Sara Bear
United States
Centerville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe pics tomorrow, although I printed it on Draft quality.

The issues that rose from a poor shuffle (haven't stuck the papers in sleeves w/cards yet, as the instructions say to do for newbie PnPers) were things like culture and credential cards not coming up for too long, getting several of thesame card in a row, etc. I know are my fault (although after a thorough redistributon of cards within the pile, and then shuffling, we'll see if there's enough of these often enough!)

Also,NOTEthat my keyboard is going, and if I back up to ix all it's errors, I'll never get this typed.

We played without the Career Maker cards as one of the low player variants sugested. This contributed to the ease of the game, but still, 10 minutes for people till learning the rules? I have some concerns in this department.

One of those is, out of the non-Career Maker Case cards, and out of the three colors/types of evidence, only the Red/Physical Evidence reqirements on the Case cards tended to require a specific sub-type/icon of that particular main typeof evidence (ie, DNA, Ground Effects, etc. being some sub-types of Physical Evidence). The Yellow/Recordings and Blue/Testimony requiremnts on all? (I need to recheck) non CM Case cards seem to be any of the three subtypes of that type . . . . I sailed through these quite quickly.

Even on the Career Maker Case cards, there are plenty of requirements that will accept multiple subtypes for that type of evidence required . . . . and Idon't think I saw, anywhere, a requirement that specified two subtypes, instead of three or one. It seems to me more variatin in game play, more depth, mor strateg in which evidences you clear from the field, would come to the fore if more semi-specific and specifi requests for subtype(s) were part of the mix.

I don't know if simply adding the CM case cards back in would "fix"how eas the game was; it'll certainly create more need for moe evidence, although I think with tw players that playing with the other low player varient of dealing one CM case card to each plaer at the beginning, settingthe others out of the game, would be more balanced than having them ll in the game; what if someone gt stuck with three? even with two in a two player game that might doom them, then again I got my evidences so easily that who knows? Of course the Research cards to get the evidence, needed to be distributed better throughout the deck, so that's likely part of our prblem, but I don't think it's the ENTIRE prblem. The abundance of quite generous evidence requirements seems to me to be a problem.

Also, getting new "Leads", which are cases with no evidence collected for them et, basically a new case off the case pile, is so easy it's not funny. Any time that you have no Lead left in front of you, and you have less than five cases in front of you, either in states of open or closed, you can pick up a new lead if you aren't in the discard phase. It says at any other time in the game, so I was grabbing these after my turn ended and my husband was going . . . I also sometimes would play one Research card to pick up a partcular piece of evidence to put under my last "lead", ie, my last casewith no evidence under it, and then grab another lead from the case pile and then ply my second card for the turn (if no culture ards were modifying how many cards you got to play) to get a research for THAT new lead, thus letting me grab anoter new lead as soon as my turn wasa over. It wasn't always possible to get the right kind of evidence for the new lead I grabbed after picking up one evidence, but it happened quite often.

We're going to play once or twice tomorrow, see if any of these issues resolve with better card distribution; I do like the attention to detail in that he types of evidence needed for the name of the case (abduction, recorded landing, etc.) made sense for the name ofthe case. Then again it'd be a poor game if it didn't match up! There's room to specialize more with the various subtypes/icons within these themes, though.

Sorry so wordy, it's late and there's no other posts about this. I'll try to compose tomorrow' session report better.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sara Bear
United States
Centerville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The store didn't have quite enough sleeves for the 110 card Research deck, in one color, so we'll be playing this again next week after we find some more.

After trimming s'more and putting most in sleeves, and seeing the differen types of actions available, many that we never saw when we played, I am thinking they may fix some of the problems mentioned in my orig post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sara Bear
United States
Centerville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Should have hopefully better impressions on a couple more games played and up tomorrow.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sara Bear
United States
Centerville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
early impressions two more plays
I took pics every two rounds, I need to get those in.

The game is light, somewhat entertaining, one house rule we came up with for the second game added more flavor with rarely making a difference in gameplay.

However, in our 2nd game tonight we did forget how we were ruling on clarifying the way leads come into play, and that slowed the rate of them down too much (in our first game tonight, I had five open cases or leads by the end of round two, which was way too fast, so we made a house rule/chose a diff. interpretation for the vague rule, for the next game).

Details in a new session report tomorrow, I'm tempted to say more but I'd really better do it when I'm not tired. Just thought I'd put out a quick impression right now.
 
 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.