a lot of unnecessary time interpreting card effects. [To be fair, one of the game designers, Chris Cieslik, frequents the Innovation forum and is very helpful to those seeking assistance]

The Symmetry Between Theme and Gameplay

Innovation provides an enjoyable thematic world to dig into. Anyone with even the slightest notion of western culture will instantly recognize many of the innovations. In addition many, if not most, of the card’s dogma actions make sense in theme as well as game mechanic. Some prime examples being the cards “The Wheel” (Age 1) and “Engineering” (Age 3) [Click images to zoom; and sorry for the poor formatting].]]> ]]>

While not only being invented in their respective periods of history they also make sense for what the game is seeking to utilize them for. The invention of the wheel would increase the productivity of your civilization. Therefore gaining two cards for one action makes a lot of sense. Engineering in the medieval age would provide a technological edge in warfare. Again, it is logical that this card would demand players with less of a hold in this area (Castle icon) to submit to the superiority of your engineering. This symmetry is not consistent throughout the game as the cards have been weighted for balanced game play. Regardless the paring form with function really adds to the uniqueness of the game.

Conclusion

In layman’s terms Innovation scratches that “strategic itch” without leaving a rash. It is a game of difficult choices, an inviting theme, and heavy competition. It balances weighty decisions that are relative to the board in front of you; thereby providing gameplay that is fresh with each new play. Innovation is not without its flaws and is not a game for everyone. Despite its shortcomings gamers will likely find some aspect of this game that they can appreciate if not love.

Now, to answer the question asked at the onset of this review: Has my view of this game shifted from my initial play of the game? Yes. By observing Innovation from a critical stance I saw that it was not the be-all-end-all game that I once thought it was. The gameplay, while fun and inviting has some holes that cannot be overlooked. My current rating is now a 7. This will likely fluctuate over time but for now I think that a score of 7 more accurately captures my thoughts. It’s a great game, not the best game out there, but a great game all the same.

Thanks for reading,

Jordan

Review: Age of Steam:: [Voice of Experience] Age of Steam: what, where from, and why you should try it!

thepackrat — Tue, 29 May 2012 07:03:49 +0000

by thepackrat

Age of Steam is one of my favourite games, or perhaps game systems. Since it was released a decade ago, many dozens of maps have been (and are still being) created for it. It has spawned several derivative games, and leans heavily on its ancestors, so I present this review with the aim of introducing the game in context. I'll run through some of the details, some history, and then finish with an effort to capture the feel of the game in play, the better to snare folks who haven't yet tried it, and should.

What is the game all about?

Age of Steam is a game of route-building opponent-thwarting and opportunity-taking, built around a system that continually punishes the players and drives them towards bankruptcy. During the course of the game, players must build a network of rail links on a hex-grid map over in order to deliver coloured cubes to cities of the same colour. Timing is everything, and the central feature of the game is a tense auction each round that sets player order.

Players begin the game with a handful of track markers, a scant $10, and with a board full of unbuilt hexes with a scattering of coloured cities waiting for deliveries of the cubes already laid out on the board. Each round they go through the steps of taking loans, bidding in the auction for player order, selecting powers, building track and shipping goods. Of course, the auction is based on a dollar auction, with all the attendant issues of mis-valued sunk cost.

Players take it in turn to build up to 3 hexes of track (cost varying by terrain and track complexity), then move on to two rounds of shipping a single cube. Both rounds are performed in player order with the first ship, or first build power putting one player out in front if taken.

The goal of the game is to have the highest income with a smaller bonus for track built. Income is gained by transporting cubes from their starting location to a city of matching colour. Each link used in a cube's journey increases its owners income by $1 for the following round, but the cubes can't touch a city twice, and must stop at the first city of matching colour they encounter. Players start the game with 1-link level locomotive and must upgrade it to its maximum of 6 by either taking the locomotive power, or by giving up one of their two shipping actions in a turn to take an upgrade.

This sounds like the recipe for a jolly little game, but the developers decided to give it some real teeth. Firstly, money is incredibly tight. Players start out with only $10 and with builds through ugly terrain costing up to $4 per hex, this isn't nearly enough. The only way to get more money is to take out a loan (in fact, the starting $10 comes from two compulsory loans). Each $5 loan requires $1 of repayment every single round, but there are a maximum of 15 loans available in the entire game (including the 2 initial ones). Every player in the game is locked into a desperate struggle to get become profitable before they run off the end of the loans runway and plunge flaming into the trees.

Another consequence of these interest payments on loans every turn is that a player who doesn't keep spare money on hand and through poor management is prevented or unable to complete deliveries in the first round of the game stands an excellent chance of going bankrupt and being eliminated. This can be used as a great motivation for new players to keep careful track of their cash, although it can be a little intimidating to first-time players. In practice, it almost never happens, but persists as an effective threat.

If all this wasn't enough, as soon as players manage to get their incomes high enough (in fact, to $10 per round before loan repayments, income reduction starts to kick in. Each round, player income drops by this $2 per full $10 of income, and at higher income levels, this can wipe out the gains from a turn of shipping cubes.

At the end of the game players receive three points per income level (less the number of loans) and a point per track segment in any completed links. Money, for all the struggling to get it during the game, is worth nothing.

Where from, or some History

Now we've got the basic outline of the game, it's interesting to look at games that came before and after Age of Steam that contributed to its development or which it directly influenced.

]]> The first game in the family is Lancashire Railways, designed by Martin Wallace and developed by John Bohrer. Lancashire Railways is played on a fixed map with pre-drawn (but unbuilt) links between cities. Each round, a set of links (drawn from a deck of link cards, one for every link) is auctioned off, one at at time, to players who pay to build them. Players are then given an opportunity to ship cubes to a city of the same colour in order to increase their per-turn income. The object of the game is simply to finish with the most money.

The heart of the game (and the whole series) is the rule that cubes of a colour must be delivered to a city that matches them and that they cannot pass through a city of the matching colour. As the network of rail links is slowly built up, this has the effect of creating a slightly different network for each colour of cube, forcing shipping onto a range of links. Cubes can always be freely shipping along any route from 1 to 5 links provided no city or link is reused.. Each link travelled yields 1 income to its owner.

During the game, cubes are added to the board by drawing goods cards. Each city named on the card receives a randomly drawn cube, which does reduce the amount of forward planning possible, but the shape of the map means that some links will be far more useful.

In following years, Lancashire Railways was transplanted with mechanics unchanged to a new map in New England Railways and then extended on a new map in Australian Railways with a few new twists: particular coloured cubes only appear on specific cities (but are still drawn randomly) and a government railway sometimes builds an extra link.

The order of links becoming available in Australian Railways is modified so that the rail networks are forced to grow out from the two major cities, Sydney and Melbourne, thus creating long delivery routes faster than the earlier games. The predictable locations (if not arrival times) of colour cubes make it possible to plan for future deliveries.

]]> In 2001 TM Spiele licensed the Lancashire/New England Railways system and published a nicely produced game in the series with a new German map and the unusual but critical rule change permitting cubes to travel through cities of the same colour along their route. Unfortunately, this removed the interesting network choke-points and left a much more bland largest-spanning-network game, likely contributing to the lack of Volldampf's success.

Volldampf also changed of the bidding-for-links phase of the other Early Railways games by assigning one of six coloured symbols to each link. Players bid for sets of building cards that give them permission to build any of the matching links, but this is done with a single auction that also determined the order of building (which due to the broad track cards were now in contention) and shipping. This was the first dollar auction in the series with the top-two players paying everything they bid, regardless of who won. Other players received a 50% discount on bids, and the first player to pass paid nothing.

The next major change in the family was the Martin's design of a game called Brummie Rails. This game used 18xx style hex tiles and required the players to build their own links on a mostly-blank map to ship cubes between coloured cities that already existed on the map. Volldampf's dollar auction again appeared for turn order, but in addition to turn order, players also bid for the order in which they selected from a set of special power cards that had been drawn from a deck and laid face up each round.

Most of the familiar Age of Steam powers were represented, but nothing could be counted on to appear in any given round. In fact, there were even a few blank cards granting nothing at all which could appear.

]]> From Brummie rails, the game was developed by Winsome Games into the Age of Steam we know today. The map was changed around to represent the area around the US Rust Belt, complete with track-blocking lakes and a different density of cities and towns among the two halves of the game, which provided tense early game choices. Unlike the early railways game, players also had to give up a delivery (or use a special power) to upgrade their locomotive. At the beginning of the game, only 1-link shipping is permitted, with each additional upgrade adding one link to a maximum of 6.

The cube production system took a step back from the colour-determinism of Australian Railways and used a production chart that held the cubes that would probably be delivered to each city. Each round, some dice rolls determine which queues deliver cubes to their matching city. There's some uncertainty in which round each of the production cubes will be delivered, but the majority are delivered at some point during the game.

None of the Age of Steam components were specific to a map and quite early on, expansion maps, usually with one or two tweaked rules, started to be released. The feel of the game could be startlingly different simply by changing the production rules to favour a particular city (and thus turn its corner of the board into a building hotspot)

]]> A few years after Age of Steam was released, Eagle games created a game to have a broader appeal by combining a lightened AoS rules system with the a Railroad Tycoon license to create their well-known huge-box game.

Railroad Tycoon was a significantly more forgiving game with loans available at any point during the turn, lots of income that ratcheted up with each delivery, and elements like pre-developed all-exits cities and towns that reduce a lot of the track contention seen in Age of Steam. The game also became far less structured with each player receiving three actions per turn that could be any of the normal building, upgrading, shipping in any order. Locomotive upgrades are bought for cash amounts, since losing a shipping action in the longer game would be inconsequential, and because of the far-larger maps, go up to 8 links.

One fascinating aspect of Railroad Tycoon (and its post-licence successor Railways of the World) is the return of special power card display from Brummie Rails. During the game, a set of randonnly selected special power cards are laid along the top of the board. This is the only way for players to access goods growth or urbanisation powers. One consequence of this is that most of the cubes in the game will be on the board from the very start, in fact the game clock is the number of cities that have been completely emptied of cubes. There game also has bonus cards giving opportunities for extra point-scoring and Tycoon cards which give each player a secret goal worth points (longest track, fewest loans and so forth).

There's a lot of deliberately introduced randomness in Railroad Tycoon, but the game remains interesting, and popular. The sweeping board sizes and somewhat-open-ended game clock tend to throw the advantage to the best-working rail network, and they can be enormous. While it isn't compatible with Age of Steam maps, a series of official and fan-made map expansions have been produced for it.

]]> After a period of unpleasantness over the rights to reprint Age of Steam, Mayfair released Steam, a game with a very distinct family resemblance, but which had been taken by Mayfair and Martin in a few different directions. The first difference is the split of income levels and victory points. Players must select which track to advance with each delivery. Loans are limited only by a player's income, which can be pushed up with any delivery, removing the threat of running off the end of the loan runway.

Another substantial change is that instead of a production chart linking cubes to each city, groups of 2 or 3 goods cubes are laid out in spaces along the board. Each time a player urbanises a city or takes the production action, they choose a group to go on the city. This change means that late-game goods state is opaque to the players at the beginning of the game, reducing opportunities for longer-term planning. This also makes Steam incompatible with expansion maps that rely on tweaks to production for effect.

WIth these changes in mind, Steam's "standard game" is quite a bit like Age of Steam. The interestingly unique aspect of Steam is in what it terms its "basic rules". Apart from loosening loan-taking restrictions, this game also does away with the auction at the centre of the game and replaces it with a system of values for each special role. At the end of each turn, players turn order is arranged by special role value with the most valuable role going last next turn (including last in picking their next role card).

This simplification is an inspired way to make the game more accessible to more casual game players, but is unfortunately brittle. While fine on the base maps, it works poorly on maps where the value of roles changes through the course of the game (as they all have fixed values) or on expansion maps that modify the roles to be more or less powerful. Some Steam-specific expansion maps have replacement role tiles to work around this.

Why you should go out and try it now

I've already salted some commentary through the descriptions of the game mechanics, but now I'll leap whole-heartedly into superlative-laden descriptions of the game in play.

At the beginning of the game, with $10 puny dollars in hand, players scan the board before the first move, trying to see a pattern of cubes that will give them a couple of 1, 2 or 3-link deliveries so that they can start the long process bootstrapping their network. Ideally this will be somewhere that isn't already highly contested and with more useful cubes about to be produced.

A good play will see these initial first few links slowly build up into a decent network, reaching out into cube-rich areas, and gradually spreading to create a loop of towns and cities that can be used to pad delivery lengths. There are no black cities on the map to start with, so some of those will appear and the Rust Belt map splits yellow to one side of the map and purple to the others, so the new cities available through the Urbanization action can make all the difference.

Through the early stages of the game, unpredictable(or -ed) builds by other players can wreak havoc on plans, forcing reassessment and changes in plans, but once the midgame hits, tactical play should have mostly been abandoned, save for the odd spur line to open up access to available cubes. Networks turn to flow into uncontested areas as much as rebound from strong blocks.

The end-game is characterised by cube scarcity (and wailing of teeth and gnashing of hair). Most players will have 4-6 level locos and be able to grab cubes from anywhere near their network, so maintaining some precious long deliveries through the last few rounds is critical.

Age of Steam isn't a typical economic snowball game. A successful player will end the game with a long-range locomotive and probably quite a lot of track on the board, but unless they've managed to create useful runs (And ideally some loops), but unless they've been extremely foresighted in where they've invested in building track, a wonderful network can be left just sitting there, without any high-value cube deliveries available. This can be particularly delightful if a trailing player has managed to build into the network and steal the cubes away.

Throughout the game, each player will be forced to evaluate their bids down to dollars available, ensuring that they still have the cash required to build each round's links to open up more deliveries. A particularly interesting feature is the first-build and first-ship powers. These are often of no real use, but when cubes or city entrances are in contentino, they become critical. It's not enough to simply win the turn order auction. In order to guarantee that nobody else can ship ahead of you, you need to also select the matching special power, and forgo something more valuable such as engineer, urbanisation or locomotive, despite all the money you paid in the auction. This is of a particularly heartbreaking note when you'd incorrectly guessed an opponent's attention and they simply play elsewhere, having spend next to nothing on their bid.

Apart from all great things about the gameplay? Age of Steam is a fascinating game thick with difficult and tense decisions, played with the pressure of death-through-debt or simply running entirely out of money always before you. There are few games where one struggles as much against the game as the other players. I've always felt the end-game scoring a little anticlimactic, since it usually feels as if I've won against the game, the players only secondary opponents.

Best of all, Age of Steam is a game system. There are a huge number of expansion maps available, all the decent ones easily worth many plays through to discover and work out approaches for. It also doesn't hurt that after many years of being a near-unobtainable grail game, it is finally back in print and easily available.

The feel of other Age of Steam maps can be astonishingly varied as well. There's everything from wide-open cube and building fests, to nasty stabby expensive little maps that conspire through modified production to force everyone to march on Paris, deeply expensive maps like China (where each city costs its number to build into) or more exotic maps, some resembling different games entirely. There's good replayability in the base Rust Belt map, but absolutely no reason not to pick up a bunch of the other interesting maps that have recently been reprinted.

Railroad Tycoon/Railways of the World has a place as a more wide-ranging and unstructured track-network-building game. It involves important choices, but less terror at the game itself. It's well-suited to a slightly more casual crowd. Steam, in contrast, seems to mostly have reduced interesting levels of tension in Age of Steam in its standard game, but to have introduced some novel simplifications in the Basic Game. It is unfortunate that the basic system is brittle, leading to it likely being replaced as player tastes turn to more maps.

On the fourth or possibly fifth hand, even though Age of Steam can be brutal, smart folks who have played a few different board games before can be reasonably competitive (or at least competent and bloody-mindedly obstructive) in their first game with use of the simple house rule that they may take a loan anytime they need it during the first two rounds. With some helpful advice from around the table pointing out where they might run into trouble, they can quickly pick up the system (although their bids in the first two rounds can sometimes be susprisingly high).

Age of Steam is a grail game come back into print, and there's a reason it had attained grail status and remains extremely high ranker today. If you can enjoy a time of fighting against a hostile game system within the confines of nicely streamlined rules, this would be a perfect game for you to try.

Review: Arkham Horror:: [Voice of Experience] Performative Co-op VS. Immesive Co-op, Comparison review of Pandemic and Arkham Horror

sgosaric — Tue, 29 May 2012 06:25:04 +0000

by sgosaric

The attempt of this text is to think about and compare two quite popular co-operative games – Pandemic and Arkham Horror. One reason is that as this is my first attempt at a boardgame review, it's only fitting to dissect two games that began my boardgaming spending spree. My decision to buy these two specific games together at the time was fueled by me trying to get my gaming fix on after the collapse of my D&D circle and me trying to convince my girlfriend into gaming; for both reasons I was looking into cooperative experience. The second reason for review is that both designs are quite interesting too look at from perspective I’m interested in – what kind of gaming experience and intrapersonal environment does a game (rules) create, by what means and for which audience. Both these games are in the same genre with a similar goal, but as they arrive from two very different design paradigms, they achieve a very different gaming experiences aimed at different audiences.

What both games have in common.

The general idea in both these games is that the players are pitted against the AI in form of a deck of cards and these cards will progress some sort of catastrophe that players must prevent by working together (and there’s nothing like the end of the world to stimulate some cooperation). Players will be represented by characters that’ll move around the board and according to general consensus around the table try to achieve the most urgent tasks.

As I’ll write about both these games mostly separately and I’ll probably devote much more thought to Arkham Horror, I just like to point out that it’s not (only) an AH review. It was by bouncing ideas that came from thinking about both games in comparison that some things became more visible to me. Also I’ll mostly write about base games, as these I’ve played enough to form an opinion on.

1) Pandemic – The sh*t just hit the fan!

“Men, the sh*t just got real! I need you to solve this now, on the double!”
“Like, now? I’m in the middle of…”
“Not now, I want it done yesterday!”

In Pandemic 2 to 4 players will try to find cure to 4 world sprawling diseases before they wipe out humanity for good. Its game design clearly comes from euro design paradigm with simple enough rules to be eligible for family game nights and casual players and its very symmetrical (“elegant”) euro design which does leave a strong influence on the way player interaction is shaped.

1A) How does the game work? [the boring part]

For me the best way to think about this games structure is to see is as composed of 3 parts: the AI, the players and the board where both sides meet and interact. The AI deck is comprised of 48 cards of different world cities and each turn 2-4 cards (depending on the early or late phase of the game) of the top of deck will be turned and a disease cube added to the cities depicted on the cards. Once the 4th cube would be added to the city, instead of adding it, there will be an outbreak and one cube added to all connecting cities with possibility of an outbreak chain. The players will draw cards from the players’ deck and to win they’ll have to find “cures” for four diseases depicted by 4 colors, each cure being a set of 5 cards in one color that a player turns in. Players will lose if: 8th outbreak happens, if there’s no more disease cubes of one color to add to the board from the reserve and if they run out of cards in the player deck (consisting of also 48 cards, one for each city, plus special event cards and epidemic cards). The third part of the game is the map, where players will try to balance both threats, one by running around to remove disease cubes off the board (preventing outbreaks and running out of cubes in reserve), second by running around to exchange cards with one another – a card can only be given to a player in the city which is depicted on a card that a player wishes to give.

The clever part of the game (or one of them) are the epidemics. From 4 to 6 epidemic cards (+1 in expansion) can be added to the player deck, depending on the level of difficulty one wishes to achieve (more epidemic cards makes the game harder to solve). Once a player draws an epidemic card, the cards discarded from the AI deck plus one from the bottom of same deck will be shuffled and returned to the top of the deck. This creates a situation where the same cities will be hit by diseases over and over again which: a) makes thematic sense, b) gives variety to repeated plays as not every game will be fought for the same cities, c) gives players a bit different priorities each game.

The c) above is also about whether players can and will go for eradication of one or several diseases. It’s an option I haven’t mentioned yet - if the players manage to remove all cubes of one color off the board and they have already discovered a cure for that color, the disease is considered eradicated and new cubes won’t enter the board. This is good if you can pull it off, but it depends on the various things – the starting layout of diseases and the roles that players have picked, otherwise it might cost you time you should have spent otherwise. As the option is situational, it rewards the repeated plays and makes the game memorable for the times it does work.

1B) What does the game do?

Two phrases that for me sum up the feel of Pandemic are “constant crisis” and “delegation”.

As AI deck will turn a number of cards after each player’s action that means there’s constant pressure, and the board may change significantly in 4 player game, before you come back to your turn. Add to that the structure of the 5 character cards, which are basically 5 exceptions to 5 things a player can do with their allocated 4 action points per turn, and you have a situation where there’s usually one player who is mostly suited to the task and there’s no time to lose. In essence, there is no “I” in Pandemic, you have a fixed role within the team and your character will perform it. However you have a say in the group planning and influencing other players. So while some plans will span several player’s turns, a quick change of events will provoke a crisis and a debate all across the table on how to solve and who will solve it.

I often reminded how Pandemic feels to me like a crisis meeting at work: the sh*t just heat the fan, and everybody is doing their job solving it, by delegating tasks around the table to the person(s) who are best skilled at them – the PR calls the press, the secretary calls the finance department and so on. Even though this metaphor was originally my criticism of Pandemic, now, a couple of years later (and no longer working at the office) I appreciate the Pandemic for what it has to give and think more highly of it, but still find the metaphor accurate. For one thing the theme implementation could best be described as “operational level” – you’re not there on the ground level, battling diseases, you’re not feeling the cries of people, the panic and so on. This is not a game of theme immersion. However you are in the central office, surrounded by professional looking charts and diagrams, getting constant data from around the globe and trying to save the world as it’s probably in job description.

And there is one or two good thing about crisis meetings: it will get people talking and they will cooperate (to the best of their abilities and social skills). Also the theme works on intuitive level (the way diseases spread and outbreaks work makes thematic sense) and also, what I find most interesting, it works on performative level. What I mean by that is that although there is no theme immersion in the game, players will talk in accordance to the theme, hence they will perform the theme:

“Somebody needs to get to Tokyo”
“I can fly to Beijing, but won’t be there in time.”
“I’ll go to Bogota.”
“Oh no, there goes Tokyo…”

And once you play this after a silent euro, as I have, you will appreciate the way Pandemic shapes and stimulates the discussion around the table.

1C) Who is it for?

By relatively easy entry level Pandemic caters to same euro crowd that favors low-confrontational gaming and by adding a high amount of talking to the mix I believe Pandemic pushed the euro co-ops towards the niche long ago carved by trading genre – that of talkative, non-confrontational family friendly (casual player friendly) gaming experience. Rules are simple enough to teach and player aides are provided which help a lot (I didn’t have any problems teaching nongamers, though the designer made an even simpler co-op game later – Forbidden Island). As there is no confrontation the game scales well, though it is easier with fewer players, reason for this being that one of the end conditions is running out of cards. In a 4 player game the same number of cards will be split amongst more players making the set collecting a bit harder (and also giving each player less turns per game, while the game length remains fairly the same). But you can always adjust difficulty by removing or adding epidemic cards.

There is one issue remaining: the alpha dog syndrome. I’ve never encountered it personally, but it’s obviously made possible by the way the game is structured, i.e. the delegation I discussed earlier. The game is often accused of being a group solitaire, and while it kind of is that, if you ignore the talking and coordination involved which differs from group to group, it also means it’s prone to one player dominating the board and dictating what other players should do (the “alpha dog”). Firstly, I don’t consider such a play in the spirit of the game. What Pandemic does best is: it gets the casual gamers talking to each other and that’s the best reason one would play it. What Pandemic also does well, its getting these players talking in regard to its fairly unique theme and also the game finishes in a decent amount of time to boot. “Alpha player” can thus be seen as misconception of the game, by believing that it’s more important to beat the game than to work together and letting people do mistakes so they can learn from it. Furthermore I don’t believe that Pandemic is a bad design just because it doesn’t actively prevent the alpha dog syndrome; it rather leaves it to the players as a problem of social communication that is to be solved within the group (preferably before playing).

* On the Brink expansion – short impression [not played enough to qualify for Voice of Experience]

One last note of On the Brink expansion – I’ve only played it twice (both times with Virulent Strain, new characters and new special event cards, once with The Mutation Challenge option), so just to give a short impression. Unlike AH expansions (Dunwich Horror and some modules from The Lurker at the Treshold), which I only played once and gave me the feel of “more of the same” as it didn’t change the feel of the game, rather expanded on it, On the Brink feel like “more of the different”. It’s clear that new designer on board (Thomas Lehmann) brought some fresh air into Matt Leacock’s elegant and symmetrical design. On the Brink is all about special events and exceptions. The feel of the game is mostly the same, but events do bring variety which was one of Pandemic problems. For me and my group Pandemic felt very “samey” after circa 15 plays, sure it’s never quite the same, but the logic of solving the game is more or less similar. On the Brink changes that with: 8 new epidemic cards that have unique effects added to their basic function, new special events and new roles – for each game you’ll select some of each type and discard the rest. It almost feels like Pandemic being “arkhamized”, though the dynamics of player interaction are the same. I haven’t played enough to give the final opinion on new character cards and their impact. Most of them can still be connected to the exceptions of basic player’s actions, but those that allow you to mess with discard pile might give you a bit more “individuality” as you alone will be looking at that area of the game and keeping track of discards. Is it necessary to own the expansion? I’d say it depends on your gaming group. I play Pandemic occasionally, mostly with different non-gamers so base game is enough for me, but if your group/family loves Pandemic and plays it constantly, On the Brink will give it the variety it needs to remain fresh and interesting.

2) Arkham Horror – The End is nigh! (But not that close.)

“Dear Lord, it looks like our world is coming to its End!”
“Surely there’s still time for one cuppa before we meet our Maker?”
“Don’t mind if I do, old chap.”

Arkham Horror takes the co-op genre from completely different angle, one coming from American tradition of boargame design. 2 to 8 players (I only played 2 to 4) take the roles of investigators of the 1920s in the city of Arkham, battling against the ancient evil awakening in another dimension that once awoken will devour the worldasweknowit. it’s an adventure game taking from 2-3 to 4-5 hours, depending on player count (more=longer) and which Greater Old One the player will be battling against.

I’ll give my stance on the game immediately and then try to explain it: 1) It’s a great game of in-character and in-theme immersion if the players are willing to invest in it, 2) If played appropriately, It works by creating a structural tension between each player’s individual actions and the common goal of saving the world (a.k.a. solving the game).

2A) How does the game work? [the boring part]

In a common situation to Pandemic, we have the AI deck, the board and the players. AI deck is not as clever as in Pandemic, but is more complex: each card can open new portals to Other Worlds, moves monsters, disperses clue tokens around the map and adds one time or permanent events. As each new portal (“gate”) on the Arkham City map opens, it comes with a monster players must defeat or avoid before they can enter the gate and eventually close it. A new gate does not open if, there’s already a gate on the location (in which case a lot of monsters appear, causing mayhem and all sorts of problems) or if players have sealed the gate. A gate can be closed by a player after entering the gate and returning from another world and sealed by a player using 5 clue tokens in the process. Clue tokens are also used to help with the skill checks. After a certain time the new gate opens the Great Old One awakens and players face it in the final battle (for each GOO players prepare during the while game as against each they need different equipment and various other things, like specific trophies of monsters they’ve killed or gates they’ve sealed). Players lose if certain amount of gates (depending on no. of players) is open or if GOO awakens and devours them. And players win if: they either close all gates in Arkham and have as much gate trophies as there are players, they seal 6 gates or if they defeat the Great Old One in the final battle. Players will usually run around, collecting clue tokens, battling monsters, entering gates and various other things they think it’s wise to do. Also players will have random events on each Arkham and Other Worlds location where something good or bad can happen, often involving a skill check.

If it sounds complicated, it’s because it probably is, not truly complex, just a lot of stuff put together. And don’t we forget the layers of chrome which help players feel the reality of depicted world, at least to a certain degree. Weapons and spells for instance can be either one or two handed, and you have a limit of two hands to use per combat (you are only human). Some arcane, harder to get weapons deal magical weapons, while mundane ones will deal physical damage and certain creatures will be immune to one or the other. Items thus have in-game effect and that will help players immerse in the world and their characters.

Intermission: Theme immersion, how does it work and what it does in Arkham Horror. [may include traces of speculation]

Coming from contemporary theatre I was figuring out for a long time what kind of function does an active viewer from contemporary art have in boardgaming. In short: in traditional art, especially theatre (or mainstream films) the communication between the author, art and the viewer is one directional where viewer is mostly seen as recipient of authors ideas as materialized in the art work. Contemporary art and theatre follow a different model, one where the viewer must be active, but we’re not talking about actual physical interaction or changing the outcome of the art in question. Rather it means the work is made in such a way that viewer must connect the dots in their own mind – they have to decide whether this or that means something or it can be ignored, they can find and make connection to real life events or other art pieces. It’s not unlike reading a book – the book says the detective enters a train, but what kind of train, what color, what is detective wearing and so on are details that the reader adds to what they read.

There has been a lot of back and forth around whether boardgames as medium allow for immersion at all, as they can’t compare to films or video games. Or even roleplaying games. And I think that Arkham Horror offers one of the best examples of what theme immersion can be and it’s not unlike reading as I explained above. To give players an environment for immersion the game needs to do two things: 1) enable immersion i.e., help players to immerse; 2) try not to interfere with the thematic flow in a player’s mind.

First thing one need to be able to immerse in Arkham Horror’s theme or their character is willingness to do so. One must invest in order for the game to repay the investment: they have to fill in the gaps, connect the dots and have a healthy dose of willing suspension of disbelief at hand. The way AH supports this immersion is by: providing a lot of flavor texts (encounter cards), having a lot of illustration, and having fleshed out characters with individual stats, traits, picture and a backstory. All these I consider integral parts of the game and necessary in order for the game to do what it does.

The way AH keeps clutter away from the players is one I only discovered after playing Middle Earth Quest and its complicated combat system that demands a lot of thought and thus fights with in-character immersion (justifiably so, as MEQ wants to be a strategy game, not a in-character immersive one). AH’s resolution system is simple: roll a number of dice (depending on your characters skills and carious modifiers) and each dice that shows a 5 or a 6 counts as success. This simplicity gives tension and randomness one gets from dice based resolution system, but it also keeps the player’s mind free to deal with the theme and the narrative.

As you probably figured it out by now, in-character immersion as done in AH (and other thematic boardgames) is at its core a solitary activity – it happens in the mind of individual player (as does reading). This is one way by which AH creates the tension between the common goal of saving the world and individual player’s pursuits. However that is not to say that the group playing the game is not important for immersion, it’s actually quite crucial. One way the group can help each other immerse is by reading their character backstories out loud before the game and reading each event and resolution (you may even read other player’s events for them, so they can roll the dice or decide on an option before they know the result). The other way of helping each other immerse is by creating a comfy atmosphere – it’s easier to immerse when other players are also into it and occasional remark done in the spirit of the situation will add to and confirm the group immersion.

2B) What the game does - the conflict between the group and the individual

This conflict is not so much about actual conflict; rather the group dynamics and interaction will be shaped by conflict between common goals and individual interest. Arkham supports individuality by giving players characters comparable to those in roleplaying games – they have a backstory, they have 6 stats and they can use weapons and other equipment. And most importantly: they have 2 sets of hit points (stamina and sanity) so they are vulnerable: they can die (though rarely) or they can be sent to hospital or sanatorium and lose half of their equipment. And this is the essence of your individuality: you don’t want your character being hurt. As players will run around collecting clues and entering portals, monsters will get in the way, and not all players will be equipped to deal with them or maybe those able to deal with them won’t be able to reach the destination in time. You can try to negotiate tasks with other players, maybe even get extra weapons from them, or you can pursue other goals, like going to some stable locations to do whathaveyou or go get yourself healed (how selfish of you).

The second way the game enables individuality is that in Arkham City beside unstable locations, where gates can open or clues can be found, there are also stable locations. In these players can try their luck in getting a useful encounter or they can try buy stuff, get loans or trade various trophies for money, clues and other useful stuff. As these locations are not really crucial to solving the game, they support the player’s individuality by enabling them to find unique ways in which they can push forward the narrative of their character (or just find some better protection against getting hurt and dying).

The third way the game allows for all this running around on your own nonsense is that unlike in frenetic Pandemic, there is time in Arkham Horror. Here players all have a joint turn and only after all of them do their actions will the AI activate and turns a card from the mythos deck (that’s also why AH is harder to win with less players, unlike Pandemic). Also a gate can only be closed after a player spends two turns on Other World location. So while the end is nigh and the end of humanity is lurking around the corner, it’s not here yet and where’s the harm in one character going to the trinket shop or nosing around local newspaper office?

In fact, as I see it, Arkham Horror relies on this. If one would try playing AH the same way one plays Pandemic, without (semi) aimless running around and in-character immersion, they would probably find the game too complicated for what (they would think) it is and too easy to solve. It’s simply not a game made to be played for sole reason of solving the puzzle. (Though as I showed earlier neither is Pandemic, but AH is even less so, as even the “group solitaire” style of Pandemic goes against the spirit of AH).

2C) Who is it for?

If I return to the “active viewer” from my excursion into contemporary theatre and art, AH faces the similar problem. Works requiring an active viewer, while giving them more freedom and richer experience as reward for their involvement and investment, tend to fall flat or be misunderstood by every other but their target audience. You must invest and know approximately how to invest to get something out of these works. The amount of tolerance for different audiences of course varies from case to case. In case of Arkham Horror I would suggest playing the game only if the whole group wishes and is willing to immerse in theme and in their characters; or in other words – if they “just want to have a good time”. I personally had much better gaming experiences of this and other “immersive games” when played with a group of friends who knew each other and enjoyed the ride and each other’s company compared to playing with a group where nobody knew each other well (but that may be just me, take it with a pinch of salt). I know there are players who don’t get and don’t look for in-character immersion and I would advise them to restrain from this game, or at least try to understand that this level exist and that AH is made to cater to this specific gaming style.

There are also several practical obstacles one may face before a successful session of Arkham Horror. One are the complicated (though not really complex) rules. I found them okay, but I was a D&D DM before that and I also wasn’t worried that I’ve gotten all the detailed rules right only in our 5th game. In truth one minor rule wrong or right does not change the basic feel or experience of the game; it is a co-operative game after all, so don’t be discouraged. There are also many useful files and player aides in the BGG files that will help you learn the rules if you give up on the rulebook. Second problem which there is no way around is of course its playing time and while AH is short in comparison to RPGs it’s quite long compared to current boardgaming standards (at least those of euro games). The game will flow much smoothly if you delegate some bookkeeping tasks for Mythos phase around the board. Third issue is scalability: with more players the game is easier to solve but takes much more time. I haven’t played with more than 5 so I’m not aware of downtime issues, though there might be some. If you look for ways to make the game harder, either check expansions or designer Richard Launius’s house rules available on FFG site.

One last thing to add about Arkham Horror is that I found it nongamer friendly (at least to my nongaming friends) and even had a case of a couple buying the game the very next day they’ve played it for the first time. While my statement probably goes against the common conception of the complexity of this game, there is a trick to it: if you have a rules master who knows the game and will look after all the bureaucracy phases, it is possible to play with nongamers, as they only have to learn the skill check resolution and how skill sliders work (it is a co-operative game after all). And let us not forget that with huge burst of popularity the fantasy, gothic and horror genres enjoyed in these last years, AH is much more mainstream friendly now then it was when it came out.

3) Conclusion

I really like the terms “performative co-op” against the “immersive co-op” as I believe they reflect what each game does best.

Pandemic has more talking, more discussion and making of plans. As it’s a sturdy design it will deliver a similar experience with different gaming groups (apart from alpha dog syndrome) and is thus really suitable for groups where players don’t know each other that well. Also it’s relatively easy to teach, plays in short amount of time, scales well and is as non-confrontational as a boardgame can get without being a party game. All these qualities make it ideal for families and causal gamers and that’s why I keep it in my collection. (One can also probably play it in a different way altogether – with 2 players and adding as much epidemics cards as possible the game will likely turn into less talkative and quite challenging puzzle, if that is what you’re after).

Arkham Horror is a much more volatile design: it needs the right group with appropriate attitude and wiliness to immerse and enjoy the ride to deliver what it does best: in character immersion. Probably by reading you already decided whether you have a right group for it or not and if you’re a former ROG player looking for a “short” one session fix, I can recommend AH to be your RPG replacement. If however you’re still not sure I suggest you try playing it in nearby group or borrowing it (it is quite popular) and just accept that it can be either be an either hit or miss game. My group does love it and that’s why I blatantly call this and not Pandemic my gateway game that brought me into boardgames (though I bought both at the same time).

Author’s notes:
As I come from theatre theory and criticism I started this, my first boardgame review, with a style I’m used to - relatively serious and impersonal, but shifted gears while writing into something more fun for me, so there’s a bit of both. I hope my style won’t misguide you into thinking that this review has a pretense of objectivity, it’s indeed quite subjective, but hopefully in a dialogue with both games I’m discussing. I deliberately skipped any rules explanation and added descriptions accordingly to my flow of thoughts. The aim of the text is looking at both games on the same level I look at performances: what experience do they offer and how do they create it. And this is probably not a player’s perspective (“what choices are before me while playing”) and it’s certainly not giving out information that will help you decide whether you want to buy either of this game. Rather it comes from my belief that each artwork and each game has its ideal target audience and it needs this particular audience in order to achieve its potential. So the text is (hopefully) an answer to two questions: who are these two games for? with what expectations should one approach these two games?
I will very much appreciate any feedback you might have.

(Also I expect there are some grammatical errors, as I hurried to finish the text by the deadline. I will edit them after I manage to sleep a bit).

Review: Paris Connection:: [Voice of Experience] Paris Connection: The Gamer's Filler

manchuwok — Tue, 29 May 2012 05:22:29 +0000

by manchuwok

Paris Connection: The Gamer’s Filler

Playing a game many times does not necessarily qualify one to provide a deeper insight into how the game works, but playing a game few times certainly does disqualify one from doing so. So this is why I am excited about the Voices of Experience series, of which this review is a part. As of this writing, I’ve played Paris Connection about 40 times and I’m just starting to get to the point where I feel I can offer some analysis.

I’m not particularly interested in reviews that offer a complete overview of the rules of play. Most often I find myself skipping to the end of such reviews to read the analysis which all too often is sorely lacking. So even though the entire game can be explained in under 100 words, I’m going to proceed assuming that readers know the contents of the box and how to use them to play the game. If you’re not yet at this point, go read one of the other reviews first. Some of them include pretty pictures which I won’t take up space with here either. What I will take up space with is why I love the game and why it should be the filler game of choice for serious gamers everywhere.

I enjoy games with high depth/complexity ratios. Paris Connection succeeds in this area; in fact it is the very reason I was interested in exploring the game in the first place. The rules to the game can be taught in a minute or two. On their turn, a player takes one of only two actions. Yet I find the game to have a surprising level of depth. Certainly enough to hold my interest for this long, and likely quite a bit longer.

One of the most elegant things about Paris Connection is how the trains serve as both stock and track. By taking stocks you are also limiting the potential value of that company. And by playing track, you are also decreasing the number of available stocks of that company. This is a wonderful conundrum. Managing the number of trains in the supply of each company is key to doing well. It gets even more interesting when all stocks for a company are either owned as stock or played as track. At this point it becomes even more important to understand the implications of trading back some of that stock. Not only are you divesting yourself of shares in a company, but you are giving the other players who own stock in that company an opportunity to increase its value. It is the series of little dilemmas like this that make me love the game.

It is often important to ensure that you reach the maximum allowed level of stock ownership. But what I enjoy about the game is that there is some delicious tension surrounding when and how to do so. Max out too early or too late and you may not be able to convert quickly enough to the highest valued stocks. Wait too long and you may not even be able to acquire enough stocks at all. This aspect of the game is a careful balancing point, and it injects a welcome tension into the game.

And that’s not the only source of tension. To do well you must attempt to deduce what your opponents’ current perceptions of the game state are. This is a huge part of the game, and if you don’t entirely succeed, they may throw a wrench in your plans and do something you didn’t expect they would. I almost sweat as I wait for my opponents to confirm or deny my understanding of how they are understanding the current game state. Will they buy the stock I want them to? Will they increase or decrease the value of the company I want them to? It’s so tense! Everything you do in this game communicates to the other players something about how you are understanding the game. Learning to read the other players and even obfuscate the intent behind your own actions is key. I have not seen this type of mental processing implemented so well or in such a pure form in any other game.

And this highlights another aspect of the game I enjoy - it’s all about setting up the state of the game such that your opponents’ best moves are even better for you. You must manipulate the game and your fellow players so that what they think is best for them will actually give you the win. Clever use of your available 1-5 tracks is a great way to do this. New players almost always play all 5 trains, but this is often not the best play. I greatly appreciate it when a game provides a playing field that facilitates such manipulation.

And of course, one cannot overlook one of the true joys of the game: the ability to devalue a company by laying pointless track. It is so satisfying to run a company to the ground that a majority of your opponents own more stock in than you do. Even more satisfying is manipulating your opponents’ perceptions of your intentions so that it is entirely unexpected when you do so. Gaming bliss!

It is important to note that while the rules of the game can be easily understood by almost anyone, the game is also rather opaque. Paris Connection is opaque is because it is difficult to understand the in-game implications of player actions. There is a relatively complex relationship between the number and color of trains owned by each player, the number of trains remaining in the stock of each company, the relative values of all companies, the potential future income for each company, and the current and potential future value of the stock holdings of each player. Consider that this rides the rails of hidden information and ever-shifting perceptions by all players on the current state of the game and you might start to realize why the optimal move is not always simple to recognize.

I reject the notion that Paris Connection would make a good “Gateway” game for this reason. Casual/family gamers could easily learn the rules of the game, and even have fun doing so, but they will not easily come to an understanding of how their choices are affecting the end result. I almost find the simplicity of the game to be a negative: it lowers the barrier of entry far enough to allow in those who can’t cope with the level of opacity.

And this is the crux of this review. All of the most interesting elements that I’ve briefly discussed will be missed by casual and family gamers. I’m not saying they shouldn’t play the game and that they won’t have fun if they do. But Paris Connection is simply best suited to the serious gamer. Complaints that the setup and end-game scoring are too cumbersome, though while true, serve to demonstrate that the wrong audience is playing the game.

Paris Connection is a short game. The published playtime of 30 minutes is quite feasible. And because of how the end of the game can be triggered in more than one way, a game could even be much shorter. So though the depth of the game belies its simplicity, this depth has an upper limit. While each decision made is interesting and significant, there are few enough of them that a few wrong assumptions can derail your chances of winning. This rather discrete decision tree, however, is completely fitting with my expectations of a shorter game.

Because of the short playing time, the excellent range of supported players, and the sources of surprising depth I’ve outlined briefly above I am happy to name it Paris Connection: The Gamer’s Filler.

Review: Power Grid:: [Voice of Experience]

tmpoof — Tue, 29 May 2012 04:57:53 +0000

by tmpoof

Preface
I enjoy playing boardgames as both a social activity and as an opportunity to stimulate my mind. I enjoy trying to solve "puzzles", thinking ahead several moves, and second guessing my opponents moves. I lean toward games that keep all players involved with no clear run-away winner. Like many, Settlers of Catan was my "gateway" game into the board-gaming hobby and I have now since moved on in the search for more intellectually stimulating games.

To me, a great game has the following things:
• A great/interesting theme
• Easy to understand rules (not necessarily simple)
• High degree of player interactivity (for the social aspect)
• No/limited player elimination or early clear cut winners
• Less emphasis on luck, more emphasis on strategy
• Ability to win even if it's your first time playing

Premise of Power Grid
I might be a little biased as a graduate of engineering studies, but I think the theme of Power Grid is pretty awesome.

]]>Image courtesy of Teppolainen

Each player represents a power service provider with the goal of providing the most power to various cities in a country (most versions of the base game include USA and Germany as the available countries to play in). Explaining the theme to players from a less technical background sometimes induces a bit of eye-rolling, but it's easily understandable and relate-able. The game is fairly topical (considering energy is a hot-issue these days) and playing Power Grid often leads to interesting discussions and/or snarky comments from your oil-loving/hippy-green-energy friends

Ultimately, I think the premise and theme of Power Grid is well executed and gives the players the right amount of motivation to play the game and understand what they're doing.

Thoughts on Gameplay
I won't go into too much detail on all the rules and such, but I'll give you enough information so you aren't forced to read the rulebook in case you're just looking for a primer.

The overall structure of the game is fairly straightforward:
• 1) Players determine the turn-order for this round (losing players get a more advantageous position while winning players are put in a more dis-advantageous position)
• 2) Players bid in turn order on available power plants that are used to provide power to their network
• 3) Players bid on resources such as coal, oil, garbage, and uranium that are used to power their power plants
• 4) Players expand their power network by building new infrastructure in cities around the game board
• 5) Players decide how many cities they are going to power and deplete the necessary resources, getting paid depending on how many cities they powered.

The game eventually ends when a player's network size reaches a certain number of cities (determined by the number of players). At that point, whoever can power the most cities wins.

As you can see, the gameplay itself is rather straightforward - but what makes Power Grid such an interesting game is how this all works with the game mechanics.

Power plant auctions
]]> Image courtesy of bkunes. Note the stand was a custom component and is not part of the game

When deciding what power plant to purchase, players can see four available power plants and four power plants that are "in development". Those power plants that are in development might soon be available, but anybody who's in the research business knows that nothing is for sure and those juicy power plants might well disappear back into the power plant deck (awesome theme integration here, as a researcher, stuff always fails/gets delayed! ). Thus, there's always the challenging dilemma of either going for a decent power plant that's available now or perhaps holding out for an even better one that you can see on the horizon. An extra area of intrigue is that players will bid against each other and a hotly contested power plant may soon cost 10-20 "Elektros" (the currency of the game) more than you expected. Finally, as players can only buy 1 power plant a turn, if you just wait for everybody else to buy their power plant, you can buy whatever power plant is available uncontested! (no bid-war).

Resources

]]>
Image courtesy of phibbi

Another really neat thing about this game is the variable resources costs that represent the effect "supply and demand" can create on prices (another great implementation of the theme here!). Resources that are plentiful initially cost very little to acquire. However, as more and more players buy say...coal, the price can skyrocket as the supply decreases. Thus, it becomes important to watch what your opponents are doing as even though that coal power plant *might* be the best plant, if 3 other players are also coal heavy, you might want to steer clear. Turn order here becomes very important, as those who are behind in the game get first dibs on buying resources, meaning they can usually acquire them far cheaper than the players who are winning and need to get their resources last. Sometimes, it can be advantageous to manoeuvre yourself into a losing position just so you can buy the resources you need.

Network building

]]>
Image courtesy of henk.rolleman

The area of network building is where there is most likely to be some metaphorical (or literal ) head-butting with your opponents as you jostle for the most favourable board positions. Not all cities and positions are equal, as when you expand your network, you also have to consider the connection costs (of laying cable, etc.) between your existing cities. This is again, a great implementation of the power grid building theme. Thus, if you build your cities far apart, you'll have to pay quite a bit more than if you connect closer cities. Naturally, the board quickly becomes crowded and players can get boxed out of juicy areas if they're not careful. Again, turn order plays a factor here as those who are "losing" get first dibs on infrastructure placement.

Sum of the parts
The three main mechanics of auctioning power plants, buying resources, and expanding your network all fit very well into the theme of the game. They complement each other to create a challenging and dynamic environment that initially forces the player to plan out their entire move ahead of time, but also react to what their opponents do. There is a large variety of power plants along with "green" plants that do not need any resources but often power many less cities than their fuel burning counterparts (another great true-to-life fact ). At the same time, players have to watch the resource supply and demand market and think about where they might expand next (but also where their opponents might go). The result is a game that forces you to re-evaluate your position every turn and results in a much less static sort of "set-it and keep chugging ahead" feel that games such as Settlers of Catan evoke for me.

Thoughts on components and artwork

]]>
Image courtesy of Nodens77

Included in the game are your standard euro-style wooden bits that are found in other games such as Catan or Agricola. They're nothing special, but they get the job done and the colours contrast each other enough so that you don't get confused. Every player also gets a helpful aid that summarizes the phases of each turn and earning potentials of your network. A nice touch was having the resources colour coded and also differentiated in shape.

I really like the power plant art and feel the progressions of a small coal power plant with a small innocent smoke stack that powers 1 city to a veritable den of evil with clouds of smoke to be another hilarious truth in the game.

The rule book is decent, but it was much easier and less confusing to learn the game from somebody who had played it before. Another complaint is the charts/tables that are needed to set up the game and determine resource supplies are on different pages throughout the book. Perhaps the tables should have been included as a separate aid sheet?

Final thoughts
Great things about power grid:
• Simple rules, first timers can be competitive and win
• Great theme and art
• High degree of player interaction throughout all phases of each round
• Good layers of strategy, and limited emphasis on luck
• All players are more or less in it until the end
• Relatively short and players in about 2.5 hours for a 6 player game

Some not so great things:
• There can be some downtime between turns - especially in a 6 player game - this usually isn't a huge problem as things happen fairly quickly but could be an issue if somebody in the group overthinks things
• Board isn't modular and requires the purchase of new boards if you start to get bored of playing in USA/Germany all the time
• The re-filling of resources is a little tedious as it requires you to look up tables and what not. This part of the game is not as elegant as the rest, but I suppose it's not really that bad

Some things people might have issues with
• You really need to know exactly what you're going to do with all your money at the start of the turn to play effectively. This results in a lot of mental math (adding 2-3 digit numbers - difficult if you've been out of high school for a while ). It can become kind of a brain burner and limit table talk as people are too busy adding numbers in their head.
• You need to play with at least 3 players. 2 players is possible, but far less interesting as much of the fun comes from the bidding and jostling for resources and board position.

Conclusion
Power grid is a great economy building game that is lighter on rules than its counterparts such as Agricola and Puerto Rico. It has a fun theme and relatively short playing time. It's easy to teach new players how to play and they can be competitive the first time they play with no needed knowledge of "tricks" and other types of derived knowledge from experience. It has good, but not great replayability as the power plant deck randomizes the order and availability of power plants each game. It's easily expandable if you end up really enjoying the game though, as you can buy new power plant cards and game boards with different countries and slightly different rules. The game rewards players who can think ahead yet react effectively to their opponents' plays. Due to the potential for brain burning via math, I suggest playing Power Grid when people are fresh and as the only (or at least first) game of its night for a lighter, more social evening (or afternoon, morning, what have you).

Review: Agricola:: [Voice of Experience] Uwe Rosenburg's Agricola: A game of strife and violence?

archivists — Tue, 29 May 2012 04:39:07 +0000

by archivists

[Voice of Experience] Uwe Rosenburg's Agricola: A game of strife and violence?

My experience with the game

I've played Agricola many times, with 168 recorded face to face games but as I have not been very diligent in logging games on BGG it is probably more like 250-300. Of these, the vast majority have been 2 player normal (non-family) game, though there have also been roughly 50 4 player games, 10 5-player and 2 or 3 with 3. I've played the family game a handful of times.

I've played mostly with the standard E,I,K decks, a substantial number of G deck games and around 30 games with a mixture of the O, C, NL, and WM decks. I have played with fixed hands and drafting. While I enjoy drafting my favoured way of playing is to deal 12 occupations and 12 improvements to each player before discarding down to 7. This provides the draft experience in a shorter time-frame and also doesn't overly penalise those players who aren't intimately familiar with the cards and would therefore risk drafting a sub-standard hand.

Farmers of the Moor is outside the scope of this review.

Introduction and aims of this review

Few games have created so much feeling than Agricola. Since its publication in 2007 this game in which you take the role of middle age agricultural family building and managing a farm has been almost universally lauded – 24 international awards are listed on the BGG entry making it the most awarded game in the BGG top 10, squeaking past Dominion's 23 and destroying the likes of Twilight Struggle with 6 and even Puerto Rico and Catan which come in at 11 a piece. Agricola even has its own Wikipedia entry which leads with the fact it was the game to knock Puerto Rico from the BGG highest rated game spot it had held for 5 years. Further testament to the strength of opinion created by the game there are 375 pages of forum posts on its BGG entry more than double that of Puerto Rico, currently ranked in 3rd place, which has been in publication for far longer.

]]>(image by tiggers)

While it has enjoyed critical success Agricola is not a game of mass appeal. It was given the prestigious Spiel de Jahres special award for Complex Game and this is apt. The rules are long and filled with pages of tiny type listing the descriptions and errata of cards. There is a “family game” however, this is merely a slightly more abstracted, perhaps more cut-throat version of the main, only using a slightly different set of choices and without the interesting hand of cards.

Agricola has been subject to a multitude of reviews on this site and elsewhere. Many of these are overwhelmingly positive. However as is to be expected the game also has its host of detractors and has suffered from some well written, highly popular negative reviews.

It has been derided as “overly complex and artificial...stressful...exhausting... and [inelegant]” (gobfrey) http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/398692/overly-complex-an...
While others find it frustrating and counter-intuitive (filwi) http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/492848/9-reasons-why-i-a...

Rather than re-tread the countless reviews that have gone before which, in the main, provide a summary of the rules and then outline the pluses and/or minuses, I will instead attempt to assess Agricola against the designer's, Uwe Rosenburg's, own criteria of a successful strategy game. I will look whether or not Agricola meets that criteria and in doing so, I will also look at the development of Agricola, the games that influenced its design and the mechanisms it employs. I will argue that the reason for Agricola's success, and for the strength of opinion that surrounds the game, is because it taps into primary human drives, the need to eat, to find shelter, to reproduce...to survive.

Agricola's decisions

Uwe has written extensively on the design of Agricola and has given interviews in which he speaks of his design decisions. In reading Uwe's words both from his own writings, and from those interviews, it is possible to identify five principal themes that emerge as Uwe's criteria for a successful and enjoyable game and which became the driving force behind the design decisions taken in Agricola. This criteria may be summarised as follows – my terms in bold, Uwe's words paraphrased or quoted directly :

1. Development: The game should spend sufficient time in development to remove any bugs “optimised and error free”

2. Innovation: It should have new and innovative ideas

3. Multiplicity of strategies: There should be multiple strategies to victory

4. Immersion: enjoyment is found in losing yourself in the game, or as Uwe puts it, “forgetting about the world outside”

5. A lack of aggression: strategies should be secure. It should not be possible to attack opponents or sabotage carefully laid plans “I don't like it when others simply break my moves so that all thinking becomes redundant”

Development and Innovation

Unlike other games created by Uwe Rosenberg, the development of Agricola was not driven by a single “flash of genius”. Rather the game was born of hard work and honed following a lengthy and rigorous process. Uwe tested the game for a very long period and before allowing anyone else to see his design he played the game solo for month. Following this solo testing he recruited a legion of over 130 playtesters. His wife wa a particularly stalwart participant playing hundreds of 2 player games to iron out inconsistencies and test new cards. http://jogoeu.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/interview-with-uwe-rose...

Uwe has spoken of Caylus, Antiquity and Lowenherz as the games which most influenced Agricola and elements of each can be seen in the game. Chess too has also undoubtedly had an impact. Uwe was taught chess by his grandfather and had childhood success winning tournaments. I feel that the 2-player game in particular has a chess like feel.

Agricola draws heavily upon its forbears. In particular, the intial impetus for, and foremost influence on, Agricola was Caylus a game designed by William Attia, and published by Ystari in the autumn of 2005. Uwe was “fascinated” by Caylus, playing it every night for two weeks and spending his days thinking about the game. He decided to attempt to create his own take on the worker placement genre. In doing so he sought to correct what he saw as Caylus' one major flaw, that the number of actions were always the same. Instead he wanted to produce a “small and controlled increase in the number of workers”. This simple but in game design terms radical decision and the mechanism to provide the solution to this problem, had a profound influence on the theme of the game: Players would start with a young couple and their offspring would become the additional workers. http://jogoeu.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/interview-with-uwe-rose.... This growth in number of actions while in itself a simple idea, is the most significant and innovative aspect of the game.

]]>(image by cuazzel)

Other influences came into play, the harvest mechanism was taken from At the Gates of Loyang. Loyang was an earlier unpublished Uwe design rejected by “4 or 5 publishers” until Agricola's success enabled Lookout to publish 2009. At the Gates of Loyang's harvest was itself based upon Antiquity a splotter design by Jeroen Doumen and Joris Wiersinga published in 2004. Uwe wanted to see if the harvest mechanic would stand in isolation. http://spiellust.net/2009/07/ein-gesprach-mit-uwe-rosenberg.....

Also borrowed from Caylus is the concept of increased choice of actions with each turn of the game – each round a new card is turned over with an increased action space. In Agricola, the actions of each of the 6 phases are fixed but their order within the phase is randomised and hidden at the start of the game. This simple solution introduces three main variables –

1. The availability of food depending upon when the animal (sheep/boar/cows) cards appear – later animals means more food competition.

2. availability of stone – this impacts upon the playing of improvements (major and minor) and the size and type of house – a larger house means it will be more difficult to renovate to stone.

3. It creates tension and an element of risk and reward with regard to the most fiercely contested space, namely the 'Family Growth' space which provides an additional family member (action) from the next turn on in the game. (There is also to a much lesser extent competition for “Plow and Sow”, “Family Growth without space” and “Renovate and Fence” actions)

While Agricola clearly borrows mechanisms from its predecessors the combination and implementation of these mechanisms has created a new and fresh experience. This is not a variant on Caylus but somehow something entirely different.

Multiplicity of strategies

Planning your actions in Agricola is crucial to success in the game. To take the most important example, the “Family Growth” action is not an end in and of itself but the culmination of careful resource management and timing. In order to take Family Growth, a number of actions have to carefully synchronise. A spare room is required created using the “Build Room” action space and each room resources to build – (5 wood and 2 reed for your first wooden room). Those resources gradually accumulate on the board are finite and are fought over with your opponents who are each also trying to build rooms in order to grow their family. The importance of gaining additional actions has led to the criticism that the game has a single path to victory, namely to build a bigger house and take the family growth action with the winner being the player who does this with greatest efficiency.

Yes, the family growth is usually critical. However the route to achieve this is definitely not certain. Every game will provide you with new paths to reach your goal with multiple choices introduced via a combination of different hands of cards, and the variable action order. Two games of Agricola are never the same. Final scores vary widely, and while there is a consensus of what makes a model farm (the scoring sheet provides the blueprint) farms are never perfect and may look dramatically different both between players and from one game to the next. It is the journey to reach the final state that is important – crucially how you get the food necessary to avoid starvation whether it be baking bread, killing animals, scraping by via occupations, improvements, fishing/day labourer or more usually an ever-changing and combination based on opportunity and availability of resources.

Immersion and Aggression

Agricola has faced the common criticism of Euro-games – having a pasted on theme. For me, the of humanities struggle for survival in a treacherous environment is universal and compelling. When playing the game I am reminded of the State of Nature as proposed by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 work Leviathan. Hobbes' views people as equal competitors hoping to achieve the same things with the roughly same range of possibilities, needs and goals. For him, in order to meet those goals it is necessary to fight against each other for gain.

Agricola provides an almost perfect representation of the “nasty brutish and short” state described by Hobbes. People (the games players) compete for security (food, shelter and survival). To achieve this safety and survival players must fight each other for the limited resources present in the game.

Within Hobbes' base state as within Agricola there is a “continual fear and danger of violent death”. Death in Agricola is via starvation and is abstracted and represented by the accumulation of begging cards. Each phase you must feed each family member or suffer the ignominy of receiving one begging card for each food short. Each results in minus three points at game end – family members are worth three positive points each reinforcing the notion that a begging card is a dead family member. Any begging cards are highly damaging and even a single card remaining at game end likely signals game loss. (Yes there are instances where you can win with begging cards – even 6! but this is rare (for a discussion see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/343824/has-anyone-ever-w...)

To survive in Hobbes' base state, as in Agricola, players compete for limited resources. This creates “contention, enmity, and war: because the way of one competitor, to the attaining of his desire, is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel the other”.

This all sounds very dramatic, and admittedly there is no direct killing in Agricola. However I maintain that Agricola is a vicious and nasty struggle for resources, for growth, and for survival. To illustrate this point I will look at some of the central aggressive strategies in Agricola

Blocking

]]>(image by timsteen)

The central strategic moves in Agricola is the block. Blocking forces opponents to take actions earlier and act with less efficiency to prevent the block. This in turn allows you a greater choice of, and stronger actions. While this is at its most extreme in 2 player games with more players blocking should always be kept in mind as a tactical move, and not carried out at the expense of your own lead in the game. Some of the best Agricola players advocate blocking whenever the occasion presents itself. Nicu Zavada's (Hala on Play Agricola) is worth quoting in length:

“block as much as you can, especially the player you feel is the most likely to win. If someone needs food, take it from him. If someone needs a card in draft and you can take it just to keep him from having it, do it. If he needs fences and you can skip a 1p move to take it, do it. Although some players consider Agricola as a kind of nice growing roses or for saying prayers together, it isn't. It's about you having a better score than your opposition. Taking points away from them is just as good as adding yourself.” http://play-agricola.com/forums/index.php?topic=2037.0

Denial

Taking blocking to its extreme is the strategy of denial which can be defined as preventing your opponent from taking a particular resource by blocking on repeated actions or turns. There is some debate as to whether reed denial to block building and growth or clay denial to block major improvements and resulting food is the most effective. Both tactics can brutally hamstring a less experienced player, though in my experience denial is situational or as (Winsome) puts it “The best kind of denial is organic - noticing that your opponent has left himself vulnerable in a critical resource and punishing him for it. You don't go in to a game thinking "aha! this is the game where Bob gets ZERO reed!" You go into a game and realize in turn 4 that you situationally have a chance to really screw Bob over by blocking reed for a few turns.”

Threatened Blocking

That act of blocking itself is often not necessary. Often the threat of a block is sufficient. (smcmike) “...Reserving 1 wood for a Round 14 fence-block is the perfect example: suddenly your opponent (the one with 15 wood and 8 unused spaces) needs to use their first turn on fences, rather than that Plow/Sow you've been eyeing”.

In addition to the fence threatened block, here are some of the other frequently observed examples and their resource requirement - (I should also point out that it doesn't work as a threatened block if your opponent doesn't notice you have those resources and are thereby signalling the possibility).

2 wood – threatened stable / build room block
1 food – threatened occupation block
Grain / Veg – threatened sow / bake block
Resources necessary for renovation – renovate block
Resources for major improvement – major/minor block

The major advantage of the threatened block is that it enables the blocker to take a better next action, while the blokee's action is either taken earlier and thereby made less efficient, or that action is postponed and the block remains in place. This can sometimes lead to multiple chains of actions sometimes stretching across turns until the block is negated – as resources change or the blocked action is taken.

Why play aggressively at all?

While for some the aggressive strategies discussed here are anathema, I suspect the majority of players are all too happy to embrace such devious tactics. I am supported by various comments in the Agricola forums. A choice few below:

(Big Bad Lex) “Some players cannot compute why a player would take a less immediately favourable move to cripple another. I would not use the term sub optimal because if you play with cut throat opposition, cutting another player off at the knees is extremely optimal.“

aggressive play also has the interesting effect of changing actions in future games with the same players (out4blood) “The biggest advantage is that it affects the meta-game. Now all I have to do is just mention the possibility of something similar and it can cause another player to change his play to avoid the risk, thinking that I am likely to screw him/her over”

Given this aggression why is the game so popular?

My answer in short is that many people enjoy stressful, vicious games. A singular advantage of the game form over other mediums is that a game may be reset and played out again from the start. On your first attempt you will starve / fail to grow your full family and end with a bare and disappointing farm.

(MScrivner) The 'Gric captures the desperate struggle of people, even farmers, to survive in a world that is often cruel and dangerous.. “The first time I played it, the thing that flashed through my head was, "oh $@&^, my family is going to starve to death!" I wasn't even worried about scoring points, I was just worried about making it to the next harvest.” http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/334876/why-this-ameritra...

With the second and subsequent plays the participants inevitably improve, rapidly working out how to feed their families to avoid starvation, how to build a bigger and better home, grow their family earlier to achieve more actions and ending with a well rounded and successful farm.

The human desire to achieve and to improve upon ourselves almost guarantees you will want to try again. I say almost. … critics (and advocates) of Agricola speak of its 'masochism', 'stress' and 'nastiness'. Work through this initial pain barrier and you will be rewarded by a deep, rich and ultimately addictive experience.

The cards

]]>(image by LazarusHan)

The other reason Agricola is so successful is due its enormous re-playability. This is principally due to the cards randomly dealt at the start of each game. There are 166 Occupation cards included in the game split into three different decks: E (for Entry), I (for Interactive) and K (for Komplex). Additionally, they are segregated into three groups – those meant for one or more players, those for three or more players and those for four or more players. Additionally, there are 136 Minor Improvement cards also split amongst the E, I and K decks which are all available irrespective of player number. There have been multiple expansion packs of cards providing even more variety.

The hand of cards shapes the players strategy, changes the balance of resources, and rewards particular actions. Much has been written on balance. No, the cards are not entirely balanced. Some are more powerful than others and some present an unfair advantage particularly in the two player game. The worst offenders are those cards that are powerful in and of themselves. Other cards are useless or so state dependent as to be useless. For the 2 player game at least we have removed Wet nurse, Reed hut and Wooden hut extension.

In combination some of these cards are very strong, but then there is almost always a means for a skilful opponent to shut down that combination through blocking, or, by playing an equally strong card set. If, as is sometimes the case, a very strong combination provides the tools for an unassailable lead, then brace yourself against the short-lived frustration and, once the game has ended, the cards can simply be reshuffled and you are ready to try again.

Conclusion

So how does Agricola match up to Uwe's requirements for a successful game? For me Agricola succeeds in meeting four of the five criteria, it is incredibly detailed in its development, surely one of the most thoroughly play-tested games ever created, it oozes innovation, breaking new ground as the new star of the worker placement genre. There are multiple strategies between and within games as players adapt to achieve what is possible within the available turns. The theme and gameplay is highly immersive transporting the players to a primal struggle for survival. For me the only one of his own criteria Uwe fails to meet is lack of aggression. Poor luck and a motivated aggressive opponent, can destroy a players carefully laid plans. This for me though, and for many others is a strength rather than a flaw and Uwe has surely succeeded in creating the successful, enjoyable strategy game which he sought to design.

Of course, the 'perfect game' is a myth. The vagaries of human taste mean that every game will have its detractors – as my grandmother was fond of saying (and which the internet tells me has been apocryphally attributed to Abraham Lincoln)- “You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time”.

For me one of the marks of a successful game one that elicits strong emotions in the players. Games have an almost unique ability to 'recreate in play' examples of real-life struggles on a grand scale– whether that be for territory, ideology, survival, wealth, power, or at its most abstract, success through victory.

Agricola certainly elicits emotions whether this is a positive or negative experience is for the players to decide but for me, Agricola is superlative in achieving this emotional depth and this factor, if entirely unintended by its designer, is central to its success. As Joshua Miller (Glamorous Mucus) puts it: “The sadists weep because the masochists have all gone off to play Agricola, and who can blame them - being punched in the face never felt so good.”

A one off?

Agricola has been called Uwe's Magnum Opus and the designer himself acknowledges we are unlikely to see another design from him with the same investment of thought, time, research and testing or a game to be met with so much appeal by so many gamers. “I will likely never work again for such a long time on a single game and likely never meet with so much appeal from so many frequent players again” http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/393540/gargantuan-interview-...

While there have been other similar releases from Uwe so far, at least for me, none of them match the sheer scale and depth of Agricola. As I write this, Uwe is about to release a new design the lengthily titled: Agricola: Die Bauern und das Liebe Viehor or in English Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small ACB and S for 'short'. Little information is available at the current time apart from the BGG game page description that this is to be “a specialized two-player version of Agricola that would offer the same sensation as the original, but in a much shorter, more direct form. The result is that Agricola for 2 players is impressively efficient for such a short game (30 to 40 minutes)! It is not only fast to play; it takes seconds to set up. This gives you the possibility of playing the game over and over!” http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/119890/agricola-all-c...

After reading the rules it appears that ACB and S is Agricola with no requirement to feed, no family growth, and no cards. Uwe has finally created the game he wanted, no stress and no attacking. However without the death and sex, the emotional heart of Agricola and the central interest of the game, has been removed. I am in agreement with my wife's comment on hearing of this soon to be released 2 player version of Agricola “the designer is clearly confused about what he has invented. Agricola is already a perfect 2 player game”. We find it can be played well within the 30-40 minute time-frame of the “shorter” ACB+S.

I hope that ACB and S can be judged on its own merits because when placed next to Agricola it can only fail to impress.

Last word: The Agricola effect

To leave you with one last thought. Uwe has spoken of the “Monopoly effect” in which he relates the story of two couples who went on holiday together and following a disastrous game of Monopoly which resulted in “hostilities and humiliations” lead not only to the outcome that the two couples would never holiday together again, but also that whenever they happen to see one another, each of the couples remember the game and in doing so bemoan their opposites thereby strengthening their own relationship.

In contrast, I have personal experience of the “Agricola effect” - my partner and I have recently been on holiday with another couple in which multiple games of Agricola were played. While each of the four of us in turn spent at least one game in an out-and-out strop or a 'proper mardy' as we say in these parts (I am ashamed to admit my sulking continued through two consecutive games of wood/grain/start player deprivation), these games were, in the main, an overwhelmingly positive experience. I am confident that whenever we meet said couple in the future, we will be reminded of Agricola and remember our holiday and our friends only with fondness.

Selected source material:

Gargantuan interview with Uwe Rosenberg: the man, game design, Agricola, and more (English, Dec 2008)

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/393540/gargantuan-interview-...
Interview with Mr Uwe Rosenberg, http://jogoeu.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/interview-with-uwe-rose...

An Interview with Uwe Roswenberg, http://spiellust.net/2009/07/ein-gesprach-mit-uwe-rosenberg....

2 player clay/wood/reed/fishing/sheep denial is key!
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/469187/2-words-on-winnin...

More on blocking
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/432211/importance-of-cla...

Most thumbed BGG strategy article. Original deleted, reposted page 4 of thread
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/346380/complex-strategie...

Interesting discussion on complexity and aggression in 2 player Agricola here: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4193/evaluatin...

Review: Innovation:: [Voice of Experience] Innovation - Why a little chaos can be a good thing in your (gaming) life

DiAtros — Tue, 29 May 2012 03:43:09 +0000

by DiAtros

First Things First

After hitting 100 plays of Innovation, I had been planning for some time to write a review detailing why it had been such a hit with my wife and I, and why I think other people should try it. Then along came the Voice of Experience contest, providing me with the incentive to make me try this review-writing thing on for size. However, I want to first reference two other recent reviews. First, Eric Martin's typically excellent review, the latest salvo in his pro-Innovation campaign. Second, Sharon Khan's succinct review of 2-player Innovation. Since I didn't manage to get in front of them , I'm going to try to cover different ground.

What Ground Will be Covered?

I came to this game entirely by accident. My wife and I had received Lost Cities for Christmas and played it a lot, and I was seeking something new. I searched online for a portable game, since we travel a bit and I thought that would be a big plus. I stumbled upon BGG, and then upon Innovation, and it sounded really interesting. Good for two players? Civilization themed? Simple to learn with some depth for later? Great! Cheap? Even better!

I called around to find it at a local store and ended up getting the game as an anniversary present. After a somewhat confused first play, we loved it. To date, we've logged 113 plays, 109 with just the two of us. Even after purchasing a few other well-reviewed 2 player games, Innovation is still our favorite. I'm going to try to explain why we have enjoyed it so much, why I think other people should or should not try it, and what the first expansion adds to the experience.

What is the Game Like?

Rules summaries are available elsewhere, and the rule book is also well-written and efficient. In short, Innovation is a game simulating the development of a civilization, albeit in an abstract way. There is no currency in the game; icons on the card represent your domination of different spheres such as science, military, or industry. It is possible to string together a narrative for a particular game, but only with some difficulty. However, I enjoy the theme and feel that it's helpful for new players (once gunpowder[card] arrives on the scene, your castles[icons] are useless) and for adding entertainment value for experienced players (curse you, education[card]!).

Every card in the game is unique. Some are useful in many situations, for instance those that let you directly draw and score cards, or those that let you splay your stacks, thus showing more icons. Others are only useful in very specific situations, such as those that force you to eliminate cards from your board to gain points or damage an opponent. Much of the fun to be had in the long haul is in identifying the situations required to make some previously maligned card suddenly powerful. An example: Suburbia is a late game card that allows you to score n low value cards in return for tucking (adding cards to the bottom of an existing stack) n cards from your hand. In many cases this is useless. However, when draw piles (ordered 1 to 10) are taken, you default to the next higher draw pile. So, if you find yourself in the late game with a big hand of unappealing cards and the low draw piles are empty, you can score an enormous number of points very quickly at a crucial moment. I've only pulled it off once, but that victory was particularly satisfying. There are many other such examples, but that one comes to mind for the relative rarity - most other cards prove useful more than 1% of the time!

Why Should You Play This Game?

In my few tries, it seems that Innovation has real promise as a 3+ player game. However, my voice of experience can tell you that it is a truly great 2 player game. For us, this is driven by the level of randomness in the game, which has proven to be just about perfect. By way of example, we bought Hive at the same time as Innovation. We've logged a lot of Hive plays too, but as our play styles have largely become set, most games feel a bit repetitive, as we use the same old strategies in slightly different ways against each other. This is our fault, not the fault of an excellent game, but it illustrates the strength of Innovation, namely that the often-criticized randomness (Fluxxiness?) of the design forces you to play each game differently than the last.

A game like Dominion requires you to adapt to your opponent's strategy, but within reason you can also pick a specific approach before the game starts and stick to it. In Innovation, saying "OK, today I'm going to focus on scoring points early" would be a poor approach, as well as being difficult to achieve. You are playing against your opponent, yes, but also against the game. I'm not sure of the best metaphor, here... competitive surfing, maybe? Playing well lies not in building the perfect engine and watching it run flawlessly, but rather in working with the current situation - making your cards work for you and turning your opponents cards against them.

A final benefit of this built-in randomizer? It makes losing easier to bear. If you play most of your games with one partner, it's easy to get frustrated when you hit a string of defeats. Sure, it may be nothing but simple probability, but it can feel like you've lost your way. What does your opponent know that you don't? What are you doing wrong? A string like that can happen with any game, but I find that in Innovation the ever changing game conditions make you feel better about your losses. Sure, you might lose five games in a row, but you're likely to lose them in different ways. I'll admit that the thrill of finding a way to beat that perfect, unstoppable strategy that your opponent uses every time can be very satisfying, but in the interest of sanity and marital harmony, I find that losing (or, hypothetically, winning) a string of Innovation games is much preferable to a similar string of Battle Line or 2 de Mayo games.

Why Shouldn't You Play This Game?

For many people, of course, the point of a game is to find the perfect strategy, to build the flawless engine, to extend that winning streak as long as you can. Many people chafe at randomness and lack of control in this game, or any other. This is understandable. Innovation is not for everyone. It is not a game you can devote your life to. It is not a game that is likely to reward study and mastery. It's a card game - bad draws can derail good strategic choices. The late game is designed to accelerate, and many cards available at this stage chain together and can end the game before anyone expects it. If this sounds terrible and frustrating to you, Innovation is likely not your cup of tea. If the possibility of a unlikely last-minute victory sounds exciting, give the game a shot. Actually, if you can borrow a copy, give it a few shots. Like many other fans of the game, I think that many of the negative reactions to Innovation are the result of one or two confusing first plays of the game. Your first game will be confusing, but for us that cleared up very quickly.

What About the Expansion, and the New Rules?

A new expansion is on the horizon, but so far what's available is Innovation: Echoes of the Past. We bought this soon after it became available and have used it for just about every game since. It adds some interesting new mechanisms to the game, such as echo effects, which are written in place of icons and are activated even on splayed cards (below the top card of a stack). This requires you to balance the benefits of these echo effects with the loss of an icon. Initially, the expansion was designed to be mixed into the base game by leaving some of each set of cards out (i.e. each draw pile would have 6 base cards and 3 expansion). This made the game even more random, because you no longer knew what cards would be showing up in a given game. It could also throw off the balance of card colors or icons in a game. This wasn't a game-breaking problem, by any means, and the added variety gave the game new life on our table. Overall, I'd say the expansion made the game more varied and exciting, but less elegant.

However, new rules have been introduced (see this posting for more details) that ameliorate what I perceived to be the negative effects of the expansion. All base and expansion cards are now included in every game, in separate draw piles. This means that the balance of colors and icons is restored. Depending on what cards are held in their hand, a player can largely control whether they draw base or expansion cards, thereby emphasizing echo effects, simple icons, or other specific features. In general, I like the new rules and feel they have improved the expanded game. The downside is slightly increased game length, and an extra step in determining what card to draw. We've mostly got it down now, but we still pause and say "wait, I draw a brown[base] card for this, right?" a few times every game. This is a price worth paying, in my mind. Most importantly, for those Innovation players who have spurned the expansion because it makes things just a little too random, you have another option now! I for one appreciate the fact that the game's designers are still actively working to balance the game, although of course it is driven by their desire to work in more expansions. For a game that retails at $20 to $30, though, I can live with that.

Final Words

This has grown past it's intended length, and I hope a few diligent readers are still with me at this point. I think Innovation is a unique, entertaining game that works great with 2 players and stays fresh after many plays thanks to its randomness-by-design. I'm glad my wife and I purchased it. After many plays, it's still at the top of our stack. I hope that I have explained the reasons for our fondness, and perhaps persuaded a few people to give a try, maybe even a second try. I welcome any and all comments on this, my first review, and I encourage everyone to check out the other Voice of Experience reviews.

Review: In the Year of the Dragon:: [Voice of Experience] Reviewing In the Year of the Dragon in the Year of the Dragon

agius1520 — Tue, 29 May 2012 03:00:32 +0000

by agius1520

Voice of Experience Introduction

Welcome to my critical review of a game that I admire and enjoy playing where my aim is to delve a bit deeper in to its structure. I will dispense with the typical in-depth rule summary and component overview to focus on my thoughts and analysis, following a brief overview of the game for anyone who doesn’t know it well.

The main reason I have picked In the Year of the Dragon is that it has a high rank, currently in the top 100, but it doesn’t seem to be played that regularly, at least in my gaming groups or on Board Game Arena. On the surface that isn’t that strange but the rules are relatively straight forward and it doesn’t take that long to play; compare this to something like Antiquity, or 1830, both of which are in similar positions but for different reasons and it starts to beg questions. I also think it has plenty of hidden depth to be explored that may be missed from your first few plays, so it means I can find enough aspects to waffle provide my voice of experience on for a full review.

Coincidentally, we are also in a year of the dragon so this couldn’t be a more appropriate time to look at it, but I don’t claim to have planned that before I decided to write the review.

If you haven’t seen the metacriticism movement of late then check out the inspiration for this review http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/793054/voice-of-experien..., where I await the revelations on a lot of other games that are getting similar treatment.

Brief Overview of In the Year of the Dragon

In the game you are ruling over a Chinese province, starting with two palaces, each with room for two workers, and two different workers of the various types available. You compete with the other players to build your provinces and recruit more workers; whoever earns the most victory points throughout the game is the winner.

The game plays over 12 rounds, and within each round there are three phases:

The first is the main action phase where you get one action to collect resources (food, fireworks or money), to expand your palace or to collect VP’s. You pick your action by placing your marker on a group of action tiles that are randomly drawn each turn; so while every action is available each turn, they may be paired with different actions each round, picking one action of a group locks them all up for the other players unless they wish to pay extra.

The second is to recruit a worker (there are 9 different types, of which 6 have an elder and junior version); to do so you must spend a card of which you have 11, one of each type plus two wild cards. These workers serve to assist in the first and/or third phases of a round, or to provide VP’s. Every worker recruited adds to your prestige (a separate track to VP’s), lesser workers will provide more prestige than more useful/elder workers, your position on the prestige track is the basis for the turn order each round, ties broken in descending order from last to arrive at that space.

The third phase is an event, typically a disaster, after the first two rounds of peace to get you settled in to the game. The event will require you to own a certain number of resources (such as one food per palace during a Drought) or to be housing particular types of workers (such as Warriors during a Mongol Invasion), often the penalty for being unprepared is to expel people from your province rather than VP’s directly. There is one event for each round (2 of each of the 5 different events) and they are shuffled and dealt at the beginning of the game for all to see and plan ahead, giving you a varied set-up from game to game to spice things up a little.

There are various opportunities to score; you can score them during the round with particular actions/events. There is a regular per turn scoring based on your number of palaces, scrolls (can be bought as an action) and ladies (worker type). At the end of the game points are awarded for surviving workers plus a bonus for any monks (worker type).

Weight of Rules

While it’s fairly simple to explain the rules it is still rather tricky to understand how the game flows immediately, the three phases of a round are all linked but in different ways; some workers affect phase 1, while others only affect phase 3 or in the case of the Warrior they serve a different purpose in both. Some actions provide you a one-off benefit now, while others assist throughout the game; some actions provide you with benefits and liabilities, if you don’t build any palaces you will run out of space for new workers but building more palaces will increase your food requirements.

A key part of playing the game well is to be able to plan ahead and typically you will need a worker (recruited in phase 2) to assist the action you want to take next turn (in phase 1) to prevent the next disaster (in phase 3). However, everyone else wants to do this as well as they are facing the same events at the same time, so unless you can guarantee you are first in the turn order you might need to recruit your worker two or three turns in advance to ensure you get the one you want or to get yourself out of sync with the other players so that you are not always trying to do the same action at the same time; recruiting to open your options is also very beneficial but needs to be balanced with maximising your payoff so that you only have to do an action once providing you with everything you need rather than two actions to get you slightly more than you need.

Then you need to worry about the space you have available to hold workers, at the start you only have room for 4 and you will be recruiting 11 during the game having started with 2 already; it is unlikely you will be keeping them all, or surviving all of the events without losing any workers, so how will you control the entrance and exit of your workers, if you recruit them now will they still be around when you need to take the action/survive the event.

If you are new to the game, you can expect to spend your first game getting to grips with the interaction of the phases. The next couple of games will start showing you the importance of the different characters and who and when to recruit to maximise the actions you will be taking. After that you can probably fairly comfortably chain together in your mind the course of action / recruitment / event for a couple of turns so you feel like you have a plan rather than picking the best option for your one action independently of the others.

I have made this sound quite complicated but the real thing that adds difficulty, that runs through all of your actions, you need to be aware of what other people are going to do, planning for how the other players will affect your future choices are just as important as your own choices. This is difficult to predict in the first few games while you still get to grips with the different valuations.

I would say the learning curve is steep but easy to climb, steep because a new player amongst experienced players is destined in the stars to lose but easy to climb because you can quickly pick up on the good moves and know what to do better next time. Once you’ve seen the interaction of the phases and had someone jump in front of you in the turn order, then take the action you had planned to do; costing you 3 Yuan or preventing you from taking it entirely, then you know what to watch out for next time.

Defining Mechanic(s)

At a glance I wouldn’t say there are any stand out mechanics of the game per say, you have action selection ‘with a twist’, it’s very novel to have them randomised each turn and the pairings of actions are the only source of random element in the game, I like the idea of this and it is more interesting than having a static set of available actions, not only do you have to contend with players in front of you taking the action you want but they will sometimes inadvertently take the action you want as well. This randomisation encourages more diversity in strategy planning as in some cases you want to push for prestige to get you to the front of the action queue, or you want to maximise your useful actions so that you can always do something on your turn, or you need to boost your cash intake so that you cannot be blocked by other players. This tends to create strategy tiers so that where you expect to be or plan to be in the turn order influences the rest of your play, focusing on your strengths and weaknesses.

Worker selection has the largest web, the choices you make directly affect your turn order position and the value of the actions you take so their selection is vital to your strategy, the elder workers are finite so timing is important as well. On top of this you have spatial placement, although this is largely benign, as you should put workers you can afford to lose with other workers and those who you value highly can survive on their own, the building of more palaces can be trickier as you have to balance food requirements with VP generation with making space at the right time for you to hold all of the workers you need, linking in disasters as these can kill your workers off at opportune times as well to save you overstretching yourself to house workers who you can actually afford to lose; it’s one of the elements I adore in games, even if it is thematically cruel and illogical in most cases, making the most of disasters to your advantage, so your elder healer has saved two more people and someone needs to die, well let’s kill off the healer, he won’t be needed anymore this game.

Like a starvation strategy in Stone Age, if you can make more VP’s starving your population then why not, of course it goes against morality to succeed while others are starving but in gaming terms I have no problem with utilising the game’s peaks and troughs to advance my score; if it allows more freedom and choice then I support it, having to feed all of your people at all costs can be limiting, see Agricola, but being too lax can also be bad, see Le Havre.

The essence of the game to me is the tight knit bond between these mechanics, what you do in one area will shape your path in the others and vice versa. On the surface it may seem that choice of actions is vital but leading in turn order means (simplistically) taking the less useful workers, so if action selection is important then recruitment is the vital area as that controls your position in the turn order, but then events dictate what you need to be focussing on so event management is key as well; however, you still need to be taking particular actions at the right time ahead of your opponents to survive the events so turn order for interaction is important, so you have all these competing priorities and it’s how you manage and balance them, almost like a tight rope walk, possibly with some added juggling, and if you lose your balance you will fall or drop something that will come back to haunt you later.

Within these areas are multiple choices, if you are at the back of the turn order you can recruit more money lenders to finance taking any action and hire more elder workers, or spotting the change of the game from building your little empire to change from infrastructure development/disaster management to pure VP production etc. It feels like nothing is wasted even if your actions appear small they add up significantly over the course of the game, every action you do counts; this can cause a bit of a problem as it means that mistakes aren’t tolerated, much like Age of Steam is maligned for, “well it’s just too tough, one mistake and you are out”, although typically this is just an early experience when new to the game. Sometimes you just need to push past a couple of early losses to realise what the value of different areas are and how you can avoid the same pitfalls that befell you next time.

Integration of Theme

The theme is not the be all and end all of the game but I do like the Chinese theme and think it works rather nicely, not in a way that makes me see the mechanics and imagine I’m ruling a Chinese empire but more that the mechanics flow together well and the link to the theme associated with each element is understandable and in most cases logical, helping you to picture the interactions in your mind as you play. A farmer collects food and you need food to feed your palaces, a builder builds more palaces and healers prevent your people from dying etc. Surely all games should do this but sometimes function of mechanic and game balance takes precedence over real world logic.

It makes a change from the Egyptian/Medieval Europe themes that are more ubiquitous, even though it would function as a game just as well with one of those themes. You could most likely re-theme it however you like without changing the core of the game but I don’t see it working better under anything else since it utilises its Chinese theme well; plus changing it to something like a fantasy/sci-fi theme would weaken the game’s appeal for me and attract a different type of gamer, so for its target market as a low-luck euro it fits.

Fundamentally, does a theme inherently appeal more or less to different people or personality types, as I’ve stated I wouldn’t like to see it with a sci-fi theme, even though I do enjoy that genre; primarily because I think the function of the game is in planning a whole game strategy, where there is little luck to change the outcome. A lot of sci-fi games that I have experienced tend to be more Ameritrash or civ building in style with a greater emphasis on luck through dice rolling or cards, and more theme immersion with a stronger story arc. Does it help to stereotype games and associate themes with types of mechanics; do trains help 18xx and Winsome games? Or more importantly, does using a train in a game aimed at the same type of players who like existing train games help the game reach those players.

So by picking a Chinese theme less utilised prevents you from assuming what the game is about but whether that is a benefit or not depends on your perspective. For some, a different theme could be appealing if they are looking for a new experience and or enjoy finding quirky mechanics, the unique themes of games tend to lend themselves to a unique mechanic. However, for others is there an unknown that they don’t want to find out, they would rather stick to themes they know because they already align with their current tastes, even if the mechanics don’t work out perfectly they can still enjoy the theme of the game and get something out of the experience. I guess this is where player types split and I sit on the side that enjoys the mechanics of the game first but also want a theme that interacts with them well, just secondarily. This may mean it doesn’t appear on my radar at first glance as I can’t discern what the game is about from its title/theme but a great game doesn’t need to show itself immediately, sometimes half the fun is discovering a hidden gem in a game you didn’t expect.

From the games I know with a subtle Chinese theme they do tend to fit within a standard game genre but also be quite radical, maybe that is their thematic future? Power Grid has a Chinese map where power plants are fixed unlike all the other maps, in 18xx there is a Chinese map, 1880 (and my favourite so far of all the 18xx) with a radical change to the relationship between operating rounds and stock rounds that gives the game a whole extra dimension. I also have new game on my radar recently that is showing up in pockets of my local gaming circles, Zong Shi, comes across as your standard soulless euro from the blurb (I can be a harsh critic of books and their covers, but I can always be tempted to look inside), since it has a Chinese theme I’ll have to give it a try now.

Potentially you could remove the theme from ITYOTD entirely but this would make it somewhat more confusing, there are a lot of moving parts and different types of workers and giving them a real life identity makes it a lot easier to relate their use to the game and get on with focusing on the interactions with the other players rather than the interactions of the components to the mechanics.

In fact, the thing that most attracted me to this game most of all was not just playing it but reading about it, I enjoyed my initial plays of it and mechanically wanted to stress test it more, it was one of those games that at the end I could follow it through in my head and picture the pitfalls, and when I can see where I’ve gone wrong I’m inspired to try again and improve. And so I wandered around BGG and came across some great session reports by Alan Kwan, my favourite being http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/489112/ , they don’t appear to be uber-competent players other than the poster but it helped give a flavour of the theme of the game to me, the importance of different elements and a different perspective to view the game interactions…..and the nights.

Game Scaling

From my initial plays with four & five players, that quantity seemed ideal; more players to contend with resulting in more competition over action spaces, workers and events. This led me to avoid the lower player counts, assuming they wouldn’t work as well but I found myself later playing some three player games to get my fix of ITYOTD and two or three player games being easier to get started on the Board Game Arena. Fortunately my findings are that the game scales incredibly well in such subtle ways that it still feels the same but presents a different challenge, the game already does that with the sequencing of events but I can recommend different player counts as well. Player interaction is normally the element that is hard to control with game scaling so how is that handled? Turn order is at the heart of this interaction, firstly with the available actions and secondly with the worker recruitment.

Within action selection, the actions are spread thinly with more players so being 1st isn’t necessarily so important, there will still likely be a fight with your closest neighbours if that is all you need, with fewer players the actions are more constrained so if you need to guarantee your actions then going earlier is more important, being 1st rather than 2nd could make all of the difference. On the flip side, there aren’t usually many great actions that you are wanting to take on a given turn (i.e. on turn one you probably want to build a palace or purchase a scroll most of all), given a fair distribution of actions then taking your action last in a high player count game will be more pronounced as you will be getting the 5th choice of 7 different actions. With fewer players there is more luck involved in the action randomisation to help counteract the lack of player choices, so a high player count game will put more emphasis on reading other players and utilising your turn order position, leading to the interaction being ‘better’ with more players but what about the workers?

The scaling on workers allows enough elders so that all but one player can get each type (although you are not limited to one of each so it’s possible more players can miss out), great in a five player game as you have 4 available but when there are just the two of you there is just the one to fight over and suddenly turn order interaction is back on the table again at the lower player counts, you may have a better probability of getting the action you want but you may not be so lucky with the workers and reading players intentions at critical junctions are still just as vital.

I always admire games that actually scale well, too often a game box has a wide range but it really only works for a subset, certainly you will have a preference for what works for you. I think at the moment I would go with three or four to sit in the middle but I wouldn’t turn down a game at the extremes every now and then, although five player may lose out due to the game taking so much time per player.

The game time also scales, fairly proportionally as you have the same number of rounds but this is hard to avoid without making the game too shallow at the upper end or dragging out at the lower. Age of Industry is a prime example of this with two, to make it work you do need to shorten the game and take out some of the cards, as opposed to say Planet Steam that does it well just by changing the number of rounds, the game plays in around the same time but you have to play to the number of rounds you have and influencing the optimal player count, since the number of rounds affects the story arc, four player being my ideal with enough rounds to get up and running but ending before it outstays its welcome.

This streamlined scale change is my ideal as compared to say Agricola that keeps the same basic actions but provides a different set of cards per player to balance the worker placement with more or less players, that’s mostly okay, the real downside is with removing cards from the occupation decks; basically there are fun cards in the deck but you can’t use them as you don’t have enough players to make them fun and creating a desire to play with more players to get the ‘full’ experience. Case in point I much prefer the four player game so that all of the possible options and interactions are present in the occupation cards but also without the five player actions which I dislike (only 2 woods spaces and guaranteed timing of the family growth).

In ITYOTD you get the same feel of the game with any player count and don’t feel like you are missing something only present with a particular player number. The simple changes help keep it tight, even if there aren’t enough players to provide all of the competition you can constrain the availability of resources to force players to have more need for interaction, so the game doesn’t feel too open at two or too constrained and chaotic at five. This nicely leads me to….

Luck, Chaos and Interaction

Luck being what I would consider game induced and here it only features in the action group randomisation as opposed to chaos which would be player generated, how much the other players can affect your turn before you take it and whether you could predict it enough to make an informed decision earlier, did your previous action encourage them to do something else instead.

Sometimes a game can have a lucky draw in it, for those who have prepared and ensured they have enough money to do any action if they are at the bottom of the turn order and find themselves looking at player three and seeing them with no money (from stretching their position too far) and still getting a good action that would have cost them money if you were going earlier, or on the other side if you focus on maximising a benefit from a weaker action (for the other players strategy ahead of you in the turn order) and it keeps getting paired with an action they want then you are constantly paying to do it. Despite this observation I am not sure it is over wrought with luck and that more often than not a good strategy will overcome the luck of the action selection, otherwise I wouldn’t still be playing it, unlike other action selection games you cannot observe them in the same manner as a game with a fixed selection. Arguably in the above case if player three had anticipated the players ahead needing different actions leaving him a good one for free that also prevented player four taking it then that was his plan and not a lucky draw; it’s very situational and not a position I can really argue much further for or against at only 20 plays with mixed ability players, this would start to shine through with equally skilled players to see if the luck is what separates close scores or even further subtle variations in skill, certainly it will be something I keep an eye on.

As an aside, there is a level of luck in games that subconsciously tend to drive me against them if its too prevalent, it happened to me with Acquire, after a while I couldn’t get over the fact that sometimes your tiles give you nothing to do; sometimes all you can really achieve is maximising the other half of the game about observing the other players incentives and seeing where you can get a second place and some income (taking over first when they have the connection tiles isn’t generally a winning strategy unless it’s safe and you are going for end game value), but when you can’t influence any of the board positions directly and get involved in the game as a whole then I can walk away from it unsatisfied.

Getting to the chaos of player interaction, it’s not too fierce, players cannot reverse your position in any way but there are plenty of opportunities for them to advance their own game while stifling yours, primarily because you are all facing the same events and will need to take the same actions and some point in the game, particularly for food and building palaces. However, there are so many things that need to be done before the end, if you are prevented in one area it’s likely you can skip ahead to the next and enact revenge. So the elder warrior you wanted has gone and you will be forced to surrender to the Mongols, well you better get your scholar earlier than planned and go for a lead in VP’s before anyone else joins in.

Largely you can tell what players will want to do but as there are a few possibilities you can’t plan perfectly and strikes the right balance for me in possibilities that others have so it’s not obvious what will happen, with enough limitations so that you can view their strategy and play with or against it as your own strategy dictates. The interaction here is real, you can’t just play on your own board, the workers are limited, your turn order is important and the actions you want to take will be unavailable if you are not careful.

Game Balance

So the game provides you with a network of interconnected actions but are they balanced? Should you always buy a large scroll for 2 VP per turn? Are the VP’s for fireworks worth competing for? Are monk’s too good giving you 6 prestige for turn order? So far, I haven’t noticed anything to be overpowered, you can recruit tons of scholars to earn VP’s but they provide you no other benefit or help with events so what you gain in one area you lose in another, plus an opponent will get ahead in the turn order and take it too, forcing you to spend money as well so suddenly it’s not so powerful, some player control can be needed but even without player interference the other priorities of the game will take over as well. You have a palace full of Warriors but who is feeding them and keeping them in good health?

You can buy a large scroll and boost your VP generation but a palace would have gotten you half that, saved 6 Yuan and housed another worker, the streamlined VP generation gives you multiple choices at each venue, if you are lagging in VP income but can’t afford to feed more palaces then you could recruit your lady earlier, maybe you switch and lead the fireworks while the other players are busy building their palaces, or you starve them of food/money and make them pay for expanding so much.

It’s not quite an economic engine although it operates similarly, you build up a palace, recruit more workers and get more oomph from your actions; but you generally only need to take an action once or twice and then you are done with it before you need to move on to the next item. This is more about how do you get everything done, there isn’t an opportunity to exploit one area as all areas are important and there is a limited benefit you can get by pursuing one path too far. A monk may seem a high value for turn order but what has he improved or prevented by not picking something else, the multiple connections make it hard to really see the full value but I can’t describe it any better than it feels solid when playing it, I’ve not seen any overriding strategies, openings, particular philosophies ruling the game. Even with the same group you can’t play it the same as the event set-up will have such a bearing on your decisions.

This isn’t Dominion, once the set-up is done, you can scout the options but there isn’t a combo in there with a high probability of winning and in a subsequent game you see half of that combo appear but is totally useless. All of the actions in ITYOTD have their purpose, you may not use them all every game but they are all viable options in the right circumstances, even within the same game but you picked one over the other as it worked slightly better with your available actions on your turn at the time.

This reminds me of Goa where there is a heavy emphasis on collecting sets of cards as they provide such an overwhelmingly high amount of VP’s that to ignore them is a losing strategy and if your options don’t allow pursuing that avenue then creating your own alternative path to victory just won’t be as good. I think there is enough scope in ITYOTD for you to carve your own route and if you execute it well then the game provides you enough variety in scoring, workers and actions to allow competing ideologies.

It’s sometimes a problem in most games if players are left with no competitors in a field that they win due to the lack of resistance, partly this is true here too, a player left at the front of the queue can utilise this for a win, having a big enough lead in turn order will enable a player to have the same benefits as a player who dropped out of the turn order race (i.e. getting elder workers etc.) plus save money on their actions so it’s worth noting that turn order is important and shouldn’t be gifted to another player without consideration.

The economic undertone with Yuan is also smoothly implemented, even without a way to make money you can pass and get 3 Yuan that will guarantee you an action of your choice next turn or you can pursue a Tax Collector strategy and earn several turns worth of cash to save you the passing actions and have enough money to pay for something else. So even with a hotly contested turn order you have the ability to take the action you need with the control of Yuan, not to be overlooked when you place your valuation on being first in the turn order.

At the end of the game, however well or badly I’ve done I can always see where the pitfalls were and what worked well, I’ve never felt cheated by the actions or that I was locked out of a path. It’s always that I could have done something differently, not that X was underpowered and I thought it would be better than Y, more like X was weak for me but I should have taken the extra worker earlier to make it worthwhile for me, it worked for player B because he didn’t need such a powerful effect from it.

Strategy vs Tactics

I’ve talked about strategy in snippets of other areas but not really touched on the nuances of tactics, without getting in to semantics strategy being the general plan with tactics being your individual turn (but I have used strategy to cover both collectively as well – the joys of language).

From the moment you see the arrangement of events for the game in hand you can work on your strategy. Are taxes and drought next to each other? If so you may want to make sure you have enough money to pay 4 Yuan and still get your necessary food. Do you collect rice early? Do you hoard enough money for both? Do you aim for the front of the queue for action selection? Will you have someone expendable and can give yourself an extra action selection to work on something else? This is your semblance of a strategy but it won’t be as easy as picking an option and going for it as no-one else will let you get an easy ride, they are most likely considering the same options. Essentially you can’t have a strict plan, you do need to be flexible and play tactically from turn to turn amongst your fellow players.

It’s difficult to plan too far ahead, for me I’d keep a few rounds in mind, what actions do I need to take over the next two to three rounds? What workers will I need to support those actions and events? Where do I think I am going to sit in the turn order? Can I afford to take some elder? Then round to round you can assess how well you can execute your plan, possibly a spanner gets thrown in the works so you change course and take a hit, maybe you see a better opportunity to expose a flaw in an opponent’s plan, sabotaging them and allowing you more freedom in the future.

Although you must keep the long-term future in mind, so you have your food for the first drought but the next one isn’t until the end of the game, hmmm well that farmer will have to stick around, when do I execute the second batch, will I need to recruit another farmer with the wild cards? Will I need those wild cards for something else? Something not on the horizon yet so needed for flexibility?

This isn’t Cuba, where in my experience you make your strategy choice on turn one and have to stick with it or lose any sort of coherence. i.e. you want to make cigars , you need two particular buildings and to hope you are not competed against so that you can sell your wares throughout the game, it’s difficult to switch your production engine as investment in buildings are so costly and also unique in most cases, they won’t be there later in the game. If the game shifts away from cigars then there won’t be much you can do about it.

With ITYOTD everything is likely to show up, you will want to expand your palace, you will feed your people and heal the sick, you may try your hand at firework shows and book learning. The question is when and how much; this can fluctuate wildly from game to game and even from your original plan, allowing enough flexibility to work with the game and the player who spots the flow the best and works with the wave will stay standing. In this regard it feels a lot like Brass, another favourite, where you compete with everyone in a shared space. You might want to build mills all game but if coal is depleted you can build a coal mine instead and deviate slightly to take advantage of an opportunity you couldn’t plan for. You need a strategy to maximise your efficiency but you don’t lock yourself in to despair.

Ultimately I enjoy the decisions on offer and that is one of the reasons why I will keep coming back to this for many years to come. Plenty of things to think about in advance and a lot to keep tabs on as the other players take their actions, pinpointing where your threats and opportunities lie.

Other Games by Stefen Feld

*Disclaimer* I’ve not played any other Stefan Feld design as much as ITYOTD so you will only be getting my initial impressions, but of those I’ve played they are all quite intriguing in their own right and I have sampled a vast majority of them, but they haven’t latched themselves on to my psyche for further investigation as much. ITYOTD was the first I played of his and since I enjoyed it so much I kept an eye out for his subsequent games but so far I haven’t found anything with the same attractiveness of simple mechanics and deep gameplay.

His games tend to fall within two categories, an integrated system of connected mechanics, ITYOTD and Luna; or a novel mechanic with a game built around it, Notre Dame, The Castle of Burgandy, Trajan, Macao, The Speicherstadt and Strasbourg; some boundaries are more blurred than others but this is where I see them sitting currently.

The integrated systems are the most unrepresented so the only other game close to ITYOTD I have found is Luna and this is his game I’m expectedly most intrigued by, but it has its downsides. The main problem for me being that it requires more experience to play well, the interaction of the different Islands with each other and setting up a chain of actions to get your desired result is quite long, you need to be a lot more strategic and there seems less scope for interaction with the other players and tactical manoeuvring, the competition is more of a race to grab the VPs in the middle with some jostling for holding territories afterwards. It does interest me but it would need to be with others who knew it well to get deeper in to player chosen set-ups but it doesn’t interest me enough to get a copy and other players up to speed.

The others are all quite different as well; Stefan Feld certainly gets marks for originality and uniqueness so I feel I need to try them to see if I find another hidden gem, I don’t want to write them off beforehand.

Notredame was the second game of his I played and the one I’ve played most after ITYOTD. It has a similar feel with a simple scaling of the play area and interaction through action selection; however, the randomisation got to me after a couple of plays. The combination of having to work with 3 of 9 cards from your deck (of which you keep just 1) plus 2 from your neighbour that are likely to be suboptimal selections for you, plus by turn 4 you may draw all 3 cards that you want for your strategy and have to give two away, relying on your neighbour giving you something to work with. The combination of luck and chaos to get your choice of actions seems to me like it’s not possible to really get an effective strategy going and that tactical play isn’t so useful as the action spaces provide a greater benefit the more they are used and a mixed approach wouldn’t work. I think I would enjoy it more if I could pick the 3 cards before the drafting started, although I suspect this would push up the thinking time and its effect on game balance would be suspect.

Everything else I have only played once, some ventures in to dice mechanics, with Macao I loved the resource controlling aspect but hated the card purchasing, some seemed so much more powerful than others and one appeared that was powerful enough to win me the game and I just happened to be collecting the colours for it at the time it appeared. I guess with more experience you could plan and avoid these sorts of things but the easy win left a bad taste in my mouth. The Castles of Burgandy I liked but I don’t really remember much about it, seemed friendly enough but nothing that really stood out, the dice rolling limits how much I think it would go in my estimation as it limits how much I can plan ahead to compete with the other players.

The Speicherstadt was nice, but the mechanic of the cost of cards being how many people wanted to buy it after you had such a shallow game around it, too long for a filler but not enough meat for a main game, I hear the expansion helps so I may try it out with that. Strasbourg was similar, I enjoyed the mechanic which seemed primarily to be you had so much you could spend on actions but you had to get your whole allocation up front and assign so much each turn, some nice second guessing of your fellow players and definitely interesting but not enough game for the time involved.

Lastly I come to Trajan, well I’m not really sure how to describe it other than needlessly complicated. Mancala may be an interesting premise for a worker placement game but there is so much chrome and different areas of the board that it felt like Vinhos, tons of rules for a fairly standard length game that could have been streamlined but then the remains would not really be that interesting. I expect I do it a disservice as I only played the one game, the rules intensive learning game but it was too much of the eyes down, focus on your own board as you have a lot going on here, you need to plan how you will take your actions so you feel like oy uare in control; with no real opportunity to see what the other players are doing and even if you could, how do you discern what they are about to do?

Maybe I expected more out of the games or didn’t give them a fair chance but I’ll keep learning Stefan Feld games and I’d recommend trying them, just because you don’t like one the next could be the one you are looking for as they have such a variety in styles, that next novel mechanic could be the one that resonates with you.

Conclusion

So we find ourselves at the end of our journey, I’ve enjoyed having a deeper look at some of the interactions, there’s certainly scope to assess some of them much deeper but I am very much a player of intuition and if a VP/action ratio feels good I will pursue it; if that gets beaten I will reassess, the problem here is that I keep needing to do that most games since different actions and workers vary so much with different set-ups. It feels a lot like Power Grid which has the similar feel of the game being dictated by how the power plants come out, what the other players think about them and how they all interact together. Doing well involves a lot of reassessing based on the game state changes but also a slowly building collection of rules for you to play by from previous experience, i.e. don’t go all coal and leave yourself open to fuel shortages or rush ahead too far with cities, think about turn order. So while it may be a problem for me to come up with a strategy, it is great to keep the game interesting for me.

In summary, In the Year of the Dragon appeals to me for its pleasant theme, interaction of all the elements of the gameplay, workers, actions, phases; that it scales well for however many players you can convince to play (hopefully more now) and that you have a vast array of strategies to employ amongst the variety of set-ups that will come out. For the weight of the rules and length of the game, this packs a punch and one of the reasons I may not play as often as I would like is that it is quite intensive, disaster management games tend to be like that anyway as there is a level of stress in reaching the finishing line and amongst experienced players it is usually neck and neck all of the way through with a photo finish. So if you are looking for a light and fluffy game this isn’t it but if you want something with low luck, high interaction and longevity of gameplay then you can’t get much better than this.

Review: Dominion:: [Voice of Experience] Dominion: 4000 plays later

theory — Tue, 29 May 2012 02:27:11 +0000

by theory

The author of this review is the founder of DominionStrategy.com. This is an entry for the Voice of Experience review contest, which aims to compile reviews written by those that are experienced with the games they review.

Like reading a novel, playing a board game in depth involves trust. You have to trust that the time and effort you invest into the game will be rewarded. You have to trust that the designer has thought through the implications of the rules, that the game will persistently entertain and challenge you, and that the game's strategy cannot be reduced down to a rote algorithm. Although you may eventually tire of a game through no fault of its own, it is the designer's job to ensure that so long as you wish to continue playing, there will always be more to explore.

If you have never played Dominion before, there are many other reviews on BoardGameGeek that will tell you that you should. It's accessible, a great way to introduce people to the hobby, and it lays the foundation for a whole slew of deck-building games to come. It's not everyone's favorite game, but most would probably recommend it.

This review aims higher: it is geared towards those that have played Dominion, but are undecided on its long-term potential. It was fun, but is it really worth playing over and over again? Is there really anything more to explore? Will I still find it interesting, or challenging, or entertaining even after I play it dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of times?

The answer is yes. In other words, Dominion is worthy of your trust. It is a game that is enjoyable the first time, but even more enjoyable your 1000th time.

I write this from the perspective of someone who has played Dominion over 4000 times in three and a half years, who manages the Dominion Strategy website and its thriving community, and who still has yet to exhaust the depths of this game. I do not regret for one second the amount of time I have invested into this game, for it has consistently rewarded my exploration and presented new and exciting discoveries every game.

This review is not intended to discuss the components or the rules. If anything, it assumes a passing familiarity with the rules of Dominion. Nor is it intended to be a review solely of the base game. The base game is enjoyable on its own, but it is only with expansions that Dominion becomes a transcendent game.

So why do I enjoy playing Dominion, 4000 games later?

Variety / Depth

When you shuffle together a Kingdom of 10 cards, you are, in all likelihood, playing a Kingdom that has never been played before and never will be played again. These are not subtle changes that merely tweak how the game plays out. In most games, the variable setup is something that you must adapt into your standard strategy, and the game tests how you are able to shoehorn the initial starting conditions into your pre-ordained route to victory. (For instance, the overall strategy in Pandemic is fairly well-defined, and the variability presents a predominantly tactical challenge.)

Dominion is different. Not only does it offer staggering variety (there are an estimated 2 quadrillion or so Kingdoms, enough that if you played a Kingdom every second of your life it would take 63 million years to play them all), but your entire game strategy (not just your tactics) must change to adapt to each set. Introducing a new Kingdom is not about tweaking your preferred strategy to fit the Kingdom, but about freshly analyzing each Kingdom, as if it were a brand new game.

As an example, consider the following two kingdom sets:

This Kingdom has Fishing Village, which allows you to play many Actions per turn. With so many Actions, you can stack powerful Actions on top of each other, and Treasures like Silver and Gold will only get in your way. Actions like Bridge increase in power multiplicatively, and so the best approach is likely going to involve playing a lot of Bridges (to buy out a lot of Victory cards at once). How do you get those Bridges in hand? Council Room will help you draw all of them into your hand, but it increases your opponents' handsize as well. Militia is a solution to this problem, because it will cut your opponent's hand down to 3 cards regardless of how many cards he draws from your Council Room. So you might want to build a deck focused on Bridges, Council Rooms, Fishing Villages, and a Militia.

The second Kingdom is the same, except with Sea Hag replacing Fishing Village. But what a difference that makes -- now, with Sea Hag, every player will find their deck flooded with Curses. And without a source of additional Actions, you can't play more than one Bridge or Council Room a turn. Nor is Militia as strong of a card any more: if much of your deck consists of Curses, then it's not as big a deal to discard down to three cards in hand. Suddenly, you'll want to adopt a completely different strategy, probably one relying on Treasures like Silver and Gold to increase your buying power. Trading Post becomes a valuable Action because it can crunch those Curses into Silvers. Gardens offers an alternative to Provinces: maybe you don't thin your deck, and instead use those extra Curses in your deck to fatten it up for VPs from Gardens. If the Sea Hags run out the Curses, and you buy out the Gardens, then you only need to empty one more pile for the game to end, and you can probably accomplish this before your opponent(s) can rebuild their deck up to buy Provinces.

What this illustrates is that how changing even a single card in a Kingdom set radically alters the gameplay. Every card responds to the substitution: if you go into Dominion with the mindset that "Silver and Gold is the key to victory", or "Militia is a strong attack", or even "You should buy Provinces to win the game", you will lose terribly when those maxims no longer hold true. In other words, mastering Dominion is not about memorizing a bunch of axioms; it is instead about developing the ability to evaluate a board holistically and spot the "big picture".

Of course, there are not unique strategies for each of the 2 quadrillion possible Kingdoms. But the point is that Dominion's variety is not just window dressing: there might not be 2 quadrillion different strategies, but there is certainly far more to Dominion than you can explore in any single game. It took tens of thousands of games for the community to discover the awesome power of the King's Court - Goons - Masquerade pin. Not until earlier this year, with the aid of computer simulations, did most of the strategic community begin to appreciate the power of a Duke/Duchy engine. You could not hope to capture all of Dominion's strategy in a single article: even an entire site, a year and a half later, could not encapsulate all there is to know about this game.

(If you are interested in further insights into how a high-level player approaches Dominion sets, I would highly recommend reading one of the Annotated Games (for example, #11, or #9) or watching a YouTube video.)

It took the Dominion community years to realize the game-warping power of this cross-expansion combination. Can you spot the combo?

This is what I think is the critical factor behind Dominion's depth. Unlike most board games, it is quite literally impossible to see all of Dominion's strategy space in a single game, or two games, or even a hundred games. Every game offers a new combo, an unexpected interaction, or a surprising counter. It is not uncommon for the next game you play to feature none of the strategic concepts you developed in the previous game. In most games, when you lose, you can go back and point to a mistake you made, and think, "Oh, I should have known that." In Dominion, when you lose, you can look back and say, "Well, I learned something new this time."

Many of Dominion's critics point out that on any given board, it is simply a matter of divining the "optimum" strategy. This ignores Dominion's occasional rock-paper-scissors strategy potential, as well as the tactical considerations in managing your shuffle luck, but more importantly, it fundamentally misses the point of Dominion. Dominion is a game that demands to be replayed. Playing Dominion once is as far from the true Dominion experience as playing a single hand of Bridge (or Spades, or Tichu). Each game presents its own challenges, but it is only with experience that you can develop the ability to handle a random board with confidence.

A natural consequence of this is that Dominion has unparalleled depth. This is not a game where a beginner would do well against an expert. You might be able to play one particular kingdom set well, but until you have had the experience of a thousand games or so, you cannot hope to defeat a well-rounded player on a random board. There are simply too many potential combinations, ranging from the obvious (Alchemist-Herbalist are in the same expansion for a reason) to the arcane (Horse Traders/Duke, Watchtower/Talisman/Treasure Map, King's Court/Goons/Masquerade, all of which span multiple expansions), to the game-specific.

Some consider this a flaw. I consider it a virtue. There should be no reason to ever study a game where a beginner stands a reasonable chance of winning. I want a game that rewards experience, that permits further study, that has meaning to its replayability. If I can master (or even start mastering) a game after my first play, then it becomes a game consigned to the played-once-and-never-again bin.

So the main reason I love Dominion is that it is a game that never bores me. Playing it over and over again may sound repetitive, but it is anything but. The fact that every Kingdom presents new possibilities keeps me coming back for more: it is like playing a new board game every time. Although there are high-level concepts that carry over between games, each Kingdom poses a unique challenge, and there are enough potential Kingdoms to keep me engaged for decades to come.

Accessibility

At the other end of the pendulum, it is possible for a game to be so deep that it is no longer enjoyable to learn. Dominion's true triumph of design is that it combines its depth with an extraordinarily simple rule set and quick playing time. I have not met a single person that was put off by Dominion's rules, which are clear, consistent, and almost never subject to rules arguments. Moreover, not only is it simple to learn, it is also simple to enjoy. You can play the game 4000 times and enjoy the depth, but you can also enjoy it the very first time you play it. By contrast, you might introduce someone to Chess, Go, or Bridge, and be able to convince them of the depth of each game, but they will not enjoy the game very much until they reach a certain level of skill. There is no game like Dominion that offers both its level of depth and its level of accessibility.

In particular, Dominion is both rules-accessible and strategy-accessible. In other words, it is both easy to learn to play (play an ACTION, BUY a card, CLEAN up), and also easy for a beginner to have a vague idea of where to begin. By contrast, a game like Go offers rules-accessibility but not strategy-accessibility: you might know the rules, but not how to play. Of course, Dominion's strategy-accessibility doesn't mean that a beginner can immediately master its strategy, but the point is that there is meaning and enjoyability to this game at every level. You can study it, but you don't have to. To me, that's the mark of an outstanding game.

Criticisms of Dominion

I make no pretense that Dominion is a perfect game. Two of the most common criticisms of Dominion is that it lacks interaction, and that it lacks theme. Both are criticisms that contain some truth, but have not prevented me from enjoying this game.

Interaction

The primary criticism of Dominion is that it does not have "strong" interaction, in the sense that the game does not depend on opponents like The Settlers of Catan does. It is a game that can theoretically be played solo (though there is little point in doing so). Nevertheless, it has indirect interaction in several key respects:

* Attacks affect other players, and responding to attacks is one of the strategic
* More importantly, your opponents help dictate your tempo. The goal isn't to score as many VPs as you can; it's to have the most VPs by the end of the game. How your opponents play affects how the game ends, and which of the game-end conditions you should pursue.

In other words, a Dominion board is not simply a puzzle where you attempt to identify the best strategy. It is a competitive puzzle, where your 'solution' is a combination of both what the board suggests and what best counters your opponent.

Nevertheless, Dominion will never have the same level of interaction as Cosmic Encounter. I tend to think that this an accusation in search of a flaw. I don't play Dominion if I want a political, backstabbing game. Nor would I play Cosmic Encounter if I want a serious, low-chaos experience. Dominion focuses on what it does, and does it exceptionally well. You can pick on Dominion for low interaction, or Cosmic Encounter for high chaos, but such a criticism implicitly assumes that the perfect game is supposed to incorporate everything. In my mind, the games that stick with you, that cement their status as classics of the genre, tend to be the games that excel at what they do, instead of being middling at a whole bunch of things.

If anything, Dominion wears the "multiplayer solitaire" badge with pride, for it is an outstanding example of how you can make a superb game with zero politics involved. If you don't like arguing about how you should put the robber on Rob because he's already ahead, or how you should stop blocking me, because you blocked me already, and I'm so far behind, and why don't you block Jill instead, then Dominion is the game for you.

Theme

The other common criticism of Dominion is that it does not have a good theme. I do not disagree with this assessment: Dominion is not intended to be a thematic game. If you like your games to tell a stirring narrative, you will not enjoy the prospect of trying to explain how one "remodels" a Moat into a Village.

For some, this is a dealbreaker. For others, it will not be a big deal. I tend to believe Dominion does not need a theme: as implied above, I would rather play a minimally-themed game than compromise Dominion's elegant and precise mechanics. Of course, you may disagree, and prefer to sacrifice some elegance of mechanics in exchange for a stronger theme, in which case there are many Dominion spinoffs that you should consider instead.

X-Factors

I prefer to play this game online instead of in person. First, games are significantly faster (10 minutes instead of 30, plus no setup/teardown), but more importantly, it eliminates the need to constantly shuffle your cards. If you play this game in person, you have to deal with these annoying factors, which I admit may detract from the experience. Then again, this is a flaw common to most Eurogames, so take from that what you will.

Conclusion

I consider Dominion to be one of the finest board games this hobby has ever produced. It has no equivalent: there is no other game that combines rules-accessibility, strategy-accessibility, and depth the way that Dominion does. In particular, Dominion's variable setup is an oft-imitated but never-reproduced mechanic: the reason it succeeds is that each new game of Dominion is not just a new set of tactical considerations, but an altogether new strategic landscape. In a hobby where people are always itching to try something new, or discard the familiar for the novel, or own hundreds of games yet never know what to play, Dominion reminds us that sometimes, all you need is one great game.

Review: Hogwarts: House Cup Challenge:: The Purge: Review #3: Hogwarts: Why are the kid wizards not working together?

william4192 — Tue, 29 May 2012 01:09:18 +0000

by william4192

Conclusion: I will not hide the ball. This is a very fun game if you are a fan of Harry Potter. Mileage may vary if you are not a fan of the game of the books/movies (really the movies). The game is dripping with theme with all the art being straight from the first five movies. It is a shame there is not an expansion that will include the rest of the movies (can we fix this!). This is a game we were unsure of, but now will keep part of our collection for a very long time.

Components: Everything in this game is very high quality. The pictures are from the movies, the cards are of good stock, the wand that denotes first player is very, very nice, and chits used are of high quality. My only real complaint is the use of non-miniatures for the players. I do not normally like "stand up pictures", but it does not really hinder the game at all. Really it just makes me feel like I am playing a kid's game.

Rules: The rules are short and answer most questions I had. There is an easy version and a normal version. I'd recommend skipping the easy unless you are playing with kids.

Flow of play (fun factor): Some, but not all, of the fun is directly related to whether you like Harry Potter. We play it normally with two players. With two players you will need to use a variant, otherwise your character gets too powerful and you will never fail any test in the game. This is a very easy fix. With 3-4, the game is much more tight and has more decisions that needs to be made. It can play with 2-4 with a tweak of the rules with 2 players.

In our games, it normally comes down to a single VP and it does not feel like fake like in Power Grid. The last game we played I lost because of a bad decision I made.

Flow of the game: The flow is there will be 3 actions made (one at a time for all players) for each turn. This is where you can put cards on the board, draw cars, move, or try to pass a test (these are on the cards). After all players take their 3 actions, you check to see if the next year has happened (every 100 VP another year of cards are shuffled in). If 100 VP were not earned, nothing happens. Then, you ensure there are 4 cards on the table and give the wand to next player (this is first player token). After one turn, you will breeze through your turn and know what you want to do.

Should you buy this game?: If you like board games and like Harry Potter (especially the movies!) then yes. Yes! Yes! Yes! If you are just so-so on the game, I'd still say yes but not so loudly. Being that the price is not very high, I'd say it is different enough from most games that you should have fun with this. If you do not like Harry Potter, then no this game is not for you (but I bet you already knew that).

Review: Airships:: The Purge: Review #2: Airships: Building a ship that will crash

william4192 — Tue, 29 May 2012 01:07:33 +0000

by william4192

Conclusion: Most reviews hide the ball. I will not. Airships is a simple dice rolling game that is easy to learn, fun to play, and allows you to practice your math skills. This is a fun filler that is one of the top dice rolling games I've played.

My wife likes this game more than me. There is little down time and you are constantly doing something.

Components: Everything is of a good stock. The artwork is sufficient. The weak point is all the "people" on the cards have the same picture. So, all the engineers look the same. It would have been much better to have real people and to have incorporated some history into the game. The art that is there is very nice and cartoon like. The boards you use for the game are all of high stock. The nice are nice, but there are not enough of them. I hate having to give my dice to the next person. I'd rather have "my" dice that I roll and not have to give them back and forth. I would think that dice are cheap, so no idea why more are not included.

Rules: The rules are laid out in classic Queen Games format. Due to the fact the game is simple, there is not a lot of ambiguity in the rules. With that said, it did take us a few minutes to figure out how to use the wooden ship and I'm not sure if I am doing it right. Overall, it was not a hard game to learn so the rules do their job.

Flow of Play (or fun factor): My wife had more fun with the game than I did. I can only have so much fun rolling dice over and over. The game flows that you draw a card that gets put on the board that anyone can obtain. You then decide which card on the main board you will take. In order to take the card, you have to roll certain dice and get a certain combined number in order to be able to take the card. By taking a card, you either get victory points, more dice you can roll in the future or a befit where you get a chit that can add to your rolls. That is it. Pretty simple.

Time: In a 2 player game, you can play in about 20-40 minutes depending on your AP. I'm sure if you get to know the cards and the dice (different color dice have different numbers on them) you will be able to speed the game up by about 10 minutes. I've yet to play a multi-player game, but it shouldn't add a ton more time. Our game ran long only because I had a huge lead and I really want to build the Hinderburg (I never did).

Should you buy this game: Maybe. If you are looking for a quick filler or a game that can end a night with a quick one off, then this might be just the game you are looking for. You will be rolling a lot of dice. If you have a sleeping kid (we normally do), be aware that rolling dice can be loud. If you don't mind the dice and don't mind the quick, easy game, then this is the game for you. Just don't look for anything too deep. I believe every collection should have a few games like this.

Review: Cults Across America:: The Purge: Review #1: I was thinking about joining a cult...

william4192 — Tue, 29 May 2012 00:44:47 +0000

by william4192

Conclusion: Too many reviews hide the ball. I want the conclusion first. This is a decent game if you like Risk. Other than Risk: Legacy (which I have not played), if I was going to play traditional Risk, I think I would play Cults Across America first. The rules (or lack of player aids) and the production values keep me from enjoying the game.

I'm a religious man, but I find great humor in this game. If you are offended by this sort of humor then this will not be the game for you. As the game is older it does have older mechanics and your mileage may vary.

Components: Big company; small company; medium size company; I don't care. You are judged on whether I like the game parts or not. I'm aware that this was produced by a small company, but when I'm playing the game I like nice pieces. The way a game looks can draw me in. I like the art in the original Glory to Rome, I like Agricola Art, I like all types of things. I'm not big on boring chits. I can get past it if the game is great. The game board is not really a board. It is printed on cardboard (or something akin) which war gamers may be used to, but I am not. I like a nice board and the folds on this board keep it from laying flat (no I don't keep plexiglass in my house, maybe I should).

Rules (or presentation of rules): The rules are easy to pick up. You move then you fight. The fighting is simple (you roll a dice and add modifiers). The fighting is not any harder than Zombies!!!!. Very simple. And very boring. The rules that were in my copy were printed on regular copy paper (perhaps my used copy just did not come with the original rules and nobody told me). There is a sample of play included, but it really is not needed. The game lacks good player aids, but everything you need is printed on the game board.

Playing the game (or fun factor): Playing the game is like Risk, War on Terror, D&D Conquest of XXX, Dust, or any other Risk clone/variant. Where this game differs is the humor (well maybe not differ from War on Terror). The humor is you are a cult leader and your minions (cult followers) are out to destroy other cults and cities. There are other monsters that you can get on your side and other "monsters" (like the pope, President of the US, etc..) that can be very powerful.

Should you buy this game?: Yes and no. If you are a collector, then buy this game. It is unique. If you want to a fun throw some dice simple game, then you could do much worse. There are variants to make it more strategic, but the game shines as a "beer and pretzel" type of game (although longer than I like for a b & p game). More than likely this game will be pretty cheap.

On the other hand, if you are a serious gamer and will not appreciate an older game, then this is not the game for you.

Review: The Guns of August:: Guns of August: play it on Vassal with the Augmented rules

fangotango — Mon, 28 May 2012 23:13:36 +0000

by fangotango

The primary complaints that players seem to have about Guns of August are:

(1) stacking issues - very unwieldy to have many hexes with 4 units plus markers, and possibly up to 7 or more

(2) too many counters - it is difficult to execute precise strategies and tactics when you have so many counters, many in large stacks, to keep track of and move around. Redoing moves is very dicey, as who can remember every move?

(3) too many errors in the rules

(4) the slow grind makes the game boring

Well, I dabbled with Guns of August over 25 years ago, and have just recently reintroduced myself to the game. I am playing my third game, all three using Vassal and playing by email, using the Augmented Rules that have been compiled by Paul Popejoy and posted in the files section here on BGG. Using Vassal and playing by email is the only way I would play the game now.

The reason I say this is that, together with the Augmented Rules, all four of the most common complaints get addressed.

Counters: With Vassal, the largest stacks are easy to handle, and troop placements are simple and quick to check. With the movement trails, it is easy to back-track units to redo moves, and the opponent can easily verify if all your moves were legal.

Rules: The Augmented Rules have addressed many of the rules issues and errata that have come up over the years. There are also additional optional rules that players can use that can create more action in the play, or give players more leeway to experiment with strategy and in building their armies. There is now an excellent mod developed by Patrick Bauer available on the Vassal site, which includes the full naval counters, and lots of other goodies (I love the rotating railheads).

Boring play: When playing face to face, there is always time pressure to complete your turn. Rarely can one come up with the best moves when fighting with the many units and awkward stacks, and the opponent wondering out loud just how long you're going to take. When playing with Vassal by email, there is no time pressure at all. This makes an enormous difference when planning one's turn. You can try as many strategies and scenarios as your heart desires on the Vassal board, since you have a save file. This makes for much more precise execution of strategies, and creates a situation where the level of play will be superior than in a face-to-face game. In the few games I have played, there has been a lot of movement at the fronts, and neither player is scared to attack. Given that one can plan very carefully the best possible deployments for each combat round, offensives become more effective.

Each turn is a big puzzle: what is the optimal strategy, and what are the optimal moves? With Vassal, you have the luxury (if you enjoy these things) of as much time, and the right tools, to play with your ideas until you are ready.

Guns of August does tend to have more and less active areas. But there is always something going on, always some strategy that you can carry out, whether on offense or defense or more likely both. The Germans largely decide, at first, where the action will be: where will they push hard, and where will they have to delay the enemy as best they can with too few troops? I would say if a game gets bogged down on all fronts, my first question would be is Germany trying to play it too safe?

Review: Aether Captains: Clockwork Cabal:: [Lonely Meeple Reviews] Aether Captains: Clockwork Cabal. You Don't Play It. It Plays You.

gertbert — Mon, 28 May 2012 22:55:49 +0000

by gertbert

Nobody knows the true origin of the famous Duck Test, but I like Douglas Adams' version best:

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.” -Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency

I thought Aether Captains: Clockwork Cabal was a game. It looks like a game. A beautiful one. A single deck of stunning cards that transforms into a player mat and a random map and a little adventure. It quacks like a game, with a pawn going here and there, and cubes moving every which way. But it is not a game. It is not even a entertaining pastime.

Playing the Game
The object of Clockwork Cabal is to obtain the 6 parts of the Antikythera Device before 60 hours have passed. This requires running around a map formed randomly from a City Sector Deck and overcoming challenges that require Health, Strength, and/or Knowledge. You begin the game with 6 Health, and if it ever goes to zero you lose. Then you roll a 12-sided die and use that number for either your starting Strength or Knowledge, and the difference between that number and 12 for the remaining attribute. A clever timer card is used to track the hours that have passed, and another is used to track pieces of the Antikythera Device.

To begin the game you place a Society Hall card from the City Sector Deck on the middle of the table. This has a special ability that lets you gain one Health for every two hours you spend, or one Strength for every one hour you spend. You can do this every time you return to this card.

There are black arrows on each side of the Society Hall card showing all the directions you can travel in. You choose one, flip a card over from the City Sector Deck, and place it adjacent to Society Hall in that direction. You can then move to the new card or stay put, but either choice uses up an hour.

Some of the City Sector cards are simple map pieces with black arrows pointing in two or more directions, and you can move off of them to keep expanding the map. Others have Key symbols printed on them, and if you obtain a Key you can travel between any two cards that have a Key symbol and lose only one hour. To get the Key you must travel to the map card from the City Sector Deck that has The Amber Market, where you can spend two Health and two Knowledge for it. The market also lets you purchase The Lens for three Health (this lets all Knowledge tests require one fewer Knowledge), and lets you exchange Strength for Knowledge.

What you’re really looking for when running around the map are cards from the City Sector Deck that have Cog symbols printed on them. These let you draw a card from a separate Location deck. A lot of these cards are events or challenges that require you to spend Strength, Knowledge, hours, or Health. Some give you bonuses and are laid on top of the Cog card, changing the arrows that appear on it (which can cut you off from cards you need to get to. Some do things like rotating a City Sector card, also changing the arrows. Six of them, though, are pieces of the Antikythera Device, and if you overcome the challenges printed on them you claim that piece. Get all six before you die or time runs out, and you win.

Is it Worth Your Time?
I look for three main things when assessing games of all types:

Are the Decisions Interesting?
Not at all. This is a game where things happen to you, not where you make things happen. You have to decide what direction to move in, which ultimately may have consequences, but they are unforeseeable. You also must decide when to regain Health and Strength, or when to get things at the market, but these decisions often are obvious. Overcoming challenges from the Location Deck, including the ones with pieces of the Antikythera Device, requires no thought or skill at all. You reduce the attribute called for, or roll the 12-sided die and win or take your lumps. One of the most frustrating things in the game is the sixth piece of the Antikythera Device, which you get if you roll a 6, 9, or 12 on the die. That’s it. I don’t know how repeatedly rolling and moving a time marker down the track until you achieve a goal is supposed to be entertaining, and likely never will.

Is There a Clear Sense of Accomplishment or Failure?
While you can obviously win or lose the game, it doesn’t feel like you actively played a role in either outcome. You move around and either run out of time or get killed or win. There’s no way to feel like you played smart or stupidly since the decision-making is so light and the randomness factor is so high. My immediate reaction after winning my first game was, “that’s it?” After playing several more times it became clear that that, indeed, was it.

If There’s a Theme, is it Tightly Integrated with the Design?
From a graphic design perspective this is a triumph. It’s gorgeous and does a great job of evoking its steampunk setting. From a game design perspective this is a disaster. If you’re supposed to get some sense of exploring a city, being ambushed by the bad guys, solving mysteries, and obtaining something of extreme value, the mechanisms all fail. There is a vague sense of exploration since the city unfolds at random, but Location Cards often change the map arbitrarily. Fighting bad guys requires reading what you’re supposed to do and doing it instead of strategizing and implementing a plan. You don’t discover pieces of the Antikythera Device, you run smack into them. And when obtaining a piece of it requires nothing more than adjusting a few stats or making a series of thoughtless rolls that you can’t modify in any way, you might as well be playing any other solitaire game.

The Verdict
In computer science, a corollary to the Duck Test is this layman’s version of the Liskov Substitution Principle:

“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction.”

Clockwork Cabal is the wrong abstraction. It isn’t a game. It needs modifiers. It needs to let players be more proactive than reactive. It needs a design instead of a script dictated by a random number generator. I had high hopes because it looks like a supermodel, but it turned out to be a vapid one. There’s no need to waste time with this when there are so many better solitaire games available (some from this same designer).

Review: Zingo!:: Bingo For Kids - But Better!

Nikoms — Mon, 28 May 2012 22:55:45 +0000

by Nikoms

Nikoms' Children's Game Disclaimer:
First off, I have noticed that many children's games are lacking much information aside from a basic image and perhaps some of the "side of the box" info. This is too bad, as many of us geeks have children and like to play games with them.

Secondly, many children's games have a two-fold goal, or at least accomplish many goals. That is, they are not only fun for the child, but teach some skill For example, many young children's games might teach counting, colors, fine motor skills, etc., while games aimed at older children might teach memory, problem solving, cooperation, etc. This is not entirely different from adult games - indeed, many games we asults like make us think and use our minds/dexterity as well. However in children's games these skills that are "taught by the game" are usually a little more obvious. As such, in all of my reviews of children's games I will try to have a section on "Skills Developed"

On to the review.

]]>

AGES: As can be clearly seen on the box front (at least on the "ThinkFun" version pictured above on the lower left hand corner), the recommended ages is 4-8. I would actually drop this down a little (3-6 perhaps). My 7 year old has moved on to other games, but enjoyed this offering quite regularly, even before his 4th birthday.

COMPONENTS: This is where this particular adaptation of Bingo really starts to shine:

First off, the box! Now, that may seem a small matter to some, but one issue with many children's games (especially ones for kids in the 4-6 year old range - when they want to play by themselves) is a flimsy or poorly designed box. Why? Because flimsy box = lost pieces. Not with Zingo. A sturdy, top-opening box was a nice design idea:
]]>

The second component which is well done is the tile dispenser:
]]>
Notice two things:

1) It's easy to work for small hands.
2) The "chutes" for the tiles are easy for even young players to help reload the dispenser ("the machine" as it is called in our house)

The tiles are a nice sturdy plastic and a colorful bright yellow.

The cards themselves are a thick, sturdy cardboard with an outer coating (think "game box" material). They are also two-sided, but I'll explain why in "game play".

ThinkFun wisely went with sturdy as a defauly for all the components - sometimes a budgetary oversight in children's games.

GAME PLAY: Again, this is a well-thought out rendition of Bingo and it shows in the game play. First, everyone gets a card - but which side to play? Red or green? Well, it depends on how "competetive" you want this game to be. The green side is for younger players - the green cards have fewer items in common with one another. The red is for older kids who want to be a little more competitive. Okay, that's a nice touch.

But how do we play? Well simple really, the dealer slides the dispenser forward, then back to reveal two tiles. You simply say the name of one of the tiles, but only if it matches one on your card. Now, here is one part of the game that is nice - the tile itself becomes the marker on your card. You pick up the tile and place it on your card directly. No small markers to lose! And there are duplicate tiles, so if you and another player both have the same items, you can still get one later.

The game states that one player is the "dealer" for the whole round, but we like to alternate - just to give everyone a chance to use "the machine".

SKILLS DEVELOPED: I know what you're thinking - it's Bingo - what skills can actually be developed playing Bingo? Well a few actually:

* Taking turns with the "machine" (any game does this, really)
* Fine motor skills (sliding the machine, as well as picking up and placing the tiles and reloading the machine)
* Word association/spelling (the tiles have the words for the object they represent on them as well)
* Counting/numbers ("How many more tiles do you need to win?" or "Who needs more to win, you or Daddy?)

CONCLUSION: This particular version of Bingo is better for young children than traditional Bingo in a few different ways. First off, it actually teaches things as mentioned above. Because it is possible for two players to have the same item, quick recognition is also a goal. Secondly, it plays more quickly than traditional Bingo (and some variations I've seen). And finally, it has a cool contraption that makes tiles "magically" appear. This has been quite popular with our youngest and he even plays it with his younger cousins. A good time is had by all and the components have held up well over time.

Review: 1846:: [Voice of Experience] 5538 Words About 1846

huber — Mon, 28 May 2012 22:10:27 +0000

by huber

1846

Designed by Tom Lehmann, and published by Deep Thought Games

Note - all pictures included in this review are from BGG. My photography skills aren't nearly this good. Also note that I've intentionally limited myself to a rough overview of 18xx, and of the specific elements of 1846.

]]>
The Game

I’ve been recording the games I play since 1996. As a result, I have played many games more times than anyone has listed here on BGG. But in nearly every case, I’m certain that someone else has actually played it more.

But not, as near as I can tell, 1846. As I write this, I’ve played 1846 104 times. The three highest totals recorded on BGG are from three of the people I often play with. And talking with Tom Lehmann, the designer, it sounds like I’ve even played it more than he has.

So, just what is 1846? (Those familiar with the game might wish to skip ahead to “Reactions”; those familiar with 18xx might wish to skip ahead to the next paragraph.) To understand 1846, it’s best to start with a quick description of the 18xx system. In general, an 18xx game is played over a set of rounds – first a stock round, then some number of operating rounds. First, there is typically an auction of private companies. Then, the stock round continues, with players taking their actions – buying and selling stock, and founding companies. If another player purchases more stock in a company than the current president, or if the president sells enough shares that another player has more, the presidency of the company is transferred. When players sell shares, they sell them to the stock market; no more than 50% of the shares in a company can be in the market. After the stock round ends – when everyone passes in turn – the operating rounds begin. In the operating rounds, companies operate, generally starting with the company with the most valuable stock. Each company lays track, and then runs its train(s). Trains run across a number of cities, indicated by each train, and including at least one station for the company. The company then either pays out the money earned to the stockholders or withholds it. Paying out dividends generally increases the value of the stock, while withholding lowers it. The company then may purchase more trains, up to the limit. At some point in the game, companies can purchase in private companies, sometimes providing benefits to the purchasing corporation but nearly always allowing the owner to shift money into his or her pockets, to reinvest. If the bank breaks, the game ends at the end of the operating rounds; otherwise, the game continues with the next stock round.

]]>
So, what makes 1846 unique? First, rather than an auction of private companies, there is a draft. The player who has the last choice of a company to start receives the first choice of private companies from a subset of the available choices; this process continues until all of the private companies are owned. Second, companies are started by purchasing only 20% of the available shares. This isn’t particularly unusual – but is different from most of the 18xx games from larger publishers (such as 1830 or 1870), where the normal requirement is the 60% of the stock be purchased to start a corporation. In those games, the companies receive the full value of the stock when the company is founded; in 1846, the company only receives the money for the shares actually sold – but also receives the dividends paid out, if any. One of the biggest changes from the standard 18xx mold is that all track lays cost money. Normally, only difficult terrain such as mountains or rivers has a charge.

There are numerous other rules specific to (or even unique to) 1846. The game has only major cities; most 18xx games include minor cities, often referred to as “pips”, to force companies to balance between more direct, but less valuable routes, and routes which take longer to develop. Unlike 1830, 1846 offers players a choice of trains; either a train which hits a larger number of cities, which must touch directly, or a smaller number of cites, choosing a smaller subset from the run. A number of 18xx games offer bonuses for reaching particular destinations, but 1846 simplifies this by offering a bonus for running from an Eastern city (one of 7 available) to a Western city (one of 2 available) by providing a bonus to each end point. The game also offers a one dimention stock market (with variably sized steps), rather than the more common two-dimensional stock market. What stands out even more, though, is the variable stock appreciation available. Normally, stock increases in value by one step if the company pays out as much in dividends as the value of a share of stock, and two steps if the company pays out twice as much in dividends as the value of a share of stock. Companies with a high enough stock value are even given the opportunity to go up by three steps, for paying out three or more times the value of a share. Finally, 1846 employs a slow train rust. In nearly all 18xx games, early trains are removed from the game immediately when the first of some later model train is purchased. In 1846, these early trains usually get one last opportunity to run.

Reactions

So why have I played 1846 so many times? There are a number of reasons. First, for years I played with a group that really enjoys 18xx, but which was desperately looking for a shorter 18xx, to fit more comfortably into an evening session. After a number of plays, we managed to get the play length consistently under two hours with three or four players – fast enough that we will sometimes play twice in an evening. Second, the game offers variability. The private companies offer enough changes from one game to the next that the number of directions a player can take is enormous, and the number of resulting paths the game can take feels limitless. There is very little randomness in the game – only in the seating, and in the order in which the private companies become available to draft. But that’s more than sufficient to set the game spiraling off in a multitude of directions.

This last item is, in fact, the issue with many of the smaller 18xx games – 18AL, 18VA, 18FL, Steam Over Holland, and the like. They are, in and of themselves, interesting games. But, upon multiple plays, they tend to quickly become stylized; there’s not enough variation for games to diverge sufficiently from one to the next. Even 1830, a full length game in the series, has a strong tendency within a group to see very familiar play from one game to the next. The track is the same from game to game, the same companies are started early, and the same ones left until late. Even such critical game elements as the train rush – where new trains purchased cause older trains to rust, and be removed – start to blend into common patterns.

Another critical advantage of 1846 for me is that there are always new things happening in the game. Nearly every time I sit down to play, I will notice something occur in the game that I’ve never seen before, even 100 games in. In spite of the limits upon the game space imposed in order to keep the game brisk, there is a huge amount to explore. Some are quite meaningful – the results of exploration of the various paths the game makes available, such as driving a company into the ground or ignoring the usually critical city of Chicago. Others are silly; normally, Illinois Central is the only company that can ever have a token in Cairo, IL. But the rules do allow for one set of circumstances that allows a different company to place a token there; After waiting a number of games for an opportunity, I played a game with a goal of placing a non-Illinois Central token in Cairo _without_ compromising my position in the game – and succeeded. In many ways, it’s not dissimilar to the achievements available in many iOS games, but there’s no difficulty in finding a huge number of these secondary goals.

While not a reason that I particularly enjoy the game, it’s worth noting that 1846 has some elements that tend to make it easier to teach to someone new to 18xx than others in the genre. First, being shorter, it’s much easier to get a new player to sit down to; even it runs longer than expected, it’s unlikely to last for hours on end. Second, by removing the auction of the private companies, Tom has taken something that it normally nigh impossible to understand – valuation of the private companies without having seen how the main mechanisms work – and replaced it with fixed values. Regardless of how you eventually choose to evaluate the private companies, these initial values are sufficient to get the game moving, in a manner that new players much more readily grasp. Finally, some elements of the game – the cost to lay track being a particularly notable example – fit in thematically much better than the equivalent elements of other 18xx games, making it easier for a new player to understand the rules.

Design Analysis

So, what design decisions did Tom make that lead to 1846 being a classic for me? Let’s look at them in terms of the effects that they have. The biggest thing Tom did was to aim for a (somewhat) shorter 18xx game. This is probably as good a point as any to note – Tom himself doesn’t view the game, even with aids (poker chips and a spreadsheet) running much under two and a half hours. But there are a number of design choices he made which enable the game to be played very efficiently.

First, there is the variable bank size. This is unusual; in most 18xx games, the bank is fixed, often at $12,000, sometimes at less ($10,000 for 2038), sometimes at more interesting numbers (some of the games by Tresham have unusual, non-round banks). But 1846 is, that I recall, the only 18xx game I’ve played where the size of the bank is dependent upon the number of players. In addition, the number of corporations in the game is always two more than the number of players. And the initial cash for each player is fixed, rather than the pool being fixed. As a result, the change when going from a three player game to a five player game isn’t similar to that in other 18xx games; with more players each player isn’t running significantly fewer corporations, and there’s no transition of the game from players individually forming corporations to having to work together to scrape up the necessary capital, as there is in 1830 among others.

But there are a number of other choices which help speed the game along as well. The lack of minor cities, while removing some decisions as to how best to build routes, more than makes up for it by greatly simplifying route calculation. The cost of track building tends to eliminate a lot of low-margin track lays, which also helps to cut low-value time from the game. And finally, the fact that trains rust slowly causes the bank to be drained much faster, as there’s much greater opportunity to keep companies moving forward even in what would be fairly dire circumstances in most 18xx games.

Another big advantage of 1846 for me is how much the games vary from one to the next. So what elements did Tom put in to the game that lead to this variance? First, three of the private companies providing tokens for the purchasing major. These token locations are important, at varying levels, and the mix of these tokens with the available corporations helps games to play out differently. The other private companies also add to the variance, by offering abilities of varying value. The Steamboat company, in particular, varies wildly in value depending upon how it’s used; I’ve seen it add as much as $160 to a company payout. And the two track-laying private companies, the Ohio & Indiana and the Michigan Central, can make a huge difference to a company by saving a full turn of track laying – or can be simply used for income, with the track never built or even built in ways that slow down progress. Beyond the private companies, many of the full-fledged companies have special abilities, some of which are always used but some of which appear around 50% of the time, adding another set of differences. Finally, because there are not enough companies for everyone to run two, regardless of the number of players, there is significant variance in how and when the companies are started; I’ve seen every company start in the first stock round, and I’ve seen companies that never start.

The way that Tom allowed for many different interesting occurrences during the game was largely through research. Tom put a lot of thought into not only what these companies actually did, but what they might have done and the opportunities they found themselves presented with. Tom provides historical notes (along with design notes) in the rules, but even more importantly a list of the sources for his research. He did a very strong job in leaving in enough historical possibilities for a wide set of realities, while providing enough incentive for some historical events as to generally guide the game in a direction, allowing for enough similarity from game to game that the differences contrast well.

Strategy

There are three main elements in the game which drive strategy – the private companies, the railroads, and the trains. These roughly intersect with the game in that order, so I’ll look at them sequentially.

There are ten private companies in the game. Four are always in play, and either two, four, or all six of the remainder join the game depending upon the number of players. Looking through one at a time:

Michigan Southern – cost, $140; can be bought in for up to $60; receives $60 and a 2-train, and runs as a minor company until purchased or closed. The Michigan Southern is perhaps the most valuable of the private companies, and thus has a correspondingly high cost - $80 of debt which cannot be recaptured. The benefits to the purchasing company are large, however – a token in Detroit, a 2-train, any remaining treasury in the Michigan Southern, and often an early, valuable route to Chicago. And the Michigan Southern makes good money for its owner, too – the dividends are split 50/50 between the minor company and its owner, and the company nearly always makes $60 on the first turn, and sometimes as much as $80 on the second turn. An additional option is available with the Michigan Southern; Detroit is very expensive to upgrade with a connection to Canada, and instead of heading West early, the company can build up its coffers and build a tunnel to Windsor instead. Overall, an excellent choice, and one I have a hard time passing up.

Big 4 – cost, $100; can be bought in for up to $40; receives $40 and a 2-train, and runs as a minor company until purchased or closed. On the whole, the Big 4 has the same disadvantages as the Michigan Southern, but fewer benefits. The token in Indianapolis is useful, offering quick routes to Cincinnati, Louisville, and Saint Louis, but Indianapolis isn’t itself as valuable as Detroit. And the less cash in the Big 4 generally limits the earnings for the company, to $40-$50 in the first couple of operating rounds. Valuable, but given the difference in price not in the same league as the Michigan Southern.

Mail Contract – cost, $80; can be bought in for up to $80; adds $10/stop to one train for the owning corporation; never closes. In 1846, as in most 18xx games, private companies eventually close. The Mail Contract, however, does not, and in fact becomes more and more valuable. However, the company brings no income until purchased, which has caused the group I most often play with to undervalue this private company. The advantage of the Mail Contract is simple – it can be bought in for more money than any other private company. The key, then, is extracting the full $80 for the mail contract; while the value to the company will pay off slowly, the additional money will quickly pay benefits.

Chicago & Western Indiana – cost, $60; can be bought in for up to $60; pays $10 per operating round to the owner; when purchased the purchasing railroad gets a bonus token in Chicago. This is a valuable company; once developed, Chicago is the most valuable city on the map, and this provides an opportunity to get in early and start building connections. And, it should be noted, also possibly close down one of the four paths into Chicago in the process, by building immediately towards the space East of Chicago. A very good private company, well worth considering as a first pick.

Lake Shore Line – cost, $40; can be bought in for up to $40; pays $15 per operating round to the owner; when purchased, the purchasing railroad may immediately upgrade the tile in either Cleveland or Toledo, making those cities more valuable. Of the three minor-line private companies (this plus the next two listed), this is easily my favorite. All three offer good income, but the Lake Shore Line easily offers the most valuable special ability, increasing the value of a city. It works well with any of the railroads near these cities – Grand Trunk, New York Central, Erie, Pennsylvania, or the Baltimore & Ohio. Overall, an excellent second private company, and worth considering as a first choice.

Ohio & Indiana – cost, $40; can be bought in for up to $40; pays $15 per operating round to the owner; when purchased, the purchasing railroad may immediately place two connected tiles in central Ohio. The tile lays are somewhat useful, but they don’t immediately get a company somewhere in most cases. Still, the income is great, so it’s a fine second private company.

Michigan Central – cost, $40; can be bought in for up to $40; pays $15 per operating round to the owner; when purchased, the purchasing railroad may immediately place two connected tiles in central Michigan. _If_ the game moves slowly, _and_ the owner of the Michigan Central owns the Grand Trunk railroad, this can be useful. As often as not, I tend to place two tight curves so as to make a Mickey Mouse ear. Still a fine second choice.

Tunnel Blasting Company – cost, $60; can be bought in for up to $60; pays $20 per operating round to the owner; when purchased, the purchasing railroad receives a discount on building through tunnels until the private companies close. And this explains, rather clearly, why my group undervalues the Mail Contract. The Mail Contract costs $80, gets $80 back to the owner (usually), and helps the owning company from that point forward. The Tunnel Blasting Company costs $60, gets $100 back to the owner if purchased in the second operating round, and gets the discount and $20/round into the owning railroad. In a slow game, the Tunnel Blasting Company is likely better, but most games I’ve played haven’t been slow (even when I’ve wanted them to be). Good company, but the special power really isn’t that interesting.

Meat Packing Company – cost, $60; can be bought in for up to $60; pays $15 per operating round to the owner; when purchased, the purchasing railroad receives a bonus token for either Chicago or Saint Louis which remains until late in the game. A very nice company – gets the owner most of what the Tunnel Blasting Company does, but with a far more useful special ability. If this can be turned into 3 or 4 runs out of Chicago – easy when combined with the Chicago & Western Indiana, or sometimes with the Big 4 – can be a game-changer. Excellent first pick, and unlike Michigan Southern leaves the owner with enough money for more interesting choices in starting companies.

Steamboat Company – cost, $40; can be bought in for up to $40; pays $10 per operating round to the owner; even before purchased, provides a token which increases the value of one of a number of cities by $20 or $40 until late in the game; the token is locked when purchased by a railroad. The Steamboat Company works exceptionally well with the Baltimore and Ohio, as it makes their home base worth $20 more than any other city in the early mid-game, and it’s easy to get three or four runs to use it. With any other company, it’s of much less value, and overall it’s generally a second private company rather than a first.

It’s also worth noting that, in generally, the time to buy in private companies is the second or even first operating round. There are exceptions – if the trains are being bought slowly, and with the right railroad, it can be worth waiting to buy in the Michigan Southern. And if heavily invested in private companies it’s sometimes necessary to put off the purchase of one until the third operating round. But it’s certainly something that should usually be done early, as that money is invaluable in the second stock round.

]]>
There are seven railroads in 1846, four of which are always in the game, with one, two, or three of the others available depending upon the number of players. These railroads play quite differently, and have different advantages and disadvantages.

Illinois Central – starts in Cairo, IL; receives one extra share of capitalization from the bank; may lay yellow track for free on five spaces in Illinois; may place a discounted token in Centralia, IL. Illinois Central has more special abilities than any of the other railroads, though the token in Centralia is rarely useful. The extra share of capitalization makes this a strong railroad, particularly when combined with Michigan Southern. It’s also nearly a must if looking to found two railroads in the initial stock round, because of the extra cash.

Grand Trunk – starts in Port Huron, MI; has one fewer token than other railroads. Grand Trunk is very well positioned for the early game, but is often cut off later, limiting the earnings and stock growth, due to the shortage of tokens. Works best, therefore, when combined with one of the private companies with a token; even with the Big 4, the Grand Trunk greatly improves its ability to create two effective late game runs.

New York Central – starts in Erie, PA. There is an inherent dichotomy in the New York Central; it can make more effective use of 2 trains than any other railroad, but purchasing more of them speeds their death. It’s very easy to create two routes to both Buffalo and Cleveland, which can give the railroad a hand up in creating two strong late game runs.

Baltimore & Ohio – starts in Wheeling, WV; may place a token in Cincinnati, at a premium if not connected, or at a discount if connected. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen B&O teleport to Cincinnati to start the game; I’m not sure why, as it’s a very reasonable strategy. Much of that is because of the strength of the combination of the B&O with the Steamboat Company; given that combination, B&O clearly wants to develop the Eastern side of the board.

Erie – starts in Salamanca, NY; may place a token in Erie, PA at a discount if connected. Erie is similar to the New York Central, but less valuable because of the need to place a token in Erie to take full advantage of the position.

Pennsylvania – starts in Homewood, PA; may place a token in Fort Wayne, IN at a discount if not connected, or a greater discount if connected; receives an extra token. A handy corporation, but can be a little hard to get started without a useful private company to mix with. Because of Homewood – worth a minimal amount for the whole game – wants the trains which allow cities to be skipped, but has to get tokens elsewhere to make this work (since at least one city counted in the run must have a token).

Chesapeake & Ohio – starts in Huntington, WV. While all six other railroads have their advantages, C&O is nearly always the last choice of railroads. It can be made to work with many private companies – but other railroads work better. It does offer exclusive access to an Eastern city – but a weaker one than any of the other railroads save Illinois Central (which starts out West, and has to work to make an Eastern connection). Avoid.

]]>
There are four phases of trains in the game, with two types available in each phase save the first. In phase one, 2 trains are the order of the day. Having four 2 trains, the maximum allowed, is usually a poor choice since there’s no flexibility. As a result, the owners of the Michigan Southern and Big 4 should be careful to keep in mind that the 2-trains from those private companies will join the purchasing corporation. In phase two, players must chose between 4 trains or slightly less expensive 3 of 5 trains. There is an obvious 4 run from Winsor, Canada to Chicago Connections, an East/West run worth $230, or $23 a share. There are other East/West runs possible with 3 of 5 trains, but they rarely seem to come up, mostly because of the amount of track building required. Strategically, you can’t go too far wrong with phase two trains; even having three (the maximum you’re allowed to keep when the first phase three train is purchased) works very well.

During phase three, 2 trains start to rust, and both 5 and 4 of 6 trains become available. Because of the cost of phase four trains, companies tend to want one phase three train if possible, and with the right track two can work very well. Many of the most valuable runs seem to run longer, however – Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit-Chicago-Chicago Connections, for example – providing a real advantage to phase four trains. Here, the choices are 6 trains and 7 of 8 trains – the later running an extra $100 – and with the first one purchased phase two trains start to rust.

]]>
Over time, we’ve found that it’s generally important that a company have two trains, the maximum allowed, late in the game. Without two trains, a company’s stock appreciation tends to peter out; in contrast, with two trains and reasonable routes, a company can usually garner at least one three-step stock jump. Allowing the stock growth to slow can be fine, if one is generally invested in other companies, but in general players should be looking to how to both purchase and utilize two trains in the late game. Note that this generally requires connections to two Eastern cities, which is the great disadvantage of the Illinois Central – while every other company has at least one guaranteed connection, and in the cases of the New York Central, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore & Ohio two, the Illinois Central has no guarantee of any Eastern connection. For the Western end of the route, one train usually aims for Chicago Connections, while the other goes to Saint Louis. This is where the value of the Big 4 private increases, as it typically makes the connection to Saint Louis much easier.

Besides these elements, there are a number of key strategic considerations. First – common to many 18xx games – is token placement. There are a number of cities which frequently become choke points. In my experience, these are most often Chicago, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Terra Haute. It’s not possible to guard against all of these, so it’s important to identify the important ones for your railroad’s plans, and protect those. It’s even more critical to ensure that your company is properly financed. If the stock is sold too early, the company doesn’t get enough money for it, and worse the company doesn’t get the benefit of the dividends. On the other hand, if underfinanced, a company can’t get enough to buy needed trains; a company with its stock sold out at least has the choice of capitalization to raise more money, if needed. Still, finding the right balance is best. Too high a starting value hurts in two key ways – you don’t have enough shares to earn sufficient money to keep re-investing, making takeover a possible concern, and the stock isn’t necessarily bought up quickly enough. Too low a starting value leads to the stock being quickly bought out, unless the company looks sickly enough. If going late, it’s often worthwhile to choose a middling starting stock price – but this doesn’t help if going early. In general, the $70-$100 a share range seems to work best.

Unless, of course, you choose to start multiple companies. This is tricky to do effectively, but there are two reasonable options. First, one company can be started cheaply, used to generate cash to buy in private companies, and closed. This is possible, but tricky to manage; the company must be closed before it’s forced to buy a phase three train. Another option – often even trickier to pull off – is to start two companies to keep. To do this, it helps immeasurably if one of the companies is Illinois Central, though if little money is spent on private companies ($80, say, on two of the inexpensive privates), it can work with other companies, such as the Erie and New York Central. It’s not a portion of the game I’d recommend exploring when learning the game, in any event, and it certainly can be a path to bankruptcy. Fortunately, it’s usually possible to avoid bankruptcy in 1846, but it does rarely occur.

I’d also note that usually 1846 is a game focused on building an effective company, rather than on building a throwaway company and then dumping it on another player while starting a second company. This is somewhat enforced by the small number of companies available, but it also an effect of the slow rusting trains. I have seen companies actively taken over a couple of times – in each case, because the owner started the stock too high – and I’ve also seen companies swapped on occasion. The most recent time, I was one of those involved in the swap, and even though mine was the company stolen to start the swap it was purely intentional on my part. I owned a reasonably healthy but nearly sold out Grand Trunk, which was going to need to capitalize extensively and be fortunate in order to get to two permanent trains; the other player involved owned a well capitalized Illinois Central with most of the stock still in the company. I considered a direct takeover attempt, but realized that the other player would be able to counter; at best I’d have kept more shares of the Grand Trunk in the company, and even that was not guaranteed. So instead, I spent my money (on stocks I wanted, and to look less able to fight for the Grand Trunk), and as soon as the Grand Trunk was stolen I dumped my shares and stole the Illinois Central. Even these opportunities are rare in 1846 – I believe I’ve seen companies swapped just three times – but they’re worth watching for; this particular swap improved my position dramatically.

Conclusions

1846 is not my favorite 18xx game – but it’s quite close; only 2038 tops it for me. And 1846 is easily the 18xx game I’ve played most, about 70 times more than 2038. I would recommend 1846 to anyone who enjoys 18xx, or to anyone interested in learning 18xx – but to play, not for a blind purchase. 1846 is currently available only from Deep Thought Games, which means both a high price (as each copy is made by hand) and a long delay (the queue at Deep Thought Games is legendary, having stretched over a year at times). The production is very nice – even when I wasn’t playing the game nearly so frequently, I never regretted the purchase – but it’s simply not worth purchasing without having played the game first. Now, hopefully another publisher will pick up the game – if widely available at comparable prices to the re-issued 1830, for example, it will be a lot easier to pick up, and likely a lot easier to find someone with a copy to try.

So if you do find the chance to try the game – and there are more than 150 owners listed on BGG, so it shouldn’t be impossible – what are you, the reader, likely to think of the game? To a very large extent, I suspect that depends upon the circumstances of your play. The comments here help point to what disappoints players; the lack of an initial auction, the amount of math in the game and the length relative to Age of Steam, for non-18xx players, the lack of stock and company manipulation for those fond of those aspects, and the economic snowball – the critical importance of creating money early, to fuel future earnings. If any of those sound like an issue, I’d still recommend trying the game if possible – I understand the source of these concerns, but don’t find any of them an issue in 1846 for me, so they are not universal – but with an eye on these matters.

Review: Dominant Species:: [Voice of Experience] - The sodomite's guide to Dominant Species

clockwerk76 — Mon, 28 May 2012 20:48:58 +0000

by clockwerk76

The sodomite's guide to Dominant Species

Dominant Species roared onto the scene in 2010 with much fanfare. Lauded as one of the best “gamer’s games” of the last decade by many industry pundits (or maybe just Tom Vasel) its impact was immediate. It shot up the rankings into the top 25, where it has held its position ever since.

With the much anticipated 3rd edition hitting shelves in the coming month, now seems a good time to take a look at a game that deserves, in my opinion, to climb further, and finally stake its place in the coveted top 10 of the BGG rankings.

Dominant Species is a vicious exercise in remorseless self-interest. The players will violate each other like an orgy of hard-gay midgets jacked up on methamphetamine. Yet, just like those loveable midgets, regardless of how hard a pounding you take, you always seem to be able to come back for more. And hand out more. If you’re the type of gamer that likes to keep it in your pants, this might not be for you. This is a difficult game to win without pushing someone’s face into a pillow at some point while screaming “take it all!” in your best tweaked horny midget voice.

So what the hell are we actually doing in this game?

The game revolves around a bunch of cubes that ostensibly represent different “species”. There are 6 available to choose from and each has own spiffy little ability. Each of these cuboid “species” has a severe distaste for the other “species” around them and thinks they should all bugger off and die on the frozen tundra. To do this, you adapt to a changing landscape that offers an ever decreasing amount of resources for your little cube-imal’s to thrive on. You can also kill off other cube-imals directly, remove the resources they need to survive, convert their little oases into frozen tundra, or better yet, combine various actions to create emergent combinations that result in mass cube-imal-icide. Ok, that was officially too much.

Your ultimate goal is to be the alpha midget and stick it hard and deep in every other player…or have the most and best adapted cube-imals at the end of the game. Either way works fine.

The main engine of the game is an action track on which you will place “Action Pawns” (little wooden cylinders with no thematic value) that lists all the little things either you or your precious little cubes can do. This ranges from learning to survive off of new elements to directly attacking others and The number of times each action can be taken is limited per turn and they are resolved from top to bottom and left to right order. So the person who for example, puts their Pawn on the “Adaptation” action (the one that allows you to adapt your cube-imal to some new form of num num’s) will get first choice of whatever is available. The most powerful of these options is usually the series of cards known as “dominance cards” that really could be referred to as “fuck whomever you choose cards” that can be obscenely powerful when used intelligently. Points are scored by choosing this “Dominance” action selecting a hex you currently occupy to score. The scoring is two fold. The person with the most cube-imals in the hex scores points, however the person who is “dominant” (they have the most elements on their animal matching elements on said hex) gets to select one of the cards and in turn probably give someone else at the table a severe buggering.

]]>
Red has the numbers, but White is Dominant.

]]>
The action track. Resolved left to right, top to bottom.

This shouldn’t be too tough to understand and frankly, if you want in depth information, there’s a really lovely rulebook you can go read here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/78941/rulebook-3rd-pri...

No really. I’m not explaining any more rules. Fuck off.

Alright, but is it any good?

Now let’s get down to what really matters. Why the hell would I want to play this 3 to 4 hour game of anal debauchery when I could have a lovely evening making sheep mate, or maybe harvesting stone with cavemen in loincloths? Why? Because this is a game filled with SURPRISE. You’ll be happily pounding some hapless victim when one of your other midget friends comes charging at you with an erected shaft like a roll of Genoan Salami and you’ll have to make a decision. Had you been more observant earlier you might have noticed him eyeing you, or taking off his pants, but no, you decided to focus too much on the fun you were having screwing someone else. Now he’s at full sprint with his latin lunchmeat laser sighted on your tender bits.

So what will you do? Well, you almost certainly have choices. And the sooner you recognize the threat, the more choices you are likely to have. It’s so beautifully thematic it brings a tear to my eye and some blood to my man-stuff.

Choices are what make any game great or poor aren’t they? I mean, this almost isn’t even worth saying. Mentioning that a game has choices is like mentioning the supermarket has vegetables.

Dominant Species however, offers choices on a number of levels. On the simplest level, it’s the all-too-familiar “ooh which action do I choose? Do I need to get X now? Or will it still be there when its my turn again if I choose Y instead?” that leads to various states of mental paralysis as hyper-anal gamers try to balance the relative values of these choices against their tactical and strategic considerations and presumably the phase of the moon and horoscope predictions. No I\m not making any joke about things entering “Uranus”. There’s enough ass humour in this review already.

It does however, take it a few steps further, and this is what makes their particular flavour of “done to fucking death worker placement” sublime amongst the rote. What I choose is fluid. Yes I’ve decided to “migrate” my species (come on chuckles you can figure out what that means) but I haven’t stated which ones or where. So when I notice that the player in charge of the spider cube-imals has taken the first Dominance action, and now will potentially have access to a “free rape” card I can change my plans and ADAPT. As a small example of the things I can do, I could spread out to make myself less of a target or I could invade his territory to disincentivize him from attacking me.

]]>
Some of the rectal violation afforded by the cards.

But those options are once again, relatively shallow. If I’m really clever, and I notice the threat earlier, I can combine multiple actions to try and destroy his positioning before he even gets a chance to select the card. Hence, he may be forced to select a card other than the one he was originally intending to help mitigate some of the damage he took this round. If you’re truly artful in your planning, you can trip up a would be assailant and instead have them face down on the concrete and utterly subject to your personal perverse proclivities. Throughout the game, I am using my placement to chart a general course of action. There is no “pick up X wood” or “Screw your wife and make a baby (as long as your neighbours aren’t)” or “Build a fence”. No. Even after you have made your choices, how you apply them is open and will frequently change from what you originally intended. Sometimes to take advantage of something emergent, and sometimes to offset the damage of a “surprise”, or more accurately, something you failed to anticipate in the chaos. However, when you do manage to anticipate something, the combinations of actions and dominance cards can lead to truly subversive effects.

A recent example of this was in my last game, where a certain sodomite noticed I had gotten complacent with a cute little set up. He decided to grab an action that prevented me from rescuing a resource I needed, then speciated all over my hexes and glaciated my only escape route. Literally almost every species I had died. Poor bastards.

However, later on when said sodomite decided to get into a pissing contest with another player over a particularly valuable hex, they became somewhat laser focused on their conflict, and didn’t notice that I had set up forced march for all their cube-imals into a frozen wasteland devoid of any form of sustenance. The expression of fear that slowly crept across their faces as they realized what as about to happen was as satisfying a moment as I have ever experienced in gaming or group sex. I ended up winning.

Therein lies the true beauty of Dominant Species. The “surprises” are actually just a result of your lack of observation. But much like the meth’d up midgets frantically launching colonies of wiggly tailed spermatozoid’s to and fro, the chaos can be very hard to manage without getting it in the eye, or elsewhere. As a result, you will miss things. Then, you will have to adapt. Fast. Yet no matter how hard a pounding you take, there is always a way for you to get back on top! The result is that the game allows for incredibly exciting swings of action and utterly crushing plays, without ever sending someone permanently whimpering to the corner with a tube of Anusol (that’s an anal numbing cream for those scared to Google it).

Resultantly, the 3-4 hours goes by rather quickly as the blur of violations coalesces into a taut and tense exercise in damage mitigation. You need to protect your ass. Furthermore, much like the metaphoric orgy of this review, your goal isn’t to randomly try to screw everything in sight. You need to be satisfied. You’re going to pick what suits you best, and try to take it. Also, to continue our metaphoric orgy, the climax does not come until the end. The final round includes a mass scoring that can easily make up 50% of your points total. Therefore, there isn’t much fear of “kingmaking” in this game. As you are never truly out of it, and there is a strong impetus to look after your own needs, you don’t have to worry about one person deciding to team up with some else and go around performing double anal on everyone for no benefit to themselves. That does not mean the occasional double or triple penetration doesn’t happen, but simply that when it does there is a good reason for it. The recipient, though perhaps now able to pass a Butternut Squash through their cornhole, can recover, and return the favour, if it suits them.

It also makes the game FEEL deliciously thematic. Unlike many games, where the bits compose the theme, this game is the polar opposite. The design is largely minimalist. However, you are in a state of constant paranoia and heightened awareness. Much like a creature in the wild, or a tweaking midget, you must constantly scan for threats while pursuing your own self interest. You can’t relax. You are never safe. Victory is never assured, and there is always someone ready to jump you from behind and wipe their private parts with your pride. It doesn’t look like a bunch of species competing for survival, but it feels like it. I can not describe how unique and engaging that is. It is one of the few games I have played where the gameplay inspires emotional and psychological reactions that support the theme.

Final thoughts

All cube-y euphemisms and drugged out gay midget references aside, what this all boils down to is this game is UNIQUE. There’s nothing out there like it. In an endless sea of “samey” feeling efficiency engine/worker placement games glue coated to keep their themes in place Dominant Species unapologetically declares “I am DIFFERENT!” And it is.

Sadly, as with all things of exquisite quality and uniqueness, it can take a little time to fully appreciate. So if there is one criticism to be levied, and I suppose I should allow one, its that due to the length of the game, it can be hard to get it to the table frequently, and hence that learning process can be exacerbated compared to your average 60-120 minute euro game.

However, those that learn its intricacies, reap the rewards of a unique experience when they play. To me, that is entirely worth the investment, and you owe it to yourself as a gamer, to seek this out, and give it a try. Bring your personal lubricant. You’re going to need it.

Review: Bazaar:: Flying Dutchman Reviews: So A Master Game Designer and Some Glass Beads Walk Into A Bar....

jtemple — Mon, 28 May 2012 19:10:16 +0000

by jtemple

Introducing Bazaar:

Prior to writing this review, I decided that it would be a good idea to see if I could learn ]]>something more about the life and labours of Mr. Sidsackson (1920-2002). To be sure, I was already broadly aware of the impact that Sackson has had on the world of board game design and development, and I knew that he’d been prolific in both respects. But I must confess that I was still surprised to learn just how prolific he’d been! When you step back and reflect on the totality of his involvement in the hobby, be it the enormous collection of games he amassed, or his incredible output as a designer, not to mention his influence as an author, it’s hard not to be amazed at the enormity of his game related endeavours. And it isn’t just a matter of volume either! The remarkable quality of a number of his designs is also worthy of note. Stop for a moment and think about the fact that Acquire was first published in 1962! 1962!! How many games which were produced in 2012 will still be in both print and demand fifty years from now? Not many I suspect!

Given these realities, it’ both significant and exciting than that Gryphon/Eagle games has pickedup the liscense for many Sid Sackson’s titles. At this point, they’ve already produced some superb reprints of several titles (including Buy Word and Can’t Stop) and I am pleased to report that there are more on the way!

Today, however, we want to focus on another classic Sackson title that’s been recently reproduced and rereleased by Gryphon Games and that’s Bazaar. First published in 1967, Bazaar has been released in a number of different editions over the intervening years, but this may very well be the definitive edition of the game. For those of you who may not know, Bazaar is a two to six player game which plays in about thirty to forty minutes. In Bazaar, you’ll take on the role of a skilled trade who’s trying to acquire the most desirable goods amidst the hustle and bustle of a busy marketplace. The player who makes the most efficient and well-timed trades will ultimately be declared the winner.

So, if you’re interested in knowing more about how the folks at Gryphon Games have breathed new life into this Sid Sackson masterpiece – well read on to find out more!

Before you continue reading, however, I want to take a moment thank my good friend EndersGame for allowing me to us some of his fine pictures in this review. Thanks Ender – your kindness is much appreciated!

Components:

]]>Before we review the components of the game, it’s worth pausing for a moment to say a few words about the box. Yet again the folks at Gryphon have produced an outstanding box in terms of both quality and function. They’ve been doing this a lot lately, and they sure hit the high water mark in their work on the box for Zong Shi! While the box for Bazaar doesn’t have quite the same heft and durability as the box for Zong Shi (which is a masterpiece of box construction), it’s still been extremely well made and it should stand up well to the rigours of storage and transport. Additionally, like Zong Shi, the insert for Bazaar has been well crafted and laid out. There’s also a fantastic plastic overlay for the insert that helps to keep everything in place. Overall, this is some outstanding work by way of box design and construction.

Component List:

So, here’s an inventory of what you’ll find inside the box:

45 Ware Cards
100 Stones (20 stones in each of 5 colours)
10 Exchange Tiles
1 Die
6 Player Reference Cards
1 Rule Book

Let’s say a brief word about the quality and function, of each of the game components:

Ware Cards: The ware cards are what you’re going to be competing for during the course of play. Each card shows a number of coloured stones and to claim that card from the market place you’ll need to pay the stones shown on the card back to the supply. Point will be awarded based on how many stones you retain after you’ve paid for a particular ware card. A number of the ware cards have stars on them in addition to the stones and they provided a greater return in terms of VP when claimed. The cards have been made of good, quality linen card stock and they should stand up well in the face of repeated play.

]]>

Stones: These are the stones that you are going to be collecting, trading and paying out over the course of the game. I like these stones. They’ve got a pleasant weight and heft to them and they’ve been beautifullly coloured. What can I say – they’re pretty!

]]>

Exchange Tiles: There are ten exchange tiles and two of those tiles will be randomly selected at the beginning of the game to govern the rates of exchange for the current game. These tiles have been made from good solid card board stock, they’ve been well sized and are clearly illustrated. Functional and durable – sounds like win-win to me!

]]>

Die: On your turn you’ll have the option to either carry execute a trade according to the “rates” set out by the exchange tiles, or, to roll this special die and to take a stone matching the colour that you rolled on the die from the supply. Here too, the die has been well made – it’s not a stickered die so the coloured faces won’t peel or chip off. And it’s also got a face with a cool magic lamp on it – roll the lamp you get to take a stone in the colour of your choice from the supply.

]]>

Player Reference Cards: As noted above, when you purchase a ware card you’ll be awarded VP based on the number of stones you have remaining in your personal supply after the ware card has been purchased. The player reference cards tell you how many points you’ll receive, relative to how many stones you retain after payment for the ware card.

]]>

Rule Book: Bazaar is a pretty straightforward game to learn and play, but getting up and running is made that much more straightforward in light of the clear and well written rule book. It’s been clearly written, logically laid out, there are plenty of good examples of game play and, for you personal enjoyment, several variant rules have also been provided for. This is a solid, little rule book!

Game Play

Setup:
One of the best things about Bazaar is how quickly you can have it set up and ready to play. Start by selecting two exchange tiles at random and placing them face up in the centre of the table. Next, shuffle the ware cards and deal out four, face-down piles of five cards each. The remaining cards are placed back in the box and won’t be used for this game. Flip over the top card of each stack of cards.

Now, place the stones in a heap near the ware cards in order to form a supply. The youngest player becomes the start player and play will proceed in a clockwise direction from the start player.

You’re now ready to play Bazaar!

Flow of Play:
For the first turn, each player will role the die and take one stone, in the colour shown on the die, into their supply. Should a player role the lamp icon they will be able to take a stone in the colour of their choice.

On subsequent turns, you will have the choice of either: (a) rolling the die and taking the indicated (or chosen) stone, or, (b) conducting one trade. Should you elect to make a trade, you will do so according to the “rates” indicated on the active exchange cards. You may trade stones in either direction of the equation indicated on the exchange card, however, you may only make one trade per turn.

Having either rolled the die or conducted a trade, you may now – if you’re are able and so inclined – purchase one ware card from the market place. To purchase a card, pay the stones depicted on that card back to the supply and then score the VP that said purchase provides. To score, you’ll need to count the number of stones you have left in your personal supply after you’ve paid for the card that you purchased and then compare that number to the table provided on the player reference cards. Cards with stars provide a higher return on your investment. In this regard, it should be noted that, once one pile of ware cards has been exhausted cards without a star on them are scored as if they did have a star and cards with a star on them are scored as if they had two stars. As such, as the ware cards become more scare they also become more valuable. You’ll need to have a pen and some paper handy to record your scores as the game progresses.

It’s also important to remember that there is a limit to your ability to ‘stockpile’ stones. At the end of every turn you may only have ten stones in your personal supply – and you’ll need to discard any excess stones.

End Game:
The game ends as soon as two piles of ware cards have been exhausted. Total up the scores and the person with the most VP is the winner. Should there be a tie, the player with the fewest number of ware cards will be declared the victor!

Thoughts & Reflections:

Components & Aesthetics: No doubt about it, Bazaar is yet another game that showcases Gryphon/Eagle’s commitment to the highest production standards. The game doesn’t have a huge number of components, but the one’s it does have are very well made and they’re attractive to boot. Solid box, intelligently designed insert, quality cardstock and pretty beads – what’s not to like?

Design: You know the thing that amazes me about this game? When you stop and think about it, it’s really nothing more than a few cards and a handful of coloured glass beads. Yet, with the addition of Sackson’s vision, these simple components end up coming together to form something more than the sum of their parts. Ultimately, if I were to describe the design of this game in one word it would be: clean. Clean, simple, elegant even. The rule set is simple the components few – but the fact is that Sackson managed to draw out of them a game that provides a significant challenge and which offers meaningful decisions. All of that is wrapped up in a playtime that doesn’t overstay its welcome. Sometimes simplicity speaks for itself – and, in my opinion, this is one of those times.

Decisions: I must admit that when I sat down to play my first game of Bazaar, I was worried about AP issues. I’m pleased to report, however, that this proved to be far less of problem than I had imagined it might. The thing is, you’re trying not to have to many stones in your possession – indeed, worst case scenario, you can only have ten when you start your turn – and, as such, you won’t face an unmanageable number of choices when it comes to the trading component of the game. Interestingly, there is kind of a press-your-luck element to the game that makes for some interesting decisions. Do you have enough time to take a shot at a card with stars before someone else gets there first – or is better to play it safe and good for the guaranteed points. What about rolling the die? Will you get lucky and acquire that one stone you desperately need? All in all, there are interesting, meaningful choices to be made here – without the fear of overly taxing what Geoff Englestein would cally your “system two” resources.

Accessibility: Let me put it to you this way: my nine year old son had no difficulty picking this game up and, with a little bit of guidance, playing it competitively. Overall, Bazaar is an eminently straightforward game to learn, teach and play and you should have no trouble introducing it to just about anyone. In fact, that would be one of its strengths – this is a game that should prove ammenable to both gamers and non-gamers alike.

Theme: Well, this is about as abstract as it gets folks. Sure, you could try to imagine yourself attempting to negotiate a trade with a canny merchant amidst a bustling Far Eastern market – but you’d have to work hard at it and it probably wouldn’t be worth the effort. Let’s be honest, it’s the system you’re getting here – not an immersive experience!

Players: I’m going to suggest that you play Bazaar with three or four players in order to achieve an optimal experience. With two you wouldn’t have the same sense of competition for ware cards that you’ll have with more players. And, even though AP shouldn’t be too much of an issue here, with five or six players making decisions it might start to overstay its welcome a tad. So I’d aim to play with three or four in order to achieve the best balance between competition and play time.

Final Recommendation:

So what are my thoughts on Bazaar? Well, even though it’s a bit more abstract and puzzly a game then I tend to like, I genuinely enjoyed playing the game. And, I have to be honest, I wasn’t sure that this was going to be the case. There were a number of factors that won me over. In the first place, I liked the challenge of trying to make the most efficient trades possible. Further, I really appreciated how the cards became more valuable as there were less of them and I liked the tension, if you will, of trying to figure out which cards you could reasonably expect to acquire before they were snapped up by other players. And, even though dice really do truly hate me, I liked the relative risk associated with rolling the die in an effort to get that one stone you desperately needed! Perhaps, most importantly, I found that Bazaar didn’t prove overly taxing from a mental standpoint and that it didn’t overstay its welcome.

But is Bazaar a game for you? Well, do you enjoy abstract games that have something of puzzly feel to them? Are you looking for an accessible game that plays relatively quickly and which could serve as a good family style game? Do you regularly game with three or four people and you’re looking for a solid game to play at the start or end of the evening? Do you appreciate a well produced game with excellent components? Perhaps, you’re a teacher who is looking for Is Sid Sackson your personal hero and you’ve made it your life’s ambition to collect every title he ever published in every edition? Well, if so, Bazaar might very well be a title that’s worth your time to check out!

]]>

Thanks For Reading!

Review: Battlestar Galactica:: The Game within the Game

shieldwolf — Mon, 28 May 2012 18:30:42 +0000

by shieldwolf

Klaxons are blaring. Smoke fills the halls of the ship. Galactica has just been rocked by another nuke from the nearby Basestar. The person to your right shouts, “Another hit and it’s over!” Fighters have scrambled, but it may be too late. Escape is not an option as the FTL is offline. Things look bleak. The Cylons are preparing for the final attack. Everyone is looking to you.

You draw a card. The smile on your face gives your teammates renewed hope that all is not lost. Then you turn to them and play the card causing Galactica to take 2 more points of damage. As your former friends curse your name right before the white light of the explosion obliterates them, you close your eyes and let the warmth envelope you knowing that death is not the end. You are a Cylon. More importantly, you’ve kept that from your friends until now and won the game.

I’ve just described one of the many possible outcomes in Fantasy Flight’s Battlestar Galactica, a 3 to 6 player semi cooperative game based on that sci-fi show your friends kept pestering you to watch a few years ago.

While the game doesn’t have sound effects or red warning lights (although I suppose you could add them if you wanted to), what BSG does have is a well-crafted story of intrigue, suspense and paranoia.

The mechanics of the Battlestar Galactica are fairly simple:
Move
Action
Bad Event
Next Player
Repeat

I’m simplifying here to emphasize a point. If that was all there was, this would make for a mundane game based on a licensed television series. Thankfully, it’s not. Fantasy Flight added one more component that doesn’t even come in the box… you and your friends.

This game is built around your ability to convince (or deceive) your friends into trusting you. Every decision you make will be scrutinized and judged, by your teammates. You’ll need to defend your actions with truth, lies, or both. Your ability to do this will determine whether you survive or get tossed in the brig.

As a human player, your goal is to reach Earth. You’ll have to figure out whom to trust, fight cylon attacks, and make tough decisions on resources, all the while being hammered by bad events the game throws at you.

As a cylon player, you can either actively sabotage things or you can just sit back and watch as your friends’ paranoia take over, giving them an occasional nudge into making poor choices. Both can be effective.

BSG is a game that transcends its theme. You don’t need to know about the show to enjoy the game. Does it add flavor knowing that Saul Tigh has a drinking problem or that Lee Adama has the hots for his dead brother’s wife? Sure but you don’t need it.

More than the sum of its parts, Battlestar Galactica’s meta game is what distinguishes it from the rest. It’s as much about your relationship and experiences with your friends and how you use that to influence their decisions as it is about the actual game. If you’re looking for an engaging, interactive board game I highly recommend Battlestar Galtactica

out of

Review: Pandemic:: [Voice of Experience] An in depth analysis of Pandemic and why it stands apart from other coops

kronik — Mon, 28 May 2012 18:01:21 +0000

by kronik

]]>
all images were not taken by me

Disclaimer:
I have recorded 38 plays of Pandemic. Given that I'm rather sloppy at recording plays and have taken it on holidays, I believe my play count to be slightly higher. Some of these games have been played with the expansion, though the greater part only with the base game. For the scope of this review, I'll only be looking at the base game.

A word about my gaming tastes: I've been playing designer board games for 8 or so years now. It started with Settlers, after which I moved on to discover El Grande, Eufrat & Tigris and Samurai. From there I developed a taste for abstracts, but came back to settle on themed Eurogames. Today I enjoy an odd party game, if I find the time for it, an ameritrash game. So my tastes are pretty broad when it comes to genres, though I do have games I adore and those I despise within each genre.

Key elements that work for me in a game are: near full information. Full information tends to bog down games, and leads to AP. I'm not a great fan of randomness, but randomness can be well implemented. If you can calculate the risk/reward ratio, then I can live with the randomness. If you can work towards avoiding randomness in some way, then I can live with it. A game should be fun and in a sense immersive. I'm not necessarily talking about theme. Interesting mechanics can envelop you in a game as well by keeping you on the edge of your seat or when another player makes a brilliant play that you hadn't foreseen. When is a game fun? When you're enjoying the strategic decisions, when you revel in finding an optimal play, when you're having a laugh at the situations presented. These are mostly subjective criteria, but that's what counts for me.

When it comes to co-operative games, I believe Pandemic was the first game I tried. With that, I believe it has a foot ahead compared to other games, because not only was it a new game for me, it was also a whole new way of experiencing games. Without a doubt this fact has largely aided in my enjoyment and adoration of the game. Let it be clear from the outset that I was really impressed by Pandemic at first, and I still find it highly enjoyable. What I'll attempt to do, is show you just why I find it so enjoyable and keep coming back to it. This review is meant to be extensive, but not exhaustive. If you're anything like me, you can only digest so much at a time, so I'll try to stick to the aspects I consider the most important.

]]>

On with the review
I started out writing a short piece about the components and the rules, but after checking back I saw there were 17 pages of reviews for Pandemic already out there. I believe you'll find ample information in one of them at least. So let's crack on with an analysis of how the game plays.

The different items I will be treating are: Tension, group play, weighing the odds, strategic paths, tactical choices.

First things first. If you didn't go for a random setup of role cards, then your first strategic choice will be what characters to play with. Some roles, such as the medic, clearly serve an advantage even if you're on your own. Most of the others though, are clearly geared to aiding the team effort and only work well if played as such. That being said, once you start playing you have to balance these abilities well. You can't chuck all cure finding onto the researcher: just needing four cards doesn't mean he'll always find the right four cards. It helps, and the ability needs to be put to good use, but it doesn't serve anyone if you send a researcher running across the map to fetch cards from everyone. Aimlessly trying to exploit the role cards will lead to a swift defeat. Finding the right balance between using abilities and which roles to play together will result in higher odds of winning and amusement.

]]>

Tension
What Pandemic does well, is create an atmosphere of tension. If you're playing at the right difficulty level for your group, you should always have more things to handle than you practically can handle. Tension is a driving force for most coop games and Pandemic is no exception. With virus cubes stacking up around the globe, you need to combine your efforts in averting disaster and finding a cure at the same time. It's a delicate balancing effort between using a card to fly to a heavily infested region or keeping it, hoping that you'll draw the 5th card of that colour on your next turn. Should you be dividing up the globe and give everyone a corner to take care of? Should you put two people on virus control and another to co-ordinate card gathering? These are some of the choices that drive the tension in this game. It should be said that of course, if the game is played at a difficulty level not suited to the players, the tension will be lost. The base game came with 6 Epidemic cards, which provided ample space for tension in the first 20-25 games or so, but the 7th card in the expansion is a welcome addition if you plan on playing Pandemic a lot. Especially in two player games the difficulty seems a bit lower than with more players at the same difficulty, so you might want to amp it up a bit. You really want this feeling of being just-not-overwhelmed, or having just enough control in the chaos for the game to click.

A main driver of tension is of course the fact that you can lose the game, as with all coops. Though I find losing the game not a bad thing. It rather motivates me to try again. Rather than completely obliterate you, you'll mostly either inch out a win or lose by two cards. This makes me believe that the game is really well balanced. If you're winning to easily, adding a single epidemic usually brings you back to this close call situation. I really enjoyed upping the difficulty as I got better at the game and lost game after game, only to reset it immediately without saying a word to the each other and getting stuck in again. There is this drive to defeat the game because you always come so close. Especially when the expansion brought a 7th epidemic card, I knew that would be the first challenge. We played a lot of two player games and had an ok time winning at six epidemics. The 7th was going to be the legendary showdown. We played 5 games in a row one evening, not winning a single one, but we were discussing where we made bad calls a whole week after until the next meeting. When we finally did win at the legendary difficulty, we were just ecstatic! The reward for winning after having been put to a test of so little luck is just the best. This is where I find Pandemic sets itself apart from other coops: if you win, it's mostly because of good play, not just a lucky streak of the dice. The 7th card is by no means the end of the difficulty: the expansion adds variants that up the difficulty even more. I haven't gone there yet.

]]>

Group Play
A common critique heard against most cooperative games is that there can be a single person who plays for the entire group. Pandemic is no different, but I feel it is an inherent problem in the genre. Whatever group activity you are performing, be it a brainstorm or social banter, there will always be a those who control the conversation. As such I don't feel this is a problem with cooperative games as much as it is a problem with human nature. The difference between cooperative games and competitive games is quite interesting from a communications point of view. Competitive games seem to work with a different communication model than cooperative games. With competitive games, interaction is nearly always mediated by the game mechanics. You can outbid another player, you can attack his regions on the board, you can take the wood before he does, but you're interactions are mediated by the game itself.

In cooperative games, you as a group are communicating with the game system. As individuals your communication is mediated into the game system. But amongst one another, your interactions are not mediated. Therefore, your communication is similar to when you're having a brainstorm at work for example, and thus this issue is related to social psychology rather than a faulty game. One game that I can think of that has circumvented this issue, is Hanabi, which puts restrictions on the interactions between players. The difference with Hanabi is that this is a core element of the game play, where it would be rather unconvincing in Pandemic.

I therefore feel that to promote equal opportunities around the table, someone should moderate the decisions made. This has always worked well for me. The two people I regularly played Pandemic with were one shy person and one very loud person. What would happen is that the louder one would treat the game as a puzzle and co-ordinate everyone's moves. I would be involved and say so if I saw a better path or option, or if I just thought another action was more pressing at this time. I would also always engage the third person to give his opinion and think out loud with us. There are no right or wrong choices in this game, and discussing and weighing off options is the kind of interaction that you will have at the table. Engaging everyone in these choices by either moderating or voting will provide a way to deal with those louder voices.

I do believe that the designers have tried to attack this problem partly by making the hand cards hidden. It forces the players to communicate around the table to some extent, so do play with this rule. What also works well is to establish a habit of allowing each player to analyze his turn on his own first. I tend to ask "ok, your turn. What do you want to do?". I let another player analyze the board at his ease first. This forces him to speak up and usually shuts up the louder people. When he's put his play forward, the group can discuss the move, but the player has the final word.

This is starting to sound like I need to justify this part of the game, whilst it's never been a real problem for me during any of my games. It's simply because this seems to be the main critique put forward by detractors of the game that I put some effort into looking at the issue. I believe that the above supplies ample methods to remedy this problem, if experienced as such, and that it should in no way detract from the game. As put above, these are problems in non-mediated human interaction, and not necessarily flaws in a gaming system.

Weighing the odds
I touched upon this briefly in the previous paragraphs, but will go into this aspect further as I believe it is a key element of the game.

The game will usually build up slowly, giving you a bit of leeway at the start, where you will obviously want to defuse the three potential outbreak cities before anything else. It also gives you a moment to see what cards you get, and what colour you'll start collecting. Once the first epidemic is out there though, the pace picks up, quickly. Before you know it, you'll be juggling difficult choices and weighing off which action gets priority.

This is for me where Pandemic outshines other coops. Coops are often driven by a feeling of not-being-able-to-do-it-all and very difficult circumstances to do it in. Often mechanics are rather random and unpredictable. With Pandemic, you know which cities have been recycled to the top of the infection deck, which works perfectly together with the theme: infected cities will keep getting infected until the virus is completely destroyed.

So you can survey the board and note that perhaps Bangkok is a risk, but not Shanghai, because you already drew that card last turn, so it's not going to be drawn this turn. So Bangkok is the top priority right now, even though it might not be drawn this turn, it might be drawn the next or the one after. Either way, you know it's coming and you know you need to do something about it. This makes Pandemic a game of reasoning and weighing off the odds.

You'll be plotting out a scenario analysis to see what moves you can make to reduce the damage the most, reconsidering the things you know along the way. Then you'll either have to make a decision and play it out, or perhaps you'll have a sudden inspiration that solves all potential risks in the next couple of turns, perhaps reducing the potential outbreaks to just one.
This is for me the fun part of the game. Yes, it's very analytical and yes, you'll have to discuss potential strategies and keep track of everyone's abilities and special cards. Yes, it's impossible for just one person to do, to this promotes the discussion and co-operation of the group. The game is neither completely predictable, so no one person can simply calculate the outcome, and so no single path is a sure shot to victory. I love it when two extravert people are discussing what to do next, and each sees one clear path for the next couple of turns, and then the third, introvert player chimes in with something so brilliant the others just fall quiet. Everyone has his way of playing the game. Some do the thinking part out loud, others do it quietly to themselves. There's no reason either of them is better than the other, I just prefer a good discussion.

Options for strategy and tactics
A game that hammers you turn after turn with negative effects that you cannot really predict. How does strategy come into play?

When I first started playing Pandemic, I played to beat the game, that is: finding a cure for every disease. Somewhere along the lines, between a game that went over a little too easy, just about when I was going to up the difficulty, we discovered the potential of exterminating diseases. This is not exactly a strategic decision you can make from the start of the game, since eradicating a disease requires a cure. Usually, it doesn't take long to find the first cure. Usually, it's rather the 3rd and 4th cure that will give you a seriously hard time. If the layout of the board permits it, when you've found your first cure, you could consider eradicating it. What are the benefits? Well for starters you won't have to worry about that colour for the rest of the game. In what situations is this a feasible path? Well, it mostly is, but you don't want to run around trying to clear a region if there are too many cubes to handle. You need to be able to do it in a few turns, give or take. You'll have to weigh the odds to whether your involvement in eradicating will not hinder the overall progress of the game, but if well played, it can really make the rest of the game a breeze.

The most valuable result of eradicating a disease is that you'll never have to set foot on that region again. Consider that a few turns into the game, you do not need to return to North America. Ever. You've just reduced the size of the map by a fourth. You are now more mobile to treat the rest of the map and have less hassle to fly back once in a while and you'll get blue dud cards popping up from the infection deck that you can treat as "nothing happens". It is a tactical decision you need to make at a certain point in the game, but if you're going to go for it, you need to adapt your overall team strategy: who's going to eradicate? Probably the medic if you have one. Can the other players control the rest of the board sufficiently in the mean time? In two player games, this becomes a much more daunting task. A well implemented eradication is part luck, part knowing when to go for it. If you do it well though, the path to victory becomes significantly more probable.
When gathering cards, you'll always be weighing off the short term for the long term. You want to keep these cards to find a cure, but you also need them to travel faster to certain areas on the board and build research centers to find cures. Due to the hand limit, usually each player will be hoarding one colour of cards, hoping to just draw five of the same. It's a good idea to set out with the idea of each person having his own colour, because switching back and forth will end up with no one having the five cards. The deck of cards does deplete faster than you would hope for, and it takes some plays to realize that you need to keep in mind that when collecting colors, you don't all together discard the yellows because they keep popping up. By the time you want to collect yellow, there won't be any left.

Pandemic blends strategy and tactics in what I find is a good way. There is some predictability that allows you to create a strategic plan: giving every player a section of the globe to treat, because you're always acting after the facts. On the other hand, not everything is known, and a certain area can become a problem all of a sudden, or perhaps you keep drawing reds, whilst you're hoarding blues. At this point, you need to collectively rethink your strategy, because you cannot resolve these new factors in just one turn. You need to re-evaluate the importance of tasks, and create a strategy for the next couple of turns on how to treat them. This keeps you engaged and gives you a sense of having just enough control, without being at the mercy of chaos.

A matter of taste - or what drives this game and will allow you to consider whether it is for you or not
Rather than stipulating pros and cons as separate entities, I'll treat some central components of the game and view both sides of the coin.

Coop. By now you'll probably know if you like coops or not. There's plenty more out there. I must say that I don't like all coops. High randomness and unpredictability are certain things that really don't work for me. Witch of Salem for example uses dice. Dice are unpredictable. WoS also uses a deck of cards to draw from. You have no idea what's coming. I don't much care for such high unpredictability, and Pandemic strikes the perfect balance for me in that regard.

Dictatorship. As said already above, this is an inherent problem with coops, if you allow it to be one. You'll have to judge for your own group whether this might be an issue. I found that if one person is willing to play the mediator, it is possible to play with both extraverts and introverts at the same table. I still think the game needs group think, and that the randomness means that no one answer is the correct one. You need to discuss, explore and work together.

How many players? The game scales well but presents a different game for different numbers of players. Two players have the advantage of not having to juggle cards between more players, but can hold less cards between them. Two players get turns faster one after the other, but have a lot more ground to cover. With more players, co-ordination becomes paramount. You will have to get those cards from one player to the other, you will have a lot less turns in total during the game, so your actions need to be part of a team strategy to win. This makes the game overall much harder in a sense. So different ends of the scale mean different experiences, though I enjoy both. For some either end of the scale might be less enjoyable. Two players means less discussion and an easier time, though you can always up the difficulty. Four players means more co-ordination, so it's more prone to having a dictator problem.

Longlivity. The base game comes with several different roles to choose from, that dramatically alter how you will play the game. Each game starts with a random setup of starting cities, and each game will have different cities being bombarded by disease. The role cards provide the most variation, but throughout your different plays, the different areas on the board that need attention provide different options as well. Together with the roles from the expansion, you really have a lot of longlivity from the game, and I haven't even gotten into using the other components the expansion provides. So far I've gotten a solid 40ish games out of it, and my interest has gone from needing to play the game until I win to still vastly enjoying it from time to time. That's more than I can say for near 90% of my collection.

Final words
Pandemic is for me the Eurogamers coop. It's a thinky affair with low luck, but enough randomness to keep it replayable, to keep the mathematicians and AP prone in check. It is not a casual game as such, and requires players to be involved and pay attention. It rewards good play and has a bit of a learning curve. The difficulty settings ease you into it as you go along and discover more aspects and nuances of good play. The different role cards make for different experiences and strategies for numerous games, and the additional variants in the expansion should prove worthy of many more plays.

It stands apart in that it is accessible at its easiest setting whilst challenging at its hardest. I can play this with different groups if I keep to my role of mediator with newbies, but I do enjoy getting them to the point where they see certain strategies that I hadn't thought of. It works best with people who have equal experience in the game, and are not afraid to discuss with one another, or challenge each other. I believe these are caveats of any kind of co-operative game though.

From a personal point of view, I adore Pandemic. At 40ish plays, it is by far my most played game and I can say without a doubt that no other game has given me more enjoyment. Whilst I was almost addicted to it at first, the urge has faded, but I still do love going back to it for more. I should mention that since I've been playing less of Pandemic, I have been playing more of Forbidden Island. The fast setup of Forbidden Island is probably the main reason why I get Pandemic less to the table. It gives me my fix in a shorter amount of time, and is easier to get new players into. I am looking forward though, to getting these players to experience Pandemic someday.

Review: Ground Floor:: Venture Cardboard - A Dice Hate Me Quick-look at Ground Floor

ckirkman — Mon, 28 May 2012 17:14:07 +0000

by ckirkman

There are certain things in life that instantly and easily lend themselves to interpretation and adaptation in a board game. Farming, naturally. War, racing, and buying/trading on the stock market are practically games already. But until recently, one of the only recourses an entrepreneurial zealot had at the game table was to roll dice and move a little Scottie past Go. Enter crowdfunding; suddenly, games about business and start-ups became not only viable, but incredibly meta, making funding such entrepreneurial ventures possible. Startup Fever hit Kickstarter last spring and found gangbuster sales, while Briefcase tore through Indiegogo earlier this year. Now, Tasty Minstrel Games has entered the startup fray with Ground Floor on Kickstarter. And I'm here to tell you, unlike the tiny infrastructure that typically accompanies the budding businesses depicted in the game, Ground Floor is anything but tiny. This is big business, with a capital big.

]]>

In Ground Floor, players take on the roles of young business owners trying their best to improve the prestige of their startups through advertising, shrewd manufacture and pricing, improvements to infrastructure, and careful monitoring of the economic climate. If that sounds like a lot to keep track of, it is - but in an often-delightfully thinky way.

At the start of the game, each player receives a personal player board that represents the ground floor of their fledgling business, as well as the particular sector in which it specializes (such as non-profit, publishing, or emerging technologies). This board tracks the number of employees in the company, as well as the units of time (the most important resource) those requisite employees grant to the player. These time units are placed on the ground floor boards and the main game board to perform actions over the course of the game, such as training new employees, improving marketing and company popularity, or manufacturing and selling goods.

]]>
The ground floor of Ground Floor - the player board, where all the magic happens.

Performing all the actions in the game requires not only time but two other valuable resources: Money and information. Both can be acquired in various ways by devoting time to several intriguing avenues such as utilizing supply cubes (typically used to manufacture and sell a good) for research & development, hiring a consulting firm (the biggest pay-out in info. in the game), and even simply holding a meeting, where one unit of time (typically) rewards the player with one unit of info.

]]>
In Ground Floor, Time IS money.

All of this jockeying for resources is typical for the Euro heart that beats at the center of Ground Floor, but its real core lies in business upgrades. Each player has the opportunity over the course of the game to improve the building infrastructure of their businesses, which grants the player end-game prestige points, as well as special actions, abilities or improvements on the base actions that are available on the ground floor player boards at the beginning of the game. The upgrades system and components are truly what make Ground Floor shine and feel like a polished product. The Floor upgrades are represented by uniquely-cut punchboard chits that fit onto a player's ground floor board and make a player's building "grow," creating satisfyingly-tall skyscrapers by the end of the game.

]]>
Some buildings can get gloriously tall, like this 7-story beauty from my last game.

TMG definitely has not strayed too far from their base formula here, and that's not a bad thing; Ground Floor is a bit of a brain burner in the vein of Belfort and Homesteaders. However, unlike those two classic titles, Ground Floor is lacking a tiny bit of heart. That's not to say that Ground Floor doesn't adequately capture the tough decisions, responsibility juggling, and resultant rush of managing and succeeding in small business, but some gamers may feel that it emulates it all a little too well. For instance, one player that tested the game with me mentioned that it felt oddly - but appropriately - corporate. In the end, I believe the key word here is appropriate; after all, in Ground Floor we're not dealing with trading apples for cows or using dwarves and elves to build a brewpub.

]]>
There are a lot of improvements in Ground Floor - luckily, there's help.

Overall, I found Ground Floor to be a satisfying Euro experience, especially after learning the ropes in the first play. This is a game that certainly rewards repeated play; there are simply too many different strategic and tactical routes to take from game to game to play just a couple of times and shelve it for months. And even if after a few plays you find one particular business type and strategy to be more your style than others, the actions of the other players and the economic shifts ensure that you won't get stuck in a rut - and if you do, you'll soon find your plans to be the next Trump will get you fired, instead.

In summary, Ground Floor will definitely scratch that itch for a deep and immersive entrepreneurial simulation, if that's your sort of thing. Fans of TMG's meatier games will certainly be satisfied as long as they pledge with the mindset of gaming within a corporate atmosphere. I believe most will understand and embrace the concepts; after all, it's nothing personal - it's just business.

]]>

Pledge now on Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/michaelmindes/ground-flo...

Review: Landslide!:: I took my love and I took it down. Landslide!: Review

stpauler — Mon, 28 May 2012 17:13:51 +0000

by stpauler

Alright, full disclosure before the game starts. The title is from Fleetwood Mac's song "Landslide" and not the net result of playing the game where I was trounced by my love. But it would be weird to change the pronouns and I'd never hear the end of it if I didn't add the disclaimer.

Back to the game. What we have here is a frequent thrift store find it seems. A game that transcends Salvation Armies to Good Wills to Half Price Books. I've seen its face everywhere and with a $5 price tag, what could go wrong?

The Game Basics.
You'll start off with a candidate profile sheet where you choose your political affiliation and by picking 3-6 platform issues. You then get 5 of the momentum cards and choose your homestate.
]]>
You then get 100 PC (dollars) to pay for elections around the country. Platform issues are randomly picked and placed around the board (see the yellow chits in threes) and roll the white die for bonuses based on affiliation. Part of the game is finding that your choices of affiliation and issues will either give you bonuses or your opponent bonuses.

The game play moves on where you draw a card, roll two dice and move around the board and then do what the new space allows. You'll eventually go around the board and like Monopoly, you'll pass "Go" and collect money. This game has it based on how many states you've won plus how many issues. Other spaces like "Soundbite" have players paying others based on numbers of issues, or "PAC Payday" collects all money on this game's version of Free Parking.

]]>

The final part of game play revolves around the state elections. This is where the game gets interesting. Landing on a square with just an image by dice roll starts a state election in that region of the country. The player chooses which states is up for election Now, let's start with the Momentum cards you've pulled, some give bonuses mostly to your war chest. Your war chest, the amount of money you have, is kept secret from your opponents. Then starts the secret bids based on how much you think it will take to win the state. Bonuses are given based on matching your political affiliation with the state as well as other factors. After all spots are filled out and tallied, players reveal their scores, the winner puts a chip on the state claiming it as theirs and all players pay in what they bid.

There are three different winning conditions based on the length of game desired. The short version which took about 40 minutes to play had the winner getting one state in each region, one in each color, and a minimum of 50 electoral votes.

Components

The game is well made, the quality cards are a bit larger than most and will be hard to find sleeves for. Luckily, they don't require a lot of constantly shuffling or use. The art work leaves a bit to be desired (think at the level of Glory to Rome) but the election backstories are quite interesting albeit quite dated. Unfortunately, even if they were to be updated, they'd be outdated just as soon.
]]>

Game Play and overall review

The game has a short learning curve and has a lot going on. A chunk of it is definitely luck based. If you hate dice making a win contingent then you'll want to pass this game by. The game doesn't hinge on that only, as a good chunk of game play is trying to outwit your opponent by outbidding them without going bankrupt yourself.

The mechanics flow through quickly and strategy is quickly understood. Those with good memory of how much an opponent has in their secret war chest will have an advantage when it comes to bidding. This can be thwarted by the momentum cards having extra funding abilities.

I gave this game a seven as it's got an interesting mechanic but it definitely won't appeal to most folks. If you can give over the portion of luck that this game is based on, the game is fun.

Review: Tigris & Euphrates:: [Voice of Experience] Tigris & Euphrates: There can be only one

ldsdbomber — Mon, 28 May 2012 15:54:37 +0000

by ldsdbomber

subtitled:
{Voice of Incompetence} Tigris & Euphrates: Lazy Man's Chess based on 15-20 plays

Game Facts

Box Cover ]]>

Tigris & Euphrates is an incredibly well known game currently ranked 15th overall in the BGG rankings, though only... 18th ... in the strategic rankings but given that it is now coming up to its 15th birthday, I think its testament to its long term value and overall excellence that it still rides in the charts over here, and indeed is well thought of on several other board game related websites .

13705 people have deigned to rate it (not including me, but assume I am giving it an "11"), with a BGG weighted average of 7.88 out of 10. 1790 people rate this a perfect ten (and 38 very stupid people rate it a 1 would you believe)

Its listed with a weight rating of 3.5 which I think is fair, but its a gam where the depth is real, and not padded by extraneous rules overhead and complexity. This is closer to chess with a handful of rules that combine to create a world with emergent gameplay created entirely by the combatants.

Despite its incredible popularity, and indeed, its rumored role in bringing together the founders of this site, it's a game that a lot of people don't care for, and there are a number of common complaints about its lack of theme, its dryness, its difficulty and complexity, its reliance on randomly drawn red tiles... all things that I just can't see how it's possible to believe if you've actually given the game a fair shot. OK, I'm biased because although I had preconceptions that kept me away from this for too long, at least I could see on my first play that this game was one that was going to get its hooks .. real deep, and it did. I think about this game a lot, and I always want to play it. I rate it an 11, fools.

Here's what our founders have to say about the game in their comments, obviously alongside a rating of 10.0

Derk
Probably the only game that I can unreservedly give a rating of 10, without any thoughts of it dropping.
Aldie

Best game I own. I love playing it every single time.

I thought I'd contrast this with the current lowest rating, no names named, but I love that this guy has used the incredibly precise 1.4013 e-45, so obviously it had something going for it to avoid the big -infinity. Sir, you are a fool with an axe to grind and you've missed out on a great experience by giving up after only half a play. I particularly liked the insightful comment that went with it

Avoid this game. Unless you like unusual game mechanics (which is the only reason I bought it, a quirky flaw in my nature). The rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

Well, prepare yourselves for the weird and wonderful world of unusual game mechanics such as laying colored tiles on a grid, because this one's a doozy my friends!

P.S: It received a nomination for Spiel des Jahres in 2008 but it was beaten by Keltis. The heathens, not only had they ignored Knizia for several years for some bizarre and unknown reason, in his hour of glory they turned their back on his masterpiece and chose... Keltis. Ah well.

Blurb courtesy of BGG

Regarded by many as Reiner Knizia's masterpiece, the game is set in the ancient fertile crescent with players building civilizations through tile placement. Players are given four different leaders: farming, trading, religion, and government. The leaders are used to collect victory points in these same categories. However, your score at the end of the game is the number of points in your weakest category, which encourages players not to get overly specialized. Conflict arises when civilizations connect on the board, i.e., external conflicts, with only one leader of each type surviving such a conflict. Leaders can also be replaced within a civilization through internal conflicts.
NOTE: More recent editions of the game by Mayfair and Pegasus (possibly among other publishers) contain a double sided board and extra components for playing the advanced version of the game.
Part of what is considered Reiner Knizia's tile-laying trilogy.
The Hans im Glück version states it is for 2-4 players; the Mayfair Games version states it is for 3-4 players.

PLEASE NOTE: This is a LONG review, over 20,000 words long and has become somewhat of a manic labour of love at the last minute since I wrote it between 4pm and 3am on Sunday 27th and 10am and 5 pm on Monday 28th, the best part of a whole day, I just hope it was time well spent. For those who want to skip right to the meat, I suggest scrolling down to the two large sections picked out in quotes, for those with nothing better to do, keep reading.....

Introduction
]]>
As I mentioned in one of the geek lists displaying the entries in this competition, I am a bit uncomfortable with the implication of "voice of experience", both from the aspect of the sub context that somehow this review should be expected to be 'a little bit higher quality than the norm', but mainly from the assumption that 10 plays is enough to provide a more worthy opinion than just a single play. It might be true to some extent that a good handful of plays gets you past the rules errors, or blatantly obvious strategic or tactical boo boos, but as I pointed out there, I would not be rushing to the front of the queue to buy tickets to listen to a Voice of Experience review on Chess after 10 plays. I think I'd probably sigh, and then chuckle a bit. I daresay there are many experienced and expert gamers here who could present a much better overview of this wonderful game (Editor: what? you're half a paragraph in before actually mentioning the subject of the review!) based on even a single play, or even a reading of the rules, so I feel very uncomfortable with the expectation of a higher quality review. Please don't mistake this as a faux modesty trying to garner extra votes or appreciation, I mean simply this. There are some games that ask you, in fact, demand you play many, many, many times before you can really speak from a "voice of experience". In general, for my own part, I'm finding that these kinds of games are the ones I'm gravitating towards, games that flash their knickers at you and leave you thinking about them, but always keeping you at arms length as you struggle to unravel the wonderful mesh of mechanics, theme and interaction that's driven by the players, and a simple set of rules (I think the word the pro´s use is "Elegant"). Tigris & Euphrates is one such game, and while I've completely fallen in love with it (such that if I had to choose, I would pick it as the one game to save from my collection and take to a desert island), and even though I've quickly spotted some of the tactics, strategies and dynamics that drive it, I just don't know if I can do this game justice.

So, with that in mind, why should I even bother? Well, there are a lot of things about this hobby, I guess not exclusive to board gaming that I find a bit… troublesome, the OCD like behavior that seems to drive many, this obsession with churning through new games, a new game every time you sit to the table, thousands of games on the shelf, hundreds unplayed, games tossed to one side after a play before you even get to the point of understanding it, having 50 games that all do the same thing but have a different shaped meeple. I have been guilty of many of this, I've bought the whole set of expansions for games I never even got round to playing, I've bought games based on fantastical hypothetical situations where imaginary gaming group friends that I don't have come round and "might like to try a Pirate Memory Game" (sorry to those of you who don't get the Little Britain reference), in short I've gone through all these kinds of phases which the more I reflect upon them, the more I realize is really not what I want out of the hobby, and not what I think is healthy both in terms of the games themselves but on a personal and moral level. I do not say this to criticize anyone else's choices, only to illustrate my own feelings, and to try to illustrate how, over the past 2 years I guess, which I call my "BGG" phase, I've really changed drastically in terms of what I like out of games, what I want out of games, and what I understand about myself. I think it's important to go through this yourself, and not let anyone else tell you "you're doing it wrong".

And this is hopefully where I get to some kind of point. It's incredibly easy to fall into the trap of reading reviews and reports here, and be sucked into thinking this or that game is completely awesome and you should get it, likewise, it's incredibly easy to read some comments that are quite negative and be carried along in a self fulfilling prejudgement about what this or that game is. Maybe I am more susceptible than others, but I've found that many times I feel that I have incredibly strong feelings about games that I've NEVER played, based purely on what I've read other people say. The problem with that comes when a game you expect to be one thing turns out not to live up to it and you are disappointed, even if that game might have been great for you if you'd discovered it in a better way. Worst of all is when you lack the filtering skills to avoid being put off by labels and keywords that need reinforcing only a few times before you accept them as fact. Agricola is fiddly and the rulebook is terrible, get the game, open the box, scatter the 15,000 components on the table, see some of the fine print rules at the back and think, shit, they were right, I can't be bothered with this. Result, trade away unplayed. Thankfully, in no small part to Ryan Sturm's How to Play podcast I realized it wasn't at all difficult or unintuitive, and 125+plays later it remains one of our very favorite games. This kind of thing has happened to me so many times, and it's actually quite terrifying. What if I'd not bothered with these games, sure, I wouldn't necessarily know what I was missing, but I've had so much fun from my games it's a bit painful to think that many of them might never have been given a fair run.

And now, (Editor: finally, sheesh) this is where Tigris & Euphrates comes in the door. Of course its reputation is massive, and it remains well liked and well appreciated, but there are a number of 'red herrings' that can and did serve as warning flags for a long time. As a result, the copy of T&E I have on my shelf is AT LEAST the 4th or 5th copy I have actually owned, the rest have been bought (usually after tussling with reading the positive reviews, thinking, well it MUST be a worthwhile game to try) and then sold or traded, because "the rules are very complicated", "the theme is totally tacked on, boring and dry", "it's way too random and all about getting red tiles", "it sucks for 2 players". Well, thank goodness that somehow I managed to finally just sit the hell down and open this one up, because I can tell you that after our very first play of this game which I can only really describe with the very uncritical and very unscientific term we know as "WHOAH". I should take the time to thank UvulaBob a.k.a Paul Springer for his wonderful Flash Based Review thingy (and let's fact it, someone should have thrown some money at this guy to keep making his game review videos, which to me still represent the perfect presentation I've ever seen in any review), which like Ryan's podcast got me to thinking, hang on, this doesn't look at all bad, in fact, I bet this could be pretty freaking awesome. And it was! And it is! And more! I should also like to thank some of my fellow GCL Meatball members, in particular Martin Griffiths (aka competition boss, aka, it never hurts to name drop in a competition, right!), Nate Straight for their support of this game and for their part in encouraging to find my own agreement with them, and I'll say again, that after racking up several hundred board games, even if I didn't play them all, and after a rapid rise from the beginnings of games like Pandemic, Lost Cities, Stone Age through to Splotter, Winsome, Wallace in pretty good order, this currently ranks as my very favorite game (again, I know there is no critical value in this statement, but damn I wanted to say it loud and proud). I'm blessed with a beautiful and kind hearted Swedish wife (who wouldn't want one of those), and while she enjoyed our first few plaays, it was only when we tried out the iOS port that she also had her own "WHOAH" moment, that is, she saw what I saw, that this game is a game that will be a regular part of our gaming lives from this point forth, and it will take a very special title to displace this from the top of our list.

For such a simple set of rules, and such a limited set of options on each turn, the game just throws the players together and steps back out of the way to let you get on with it (I stole that line from someone on BGG, but can't remember who, apologies if it was you). Other one liners include something that we felt, but Nate probably said best which paraphrased was that the genius of this game (and Knizia in general if I'm honest) is that there's no obfuscation in the game, it's clear what you can do, it might even be clear what you should do, but somehow you can't quite do everything you want to do, and somehow each game manages to have a different feel, each game the board develops and changes in different ways, despite it basically being "put a couple of tiles down in 4 colors and get points from it".

In the review (Editor: what, you've not even STARTED yet!) I'll try to explain why I think T&E is like The Holy Trinity of board gaming because it's a Euro game, it's an abstract game, and yeah, it's a full in your face Thematic Trashy Wargame. It stands head and shoulders above this frankly tiresome procession of games that equate "rules complexity, exception complexity, pointless thematic integration of mechanics that don't suit it" with "deep" and "meritorious". It's unashamedly simple in how it works, yet incredibly complex in how it develops, and while there are games that might sit alongside it for this or that reason, there's no game really quite like it, and it absolutely is a "lifestyle" game that you can play repeatedly. For ever. And that's a mighty long time. And there's something else. The afterworld. What some people might see as a flaw (the randomness in the tile draw), I think actually gives it a quality which in fact improves the replayability, and increases its claim to be the real "chess killer" of our times, in board game clothing. I'll get back to that!

Who am I?

You only need to look at my game collection here to realize I'm, arm, impulsive, to say the least. I doubt there are many more people with a higher degree of churn than me, and when you factor in that many of the games I own or have owned before actually came in and out of my collection many times, the reality is probably closer to something like 1000 previously owned items, and now I own about 25. I play primarily with 2 players, my wonderful wife being the lucky recipient of both my company, and my incredible gameplay buffoonery. Its always nice to be the one in the family who spends countless hours on BGG (at least before our son arrived), reading, researching, discussing, then sets the game up and generally gets crushed the first few times we play before I even get a sniff of how to play properly. We came to "BGG" quite late on, and probably we are about 2 years in, again, pretty freaky if you match that alongside my collection churn. While Petra is pretty happy to play more or less anything with me (even if she has her favorites), it's me that's undergone a pretty steep change in which games I enjoy, and understanding what I enjoy (and it's not as easy as it should be!), so I've gone from the usual middleweight gateway games and family euros to more complex, deep and involved weighty euros, and finally realizing that a lot of those games are impostors and are actually just overwrought abstractions that disguise what's going on with smoke and mirrors hoping you won't notice and will instead marvel at just how clever they are.

So now I've come to a point where I like games that have a light overhead in terms of rules and exceptions "low fiddle factor" but have "emergent gameplay", i.e. it's not the rules steering what happens, it's what the players do to each other. I'm getting more and more of an affinity for what I call "classic" or "golden age" euros, the games that came after Settlers of Catan, but when it was still "OK" to base a game around 1 or 2 mechanics or ideas (thanks Sid Sackson), and let the players define the game, strange that in my opinion games got more and more away from this ideal, and in general, it feels like far too few designers are bold enough to come up with simple concepts, and instead prefer to stuff thousands of cards, huge rulebooks, ginormous available action trees, obfuscated mechanics and it seems to be a recursive spiral as games tend to follow on from what went before. I think somewhere it went wrong, and now the bulk of the hobby is filled with pointless wastes of time that don't hold a candle to the clean, surgical, brutal simplicity of a game like Tigris. (Editor: oooh, now you're a fan, you can start to use abbreviated labels for it!) I don't know if its this horrendous Cult of the New syndrome that, alongside the explosion in board game output, has created an entire philosophy of gaming that treats designs as play once and cast aside, oo, that was a cool theme, oo, that was a nice "twist" on that mechanic. Bah humbug. Grow some balls. Find a theme, or a mechanic, boil it down to its essentials and don't be ashamed to let the players drive the show. I've had goodness knows how many run ins with the one known as "clear claw", but I'll credit him with saying this long ago when a discussion about Knizia's use of theme (I think in relation to Samurai). And to give him his druthers, it's one of the most insightful things I've read about board gaming, and it's a concept fulfilled in spades by Tigris.

I have a wide range of tastes, and for example have a huge affinity for stats based sports games featuring charts and tables, and card based lookups, I was an active component in continuing the development of Statis Pro Football when the product folded under the weight of greed from the NFL and Players agents, I'm keen on war-games, but since they're not as appealing to the wife, have not explored as fully as I would like to, and I have an interest in abstracts, though I'm constantly struggling with the problem of having games that don't feel trivial or pointless against games that require a lifetime of study and almost single handed pursuit to enjoy. I also enjoy the immersive experience of what might be called "ameritrash" games. "Dudes in a corridor" for example is a genre I've loved from afar, and am incredibly excited to play with my son when he's old enough (and hopefully willing enough). In other words, I have a pretty broad taste, but a somewhat jaded view of the hobby which has come in just the 2 years. Now I want games that fascinate me from the very first play, whether or not I grasp it, I want there to be a spark of "whoa" in there, I want to go away and be thinking about how good this game might be in the future, a game that I actively anticipate playing again and again and again. I don't want any part of Cult of the New, or Cult of the play and discard. I want games that don't batter me round the head with obstructions to getting in and playing it, have elegant, simple rules that allow the game itself to be created by the players, and I want it to poke its tongue out and say "oi! it's clever this isn't it, you don't get it do you? No, and you never will, so you'd better keep playing it then and hope you get a bit better, cos I'm even better than you realize!". I think I have a pretty good eye for this now, and again, you need to "walk the walk" first before you get to that point. I've played a couple of games recently (names hidden to protect the innocent), quite pleasant, cute theme, probably could be a bit cheeky with a full table of players, but totally lacking in anything that made you think wow, I can't wait to get this to the table again and start working it out. Perhaps more than any other game in my collection, Tigris is that game (even though I have high hopes for several other titles on my shelf too).

So, my perspective comes from a mainly 2P environment, somewhat experienced in terms of exposure to the hobby, not by any means an accomplished gamer, and despite us both doing a very intellectual and technical job, are not the types that have the patience nor inclination to seek gaming experiences that require hours of reflection in near silence to grasp the concepts. I feel like I've found a pretty comfortable slot exploring classic, elegantly designed games that have high replay value, and although the wife is quite happy to turtle in games and let us "do our stuff" on the other side of the board, I'm constantly looking for games that allow you to go head to head and "play mean" but not in a way that feels petty (someone wrote here once, probably one of the Eclipse GCL guys, or was it Richard Ham, that his wife took umbrage to direct conflict meanness in games where you're "building shit" because it was just deflating to spend time and effort to create something and then see it torn down. The bad news about Tigris is that you're really not playing the game if you're in turtle mode (and just to be clear, we're quite happy to play what might be called "multiplayer solitaire" games), but the good news is the kind of conflict (Editor: ooh, is that foreshadowing?) in Tigris, and the dynamic way the "world" changes actually it makes sense to "get it on" and there's not really the same feeling of spending ages to build that awesome thing and losing it, it's more like the players are constantly expanding, moving, changing, adapting, attacking, defending, resculpturing the landscape each and every turn.

I've played this game around 15 times, with recent games played on the iPhone (and in about a week, on the iPad). I'm still fascinated by it, I still love it, I still think about it a lot, and still want to play it all the time. And I'm lucky to have a wonderful wife who feels the same.

Who are you?

Well, here's an important thing for me, especially in the context of my proviso's early on. Those of you who have played this great game many times, and have a vast body of experience about games in general may very well not find anything new here, but hopefully will not find it completely useless, and please feel free to comment. Nor will this probably be enough to draw in those of you that just dropped in from your last game and are on your way to the next new one. Don't expect a single play of this game to give you any answers, or 10 for that matter, but I think many of you will see what I saw even after 1 play and realize that here is a game that truly deserves some long term loving and will pay you back in spades. If you're like me and have gone through "The Evolution", as in 2 to 3 years here on BGG, thrown yourself into it, bought and tried far too many games, but without realizing slowly and steadily come to the conclusion that you want to spend time learning to play a handful of games properly and finding ones worthy of your attention, then hopefully this will be for you. And most of all, perhaps, I want you to be someone who like me was curious about this highly rated game that also generates plenty of negative opinion, somewhat polarizing, and seems to engender discussion in all the big forum smack downs, theme: what is it, what has it, what does it mean, whats the point of it, interaction. what is it, who wants it, where is it, depth: what is it, how do you get it, what is it good for. Absolutely everything!

Since you can literally try and play this game for free, I really hope that I will be able to reach out to those of you who are put off by some of the nonsense written about the games complexity, dryness, lack of theme and randomness. It's a game for the ages, an absolute classic, something you can teach in a few minutes to friends who don't spend half their life on BGG, and equally good to break out with the meeple stuffed Imperial Emperors of Game Theory.

Oh, and I should emphasize, that you do know that you can go and play this game RIGHT NOW for FREE. Right here on BGG. Yes, if you click the "misc" tag across the top, and click "tigris" you can view games running, some of which are automatically generated, some created, which you can join, or you can create your own games, open or private, for any number of players and on the standard or Nile map (created to be a bit tighter in a 2P environment). Do yourself a favor and give it a try, post in the forum for T&E and I'm sure you will find plenty of people willing to run you through a teaching game. Me included.

P.S. The reason that the about me section is longer than the section about you is just because I know me a bit better than I know you and I wanted you to be able to see if anything I say about my own tastes and experiences resonates with you. I really only want to share my enthusiasm and love for this game, and most of all to encourage more people to try it, especially those who might never have considered it, or might be feeling that there's something a bit "missing" in this glut of new games coming out every year, and those who've been put off by the naysaying and false prophets. Please don't take it personally

What is this game?

OK, I guess I need to take a step back from the blathering and give you a round up of what's going on in this game without resorting to a full regurgitation of the rulebook. Amusingly, I probably could regurgitate the rulebook, because it's that damned simple! You can keep the rules on one hand, and the exceptions on the other and still have fingers free to actually play the game.

So, the game is set amidst the rise of ancient civilizations growing, expanding, clashing, shrinking, fracturing, disappearing, all along the banks of the rivers Tigris & Euphrates. Hence the name. I'm not sure if the civilizations are supposed to represent the key players in a specific period in history, but here in this house we like to call them "The Lions" (not those pesky Lannisters), "The Archers" (but NOT those little fellows that hide behind the skirting boards on Radio 4, "The Potters" (no relation to Harry's family as far as we know, and "The Ass". I realize the asses are supposed to be bulls, but they don't look very bullish on our pieces. Also, please do not be put off by the fact that one of the factions is represented by a stupid ass vase. They still kick Ass. Especially when I'm playing the Ass and Petra is playing the potters. Ha, see what I did there. In my version of the rules, it does say we're in about 3000 BC with Babylon, Nineveh and Ur (which I think is a civilization and not like the rulebook writer was having a beavis and butthead moment) in ancient Mesoptomia.

Anyhoo, the map shows the rich fertile deltas around the confluence of these two great rivers, some versions have a double sided map to give you a different challenge, and it's probably worth mentioning that there is a somewhat unofficial "Nile" expansion map that's specifically designed to increase the action in 2P games by reducing the available area and throwing you together a bit quicker. To be honest, I'm not sure it's that necessary since you'll soon realize when you play this game that you need to always be on the lookout for crashing your civilizations into the other guys or sneaking into theirs with a bit of political unrest, so if you do just stick to your own corners in a 2P game on the bigger boards, well, you will almost certainly get bored of the game and you'd be missing out on a great experience. Don't do it. I know she looks ever so cute on the other side of the table, and I know he looks ever so sweet on the other side of the table, but get in there and show no mercy!

So, the map consists of a gridded layout, rather pleasant art and design, at least in my version which is the newer Mayfair double scenario edition (I had not realized earlier versions didn't have the double sided map). The two rivers flow across the board, all squares with river running through it are considered to be river spaces. The board contains several spaces showing a Sphinx character, these identify the starting temple (red tiles) positions which also all contain treasures (yellow cubes if you're feeling cynical).

Board ]]>

In front of you, are your leaders. You have 4 in total, 1 in each of the four colors which represent different areas of development, production, influence in your civilizations, namely Red (Temples), Blue (Farmers), Green (Traders), Black (Soldiers). Your faction is identified by the symbol on the wooden leader discs, so if you are "The Lion" you will have a red, blue, green and black Lion token (so you don't for example have all the green leaders for one player etc). These leaders you use to control and influence different kingdoms on the map, their strength in political revolts and wars determined quite simply in 2 different ways (which we'll get to). You also have a couple of disaster tiles that are openly displayed, and can be used at any time to "nuke" (use your imagination) a single square on the board. These can be used in wonderful ways I promise you. Your leaders by the way, we can call "The King" (black leader), "The Priest" (Red leader), "The Merchant" (green leader) and "The Farmer" (blue leader)
Leaders ]]>

On your tile rack (a la Scrabble) are your square tiles, that you draw from the bag, up to 6, refreshing at the end of each turn so you have 6 again (and one of the options you have in the game is to exchange all your tiles on your rack, an undervalued option particularly to new players), These are secret from everyone else, and will obviously be a combination of the four colors, red, blue, green, and black

Tiles ]]>

You'll also have some weird wooden blocks in the four colors that the observant among you will notice allows you create different combinations of "monuments". We'll discuss those later, but when you set them up, you need to make sure each one is a unique combo, the rulebook shows you the combos to make, which ensure that for each color, there is a monument including each of the other 3 colors.

Monuments ]]>

Finally, your scores are tracked by colored cubes in the four colors, the goal of the game to get the most complete SETS of the four colors, i.e. 1 red, 1 blue, 1 green and 1 black counts as exactly 1 point. Some folk get in a bit of a tizz with the knizia scoring method (seen in other games, e.g Samurai, Ingenious) where they tell you the color you have the worst score in is your final score, and it can be unintuitive to non gamers, but think of it in terms of sets and it makes a lot more sense. In the case of a tie, you just move to sets of 3 colors being equal to 1 point, and if tied, sets of 2 etc. Or maybe you just like it as they say in the rules. YOur lowest score counts first, in the case of ties, move to the next lowest score you have.

Cubes ]]>

The upshot is it's no good at all to have 100 red points if you have 0 blue points. Your score will be 0 and will be mocked for centuries, You need to build up evenly, or should I say, you need to plan to end up evenly, because it's certainly possible to plod up in each of the colors, OR surge ahead in 1 or 2 colors, use that advantage while you can and then get to work on your bad colors. Points can be gained one at a time or in clumps and while you might have problems with runaway leaders in your early games if you play someone who knows the game well, in general against similar level opponents, you should always be in with a chance of turning the game on its head with alarming speed. You also have a player screen to hide your VP cubes if you want to (the rulebook tells you to do this)

open and closed scoring
Now, it's worth making a tangent here, before we discuss how the game actually plays, how you actually get points to bring up an issue which is itself somewhat controversial in board gaming, that of hidden and open scoring, and in particular, when it's related to trackable information. Some players think that if you could in theory write down the scores as they change, then the game should display this openly, since not doing so only adds an unnecessary reliance on memory, and more importantly clouds the decisions being made in the game because you don't know exactly what the game state is. Others think that the spirit of these games is intended to provide exactly this "fog of war" and make it so that you need to pay attention to overall trends in scoring but without knowing exactly what the score is, leading to surprise results, often ill advised moves, and perhaps most importantly a lack of analysis paralysis (for those that don't know, meaning encouraging players to sit and mull for long periods over every move because they are calculating the permutations of perfect information). Hidden scoring advocates also like the aspect of having a feel for timing the end game push without perfect information (e.g. in Puerto Rico). I think that instead of there being a hard rule as proponents on both side like to loudly advocate, it depends ENTIRELY on the game in question, and the players in question. Some players prefer one or the other, some games pull off hidden scoring better (because the information is not easy to track quickly). Whether you or your group would tolerate someone saying "but I COULD write it down, so maybe I will stop the game each round and ask you all again what you scored and I will write it down" is up to you, to me it seems beyond ridiculous to state this as some kind of authoritative fact. I'm in the group of people who would NOT want to sit down with such a person in the first place. However, over time, I've come over more and more to the side of "if it's trackable, then show it" (e.g. El Grande castillo),

So how does it work with Tigris? Well, I would recommend you try it both ways and see which you prefer. With open scoring (which we tend to use on the iphone/ipad) then you're constantly aware of how strong or weak you and your opponent are in each area, and you can use that information to try and influence that in your favor whether you need to catch up, or prevent the other one from catching up. It definitely produces more focussed interaction because the scoring mechanic tells you right there and then what every player needs to try to do. On the other side (which we tend to play when we get the cardboard out) it's definitely a different feeling to try to keep a rough idea of where you are weak or strong compared to your opponents, but not sitting between turns reciting in your head all the scores…. I think you can have a good idea of where the opponents are strong and you can see where you yourself are weak, and the monuments (see later) as the point droppers also tend to identify strong points, it can be fun to do the final reveal and realize you've won, or indeed lost. I will say that because of the format of the game with random tile draws, there is an argument that perfect information is not really needed, since you can't guarantee getting the tiles you need, on the other hand, some might feel that the very fact you draw tiles randomly and might have to suck it up and deal with a bad hand means you should at least have the scoring open so the moves you do make have a chance of being somewhat controlled and optimal. To be honest, I think we prefer open scoring, quite a bit, but I would not turn down a game with hidden scoring either. As I said, you can easily try both and decide yourselves. (conflict avoiding couples might try closed scoring just to tone down the very directed confrontation borne out of scores being open). I will say that it can be quite tricky to keep track of scores even in 2P unless you're spending time doing it, and with more it's a real pain.
You want me to pick one, play with open scores, you want my advice? decide for yourself

Playing the Game aka "The Rules"

OK, now you know what's in the box, you know about the factions, the leaders and the four different colors which make up the different aspects of a growing civilization. You know you have 2 "nuke" tiles in hand, and you know that you are constantly drawing back to 6 tiles and these tiles and leaders go on this grid board featuring the rivers that give rise to the game's name.

In Game Shot ]]>

Here are the rules, boiled down to their essentials

You get 2 actions per turn, which can be the same action or 2 different ones, the actions being
Play a tile to the board
Play a leader to the board (or move a leader from a spot on the board to another)
Refresh your hand of tiles by setting aside your hand and drawing new tiles
so ….. Play a tile, Position a Leader, Change your tiles

Here are the restrictions:
Blue tiles can only go on river spaces. Nothing else can go on river spaces
Leaders must be placed adjacent to a red temple tile
Leaders of the same color cannot be in the same kingdom (a region of tiles containing 1 or more leaders)
Leaders cannot be placed on a space that joins 2 kingdoms, only tiles can join 2 kingdoms

Here are the exceptions:
monuments - if you place a tile to complete a 2 x 2 block in the same color (4 tiles), you can choose to build a monument that includes the color of the block of 4 (e.g. you can't build a blue-green monument from a block of 4 red tiles). The 4 tiles are placed face down (or removed if you like) and the monument placed there instead. These monuments are valuable point scoring engines but will attract the attention of greedy rival civilizations
treasures - at the end of a turn if there are any kingdoms containing more than 1 treasure and a "Merchant" (a green leader), the owner of that merchant takes all but 1 treasure from that kingdom, these treasures which are natural colored cubes count as wild card points and are thus incredibly valuable, not to mention being one of the key "timing triggers" for the game end
disasters - these can be played on any tile except on top of a treasure, leader or monument and basically "nuke" it - permanently, this tile can not be removed or overbuilt, and can be used to split kingdoms up, isolate leaders etc, remember all players have 2 so prepare for reprisals (or you may choose to play the random catastrophe variant, see below)

Conflicts: this is the meat and potatoes of the game, which I will come back to after describing scoring. Conflicts occur at any point when multiple leaders end up in the same kingdom and come in two different flavors.

and here's how you score:

Whenever you place a tile in a kingdom (which just means a leader is present, otherwise groups of tiles are called regions), a cube of the color of the tile will be awarded to the leader in that color in that kingdom, i.e. think of your leaders as "point sinks". With your red leader in a kingdom, if you place another red tile into the kingdom, a red cube is awarded to your red leader (i.e. you!). The same principle applies in all colors, but "The King" has a special bonus power (because he's the king and that, and he has all the soldiers so you do as he says). If a tile is placed and there is no leader of that color in the kingdom, it will still go to the black leader (King) in that kingdom, so he sucks up black cubes PLUS any colored cubes that don't have a leader there to grab them. If there is no matching leader in that kingdom, no VP cube is awarded.

At the end of a turn, monuments (two colors remember) kick out a VP cube in each of their 2 colors, to the leaders in that kingdom matching, which may be owned by the same player, 2 different players. Unfortunately for The King, he does not vacuum up colored cubes that don't have a leader to go to, so a blue and red monument gives a blue and red cube ONLY to the red and blue leader in that kingdom, and if those leaders are not present, no cubes are awarded, even if black leader is sat there. Because you can end up with multiple monuments in kingdoms, these can be huge point generators that supply VP cubes each turn, but at the same time, are obviously attractive targets for raiding civilizations. Another neat aspect of this (which you won't understand yet) is that the removal of those 4 tiles to make the monument also reduces the "war power" of the leader in that color in that kingdom (again, we'll get to conflicts shortly)

Whenever you claim treasures, these count towards your weakest color, i.e. they are a wild card color, so are used to boost the score of your weakest color. So they're worth a point each but more importantly, a point of whatever color you want (decided at game end, you don't need to nominate up front what they are - note to self: interesting variant idea?)

The final (and most important) way to score points is through conflicts, which is where leaders of the same color come into contact in the same kingdom either internally (game term: internal conflict, slightly more descriptive term: Political Revolt) or externally (game term: external conflict, slightly more descriptive term: War!). Revolts come about when a player places a leader directly into a kingdom containing a leader of the same color. Wars come about when some bugger puts a tile down which links two kingdoms (you can't place a tile that links 3 or 4 kingdoms) and as a result, the joined kingdom contains one or more leaders of the same color. Revolts actually only award red victory points, and usually only a handful, Wars can award victory points in all colors, and can often result in spectacular points windfalls.

GAME END
the game ends immediately when any player cannot refresh their hands up to the full 6 tiles, or there are 2 or less treasures left on the board

I think this illustrates that the rules and gameplay are incredibly simple, so why this reputation for difficult rules, and all this confusion about conflicts? The basic ideas are incredibly simple. Play a tile, send a cube of that color to the appropriate leader (or king) if present. Monuments send out a cube in each of their 2 colors at the end of each players turn. Treasures are wild card points and are collected by making kingdoms which have more than 1 treasure in them, and all but 1 of the treasures goes to the Merchant. Leaders need to be adjacent to temples (red tiles) presumably to receive the support of the influential priests in these ancient times. Disasters sometimes lay waste to an area of the world. Leaders of the same type can fight for power within a single kingdom (revolt), or they can fight for power between two rival kingdoms suddenly joined and these can lead to huge point swings, massive changes across the landscape of "the world".

One confusing thing is the leaders / colors. You are a civilization represented by an animal (or a vase, haha), colors represent elements within a civilization. Another slightly confusing thing is the black leader being called "The King" when that might be confusing since you have 4 leaders, yeah I know the king should be the one with the soldiers, but you could call him "The General" if you prefer to think of your leaders as all being Kings (honestly I know people who prefer this), but these are not reasons people get in a tizz, in my opinion..

Another concept that's a bit different is this idea that although you're placing tiles in kingdoms, they're not really "your" kingdoms, unless you have your leader in them, and you may have all your leaders in one kingdom, or you may have them in different kingdoms. "You" are the leaders, a family if you prefer to think of it like that, with political and military branches concerned with success in agriculture, religion, military and trading. You don't own the kingdoms, you see them grow, fracture, and fall, it's up to you to move your leaders around to best take advantage of the resources and progress provided by different kingdoms at different times

But I'll tell you why people really get in a tizz, I think its the incredibly badly chosen terms "External Conflict" and "Internal Conflict". Even though these terms make complete sense, I think "Revolt" and "War" would have been a much wiser choice because they are evocative of whats happening and in particular have a unique name, in the rulebook both are "conflicts" and I think this confuses, particularly because each works differently, and I know myself, I've been a cropper of mixing the two up when playing online after a long break from my last play (when I was on 2 or 3 plays total). So get it in your head that "Revolts" and "Wars" are the descriptive terms, and then this is how they work

CONFLICTS

"Fight on the Tigris" (ancient conflict song by Rocky Babylon)

Risin' up, by the Euphrates
Did my time, took my chances
Went the distance now I'm back on my feet
Just a king and his will to survive

So many times it happens too fast
You trade your red tiles for glory
Don't lose your grip on your nice monuments
You must fight just to keep them alive

It's the fight of the tigris, it's the thrill of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge of our rival (the potter, haha)
And the last known survivor drops his tiles in the night
And he's watchin' us all while we fiiiiight.... on the Tigris

(instrumental harp solo)

Face to face, out in the heat
Hangin' tough, stayin' hungry
They stack the blue tiles, while we're facing defeat
For the kill with the skill to survive

It's the fight for the tigris, it's the thrill of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor grabs his cubes in the night
And he's watchin' us all while we fiiiight... for the Tigris

(lute interlude)

The fight on the Tigris!
The fight on the Tigris!
The fight on the Tigris!
The fight on the Tigris!

In a "Revolt" two leaders of the same color have come into the same kingdom. Obviously this happens as a result of someone placing a leader into a kingdom that already has that color leader, so this only ever involves a single color, and 2 players. Remember leaders are adjacent to temples, the priests are providing support to the leaders and allowing them to become influential in the kingdom, the more adjacent temples the stronger the leaders influence. Each adjacent temple (minimum 1, maximum 4) is the "influence" of that leader. Because you can only place a leader adjacent to a temple, then the minimum "influence" of an attacking leader (the one wading into someone else's back yard) is 1, but could in theory be 4 (only really dumb leaders would leave a hole surrounded by 4 red tiles for someone else to come and squat in). Now the attacker decides how much support he will call from supporters of that temple, e.g. how many red tiles from his rack he wants to throw in to the revolt. Add this number to the influence of the leader for a final total. The current incumbent (nothing to do with cucumbers by the way) leader now decides how many red tiles to commit (if any), as the defender he needs only to tie to prevail, the attacker needs a higher total to win. The defender need not commit tiles if does not want to, even if this means he loses, and whatever the result, these added tiles are thrown away (not put back in the bag), and in fact this is a commonly used way to recycle your hand if you have lots of red tiles you don't want in your hand, you can throw them all into an external conflict even if you didn't need to add that many, and even if you still lose. (note the English variant as suggested in the rules stops some of this shenanigans). The winning leader now receives 1 red VP cube for the losing leader (who is unceremoniously booted from the board and returned to its owner).

In a "War" things are a bit more complex (potentially), here a tile has been placed that now joins 2 kingdoms containing 2 leaders in 1 or more colors (it's impossible for there to be more than 2 because of the rule that a tile can't join more than 2 kingdoms). It could be that only 1 color is disputed, or it could be that all 4 are. It could be that the player who placed the joining tile (which by the way is covered up by that unification tile you have in your box as a marker, you can take it away once the wars are over) is involved in some, all or none of the conflicts. The active player who caused this war decides which conflict to resolve first, i,e. which color (This is important because tiles are removed during wars and the newly split kingdoms may not be at war any more) If he has a leader in that color he is the attacker. If not, go clockwise from that player until you reach one of the players who does have a leader involved, and they are the attacker (It's important to identify the attacker because defenders win ties as in the revolts). Unlike revolts, wars are determined by "strength", which comes from the colored tiles matching the leader. Each tile is worth 1 strength, and again, the attacker can throw in tiles of that color (not red, unless its a war between 2 red leaders), to increase his strength and again the defender wins ties, and can add tiles from his rack to match the attack if needed. (and again, unless the English variant is in play, you can also use this to recycle tiles you might not want). Here the results are more devastating for the loser. Not only does he have to take back his leader in that color, but also every single tile of that color on their side of the war. The winner receives 1 VP cube in that color for the removed leader PLUS EACH removed tile, obviously this can be quite a large number when big kingdoms collide. The only exception here is with red leader wars. In this case, the loser does not remove red tiles with treasures on them, or red tiles adjacent to any other leaders. Clearly the Wars can result in big point awards, and noteworthy is the order of resolution is important and clever, because the removed tiles can cause splits in the kingdoms, sometimes a war that previously had 3 leaders going at it, the huge mess caused by the 1st war means that the other 2 wars are "cancelled" (those leaders are now no longer connected).

note: adjacency
please note "adjacency" in this game means edge to edge only, two tiles or two regions or two kingdoms that connect only with corner to corner junctions are not considered to be connected, and leaders adjacency to red tiles also means edge to edge, you can't place a leader such that only a corner of it joins to the corner of 1 or more red tiles. The first statement here will probably cause you problems early on as once the board gets busy, you might mistakenly think certain kingdoms are joined when in fact they only touch at corners, and so are independent, many a bloody and terrible war has been declared because of this in the Ambolt household. Another rules boo boo related to this is you can't place a leader to join two kingdoms, just be aware of this as it's easy to miss on a board, whereas the iOS app stops you doing it, as in sometimes you spot a lovely hole surrounded by red temples and want to drop a leader in there, but actually it then joins two kingdoms properly and leaders can't do that, remember!

OK, HERE's WHERE I TELL YOU HOW GREAT THIS GAME IS (Editor…. fell asleep 2000 words ago)

OK, I've still not really told you what's so great about this game and we're quite a way in, are you still with me. Good for you, go and get the kettle on for the rest of this lecture, and it is a lecture. (blatant Ricky Gervais reference, in a way). To do that, I'm going to break it down to a handful of key points

Theme, and specifically I'm going to dispel your preconceptions and tell you how I realized that Tigris & Euphrates might be one of the most thematic games ever made, yep, I said it.

"Theme" in all its manifestations is always a hot topic with boardgames, it evokes passionate opinions, to the point where groups of level minded gamers often lose their temper and reason completely in their vehemence that their ideals are right. It's not just as simple as the tired "EuroSnoot" vs "Ameritrash" argument, because while it's certainly true that one genre features a plethora of floppy hatted twits in tights cavorting round Europe selling, oo, I don't know, cotton, in the middle ages, and the other one tends to feature Uzi toting Zombie Nazis on motorcycles ravaging the civilized world, the ethos behind these two movements at least as I see it is more about deeper concepts like playing time (euro games tending towards this 90 minute goal, thematic games pushing for the long haul), accessibility of rules (something modern euro games seem to be forgetting more often than not, but at least at one point the thematic rulebooks were heavier thicker and packed with atmospheric text), player elimination (often solved in Euro's by creating if not multiplayer solitaire, then at least many exclusive paths to victory points, whereas thematic games invite you to smack each others heads at every opportunity until one of you is dead). The best discussion I ever heard about theme in games, I believe came on the Boardgames to Go podcast that Mark Johnson and Greg Pettit did (Episode 104), where they discussed two different kinds of theme, nicely solving the old arguments that thematic gamers played overelaborate childish themes that were puerile and clichéd in nature, and strategic gamers liked to push cubes around drab colored boards with rules that made no sense.
Listen to the episode yourself first
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamepodcastepisode/8301/bgtg-1...
I loved the way they described the theme as both "metaphor" and "narrative", which means that what an old school "ameritrash" gamer means by theme is the narrative version, i.e. it's clear the designer had an idea for some fantastical setting to capture players imaginations, all the rules and filler text serve to enable that setting to come to life through the immersion of the players (old joke: why do ameritrashers who so care about using their imagination and "living" the theme need to play games where the theme is so fully and completely laid out for them up front! P.S. this is no slight on the AT movement, of which I am a proud participant, even if my tastes are more often aligned with Euro games). These games are rich in every detail, the components are luxurious and highlight the richness of the theme, players often play the part of named factions, individuals or groups and smash against each other in epic conflict, where skillful play and cunning is also moderated by manning up to the luck of the dice. And this can be a fabulous, fabulous thing (just in case anyone is erroneously thinking I am implying one is better than the other). This is theme as narrative. The game, the setting, the story is all there in the game. You're living, breathing Gods in the cardboard world you have before you and you'll write your own history as you play.
On the other side, which is what they call theme as metaphor, it's more often that it seems (even if not always true) that the designer comes up with an idea for a neat mechanic or system, almost directly abstract and uses the "paint" of theme to tie together the game system cohesively and provide what I would call intuitive clues to how the mechanics fit together, e.g. put an orange disc on a grid space, in the future there will be two there => plant a carrot in a field, and at harvest time, you'll be able to pick out a bunch of carrots and leave the remains to continue to grow until next season. The result of this kind of thematic integration often results in some dissonance when the milieu (it sounds posher than environment) fails to react in a way you would expect given the theme. So if I have 2 sheep in a field, I get a baby lamb in the spring, cool, hang on, if I put 2000 sheep in a field, I only get 1 baby lamb as well? huh? (again please don't take the examples as a slight on our previous favorite game). You'd better believe a theme as narrative game about sheep breeding would have you almost smelling the shit on your hands as you work the fields, and by god if you managed to grow a 2000 strong crowd of sheep (probably radioactive and with fascist tendencies) they damn well better be knocking out approximately 1000 babies which you'll be sending to the next guys farm to annihilate his stupid little baby lamb all on its own.
Once you start to think about theme in those terms, first of all you see how silly it is to get hung up on which "camp" is doing it right, it's just different. And both can be good in their own right, obviously players relying on wearing the clothes of the barbarians they are in the game are going to want to see theme everywhere, background text, art, and the rules damned well better seem like someone tried to work out exactly how would it work if three giant breasted nazi troll dogs actually went to a bar together with an englishman, irishman and scotsman. And players tending towards the metaphorical theme don't understand at all why the other lot don't think their game is thematic when clearly all the actions and mechanics are easily understood by the way they act as cues to remind them how the game system works.

It was an eye opener to start thinking like this, and to then appreciate both models, and I think early on in my BGG life, I tended to be a bit dismissive of narrative themes, mainly because they seemed often very clichéd and aimed towards a younger market, and even though I often quote Darth Vader randomly, especially to my son, and would love nothing more than to stride through town in the real Darth Vader outfit telling everyone I am their father, actually I don't think there are any Star Wars themed games I am interested in or would be excited about, even if I got to play Darth Vader. So I don't think it's that I am a boring old fart. And while I tended to prefer the metaphorical theme of Euros, it does start to get a bit tiresome when you hit your 10th game featuring some miserable old git on a beige colored box almost warning you to put the box back on the shelf because you know this is only going to feature lots of colored cubes and a lot of nonsensical rules that totally don't make any sense at all.

So, where does Tigris fit in, especially since I opened with the teaser that it might be one of the most thematic games ever. Well, it fits in because it's incredibly thematic in both metaphor AND narrative, yep, that's right, it achieves a perfect synergy between the two that not many games manage to pull off. It's curious because one of the biggest complaints about this game is the lack of theme, the way the themes been painted on and could have been about anything, and that it feels nothing like a civilization game and is just a dull abstract. At one point I probably held a suspicion this was true and it certainly held me back from taking the plunge with this great game for far too long. I even argued with people who told me that Knizia himself said that he'd had the idea about the theme of the game (ancient civilizations clashing) and then fitted the mechanics of the game around that. Nonsense I thought, he would say that wouldn't he (remember, it's generally considered, erroneously I now believe, that the "pasting on" of themes is a very bad thing, and good designers do it the other way round, or at least good games start with an idea about what the game is about and then find mechanics to express it). I too believed that he'd slapped on some ancient trope on top of a colored set collecting tile layer and fooled everyone, but I think I was wrong (of course, only Herr Knizia himself knows), and in fact, I find it to be an impossibly huge coincidence if he had designed the game mechanics and then managed to fit the theme onto it so perfectly that pretty much every aspect fits perfectly, with no fat left over, it's truly civilization: the game without all the fiddly account keeping crap that should be done by a computer. It is, in the words of many who said it before me, and knew better, "genius"

Before I go on, it should be said that the metaphorical theme is also spot on. Leaders are "magnets" if you will to attract their matching colored points when a tile goes down in their kingdom, what could be more intuitive? Leaders of the same persuasion thrown together in a kingdom are involved in an internal struggle for power, an election of sorts. Kingdoms thrown together result in fights to the death between opposing leaders with the same interest. Blue tiles go on rivers, and nothing else does. The King (black) controls the armies and thus gets extra druthers by being able to mop up those unclaimed points when you expand a kingdom in a color without that leader. Monuments are built from a block of color, that color forming part of the monument. The monument itself in its 2 colors pushing out those 2 colors each round to the respective leader. Whatever else you might think about the games rules and theme, it's just an outstanding distillation of elegance whichever way you look at it.

So, back to the "other" theme, the narrative theme, and I think, if I'm not mistaken the biggest problem for this game, since overwhelmingly the complaints about this (apart from the tile draw, we'll get to that) is that the theme is dry, dull, pasted on, makes no sense and that, to quote my good geek buddy John B "never feels like I'm in control of an ancient civilization". Actually there is one aspect of that complaint I'd like to highlight later because there's a grain of truth in it, but to be honest, I think you're failing to give the game the same respect and attention that might be garnered by a Radioactive Shark Nuclear War game, where by all means you'd be encouraged to "be" the leader shark swimming the high seas and nuking rival shark clans out of orbit. Why is it that this immersion, this active invocation of the imagination needs a thousand different visual, and written clues in the form of flavor text, art, plastic miniatures and photographic boards. Why do you need so much help, why can you not extend the same courtesy to this game, and instead of being disappointed that the tiles aren't hand crafted Games Workshop figurines and the board is some kind of 3D terrain model, the tiles aren't dice (hang on, crazy idea forming), invoke your highly trained sense of imagination to see the following (though I struggle to see how it's not obvious if you just get your head out of the sand)

- Civilisations start out small, controlled by a few priests manipulating popular opinion, and hoarding the kingdoms valuables (a red tile with a treasure cube on it)
- as civilizations increase in size (add tile), they attract the attention of powerful figures who wish to control aspects of the civilization (leaders)
- Successful civilizations cannot rely on only one aspect of ancient life, instead they must provide food, engage in trade, be able to fight and defend themselves, and appease the masses with spiritual guidance (blue, green, black, red tiles)
- as civilizations grow, they add capability in different areas, presumably based on the geography of their land, the drive of their citizens and choices of their leaders. Leaders gain more influence as their sphere of control increases (add a tile to a kingdom)
- Civilisations that successfully concentrate their success in a particular area of life will praise the gods for their success and fortune (build a monument), this in turn reinforces the influence of the appropriate leader (VP cube), but at the same time, decreases that leaders power relative to other kingdoms (strength), presumably because this great display of riches attracts unwarranted attention from jealous rivals who want to take it for themselves, in turn, the owning leader has to commit time, energy and forces to defending his great monument
- Power uprisings will periodically occur over time as ambitious and powerful figures want to assume leadership within a kingdom. Since the temples/priests have the widest reaching influence on the public masses, it's the backing of these priests that determines who wins the elections, leaders in close contact (adjacent) to more temples will in turn have more internal influence than others with less contact with the temples, but there are always ways and means to bribe or sway the support of these fickle priests (add red tiles from hand)
. As civilizations expand and become further reaching, they will eventually come close to other civilizations and eventually, either aggressively or simple due to a lack of room, these will clash and war will break out. The strength of leaders in each battle is determined by much support they have in their area of influence (strength) and can also be reinforced by using bribery, coercion and other methods to bolster the troops (adding colored tiles from hand).
- sometimes these wars will devastate the kingdoms, and they'll fracture again in to several unconnected pieces, the aftershock of this and recovery time needed for things to settle might mean wars which were coming are delayed, or postponed until another time (war splits kingdom, resolution order cancels a second or third war)
- Kingdoms with huge swathes of support in a particular area will envelop and swallow kingdoms with much smaller infrastructure in that area (big fish eats little fish) but its difficult to expand your civilizations so that they work efficiently in all areas, so a marauding army may plunder a massive victory between two kingdoms, but perhaps the weaker one had a huge network of traders and merchants who now control the flow of goods into and out of the newly conquered mega kingdom.
- Civilisations are ruthless and merciless, times are tough, and only the strongest will survive. Kingdoms winning wars will assimilate and/or exterminate the remains of the competitors resources that were the reason for the war (tiles removed from the board)
- Leaders can't join two kingdoms (this needs a larger scale geographical connection, i.e a tile).
- From time to time famine and other disasters strike which can cut off whole areas of a civilization particularly if its expansion has been rapid and careless without much thought to being able to keep a careful hold over its domain.
- Civilisations can build slowly and methodically, with leaders well buffered with public support and solid, evenly built competence in different areas, but they may often miss the boat compared to more aggressive neighbors expanding faster, on the other hand their leaders may be long reigning, and resistant to revolts, even if their civilization is taken over by a hostile force.
- Civilisations can build quickly and aggressively, snaking out expansion tendrils, sending out their merchants to trade with distant cities and claiming wondrous treasures and goods. They may grow quickly in a particular aspect, and be a powerful force in marauding across the world swallowing up smaller kingdoms in their wake. On the other hand, they may be weak in other areas allowing some of those supposedly weaker civilizations to become influential in other aspects of the civilization, or they may spread out too fast and carelessly that a war in a border region, or a sudden famine or earthquake cuts off a whole branch of them from their ruling metropolis
- The rise of civilizations is brutal as fast growing kingdoms, composed differently each time, with their own strengths and weaknesses, influences and susceptibilities crash into each other, sometimes with spectacular effect as huge, sprawling areas are shattered into fragments leaving behind only carnage and rubble, but not for long as the next wave of ambitious figures see their opportunity to stake a claim in the newly evolving landscape

I mean, you honestly would struggle to find ANY game that more accurately distills down its theme than this, pretty much every single thing that happens is the personification of chubby, fat thematic blob shaved down to perfection with some kind of bastardized Occam's Razor, where all unnecessary fat is trimmed away leaving behind only the purest and most succinct model of how early civilizations and dynasties developed.
So there you have it, Tigris & Euphrates is one of the most thematic games that exists, in every possible way, to satisfy the most curious Eurosnoot, and the most bloodletting Ameritrasher, not to mention the most calculating Abstractionist. This game has it all

* It should be worth noting that if the game does have a thematic failing it's lack of differentiation in the factions, which perhaps bothers some people as they need that to feel like a dynasty is truly "theirs". There's perhaps some merit to this, and I discuss this a bit more in a possible variant. Let me know what you think

Number One! I'm going to tell you that this game should be the number one ranked game on BGG, and how it is The Holy Trinity of boardgames being a deep and elegant abstract, a highly interactive and ruthless Euro, and an incredibly thematic wargame.

Well, we've already gone into the theme of the game, so I will try not to duplicate too much here as I now suggest that Tigris achieves a perfect trinity of appeal being a fantastic game whether seen through the eyes of an abstract, a Euro or a thematic / war-game fan. Without wanting to get sidetracked into a debate about the BGG rankings and what they mean (thats a whole other, very long story) I truly believe this should be the number one ranked game here because it manages to be compelling across all of the main genres without really sacrificing anything of its genius to achieve it. OK, I can understand those of you think that a game like Chess or Go should be the number one, I won't really argue with you, but I think those older games that stretch back millennia are kind of an unfair comparison to any modern game because it will be a long time before we know if any of our games last long enough to be loved, studied and analyzed in that depth.

First, the game succeeds as an abstract, where it reminds me of a modern equivalent of chess. but edited to the board game generation. Chess is a fantastic game, deep, rich and rewarding, only an idiot would deny this, but for most of us, isn't it the kind of game that doesn't really sit well with the hobby here, with volumes and volumes of study available, millions of scripted opening lines and responses, solved endgames, it's the kind of game you really need to work at and study, almost exclusively (and as I understand it Go is probably even worse in that regard, or better depending on your point of view). What I mean is most of us here aren't willing to sit down and play the same abstract game over and over and over to reach the level of mastery where the truth of the game lies. The rote memorizing of openings can be tedious and annoying, but most of all, despite the grand strategic arc of a well played game of chess, there's always the sheer mystery of finding the best candidate moves amongst the plethora available, not to mention finding the optimal move, and until you're at a level where you'e played the game single mindedly for a long period, it's frequent that a game will be decided by an ill conceived blunder, or failure to spot an opponents blunder. This only serves to antagonize you if you've invested time and energy into studying the game and indeed in reaching the position in the game you blundered. This is not at all a slight against chess, I believe you truly reap what you sow there, but how many readers of this review are representative of the true chess playing enthusiasts, guys who play chess, chess, and nothing but chess. We seem to prefer a bit more variety here, and I think Tigris is a wonderful example of an abstract with the underpinnings of chess, with the tile draw (see below for an exploration of this single point) and rapidly changing state of the board eliminating the rigid lines of opening play and thorough analysis that forms the backbone of good chess play. One of the reasons Fischer Chess became popular was the desire to have dynamic opening positions that were different each time and could not be solved in the opening with a set script of moves to achieve a solid foundation. Hmm, sounds familiar. Good luck scripting Tigris once you've plopped down your leaders and first tile or two, you're not going to get the same 6 tiles to start each turn, and combined with your turn position, and the moves made by your opponents (and their tile draws) you're going to have to accept there's no set way to get going in this game. Like chess, you can certainly blunder but the obfuscation in the game state is less here, the movement of pieces is not the same, the scores can be seen (or if hidden, at least you can see your own needs), the options are fewer, and the immediate results easily processed, putting this tile here, there or maybe there in a kingdom might lead to the same point output, but is there a direction you want to expand, a leader you want to bolster, a place you want to block. You won't be caught up in the same kind of brain melting WTF paralysis that I have seen and experienced in Chess. The blunders can be painful as in chess, but these are often limited to a smaller set of patterns that you will see over and over again, there's not the same reliance on geometric plying to do here, it's generally a lot more straight forward like avoiding leaving spots surrounded by red tiles that your opponents can drop a leader into, don't extend your kingdoms in ways that can be catastrophed in half, be aware of the space around kingdoms you have a vested interest in since you know exactly how many moves/tiles are needed for someone to crash into it etc. At this point I haven't seen the same kind of blunders I see in chess, and it feels like the game plays much quicker and more transparently so it's less of a crippling gut punch if you do mess up here than if you spend hours building up a nice chess game and then make a blunder that brings the whole thing down around your head. Whereas Chess might be described thusly as walking across a tightrope between two skyscrapers, Tigris would be more like taking the same trip but across a nice wide plank instead. The danger is still there, but not at all as perilous

But at the same time, there's still this grand strategy of an opening, mid game and endgame whereby in the early stages you're finding strongholds for your leaders, bolstering their influence with temples, growing kingdoms to enhance your dynasties, being on the lookout for openings to move into a lucrative new kingdom and weaknesses of your own that might invite revolt or war now or in the future. In the end game, you're working out how best to bring up your scores in your weakest color, and perhaps trying to block the progress of your rivals doing the same. Because of the open geometry of the board and the kingdoms, often you're thinking more about which specific tile to play and in which kingdom, not the exact square it goes, or sometimes just the exact square or area and the choice of color is easier. You'll rarely be sat at the end calculating in great detail every possible placement and movement in the way endgames are solved in chess. And the middle game is just a glorious free flowing morass of islands burgeoning with color and form, growing, pulsing, breaking, shrinking, crashing across the board as the wars start to shape the landscape and bring huge rewards to the victors. I truly feel like there is the spirit of chess in here, and I am only beginning to see hints of this with the promise of more foreshadowed somewhere in my head. Getting your leaders into solid positions, reinforcing it, defending it, managing the cut and thrust of moving those leaders, then striking forth and claiming treasures, building or claiming monuments, clashing against rival dynasties, and finally plotting to secure the last resources to be able to maximize the glory of your chosen faction, it's very chess like in both narrative and in how the moves and turns play out (careful early play building solid foundations, the effects of which will be felt soon, the careful, plotting analyzing endgame trying to push for victory and the sprawling chaos in the middle game where you use the solid foundations you built up early to enable you to strike out at your strategic targets, with enough flexibility to account for the tile draw, and to be able to leave yourself in as secure a position as possible to wrap up what you need in the end game

OK, so abstract fans, you're happy, but this is a Euro game, right, well, yeah but somehow it seems to be a Euro game from the Land that Euro game designers forgot (disonaurs not included) because while it satisfies the requirements of a reasonable playing time 45-90 minutes, much quicker as 2P on the iPhone!, does not feature direct player elimination, and includes a clean set of mechanics that mesh together nicely, are held together by plenty of metaphoric thematic cues, it also features what many feel to be missing from a lot of modern game designs, and that is interaction. And specifically what they mean is direct interaction, not I'm going to take this cube so you can't do that thing and change your cube into that cube later. No, this is the kind of interaction that goes like this. Oo, that is a nice kingdom with a lot of pretty blue tiles, and a rather fetching monument that gives points in the colors I need. I want it. Me wants it. Oh, hang on, me is having it. Give it to me. Give it to me now. No, no, I AM allowed to move my leader into that kingdom, no, no its not YOUR kingdom, its just that you Lannisters have been sitting pretty there lording it up on us and now I think its time I had a chance to sit on the Iron Throne (hang on, there may be some thematic splicing going on here, blame HBO! oh why did they kill Sean Bean and let that bloody Joffrey live), so if you please I'll just drop my leader there and call for an election. Oh, you didn't realize I'd been saving up these red tiles to bribe the local voodoo boys? Pity, because it seems they got he city to vote me in and you're out, now do be a good boy and be gone, oh, there's a good chap. Oh, hey, you, you over there, look at me, I just sat on this throne and you see this kingdom has a whole network of merchants and traders, to be honest, lazy leader that I am, I've not been bothering to "network" so I don't have a lot of silk, spices and whatever else it is you euro gamers like to push around, but i see you have rather a lot too, but not quite as many as me, hang on I think I'll just invade you and take them over under my wing, you don't mind do you? Oh, you do mind, well tough luck my friend because here I am on your doorsteps and I rather think you'll find that you will be leaving town tonight, and I'll be grabbing all your merchant supplies and contacts to come with me, the rest you can probably guess I am executing in the morning, just for kicks. Muaha. Muahahaha. Muahahahahahahahahah. And so on.
So the next time you're sat thinking about your Euro games and why you have a sneaking feeling that yeah, you probably would like a game with some IN YOUR FACE interaction with real life SMACKDOWNS, but you're still a bit too Avant Garde to allow yourself to roll dice down a corridor populated by hand painted Games Workshop figures, well do try to remember, before it got forgotten somewhere, that Euro games CAN have interaction, direct interaction, in your face interaction, poke your tongue out and make the angry face interaction. And this is where you will find it best personified.

Ah, you're still here mr thematic trashcan man, and mr multicolored font grognard nut, well hello, welcome, welcome, you're not sure if this is a wargame - well if Twilight Struggle is getting insignia on its shoulders, then you better believe this is a war-game, and if those lovely fellows who love Tolkien-RISK, oops, I mean Small World can think that's war-game, well this certainly qualifies. Actually, cheekiness aside (though P.S: players of Small World, thrown down your goblins and come out with your hands up, reach to that shelf containing Tigris and take home a game that's truly worth spending time playing AND is just as fun. Not as many illustrations mind), I think Tigris really scores on the war-game front, sure, you're not playing the role of the kingdoms, but you are dynasties, involved in both political and military conflict, and with the same concerns about supply and logistics (tile numbers in the kingdoms, physically connecting kingdoms with tiles), wars moderated with some chance (tiles in hand) but where you can manipulate your forces to have a significant edge before a single "die" is rolled, you can regroup, move, attack, defend, batten down the hatches, run to the hills. It's a fantastic implementation of ancient conflict between civilizations and I think this, combined with the direct interaction that's prevalent throughout, the way the civilizations swell, collapse, and fall only to be reborn again under new leadership all bear the hallmarks of a recipe that's also going to keep the most trashy of thematic gamers happy for a long time. OK, maybe serious grognards might miss some chits with envelopes on them, but those with a penchant for more offbeat themes, and more abstract implementations I believe will be well satisfied with this, and I would be staggered if this was not the poster boy Euro game for being popular amongst the crowd that prefer their games to be bigger, louder, brighter, longer and meaner. That's right Ameritrashers, that's you lot! This game is fast playing, hard hitting, vicious fun that's unsurpassed for providing excellence to proponents of three wildly different gaming genres. Genius. Still unsurpassed.

Joel once put up an interesting geek list for potential candidates to replace Settlers of Catan at Target, aka your local mass market stores that tend to hold only Monopoly and the like, some party games and then the cool ones have now put Settlers, but maybe it's time to move on and show people that Settlers has had its day and something else should have its day. Well, get rid of Monopoly and put Acquire in its place by the way, but for goodness sake, get Tigris & Euphrates in there with a slightly reworded and clarified rulebook and that's the game we should be showcasing to the non committed, because truly this game can be grasped by newcomers really quickly if taught in the right way (see Ryans podcast link below), but has unlimited appeal for gameplay in a hardcore gamers crowd too. What makes the game great to all kinds of audiences is a property that we can just as well call "the dusty window" effect, meaning the overall picture of what's going on is absolutely clear and not at all masked behind several layers of obfuscation, but still it's a game that will take you a long time to really play well and master because you still can't quite parse the game state well enough to account for the swings that will follow the different tile draws and the huge changes in board state as a result of larger conflicts. Nate Straight described this very neatly, and again I'll paraphrase because it's similar to an insight Petra commented to me about this game too.

It's that it's completely obvious what's going on, what you need to do, what you can do, what you'd like to do, and how you should do it. There are no smoke and mirrors here.

Your weak colors define your score, so you need to increase them. Simple. As. You have a handful of tiles, they're the only ones you can play this turn, and you that each one will give a point of that exact same color to the appropriate leader, all easily identified on the board, or you'll join 2 kingdoms and start a war, or move a leader and maybe start a conflict. You can see where there are 2 or 3 tiles together that could become a monument, should you build it, can you claim it, can you hold it, should you block it, which combo will it be, who will it help. Can a disaster tile split my kingdoms up in a way that causes me trouble, can I do the same to someone else, can I strike with a war to my advantage, or should I sneak in with a revolt. Do I need to purge my tiles. Am i keeping enough space around my key areas to that reaching it for an attack will not be easy and can be defended by breaking off the opposing finger that pokes me. Balancing your desire to set up a solid base for your leaders, expand your civilizations equally, prepare for attacks and defending, looking out for monuments, using disasters., It all works as it says on the tin, there's no extra layers, no translation needed, no fluff added to pad out the idea. What you see is what you get. And it's wonderful. And it means that you can pretty much be up and running in a few minutes, and demonstrate how the game works on the fly, avoiding any painful rulebook read through and continual stopping of the game to explain, oh, now this I need to exlain now its a bit different.

So you see, this game has it all, and it should be ranked accordingly!

Oh, and it would be remiss of me not to once again apologize to Reiner Knizia, for my lack of understanding and appreciating his genius and how he makes games transparent games that are almost magical in their complexity despite a handful of rules. Few options, clear definition of goals, difficult to master. Rules on one hand, Exceptions on another, Point the players to the door and wave them goodbye as they go in and lock it from the inside. They are real games, by any definition and I urge you, urge you, urge you, if like me you dismissed him for his overenthusiastic reuse of simple mechanics, for his somewhat abstract seeming concepts and dull themes, please take the time to fully explore some of his great games and maybe you'll come to the same conclusion that I eventually did. That I was just plain wrong. For this one game alone he deserves all the plaudits he receives, the fact that he's designed dozens of great games with these core concepts of transparent and lightweight rulesets and emergent gameplay and thematic integration (of a kind that is all too easy to dimiss on the surface, but look deeper and you will… see what he did there…. this guy is a living legend of board game design, and I'm glad to saw the light before it was too light.

link to RK page
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/2/reiner-kniz...

Tile trilogy
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Knizia_tile-laying_tr...#

Laszlo List (among many he's based around Knizia)
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/122464/

Martins List
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/46848/

GCL Meatball List: Meatball Madness Tournament (won by, you'll never guess)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/139134/
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/139465/
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/139518/
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/140276/
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/140492/
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/140590/

The Randomness, and how it makes Tigris the perfect "Chess Killer" for the board game hobby, avoiding many of the problems with euro games in general, and being very appealing to the dice chucking grognard and ATer's out there

Randomness in games is a contentious issue, and worthy of an exploration all on its own, indeed it has been discussed at length a number of times, and given the increasing length of this review, I think I'd better keep it relevant by discussing how randomness affects Tigris and how that might affect peoples judgement of it. Of course there are those that prefer to have perfect information, no luck systems, indeed the abstract heart of the game seems to be a little bit at odds with the fact that you're randomly pulling tiles out of a bag and have no influence on what you get, and thus, the scope of what you can achieve on this particular turn is influenced by the random draw of the tiles. Does this spoil the game, or enhance it, does it increase, or decrease the replay ability, does it affect the dynamics of who will win an individual game and who will win over a series of games. Does the randomness feel clumsy or well integrated, does it in itself determine the outcome to too great an extent, or introduce just enough uncertainty to keep things interesting.

Well, your mileage will undoubtedly vary, and there's little to be done in an appeal to those who can't get past the randomness, but from what I read here, it seems like there is a small group that actually has a real problem with the randomness, generally those abstract heavy enthusiasts who prefer complete information and control and studious analysis, and that's fair enough, but then I suspect we have a larger group that consists of people parrot fashion repeating what they read or hear from others without actually playing the game enough to decide themselves, or using it as a crutch to toss the game aside (namely; oh no, its all about the red tiles you draw. Really? Well how many plays did it take you to see that, because in closer to 20 plays (yes, I played on the iPhone during a break from writing this), I'm yet to see it, and in fact, don't really understand it, perhaps I am missing something though. Red tiles only help you score red points directly (and others indirectly by monuments, and winning revolts and then launching wars from the new territory), and internal revolts only get you 1 red VP at a time, presumably if they're using these red tiles to sneak in via revolt, the other players have the non red tiles, and thus, how is red tile grabber going to be well placed to win an external conflict in anything other than red? Well, this could be the voice of inexperience talking but I am not seeing this red tile effect yet, and I'm not sure I understand how it can be the case based on the mechanics and scoring. I'd love to take this up as a separate discussion point later.

That issue aside then, it's how does the tile draw in general affect the game play. Well, in my opinion not only does it enhance the game, it's actually an almost essential component. While it's true that the game has this chess like feeling to having opening strategies trying to build solid foundations with your leaders and temples and extending your kingdoms in ways that make it easy to launch strong offensives against the other players, the actual pieces are not as diverse as in chess, and the location of pieces is not often critical. A green tile added anywhere around your kingdom will give your green leader a point, so the only concern is where to put it to avoid leaving problems for yourself later with disasters, or inviting an approaching unification and war. Because of this, and the larger scale map, I think a perfect information Tigris would quickly get bogged down in a series of optimal tactical moves that would come on the back of extensive analysis paralysis. I don't think that fits the theme either, of burgeoning ancient civilizations, loosely controlled and corralled clashing into each other somewhat haphazardly in its resolution. No, this is a game that needs the tiles to provide a range of features which in my opinion make the game what it is

Replayability & Incalculability
while you might see players often opting to open with their green and black leaders, you will quickly see that within a few moves, every game of Tigris looks different, and the sheer scale of the board, number of tiles and knock on effects of conflicts with the changing board state mean that even if you think you recognize an overall position, soon enough things will change into something you haven't seen before. This means that despite the simple ruleset and transparent game system, there is an incredible amount of replayability because the tile draws lubricate the means to create different game states where otherwise raw tactical calculation might see scripting of certain positions, as in chess.

Limiting the Options & Tension (management)
Wait, limiting is bad, right? No, not really. Is there anything worse than a game where you seemingly have 50 different options and no idea how to evaluate them. Is it not better to have a smaller number of options and have a chance to really try to work out what each option will do, clearly and quickly, I think this helps enormously (here I'm talking generically about the system of having tile draw as a mechanic). The tiles you draw serve as both a focussing lens for the better options you have, and an agent of tension because often you will have specific goals to achieve but the tile draw will not help you, so then you need to go with the flow as directed by your hand and come up with another way to achieve your goal or postpone its success at least.

Turns of fortune & Drama
I think it's a positive feature of a game that features vicious direct interaction and the possibility of runaway megaleaders that there is always the possibility for an upset. Once kingdoms start to swell they become very strong in terms of war, though of course, at some point they'll want to start building monuments, thus weakening their strength considerably, but there are always disasters to throw on unsuspecting megalomaniacs, and internal conflicts, which by definition can never see you worse off than 4-1 down but more often than not will see you at most 2 points down, if not less. And then, if you manage to pull a hand of red tiles you know you are in with a chance to sneak in and revolt. But hang on, didn't I just say there was no red tile problem. Yeah, I did, because I've never seen it happen to a degree that decided the game, and especially because if you think about it, I've given a clue already as to ways you can somewhat nullify this threat. But honestly it will be more fun to discover yourself!

Where the game sits in the world of modern board gaming, which games might have inspired it and which took a lead from it, and which new game is most worthy of comparison

Well, I should have mentioned of course that this game also has a special reputation because supposedly this is the game that a couple of guys, a.k.a Derk and Aldie discovered together, formed a bond and decided to create a website. I have to say I'm hardly surprised that it would be this game to inspire such a fantastic success story that is BGG.
As to its place in the gaming canon, well, here's where my lack of experience might count against me, I've heard it mentioned as having some elements of Acquire in it, though that might just be the superficial nature of the tile laying, though I suppose you're also laying colored regions out and trying to manipulate them (without specifically owning them) so that you can assimilate other regions to make your holdings more valuable, or sell your stuff to generate capital. I guess in a way Tigris has some of that concept, though only in very broad brush strokes. Where it certainly follows Acquire is the philosophy of design itself, Sid Sackson was not ashamed to find a mechanic and base a game around it, and it seems like Knizia is cut from the same cloth at least as he keeps his rules and systems very clean and elegant, and doesn't waste time trying to mash too many together, rather preferring to use them in a different game, and recycling similar memes in many different titles to great effect. I'm amazed that this concept seems to have totally gone out of fashion and I wonder if a little bit of it is a result of misunderstanding of theme by the consumers, thus driving publishers and designers to fluff out big messy designs with original themes, or apply unique themes to games that already exist, or to mechanics that are in every other game these days, or maybe people are ashamed to admit they copied a bit from here, a bit from there, and tweaked it, instead burying their designs under an added layer of padding which only confuses the dynamics of the game and gets in the way constantly be reminding the players they need to remember this, that or the other exception. Give us a few rules and get out of the god damned way, that should be the mantra of new designs. Come on designers, be brave and be different!
Tigris itself forms part of the Tile Laying Trilogy, though Through the Desert is more like a "Go"- Lite, Samurai shares the same "least counts" scoring method and also features vicious and cunning interaction as cities and resources not specifically owned by any player can be snatched away at the last minute by those keeping an eye out for such opportunities. I like Samurai as well, but the added dimension in Tigris (well apart from there being a lot more going on) is really the way the board state changes so drastically once you start to resolve these large mid game wars that rip out handfuls of tiles from the landscape and leave vulnerable unprotected mini regions in their wake to be mopped up again and the whole cycle begins again. Its like a more thematic expression of Conway's "Game of Life" (no, not Milton Bradley's Game of Life, the other one, with cellular automata and that) with the ebb and flow of the tile configurations. Lovely. Having recently rediscovered Ingenious (which I also highly recommend) again Knizia uses his least score counts meme, and again features set collecting of colored tile areas, without the leaders, but featuring some nasty possibilities for walling off areas and starving opponents in their weak colors, almost like a siege based war-game!
It's often compared to Reef Encounter, there again you are growing colored tile areas, but whereas in Tigris the points are grabbed as you place each tile (and then from conflicts or monuments), in Reef, you use your fish leader (parrotfish) to gobble up an area of one color when you're ready to bag it, and you are more concerned with altering the relative powers of the different colors to your advantage i both conflict and points scoring. Definitely worth looking at.

Is there a game that best follows on from the great example set by Tigris, well, I believe there is, though not coming close to the masterpiece that is T&E, I think you should seriously take a look at Neuroshima Hex, another wonderful abstract / euro / war-game with very few rules, a handful of exceptions, variable player powers, a confined and claustrophobic hex map to place your tiles and wave after wave of positioning, ,tactical maneuvering and conflict as a real fight to the death. For my money, it's at least on the right path to following the amazing example of Tigris in having broad appeal across genres, being simple enough to be appealing to new gamers, deep enough to appeal to hardcore gamers, variable enough with a short enough playing time to make any randomness seem like part of the fun, and no real hand holding from the game but again, get out of the way and let the players get it on.

Player Count Issues
Based on the polls here, the strong recommendation is to play this with 3 or 4 players, and indeed in early versions of the game it was specifically listed as a 3-4 player game (I wonder who joined Derk and Aldie in those epic early encounters). 1 out of 3 voters say that a 2P game is not recommended, now I don't know whether any changes to the Mayfair edition have fixed anything but I'd like to add my support and say that the 2P version is just great, of course any game featuring conflict is going to be more fun and more chaotic with more players clashing, but it still works as a 2P game, with the proviso that if you both sit in your own corner adding tiles and building monuments, then it will be a complete waste of both your times and you may as just well turn all the tiles over on the table and play civilization memo, however, since the game is designed to reward, and encourage conflict, then if you play to that spirit you'll realize it's still fantastic. Unlike games where you need to limit the action spaces, or reduce the playing area (yes, I know there is a smaller 2P Nile map), here its not needed, because you can start throwing your leaders together, or close to each other from the very start, and in fact, I urge you to do it. We certainly enjoy playing 2P, and even though Petra is a bit conflict averse in games in general, she's learning to kick ass here, and it's designed in a way that it's not spiteful kicking down of someones sand castle, no, here the context is clear, these kingdoms are living, breathing organisms of their own, and your leaders are just there to get rich and famous while they can, before moving on, willingly or otherwise.

I like the fact that in 3P (though again, this may be an oversimplification) theres a kind of anti turtling incentive because if A and B go at it, and C stays in his corner, its often the winner of A or B that now holds on to a mega kingdom that will have C in a lot of trouble, rather than the usual turtler being rewarded for keeping out of it (I've heard that this can happen here though). With 4 players the chaos and conflicts are high and the ebb and flow of the kingdoms on the board is truly a joy to behold. But don't be put off by the naysayers, a 2P game of Tigris still beats the pants of many of these fancy new euros on the block with their shiny shorts and braid shoes. Do yourself a favor and give it a go, however many you are and enjoy the different dynamics across the different player counts.

some follow up thoughts
And here's what I might change

Now despite my defense of the wonderful thematic integration of this game with its mechanics, and the way it represents the rise, clashing and fall of civilizations, I've also mentioned that some people don't buy it, and indeed, I can sympathize a little with the argument that there's no real feeling of connection to your faction, nor any differentiation between them. So I'm currently thinking about (and I mean in the daydreamy way I have with all games I enjoy, so not suggesting the game needs a variant, or that it would be easy to do), but how about making the factions a little different, I am not sure how easy it would be to balance them but something along the lines of

Idea
Basic Idea: Faction gets bonus of +1 or wins all ties as attacker in their representative color, say Lion Black, Bull Red, Archer Blue, Vase Green
Advanced Idea:
Archers get to attack at range, so can make an external conflict vs another archer kingdom with a corner contact instead of a full unification, perhaps with a penalty of being weaker in internal conflicts
Lions: internal conflict "revolt" bonus, any temple tiles shared with other leaders are counted only for the Lion player
(Asses), all their leaders can be placed on river tiles (or perhaps just the blue leader)
Bulls: external conflict "war" bonus, as the attacker, gets to see the defenders total strength first
Potters, some kind of monument bonus, choice to take 2 cubes of one of the colors instead of 1 of each? or ability to build monument from a block of 4 with 3 like colored and 1 other, the monument must then match those two colors exactly with the 3 tile color matching the large top piece of the monument and the 1 tile color matching the smaller bottom piece

The "powers" would need to be unique and interesting, break the rules only slightly and not be completely unbalanced, what do you think, any ideas of your own? The neat thing about this is the potential for adding different factions with different rule breaking bonusses, such as a faction that gets an extra catastrophe tile "disease", or one that uses politics and diplomacy to be able to place a leader inside a kingdom with an opposing leader, and avoid internal conflict, receiving points like the other leader, perhaps being ejected during external conflicts, or being forced to accept the responsibility in an external conflict "war", a trickster type that has the power to change some of his tiles in his hand when a revolt is started in his kingdom. How about a builder or healer type that is allowed to cancel the use of a catastrophe tile played in a kingdom with one (or just the King?) of his leaders.

quick thoughts:
1. Nominated treasures. As mentioned earlier, force the Merchant to nominate the color of the treasure tile rather than have it as a wild card, or if this is too weak, pick 2 cubes of 1 color instead.
2. Adding a 5th faction to the game, or would it be too cramped?
3. Hilarious addition from the theme discussion. Instead of tile draw, roll dice with colored faces each turn in the open to determine your tiles for that turn. 1 face of each color, but 2 red faces and 1 skull face. 6 dice, faces are the tile colors, skulls you need to roll 3 of them or something to invoke disaster from above. Replace all tiles with RISK or similar minis in the appropriate colors, use tanks, or horseback riders or whatever in the appropriate color to show leaders. Tigris & Euphrates: The Dice Game. Hang on, what started out as a joke sounds like quite a fun exercise! Please note that I am now madly scribbling down some basic concepts for Tigris Express (with dice!), please do not steal my idea

Heres what the author changed

There's even more to this game than meets the eye, and I mention it here briefly only for completeness, since we have not gotten round to trying these out. We probably will do soon out of interest, but I think we'll commit to really immersing ourself in the basic game before making these a regular feature in our games. As I understand it, most of the hardcore fans of this game probably stick to the basic game as well?

Ziggurat Expansion & Tower
This allows you to build a special 5 tile monument in the shape of a plus sign. Cover all 5 tiles with the included ziggurat tiles, and place the black tower piece there. This feature churns out a VP cube of the players choice if that player has a black leader "King" in it. So it's basically like the nominated treasure idea I proposed above (which makes me rather proud)

Zig ]]>

Civilisation buildings
These allow you to increase your point scoring to 2 VP cubes instead of 1 when you place a tile in a kingdom (still to the appropriate leader). You need a row or column of 3 tiles and can build the building in that color. If it's already built you can steal it if your row or column is bigger than where it sits now.

Civ ]]>

The English Rule
This is used to limit tile cycling in disguise, for example an attacker in a conflict can not add tiles from his hand if the total influence or strength would still not be enough to beat the opponents score, and when defending, a player can only add the number of tiles needed to tie, not more. (note to self: despite being English we have not used this rule yet, nor exploited its obvious appeal when defending external conflicts in colors you're already strong in. hmmmmmmm)

The Advanced Map
This just contains extra treasures and a different configuration of river spaces. I am nowhere near competent enough to comment on how the board layout is advanced, or what the key differences are other than to note it seems like there is an extra block of river spaces that could potential make a blue temple, and of course the extra treasures potentially means an increased length of game, as well as easier access to score balancing items.

]]>

I look forward to trying these advanced rules and variants in due course.

Here's what other people have changed

I don't know if he invented it but Nate Straight likes to toss the catastrophe tiles in the bag with the rest and hope you get lucky, others like to limit the number of catastrophes to 2 each but still throw in the bag so the timing of their arrival is not known.

There exists also a yellow tile variant which introduces a set of new yellow tiles and monuments and leaders. And I see it also comes close to the idea I proposed above where you can build a monument with a single color plus yellow as a wild card. pretty neat, though you need to proxy in some extra pieces to make it work.
Here it is, the Artist expansion
http://www.poeppelkiste.de/varianten/expansion/et-expansion....

The Nile expansion is a 2P variant where the board is smaller and constricted around the river nile, supposedly increasing the tension and claustrophobia for the 2P game. I have not played this enough to comment yet, but I will say that on the full board, the action gets pretty direct in short order anyway, so am not sure how much need there is for this map.
]]>

DO NOT BE AFRAID (apart from the length of this review)

So anyway, here's my appeal to new players, or players slightly put off by the seeming complexity of the game and the rules. Please don't be concerned with this. Sure, you might forget the first few times some of the exceptions, you'll forget that corner to corner is not adjacent and inadvertently cause a war or two, you'll forget that internal conflicts only use red tiles not the color your rack is full of, and vice versa with external conflicts, but you'll soon get the hang of it. You certainly won't understand how to play well for a long while, but you can enjoy learning the tricks and traps as you develop an understanding of the rules and how they interact, and it's exactly this kind of game that blossoms as thinking about rules quickly gives way to thinking about strategic planning alongside tactical tricks and traps and you'll find this incredibly rewarding. Because of the small number of actions per turn (2), the fact that the tile draws are random (and thus to some extent shape your choices in conjunction with your score relative to others and board position) you can very quickly get into the game and start to see how it works, without worrying about understanding it right away, to me, this is in stark contrast with some of the poster boys of "deep, complex" euros from recent years, where the first handful of plays are spent worrying about the muddled web of non intuitive rules and exceptions and "multiple paths to victory". By the time you've got your head round how all the actual rules fit together and realize there's been a whole unnecessary layer of abstraction in what actually gets you points in the game, you're thoroughly bored, and no I'm not going to name any names here. What I will say is Tigris belongs in the other group, and this is the group I think warrants more attention from all of us, and especially those fairly new to the hobby looking to get off the treadmill of cookie cutter clones, and want a longer term commitment, but without the overhead of a game a like Chess and Go. Tigris is that game, I implore you to give it a run, I think many of you will be very glad you did, I don't really care if this review gets any merits in the competition itself, or is seen as not really going into the kind of depth some of the more analytical reviews will (that's not a complaint, merely an observation), what I care about more is the number of gamers sat out there who COULD be enjoying this game, and other games that fit this recipe but instead are lured into a hopeless and ultimately unrewarding cycle of cookie cutter clones and rehashes where they're fighting the rules at each turn, desperately trying to parse the obfuscation in the multiple paths to victory, and decode the tangled web of resources, chits, actions and fluff. It's filler of the worse kind, the kind that thinks it's meritorious. Here you have a game that's pared down to its essentials, is intimately wound with theme and provides only the stage, and a few simple lines, where you, the actors get to decide the script, and it's a script that begs you to throw yourselves at each other in a bloody fight to the death. It's clean, it's raw, it's fantastic. Every gamer owes it to themself to give this not just a cursory play with preconceptions but a proper run for its money, and I wonder if some of you might come to the same conclusion as I did; why bother wasting time churning through a hundred other inferior games when you could be discovering the depths of this classic.

I love how this game breathes, and lives its theme as the swatches of colors heave and swell, ebb and flow over time, more evocative of its theme I don't think you could find, and I love how it works together with the scoring mechanic, I love the different way that the conflicts are resolved, allowing direct brute force attacks as well as more subtle revolts plus wars, I love how you can decide to build up slowly and surely and protect your leaders and give them a strong base, or you can stretch out across the board grabbing treasures and new regions as you go, how you can influence the timing of the game by how quickly you eat up the treasures (otherwise waiting for tiles to run out), or by tossing tiles in with conflicts to refresh your hands quicker (not in the English variant!), I love how it's impossible to do everything you want to do but somehow it always feels like your actions go a bit of the way towards your goal, I love how it's impossible to equally rack up the points, but inevitably end up weak in something which can leave you vulnerable, but also single minded in focus. I love that the rivers provide a kind of cover if used properly because of the limitations in crossing them, I love how monuments become huge point generating stacks but at the same time make your strength weaker as 4 of your tiles disappear from your kingdom, I love how the disaster tiles can be used creatively to cut you in half and leave you a sitting duck for a quick and bloody war, or that you can try to expand your kingdoms with that in mind and make an infrastructure that's not susceptible to catastrophes. I love the tactile feel of adding to the regions of kingdoms and the sprawling, ever changing landscape that unfolds before you, I love how everything you do, everything that happens in this game is so tightly integrated with is theme, and such a perfectly simmered reduction of the key ideas behind the theme that its breathtaking. I love the huge array of little tactual tricks you can pull off with the conflicts, and for example throwing together opponents and staying well back while they annihilate each other to your benefit, or being able to sneak in, declare war, win a batch of points and then by the fractures created, skip the wars you would have lost otherwise. Man, I just love this game, and I know some of you will too. I love the uniqueness of the river tiles and the lure of the blue temple block where the rivers converge, I love that you can wall off your leaders and make them difficult to revolt against, that you can play warmonger and be a bystander, that you need to keep an eye on your borders as you expand knowing that every player gets 2 tiles, and thats potentially 2 tiles closer to your kingdom! I love that you want to secure monuments early but then become a target for the other players who want to reap its rewards. You won't easily forget the first time you wade in and win a war, or better yet, manipulate a leader in via revolt and THEN win a war, and vault yourself into the lead because of that delicious and tormenting scoring system, and I love the wonderful way that the game itself provides its own balancing motivations, as you grow strong in this or that color, your opponents will be nervous and will try to stop you by going to war or seizing the kingdom in a revolt, as with monuments, the stronger you get, the more of a target you paint on your back as a great source of a big points boost, if the attacker can plan carefully, or if you fail to defend and use your advantage while you can, oh I could go on and on and on (Editor… you did)

Please try it
If you need any more convincing, just have a peek at this awesome annotated game thread (note: you may wish to avoid reading too much before you've played the game a lot in case it spoils some of the fun for you)
The Annotated Game (Part 1)

AND FINALLY (Editor…wakes up, what you're STILL talking!, get out of here Ambolt!)

I apologize profusely for my failings in exploring this game in the detail it deserves. No, I know I wrote a lot, but it feels like it was a bit too much filler and not enough fillet for such an incredible design and wonderful game. But I wanted to share my love and appreciation for this title, and unfortunately, if there's one thing I am good at, it's… going on a bit. So, sorry about that as well, but most of all to those that understand this game a lot better than I do, and could have shared some sharper insights, I'm sorry, please feel free to wade in at the bottom of this and add your voice. Apologies also if I slipped into the classic "he/she" trap when writing, no offense was intended, and in any case, he/she is tricky to include consistently and doesn't read nicely, so please indulge me for convenience sake, and being a man, I'll call it home bias only. Oh, and sorry for this being written on my new iMac. While I love it dearly, I haven't properly switched over my thinking from windows, nor dug around in the settings and I'm afraid my spell checker seems to be some bloody American. As an Englishman living in Sweden I rather prefer not to see z's popping up where they shouldn't, and I like to include me "u's" in color (look there it goes again!), but I guess many of you out there won't mind that!
I also apologize for the late and hasty entry, even if turned out to be ginormous, I came home around 4pm and called it a night at 3am having pretty much been at the keyboard for 11 hours, and then returning again on the final day of the competition for another ************ hours. I think it probably shows in the layout and editing, and a bit of repetition, again, my apologies for that, and hope it was worth it. Finally, I hope everyone realizes that I am absolutely not sitting here with a cap belonging to some kind of gaming movement. I enjoy and am interested in games that could be described as Euro, Abstract, War, Thematic, Trash, Simulation, Cards, the whole smörgåsbord, when I seem to tease one group or the other I'm just trying to pick apart some of the objections to this game that I see from different camps, because I passionately believe this is truly the game for all of us

I hope I've inspired some people who may have been on the fence about this game, and some people who may not even know anything about this game. Do remember it's available FOR FREE to play online RIGHT HERE at boardgamegeek. Which makes it infinitely good value for money. Go on, give it a try, I think you might like it

In summary:
TIGRIS & EUPHRATES IS THE BEST BOARDGAME IN THE WORLD. PLAY IT. LOVE IT. KEEP PLAYING IT.

Now go, right now, here
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/tigris/

Links and references

Mayfair Games Page including rules and overview
http://mayfairgames.com/game.php?id=99&stock=MFG4116&name=Ti...

Uvula Bob's totally awesome flash based review thingy
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/1197/tigris-euphrates/ufb...

Ryan Sturm's How to Play Tigris & Euphrates (now with video)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/5782/tigris-euphrates/how...

Eekamouse's drive through review: Civ Killer
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/8631/tigris-euphrates/dri...

Boardgames to Go Podcast
http://boardgamestogo.com/2005/11/bgtg-43-nov-6-2005-all-abo...

Video Review of T&E with commentary and interview with Reiner Knizia
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/1595/tigris-euphrates/boa...

Enders Review
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/376984/so-youre-wonderin...

iTunes App Store for iOS version
http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/stat?id=Smq3RC8yf5I&offe...

Mike Doyle's alternate art page
http://mdoyle2.blogspot.se/2006/07/euphrat-tigris.html

Beginners Play Aids
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/1202/beginners-pdf
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/27615/tigris-euphrates (ignore the 3-4P quote, that was changed to 2-4 in later versions of the game)

Many thanks to all the contributors to the site, and particularly to Ender Wiggins for the great photos I ahem, borrowed from his great 360 thumb review of this classic, to Ryan Sturm for his ongoing efforts to bring people into the sometimes intimidating world of complex boardgames, to Paul Springer for his unbelievably awesome set of flash based video reviews, and to the fans and enthusiasts of Reiner Knizia and this game in particular, Martin, Laszlo, Nate, George, Kenny, you all knew what you were talking about and finally I listened, so thank you for helping me find this, a life changing game experience for us, And thanks to the organizers and sponsors of this event for their enthusiasm and efforts in promoting this kind of community wide effort. Good luck to everyone

Review: Sergeants Miniatures Game:: My Review of Sergeants Miniatures Game

Hahma — Mon, 28 May 2012 15:26:31 +0000

by Hahma

This is my first game review, so please bear with me on this journey. There haven't been many reviews for this game and those few that exist have been from some time ago, so I figured I'd offer a fresh perspective on things.

First a little background:

I was first introduced to miniature war gaming about 30 years ago when I was 14. My grandparent's neighbor was huge into war gaming. He had a large gaming table in his basement with lots of terrain such as bushes, trees, roads, fences, hills etc. and he had thousands of 15mm American Civil War figures and hundreds of Ancients as well as some British and Zulu figures. I had always loved military history, so this was very exciting for me to get involved with. I started learning to paint figures and enjoying some great games for the next few years.

Fast forward to 1996 when after being out of gaming for over a decade, I got into a Strat -O-Matic Hockey league. It was fun for about 10 years but wasn't as fun the last 5 before I dropped out. Prior to dropping out of that, in 2005, my nephew got Heroscape for Christmas. Wow, when I saw those minis and terrain I was stoked and it brought back the memories of minis gaming when I was a teenager. Needless to say, I started buying a lot of Heroscape products over the following several years, spending lots of money but having lots of fun.

Thanks to BGG, in June 2011, I found the Northwest Indiana Boardgamers Association and joined immediately. There were only a few of us to start, but it's grown quite a bit over the past year. I quit the Strato Hockey league after discovering that there are a ton of great games out there and a great variety of people to game with. Our group's collection of games numbers over 2,000 and keeps growing, so there's always plenty to choose from and learn from in getting to understand different game mechanics. I've played a great variety of board games and even some large scale minis wargames in the Napoleonic and Futuristic soldier genres.

I'd always loved the WWII genre, it just always fascinated me. I had some 15mm WWII minis when I was a teenager, though I can't recall the rules set I used. I had also tried some of the Avalon Hill games and they were okay in having larger level battles but only requiring a small amount of space. I'd tried Memoir '44 with the gaming group and like it for sure. It was quick to play, had minis, pre-made scenarios and was driven by cards that gave you some options for what to do on your turn. Some people don't like this, but I've played games where it's just back and forth getting to do what you want, and this was fresh for me in simulating how in war, you can't always do what you want, when you want.

So a few months ago I started getting the itch to get something in the WWII genre. There are plenty of Memoir games amongst members of our gaming group that for me to purchase more copies would be redundant. A couple guys in our group started getting into Flames of War and showed me some of their minis. I was impressed and thought, man this may be the direction I'm going to go. So I did a lot of research on that game and was really close to ordering the rules, other books and lots of minis. Then I saw the banner on BGG for Sergeants and figured I'd take a look at it. Hmm... now I found something that really looked cool. So then I was back and forth trying to decide which system to get into because they were both expensive and there was no way I could have both. Flames of War was massive in scale in both battles and available minis, including tanks, artillery and planes. Sergeants was more on a squad level, but came with pre-painted minis, it's own gaming board and scenarios.

Well you know which one I ended up buying, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this review. I ended up choosing Sergeants because of a few factors. Though I've painted minis before, I have a lot less time for it now, so the pre-painted minis helped. Accessibility was another big factor for me. There are a couple great guys in our group that I could eventually play FOW with after getting my army painted and situated, but there are a lot of guys in the group that enjoy the WWII genre and would be likely to sit down to play Sergeants, whereas they wouldn't likely try Flames of War. So to me, it meant more opportunity to play and getting to play quicker out of the gate. While it was costly for sure, I knew that I'd end up spending as much over time with Flames of War, so my money was going to go to one or the other. After seeing other reviews and research, I knew going in that Day of Days alone wasn't going to do it for me. So I ordered DoD, Road to Carenten and a squad bundle for each the Germans and Americans.

Now to the actual review:

Components:

What can I say that probably hasn't been said before? I found the material for the game board to be sturdy and fits well together, no struggling to get pieces to line up or fit right. The artwork on the board is great! I love that they are double sided and over a lot of variety and options.

I was very happy with the pre-painted minis and I like the variety of poses. While some people didn't like that they didn't come pre-mounted on their base, I actually preferred them not to be based already. It wasn't difficult at all to clean off the bottom of the mini and glue them down to their base. I chose to use super glue instead of the glue dots that came with the minis, but that was just my preference. I liked that they came not based because I liked having the option of putting the mini on the base of the soldier that I wanted it to go with. I could put a figure that looked like a leader on a leader's base, a kneeling/shooting figure on a base for a soldier that seemed like a good shooter, etc. I could also position the figure as I chose too.

The cards are nice and seem to be well made. I like the artwork for sure, but they would be cooler if the art image on the card matched the soldier in what weapon they were armed with. It's not a big deal really since the weapon type is listed on the top of the card, but it would have been a neat extra detail.

The markers are nice, though the Sighting ones on the back of the Grenades are off center likely due to the difficulty in lining up the sheets for printing on both sides. It's not a big deal at all as I understand the difficulty and appreciate the saving of extra pieces I'd need if they were only printed on one side. I suppose a case could be made that at some point though, you might run low on Sighting markers if you are equipping with a lot of Grenades, but once a Grenade is used, it can be used for a Sighting token and the soldiers become Sighted and in Cover enough to keep cycling the markers.

Mechanics/Gameplay:

Sergeants is driven by a Story Deck. This deck consists of cards that are specific to the scenario being played. Most of the cards are used, so each scenario will tell you which cards to remove from the deck rather than which ones to include, as it's much easier. That's how it works for DoD, but if you have RTC as well, those scenarios will tell you which cards to remove from the RTC story deck and which cards to add from the DoD story deck. The scenario will also tell you which sets of Order cards each player can draw from.

Scenarios will also give each player number of Victory Points allowed to start a game with. Each soldier is worth a number of Victory Points, as are equipment, grenades and artillery. This is like Heroscape for me, in that you start out with a number of points each side is allowed to start out with. Unlike Heroscape, there are other means of adding points besides just the units and other means of gaining VP's than just from killing an enemy figure. If all soldiers are killed from one side, the game ends and that player loses. However, if the game goes to the end, either by reaching the allotted turns by a scenario or not being able to place 3 Phase cards from the Story Deck, Victory points are totaled and the player with the highest number of VP's wins. VP's can be earned during a game by killing a soldier, capturing a soldier, completing your Orders or even from the Cause and Effects that can be generated from the Story Deck.

Each soldier has their own individual card with their stats and abilities, as well as a serial number that corresponds with the serial number on the dog tag part of the mini's base. There are also seven action cards for each soldier that are shuffled together with the other action cards for the other soldiers that make up his squad. These cards make up a deck from which you draw from each turn. Each action card has several parts to it that represent different things. When shooting at an enemy, you find out how many “hits” you have on that soldier by drawing an action card and looking at the appropriate box and line of that box based on range. Those aren't actual hits/wounds, they are more like the number of affects your soldier can impart on the targeted figure. The other player draws 1 card from his action deck for each “hit” to see the results and looks at another part of the action card to see if it was a miss, pin, wound or kill. The closer range range, the more opportunities for getting “hits”.

The action cards also have a talk bubble that tells you how many soldiers can either move, shoot, hide, look. The soldier who's dog tag matches the one on the action card can take one of the actions in the talk bubble as well as the action at the top of the action card, or he can just take the action listed on top of the card and let other soldiers in his squad perform all the actions in the talk bubble.

There are also white or blue squares on some cards with text within. The white ones are optional for that soldier to do if possible, but the blue one is mandatory if possible. This adds to the story telling of the game as it can make for some memorable moments during a game and allows each soldier to be a hero or a goat, depending on the text in the box. The neat thing about this game is that aside from the “Character” soldiers that come in DoD (2 for each side), all the other soldiers are going to be different from each other. They have their own serial number and stats and action card uniqueness that makes them capable of performing differently in a game. This is one of the coolest aspects of the game that attracted me to it.

At the beginning of the game, each player randomly draws an Orders card. This is kept secret and gives each player a direction to go during a game and a means of gaining Victory Points.

At the beginning of each turn each player draws the appropriate number of cards from their action deck and then you reveal the top three cards from the Story Deck and place them on their spaces on the border. Each card represents a Phase and tell you which cards you can play for that Phase. It might say Hide and then Shoot, Move and then Look or other combinations. Each player must then choose a card from their hand to play for each Phase and the card played must match one of the actions allowed by the corresponding Phase card. So for a Phase card that says Hide and then Shoot, you can play either a Hide action card from your hand or a Shoot action card from your hand. The player playing the Hide action would go first since it was listed at the top of the Story Deck card, but if both players play the same action, there are ways of determining who gets initiative, but I won't get that involved here.

There are Cause and Effect actions that can come into play if the bottom of the Story Deck cards line up right. This takes place at the beginning of the turn and can affect both players. There might be something that causes you to move slower, become sighted, discard Shoot cards from your hand. These Cause and Effects help make each game different, even if you play the same scenario over and over. It's not often that the cards line up to create a Cause and Effect, but it's cool when it does. It may happen once in a game or 4 times, so that adds to the replayability of the game and the storytelling.

Some people might be put off by the 2D aspect of the game. You have printed buildings, trees etc. on the board, but you can't hide behind them so to speak like in other minis games. Playing Heroscape for a long time, I know that line of sight is extremely important in that game and many others involving minis and is something that people grow used to. Unlike some other games, just because there is nothing to hide behind so to speak in this game, you can't always shoot/attack a figure just because you clear line of sight. In Sergeants, you have to be able to Sight a soldier before shooting at it. There are terrain modifiers on each map tile, and while you may have line of sight, the terrain modifiers might prevent you from being able to Sight a soldier, or if the soldier is or can be sighted, the terrain modifiers might keep you from being able to take a Shoot action against that soldier because it can affect your “range”. This is part of the abstract nature of the game that people have to either get on board with or they will keep comparing “typical” minis gaming rules applications the this game and get frustrated. Believe me, I've played enough games where 3D terrain had a huge affect on how you play, so I know where people are coming from. That said, I had absolutely no problem adapting to the abstract nature of this game and found that while it is different, it can have the same feeling and end results as if it were played with 3D terrain and restrictions.

Rules:

After reading reviews and seeing video reviews of the game based on earlier rules, I was kind of leery about getting this game. While everyone said that the mechanics were sound and the game was very playable, it seemed lacking in clarity when it came to the rules. Well I have the 1.72 version of the rules, so they are the most up to date, thank goodness. LBG had done a great job in listening to its costumers and updating the rules so far and from what I gather, 1.72 is a vast improvement from it's earlier form.

The game is very playable for sure with the new updated rules. That said, there can still be improvement with some minor things that will hopefully be answered in the future. Believe me, I've asked plenty of questions and have gotten some answers here at BGG. I would prefer to have more of my questions answered in the rulebook and not come here to find them, but after all, most of my questions are for finer details that result from certain situations in a game that come up, or from a person I'm teaching the game to. I don't like not having an answer to someone's question, but fortunately this game allows you to “house rule” certain details that aren't covered in the rulebook. Any “house rule” I've had to come up with is for only minor things, so they won't greatly affect the gaming experience, but just gives the players clarification and boundaries that all players will know from the onset of the game.

So aside from some minor details, I've found the rules easy to understand after reading thoroughly and playing a solo game to get the feel of the flow. I do this with every game I get because I like to have the sense of the gameplay/flow before I teach it to someone else, as well as run into some potential situations that can arise in order to have an answer to them when teaching.

Final Thoughts:

I know, people are probably saying “finally.” I know I do tend to get carried away sometimes when telling a story or writing something. I didn't want to do a sterile review for this game because I really love the game and wanted to add a sense of where I'm coming from with my gaming experience and opinions.

I really love this game. I love how accessible it is to both minis gamers and board gamers. I love how portable it is and can be taken wherever you want to go and set up in a relatively short amount of time. I think the individual soldiers are a great idea and aspect of this game. Each soldier can develop a personality that you can really enjoy during a game or series of games, and that adds to fond recounts of each game. I really like the leaders and being able to play them at different ranks. I really enjoy the Story Deck mechanic of the game and how it adds to create a unique game each time you play. The Cause and Effect mechanic is cool and gets players excited when they see that part of the cards match up when they are revealed. The Orders cards you draw at the beginning of the game are neat and give you a direction, but like other games, they can be a distraction if you don't do other things you need to do during a game to win. The various ways to earn Victory Points is neat and can allow for different player styles to help determine how they attain VP's. Follow orders, kill all enemy figures or try to get into Close Combat and capture a soldier to double their VP value.

Certainly there are some things that aren't part of the love fest from above. The game is expensive and will take a certain amount of investment to get the most out of it. You certainly don't have to buy everything that is made for the game to enjoy it. But you should expect to get a decent amount more than just the base game DoD. It is what it is and it's not hidden from anyone. Anyone doing even a moderate amount of research on this game will find that it is highly recommended to buy more than just the base game. It's well advertised that the base game is just that and it's not something that you will get the full sense of Sergeants from. So this game won't be for everyone. I had spent a lot of money on Heroscape over the years and got plenty of enjoyment and value from my purchases. I was planning on getting into another game system to build a collection with, so I was prepared for the expense.

The rules are really good for the most part, I really mean that. There are however some things that can be clearer and little more time spent in covering some finer details. I understand that the designer didn't want to create a lengthy rulebook and that is appreciated, but I would much prefer a longer more detailed rulebook than having to go to BGG for answers, as it's much easier to flip through a rulebook in the middle of a game to find the answer than to search for the answer online or post a question online and wait for an answer.

I rate the game overall at 8.5.

Review: Edo:: 4 Players

j_king — Mon, 28 May 2012 14:28:40 +0000

by j_king

We played with all four players at the office on Friday last week.

This review won't cover the components or give an overview of the game as I covered that in my Boxfresh Review along with my initial impressions after opening the box and playing the first game with two players.

tldr; We had a lot of fun with 4 players. My impression is that this game is probably best with 3 - 4 players.

Setting up was pretty easy after some helpful suggestions I received in my previous review thread. I still had to sort out the Ryo into separate piles but that just might be me. Just keep all of the starting player bits in separate baggies and you'll do just fine.

We had one question about the set up though that we couldn't figure out. The rules say that in 2 and 4 player games three of resource spaces and one village should be covered over. For a two player game on the 2-3 player side of the board it seemed logical but we could figure out why it was so on the 4 player side. It didn't affect our game either way but a couple of us were curious.

After setting up I went through explaining the rules. As it was only my second play through I had to refer to the rule book a few times for some of the finer details. Overall though it went pretty smoothly and once play began the rules became very intuitive. The trickiest part were the actions so I tried to explain the iconography and a few of the basic important ones. During the game we had to reference the action chart for some of the extra cards we bought later in the game. However overall explaining the rules took perhaps ten minutes at most before we were able to begin.

The first few turns were a little confusing for most of the players at the table. It's not immediately obvious to some people what the overall strategy looks like so the first few turns seemed mostly random as people got used to the flow of the game. It didn't feel like these initial decisions affected the overall game greatly however which kept us all feeling like we all had an equal opportunity to win even up to the end.

That being said the most intense part of the game were the last few turns. It was quite amazing how varied each of our strategies were and yet we were all clamouring for those last few points. I came from last place all through the early to mid game and jumped out to a tie for the lead within the last 3 rounds or so. It was really close as we ended with a three-way tie that was resolved by one of those players having the most resources left over. The last place player was only a couple of points behind. If this is any indication I get the feeling that even in more aggressive games than the one we played that the scoring will be pretty close and I really, really like that in a game.

I also really like the varied strategies as I had mentioned. I took to buying extra officials early on to match each of my initial ones. Then later in the game I bought an action card that gave me +1 rice when I harvested rice so I kept a samurai on that spot and was able to field a lot of samurai which let me spread out a lot of my actions across the board. Other players focused on maintaining strong influence in key cities to maximise their income and bought action cards that let them utilize the money to buy their resources rather than competing for them in the resource spaces on the board. It was really interesting to discuss at the end with the other players how they approached the game. There was a sense that there were plenty of other strategies to explore on subsequent plays... so I think this one will definitely be hitting the table again soon.

This is a fantastic game and I recommend it if you're into mid-to-heavy worker-placement and resource-management type games. I also think it's unlikely that there is an "optimal" strategy that once discovered everyone will have to compete for. There seems to be plenty of room to make mistakes and still adapt to the overall situation. And the scoring seems really tight. This game is getting a good spot on my shelf and I hope you'll consider giving it one on yours too.

Cheers.

Review: Existenz: On the Ruins of Chaos:: Magic with a board?

JMCEE — Mon, 28 May 2012 13:54:56 +0000

by JMCEE

I played this for the first time at UK Games Expo this weekend and quite enjoyed it. Having never played X610Z before, I had no expectations of game play - but it looked interesting enough to play.

Each player (2-4) is given a prebuilt deck of 50 cards in 4 different factions - you place your 'city' at the centre of the board, and the aim is to escape the volcano and get to safety (Red dots on the board) via white dots on linked concentric circles. You can also summon creatures to the board either at the volcano or summon points to help protect your city and/or attack your opponents. And block red dot spaces. The summons can move around the board much faster than your city.

It was quite interesting that the board gave you limitations on what you could attack, in that you can’t attack a vessel if it’s not in range and gave effectively two victory conditions - either get to the red dot first or defeat someone else’s base before they get to the red dot.

Damage is tracked by counters on the card (a bit like Pokemon TCG) and there is no defence or rolling for attack – if you are in range, you automatically do damage. This speeds things up, otherwise we’d be there for hours playing instead of about 45-60 minutes.

There appears to be two victory conditions - either get to a red dot first or defeat someone else’s base before they get to a red dot. Without the board, it would be the same as magic I suppose.

A rule that you could not move/attack around acute corners seemed a little frustrating, but, perhaps there is logic in it. Perhaps I will have to try it without that rule another time to see how it affects gameplay.

If you have never played Magic or similar games before then it is difficult to pick up and understand the mechanics, but once you know that, it is a nice game where moving your pieces is all part of the strategy.

Review: Sunrise City:: Pleasant Surprise of the Year so Far

Bigshowfan — Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:31 +0000

by Bigshowfan

I have now played Sunrise City 3 times over the last 3 days and I can honestly say I love it.

]]>

Sunrise City is a medium weight 2-4 player game with a good level of player interactivity, and a clever mix of tile placement, bidding and victory point winning.

This review is all about my personal opinion, so look elsewhere for rules / component analysis. This is solely based on my personal experiences, biases and preferences.

The components are fantastic though. Huge, thick tiles really add to the theme of building skyscrapers and tower blocks across this urban sprawl. Even though I initially thought they were over produced and unnecessary, the 'giant nipples' make it obvious where the bonus points are available from building up existing properties.

The narrative arc of the game - going through the initial role drafting and selection, communal zoning, bidding and city building phases of the turn help disguise the puzzle and potentially dry nature of, what is ultimately, a victory point gaining exercise.

Now, the genius of the design is the scoreboard.

]]>

If this were a straight race to the end - with the most Victory Points winning - it would be a good game. However, the greatness comes from having to plan your scoring to land on the '10' point mark to get 2 VP's (really cool wooden stars) as opposed to 1 VP for just passing that mark.

Having so many routes for scoring, both for yourself and your opponents, means that this task is tricky - but always seemingly achievable. Throw in some tactical blocking - both tile laying and with the bidding chips to reserve - and it becomes even more challenging.

I also really enjoy the variety from game to game of the drafted role cards - which also cleverly set turn order.

Any potential negatives? Well, the random distribution of buildings could leave the player short on available points to score on a turn if they are particularly unlucky to only draw low-scoring tiles. This is, though, a necessary evil to maintain the flow and simplicity - any sort of drafting would take too long. Anyway, the effects of this can be mitigated by clever play.

In summary, when this game becomes more readily available I would strongly recommend it as a highly competitive 60 to 90 minute game which we found pretty easy to pick up, but with plenty of depth to explore.

Having played Urban Sprawl and City Tycoon and not been captivated by either, this is definitely my Sim-City game of choice.

Incidentally, with an experienced group, I expect this to become one of my favourite, cut-throat and competitive gaming experiences.

Review: Ace of Spies:: Loved it. Tabletop gaming moment of my life encountered.

pelekophoros — Mon, 28 May 2012 11:20:02 +0000

by pelekophoros

DISCLAIMERS:

- I played this in an Expo environment where it was warm and I was woozy and some people smelled funny.
- I played this with some internet frendz who, while not technically strangers, had an affinity with each other based on the fact our wives were about to kill us when we got home thanks to spending lots of money at the aforementioned Expo
- I have never played the TtR card game but I have played the TtR board game a lot with my wife
- I only played AoS once, just once, so maybe next time it'll be shit or something
- The designer frequents another forum I go to, I've only listened to his podcast twice though and I'd probably not have his babies unless he paid me lots of money for the sex change and inconvenience.

This review isn't biased in any way at all. I had backed the previously cancelled Kickstarter campaign but decided not to this time around as it's too expensive.

INTRO

The demo dude, Tony I think, ran us through the base card drawing mechanics. 3 piles of city cards plus a pile of mission cards. Two cards from each city pile are face side up. Draw 3 mission cards, discard up to 2 if you want. Blah blah blah - go read the rules.

Yes, it was introduced with TtR as the reference point. We'd all played TtR though, so it kinda made sense to use that. Where it differs, though, is in all the icons, the search through a deck mechanic (which costs cards, btw, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to win the game in this way), the agent cards (which introduce either interrupt effects or bonuses on completion of missions) and the actual interrupt cards themselves, which is where lots of the fun lies.

It's incredibly easy to get up to speed on the game, and within 2 turns we were well away (a table of 5).

HOW IT PLAYS

Hilariously. Fast. There is minimal down time.

You can constantly and effectively screw each other over. You can play interrupt cards at any point, which gets a great back and forth element going and really gets banter and player interaction going. TtR, for instance, is entirely dependent upon you bumping into each other on a track and an internal monologue as you work out your strategy.

There is no internal monologue here. There is just abuse and shouting and laughing (dependent upon your group). Christ knows what it's like with beer added to the mix.

Here's an example turn sequence we had:

Me: I'll complete this mission!
Mark: WAIT! I shall steal this mission from you!
Me: HAHA! No, YOU WAIT! I shall deflect your attack with this card!
Mark: Oh you dastardly swine! Here then, you shall now have to discard two cards as punishment!

That was the end of the first turn, so we were straight into it.

Towards the end of the game, it went like this:

Mark: All of you give me one card each!
*everyone gives a card*
Steve: HA! Now, all of YOU give me one card each!
*everyone gives a card*
Me: HA! Now give me your entire completed mission!
Me: AND! Steve, destroy an agent and lose 2 points!

And there was more. I went from a 20 point lead to losing by 30 odd points and coming second to last by the end of the game (dictated by a pile of cards running out).

CONCLUSION

I've no idea if I've conveyed the abject chaos and fun of the game well above. The only experience I've had that's akin to is very much not TtR (I only mention this again because I'm already tired of the comparisons). It was, in fact, Cheat or Blag, a standard run of the mill card game where you lie and stitch each other up.

I loved the game I had. I loved the game I had so much I just backed it again, despite the price difference. I need it in my collection.

I suspect that once it's there, it'll become one of the most played games I have and certainly the most popular card game.

CONCERNS

I'm still a little unsure how well it'll scale down to 2 players. That's it. That's all I'm keeping an eye on.

Review: Warhammer: Invasion:: [Voice of Experience] Warhammer: Invasion through the eyes of a Magic player

Trantor42 — Mon, 28 May 2012 11:19:32 +0000

by Trantor42

A. INTRODUCTION:

When Magic: The Gathering was released in 1993, it became a world-wide sensation. The first print run sold out in weeks, and the game spread like wildfire all over the globe, spawning tournaments with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line. What is even more amazing than this feat is that the game is still going strong almost 20 years later. Many games copied the basic formula and tried to improve on it, but none had the same success and longevity.
One of these games is Fantasy Flight's Warhammer: Invasion, henceforth abbreviated as WH:I. Set in Games Workshop's popular Warhammer universe, WH:I is a so-called Living Card Game (LCG). This means that while there are lots of expansion packs with more cards for the game, they are not randomized boosters. The content of each pack is fixed instead, so you can inform yourself in advance what to get.
The Core Set, the first large expansion and the first six small expansions (called Battle Packs) feature cards that come with only a single copy. All subsequent packs come with three copies of each card which makes for a playset (meaning that you cannot have more than three copies in a deck).
Apart from the distribution model, the games have a lot in common: you build a deck of creatures and spells and try to smash your opponent before he does the same to you. We'll get to this in more detail in just a moment.

A bit of background about me: I am a Magic player myself, have been since the release of Tempest in 1997, and I really love the game. The mechanics, the artworks, the depth, the balance of randomness and skill, the freshness of new cards and mechanics, and all the different levels you can play at - be it casual or competitive, Constructed or Limited, 1-vs-1 or multi-player Highlander - really makes me love Magic. And still, my interest has waned. Magic requires a lot of time and money, which leaves less of those resources for other activities that may or may not be of the same importance (like playing other games, having other hobbies, earning money or spending time with people that you already or may in the future call a “family”). Also, I'm a bit burnt out on it after almost 15 years of playing. So I’m rarely playing anymore, like a prerelease or two per year and a few times a year with my old group.

B. SO WHY SHOULD I TRY ANOTHER GAME THAT IS SIMILAR TO MAGIC?

Here are a couple of reasons why you, as a Magic player, may consider playing Warhammer: Invasion.

1. Variety:
Some people swear they only ever need one game of any type, but I'm not that kind of guy. I'm glad I own both Caylus and Stone Age, or both Dominion and Ascension. So why not a similar card game?

2. Cost:
This does seem to come up a lot. But, is WH:I really cheaper?
It's true that the LCG distribution model means that you can get complete playsets of every card for less than the price of a Beta Black Lotus (I'm unsure about an Unlimited Lotus). However, there is no secondary market which means no trading and no boxes with hundreds of commons for a few bucks. But if you are a completionist, Warhammer: Invasion is definitely cheaper than Magic.

3. Ease of rules:
With all its complex timing, numerous keywords, triggered and activated abilities and all the weird stuff that can happen if more complex cards are together, Magic is definitely a complex and sometimes complicated game. Warhammer: Invasion is simpler and clearer, though it of course does get more and more complex the more expansions you add.
This was one of my main reasons to check out Warhammer: Invasion in the first place. My girlfriend is my primary gaming partner, and while she likes Magic, all the rules are a bit overwhelming for her. So I was looking for something similar, but easier.

4. Hey, it's friggin' WARHAMMER!
I have to admit I have absolutely no Warhammer background at all, I never played the tabletop or the RPG and never read the novels either. If you are a Warhammer fan, the theme will of course appeal more to you than the generic fantasy theme of Magic.

C. GAMEPLAY:

1. How does it work?
WH:I is a 2 player game only. You use a deck of 50-100 cards, shuffle them, draw 7 cards from the deck and off you go. The cards represent units, support cards like buildings, and tactics (magical spells or events with a one-time effect). The goal is to set fire to the opponent's capital which is represented by a thick piece of cardboard. A capital is divided into three zones, the kingdom, the quest, and the battlefield (and no, I don't know why a kingdom is part of a capital instead of the other way round). Each zone starts out with 8 hitpoints. Damage on them or on cards is represented by small skull tokens of thick cardboard. If a zone has at least as much damage as it has hitpoints, the zone is burning and gets a fire token. The player who burns two zones of the opponent is the winner!

Cards belong to one of six factions. On the Order side you have the Dwarves, the Human Empire and the High Elves, while the Destruction side offers Orcs, Chaos and the Dark Elves. You can mix Order cards and Destruction cards freely in your deck, but you are not allowed to put both Order and Destruction cards in the same deck. So if you are looking for the Evil Chaotic Human Empire of Doom, go read a history book.
Naturally, the factions have their different traits. High Elves are defensive and capable of healing, the Dwarves are sturdy and hard to penetrate, the Orcs rush out to a quick all-out attack and so on.

Both players take alternating turns and follow these phases in order:
1. Kingdom phase
You get an amount of resources (cardboard tokens) equal to the number of power symbols in your Kingdom zone. The Kingdom already has 3 power tokens printed on it, so you always get at least 3 resources.
2. Quest phase
You draw an amount of cards equal to the number of power symbols in your Quest zone from your deck. Your Quest zone already has 1 power token in it.
3. Capital phase
Now you can spend your resources to play cards from your hand. Units and support cards must be placed in one of the three zones.
Each card has a cost that you have to pay in resource tokens and additionally requires a certain amount of loyalty symbols. Each permanent offers you one loyalty symbol of its faction, as does your capital. Missing loyalty symbols must be paid in resources. So if you want to play a card that costs 6 and needs 5 loyalty symbols, but you only have 2 symbols, the card will cost you 9 resources.
You may also play one card from your hand face-down as a development into one of your three zones. This adds one total hit point to that zone.
4. Combat phase
Finally the fight! All your cards in your Battlefield zone may attack one zone of your opponent's capital. You announce which units attack which zone. Then your opponent can defend with his units in the attacked zone. Players then freely assign an amount of damage equal to the total number of power symbols of their units to the opposing units. Any left-over damage that is not needed to kill units can be placed on the attacked capital's zone.

Once your opponent is done with his turn, you discard all left-over resource tokens you still have and repeat. Should a player have no more cards in his deck, he loses the game immediately.

There is also a draft variant with special draft cards.

A typical game lasts between 10 and 30 minutes for experienced players, but can easily double if both players are new.

2. Similarities to Magic
- Card types and gameplay structure.
Any Magic player will feel immediately at home. Replace the factions with colors, units with creatures, support cards with enchantments or artifacts (depending on whether the support cards belongs to a faction or not) and tactics with instants, and you are good to go. Even the turn order is similar (income, draw, main phase, combat).
- Card effects.
You have discard, removal of all sorts, units that are hard to block, legendary permanents (only one copy of them can be in play at the same time), creature enchantments, bounce, counterspells and so on. You will find almost everything that is in Magic also here. The Legends expansion even introduces a card type similar to planeswalkers!
- In both games, you draw 7 cards and can mulligan.
In WH:I, you may only mulligan once to 7 cards and have to play with them.
- The stack!
Ok, so it's called action chains here, but it basically works the same: Both players may add actions to a chain until nobody wants to anymore. Then, the chain is resolved in reverse order. So if player A wants to buff his creature, and player B responds by killing that creature, it gets killed before it gets the bonus. The difference to Magic is that once resolving starts, players may no longer add actions to the partially resolved chain.

3. Differences to Magic
- All creatures have haste and trample (and sort of banding).
That's right, every creature may attack the turn you play it. You then add up the power of all attackers and defenders, assign as many points of damage to the opponent's creatures, and the attacker may then assign leftover damage to the opponent's capital.
- Damage counters stay on creatures.
So you don't need to deal all of lethal damage in one single turn.
- Only three copies of any card allowed instead of Magic's four.
- Creature strength may be used for more than just attacking.
Depending on the zone where you play it, the strength value of the creature is used for attacking, resource income or card draw. This creates interesting decisions where to play your cards.
- Developments.
No, face-down cards are not morph creatures here, they are developments that add one hit point to the zone they are placed in.
- Tapping works a little differently.
In WH:I, units don't tap (turn themselves 90°) themselves, but they can be tapped via card effects. This is called corrupting. A corrupted unit can not attack or defend. At the start of your turn, you may restore (= untap) only one of your creatures.
- No second main phase.
Once combat is over, your turn ends.
- Damage still goes on the stack.
Once combat damage is assigned, both players have the abilities to play actions, like preventing some of the assigned damage.
- Loyalty symbols instead of colored mana.
Many stronger cards require quite a few loyalty symbols, meaning you will need to control several permanents of the corresponding faction or pay extra resources. This basically means that splashing cards of other factions cost more.
- Deck size.
WH:I allows 50-100 card decks instead of the 60+ in Magic.

D. WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE GAME:

- No mana screw or flood
The mana system with lands is both Magic's biggest boon and biggest bane in my opinion. It opens design space and forces you to build better decks, but every Magic player has felt the frustration of games that were decided by simply drawing too few or too many lands. In WH:I, all your cards are either units, support cards or tactics, which I like.
- Different zones
This is probably my favourite part of the game (though it does cause problems - see below). Do you want to take the aggressive role and put that creature onto the battlefield, or do you use it to increase your resource or card income? Do you use that removal spell to decrease your opponent's income, or do you weaken his attack force?
The zones create all kinds of interesting decisions, especially if you get into a situation where you really want a unit in your Kingdom, but it has a special ability that makes it better in the Quest zone.
- Developments as a means to dump unnecessary cards.
You can get rid of a useless card like a second copy of a legendary unit (only one may be in play) and still get a benefit.
- Artworks and card quality are great.
I really enjoy all the artworks, absolutely top-notch. Also, the cards seem to be sturdier than Magic cards, so shuffling won't wear them as much (though you'd still want to use sleeves for regular play). It's a bit irritating that the card layout is different from type to type, but you get used to that quickly.
- Easy to get into.
It's kind of hard to get into Magic. There are Duel Decks, Intro Decks, Event Decks, but many people will tell you to forget about all of them. So how do you start?
Well, WH:I doesn't have that problem. You need to buy a Core Set for the capitals and tokens anyway, and it comes with 4 preconstructed decks. They aren't very focussed and the balance is suboptimal (hint: Dwarves and Orcs are the good ones!), but the decks do a pretty good job of showcasing the different characteristics and traits of the factions and are fun to play. The High Elves and Dark Elves are still missing in the Core Set and you need the first large expansion called Assault on Ulthuan to get them.
Also, the rules are definitely easier than in Magic, though you can get to some brainburners here as well. Still, WH:I is fairly complex compared to most board games because of all the different cards.

E. WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE GAME:

- Multi-faction-decks aren't really viable.
Since cards cost more if you don't have enough loyalty symbols, playing a true multicolor deck is difficult. Splashing a few powerful cards can work, but you are usually better off to stick to just one faction and then work around problems with neutral cards. While cards that give you loyalty symbols of several factions exist, they are actually too weak to play.
- It's very hard to mount a comeback if you fall behind early.
An early removal spell or two at the start of the game (possibly combined with the advantage of being the starting player) can lead to a situation where one player gets more resources and draws more cards than his opponent. It's REALLY hard to come back from that situation, and sometimes a game can be a blow-out very early on. That you can sometimes drop 4 or 5 cards with a lucky opening hand (and a cheap deck) makes this especially troublesome.
- Blocking almost never occurs.
While I really love the concept of the different zones, the problem they have is that creatures rarely fight each other. If a zone is well-defended, you simply attack another one to deal damage. And if the attacking force is more powerful, the defender often has no incentive to block, as keeping a creature to generate more resources or draw more cards is usually much more desirable than absorbing a point of damage or two. This also makes healing cards quite weak.
- Lack of removal, especially on the Order side.
While the Destruction factions (especially Chaos) have quite a few creature removal spells at their disposal, the Order forces really struggle here (on the other hand, they are better at removing Support cards than the Destruction factions). A battle between two Order decks will usually be a war of attrition that may grow to epic proportions, especially if Dwarves are involved. I'd like the game a bit more interactive here instead of just needing to have the larger gigantic army.
- Unpredictability and low player interaction.
This is a direct consequence of the points above. Planning ahead is a lot more difficult than in Magic since all creatures have haste. This makes the game feel a lot more random and less strategical. And the lack of removal, the high cost of counterspells and the possibility to always attack the least defended zone make the game feel less interactive compared to Magic.
- No multi-player.
While there are a few unofficial variants for incorporating more players than just 2, no official suggestions or rules exist. So no Commander, Two-Headed Giant, Pentagram, Emperor and so on.

F. MISCELLANEOUS:

These points can go either way, depending on whether you care about them or don't.

- No secondary market.
There is almost no chance of buying or selling individual cards, and you can't really trade cards with complete strangers (ok, so if all you want is Dwarf cards and all he wants is Orc cards, you can share, but I figure that's rare). So if you are into that aspect of CCGs, WH:I won't deliver.
- Much smaller tournament scene compared to Magic.
One of my favourite aspects of Magic is the ability to play multiple tournaments a week if I want to. WH:I tournaments are rare and only found in certain places. Here in Germany, the largest regular tournament I know of has about 6 people showing up once a week. In Berlin, Germany's capital and largest city, there is currently no tournament scene at all.
I have heard that there are tournaments with about 70 participants in Italy or Poland, but suppose they are the exception. It's certainly nowhere near the regular FNMs of Magic held in thousands of cities, let alone large tournaments like Grand Prix or Pro Tours with several thousand dollards of prize money on the line.

G. CONCLUSION:

Warhammer: Invasion is fun, no doubt about it. It plays a lot like Magic, replaces the lands with its own, interesting economy system and is slightly easier to get into. The different factions play very differently, and the decisions in which zone you play your cards into are very interesting. Games are not decided by mana screw or flood, which removes some of Magic's biggest frustration. There are lots of cards to choose from meanwhile, and you can build many different decks, relying on many synergies.
But the game feels a little bit too random sometimes for my personal taste. Sometimes, you get blown out because your opponent attacks you with new creatures out of nowhere, and some opening hands containing multiple Warpstone Excavations (a card that is similar to a Mox) lead to extremely brutal first turns. This is especially annoying since it is so hard to come back from a worse board position, so sometimes games are de facto over after turn 1. The lack of removal, especially on the Order side, also lead to games where both players play solitaire, trying to build the larger army quicker than the opponent. Direct confrontation is reduced since you can always attack the least defended zone.
All in all, WH:I doesn't have quite the same strategical depth and variety of Magic. There are also less different levels to play the game on, since it is lacking multiplayer support or an experience similar to Limited tournaments. Tournaments themselves are also few and far between, so if you are very competitive, WH:I won't quite satisfy your desires.

So for me, Magic is still the king of these games. But when I want to introduce a new player to the world of customizable card games, I choose Warhammer: Invasion, as it is easier to get into and a lot of fun in its own right. If you are looking for a lighter, more accessible alternative that costs a lot less to keep up, Warhammer: Invasion is definitely worth a look. It scratches the same itch and is different enough to not feel redundant. If you like the Warhammer universe, all the better!

My rating: 8/10

Review: Star Trek [Deck Building Game]: The Next Generation:: Star Trek: A great idea done poorly

seasnake — Mon, 28 May 2012 08:57:04 +0000

by seasnake

Okay, this is the second game I've review, along with Airlines Europe. I'm posting this because, unlike most of my collection, there aren't 50 reviews already sitting here. I hope this will help people make a good decision.

I love Star Trek:TNG. It's a great TV show that was either really good or so terrible it was hilarious. It was always entertaining, whether you were merely enjoying the plotline or mocking the life out of it, hours of Wesley Crusher/Will Wheaton jokes --

"So Will, we were thinking of making Wesley the captain of the Enterprise during a three-episode plot arc...
(hope fills Will Wheaton's eyes)
...but instead we decided he goes back to the Academy again."
(stunned silence, followed by a teen scream).

I also love Dominion, only have the first one and you can't get me to buy an xpac (ooh, it's a mining village, now that is different). Dominion is my wife's favorite game to play with me, we just use the randomizer cards and go to town. (We do however have Governor, Envoy and Black Market because when they come up it really does feel like a unique experience from the others).

So combining deck building and TNG, should be a good thing, right? Turns out, not so much.

When reviewing a game I give a brief overview of the game followed by a look at 1) the components, 2) the Rules and how easy they are to understand, 3) whether the gameplay is elegant or clunky, 4) the impact good strategy and tactics have on final outcome 5) how much fun it is to actually play the game, 6) how likely I am to replay this in the future. This is then followed by a Final Analysis and ranking.

Overview:
Your start with a basic ship, a few crew members with little skill and a few basic maneuvers. Your goal is to get a better crew, which often includes characters from the show, by buying them with experience, a special kind of currency found on no-name commanders, lieutenants, and ensigns. You also buy maneuvers and technology, like a Transporter, to help your deck. As you develop your deck, you can explore a special set of cards that create events. Sometimes it's a battle, sometimes it's a mission, sometimes it's Q destroying your ship, but they can give victory points. First to 300 wins.

The Components and Quality:
Cards and foam and D20s. That's it. The box has some foam pads and cards to separate out the basic starter cards from the Borg cards from the Starbase cards, and it's silly as you try to put the right number of decks on each side so that they're held tightly. Often it doesn't work and the slip and bend. Other knock: the cards have low quality pictures on them, it looks like you're watching the characters on an old TV. The D20s are only for tracking your hit points on your ship, they do the job but is it even possible to screw up a basic D20? Overall, 4/10

The Rules and Clarity thereof:
This is the acknowledged Achilles heel of the whole game. Clear rules and objectives would make a lot of the other flaws feel minor, but this is a killer. We have to review the Ban Dai Web site multiple times to figure out what to do, the Rule book is almost so vague as to be useless. We still don't know really how to handle most effects/battles that occur in the Space deck. Your supposed to turn over a mission card so its face up before it can be claimed for the points, and sometimes they have persistent effects like limiting the number of cards/cost of cards. We have no idea to whom these effects apply, if they have to be claimed first, if they persist when someone's fulfilled a mission, there is nothing to say. We can't tell much about order of playing cards into your bridge area, nothing. You really rely on the Web site but even that is of limited value.

The Rules are the worst part. Several times I've tried to show the game to a new person, and I have no idea who to answer their questions with anything better than "I think this is what that means." Overall, 2/10

Gameplay
The Gameplay is interesting, in that there's a lot to do and you're pulling up named characters you'll recognize if you watched the show, so purchasing Jean Luc Picard or Commander LeForge feels like a real coup. The battles are interactive (although what constitutes "winning" is still unclear, thank you very little rule book) and each ship has different abilities you're trying to improve such as shields, speed, phasers, etc. Further, you can play special cards like a tractor beam, which allows you to put any one card in your discard pile to your current hand, or you can play a character and use it to sabotage your opponents hyperdrive. So that's all to the good, and a major strength.

Further, the Borg scenario, even though we discovered we had played it wrong later (on the Ban Dai Web site) was a lot of fun. It's cooperative, so lots of friendly table talk going on, and it had great theme as your crew members were borged and Borg Cubes kept getting stronger.

The downside of gameplay is that there isn't a lot of meaningful options to NOT do something. You basically play all of your cards in your hand OR you trash something. There's no limit on how many cards you can play out of your hand, and you must discard what you have left over, so you might as well put them all down at once. This creates a lack of meaningful choice in the individual hands, what you drew is what you'll use.

Further, there is a HUGE balance problem with the gameplay, namely the first to get an upgraded ship will win the game 9/10 times. In the Space Deck you occasionally encounter other vessels, and you either fight them or engage in diplomacy. If you have a high enough diplomacy stat, you win it as your flagship! However, suddenly everyone else has a ship with 0 attack, 0 speed, 0 diplomacy and 8 life, and you have a ship with 3 attack, 3 speed, 3 diplomacy and 10 life. This difference is huge. The person who can get a good ship can survive most battles without a scratch, and the bonus diplomacy, the rarest stat in the game (Picard only gives 2, for crying out loud) will enable him to win even stronger ships. This creates a runaway leader as every ship is worth 50-100 victory points, and missions such as "Have 2 Speed and 2 Diplomacy" are no longer a matter of having the right hand, your ship simply makes it free victory points.

Even if everyone gangs up in battle to attack the leader, this doesn't really hurt him because having your ship destroyed does NOT mean you lose the ship. Instead you merely set your life back to full and take an Ensign card (a help in the early game, a penalty in the late game because there's so much that's better you don't want an Ensign clogging your bridge space). It can annoy and slow them a little, but it makes no difference. Overall, 5/10.

Strategy and Tactics:
There's little to say. The strategy is this: get characters with high experience so you can buy characters with diplomacy. Get a ship, explore the deck, upgrade the ship, win.

Tactics are a little better: There's a limited number of cards that can be bought at a time and they can be removed from the pool by another player on their turn, so you need to debate how you buy. Some cards offer more than one way to play so that's nice. One Ferengi can either be used on your turn to improve your ship with attack and speed, or used during another's turn as a sabotage, lowering there score in the category you pick. Transporters let you sort through the discard pile and get a great card. Maneuvers are no brainers, if they're in your hand you use them, because when wouldn't you want to have a boost to phasers/shields? Choosing to explore the Space Deck is not a real tactical decision, because having your ship destroyed is barely a penalty. It does end your turn immediately, but the rules say you can do anything in any order so you might was well purchase/upgrade cards right away and then explore, so even if you get blown up you did everything you wanted to. But overall strategy isn't there and tactics are still limited. Overall,6/10.

Fun Factor
This is the game's big strength. Muddling through the rules sucks, but the theme is fun for fans. Getting Picard in your hand feels like a major coup, you can try to grab every Romulan Character, or Ferengi, or Federation, or mix it up. Deploying Phasers, fighting Birds of Prey, you can really get lost in the theme if you're a fan. So that makes it fun. But, if I didn't like the show the game wouldn't be fun to play, it'd just be a confusing deckbuilder that lacks elegance and strategy. Overall, 8/10, but closer to 5/10 if I wasn't a fan.

Replayability:
No one's asked for it again. We've played it with four different groups and twice as a couple. It's just hard to justify playing it when we could be playing Dominion. Overall, 3/10.

Final Analysis:
It's a great theme you can have a lot of fun wit. Maybe there's a good game in her somewhere and I just can't find it. But the lack of real strategy, the terrible rulebook, unclear objectives in battles and missions, the HUGE problem of runaway leaders (this is terrible, it really unbalances the game if someone gets a good ship) and overall lack of decent components make it a pass. Overall, 3/10.

Review: World of Warcraft: The Boardgame - Shadow of War:: La variedad se esconde en la sombra.

Stone Dwarf — Mon, 28 May 2012 07:27:31 +0000

by Stone Dwarf

¿Por qué adquirí esta expansión?

Cuando compré World of Warcraft The Boardgame, quedé bastante satisfecho con mi compra, pero siempre me quedó una sensación de que faltaba algo más.

El juego transcurría bien, pero de pronto, las opciones para personalizar a tu personaje se sentían muy limitadas, incluso considerando las armas, armaduras, objetos, etc. que se le podían poner, se sentía que solo habían dos o tres senderos viables para que tu personaje pudiera desarrollarse a lo largo del juego.

También, la presencia de los Overlords no se sentía con suficiente impacto en el juego, quedando así la sensación de que estos poderosos jefes no eran más que un objetivo opcional paralelo a los demás eventos.

Curiosamente, siendo esta la primera expansión de las dos existentes, fue la última que conseguí, varios años después, en una tienda que vende juegos viejos.

Creo que bien se podría decir, que adquirí esta expansión por la variedad de opciones que ofrecía.

El tema de la expansión

El tema sigue siendo el mismo, cuando se habla del trasfondo y mitología de este mundo, pero mecánicamente, se podría decir que el tema es "mayores opciones para construir a tu personaje, el mundo de juego que le rodea y mayor énfasis en el combate de jugador contra jugador".

Esto se observa porque todo el contenido de la expansión aumenta, sutilmente redefine y acentúa cada uno de estos aspectos, mediante reglas que se integran a la perfección con el tema.

En mi opinión, el tema se expresa adecuadamente.

Componentes

La caja del juego es muy simpática, es de esas pequeñas que parecen contenedores de minipizzas. Está bien ilustrada, es resistente y no presenta daño por el uso, hasta la fecha.

El librito de reglas es corto, conciso y bien redactado, siguiendo la estructura de FFG de exponerte los componentes y conceptos básicos primero para luego presentarte, a saltos, el resto de las reglas. Creo que este formato pequeño es el único en el que funciona su estructura usual de instructivos.

Vienen cartitas de poder y talento, que se integran perfectamente, sobre todo en buena calidad, a las demás.

Se incluyen cartitas de diversos objetos, pero además se incluyen objetos especiales, que sólo pueden ser obtenidos por medio de gestas azules. Estos últimos son especialmente llamativos debido a su diseño de estrella de cuatro puntas.

Hay cartas nuevas: de gestas azules, cuyo diseño exhibe tanto la cresta de la Horda como la de la Alianza, con un fondo azul llamativo; cartas de Evento, iguales a las del juego base, y las nuevas cartas del Destino, que representan sucesos de impacto global, que tienen una duración limitada pero un impacto significativo a lo largo de la partida.

¿Cómo mejora el juego y cómo lo empeora?

Las nuevas cartas de Poder y Talento ofrecen una amplia gama de caminos que puede tomar tu personaje, a lo largo de su subida de nivel. Antes, había pocas maneras en las que podías especializar a tu personaje, pero ahora, piensas cosas como "veamos, si escojo esto y el otro, resistirá más daño, pero si escojo esto de aquí, causará más daño a distancia... ¿qué tal esto de acá, que me permite moverme más rápido por el mapa y así encargarme de las gestas azules antes que los otros, o mejor me preparo para la confrontación de jugador contra jugador, o acaso debería potenciar a mi mascota?" y estas son tan solo algunas opciones, sin contar con las modificaciones que se pueden lograr al añadir armas, joyería mágica, armaduras, escudos y demás. Este es el gran valor de esta expansión, que presenta un sinnúmero de opciones para vivir la aventura. Aún así, creo que hay un punto negativo: varias de estas cartas de poderes y talentos, solo sirven para el combate jugador contra jugador, lo que significa que son completa y absolutamente inútiles contra los enemigos de las gestas. Esto resulta en que si uno adquiere estos talentos, con la esperanza de que se desate el combate jugador contra jugador, y este nunca ocurre, estas cartas habrán sido un desperdicio. Debieron haber diseñado todos los poderes y talentos, para que fueran útiles tanto en combate normal así como en combate contra otros jugadores. Aunque algunos podrían abogar que eso es parte de la estrategia del juego, elegir aquello que se piensa que forzosamente vamos a usar.

Algunos poderes tienen la marca de un libro de hechizos, lo que significa que se pueden equipar rápidamente al principio de una acción. Esto permite que se lleven a cabo diferentes maniobras tácticas, por ejemplo, se podría usar un poder normal que le permitan al personaje moverse a gran velocidad por el mapa, y reemplazarlo por otro más apropiado para el combate, en el momento en que se enfrente a un enemigo.

Las cartas de gesta azules son un servicio especial para los jugadores, a lo que me refiero, es que algunos jugadores sentían que los enemigos azules eran un completo estorbo sin sentido, y les disgustaba tener que enfrentarlos; en lo personal, a mí no me molestaban, pues los veía como eso, un estorbo, que se debía evitar a toda costa. Pero ahora, los enemigos azules ofrecen recompensa al ser derrotados, gracias a este tipo de gesta, que puede ser completada por cualquier facción. Se siente como si estas gestas fueran posters de "se busca", que cualquier facción puede reclamar como cazarrecompensas. Además, las gestas azules hacen que los enemigos azules sean incluso cazados activamente, ya que los objetos que se obtienen por ellos, solo se consiguen de este modo.

Lo llamativo de los objetos que se obtienen con las gestas azules, es que se pueden llevar hasta 7 objetos de ellos en la bolsa, que confieren diversas bonificaciones y habilidades al personaje.

Las nuevas cartas de evento son similares a las anteriores, no hacen más que ofrecer más variedad con el paso de los turnos.

Pero las cartas del destino, son eventos de duración limitada, que generalmente provocan alboroto entre los jugadores, usualmente, tienen un objetivo que se debe cumplir antes de que pase un número de turnos, ya sea eliminar a un jefe o realizar acciones diversas, para obtener un sustancioso premio, que puede ser oro, experiencia y objetos.

La variedad que esta expansión añade al juego base es buena, de hecho, se podría decir que muy requerida para que el juego no se vuelva repetitivo. Revela un repertorio de posibilidades para que el desarrollo de los personajes y el transcurso de la partida cambie en cada sesión.

Lástima que haya tantos poderes que sólo sean de utilidad en las confrontaciones de jugador contra jugador, ya que no todas las partidas tendrán estos eventos y, por lo mismo, no se usarán tanto como las otras cartas.

Conclusión

El juego base tenía variedad, haciéndolo un juego bueno, pero esta expansión le vuelve un muy, pero muy buen juego, ya que no aumenta el tiempo que se tarda en jugar, y añade muchas maneras en las que cada facción puede sentirse como un grupo completamente diferente en cada partida.

Muchas expansiones deberían ser como esta, que se encarga de aumentar las fuerzas del juego en sí y no en empeorar las debilidades. Por ahí se dice que FFG originalmente iba a incluir esta expansión con el juego base, pero que decidieron no hacerlo por cuestiones de costo. No lo sé, pero si se habla de FFG, lo veo muy creíble.

Aún así, si se va a adquirir World of Warcraft the Boardgame, le doy mi recomendación a esta expansión, pues una vez integrada al juego base, las aventuras sin ella se sienten incompletas.

Review: Napoleon at Leipzig:: Look at all the pretty colours!

petegs — Mon, 28 May 2012 06:07:48 +0000

by petegs

This review is based on the 1st edition of this game and centres around play of the Leibertwolkwitz scenario. Napoleon at Leipzig was designed by Kevin Zucker and deals with the largest battle of the Napoleonic Wars, otherwise known as the Battle of the Nations. Spread over 2 standard size maps the players take the roles of the French against the Allied Army.

The rules are quite straight forward especially the standard game rules. The game uses a classic Igo-Ugo system with the Allied player moving then fighting combat and then the French player does the same. Sides can only stack 2 units to a hex at the most, and this ensures that the armies cover a lot of territory.

The next level of rules adds commanders to the mix. This is when things start to get interesting. Players now have to deal with a command hierarchy, with an overall commander who issues commands to subordinates. Each leader has an engagement rating which equates to the number of subordinate officers and units they can directly command. (So a rating of 3 means 3 commanders and 3 units.) There is also a rule for command range which a unit must be within in order to be considered in command. Also units need to be in command to be able to enter an enemy zone of control.

The campaign game also adds rules for reorganization and demoralization to model the effect of combat on large units as they slowly lose cohesion. There is also a special cavalry charge rule to try and reflect the effect of cavalry charging enemy formations. (Surprise, surprise!)

There is a third level of rules called the Grand Tactical Game. These rules add a further level of detail to the command rules with variable engagement ratings for the Allied leaders making it a real pain to get troops moving. Even the French leaders, except Napoleon, are given some handicaps. The French player also has to issue orders to his sub-commanders Murat and Ney. There are also some other rules but as I didn’t use the Grand Tactical Game rules I won’t comment on them.

The physical quality of the game isn’t too bad for a game published in 1979. The map is clear and the terrain is easy to see. The counters are colourful, hence the title, though some are a little too colourful. Most of the counters are easy to read with one exception, the Imperial Guard. Coloured purple with yellow superior unit designation the movement and combat strength numbers are in black and almost impossible to read and impossible to read at a glance, this is quite a bad design flaw. The rest of the units are fine with counters representing the French, blue with red designations; Italians, grey with red designations; Germans, grey-green with blue designations; and the Poles, red with blue designations. The Allied units are represented by counters depicting the Russians, green with yellow designations; Austrians, white with red designations; Swedes, yellow with blue designations; and Prussians, blue-grey with blue designations. When set up, and I set up the campaign game just to see what it looked like, all the different counters give a feel for the various colourful uniforms the soldiers would have been wearing. Sure they’re not as detailed as a La Bat. game counter but it still gives a good impression none the less.

There are 3 scenarios and the campaign game, with the campaign being the meat and potatoes of this game. When the campaign is set up there are a lot of counters to move around and the added command rules really give the feel for two armies that were too large for the command structure. This is what Zucker states in his introduction is an aim of this game.

Overall I enjoyed playing a scenario from this game. I was unable to replicate the historical result, and found it hard as the Allied player to shift the French from the towns, but maybe more familiarity with the system would change that. I’m pleased I own this game and look forward to giving the campaign a shot sometime in the future.

Review: Ace of Spies:: A massive dissapointment...

Bigshowfan — Mon, 28 May 2012 05:21:23 +0000

by Bigshowfan

I, and two friends, had a play-test of Ace of Spies today at the UK Board Games Expo.

Firstly, the POSITIVE THINGS:

It was nice to meet with designer and Little Metal Dog Show host Michael Fox and get a chance to say how much I enjoy his podcast.

The theme is there. A lot of effort has gone into the design and I appreciated the flavour but really, this is all about matching icons to other icons.

Also, our play-tester obviously knew the game well, introduced and taught it well and gave us a very good understanding of the rules - particularly in their similarity to many of the concepts of Ticket to Ride.

And that, unfortunately, is where the NEGATIVES begin.

So on your turn you can draw two cards from a display or blind from a deck, like TTR.
The special cards count as both of your picks (unless you draw them blind), like TTR.
You draw 3 ~~destination~~ sorry, Mission cards at the start of the game and have to take two, like TTR. You can also draw more Missions as your action on a turn, which is a bit like TTR too.

These aren't summations I've made myself, this is how the game was described to us. Now I realise that at a convention, you need shorthand ways to introduce and teach, but the core mechanics of the game are shamelessly TTR without the board.

Unfortunately, these are also the mechanisms that work best.

The ~~destinations~~, I mean Missions you draw are completed by placing down a number of cards that match the symbols at the end of your turn. You can play as many of these completed missions as you want, and you probably want to as the 10 card hand limit means you have to keep cycling through to find what you need.

I found this fiddly - especially compared to the communal board of TTR where you can see what you need easily and at all times, as opposed to trying to remember if it was a red spy, or a yellow you need to complete a set. Ultimately it boils down to individually checking each Mission card every turn against the cards you have in your hand to see what you can score.

Again, this is a minor irritation which could possibly be helped by (as our demoer suggested was being considered) a rack to hold your mission cards in front of you at all times.

All this pails in comparison to the Take-That or Screwage cards that will ultimately decide who wins. You've just scored 14 points? No you haven't and now I've got those 14 points because of an instant event card. What's that? You've got a counter card which stops this effect? Well, you probably haven't got two of them, so now the third player can steal your points. Or get them removed from the game.

But you haven't been lucky enough to draw these hugely powerful take that cards. Never mind, you can discard 5 points of cards to search the draw deck for one so that you're all good.

Heck, why bother completing missions at all, just harvest all the cool Take-That cards out of the deck and win that way?

Now, I'm not against player interaction - and seeing how much of this game's attempt at unique play is to encourage players to GET each other I can understand that this should be a key part of the game - but to the degree where the remainder of the game feels a little pointless? Not to mention overly fiddly and incredibly derivative?

I'm sorry, it just isn't good enough. This game is 4 small decks of cards. Available in the UK for just $65 with the promos.

It wouldn't be good enough for a £15.00 - 30 minute 'end of the night' card game. And it DEFINITELY isn't good enough for the ludicrous pricing on Kickstarter - and even the demo guy thought the pricing policy was wrong. His paraphrased quote "apparently they spent a lot of money promoting the game and used actors for the video and they want to get something back from their investment!" Well I'm glad those funds are going in the right direction.

We walked away hugely disappointed in a game that I set out to be convinced to kickstart myself. It saddens me to say it, but I can't imagine anyone enjoying this inferior TTR clone.

I'll gladly answer any questions people have about the game.

Review: Here I Stand:: [Voice of Experience] Here I Strategize

ludovicomartinengo — Sun, 27 May 2012 23:03:38 +0000

by ludovicomartinengo

In the sixteenth century, the wealthy Martinengo family, a noble house of Brescia in the Lombardy region of northern Italy, patronized a painter named Bartolomo Veneto. Veneto produced several portraits of note between 1506 and 1520 that survive in museums and galleries to this day. One of his final portraits is of a young man of the Martinengo family itself, named Ludovico. As we are on BGG, it only seems proper that we refer to him henceforth as "Ludo."

The painting's inscription tells us that Ludo is 26 years of age in the painting, which claims to be dated from the year 1530. Ludo's clothing tells us a great deal about him; he is clearly the son in a wealthy and powerful noble family, as evidenced by his rich red mantle and red cap, complete with ostrich feather. The clothing's color and embroidery suggest the theatrical dress of the Compagnia della Calza or "Guild of the Stocking," which places Ludo as a member of an exclusive club of young Italian noblemen charged with organizing spectacles and performances to honor visitors from foreign courts, and during times of festival, including Ascension Sunday and the annual Venetian Carnival.

That Ludo, a man of Brescia, is in Venetian theatrical garb is notable; it speaks much of his family's allegiances in a location and time period where much was in flux. If Ludo was indeed 26 years of age in 1530, then he would have been just eight years of age when the French Gaston of Foix, the Thunderbolt of Italy, came roaring over the walls of Brescia in February 1512, on his way to smashing the Veneto-Papal alliance arrayed against France. Ludo would have lived under foreign French occupation until his 16th or 17th birthday, when the Treaty of Brussels finally returned Brescia to the Venetian sphere of influence while confirming the young Francis I as the Duke of Milan.

In 1530, Barbarossa strikes and vanishes as if by magic across the Western Mediterranean, terrorizing the locals in Sicily, Marseilles, Sardinia, and seizing the Balearic Islands for Ottoman pirates. Meanwhile, the Hapsburg Charles V produces his subservient puppet Pope Clement VII to crown him as Holy Roman Emperor in Bologna, thus formalizing the choice of the German electors nine years prior. The Emperor is almost immediately presented with the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran faith edited by Philipp Melanchthon; its subsequent rejection by the Emperor prompts Luther and his princes to band together in the Schmalkeldic League for military protection. Meanwhile, the puppet Pope Clement VII dutifully issues a brief forbidding England's Henry VIII from marrying again and ordering a full and complete return of rights to his estranged Queen, the Hapsburg Catherine of Aragon; Cardinal Wolsey is thrown into a dungeon by an enraged Henry for his failings in the King's "Great Matter" and replaced by Sir Thomas More as Lord Chancellor. Chaos reigns in the independent Republic of Florence as a wave of fundamentalist belief amongst the people appoints none other than Jesus Christ as the King of Florence. With Imperial and Papal troops surrounding the city, and realizing the assistance of a more temporal authority may be necessary, the Florentine Council of Ten appeals to Charles' old adversary Francis I for military aid; he sends sums of money to the Republic, but reneges on his promise to send a relief army. Florence falls to the Empire later in the year. Lutherans in Germany trumpet that the Pope is the Antichrist, subverting the faith from within; Catholics move swiftly from burning Protestant heretic books to Protestants themselves. All of Christendom is suffused with the belief that the apocalypse is near, in the form of Suleiman the Magnificent and his hordes of janissaries and cavalry, drawing ever westward.

This is Ludo's world, and it is the world encapsulated in Here I Stand, Ed Beach's campaign of the Age of the Reformation, an asymmetrical grand strategy game published by GMT Games for six players, blending wargame tactics, card-driven mechanics on a point-to-point map, and significant negotiation elements into a game that decides the political and religious fate of Europe in the early 16th Century. Here I Stand currently sits as the #5 ranked Wargame and #36 overall at Boardgamegeek, with almost 1,800 individual ratings, which is something of a feat for a game covering little-trod European history and whose full campaign scenario can charitably take experienced and speedy players 8 or more hours to complete. Indeed, in the words of Mr. Beach in the scenario book for the newly-released Virgin Queen, "Here I Stand's popularity with the strategic boardgaming community world-wide was honestly not something I anticipated... however, a few years after publication it was clear that the mix of negotiation, strategic planning, and historical embodied in HIS had struck a chord with these audiences."

Why has Here I Stand received this critical and popular attention and acclaim, including from corners of the boardgaming community that would normally ignore a game like this? Here I Stand (and Beach himself) have drawn kudos from a wider gaming community, and even captured the attention of the strategy videogame podcast Three Moves Ahead on multiple occasions. There have been asymmetrical grand strategy games released similar to Here I Stand that have not received such wide attention, such as Friedrich or Sword of Rome or Napoleonic Wars, to which HIS owes much credit. This review of Here I Stand will attempt to both introduce the game to new/unfamiliar readers, while exploring why the game stands as a hallmark of grand strategic play, via walking the reader through part of a turn in progress.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
---
We've already established that Ludo is a 26 year old Italian who apparently likes nice clothes, staring off into the distance for hours on end while someone paints him, and throwing extravagant parties. I mean, look at his Machiavellian smile. What more do you need?

Oh, right, the Voices of Experience contest. Well in that case, rest assured, the author has played Here I Stand the required ten times, though I hope that would be clear by the detail and voice presented in this review anyway!

THE CARD DRAW PHASE
---

"It is Turn 6 of a tournament game of Here I Stand; this will be the final turn of the contest. Four players are tied at 19VP, a fifth right behind at 18, and the Protestants trail the pack.

The Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires, natural enemies, have warily circled each other thus far, and with the game drawing to a close, the pressure for war between them is growing great. The religious struggle has been bloody, with the fiery death of Olivetan reversing Protestant fortunes in France. Scotland remains defiantly independent; with young Prince Edward born and Henry's Great Matter resolved, England and France seem destined to clash over the fate of the minor power.

As this is Turn 6, the Grim Reaper begins to circle for Henry VIII, Francis I, and Martin Luther -- replacement leaders for the three are shuffled into the deck. The Pope receives powerful debaters in Loyola, Faber and Canisius, as Paul III's Counter-Reformation begins to pick up steam. Not to be outdone, the Protestant receives his only leader of military note, the turncoat Maurice of Saxony. Disaster strikes in the New World; the Hapsburg colony of Puerto Rico and the English Potosi silver mines are both destroyed by natives and produce no riches for their powers. Cards are tallied and dealt; negotiations may begin."

(click for larger image)

The object of Here I Stand is to amass victory points (VPs) through military conquest, religious contests, exploration/exploitation of the New World, and through a host of activities unique to each power in the game. In general, one's goal is 25VPs, though the game may end if other special requirements are met. The asymmetrical, interlocking systems of the game gives each power unique paths to victory -- but at the same time, game's cards and map ensure that each power will interact highly in their quest to win.

The six powers of Here I Stand struggle for supremacy over a map of Europe, comprised of location spaces connected by point-to-point paths. These spaces can have several characteristics. Spaces can be unfortified (circles) or fortified (square, star, hexagon), and the rules for entering and controlling them differ accordingly. Space color indicates the "political home affiliation" of the people living there, and some spaces include port access to neighboring sea zones. Sea zones are "spaces" in their own right, connecting to each other and port spaces, providing lots of room for naval units to play in.

In the map above, Marseilles is a French (blue) home space, the port symbol indicates (surprise!) it's a port, and it's a fortified square "key" space, and is generally worth Victory Points to the power that controls it. Next to it is Nice, an unfortified grey (independent/unaffiliated) port space. Both of these spaces connect each other and to the Gulf of Lyon.

Here I Stand is not just a game about political struggle, however. Of equal importance is the religious war between Catholics and Protestants over the hearts of the people. Spaces therefore also track the religious affiliation of the people who live there, and the game uses control markers that provide the ability to track this. Spaces with a solid fill color indicate that the people living there are Catholic; therefore, Marseilles and Nice above follow Catholicism. To the north, however, lies Zurich, a grey Independent space, but a marker has been placed with a white center to indicate that the people there follow the upstart Protestant faith. Basel, next door, has a solid independent marker, showing that the people there are Catholic. Here I Stand's control counters are double-sided, one for Catholic affiliation and the reverse for Protestant; therefore players can simply scan the board for those spaces with white centers to see how far Luther's insurrection has spread.

(zoomed-in image of the map and counters in Germany)

A space's political and religious status are completely independent of each other: for example, the Protestants could politically control a space while the people there stubbornly espouse Catholicism, and vice-versa! These situations are not only amusing, but historically accurate, and were especially prevalent in sixteenth century Germany, where the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V, a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, found himself Holy Roman Emperor over a realm full of city-states that followed Luther's teachings with fervor. Later in the sixteenth Century, Protestant German princes banded together in their political Schmaldeldic League for protection against the Emperor, dragging along with them realms full of people that wanted nothing to do with Luther, clamoring for religious realignment with Rome. This confusing historical jumble of faiths and liege alliances is very elegantly distilled onto the Here I Stand board with simple double-sided control markers, and distinguishes istelf in its ability to effectively and easily track two very different struggles at the same time.

If the game board is the arena on which the struggle of Here I Stand is played, the game's cards are the means and lifeblood of every power. Cards are also dual-use. Each card has a Command Point (CP) value, ranging from 1 to 6, allowing powers who play it to perform a wide range of actions, including moving armies and fleets around, controlling spaces, assauting fortified spaces, performing religious conversion attempts and the like. Conversely, a card can instead be played by its owner to invoke its event text; these events cover a wide range of religious, political and military actions, and many events bend the game's rules in some way or provide other benefits. Players must often balance the benefit of a card's event against its CP value, as most can only be played for either the event or for CP (not both).

Cards are dealt out at the beginning of each turn, and the amount of cards you receive is tied to the number of Key (square) spaces you control on the board -- control more key spaces, draw more cards. Some powers can also receive cards from colonies and conquests in the New World and for control of electorates in Germany. Powers that are doing well on the game board tend to be richer in cards, allowing them to snowball their greater resources into a better board position, allowing them to draw more cards, and so on. Thus a power in the lead will often need to be stopped by a coordinating coalition of other powers before their advantage turns into a game win.

New leaders and debaters are also added to the board at the beginning of each turn. Leaders give two advantages in the game, adding extra dice in combat and allowing larger formations of units to move than usual. Normally a maximum of only 4 units may move together as a group; however, leaders like Charles V can activate up to 10 units together. The presence of capable leaders allows for very large and dangerous armies to traverse the board. Debaters, conversely, wage their wars for the hearts and minds of the people; a successful debate will automatically flip spaces to the winning side's cause. Some debaters also lend their talents toward writing theses, translating texts or founding universities, all of which can amplify a player's reforming or counter-reforming efforts.

THE DIPLOMACY PHASE
---

"With five powers within 1 VP of the lead and the final turn approaching, the Diplomacy Phase is suitably tense. The Ottoman decides that tiny, unaligned Genoa is a target immediately, with a major power in his sights later in the turn. Suleiman opens negotiations with France and the Hapsburgs for safe conduct through Northern Italy. Unbeknownst to the Turks, The Hapsburgs receive the elusive Andrea Doria, allowing them to claim Genoa as an ally during the turn! Thus the Hapsburgs are happy to ally with the Ottomans, making a friend out of an enemy AND denying him VPs down the road. The Ottomans and Hapsburgs double down on their alliance by swapping Belgrade and Antwerp -- the latter being garrisoned by a loaned fleet, shattering an easy deployment of English troops from the island to the continent.

Meanwhile, with the Ottomans on the move, the Hapsburgs and Papacy hatch a deal to keep the Pope's weakly-defended keys out of danger. They plan to swap Florence for Seville. Not to be outdone, the English and French hatch their own plan, swapping Metz for Rouen. England apparently abandons all plans to engage the Continent this turn, focusing its attentions to Edinburgh and the conversion of its people to Protestantism. The Pope hurriedly allies with all of his neighbors except the Ottomans, and the Protestant gratefully receives mercenaries from others to help in the defense of his electorates. The Ottomans declare jihad on The Pope and Genoa, while everyone else remains happy with the wars they have."

(click for larger image)

I once witnessed a game of Here I Stand where one player, unhappy with another player backing out on a deal, wag his finger and state matter-of-factly that "this is not Diplomacy... there are consequences for backstabbing in this game."

The aggrieved player was correct, but ended up losing to the player that backstabbed him anyway. While no one should confuse HIS for Diplomacy, Here I Stand is not just a game of cards and chits and dice, but also of people. The resulting negotiation and diplomatic tension of six people wheeling and dealing their way to advantage is simply not present in other two-player card-driven games like Twilight Struggle, Paths of Glory, or Triumph of Chaos. Your goals and strategies can and will change -- often dramatically -- as your plans come into contact with five other plans. Here I Stand's negotiation-spiced gameplay can sometimes resemble a game of whack-a-mole, wherein anyone sticking out from the pack at the beginning of a turn gets “popped” by the rest of the group, allowing someone else to open up a lead, etc. A set of experienced and savvy players can repeat this process over and over through the game's nine turns as everyone rolls ever closer to the 25VP goal. Here I Stand’s inclusion of structured negotiation elements have indeed captured the attention of Diplomacy aficionados, and the game has become something of a phenomenon at dedicated Diplomacy tournaments.

There is a dedicated phase for players to engage in private negotiations with each other; this occurs at the beginning of each turn after cards have been dealt out. At this point, players have a set time to break away from the game board and huddle in pairs and groups to discuss the contents of their hands and their goals for the turn. This is the only time that private negotiations are allowed in Here I Stand; the game’s rules are quite clear that any other gameplay discussion and negotiation should be done in public at the gameboard (and can happen at any time during play). While in the private discussion phase, players may show each other cards that they’ve received (but not trade them), discuss battle plans, and agree to deals with each other (i.e. I will play Card A for you if you play Card B for me or if you give N mercenary troops to me, etc.)

After the private discussion time period is completed, players gather back at the table, and in play order, publicly announce any agreements that physically change the state of the game board or pieces. These announcements can include items like freely changing ownership of spaces, gifting mercenary armies from one player to another player, announcing an alliance / the end of a war / declare a new war, or trading one or more RANDOM (not specific!) cards between players. Other agreements that do NOT immediately change the state of the game board or pieces (such as the play of a certain card as an event to benefit another player later in the turn) are not announced now... but neither are those agreements binding. This is where ‘caveat emptor’ rears its head, and those players who agree to trade something public and binding in return for something not public and not binding will likely proceed with their heart in their throat until the deal is consummated (or not!) later.

OK, the enemy of my enemy is the friend of my other enemy and... wait, let's start over...

The list of allowable and restricted items that can be traded between players is tightly controlled and spelled out in the rulebook (and too detailed to go into here), but is among the most key sections in the game. New players will find this phase of the game among the most difficult to grasp until it is seen in action, and yet it is here where the game’s players can and must re-balance a contest that is tipping too far in the favor of one player -- and it’s here where HIS stops being a mere mathy exercise in wargaming and sparkles as a true multiplayer match of wits.

Before I am accused of simply waving pom-poms and cheerleading the game in all aspects, I’ll stop to note a wrinkle in the game that wrinkles some noses. Here I Stand’s diplomacy phase allows the free trading of spaces between players. In some ways, this is historically accurate for the period; royals would march out every campaign season, fight other armies in, say, Ludo’s region of Northern Italy, then give everything back at the end of the year or trade some far-off, uninvolved realm or city-state away as part of a treaty. In our example, however, the game’s rules allow the Pope to control Seville and the Ottoman to gain control of Antwerp, and it’s hard to picture any historical sequence of events that would prompt the Emperor to allow the Sultan to set up shop in the low countries! While the game’s rules and mechanics clearly allow the trading of spaces between players in order to shore up one’s borders and shelter a juicy target from attack, the rules can also be used to create of “false” wars between players to bring valuable minor power allies into the game and even prompt fake VP-generating peace treaties. For some, this cracks the historicity of the game, and furthermore can smack of collusion if two players are dead-set on fluffing their own VP totals with fake wars. The game’s rules fall squarely on the side of richness and diplomatic flexibility, and will not completely police players that choose to abuse them; it’s up to the players to police themselves and mete out righteous justice to colluders, of which there are myriad ways to do so in the game.

Even here the game does help to balance itself and ward off such shenanigans. In Here I Stand, there is always and only one winner, unlike in a game of Diplomacy, where one or more individuals can collude, bluster and threaten to throw the game to a winner unless they are included in some sort of game-saving draw position. There are no draw positions in Here I Stand; there is no runner-up sash for second place. Two players who use the game’s diplomatic rules to enrich themselves will likely result in one “winner”, one with egg on their face, and four friends who don’t like either of them very much. If this sort of thing is a recurring issue in your gaming group, I’d not point fingers at the game so much as I would the players you game with.

THE SPRING DEPLOYMENT PHASE
---

"Ah, Spring! That magical time of year when a young Prince's attentions turn to war. The Ottomans, having secured the proper alliances, deploy mighty Suleiman and a huge host through allied territory to Nice. The Hapsburgs deploy right behind them, into their new base of Florence; England surprises no one by sending a bunch of Englishmen to the Scots border. But what's this? France sends a force of his own to Nice -- looks like there'll be a race to see who conquers Genoa first! The Pope, fearing an Ottoman attack, shores up his defenses in Ravenna, and the Protestant stands idly by watching armies traverse the board. It looks as if it'll be a bloody summer..."

(click for larger image)

Here I Stand's turns follow the historical cycle of military campaigning of the day -- after the diplomatic machinations of winter and chivalrous declarations of war, armies marched out from their homelands in the springtime, battled their way through summer, then largely disbanded as autumn wore on toward winter. Here I Stand mirrors this in a "Spring Deployment" by allowing each power to freely move one formation of land units from its capital to any space it controls, provided there is a clear path available. (Wargamers will find Here I Stand's concept of Line of Communication familiar -- in other games they're called lines of control, or supply lines.) At the end of the turn, in the "Winter Phase", everyone sends fleets back to port, some armies to the closest fortified space and the balance of their forces back to their capital, to be redeployed at the beginning of the next turn.

Military forces are not allowed to traverse the board willy-nilly, however -- the game enforces strict rules on movement. If powers are allies, they may freely wander into and out of each other's territory and use each other's spaces to trace their Lines of Communication. (A great example of this above is the Ottoman Deployment in the figure below, using its alliances with Hapsburgs and France to spring deploy through their territories in a circuitous route to Nice.) A power may also enter the spaces of a power they are at war with, because they're invading! But if powers are neutral to each other (i.e. neither allied with nor at war), their spaces are strictly off-limits.

Enough stage-dressing -- let's start playing cards.

THE ACTION PHASE
---

The Action Phase always begins with the Ottoman playing a card for either CP or its event, and the rest follow in play order, doing the same. Play continues in this fashion until players begin to run out of cards (generally 2 or less cards left in hand) at which point they can begin to pass. If a passing player wishes, they may jump back into the action at their point in the turn order, if they have the cards to do so. The Action Phase ends when all players pass in order, heralding the onset of winter and the close of the turn.

The first six cards in our example game are played like so:

Ottoman: Home Card "Janissaries" (for 5 CP) -- Naval Move; Piracy against the Hapsburgs (2 hits -- Hapsburgs award 2VP); Suleiman et al Nice --> Genoa.
Hapsburgs: Andrea Doria (as event) -- activates Genoa as ally, +1VP)
England: Dissolution of the Monasteries (as event) -- England +2 cards; Protestant 3 Reformation Attempts (Norwich, Lincoln)
France: Home Card "Patron of the Arts" (as event) -- France +1VP Chateaux
Papacy: Home Card "Papal Bull" (as event) -- Excommunicate Cranmer; Calls Debate in England; Campeggio vs. Knox, Protestants win 3 hits to 1, Protestants flip York, Bristol.
Protestants: Book of Common Prayer (for 2CP) -- English New Testament Completed (flip Portsmouth, Plymouth, Shrewsbury, Wales); remove unrest from Augsburg.

Current VPs: Ottoman 21, Hapsburgs 20, England 23, France 19, Papacy 17, Protestant 14

(click for larger image)

One of the reasons Here I Stand works so well as a multiplayer wargame is that each power has multiple avenues toward generating Victory Points, almost all of which are interrelated in one way or another. The above play sequence is an illustrative example. Aside from gaining VPs for military control of key spaces and electorates, which all players are involved in to some extent, the Ottomans can gain VPs for successfully engaging in piracy (even against allies!). The Hapsburgs, England and France can compete for VPs by exploring the New World and brutally subjugating its native peoples. England gets VPs for having its spaces espouse Protestantism and even more VPs for successfully siring children to Henry VIII; France gains VPs for building luxurious Chateaux. The Pope can gain special VP by devoting resources to the construction of St. Peter's basilica, and the Protestant does the same by spending resources to translate the Bible into various languages.

If all of that weren't enough, there's a second, religious, war overlaying the political-military one. The Pope and Protestants engage in a game-long tug-of-war over a pool of 15VP, tied to the number of Protestant spaces on the board; as more spaces are flipped to Protestantism, more VPs are taken away from the Pope and given to the Protestant (and vice versa if the opposite happens). A normal 1517 campaign game sees the Pope in control of all 15VPs with the Protestants awarded nothing; however, as the game progresses and the winds of the Protestant Reformation begin to blow, this VP pool can change hands rather dramatically. Broadly, the religious struggle involves spending CPs on religious actions like publishing treatises, burning heretical books, or calling theological debates; the Pope and Protestant then cast dice against each other for hits, with the winner getting to flip spaces to their religion in the affected area. (Plus, Cleromancy is not only a fun game mechanic, but biblically appropriate! "Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God." -- Joshua 18:6)

The end result of all of these interlocking systems is a game of six asymmetrical powers, all with special abilities and interests, that balances itself strikingly well. The Pope and Protestants are the principal players in the religious struggle, but England is constantly clamoring for Luther's help in firing up the English Reformation, and all of the other powers are watching closely to make sure neither side gets too much of an advantage (and playing event cards to ensure it.) The royal Kings of Europe often send their explorers and conquistadors to the New World, but even the lowly Pope or Luther can divert them to searching blindly for the Fountain of Youth instead with just a card play. Huge Ottoman hordes nearing the walls of Vienna? Far-off Francis I or Henry VIII can affect events by inciting the Persians or Egyptians to revolt, forcing Suleiman to divert precious resources to the hinterlands of his empire instead of adding Viennese women to his harem. The dashing Andrea Doria, whirling dervish of the seas and champion of the Genovese, can change his alliance with the drop of a card, pinwheeling from power to power and turning suddenly on allies.

If Here I Stand was merely a military struggle superimposed onto a hex-based map with classic lines of supply and other grognard wargaming elements, the game would not work nearly so well; His Holiness might barely control any territory, with mammoth enemies surrounding him on all sides -- not an envious position, and not one that accurately reflects the pontiff's outsize importance in relation to his worldly realm. Ed Beach's decision to use a combination of asymmetrical player powers, card-driven mechanics and point-to-point map movement was not the first game to combine these elements; indeed, Beach credits The Napoleonic Wars in his design notes (note: PDF link), stating that the game showed him "a card-driven design could accommodate an asymmetric multiplayer configuration." And what a difference it makes.

Beach steps past his predecessors, however, by overlaying the religious struggle with the political, allowing the two arenas of the game to develop independently of each other during the course of play. This allows, for example, the Pope to be a worldly minnow in relation to the mighty and far-flung Hapsburgs, but still exert great influence and power religiously (and pursue a game victory through that arena rather than through military means.) Even powers with little to no official interest in religious affairs (Hi, Francis!) can absolutely feel its lash if The Pontiff feels a royal excommunication is in order. The Protestant player even begins the game as a religious power only -- no armies, no territory, just Luther and the spread of his ideas which will eventually take a political turn later in the game. The key to all of these mechanics, again, lies in diplomacy and negotiation, and especially in the cards, many of which can be used by players to affect aspects of the game they might not otherwise be directly involved in.

We can see these interlocking systems at work in the cards played above in our example. The "unholy" Hapsburg alliance with the Ottoman may give Charles V security on land, but does not shield him from the unpredictable pirates of the Mediterranean. But even while Suleiman's pirates strike booty, he finds the choice morsel of Genoa snatched away by a timely play of Andrea Doria, bringing the city safely into the Hapsburg fold as the Ottomans approach. This is an odd alliance, indeed.

England helps the Protestants by helping himself; he gets to draw two cards while allowing the Protestant to flip some spaces to the new faith in England (which grants both of them VPs.) France, also denied a crack at Genoa, plays it safe by playing his Home Card for an instant Chateaux VP that can never be taken away. The Pope ignites a furor in England by excommunicating the reformer Cranmer from London, removing him from play this turn. A resulting theological debate backfires badly for the Pontiff, however, and the Protestant piles on by triggering the completion of the New Testament in English -- the release of which starts a wildfire of conversions in Henry's England. The results improve the Protestant position while thrusting England into the lead. But with almost a full turn's cards to play, is the lead the right place to be in?

CONCLUSIONS AND BEGINNINGS
---

Ottoman: Venetian Alliance (for 4CP) -- Ibrahim Pasha and 6 regs Genoa --> Siena, Naval Move to Ionian Sea, Piracy against the French in the Ionian Sea (0 hits)
Hapsburg: Master of Italy (event) -- +1 Hapsburg VP
England: Home Card "Six Wives of Henry VIII" (for event) -- Declare war on Scotland; France intervenes as Scottish Ally; England and France now at War; England besieges Edinburgh.
France: Maurice of Saxony (for 4CP) -- builds fleet in Brest; French fleets into the English Channel (England misses interception attempt); troops to Rouen.
Papacy: Janissaries Rebel (for 2CP) -- burns heretical books in England, committing debater Cajetan for an extra attempt. Flips York, Shrewsbury, Lincoln.
Protestant: Henry II (King Francis dies! -- 2CP) -- Protestant publishes treatise in Germany, flipping Augsburg (+2VP for conversion of electorate), Basel.

Current VPs: Ottoman 21, Hapsburg 21, England 22, France 21, Papacy 17, Protestant 16.

(Click for larger image)

Here I Stand is a whale of a game to review; there are a multiplicity of moving parts, elements to highlight, historical anecdotes to wink at, and rabbit-holes to fall into. There is a two-player scenario that we haven't even touched! So while this review is drawing to a close, the fun is just beginning.

This is a game that deserves the full critical exploration of the type that the Voices of Experience contest is attempting to foster, and I have endeavored to show why I believe this game is special and deserving of attention. But it is a challenge for even this one review, as lengthy as it is, to give a boardgame enthusiast and prospective buyer a bird's-eye view of all of the exciting and fun mechanics Here I Stand has to offer, while also offering serious students of boardgames the close critical exploration the game deserves. New tools are needed to satisfy both camps! Thus, I'm happy to announce that this review is the jumping off point for hereistrategize, a new community site dedicated to both the serious study AND boisterous celebration of the awesomeness of Here I Stand, and its new sibling, Virgin Queen. It's my hope that hereistrategize will interface with forums like BGG and Consimworld and allow individuals to study this sparkling game from every vantage point, from the granular card and map level, through the game's negotiation aspects, offer strategy summaries to help to improve play, and best of all, dive into the game's rich, dramatic history.

While hereistrategize is still a work in progress, I'm excited for its prospects and invite everyone to take part. Share your gameplay thoughts and tell your stories of how the sixteenth century played out in your home!

Here I Stand is not a game for everyone; it can be played with less than a full complement of six players, but it's generally agreed that the game's balance and negotiations take a hit because of it. It's a very long game, requiring A) a healthy sized table and B) comfortable seating! Because of its length, it's a game that might not be best suited for play with that friend who has to stop and re-analyze strategy every 3 minutes or who needs to calculate everything out in his head before acting. If you don't like overt negotiation in your games, this probably isn't your cup of tea. It's definitely not for people who don't have a gaming group that is capable of this type of play experience (due to time or personality constraints, heh.)

So who IS Here I Stand for? If you enjoy long (often very long) and immersive gaming sessions, Here I Stand is for you. If you have a gaming group that enjoys diving into multiple plays of the same game with each other to truly explore the experience, Here I Stand is for you. If you like thick, well-written rulebooks, Here I Stand is for you! If you enjoy multiplayer games with significant negotiation and diplomatic aspects, Here I Stand is definitely for you. If you enjoy strategic hand management and massaging the odds of the dice in your favor, Here I Stand is for you. If you enjoy PBEM games through ACTS/Cyberboard or VASSAL and have the attention span to play a multi-week/month game, Here I Stand is for you. If you're a student of history and/or fan of theme and enjoy looking at a game component and think to yourself "I want to know more about what this event was or who this person was," Here I Stand is absolutely for you. If your game group has tired of games full of burning the undead, surprise your friends by suggesting that you try burning Protestants instead!

If you see yourself in the above paragraph and haven't tried Here I Stand before, do give yourself the opportunity to try and enjoy; Ludovico will be happy to have you in his world.

Review: Agricola:: [Voice of Experience] You always remember your first time...

MrShep — Sun, 27 May 2012 20:31:02 +0000

by MrShep

-

In early 2010, I inadvertently stumbled into the world of the Board Game Geek...

Prior to this momentous event, I'd become something of a lapsed gamer… although I'd done a lot of board-gaming in my youth (and still have battle-scarred 1980s copies of Dungeonquest and Kings and Things sitting on the shelf to prove it), my board-gaming habit had mostly given way to video-gaming and/or adult responsibilities over the decades, and I hadn't really put very much thought into pushing bits of cardboard around the kitchen table for quite some time.

]]>
We were getting a bit bored of making these.

Things changed thanks to the harsh winter of 2009/10 … we had a whole bunch of relatives staying at our house for the new year holiday, and we got pretty badly snowed in. Starting to run out of things to do (building snowmen gets boring after a while) and unable to face yet *another* evening of Trivial Pursuit, I came across a stash of Cheapass games in the cupboard which I'd bought - on whim - sometime near the turn of the century and never really got around to playing. Amazingly, the resulting games of Kill Doctor Lucky and Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition became the unlikely entertainment highlight of the weekend!

]]>
Tale of Icy Death? That seemed about right...

A few days later -- after the snowplough had made it to our back door and our guests could finally go home -- I headed to the internet to see what I could learn about the current state of board-gaming. I'd played titles like Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride, and Settlers of Catan on my xbox, so had some vague notions of the positive direction that board-gaming had taken in recent years … but remained largely unaware of the vast array of modern board-gaming loveliness that was out there to be discovered. Largely unaware -- that is --- until my browser landed on the Board Game Geek site.

"Wow!"

OK… I'll cut a long story short; as I clicked around the BGG site -- absorbing as much as I possibly could about a board-gaming world that I barely even knew existed a short time earlier --- one particular game struck my eye. The name of that game was Agricola… and just a few days later, the postman arrived at my door with a pleasingly-heavy box full of colourful bits of cardboard and little wooden cubes...

]]>

Why did this particular title appeal to me?

- The whole concept of a worker placement game was entirely new to me, but as I watched the Board Games With Scott video of Agricola, I became intrigued about the whole worker placement principle, and it quickly became something that I really wanted to try it out.

- The theme… "17th Century Subsistence Farming". That sounds like a subject that's kind of grown up, right?… and I'm not going to be accused of buying kids stuff if I get this... BUT, at the same time…

- OMG!!! LITTLE WOODEN FARMS - W0000T!!!!

- OK, more seriously - the little wooden farms thing would probably make the game an easier sell to to prospective female players (most significantly: Mrs Shep). Most of the games that I had kicking around in my cupboard were things involving dungeons and monsters… which, really, wasn't quite their cup of tea. Farming and families seemed to be a theme that might work.

- It had a solo option. If the worst came to the worst, and nobody enjoyed this crazy German game that I was spending my hard-earned cash on, then at least I'd still be able to play it by myself. (Fortunately, this stand-by plan didn't need to be put into action!)

Thus began a very happy relationship with a game that I still think towers head-and-shoulders over pretty much everything else in the BGG listings. And now - a little over two years later - I thought I'd take a short time to put some thoughts together and explain why that might be the case.

]]>

Precis:

Just in case you've been living under a rock for the last few years and haven't managed to play Agricola yet - OR - in case you've just stumbled into the wonderful world of Board Game Geek (much like I did 2 years ago) and this is the very first Agricola review that you've ever read, here's a very quick summary of the gameplay.

Players take control of a farmer and his/her spouse, who own a small land-holding containing a wooden shack, and pretty much nothing else. The game runs for 14 rounds, and in each round, every member of your family gets to choose a single action from a (slowly increasing) list of possibilities. These include: collecting resources (clay, wood, stone, reeds), improving your farm (by building fences, stables, ploughing fields, renovating your house, collecting accessories like ovens, wells, workshops), and increasing your holdings of livestock (sheep, wild boars, cows) and crops (wheat and vegetables). Actions are exclusive… so, once one particular action has been selected by a player, it will be unavailable to other players for the duration of that round.

One particularly important action is called "family growth". Through use of this action, your family adds a new member, and in subsequent rounds you therefore get to take one more action. However, each additional family member means one more mouth to feed… the game is punctuated by "harvest" phases (at the end of rounds 4, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 14), in which you need to produce enough food to feed your ever-growing family. The game therefore becomes something of a balancing act; one of growing the size of your family to maximise the number of actions you can take, versus producing enough food and resources to house and feed all of your family members.

Longevity (and unpredictability) is introduced in two ways… firstly, the order in which new actions are made available to players is determined via a semi-randomly stacked card deck. So, for example: sometimes you'll be able to add a sheep to your farm from the very first round… other times you might need to wait as long as 4 rounds before sheep are introduced to the game. Furthermore, each player is dealt a hand of "Occupation" and "Minor Improvement" cards at the start of the game (14 cards from a pool of 300); these grant players a set of unique powers and abilities - but can only be brought into play at a price!

After 14 rounds the game ends, and each player is awarded points according to farm size, stock levels, quality of housing, number of family members, and similar criteria. The most successful farmer is then declared the winner.

* * * * * * *

Dissection:

Two years later… Agricola is still my favourite board game. I've played it as a friendly "couples" game with my wife. I've played 5-seater ultra-competitive games against hardened gamers. I've played it with friends. I've played it with strangers. I've played it with seasoned gamers, and with complete novices… I've even played the solo game once or twice… and it manages to hook me in *every* single time - I'm yet to play a game that I didn't enjoy.

So what's the allure?

I'm still not entirely sure… but I'm starting to get some pretty good ideas. Here's what I think Agricola does exceptionally well:

- Dramatic Pacing

Of all the little addictive nuances Agricola has up its sleeve, I think this is perhaps the single must under-appreciated aspect - its sense of dramatic pacing.

What do I mean by dramatic pacing? OK, indulge me for a moment while I go off on a tangent....

Dramatic pacing is a term that's usually applied to things like movies and TV shows, and it's best illustrated by a graph like this:

This - as you may have already figured out - is a fancy graph showing the pacing (or, in technical terms, the variance of "Dramatic Tension over Time") of the original Star Wars movie.

OK… maybe Star Wars isn't a particularly high-brow example, but I'm guessing it's a cinematic reference that pretty much everybody here on the geek can relate to, and this particular graph gets cited over and over again when people start talking about 'dramatic pacing' on the internet… so grabbing a copy from google saved me having to draw one myself

Here's the thing: The pattern on this graph isn't unique to Star Wars. George Lucas didn't invent it. In fact, this same "tension curve" - a wriggly line with gradually-escalating peaks and troughs - has been used in pretty much *every* successful dramatic production of the last 500 years or so. Blockbuster movies, all the top TV shows, Shakespeare plays… even children's fairytales all follow arcs like this… building up the tension - letting it drop - building up even more tension - letting it drop… over and over again until the narrative reaches some kind of mega-tense denouement, and the storyline is resolved.

Computer game designers learned to exploit this pattern decades ago… how many times have you played a game where the standard gameplay is punctuated by a succession "boss fights"… each one slightly more powerful than the last… leading up to some kind of mega end-game boss? Those video games are riding exactly the same curve -- exploiting exactly the same principles of dramatic pacing -- and this classic tension curve (whether by accident or intent) is *exactly* what Rosenberg has managed to implement in Agricola.

In Agricola the peaks on the graph correspond to harvests. The moment you start the game, you know you have that first harvest looming; but hey, it's fine… you've got a little bit of wriggle room, it's not too difficult to prepare for, and you *think* you'll make it through…

...sure enough, the timing and available resources at the start of the game are pretty much on your side - and you pull through relatively easy. You feel pleased with yourself. You have a few moments to breath; maybe head for some of the more frivolous-seeming action spaces…

But it's a short respite! …another harvest looms, and it seems like this one might be just a little bit tougher to get through …as the game progresses, you have more mouths to feed and the amount of food that you need escalates… harvests start coming thick and fast - the time you have to collect the food gets shorter and shorter… by round 14, the tension level is cranked up to maximum; you're climbing the steepest peak on that tension graph, and fighting tooth-and-nail to make it through the last feeding phase … (or -- if you really had your wits about you --- maybe even congratulating yourself for putting together a brilliantly-executed food gathering machine in the face of what seemed like insurmountable odds. But usually the former, rather than the latter).

This, really, is where much of the magic of Agricola lies for me. Agricola is one of the few board games that manages to pull out a classic pattern of dramatic progression, and make its players live through that roller-coaster curve, from start to finish. Very few designers seem to do this - Vlaada Chvatil is maybe another notable example (check out the progression of Galaxy Trucker for textbook example)… and it's very obvious to see that Vlaada takes an awful lot of his design cues from video games.

Perhaps other board game designers should brush up on non-board-game / story-telling theory too; I think their games would become a lot richer for it.

- The Cards / Hacker appeal

While the dramatic pacing is a less-obvious, but highly-influential part of Agricola's appeal, the "special sauce" that most of its fans enjoy (and keep coming back for) is the seemingly-endless interplay and possibilities offered by the occupation and improvement cards. The cards -- which, in essence, "break" the game's rules to the benefit of the holder -- stop the game being a very rigid Knizia-like mathematical exercise, and nudge it more towards being a "sandbox" gaming experience.

This is, perhaps, a mixed blessing. It appeals to the type of player who likes to push their game in an unexpected direction; the "geek" label (which many board gamers wear with pride) often applies to a personality type with a tendency to want to hack and tinker with the inner workings of a device. The various cards in Agricola are - pretty much - a mechanism by which you "hack" the game's rules to shape your path to victory. There is a lot of satisfaction to be got from a successful "hack" - a combo of cards that work in perfect harmony, and construct a brilliant resource-production machine … and even a justified sense of awe (and admiration!) when another player pulls out something impressive.

The down-side: successful play involves successful use of the cards that you're dealt. It's the nature of such things that some people will inevitably be dealt hands with obvious combinations, and easy paths to success, while other players in the same game will get less-workable combinations (or, in exceptional circumstances, a hand of complete turkeys!). Naturally, the Agricola-playing community has come up with various approaches to try to counter this - from card drafts to "pre built" championship decks - though they each carry their own disadvantages (a card draft can make the gap between an experienced player and a novice even greater than randomly assigned cards… and pre-built decks kind of spoil the whole sense of invention and surprise that comes from a more random spread of cards). However, in my opinion, the slightly lop-sided nature of random cards is a small price to pay for the creative possibilities that the game offers. Agricola is one of the few games I've played where I can quite happily come last in terms of score, but still feel like I had an entirely satisfying game and did pretty well for the circumstances I played in.

- Richness of Rules

I lurk in (and contribute to) the BGG recommendations forum a lot. Something you frequently see there is an unusually precious approach to Agricola. When new users come looking for a worker placement game, a common response is something along the lines of: "Agricola is good… BUT it's probably a bit complex for a newcomer, you should try Stone Age instead…"

This is nonsense… and, IMHO, a slightly patronising attitude towards new gamers.

It's true that, Agricola *is* a feature-rich game, and it has some complex interactions and interwoven resource relationships… but this is a surprisingly-accessible type of "complex", and certainly not something that newbies need to be protected from. Part of this accessibility -- I think -- is in the way that the game begins slowly - with a limited amount of actions on the field - and then gradually expands the decision space in each round. Once you've had a general overview, the game reveals itself in bite-size chunks… and throughout the game, all of your key decisions are set out in front of you, written in plain english, on a huge board.

Yes, it's a complex game… but it's not a difficult one to learn.

I was a newbie… I jumped straight in on Agricola for my first game… I lived to tell the tale

- Treat 'em Mean, and Keep 'em Keen...

Agricola *looks* cute, friendly, and forgiving… but, beneath the cuddly surface, it's a very mean and unforgiving game in terms of how willingly it relinquishes resources to its players. Pretty much everybody who plays Agricola will tell you "All I needed was one more round, and then I would have…. (insert game-winning strategy here)". I think this feeling is a symptom of a really well-tuned resource flow - nothing comes too easily, but there's always a sense that you *could* have used what you got in a slightly better way. Agricola is a "lean" game - there never seems to be an unprecedented glut of resources (or, for that matter, enough resources to ever *quite* do what you'd ideally like to do), and you always have a sense of imminent famine. BUT… thematically, that's exactly how you *should* be feeling as a 17th Century arable farmer! It's a perfect experience for the story that Agricola is trying to tell.

It's an old showbiz cliche to say "leave your audience wanting more…", but that's exactly what Agricola does… and I think it works to its advantage. The game always seems to end *just* before any kind of major tipping point is reached - there's hardly ever a runaway leader in Agricola, or one of those disheartening end-games where you watch your opponents effortlessly sitting around and watching their points roll in, while you struggle to recover from some insanely bad business decision that you made in round three (Yes Power Grid, I'm looking at YOU!!!). Agricola seems equally harsh to everybody… and when it reaches the point where it's maybe not being equally harsh to everybody any more, the game ends. Perfect!

Agricola treads a fine line between frustrating it's players, and not outright annoying them… in fact, pretty much everybody who I've introduced to the game goes away saying "OK, I didn't do so well, but next time I play this, I'm going to try… (whatever tactic)". Note that they say: "next time" - as if there's no question at all that there's going to be a next time. Nobody seems to get massively dis-spirited from their first game of Agricola… it's great example of a game that reaches a peak, and then stops before it outstays its welcome.

- Presentation

I love the art in Agricola. This is maybe just a personal thing, but I'm sure the style of illustration taps into latent childhood memories of Usborne-style history books, with cartoony art. I used to adore reading those as a kid… ok, maybe not so much 'reading' them, as looking at the wonderfully detailed cartoons - savouring over the tiny details, and spotting all the little graphical jokes the artist had slipped in. Agricola has this in spades… from the tiny Agricola board sitting on the table in one of the farm house tiles, to the little farmer's wife staring up into space and waving goodbye to you at the end of the scoring summary board. I *love* little touches like that.

]]>

Where the base set of Agricola is let down - severely, in my opinion - is in its representation of the farm animals / resources by wooden cubes and coloured disks. OK, it's not unusual for euro games to come with all kinds of wooden cubes… but in this particular case, the clash between the ultra-abstract cubic representation of beasts and crops vs the lusciously-illustrated boards is incredibly jarring. While I like the weight and sense-of-quality that a heap of wooden bits and pieces brings with it, I feel that -- in this case -- the game might have been better served with graphical chits and tokens (Or, obviously… with animeeples from the outset; though I gather that there's a bunch of public-relations / commercial reasons for not bundling those).

It's no surprise that most owners quickly upgrade their sets with "deluxe" wooden tokens. (I ordered my own set within hours of playing my first game!) … because, let's face it - on a fundamental level, Agricola is a game that gives fully-grown adults an excuse to build a little wooden farm, and fill it with little wooden crops. The prettier you make your little wooden farm components, the more appeal the whole thing is going to have. If you're considering purchasing Agricola, you might as well go ahead and factor those extra tokens into your initial purchase price, because you're going to want them sooner rather than later

* * * * * * *

Summary

They say you always keep a special place in your heart for your first love…. am I slightly biased towards Agricola due to the fact that it was my "gateway drug" into modern boardgaming?

I don't think so. Agricola's ranking in the BGG charts suggest that even if I *did* think there was something special between me and 'gric, then 'gric has clearly been seeing a whole load of other people behind my back.

Agricola is clearly a highly-rated game for a lot of people... and while you can be as dismissive as you want about the wisdom of crowds, I've discovered over the months that the BGG ranking tends to be a pretty reliable indicator of how much I"m going to enjoy a particular game. Anything in the top 10 is going to be something very special.

Through good design (or good fortune?) Uwe Rosenberg has created a masterpiece of modern gaming. The theme, the richness of design, the tuning of resource availability, the in-game tension, and constantly-changing parameters of the game make it pretty-near perfect in my eyes, and Agricola remains - to date - the only game that I've ever ranked as a 10.

My only regret is that I started out my board-gaming career with something quite so brilliant… it's all been downhill from there!

]]>
The author's most recent game of Agricola gets underway, at a Newcastle Gamers club night.

Review: Munchkin:: Get Your Geek On

RedArmyIan — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:43:19 +0000

by RedArmyIan

I have a confession to make: I am a geek. Now let’s be clear: I am not a geek for everything. I am a movie geek, a board game geek, a Star Wars and Lord of the Rings geek. But even though I’m only a part of a few different realms, I have a certain knowledge base and affinity for other realms of geekdom. One of these is role playing games. I have never been involved in an RPG myself, but I do have some tangential knowledge of the subculture, and therefore I am able to appreciate the references and humour of the DnD spoofing Munchkin.
Loved by some, despised by others, Munchkin is a game which divides the gaming community. There are fans of the dungeon crawler genre who enjoy the parody, while others believe the game to be messy and stupid. Where do I stand? Well, I see the flaws in the game, but they are miniscule in comparison to the fun it provides. I like the humour, I like the gameplay, and I like the rambunctious interaction it provides with all those other geeks sitting around the table with me. But let’s take a closer look…

Gameplay

Gameplay of Munchkin is pretty basic. You have a hand of cards. If you have a race or class card in your hand, this is set down and this is your character. On your turn, you draw a card. If it’s a monster, you try to fight it. If you win, you get treasure. If you lose, you get laughed at.
The goal of the game is to reach level 10. You gain levels through defeating monsters. However, some monsters are stronger than others, and your strength depends on your level, whatever weapons or armour you have, and if you can suck up enough to the other players in the game to see if they might be able to lend you a hand. But those same players can also turn against you!
They play curses on you, or send their own monsters your way to make you fight them. Such mean people! And in fact, one of the biggest criticism of the game is they difficulty of getting that tenth and final point, since everyone will throw whatever they can to stop that person. So the ending of the game can really be dragged out and the winner ends up being whoever fights the monster after everyone else is tapped out of evil goodies.
This seemingly never-ending ending is certainly a detriment to the game, but in my opinion the biggest strength of the game trumps the biggest problem with it. And that strength is the character building aspect. There is a very similar card game to Munchkin called Killer Bunnies, both of which have similar humour and gameplay. Yet I don’t like Killer Bunnies very much, whereas I adore Munchkin, and the reason is that Munchkin allows you to create and build up your own character in a goofy way.
Not only can you be a specific race (elf, dwarf, etc) and class (wizard, cleric, etc) but you can gain armour and weapons. The cool part is that the armour is specific to body parts, so you can have Boots of Butt-Kicking on your feet, Spiky Knees on your knees, and Horny Helmet on your head. And you can only have as many weapons as you can carry. But you can also have hireling to carry stuff for you! And so creating this character out of the cards you get can really be a lot of fun.

Components

Munchkin has… cards. Lots of cards. So let’s talk about the cards! Each card has all the information you need, including what kind of card, what level for monster cards, and any other descriptions. But who cares about all that. The best thing about the cards is the humour. The deck is full of goofy monsters with silly geek references like the Net Troll, the Wight Brothers and the Stoned Golem, and funny curses like having a chicken on your head. Sure this humour may be lost or worn out on some, but if you have just the right level of geekiness inside you, you should appreciate it.
Each card also comes with cute artwork which lends much to the humour of the game. The art style is very distinctive as being “Munchkin art’, and in newer editions of the game these cards are also fully coloured. All in all, the cards are a big part of the game’s success.
I have purchased the deluxe edition of Munchkin, which also comes with a board and six wonderfully sculpted plastic figures which allow players to keep track of their levels (which they otherwise would have to devise their own method of doing). The board is pretty simple and has spots for each level and spaces for the card decks and discard piles, but it is designed as a dungeon and looks very Munchinesque.

Conclusion

Munchkin can be enraging for some people. There can be a lot of backstabbery which often leads to a drawn-out ending where the one person still left with a singing & dancing sword in hand will win. But there is also a certain chaotic charm in all that where the ending may be frustrating, but its also climactic and no-holds barred, which can be a lot of fun.
The great thing about Munchkin is how you can build up your character, tapping into the RPG geek inside you even if you’ve never RPGed in your life. But you can give him classes, half-breed races, and lots of goofy, silly weapons, potions, and anything else. Its chock-full of nerdy humour, fun artwork, and it really allows you to embrace your inner (or perhaps outer) geek.

Review: Santiago de Cuba:: Don't Look Back, We Only Care About Forward Progress

benny275 — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:42:21 +0000

by benny275

Today’s review is brought to us by frequent contributor Benny Sperling! Thanks Benny for another great review!
Santiago de Cuba –
Don’t look back,
we only care about
forward progress

Santiago de Cuba is a game from the Designer of Cuba and Havana. It shares a “universe” if you will, as well as characters and art with those games. Santiago de Cuba presents a lighter adventure with similar themes, but different mechanics. Let’s go to Cuba and see if we can’t get ourselves some cigars and visit a few old friends.

Santiago is a lot of fun for the play time. It seats 2-4 players and each player is considered to be a buyer who is riding together in the same luxury car. Each turn the car moves to the next stop, there are 10 total stops, 9 of which represent Cubans the players will be visiting, the 10th space is the dock. Each of the Cubans: Pedro, Jose, Conchita, Miguel, Pablo, Maria, Martinez, and El Zorro. Visiting them gets the players goods, coins, points or the ability to steal goods/coins/points. After the visit, the player goes to 1 of 3 buildings represented by the color of the rose on the Cuban they visited. In each game the Cubans and Buildings will be shuffled and placed around the board randomly adding to the replay value.

Santiago is a fairly tactical game, there is a chance to have a bit of strategy when playing if you have the Pesos to move the car to the stop you really want. I like to think of the board as a rondel, each turn its going to move and you have some control over where it moves to. There are also dice that show demand for goods. The dock is the only action on the rondel that all players participate in and don’t use a building afterward. This made going to the dock not much of an incentive for me on all of the plays I’ve had. It seemed like the action that others would take if they were out of Pesos.

Santiago has no direct player interaction unless you use El Zorro then you can steal from the others. For a light game, this will seem odd, but it works. There is a lot of indirect interaction though; taking buildings or visiting Cubans another player may want, taking control of buildings that seem to be popular earns players victory points when others visit, denying certain goods for the shipping demand one player has been aggressively collecting.

The players will definitely see patterns emerge with continued plays; El Zorro is often blocked by the Newspaper Publisher, Maria becomes a frequent stop in the last couple of turns as a VP grab. My preference tends to be for heavier fare, but I like Santiago as a game where I don’t have to melt my brain.

Overall, the game takes about 30-45 minutes to play so it can act as a filler between heavier games or you could use it as a gateway game.

Review originally posted at www.cartrunk.net

Review: Mage Knight: Board Game:: Mage Knight - A Positive First Impression.

Alabaster Icon — Sun, 27 May 2012 17:08:51 +0000

by Alabaster Icon

----------------------

So Mage Knight, eh? Hotness, one edition down and the second nearly sold out. What is it all about? Well, I know because I've got my copy. Nah, nah na naahhh, nah.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

DISCLAIMER: I am new to the geek and, while getting to be long in the tooth, am a fairly new boardgaming convert so I apologise if I step on toes, get things wrong or am trying to teach anyone to suck eggs but here goes....

The Components

Well, first lets get the components over with. Meh.

Right on with the game......

Actually it probably does deserve more mention that the components to what is, in scale, as grand and epic a game as you can encounter this side of the Imperium are somewhat disappointing. I think it best to divide this into four sections although you will find little new here.

Design/Artwork. This is fantastic. I love the artwork which is rich and evocative and the graphic design, in what is a pretty darn complex game, is top notch and helps with the setup and learning. The only slight criticism I have is that with the twin rule book idea. While it is quite nice in itself and I found the "starter" book to be pretty good at teaching the game, a good index referencing both books contents would have been even more useful than the usual missing rulebook index.

The Box. This is a decent quality box and they have at least attempted to include a well designed modular insert. Unfortunately, the design here isn't perfect and the quality of the insert sections is poor, very thin plastic and not perfectly moulded so I don't know how long I will keep it intact.

The Plastics. I have read some complaints about these but I found them to be pretty darn good. The prepainted models in the game are of decent design and manufacture and are as well painted as prepainted models always are - i.e. they'll do but need at least a black/brown wash to look good and would really reward a repaint. The mana crystals I thought looked tacky in pictures before I got the game but I have now come to love them and when I have some nestling on my character card ready for use I am as proud and smug as a teenager fitting an oversized chrome exhaust pipe to his crappy, smokey old car. But I digress...

Card Components. These are.....well, I keep coming back to the word, disappointing. The tiles and boards are thin and there are reports of warping and seperation. Some very slight warping of the fame/reputation board being the only issue I have with mine but I just have to look at them to know I have been pretty lucky and they are not very robust so I will have to handle them with care to prevent further detrioration. The cards themselves are thin and mine have a tendency to curl - all of mine are curling in the same direction at least. In fairness they are probably not any thinner than the cards in Lords of Waterdeep (although I have not done a direct comparison) but that game has a lot cheaper RRP and the cards do not have this alarming desire to imitate the shape of a banana.

As a rule I do not sleeve cards in games but I have now ordered sleeves for Mage Knight and would encourage anyone else to build the cost of 240 sleeves into the price of the game if they are contemplating buying. Finally, I'm happy with all the tokens but, as widely reported, the images on them aren't always central and there are issues where the die cutting has been alternated so the sloped edge is sometimes front, sometimes back. It will not affect my enjoyment of the game but it is sloppy and if you are a component watcher you may be able to learn to tell which tiles/tokens are coming up because of the discrepancy.

Onto the Gameplay.

I have heard Mage Knight touted as an evolution in the deck building genre but this is not deck building as you may imagine it. It is certainly not deck building as an innocent noob type like myself imagines it. When I hear deck building it conjures images of Dominion and a small shiver down my spine. I understand that Dominion basically invented the genre and so it is rightly legend but, to me, playing it is like having a newly missing tooth. You just have to poke your tongue in the gap and wiggle it, Ugh, its sore and unpleasant so you pull it out.......yeah, but you just have to poke your tongue in the gap and wiggle it, Ugh, its sore and unpleasant so you pull it out.........yeah, but you just have play the cards and then you buy the cards, Ugh, you wonder what you're doing, you could be having fun instead.......yeah, but you just have to play the cards and then you buy the cards......

Tuning the Engine

In Mage Knight you have a basic deck of cards that you cycle through. This is the engine of the game as playing the cards is what gives you the ability to move your character, fight, cast spells, etc. The deck also controls the length of a round as it will finish after the first player's deck runs out and any/everybody else has had one more turn. Through the game you do get the chance to influence what makes up your hand but not in the Dominion style. You will always have the basic action cards but by advancing through what is, in essence, an experience track and by individual victories or other actions in the game you get the chance to add more powerful advanced action cards, spell cards and artifact cards.

You do not, however, get total control over the cards. You generally choose from an "offer" - a choice of three cards that are laid out for you to study. The decks these cards come from are made up of unique cards so, while you get to make a choice and you do get to tailor your deck as you go through the game, there are a fair amount of variables involved in which cards you get to choose from. Some may decry this intrusion of "luck" in the game, I celebrate it as providing a different challenge and experience. It helps mean that the game plays differently each time as you have to deal with the variables on the board including which scenario you are playing, whether it is day or night in the game at any particular time, which tiles are drawn and so which building/areas you may encounter, what enemies you will face and in what order you will draw cards into your hand. Top this with the choices you face in the variety of cards you will get to choose from as you develop your deck and your character and you start to glimpse the complexity of the game.

Choices, Choices.

There are also more choices the game presents you with. You get to hire units of locals, perhaps just a peasant rabble or maybe a unit of trained fighters or some mystically endowed monks. You also get to use "mana" which is a kind of magic energy that you can use to supercharge the actions of an individual card. Mana comes in different flavours/colours and you need the right one for the job. You can choose only one per turn from a common pool of dice that are rolled at the beginning of the round or you may be able to generate it from card or game effects as you go but you need to balance picking the best moment to use that card that generates mana and having it blocking your hand up between turns.

Because this is where the cards can bite. You begin with a hand of five and this may be increased permanently as you level up or temporarily by game actions but it is very easy for it to get clogged. You want to hang onto that mana card to power up that cool attack card you have that will combine nicely with the two block cards and mean that the rampaging orc over there is toast. But thats four cards and you need to move into the right space to beat that monster down and for that you're fifth card needs to be a move card, please, please, please let it be a move card. It just has to be, I mean you haven't drawn one in a couple of turns so it just has to be.......another mana generating card. Now what.

Well you can play any card sideways to get a basic action (move, fight, block, etc) of one. But you need three move points to reach the Orc you want to biff. That means three of your gorgeous, hand tooled, brightly polished cards that you have been clinging to lovingly need to be played sideways for move.......one. It could be a mana powered rage card of fight 8 obliterating that Orcs ugly mug.... or a move one. Grrrr.....

Oh, by the way, if you take any wounds during your combats they are represented by a wound card that, yep, goes into your hand. So in a fit of pique you said to hell with it, attacked the Orc anyway having used all your block cards as move points and smashed it to bits with that powered up fight card. Beautiful. Except you took four wounds due to your rashness and now your hand of five cards is four big red blooddrop wound cards...oh, and that move 4 card you just pulled. Grrrrrrr.

The Essence!

And here we get to what, I think, is the essence of the game. The deck is the engine that drives it and there are loads of fun choices and nice monsters and dungeons and monasteries to burn and loot (thats right, you get to burn and loot monasteries! Ahh, Henry would be proud!) but the essence is that this game is a puzzle. Pretty much everything you can do in the game can be seen, weighed out and planned for. When you fight an enemy you will often know its stats in advance and if you don't you will still know the class of enemy and so roughly what to expect. You will also know what is in your hand, what mana you have and what units are under your command. This means you can pretty much know the outcome of any encounters before you start but what it doesn't mean is that the game is easy. There are so many different choices in the way that you can play your cards and other resources that you have to figure out the best way to wring every drip of effectiveness out of your turn. It is only by doing a good job at this that you will beat anyone else you are playing as well as the countdown on the current round and the timing of the game itself as there is usually a round limit.

Virtually everything I have talked about in how to play this game has been to do with how you, as a player, deal and interact with your resources and the game. There are two reasons for this: first, I have only played single player games, secondly, because I'm pretty sure that that is what this game is. It is a kind of puzzle game about struggling with your resources and powers to find the perfect way to use them to achieve your own objectives. What I may not have managed to get across is that it is extremely clever, very complex and quite breathtaking in it's scale. It is, in many ways, video game like (many may say like a traditional RPG but I have never been a traditional roleplayer) in the way that you level up your character, interact with the inhabitants of the realm, gain new skills and powers and also how punishing it can be if you get it wrong and clog up your hand with wounds so that you then need to spend time and resources resting/healing them away to get back to full efficiency.

It is also, like an old style videogame, a fairly solitary experience.

Now, as I say, I have only played single player, but, while the game can be played with up to four as a co-op or a traditional opposed game I think it will always be about what you do as a player - it is going to be your own cards, resources and ambitions that you have to fight with to get anywhere. You are never going to be running around casting spells at Bob for fun because he beat you in that game of Frogger at the arcade when the pretty girl was there when you were both seven and....er,...just me then.

I think it would be fun to play with someone else as you can then both share in the depth and beauty of the game and it would help in enjoying the narrative your actions create as you cut a swathe through the land but, in game terms, I don't think you are ever going to really play with anyone else - in simplistic terms you're only going to add your score to theirs in a co-op or try to beat their score in opposition and the game rules even encourage you to take as many actions as you can during the other players turn so you just know down time is an issue. In that sense it is like the most clinical Euro game.

Except it isn't....because you get to burn and loot monasteries..... and convince locals to fight for you....... before then plundering their village - Hah, hee, hee, heh....good times...good times.

Conclusion

Bottom line, I currently love this game and it was, I think, a very wise purchase for me because it is a grand scale, long and complex game that is great fun to play solo and where most of the fun is in the actual playing of the game rather than the outcome. Unfortunately, in the real world, both the lives and interests of myself and my friends are such that it is rare I will get the chance to play this kind of a game with other players so its solo appeal is perfect for me. I think it could be perfect for two or three people to play as long as they realise that they are essentially going to be playing the game, not each other.

The main criticisms I have heard levelled at Mage Knight are the components are of a pretty poor quality, that it is not a game that encourages player interaction and that it does not carry it's theme. Hands up to the first two although I do think it carries its theme well but it relies on the players to help achieve this. As a player you have to keep an eye on the narrative you are creating as it easy for it to get lost amongst the ponderings, plannings and machinations as you struggle to find that perfect mix of skills, cards, mana, units and cold steel that means you can move through the swamp, assault that smug wizard's tower, place your shield upon it and claim the powerful knowledge held within......

------------------

Review: ZombieTown:: The Good & The Bad & The Ugly A slaughter gulch mini review.

Jokerman — Sun, 27 May 2012 17:04:28 +0000

by Jokerman

Review: Amyitis:: Ginarley Reviews Amyitis

Ginarley — Sun, 27 May 2012 16:08:50 +0000

by Ginarley

The second in a series of reviews of games that I own. These reviews will focus on my experience of owning and playing the game rather than teaching how to play the game or discussing strategies for winning the game.

Why did I buy it?

I was in my FLGS a few years ago and wanted a new game to play when I spotted Amyitis on the clearance table at about 70% off the normal price. I was indifferent about the theme and the back of the box tells you nothing about the game but at the price I took a gamble on a game I knew nothing about.

Experience with the Game

I have played at least 20 games of Amyitis roughly evenly divided amongst 2, 3 and 4 players with a wide variety of different gamers.

Components

There are two boards in the game that are functional but not very attractive. The main (Babylon) board has a strange isometric 3D on the buildings which doesn't really work and stylistically the game is fairly bland and functional while the Mesopotamia board is very bland and the pathway could be a lot clearer. The other minor gripe I have is that the caravan marker for the Mesopotamia is just a camel marker with a red background which can get lost on the board. The cards, chits and wooden blocks are good quality and have stood up to play , and they function well during the game. Given how important it is in the game a bigger marker would help (I keep meaning to buy Through The Desert just to steal a camel for this purpose!)

All in all the components are workmanlike rather than flashy.

Functional pieces
Strange art on boards and caravan token.

Rules

The rulebook is not easy for learning the game first time through, and it does take some effort to get on top of the rules. However once you figure out the iconography on the game it becomes a LOT easier as everything you need is on the board and cards. Finding the setup requirements and little details like how many talents (money) you start the game with is much harder than it should be in the rules. The game is quite easy to teach once you know how to play and quite easy to pick up and intuituve to play if you have someone who knows it to teach you.

Great use of iconography
Difficult rulebook

Playing the Game

Amyitis is a fantastic game to play. The mechanics of role selection are very clever and intuitive, the different actions available all serve a purpose and make sense. It is clear how the mechanics link to each other, and it is also brilliant how this isn't a game where you have to do everything, there are multiple valid paths to win and generally the player that reacts best to how other players play will do well. Game play is fast, with clear options available, and very little downtime.

The game rewards both tactics and strategy and it gives the feeling of being in control with just a tiny amount of randomness introduced through the craft cards. Each craft has its own unique flavour and all give both an immediate payoff and a long term payoff. The Peasant gives you a resource up front and manoeverung towards grapes and garden cards long term. The engineer gives you points straight away as well as controlling where plants are placed and potential points during planting. The merchant gives you a camel needed for moving around Mesopotamia. The priest can either give you an immediate ascendency in a temple or position yourself to gain it in a later turn. The temple mechanic with the procession, neutral cubes and temporary nature of investment is perhaps my favourite mechanic in any game, it just works so well.

It is also worth mentioning the game plays well with 2, 3 or 4 players although I think the sweet spot is three. The scaling happens naturally and provides similar gameplay regardless of number of players.

If there is any criticism to be made, it is probably the end of the game which occurs when there are four or fewer garden tiles left to build. While I understand the necessity for this rule, it is sometimes a bit of a letdown not to complete building the gardens. This is a very minor gripe though, here mostly because I needed a thumb down...

The gameplay is fantastic across the board
Game often ends before garden is completely built

Theme & Immersion

While the setting is unusual, the theme falls back on the "people vying for kings favour by building stuff" cliche so it offers nothing new here. The mechanics are consistent with the theme but not driven by it, and the components don't draw you into the theme much. However the mechanics and components don't detract from the immersion into the gameplay that always seems to happen with this game - you really do get lost in the various mechanics in the game. I have read criticisms that the game is really a bunch of unrelated sub-games but it doesn't feel that way to me at all.

Immersive gameplay
Cliche theme largely pasted on.

Conclusion

It is a shame this game doesn't get much recognition and seems to sit in the shadows of Caylus. Imo it is more fun, more interesting and more accessible than most Euros of its type out there I have played and I highly recommend it.

Review: Napoleon at Austerlitz:: Is Austerlitz ‘ungameable’?

No Expectations — Sun, 27 May 2012 15:06:12 +0000

by No Expectations

Awhile back there was a discussion here on BGG in the Wargame Subdomain as to whether Austerlitz was an ‘ungameable’ battle. It got me wondering whether it was in fact true. Looking back over time, I have owned a few games on the subject. My first was SPI’s 1972 Austerlitz and their 1980 mini-game The Battle of Austerlitz; also 3W’s 1981 Napoleon at Austerlitz from The Wargamer magazine and The Gamers 1993 Austerlitz. Now, the only game I own on the subject is 3W’s Napoleon at Austerlitz 2nd edition. And those five games certainly aren’t the only games on the subject. So if Austerlitz truly is ‘ungameable’, it certainly hasn’t stopped a number of designers and companies from making the effort.

For what I look for in a Napoleonic game as far as scale, Napoleon at Austerlitz 2nd edition is the game that I prefer of those that I have owned. It is mostly regimental level, 400 yards per hex and the 18 game turns represent 30 minutes each. It is an operational level game with some tactical overtones. There are leaders, command control and both fire and melee combat.

Graphically, the 2nd edition is far superior to the 1981 version that came in The Wargamer. The original map appeared to me like it was very heavy-handedly colored with dark crayons. The new map was done by Joe Youst and is much more subtle and subdued. I’m not wild about some of his color choices but it is still a major improvement over the original. The silhouette counters were done by Beth Queman and again, are much better than the original counters. All in all, not a bad looking game.

I’m not going to go into any detail about the actual game system. I have already done that in a review of the Aspern-Essling game. The systems are nearly identical and repeating it all here would be redundant. If anyone is interested in the game mechanics, they can read that review here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/661448/the-good-the-bad-...

There are two major variations to the system in NaA that I will mention however. One, NaA uses Pollard markers instead of the roster sheet used in some other games in this series. For me, it’s neither better nor worse; unlike many gamers, I was never bothered by using the roster sheets. Those that don’t like them will be happier with NaA.

The second major difference lies within the leader rules: There are no army commanders. In fact, the Allied army doesn’t even possess an army commander. Nor are the leaders required to role for initiative to see if they will move.

To understand how the game works requires a look at some salient features of the battle. No doubt the Napoleonic legend helped to make the Battle of Austerlitz loom large in the history books but despite some hyperbole, it was Napoleon’s greatest victory. It is one of history’s best-planned battles; even on the eve of battle Napoleon was still fine-tuning the details. One could say Napoleon orchestrated the battle. Despite a few hitches the battle went much as Napoleon had visualized it before the first shot was even fired. Marshal Soult had hoped to be made Duke of Austerlitz for his contribution to victory but Napoleon saw Austerlitz as his battle from start to finish and he wasn’t willing to share the credit.

This is not to say that the Allies couldn’t have won the battle or at least finished better than they did but the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. They suffered from over-confidence and did precisely what Napoleon wanted them to do. Their plan of battle was ambitious and required a vast amount of coordination. The allied battle plan exceeded their leadership and staff capabilities. Tsar Alexander I with no battle experience decided to take command of the battle and face-off against Europe’s premier general. Allied Commander-in-chief Kutuzov was mostly a mere spectator and he was opposed to even fighting the battle.

On the other hand, Napoleon was at the peak of his powers and the Grande Armee of 1805 was the finest army that he ever put into the field. In terms of training, organization and leadership, it outclassed the Allies from top to bottom.

So how does Napoleon at Austerlitz level the playing field? It appears the designers decided to do it in the area of leadership; the aforementioned lack of army commanders. Napoleon is here but not Alexander, Kutusov nor Buxhowden who was in overall command of columns I, II and III. The Allied player will not be hampered with Alexander’s inept meddling. Instead of coordination breaking down, the Allied column leaders aren’t required to roll for initiative and will be able to move whenever and wherever they desire.

I also question some of the ratings for the leaders. Several of the Allied leaders are equal to several of their French counterparts. Of course these types of ratings are always subjective and open to debate. But no rally rating for St. Hilaire and Vandamme? If he hadn’t been mortally wounded at Aspern-Essling, St Hilaire would have received his Marshal’s baton after Wagram. War-weariness had yet to creep in and most of the French leaders were at the top of their game at Austerlitz

In the Aspern-Essling game as Archduke Charles you struggle with a lethargic command system, trying to get the cumbersome Austrian army moving while the French with better leaders and command structure are able to react and parry the Austrian thrusts. You learn a lesson about the leadership at that particular battle.

Playing Napoleon at Austerlitz, you won’t have to worry about coordinating the various unwieldy columns and deal with an overly ambitious plan of battle. With NaA you are given an opportunity to win as the Allies but you won’t come away with an understanding of how the Allied command structure really worked, or didn’t.

Napoleon at Austerlitz isn’t a bad game and is really a fun game to play. Just be ready to accept some fudging. I suppose that is how you make Austerlitz ‘gameable’.

Review: Monopoly Deal Card Game:: Monopoly Deal Card Game Review

vmp0514 — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:55:02 +0000

by vmp0514

Those wishing to see the full review (pictures included) can do so at the following page:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/monopoly-deal-c...

A full list of my board game reviews can be found on the same site here:

http://vincentpaone.wordpress.com/board-game-reviews/

---
Most, if not all of you, have heard of this little game called Monopoly. Okay, maybe it’s not so little. Anyway, the main complaint that I’ve heard against the original Monopoly board game is that it took too long to play, assuming that you played to be the last man (or woman) standing. Personally, I’ve always been a fan of Monopoly, mainly because it was the first board game I remember playing as a kid. I liked the idea of owning property and charging other players rent…but heck, I really hated that income tax space…I land on it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even when I am one space away from it, the dice somehow break the laws of physics and I end up paying the two hundred bucks that I just earned for passing “Go.”

Monopoly Deal Card Game: 2-5 Players, Ages 8+, Average Play Time = 15-45 Minutes

Monopoly Deal Card Game takes the one to three-hour romp that is Monopoly and compacts it into a fifteen to forty-five minute card game, depending on how many people are playing. You’d think that a lot of the original game’s rules and ideas would be lost in the transfer, but I was surprised to learn that it hadn’t. Let’s take a quick look at what comes in the box and how the game is played before heading into the review.

Components

Money Cards – These cards will prominently feature a monetary value and nothing else. These will primarily go into your bank pile.

Property Cards – These cards resemble the property cards from the original game, though they have been edited to fit the game mechanics.

Action Cards – These cards can be added to your bank pile at the value shown or played to perform an action…either one or the other, not both. Action cards that are placed into the bank pile cannot be later used as an action card.

Setup & Gameplay

Shuffle the deck, making sure that you’ve removed the quick reference cards first. Deal five to each player. The deck is placed in the center of the table and players decide who goes first.

The goal of the game is to make three complete property card sets. A set is when you have all of the properties of one color, like owning both Boardwalk and Park Place.

At the beginning of your turn, draw two cards. After that, you can play up to three cards, doing any of the following:

1) Put a money card or an action card into your bank pile.

2) Put down a property card in front of you.

3) Play an action card.

Paying Rent – Some action cards require other players to pay rent. When this happens, players must either pay with the money in their bank pile or by giving up their own property cards using the values listed on them. Since you’re trying to complete sets, you’ll want to keep money in your bank so that you don’t have to give up property cards. There’s no giving change in this game, so if all you have is a “5″ card to pay a rent of “3″, then that’s too bad, so sad.

Players continue doing the above until one person gets three complete sets, then game over.

The Review

It’s fast, I’ll give it that. My eleven year old son and I played a game and it was over before I knew what hit me. Setting up the game was easy and figuring out the rules took me less time than it normally takes for me to set up a game of Agricola…always a plus. The cards are both easy to read and easy on the eyes, making it possible to recognize what they do at a glance after playing the game a few times.

I liked the idea of a bank pile being your “defense” against your opponent taking your property cards when charging rent. The problem that I ran into was that I didn’t feel there were enough rent cards in the game to thoroughly deplete a person’s bank pile. My son and I had a sizable stash saved up about five minutes into the game and it simply became a rush to see who drew the property cards they needed to win. The rent cards we played on each other barely dented our bank piles. I have been playing around with ideas in my head to balance this: one being to remove some of the money cards from the game or to buy a second game and put all of the rent cards from the second game into the first game. I have yet to test out these ideas, if I find something that works then I’ll leave a comment below.

There is a little bit of luck involved with drawing the right cards you need, but since this game doesn’t take long to play, I can overlook it. Some games, the cards will be your best friend and other games, they’ll pull you into a bathroom stall and give you nonstop swirlies until you’re gasping for air. The sooner players accept that they won’t always win because of this mechanic, the less frustrated that they’ll be while playing.

Both Vinnie Jr and I liked playing this game and I believe it’ll be well received when I introduce it to the rest of the family. Monopoly Deal Card Game succeeds at being exactly what is sets out to be: a light, fun card game. This would make an excellent addition to family game night as well as serve as a good filler in between longer games.

Review: BattleCON: War of Indines:: [Voice of Experience]: Why I know I'd still be playing BattleCon 20 years later

Lubi123 — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:00:22 +0000

by Lubi123

Some background about me
I have always been a 'low volume' user: Rarely would a game got played more than 5 times, even for those games I love. I think it's rather common for us boardgamegeeks: buying too much but playing too infrequent. This phenomenon has changed since I received Battlecon in 3/2012. I've played it 28 times face to face by now, plus 14 on-line plays. In this review, I'm going to tell you why I rated this game a 10 since Puerto Rico, which was published 10 years ago.

Game Basics
BattleCon is a 2 player cardgame trying to simulate 2-D fighting videogame like Street Fighter or Guilty Gear. The winner is the first who deals 20 damage to the other player, or who has more life at the end of the 15th round.
At the beginning of each game, each player would choose their character, then place their chosen characters on the starting position of the board, which consists of 7 spaces in a straight line.
Each round, the players would each play a pair of cards. The pair consists of a card known as style (left hand side) and a card known as base (right hand side). These cards combined govern what you do in the coming round, including movement, range of attack, damage if you can hit, priority (who acts first) and special effects. After seeing the result of your opponent and cancelling your movement is simply not possible! The tricky part is that each individual character would have his own 5 unique styles together with 1 unique base. 6 generic bases shared by all characters are added to those 6 cards forming an initial hand of 12 cards (5 styles plus 7 bases). 2 pairs would be 'locked' and won't become available till later rounds. You then get to choose 1 style out of 3 and 1 base out of 5 to form your attack pair. See the picture below prepared by [user=endersgame][/user]:
]]>
Evacuation Grasp is the current pair, while Evacuation is a style card (with graphics unique to the character) while Grasp is a base card (generic to all characters). After the current round this pair would move to discard 1, and you'd get the discard 2 pair back to your hand with previous discard 1 becomes discard 2.

How could you achieve the 20 damage goal?
1. Hit while your opponent can't
- move to a range that only you can hit your opponent
- fast strikes that stun your opponent and make them can't fight back
(virtually all successful strikes would cause stun, however cards that grant stun guard/ soak X is going to ignore this rule by a certain extent)
2. Trading punches while you deal more damage than your opponents', like using cards with high damage and stun guard

3 stages that You're going to Experience
1. You know nothing about both characters
This is the most difficult stage as the you are still figuring out how to make effective strikes. Common mistakes include striking at wrong distance, using the best card pairs against dash (aka dodge)...
2. You know your characters but know nothing about the opponent's
In this case you can make effective strikes, but sometimes would be frustrated by opponent's attack pairs. Anyway, you'd find this game much more interesting when you can occasionally match his strike with a better one.
3. Both players know their characters well
This game would become an ultra-brain-burning and double guessing game that both players would enjoy.

It is just like Sun Tsu, the famous Chinese tactitian, has mentioned the following in his book 'Art of War' over 2000 years ago:
If you know the enemy and know yourself,
you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle.

What do I like about this game?
1. Simple to learn rules, yet deep strategy
As you can see, the rules can easily be described in few minutes. However, as each character has 35 moves available (5 unique styles x 7 bases), a few games are required just to grab the feel of the game. However, this game truly shines when both players remember all cards in play. Then this game becomes one with much double guessing/ calculation.
2. Captures 2D fighting's positioning best
As in grand-daddy En Garde, positioning of your characters on the board is extremely important. A skillful player can position himself with as much options available and at the same time limiting his opponent's options.
3. Fast gameplay, but yet you feel like playing something epic
I believe this is one of the most imporatant reason I love this game. Many short games give you a filler feel, however in BattleCon, despite each game lasts for rarely longer than 20 minutes, involves lots of decisions and mental exercise. Would I go for long range despite its low priority? Or would I escape with dash? You need to think of both your opponent's and your characters at the same time, and it's just a single turn.
4. Lots of different characters to choose from
It's really lots. 18 total plus 3 kickstart promo plus 1 BGG Ernie. They all play really very different. No 2 style cards are the same and each character plays very diferently. This makes the game much more replayable considering the simple ruleset.

Some problems that others would dislike
1. Balanced?
Many match-ups that other players and I have tried, both in the actual game and iOS game, are rather balanced. However there're a few match-ups that have been found to have potential issues, like Regicide vs Amberdeen, or Cadenza vs Demigrande/ Regicide. The author has tried to explain that in each situation, there should be a way out. However, I doubt whether this is true or not: In this game, when it reaches high level playing, resolves much around the double guessing nature and the available options would greatly affect whether your attack pair works or not. For the above match-ups, 1 side is in general handicapped with maybe only 2-3 options that works, sometime even less. I've 'played' against myself open handedly for over 100 games, and the finding is quite consistent. The follow-up question would then be: Is it fun? As I've mentioned, most match-ups are alright. So as long as you're not playing tournament (or tournament with limited choice of characters), this works perfectly fine for me.
2. Expandable
The game is very expandable and the box even comes with extra blank cards for you to design your own charatcter. The designer has also mentioned that there would be a 18 character standalone set coming next year. So the follow-up question would be: Should I get this game now? My answer is yes. Even without the expansion, 18 characters from the baseic set is enough for years of enjoyment already. Why wait for another year then?
3. Only those who know the game can enjoy the game
This game is not designed for casual players, so cult of the new, please stay away. For those who play this game less than 5 times, it's quite likely that they can't grasp the characteristics of the character and not enjoy the game. See the '3 stages' above.

iOS version
The electronic version comes with 12 characters, among them 4 are available free of charge from the start. The controls are functional but not exceptional compared with games like Elder Sign/ Neuroshima Hex. As it has only been launched for a short time, it takes a bit of time to find a on-line opponent. BTW, I think the iOS programme is designed for veteran players as:
1. Average interface which is not appealing to ordinary iOS gamers;
2. Short thinking time (30s per round) plus not clearly shown discard pile makes players familiar with the characters almost mandatory;
In short, you can try this game online but have to expect the highest level of opponents you're facing. So if you want to try the game, it'd be better you ask someone who bought the game or get the free printout version.
BTW, my Game Centre id is 'marcolian2002'. Send me an invitation guys!

Conclusion
I've played many excellent 2 player games, including Commands & Colors: Ancients, Summoner Wars, Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation, and many euro designs. I've played many multi-player games, long or short. I've played boardgames since 1997. None of the games before have made me so excited and eager for my next play. This game is BattleCON: War of Indines. I sincerely recommend it to all of you boardgamegeeks. It is simply a masterpiece that no one should miss (cult of the new excluded).

Review: Power Grid:: [Voice of Experience] Powering the Travelling Salesman: A Review of Power Grid

AdmiralGT — Sun, 27 May 2012 12:18:02 +0000

by AdmiralGT

In 2004, Friedemann Friese released the game "Power Grid". The aim of this game is to supply the most cities with power by building power plants, buying raw materials, connecting cities and powering them using power plants. Since then, several expansions have arrived bringing new maps, rules and power plants, but the core mechanics remain the same. In this review, I aim to provide some critical analysis of the gameplay of Power Grid.

Power Grid is an economic game built around the central currency of “Electros”. While the core aim of the game is to power as many cities as possible at the end of the game, in order to achieve this, players must spend their electros to expand their network. Ultimately, players compete to use their electros most efficiently although there are other considerations as well.

When a game is focused on efficiency, critics will often label the game as “mathsy” and this generally the most common complaint of Power Grid. So while there is mental arithmetic involved, there are other elements to Power Grid than purely maximising your economic engine, and while mathematical skills may be advantageous, they are by no means necessary.

We can see this most in the buying of cities. The action of buying cities parallels the 1930 mathematical problem, "The Travelling Salesman Problem". Of course, there are many differences between the two, the key problem being that there are other players and this brings challenges not thought of in the pure mathematical problem. Because other players are building cities, the topology of the city network is changing every round and so it’s not possible to just calculate the smallest network at the start of the game. Your starting city and that of your other players is very much the skill involved in the building of cities. Going for the cheapest position may not always be the best solution as there is likely to be increased competition. You also have to be wary of getting boxed in during the earlier stages of the game so that the only possible expansion is prohibitely expensive. The changing nature of the game prevents long-term formulation of the cheapest solution. However, generally in an individual round, players will want to find the cheapest solutions.

Optimisation is apparent elsewhere in Power Grid, but again, the other players in the game have a significant impact. As well as building cities you also require money to buy power plants and resources for them. However, other players will want to bid on power plants which may drive the price up, other players may purchase resources before you, again driving the price up. This competition will mean the most efficient strategy is constantly changing. This is why the game is not purely about maximising the expected returns, because other players have impact on the game and the imperfect, irrational nature of their play will result in the mathematical perfect play not always being the most effective. Power Grid artificially prevents players from making long term, deterministic plans. It does this by randomising the Power Plant deck (in all but one of the expansion maps, China). This is the only random element in Power Grid, but they are intertwined with the other uses of electros that they play a significant effect.

Power Plants have two interactions with the other elements of the game. They determine which resources players will need in order to power cities affecting the availability and price of resources. They also determine how many cities players are able to power, affecting both the players income and the need to build cities. So while this is a random element to the game, it prevents Power Grid from being purely a theoretical exercise.

So while this randomness does prevent long-term deterministic planning, players must still think ahead and not just on the immediate turn especially as the game progresses. Players must consider how they are going to power sufficient cities at the game end and buy power plants accordingly, often several turns ahead due to the buying limit, otherwise they may find themselves unable to power enough cities to win. This also means they need an understanding of when they think the game must end. So while players can’t know exactly what they are going to do, they must still have to have a rough idea.

Long term planning is also apparent due to the clever mechanic to determine the player order each turn. Some rounds in Power Grid operate in reverse order and because of this, players may intentionally fall behind in the number of cities in order to gain an earlier position in the turn order. Players later in the turn order get cheaper resources and first opportunity to build cities. But they’ll be getting less income and be further from winning. Some people think of this as a catch-up mechanic but more experienced players will understand the importance of manipulating their position in the turn order. Players need to balance sitting back to exploit the cheaper resources and building, building cities to make more money and when to get ahead to win.

All of this means Power Grid is a game high in player interaction. Players need not only think about themselves, but also what their opponents are doing. Unfortunately, Power Grid clouds this by allowing players to hide the amount of electros they have. This mechanic goes against all the open information available to player and feels artificial. You can understand why Power Grid did this, not only are electros used as a tie-breaker, but knowing how much everyone has could bog players down with over-thinking but it just seems out of place. What is particularly odd is that all the use and gain of electros is open and it would certainly be possible for players to calculate how much everyone so the game relies on the large number of actions for players to forget and to introduce this uncertainty in the state of other players. This does as some suspense to the game as players will be unaware how well their opponents are doing but it causes players to make suboptimal moves due to the uncertainty of the game state. Some may think this is a good thing but it takes away from the “pure” game that Power Grid is.

Another complaint of Power Grid is that repeat play does not garner enough differences between games. While Power Grid does offer multiple map expansions, these generally are limited to different city topologies and differing availability of Power Plants and resources. But really, multiple games will generate different player interactions. The amount of decisions in Power Grid and with a random Power Grid deck, no two play throughs should be the same. Unfortunately though, you are likely to see repetitive starts to the game as the initial power plants are always the same (some expansions do change this).

Overall, while there may be these minor problems in the game, it can’t detract from the great gameplay of Power Grid. If you are willing to look past the arithmetic there lies a great economic game full of player interaction that allows long-term thinking without getting bogged down in precision with important short-term decisions.