Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings» Forums » Reviews

Subject: It's good but... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Blanding
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Tigris & Euphrates has long been one of my favorite games. That game is regarded by many as Reiner Knizia's crowning achievement. So when I heard that there was to be a card game version of T&E I was very anxious and excited. How would it be different? Would it be as good? Well the wait is over. Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings has finally arrived.

Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings (E&T:CK for short) is a card game that supports 2-4 players and plays in around 45 minutes. That makes it a little shorter than the board game, finishing in roughly two-thirds the time.

Inside the box you'll find the same wooden leader tokens from the board game as well as 200 half-sized cards. I'm not a big fan of half-sized cards (for one thing, they're much harder to shuffle than full-sized cards) but given the amount of table space required to play this game, I have to admit that this was really the only logical way to go. Other than their diminutive size, there's really nothing to complain about; the cards are very attractive and of the finest quality.

For those that are already familiar with the board game, learning E&T:CK will be a snap. The rules are so similar that you can teach the game in just a few minutes by focusing on the differences between the card game and the board game.

Just as in the board game, players are identified by symbol (lion, bull, pot, and bow) rather than color and each player has four leader disks with his symbol: one black king, one red priest, one green merchant, and one blue farmer. As in the board game, your goal is to use your leaders to exert influence on the kingdoms of the Fertile Crescent in an effort to earn victory points.

Each player plays the game with a hand of eight cards which is replenished at the end of every turn. The cards serve the same purpose as the tiles from the board game with one minor difference: they are also used to count victory points. In the board game, whenever you earn a victory point you take a victory point cube of the appropriate color from the supply. In the card game, whenever you earn a victory point, you must add an appropriately colored card from your hand to your victory point stack. If you don't have a card that's the right color, too bad for you! No card; no score! As in the board game, the winner is the player with the highest score in his lowest scoring category so you must be careful to collect all four victory point colors; not just one or two. Unlike the board game, players are NOT allowed to review their own scores until the end of the game; rather they must remember what they've taken. I can think of no good reason for this other than to avoid confusing the scoring piles with the players' hands and I can imagine a lot of people adopting house rules that do away with this restriction.

In the board game, the playing surface is a two-dimensional grid representing a map of Mesopotamia on which you play your tiles. In the card game, the playing surface is a linear row of treasure cards. Each treasure card represents a different region and additional cards are added below it to expand the region. Place a leader disk on one of the cards in a region and it becomes a kingdom. Play a card between two treasure cards and the regions merge. This linear representation simplifies the geography quite a bit. In fact, it simplifies it a bit too much in my opinion. Although the basic mechanics are the same, you loose a lot of the strategy of carefully joining and splitting regions that is so vital to the board game. One other problem is that due to the size of the cards (which are by necessity larger than the tiles in the board game) the card game actually requires a LARGER playing surface than the board game! On the other hand, the card game packs quite a bit smaller so provided you have a large enough table where you're going, it does travel better.

If two leaders of the same color are ever in the same kingdom then there is a conflict. Internal conflicts occur when a player adds a conflicting leader to a kingdom and are resolved with red cards played from each player's hand (majority wins, defender wins ties). External conflicts occur when a player joins two kingdoms with the same colored leaders and are resolved with cards that match the leaders' color. Victory points are taken from cards used in the conflict.

Those familiar with the board game will realize that conflict is almost identical. The one difference (and it's a big one) is that in an internal conflict, a leader's base strength depends only upon the card that's underneath him: if it's a red card he gets a one point bonus. This means that having red cards in your hand is very important since it's really the only way you have to defend against an internal conflict. That makes internal conflicts far more luck dependent than they are in the board game.

There are other similarities with the board game: the treasures are still there as are the monuments, although in the card game they are called ships, there are only three of them, and building them (much less keeping them) is more difficult than in the board game.

I really wanted to like this game. I'm a huge fan of the board game and I was really hoping that the card game version would bring something new to the game while retaining the same flavor. At the end of the day, I have to say that while I do like the card game, it's not as good as I had hoped. E&T:CK isn't a bad game at all and had it come out first I'd certainly have recommended it, but with the board game already out there, the card game is just too similar and yet slightly inferior in almost every respect. If you already own Tigris & Euphrates, I can think of little reason to get the card game as well. And if you are trying to decide between the two then I would definitely recommend you choose the board game. About the only reason to get the card game is if you want a version of the game that you can take with you wherever you go.
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No real need for a fix, AFAIK, since internal conflicts in the board game often depend on holding red tiles. Like everything else it changes, the card game just scales the power of the red cards on the board down a bit.

The first question I was asked after playing this: Is it any good?
Answer: Yes

2nd question: As good as the board game?
answer: No

Quick read: A shorter version of the game that loses some of the tactical nuances of the board game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Blanding
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
houjix wrote:
Do you think a fix for the internal conflict issue would be to also have a +1 bonus for a red card directly above or directly below your leader? That means you could get a +3 theoretically.


I'm sure that there are all sorts of house rules that people will eventually want to try, this being one of them. Of course, that would only address this one problem and there are many other things that people might consider problems. Spend all day fixing all of the perceived problems and you're still left at the end of the day with a game that's very similar to the board game.

I suspect that a lot of the differences are there as part of a calculated effort to make this game different from the board game while retaining some of the feel. I totally respect that decision but for me it isn't quite different enough.

I think many would agree that San Juan is the gold standard here. That's a game that retains a lot of the flavor of Puerto Rico while at the same time justifying its existence by being significantly different from the original. E&T:CK seems to have tried to duplicate that formula but for me, the differences aren't different enough and in most cases resulted in a worse game.

Let me just say that there is no shame in being worse than T&E (or E&T if you prefer); most games are. This isn't a bad game at all. It just didn't strike me as being good enough on its own merits to justify buying the card game over the board game (or in addition to it).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Blanding
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
AllenDoum wrote:
Quick read: A shorter version of the game that loses some of the tactical nuances of the board game.

Exactly.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SteveBl wrote:
I'm sure that there are all sorts of house rules that people will eventually want to try, this being one of them.

Although I was not involved in playtesting this, knowing Reiner's methods I'd be *amazed* if he hadn't already tried the game with +1 for each adjacent red card; if he did, and rejected that rule, he will have done so for a reason related to improving the gameplay. I'm sure he would have tried to get everything as close to the boardgame as possible, rules-wise.

Quote:

I think many would agree that San Juan is the gold standard here. That's a game that retains a lot of the flavor of Puerto Rico while at the same time justifying its existence by being significantly different from the original. E&T:CK seems to have tried to duplicate that formula but for me, the differences aren't different enough and in most cases resulted in a worse game.


For me, E&T:CK is to E&T what San Juan is to Puerto Rico. The card game is light , shorter, more luck-dependant and missing some of te tactical nuances, while delivering the same "flavour" as the boardgame in a smaller package. The one that missed the mark was King of the Elves, which didn't quite capture the flavour of, let alone simplify and shorten, Elfenlands.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What do you mean by obtuse? Difficult to get into?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zachary Woolever
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I just got the card game and while i love the board game i cannot stand the card game it was supposed to add something to it from being a card game. Instead the only thing that changed was that it got rid of all strategic play. Im dissapointed in what it became and really can't wait to get rid of it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Lang
United Kingdom
Herts
flag msg tools
mb
Has anyone played this as a 2 player game and is still able to describe this game as 'It's good but...'? I really hope I am missing a page of the rules or perhaps had a small seizure while reading them. After finally getting to grips with all the internal/external combat my first 2 player game ended with a shrug, one external conflict (one internal conflict just because we were bored) and the lingering feeling that the cradle of civilization is big enough for two. Anyone?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Towerwood
Belgium
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
meet_the_creeper wrote:
Has anyone played this as a 2 player game and is still able to describe this game as 'It's good but...'? [...] my first 2 player game ended with a shrug, one external conflict (one internal conflict just because we were bored) and the lingering feeling that the cradle of civilization is big enough for two. Anyone?


I remember that my first E&T card game also was a 2 player game, and that it was also pretty boring. But with time I learned to play more aggresively, both in earning points and in preventing my opponent to get points. Give it a few more tries and you'll see that it'll get better.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Blanding
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
meet_the_creeper wrote:
Has anyone played this as a 2 player game and is still able to describe this game as 'It's good but...'?

In my opinion, neither the card game nor the board game really shine as two player games. Three or four (particularly four) are where it's at. Otherwise there's no question who each player is going to target on a given turn.
1 
 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.