Recommend
9 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Eaten By Zombies!: In Cahoots» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Unboxing and Initial Impressions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I very much enjoyed the base game of Eaten By Zombies. I missed the original kickstarter, but was able to find the game at a semi-local game store. I also ordered the "We Have The Bomb" expansion, and then kickstarted "In Cahoots".

My main reason for kickstarting, was to increase the player count in the game and get the bonus mini-expansion.

**It was a bit confusing at first, as I wasn't a fan of the creased poster/fold up rules, as to how the new Zombies worked in a game**

You can only use the new zombie set in 3-6 player games. The new zombies (2 lvl1, 2 lvl2, 1 lvl3) are used instead of the normal addition for an extra player (normally 1 extra lvl 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 zombie). This means the In Cahoots zombie set can't be used with In Cahoots alone, only when playing with the base set included (or more copies of In Cahoots). Kind of odd and confusing, at least at first.

So the basic 2 player is unchanged, and uses the standard zombie mix. you can then add the 5 new zombies for a 3-6 player game, in place of a normal 5 card set per player.

There are also a few other issues now that it has finally arrived, been unboxed, and played.

1) Opening the package, I was pleased to find the dice and mini-expansion inside, unharmed. However, I find the new yellow with red splatter dice kind of ugly, and the zombie image is unclear when compared to the original green die. My In-Cahoots box had slight damage to the top corners (Smashed in just ever so slightly, not really a huge deal), just a slight letdown but expected with my local mail delivery and the fact that it was all shipped in a USPS BAG (Not an additional box with padding).

2) There is an issue, imo, with "In Cahoots" as a standalone game. Right out of the box, the first thing I noticed was all but I believe two cards were flee. If I remember correctly, I only found 2 fight cards in the entire deck. Granted, there was a card that modified HEavy Stick (Basic swag) by +1, but that limits the choices/variety to the gameplay imo. As an expansion, not a big deal because the cards have some neat combos and effects.

An even bigger issue though, was the new zombies. The zombie deck is referenced exactly the same as the base game (And all of those zombies are included, enough for a 2 player game or expanding the base game), but there are also 5 new Zombie cards - 2 level 1's, 2 level 2's, AND A LEVEL 3! LEVEL 3?!?! UPDATE: As stated above, I have learned these are only used as a substitute set when adding zombie sets for ADDITIONAL players beyond 2. They are not used in 2 player games. The new zombie set is for expansion use only, and only swaps with one additional player zombie set when adjusting the Zombie Deck during setup.

That said, that does add a nice new twist to 3-6 player games. The new swag cards are nice, offering another variety of options when used as an expansion to the original game.

There is another confusing "Note:" in the rules, however, that may be from a misinterpretation of the original game/rules.

The new rule sheet says:
"Remove the oldest zombie from the Horde if any zombies remain on the Horde"
"Note: If you failed to kill all the zombies, or failed to flee from the Horde, then all the zombies in the Horde would have been removed."

Huh? All the zombies? I thought just the oldest was removed? So are we to be discarding ALL zombies in a pile after a failed fight/flee? What about Zombies added by other players? That may be a rule I just had wrong from the original game, but we only dissipated/discarded one zombie, furthest to the left of the horde, which could spell doom for the next player.


On The Plus Side:
There are cards in the expansion that allow you to add fight/flee to ANOTHER players turn, and then scavenge for helping (scavenge outside your own turn). Another boosts Heavy Stick by 1 fight, bandages lets you draw 3 cards and hints at "wound tokens" (coming in another expansion, apparently). The cards in In Cahoots do offer a nice alternative for assisting others and then benefiting yourself. Some cards also reduce zombie levels and attrition. Lots of nice new cards, that part I am very pleased with. Definitely not just "more of the same", when used with the base game it adds some very nice variety.

**************MINI EXPANSION***********************

Even though it has it's own entry here on BGG, I would like to commend Mayday on the mini-expansion "Weapons of Mass Destruction", because this is the part I ended up being most pleased with. Of course, I already expected to like them, since the cards were shown during the kickstarter campaign.

These cards are BEASTLY when attacking. Some offer the bonus of fight and flee. But, they also sacrifice scavenge points for use. So yeah, you can use that 4 Fight gun, but at a cost of 2 scavenge points. And they are fairly well balanced in cost as well.

Adding these into In Cahoots is a must, if you are playing In-Cahoots as a standalone game. I'm not a fan of the game being forced into one style of play over another, and part of the fun is wondering what kind of swag pile you are going to get? Balanced? Fight heavy? Flee Heavy? And then adjusting accordingly. Without adding the expansion or other cards in, In Cahoots misses that opportunity on it's own.

***************************************************
Conclusion:

It's a shame it took them so long to get this out. I really could have used these additional cards earlier in the summer (original plan for release was early June, I just received the cards today - August 25) when I wanted to play this with my game group, but since it only supported 4 players it stayed home.

**I am happy with In Cahoots as an EXPANSION to the base game. I wouldn't like it much as a standalone though, honestly. Mainly because of cards that are best used mixed with the base game and the heavy lean on fleeing.**

The dice were just an added "bonus". I like custom dice. I prefer the sharpness of the green one, it's easier to read and just looks "cleaner". The new one (yellow with red blood-splatter dots) just looks kind of cheap and cheesy imo. But, extra dice are always welcome in my collection, so no big complaint there.

Bottom line is, if you want to expand "EATEN BY ZOMBIES!" to support 5-6 players and add some cards with cool effects/more variety, then this is mostly a success. I am VERY happy with the mini-expansion "Weapons of Mass Destruction", as I really love the tradeoff/sacrifice in scavenge points when using them, but they can really make a fight-heavy deck do some serious damage.

Just like the original, there are some slightly off wordings in the rules that could cause confusion, imo. And a few issues-that I feel hold this back from being a good 2 player standalone recommendation, but I like the new cards and it does help add a bit more variety to the base game, which is always good.

There are 2 cards that also reference things that are not yet in the game, hinting at more expansions. Thankfully those cards are still useful/usable, but that could be another point of confusion for new/casual players wondering what wound tokens and keys are.
12 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Edited and updated with another issue discovered. Right now I'm pretty disappointed as I still can't use this for 6 player games "by the rules". I think there is an extra lvl 6 zombie that could be used, but I have to recount and check. For sure there are extra level 4, 2, and lvl 1 zombies. Not sure how adding 2 level 4's in place of a missing lvl 8 would affect the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yoki Erdtman
Sweden
Södertälje
flag msg tools
badge
Handsome devil huh?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting review. I have yet to receive my copy of the game, but look forward to it very much. I will most likely never play Eaten by Zombies! with 5 or 6 players, as I think deck builders (or in this case deck destruction) games are best with smaller numbers. Therefore those concerns don't worry me too much. However, if it is true that just one level 8 zombie is missing to make a perfect 6-player zombie deck, then that is indeed rather sloppy.

I'm curious what if anything is new in Eaten By Zombies!: In Cahoots to make it an even better 2-player game than it was before?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There are cards in the expansion that allow you to add fight/flee to ANOTHER players turn, and then scavenge for helping (scavenge outside your own turn). Another boosts Heavy Stick by 1 fight, bandages lets you draw 3 cards and hints at "wound tokens" (coming in another expansion, apparently). The cards in In Cahoots do offer a nice alternative for assisting others and then benefiting yourself. Some cards also reduce zombie levels and attrition. Lots of nice new cards, that part I am very pleased with. Definitely not just "more of the same", which is why the oversights are really too bad. There is a great game in here, it just needs some clearer rules and some cleanup imo.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Schnoor
United States
Manhattan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
It is technically possible to play a six player game following the rules. The unique zombies form a zombie set. So for example, instead of adding one of each zombie for a three player game you could add in the five unique zombies to the fifteen from the two player game. Thus to play a six player game you would have to play with the unique zombies. At least that's the way I'm reading it according to the rules on the unique zombies at the top of the rules foldout.

It clarifies it more on the "Zombies" divider card as well: "The basic ZOMBIE SET is made up of one of each of the five basic zombies isted above. Each expansion of Ebz! will have a new ZOMBIE SET with unique abilities and effects on the game."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, I'll go over the foldout again. I saw the small blurb about unique zombie sets being in each expansion, but didn't see anything about the 5 cards replacing an extra player set as described in the base game, or how it would merge with the 2 player game.



Edit: So after your explanation and reading the foldout blurb again, I believe you are correct. The new zombie set can be used for ADDITIONAL players, beyond the first 2. Those five cards substitute for 5 normal-cards that would be added per player.

But, that means the In Cahoots 5 card zombie set can't be used with In Cahoots or any 2 player games, only in games with 3 or more players. That's odd, I play 2 and 3 player games often, the 2 player ones have no way to use the new zombie-sets. At least this clears up the 6 player issue.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Posted to kickstarter:
Ok, after discussing with others and checking out the fold-up rule sheet, here is what I assume:
The new 5 card zombie set in "In Cahoots" can not be used in 2 player games, but instead is used as a substitute for the regular "extra 5 cards per player" . That at least solves my main issues, but does make me wonder why they couldn't have been incorporated into In Cahoots itself. I guess that would kind of suck for people who bought only In Cahoots (and don't have the base game).
Not a fan of the fold out rules poster, it's not really useful either way (too much creasing/fold to be a nice poster, too cumbersome to use as rule sheet in-game.). A mini booklet would have been preferred, with clearer rules and explanations. There is another confusing "Note:" in the rules:
"Remove the oldest zombie from the Horde if any zombies remain on the Horde"
"Note: If you failed to kill all the zombies, or failed to flee from the Horde, then all the zombies in the Horde would have been removed."
Huh? All the zombies? I thought just the oldest was removed? So are we to be discarding ALL zombies in a pile after a failed fight/flee? What about Zombies added by other players? That may be a rule I just had wrong from the original game, but we only dissipated/discarded one zombie, furthest to the left of the horde, which could spell doom for the next player.

----------------------------------

I am updating the review above to reflect any new insight/answers. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Chav
United States
Taylorsville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
"Note:" in the rules:
"Remove the oldest zombie from the Horde if any zombies remain on the Horde"
"Note: If you failed to kill all the zombies, or failed to flee from the Horde, then all the zombies in the Horde would have been removed."
Huh? All the zombies? I thought just the oldest was removed? So are we to be discarding ALL zombies in a pile after a failed fight/flee?


Yes, you discard all after a failed fight or flee. The only time you remove only one is when someone successfully flees or during zombie players turns after the human players have fled.

FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
What about Zombies added by other players?


Yes even those.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the clarification. The sentence in the rules even uses "zombie" singular, then the note seemed to contradict this. No wonder our/games seem to be brutal! lol. Hope it doesn't make it TOO easy discarding them all. Our games could often snowball fast discarding only the one to the far left of the horde...Made for some funny moments as you see that "Oh Sh*t look on the next person's face...lol.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Chav
United States
Taylorsville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. The sentence in the rules even uses "zombie" singular, then the note seemed to contradict this. No wonder our/games seem to be brutal! lol. Hope it doesn't make it TOO easy discarding them all. Our games could often snowball fast discarding only the one to the far left of the horde...Made for some funny moments as you see that "Oh Sh*t look on the next person's face...lol.


Yeah we played with Up a Tree for the first time the other day and THAT makes for some fun moments.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Another question I have:

When adding the zombies to the horde, do you count existing zombies in the total? For example, if we are on day 4, and 3 zombies are left due-to a failed flee, do you add 4 zombies to the existing 3 for the next player? Or just one?


The ONE reason my wife and daughter hate the game and don't ever want to playUnless I beg (and even one gamer friend hates it greatly) is because by day 3, things get hairy/scary REAL fast, like all of a sudden instead of discarding one card, people are discarding half their hand. It seems to be too sudden for them to enjoy it. I don't mind it, I find it thematic (oh crap, I just dropped all my stuff trying to scramble away!), but I'm the only one!

I'm wondering if changing the rule to disperse all zombies regardless of success/fail on flee will change it enough for them to enjoy it. We do often play it backwards, only dissapating a single zombie if someone failed, and dispersing the entire horde on success. We've had that backwards for a while, unfortunately. Basically, maybe should just get rid of the dissipate rule and use disperse all the time (with the people who don't like the pile up effect of dissipate).

Just finished another game, I won because wife lost all her cards, daughter lost hers immediately after, so I was last person standing.

Hope we are now playing it right, only question is what I asked initially in this particular post (adding to horde when zombies exist).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Chav
United States
Taylorsville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
Another question I have:

When adding the zombies to the horde, do you count existing zombies in the total? For example, if we are on day 4, and 3 zombies are left due-to a failed flee, do you add 4 zombies to the existing 3 for the next player? Or just one?



Add 4, so 7 total. Brutal I know!

You could disperse all of them each time and it should stabilize the game some, but I enjoy the chaos!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
That's what I thought, and how we'd been playing it for months. I had a gaming buddy insist it couldn't be right, cuz he faced-too many, failed, and had to discard 12 cards. I've heard a lot of crying from different types of players over how the game sucks because of that, it's just not fair, etc...lol.

I like it cuz it keeps the games quick and and like you said, it's chaotic; you know that heavy loss is coming, but never quite sure exactly when. To me that's one of the draws of the game.

Odd too, that my daughter insists on playing Fluxx (now Cthulhu Fluxx), but won't play this one cuz like her mom, hates losing all of a sudden out of nowhere. I don't see how Fluxx is so different in that regard (cards force you to draw 5 and play your entire hand, etc.).

Gonna have to see how a 5-6 player game goes Friday night with my newer boardgame group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Chav
United States
Taylorsville
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always tell people. Chances are you will die in fact you win by being the last one standing. This game isn't about surviving the best, it's about being lucky enough to survive.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Holliday
United States
Ogden
UT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
You can only use the new zombie set in 3-6 player games. The new zombies (2 lvl1, 2 lvl2, 1 lvl3) are used instead of the normal addition for an extra player (normally 1 extra lvl 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 zombie). This means the In Cahoots zombie set can't be used with In Cahoots alone, only when playing with the base set included (or more copies of In Cahoots). Kind of odd and confusing, at least at first.


FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
So the basic 2 player is unchanged, and uses the standard zombie mix. you can then add the 5 new zombies for a 3-6 player game, in place of a normal 5 card set per player


I play with the basic set-up (15 zombies) plus the new zombies all the time it still works and was play tested this way. If you want to use them in a two player game go ahead it doesn't brake anything and works well but I didn't want the game changing to much... although InCahoots does use the alternate rules for game set-up, leaving out the basic swag (the Swag with the yellow find signs) in favor of more new cards.

FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
2) There is an issue, imo, with "In Cahoots" as a standalone game. Right out of the box, the first thing I noticed was all but I believe two cards were flee. If I remember correctly, I only found 2 fight cards in the entire deck. Granted, there was a card that modified HEavy Stick (Basic swag) by +1, but that limits the choices/variety to the gameplay imo. As an expansion, not a big deal because the cards have some neat combos and effects.


there really is only one card that is a Flee card ('locker') the rest will work whether your choosing a Fight, Flee or a balanced strategy. Some may work better for one then other but over all they work for either.

FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
There is another confusing "Note:" in the rules, however, that may be from a misinterpretation of the original game/rules.

The new rule sheet says:
"Remove the oldest zombie from the Horde if any zombies remain on the Horde"
"Note: If you failed to kill all the zombies, or failed to flee from the Horde, then all the zombies in the Horde would have been removed."


This was added because I notice many folks didn't notice this in the original rules. You should always remove all the zombies from the horde if you fail to fight/flee.

Thanks for the review!
Max
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Edge

Oregon
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I find it a little sad that, despite the large amount of negative reviews specifically targeting the rulebook, Mayday Games hasn't fixed those problems. Under the "Fight" section (which you can see in the pdf here on BGG), it says that we use the Flee value to get our Swag. Even the original rules in EBZ said it was our total Fight value (which made sense).

There are typos on some of the Card Randomizers too (see the bottom of the Zombie card which has "When a zombie with the Reveal sign is added to the Horde from the top of the Zombie Deck, immediately revealed as well."

I can only hope that the next "installment" they double-check for typos and clarity. Rules are important for all players, especially those who are not part of the BGG community.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the reply, Max.

I'm one of those players that goes by the rules most of the time. I don't really tinker with variants or trying things unless they are stated in a rulebook. I just don't have time to try out and test ideas, and my gaming partners can be impatient/testy so I usually go by the book. That is why I would have never tried to attempt adding the 5 new cards to a 2 player game. Had it made the game too frustrating no one would have played it again. I also totally misinterpreted the set blurb first read-through, and had no idea how to incorporate them into 3-6 player games at first, since the actual setup rules for In Cahoots didn't directly reference them. Thankfully a re-read and another BGG user pointing out the "sets" helped clarify that point. I would have put it directly in the setup, though, because going by the rulebook they are not included used in 2 player. Or add a setup variant to the rules offering diferent zombie set ideas for various player counts.

My initial overview of the cards seemed to lean towards hiding/fleeing, scavenging out of turn, and other new "tricks". That's why I suggested that it was flee-heavy, in fact I believe I read/heard that mentioned initially in the kickstarter. Rollerskates is nice though, makes it worth keeping heavy sticks around. The cards.are nice and versatile, but it just seemed to me other than the heavy sticks there wasn't much direct fight cards offered in In Cahoots. I do agree that a lot of the cards can be used to BENEFIT a fight or flee strategy, though. Which is why I prefer In Cahoots as an expansion to the original, and not so much standalone.

I'd still love to see, maybe with the next expansion, a book with a better flow to the rules, I liked the faq, and I miss the alternate setup ideas (instead of random swag) that were included in the base game. Gives it kind of a scenario feel.

I'll try a 2 player game with the extra zombies just added into the others. I only play 2 player with my daughter, though, and she likes to try for co-op wins. It's hard enough (w/ random swag) to do that already a lot of times, imo (she's only 7). If it was playtested that way and worked, I would have just included that as part of the new setup for 2 player in the rules.

Again, thanks for the reply and now that we have some rules misunderstandings cleared up, I'm enjoying it very much as an expansion to the base game. As I said in my review, I REALLY love the negative effects of the weapons included with the mini-expansion. Would love to see more risky stuff like that!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erich Becker
msg tools
mbmb
Just got mine in today, only complaint is why is the new box not able to hold the cards in nicer/ heavier sleeves!?!? the first box for the base set has plenty of room to sleeve everything and even put the rulebook of the the side. It was great! the new expansion box won't fit sleeved cards (except for the crappy penny sleeves)! very disappointing, I thought they made a great game, excellent box and now I have to find some crappy box to shove it in instead, so I can use nicer sleeves.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I typically dislike sleeving cards, but I would like to sleeve EBZ as there aren't enough cards to shuffle well without bending or feeling like you might ruin them. I find it easier to "side" shuffle lightly with sleeves (not sure what you call the various shuffle methods) than to "fan" them from the tops/bottoms together.

I used the 100 pack of sleeves on my D&D Inn Fighting Game. They ARE very thin, but they did shuffle ok. I also have FFG sleeves on my Mage Knight Cards, but they are a bit oversized. They still shuffle alright, though, but I don't know if those would fit in either of the boxes.

Overall, I didn't think the Mayday "penny" sleeves were too bad. However, I could buy the same type of "cheap" sleeve at my local baseball card shop (also sells Magic) for the same price or less, and avoid shipping, so not sure what to recommend on that. I haven't sleeved the game because I like storing EBZ and In Cahoots in the original EBZ box (unsleeved). But I do worry about shuffling only 12-18 cards or so at a time. Not quite enough to really avoid bending the cards it seems...

I've also noticed some slight warping to the new cards (from In Cahoots). Not sure if they were like that originally, but when I played a game today with my family, I noticed the slight bowing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron Chien
United States
Rancho Cucamonga
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I"m very much looking forward to playing EBZ with the expansion cards/characters.

It is sad that the expansion is rife with typos like the original was. They even misspelled Max's name on the box sleeve.

Oh well, it doesn't affect the game in any way.

Cameron
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jose Negron
United States
New Hyde Park
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:
Posted to kickstarter:
Ok, after discussing with others and checking out the fold-up rule sheet, here is what I assume:
The new 5 card zombie set in "In Cahoots" can not be used in 2 player games, but instead is used as a substitute for the regular "extra 5 cards per player" . That at least solves my main issues, but does make me wonder why they couldn't have been incorporated into In Cahoots itself. I guess that would kind of suck for people who bought only In Cahoots (and don't have the base game).
Not a fan of the fold out rules poster, it's not really useful either way (too much creasing/fold to be a nice poster, too cumbersome to use as rule sheet in-game.). A mini booklet would have been preferred, with clearer rules and explanations. There is another confusing "Note:" in the rules:
"Remove the oldest zombie from the Horde if any zombies remain on the Horde"
"Note: If you failed to kill all the zombies, or failed to flee from the Horde, then all the zombies in the Horde would have been removed."
Huh? All the zombies? I thought just the oldest was removed? So are we to be discarding ALL zombies in a pile after a failed fight/flee? What about Zombies added by other players? That may be a rule I just had wrong from the original game, but we only dissipated/discarded one zombie, furthest to the left of the horde, which could spell doom for the next player.

----------------------------------

I am updating the review above to reflect any new insight/answers. Thanks!


Can't you just use 4 out of the 5 (not using the level 3) and swap the level 1 and level 2 zombies with the reveal feature for the standard ones (assuming you have the base game that is). So the level count will still be the same and you can use 4 out of the 5 new reveal zombies in a 2 player game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Hartman
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Haven't tried it. According to Max, they playtested it by just throwing all the extra zombies into the typical 2 player setup (adding additional zombie count to the 2 player "Basic" setup), and this supposedly didn't break the game. I haven't had a chance to try it that way yet.

My question really was, though, if there was a method for 2 player using those new zombies, why not incorporate it into the rules? Those oversights like that, are what I think keep people from even giving this game a try. Things look a bit out of whack and confusing at first, so instead of just giving it a go with a willing group, most just shelve or ditch the game altogether.

My night to introduce a new game to the group was last night, and I specifically avoided EBZ. One, because the host didn't really enjoy horror games anyhow, but mostly because I know the type of gamers they are, and they will want to verify through rules that they are really supposed to ditch so many cards on a failed fight/flee, and even ditch some on successful flee. With the differences too in which piles you can lose cards from depending on the outcome and patch chosen (Fight/flee), it CAN be kind of confusing to teach to a new group of varying gaming abilities. If I can't be altogether sure of how to answer a lot of the questions myself because of a lacking rulebook or vague rules in some spots, that doesn't make it a good choice imo.

Instead, we played against a Raid deck in Wow (Onyxia) and finally beat it with 4 decks I had assembled this past week from my limited stash of cards. Was great fun. Was going to then introduce Cuthtroat Caverns, a favorite of mine, but one of the primary members was tired and I had my daughter with me, so we called it a night (got started late).

One person in that group has said they wouldn't mind trying EBZ, but I just know it won't go over as well with the rest of them. Maybe one day I'll introduce it, but I just don't find it a game that I'm dying to introduce to everyone else - not because I don't like it myself, but because I understand where the "haters" are coming from. I just happen to love Zombie themes enough to give it a try and work through the kinks. Not a lot of gamers are like that, especially if the theme matters very little (or not at all).

This is one game I keep with the family, or would pull out for people who just absolutely love the zombie theme. Otherwise, it's staying on the shelf and I probably won't support any more expansions. I was really hoping In Cahoots would clear up issues, but still to this day the best way to teach a newcomer is to avoid the rule sheet/book and just hand them a flowchart from BGG here. To be perfectly honest, with the high number of games I'm always learning week to week (Aside from my own collection), it's best for me in EBZ to keep a flowchart/learning guide nearby as well (on my tablet, actually) for quick reference because even I forget or get something backwards once in a while, especially after long breaks between plays.

I honestly feel the bulk of the value out of kickstarting In Cahoots, was getting the Weapons of Mass Destruction mini-expansion (Which I love), and a few cards from the In Cahoots set. I like the new zombies, but I would have really loved to have seen more of them, with varying abilities, to be used to replace existing ones in the base game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon Baume
Australia
Lismore
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:

My question really was, though, if there was a method for 2 player using those new zombies, why not incorporate it into the rules?


It is in the rules in the brown coloured box at the top of the rules sheet: "What are the Zombie sets? A Zombie Set is a group of 5 zombie cards with a unique set of abilities. In larger games you add a Zombie Set for each player beyond the first two players or whenever you want a more challenging game.

The In Cahoots Zombie Set is made up of 5 unique zombies..."

So the rules are saying you play with the standard Zombie deck of 15 zombies and can add the In Cahoots Zombie Set as an extra challenge as it is a Zombie Set.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jose Negron
United States
New Hyde Park
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My issue with that is this... you have a new set that you can't use in a 2 player game, yet the expansion was marketed as a 2 player stand alone game. Also, if you have the base game, as I do, according to the rules I can't use the new mechanic. I only play the game exclusively 2 players and I find it absurd the official rules don't let you use new mechanics.

I think I'm going to sell this game like I did quarriors b/c of the inconsistencies,

sapper_D wrote:
FunkyFlyChicken wrote:

My question really was, though, if there was a method for 2 player using those new zombies, why not incorporate it into the rules?


It is in the rules in the brown coloured box at the top of the rules sheet: "What are the Zombie sets? A Zombie Set is a group of 5 zombie cards with a unique set of abilities. In larger games you add a Zombie Set for each player beyond the first two players or whenever you want a more challenging game.

The In Cahoots Zombie Set is made up of 5 unique zombies..."

So the rules are saying you play with the standard Zombie deck of 15 zombies and can add the In Cahoots Zombie Set as an extra challenge as it is a Zombie Set.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon Baume
Australia
Lismore
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
boricua1111 wrote:
My issue with that is this... you have a new set that you can't use in a 2 player game, yet the expansion was marketed as a 2 player stand alone game.


But you can use them in a two player game as I showed in my previous post where I quoted directly from the EBZ:IC rulebook that stated how to include the IC Zombie Set, ie when you want a more challenging game.

Quote:
Also, if you have the base game, as I do, according to the rules I can't use the new mechanic. I only play the game exclusively 2 players and I find it absurd the official rules don't let you use new mechanics.


So what you find "absurd" is that the EBZ rulebook doesn't include rules for mechanics that hadn't been created at the time of its writing?

Quote:
I think I'm going to sell this game like I did quarriors b/c of the inconsistencies


Well I think that's a shame because EBZ and EBZ:IC are great games that have given hours of entertainment in my household.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.