That must be an error, the rule is you can play a card for its stated effect or for the movement value.
[EDIT] to add that I wouldn’t consider Arnak’s manual bad at all.
2 Likes
First play of The Voyages of Marco Polo. I got this in a pre Christmas Maths Trade.
Very highly rated on BGG, I think it’s considered a classic Euro. Tight worker/ dice placement, contract fulfilment and game breaking asymmetric powers. Bit fiddly to learn, but it plays very smoothly and pretty fast. It’s very tight, not too much blocking on our first play but I suspect that just gets harsher the more you play it.
I must like it because I was rubbish at it. I think this is the game I wanted Teotihuacan to be.
7 Likes
So, I had Babylonia out in the table to get an idea of the flow of the game.
The five year old insisted on having a game. The eight year old joined in. They had fun, I think. Weird way to get a game off my shelf of opportunity.
4 Likes
I have now made two attempts at finishing a learning game of Teotihuacan… no success. But admittedly On Mars arrived a few days ago and… I already played half of a second game against Lacerda yesterday afternoon telling myself I just wanted to check out how the TTS mod worked and before I knew it I was through half a game of On Mars (with scripted setup it takes much less time to get through half a game)
This afternoon we played a 2 player of Polynesia. I won with 16 over 8 points and for about half the game I was sure my partner was winning, he was going for the VP on the western side of the map and I just had some small “unimportant” fish islands in the east. But halfway through came a turning point and… post-game analysis shows he made some mistakes he wouldn’t make on a second play. One does need to “cooperate” a bit to get to the furthest corners of the map where some nice VP await. But he didn’t trust his ability to outfox me and so his paranoia led to his downfall.
So here's what I think about the game after 1.5 plays.
So on the plus side:
- the game is pretty
- the rules are easily learned and taught
- midweight is good to bring to the table
- the flow of each round is really smooth with the 3-2-1 action point rounds followed by the vulcano-decay-growth “book-keeping”
Neutral:
- the theme is just set-dressing, the rules even say “this is an abstract game”
On the minus side:
- there are separate maps for two/three player and four and rules modifications for 2 player but the map still seems too wide open for 2.
- the objective cards seem to have little impact on the game and feel a bit like an afterthought
- seeing how many fish/shell-fish you produce is finicky because the map is soon filled with ships and meepls and my partner complained about it every single round
Overall, I think this will stay in my collection for two reasons: I have nothing similar, that focusses on routes (and yet routes are a bit similar to my penchant for expanding in DOAM games, this is boats on a map), it’s pretty and it wasn’t very expensive. The midweight and the pretty ensure that I will be able to bring this to the table once we meet with friends again for boardgame nights. I’ll file this under “inoffensive euro-ish” games. The negatives listed are not huge complaints. The biggest one is that I think there could have been done more with the objectives. But for now I have only played with two sets of these… I may yet be wrong about those. And I really think it needs 3-4 players.
PS: I’ll add pics from my mobile once the battery is back up. I was catching pokemon all day and it’s a bit empty.
9 Likes
A friend of mine loaned me The Island of Dr. Necreaux recently and I made an attempt to play it this morning. On the surface it seemed like it would be of about the same mechanical weight as The Lost Expedition or Deep Space D-6, but in practice it’s quite a bit to take on.
At its core it’s not much more complex than setting a speed level (draw x cards before the next rest opportunity) and then drawing and resolving cards (generally rolling dice). Resolving those cards gets complicated very quickly, however. There’s a pretty robust set of keywords, abilities, interrupts, etc. under the hood, and as different ongoing effects, threats, boons and blights get added, every action ends up becoming something of a checklist to tick off before you can roll your bones and move on.
To be clear, this isn’t all that heavy whatsoever, but it is more maintenance than I want from a silly hour-long solo game. Making matters worse, the solo experience is just begging you to play with at least one extra agent, which would effectively double the load.
It’s pretty neat that they’ve packed this much flavour into a deck of cards and a simple draw-and-resolve mechanism, and I have no doubt it would become much easier to manage with experience, but that’s more effort than I want to expend here. I’d be happy to give it a spin with a group as a filler game, but as a small box solitaire game it’s surprisingly too big for its britches.
2 Likes
It’s one of my earliest–if not the earliest–coops and I still own it, for nostalgia reasons.
At some point we played with someone who was able to see the pattern needed to essentially “solve” the game and we haven’t played it since. But I have fond memories of it. We still make jokes about the deadly mono filament wire.
2 Likes
Agree on the rule for Arnak. I’d actually consider it one of the better rule books I’ve seen in a while, very clear. I can’t say I’ve seen the part Marx has mentioned though, so maybe I missed that.
3 Likes
I’d commented on this game a few times at SUSD, so the following is a slightly-edited dump of those comments…
The Isle of Doctor Necreaux is an odd one. I don’t think I’d recommend playing it (at all) with fewer than four players. Or if you do, treat it as a game with more players, and give everyone multiple characters. IMHO you absolutely need a whole bunch of different characters in the game for it to actually become fun. The game doesn’t get any less brutal, but a good mix of characters gives you more opportunities to cope with the different situations, and more things to think about and discuss/plan (which I think is important because the core gameplay is so simplistic – a bit of added complexity on account of all those neat randomised character traits really does wonders for the game IMO).
My first couple of games were resoundingly meh. Then I had a game with more players (I think it was 5 rather than 2), and it was kinda awesome.
Because everyone gets a character constructed from a mix of traits, the more characters there are, the more individual traits there are in the game, and consequently the more options there are for reacting to each situation. I still don’t have enough experience with the game to say for sure, but More just seems to be Better with this one. There’s a definite puzzle element to the game, and I remember there was a lot of cooperative discussion about the pros and cons of sacrificing one trait over another, and how we could best improve our chances, which I found more enjoyable with more people.
Figuring out who will take any given piece of damage is one of the fun (and puzzle-y) elements of the game: Anyone can take the damage; but “taking damage” means temporarily (or even permanently) disabling one or more of the characteristics that comprise your hero; so you’re continually evaluating which of the group’s abilities you can survive without for long enough to rest and recover at least some of them…
In any case, that session restored my enthusiasm for the game (which made me happy because I utterly love the Flash Gordon-esque theme and art, and was sad about not enjoying the game).
I also remember grinning a lot reading one person’s comments on the game, where they said how they liked to role-play the characters a little, with melodramatic pronouncements such as “Stand back! I’ll take that damage!” around the table. I thought that sounded fun and a neat fit for the game’s style.
It’s not the best game around, and it won’t appeal to everyone (the sheer brutality of the dice rolls could be a little disheartening, but part of the game is trying to figure out how to adapt to it), but I do like having it in my collection.
Regarding the 2nd edition The Island of Doctor Necreaux I thought that it looked like a bit of a mixed bag, art-wise. Some of the new art looked really great, but it also seemed very inconsistent (surely a result of several different artists being involved), whereas the style of the original art was rock-solid (and looked fantastic). I’m all for having more cards with artwork (events, rooms, and items were all generic in the first edition), but I wish it had all been done in the style of the original.
4 Likes
I really like Marco Polo 2. I think I like how the game plays quite differently for each character.
2 Likes
Jaws of the Lion, won, but it was fairly close, nearly ran out of cards
Chimera Station, first play. This is a worker placement game, but the gimmick is that you can upgrade your workers by clicking in extra bits, which all give you an advantage. There are five rounds, and you have three workers at the start. On your turn you place a worker onto a module, which can be a preprinted space, or on the main board, or even on one of your perk cards. You build modules for the main board by choosing from one of the six modules available. Building is a good source of points, as you gain victory points just for building. And in rounds three and four you get double points for building, and in the last round you get triple points. As you place a module on the main board, you gain a bonus from the bulding space, which can be to gain resources, or collect a component that you can add to a worker.
To upgrade a worker, you send it to the Splicing Lab. Components are brains (you get the points from placing on a module), claws (you can displace another worker), leaves (you dont have to feed this worker), and tentacles (you get an extra resource whenever you collect coins or food). You can add up to two components to a worker, and this can be two of the same component. Double brain means when you place on a command module you get points for your own workers, not just those of your opponents. Double claws means you can displace any other worker (a single claw only allows you to displace a worker with one component). Double leaves produce food, and double tentacles allows you to collect an extra component.
Its pretty cool to build up your workers. All of the components are useful. I mostly went for a claws/brain combination. The brain ability to gain VPs from any space seemed to be pretty handy. The winner was the guy who maxed out his research track, which gave him extra workers, and extra perk cards (which give you game end points).
The Banishing, first play. This is a cooperative card game, where you are trying to “banish” enough cards to win. The cards are made up of symbols of each colour, and each player has their own player board and unique abilities. Each player has two spells for each colour. Red spells are attacking spells, green are defensive, and blue allows you to banish cards. There are also undead cards, that give you wounds if you take them. If your wounds match your stamina, you lose access to your unique spells. If your wounds match your health, you die and the game is lost.
On your turn, you take a row or column of cards from a 3 X 3 grid. To use an ability, you need three cards of the same colour. For a better version of the ability, you need to match the colour and the symbol.
Its not a bad game, we lost, just too many undead.
3 Likes
Thanks for recompiling those thoughts, you vindicated my decision to bail early on the solo attempt, but also made me hungry to try it as a proper group co-op. I’d prefer not to take this (unopened until I got my mitts on it) game back with only a half-assed “meh”, so hopefully this extra feedback will inspire it to get tabled with our group (eventually).
Meanwhile, my partner and I got a quick game of War Chest in this evening, after a 9 month hiatus! I pulled off the win by skirting around with my lancer for the final control point, something that would have never happened had the cobwebs not been so thick, otherwise I was cooked. She managed to get an amazingly consistent little machine gun going via a well positioned crossbow and a turtling marshall. This decimated my bag and neutered my lancer, but a big push from the front was enough to distract from my horsey trotting along the sidelines. With her oblivious to the unclaimed control point it was sitting on, I was able to draw up, lay claim and take the win on pure shenanigans. I’m not too proud to accept this victory. 
5 Likes
Had friends over today for a late-Christmas, late-birthday, late-birthday, early-birthday celebration. The ladies both wanted to play Ethnos, so we played Ethnos. Setup gave us Dwarves, Merfolk, Orcs, Halflings, Trolls, and Wingfolk.
I did miserably. Though I was the furthest up the Merfolk track, I fell short of getting the last free city. I kept getting behind on the larger scoring territories, so that even when I had Troll tokens enough to break ties in my favor, I was only in the running for last place.
I was in last with 106 points. Next was our friend at 115, then his wife at 121, and my wife took the game with an amazing 147. Just blew us all out of the water.
Sadly, due to child interruptions, the game took us almost 3 hours to play, as the turns go by so quickly that just getting up to get a drink can hold up the game.
7 Likes
Jumping the gun here just a little, but we’re all set up for some light burninating on this miserable Sunday morning.
10 Likes
Inspired by the Uwe-cast, I got out Nusfjord for a game with my wife. It’s such a low-scoring game compared to A Feast for Odin that I always feel like I’m doing horribly, but I won this time around with a free schooner once I built my fleet up enough and an aquarium for my three elders to enjoy looking at. I think the most interesting thing about that game is the fish distribution, and I had plenty of that going on with my fleet and my pond-building elder who gave me another fishing phase. My wife took one of my shares early on, but I bought another of my own back and built a building that let me flip an unissued one, so I was getting a bunch of my own fish every round, which is always nice. I only won by 3 points; we were pretty even on buildings and ships, but I got 4 points from all of my shares, and she netted 0 from shares since she never issued any of her own.
5 Likes
Ah, I see my confusion. There’s a section called “Your Hand”, which I thought was one of the actions you could do (play a card from your hand as an action).
But that is not the case. You can play a card from your hand as payment for a different action, or as a free action to collect resources. Got it.
My bad!
2 Likes
Wossat then?
3 Likes
I played My City over the weekend. I know some people take issue with legacy games that start with a heavily simplified game and introduce mechanics slowly to eventually turn it into a fuller experience, but (hot take) I think this is an excellent way to help “non-gamers” to learn a game. We had a lovely time.
I wish more games weren’t afraid to add a tutorial intro that allows you to play a few introductory games and introduce mechanics as you go, rather than throwing everything at you on the first play. I get that lots of games would lose their magic but where appropriate it would make some games much less intimidating to learn, even if the first few games aren’t the full/balanced design.
Edit: see also Magic Maze which has a campaign structure that’s just an excuse to gently introduce all of the mechanics at a digestible pace for casual players.
7 Likes
Looks like Trogdor
2 Likes
Sort of? I mean basically yes, but the cards do an awful lot more than pay travel costs and give resources. Just remember if a card’s effect does not have a lightning bolt, then playing the card itself is your action for the turn. There’s a good reason for “playing a card” to be listed as a main action—instantly defeat a guardian, relocate a used explorer, explore for discounted token cost, etc.
@Phil it is indeed Trogdor!!
2 Likes
I was feeling pretty hype about Rococo Rediculous Deluxe Edition while watching Quinns’ coverage of it. Without an opportunity to play it with other people, I opted to give the in-box solo opponent a try.
I definitely agree with Quinns; Madame du Barry is a wildly erratic opponent whose decisions have no bearing on the existing game state. It’s very much playing against a drunkard whom you permit to break rules simply to have an opponent to complete against; neither the competition nor the opponent are particularly interesting and it can lead to frustrating situations that are not part of an interesting puzzle, just punishing by way of the luck of the draw.
That said, I really enjoyed my part of the game; in the lucid moments between Madame du Barry’s random thrashing of the gamestate, the game really sings. Turn-to-turn fiddle is minimal; the iconography on the board is extremely good and the puzzle of “I need to do this and that before I can do the other thing” is delightfully involved without requiring multivariable calculus to determine what you should do right now. If the puzzle of the game were any more involved, Madame du Barry’s erratic behavior would be absolutely untenable – as it stands, it’s just a mild annoyance.
TL;DR – I’ll probably play against Madame du Barry’s uneven and inexplicable nonsense again simply to enjoy the wonderful recipe-fulfillment, resource-collection puzzle that is beautifully illustrated. Or, maybe, I’ll try one of the solo variants posted on BGG that pre-date the Deluxe Edition.
8 Likes