Recommend
74 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

To The Last Man!» Forums » Reviews

Subject: IN REVIEW rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christophe Sancy
Belgium
Zaventem
B
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
When is a review not a review ?



There are plenty of paradoxes in this review. It’s about a Card Driven Game which is not a CDG. It’s about a game that has been released and yet still remains unpublished. And it’s not even a review, really.

What do people expect from a good review ? A clear structure first, probably. Components description, abstract of the rules, global evaluation, rating... I’m afraid I’m not the right person to write something so well organized. And there’s already a lot of elements on the Game Page that will help you to learn about TTLM’s basics. See this text as just a free comment by a wargamer who lacks authority in reviewing games, but still wants to share some experiences and opinions.


Do you think you’re the right person to review this game ?




Probably not. Primarily because I lack training in that sport, and also because I would probably be more eloquent in my own language. Finally, my opinion about this game is suspect : I have been involved in the project since I offered Tim my help to design the map & cards. This is why I won’t rate the game : it would probably sound biased.

On the other hand, I don’t forget that I was originally just one of those geeks interested in this game, disappointed when the publisher cancelled the project. That’s the reason I offered my help in the first place. When Tim told us here he was considering offering the game for free on BGG instead of letting all of us end up frustrated, I wanted to assist.

I had no pretentions when designing the map ; I'm not a graphic designer. I accidentally learned to use Adobe Illustrator thanks to my work on this project. The mapboard is, in a way, a history of my learning.

Of course, during the process, we had a lot of nice interaction : Tim, Arnauld and myself. Arnauld has supported Tim longer than I have. He was the guy who initially convinced Tim to not give up. I do regard Tim as a friend, and certainly he feels likewise. But I’m still able to evaluate his game from a strictly neutral perspective — as a wargamer. Is it really the game I was expecting ? There’s no reason I shouldn’t comment on the game just because I gave Tim a little help during the last step of that long development process.




So, basically, is it another Card Driven Game ?



You can indeed describe TTLM! as a card driven game, but not in the « official » way. I realize I have to be cautious here, for I know that some people are quite sensitive about the definition of a CDG. In their eyes, this definition has to be restrictive, covers only the system originally developed for Mark Herman’s We The People, and has applied to many other wargames published since that milestone. I don't want to start another polemic about that specific definition, it would be totally pointless anyway. I just want to use it to highlight a major difference between the « unofficial official CDG system definition » and the one used in TTLM!

In a classical CDG, cards allow the game to represent some historical events having a major effect on the conflict or they allow actions. Either you use the cards to play that Event or you play it to use the Operation Points it provides, to move, attack, etc....

The card system in TTLM! is different, and still leaves you with a choice. The most important cards are the Offensive cards (26 total cards in a deck of 55 cards). According to their gradation (The Big Push, Offensive, Limited Offensive), they will give you more or less efficiency. These Offensive cards fuel the game ! If you want to attack or move on a large scale, you definitely need such a card in your hand. That’s why it would be foolish to spend all your Building Points in the Production phase exclusively acquiring fresh units or building entrenchements/fortifications and neglect to replenish your hand.

What about the other cards ? There’s a lot of « Ertsatz » cards, that you can play to absorb casualties and avoid your front to collapse. And there are also some cards that represent events having an impact on the conflict (Poison Gas, Military Crisis, Advanced Artillery Barrage, ...), sometimes with restrictions about the turn they can be used for the first time. But the main thing is that ANY card, even the Offensive cards, can be played as a substitute for an « Ersatz 1 » card. So, there’s nothing like a totally useless card in your hand. Sometimes, you’ll be happy to save your day using a card as an « Ersatz1 » in an area where the situation seems desperate. And sometimes, you’ll be desperate yourself to sacrify a « very good card » to use its Ersatz effect...

This system works incredibly well. It’s really the engine that drives the game so smoothly. The way the cards interact is amazing to me. First, it’s a very clever and fluid solution for activation. But there's more....

It’s also an excellent mechanic to represent the essence of WW1 on the Western front. From winter 1914-1915, when troops entrenched massively, it became an attrition war. Major offensives were launched, in order to achieve a breakthrough. But there was a lot of risk involved engaging all your forces in such an unattainable purpose : the enemy had mobilized in mass, and large quantities of troops were soon able to fill each gap, perhaps at the cost of large casualties. So, WWI turned into the massive slaughter we all know.

One of the key war objectives was to exhaust the enemy to a point resistance wouldn’t be sustainable any more. Maybe Falkenhayn was not sincere when he said, after the war, that the Verdun offensive’s primary goal was not to break the front but to put the French army on her knees.

But anyway, that’s the way the real conflict turned to be : a « total war » where all the country’s forces would be poured into battle. And TTLM! succeeds in simulating this sense of Total War better than most games on this scale (Seasonal/Army level).

In most of the WWI/Western Front wargames I have played, this attrition effect is represented in a rather classical way. Huge stacks of units, inflicting heavy casualties to each other from turn to turn, until the — unlikely — moment when one of these stacks would be totally destroyed.

TTLM works differently : there’s a maximum stacking of three units/player in any single area. One army counts as a single unit, and it’s a « container » where you can place more units. But even so, there’s is a physical limitation : you can’t place more units in an army than the army templates allows you to do. There’s, of course, an attrition effect on the units placed on the map ; they may be eliminated.

But even more important, there’s an attrition effect on your hand of cards! The more you’re using cards, the more you expose yourself to the painful moment when your opponent will launch a major offensive which you won’t be able to counter, your hand being empty !

This is where the cards system — and specifically the ersatz concept — is absolutely brilliant and innovative. It synthetizes in an amazingly compact package the essence of the conflict : how do you, as a general, manage your forces without taking excessive risks ? It’s not only a matter of bringing more and more reinforcement in the disputed areas. It’s all about timing, bluff, and dealing with the options the cards leave to you. There’s an economy of Total War you have to think about. That’s why I decided to design the cards as newspapers’ headlines. Each general must deal with the resources of his country, as allocated by the home front, the press, public opinion, and political pressure. He’s never totally free of making his decisions from a strictly tactical perspective. He has to deal with the cards he has in his hand.

Does that seem too gamey / abstract to you ? Well, the fact is that it’s more true to the conflict than you might think at first sight. In a thread I recommend you to read, Tim Taylor makes an interesting distinction between two categories of game designs. The « Design for Effect » is the most usual one : everything is focused on re-enacting the battle by simulating the factual conditions on the field.

To The Last Man! follows the « Design for Experience » philosophy instead. It puts you in the position of a WWI general, with a limited knowledge of your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses. Should I attack, and where ? And how many risks should I take ?

As Tim pointed out, from an historical perspective, it is not true that the entrenched front made it absolutely impossible to achieve a breaktrough. Only that generals weren't keen to engage in such a major effort at such a scale that could have made it really decisive. By doing this, they would have been playing double or quits. Would you take upon yourself such a responsibility, one that could have a terrible impact on your country’s destiny ? Well, if you want, TTLM! makes it possible. Only, it will definitely be a quite difficult and risky decision to take...



If this game is really so good as you pretend it is, how can you explain that it wasn’t published by any game company yet ?



Good question ! Honestly, I’d like to know the answer myself... The fact is that this game was for a long time — too long — in the queues of some professional publishers. That’s how I learned about the project and preordered the game...

... until they dropped the ball, for reasons of which I don’t want to comment. Like you, I don't know. But I have some clues. Publishing wargames is not a billion dollar business, it’s a very difficult challenge — especially now. I do respect most of those guys, and I also do understand their willingness to minimize the risks involved in the process. So I suspect that the reasons why TTLM! hasn’t been published yet are exactly the ones that made it sound so interesting to me :

• No WWII – East Front with tanks. (No comment)
• Not part of a larger game system having already met its public of aficionados
• Tim Taylor is not a famous designer who could instantly attract preorders on his name only.
• And may I add : « bad luck » ? The wrong publisher(s) at the wrong moment(s)?

I also have to tell you that, recently, as we were finalizing the PnP version and posting some elements here, two excellent publishers showed some interest in the game. So who knows? Maybe there is still a chance that TTLM! can meet the broad public it deserves to reach, the gamers who are not ready to invest the time in making their own kit with the downloadable files. « Impossible, now that the game has been offered for free », I hear you answer.

First, honestly, that was the most reasonable, and generous, and elegant thing to do for Tim, after all those years of waiting in vain. Then again, there is no incompability between a PnP release and a professional version. The PnP public is a small minority : it wouldn’t at all hurt sales of a professionally published version, quite the contrary. It would help generate buzz and boost the preorder curve. Even the guys who own the « homebrew version » would be the first ones to order a copy of any version designed by professional artists and printed according to high-end standards. I know I would.

So, it’s also up to you guys. If you’d like to own such a version, maybe asking for it would help. It’s not Tim’s obsession to see his game professionally published. But I suspect it would be an interesting game for both gamers and publishers. Fast playing, easy to learn. During the coming years, we’ll see a huge tsunami of books, movies, commemorations and media covering the centenial of the Great War. As a publisher, I would like to have something ready in my catalog to satisfy that curiosity. And preferably something accessible to many gamers, not only the small group of WWI specialists.



Can a PnP game really deserve the same credibility a published game does ?




I warned Tim that there’s indeed a risk in the PnP model. PnP could create a bias when evaluating a game. Especially with a free PnP release. It might get lost in the shuffle. Or worse, people will consider it with a lot of sympathy, but also with some condescension.

« It’s a nice effort but does it really match the quality level of a published game ? » PnP games lack some credibility, no doubt. Let’s use a rock ‘n roll metaphor. A PnP game is a kind of garage band. These kids have something, call it energy, or personality. Maybe you’ll like the good vibes on the tune they loaded on their MySpace page, but obviously, you won’t take them as seriously as if they had been signed by a major label, produced by Brian Eno, supported by a massive PR plan, and playing on a tour visiting the whole planet’s stadiums. Unless you’re snobbish and are only excited by the latest obscure indie hype.

The fact is that TTLM was not designed as a PnP. It was intensively developed and playtested for years with the same methods and evaluation standards used for any true « professional » wargame. Only, circumstances (see supra) made the publishing process so prolonged that it wasn’t tolerable to wait any more. I mean, if I had been in Tim’s place, I'd probably been totally discouraged, and would have burned the whole project in the attic... I’m glad he didn’t ! Because this is a mature, finalized design. And a great game to play. But the « free PnP » model could give the false impression that the game is a « project in progress », a draft. The mass of optional rules at the end support this misperception, and this is something I would rather see set aside in another set of rules, like the scenarios.

And this PnP model might make you feel free to modify any rule you want, according to your own sensibility, since it’s only an «unpublished/prototype game ». This is not the case, the rules are solid and should be treated as a consistent whole.

Let me tell you something about my own personal experience, during the first sessions we played with my group of buddies. Here in Waterloo. Yes, that Waterloo. Old grognards for sure — we’re all in our 40’s — been playing all kind of wargames for more than 25 years together. And sometimes developing our own game systems...

The first time my friends read the rules to TTLM!, they were a little skeptical about some specific points. They expected the system to adopt some limitations to forbid this kind of movement or that specific possibility of retreat, because any other solution would contradict their own wargamer’s habits, or because they had an extensive knowledge of WWI and wanted it to be translated literally on any movement happening on the map. So they absolutely wanted to try some variants that they described as « minor » to simulate these factors.

Tim will suffer when reading this, but we spent a whole afternoon checking the outcome of various sessions using their « house rules version » versus the original/official rules.

Grognards are like St Thomas : they believe only what they see themselves.

Well, the original rules proved to be by far the best realistic simulation. In the end, my friends were convinced.

The rules are so compact that there is absolutely no chance that a variant could prove to have a only « minor » effect on the global balance. It would be a major mistake to use some considerations here that might make sense in a more operational level game, with Zones of Control. What are Zones of Control? Don't ask.

The scale of the game, the size of the areas, and a lot of other elements that Tim could explain far better than me, made it necessary to allow some permeability between the areas. Some rules might seem too « generous » if you place yourself at the level of a single army, but when put in perspective within the global front situation, they do have the right effect. Actually, Tim explained to me that he had tried no less than 8 different solutions to simulate movement and combat possibilities. The one he finally chose, after years of playtesting, can seem surprisingly simple, yet it is also the most effective one.

Doesn’t mean it’s simplistic. It’s just different than in a « designed for effect » operational level wargame, but it still provides a realistic simulation, thanks to patient playtesting work.

The most impressive part of Tim’s work is hidden : it’s the sweet spot he reached when trying to get the proper balance between simulation and playability. It seems so simple and streamlined precisely because all the effort has been focused on that perceived simplicity. But there’s a lot of work hidden in the system.



Less is more



You ultimately have to trust the system and trust the designer. Providing a great game in a compact package is a daring choice, especially when you release your game as a free PnP. It would be far more comfortable to use standard rules, to provide lots of CRTs and ad hoc rules simulating specific situations, just to show off how intensively you’ve been studying the conflict and taking into account each factor. It would bring visible evidence that you’ve been seriously working on a reliable simulation. But paradoxically, that would be the lazy way of doing things.

There’s no accounting for taste. Some people will be positively impressed by the apparent complexity of a game. The more counters, tables, testing die-rolls, exceptions to the basic rules they find in the box, the more they regard the game as a serious simulation. I can enjoy such a game from time to time myself. But to me, the most difficult task for a designer is to reduce the nature of the battle or conflict to its essence.

It takes a lot more time, efforts and creativity to make it « short & simple »

How can you solve such an equation ? Providing an easy to learn, fast playing game without sacrificing the historical accuracy ? This is where you really need to think outside the box. It’s quite a delicate task. You can’t just shrink a well-known wargame mechanic, it wouldn’t work. And you can’t follow a euro-method : design a rather abstract mechanic, then paste on a topic that can fit. This is a tailor-made (Taylor-made ?) approach. And that’s what so distinctive about TTLM!. It’s not a eurogame, it’s a true wargame, using original solutions to represent the conflict in a very compact package.

You may like the game or not, but you’ll have to agree on this : it provides a different gaming experience, it’s an innovative design.


Is this a game for everybody ?



Of course not, there’s no such a game. If you are a control freak, obsessed by optimizing each move, computing every ratio, if you hate fog of war or blockgames, you probably shouldn’t consider playing TTLM!. But if you’re interested in innovative designs, if you like the « design for experience » philosophy, if you can accept the fact that sometimes the best simulation is not necessarly the one that obsessively reveals every detail of the conflict, but the one that puts you in the situation of a general dealing with incertitude, then you should give this game a try.


So, how do you rate the game ?



I won’t change my mind : it would be inapropriate for me to rate a game I’ve helped to release. Too bad : TTLM! is a game I never tire of playing, and it has gotten the same status within my group of friends. I have bought a lot of wargames these years, some of them proved to be excellent. But I’m not sure any of them provided us the same level of pure fun. Man, I love this game !

Again, you could decide my opinion about the game is too suspect. Looking for another review ? What about writing one yourself ? Read the rules or the Illustrated example of play (it will soon appear in the Files section). Then, download the files. Make your own copy. And have fun !

CS



P.S.: thanks to René Magritte, Norman Rockwell, Paul Cézanne, Damien Hirst, Marc Rothko, Leonardo da Vinci, Jasper Johns and the anonymous amateur painter for their contribution to my review.







68 
 Thumb up
3.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcelo Prado Silva
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the reading. I wonder what you could do in your own language.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Swan
Australia
Randwick
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm thumbing this review just for the clever artwork.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Hillery
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brilliant review. Told me a great deal about the game, but more than that: it obviously was from someone who had put a great deal of thought into the issue, had a strong specific opinion, and was able to clearly express and back up that opinion.

And the use of artwork for section headers was delightfully random and well done.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
I shall boldly proclaim, that it is with having pivotal "events" determined through the 'card draw', rather than have those naturally occurring as a result from prior actions, or reactions, then this were MY biggest 'complaint' on these. Had those been elicited through a series of pre-conditions in which they shall then become implemented, or put within the 'mix' for those, it would have better validity, as far that I'm concerned. For example in this instance, that with any such as "French Poilus REVOLT!", then HOW would that come about? Does it require some 'disastrous' COMBAT triggering "event"? Should it be instituted FROM how many? Just picking the 'card' for it at any point, doesn't seem to provide the ascribed justification on having it taking place at anytime. This could be easily corrected with the inclusion of specific types of that sort, thereby being inserted within the DECK after a certain point had been reached, to where it NOW will become reasonably ascertained as having its 'place' for any possibility. In fact, many another does have prerequisites that accrue in order to effect something or another to occur, ONCE some amount were achieved or surpassed, to account on its having inclusion towards it, is then "realized". I just recently read over this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/430725 and it does somewhat appear to myself from it all, that what I've just now spoken out upon were being considered and addressed from the 'gist' of the matter on that 'article'. I wish all involved with this, for their mutual success as it does seem to begin an appeal to myself, from the excellent REVIEW conducted on its behalf here, as well with yet other aspects that I am currently discovering from greater perusal.
cool
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justus Pendleton
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While I understand where you are coming from I don't really agree with you. There are a lot of things that happen in the world that are out of scope of a game like this that still have impact on it.

In my mind what you are saying is something like (cards made up for a different historical context to belabor the point):

You can't play the "95 Theses" card until you've played the "Martin Luther" card and you can't play that until both the "Martin Luther's parents" and "indulgences" are in play. But you can't have the "indulgences" card in play until the "Council of Epaon" card is in play.

You end up either with boring historical determinism or you straight-jacket players by narrowly limiting the preconditions.

What could be a valid precondition for "French Poilus REVOLT!"? Maybe they revolt because they are tired of recent American soldiers taking liberties with their women back home? Maybe pay disputes or materiel shortages? Maybe they just don't like being deployed in the Netherlands? Maybe a demagogue convinces them that they are dying not for national pride but to support the bourgeois? Maybe there is a SNAFU with the national elections and soldiers' ballots are lost and they feel the government in power is no longer legitimate? Maybe an extremely popular officer is found to come from a (distant) German background and ends up being accused of treason under dubious circumstances? Or maybe an obviously incompetent general is assigned to a position of importance because of family connections?

Does the game now need to implement a full socio-economic simulation?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Lawson
United States
Rutland
Vermont
flag msg tools
Boston Redsox
badge
New England Patriots!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GROGnads wrote:
I shall boldly proclaim, that it is with having pivotal "events" determined through the 'card draw', rather than have those naturally occurring as a result from prior actions, or reactions, then this were MY biggest 'complaint' on these. Had those been elicited through a series of pre-conditions in which they shall then become implemented, or put within the 'mix' for those, it would have better validity, as far that I'm concerned. For example in this instance, that with any such as "French Poilus REVOLT!", then HOW would that come about? Does it require some 'disastrous' COMBAT triggering "event"? Should it be instituted FROM how many? Just picking the 'card' for it at any point, doesn't seem to provide the ascribed justification on having it taking place at anytime. This could be easily corrected with the inclusion of specific types of that sort, thereby being inserted within the DECK after a certain point had been reached, to where it NOW will become reasonably ascertained as having its 'place' for any possibility. In fact, many another does have prerequisites that accrue in order to effect something or another to occur, ONCE some amount were achieved or surpassed, to account on its having inclusion towards it, is then "realized". I just recently read over this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/430725 and it does somewhat appear to myself from it all, that what I've just now spoken out upon were being considered and addressed from the 'gist' of the matter on that 'article'. I wish all involved with this, for their mutual success as it does seem to begin an appeal to myself, from the excellent REVIEW conducted on its behalf here, as well with yet other aspects that I am currently discovering from greater perusal.
cool


What he said!!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
hoostus wrote:
While I understand where you are coming from I don't really agree with you. There are a lot of things that happen in the world that are out of scope of a game like this that still have impact on it.
I don't believe that you entirely comprehend exactly, nor the preferred specifics, with what it were that I've denoted being discussed. Generally, then you have some grasp, as it were, from a broader definition in what there is with what you've responded about. What I 'proposed' were with NOT having everything being available from the "get-go", for WHERE that isn't applicable UNTIL something 'triggered' for this, and you would be able to obtain some 'card' as your selection FROM the "draw", due to such.
hoostus wrote:
In my mind what you are saying is something like (cards made up for a different historical context to belabor the point):

You can't play the "95 Theses" card until you've played the "Martin Luther" card and you can't play that until both the "Martin Luther's parents" and "indulgences" are in play. But you can't have the "indulgences" card in play until the "Council of Epaon" card is in play.
surprise It doesn't help the situation when you bring into purported context with other matters THAN what is concerned for any on the topic being discussed. Still, with what you HAVE exemplified here, then doesn't it follow that any ONE shall compel the NEXT? Wouldn't 'excommunication', and the probability of another garnering "it" through associations, then give these '2nd doubts', or retrospective conclusions as a result? The deeply devout most likely will rethink their participations then, due to their "unknown", or strident beliefs. Yet others, shall continue to pursue whatever greater purposes that these seek, despite condemnation from any 'Official' stances as frowned upon due to their stolid "dogma".
hoostus wrote:
You end up either with boring historical determinism or you straight-jacket players by narrowly limiting the preconditions.
Plenty of folks consider that the ACTUAL "historical proceedings" ought to be replicated as ONE of many possible outcomes, whether these are FOUND by yet another as being droll, or whatever, then it won't DENY that it is to become avoided, were any capable on producing a differing RESULT. Then again, the unimaginative just MIGHT reproduce 'accounts' as they HAD transpired "historically".
hoostus wrote:
What could be a valid precondition for "French Poilus REVOLT!"? Maybe they revolt because they are tired of recent American soldiers taking liberties with their women back home? Maybe pay disputes or materiel shortages? Maybe they just don't like being deployed in the Netherlands? Maybe a demagogue convinces them that they are dying not for national pride but to support the bourgeois? Maybe there is a SNAFU with the national elections and soldiers' ballots are lost and they feel the government in power is no longer legitimate? Maybe an extremely popular officer is found to come from a (distant) German background and ends up being accused of treason under dubious circumstances? Or maybe an obviously incompetent general is assigned to a position of importance because of family connections?
laugh Any, or ALL, from what you've included, seemed quite reasonable and feasible as thus! The cumulative factoring WITH these ALL, should certainly incense practically the whole 'lot' from that, would you agree? Now, just which in particular turned OUT to become: "the straw that broke the camel's back", well, it could be arbitrarily SET to reach as some 'breaking point', when they've become TOO much from all on this.
hoostus wrote:
Does the game now need to implement a full socio-economic simulation?
shake No, certainly not, UNLESS it were the intents and purposes of the "Designer" with regards to fully exploring and displaying those aspects. What it ALL "boils down to", and that is to RENDER from the most excruciating details, of which weren't necessarily pivotal in and of themselves, yet an accumulation for plenty with these ought to "effect" with the selections being presented as viable occurrences, FOR their erstwhile inclusions AS anything would permit. The 'minutiae', with a full 'spectrum' from every single inconsequential tidbits or happenstance, don't NEED to be included wholesale, yet perhaps a select FEW could were they to warrant such, as it is deemed some prerequisite on bringing those to the forefront, hence their 'card' THEN be put into the DECK.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Swan
Australia
Randwick
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ceej wrote:
the use of artwork for section headers was delightfully random

You give Christophe too little credit! Many of the pictures seem to have been chosen specifically to match the relevant section; that's what I love about them. Some examples:
* the "So, how do you rate the game ?" picture shows a bunch of numbers
* the "Is this a game for everybody ?" picture shows "everybody" looking at the Mona Lisa

... unless you're using "random" in a slang way...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Lewis
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
billyboy wrote:
GROGnads wrote:
I shall boldly proclaim, that it is with having pivotal "events" determined through the 'card draw', rather than have those naturally occurring as a result from prior actions, or reactions, then this were MY biggest 'complaint' on these. Had those been elicited through a series of pre-conditions in which they shall then become implemented, or put within the 'mix' for those, it would have better validity, as far that I'm concerned. For example in this instance, that with any such as "French Poilus REVOLT!", then HOW would that come about? Does it require some 'disastrous' COMBAT triggering "event"? Should it be instituted FROM how many? Just picking the 'card' for it at any point, doesn't seem to provide the ascribed justification on having it taking place at anytime. This could be easily corrected with the inclusion of specific types of that sort, thereby being inserted within the DECK after a certain point had been reached, to where it NOW will become reasonably ascertained as having its 'place' for any possibility. In fact, many another does have prerequisites that accrue in order to effect something or another to occur, ONCE some amount were achieved or surpassed, to account on its having inclusion towards it, is then "realized". I just recently read over this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/430725 and it does somewhat appear to myself from it all, that what I've just now spoken out upon were being considered and addressed from the 'gist' of the matter on that 'article'. I wish all involved with this, for their mutual success as it does seem to begin an appeal to myself, from the excellent REVIEW conducted on its behalf here, as well with yet other aspects that I am currently discovering from greater perusal.
cool


What he said!!


But what DID he say?!?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Taylor
United States
under surveillance
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

This full turn example of play will help give you a good feel for how the game plays:



http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/46114
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Lawson
United States
Rutland
Vermont
flag msg tools
Boston Redsox
badge
New England Patriots!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The example of play was fantastic!!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
billyboy wrote:
The example of play was fantastic!!


Yes it was. Wow.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.