1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Next » 
Love the world.
July has been another "busy in real life" month for me, with a grand total of one new-to-me game played (but it's a good one).
(Image credit: bkunes)
Better than expected light/medium game of timing and dicksmanship.
As a rule, SdJ nominees don't interest me much. I always like to try them (and try to like them), but they're usually too simple for my taste.
Imhotep was a pleasant surprise in that regard. It's fairly simple, but I found the game play to be fun and interesting.
On you're turn, you do one of four things:
(1) Move up to three stone blocks of your color to your "sled."
(2) Move a stone from your sled to an empty spot on one of the available boats. (Each round a card is turned up to determine how many boats, of what sizes, will be available for that round.)
(3) Move a boat to one of the available construction sites and unload the stones carried by the boat. Each site can only be visited by one boat per round. Stones are unloaded in order, from bow to stern. A boat can only be moved once it has a minimum number of stones on it (usually n-1, where n is the capacity of the boat).
(4) If you have one available to you, you can play a special action card. This lets you perform a stronger version (or combination) of the actions described above.
The construction sites are nicely laid out on sturdy boards. Each has different rules for the benefits provided when stones are placed in their various spaces. One site gives cards (which can be special action or special scoring cards). Others give immediate or end-game points, based on their special scoring rules.
Notably, each of the site boards has an A and B side, with different rules. This allows you to mix and match the combination of scoring rules for each game, providing good interplay variability.
The heart of the game is timing and brinksmanship. Once a boat has sufficient stones on it, any player can move it to any open site.
The choice of whether to sail a boat (and where) creates interesting opportunities for brinksmanship, screwage, and tactical alliances. This makes for a very interactive game, with lots of trash talking and wheedling.
Despite the very low rules overhead, the game is fun to play and interesting. Not a great game, but much better than I was expecting (and very good as a light/medium game that's pretty quick to explain and play).
Love the world.
Oops! Too busy this month to write up detailed game summaries.
Here are some quick reactions:
Inhabit the Earth
Quirky, interesting tableau builder feeding into a multi-front race game. I'll probably never try this with more than two. Turns can take a long time to figure out. With three or four, the downtime would be unbearable.
Empires: Age of Discovery
Lots of interesting choices and stabbiness. Good theming. Nice production. Really good game!
I was surprised to discover that Dominant Species took its worker placement system from this game. That was the thing I liked most about Dominant Species, and I liked it more in this game.
A perfectly fine puzzle/tile laying game with a cool mechanism for acquiring tiles. Excellent physical production. After a few plays it started to feel samey, but I'll probably keep it as an accessible and fairly quick light-medium game.
This is a clever design, with an interesting dice selection mechanism at its core. I liked the game play, but it felt a bit off with two. Much of the game revolves around collecting sets of "alliance" tiles from major families. As they're collected, new ones are drawn to fill the empty slots. But ones that nobody takes remain in place. In my one play, this led to stagnation, with most of the available tiles being ones neither of us needed. That was a significant problem.
Best Treehouse Ever
Cute, light, tile placement game. Fun filler.
Love the world.
(Image credit: sekwof)
Solid midweight resource management euro, with a nice look and feel.
I like (almost*) everything about this game. The theme (mining in 19th Century California) is appealing; the game play is straightforward, interesting, and balanced, with multiple paths to victory; the art design is clean, attractive, and very functional; and the game doesn't outstay its welcome.
There's a lot of replayability built into the design, with a modular board, semi-random distribution of resource tiles on the board, variable order fulfillment cards, and variable special power tiles. I'm a big fan of this kind of thing, as it keeps every play fresh.
Game play is simple. Each turn you will:
(1) Activate a mancala-like track (which is depicted, thematically, as a sluice box). This determines what cubes you'll have to work with on your turn.
(2) Spend any metal cubes to fulfill orders (for VP), acquire a special power tile (for end-game VP), or advance on the shipping track (which is a solid VP source in its own right, but often be a way to prevent wasting metal if you don't have enough to do the other actions.
(3) Build a camp or settlement, or loot a space. Choose a face up resource tile on the map and take the resources shown on the tile. If you built (which requires wood/stone) you get to put a marker in the space, which can earn you longest-chain vp at end game. You also take the marker and put it on your player board to compete for "influence" in that terrain type. If you "loot," you still get the resource cubes, but don't get to place a marker on the board or take the tile for influence.
You put your new resource cubes into one of the spaces of the mancala track. You get some immediate VP, based on how far back you put the new stuff.
That's it. Quick actions feeding into a number of interconnected VP systems.
The main criticism that people will likely level at Gold West is that it doesn't offer anything new. And it really doesn't. All of the systems have been seen before.
But everything blends together into a nice coherent whole. It's a good game, which I'd be happy to play as a 60+ minute medium euro. It's not quite a great game, but those are few and far between.
(*My one complaint about the physical design is the decision to use the big bulky stagecoach meeples on the tiny little spaces of the shipping track. There isn't room for more than one without stacking, and they don't stack well. It's inevitable that some will fall and obscure player status on the tracks. This was a notably bad decision, considering how attractive and sensible the rest of the physical design is.)
(Image credit: SapoLJackson)
Intricate heavy euro marred by significant production problems.
In terms of the game play, this was my favorite new game of the month. But there were so many irritating and inexcusably sloppy production problems, that I couldn't give it top honors for the month. "Purple" cubes that were almost exactly the same color as the red player cubes. Not enough player cubes provided to get through a complete game. Orange and brown disks that should have been light yellow and light red. Point tracking meeples that didn't match the pawns depicted as points everywhere else in the game. An absurd black monolith turn marker. With a game at this price point, it's really bad form to have these kind of easily avoidable problems. I also wish they'd stuck with the original theme of undersea city building, especially since they kept the "dilluvian" title.
With that out of the way, the game play offers a lot of interesting and novel twists on established mechanisms.
Each turn starts with an opportunity to buy bonus tiles from a grid market. Players claim different rows and columns, by parking their "zeppelin" next to one of the outside squares of the grid. Then everyone gets to buy tiles in turn order. The tile nearest to your marker costs one coin, the next two, etc. Players who have holes in their rows or columns, due to earlier players buying stuff, get "compensation" of one coin per hole.
The bonus tiles are seeded randomly to the grid and then refresh each turn to fill in holes. They do a wide range of interesting things, which may have different values for different players (depending on circumstances). This is all fun and interesting.
Then comes worker placement, with players taking turns placing worker disks to perform actions. There are a couple of interesting kinks here. You can place as many of your disks as you want on a space, allowing you to perform multiple iterations of the chosen action. Each player also has a "leader" disk. If you're the first player to use your leader disk at a particular action, you get the bonus associated with that action.
This is a city building game, so a lot of the actions build up to placing buildings on the shared board. You need to claim spaces on the board, accumulate the necessary resources (of different colors, matching the special needs of each building type), then take the building action. Once built, your buildings all provide you with income in the three main currencies (prestige, money, coins). This income entitles you to collect the currencies at the end of each round.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the game is the way that you score points. As you gain prestige (either as a reward for certain actions or as income at the end of your turn), your prestige marker moves around the scoring track. Every time it reaches a multiple of 10, you score points based on the number of buildings you've built. So prestige is important because it triggers scorings, but buildings are important because they determine your actual VP when a scoring is triggered. This is clever and fun.
There's a lot going on, with opportunities for interaction in the tile market, worker placement, and jostling for real estate on the board. Turn order can be really important (but you'll need to spend one of your actions to get ahead in turn order).
I've played this twice, 2p with my wife. It works really well at that count. Sadly, I doubt I'll get to play it with more. The game's length and its significant rules overhead would make it a poor fit for my regular group.
This is a very good game, marred by inexcusably slopping production decisions. I should not have to paint cubes and buy extras in order to play.
(Image credit: cristiQ)
Nice little card-driven area enclosure game with excellent bits.
Players are competing to hack a computer server something something. This is done by enclosing areas on the grid board, with only your nodes inside the enclosed space. This yields points equal to the number of enclosed spaces, multiplied by the number of your nodes.
The board is black plastic, with nicely formed slots and divots for placement of bright blue dividing rods and your node tiles. The electric blue against black looks really nice, in a thematic, Tron kind of way.
Player actions are determined by playing or discarding cards. There's a common market of cards that you can choose from, or you can play one of your special cards. Every player has a different mini-deck of special power cards. You draw a subset of them each game, creating lots of variability between plays and asymmetry between players.
If you play a card, you get to perform the action it depicts. If you discard a card, you get to place another node somewhere on the board.
I've only played this as a two-player so far. It's a good fast-playing game, though the luck of the card draw as the market refreshes can feel a bit swingy. Very nice game overall.
(Image credit: Thorin2001)
Very light tile-laying route-building simultaneous placement race game.
Players have identical tile sets that depict paths through the jungle and are playing on identically configured jungle boards (showing different colored starting points and ending points -- i.e., "temples"). Numbers are drawn, bingo-style, then everyone simultaneously takes that tile from their set and decides what to do with it.
You can either place it on the board or discard it to move one of your four colored explorers along an already established path. The number of path exits on the tile determines how many spaces the explorer can move.
Some tiles come with gold or gems. Explorers that stop on those spaces collect them for VP. Explorers that reach temples get a diminishing number of VP based on whether others have been first to reach that temple on their boards (i.e., first gets 5, second gets 3, etc.)
It's thoroughly multi-player solitaire, with no interaction (other than the race to be first to the various temples). Play is pretty brisk and the choices are interesting in a puzzly way.
We did run into one weird thing. Since players are racing, sometimes you want to know whether an opponent is getting closer to a temple before deciding what to do with your tile. This often leads to two players waiting on each other to act before acting. I couldn't see a solution for this in the rules, and their are no player screens. We house-ruled it with an "on three" simultaneous placement. But it felt like a kludge.
This is a perfectly fine game, though too light and luck dependent for my taste.
(Image credit: bhz1)
Classic asymmetrical LCG.
This was as smart and interesting as everyone else has said.
But my wife hated it, and I don't have the time and energy required to make the most of it.
Glad to have tried it!
Love the world.
This was a great month for new-to-me games. I didn't play many, but most of the ones I did try were excellent.
In fact, I had an extremely hard time deciding which of the top two games to list as the "best" of the month.
But ultimately, I gave Star Wars: Rebellion a bump for nostalgia. Star Wars is pretty deeply embedded in my geek-programming. I was just 13 years old when the first (I refuse to say fourth) Star Wars movie came out. There I was, sitting in a darkened theater on a Saturday afternoon, when this happened:
I was hooked.
Star Wars: Rebellion
(Image credit: W Eric Martin)
A strong evocation of the original Star Wars story arc, thoroughly infused into a fun, card-driven, counterinsurgency game.
First, the obvious. This game is beautifully produced. There are a ton of nicely-sculpted minis (made of a strong material; I have no concerns about breakage), stacks of nice-looking cards with original art, and a functional and attractive board showing a map of the main planetary systems and a couple of simple bookkeeping tracks. (I was annoyed to find Naboo on the board -- when I play the Empire I'll be tempted to test the Death Star there.) It's a very nice package, consistent with the relatively high price point.
Happily, the game play is also excellent. Here's a quick overview:
The main driver of game play is the set of "leaders" that each faction controls. Everything you do in the game will be performed by your leaders. They are the action currency of the game (with differing capabilities based on their skills and tactical strengths).
Each turn begins with the players deciding how to "assign" their leaders for the turn. Leaders can be assigned to attempt a variety of "missions" or held in reserve.
To assign a leader to a mission, you select a mission card from your hand, place it face down, and place one or two leaders on top of it (collectively, the assigned leaders must have enough of the right kind of "skill" icon to meet the minimum skill requirement shown on the mission card).
Leaders that are held in reserve can be used later in the turn to (1) trigger strategic movement of units on the board or (2) react to and oppose an opponent's mission.
The assignment phase already presents an important and interesting decision. How do you allocate your scarce leader resources between your missions, strategic movement, and holding resources back to foil your opponent's missions?
Once the assignment phase is over, players take turns performing a single action (either a mission attempt or a strategic movement), until both sides pass.
Missions. To attempt a mission, flip over one of your face down mission cards and move the assigned leader(s) to the planet where the mission will take place.
Some missions are "resolved" (i.e., are automatically successful). You just do what the card says.
But others require an "attempt." If an attempt is unopposed, the mission will automatically succeed. But if the mission is opposed, dice will need to be rolled to determine its success.
A mission is opposed if there are enemy leaders on the same planet with skills that match the mission's skill requirement. Those can be leaders who were already there (from earlier placements in the turn) or an additional single leader that your opponent moved from her reserve to oppose your mission.
Players each tally up the relevant skill icons on all of their leaders on the planet and roll that many dice. The player attempting the mission must achieve more "successes" on the dice roll than their opponent in order to succeed with the mission.
Missions do all kinds of cool, thematic, and useful things. As just one example, in my game Han Solo sabotaged military production in an Imperial system. Vader responded by capturing him. Later in the turn, the Imperials "interrogated" Han, successfully extracting key information about the location of the rebel base. This was thematically evocative and had a major effect on the course of the game.
Strategic Movement. The rules for strategic movement are simple. Just place one of your reserved military leaders (i.e., one with tactic ratings) into any star system. You can then move units from adjacent systems to the one where you placed the leader. The leader effectively draws units into that system.
The only limitations on strategic movement are (1) you can't move units from a system that already has one of your leaders (they're busy), and (2) ground units and TIE fighters need to be transported on starships in order to move (the different starships have different capacity to transport these units). That's it. A nice clean system that creates interesting strategic considerations with very little overhead.
If units move into a system that's already occupied by enemy units, there may be a battle. I say "may" be a battle, because each system has two "theaters," ground and space. Ground units only battle ground units and space units only battle space units. If you only move space units into a system that only has enemy ground units, there won't be a fight. The space units will just glare down at the occupying troops.
I won't describe the combat system, which involves the plastic minis, dice chucking, a simple differentiation between heavy and light units, some fixed defense units with special powers, and leaders playing "tactics" card (which can be critical). It's fun and is simple and quick enough not to bog down the strategic part of the game.
After the players have finished performing actions, there's a refresh phase. Depending on which turn it is, you may recruit new leaders (who also come with one-time special powers) and/or produce new military units.
The military production system is very simple. Each planet has icons representing what units it can build. The icons indicate whether the unit is ground or space and whether it is little, medium, or big. The player's have boards that indicate which of their specific units fit those categories (e.g., the Imperial small, medium, and large ground units are storm troopers, AT-ST, and AT-AT, respectively).
With one exception, you only get to produce units on planets that are "loyal" to your faction. The exception is that the Empire gets a weak version of production at any planet where they have ground troops. These planets are "subjugated" rather than loyal. You can never build or deploy units on a planet that is sabotaged or that has enemy units in-system.
Each planet also has a number indicating where to put built units in the player's production queue (spaces 1-3). This determines how long it will take for the unit to be ready for deployment.
After all units have been placed on the production queue, the units on the queue are advanced one space. Units on space three move to two, etc. Units that were on space 1 get deployed to your production-capable planets.
Again, this is a nice, clean system that gives some food for thought without getting in the way.
Way up top I said that this is a counterinsurgency game. In other words, while it's sort of a simplified wargame, it's an asymmetric wargame. The rebels don't win by beating the empire in open warfare. They win by not losing.
The Empire has much greater military resources, but it doesn't know the location of the rebel base. This is the thematic and mechanical hook of the game (and the films). To win, the Empire must find the rebel base and destroy it (before time runs out and the increasing sympathy for the rebellion triggers an Empire-wide uprising).
The rebels must misdirect and distract the Empire and build political support from the unaligned systems through diplomatic missions, guerrilla actions, and the occasional small battle. Over the course of the game, the rebels will have access to "objective" cards. Those cards state specific goals (e.g., gain loyalty on every populous world in a region, win a ground battle on a subjugated system, etc.). If those goals are achieved, the game clock is advanced toward rebel victory.
The Empire uses probe droids (a deck of cards that includes all of the locations where the base isn't located -- think Clue on steriods), intel missions, and the landing of ground troops to gradually figure out the location of the base.
Once the Empire finds the base, they need to gather enough troops there to wipe out the force that the rebel player has been secretly building over the course of the game (constructed units can be deployed to a virtual "rebel base" holding box on the map; this allows for a build-up without revealing the actual location of the base on the map).
I've only played once, but here are my overall impressions:
• If you're a Star Wars fan, you need to at least try this game. It's basically Star Wars: the Game. I would have killed to have this when I was a kid.
• It's a lot of fun. The two sides play very differently, with rebels hiding and striking from the darkness and the Empire grinding their way forward, seeking to crush the puny rebellion once and for all. This is all driven by the major characters from the movies, with lots of thematically appealing (and strategically important) missions.
• There's a fair amount of rules overhead, but the rules are actually fairly simple. Once learned, they get out of the way. There are a lot of clever design choices, with fairly simple mechanisms producing interesting decisions (with good graphic design making the game easier to play). And the theme and mechanisms are in close enough harmony that the game feels very intuitive play.
• Be warned, the game is long. Expect four hours at least. That said, you really don't notice the passage of time. My friend and I had been playing for three hours before I noticed how much time had passed (I was getting hungry!). It felt more like 90 minutes.
The long play time is unfortunate, because it means that the game won't get played very often. On the other hand, we were completely engaged the whole time, without any sense of downtime or tedium.
In short, set aside a big block of time if you're going to play, but expect it to be worthwhile.
• By every measure, this is a great game. It's one of a handful of games I've rated "9" (and I don't rate games "10").
Through the Ages: A New Story of Civilization
(Image credit: myparadox)
The pinnacle of engine-building.
My wife and I have always enjoyed engine-building games, where you invest resources to buy assets that produce resources. You do this until you've got enough of a resource engine going to start buying assets that produce victory points. There's a lot of satisfaction in getting your engine up and cranking, allowing you to do much bigger and flashier things in the late game.
Through the Ages is the pinnacle of the genre. It has a wide range of choices, difficult maintenance problems that must be carefully managed, and a long arc that allows you to guide your civilization from the bronze age to modernity.
The game has a huge stack of cards, offering a lot of variety in how you choose to customize your position. These are sorted into four "ages," which allows the game to ramp up over its arc, with more powerful (and expensive) cards coming out later in the game. The cards also provide a lot of satisfying thematic hooks.
I'm not going to try to describe the rules in any detail. There's just too much to cover. But here are some high points:
• Each turn you can begin by playing a political card. These cards potentially affect all players. It's one of the main sources of interaction. These include events (some good, mostly bad), aggression and wars, and an opportunity to colonize new lands. Colonization is interesting because it involves an auction in which the players bid military units. Whoever wins the auction, gets the benefits of the colony but has to "spend" military units (presumably sending them away to occupy the new land).
• Then you perform actions. There are two kinds, civil and military. Civil actions let you do things like acquire cards from the central card row, build buildings, develop new technologies, play cards from hand, etc. Military actions allow you to build new military units and draw military cards into hand.
• Your current government type determines how many actions of each type you get each turn. This also determines your hand size limit for civil and military cards. You can change your type of government as the game progresses, by paying the appropriate costs and actions. This will change the number of actions you get of each type, increase the number of buildings you can have in operation, and may give you some other minor bonuses.
• There is a very clever system for tracking your development of technologies and your assignment of population to different tasks. The system also automatically tracks maintenance costs (food requirements, level of corruption, and the level of "happiness" required to avoid unrest). Once you understand how the system works it becomes very simple to see what's going on and make changes.
• Military plays a significant role, and there are a lot of interesting things you can do with your military units (raids against other players, supremacy in events that reward the strongest or punish the weakest, wars, and colonization). If your opponent starts building a military, you can't entirely ignore it or you'll be punished. But in my couple of plays it hasn't been overwhelming.
I've only played this two-player, with my wife. We've really enjoyed it. This is a very mature design, without many rough edges. The systems are solid, interesting, and smooth. (The biggest hitch for us was learning the different ways that military costs are paid for different kinds of military actions; that felt a little wonky.) There's a fair amount of complexity, but the book-keeping doesn't feel burdensome. The game is longish (2-3 hours with two) but doesn't outstay its welcome.
If you like engine-building card tableau games, and don't balk at playing heavier games, you should definitely give this a play. I don't know how it would be with higher player counts, but as a two-player game it was excellent.
If it weren't for Star Wars Rebellion getting played this month, TTA would easily have had the top slot. This is a great game.
(Image credit: ZaNaBoZa)
Clever, visually interesting, 3-D abstract.
Players compete to get their dobbers to the highest level of a constantly changing tower of multicolored blocks of different sizes.
Game play is very simple. On your turn you may move a block, changing its location in the tower and/or the orientation of its differently colored faces. Then you may move your dobber on the tower. You can only move onto or over block faces that match your dobber's color or that are neutral gray.
You can step up from one block to another, but only by a half-step. Each player has a short ladder that lets them move up a full step (once per game) and a long ladder that lets them move up two full steps (once per game). Ladders can also be used as bridges to cross chasms.
The game ends when every player in turn is unable to move their dobbers to a higher level in the tower. The player with the highest dobber wins (with ties broken in favor of the player who got to that level first).
There are a few other minor rules about block placement and dobber movement, but that's basically it.
I really liked it. This is a game (like Taluva) where the three-dimensionality of the play space isn't just a gimmick. It's fundamental to the game. You really need to get your head around what's going on spatially. Once you do, you'll see lots of clever opportunities for trickiness and dickishness.
Our one play also had a fun opportunity for collusion. One player had raced far ahead to the top of a very tall spire, with the remaining three of us lagging way below. If the game were to end, the spire player would win. So the rest of us agreed to collaborate, placing blocks to ensure that all of us could continue to move higher in the structure, thereby deferring the game's end. This alliance continued until we started to get into striking distance of the lead. As our common interest started to fade, it was fun to see who would defect first, shifting the game back from being a semi-coop into a dog-eat-dog competition. This made the game much more interesting than I was expecting (though maybe a bit frustrating for the early leader).
The game also looks great on the table. Lots of people from other games kept coming up to watch what we were doing and try to figure out the rules just by observing. It drew a lot of attention.
The Climbers is longer and heavier than a filler, but simpler and more social than a euro. In it's niche, it's strongly recommended.
One last note: if you have access to a lazy susan, you should use it to play this game. Otherwise, players will need to constantly get up and walk around the table to see all of the possibilities.
Odin's Ravens (second edition)
(Image credit: chichisbud)
Tit for tat 2p racing game, with players having identical decks of cards.
I've never played the original edition, so I can't compare the first and second edition game play. I can say that Osprey has been doing some great work releasing really handsome versions of out of print games. I'm very glad to see them occupying that niche. This is a beautifully produced game, with really nice graphic design and art throughout.
Unfortunately, I didn't like the game much. I'm not faulting the game. It seems well-designed, with good opportunities for clever tactical play. I'm just not much of a fan of racing games.
Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:44 pm
Love the world.
Food Chain Magnate
(Image credit: toynan)
My favorite Splotter game, by far.
I've acquired, played,and enjoyed most of the games published by Splotter Spellen -- Indonesia, Antiquity, Roads & Boats, and Great Zimbabwe. They're all interesting and deep, with an emphasis on logistical planning. But they're also fiddly as hell, with tons of little bits to manage, often in crowded spaces. And they generally don't work well (or at all) with two. I've ultimately sold or traded away all of them.
I think I'll be keeping Food Chain Magnate. It's got the depth and logistical focus that I was expecting, but I found it much more accessible and fun to play than the other games I listed above. Less like a challenging problem to solve and more like a game. A fun game.
The game has two main elements.
The first is a classic Splotteresque puzzle. At the end of every turn, some neighborhoods on the map may want to buy fast food of various types (pizza, burgers, lemonade, beer, and cola). Whether a neighorhood wants to buy, what they want to buy, and how much, is determined by player-initiated marketing campaigns -- place a burger billboard next to a neighborhood and those folks will want burgers. But which player's restaurant will satisfy that burger demand? There's a formula for that. A neighborhood will only buy from a restaurant chain that satisfies all of its wants (i.e., if a neighborhood wants burgers and beer, it won't go to a chain that only offers one of those items). If more than one chain can provide the goods, the business will go to the restaurant chain that has the lowest total of cost + distance (e.g., if one player is charging 9 and is 2 tiles away, it will lose out to a chain that is charging 9 and has a restaurant 1 tile away). Ties are broken in favor of the restaurant with the most waitresses; if still tied, the player earlier in turn order sells the goods.
Money is VP in this game, and the lion's share of money comes from selling goods to satisfy neighborhood demands. So it's crucial to have the goods that are in demand, at the best price and location. This part of the game is interesting, but very procedural. There are no choices to be made at this point; you just execute an algorithm and see who gets to sell goods.
The second element of the game is what really makes FCM fun to play. It involves a deck-building system that is used to "hire" and use employees. Each employee is represented on a card and can perform a different specific function. Some need to be paid salaries every turn (entry level employees work for free).
At the beginning of every turn, you decide which of your employees will be "working" this turn, and which will be on paid vacation "at the beach." In order to be working, an employee must be placed into an available slot in your company's org chart. Your CEO can support three slots, which means that initially you can only employ your CEO and three employees. But "managers" provide additional slots (e.g., a management trainee provides two slots). So if you have a management trainee under your CEO, you now have four slots for employees (two unfilled CEO slots and the two provided by the trainee). See the image above for an example of how workers can be slotted in below managers.
Your non-management workers are the ones that actually do things for you (e.g., cook burgers, run ad campaigns, etc.) but you'll also need managers or you won't be able to grow your organization to support more than three workers.
One more key thing -- there are "trainers," who can be used to cause some workers to "level up" to more advanced kinds of workers. That is the only way to acquire those higher-level workers. Oh, and you can only train employees who are currently "at the beach." So you've got to sideline a worker for a turn in order to train them.
This part of the game is brilliant fun. You're building an engine, constrained by management slot limitations, salary costs, training capacity and scheduling -- all while competing with the other players to satisfy neighborhood demands for food and drink (demand that is being entirely created by player-initiated ad campaigns). This juggling act is interesting, fun, and challenging, without feeling overwhelming.
The two halves of the game fit together quite well. First players decide their work structures and perform their actions. Then the neighborhoods buy food and drinks to satisfy their demands -- nom nom -- and the players that sold those goods get paid. This continues until the bank is busted twice. Player with the most money wins.
And there's one more very important wrinkle, which elevates everything up to another level of painful fun. The game has 18 "milestones" that players can achieve. Each milestone states a condition that must be met (e.g., first burger marketed) and a special power that is provided to any players that achieve the milestone (e.g., +$5 per burger sold). The trick is that only the first players to achieve a milestone's condition get the reward. More than one player can achieve the milestone in the same turn, if they're jointly "first" to meet the condition. But after that, the milestone becomes unavailable to all other players. This creates a series of important races in the early game, to determine which players will have which special powers (most of which are very strong). This involves very interesting trade-offs that will have a major effect on your strategic direction.
I haven't yet managed to play FCM with more than two, but I'm really looking forward to it. With only two, the game is a bit zero-sum. One player can get a structural lead and run away with it. I imagine that it would be easier to prevent that with more players throwing wrenches (especially through marketing and price management).
I'm rating this an 8 right now, with the possibility that the rating will go up or down. If it plays great with higher numbers (without too much AP), the rating will go up and this could be a 10 (the game play mechanics are that much fun). But if multi-player is too slow and two-player turns out to be consistently one-sided, then the rating could drop a bit.
This is a "milestone" design. Brilliant.
Oh My Goods!
(Image credit: William Hunt)
Interesting resource-management filler card game.
Every turn, a variable number of resource cards are dealt into a common supply, in two phases.
After the first phase (when players still don't know what resources might appear in the second phase), players assign their worker to one of their production buildings. Players can also choose a card from their hands to "build" as a new production building.
After the second set of common resource cards are drawn, players determine whether their assigned workers succeeded in making anything. Each building has a fixed resource cost to start production and a separate resource cost to continue production. Start-up resource costs can be paid from the common supply (which does not consume those cards; they remain available to all players) or by discarding cards from a player's hand or from storage on production buildings. Resources paid to continue production can only be from discarded cards -- the common resources cannot be used for this.
For example, my Charburner building needs wood and grain to start up production of charcoal. It needs wood for continued production. On my turn, I satisfy the start-up cost from the common supply and produce 1 or 2 units of charcoal. I then discard three wood from my hand to continue production, producing three more units of charcoal.
Cards are played face down onto a building to represent units of the goods produced by that building (in the example above, 4 or 5 cards would be placed face down to represent stored units of charcoal). Each good type has a different monetary value.
One important thing about producing goods: some of the resource costs require "finished" goods, which can only be acquired through production. None of the common resource cards will provide those goods. So, for example, the shoemaker requires leather as a start up resource. To pay that cost, you'll need to have already produced leather at one of your other production buildings. This creates interesting chaining opportunities, with goods being leveled up to higher and higher value finished goods (e.g., cows->leather->shoes).
After producing goods, players have the chance to build the building card they chose earlier (if any), paying the monetary cost of construction by discarding stored goods. Stored goods can also be discarded to pay resource costs on production cards
You also have an opportunity to hire one or more extra workers, which will let you operate more than one of your production buildings per turn.
The game ends after a player has built a specified number of buildings. VP are awarded for constructed buildings, purchased assistance, and 1/5 for leftover monetary value in stored goods.
The game plays briskly and requires just enough planning and coordination to be thinky (without being draining). It strikes a nice balance for a fun thinky filler that's quite easy to teach and play. There's a healthy dollop of luck in terms of the common resource card flops and the cards drawn into players' hands, but there's also some scope for mitigation. If you really hate luck effects, this might not be for you.
Strongly recommended, in its niche.
(Image credit: spielmaterial)
Somewhat cut-throat logistics sequencing game.
There are a lot of things to like about this game:
• Each turn begins with a resource acquisition phase, where players take turns moving a pawn down a resource track. Each space on the track provides some benefit (sometimes with an associated cost). Some of the benefits are in very limited supply, and it's first come-first, first-served. Turn order in the next phase of the game (which may be crucial) is determined by the order in which players complete the resource track. First to finish is start player, etc.
This creates a cool brinksmanship element. Looking down the path, you see some things that you *really* want (or desperately need). Do you race ahead to those, skipping over a bunch of valuable stuff, in order to be sure to snag the critical items? Or perhaps you're racing ahead because you absolutely must be start player in the next phase? That leaves other players free to mosey along, picking up all the bits you skipped over. This presents fun angsty trade-offs.
• In the second phase, you use workers (that you acquired in the resource phase) to cut down trees and store them in your wood pile. Then you need to transport them to your mill, using laborers or rafts or sleds (all of which are resources). Once they're in your mill you can move them to the sale area or send them to be cut into boards (once you have the necessary sawyers and saws from the resource track). Cut boards also get sent to the sale area. Then you get to sell wood (boards are more valuable than uncut logs).
• If wood in the sale area isn't sold, it's dried instead, increasing its value.
We played the expert game, which adds some special "deferred actions" and special goal cards (which pay big end-game VP if you complete an order with the right types of wood at the specified degree of dryness.
It's all pretty intricate, with the different subsystems being very interdependent. It's important to plan ahead, or you'll be wasting scarce time and resources. But it's very easy for someone to put a wrench into your plans, taking a resource that you absolutely needed or jumping ahead of you in turn order and snitching the last of the hard wood that you were counting on to fill a special order.
I admire the design and am glad to have played it (at 2p only) but was also glad to sell it and recoup its very high purchase price. If the rumored US reprint ever materializes I'd be glad to reacquire it. Good game; maybe great if it's in your wheelhouse.
(Image credit: fehrmeister)
Much better when given a fair shake.
In 2012, I tried Walnut Grove as a solo game and gave it a "meh" write-up (rating it a 6). That wasn't really fair, since I don't really like solo gaming.
I've now tried it with two and can say that it is quite good. It's a very clean design, with excruciatingly tight resource management and maintenance costs to manage. It also plays really quickly, with much of the action being simultaneous. I really want to play it with three or four.
(Image credit: nunovix)
Well designed dice drafting game that didn't really grab me.
This has many things in common with Village, its thematic predecessor. You're producing goods for sale, investing in churches, and traveling to distant places. Actions require an expenditure of "time," which drives you toward the inevitable death of your workers (which is not entirely bad, because it scores you VP).
But, mechanically, it stands on its own. The game's engine involves dice drafting (with some mechanisms to manipulate the dice to get the numbers you need). Each turn you select a pair of dice from a common pool and then use them to acquire a card or activate a power (some are starting powers; others only become available when you get a card). When you choose to activate a power, you get to activate every power you have that matches the number you chose. So getting cards with common numbers into your tableau is a big deal. Done right, it lets you significantly amplify the effect of your turn.
It's a good game, but not great. I'd be happy to play again, but probably wouldn't suggest it. I'd be fine selling or trading away my copy.
Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:29 pm
Love the world.
In case you're interested in seeing some foamcore insert pr0n, here's where I wound up with an attempt at customized storage:
Everything through Wave 2 is neatly stored in that cube, with room for Wave 3.
Details are in this geeklist:
Armada Foamcore Storage
Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:00 pm
Love the world.
7 Wonders: Duel
(Image credit: sekwof)
Quick fun 2-player 7 Wonders that works.
My wife and I tried 7 Wonders with the 2p rules that come in the box. It was okay -- 7 Wonders is already something of a multi-player solitaire game, with the only interaction being the card drafting choices, military competition with your left and right neighbors, and resource sharing with your immediate neighbors. So whittling that down to one immediate neighbor didn't completely break the game. But it wasn't interesting enough to try it again.
I'm happy to say that 7 Wonders Duel manages to keep the look and feel of 7 Wonders but reshape it into a tight and interesting two player experience.
Card drafting has been replaced with a stacked tableau of cards each era, with certain cards overlapped by others (see the partial Era 1 structure in the image above). Each turn you acquire a card from the tableau, but can only select a card that isn't overlapped by other cards. This creates scope for looking ahead and interesting decisions about whether to take a card that will expose a card your opponent wants.
You no longer buy resources you need from neighboring opponents. Instead, you buy from the bank. But the cost of resources is increased for each resource of that type your opponent produces.
The endgame science card set collection scoring is gone. Instead, if you collect pairs of science card types (e.g., two cards showing "gears") you immediately get to choose an achievement token from a face-up set (which varies game to game). Some of those are pretty strong. Also, if you collect six different science cards, you immediately win. That really amps up the tension in the card selection part of the turn.
The military system has been replaced with a track that indicates relative military dominance, based on military cards played (e.g, if I have 3 more military than you, the military dobber is three spaces closer to your side of the table). If you can push your dominance level high enough, you can impose limited penalties on your opponent and score endgame VP. Push dominance to its highest level and you immediately win. Again, the prospect of a successful sudden death win amps up the card selection tension.
Instead of just having one Wonder card to build up, players draft four each from a game-variable set of available Wonders. Only 7 can be built, so this creates a little bit of a race to be the first to build 4 (if things develop that way in the game). Wonders each give you a different useful boost when built.
All of that creates a game that still feels like 7 Wonders (in a very good way) but is recast to make it a tense and enjoyable 2 player game.
The Golden Ages
(Image credit: Oblivion)
Relatively simple and short civ game that ticks enough boxes to be a very good example of the genre. Fun too!
This is a very clever design. The rules are relatively straightforward (for a civ game; still a bit on the complex side for a euro). Turns are short, leading to brisk game play. There's a nice arc of development, with meaningful player differentiation (based on acquisition of new technologies, purchase of buildings and wonders, the gradual exploration of the world map, and "civilization" cards that give players modest special powers as the game progresses through its four rounds).
There's a very smart passing mechanism that introduces some interesting timing pressure. Once you pass, others can continue to take actions but you'll get 2 coins every time play comes back to you. The longer it takes for the round to wind down, the more money you'll have to start the next turn. Also, the first to pass gets to choose the VP scoring rule for the end of the round (from a face-up set of 5 cards). This can be worked to your advantage if timed right. One card won't be chosen at all in the game; controlling that can be really important.
I've only played it with two, and it worked very well at that count. It's simple enough that I'm looking forward to trying it with my game group. I think it will shine a bit more brightly with more players crowding the map and competing for the best buildings and wonders.
One last note: I like Alexandre Roche's artwork, and the game generally has a nice clean look to it. But there are a couple of graphic design choices that I found irritating. First, none of the cards have their names on them. If you need to look up what they do, you'll need to scan through the pictures of the cards in the rulebook in order to find the one you're interested in -- rather than finding it alphabetized by name. That was a minor annoyance, but compounded the bigger problem that I had. Some of the wonder cards offer a purchase discount if you currently hold a particular civilization card. This discount is depicted on the wonder card with an absurdly small image, which is supposed to match the image on the civ card. I found that completely unhelpful, which meant I needed to look up the wonder card (scanning the rules for its image) and read its description. The description then states the discount by the name of the relevant civ card, which of course isn't shown on that card. Meaning I now need to scan the rules for the name of the civ card and see if its image matches mine or an opponent's. I understand that Quined made an international edition, and so didn't want to have to choose a single language to use in printing card names. But Stronghold's edition was English-only. It would have been a big help to put names on the cards.
(Image credit: Gonzaga)
Highly interactive and intricate heavy euro.
Mombasa is a fun game if you like moderately heavy euros (as I do). There are lots of different things to do and they interrelate in interesting ways. The most intriguing bits are:
• A simple deck-building and hand-management system. Every player starts with the same deck of cards (with a couple of minor tweaks at the beginning of play to introduce differentiation). Each turn, players simultaneously choose 3 cards (later, this number might increase to 4 or 5) and play them face down in "slots." Each slot has its own discard pile above it.
All of the players' cards are revealed and then the cards that you played can be used by you to perform actions on the turn.
At the end of the turn, all players will choose one of their discard piles to return to their hands and then the cards played that turn are pushed up into their corresponding discard pile. This means that you have limited (but still meaningful) control about which of your previously discarded cards will cycle back into your hand and when. This mechanism creates a lot of interesting decisions about what to play, where, and when, as it requires you to think about building combos in your discard piles for eventual use when you pull them back into your hand. Fun stuff.
You can also use some actions to buy new cards from a face up market (which partially flushes and refreshes each turn). This lets you tailor the content of your deck toward certain types of actions. This creates scope to emphasize alternate paths and introduces more interesting card management decisions.
• Highly interactive share ownership system. One of the actions you can perform allows you to move your marker up an investment track for any of the four companies that exist in the game. There are checkpoints along each company's track. Some give you money. Some require payment of money to proceed further up the track. Some unlock worker placement actions that are only available to players who have moved that far up that track. Some give you a "share" in the corresponding company. At the end of the game, you will earn VP for each share that you hold in a company, based on the value of that company at the end of the game.
The value of each company depends on how many trading posts it has out on the map. And that is controlled by another kind of player action -- exploration. When you explore, you get points that can be used to build a company's trading posts to the map. This is geographically constrained (trading posts must expand out from existing posts on the map, and cost more points to cross difficult terrain borders). Most importantly, you can pay an extra point to displace another company's trading post with one of the company that you're expanding. The displaced trading post goes back to that company's supply, potentially diminishing its share value.
This creates fun and interesting scope for emergent alliances and shenanigans. If two or more players are invested in the same company, they have a joint incentive to work together to increase or protect its value. Players who aren't invested in that company have an incentive to push its value down, by displacing its trading posts with those of companies that they are invested in. Good stuff.
• Important VP subsystems. There are two major subsystems (diamonds and book-keeping) that can be pursued to net a significantly high number of endgame VP. These systems also unlock slots for your 4th and 5th cards (which allow you to play more cards per turn, but also complicate the hand-management part of the game by creating 4th and 5th discard piles, thereby diluting the value of pulling a particular discard pile back into your hand). The book-keeping system also allows you to get a series of small rewards as you progress, based on which "books" you've selected (using rules that are too intricate to explain here).
These subsystems are important. The VP they offer is large enough that it is risky to ignore them. This keeps players from simply focusing on the share ownership and company value manipulation, which would probably not be enough to carry a game of this length and weight on its own.
That said, those subsystems feel a little tacked. And the book-keeping system feels unduly complicated (and hard to explain). This is probably my biggest concern about the game.
Despite those minor misgivings, this is a very good game -- fun and interactive, with lots to think about.
I do wish they'd picked a theme other than colonialism. But views differ significantly on whether that kind of thing matters. If it doesn't matter to you, then no worries. (And I should say that there's nothing in the game play itself that directly evokes any particularly ugly bit of historical theme; it's all very abstracted.)
The Bloody Inn
(Image credit: W Eric Martin)
Sweeney Todd: the Card Game.
This is a solidly designed and reasonably fun card game, elevated by its morbid theme and darkly ugly card art (the art is quite well done and aesthetically pleasing; just a bit grotesque in its style; see above).
Players are innkeepers who have decided that a lot more money can be made by murdering their guests and burying the bodies in an "annex" (fortunately, they aren't baked into pies; maybe that will be an expansion).
The game's fairly procedural. To commit your crimes you must take a series of actions to prepare an annex, kill a guest, then bury the body. That's three actions and you only get two per turn, which can be awkward if police are present at the end of the round.
There are card synergies to manage, timing stress, and the fun of roleplaying a bit within the macabre theme (if it doesn't offend you too much).
I've only played once, with four, and it worked well. The winner blew us out by scoring a card that gave large endgame VP. None of the rest of us had any endgame VP cards. Lesson learned. (I'm a bit concerned that these cards might create a bit of an arms race; if one player gets one, everyone needs one or you're out of the running. I'm not sure about that, based on just one play, but it had that feeling.)
Good game, mostly carried by its theme (meaning you can probably stay away if that theme doesn't appeal).
(Image credit: vdutrait)
Pleasant, light, dice placement game with beautiful art.
This is a very well-designed dice placement game themed around the naturalist explorations of Lewis & Clark in the American West. The card art is really attractive, and it's interesting to see the extent to which the explorers are dependent on the kindness and assistance of the various native communities they encountered.
The game is fairly simple and quick to understand and play, with pretty brisk turns.
That said, it didn't really grab me. For me, it was good, but not great. I'll play if asked, but will probably be trading it on.
A Study in Emerald (second edition)
(Image credit: jsper)
Cthulhu-Victorian espionage mash up with enormous thematic flavor and interesting game play; unsurprisingly dull with two.
I'm reserving judgment on this until I get a chance to try it with the number of players it was designed for (4-5). At two, it was far too zero sum and flat to be interesting. Both times my wife and I played, we were both on the same faction, which eliminated a whole arena for competition. In short, not a good two player game, but I'm eager (and optimistic) to tr it with more. I'll do a full write-up when I've had that chance.
Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:00 pm
Love the world.
2015: The Year of the Toys
I'm mostly a euro fan. I love a quality 60-90 minute efficiency game with great bits and just enough theme to hang my hat on. The Voyages of Marco Polo, Nippon, Isle of Skye: From Chieftain to King, and Orléans: Deluxe Edition were all great examples of new-to-me games of that type. Excellent stuff.
What I'm not usually interested in is "thematic" games, dudes-on-a-map, miniatures combat, or anything with tons of little plastic men. My wife generally dislikes those kinds of games, they're hard to fit into my game group, and I'm often put off by the juvenile art design and thematic elements.
So imagine my surprise that my favorite new games of 2015 were dripping in plastic toys and steeped in nerd-themes.
My clear favorite was Star Wars: Armada.
(Image credit: Shut up and Sit Down video)
In case you've been living under a rock, it's a Star Wars fleet miniatures game, with capital ships and squadrons of fighters (and now single-ship rogue "squadrons," like the Millenium Falcon). The game has some brilliant design work that allows for relatively simple game play despite an interesting range of variation between unit types (with lots of scope for customization of units with upgrades and officers who give special powers).
The game play has an engaging combined-arms strategic feel to it, that really suits the scale. And the classic Star Wars art design, with nicely sculpted and painted minis, provides a great thematic look and feel to the game play.
[Sadly, if Asmodee moves to block online discounting of FFG titles, I'll probably take a pass on any future waves of Armada ships. I love the game, but I've already got enough to keep me happy. And the MSRP pricing is a notch higher than I'm willing to pay for more little plastic toys.]
The strong runner up was Blood Rage.
(Image credit: BoardGamesAsArt)
Here the art and theming is a little closer to my discomfort zone (Blood! Rage! Barbarian Women in Bikinis!) but the sculpting on the miniatures is so absurdly well done, that I'm able to look past it.
Perhaps more importantly, the game play is really top notch. This is an extremely well-developed game with elements of card drafting, area control, player asymmetry through customization, card-based diceless combat, and wonderful thematic integration (e.g., sometimes you want to lose a battle, because you'll get more points from sending your people to Valhalla). It's a near perfect hybrid of euro and Amerithrash, with a manageable level of length and complexity, and some of the nicest looking plastic toys I've seen in a game. The only reason I haven't played it more is that I felt compelled to paint the minis (and I'm too OCD to play with half-painted bits). Considering the mountain of miniatures that came with the game, I hope to be playing again some time before 2017.
I also got a surprising amount of fun out of social deduction games in 2015 (another niche I usually don't find myself in). Codenames, Monikers, and Spyfall were all very smart, well-designed, and fun, with significant crossover appeal (i.e., popular in my game group and with nongamers). Although I haven't yet tried it with non-gamers, I also really enjoyed Mysterium (using the original rules).
Happy New Year!
Love the world.
(Image credit: Sentieiro)
Very good heavy euro, with many interlocking parts.
I was initially drawn to the theme of Nippon -- the industrialization of Japan -- as I'm a big fan of development games set in the industrial revolution.
This is a good one, with lots of features that I like. You can build factories that produce different types of goods (each factory also provides a unique bonus power); install machinery to improve the output of your factories when they operate; operate factories to produce goods; sell goods to foreign markets to fulfill contracts; or sell goods locally to gain influence in the various regions (which score area majority VP three times over the course of the game). You can also build trains or ships to boost your influence and VP in the area majority scoring.
You've got to spend money and coal to buy infrastructure and operate factories (respectively). Those are real bottlenecks, which have to be carefully managed.
The distinctive feature of the game is its action selection mechanism. Meeples in six colors are distributed to the various action spaces (three per space). On your turn, you either take one of those meeples and perform the associated action or "consolidate." When you take a meeple, you add it to your player board.
When you consolidate, you discard all of the meeples you've accumulated on your player board through action selection. If you have accumulated 3-6 meeples, you get to take a bonus tile, valued 2x to 5x respectively. The bonus tile gives you an immediate infusion of cash, coal, or knowledge. More importantly, you get to place the tile as a VP multiplier for end game scoring. There are 9 different end game VP scoring possibilities; your bonus tile multiplier placement determines how much they'll be worth (e.g., if you place the 5x tile on the space for factories, you'll get 5 VP for each medium or large factory you've built) .
The catch is that you need to pay the workers that you discard during consolidation. And the pay depends on how many colors you've collected before you consolidate -- 3,000 yen per color. This constrains your action choice in interesting ways, as you're always trying to avoid taking new colors of meeples in order to avoid paying higher labor costs at consolidation. But sometimes you do anyway, because you really need to perform an action or you're trying to collect enough meeples to get a high value multiplier tile. This creates interesting turn angst and some modest opportunities for screwage (by denying opponents the colors that they'd really like to use).
So far, I've only played it two-player with my wife. It works well as a 2p. Things are sufficiently tight, but not problematically zero sum. Even at two, the game runs a bit long (90-120 minutes) and it seems that adding more players will increase play time proportionately. That might make it too long for play with my regular game group, which is too bad. I suspect that some of the choices that the game presents would be more interesting with more players, as players would need to choose their battles more carefully.
My only complaint is that the trains and ships seem a bit tacked on. That might just be inexperience and group-think speaking, but everything in the game seems to depend on getting goods produced for sale, and trains and ships don't contribute anything toward goods production. They're also pretty expensive, for the relatively minor bumps that they add in the majority competition and scoring.
All in all, Nippon is a solid medium-heavy euro that's pretty squarely in my sweet spot. I expect it's a keeper (unless it gets stale with two and I can't get it played with more). Very good game!
(Image credit: MyParadox)
Mechanically simple team deduction game with huge replayability.
The rules for this game are very simple. Put out a random 5x5 array of word cards. Divide the players into two teams (red and blue). Each team has a captain. The two captains get to see a randomly chosen diagram that shows which of the word cards belong to which team (see above). There are also neutral word cards and a black assassin word card.
On a turn, a captain gives a clue consisting of one word and one number (e.g., "fish 3". The number part of the clue indicates how many of the word cards relate to the clue. The captain's teammates must then guess at least one word card that they believe matches their team's color. If they guess correctly, they can make another guess (up to x+1 guesses, where x is the number given in the clue).
The point is to guess all of your team's cards before the opponents guess all of theirs.
If you ever guess the assassin card, your team immediately loses.
The fun in the game comes from trying to come up with meta-clues that will include lots of your teams cards, without risking a misunderstanding that will lead to a wrong guess. But if you're too clever, your team mates might
miss your meaning entirely.
This is a quick, smart game that supports lots of players in team play (which I like). There's a large deck of word cards, and each play will present a different configuration of red and blue spaces, so it ought to be hugely replayable.
An instant classic. Thinky fun.
(Image credit: zefquaavius)
Fun disk-flicking dexterity dungeon crawler with excellent art.
This caught my eye when the first edition was released. I was intrigued by the blend of dexterity/flicking and dungeon crawl theming. But the art was a bit lackluster (to my taste) and I wasn't sure that the boards would lie flat enough for the game to really work.
The new edition has completely new artwork (from BGGer Kwanchai), which I really like. It's got his signature highly-stylized look which elevates the whole aesthetic of the game for me (I rarely like more realistically drawn fantasy art). That reimagining of the game's appearance got me to give it a try and I'm glad I did. It's exactly what you'd want from a dexterity game with a silly theme -- fun.
I had no problem at all with the physical design of the game. And the theme is very well integrated into the mechanics and components (e.g., small monsters are harder to hit because they're physically smaller targets; missiles are handled nicely as small discs that you bring on to fire and then remove; the boards are two-sided, with evocative art and big round "bumper" columns that fit snugly into holes in the board; there are "families" of monsters that share a common look and game play elements). I laughed out loud at the gelatinous cube and its effects (though I haven't tried it out yet).
Silly, but great-looking fun silly. Not overly complex. It might run a touch long; you could maybe adjust the length (and the difficulty level) by playing with fewer rooms.
A keeper. I'm looking forward to the expansions.
Raiders of the North Sea
(Image credit: shem84)
Viking themed order fulfillment game with some nice twists on worker placement.
As with Catacombs, I really like the stylized art that's used in the game. It's clean, attractive, and gives the whole package a coherent and distinctive look (and the metal coins are surprisingly nice).
Game play is pretty straightforward. You have viking meeples of up to three colors. On your turn you either use buildings in the village or go on a raid. To use village buildings, you place a meeple in an empty building and trigger that building's action, then remove a different meeple from another building and trigger that building's action. To raid, you place a meeple in an empty slot in a raid location, pay any associated cost, and reap the benefits (VP, plunder, and a new cube).
Different locations require different colors of meeples. At first you just have black meeples, so you can only use the black locations. Raiding gives you access to gray and white meeples (with gray coming from the easier locations). This essentially unlocks new worker placement and raiding locations.
There's a card-based subsystem that lets you either discard cards for a one-time use or add cards as members of your raiding crew (where they add strength and special powers). The total strength of your crew (which includes some dice rolling) determines how many VP you get from raiding.
It's a solid design. At two players, it felt pretty zero-sum and I'm not sure if I'm interested in playing it at that number. I haven't yet tried it with more, but will soon. Looking forward to it. Good game.
Grand Austria Hotel
(Image credit: henk.rolleman)
Very tight dice drafting, order fulfillment game, with a bit too much luck for my taste.
This is a medium-heavy efficiency euro, with a theme of operating an early 20th Century Austrian hotel. Every round, a handful of dice are rolled and then assigned to the matching numbered action spaces. Players take turns choosing a die from one of the action spaces and performing that action. The number of dice in the action space determines the strength of the action (e.g., if there are three dice in the strudel/cake space when you choose, you can take a strength three strudel/cake action).
Each turn, you also choose a customer card, from an available tableau. Customers have different demands for food and drink in your cafe. Once that's been satisfied, you can move them to a room in your hotel (at which point, they score VP and trigger a special power on the card).
There are a lot of things to manage in the game. Rooms have to be "prepared" before they can be occupied. Guests have colors that must match the room colors. Food and drink need to be delivered to guests to match their particular needs. Staff cards can be hired to provide special powers. There are bonuses for filling contiguous blocks of colored rooms. Every few turns the Emperor shows up and you either impress him (earning a bonus), leave him indifferent, or earn his disapproval (and a penalty). There are also common goal cards that can earn you big VP if you complete them before others.
Everything is very tight and actions are few, but if you build a good synergy engine things can really hum along. That's the kind of play that I usually like, and if the game goes your way it's a lot of fun.
But if your luck peters out or is unbalanced between players, the game can be very frustrating. You can get burned by the dice, guest cards, and staff cards, which can't always be mitigated by the luck-softening bits of the design. That can be annoying in a game of this weight and tightness.
A bit of a mixed bag for me.
(Image credit: eVanDiesel)
Quick card tower building game. I'm undefeated!
On your turn, you add a new "floor" to the tower by placing one or two bent cards on the current roof, with placement details specified on that card. Then you place a new roof. Some cards have special powers that change things up. First player to get rid of all their cards wins (or the player with the fewest cards when someone knocks the tower down).
I've won both ways. Just saying.
Happy New Year!
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Next »