আপনি খেলতে পারেন যে বোর্ড গেম সেরা একটি ডিরেক্টরি

Since I regularly try out as many dexterity games as I can, it should come as no surprise that I finally got my hands on a copy of Dungeon Fighter.

In Dungeon Fighter, the players take on a party of heroes that are attempting to navigate their way through a dungeon in order to defeat the ultimate (final) boss!  However, to do so, they will be throwing dice onto a target - often with strange stipulations included.  Throughout the game, the players will go through various rooms.  In each room, they will encounter a monster.  In order to defeat the monster, the players have to deal an amount of damage equal to the monster's health.  How?  By throwing dice onto the bullseye (hopefully).  Specifically, the players have three standard dice (and potential bonus dice).  Each time that they throw a die, it must bounce once before landing on the target, and then (assuming it actually stays on the target) it will deal damage equal to the area on which it lands.  If the die rolls off the target, doesn't bounce before hitting the target, was not thrown legally, or in any other way was a "miss", then the player throwing the die is "hit" by the monster.  After the players have thrown their three standard dice, if they have no bonus dice (or choose not to use any), then they are all hit by the monster again (but they get their standard dice back).  Play continues like this until the monster has been defeated (or all of the players have been).  Then, the players advance to the next level and repeat the cycle of die-bouncing dexterity.  If they manage to bounce their dice all the way to the final boss and defeat him, then they win!  When (yes, when - not if) that doesn't happen, the players lose!

The primary pro for Dungeon Fighter is that it can be highly amusing.  The designers have taken a very simple concept (bouncing dice onto a target) and have forced players to perform this "simple" task in a plethora of quirky ways.  For example, you might have to flick the die off the back of your hand instead of throwing it.  Or you may have to throw the die with your back to the target.  Or throw it under your leg.  Or, you might have to (or choose to) do all three!  Really, this is where the amusement of the game can be found - in being forced to do insane combinations of movements while trying to get the die to land on the right place.  (I think that my most difficult combination was having to flick it off the back of one hand, hit it with my head somehow, and also blow the die while it was in the air.  Or something like that - regardless, it was not a simple matter.)  Doing all of these goofy movements will definitely attract an audience - which may not be the thing you're looking for if you prefer not to be the center of attention!

Throw your dice here.  Easy, right?

The next pro for Dungeon Fighter is that, if you enjoy the game, then there is quite a bit of replayability.  There are several different heroes (9), a lot of monsters (53), and even a few different final monsters (4).  Add in the different pieces of armor and weapons, and you should wind up with different combinations of ways that you are forced to throw the die between any two games that you play.  (Granted, this is all assuming that you are good enough to get very far in the game.  If you die very quickly, then you might wind up just encountering the same green (easy) level monsters repeatedly - and may not even get far enough to buy any gear.)

Though the game has some fun elements to it, I found a few cons as well.  First, the game is incredibly hard - even on easy mode.  (At least to me.  Admittedly, this will differ between any two players.)  I have played this game a handful of times, and I have never beaten it.  Or gotten very close to defeating the final boss.  Or even fought the final boss.  And I have only played it on "easy!" And I play a lot of dexterity games.  Granted, after the first play or so, I realized that one of the important things in Dungeon Fighter is to be almost on top of the board when you are playing.  Forget all of the things you've learned in other dexterity games about being a "respectable distance" away from the playing surface and such.  If you want to have any chance whatsoever in Dungeon Fighter, you will be throwing the dice from as close as humanly possible.  (I think that this is also why they added the rule about the die having to bounce before hitting the target - they were expecting people to be insanely close to the board.)

Some of the different heroes

The next con that I have for Dungeon Fighter is that there seems to be something "off" about the number of players.  The game really has a party game feel, where you want to have as many people involved as possible.  After all, a group will probably gather around you to watch you make a fool of yourself.  And, in fact, the game supports a respectable six players.  Yet, there are only three standard dice that you can use each round.  So, if you are playing with a lot of players, on any given monster several players will be completely at the mercy of the rest of their party when it comes to whether they will receive damage or not.  I felt like there should be some way of keeping more people involved throughout the game.

The third con that I had for Dungeon Fighter was that the iconography was not very intuitive, and so you often find yourself looking up what various things mean (more so on powers than on different die throwing requirements).  Whereas this isn't really a big deal in most games, one of Dungeon Fighter's appeals is that it is a game that is very quick to teach and to learn - thus you can get people involved very quickly.  Yet, with the iconography causing confusion, it impedes that ability to learn it quickly.

The final con that I will found when playing Dungeon Fighter is that the game grows stale fairly quickly.  This will depend highly on your group, but in the different groups I have played with, there was not much desire to play it repeatedly.  Yes, there was some initial excitement when the game came out, and different people wanted to try throwing the dice (because, naturally, they assumed that they would be amazing at it).  However, pretty quickly people's interest waned - sometimes even before they had finished their first game!  I think that Dungeon Fighter is a very interesting concept, but it feels a bit more like a gimmick than anything else.

Overall, I give Dungeon Fighter a 7.0/10 (I debated giving it anywhere from an 6.0-8.0).  Whereas I don't really mind the gameplay, I felt like the game didn't keep me as actively engaged as I would have liked, and I was very disappointed by how quickly the game felt stale.

If you like dexterity games, you should also check out Toc Toc Woodman, Tumblin Dice, and Micro Mutants Evolution.

A neat auction game with some very nice engine building mechanics is The Scepter Of Zavandor.

In The Scepter of Zavandor, every turn consists of finding ways to improve your income.  This can be done in a few ways.  First, you can buy better "gems."  Each gem produces income for you, so having better gems improves how much money you make (and you can only have a certain number of gems, so you will need to upgrade them).  Second, you can auction artifacts.  The various artifacts can provide you with additional gem slots, give discounts on future items, increase your hand limit (how much money you can carry over from one turn to the next), etc.  Finally, you can improve your "knowledge."  Knowledge allows you to have various bonuses - a temporary boost of gems, unlocking better gems, increasing your base income, and providing you a better price when buying gems.  Ultimately, the game continues with players seeking to maximize their income every turn until a certain number of "sentinels" (super artifacts that are worth a lot of points) are purchased.  Once that happens, players add up points - from gems, artifacts, sentinels, and knowledge.  Whoever has the most victory points (most likely the person with the highest income) is the winner!

So, let's start out the pro/con section for Zavandor with this statement - I like a lot of things about this game.  First, I really like that you get a varied income from gems.  What this means is that each gem does not produce a set amount of money.  For example, you don't get $2 every turn for having an opal.  Instead, each gem provides you a card, and the cards have a range of values, with the better gems obviously having higher values.  This does a couple of things - first, it gives you some turns where you are able to have a "better" turn than you should (though at the cost of probably having turns later that are "worse" than they should be).  Secondly, it prevents your opponents from knowing how much money you have.  And this second element is very important in an auction game.  Now, instead of knowing that they can outbid you at exactly $52, your opponents know that you have somewhere around $40-60; but they don't know any more than that!

Various artifacts to be sold

There is actually a second element to the cards-as-money mechanic that I like.  There is a hand size that is enforced at the end of every round.  And, this hand size is fairly small.  Because of this, it really encourages you to improve your gems.  Since the better gems produce higher value cards, you are able to carry more money from one turn to the next if you have higher level gems!  And, while I'm talking about the cards-as-money mechanic, there is one more great feature.  In case you dislike pulling random cards, once you have enough of a certain type of gem, you get to pull a "concentrated energy" card instead of a normal card.  These cards allow you to get a set price for your gems that is slightly above average - and doesn't count (as much) towards your hand limit!

The next thing that I like about the Scepter of Zavandor is that it is really fun to try to get your financial engine going.  If you really enjoy one decision building on the next, and having one purchase pay off throughout the rest of the game, then Zavandor will have a lot of appeal to you.  I enjoy this kind of system, and so I have enjoyed selling gems in order to get better gems, carefully planning which auctions I need to win versus the ones I can hold back on, and where to improve my knowledge to get the most impact for my money.

The last two pros that I will mention briefly are these: I like the diverse starting position where each player starts with a different piece of knowledge (and thus should have a different initial strategy), and I like that the discounts provided by purchasing artifacts at the beginning of the game encourage you to buy a wide variety of items.

One of the different player boards

Yet, with all that I like about the Scepter of Zavandor (and, again, I like a lot about this game), there is one glaring con.  This game might have the worst runaway leader problem that I have ever seen.  Remember how I said that each decision builds on all of your previous ones?  So, if I make a few great decisions in the first 2-3 rounds, and they help me to earn some extra income, then guess what: I will have more money with which to buy the next things that come along.  And, that will help me earn more income.  Which, in turn, makes me more income.  There is a mechanic in the game to try to slow down the leader (and help the player in last to catch up).  The top 2 players are forced to pay extra on artifacts, and the bottom two players get discounts on them.  This is not enough.  In the last game that I played (in which I believe everyone had played the game before), the leader defeated the player in last place by about 80 points (the scores were something around 100 to 25, from what I recall).  And, in case you thought one player just played especially poorly, the leader also defeated second place by about 40 points.  Now, I said that I think that everyone had played the game before.  I know that the person in first, second, and last had played the game before - and it was still that uneven.  Whereas I like my decisions to matter in any game that I play, it seems that the decisions made in the first few turns set the course of this game a bit too much (the leader led from approximately 10 points until the end of the game).

The second con that I have for the Scepter of Zavandor emerges because of the previous con - the game is far too long.  Having an engine building game in which early decisions are unforgiving is completely fine.  It encourages you to make good decisions throughout the game!  But, more specifically, they are fine in a 30-45 minute game.  Zavandor is advertised as a 90 minute game, but I think is closer to 120-150 minutes as average.  Yet, the last hour (or more) of the game might not have any real impact on who wins or loses the game.  It can wind up being an extra hour of the player in first pummeling everyone else, while they watch helplessly (and with ever-increasing frustration).

Overall, I give The Scepter of Zavandor a 6.5/10.  As I keep saying - there are many aspects of this game that I think are wonderful, and that I enjoy greatly.  But, with how badly the leader can runaway with the game (and with how long everyone else in the game has to suffer), I just can't justify giving the game a higher score.  (Really, I think it speaks highly for the game that it gets a score this high while having such a frustrating element!)

If you enjoy auction games, you might also want to check out For Sale, Modern Art, and Biblios.

In my opinion, one of last year's most anticipated titles was Pathfinder: Adventure Card Game. And, after a friend told me about how much he enjoyed it, I decided to try it out.

In Pathfinder, you take control of a (wimpy) character, and you go on adventures (hence the name).  Your specific adventures will be to go around to various locations, hunt down an evil villain (while thwarting his henchmen), and bring him to justice.  Along the way, you may get loot!  (Let's not ask questions like "where is this loot coming from?" or "is my adventurer really a hero if he smashes everything in his path and steals whatever he finds?" Asking these questions ruin lots of fun games.)  Essentially, the gameplay is very straightforward - each turn you can optionally move, and then you can "encounter" a card at a location.  This location might be a monster, item, weapon, armor, spell, or blessing.  Whatever the card is, you will either have to defeat it, or (if it is some form of loot) you will have an opportunity to add it to your hand.  Either of these things requires you to pass a skill check.  Skill checks are based on rolling a die (which die depends on your character's abilities), and then getting bonuses and additional dice if cards are played.  After rolling all of your dice, if the total value that you rolled equals or exceeds the difficulty of the check, then the check is passed (monster defeated or loot acquired).  While going around to the locations, you are ultimately trying to defeat all of the henchmen (which allows you to "close" locations), and once all of the locations but one are closed, you defeat the villain in order to win.  (Note: I've used the term "loot" here as a generic term to mean "sweet stuff that you might acquire", though there is an official card type in the game called "Loot" (which is something cool that you can acquire).  Perhaps I should have used "booty" instead, but the phrase is "loot and pillage", not "booty and pillage.")

My first pro for Pathfinder is the looting.  I love looting things.  (In games!  Not in real life.  Sheesh…)  The first time that I was able to get my wife (girlfriend at the time) to play video games was in Gauntlet: Dark Legacy.  What appealed to her about it?  It was very straightforward - kill the bad guys, and collect cool rewards while doing it.  That is the formula for the Pathfinder card game, and it works fairly well.  What's more, through the deck allowances (or whatever they're called), the game does a good job of letting you loot while still keeping your character true to their nature.  For example, if I am a wizard, then I can keep a lot of spells in my deck - I can gain weapons and such, and I won't (always) just throw them in the trash while we are adventuring, but at the end of each scenario I will have to adjust my deck back to something that is legal for my character.  This is a great balance.

My second pro for Pathfinder is the customization that you perform while playing the game.  You start with a wimpy character and very basic cards.  However, as you play through different scenarios, you will get both loot and character rewards.  The loot allows you to customize (improve) what is in your deck.  If you like to play the "Hulk Smash" character, then you can add all of the gigantic weapons that you find, and replace the smaller daggers and short swords.  If you like to play as the dryad/animal adept character, then you can switch out which animal allies you have to work well with your style of gameplay.  However, in addition to customizing your deck, you also get other rewards as you play the game.  Some scenarios (or adventure paths (which is a set of scenarios)) will give you character bonuses - such as your character getting a permanent +1 bonus to a skill, being able to hold additional cards of a certain type, or getting special abilities.  However, the bonuses that you get are infrequent enough that you probably won't get to upgrade everything (at least not for quite a while).  So, you must pick how you want to play your character.

Cards and piles everywhere!

The two pros that I just mentioned really both blend together for the key pro for the game - Pathfinder ("Adventure Card Game") is very engaging.  You become attached to your character as you play.  You see them improve, and you want to keep playing so that you can try to add more stats to them, and to improve their stash of cards.  I found myself generally wanting to play "just one more" scenario as I was playing the game.  (As a note - you can actually play the game as just a single scenario instead of taking a character through the various adventure paths, but that doesn't really have any appeal to me at all.)  However, if you truly play the game by the rules, then if your character "dies" (runs out of their deck of cards during a scenario), then you are supposed to completely start over with a different character, thereby losing all of your customizations.  I haven't had my character die quite yet, but I'm not convinced that I'm going to do that instead of just restarting the scenario.

However, as great as the pros are, there are some equally strong cons.  The first con is that there are massive rules ambiguities and places where the game is unclear.  Even some of the things that are covered (such as evading) are covered so briefly that it is almost impossible to find the rule that you're unsure about in the rulebook.  Pros and cons are often hard to quantify, but take this into consideration: according to my colleague from Board Game Quest, BoardGameGeek had 600 rules questions within the first two months of the game's release.  Ouch!

The next con for me is that all of the adventures are the same.  Honestly, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now, and assume that this will only be true in the base game.  However, in all eight of the scenarios included in the base game, you are playing with the same formula - setup locations, close all of the locations and then defeat the villain.  Whereas this works, variety is important for ensuring that the game has lasting appeal.  (And, based on the fact that they are already planning five more expansions, I would say that they are banking on the game having lasting appeal.)  The game that Pathfinder is most often compared with is Lord of the Rings LCG.  But, one big difference is that Lord of the Rings has used it's formula of going through objective cards in a variety of very different ways - even in the base set.  So far, Pathfinder does not have that diversity - and unless it starts to have some diversity in the upcoming expansions, I do not think that it will have the longevity of Lord of the Rings.

My final con for Pathfinder deals with quality of components.  Before I even started playing the game, I had some cards that were marked, and others where the printing simply wasn't clean.  This is very disappointing as Paizo is generally a very high quality publisher.

Overall, I give Pathfinder an 8.0/10.  I love the looting and customization of the game, but, as with Risk: Legacy, I find myself enjoying these meta-game elements more than the game itself.  (Though to a much lesser degree than with Risk: Legacy.)

If Pathfinder: Adventure Card Game sounds interesting, you might also check out Dungeon Command, Mice and Mystics, and Dungeon Lords.

So, today's review will be a little bit different - it will be about Never Deal with Dragons.  Now, some of you that really keep up on board games may be thinking to yourself, "hey, I haven't heard of that one." And, those of you that clicked on the link may be going - "wait, that's a book!" Yep.  Today I'm going to review a lesser-known eBook that I recently finished (hence the lack of pictures), which was written by a friend of mine (but to be honest, many of the games I review are published by friends of mine, so I think I've learned how to not be too biased).

An unrelated dragon (Defenders of the Realm)

Now, before I continue, there's something that you should be aware of.  This book is classified as romance.  Yeah - it made me feel slimy, too.  That classification does a terrible injustice to the book, as it will immediately make thousands (millions?) of people like me skip it without looking any further.  In fact, I bought it to support my friend, and as I was reading through it, I was fully intending to stop and move on as soon as it got all romance-bookish.  Fortunately, that didn't really happen.  Yes, there is one obligatory sex scene (it's about a page or two), but really, I didn't think that it had any more sex in it than the recent fantasy series that I've read through - it's fairly in line with the Game of Thrones series, the Dresden Files, or the Sword of Truth books when it comes to amount of sex versus cool stuff.  (Though, in Never Deal With Dragons, sex is more emotional instead of just straight physical, because it's told from a female perspective.)  And, why do I relate it to those books?  For a couple of reasons - first, that's what I read, and second, I feel that this should be classified as urban fantasy instead of romance.

Now that I've disclaimed a few times, let me start telling you about the book.  In my opinion, it reads very similarly to the Dresden Files, except that it is told from a female perspective (and the female lead is a dragon speaker, and not a wizard).  As a guy, it is interesting to read a story that is told from a female perspective, as there are some things that are shared that I would never have thought about, and it gave me a bit more (fictional) insight into a potential female thought process.  Yet, the inner monologue wasn't too distracting from the story itself.  If you enjoy the first person narrative style of Dresden, and the swirling of tense and breath-catching chapters of Butcher's stories, then you should feel right at home in Never Deal With Dragons.

Another unrelated dragon (Dungeon Command)

Next, I think that Lorenda (the author) has done a remarkable job in creating a fantasy universe.  I really enjoyed when she would include bits of lore about the setting that the story takes place in.  These little tidbits helped you feel more immersed in this alternate reality.  Here are some basics about the setting of the book.  Dragons are real; they were created by a failed lab experiment.  The dragons are also intelligent.  This combination means that the dragons have essentially taken over the world, and humans either work with them or serve them, depending on the part of the world you live in.  The humans that work best with dragons are "dragon speakers" (like the main character), and this language is still relatively young.  In addition to these post-apocalyptic features, the author has mixed in some traditional dragon lore (such as hoarding wealth), but has done it in a way that fits in with the rest of the environment - like wealth is hoarded by the dragons owning all of the world's major corporations.

One final unrelated dragon (Heroscape)

Now, since I've not really written book reviews, I don't know how much plot to write about (I don't want to give anything away), but ultimately, the heroine finds herself (completely unprepared) in a major quarrel between dragons, and she must figure out what is going on before things get out of hand.  This causes some chapters that are dripping with tension, where I felt like I couldn't put the book down until it had been resolved, as I waited to see what was going to happen next.  (I've read enough Game of Thrones books that I no longer take for granted that main characters will make it out alright.)

Overall, I found Never Deal with Dragons to be a nice, light read that wound up fitting incredibly well within my preferred style of reading (I'm anxiously awaiting the next Dresden book).  Plus, it's only about $3 dollars on Amazon - so, ultimately, why not pick it up and see what you think?  And, if you do, please leave a comment and let me know what you thought.  I think that it was really good, but I wouldn't mind some other opinions.

After really enjoying the first game by Stonemaier Games, I was privileged to have an opportunity to check out their second title - Euphoria.

In Euphoria, you are attempting to build the best dystopia.  In order to build and maintain your dystopia, you have to keep your workers dumb and happy as they mine for resources, build markets, and tunnel into neighboring cities.  In game terms, each turn you will either place a worker (or multiple workers, if they show the same number of pips on the dice that represent workers), or you can pull any number of your workers back.  When placing workers, they can collect resources, contribute to building markets, get you victory points, etc.  When retrieving workers, you must either pay a resource and gain some morale, or sacrifice a morale.  Additionally, when you retrieve your workers, you immediately re-roll all of them and add the total of all your available workers to your score on the knowledge track.  If this total is too high, then one of your workers runs away.  The game progresses in this fashion of placing and retrieving workers until one player has successfully scored their 10th victory point - at which point they are the king of the grumpy, unhappy land!

The first pro that I have for Euphoria is that I enjoy the strategy involved in attempting to get your workers "bumped" as much as possible.  In the game, there are three different types of locations for your workers - one can hold any number of workers, one can hold a single worker that can't be displaced, and the final type of location holds a single worker which will be "bumped" if another worker accesses the location.  When you get a worker "bumped," he immediately is re-rolled and returned to your active worker pool.  This is a wonderful thing for the owner of that worker, as they suddenly have another worker that can be placed, and they didn't have to spend a turn pulling the worker back.  Thus, determining where you think your opponents might want to place their workers and taking advantage of those locations first is a great strategy.

Another thing that I have found interesting in Euphoria is balancing your morale.  Initially, I thought that you could basically neglect morale early in the game and wait until the game has started to blossom.  After all, that way you don't have to waste resources early on in the game when pulling back your workers.  But, if you do this, then you will have a hand size of one when holding artifacts.  (I haven't mentioned artifacts.  Essentially, they are cards that you can turn in to get victory points.  You will need at least three of them or two that match.  Plus, you'll have an artifact that is special to you each game.)  Since you can turn in three artifacts for a victory point (or two matching ones), you really don't want to throw them away!  And, the earlier you increase your morale, the earlier you can start trying to match these cards (and not grow angry as you have to throw away the second card of a pair because you neglected morale).  I found the importance of morale in the early game to be interesting.

Nice artwork for the board

Now, before moving on to the cons, there are several things I just want to mention about Euphoria - not good or bad things, but things I want you to be aware of.  First, "60 minutes" is.... optimistic.  None of the games that I have played have really come close to that mark.  I think that it is possible, especially if playing with about 3 people, all of which are experienced.  However, I really don't recommend playing your first game with 6 people.  Start smaller.

The second thing that I will point out is that there are a couple facets of the game that can make it a bit swingy.  First, if you roll doubles on your workers, you get to place multiple workers on the same turn (which is a very good thing for you). Also, if you roll really high numbers on your workers when you pull them off the board, you might lose them, even if your knowledge is not very high.  Both of these die rolling elements can turn the tide of a game - either towards you or away.  In one of my games, I saw someone with a moderately high knowledge (4 on a track that goes from 1-6) lose two workers on almost back to back turns, because they rolled too high.  This made them go from having three workers to place on the board to having a single worker.  Needless to say, they did not come back.  Some players will enjoy this element of the game, whereas it will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of others.

Now that you're feeling great about Euphoria, it's time to list some cons.  After all - this is a game about dystopias, right?  My first con is that there are four tracks relating to each specific allegiance.  Each player has a couple of recruits, and as the tracks that correspond to his recruits advance, he will get bonuses - and, in fact, one of his recruits will not even be available until the corresponding track goes a certain distance.  This sounds cool, right?  It allows for some uneasy alliances, where you are helping other players because it is ultimately in your own best interests.  However, in practice, it feels like these tracks basically just move as the game goes along.  I don't know if the recruits have been too well distributed in all of my games, but in my experience, the tracks have all stayed very close together throughout the game, and players are too often forced to advance a track that they care nothing about in order to get a bonus that they do want.  So, instead of this being a neat feature of the game, it turns out to be a really cool sounding non-factor.

Another action shot - I was purple this time (and I won!)

The next con that I have for Euphoria is that I thought that the tunnels should be scaled based on the number of players.  In the game, there are tunnels that lead from one part of the city to another - so that the Wastelanders can steal resources from the Euphorians, etc.  Realistically, players place workers on the tunnels to transform commodities into resources and/or artifacts.  As they do this, the miner moves along the track, and once he reaches certain places, recruits become flipped, and eventually a new place is opened up on the board.  However, the miner has to go the same distance no matter how many people are playing.  Thus, in a six player game, you have a new spot open up and more recruits available.  But in a smaller game (possibly even four player!), you have these same tunnels, but they might never be completed.  This is especially true since the resources that are provided from digging are scaled, as there are less resources needed to build each market in a smaller game.

My final con for the game is that it felt.  Disjointed?  I'm not sure what term to use.  It felt like I was placing workers for the sake of placing workers.  There is strategy involved and there is a theme, but they didn't mesh together overly well for me.  The flow of beginning, buildup, and climax also seemed a bit missing.  It was hard (at least for me) to envision how what I was going to do this turn was going to help me in the long run.  It felt more like, "well, I guess I can do this - I don't have any of this resource type." There were occasionally long pauses of people thinking - but it wasn't because they were overwhelmed with choices.  It was more that they were trying to figure out how this turn would lead towards anything later in the game.  I don't think that I captured this con well, but it just felt like each turn only leads to the next 1-2 turns instead of the game building upon itself throughout.

Overall, I give Euphoria a 7.0/10.  There are some neat elements to the game, but overall the game left me a bit disappointed - though this is quite possibly because I expected a bit more based on how much I enjoyed Stonemaier's first game (Viticulture).  I would play Euphoria in the future if my friends were interested in it, but it won't be something that I regularly seek out.

If Euphoria sounds interesting, you might also check out Android: Netrunner, Kingdom of Solomon, and Alien Frontiers.

I would like to thank Stonemaier Games for providing me with a review copy of Euphoria.

Edit: It has been pointed out to me that I got a rule slightly wrong.  Originally, I had stated that when your workers are bumped, they did not have to make a knowledge check.  That was incorrect - sorry.  I still think that getting your workers bumped is far better than having to pull them back on your own, but I wanted to make sure to clarify this in case I had made anyone second guess themselves.

Recently I've gotten several opportunities to play a game called Hollywood Blockbuster.  You should know - there are several different versions of this game, and I think that the current one is called "Dream Factory."  However, I'm not entirely sure what (if anything) has changed, so I will go ahead and review based off of my version of the game.

In Hollywood Blockbuster, each player takes on the role of a movie studio trying to have the most successful year.  Success is based on the number of stars on a movie as well as the number of awards the movie earns.  Play is divided over four rounds ("quarters"), and at the end of the year, best movie awards are handed out.  Each quarter consists of a number of auctions and parties.  In each auction, the players are bidding contracts (the currency of Hollywood), on various pieces for their movie - it could be for special effects, sound work, actors, guest stars, directors, or agents (which are wild).  All of the auction tiles are face up from the beginning, so that you know what else is available.  Whenever a player successfully wins and auction, he must immediately place or discard all of the new tiles that he has purchased (generally you win 2-3 tiles).  In addition, once the winning bidder pays for his new tiles, all of the other players get to divide the contracts spent among themselves.    Parties work a little differently.  Once you arrive at a party space, all of the tiles are flipped face up.  Then, starting with the player that has the most actors and guest stars ("star power"), each player gets to select a tile (for free) to add to his board.  As soon as a player completes one of his (up to three) in progress movies, he calculates the score and collects the corresponding scoring tile; then he receives another potential movie from the stack.  If he has completed the first movie of a given genre, then he wins a smaller award.  Plus, at the end of each of the first three quarters, whoever has the overall best movie gets a small award.  At the end of the game, all of the final awards are handed out, and the player with the best total score between awards, completed movies, and leftover contracts wins the game.

Each movie has different needs

So.  I've realized recently that I love auction mechanics.  As I perused my collection for games to take to game night the other day, in addition to Hollywood Blockbuster, I was tempted to bring For Sale, Modern Art, Vegas Showdown, Money, and a bunch of other auction games.  (Eventually I decided I should diversify a bit.)  But, with all of these auction games available, what is different or unique about Hollywood Blockbuster?  There are really two auction mechanics in this game that I think fit well together that I want to discuss - and I'll go ahead and list them as separate pros.  First, I like that whatever you pay is immediately divided among all of the different players.  One of the beautiful things about auction games is that players truly set the value of everything in the game - in one game, things may even go for half as much as in the next.  However, in my experience, this has never been more true than in Hollywood Blockbuster.  Since the contracts are constantly flowing back and forth, your group can really set the value for tiles as high or as low as you want.  I've played games where everything went fairly inexpensively, and I've seen games where almost every time someone bought something, they had to spend all of their contracts.

The second auction element that I think works well is the fact that tiles are grouped together.  There is only one auction per round in which a player buys a single tile - the first auction (which is for a 4-star director).  After that, the auctions will always be for at least two tiles.  I like this because it will cause more bidding wars than if the players were bidding on single tiles.  Sometimes this war will be because one player wants the sound board, and another wants the special effects.  Sometimes it will be because both players are just desperate to fill several empty places on their movie.  Sometimes the only special effects available for the round are paired with the best actor.  But, overall, auctioning several things at a time allows much more tension and excitement to be in the game.

My third pro for Hollywood Blockbuster is about the only other way of gaining tiles - parties.  I like the intrigue that parties present, where you don't know how good they will be.  Because you don't know what will be available, you always hope for the best.  What this indirectly does is increase the value of actors.  In addition to helping you with your movie, if you are able to purchase a lot of actor tiles, then you will get to pick first at the party, thus potentially giving you a nice 3-star tile for free.  And, of course, the downside of not having actors is that your opponents might get to pick a nice 3-star tile for free!  Of course, you might show up to the party, and there is nothing that you want.  I feel like the parties are a perfect element of controlled randomness in the game.

You don't have to win awards - but you should

The final pro that I will mention for Hollywood Blockbuster is the awards.  First of all, what kind of game about movies would be complete without awards?  So they definitely make sense thematically (well, except for the one that is for "Worst Movie").  However, the awards add an extra layer of strategic decisions.  Suddenly, you're faced with the following questions: Should I complete this now and get best of the quarter?  Should I complete a bad movie in order to be the first one to complete a comedy?  Do I really want to complete this movie now, when a drama will be the next movie, or should I wait, since someone else has already completed an amazing drama?  Should I make this movie awful and try for the Worst Movie award?  And, the awards also allow players to have a second path to victory - instead of simply getting the most stars on movies, getting the most stars on the right movies can also lead to victory.

The last thing that I will mention about Hollywood Blockbuster is more of a "point of note."  My copy of the game doesn't have licenses to any movies or actor names, so they are all spoofs.  You will see things like "Star Battles" instead of Star Wars, "The Prince Groom" instead of The Princess Bride, "Jim Scarry" instead of Jim Carrey, and "Dental Washington" instead of Denzel Washington.  Some people will like this, and will enjoy trying to figure out what all of the spoof names are referring to, whereas other people will probably be annoyed by it.  I know that at least one German version of the game is able to use actual actors and actresses (I'm not sure about movies), but it uses historically famous people - like Marilyn Monroe and Frank Sinatra.  I am unsure of how Dream Factory addresses this issue.  Anyway, if this is something that is important to you, I'd recommend you looking at the different versions to decide which one will fit your tastes.

Overall, I give Hollywood Blockbuster a 9.0/10.  I really enjoy the game, and I intend to keep it in my ever-growing collection of auction games.

If Hollywood Blockbuster sounds interesting, then you might also check out Mice and Mystics, Notre Dame, and Legacy: Gears of Time.

Now it is about time for us to check out the little game of Cave Troll.

Cave Troll, at its core, is an area control game - but with the areas represented by rooms in a dungeon.  On each turn, the active player gets to take a total of four actions.  And, for those actions, they can choose any of the following (repeating them if they so choose): draw and play a card, move a hero or monster, play an artifact card, and use a hero or monster ability.  Certain cards have a picture of a sand timer on them.  When you play these cards, they remain in play as a count down to a scoring round.  When there are more than four sand timers visible, then each room scores a number of points equal to the amount of gold pieces showing on it to whoever has the most heroes in it (with bonus points if a treasure chest or dwarf is in the room).  Once a player's deck runs out of cards, there is a final scoring round, and whoever has the most points wins the game!

My first pro for Cave Troll are the Cave Troll cards.  Shouldn't this be obvious?  The game is named after them!  Basically, the Cave Trolls are nuclear bombs that you can drop on a location.  When you play them, each player can move one of his units out of the space where the Cave Troll is played, but after that, it's like the space no longer exists - treasure chests are destroyed, nobody scores points for it, and you can't even move through it.  Additionally, the Cave Troll also cannot move.  In the games that I've played, the Cave Troll generally doesn't wind up doing much damage.  But, because of the threat of someone playing him, it forces players to diversify their actions.  This helps there be less spaces on the board where players collect all of their units trying to pile up all of their different bonuses.

Cave Troll the destroyer

Well, honestly, the Cave Troll isn't the only special unit that I like in the game.  I guess, ultimately, I would list all of the special figures as a pro - they really add some spice to the game.  Without them, it would simply be a dry mechanical puzzle more than an enjoyable game.  There is a thief that can immediately move to anywhere on the board, a dwarf that doubles the gold value of a room, and a knight that prevents opponents from moving through his space.  Oh, and you also get monsters!  (Monsters could be considered a third pro.)  The monsters don't even count towards you controlling a space.  You use them only to harass your opponents!  For example, there is an Orc that can kill heroes, and a Wraith that can push them around.  (And, of course, there is also the Cave Troll, which is classified as a monster.)  It's also nice that they provide an alternative sets of cards for the figures - this lets you play one game with a "Knight", and the next game with a "Paladin", each with its own abilities.

However, even with the extra set of cards, my main con for Cave Troll is that I don't really view it as very replayable.  I think this is because the strategies are fairly straightforward.  Ultimately, you're simply trying to spread out and get as many rooms as you can for as minimal a cost in units as possible.  And, you want to get one high value room with your dwarf in it, and make sure that you can keep it.  That's about it.  Now go make that happen, and you'll win.

My next con for Cave Troll is that there probably need to be more special units.  I realize that grunts are important, as they represent standard pieces in area control.  And, if everything were special, then nothing would truly be special.  However, the problem lies in the fact that the deck is randomly shuffled, and you draw the top card.  Which is probably a grunt ("adventurer").  And then probably another grunt.  And another one.  And, though the Orcs and Knights and Barbarians are cool, there is a good chance that you will not draw them until the end of the game, whereas your opponents may get them immediately (or vice versa).  This can highly skew the game - especially if one of the first things drawn is a dwarf, which can enhance actual scoring.  Essentially, because of this aspect of the game, you really need to view Cave Troll as a fun little game to play instead of as a strategic challenge.

Don't stack too many special figures together

The last con that I will mention for Cave Troll is that there is quite a bit of a "pile on the leader" element, at least if you play with more than two players.  Since you score a few times in the game, it is very obvious who is winning.  And, in order to catch them, you must stop them from scoring additional points while also improving your own score.  Which makes sense and is the valid way to play most games.  However, when you have three players that are all attempting to take points away from the same player, it can be a frustrating experience for that player - especially if they wing up losing not because they played poorly, but because all of their opponents targeted them.  (Though, you could argue that they played poorly by making themselves a target.  But we won't go into that.)

Overall, I give Cave Troll a 7.5/10.  I was pleasantly surprised with the game.  Whereas I will probably wind up trading my copy, I did enjoy my time with the game and would probably be willing to play it in the future if someone else brought a copy.

If Cave Troll sounds interesting, you might also check out Babel, Defenders of the Realm, and Smash Up.

As a dedicated fan of the Bang! series of games (I think I have played every variant and expansion), when I heard about Bang! The Dice Game, I was very excited to try it out.

Bang! The Dice Game take the basic formula from Bang!, and provides a simplified and faster play experience.  To start the game, players will be dealt a character and a role.  Depending on your role, you will have a different victory condition - kill the Sheriff, kill the Outlaws and Renegade, or be the last man standing; and depending on your character, you will have a different special ability to help you accomplish your goal.  On each turn, you get five dice, and three rolls.  In between each role, you have the option to re-roll (almost) any of your dice, but whatever you have rolled at the end of the third roll must be kept.  The different faces on the dice represent a Gatling gun, which hits all other players if you have rolled three of them, a one and two distance attack which attack other players, beer which heals a player, dynamite which cannot be rerolled and will end your turn while inflicting one point of damage if you roll three of them, and arrows which immediately upon rolling them forces you to take an arrow from the middle (you take wounds equal to your number of arrow once the arrow pile is exhausted).  Players take turns rolling dice and shooting at each other until one of the victory conditions is achieved!

The first pro that I have for Bang! The Dice Game is that there are die faces that matter while rolling the dice.  The basic Yahtzee formula for die rolling has been left essentially unchanged for a few decades now.  You can see examples of it in many, many games, and it is always the same.  Roll three times, and keep the final result.  However, Bang! changes this - arrows do things immediately.  And, dynamite locks your die.  These die faces actually make for some interesting decisions about when to keep re-rolling, and when to accept what you have.  For example, one time that I played, I was trying to finish off one of my opponents.  However, the arrow pile was very low, and I knew that if I re-rolled and got too many arrows, I could inadvertently kill myself instead of my opponent.  I risked it.... and it did not work out in my favor.

Arrows and Dynamite have immediate effects

The next pro that I have for Bang! TDG (I'm sick of typing "The Dice Game") is that it is much faster than the original game of Bang!  Now, let's go ahead and throw this out there - I enjoy Bang!  I think that it is a fun game, and I am generally up for playing it.  However, since I often am teaching it to new players, the game can really drag along sometimes.  That is not the case with the dice game.  Between the decisions being streamlined and the extra death that arrows can inflict (along with not being limited to playing only one "Bang!" card per turn), the game generally lasts around 20 minutes.  Which I think is the optimal length of time for Bang!  This change has caused several people that I've played with to actually prefer Bang! TDG over the original.

The third pro that I will mention for Bang! TDG is that it does a slightly better job of allowing your secret identity to actually be secret.  Because of the dice being random, and because you are forced to use the dice, you can sometimes get away with shooting the sheriff and calling it an accident.  This is easiest in a four player game where the sheriff is sitting across the table from you ("whoops, I didn't mean to roll a "2" hit - sorry..."), but can also happen with Gatling guns and by causing arrows to damage him.  Plus, Gatling guns clear out the arrows in front of you in addition to hitting all of your opponents, so they help add some confusion into the mix of "why did he just shoot me?"

However, there are still a couple of cons that I have for Bang! TDG.  First, the Renegade role is still terrible.  Yes, the Renegade can occasionally win - I realize this.  However, generally the Renegade will not win.  It is very, very hard to be the last man standing.  Actually, it might have become even more difficult in this version, because the sheriff no longer gets penalized for finishing off his deputy, so if he sees a weak opponent, he is more likely to pounce.  (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the Renegade is included in the game series, as trying to figure out who is the Renegade and who is the Deputy is the best part of the hidden identity element of the game.  Plus, it helps balance things out so that the Sheriff doesn't get obliterated by the Outlaws from the beginning.  However, that doesn't mean that I even want to be the Renegade.)

Dueling it out with friends

The other con that I have for Bang! TDG is that some of the characters just feel better than others.  Specifically, one character never takes more than one wound from Indians/arrows, one character can take all of his damage as arrows (which is amazing when there are not many players left), and one player can re-roll dynamite.  Most likely, each person will have their favorite characters that they think are the best, but these are the ones that I think may be a bit too strong.  With that said, I haven't really seen anyone be able to runaway with a game simply because they had one of these characters.  The team aspect of the game does a nice job of keeping a slightly overpowered character in check.

Overall, I give Bang! The Dice Game an 8.5/10.  I haven't completely decided if I like it more than the original game of Bang!, but I definitely like the tempo of the game more than the original - especially when teaching new players.

If Bang! TDG sounds interesting, you might also check out Catan: The Dice Game, King of Tokyo, and The Resistance.

I would like to thank dV Giochi for providing me with a review copy of Bang! The Dice Game.

So, the game that causes the most awkward conversations has to be Reiner Knizia's Money.  (Conversations like, "Hey, can I borrow Money?" or "I'd really like you to include Money in the trade.")

Anyway; other than being an awkward conversation starter, Money is also an interesting little auction game.  To start the game, each player starts with a handful of cards that represent money in both different currencies and denominations.  Every turn there are two piles of money, each with four different "bills" (cards).  Players now take cards from their hand and perform a silent auction.  Revealing at the same time, players get to select a pile of money and exchange their bid for if (starting with whoever bid the most).  Interestingly, instead of only purchasing the piles of money in the middle of the table, you can also buy other player's bids (still by exchanging your bid with theirs).  At this point, you might be wondering what the point is in this futile exercise.  Well, the reason that this isn't an exercise in futility is the scoring.  At the end of the game (when the deck runs out), each player scores points based on what they have collected (not necessarily how much).  Each set of all three 20's or 30's of the same currency are worth 100 points.  Additionally, each currency type in which a player has between 100 and 200 "dollars" is worth the total value minus 100.  Next, any currency in which a player has at least 200 "dollars" is worth its full face value.  Finally, there are Chinese 10's - these are always worth 10 points.  Whoever has the most points wins the game!

A typical pile of cash!

So, my first pro for Money is that I think that there are a few different ways that you can try to maximize your points.  Either you can try to make as much money as you want, and assume that some of it will match (or just make as much as possible early and then make things match), or you can immediately go for matching values.  So, if your goal is to make as much money as possible, then in the early auctions you may bid very low - hoping that everyone else will bid high, and you will profit.  (Since you have last pick, you will probably be collecting another player's bid.)  However, if too many people do this, then you might wind up only "earning" $10, while other players that bid slightly higher are the ones to actually make a decent profit.  So, not only are there different overarching strategies, but you are really forced to adapt your strategy to how your opponents are playing.

The next pro that I have for Money is that "it takes money to make money." Which means that in any given round you have to bid something.  Which also means that you are probably not going to (immediately) recover whatever you are bidding.  That's often not a problem; but, if you have done a really good job of collecting only cards that are relevant to the currencies that you're collecting, then it might be a huge problem.  If might force you to go ahead and abandon one of the currencies that you were just starting to collect - at least for a time.  (Which, in turn, might make another player very happy, if they had been wondering where the rest of that currency was!)

My final pro for Money is that I really like that you don't simply win by making the most money.  If that were the case, then I think that the game would be fun to play once or twice, but would have its novelty disappear quickly.  Instead, you really must specialize (and adapt your bids to what you are specializing in).  Early in the game, it might be beneficial to simply collect whatever pile has the highest face value.  However, at the end of the game, a single bill might be worth 230 points!  (This could happen if you have $190 in a currency, and you have two of the three 30's in that currency.  The final 30 would be worth 100 points for completing your set of 30's, an additional 100 points for putting you above $200 in that currency, and also worth its face value!)  So, the biggest bills in the game aren't necessarily the "best" ones.

A typical hand in Money - including a "bluff" card

The main con that I have for Money is that it is very math intensive.  You are constantly calculating and re-calculating things in the game - your score, your bid, which pile is "better" for you, how much an opponent might make off of certain things, etc.  None of these calculations are difficult.  They are all basic addition.  However, when you start making a lot of these calculations, some people will get turned off to the game pretty quickly (and others might start taking a long time to make decisions).

The second con that I have for Money is that the tie-breaker in the silent auctions can be frustrating.  When two players bid the exact same amount of money, the tie breaker goes to the player that bid using the lowest serial number on a "bill".  This generally corresponds to whoever bid using the lower bills (20's have lower serial numbers than 60's), but can wind up just arbitrarily picking someone.  Whereas I realize that there has to be something to break these ties, it can be very frustrating if you lose out on a choice pile of cash simply because your bill's serial number wasn't low enough.

Overall, I give Money a 9.0/10.  Honestly, I only tried the game because they were briefly giving away the iPhone version.  However, I'm quite glad that I did!  I think that Money is a fabulous little auction game that fits nicely into most any collection.

If Money sounds like a game that you would enjoy, you should definitely check out For Sale and Modern Art - as well as Ra.

A neat little game that I got in a trade is In the Shadow of the Emperor.

In the Shadow of the Emperor is an interesting political game in which the different players attempt to gain the most victory points by moving their house forward in different areas.  Each turn, the players start by collecting money based on what they control.  Next, all of the aristocrats (pieces) on the board "age," and if any of them die as a result, then they are removed from the board.  Third, all of the players check to see what kind of descendant they have produced - this is based on what action cards you selected in the previous turn.  Finally, the bulk of the game begins - the action phase.  Players alternate turns selecting from a limited number of action cards.  In order to take an action, you must first pay the amount of money listed, and then take the card.  These actions can help you get more people on the board, move people, place knights, build cities, marry foreign princesses, and attempt to become the new emperor.  After everyone has completed their actions, each of the different areas of the board is scored to determine if there is a new elector (thus giving the new player both the elector spot which provides an extra power, a vote in the emperor phase, and two victory points).  Once all the electors have been decided, then the players get to vote on a new emperor.  The winner of this election becomes the emperor (if he wasn't already), and he gets to take the emperor actions (which generally consist of collecting victory points, but may also give him another bonus).  At the end of five rounds, whoever has managed to score the most points through careful advancement of his aristocrats wins the game!

Different ages for aristocrats

The first thing that I like about In the Shadow of the Emperor is the aging mechanic.  Each aristocrat has the numbers 15, 25, 35, and 45.  When they come onto the board (aside from initial placement), they come in at age 15.  At the start of each subsequent turn, they will advance to the next highest number, and if they age beyond 45, then they will die.  However, there is also an action in the game (the "doctor") that allows you to either make a piece older or younger by one turn.  This can be very important as you can kill off some of your opponent's older pieces that are challenging you in various places (or protect some of your crucial pieces); and, since the number of actions is limited, you may even be able to take this action and prevent him from being able to retaliate.

The next series of pros that I have all center around the actions, and the different strategic elements that go into choosing which action you want to take.  First, I like that the actions are very limited.  Some of the actions only have one card, some have two, and some have more.  So, when performing an action, you must decide which one you want to take, and when doing so, you realize that there is a good chance that many of the other options will no longer be available by your next turn.  Additionally, actions cost money.  This gives you a bit more knowledge on what may be available on your next turn.  If you have significantly more money than your opponents, then you can expect that the higher cost actions may still be around on your next turn - so, you might be better off selecting a lower cost action that will run out instead of the higher cost action that is more critical (but will still be available).  Balancing these decisions is a wonderful aspect of this game.

But, there is another element that factors into making these decisions - the actions that you take determine what kind of descendant you will produce.  The actions are color coded either blue or pink.  If you select more blue actions than pink actions, then you produce a son, and you can place a new aristocrat on the board at the start of the next turn.  If you select more pink actions, then you produce a daughter, which you can attempt to marry off to one of the other player's aristocrats (helping them because a married couple is worth two influence instead of one, and helping you by scoring victory points), but if you are unsuccessful, then you get a few coins (as she becomes a nun).  Whereas I won't really judge how this works thematically, strategically it is brilliant.  It really encourages you to take actions that you might not otherwise consider.  In addition to their listed bonus, the different actions might also give you the bonus of a new aristocrat on the next turn.

Blue/Pink Actions

The last pro that I will mention for In the Shadow of the Emperor is that I like that you score two victory points when you become the new elector for a region.  Holding on to an elector position is still good - it gives you a vote for the emperor, and you can use the elector's ability (which can be very powerful).  But, because you gain victory points for taking an elector space, it really encourages you to move your aristocrats around and repeatedly take different positions (even at the cost of losing ones you already controlled).  Balancing taking the new positions, losing your old ones, and maximizing the benefits of whichever power you have at any given time are the keys to winning.

However, though I really like In the Shadow of the Emperor, there are a few cons that I will mention.  First, the rules are awful.  I will admit that I didn't learn this game from the rulebook - but I have consulted them throughout my games.  However, the person that I was learning the game from had several important rules highlighted in his rulebook so that he could actually find them later, as certain rules aren't where you would expect them.  Plus, the copy that I have came from a trade - and it included "How the game works: An explanation in plain English," as the previous owners of it had apparently also struggled with the rulebook.  The game is worth playing, though, so I'd encourage you to persevere through this issue.

My second con is that I think that there is quite a first player advantage in this game.  Or, more specifically, I think that there is a last player disadvantage.  To start the game, a first player is selected.  That player becomes the emperor.  Then, in turn order, every other player gets to select an electorate to control.  After this, the game begins, starting with the first player.  So, the last player gets both the worst elector power and has the last choice on actions.  Whereas this disadvantage isn't large enough to cost them the game, it is still a bit more hefty than I would like.

Finally, I'm not sure how well this game plays with less than four players.  Why?  Because my group has played with less than that and refuses to do it again.  So, I take that to mean that it doesn't play especially well with less than four.  (And, looking at the game and how the tension plays out in a four player game, I can see how that would be true.)  But, again - my games were all four player; if you've played with less, feel free to relate your experience in the comments.

Overall, I give In the Shadow of the Emperor an 8.5/10.  I enjoyed the game quite a bit, but one of it's main drawbacks is that it is hard to get to the table.  However, each time that I have managed to play it, I've enjoyed it quite a bit.

If you're interested in other games with a political nature, you might also check out Twilight Struggle, Quo Vadis, and 1960: The Making of the President.

In my continuing efforts to try out every awesome sounding dexterity game that comes along, I've unsurprisingly hunted down a copy of Riff Raff!

In Riff Raff, each player has a pile of miscellaneous pieces that he is trying to stack on a boat.  Sound easy?  Well... the boat is leaning.  And, you have to place your pieces on certain sections.  Specifically, each player is given a hand of cards ranging from 1-10, which correspond to the different parts of the ship (four on the lower part, and six on the masts).  Each card can only be used once (hence the game can only last up to ten rounds).  To start each turn, all players reveal a card.  Whoever plays the highest card gets to place a piece on the ship first (in that section), followed by the other players in order.  Players cannot touch the ship or previously placed pieces directly, but are allowed to bump them with their current piece.  If a piece is successfully placed on the boat, with nothing falling off, great!  If pieces fall off, then the active player can attempt to catch them.  Any pieces that are caught are removed from the game - and any fallen pieces that were not caught are added to that player's supply.  The first person to run out of pieces wins the game!  (Alternately, if nobody is very good (which happens regularly), whoever has the least number of pieces after the tenth round is the winner.)

Crewmen holding on for dear life!

The first pro that I have for Riff Raff is that the game is ridiculous.  It can be incredibly fun to watch, as well as to play.  Not only does the boat lean, the boat will often look like it is about to fall over.  And when the boat is at a 45 degree angle, you very well may only have cards left in your hand that have to be placed where they will immediately slide off.  So, your only chance is to try to somehow balance the ship (without knocking everything off), and also balance it with your chosen piece.  You probably will not succeed.  However, everyone nearby will get a kick out of watching you try!  (And you'll probably have fun at it, too.)

The next pro for Riff Raff is that I the components are very well made.  This is not something that I generally care much about, but in a dexterity game, it can be critical.  And, more specifically, the components for Riff Raff are very well made for the design of the game.  It's not "hey, this is a good piece of cardboard," but it is "this piece makes the game play better." The main piece that I'm thinking of is the ship, and it's balancer.  The box has a cardboard insert that folds up and sits on top of the plastic insert.  The ship sits on top of this (on a wooden ring), but the ship has a large wooden piece with a metal ball attached to the bottom of it.  This metal ball is what causes the ship to lean every direction imaginable without toppling over.  No matter how many of your pieces you set on the top ledge of the ship, it will not topple, because it is weighted well.  So, as I said - the pieces being made well enhances the game, instead of simply being a nice cosmetic aspect.

There are some elements of the game that I'm going to mention that aren't really pros or cons.  One of them is that in my copy of the game, the boat is often leaning from the beginning.  It doesn't really lean very far (maybe 10 degrees), and if you mess with it enough, you can get it to lean even less than that.  I can't decide if this is something wrong with my copy, and it really should stand up straight to start the game, or if this was something intentional to make sure that the game is challenging from the beginning.   And if it is something "wrong" with my copy, I haven't decided if it makes my copy better or worse.

A mostly empty boat

The next thing that I will mention is more of an "I wish they had added this." The pieces in the game are all very smooth.  In most games, this is a sign of being high quality, and in fact, that is still the case in Riff Raff.  However, with as smooth as the pieces are, and as angled as the boat is, the smoothness of the pieces can increase the challenge.  I wish that the mast pieces were double sided with one side smooth and the other side with a bit more texture.  This would allow the game to be played with two different degrees of difficulty, as the players could choose which side to play with in any given game.

My only real con for Riff Raff is that I dislike the rule about catching pieces.  Or, more specifically, I dislike that you can catch the piece that you are currently placing, and it goes out of the game.  It is far too easy to balance it for half of a second, and then as it falls, catch it.  And catching it that way is almost as good as playing it!  (I say almost, because it is still better to play a piece so that there are more pieces for the next player to potentially knock off.)  I think that this can be fixed with house rules - either everyone has to play with just one hand, or the current piece cannot be caught, or something of that nature.  However, whenever I feel the need to make a house rule, I am disappointed.

Overall, I give Riff Raff an 8.5/10.  It is a fun game with amazing components, and the designers have managed to find something unique within the dexterity genre, for which I applaud them.

If Riff Raff sounds interesting, you should also check out Crokinole, Hamsterrolle, and Catacombs.

Though Neuroshima Hex has been around for quite some time, I finally was able to explore the game in the latest edition - Neuroshima Hex 3.0.

Before I get into the main review, I wanted to address what has changed in the new version.  Having not been totally familiar with the old version, I may be a touch off; but here are the things I am aware of: there are solo puzzles, there is a new faction, and the art is different.   The solo puzzles are a nice way of exploring the game and honing your skills.  However, having played several of them, I found that the setup time took longer than actually solving the puzzle, so they may be something that you try without bothering to set the pieces up on the board.  New factions are obviously a plus, and I found the new faction (Doomsday Machine), to have a very unique style of gameplay.  I think that if you played the previous versions, you will definitely appreciate this being included.  Finally, there is new art.  Based on what I have read, the new art makes it unappealing to mix in the previously released expansions - I believe that you can, but the art style is different enough that they don't feel like they "fit".

Now then, for those of you that are new to Neuroshima Hex, let's review the game!  In Neuroshima Hex, each player selects an army and attempts to raze his opponent's base.  Each turn you draw three hex tiles, discard one, and either play or keep each of the other two.  There are three types of tiles to play - units, modules, and actions ("instants").  Units and modules go out on the board and can cause different effects - attacking in melee, at range, improving other units, trapping opponents, etc.  However, none of these units will perform any of these actions until a battle is performed.  Alternately, the action tiles do various "one and done" things - they can start a battle, move a unit, attack a single unit, or push back an opponent.  Whenever a battle occurs (either from one player using a battle action or the board being filled), casualties are determined in initiative order - with the higher initiatives attacking before the lower ones, and with all units within the same initiative attacking at the same time.  Play continues in this manner of placing units and battling until one player's HQ has been destroyed, or until one player runs out of tiles - at which point the player with the healthiest HQ is the winner!

Four-player death match

The first pro that I have for Neuroshima Hex is that I really like the skirmish system that it implements.  Is that cheating?  Essentially, this first pro is "I like how the game works," as the skirmish system is the game (just using more eloquent terms).  It all works very well - there is a nice tension about when a battle will occur.  Essentially, at the end of most of your turns you feel like you are positioned well and wish a battle would immediately begin.  Yet, by the start of your next turn, you feel (sometimes justifiably) like you are going to get obliterated.  And, whoever does finally start the battle will generally be using one of their two tiles in order to trigger the event, which means they will not be able to position their armies as much as they would like.  Everything fits very well together, and the flow and balance of the game make it great for anyone that enjoys skirmish-style games.

The next pro that I have for Neuroshima Hex is the initiative system.  Much of the positioning of units is centered around this.  A great example of this is when one player has a very strong unit positioned to attack his opponent's base.  Yet, that strong unit will quite likely have a low initiative - and so his opponent may be able to destroy the unit before it would be able to attack, assuming he can play a higher initiative unit.  Which then can be countered with an even higher initiative unit.  The fact that the units' attacks are staggered makes the placement of units much more important and is a brilliant facet of the game.

The third pro that I will list for this game is that I like that the bases all attack in melee.  Specifically, each of the bases has an initiative of zero and performs a melee attack in every direction (though it cannot damage another HQ).  This minor element of the game is helpful in two ways: it prevents the board from stagnating, and it also helps avoid one player running away with a victory.  It prevents the board from stagnating by killing units - specifically units that are directly helping a player win.  Regardless of whether a player positions a different unit to kill those tiles, they will be destroyed by the headquarters, thus clearing space on the board for players to place the next wave of reinforcements.  It also helps avoid a runaway leader by removing the units that are most directly helping a player to win.  For example, if I have a unit dealing three points of melee damage to my opponents base, and the base doesn't attack him, all I have to do is protect that unit and I will probably win.  However, since the base itself attacks, my strategy will have to change as my units die and as I draw new units.

Two-player game where blue has the advantage

The last pro that I will mention for Neuroshima Hex is that I enjoy the differences of the armies.  There are five armies included in the game, and each of those armies plays differently.  Some of them have really neat ranged powers, others are major melee attackers.  Some armies have an advantage by attacking repeatedly with the same units, and others use area affects to attack.  One of my favorite elements in games is when each player has a completely unique (yet balanced) way of playing, as it adds tons of depth to the game.  Neuroshima Hex is an amazing example of this, and I think that designers should desire to achieve this aspect in their games.

Though there is a lot to like in Neuroshima Hex, there is at least one element of the game that can be frustrating.  My primary con is that the game can swing drastically based on the luck of the draw.  This problem is most apparent after a battle.  Often, after a battle, one player (or team) will have an advantage - such as being the only team with units on the board!  This is generally the team that initiated the battle, as you wouldn't want to start a battle that you are not going to win.  Fortunately, the game balances itself by allowing the other player (or team) to take their turn immediately after the battle - thus the weaker team can immediately reinforce!  Yet, if they draw a combination of modules and action tiles (if you draw all actions, you can discard and redraw), they will not be able to improve their position.  And, the next player might be able to improve his position while triggering another altercation.  I have seen this occur in multiple games that I have played, and it generally means that the player at a disadvantage will not recover.

Overall, I give Neuroshima Hex 3.0 a 9.0/10.  If you are looking for a tactical skirmish game, this is probably the one that you should try first.  It is not for everybody (as some people have no interest in skirmish games), but after trying it, I understand why it has been published and re-published, and why so many people enjoy this game.

If Neuroshima Hex sounds interesting, you might also want to check out 51st State: The New Era, Summoner Wars, and Star Wars: The Card Game.

I would like to thank Z-Man Games for providing me with a review copy of Neuroshima Hex 3.0.

One of the newest deck building games that has been generating buzz is Trains.

Trains, simply put, is "Dominion with a board."  (If you haven't heard that phrase yet, then you probably haven't heard much about the game at all.)  Each player starts with a train track in a single city on the board, as well as a very basic starting deck (consisting of "Normal Trains" which are money, and a few cards that allow you to interact with the board).  On each player's turn, he is allowed to buy, play actions, lay tracks and build station improvements as many times as his cards allow (based on icons and available money).  When buying cards, they simply go into the player's discard pile.  When performing board related actions, the active player will also collect "Waste."  Play continues in this manner with players attempting to lay tracks to connect different cities while also building stations in those cities until one player has exhausted their supply of track, all of the stations are built, or four piles of cards are exhausted.  At that point, whichever player has the most points based on what they have built, what they have bought, and what they have played is the winner!

The first pro that I have for Trains are the Waste cards.  Every time you do anything beneficial, you gain a Waste.  Want to lay track?  That's a Waste.  Want to improve a station?  Waste.  Buy victory point cards?  Waste.  Go where another player already is?  Extra Waste.  Granted, the Waste cards slow down the game by causing each player's deck to be suboptimal, but Waste management is also a nice addition to the genre.  In previous deck building games, there have been bad cards that clutter up your deck, but in Trains, dealing with these cards is a central facet of the game.  Additionally, there is a rule built just for this - a player has the option of passing his entire turn and simply trashing all of the Waste in their hand.  (Seems fitting to trash waste, doesn't it?)

Building multiple stations can be valuable

The next pro that I have for Trains is that there is quite a bit of replayability to the game.  The board is double sided, and there are 30 different piles of cards to choose from each game.  (These are called "kingdom cards" in Dominion, but do not appear to have a specific name in Trains.)  Of these 30 options, you only use eight piles per game.  Thus with the double sided board and 30 different options for available cards, there are a large number of different setup choices.  This will allow people who fall in love with the game to play it repeatedly without worrying about it growing stale.

The game also plays smoothly.  But, instead of spending time fleshing out that, let's move on to an element that I haven't decided about.  There has been a strong tendency in the games that I have played to ignore the board.  How does this work?  Well, instead of gaining points by connecting cities and building stations, you can also gain victory points by purchasing certain cards.  The crux of this strategy lies in Waste management.  Whereas improving a city multiple times and connecting different cities on the board may gain a player 5-10 Waste cards, buying a victory point card only nets a single Waste.  Therefore, it is much easier to build a deck that can buy a lot of victory point cards than it is to build a deck that can utilize the board efficiently.  In the games that I have played, I have not seen anyone win while completely neglecting the board, but there does seem to be a strong strategy around ignoring the board for the first half of the game.

This leads to my first con.  If you have improved several cities and built your infrastructure, it is far too easy for other players to connect to your cities and earn the same points - and this can be very frustrating, as there is nothing that you can do to stop them.  At the end of the game, cities score full points for each player that has built a track in them.  To build where another player already has track costs some extra money and gains extra Waste, and building in a city that has been upgraded also costs extra money.  However, there are cards that allow you to ignore each of these extra costs.  So, it will happen that one player will improve several cities, and another player can swoop in and claim equal credit - and do so much more quickly (and inexpensively)!  I wish that there were at least an occasional option (possibly one of the card piles) that allowed a player who was already in a city to prevent other players from being able to build in it.  I would imagine that something like this would be coming in future expansions.

Here are your basic currency: worth 1/2/3 money

My second con for Trains is that it feels a bit too similar to Dominion.  Essentially, it feels a bit like a re-themed expansion to me: "Dominion, the Board Expansion!"  Whereas I think that Dominion is a brilliant game, the similarities cause Trains to conjure up thoughts about Dominion throughout the game.  Then, Trains can start to feel a bit incomplete as it has not had the time to build the vast array of expansions that Dominion has.  I will freely admit that not everyone will share this con, and many people will like Trains much more than Dominion as they will feel like they are doing something with their deck, instead of building a deck just for the sake of having a deck. Yet for me, I don't know that I can play Trains without thinking of Dominion.

My final con is simple.  I cannot shuffle the cards in Trains (which is really annoying in a deck building game).  I have actually played on two different physical copies, and when I shuffle the cards, they clump together.  Now, when I say this, please keep in mind that I have been shuffling cards for 20 years or longer, as I have been playing games of some sort my entire life.  Each of the individual piles of cards seems to be the same height, but I think that some of the cards are a fraction of an inch different than others - which causes this problem.  And, now that I've said this, also be fully aware that many people that I have played with think that this is all in my head.  I'd be curious to see if other people have experienced what I'm talking about here - please leave a comment and let me know if you have noticed this, or if you can shuffle the cards with no problems.

Overall, I give Trains an 8.0/10.  I think that it is a very well made game, but (as you're tired of hearing), it is so similar to Dominion, that I don't see myself pulling it out instead of Dominion, except for with friends that really didn't like Dominion.

If Trains sounds interesting, you might also check out these deck building games: Nightfall, Puzzle Strike (which is actually "chip building"), and Quarriors (which is "dice building").

I would like to thank AEG for providing me with a review copy of Trains.

A British game that just hit Kickstarter is called Lords of War.  Specifically, they are Kickstarting the latest faction pack, which is a fully playable game that can be combined with their previously printed packs.

Lords of War is a two-player skirmish game in which each player takes control of a different fantasy army.  Each turn consists of playing a card, removing any destroyed units from the board, and then "reinforcing" your hand back up to six cards.  (You can either draw a new card or sometimes take a card back into your hand from the table.)  With as simple as the rules are, the strategy lies in placing cards.  Each card can attack with different strengths and in different directions.  This is represented by arrows with numbers on them.  A card can attack in anywhere from 0-9 different directions, and I have seen them attack with anywhere from 1-5 power!  (If they can't attack in any direction, they are probably a ranged unit, which has slightly different rules.)  Play alternates in a "survival of the fittest" (aka, your guys keep dying) manner until one player has killed 20 of their opponent's units, or has defeated four of their "command" units - their best units.

Fighting was intense on the rear flank in this game

So, taking from the format of my Dungeon Roll preview, I'm going to try to answer the three main questions that I think you need to know as a potential Kickstarter backer.  First - what does Lords of War do differently?  The first thing that comes to mind that sets Lords of War apart are the placement rules.  In Lords of War, each card that I place must be oriented towards me.  This is important as many of your troops will have one side of the card which they fight best with - some strongly in front, others in back, and some even on one side (or even on one side diagonally).  So, these restrictions force you to think about your strategy a bit differently (and you'll have to resist the urge to turn your cards).  Second, in Lords of War, all of my units have to be placed adjacent to an opponent!  (There is an exception in that "Support" units can be placed adjacent to friendly units.)  This rule forces the combat to be heated, and causes players to immediately be engaging each other - thus preventing the downtime of a more defensive struggle.  Next, I haven't played another game that uses the directional attacks in the same way as Lords of War.  The closest game I can compare this with is Neuroshima Hex (which I haven't reviewed yet), but it still has it's differences.  In Neuroshima Hex, each unit dies (or takes a wound) as soon as it gets hit.  In Lords of War, each unit has its own defense value, and it is not defeated until this value is exceeded.  This forces players to position multiple troops around a stronger unit in order to defeat it.

Some of the Lizardmen

The second question to address is: who would like this game?  Well, Lords of War is a tactical skirmish game.  Players will find themselves reacting to what their opponent has played (as well as what they have drawn), and trying to make the best decisions accordingly.  Also, Lords of War is not text heavy - each of the units is set apart from the others based on what and where they can attack, not by a block of text that describes different abilities.  This allows Lords of War to be pretty easy to teach, but may not have the same card combinations that other games present.  (I'm thinking of Omen: Reign of War here as a text-heavy opposite.)  So, overall, if you are looking for a light, easy to teach skirmish game where positioning is key, then Lords of War might be for you.

The final question is: who would not like this game?  Well, the obvious route is to point out the opposite of everything in the last paragraph.  If you like games with overarching strategies where the decisions you make in the first turn will affect your abilities in the middle and later turns, then this is one to avoid.  Another group of people that may want to avoid this game are players who prefer the "turtle and defend" strategy.  If you played Starcraft and built 8,000 turrets before attacking your enemies, then you might want to pass on this one, as Lords of War does not allow for that option.  The fighting will be heated from turn two, and you cannot put too much value on any single unit.  The last group that may want to avoid this game are those who are looking for a long, incredibly deep struggle.  Lords of War is on the lighter end of the spectrum (lighter than Summoner Wars in my opinion) and, though I think that the strategy of the game grows so that your third and fourth play are deeper than your first, it will not give you the plethora of options of something like Mage Wars.

Overall, what do I think of the game?  The more I think about it, the more unique it becomes in my mind.  It had the unfortunate privilege of me learning it on the same night as Neuroshima Hex, and so they are linked together in my mind.  Yet, Lords of War provides some different takes on the skirmish genre and, as long as you're looking for a light game, it is a game to consider. If you want to go check out their campaign, you can see it here.

If Lords of War sounds interesting, you might also check out Dungeon Command, Pixel Tactics 2, and Smash Up.

I would like to thank Black Box Games for providing me with a review copy of Lords of War.

This review of Pixel Tactics 2 is brought to you by guest reviewer Jim F.



Pixel Tactics 2 is a stand alone sequel to 2012’s Pixel Tactics that can also be used to expand the original game. Both games were designed and published by D. Brad Dalton and Level 99 Games, respectively.

In Pixel Tactics 2, players control a leader and a group of fighters of varying fantasy classes in a tactical battle against 1 opponent. Each player will have a hand of cards, and a 3x3 grid in front of her, called her unit. Each player’s unit is a 3x3 grid. Before the game proper begins, each player will place a leader in the center spot. During the game, a player’s unit is made up of 3 ranks - vanguard, flank, and rear. When played to her unit this way, the cards represent Heroes that will have a different ability depending on which rank it was played to. Cards can also be played directly from a player’s hand as an Order (usually an instant, one-time event).

Gameplay proceeds through waves, one for each rank. So, during the Vanguard wave, each player will get two actions, only able to recruit, move, attack, etc., with heroes in the vanguard rank. The other two ranks will get a wave, and then gameplay moves back to the vanguard wave, with the first player marker changing hands. The game goes forward thusly, until one of the player’s Leader is reduced to 0 (or lower) health. The rules say that players should play best of 3 or 5.

The first pro I have for Pixel Tactics 2 is the sheer variety of everything you get in the box. Each and every card can be used in 5 different ways. One of those ways is to be played as a unit’s Leader. Leaders have powerful ongoing abilities that will drastically change a player’s overall strategy from game to game. That by itself lends a huge replayability and variability factor. Add to that the fact that all the Heroes you can play in the game will also have varying powers depending on where they are placed, and the game starts to feel almost infinite in its possibilities.

The next pro I have to Pixel Tactics 2 is its simplicity. Despite all the variable uses for each card, the overall structure of the game is quite simple. Each player takes two actions that correspond to the phasing rank, and then they move on to the next rank and repeat until one of the Leaders is killed. That’s it. I think Brad (the designer) realized that since the cards permit so much rules breaking, it was important to keep the rules structure that drives the game easy to understand.

My last pro for the game is that it does a good job of making players feel very powerful - with all the awesome options for Leaders and Heroes and Orders - but it also does a great job of making players feel very limited, and thus gameplay is very tense. I think there are two main factors that contribute to this feeling. First, card and hand management is very important in this game, so drawing more cards is very important, but with only two actions per turn, spending an action to draw one card is an agonizing decision every time. The second thing that contributes to the game’s tension is the fact that players are not allowed to attack with Heroes that have been moved or recruited during the current turn. This ensures that players need to play Heroes they wish to use next time around, and ensure that said Hero survives until then!

Pixel Tactics 2 is a strong design that I’m sure adds to the experience of Pixel Tactics. The game does have its flaws, however. The first con that comes to mind goes along with my first pro. There is so much to do with each card, that the game can get bogged down with new players or AP prone players. [Josh’s note: “AP” stands for “Analysis Paralysis” - the situation when a player spends large amounts of time thinking about each move.] This can change this tactical battle game into a drawn out, overly long game.

The next con I have is also related to another of my pros. The limitation of only two actions per turn was a little too limiting for me. I would have liked at least one more action per turn. As it is, the game does produce a great sense of tension and scarcity, but I would have liked it if the game moved a little bit faster. Even without an AP opponent, with only two actions per turn, the game can take a little bit longer than I would have liked to develop.

Overall Pixel Tactics 2 is a very solid game that just did not jive with me. I would give it a 7.0/10. I absolutely see the innovative and creative ways cards are being used here, and am not surprised in the least to see that the game has such a strong cult following. This game falls solidly in with other games that I would never ask to play, but that I would also rarely say no to if asked by someone else. I generally do enjoy these style of card based tactical battle games, but for me, this one took too long and felt too restrained me too much to enjoy it.

If Pixel Tactics 2 sounds interesting, you should also check out 51st State, Omen: A Reign of War, and Revolver.

I would like to thank Level 99 Games for providing a review copy of Pixel Tactics 2.

Final Note: The images from this post were originally posted on BoardGameGeek.com, and were used with permission of the publisher.

Congratulations to my the winner of my One Millionth Pageview - +Matthew Foster.  Congrats, Matthew, you won a copy of Galaxy Trucker!

In case you're curious, here were the top +1'ed games:

Mice & Mystics - +54
Android: Netrunner - +47
Terra Mystica - +47
Galaxy Trucker - +46
Le Havre - +45
7 Wonders - +42
Alien Frontiers - +41
Through the Ages - +41

Thanks to all who participated!

A lightweight little card game that I was able to play recently is Noah.

In Noah, you are attempting to help Noah load animals onto ferries - which are then shipped out to the main ark.  To do this, each turn consists of loading an animal on a ferry, and then moving Noah.  When loading an animal onto a ferry, you must be careful not to overload the ferry (because it would be a bad thing if they sank - and so they game doesn't let you).  What this means is that each ferry can hold a total weight of 21. (21 what you ask?  Pounds?  Kilograms?  Tons?  I have no idea.)  Each animal weighs a certain amount, and will contribute his weight to the total on the boat.  Also, when placing animals on the boat, the animals must either be placed in alternating gender, or a boat must consist only of one gender.  (Again, you may be asking - why?  Because it makes the game more interesting.  Why, thematically?  Because apparently Noah like arbitrary restrictions for his ferry owners.)  And, if you successfully play an animal that matches the previous animal (two pandas in a row, for example), then you get to take another turn.  If a player cannot legally play a card on the current ferry (the one where Noah is located), then they must pick up the entire stack of animals, and then play whichever one they want from their hand.  After playing an animal, the current player must move Noah.  There are five ferries laid out in a hexagonal pattern.  If a male animal is played, then Noah must move to either of the ferries that are not immediately adjacent; if a female is played, then Noah can only move to an adjacent ferry.  Once a player manages to play all of their animals, then all of the other players count the number of tears that they make Noah shed by allowing their animals to drown.  The game is played over three rounds, and the player that makes Noah cry the least is the winner.  (Seriously - I didn't make that up.)

Noah with the fat animals he dislikes

So, what is good about the game of Noah?  Honestly, my first pro is something that I didn't mention in the rule overview - some of the animals have different abilities.  For example, when you play a giraffe, you can look at an opponent's hand.  When you play a snail, it can be played as a male or a female.  More interestingly, a donkey prevents Noah from moving, and a woodpecker reduces the total weight limit on a ferry from 21 to 13 - because he can't help pecking at the ferry.  These different animal abilities allow you to have more options and strategic decisions when playing the game.  For example, if you use a giraffe to see what an opponent has, then you can make better decisions about where you should move Noah to prevent them from being able to play.  Or, if you hold onto a snail as one of your last animals, then you will have extra flexibility at the end of the round.

The next pro that I have for Noah is that it is light and easy to teach.  Anyone can understand the rules of Noah, regardless of how many "strategic" games they have played in the past.  Games like this are useful to have in your collection, as you never know who might wind up interested in a game.  Plus, with the theme of Noah's ark, many people will already be familiar with the subject material (though the theme doesn't make terribly much sense if you inspect it too closely).

So, with the pros about Noah, what are some of the cons?  Well, first, there are some things that make sense in game terms that make no sense thematically.  For example, different animals make Noah cry a different amount.  Specifically, Noah really loves pandas, but cares nothing about your fatter animals - giraffes, rhinos, and bears.  And, honestly, even in game terms I don't really love the fact that there are animals that aren't worth any tears.  If I successfully get rid of all of the cards from my hand, I feel like either I should get rewarded (for making Noah happy), or my opponent's should be punished (by making Noah cry).  But, since Noah doesn't care about fat animals, it's quite possible that you will be the first one to get rid of all of your cards, and yet at least one opponent may not get any points.

Noah with his beloved Panda

The other con that I have for Noah is that the game isn't engaging enough that I would want to play it repeatedly.  Now, I realize that each person has their own opinions on what makes a game engaging, but in Noah, I felt like my decisions were far too repetitive.  Which animal do I want to play?  What about gender?  Should I fill the boats up with fat animals that Noah hates, or get rid of my lightweight animals that can easily fit on most boats (but that Noah would cry over losing)?  Where do I want to move Noah?  These decisions are important in the game, and making the best decisions based on what you have is strategically crucial.  However, I still found the game to be missing the "it" factor that made it really engaging.

Overall, I give Noah a 7.0/10.  The game is fine as a filler, or as a lightweight game to play with either kids or non-gamers, but it isn't one that I will really look to bring to the table very often.

If you're looking for games that can be played by anybody, you might also check out Dixit, 7 Wonders, and Crokinole.

An interesting new game that is releasing later this month at Essen is Rockwell.  (As a note, this review is based off of a pre-production copy, so the pictures do not represent the final components.)

In Rockwell, your group of miners is seeking to gain the most prestige by digging up sweet resources, getting slick upgrades, building mine shafts, and making deliveries.  Each turn begins with an auction.  The winner of the auction gets to go first when placing "vice presidents."  (Vice presidents are used to determine what you are allowed to do on a turn, and how often you can do it.)  After the auction, each of the players gets to perform four drilling actions (moving a drill crew and potentially bribing another crew or hiring a subcontractor, and then checking to see if you can excavate the new tile - thus getting loot).  After the four rounds of mining, some players will get to buy and sell resources (based on vice president placement).  Finally, players will get to perform actions to end the round.  These actions include all of your upgrades, and also trading in resources for victory points.  The number of actions each player can perform is based on the location of their vice president.  Finally, throughout the game, various activities (such as getting 12 gold resources) will unlock achievements (which are worth victory points).  Once a majority of the players have drilled all the way into the center of the earth, or once one player has accomplished at least six achievements (including all three of the last ones), the game is over.  At that point, whoever has the most victory points from deliveries, achievements, and bonus points (earned for end of game resources) is the winner!

The first pro that I have for Rockwell is the tension of where to put your vice presidents.  They can be placed on three different boards, and you ultimately want to place them on all three.  However, you only have two VP's, and so you have to make tough decisions about what benefit you are going to neglect on each turn.  (Though, this decision might be made for you, if you bid too low in the opening auction.)  Are you going to pass on the opportunity to buy and sell goods?  That will allow you to perform actions and be able to bribe or subcontract while drilling.  But, will you still be able to afford the upgrades you want without selling your newly acquired resources?  Alternately, if you ignore the board that lets you bribe or subcontract, will you still have enough resources that it is worth having a vice president that lets you sell?  Ideally, you will take full advantage of your opportunities when they come along, and this will help when you are unable to perform the action later - for example, if you can sell enough resources to make $10,000 one turn, then you might be able to handle not selling resources on the next one.  (Which is really good, because there are not enough spaces on the buy/sell board for every player to place a vice president there, except for in a two-player game!  So, sometimes you're going to miss out - thus adding to the tension, and to the importance of the auction.)

The different boards where you can place VP's

The next pro that I found for Rockwell is that I enjoy how players affect each others' mining results.  Whenever drill crews are on the same space, they work together.  (Aside from each wanting the loot.)  And, so when a tile is flipped, all of the loot is split as evenly as possible.  (Even if one player's drill crews had eight of the nine power you needed, and the other player only had one!)  However, after the even split, the player with "priority" (based on having a mine shaft, then having the most power, then being the one to trigger the excavation) gets all of the leftover resources.  So, you essentially have two choices when mining.  You can attempt to mine by yourself, or with other players.  If you mine by yourself, you will collect drastically more goods every time a tile is flipped over.  However, if you mine with other players, you will collect goods significantly more often.  Thus, the ideal strategy is to do a little of both.  Have some tiles that you are able to flip by using your best drill crews (not sharing any of the loot), but using some of your smaller drill crews to contribute just enough to other excavations to make sure that they still get their share!

The final pro that I will list for Rockwell is that I really liked the achievements.  There are only two ways to score during the game - achievements and deliveries.  It doesn't matter how amazing you are at drilling and gaining resources, if you neglect these two activities, the rest of your game doesn't matter and you will lose horribly.  And so, the achievements encourage you to do things that don't necessarily help "build your engine" (though they are never bad things).  So, sometimes you will make a decision that doesn't help your future mining activities, because if you go out of your way to accomplish the achievement, you might be able to do it first - and the first player scores the most points!  For example, one achievement is to own 10 silver resources.  Throughout the game, there is a good chance that you will mine that many silver, and so the achievement will take care of itself.  However, you could also buy some silver to get to this number faster.  Now, you aren't allowed to buy and sell the same type of resource in a turn.  So, if you buy silver, you will be stuck with it until the next turn - and it will also absorb some of the money that you were going to use for actions.  But, it will allow you to get the silver achievement first!  And that means victory points!  This is what I like about the achievements; most of them will naturally occur while playing the game, but you can choose to make them happen a bit earlier in order to get extra points.

I'm not sure if the final copy has a center of the earth piece

Though I really enjoyed my time with Rockwell, there are a few cons that I will mention.  First, I found that the game seems to have a bit more down time than I would like.  This, of course, will be  affected by the people that you play with.  However, the main time that I have seen this occur is during the buying and selling phase.  As I mentioned earlier, there are not enough spaces for every player to buy and sell each turn.  This is neat, because it makes you think hard about where and when you place your first vice president.  However, if you are the player that is not able to buy or sell on a turn, then you will have quite a bit of time to sit around and wait while all of the other players are interacting with the market.  (This will be exaggerated if the other players are not very fast at math and don't have calculators handy.  Also, as a note - this game has quite a bit of math.  It's generally simple multiplication, but some people will still be a bit turned off by it.)

The other cons that I had were pretty trivial.  One is that I don't see much value in the subcontractor action.  However, I will admit that this might be a more subtle strategy that would emerge in more plays.  In some of my games, nobody bothered hiring subcontractors all game!  The other minor con that I have is related to the components.  Specifically, some of the components were a bit fiddly.  However, if the game is printed with high quality components (and I believe that it will be), then this con will go away entirely.

Overall, I give Rockwell an 8.5/10.  I was quite pleasantly surprised by the game, and everyone that I tried the game with seemed to share my enjoyment of it!  (And, as a final bonus, here's a strategy note - don't neglect deliveries!  Trading in resources for victory points doesn't build your engine, but you win based on victory points, not how cool your upgrades are!  So earn victory points!!)

If Rockwell sounds interesting, you might also check out Belfort, In The Year of the Dragon, and Galaxy Trucker.

I would like to thank Sit Down! Games for providing me with a review copy of Rockwell.

Note: Since posting this review, I have been provided with a link to a video of the final components - you can check them out here if you're interested.

Occasionally you stop playing a type of game.  Maybe it's because of friends, maybe it's because you grew tired of that style of game, maybe it's something else.  Then, you encounter a new game, and that genre that you had given up on suddenly becomes a regular part of your gaming experience. Time's Up: Title Recall has recently done that for me by making me reconsider how often I should be playing party games.

In Time's Up: Title Recall, each player starts the game with a handful of cards - each representing a song, TV show, movie, book, etc.  Of these cards, they select two to be discarded, and the rest of them go into a pile of 40 cards.  This pile represents the cards that you will play with each game.  Now, the game is played over three rounds.  In the first round, you can say anything, except any part of the name on the card, in order to get your teammates to guess the answer.  During this round, you cannot pass a card, and so if you encounter a difficult clue, you might get stuck for a bit.  Play alternates around the table until all of the cards have been guessed.  After this round, someone goes through all of the answers and reads them aloud.  In the second round, you use the same cards, but this time you only get one word in order to get your teammates to guess the answers.  (You can also act things out in any round.)  However, you can pass as often as you want.  But, your teammates only get a single guess on each card.  The final round works exactly like the second round, except you don't get a word - you must act out the answers.  Once all of the answers have been guessed in the final round, players tally up their scores, and whichever team has gotten the most answers wins the game!

Most of the components are cards and a timer

My first pro for Time's Up is that the game builds on itself.  The different aspects of the game can be fun independently - the first part of the game is similar to Taboo, and the last part of the game is charades.  These games are enjoyable enough that people will play them as standalone games.  However, Time's Up is very fun (and very fast paced) because you use the same cards repeatedly.  Sometimes a clue that is given in the first round will be acted out in the final round - and sometimes it isn't even relevant to the answer itself!  For example, in one game that I played, the answer was The Goonies.  Well, one of the actors in The Goonies also played Rudy.  So, some of the clues given in the first round mentioned this fact.  In the last round, the player was actually miming throwing a football as the clue for The Goonies!!  Something that would have been completely nonsensical unless you had also seen the first round of the game!

The next pro that I have for Time's Up is that it allows people to make fools of themselves, but completely willingly.  There are many party games that simply tell you to do something stupid.  I played one in which everyone was given a card to represent some weird quirk that they were supposed to act out - like whenever someone mentions a "key" to you, you yell about a dog, or something.  I don't like that kind of game.  (I am admittedly somewhat shy and easily grow self conscious.)  However, Time's Up does not instruct you on how to act like a fool, but since you are timed and only have acting available, your competitiveness will quite likely kick in and you will start acting out things that you would be terribly embarrassed about outside of the game!  (For example, one of the cards I've seen is the 40 Year Old Virgin.  I'm sure you can imagine some of the ways this has been acted out.)

My third pro for Time's Up is that it is (relatively) flexible with number of players.  Granted, there are a few numbers (like 7) that really don't work very well for it, as you can't divide easily into even teams.  However, it is a party game that can be fun with as few as 4 players, and can easily accommodate 12 - or more!  Granted, some people will prefer the smaller games, as they enjoy giving clues.  But, there are very few games that can be played with both small groups and large ones, while keeping everyone actively engaged - but Time's Up does this very well.

Better give clues fast!

My main con for Time's Up is that sometimes there will be cards placed in the deck that you know absolutely nothing about.  The Title Recall version of this is not quite as brutal when this happens - you can generally get your team to get the different pieces of the title, and then fit them together for the full answer.  However, I have played one game in which one of the answers was Achtung Baby.  I had never heard of Achtung Baby, and I still have no idea what it is.  Additionally, "achtung" is not a word in my vocabulary, and so you will never get me to guess this term.  So, when our team drew this card in the first round, we were basically stopped completely.  Granted, much of this is mitigated by the fact that you get to select which cards you play with at the start of the game - but people come from different backgrounds, and just because you are familiar with something does not mean that I am.

Overall, I give Time's Up: Title Recall a 9.5/10.  It has managed to get me to play a genre of games that I had basically given up on, and I have been amazed at how often I have wanted to play it over any of my more strategic options.

If you're looking for more party games, you might also read about Crappy Birthday, Say Anything, and The Resistance (which isn't a traditional party game).

I would like to thank R&R Games for providing me with a review copy of Time's Up: Title Recall.

So, according to Blogger, I am about to pass one million pageviews, since the start of my site!  Now, I don't actually trust their accuracy at all, but I still think that it's a really cool milestone.  And so I wanted to celebrate!

Additionally, I've realized that I have entirely neglected people that are fans of Google Plus.  Whereas I have a decent number of people that follow me on Facebook and Twitter, Google Plus has really been an afterthought.  And I want to change that!  So, what better way to try to grow my presence than with a giveaway?

So, here's how it works.  In order to enter, you have to follow me on Google Plus (there is a button on the side of the page that lets you do this easily).  You may be asking yourself, "But, what are you even giving away?"  Well, that is yet to be determined!  How this is going to work is that you can enter to win any game that I have reviewed!  (Here's a convenient link to see an alphabetical listing of my reviews.)  Simply select the game(s) that you want a chance to win, and +1 the corresponding review.  *Poof!*  You're entered to win that game.  So, obviously, if you +1 a lot of my reviews, then you have a much better chance of winning, but you are also less likely to win the specific game that you want.

But, but, but... does that mean you are giving away a copy of every game that you have reviewed???  No!  If I did that, then I would go broke!  Instead, I will go through and select one of the games that received the most +1's, and that will be the one that I will give away - after all, that will be one of the games that you guys are most interested in!  (I'm not guaranteeing that it will be the top one - I want some randomness in there to encourage you to enter to win your favorite option, and not just the game you think will get the most +1's.)  From there, I will randomly select one of the people that +1'ed that game, and they will be the winner!

Oh, and since I haven't told you yet, entries will be open for 3 weeks.  So, I will announce a winner sometime on October 25!

So, here's the rundown:
What is being given away?  One of the games that gets the most +1 votes
How do I enter?  Simply follow me on Google Plus, and +1 the game(s) you're interested in by selecting the link at the top of the corresponding review
When is it over?  October 25
Do I have to live in the US?  Nope!  I will, however, be ordering the winner the corresponding game from an online vendor, so if you are not in the US, I might need your help in determining how to get you a copy of the game.

Now.... get to +1'ing your favorite games!!

One of the most unique games that I've played recently has to be Galaxy Trucker.

In Galaxy Trucker, players take on the roles of intergalactic truckers that are building ships to pick up and deliver goods (while fighting off pirates, finding abandoned stations, and weaving through asteroids).  The game is played over three rounds, with each round following a similar structure - build your ship, then go fly it (but with the later rounds having bigger ships and flying to more places).  When building your ship, everyone is playing at the same time in an attempt to find components that you want on your ship, and make sure that you connect them together properly.  During this phase, players will also be flipping sand timers to determine when the phase is over.  Also, players will start the second phase of the turn (the "go do stuff" phase) in the order that they complete their ships.  In the second phase, the players collectively go through the encounter deck.  Some of the encounters are good (finding abandoned ships, or collecting goods to transport) while others are bad (intergalactic slave traders, or meteor storms).  And, whoever is ahead on the space track encounters each card first (though this order can change in a few different ways).  Additionally, some of the bad encounters can damage your ship; or even completely incapacitate it.  Once all of the encounters are completed, players get to sell all of the goods that they have collected, but then must pay money for all of the different elements of their ship that were blown apart.  At the end of the third round, whoever has the most money wins the game!

The USS Enterprise getting ready to launch

The first pro for Galaxy Trucker is that it is the only game that I can think of that is really fun to be terrible at.  Most games grow increasingly frustrating if you feel like you're not doing well.  However, in Galaxy Trucker, if you're not doing well, it can be really amusing!  One of my fondest memories of playing the game is when we were playing on the USS Enterprise board (one of the options for the third round), and a player's ship got blown in half!  Yes, that's right - there is a (potential) weak spot on the Enterprise that consist of a single tile.  That tile was destroyed, and suddenly the back of the ship was no longer connected to the front of it!  This is definitely an extreme example, but there is something fun about watching your poorly constructed game fly out to its impending doom.

The next pro that I have for Galaxy Trucker is that the pace of the game is set by its players.  This is somewhat true in most games - but in most games, the flow of the game can really be impeded by a single player.  However, in Galaxy Trucker, if the players (or any single one of them) want to go at an insanely fast pace, then the game will be fast.  Conversely, if everyone wants to build the most solid ships possible, then the game will be a bit more leisurely.  It's really just up to you to play it how you want.

My third pro for Galaxy Trucker is that I think it does a phenomenal job with real time mechanics.  I have played a few other real time games - enjoying some (Wok Star), and hating others (Frenzy). But, Galaxy Trucker really strikes the perfect balance of making meaningful decisions, while being forced to do it quickly.  The main decisions that you have to make revolve around how to balance your ship (cargo, engines, shields, batteries, crew quarters, guns).  But you're also allowed to look at (most of) the cards that you will encounter that round - so you have to decide when to look at cards as opposed to building your ship.  And while doing all of these things, you're forced to rush not only because of players flipping the sand timers, but also because the components are limited - so if you wait too long, then you might miss out on certain components. 

Bad things happen in space...

My final pro for Galaxy Trucker is that it has a completely different feel than anything else that I have played.  I have played a few real-time games where everyone plays at the same time.  I've also played games where you pick up and deliver goods.  However, the total package of real time, with a goofy space theme, and building ships from a junk yard gives Galaxy Trucker a very distinct flavor.  I really appreciate that it stands apart from all of the other games that I would try to compare it with.

Though I think that Galaxy Trucker is a great game, there are still a few cons that I will mention.  First, I feel like all of the action is in the first phase - building your ship.  There are a few decisions that you make during the second phase (you make more decisions if you're earlier on the track, and less decisions if you're really far behind).  But, most of these decisions are really easy - should I take the abandoned ship (that's full of free money)?  Should I collect these resources that I built my ship to be able to hold?  Should I power all of my weapons in order to destroy the pirates, instead of getting attacked by them?  Occasionally a decision will be a bit trickier because it might move you into a worse position on the track, but overall the second phase is much less demanding than the first.

The other con that I have is that Galaxy Trucker becomes a little bit less fun when it is highly competitive.  If everyone is actually good at the game, then it takes away from my first pro.  The ships don't get blown up as much, and so you don't get as many laughs from watching ill equipped ships get destroyed in space.  (However, I hear that the expansions help with this.)

Overall, I give Galaxy Trucker a 9.0/10.  I think that it is an amazing game, and I'm glad that I finally broke down and tried it out!

If Galaxy Trucker sounds interesting, you might also check out Jab: Real Time Boxing, Space Alert, and Escape: The Curse of the Temple.

A quick little game that I had thrown into a trade recently is Tower of Babel.

In Tower of Babel, you are attempting to earn the most victory points by helping to build (or offering to help build) the different wonders of the world.  Each turn, the active player has two options - he can either select a building disc to build, or he can pass.  If he passes, then he draws one cards and his turn is over.  If he attempts to build a disc, then he selects which disc he wants, and all of his opponents can offer cards to help.  When selecting which opponents' offers he will accept, a player cannot accept more cards than are required to build the disc.  (For example, if the disc requires four white cards, he cannot accept an offer for three white cards and an offer for two white cards.)  Whichever players are not selected to build get to keep their cards and also receive a victory point for each card offered.  Whichever players are selected get to place a marker on the in-progress wonder for each card that they offered.  Finally, the active player gets to keep the building disc.  Alternatively, a player can, along with his offer, include his "trading" card.  Of all of the players that offer a trading card, the active player can only accept one offer.  If he accepts that offer, then he must discard a card from his hand for each card that the "trading" player offered.  In addition, the "trading" player gets to keep the building disc - however, the active player gets to place markers on the wonder instead of the "trading" player.  At the end of each building turn, all players get to draw a card.  Once each wonder is completed, players are rewarded based on how much they have contributed.  Additionally, at the end of the game, players are rewarded for how many building discs they have, and earn the most points by having matching types.  Whoever has the most points at the end of the game is the winner!

The first pro that I have for Tower of Babel is that it is one of the most uniquely strategic games that I have played.  It really takes a full game before you start understanding how any of the strategy works.  During that game, you will start trying to balance whether it is "better" to contribute to wonders, or to collect building discs.  Or, do you want to try to make offers that you think that other players won't accept - thus earning victory points and keeping your cards.  Really, though, you need to balance out all of these things.  So, ultimately I think that the strategy of the game (along with what makes it unique) is in deciding how many cards to offer, and when to offer a trader.  There are some situations where you don't want your offer to be accepted, yet can get a lot of points for making it - and so you need to capitalize.  At other times, you will truly hope that your offer is accepted - either because you offered the trader for a building disc that you really want, or you are trying to get markers on a wonder right before it scores.  I found these different elements to be very interesting.

Assessing offers

The second aspect of the pro that I mentioned happens when you are the active player.  As the active player, you have most of the power when determining how victory points are going to be distributed. This is especially true if you are building the last disc on a wonder.  When doing this, you get to see what everyone has offered, and based on those offers, you can often determine which player will score in each position on the wonder.  There are really two ideal options in this situation - first, of course, is to put yourself into the best position, thus making the most points.  The second option, though, is to force two other players to tie for first place - thus making them both only get points for second!  Again, there really are a lot of elements to factor in when making decisions in this game.

However, there are some cons with Tower of Babel that are worth mentioning.  The first one is fairly trivial - the game includes some of the most useless playing pieces that I have ever seen.  Each player is given a fairly sizable column marker, and this is the player's turn order marker.  These are placed on the turn order track in clockwise order.  At the end of each turn, you are supposed to move your marker to the back of the line, and shift everyone else's marker forward.  But, turn order never changes, and you just take turns going in a circle, like almost every other game in the world.  So, why do I need a turn order track for this?  Short answer - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that you need this.

The most useless turn order track ever

The second con for Tower of Babel is that, ultimately, the game feels like a "trick" or "gimmick" game.  By this, I mean that the entire game is essentially one mechanic - how many cards do I offer, and, often, how do I offer them in the hopes of getting turned down.  That is really the game.  All of the scoring is based on this one mechanic.  So, though the game functions well, if you don't love this mechanic, it will cause the game to grow stale very quickly.  (Honestly, there are a lot of game that center around a single mechanic - like Ra, which centers around an auction mechanic, and which I really enjoy.  So, this con will only bother you if the central mechanic isn't one that you thoroughly enjoy.)   The first time that you play, the mechanic of offering cards and trying to get rejected is really innovative - but, as you keep playing the game, you realize that this mechanic is the game.  So, if you love that mechanic, then you will love the game and get a lot of enjoyment out of it.  But, if you don't like that, or you get tired of it, then you will be ready to move on fairly quickly.

Overall, I give Tower of Babel a 7.0/10.  I honestly enjoyed the game.  However, I don't see myself looking for opportunities to play it more in the future.  And, since the other people in my play group had similar sentiments - being willing to play if other people wanted to, but probably not asking for it to be brought out, I don't see this one getting much more play. 

If Tower of Babel sounds interesting, you might also check out Lost Cities, Quo Vadis, and Famiglia.

I would like to thank guest reviewer Jim Flemming for bringing us this review of Cinque Terre.


Cinque Terre is a recent release from Rio Grande Games and designer Chris Handy (the designer of Long Shot). In the game, players are farmers, harvesting crops and selling produce to the five coastal villages in the Liguria region of Italy, or, the Cinque Terre. Players are represented by very nice wooden truck pieces that move around the 8 spaces of the colorful board. The goal of the game is to be the player who has gained the most money (VP) by game end. Pursuing this goal is relatively simple, as each turn, players have 3 actions to perform and 4 possibilities to choose from. Players can either move their truck up to 4 spaces, draw a card, harvest crops from a farm space, or sell produce to a village space.

Set up for 2 players.

The spaces of the board are laid out in a circle, with the 5 villages in a row, and the 3 farm spaces in a row between the first and last village. Players can move their truck up to 4 spaces in a clockwise direction.

The four cards in the top row as well as the top card of the face down deck are available to be drawn by players.

Produce cards are laid out á la Ticket to Ride, with 4 face up and the rest face down in a deck. Players can either draw a face up card, which is immediately replaced, or the top card of the deck.

Players would earn 5 Lira (VP) for selling garlic (white) to Monterosa, or 2 for selling mushrooms (grey).

The fourth action a player can take is to sell produce to a village. If a player’s truck is in a village space, she can sell any number of produce cubes from her truck to the village. When selling produce, the player puts any cubes sold on her player board in the row of the village she sold to. She immediately receives Lira (VP) on the score track equal to the demand for the produce she sold. Some villages will value certain produce more than others. This is represented by the colored dice next to each village.


Players place produce cubes they have sold on their player boards in order to keep track of what produce they have sold to each village. Additionally, if a player is the first to sell 8 produce to any village, she will score bonus points as that village’s Most Popular Vendor. She will collect that village’s MPV tile, and score as many Lira as is pictured.

If this player was the first to sell 8 produce to Monterosso or Corniglia, she would receive the MPV tiles for those villages.

Players will be able to get a good number of points from simply delivering produce that is highly valued by certain villages, however there is a much better way to score Lira in Cinque Terre.

A number of order cards equal to the number of players will be laid face up next to the board. These can be claimed by any player at the end of her turn, if she has fulfilled the requirements. So, for example, if after taking her three actions, Rachael has delivered at least 1 orange to Monterosso and 1 lemon to Riomaggiore, she can claim the shown card for 8 points.

The game ends when 1 player has collected 5 public order cards in front of herself, all of the Most Popular Vendor tiles have been taken, or if two types of crops have been completely taken from their fields. Players then score all of their private order cards. Any private orders they are not able to fulfill score negative 5 Lira for every piece of produce they are missing. The player with the most Lira wins!

Pros: Cinque Terre has a lot going for it. First, the components and the art are beautiful. I really enjoy how vibrant the colors are. The quality of the components is also very high. The cardstock used is one of my favorites - high quality, thick, and very easy to read. The wooden trucks are great as well, though they would’ve been nicer if they were more capable of holding four cubes in their beds (as they are, the cubes often fall out) - not a big deal, but it would’ve made a great component excellent.

The presence of the public order cards really adds a fantastic level of tension to the game. After claiming a public order card, a player then has an interesting choice. She draws and looks at the top card of the order deck, then decides whether she wants to keep it as a private order card which will score at the end of the game, or use it to replace the order card she took at the end of her turn. THEN, she can either choose to draw the next order card and be forced to keep it, or simply not draw.

In traditional Euro fashion, there is no way to directly attack your opponents, but a player who is able to be more efficient with her actions (and who may get a bit luckier with card draw) will have opportunities to grab order cards out from under her opponents, and really screwing them.

I also really like the dynamic scoring balance that Mr. Handy has established here. Players are able to score big by going for the order cards. But players could also concentrate on simply delivering high valued produce to the same villages over and over again, attempting to get some MPV tiles and end the game before the other players can fulfill enough orders to win.

Cons: Like any game with cards, there may be a few game sessions where one or two players have really good or poor luck when drawing their cards. The problem is that while drawing the wrong crop card is mitigated (two matching crops can be used as one of any crop), drawing the right crop card is much more efficient. Another place this comes into play is when players draw new order cards. A player could, especially later in the game, draw an order card that she already has completed. These lucky situations are inevitable and what make the game worth playing more than once.

A comparison between Cinque Terre and Ticket to Ride is easy to make. They both use the same card drawing mechanism and both allow players to score during play but also reward players for fulfilling prescribed conditions (tickets/orders). I think that both games are wonderful, but I think that Cinque Terre makes a much better candidate for “gateway game.” Ticket to Ride is fun, and easy to explain, but I’ve thought for a long time that it does not introduce very many new concepts to a player who has not played many “modern” board games. To me, TtR is rummy with a board. Cinque Terre, on the other hand, not only has set collection, but also pickup and deliver, (at least) two fairly distinct paths to victory, action points, public goals, and a dash of push your luck. There is something to be said for TtR’s stripped down approach, but shouldn’t a “gateway” game give new players not only a taste of something new, but also a “tutorial” of sorts on new concepts that are out there in the wide world of gaming? I think that Cinque Terre is simple enough for everyone to enjoy, but also complex enough to whet some players’ appetites for more.

I would give Cinque Terre a solid 7.5. It is a lovely game whose beauty and simplicity belie the gorgeous depth and delicious cut-throatedness that lies in wait. It is being added to the very short list of games that I would both play with my wife or my gaming group and also feel confident about bringing to either of our parents’ homes to play with them.

If Cinque Terre sounds fun, you might also check out Village, Pantheon, and Orbit Rocket Race 5000. 

Board Game Reviews by Josh would like to thank Rio Grande Games for providing a review copy of Cinque Terre.

A lot of games come out every year.  And, often, the only games that you hear about are the latest releases.  This is for a variety of reasons - publishers looking for advertisement, reviewers having already played the older titles, and the human tendency to want new things.  But, with talking so often about new games, there is a good chance that there are some amazing older games that you haven't tried out.  So, here are my top ten games that I think are worth going back and trying out if you haven't already!

Here are the rules: it can't be in the top 10 of BoardGameGeek.com.  Why?  Because those games are basically advertising themselves - so I assume there's a good chance you have heard of them.  Second, the game has to be at least 5 years old.  I used BoardGameGeek's year associated with each game to determine this.  So, if the year was 2009 or later, it was automatically disqualified.  (Which knocked out some great games like Catacombs, Flash Point, and Jab).  So, with the rules laid out, on to the list of the....

Top Ten Games You Might Have Missed 

 

10. Risk 2210 AD

If you have fond memories of playing Risk with family, then this game is definitely one that you should check out. Taking the basics of Risk, 2210 adds a guaranteed end time (you only play 5 turns) while adding many strategic elements. It includes commanders that roll eight-sided dice, cards, and territories on the moon and in the oceans. This was one of the games that got me started in this gaming hobby, and it continues to hold a high place in my collection.

9. Shadows Over Camelot

Before Fantasy Flight Games came out with Battlestar Galactica, Shadows Over Camelot was the traitor game. (At least in my opinion.) With a shorter game time, but still much of the intrigue of Fantasy Flight's game, Shadows still deserves it's spot on your gaming table. If you haven't played this one and you enjoy games with a potential traitor element, then I recommend you check it out.

8. Hey, That's My Fish!

This is the only children's game on my list. Why? Because I don't have kids! Yet, Hey, That's My Fish! transcends being a kid friendly game, and manages to be one that is enjoyable by all ages. This game will be regularly brought to my game night, and is almost always enjoyed by those who learns it.

7. Code 777

Before Hanabi won Game of the Year, Code 777 used a similar formula of showing everyone else what is in your hand, without being able to see it yourself. Yet, Code 777 takes a competitive approach, and forces you to deduce what you have as quickly as possible - without missing it - because that forces you to start over! If you like deduction, then Code 777 is definitely for you.

6. Conspiracy

The oldest game on this list (by a landslide) is Conspiracy. I picked this one up at a Garage Sale a few years ago, and I was very pleasantly surprised! Essentially, as a spy master, you are attempting to bribe various spies to move a briefcase (full of secrets, obviously) to your headquarters. But, the trick is that everyone else can move the same spies! And, ultimately, they will list to whoever (secretly) paid them the most! I'm not advocating that you run out and immediately try to buy this on eBay (unless it's cheap - I haven't looked at prices), but this is definitely one to keep an eye out for.

5. Liar's Dice

The party game that combines party elements and strategic choices, is Liar's Dice (also known as Perudo). Recently, Liar's Dice was featured in one of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and thus it got a bit more notoriety. If you are looking for a game that can support a variable number of players, and that anyone can enjoy, regardless of how many games they have played, then Liar's Dice is a great choice. And, if you need to add more players, you simply have to find a handful of dice!

4. In the Year of the Dragon

Stefan Feld has become a very popular (as well as prolific) game designer recently. In the last few years, he has put out what seems to be a dozen or more titles, with a new one always on the way. Yet, I think that some of his best work was on his earlier titles. In the Year of the Dragon forces you to balance decisions based on gaining points with decisions based on keeping your workers alive. This game just recently slipped out of the BoardGameGeek top 100, but I think that it deserves to be returned to its place of prominence.

3. Dvonn

It is always hard for me to figure out how to rank abstract strategy games against other, more thematic, titles. I almost created this list without including any. Yet, upon further reflection, I determined that abstract strategy games are overlooked at least as often as these other titles. And, Dvonn maintains it's hold as my favorite abstract strategy game. If you're looking for an interesting way to be forced to outwit your opponent, Dvonn comes highly recommended.

2. Game of Thrones: The (Living) Card Game

The game on this list that has easily taken the most of my money is Game of Thrones LCG. As a note, I play this as a two player affair. (The living card game has rules for up to four - the original Collectible Card Game was a two player game). Regardless of if you enjoy the Game of Thrones books or TV show, the game itself stands on it's own as a strategic gem that forces players to balance what kind of challenges they want to make at any given time, and how they want to assign their forces. If you are not turned off by the continual release of new expansions, then this game is worth your time.

1. Notre Dame

When I had the idea for this top ten list, I already knew what the winner was. Notre Dame has recently slipped out of the top 100 games on BoardGameGeek, but I would put it in my personal top 10 favorites. This game forces you to adapt to what other players are doing, while also encouraging you to build on your own past efforts. It is a true gem, and if you haven't played it, then I encourage you to seek opportunities to do so as soon as possible.

Honorable Mentions:

I had to pare down this list a bit before getting started. Part of the reason that I selected the 5 year time frame was to make my decisions a little bit easier (and I mentioned some of the quality games that were knocked off of the list by that requirement earlier). Yet, there are a few others that still deserve recognition while not quite making the top 10: Beowulf: The Legend, Pirate's Cove, and Tumblin Dice.

Well, that's it. I'm sure that there are some great games that I've missed - quite likely because I haven't tried them! Feel free to recommend more games for me to check out in the comments!

If you like top ten lists, you might also check out my Top Ten Two-Player Games, Top Ten Lunch Games, and my Top Ten Abstract Strategy Games.

A game that I received as a sweetener in a math trade recently is Ninja Versus Ninja.

In Ninja Versus Ninja, each player takes on the role of a feuding dojo.  In order to prove yourself  against your rival dojo (you can tell they are rivals because they wear different colors of the exact same outfit), you are attempting to sneak into their dojo as far as you can, and then sneak back out.  Each turn, you will roll two four-sided dice, and this determines your movement for the turn.  On each turn, you are only allowed to make a single 90 degree turn.  You also cannot move through other ninjas.  However, if you are in your opponent's dojo, then you are also allowed to make a single "U" turn by moving towards the far end of their dojo and then immediately turning around and moving towards your own.  If you ever end your movement directly on an opponent's ninja, then you capture that ninja and remove it from the board.  Finally, each ninja can only spend three turns outside of his home dojo (after that, he has to use the bathroom, and he really hates public restrooms).  If he isn't back to the home dojo at the end of the third turn, then he is captured.  However, if he does make it back in time, then you score points based on how far you successfully infiltrated your opponent's dojo.  The first person to score seven points (or knock out all of his opponent's ninjas) is the winner.

The ninja minis look great, and make you want to play it

The first pro for Ninja Versus Ninja is that it is a great game for kids.  The ninjas are amazing looking, and the game itself is pretty simple.  There are some strategic elements to it - like whether you want to move your ninjas in the way of your opponent's ninja in order to force them to use extra movement to get back across to their home dojo.  But, the bulk of the game is a simple press your luck mechanic.  So, whereas I think that very young children might not catch the strategic element of getting in the way of your opponent, I think that this can be played and enjoyed by kids of just about any age.  In fact, I have played this game with a four year old, and I know that he was able to play it without any real problems.

Unforunately, due to the simplistic nature of the game, I think that the real con for it is that there's simply not much there.  If you are looking for a game to play with kids, then this is a great option.  But, if you're looking for a game that can be played by both kids and parents where both parties will enjoy themselves, I don't think that this is a great choice.  Somewhat like Uno, though I think a lot of kids will like this game, I just think that most parents will get tired of it quickly.

Overall, there's not much to this review because there's not much to this game.  I give it a 6.5/10, because I think that, as a game for kids to play, it will do quite well.  However, as someone without kids, I will be moving this game out of my closet in the near future.

If you're looking for kid's games, you might also check out Hey, That's My Fish!, The Big Fat Tomato Game, and City Square Off.