19th November 2022 It's a Saturday morning and we're at Bisley for Wogglecon 5 'It's a alive!' - a day of gaming goodness and a bit of charity. Have you ever fancied travelling South American highlands with nothing but a cart of goods to keep you company, going from place to place, hunting for fish, chopping down trees, trading and so forth. If the answer is yes, then maybe Altiplano is the game for you. What's in a game? Altiplano has a whole shedload of components, so here we go!
Right, I think that's it for components. Altiplano's components are for the most part solidly made, the tokens, boards and tiles are constructed of thick card and feel sturdy. The containers made of equally sturdy material but are supplied as flat components that need to need folded into their shape. They sort of clip together but some of them had a tendency to break open. It's not a problem really and nothing that a dab of PVA glue wouldn't solve but even so, it feels a little like a cheap oversight. Cards are pretty average but also smaller than typical cards which allows them to fit on the tiles. Finally, the meeples and cubes all feel like nice wooden components. Altiplano is a game with a South American theme and consequently has a South American folk art themed art style to it. There's a lot of bright solid colours with stylised line art that mixes with slightly cartoony illustrations to be found on the tokens, cards, board and tiles. It's all solid artwork, brash and colourful which is how I like it. The only criticism I have is for the colour schemes for the cloth and wool tokens, which in less than good light can look similar. Between all the location actions, tokens, extension tile actions and so on, there's quite a lot of iconography to Altiplano. Luckily, much of it is intuitive and easily comprehended but some of it will - particularly the extension tiles - will require referring to the rulebook, fortunately it contains fairly extensive explanations. It's not a gamebreaker but there's definitely a bit of a learning curve here. How's it play? Setup
On to play In Altiplano players will be making plans to travel around the location tiles and use their goods to carry out the actions specific to those locations. This is done over 4 phases:
Endgame Play continues until one of the following 2 criteria are met. Any one location becomes fully emptied of all tokens, cards, etc. Or, a space along the extension strip cannot be filled, i.e., the extension tiles supply has emptied. In either instance, the current round is completed and 1 further round is played, then the game goes to scoring. VPs will come from a variety of sources.
Points are tallied, highest score wins. Overall
As you can see from the write up so far, there's quite a lot going on in Altiplano and a lot for players to think about. There's a recognisable quandary going on with the bag building mechanic. Players will naturally be looking to acquire tokens to carry out actions but invariably there will be times they end up getting pulled from the bag when they're not needed and unneeded tokens can 'water down' a player's strategies. Unwanted tokens can of course be left on planning spaces but most players will find that irritatingly suboptimal. Alternatively, they can placed on spaces for action that a player does not immediately want to perform but they will eventually end up coming back to again though. Another option albeit fairly situational, is to put them on to order cards, although removes the goods from the remainder of the game. Finally, they can be put into the warehouse, this means those tokens have greater scoring opportunities but again, permanently removes them from a player's container/bag which may or may not be a good thing. layers will have judge the merits of storing tokens contextually - except when dealing with glass tokens. The thing with glass tokens is that they don't produce any other type of token, all they do is produce the most VPs per token, storing them in the warehouse where they contribute to more VPs and declutter a player's bag is a no-brainer and usually I consider no-brainers a bad thing for a board game but I feel this is a deliberate decision on the part of the game - more on that below. If you've been paying attention (And I'm sure you have!) you will also have noticed that several goods such as a cacao, alpacas and even something that seems that it should be common such as fish cannot be produced from the action board. So how are these acquired? There's a couple of opportunities to get them, namely boat cards, extension tiles and possibly role tiles. However, this brings me to a bit of a bugbear I have with this scarcity mechanic. It means there can be a race by experienced players to get those hard-to-produce goods, particularly cacao which produces glass which can be worth so many VPs. In fact I feel the whole of the forest location is especially strong location since cacao alone is used there for 3 separate actions in the same location. A player who can produce cacao and concentrates on doing so can soon be producing lots of goods at the forest. Having said that, the game is a bit of a point salad with various avenues to scoring VPs, it's just that I feel going for glass is the strongest way and experienced players will end competing in that tactic. While the bulk of the game's activity takes place during the action phase, the planning phase is where players will do most of their well... planning. They'll look to optimise there actions to get the most out of their available tokens. Because players will generally need to move around to perform multiple actions, efficient use of the movement track is important, especially so in the early game when food tokens will be scarcer. A player can move their meeple before or after an action may make it seem unimportant but sometimes players will need to think ahead about where they need to be at the start of the next round. As well as having to think about movement and balancing their goods with their bags, players will also have to think about gaining extensions, house and order cards, as well as boat cards if they are needed. Add to this increasing their planning spaces and acquiring corn to fill out their warehouse and players have lot of ways to approach the game In this regard Altiplano does that thing which presents players with lots of options but frequently not enough opportunity to do everything they want, forcing them to make tricky decisions, which I consider a good thing in games. Altiplano is a mid-to-heavy game with a longish playtime, it's probably not for beginners and perhaps could be criticised for being a bit over-elaborate although personally I didn't find it that much of a problem In conclusion; the mechanics blend together to give players choices and essentially problems to solve in optimising their actions. If bag-building style games and resource management are your thing, Altiplano is worth a try.
0 Comments
9th October 2022 Another Sunday, another session of gaming goodness on Board Game Arena. Travel around North America, fulfil tickets, draft cards, create routes in Ticket to Ride. Caveat: We've only played Ticket to Ride digitally. What's in a game?
I suppose that you could call the art on the board muted but I would say it's functional and unobtrusive. The board is quite busy as it is with all the routes crossing back and forth, overly elaborate art would just obfuscate important information, so it feels like a good decision to me. Each colour of train card has it's own unique illustration which helps with accessibility issues. The illustrations are perfectly good if a little plain. The destination cards essentially replicate the art on the board. There's no notable iconography in Ticket to Ride and the game is straightforward to comprehend. There's just the 9 types of train car to remember and that's easy and intuitive. I imagine the biggest hurdle to overcome in the game's presentation is finding destinations on the map and the iconography does a lot to make that as easy as it can. How's it play? Setup
On to play In Ticket to Ride, players broadly speaking have 3 objectives, these are; build as many routes as possible, create a connection between the locations on their destination cards and finally, create the longest contiguous set of connections. All of these will contribute VPs towards their final score. This is done by drafting cards which in turn allows players to create routes. Ticket to Ride uses the typical turn structure of the active player taking their action before play progresses to the player on their left. In their turn, the active player can perform exactly 1 of the 3 following actions.
Endgame When the active player has 2 or less train meeples remaining, the end game is triggered. Every player including the active player has 1 more turn then the game goes to scoring. Players will add points from destination cards to their running total from the game and the player with the longest set of connections gains bonus VPs. Destination cards are now revealed:
Points are tallied, highest score wins. Overall
Ticket to Ride is a very popular, well regarded game and it's easy to see why. Lightweight rules that are genuinely elegant, almost minimalist that're easy to learn, a game that's intuitive to play with a theme anybody can understand. Ticket to Ride is definitely a game with crossover appeal, is a good game for casual play and introduction to board games. It also has a fairly random distribution of destination cards throughout a game which provides a good level of variety to games. This pared down set of rules means that Ticket to Ride also provides players with clear meaningful decisions to make. Basic tactics are pretty straightforward: Players are in a race to connect their personal destinations before they risk getting blocked by other players. They'll need to balance getting cards they need to draft and claiming routes. Since a player's routes do not need to connect, any player essentially can claim any route, anytime if they have the appropriate cards. Completing destination cards can be quite satisfying and they add an extra wrinkle to the gameplay. Being able to acquire more of them during play can be a game changer, earning more VPs but conversely, is also risky, getting a card that is not completed obviously costs VPs. What makes this even more interesting is during the late game this risk/reward mechanic becomes even more pronounced. Acquiring a destination card late in the game can be very risky because the player may not have the required time to complete the connection. However, late in the game is when a player's train network is at it's biggest, consequently it's possible to gain destination cards which have already been connected. There's also a higher level of play in Ticket to Ride. Watching what opponents are doing and successfully anticipating what connections they're trying to make can allow a player to block or slow their progress down by claim routes they might want. If you look at the map, you will see that that there are numerous routes which are only 1 or 2 space grey routes that are very easy for a player to claim, e.g., a 1 space grey route can be claimed with any train rail card. It's obvious this is by design. This brings me to my main contention with Ticket to Ride: It's a game that promotes negative gameplay. What do I mean by that? Claiming a route another player needs will force them to spend additional turns acquiring train car cards and then taking longer to claim routes around the block. In terms of action economy, a player wasting 1 action to make an opponent waste 5 or 6 can be pretty advantageous. Preventing an opponent completing a destination card may earn that player no VPs but for their opponents, it will cost them points. Many Eurogames have mechanics which have sort of a balance to them where if a player screws over an opponent, they will also frequently screw themselves over and only occasionally can they screw an opponent over while advance themselves. Ticket to Ride is not like that! Although, in part this will be down to the type of people playing. Dedicated players will learn and exploit blocking at every opportunity and why not? Games are for winning and getting a score of 1 while opponents get 0 is still winning. More casual players may not care about higher level tactics. Early games will be light and fun but even so, after a while they'll end up realising (Probably by accident!) how powerful blocking can be. Remember, earlier I said how connecting destinations can feel satisfying, well getting blocked can feel equally unsatisfying. There's a lot that's good about Ticket to Ride and I wanted to like it but the negative aspect can just be too frustrating. I understand why the game has a lot of fans, I'm not one of them. 26th September 2022 It's a Monday and we're round Simon's for Firefly: The Game. It 'aint' the time to misbehave, it's actually time to play a Sandbox board game in the world of the cult short lived sci-fi show, Firefly. Now with the requisite joke quote out of the way, it's time to get down to business. What's in a game?
I don't usually talk about this because it has no impact on the game itself but Firefly: The game has a huge footprint, i.e., it takes up a lot of table space. Firefly: The Game has a lot of components and I mean a lot, generally they're are all good quality. Tokens, cards and boards are what you'd expect from a modern. Yes, the Dice are plastic but also with well rounded corners so that's good. I like the paper money too. The models are cool, it's a bit bland that all the player ships are the same firefly class models but otherwise they're good quality, the Alliance cruiser is definitely the standout components. A mixture of photos and illustrations are used throughout the game which is a wise move. Often, games that use a lot of stock photos in place of art look quite cheap. Here though, photos are mostly reserved for portraits of characters from the show so it works well enough in this context. Despite the game's level of detail, the iconography is kept to a minimum and isn't overwhelming. Most game information is relayed through text. Even so, the amount of events, tasks and the like that occur in the game will keep players referring to the rulebook. How's it play? Setup
On to play Firefly: The Game doesn't have set objective, instead it has differing story cards, one of which will be used during a game. Each story card will have a series of goals that must be completed and whoever does them all first, wins! Firefly: The Game follows the usual turn structure with the active player taking their turn before play progresses to the player on their left.
Endgame Whichever player completes the final goal on the story card first... wins the game! Endgame
Firefly: The game works hard to replicate the feel of the show and to a certain extent, it does this very well. It successfully captures the feel of hustling round a system, wheeling and dealing, dodging authorities and making profit. All of this though, is only half of what the TV show was, the show was also about the family you make and the stories they collectively create, stuff that's quite hard to replicate in a game and is missing here since players are each playing separate crews. Having said that, there's definitely a bit of emergent gameplay and some elements of storytelling going on here but his brings me to one of my bugbears about the game. When you're playing it feels a bit like a single-player game that happens to have other players in it. There's a little bit of interaction here and there that comes from sending the Alliance or Reavers after other players or trading and crew poaching but it doesn't feel significant. Firefly: The Game is sandbox game that appears to offer a lot of choice, is a lot of game with a lot of rules and rules exceptions and also a lot of components which I feel will be off putting to more casual gamers. A fan of the show who isn't a gamer will probably find Firefly: The Game hard going at the start. Despite the breadth of rules, the game is fairly straightforward in what it asks players to do. One of my other bugbears is that players will often find themselves delivering something, this might be legal or illegal or performing a crime/misbehaving. All of this will involve travelling around and risking running into the Alliance or Reavers or other obstacles and so on. The consequence of this is that because the game is so single-player driven that ultimately, it's a race to complete the goals as efficiently as possible and even though it's meant to be have open sandbox gameplay, players are being somewhat funnelled through the game by those goals. I.e., the game-winning goals are all the same, it's how those goals are achieved that will differ between player. The game also has a fairly long playtime, we played a beginner story card with a low player count and it still took 2 hours. Although, to be fair, that's not really uncommon with this style of play so it comes with the territory but be prepared to commit a few hours to a playthrough. If you're a fan of the Firefly TV show and are prepared to prepared to invest some effort learning the rules time to play, you'll probably enjoy this. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about Firefly: The Game overall, it was a fun experience and my decisions generally felt meaningful, it also fairly involved and having players run around dong their own thing also felt a little unengaging. However, if someone else wanted to play it, I wouldn't object. 8th September 2022 It's a Thursday evening, it's Aldershot, it's time for some gaming goodness. Channel your inner Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen and Kevin McCloud as you attempt to build your... Dream Home in this drafting, set collecting game. What's in the game?
Component quality is the usual good standard found in most modern board games. The cards are fine, the board and tokens are constructed from sturdy cardboard. The first player token is chunky and made from wood, it's obviously a bit of a gimmick but it's the kind of gimmick I'm a sucker for! Dream Home has fantastic artwork throughout. The Illustration used on the home board is good, however, the standouts are the cards and tokens which feature excellent colourful and distinct depictions of home spaces. Interestingly, many cards will feature children hidden among the furniture. This is more than just a aesthetic choice which will be explained below. Most information is conveyed via text and there's no iconography that needs learning. How's it play? Setup This is the setup for 4-player games, in game with lower player counts, some cards will be discarded after being placed on the game board.
On to play Dream Home is played over exactly 12 rounds and players will be putting room cards on to their personal game board to build their home and gaining resource cards. This is done by drafting pairs of cards from the same column, that is, 1 resource and 1 room card - except for the leftmost space, in which case they acquire a room card and the first player token. Turn order is slightly different to the usual here: The player with the first player token goes first and play progresses to the left until all players have taken their turn. However, it's possible that the first player token will change hands during a round, consequently, in the following round a new turn order would be established. During their turn, the active player takes the following actions.
Endgame Dream Home is played over 12 rounds and after the last round, the game goes to scoring. There are various avenues to earning VPs.
Points are tallied, highest score wins. In the case of a tie, the player with home board showing the most children on the cards wins! Overall
Dream Home strikes a balance between ease of play and depth. Players will be faced with the conundrum of having to build outwards before building upwards. It might not seem like much but it's unlikely that players will get all the cards they need at the time they need them. The larger room sets will score more points per card but unless a player gets the right cards at the right time, it's likely that they will have to leave gaps when collecting bigger sets, which can make it tricky to build upwards. The drafting mechanic also provides players with a meaningful choice. Again, it's unlikely that players will always get the 2 cards they want, often they will need to compromise on which resource and room card to take as well as adapt to circumstances as they are occur. Finally, the first player mechanic is also interesting. Gaining the first player token feels costly because the player only gets a room card but it can play dividends in the following turn. There will times when going first can be extremely useful. Conversely going last can be painful as the last player will only ever have a choice of 2 columns to pick from. None of this is ever too complicated, the sets are never too big and intricacies that can arise from syncing resource cards such as décor cards with room cards is never too complex. Dream Home also doesn't outstay its welcome. Being played over 12 rounds keeps it moving along briskly and provides a fairly concise experience, unless you're playing with a sufferer of analysis paralysis! It's fair to say that Dream Home is a lightweight and accessible iteration of the 'draft-and-place' multiple components, set collecting mechanic seen in quite a few games. This accessibility along with it's top-notch presentation means that it's probably a good game to play with younger participants or more casual gamers. For me though: While I feel that Dream Home does provide a good experience for younger and more casual gamers, I'm not sure it has long term appeal to more dedicated gamers. I enjoyed the game but it's fairly simplistic nature means I'm not sure how often I'd like to play it. 28th August 2022 It's a Sunday evening and we're logged into Board Game Arena for some gaming goodness. Burgle Bros is a cooperative tile based bank heist/caper game: Can you sneak through the building, dodge the guards, disarm the alarms, find and crack the safes. Time to find out in... Burgle Bros. Caveat: We have only played this digitally. What's in a game?
The art direction for Burgle Bros has some unusual choices. Room tiles have detailed, realistic looking line art illustrations while on the other hand, characters are depicted with highly stylised and exaggerated cartoony art that looks like it's out of the opening titles of a sixties crime caper movie - which is appropriate. It's a weird clash of styles but in this instance it actually works quite well. There are a few icons that are used throughout Burgle Bros but they're all fairly easy to learn, a lot of the game's information is conveyed via text. How's it play? Setup
On to play The objective in Burgle Bros is to find and crack all 3 safes, gain 3 loot cards, then escape to the roof, all without being caught by the security guards. This is done by the use of action points (APs). In Burgle Bros, the active player spends their APs to perform certain actions. Then the security guard on their floor moves along their patrol route. Then play progresses to the player to the left of the active player. A turn is broadly speaking, broken down into 3 phases.
Endgame Play continues until 1 of 2 ending conditions are met. If a player has to discard a stealth token and they cannot because they've already used them up, then the burglar has been caught, players immediately and collectively lose the game. If the players manage to open all 3 safes, get the loot and all of the burglars off the top of floor 3, they collectively win. Overall
First thing to say is that we played Burgle Bros digitally and I felt there was a bit of a disconnect with the game because of this. In the physical copy, all 3 floors are laid out next to each other but the digital copy required visually switching between them. It means the digital copy can never feel as intuitive as the physical one. Anyway, on to the game. Players will need to balance the need to be cautious with the need explore and turn over tiles. Avoiding or neutralising the many alarms is good but so is reaching the objective as quickly as possible. That's because the real challenge in Burgle Bros is managing the movement and behaviour of the guard. This requires thinking ahead and I mean really thinking ahead! There's almost a puzzle-like logic to it but there's also the potential for a lot of randomness too! Players will need to anticipate where the guard will go (And when!) and at times try to manipulate the guard by deliberately triggering an alarm and the like. This is compounded by the fact that the more players there are on a floor; the more a guard may move. E.g., in a 4-player game, a player may think their meeple is 'safe' but if all players' meeples are on the same floor (And they will be in the early game.), the security guard will move at least 8 spaces before that player gets to act again, that's enough to cross an entire floor twice! It can become very hard to predict where the guard is going whenever a new patrol tile is flipped over - which can happen often when the guard moves a lot. I guess the solution to this is for players to get their meeples to other floors ASAP and this will slow down individual guards. From a gameplay perspective though, this feels a little counterintuitive. It turns what is meant to be a cooperative challenge into 3 sub-games with a only tenuous cooperative link between players. From a player perspective, it also feels somewhat counterintuitive. For players, the instinct will be to cooperate; opening a safe can be hard and adding dice to it is vital but also expensive in terms if AP. Multiple players will naturally want to quickly contribute as many dice as possible dice to a single safe to help each other open it sooner rather than later. This is certainly how we played Burgle Bros and in retrospect, that was probably a mistake, it seemed to be that the game punished players for playing this way. Personally I found it the intricacies of having to deal with so many alarms paired with just too unpredictable guard actions a little futile and frustrating to be enjoyable. I suspect that Burgle Bros probably plays best at a 2-player count and could be a good couples game if puzzle type gameplay interests you. 27th August 2022 It's a Saturday night and were logged in Board Game Arena for some gaming fun. Now that I think about it; a crossover game of Dungeons & Dragons and Twister would be pretty interesting. Unfortunately, that's not what Dungeon Twister is about. Instead we get a 2-player sort of chess-like game about manipulating dungeon tiles and running around them. Caveat: We have only ever played this online. What's in a game?
Dungeon Twister has bright and colourful artwork. The room tiles don't feature much in the way of illustrations but do have clearly delineated features. Artwork on the tokens and standees is that sort of chunky and cartoony fantasy style that has been used on a lot fantasy themed games over the last few years, it's a little bit of an unoriginal art direction - but to be fair, it's a style I quite like, so for me it's good. There isn't too much in the way of iconography in Dungeon Twister and I don't imagine it would provide any obstacle to playing. How's it play? Setup
On to play The objective in Dungeon Twister is to accumulate 5 Victory Points. A player can achieve this in 2 ways; by defeating opposing characters or by getting their own characters out of the opposite end of the dungeon from their starting side. Players take alternate turns becoming the active player, playing action cards and resolving them. This is done over 3 phases.
Endgame When any player earns 5 VPs, the end game is triggered. It is possible for the inactive player to score VPs in the active player's turn by winning combat which means the inactive player can potentially trigger the endgame. In any case, the active player finishes their current turn and the game goes to scoring. Points are tallied, highest score wins. Overall
Dungeon Twister is a fairly straightforward game but despite this I feel the game is a little cumbersome, there's quite a bit of exception-driven rules here. For example: No character can stand on a pit trap space except the thief or except a character with a rope token. If a thief standing on pit trap is wounded, they are killed, except any character carrying rope will not be killed, except if an opposing character comes and takes a rope - in which case the wound character is then killed. These are not gamebreakers by any means but they feel counterintuitive and may be obstacles to play. Until players are familiar with the rules, they'll be hunting through the rulebook to get clarifications, it's also likely players may forget some rules even exist! Players will need to employ quite of lot of tactics in Dungeon Twister and generally that's a good thing. Since there are 2 ways to score points, players will need to constantly assess the viability of both approaches. It means playing close attention to the positions of all characters, every one of which will have their own strengths and weaknesses. Characters that are strong in combat will tend to slow at movement. Players will need to exploit the strengths and special abilities while minimising exposure of weaknesses. This is especially true of combat. This neatly brings me to the game's main schtick, that is; rotating room tiles. Well planned use of rotating the tiles can be a game changer, it can trap or free characters, create blockages or short cuts, it can be used to move gear or move a correctly positioned character across the board, etc. It keeps the gameplay fresh and to a degree, unpredictable. It can be tricky to see the outcome of rotating of all tiles to all position. The rule where a player gets to place their opponent's tokens is quite interesting, it allows canny players to exploit the situation to trap opposing tokens but they will need to remember that a twist of the tile can change everything. Dungeon Twister provides players with meaningful decisions when choosing their actions and tactics. Yet somehow, I found it unengaging. Despite fairly extensive rules and a clever premise, Dungeon Twister felt a bit like a simplistic grid based wargame that involves direct confrontation and to be honest, it's not what I look for in a board game. Obviously, you mileage may vary, maybe a fantasy themed 1-on-1 combative game is right up your street but Dungeon Twister is not for me. 18th August 2022 Broadsword! It's a Thursday and we're in Aldershot for some gaming fun! According to Wikipedia, HeroQuest was originally published in 1989, which makes me feel very old. The version that we are playing though, is the 21st iteration. So grab your staff and pull on your loincloth as we set into vaguely generic fantasy world of HeroQuest in search of treasure. Alternatively, take on the role of Zargon and oppose the heroes. What's in a game?
HeroQuest's components are all generally good. The board, tiles and cards are of an acceptable quality. The dice are also fine and in a move that pays homage to the original HeroQuest, there still aren't enough of them to split conveniently between the hero players and Zargon player! The game really could do with a few more combat dice! Probably the biggest components are the miniatures. All the heroes and monsters miniatures come in single colour plastic according to type, heroes are red, goblinoids are green, undead are beige and so on. I'm pretty certain the sculpts are all new as well, the games has undergone cosmetic changes due to licensing issues regarding the original. Speaking of sculpts, I found their quality to be... OK. If I were assessing the miniatures exclusive of the game, they wouldn't be good but since they are meant to be part of a game; and in that context they're pretty cool. Especially since I feel that they're designed to hark back to the original style and design, which I think they do a good job of doing. The scenery and dressing is also a bit of a mixed bag. The scenery in this version is all made of plastic and is much more durable than the original scenery which in part was made of cardboard. However, that cardboard scenery with its printed artwork was a lot more colourful. The modern scenery in comparison is a just drab, monochrome, grey plastic. HeroQuest's art is good wherever it appears, mostly on cards and has a brash, chunky cartoony aesthetic that suitably fits the style of the game. There are a few icons in the game that are easily learned, the Zargon player has to learn a bit more due to having to comprehend the scenarios in the quest book but again, it's not an obstacle. How's it play? Setup Before any play can begin, one player must decide to take the role of Zargon who is essentially the 'Games Master' in RPG parlance and controls all the enemy forces that oppose the players. Whoever plays Zargon will probably be doing so for all 14 quests presented in the quest book. Up to 4 other players will assume the role of heroes adventuring through the campaign. Generally, once players have chosen a hero, they will stick with that hero until the end of the campaign. Having said that, there's nothing to stop players swapping or switching around heroes if they so desire.
On to play In HeroQuest, all the hero players will each take their individual turns and then the Zargon player will finally take their turn. Generally this is done with the player to the left of the Zargon player going first with turns progressing to the left until eventually the Zargon player goes last. The general flow of play will involve the heroes exploring the dungeon game board (Which is unpopulated at the game start.) and in response, Zargon revealing what the heroes encounter, be it doors, dead ends, traps or monsters and so on. Once the heroes have had their turns, Zargon can act. This means they can move any visible monsters to attack the heroes. Thus if no monsters are visible on the board, Zargon basically does nothing.
Endgame Play continues until the hero players complete quest objective, in which case, they collectively win! Otherwise, if all the heroes are instead killed, then the Zargon player wins. Additionally, if the hero players retreat (By returning to the stairs tile.) for whatever reason then they also lose. That's not the end! Once a quest has ended, players can spend their hard won loot and cash to buy equipment. Weapons can increase a hero's attack score and armour can increases defence scores, while daggers and crossbows offer ranged attacks and so on. When buying equipment, the player who will use it takes possession of the card. Furthermore, once all copies of a certain item are bought from the equipment deck , then that item can no longer be bought. Conversely, consumable items such as potions and daggers are returned to the equipment deck when used. End Endgame! If the hero players manage to succeed at all 14 quests, they have won the campaign. Overall
There's quite a lot to write about here and my thoughts will probably wander, so please indulge me - and let's get started! HeroQuest was a pretty ground-breaking game in 1989. Published by a mainstream games producer, it offered people who had never played an RPG an accessible slice of the RPG experience and introduced some game concepts to people who had never encountered them before. It's also a window into how games played 35 years ago and what player expectations were like back then. For example, a modern game with similar themes to HeroQuest probably wouldn't employ a roll-and-move mechanic. Another example are rewards and the game's equivalent of levelling up: As explained below, HeroQuest rarely rewards to players - which come in the form of equipment upgrades. These upgrades occur quite infrequently but are quite significant statistically, i.e., going from 2 combat dice to 3 is a big jump. A modern game would try and find a way to do the opposite and drip-feed players constant but low-impact rewards in what would be called a gameplay loop or moment-to-moment engagement. HeroQuest occasionally also trolls player, forcing them to deal with multiple traps and putting no reward on the other side. Mechanically, HeroQuest is actually a fairly straightforward game. While heroes have 6 actions they can perform, 3 of those are almost identical actions and 1 is very situational. Players will find themselves moving and searching, opening doors and defeating monsters behind them, searching, then moving on. Rinse and repeat. While there are definitely some tactics that players can adopt and repeatedly employ, the random placement of challenges - particularly monsters who form the majority of heroes' encounters - means that players will need to adapt to situations and respond effectively. There's also some randomness to player actions - the roll-and-move mechanic means that heroes may not reach their opponent when they need to and also may not be able to escape enemies when they need to. The combat system is also straightforward and runs smoothly enough, it does feel quite swingy and unpredictable though but that might just be me grumbling about dice rolls! We found that the tougher monsters are very hard to wound. Once their defence is high enough, they're generally guaranteed being able to absorb 1 wound from an attack. This means the heroes will need to rely on luck to get 2 wounds in an attack or use at least 4 dice to attack and have a passable chance of getting 2 wounds. How do the heroes get higher attack scores? This brings me to equipment. Generally, we ended up equipping the 2 front line fighters (Primarily the barbarian but to a lesser extent also the dwarf.) with weapons above anyone else as well as providing the elf with a crossbow. Getting an attack stat up to 4 and gaining ranged attacks were real game changers. Getting the right equipment or getting equipment and using it the right way can enhance or change tactics, improve the odds of surviving, winning fights and so on. What's also interesting is that at the end of a quest, the hero players have the opportunity to buy equipment. However, because the cost is so high, in practice it means they will only get to buy something once after every 2 or 3 quests. It means that the heroes will get maybe 6 or 7 pieces of equipment throughout the entire campaign and will need to choose wisely. Some equipment such as consumables seem very expensive for what they provide. During our playthroughs, we never seriously considered buying things like throwing daggers or holy water. Thematically, HeroQuest is a bit of a strange beast. It has obvious elements derived from tabletop RPGs such as having a games master, combat screen, dungeons to explore, character classes and stats, scenarios, campaigns and narratives, rolling dice for combat etc but there are also some key differences. There's no experience points or levelling, instead character improvements happen via buying better equipment. Also, a key difference for me is the role the Zargon player has, they are part games master but also part antagonist and opponent to the heroes which is different to the majority of RPGs. Why is this significant? Let me explain. The HeroQuest campaign has 14 quests, it took us a total of 15 attempts to complete all of them, in other words we only failed 1 of the quests, the other 13 were completed successfully at the first try. I think that in part this is due to the fact that we're all experienced gamers and it feels the game is targeted at the early teenage market so we mostly breezed through it. (A little more about this below.) I also think this because the game utilises a 'one vs many' system and I've always felt that it's very hard to balance this type of game fairly, 3 or 4 human brains will always have the advantage over 1 human brain. This is compounded by the fact that HeroQuest has a campaign. It means that if the heroes fail a quest, they will invariably have to repeat it again, why is this significant? The purpose of a campaign is to advance through the multitude of quests until the final one can be completed and it can be tedious repeating failed quests, especially if more than once. When the surprise of knowing what is behind a door is gone, the game can become an exercise in rolling dice over strategy. Returning to difficulty: I read that it was originally envisioned that the hero players would behave competitively and cooperation between them would make the game too easy. This of course contradicts the RPG nature of the game and it contradicts the rule book too, which states the players should cooperate and they will collectively win or lose. Finally, it also contradicts player sensibilities; without cooperation, the wizard in particular for example, has a fairly low chance of surviving a dungeon. All of this leads me to suspect that either deliberately or accidentally, the game is skewed in favour of the players. It sort of makes sense because it gives the campaign momentum and keeps events moving forward. The problem though, is that it can become a frustrating experience for the Zargon player, who in essence has to lose over and over. It may have been better to do away with having a antagonistic games master role and have a more traditional games master. I get the feeling though that it was done that way to make HeroQuest seem a little more like a 'traditional' board game. It would have been even better if the game master role could have been automated entirely. I imagine though, that it would've increased the game's difficulty significantly. Ultimately, I found HeroQuest just about engaging enough to keep my attention, you could never afford to become complacent. Not paying attention was a sure-fire way to get your hero into trouble. The campaign does have a narrative, however it's fairly generic and also fairly forgettable. For me, the pleasure I think, came from the opportunity to play a game cooperatively along with friends. If you want a light and accessible RPG adjacent experience that's easy to manage without much prep time, you could do a lot worse than HeroQuest. If you're a parent or adult looking for a way to introduce youngsters to some more elaborate game mechanics and concepts or introduce them to a beginner RPG, then HeroQuest is definitely worth a look in. 16th August 2022 It's a Tuesday and were at The Sovereigns with the Woking Board Gaming Club for some gaming goodness. Have you ever watched the classic Jaws movie and decided, 'y'know I wanna be the shark going round chomping on hapless swimmers'? Then this might be the game for you! Jaws is a asymmetrical game of 2 halves where up to 3 players take on the roles of film's 3 protagonists and 1 player becomes the shark. At first the protagonists will seek to defend Amity Island from shark attacks before finally engaging it in a deadly cat-and-mouse game. Jaws is played over 2 acts (Essentially 2 different games in reality.) and as such, has a lot of double-sided components mostly relevant to each act. For the purposes of this blog, I'm mostly going to write about each act separately. Act 1 What's in a game?
Act 2 What's in a game?
Phew, I think that's it for rules! Component quality for Jaws ranges from average to very good. Things like the cards and tokens are your pretty standard cardboard affair, which is fine. The dice seem to be made of acrylic and although they're not as nice as wood, they feel quality with engraved icons instead of printed ones. The wooden meeples are the standout component, particularly the wooden boats for Hooper and Quint, as well the shark meeple inspired by the films iconic artwork and I think they're cool. As far as I can tell, the Jaws game has a relatively restrained use of photo art sourced from the film which only appears on a number of the event cards and even then it is used sparingly. It's wise decision in my opinion, as too much can make a game look cheap. The game also seems to reference artwork used for the shark from the film but because it's actually art, it looks good. Otherwise, art used throughout the game is good, the swimmers tokens and player boards all look good. The best artwork is found the Amity Island side of the game board though, it's an excellent illustration with lots of pretty detail. There isn't too much iconography and what there is, is easily understood. Most of the rules information on components comes as written text. Act 1 How's it play? Setup
On to play During Act 1, the shark player will be attempting to eat as many hapless swimmers as possible! Meanwhile, the crew players will be using barrels both to try and locate the shark and to attach them to the shark. The more swimmers the shark eats, the more advantage the shark player has during Act 2. The round is broken down into several phases and follows a more or less traditional turn order with each player having a number of action points they can spend to achieve their actions. Phase occur as follows.
Act 1 Endgame Act 1 will immediately end if 1 of the following 2 criteria is met: Barrels: 2 barrels are attached to the shark by the Quint player. Swimmers: The shark player has eaten 9 swimmers. Act 2 How's it play? Setup
On to play During Act 2, the shark player will be attempting to either totally destroy The Orca or deal enough damage to the crew to what amounts to eating them. Meanwhile, in turn, they will be attempting to deal enough damage to the shark to defeat it. Play takes place over a number of phases.
Endgame Play continues until 1 of 3 criteria are met. If the shark's damage exceeds its tracker, it is defeated and the crew collectively win. If The Orca is totally destroyed, the shark player wins, or, if the damage on all the hero protagonists exceed their tracker, they are all eaten and the shark wins! Overall
It's been a long time (And I do mean a long time!) since I watched Jaws but I feel the game does for the most part a good job of thematically emulating the movie. Having Brody rushing around the island kicking pesky swimmers off the beaches and closing them only to have them open and fill with swimmers again felt like the movie. On the other hand, having Brody run around collecting barrels for Quint was strange. While the shark popping up to attack swimmers before vanishing was cool, Hooper and Quint in their boats playing a cat and mouse game with the shark while trying to rescue swimmers seemed a bit strange. Especially considering the heroes are the cats and the shark is the mouse, which is a bit of a reverse of how the film plays out. Having said all of that, Act 2 does a excellent job of emulating the protagonist's final confrontation with the shark. So overall... This is more of a comment than a criticism on the game's theme. Now, on to game play. Act 1 presents an interesting cat-and-mouse challenge to the players which will change contextually according to how swimmers are distributed by event cards. The shark player needs to eat swimmers but avoid spaces that the crew players might target and if possible, avoid the barrels that detect the shark. Astute crew players will need to balance their efforts between trying to protect beaches with lots of swimmers and also covering lesser used areas. While the busier beaches might provide a target-rich environment for the shark, the shark player may anticipate the crew players protecting those beaches and avoid them for smaller 'quieter' targets. I get the feeling that if the shark gets a lot of kills or very few, it will have a big influence on who will win in Act 2. Certainly, the shark getting 5 kills (Which is exactly in the middle.) led to a very close finish. Act 2 also presents a sort of cat and mouse scenario with differing dilemmas for the shark player and the crew players. The shark player will generally be faced with deciding whether doing damage or avoiding it, often the resurface cards will not allow the shark player to do both. The shark player will may also have the opportunity to target the crew instead of the ship. Eliminating one of the crew can be very beneficial as it lowers the number of attacks the shark may have to face but generally, it's harder and will take longer to kill a crewmate than it is to destroy one of The Orca tiles. The crew players also face a dilemma. They know the 3 locations where the shark might resurface so with 3 protagonists could target all 3 locations, but this means spreading their firepower and it'll be a tall order defeating the shark this way. So the crew will need to try and anticipate which option the shark player will choose and this require assessing a bunch of contextual elements such as how much damage the shark will do, how high it's evade is and how damaged that part of The Orca is. All players will need to adapt to the random circumstances provided by the resurface cards and will probably have to trade off one strategy for another. It presents the players will meaningful decisions to make, which is always a good thing. However, there are somethings I definitely do not like about the game. Firstly, Jaws is a one-vs-many game and I'm not a fan of this game type. Generally the mechanics of one-vs-many games can never balance for the fact that multiple human brains will have an advantage a single human brain. For the most part, it's fairly inherent that 3 players will see more strategies and opportunities than a single player. Also; when someone is playing the 'one', games can be become a lonely experience since all the other players will be against them. I can't help but wonder if the shark could have been automated and have the game be fully cooperative. Secondly, because this is such a asymmetrical game, it means that one set of rules must be learned by the crew players and another by the shark player. That's not the end of it! Because there are 2 acts, it means that there are actually 4 sub-games that must be learned. Luckily, none of the rules are particularly complex or hard to comprehend but even so, it feels like a lot of effort to play a game, then have to learn a new set of rules to continue. More effort than the entertainment the game delivers. Normally I don't bother blogging about marketing or sales but I have to wonder who this is aimed at? Dedicated games, movie fans? Most dedicated gamers are with good reason wary of licensed games. They tend to be quick cash-ins with lacking game. To be clear I don't think that's the case for Jaws, while the rules are light-ish, there's depth of gameplay to found in the cat-and mouse mechanics that pits players against each other. I just didn't find it particularly compelling. Jaws is a great, classic movie and I'm sure there are collectors of Jaws memorabilia and merchandise but will they care enough about the game to play it. I'm sure it will end up in the collections of those fans but will they be compelled enough to make make the effort to learn and play the game? If you're really after a Jaws experience and are happy with the game's 2 act structure and cat-and-mouse gameplay. This is by no means a bad game and worth a try. For me this didn't hit the spot and I have no desire to play it. 5th July 2022 It's a Tuesday and we're at The Sovereigns with the Woking Board Gaming Club for an evening of gaming. The world of Victorian anthropomorphic railroad magnates is a cutthroat one in this game of acquiring train lines and towns. Buy low and sell high to become the... Raccoon Tycoon! What's in a game?
Raccoon Tycoon has excellent production values. Wooden tokens are used for commodities and first player token which is a good move, they always have a quality to them and also look cool. The cards (And paper money) have a sturdy feel to them while the tiles are satisfyingly thick. The game's art direction is also equally high. Anthropomorphic art is used throughout the game and I've found that it's a divisive style which most people do or don't like. Regardless of your view on this, it's undeniable that the quality of the art is high. The standouts are the railroad cards which use a oil painting style to display whimsical characterful animals in Victorian clothes. Curiously, the building tiles use a completely different style, instead displaying line illustrated buildings and subjects with mostly flat and barely shaded colours. It's a striking contrast that should theoretically be jarring but actually fits quite well. Icons used to represent commodities on cards are easily understood. Most other game information is relayed via text which is usually very clear. How's it play? Setup
On to play Players are trying to earn VPs in Raccoon Tycoon, this can be done by collecting sets of railroad cards, acquiring town cards to pair with railroad cards and gaining building tiles which are not only worth VPs but can provide avenues to scoring more VPs. All of this requires money and commodities, players will need to manipulate the commodities market to maximise the profit gained from selling their own commodities while trying limit the profit of other players. Racoon Tycoon follows a traditional turn order with the active player resolving their action before play moves on to the player on their left.
Endgame Play continues until one of the following 2 criteria is met.
VPs come from a variety of sources. Sets of railroad cards. Town cards paired with railroad cards. Building tiles earn 1 VP each. Bonuses from building cards may also provide additional VPS. Points are tallied, highest score wins. Overall
Even without the anthropomorphic artwork, Raccoon Tycoon would be something or a quirky game. It packs quite a lot of mechanical systems into a single game albeit to a fairly simple level. A little bit of stock market manipulation, a touch of set collecting, a dash of auctioning and a sprinkling of engine building. It could be a recipe for disaster but in the case of Raccoon Tycoon; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. A large part of this I feel is due to the building tiles. Their unique bonuses both provide some asymmetrical gameplay elements and can also give players a bit of strategic direction. Raccoon Tycoon is a bit of a balancing act between acquiring cash for railroad cards/building tiles and commodities for town cards. It's hard to work towards both at the same time. Adaptation is important here, as is planning ahead. Players could look to finding ways to raise commodity values to increase profit when selling them later This brings me to commodity manipulation. There isn't too much interaction between players other than auctioning and commodity manipulation, Watching what opponents are doing can prove useful and is something of a higher level of play. I.e., if 2 players are accumulating the same commodity, there's a possibility that one of them will sell it, causing that market to crash. Beating a opponent to the punch so to speak, can cost them lots of cash! Raccoon Tycoon is fairly rules light and I think seasoned gamers won't have any problems grasping all the systems at work here. For less experienced gamers, the curve will be steeper, I don't feel it's a gamebreaker but I imagine it could be off putting. While there's enough gameplay to give players thoughtful and meaningful decisions to make and a fun experience, I also found the game to be a little unengaging and uncompelling, I never felt like I was building railroads or towns and despite the unique art style, it didn't feel like it stood out from the crowd. here's nothing wrong with Raccoon Tycoon but it wouldn't be my first pick for a game, although I'd have no problem playing it if someone else wanted to. 9th June 2022 Gaming night Aldershot continues with Chariot Race. As you might have guessed from the title, this game about managing railway companies in the 19th Century on a hex-based map of North America. NO WAIT, THAT'S NOT RIGHT! Chariot Race is about chariot racing in ancient Rome. That name is sure is confusing! What's in a game?
The components for Chariot Race are pretty good, the tokens and boards all feel suitably sturdy while the wooden dice are a nice touch. Having chariots made of 2 pieces or card seems a little bit of a weird choice perhaps but it's not like it's a dealbreaker or anything and was probably done to keep the cost down. There's very little artwork to write home about in Chariot Race which may be why I'm blogging about instead? There are illustrations on the chariot standees but they'll hardly be noticed since they're quite small, especially when placed on the arena/game board. There's some artwork on the game board as well and it's a fair depiction of a crowd watching the races. Otherwise Chariot Race looks fairly clean and minimalist in a unfussy kind of way, perfectly acceptable in my opinion. The only iconography that can be found during the game is on the dice, those symbols are self-explanatory and I can't imagine they'd be an obstacle to any players. Although, I will say that it feels a little odd and counterintuitive that the damage track is labelled 'damage' instead of something like 'health' since 12 on the damage track is completely undamaged and 0 is wrecked. How's it play? Setup
On to play In Chariot Race, players are attempting to complete 2 laps of the track, avoid being wrecked and of course, finish first. This is done by each player in their turn rolling dice and resolving the results. Chariot Race does not use the usual turn order. Instead it's determined by position on the track round-by-round, whoever is 1st on the track goes 1st, 2nd on the track goes 2nd and so forth. When the player in last place has gone, the round is over and play returns to the player in the lead at the start of a new round. Of course it's likely the turn order will now have changed. In their turn, the active player will have several phases they can act in.
Endgame Chariot Race is played over 2 laps and there are several criteria which can determine the winner. If a player's chariot completes their 2nd lap and no other chariot crosses the finish lap, they win the race. If 2 or more chariots finish the race in the same round, then the chariot that went the furthest past the finish line wins. Finally, a wrecked chariot cannot win, even if it crossed the finish line first or got furthest past it. Overall
Chariot Race is a fast playing and mechanically speaking, actually a fairly straightforward game; roll the dice and carry out the resulting actions displayed. The decisions that players get to make are also fairly straightforward, although their consequences can be significant - which is good. Meaningful decisions are always good. Player decisions take the form of choosing which dice to keep and which to re-roll, players must choose what to try and prioritise, this will of course be contextual and change from round to round. The other area where player's will probably be making the most is going to be about speeding up and slowing down. It's obvious that players will want to be fast in the straights but manage their speed through the race's 4 corners. Managing speed is the game's best mechanic, I like that the faster a chariot goes, the less dice the player gets to roll and consequently, the less options they have. It feels suitably thematic, not only does it represent having less thinking time at speed but also that this a horse race and players are never entirely in control of them. Players can find themselves hurtling through corners and taking damage, the question is how fast for how much damage? There's only 4 corners, so this means it's ok to take damage... right? This brings me neatly to damage. There's definitely a combative edge to Chariot Race which makes it an usual racing game. Damaging opponents has its benefits. Firstly; it lowers their maximum top speed, hindering them and secondly, it can lead to their elimination for the game. It's vital to keep an eye on damage, in the early game players will probably be congenial, but in the late game, that will all change. Having low damage points can make a player a big target, especially if that player is ahead and which others will look to exploit this to put them out of the race. It does mean that Chariot Race can have a lot of direct conflict and there may well be some 'pick-on-the-leader' tactics going on as well. If this isn't your cup of tea, it's one to probably avoid. The game also has player elimination as a mechanic, which is something I have little fondness for but fortunately, this is a quick playing game so there isn't too much downtime. In conclusion though; while it won't set the world alight, it is quick to learn and quick to play, Chariot Race is a fun light game If you like your racing theme with some extra competitive zing and a generous dollop of luck, then this might interest you. |
AuthorI play, I paint. Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|