This is different from the others in this series in that one is fighting from the ground and the other from the air. Suffers somewhat from having an easy move for the fighter pilot to shoot the balloon down right from the get go... (Left as an exercise for the reader)
An excellent multi-player game, but has two major flaws. First, it takes forever to play. Second, the random calamities can completely take you out of contention if you're unlucky enough to get several "complementary" ones in a row.
This is a great theme for a game - I really wish someone would make something similar today with a fresh set of mechanics (hmmm...). There's a simple winning strategy for the brew-your-own monster. No attack, super fast, fire breathing, rest into defense, and then you zoom around the city burning it down as you go. The humans can't keep up and can't hurt you. Monster wins.
I enjoyed this game quite a bit and although you can see the design compromises made to speed the game up, the sum of the parts work well together and it all makes thematic as well as mechanical sense.
The most successful Kickstarter campaign ever at $8,782,571 that started as a lark shipped on time, and lo and behold it's a decent game. Is it brilliant? No. Is it funny? Yes. Is it short? Also yes. You can play this with non-gamers and gamers alike. It shouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes to play, and if it does, don't play it with those people anymore. This is not a game for deep thinkers and card counters. It's a quick "bang, you're dead" game.
Fabula is kind of a cross between Dixit and Once Upon a Time. There are 10 large double sided art tableaus to give the flavour of the story, and then there are three storytelling rounds for each of the 20 stories.
There's also a deck of object cards of which 3n+2 are dealt out face up on the table. One person takes on the role of "Grimm". Grimm reads out of the prologue for the story (a few paragraphs), and then presents "chapter 1" (a short paragraph).
Players have a set of about 15 stand up characters to choose from and pick one to represent them in the game context and are supposed to take on the persona being presented, although the expression of that will be up to each player. There is, for example, a knight in armour, a sly looking fox with a cap and cloak, a big bad wolf, a fairy, a witch, and a bunch of others. There's wide room for interpreting these characters.
Each player then has the chance, by raising their hand, to propose a continuance to the plot raised in the chapter. They can be brief or more detailed, but must use one of the face up object cards - say a sword, or an hourglass.
Grimm will then reward each player who, in their opinion, has contributed a plausible story continuation with a quill token.
Do this two more times, with the second chapter and thurd chapter being worth 2 and 3 quill tokens respectively.
At the end, there will be two cards left in the middle of the table. The top two people with quill tokens then each have 30 seconds (there's a timer included in the game) to sum up an ending and must use both object cards left on the table. In case there's a tie in quill tokens, then the person with the most valuable objects (e.g. a sword has 1 star and an hourglass has 4 stars) gets to be in the final 2.
Then Grimm decides who has the best ending.
So, if you're playing with the "get rid of your cards quickest" group, it won't be a good experience. If you're playing with the "create a story together" crowd, it'll be great. Indeed, with last night's group we almost didn't care about the quill tokens, we were just interested in who had the best story ideas.
One of the built in limitations of the game is that there are "only" 20 story outlines to play with. However, with a little effort, one could generate several plots that fit the game either re-using the art included in the game or using any art one liked.
The challenge I think is that unlike OUaT and Dixit, this game requires someone to take on the role of Grimm and pass judgment on the other players' contributions (to give or not give quill tokens out) rather than everyone being full participants.
An entertaining card game that I've barely scratched the surface of.
This is a game that if you play it a lot, you'll really learn the subtle nuances and depth there is here. If you're a casual player, like me, then it's entertaining enough, but you quickly forget the synergies between plays so it doesn't get as much love and attention as it might otherwise.
A relatively light game about a topic I'd know little about until I played.
I liked a lot of the ideas in the game, such as the Indian surrender based on colonial VP and the lack of inherent supply based on the razed villages. However, the supply issue only comes up once in the winter turn.
If I had a complaint, and this is reaching, it's that the Indian counters are all the same save for the background stripe. In poor lighting conditions it would have been easy to mix some of them up.
A great game, but there's a fair amount of bookkeeping. A spreadsheet aid would help. Oddly enough, my playing experience has been that the further along the game goes, the faster it gets (as the bookkeeping and decisions get easier).
This is actually an amazingly great game with 3 players, and almost as good with only 2. I have a copy of a tournament variant for 12 players and table for quick battle resolutions. Downside of this game is that non-involved players (especially during battles) have literally nothing to do.
This is a game I really want to like. It's got a lot of the elements I look for before I invest in a wargame. The scenario is unusual, the system is innovative, the game isn't just about moving units around (Twilight Struggle and Here I Stand are both shining examples of games where it's not only about the military aspects, but also about the politics and external events), and it's from an era of interest.