Ryan Tullis
United States
Florida
-
Two years ago, I had just had my first taste with board games. A friend of mine had gotten me to play Red November. My wife (fiancee at the time), loved zombies, so we bought Zombieeeeeesss!, and because we like anime, Anima. It was a good time (while it lasted), and we played them pretty often. But I wanted a taste of something that really showed the spirit of the modern board/card game hobby.
So, after some time idly checking out Board Game Geek, I discovered Citadels. Cool Stuff was out of stock at the time. So I'd stop by, every week or so, to see if they had gotten a copy of the game back in stock.
Oh, and when they did. Haha. It was in my hands so fast it was ridiculous, with me taking it up the counter, making my first, decently-informed gaming decision. 
So why two years to review the game? Well, I just did my first review only a few short months ago: Ascension. After that, Ghost Stories. But how I feel about these games made them easy to review: I like them. They're good games. What makes Citadels different? Well, I want to clarify something of how I feel when it comes to reviewing: The hardest games to review well are the ones I love or hate. So I kept putting this review off. Well, no more. 
Premise of the Game
I won't go into too much detail here, because I assume most people are familiar with how the game plays. Essentially, you're building a city. Funny, so is everyone else. And you want yours to be the biggest, and the best.
So, to help you along your way, you secretly choose characters with different functions. Some are built to help you (ex. Architect, Bishop, Merchant, etc.), some to dish out pain (Warlord, Assassin), some to do a little of both (Thief, Wizard).
First to eight districts ends the game (but doesn't necessarily win).
Quality of the Pieces
While Fantasy Flight doesn't always publish the highest ranked titles we see on BGG, I enjoy the compact nature of their silver line series. When I travel to see family, their compact games almost always get to go with me. I love Dominion, but when it comes to a small briefcase, Citadels will win the war almost every time.
Included in our wonderful box are: Some awesome gold pieces, a stack of cards, and a yellow piece to mark the king my wife calls the pineapple crown (because it resembles the fruit).
The gold pieces are wonderful. Having small plastic, for some reason, makes it feel like you're really getting that loot over cardboard cut-outs.
As for the cards, a common criticism is that they could be better. And while I do agree to an extent (and that you should sleeve your character cards), after playing games like Ascension and Tanto Coure (Ascension's cards are like thick coardboard, Tanto's are thin and odd feeling and written in small font), I can't help but to feel the cards aren't all so badly made in Citadels.
What is there to love about the gameplay?
Synergy, Yomi, Back-Stabbing, and Synergy.
Synergy is so important in a board game. I do NOT believe you can win picking the same card over and over. I also believe you can't win grabbing characters willy-nilly.
A common gripe is that people seem to get thieved or assassinated at seeming random. If you're playing with somebody who doesn't grasp the purpose of the cards, and their only goal is to play that way, then they're not going to make any board game very enjoyable. Neither are they going to win, usually.
To give an example to off-set the idea that the character selects are random.
D, the player to my left (we were playing going left that day), has many a green district in her city. Over the table, D (she) mentions that it would be suicide to pick merchant. She's right. Some of us were already thinking about picking assassin just for her. So what does she do instead? She picks king, so that she can go to choose first. When the round came that the assassin and thief were face up on the table, you can imagine how fast she picked merchant for the huge gold gain. Ah. But there's all that gold sitting there, waiting to be built. So her next pick, now that assassin is on the table, is architect. But, come on, we can see that coming. Somebody assassinates the architect, calling her out on the decision.
This was great play. When I got too ahead as the leader, D to my left chose King, and my wife (who'd go right before me, me going last) would choose assassin, leaving a 50/50 shot for my death. It was a good overall plan. It left me constantly having to choose what to pick. Sometimes going the obvious route to throw her off.
So what I'm trying to say is: The System Works. It does. And, sometimes, it'll cause you to curse out profanities at loved ones and throw your cards and/or money at them (depending on what they steal from you). And everyone will laugh and have a good time. Do not play this game if you have a temper. Because you'll die, get stolen from, have your favorite district destroyed. That's the game. And I love it for that. Predict your opponent, don't get predicted, and negotiate if you can. When you get into that weird mind game of, "But maybe they expect me to pick the character that wouldn't be obvious because that'd be such an obvious idea, so maybe I should just pick the obvious character to throw them off. BUT, I did that earlier in the game, so maybe I should go back to the non-obvious character? *head explodes*"
Another amazing element is that some of your districts also have powers that will flavor how you build your city, and also how you harass your enemies. 
The Common Complaints, and how I feel about them.
 The gameplay stays past its welcome. - I think part of the game's length is relevant to who you're playing with. Yes, it can stay too long if people are taking a large amount of time on their turns. To the game's credit, it must have sensed this, because the rules specify that the game can be shortened to 7 districts to end the game. Add on the district that shortens the game by 1 district, and that problem is almost entirely fixed.
My gaming group wanted to play this over and over again, then we got burnt out. It doesn't hold up. This complaint grinds m'gears. If you're an adult, you have this miraculous ability called self control. You might really love a particularly delicious cheeseburger, but can you cite it for your eating it every day until you're sick of it?  I can't think of any game that I would whip out every single day, non-stop, for the infinite span of time -- not even chess, Go, Dominion, or Carcassonne, which are all games I adore. I will give you this: It doesn't hold up like Shogi, Go, or Chess. Those are abstracts that are masterpieces tested over hundreds to thousands of years. You'll also notice they're abstracts with a mind-boggling amount of possible games.
And Finally, the Conclusion
Is Citadels a game that'll be your one choice on a desert island with your spouse or friend? Maybe not.
But, like the card game Yomi, it celebrates the human capacity to read others. There's luck, of course. You might get randomly stung by an assassin. But don't forget, the opponent that chose assassin isn't very much helping themselves.
Best of all, it combines those prediction elements with managing your city and not always focusing on player interaction. There's a time to build and a time to attack. That's synergy, my friends, when all the game mechanics are working together in unison.
So after two years, I give Citadels my highest review yet: a 9/10.
 
What a nine means to me: A 9 is a game whose mechanics are in constant balance. While it may not be the next Chess, it belongs in every board game collection, because what it offers is definitive of its type of gameplay. A 9 should be capable of being enjoyed by experts and beginners alike, with veterans having an advantageous position through their developed skills in the game.
-
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
-
wrote:
I wanted a taste of something that really showed the spirit of board gaming.
Nice Review! Fixed - comment rescinded.
-
Ryan Tullis
United States
Florida
-
markgravitygood wrote: wrote:
I wanted a taste of something that really showed the spirit of board gaming.
Nice Review: But Citadels is technically a Card game, not a Board game.
Are you by chance a lawyer? 
What I mean to say is a modern board/card game that's decently regarded by the hobby's community.
-
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
-
Citadels is one of my favorite board games, too.
-
Stephen Sanders
United States
Henderson
Texas
25% Scottish, 25% Dutch, 18% English, 15% Irish, 9% German, 5% French, 3% "Black Dutch" (?) = 100% American!
-
Tryken wrote: So after two years, I give Citadels my highest review yet: a 9/10.
Citadels was also my second or third game purchase some 7 years ago, and it stands as an 8/10 and don't see it getting any lower, for many of the reasons you state in your capable review.
-
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
-
I haven't been so jazzed about this [board!] game only because my first few experiences with it were in 4-6 player games, where it just drags. I do hope to get it to the table for some 2/3 player games, as from what I read, that is where it shines.
-
Ryan Tullis
United States
Florida
-
markgravitygood wrote: I haven't been so jazzed about this [board!] game only because my first few experiences with it were in 4-6 player games, where it just drags. I do hope to get it to the table for some 2/3 player games, as from what I read, that is where it shines.
I've played 2, 3, 4, and I think I've done 5 or not. If the players are fast, 4 players can be a blast. But, I agree with you. With too many players, there's too much down time.
2 and 3 are both awesome. I usually love 3 player games in just about anything, because it's usually similar to 4 players but faster. I remember playing 2 players on a plane once with Citadels, and it worked pretty well, too. Very direct stuff, if I recall.
Also, don't forget, if you feel the game's too long for your tastes, try the official variant of 7 districts to end the game instead of 8.
Hope you enjoy it!
-
'The Completist'
United States
-
I've played two and four player games. They feel like different games. Four players is a bit more chaotic but more "fun". Two players, as you can imagine, is more one-on-one outwitting eachother.
-
|
|
Posted Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:18 pm
