|
30th May 2023 It's a Tuesday evening again and that means it's time for some gaming goodness with the Woking Gaming Club at The Sovereigns. Bandido is a wily one!. The sly criminal has finally been caught and sent to jail. But Bandido is never one to rest and soon has found a way to dig tunnels out of his cell. Can the players manage to coordinate in this cooperative card-laying game to stop Bandido escaping? What's in a game?
There's not much to say about Bandido's minimal components. The starting tile is notably thick and chunky in contrast to the cards which feel a touch flimsy - possibly due to their unusual proportion. This is not an issue though and unless the cards are mistreated they will be fine. Bandido's artwork is equally minimal, there's a touch of stylised art for Bandido himself and well.... that's pretty much it other than the illustration representing dead-ends and the tunnels themselves. You could argue that the hand holding the flashlight is an icon, otherwise there's no iconography in the game. Everything is instantly understandable. How's it play? Setup
On to play In Bandido, players are cooperatively trying to stop Bandido from escaping by playing cards to block off all tunnels. The game uses a traditional turn order with the active player resolving their turn before play progresses to the player on their left. A turn plays out as detailed below.
Endgame Play continues until 1 of the 2 following conditions are met. If the deck becomes depleted and none of the players have any cards left to play and there is at least 1 un-blocked off tunnel, then Bandido manages to escape! The player collectively lose. If on the other hand, the players manage to block off all tunnels at any point during the game, then Bandido is trapped. The players immediately and collectively win! Overall
Bandido's theme is sort of stuck-on and perhaps a little offbeat (I mean stopping the titular character escaping!) but it fits the game well enough and will be understood by all players. Whilst the game's rules light, don't be fooled by this simplicity. Bandido is quite a hard game to win. This is especially true when playing at a higher player count. In a solo game, the player will know exactly which cards are available but with 3 companions, it becomes much harder to predict. (One criticism I have of Bandido is that as the tunnel network invariably grows, it may expand in unexpected ways - more than once we've had to shift the entire map because it was going off a table edge - which is a fairly fiddly affair.) There is without a doubt also a degree of luck involved (As is the case with most cooperative games.) which may not appeal to all players but there's also a good chunk of having to think ahead and trying optimise how cards are played. It's hard to resist the urge to play dead-end cards that close tunnels down in the early game but it can be vital that you don't always do this. Management of 'moving' tunnels around the playing area is key to success. E.g., directing tunnels towards each other and connecting them can create 'loops' which essentially closes both. Additionally looping 2 tunnels into 1 then closing it off is equally useful. There are only a limited amount of dead-end cards and using them up too early means they won't be available to use in the late game. It's something players must plan for. Players must also make sure they don't create any situations with card positioning which will render a tunnel impossible to close. Because Bandido is so straightforward, with a easily recognisable goal and accessibility, it's a great game for all the family, more causal players and younger players and can prove a lot of fun. That this is a cooperative game is even better, many cooperative games have intricate systems that must be managed in order to make them work, which not the case here. It's definitely worth trying.
0 Comments
16th April 2023 It's a Sunday and we're logged into Board Game Arena for more gaming fun. Take on the role of Perseus, Jason or Hercules. Battle The Hydra, vanquish The Gorgon and defeat Cerberus in Legends of Hellas, a cooperative card game of Greek heroes and Greek mythology. Caveat: We've only ever played this game digitally. What's in a game?
With a chunky, cartoony style, Legends of Hellas is a bright and colourful looking game. It's crisp, clear artwork and the monsters on the monster cards are all instantly recognisable. I think it looks great. There's half a dozen icons in the game and they're only used in reference between action and monster cards. Players should have no problems here. How's it play? Setup Legends of Hellas presents players with 12 different missions to undertake which may have some varying setup and game rules. However, broadly speaking, they share a common theme - which defeating monsters until the boss monster 'the chimera' appears then defeating it.
On to play Players in Legends of Hellas are cooperatively attempting to defeat a number of monsters inspired by Greek mythology. This is done by playing cards but players will also need to perform other actions to facilitate this. Legends of Hellas uses a traditional turn order with active player completing their action before play progresses to the next player.
Endgame If the players manage to defeat the Chimera once it has appeared, then they collectively win the game! If however, at any time a player needs to draw cards and there are none left in the action deck, then the players collectively lose the game. Overall
Between it's bold colourful presentation of Greek mythology and card mechanics which will have heroes travelling about to battle monsters using their guile, strength and so on; Legends of Hellas is pretty strong thematically. I personally like how The Chimera will be a random amalgam of 2 other monsters. Mechanically, on the surface it's a pretty straightforward game - play cards with symbols matching symbols on monster cards to defeat them but in practice, Legends of Hellas is quite unforgiving. This is because players aren't really battling the monsters, they're battling the action deck - or more precisely, fighting to stop the deck running out and luck can play a very big part here. Every choice and action a player takes - not just attacking monsters - will cost a card. Draw cards - one of them must be discarded. Give cards to an alley - one must be discarded. Move or view the deck - you get the idea. Even deciding which cards to discard is also an important decision. I.e., if none of the current monsters require a certain type of card, is that type safe to discard? A monster requiring it might turn up later Consequently it can be very easy to run out of cards, players will need to try and play as efficiently as possible with minimal squandering and no frivolous moves. Judicious use of divine interventions can be critical here, playing one at the right time can defeat a monster with only 3 cards instead of 5. It might not seem like a saving of many cards but it can be. While players can not explicitly discuss the cards in their hand, they will need to coordinate actions, especially actions such as passing cards to each other and viewing the deck. Being a cooperative game, there's also a degree of luck in Legends of Hellas, perhaps a little too much like for my liking. Sometimes players will draw a hand of cards they just can't use and will have to find a way to adapt. Conversely, sometimes luck will deliver the exact cards you will need which will make it easier and maybe a little unsatisfying. It also means that sometimes it felt like my decisions had been taken out my hands by chance and sometimes it felt like any strategy I had was was reduced to simply 'play what you have' and adapt to 'what you get'. Despite this I found Legends of Hellas to be a fairly enjoyable experience mixed with dollop of frustration from the luck which strangely, could go 2 ways; too much bad luck or too much good luck! With it's cartoonish art style and somewhat lightweight rules, Legends of Hellas would appear to be aimed at a family audience but we found it actually quite a tricky game, I'm not sure younger players will have a easy time. however a bit of adult/parent contribution would make a difference, I guess that's what makes it a family game. If you want a ancient Greece themed cooperative game or in fact any kind of low maintenance cooperative game, Legends of Hellas might fill the bill. 19th February 2023 It's Sunday evening again and we're logged into Board Game Arena for some gaming goodness. Paint the Roses, it sounds a strange thing but that's what you do when in the kingdom of The Queen of Hearts in this 'Alice in Wonderland' themed cooperative game of deductive reasoning. Caveat: We have only ever played this game digitally. What's in a game?
Paint the Roses' artwork is pretty high quality, Art on whim cards and tiles look good and is easily understood but the standout art is on the game board. It's vibrant, colourful and eye catching, everything I think is good in game artwork. Only 4 colours and 4 shapes are used in Paint the Roses, these are straightforward to comprehend and there's no other iconography. How's it play? Setup
On to play In Paint the Roses, the players are trying to collectively fill all 16 empty spaces on the game board while staying ahead of The Queen of Hearts model. How is this done? By playing tiles, placing clues on them and using those clues to try and guess what is displayed on other player's whim cards. Players must keep their whim cards hidden from other players, only revealing them when they are correctly guessed. Paint the Roses uses a traditional turn structure with the active player completing their actions before play progresses to the player on their left. During the active player's turn, the following phases occur.
Endgame If the players manage to place shrub tiles in all 16 spaces and survive to the end of the round - that is; survive The Queen's final movement, the players collectively win the game! If any time The Queen reaches the same space as The Gardeners or overtakes them; it's off with their heads. The players collectively lose the game. Once a game is concluded, players can record their score, i.e., where they finished on the scoring track. Overall
Thematically I found Paint the Roses a little abstract. Having The Queen actually chase the player model around the out of the board was a bit silly (Which thinking about matches the absurdness of the source material.) but also reasonably clever. While I understand how the theme meshes with the mechanics, it all felt a little... detached. Mechanically though, Paint the Roses presents players with very tricky decisions and this is twofold. Firstly, the active player must decide which of 4 shrub tiles to draft and how they can place it on the board to convey the information on their card. I think that there's also a higher level of play here where the active player can choose to play a tile to potentially help another player to convey information. Secondly, once a tile has been put down, the players must make a guess. It's likely that this will involve a mix of deduction and also blind guessing. Easy whim cards are well... fairly easy to guess which is why players are limited to one easy card at a time, other cards are no so easy. Its important to successfully guess harder cards because it puts more space between the players and The Queen There's also the element of trying to guess another card after a successful guess but it's genuinely higher stakes: A successful 2nd guess will give the players more breathing room but a wrong guess means that essentially any progress made from a guess has been lost. Double or nothing really. These mechanics for guessing feel quite unique but also a little obtuse and harder to comprehend than they should be. I don't think it helped that we were playing the game digitally and clue tokens were added automatically which sort of distanced us from thinking about what was going on. I also felt being forced to guess every turn was quite harsh and The Queen advanced very quickly after relatively few failures. I feel that if players make a couple of wrong guesses in the early game, they'll be on the back foot for the rest of it - however long that lasts. This brings me to the rule with the White Rabbit that increases The Queen's speed is quite interesting - although I'm not sure how I feel about it. If The Queen has a high speed, an incorrect guess can move her a lot of spaces. It increases the stakes as the game progresses, meaning the players can never afford to be complacent. The drawback is that it felt frustrating and counterintuitive, like we were being punished for being successful. Between the difficulty and somewhat frustrating way the deduction worked, I found that I did not enjoy Paint the Roses, which is a shame, I like the idea of a cooperative, logic driven game. I would definitely be open to trying the game physically as I might chance my stance when actually handling the game but digitally speaking, this is not a game for me. 7th February 2023 Tuesday has come around again, that means it's time for more gaming goodness with the Woking Gaming Club at The Sovereigns in Woking. Horrified: American Monsters is the follow up to the excellent Horrified and you can read my blog on it here. Like the original, this is a cooperative adventure in which the heroes (In this instance investigators from the Federal Bureau of Paranormal Investigation) stop the encroachment of monsters from American folklore into a town/city. So how does Horrified: American Monsters game stack up against the original? Components
Monster mats: As with the original game, each of the game's monsters comes with their own mat that manages how to defeat them.
All the components for Horrified: American Monsters are good. The tokens and tiles feel sturdy while cards are of a normal quality. Because the monster mats are fairly large, they feel a little flimsy but unless you go out of your way to abuse them, they should be fine. The game uses card standees for both players and citizen which means there's about 20 of them - which is a lot. They're constructed of thick card and will stand up to being handled. While plastic, the dice with their slightly rounded corners are good quality. As with the original, each of the game's monsters is represented by a plastic figure in their respective colour. The quality is fairly good, which is to say good enough for a board game. The game's artwork is high quality with good portraits for the heroes, citizens and monsters. Artwork on the tokens, cards and monster mats also look good and suitably moody. The game board contains probably the most notable artwork; a eye catching city with recognisable buildings but is importantly, also free of clutter. Wisely, the game has a sort of mid twentieth century theme to the art which gives it a sort of timeless quality. Most of the game's iconography can be found on the bottom of the monster cards and generally, the complexity is equal to that of the original. How's it play? Like the original, Horrified: American Monsters is a cooperative game about squaring up to monsters threatening the game's town/city, There's a few differences from the original, most obviously in the interactions with the monsters the manner in which they are rendered vulnerable and defeated The rules for frenzy work a little differently and the events on the monster cards are tailored for the game and possibly, so are the perk cards. Otherwise, the game is pretty much identical with its predecessor. I'm not going to blog about at length about the rules or game play. For that you can just read my original blog. Overall
Hmm, this is a bit of a tricky one. Horrified: American Monsters is a solidly good game but is it too similar to Horrified? From the perspective of gameplay, Horrified: American Monsters features the same well balanced cooperative action-point driven mechanics from the original which will have players moving across the map in a race against time, collecting resources, saving bystanders and contending with monsters until they complete the tasks that make them vulnerable and then hopefully, finally defeat them. In my option, that gameplay is very good and in short; if you liked Horrified, there's a good chance you'll probably also like Horrified: American Monsters. However, since the 2 games are so similar, it can be hard to justify having both unless you're a fan or the series/genre or a completionist, it's probably easy to justify having both. On a personal level, I prefer the original Horrified. Having to defeat the Universal monster like Dracula or The Invisible Man felt more compelling than having to deal with Bigfoot or The Jersey Devil. I think in part that's due to a little bit of unfamiliarity with those American cryptids. Consequently, I don't associate them with villainy As I do with the Universal monsters. To me for example, Bigfoot feels like a shy recluse, not a threat to be overcome. Of course your mileage may vary, it's not like Horrified: American Monsters is anything other than a very good game so you should go ahead and play it. 30th August 2022 Tuesday night gaming with the Woking Gaming Club continued with The Crew: The Quest for Planet Nine. The Crew: The Quest for Planet Nine is actually an earlier iteration of The Crew: Mission Deep Sea which I've already blogged about and the two games are more or less identical. Read about The Crew: Mission Deep Sea here and it'll give a good idea how The Quest of Planet Nine plays. As such I'm not going to do a full write for The Crew: The Quest for Planet Nine, instead I'll just note one area of difference between the two. Task cards: These are much more straightforward in The Crew: The Quest for Planet Nine. All the objectives are exclusively about acquiring certain numbers in certain colours, e.g., blue 7, yellow 2 and so on. Consequently, The Quest for Planet Nine is a bit more straightforward, this makes it perhaps a little easier to play as it does not present players with having to deal with more left-field tasks like 'I can only win the first and last hands'. The upside is that it has greater accessibility and will be easier to play with people who aren't so heavily into games. If I had to choose between this and The Crew: Mission Deep Sea, I'd choose the latter 100% of the time.
It's not that this is a bad game (It's not.), it's just the gamer in me craves the greater variety and challenge Mission Deep Sea provides. If (Like a friend did.) you want something to play with the family over a holiday with some non-confrontational , still challenging but more accessible gameplay, The Crew: The Quest for Planet Nine is a good choice. 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. 20th August 2022 It's a Saturday night and we're logged into Board Game Arena for some gaming goodness. Cross an ocean, hop from island to island on a lonely journey to find your paradise island and tranquillity. Tranquility is a cooperative, game about assessing risks and playing cards. Also, the rules state that players should not explicitly discuss their cards between them, so I guess that could be considered a form of tranquillity? What's in a game? Tranquility is a card game that comes packaged in a distinctive looking cubic box. All the game's cards are an unusual square shape.
Quality wise, the cards are pretty average. Not much more to say here. The presentation and artwork for Tranquility is excellent. The illustrations show a series of unique and interesting islands. The colourful artwork has a bright, clean and stylised almost minimalist look to it that does a great job of conveying the subdued isolation of a sea bound journey. There's barely any iconography in Tranquility and what there is of it is reserved for the expansion cards. How's it play? Set up
On to play The objective in Tranquility is to cooperatively fill all 36 spaces in the 6x6 grid with island cards. Furthermore, all the cards must be positioned in numerical order (Although not necessarily placed in sequence.) going from low to high and left to right, starting in the bottom left corner and ending in the top right one. It's worth noting that while cards are placed in a 6x6 grid, the numbers 'wrap around', this means they are essentially in a long line. Tranquility uses a traditional turn order with the active player taking an action before player progress to the player on their left. During their turn, the active player can do 1 of 2 possible actions.
Endgame Tranquility continues until 1 of the 2 following conditions are met. Cannot play: If the active player does not have a card to play or cannot discard 2 cards to pass, then the players collectively lose. Finish card: If all 36 spaces in the grid have been filled and the active player has a finish card in their hand, they can play it and the players collectively win. Overall
Tranquility feels like a puzzle orientated game with a minor element of mathematics. The game is clearly dived into early and late game. The early game is where players will look to put cards into play without other adjacent cards to avoid discarding cards. The late game is where players have no choice but to discard in order to play cards and have to decide which and how many cards to discard and discarding is the crux of the game. Discarding means getting rid of cards which may prove vital later in the game. Players will have to judge which cards are 'safer' to discard and hope alternative cards will appear. It is the chief risk that players take in Tranquility. This is is why the start card rule can prove tricky for players, especially if it appears early in the game, having to discard 8 cards is harsh - it's nearly 10% of the deck. Curiously though, discarding cards gets easier as the game progresses. Typically numbers will get locked out as cards are played. E.g., if a 51 is placed adjacent to a 54, then cards 52 & 53 can no longer be used and can be freely discarded. Additionally, once the first start card has been played, any others can be safely discarded. Conversely, it's always risky to discard a finish card. All of this means that decisions in the early game are the most important and the game will 'settle down' as it progresses. Having said all of that, there is a issue I have with the game; which is that there's definitely a formula we found that players can employ to greatly increase their chances to win. It's not a guarantee and I never feel like we could be complacent when we played, even though we now generally win the vast majority of games we play and the game seems 'beaten'. Tranquility is fairly easy to learn, especially considering it's a cooperative game - quite often cooperative games have complex engines to drive the gameplay but that's not the case here. The game provides some conundrums to face and problems to solve. Players will need to manage the risk of their discards and make decisive decisions. If all of that sounds like some you'll like then Tranquility is definitely a game that's worth playing, just don't play it too often. 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. 26th July 2022 It's Tuesday! That means it's time to meet up with the Woking Board Gaming Club at the The Sovereigns. Time to steal the idol... and escape, Indiana Jones has nothing on this real-time, cooperative dice game, well at least until those crappy rolls inevitably turn up! What's in a game?
Escape: The Curse of the Temple has good quality components. The tiles all feel suitably thick and sturdy. The acrylic gem tokens are kind you see in a lot of games which use them to depict gems, they are a sparkly, pleasing shade of green though. The bespoke dice and meeples are wooden which is always a nice touch. There's not much art to speak of, the tiles show flagstones and that's about it. It's clear artwork that does not get in the way. About half a dozen icons are used throughout the game, luckily they most relate to the dice and there's never a need to refer to the rules - which is a good thing since this is a real time game with a countdown. How's it play? Setup
On to play In Escape: The Curse of the Temple players are collectively attempting to explore a lost temple to find the exit and escape before becoming trapped. It's not so simple though; not only must they find the exit, they'll also need to activate the gem tiles and spaces to make their escape possible. The game is played over 3 rounds and does not use a typical turn structure. Instead, turns are actually synchronous, in other words, players perform all their actions at the same time and in real time! This involves all players rolling their dice and resolving their actions simultaneously. How is this all done? Read on.
Endgame When the 3rd and final round begins, all players must get to the exit tile and successfully perform the escape action.
The soundtrack has a total countdown across all 3 rounds of 10 minutes. If one or more players are still in the temple when the countdown has finished, then they collectively lose the game. If all the players have escaped before the time runs out, then the players collectively win! Overall
I'm going to start by saying that I'm a bit ambivalent towards real time games. I've played some good ones and can see how they have their place in gaming but for me but broadly speaking, it's not why I like and play board games. I like to think out my decisions and choices at least a little bit. Add to the mix a push-your-luck dice mechanic and you've a game of a lot of quick frantic rolling. You really don't want to roll those dice off the table! Having said all of this, I think Escape: The Curse of the Temple is a solid game and there's a lot to like about it. Firstly, rules and theme mesh together well. Chucking dice as quickly as you can to escape feels good. The synchronous dice rolling is a clever little system. Generally real time games are always trying to impress upon players that they're up against the clock, this can be a little jarring in a game where players are having to wait for another player's time to run our and get their turn. By having synchronous actions, it heightens the sense of urgency as everyone is in it together. Being able to provide assistance another player on the same tile is equally clever. It's an elegant mechanic that also feels organic and makes sense. This means it would seem like a good idea to have players explore the temple as a group, it would make shifting gems and unlocking dice easier... But there's a couple of rules that throws a spanner into that strategy. Firstly; exploring as group can slow down that exploration. Players can't escape if they don't shift enough gems or find draw exit tunnel from the stack. Secondly; players will want to avoid creating single long corridors, they will need to return to the starting tile twice and the further away they are from it, the further it is to get back. This will force players to split up or go in pairs or stick close by if they have the option, at least for the first 2 rounds. This can change contextually when certain tile are revealed or have to be put in play in a certain way or a player get too many locked dice and so on. Players will have to think quickly and decisively as well as adapt to emergent events. Escape: The Curse of the Temple obviously has a quick playtime - 10 minutes! That feels a little strange because the setup and explanation time almost feels longer than a single game. It's reasonably easy to learn, I can't imagine novice gamers struggling to learn the concepts here. It also not a game to be taken too seriously and leans heavily on luck which is not unusual for cooperative games. Although, even accepting this, a bad run of rolls can sour the experience. But treat Escape: The Curse of the Temple as a cooperative, silly, fun, filler of a game and it will be a enjoyable time. So long as your luck is better than mine... much better! |
AuthorI play, I paint. Archives
March 2025
Categories
All
|