B Mendez
United States
Eau Claire
Michigan
-
Has anyone played both and can share?
-
Jack
United States
Cumberland
Rhode Island
-
I have played both. They have some similarities - building, etc, but World Without End is essentially a 4p only game. You can play with less, but it seems to play true with 4 - there is the adequate amount of tightness. There also seems to be a lot more "pain" in WWE due to the shortage of resources, which I love.
-
Damien Seb. -leoskyangel-
Malaysia
Bangsar & PJ
-
senorcoo wrote: I have played both. They have some similarities - building, etc, but World Without End is essentially a 4p only game. You can play with less, but it seems to play true with 4 - there is the adequate amount of tightness. There also seems to be a lot more "pain" in WWE due to the shortage of resources, which I love.
I like the shortage part in WWE too! It's really unforgiving and made us plan for few turns ahead. I like the part where each time you are penalized, you have to deduct VPs (same goes with pillars). I also like the part where you get to build the projects available on the board. Placing cubes on these project (in helping building them) feels like you're really building it.
The part where you draw event card and try to align them so that each player siting at the sides of the board get what's depicted is pretty neat IMO. Also, I like a game where each player has their own identical action cards because I like to see which player can manage well. Other game that uses this is K2.
As for Pillars, I've only tried it once with 2-players, and it was a good game. I like the part where money is crucial in this game.
I think I like them both. 
-
Jack
United States
Cumberland
Rhode Island
-
One of my favorite parts of WWE is that you have to adapt on the fly. If you go for a total build strategy and no buildings come out, you are screwed. You need to work your strategy based on what is happening on the events.
-
Adam O'Brien
United States
Raleigh
North Carolina
Even Cleverer Overtext
The Hellfish Bonanza!!!
-
In general I feel like Pillars is a strategic, engine building game that develops more over time, whereas WWE feels more tactical as you have less control of your resources (because of the event card rotation mechanic). The looming penalties at the end of each round of WWE provide more tension than the positive or negative event cards in Pillars. Both are good, and both are worth owning.
-
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
-
I've only played WWE once, but add me to the list of those who like both.
The resource collection mechanics are completely different, and, as one poster mentioned, if you haven't got certain resources during the round-end phase in WWE, you lose points. This makes it much more a blocking game, as one player hoarded gold in our game and pretty much screwed the rest of us.
I like the roll selection of WWE and the turn-order selection of pulling the builders out of the bag, then having to decide if you want to wait or pay the price for immediate placement.
They're both great games.
Brian
-
|
|
