GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
7,872 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
22 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Recommendations

Subject: Pillars or Stonge Age? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bob Marso
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I'm looking for a resource game that will work well with 2 players.
Debating between Pillars or Stone age?

Appreciate suggestions. Of course if there is another resource game that one may feel works better then either of these, I am open to any suggestions.


Thanks,

Bob
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
bobm174 wrote:
I'm looking for a resource game that will work well with 2 players.
Debating between Pillars or Stone age?

Appreciate suggestions. Of course if there is another resource game that one may feel works better then either of these, I am open to any suggestions.


Both are good games and I don't think you will be dissapointed whichever you buy.

What I would also recommend is Caylus which is a simplified version of PoE without any luck factor. Works like a charm with 2p.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Wurtsboro
NY
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
We always have time for the things we put first.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We enjoy Pillars, Stone Age, Agricola, and Cuba with two players. Stone Age feels a bit lighter than the others. On average, there's less blocking with Stone Age and Cuba. Stone Age and Pillars have more luck, Cuba and Agricola have less. Stone Age and Agricola are the most 'fun' to me, Pillars and Cuba make me grind my brain around a bit more. YMMV.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Robben
United States
Spring Hill
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stone Age
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Gallardo
United States
El Paso
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pillars
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Faust
United States
Malverne
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Really, the game you're looking for is Agricola. Of those two, I prefer Pillars to Stone Age, because of some flaws with Stone Age: wood seems explicitly better than the other resources, and I find the "starvation" strategy distasteful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh P.
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think they are both great games.

I like Pillars because of the payment for turn order aspect, but that doesn't play as big a part in a two-player game. I also like that Pillars has a fixed number of turns. What I don't like about Pillars is that the cards can become easily memorized, giving an advantage to experienced players who know what is coming up next turn. Also, this game has a more complicated setup that Stone Age.

Stone Age sets up quicker and plays quicker, but is less competitive. The places to put workers are more balanced in Stone Age, so there is not as much fighting to see who gets what spot. (The spaces in Pillars are not as well balanced, causing more competition for specific spots.) What I dislike about Stone Age, is the score swings dramatically at the end of the game based on the civilization cards, so it can be difficult to know who is winning until the very end. The dice add a nice bit of luck, which can be good or bad depending on your view. A lot of the strategy in the game is finding ways to work around the luck factor, so I like the luck element.

Both are fun games. I think for two players Stone Age is better, but for more you would want Pillars. You may also want to consider Agricola.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Hound
Israel
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Phrim wrote:
Really, the game you're looking for is Agricola. Of those two, I prefer Pillars to Stone Age, because of some flaws with Stone Age: wood seems explicitly better than the other resources.



With all due respect, this is incorrect. It is cheaper than the other resources. But if you want to score high points for the house tiles, for example, you would prefer another resource. In fact, other resources are required for most of those tiles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh P.
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Hound wrote:
Phrim wrote:
Really, the game you're looking for is Agricola. Of those two, I prefer Pillars to Stone Age, because of some flaws with Stone Age: wood seems explicitly better than the other resources.



With all due respect, this is incorrect. It is cheaper than the other resources. But if you want to score high points for the house tiles, for example, you would prefer another resource. In fact, other resources are required for most of those tiles.


Depends on if your strategy involves buying huts. With enough wood, you can buy tons of civilization cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Jamelli
United States
Chambersburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't had the chance to play Stone Age yet, but you can't go wrong with any of the games listed in this thread so far.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Preston Fuller
United States
Ashland
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As said, both are great games.

Pillars is somewhat "deeper". There is more of a "take that" and direct competative nature to Pillars. Your options are more limited and resources are tighter

Stone Age is much easier to teach and friendlier to people who play it for a first time. It also plays well with two and I can't recall if Pillars plays well with two or not.

It also plays in less time then pillars and is easier for me to get to the table.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joshp wrote:
The Hound wrote:
Phrim wrote:
Really, the game you're looking for is Agricola. Of those two, I prefer Pillars to Stone Age, because of some flaws with Stone Age: wood seems explicitly better than the other resources.



With all due respect, this is incorrect. It is cheaper than the other resources. But if you want to score high points for the house tiles, for example, you would prefer another resource. In fact, other resources are required for most of those tiles.


Depends on if your strategy involves buying huts. With enough wood, you can buy tons of civilization cards.


Its not so much a question of scoring high points for the huts as of being able to buy all the huts in a given stack in the shortest time possible- sometimes you have to have a particular resource in order to do that. Hut-drilling has the potential to win easily against a civ card buying opponent, simply because the game is over before his civ cards start to be worth much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henrik Lantz
Sweden
Uppsala
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Stone Age is the better game. It just gets everything right, in my opinion. It feels like an improved version of Pillars. great components as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Faust
United States
Malverne
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Hound wrote:
Phrim wrote:
Really, the game you're looking for is Agricola. Of those two, I prefer Pillars to Stone Age, because of some flaws with Stone Age: wood seems explicitly better than the other resources.



With all due respect, this is incorrect. It is cheaper than the other resources. But if you want to score high points for the house tiles, for example, you would prefer another resource. In fact, other resources are required for most of those tiles.


Ignoring rounding, each pip you roll on any of the resource spots is worth the same when applied to huts. With wood, you divide the pips by 3 to get resources and then multiply them by 3 again to get points via huts, and the same is true for clay (divide by 4, multiply by 4), stone (5), and gold (6). When you do factor in rounding, you'll lose the least resources (and therefore the least points) in acquiring wood. When you factor in that it's cheapest and therefore best to use on cards, it's a wonder people will go for anything else.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
United Kingdom
Bedford
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,
I like playing Stone Age but find its too luck orientated to take seriously. I think Pillars plays better with more people.
Agree with Grouchysmurf- if you want a skill game try Caylus

cheers
Pete
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colls
United States
Silver Spring
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hope it's okay to ask a variant on the OP's question here, since I was planning on asking a similar question: which light to medium worker placement game would you recommend for 2P, with a time commitment of 45-90 minutes, with opportunities for screwage?

I was reading Bolger's list today about the games that he and his wife like to play, and he mentioned that they enjoy many worker placement games. (And also that his wife is happy to tie his shoelaces on the way to the helicopter. Which is a good description of my husband's wife [me!] too, I'm afraid.)

Thanks for any suggestions!

Edited to add: Bolger's list had quite a few, and I had planned to purchase Stone Age until I realized that opportunities for screwage might be too few.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Fitzgerald
United States
Mazomanie
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say Pillars is good for 2 but plays better with more. Stone Age plays fine with two, it's a little bland though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Bandettini
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
That one not so much
badge
Ohh that tickles
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stone Age it's a 10.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't played Pillars but have played Stone Age. I'll be the only dissenter and say that I found Stone Age to be dull and quite boring. Of course, I'm in the minority when it comes to that opinion. Good luck on your choice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig Liken
New Zealand
Christchurch
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As others have said, both Stone Age and Pillars are both good games.

I find Pillars to be a little "easy" with 2 players - it doesn't have quite the tension that it does with 3 or 4 - this is mainly due to the fact that the amount of resoucre cards and placements are exactly the same with 2 as against with more players. So in the end it feels almost like who is the most efficient will win.

Stone Age does this better for 2-players by limiting the placements in each of the locations (as against the 3 or 4 player game).

My preference would be Stone Age - it is also less fiddly to me - you have to shuffle cards every round in Pillars and set new cards in other various locations. Stone Age is more elegant from that perspective.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Johnson
Canada
St.John's
Newfoundland
flag msg tools
designer
“Brothers, oh brothers, my days here are done, the Dornishman’s taken my life, But what does it matter, for all men must die, and I’ve tasted the Dornishman’s wife!”
badge
"Oak and iron guard me well, or else I'm dead and doomed to hell." - Andal proverb.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I definitely think Stone Age is the way to go for numerous reasons. The first is that Stone Age is more newbie friendly. Stone Age is quicker to set up and play. Stone Age is more newbie/non-gamer friendly. In Stone Age the players have control of End Game conditions. Someone said that they disliked not knowing who was going to win at the end of the game due to end game scoring... I think it's great because Pillars is longer and who wants to play if you know you're down and out? I dislike the randomness in Pillars compared to the randomness in Stone Age. I know I'm not the only one that feels that way.

The only way I would really recommend Pillars over Stone Age, is if you wanted to play more than 4 players. If randomness really bothers you then I wouldn't go with Stone Age, Pillars, or Agricola. Caylus is good if you don't like randomness but if you don't want a really long and complex choice, then I would recommend Castle for all Seasons.

Another option that I don't believe has been mentioned is Tribune.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I am not one who likes dice games.

But everything luck-based in Stone Age just feels right. Whereas everything luck-based in Pillars just feels wrong.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For whatever it's worth, I've played Stone Age several times and found that there's really not much there for me. I'm not big on worker placement, but Caylus is my favorite of the genre and although I haven't played it often, I look forward to the chance every time I get one.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colls
United States
Silver Spring
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My apologies (especially to BobM174) for the interruption above; it looks like it wasn't a good idea to ask my (related, but perhaps hijacking) question here after all. Hopefully no one will mind a new thread, and can share their wisdom there as well!
 
 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.