Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Hot Deals

Subject: [CSI] Blueprints - $17.99 (5/19 Daily Deal) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan the Wired
United States
flag msg tools
Cool Stuff Inc has the game Blueprints for $17.99 as part of their daily deal. MSRP is $29.99. This is a MAPP priced game so you have to 'See Price in Checkout' and most retailers have this for $23.99.

https://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/195354



CamelCamelCamel link

BoardGamePrices.com
Cool Stuff Inc. $17.99
Amazon.com $29.95
Cardhaus $23.99
Miniature Market $23.99
Noble Knight Games $24.95
Game Nerdz $23.99

CSI hold policy

Game Description

In Blueprints, players are architects who must use different colored dice to build three different structures from blueprints, with the dice providing different advantages to you. In the game, each round progresses like this:

- Discover your blueprint.
- Each turn, choose a die and place it in your building.
- Reveal your building, tally your points, then discover who wins the awards and prizes.

After three rounds, players tally their awards and prizes to see who wins. Who will be the best architect?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Garber
United States
Des Moines
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Introverting Extrovertedly
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I picked this one up a couple years back and it is such a clever, fun little game. Really good to play as the start or end of a game night.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Henning
United States
Big Lake
Minnesota
flag msg tools
ACB12345687
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like this game. Very simple to teach and play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Gazdecki
United States
Lindsey
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting. I played this a couple years back and did not like it at all.

I played to actually succeed in making the blueprints while my opponent ignored them and just went for the most points and crushed me.

Bad game design in my opinion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Laisure
United States
Kansas City
Kansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anyone know how this compares to Cubist? I really like Cubist, and this looks similar as far as constructing buildings out of dice, but I haven't read the Blueprints' rules (too busy/too lazy) to see if game-play is in any way similar. I can see a few differences in the game description, but can't tell if there's enough to warrant owning both games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruiser419 wrote:
Interesting. I played this a couple years back and did not like it at all.

I played to actually succeed in making the blueprints while my opponent ignored them and just went for the most points and crushed me.

Bad game design in my opinion.


Same here - really didn't get it and I was glad to get rid of it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Garber
United States
Des Moines
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Introverting Extrovertedly
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.
8 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan C
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Great game (very snazzy looking, too). I remember when this was oop and going for twice MSRP a year or two ago. Shut Up & Sit Down have a very nice review if anyone’s curious.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Gazdecki
United States
Lindsey
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jimmy Smith
United States
Tavares
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alan_C wrote:
Shut Up & Sit Down have a very nice review if anyone’s curious.


At the very least, you should watch from about the 3-4 minute mark. You owe it to yourself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jae
United States
Bryan
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.




is it really outside the intended purpose?
After all, truly successful architects are the ones that don't follow a trend but instead, break the rules and think outside the shaded boxes...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jae
United States
Bryan
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmsmith2434 wrote:
Alan_C wrote:
Shut Up & Sit Down have a very nice review if anyone’s curious.


At the very least, you should watch from about the 3-4 minute mark. You owe it to yourself.


https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/review-blueprints/

For those frustrated by lack of link, like myself...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jae
United States
Bryan
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Grn9t wrote:
Anyone know how this compares to Cubist? I really like Cubist, and this looks similar as far as constructing buildings out of dice, but I haven't read the Blueprints' rules (too busy/too lazy) to see if game-play is in any way similar. I can see a few differences in the game description, but can't tell if there's enough to warrant owning both games.


It's like cubist except you only have one work of art, and it uses different materials to make the work, and you get bonuses for using a variety of materials (or making a homogeneous work). Also, you have a shared pool of dice instead of just your dice, and unlike cubist, there aren't special powers to take advantage of, but there are end of round victory point bonuses.

It's faster than cubist, is similar, but more thinky.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Gazdecki
United States
Lindsey
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Bagherra wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.




is it really outside the intended purpose?
After all, truly successful architects are the ones that don't follow a trend but instead, break the rules and think outside the shaded boxes...


If the game implies that you're supposed to build a building a specific way, but you get more points for building it however you want with no penalty, then yah, I think it's broken.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Mcpherson
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yeah I hated this game
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Rizzo
United States
Hershey
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.


I would agree with this. That's too bad, I had interest in this game, but that's a total turn off.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jae
United States
Bryan
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JustinRRizzo wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.


I would agree with this. That's too bad, I had interest in this game, but that's a total turn off.


That's not entirely accurate.
Technically you get more points for following the blue print. Unfortunately points are only use for a small amount of the victory condition. The thing is, all of the information is in front of you, so it isn't like it is a surprise.

If you follow the blueprint and you optimize your materials, you will get the "best structure" award, but you can get bonuses for going a different direction. The thing is, in a two player game, the above assessment is somewhat accurate, you'll get pointed better for breaking the path. But if you have the full 4 players, there is more competition for 1st and 2nd place which are worth more points, so you can mitigate your trailing by focusing on bonus elements.

It's about decision making. Sometimes it is smarter to color outside the lines, which quite frankly is a solid life lesson.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Garber
United States
Des Moines
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Introverting Extrovertedly
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bagherra wrote:
JustinRRizzo wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.


I would agree with this. That's too bad, I had interest in this game, but that's a total turn off.


That's not entirely accurate.
Technically you get more points for following the blue print. Unfortunately points are only use for a small amount of the victory condition. The thing is, all of the information is in front of you, so it isn't like it is a surprise.

If you follow the blueprint and you optimize your materials, you will get the "best structure" award, but you can get bonuses for going a different direction. The thing is, in a two player game, the above assessment is somewhat accurate, you'll get pointed better for breaking the path. But if you have the full 4 players, there is more competition for 1st and 2nd place which are worth more points, so you can mitigate your trailing by focusing on bonus elements.

It's about decision making. Sometimes it is smarter to color outside the lines, which quite frankly is a solid life lesson.


Exactly this.

The game intends for you to build a structure out of dice in order to score points. It is your assumption that it wants you to build to the design, and it does reward you for building to the design, however it also rewards you for building in other ways.

This is not a design problem, this is a player problem. Some games just aren't for you, and that is okay.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Carkin
United States
Bradford
NH
flag msg tools
Bruiser419 wrote:
Bagherra wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.




is it really outside the intended purpose?
After all, truly successful architects are the ones that don't follow a trend but instead, break the rules and think outside the shaded boxes...


If the game implies that you're supposed to build a building a specific way, but you get more points for building it however you want with no penalty, then yah, I think it's broken.


You really think your single play was enough to prove the game broken? Wow. shake
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Jake
United States
Trumbull
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I played this years ago as well. In addition to the scoring balance being all over the place, the bonus point cards are also not balanced at all. Some are way harder to get than others for the same points. That's bad design 101.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron H
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
HereSince2010 wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
Bagherra wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.




is it really outside the intended purpose?
After all, truly successful architects are the ones that don't follow a trend but instead, break the rules and think outside the shaded boxes...


If the game implies that you're supposed to build a building a specific way, but you get more points for building it however you want with no penalty, then yah, I think it's broken.


You really think your single play was enough to prove the game broken? Wow. shake



For some types of broken-ness, one play is all it will take. I see the point here. I have only played this game once, maybe 4 years ago; I enjoyed it, but I see the point.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean Ray Johnson

Houston
Texas
msg tools
Unofficial Rulebook Editor, currently open for new projects
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's also a game that rewards people for paying attention. If you've noticed that another player is only 4 dice, then it's worth counter-drafting the 4s to deny those points. And then they miss out on the dice-of-the-same-number card and they've banked on a design that doesn't win the best-building cards. If you only focus on your own design, then you can get tripped up.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Carkin
United States
Bradford
NH
flag msg tools
aharown wrote:
HereSince2010 wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
Bagherra wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.




is it really outside the intended purpose?
After all, truly successful architects are the ones that don't follow a trend but instead, break the rules and think outside the shaded boxes...


If the game implies that you're supposed to build a building a specific way, but you get more points for building it however you want with no penalty, then yah, I think it's broken.


You really think your single play was enough to prove the game broken? Wow. shake


For some types of broken-ness, one play is all it will take. I see the point here. I have only played this game once, maybe 4 years ago; I enjoyed it, but I see the point.


When I first started playing Euros I used to throw out the broken label a lot. Back then I had the privilege of having BGG News admin Eric Martin as my game group leader. When I'd state my negative opinion of a game he'd sort of raise his eyebrow a little and say something like, "Oh really?" as a patient parent says to a child. Eventually I learned.

The term broken gets thrown around willy-nilly around here and most often by people who haven't played the game more than once or twice. Not liking a game I understand. Saying it's broken is typically arrogance. And I say that as someone who not only threw the word out a lot, I also declared this specific game broken after I played it once when it first came out. I was wrong. And most of the time most gamers are wrong when they use the term.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron H
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
HereSince2010 wrote:
aharown wrote:
HereSince2010 wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
Bagherra wrote:
Bruiser419 wrote:
The_Fezig wrote:
I don't think multiple paths to victory ought to be considered bad game design. Not liking a game is one thing, but I don't feel your claim has proper evidence to be made.

In my experience you have to evaluate the dice that come out, the awards on the table for the round, what your opponents are doing, and what your given blueprint allows you to do. Take that into consideration and select what you think is most optimal.

It may just be that you are bad at the game and it doesn't appeal to you enough to bother getting better.


I disagree. When the game gives you more points for doing things other than game's intended purpose that's bad design. Period.




is it really outside the intended purpose?
After all, truly successful architects are the ones that don't follow a trend but instead, break the rules and think outside the shaded boxes...


If the game implies that you're supposed to build a building a specific way, but you get more points for building it however you want with no penalty, then yah, I think it's broken.


You really think your single play was enough to prove the game broken? Wow. shake


For some types of broken-ness, one play is all it will take. I see the point here. I have only played this game once, maybe 4 years ago; I enjoyed it, but I see the point.


When I first started playing Euros I used to throw out the broken label a lot. Back then I had the privilege of having BGG News admin Eric Martin as my game group leader. When I'd state my negative opinion of a game he'd sort of raise his eyebrow a little and say something like, "Oh really?" as a patient parent says to a child. Eventually I learned.

The term broken gets thrown around willy-nilly around here and most often by people who haven't played the game more than once or twice. Not liking a game I understand. Saying it's broken is typically arrogance. And I say that as someone who not only threw the word out a lot, I also declared this specific game broken after I played it once when it first came out. I was wrong. And most of the time most gamers are wrong when they use the term.



Wow, using terms like "arrogance" in this conversation is super-obnoxious. People are allowed to have different ideas than you about what it means for a game to be "broken," your lecture notwithstanding. And hate to break it to you, but name-dropping whom you used to play games with is not only a sad logical fallacy (argument by authority), but it's also completely unimpressive.
 
 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.