Tag Archives: Reviews

Lord of the Rings Card Game by Fantasy Flight Games 2011

Designer: Nate French

Final Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star Quarter Star(4.25 out 5 Stars)

Of all the games to make my collection Lord of the Rings the card game might quite possibly be the least likely candidate I could imagine. For one it’s a cooperative game, my least favorite of all table top game genres typically. Secondly it’s a pure card game which is usually not my thing, again generally not always and it’s a collectable card game which is definitely not my thing pretty much always. So how does a game like Lord of the Rings even get a chance from me let alone meet the stringent requirements of my personal collection given it has everything working against it? It’s a long story, but that is what this review and coincidently what the Lord of the Rings the card game is all about.

Overview

Lord of the Rings the card game by famed card game designer Nate French can be described as a thematic, progressive collectable card game with a focus on challenging puzzles in the form of quests, challenges that are met through optimized deck building and clever problem solving during game play. Now that is one boring way to describe it, alternatively one can say it’s a card game that lets you play out the entirety of the Lord of the Rings fairy tale by J.R.R Tolkien, and then some, quite possibly one of the most epic fantasy stories ever told through an ever mounting series of mini adventures and expansions.

Without question the most immediate impact of the game is it's visual appeal, it's stunning.
Without question the most immediate impact of the game is it’s visual appeal, it’s stunning.

In Lord of the Rings you build decks around a small group of hero cards that will be the key resources for your group as they take on the adventures right out of the middle earth storylines. You will do everything you might expect from searching for Gollum, escaping Nazguls, fighting at Helm’s deep or facing Sauron in the two towers. Each game of Lord of the Rings consists of taking on a quest, typically as part of a series of quests that achieves one of the core story elements from the book, expanded universe or just the creative minds at FFG. For example in the first adventure series “Shadows of Mirkwood” players are tasked with finding Gollum over the course of six separate adventure packs. Each adventure pack is a separate purchase (of course), hence the collecting, but in addition to providing you with a new quest and quest encounters, you gain new cards for deck building that are thematically linked to the adventure.

The main difference with Lord of the Rings the Card game and other Living card games from fantasy flight is that it’s purely cooperative but more importantly it can be played solo without losing any of the quality of a multiplayer game.

Since the game is cooperative, the challenge comes from the quest cards. Collecting these quests is the key to the thematic story element of the game.
Since the game is cooperative, the challenge comes from the quest cards. Collecting these quests is the key to the thematic story element of the game.

The game was originally released in 2011 and I actually had an opportunity to try it way back then. I recall noting it was interesting with potential but really needed to be expanded. Well, expanded it has been, in fact it may be one of the most expanded products in the FFG lineup at this point, there is tons of content for this game and its popularity has steadily grown since its humble beginnings. The only question now is whether it’s a game for you.

Components

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

Pros: The art work is absolutely stunning and consistent, card and component quality is everything you expect from FFG, top notch.

Cons: The core set is a bit light on content, you get just enough to capture your interest but not enough to maintain it, expansion is necessary and fairly expensive.

Take a visual franchise like Lord of the Rings and put it to a company with a near perfect reputation for producing amazing components for games, especially card games and it should come to the surprise of no one that Lord of the Rings the card game components are the highest of quality. Visually the games novelized artwork could have a museum of its own, it’s nothing short of stunning, as is the case with all of the living card games FFG produces. Each card has the appearance of an oil painting, meticulously created to bring it to life. It’s an amazing achievement that FFG is able to maintain such high quality of art work over the course of such an expansive game with so many cards. In fact, I find it mind boggling that anyone can do it with any game, I don’t think people realize how difficult and time consuming this is to do until you actually try to design a game of your own. It’s clearly a big investment on FFG’s part to produce this game and it may explain their dedication and support of it long term.

The support for Lord of the Rings card game by FFG is exceptional with expansions still rolling out with regularity 5 years after release.
The support for Lord of the Rings card game by FFG is exceptional with expansions still rolling out with regularity 5 years after release.

If there is anything to complain about it’s the fact that the game is spread out across dozens of expansions that nickel and dime you to death to gain access, but such is the nature of collectable games. Fortunately with the Living Card Game concept you go into knowing you will never have to buy more than one of anything. You’re not getting abused by the randomness of booster packs, instead with each adventure pack you get everything you ever need from the pack. While each expansion is very reasonably priced for today’s standard, if you’re a completionist be ready to spend hundreds of dollars and continue to spend money regularly to keep up. At some point the game will probably see it’s end of life but even at this point to buy everything you are talking some serious dough.

Theme

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: From evolving campaign arcs to mini stories, from the amazing art to the clever mechanics the Lord of the Rings theme is vibrant.

Cons:  To really get the full sense of the thematic nature and continuity of the games ongoing story you must expand your set.

Lord of the Rings is one of those franchises that would be hard to screw up thematically but in my humble opinion most card games, despite having unique artwork on hundreds of cards usually fail to capture themes. Art work is a fantastic start to present a theme, but for a game to feel thematic it needs to have gameplay that is reflective and immersive, especially for a card game which can feel so benign. You really need something that draws you into the theme and urges you to read and explore the game capturing your imagination.

Thankfully Lord of the Rings the card game does exactly that. Theme really shines in two separate but connected forms here. First, it’s the episodic nature of adventures that take on the form of quests with unique challenges suited to the story it’s portraying, something consistently done throughout the expansions, adventure packs and saga adventures. Each quest is a story and to resolve it, to overcome the challenge, there is some unique mechanic or element that drives it you must leverage or overcome through clever deck building and play. Whether it’s defeating an iconic enemy like a Hill Troll, or tracking down the famed Gollum, every quest in the various adventure packs is unique in some way. Which drives the second part of the games theme, continuity and progression.

In large part the theme of the game hangs on the progression of the story, but to get that, you have to buy expansion packs and adventure packs. It can get pretty expensive in particular for completionists.
In large part the theme of the game hangs on the progression of the story, but to get that, you have to buy expansion packs and adventure packs. It can get pretty expensive in particular for completionists.

There is a sense as you play through different adventure cycles and expansion packs that urges you to play on to see if you can take the next step, and the next. One is a connection to the latter, you move forward through the story and progress through the game as you develop an addiction for it. If you like the game you’ll find that common pull towards buying more of it as you would with CCG’s but it’s not because you are collecting but rather you want to progress your game to the next stage of the games timeline thanks to the wonderful theme and chaining of adventure stories.

The introduction of Saga expansions and campaign mode have in particular done wonders for this games theme driving the bigger more epic moments of the books more directly. You can play out the hobbit saga or the classic Lord of the Rings Saga and as of this writing they are still continually producing side quests, adventure cycles and deluxe expansions in addition to the continued support to complete the main Saga.

Simply put the theming here is fantastic and well supported. Whether or not that theme really comes through in the card play is always a question of how you see things. For me personally when I play a card game, in particular a deck builder, my focus really narrows down to abilities on the cards and strategy of play rather than theme. It’s there, the connection of characters and abilities, quests and mechanics all drive the game. The relevance of the theme however in the case of Lord of the Rings is more about the progressions of the quests and the story’s behind the various packs and expansions. If you follow along, play them sequentially there is a lot of fun story to work through. During play though you are likely to be bunkering down on the mechanics and focusing on winning rather than drawing some element of story out of the game.

There are of course periodic movie moments, in particular if you theme your deck to the quest your running and that is something players do for fun. Typically though you build decks and make decisions to win rather than for theme.

Gameplay

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Easy to learn, impossible to master, LotR LCG offers creative challenges and addictive gameplay.

Cons:  The core set challenges are bi-polar ranging from introductory adventure to near impossible to defeat quests.  Makes for a poor introduction.

Lord of the Rings the card game is a unique card game because of its cooperative play, but for me personally this would have normally been a major strike against it. Simply put, I don’t like most cooperative games, in fact, after 20 years of playing and collecting board games I have a grand total of one cooperative game on my shelf beside this one (Fury of Dracula). Typically what I don’t like about cooperative games is that they are usually fairly scripted, a script written by the player who has the greatest knowledge of the game. Often referred to as Alpha gaming, most cooperative games are basically single player games that people play together, making decisions together, and effectively acting as one. I HATE that.

Cooperative games like descent are essentially 2 player games masquerading as group efforts but in the end there is often that one guy who knows the game and you effectively get your marching orders from him. Alpha gaming is a big problem for many cooperative games.
Cooperative games like descent are essentially 2 player games masquerading as group efforts but in the end there is often that one guy who knows the game and you effectively get your marching orders from him. Alpha gaming is a big problem for many cooperative games.

Thankfully this simply does not exist in Lord of the Rings the card game, in fact, most of the cooperation of the game takes place before you actually start playing during deck building. What takes place during the game is cooperation with minimal information, so you make decisions together about what’s on the board but you don’t really know for certain what people are holding in their hand and since you’re not allowed to talk about it by the rules, Alpha gaming is severely hindered.

The core cooperation really happens when players must construct decks in preparation for the adventure and here you build the synergies, make tactical decisions and strategy of your combined effort. Once the game starts however, everyone is kind of on their own. There is little help you can get in making decisions during the game because no one knows what cards you have and no one is allowed to know. So while you have built synergies into your decks and can assist each other through card play, when and how they are executed is something that happens dynamically by individual choice.

There is quite a bit of competition in the Living Card game genre even in something as specific as cooperative, progressive, story based living card games. For many I think it will come down to a preferred theme, but Pathfinder is definitely a great contender in the genre.
There is quite a bit of competition in the Living Card game genre even in something as specific as cooperative, progressive, story based living card games. For many I think it will come down to a preferred theme, but Pathfinder is definitely a great contender in the genre.

For me personally though I love Lord of the Rings for the fact that it can be played solo and in a big way it’s why it got a second chance with me. Good solo games are hard… one might say nearly impossible to find. In particular thematic games that offer a real challenge in the long term and don’t lose anything because you don’t play it with other people. Lord of the Rings however is as fun to play with a friend or two as it is to play alone. It’s very portable as well which is great for a working/traveling stiff like me who spends a lot of time on trains/planes and hotel rooms.

Now how is the gameplay? Well to summarize, this game is hard as fuck. Not hard to learn, not hard to play, but hard to win. This is a game made for veteran card players looking for a true challenge and while that doesn’t speak to me directly, what I do like about card games is a semblance of balance. Not necessarily as a game but a type of balance where there are no “useless” cards and there is no counter building, rather every card has a purpose and when leveraged in the right synergy can be game changing and Lord of the Rings has that in spades. Every card is meticulously thought out and combinable in a variety of ways and discovering how to use cards is a big part of the fun. Really, it’s a requirement because each new quest brings new challenges that will require you to go back to your card pool and look for cards that can help you. Coming up with clever ways to defeat quests that often seem simply impossible is part of the challenge of this game.

Deck building is a critical component of any good collectible card game but you will appriciate the fact that in Lord of the Rings you will build specific decks for specific quests, so there is no "winning deck", there are quest challenge that will always require specific builds to overcome keeping the game fresh and progressive.
Deck building is a critical component of any good collectible card game but you will appreciate the fact that in Lord of the Rings you will build specific decks for specific quests, so there is no “winning deck”, there are quest challenges that will always require specific builds to overcome keeping the game fresh and progressive as you try to figure it out.

 

It’s just a perfect fit despite my general genre and game style objections because I love to find a game I can’t beat and have to think and fiddle with it to try and figure it out. I love it when a game occupies my brain space, I find a great deal of satisfaction in solving a good puzzle and I love it when a victory is well deserved. The fact that a game that does that turned out to be a cooperative, collectible card game is weird, but I can’t deny the strength of the game. It’s icing on the cake with Lord of the Rings that when you finally figure out that quest and beat it, there is a hundred more quest puzzles to solve waiting to challenge you.

Lord of the Rings the card game gameplay is a relatively simple fair even though it has some complexity in how the phases break down. In short during play you will be committing characters and allies you have put into play to either quests or to fighting. While each quest goal is a unique puzzle to solve, the games challenges are always dynamic as the encounter decks, a blending of different challenges, is constructed for each specific quest but resolved in a random sequence each time you play. For example one quest might be to simply produce progress tokens and defeat a specific enemy at the end. However the encounter deck will be constructed from certain location and monster decks, so what you actually face will vary from game to game as well as the order, creating unique obstructions to the default quest. It’s really all about manipulation, judgement calls and timing during play, but the resources you bring with you are the key. As such, it’s as big part of the game to prepare, aka, deck building as it is to actually play the game.

The game sequence is important as each decision is a commitment of resources without knowing what unique elements might arise in the next sequence. So you might commit two of your heroes to questing, only to discover that the encounter deck produced two monsters that will attack that round, now your short a hero and will suffer for it. Alternatively if you don’t commit the heroes you might end up increasing your threat levels, the sort of game timer that will cause you to lose after you reach a certain point. The end result is trying to prepare for the unexpected, choosing which cards to play now, which to save, which heroes and allies to commit to which task and of course to a degree gambling a little on the limited knowledge you have about each different encounter deck a particular quest might have. The wonderful thing is that there is a card for every problem and as such again, building a deck to compensate for each hurdle is the key. Naturally you can’t prepare for everything but through clever deck building you can successfully complete even the most impossible quests.

As if the game wasn't tough enough already, those seeking even greater challenges can get the upgraded versions of quests lovingly called "Nightmare Decks".
As if the game wasn’t tough enough already, those seeking even greater challenges can get the upgraded versions of quests lovingly called “Nightmare Decks”.

In essence your deck is your main resource for overcoming quests and challenges, you only have what you bring with you. Hence playing a quest for the first time is especially tough, but once you have lost to it two or three times, you’re going to go back to deck building to try to create a combination of heroes, allies, weapons and event cards that will allow you to succeed. Typically most quests you will be able to unravel after a half a dozen or so plays, for the real tough ones it might take you more or less and in some cases quests remain challenging no matter how many times you play them regardless of deck building because of the many dynamic elements in the often tough encounter decks. It’s also worth noting that if you play the game progressively, meaning you play each adventure pack in order and with the cards available to you up to that point, the game is considerably more fun and challenging as you have to work with resources limited to what is available to you in your card pool. It typically gets easier to beat old quests if you use cards from further down the release chain. So for example beating the first adventure cycle using the second adventure cycles cards is going to be much easier than using only cards from the adventure cycle you’re playing in or even tougher if you only use cards from the core set and up to the adventure cycle of the specific adventure.

At the core of gameplay in Lord of the Rings the card game is discovery, learning about what challenges are in a quest then trying to create a deck that can beat it.

The end result is a game of making decision before and during play, tough ones. It’s a game that will continually surprise you and cause you to re-think and adapt both during play and during deck building.

Game-play in Lord of the Rings the card game is challenging, progressive and very thinky as such It’s not something everyone will appreciate, I really do think it caters more to the hardcore gamer crowd that really likes a deep challenge, which fits me just fine, but casual gamers will probably feel overwhelmed and frustrated with the difficulty level.

There are some pretty sizeable gameplay concerns which I think might turn off a lot of people. For starters, the core set while absolutely necessary, is probably the weakest thing in the game, at least that will be a typical observation. Many reviews reflect this, often referring to the 3 core quests and player cards you get as unbalanced and impossible to beat. The thing is that, this is simply not true. When you approach in particular the 2nd and 3rd quests, they are really going to challenge you and they are in fact very tough to beat but with experience and clever deck building these challenge can be overcome pretty consistently using nothing but the core set cards. It’s something however you will discover long after it frustrates the shit out of you and if you judge the game purely on those early experiences the result is the common consensus about balance issues in the core set most reviewers will mention.

It's likely new and casual gamers will find the core set quests seemingly impossible to overcome, but if you become dedicated to the game with experiance you are likely to learn to appreciate the challenge.
It’s likely new and casual gamers will find the core set quests seemingly impossible to overcome, but if you become dedicated to the game with experience you are likely to learn to appreciate the challenge.

That said I do agree that perhaps the core set should have been made more approachable, in particular when you consider that the first cycle of quest revert considerably. The first expansion in the Mirkwood cycle “The Hung For Gollum” for example is easier then all three of the quests in the core set. It almost feels like a step back in difficulty of the game globally. Then things get more difficult as you progress. Suffice to say I’m not going to invalid the complaints about the core set other than to say as you become more experienced with the game you will learn to appreciate having quests that are in fact very challenging rather than a bunch of freebies that you can beat with your eyes closed.

As for deck building with the core set, there is some to be had, but deck building doesn’t really emerge fully until you get a few adventure packs so the game feels a bit narrow and closed with just the core set In terms of what you can do with it. Expanding the game in the end is vital to get the full effect of the gameplay, without it, as a core set deck building in Lord of the Rings the card game runs out of steam pretty quickly.

That said, it’s a foregone conclusion that if you are going to pick up the core set you will buy expanded content and really I would say unless you’re ready to at least purchase the first adventure cycle you can probably skip the game all together. The core set alone does not carry gameplay or give you enough value if that is all you plan to buy. It’s at best an awkward introduction to the game and it will hit and miss with people for that, but the truth is that for a first time introduction I much rather use the first quest of the first adventure cycle than anything that comes in the core set. The Hunt for Gollum is a really great quest to learn with and its difficulty is very manageable.

Playing the game solo is quite different from playing it cooperatively but both are excellent ways to experience the game. Few games out there can claim that.
Playing the game solo is quite different from playing it cooperatively but both are excellent ways to experience the game. Few games out there can claim that.

All and all though I find Lord of the Rings gameplay to be fantastic and I highly recommend it if you are a gamer looking for a good solo game in particular, this really is the best I have played in years. I would also recommend it for Lord of the Rings fans, or fans of cooperative games but be advised that this is a very gamy game, so it’s not something that falls anywhere near the casual arena of games. It would be tough to bring it to a gaming group and say “let’s play” because without deck building the game’s difficulty ramps up considerably, in particular in the core set and teaching someone to play and then promptly asking them to build a deck is asking a bit much of your gaming group. As such the game is a bit less approachable and that’s definitely a strike against it. The core set really should have focused more on making itself casual player friendly to make it easier on fans to introduce it to their gaming group. That said I think most gaming groups that get together regularly won’t find this to be much of an issue.

Replay ability and Longevity

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: The game has incredible support from FFG with tons of expandable content for you to choose from.

Cons: Replay ability hinges on you expanding your set which can get expensive.

When it comes to replayability Lord of the Rings really hinges on expanding the game. There is definitely some fun to be had with the core set, but given it’s price tag and limited deck building options, I think most gamers will find it runs out of steam pretty fast. Thankfully there is plenty to expand your game with and the content really gets better and better as you progress through the different expansion packs. More importantly though is as you expand the game it opens up new doorways to old quests that you might have trouble with. So as you expand, going back to old content becomes as interesting as starting with the new stuff. There are also a lot of really fun quests in there and everyone will eventually find their favorites that they love to re-play. For example for me The Murder at the Prancing pony is one of the best quests, a stand-alone expansion that I’m happy to replay over and over again. In fact, if you buy no expansions ever, get The Murder at the Prancing Pony because this quest alone is almost a self-contained game worthy of owning Lord of the Rings the Card Game. I personally think it should have been included in the core set, as it is newbie friendly, has some clever mechanics and manages to be fairly challenging but not impossible. It’s really fantastic

While replay-ability hinges on collecting, there is a lot to collect and if you really get into it, going back on old quests with new cards from different sets opens up new doorways to solving those quest puzzles you couldn't manage to complete before. There is a sense of renewal of the entire game each time you add to your collection.
While replay-ability hinges on collecting, there is a lot to collect and if you really get into it, going back on old quests with new cards from different sets opens up new doorways to solving those quest puzzles you couldn’t manage to complete before. There is a sense of renewal of the entire game each time you add to your collection.

There are also many different ways to play the game and as such I think there is a lot of replay ability there. For example trying to beat an entire adventure cycle with the same three heroes, or with the same deck can be a lot of fun. For a real challenge you can link all the quests together into one long game and of course there is the campaign mode introduced in the Saga expansions and nightmare mode.

As far as replay ability goes I think Lord of the Rings has plenty, but you won’ get it out of the core set in the long run alone and for this reason this score hinges on the assumption that you are going to expand your game. If you don’t mind spending on a collectable game though which is of course the intention of Lord of the Rings the card game, there is a tremendous amount of content to keep you going indefinitely.

Conclusion

Lord of the Rings The Card game as far as I’m concerned is a hit and a big surprise to me because I would not have expected to like it as much as I do. It’s relatively simple to teach but difficult to master, it offers a wide variety of challenges both as a deck builder and as a game and it has a great adventure theme that any proper gaming nerd can get behind. I would highly recommend it if you love challenging deck builders and cooperative games and if you are looking for a solid solo game. As a Lord of the Rings fan I think you need to be careful because while your favorite theme is here, it’s really important that you like the genre and game play style here, the theme while fantastic and present in the game is not the core of the game. It’s not a story game despite all the questing and adventure, it’s a pretty tough deck building game.

In addition to adventure packs, deluxe expansions and saga expansions there are many stand-alone special quests from past events that offer a wide variety of unique challenges from moments in the books.
In addition to adventure packs, deluxe expansions and saga expansions there are many stand-alone special quests from past events that offer a wide variety of unique challenges from moments in the books.

I don’t think I would recommend this game to casual players. I think the games difficulty is too high for casual players and they will likely find themselves playing a frustratingly difficult game they always lose. It really requires out of game thought, some personal commitment to understand and study the game to have a chance to win a few games.  In addition, if you stop collecting at the Core Set, I think you will be disappointed, the core set is a beat shallow on content and oddly bi-polar in it’s difficulty range.  For casuals I think this will be a much bigger problem then for card game veterans.

I think it’s a fantastic cooperative game but I think most cooperative gaming is by design created to be a lot more cooperative than this one. What I mean is that, for most games of Lord of the Rings while you can help each other out a bit, it really is a game about making your own decisions. Alpha gamers will be very frustrated with this game as helping someone make a decision is extremely difficult if you don’t know what cards they are holding and often what appears to be a big mistake is actually a good play because of the cards they are holding. So someone will often take an action and it’s like “oh shit you just lost the game for us”, then suddenly they whip out a card and you realize. “ah.. great move”. After a while you just realize with this game that you have to let people make their plays and sort of build up a cooperative trust.

This is a fantastic element of the game, but debunks a bit of that cooperative part.

Needless to say I have developed quite an affection for Lord of the Rings, I find myself playing it quite often and if this continues this will probably end up being one of my most played games of the year. I got into it kind of late, but I actually kind of love the idea that there is tons of content already available and I can pick and choose as my leisure. All of the expansions released today are still in print and available and FFG continues to release new ones.

Board Gaming Super Weekend Quick Reviews

This weekend my gaming group had an opportunity to get together for a rare 2 day super gaming session, I’m talking 12+ hours a day of non-stop, unlimited, wife and children free gaming. It was epic, it was hilarious and it offered me an opportunity to play and reminisce about a great many games. These are not going to be anything even approaching full reviews but some snippets and thoughts on some of the games we played. All of our games were played 4 players, I mention it now so I don’t have to in each review. Enjoy!

Cutthroat Caverns (2007 by IELLO & Smirk & Dagger Games)

Designer: Curt Covert

download

Cutthroat Caverns is a strange beast, it has the appearance and mechanics of a warm up game but really this is a robust and despite simple mechanics fairly thinky game. It’s really all about fucking over your friends and that alone means it belongs in your collection and reason enough to love it. The truth is however that it’s a fantasy (D&D like) game of fighting monster and every time I play it, it reminds me of those classic AD&D moments where players weren’t just cooperating to solve the many problems of a dungeon crawls but trying to manipulate the events in their favor so that their character walked out with the loot. Some foolishly compare it to munchkin and while It has built in humor and silliness there is some weight behind the game, a bit of actual gameplay. I’m surprised to find it ranked so low on boardgamegeek.com because this is really a true gem and must own game for fans of the genre. If the game has any faults it’s that as an opener it can run a bit long, but it doesn’t overstay its welcome in my humble opinion.

Verdict: Highly recommended if you love take that games with a fantasy theme and have hilarious friends with a plethora of inside jokes and great banter.

Conquest of Nerath (2011 by Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast)

Designer: Richard Baker, Mons Johnson, Peter Lee

conquest

Richard Baker is actually one of my favorite writers/designers that worked for Wizards of the Coast, among his many wonderful creations he is the man who brought us the Stardrive campaign setting for the Alternity roleplay game with which I fully intend to be buried!

Conquest of Nerath is a D&D fantasy spin on old school classics like Axis & Allies, Shogun and Fortress America but with modern mechanics. I love it for its theme, its Asymmetrical gameplay and the fact that it’s a straight forward unapologetic war game. Sure it might not be the most balanced of games and it certainly has a few places where it could use some polishing but it looks beautiful on the table, it’s furiously fast paced and constantly puts you into tough push your luck decisions. In my humble opinion this is one of the most underrated and unappreciated games to come out of Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast. You have to love a war game that starts and finishes in under 3 hours yet gives you the full bodied feel of games that historically go 6+ hours. I have read a great many reviews on this game and the complaints are justified from a design perspective but gaming isn’t always about pure balance and I find it outrageous that reviewers & boardgamegeek ratings find fault with Conquest of Nerath (rated 1037 on BBG) but give similar games like Runewars (rated 100 on BBG) a pass. Are you fucking kidding, Runewars is outright broken as fuck, it is a complete failure as a game, my mind is boggled! There is opinion and there is objective and responsible reviewing, and in this case it’s a complete injustice, Conquest of Nerath kicks the shit out of Runewars any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

Verdict: If you want a fantasy war game with Asymmetrical gameplay this is about as good as they come. It’s by no stretch of the imagination a flawless execution but if you go by BBG ratings and buy alternatives be ready to be horribly disappointed, this is THE premiere fantasy war game.

Galaxy Trucker (2007 Czech Games Edition)

pic1214655_md
Designer: Vladda “Never Fails” Chvatil

Ok I will say this upfront, Galaxy Trucker is not a serious game and the normal rules for reviewing a board game simply do not apply. It’s not fair, it’s not balanced, it is random and by traditional definitions it’s barely a game. Despite all that, if you have a sense of humor and good group of friends who don’t mind playing a game just for shits and giggles it creates, look no further. Galaxy Trucker is a silly exercise in futility which simply challenges you to get stupidly lucky enough to survive it. Yet despite it all, if you play it enough you will actually find that there is some element of control, it’s definitely an illusion, but clever folk will win this game more often than not. In the end it’s just good clean fun and what is a board game night about if not laughing your ass off at your friends as they fail miserably at the hands of the gods of dice. I have and always will love Galaxy Trucker for the countless memorable nights it has created in my gaming group and there is absolutely no question that there should be room in your collection for this one. If you don’t like Galaxy Trucker, you probably want to re-evaluate your life and your friends, just saying.

Verdict: A classic romp of silliness that will, assuming you have a pulse and a sense of humor liven up any board game night, grumpy Euro gamers stay as far away from this one as possible.

Game of Thrones The Card Game 2nd Edition (2015 by Fantasy Flight Games)

Designer: Nate French, Eric M. Lang

game of thrones

Game of Thrones the card game is frustratingly perfect, it’s the only way I know how to describe it. It is a serious game in my opinion, one that will have you trying to read people’s mind, raise you out of your chair in frustration and give you nightmares while simultaneously challenging you to your wits end. This is not a game for everyone, it really is complex, not in the sense of rules but depth of play, a game that inspires a tremendous amount of thought and will have your head spinning before, during and after you play. This really was THE game of the weekend in my opinion, a game that drew out everyone’s best effort. It really does help a great deal if you are a Game of Thrones fan, without that backdrop while I think it would still be a hit with most card game fans, many of the moments of the game probably won’t have the same flare. This game is dripping with theme, for a fan, you might want to buy the cards even if you don’t ever play the game because the art is that damn good.

Verdict: If you (a serious gamer) and especially if you are a Game of Thrones fan and play/buy only one game this year, this most defiantly should be that game. Game of Thrones the card game (2nd edition) is a masterpiece. Lightweights need not apply.

Shadows over Camelot (2005 by Days of Wonders)

Designer: Cyrille Daujean, Julien Delval

traitor

Shadows over Camelot on the surface is a cooperative, player vs. the game type of game with mechanics most hardened gamers might find almost oversimplified. There is a lot of randomness here but despite that if it were not for the potential of a betrayer this would be a fairly easy game to beat cooperatively. In the end though it really is about the betrayer and it’s really this secret player, real or imagined, that creates the atmosphere that catapults this game into a completely different gaming sphere.

Everyone at the table knows that if there is a betrayer he is going to nail them at the worst possible moment and so you spend as much time playing the game as you do trying to figure who in the end is going to screw you and it is this simple twist that pulls this game out of the yawn it would be otherwise and into a fun and mostly paranoid experience.

I think the great thing about Camelot is that it’s so simple mechanically that it really lives in the realm of every day family games. This really is something even mom and dad could play as an alternative to the drudgery of traditional Monopoly-infused boredom. Yet there is sufficient weight here for proper gamers and we experienced that to its fullest this weekend where Camelot really shined as a highlight of the weekend creating a memorable betrayer reveal in the final tense moments of the game. Quick, easy to learn yet creates an atmosphere of anxiety and stress that is just right for gamers of all walks of life.

Verdict: A great game for a gamer’s collection to pull out as an alternative to traditional family/dinner party games that is certain to be a hit yet with sufficient weight to get table time with board game fanatics.

Archipelago (2012 by Asmodee Games)

Designer: Vincent Boulanger, Imsael Pommaz, Chris Quilliams

arch

I had very high hopes for Archipelago this weekend, my group and I have talked about it many times and it’s something I put up on my shelf largely after high recommendation from reviewers like Shut up and Sit Down which I respect greatly. In the end though this really was a moderate disappointment that landed pretty flat with me.

While there are plenty of salvageable mechanics and interesting concepts, this thematically edgy worker placement game was simultaneously fiddly, visually bi-polar with unpredictable winning conditions and really disappointing player interaction. Every mechanic had either an “it’s almost good” feel to it, was marred by oddly misshapen components, strange unnatural rules or bizarrely heavy handed special powers. It was always uncertain who was actually winning, the game ending conditions ranged from “never going to happen” to “It WILL happen in round X, a prediction you can make in round 1”. It was just very odd and didn’t play out at all as described by the reviewers who’s recommendation led me to the purchase. Now I will say that I think we probably got several of the rules wrong, despite me doing several test plays well in advance and that likely contributed to my confusion and disappointment. Still it just didn’t have the result I was looking and hoping for.

I do believe this game deserves a second chance though, I think as a group we really weren’t sure exactly how we should interact, whether the game was truly cooperative, or competitive and exactly how it is you actually find a route to victory here. I don’t think it was a bad game and I honestly feel compelled to play it again because I have this nagging feeling that as a group we really just missed it but for us after all the great and memorable games we had played to this point over the weekend this one really stood out as the big dud.

Verdict:  Uncertain, definitely deserves a second chance but first impressions are not great.

Pillars of the Earth (2006 by lots of people including Kosmos)

I love it when game designers understand that game pieces can be functional and cool at the same time.  The use of a cathedral made out of wooden blocks to act as a turn counter is thematic and fun.

Designer: Michael Rieneck, Stefan Stadler

For me personally, Pillars of the Earth is THE definitive worker placement game in terms of classic, solidified Euro gaming that actually caters to human beings without the need for a calculator. Ok, perhaps that’s mean but most Euro worker placement games I just find dreadfully boring. While Pillars of the Earth’s subject matter is not exactly awe inspiring, there is something about it’s simple and fast paced gameplay that speaks to me. It’s a thinky strategy game with just enough luck to mix things up but not so much that clever players can’t get a hold of the reigns and win it.

I think most of the gaming group enjoyed the game “sufficiently” and It did create one of the most hysterical one liners of the weekend which I won’t repeat as pretty much everything that happened this weekend most would consider horribly offensive but I don’t think this is what most of my gaming group would consider “Their bag”. They humored me and I appreciated it because I really do think this is a little hidden gem, one I will happily play anytime.

Verdict:  A classic, its as simple as that.  If you are new to the hobby, this is a good place to start your education and a game that will remain in your collection indefinitely.

Dead of Winter (2014 by Plaid Hat Games)

Designer: Jonathan Gilmour, Isaac Vega

dead of winter

Amidst a theme that is so played out that it can basically fuck off, Dead of Winter puts a spin on Zombie survival that has not only made it a house hold name among gamers everywhere, but was the only game of our big gaming weekend that was demanded a second time!

Dead of Winter has the same thing going for it that Camelot does, but in my humble opinion does it 10 times better while maintaining the same mechanical simplicity that a casual gamer can instantly pick up. It’s the Betrayer tension, that’s where it’s at, but in Dead of Winter the betrayer has to be clever because not only does he have to ensure everyone loses, he must first complete his own mission, which is hard, really really hard. He needs the survivors at the start of the game as much as they need him so he is initially motivated to actually help the players survive. More than that though I think in big part the game itself is actually very difficult in its own right so there is a good chance that even with everyone helping, betrayer included you will still lose the game and I love that aspect of it. I also really love the fact that there is the group victory, aka beating the game and the motivating push of trying to accomplish your own personal objective. So you not only have the betrayer screwing the colony but potentially even the players that are supposed to be ensuring its survival as they greedily try to complete their own missions. Fantastic concept for the win!

I recall the first couple of times I played this game I thought it was ok, it didn’t blow me away or anything but after this weekend I have joined the ranks of pretty much everyone else in endorsing this one. It really is as fantastic as everyone says it is and after the first game we played I found myself being the eager beaver shouting out “again.. again…!”

Verdict: If you like cooperative games with betrayers, this really is THE game for it. The theme may be played out but the writing and mechanics for this game are so good it just blows everything else out there out of the water.

Lords of Water Deep (with Scoundrels of Skullport) (2012 Wizards of the Coast)

Designer: Peter Lee, Rodney Thompson

lords_of_waterdeep_inter

Lords of Water Deep is a worker placement game and in a sense very much a traditional one with the caveat that there are plenty of take that mechanics and theme to bring it into the realm of Ameri-Trash games. The truth is the lines are blurred and who really gives a crap about those labels anyway. The only question is, is it a good game and the answer is a resounding yes as long as you use the expansion. I recall playing this game a couple of times without the expansion and frankly it’s a fairly dull affair. Those corruption mechanics, the cards, buildings and worker placement spots that it brings give this game a second life.

I have played a lot of Lords of Waterdeep, it really is a kind of staple game for our group and I’m certain it would have landed a bit better if it wasn’t played at the tail end of a very long gaming weekend but to me the game has lost some of its spit shine. I think it’s mostly from simply having played it so many times which is not to say I don’t think it’s a fantastic game, because I really do think it is, it just doesn’t rank that terribly high on my must play list anymore in a backdrop of the 30+ games sitting on my shelf. I think if you like worker placement games, this is an absolute must own with the caveat again that you have the expansion which I think is absolutely mandatory. There is plenty of depth and tension, the intrigue cards really add a lot to the game and unlike most worker placement games it actually has a theme that comes to life in the game. Great game but came a bit late in the weekend and might be a bit played out for me.

Verdict: A classic must own worker placement game if you’re a fan of the mechanic, Scoundrels of Skullport is an absolute must own expansion.

Russian Railroads by Z-man Games 2013

Designers: Helmut Ohley & Leonhard “Lonny” Orgler

Final Score: christmas_starhalfstar (1.6 out 5 Stars)

When it comes to worker placement games there are lots and lots of options and lots of variations on the mechanic , proven by the countless designs that have flooded the board game market in the last few years. Worker placement games and games with worker placement mechanics have become practically a staple go too mechanic in design today, in fact there are so many that I will be doing a top 10 worker placement game list in the near future.

Russian Railroads definitely caught my interest very early on but I was very wary of the reviews of this game because while it scored high with most reviewers, the common underlining comment was that the game had virtually nothing to do with railroads thematically. Being a big theme guy, this really was a bit of a turn off but thanks to the wonders of digital platforms and the magic of Yucata.de I was able to play many games of Russian Railroads online and it’s now time to review this beast in all its glory.

It’s important to note however that this will be one of the first games I review based on digital (online) play only and while I personally think this makes absolutely no difference with the exception of discussions about component quality, some might differ in opinion about that so in the interest of full disclosure, well, there you have it.

Overview

Russian Railroads puts players in the role of a train company manager using a very classic and very standard worker placement mechanic. In fact, Russian Railroads as a game can be described without any extra wording as a worker placement game as this is what it is, nothing less and nothing more. To win you must score points, the abstracted representation of success and to score points you must wisely use the wide variety of worker placement spots to advance your railroad business. Whether its upgrading your trains, hiring engineers, building tracks or advancing your factories, most elements of a railroad business is represented here. Abstracted to be sure and without a game map commonly found in Railroad games, Russian Railroads is like many worker placement games, a race for victory points through resource management. Your main resource being of course your workers, the lose representation of your workforce and effort as a company. Sounds pretty thematic on paper, but does it hold up in play?

It looks like a worker placement games, plays like a work placement game and is a work placement game, no more no less.
It looks like a worker placement games, plays like a work placement game and is a work placement game, no more no less.

Components

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

Pros: Colorful art work, streamlined easy to understand iconography.

Cons: The art work goes to waste on a game which fails to connect its theme and gameplay rendering the thematic art work pointless.

Again, since I did not ever hold the actual copy of the game in my hand, I can’t comment much on the quality of components here other than the art and aesthetics of the game. I have confirmed with several friends and colleagues who told me they were very satisfied with the components, calling them sturdy and built to last. No real surprise as component quality has become less and less of an issue with published games from well-respected companies like Z-man games.

I don’t ever place much emphasis on game components when it comes to worker placement games, typically you’re dealing with cubes and meeples and Russian Railroads is no different. What is absolutely vital for Russian Railroads is the art work, it’s vital because this is the only link to the Railroad theme the game has as many reviewers point out and I can confirm.

Its colorful and looks nice on the table, you can't fault its aesthetic appeal, but like most Euro games its not going to blow you away.
Its colorful and looks nice on the table, you can’t fault its aesthetic appeal, but like most Euro games its not going to blow you away.

The only real connection between game-play and theme in this game is the fact that the pictures on the components, depict, railroad stuff. You have engineer and train tokens, there are pictures of railway tracks and components that look kind of like railroad blocks. Suffice to say however while the art work is good, it’s insufficient to carry the games theme without the thematic connection to the gameplay which I will cover more in the theme section of this review. The important thing to note here is that the art is creative, colorful and the iconography clear and streamlined to relative simple identification once you get the jist of the iconography patterns. It doesn’t take long before you can easily identify the meaning of everything on the board and card and or deduce the meaning. In this regard Russian Railroad does a great job and I certainly give it credit for making this simple.

The components can be said to pass with flying colors and on par with what you can expect from a great company like Z-man games. I put very little weight in this part of the game reviewer and so its impact on the final score is very minimal but I’m very happy to see the days of Euro games with ugly artwork and flimsy components is well behind us.

Theme

Verdict: christmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Railroads are a cool theme that doesn’t scare off casual players.

Cons: The theme is just a ruse; this game has very little if anything at all to do with Russia or Railroads.

While again I would not place theme in the forefront of a worker placement game, when you choose a popularized theme like Railroads you are in essence banking on players choosing this worker placement game over others because of the theme. In a sense there is a bit of trickery here because Russian Railroads has about as much to do with the railroads thematically as a railroad themed deck of poker cards. Sure there are pictures of trains on the cards and game board, but mechanically speaking the game is so far removed from the theme it actually makes it feel a bit scandalous to use it.

Suffice to say this was a huge disappointment for me in particular since I love train stuff and I’m always on the lookout for an interesting take on railroad themed games. Russian Railroads is so focused on being a worker placement victory point puzzle that any element of the railroad theme gets virtually washed away and really even the game board itself from an artistic stand point is quite unclear what exactly the abstractions are supposed to be representing. You place workers on spots like 3 black spaces which allow you to move your black colored track, which I guess mean that you are building a section of the rail and the different colored tokens are different speeds or quality of rails? I don’t know, it’s all quite fuzzy even as an abstraction it makes little connection to the theme and even the manual makes little effort to explain or justify any element of that theme.  Its a all business Euro, you put down meeple workers to score points, what anything represents has little explanation or point to it.

Since there was a grand total of ZERO Russian things in the original, I don't really understand the point of adding a German railroads expansion.
Since there was a grand total of ZERO Russian things in the original, I don’t really understand the point of adding a German railroads expansion.

At the end of the day, the theme here is almost completely non-existent, this game is a worker placement puzzle, you will not get to do any fun train stuff you might hope for given the cover and the claim on the box where “Players compete to build the largest and most advanced railway network”.   Given that the extent of competition is that you are denied a spot to put a worker when someone else already put one there, its hardly a competition.  Yeah ok, abstractions are abstractions, but I guess what I’m saying is that there is no sign of the economic, construction or chu-chu part of the railroad theme here. It’s a game about railroads because there are pictures of railroads on the game board and that really is the extent of the connection.

I think the disappointment comes mostly from the missed opportunities to leverage such a great theme.

Gameplay

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: There is considerable variation in how the game plays with different amounts of players remaining as interesting with 2 players as it is with 3 or 4.

Cons: Very bland and basic worker placement mechanic with very few dynamics or surprises.

One would hope that a game that lacks theme makes up for it with great gameplay, in fact as far as worker placement games go, traditionally this is the case. Unfortunately Russian Railroads is banking largely on the popularity of the mechanic so heavily it fails on every other level to innovate or even make use of more updated existing innovations of the mechanic. It basically takes the core concept from its earliest conception, placing workers on spots that score points and takes it no further.

Before I start bitching, the good stuff. This is a solid implementation of the classic worker placement mechanic as far as the options you get. It feels tight and every action you take really counts, so you are put to some fairly difficult choices at times, though this sense of tough choices is short lived. It is a puzzle and a fairly complex one, which offers players plenty to experiment with and explore, which in turn makes the first few games of Russian Railroads pretty interesting for fans of worker placement games in particular. In fact, this may be the most complex and involved victory point mash I have seen yet and while it fails to inspire a theme or innovate in its genre by adding something new to the table, it does what it does very well.

Unfortunately that is not enough to carry the game,  it really landed very flat with me. In fact I think if you have played Voyage of Marco Polo, Lords of Waterdeep, Pillars of the Earth, Stone Age.. even Caverna, you will find the worker placement element of this game fairly bland and uninspired both from gameplay perspective and an objective design perspective. Sure it’s an interesting puzzle as all worker placement games generally are, but there isn’t a whole lot more to it, there is no dynamic or shifting options from game to game,  what you see on the surface in the first game is all there is and all there ever will be. Once that puzzle is solved, there really isn’t much else to draw upon.

The game really does boil down to you placing down workers and collecting victory points, there is almost nothing else going on in this game. Worse yet is that there are obvious patterns of play every round, where one player will grab the first player spot, one player will grab the money spot and one player will grab the available engineer, elements of the puzzle you will catch onto quickly in particular when playing with experienced players that know what they are doing. This pattern repeats itself in a round robin circus as this is the one and only good opening move to make in almost all cases and your order in this sequence determines which of the three choices you will make.

Sure there is some variance, occasionally an engineer is not worth taking, or you might be better of grabbing one of the other spots over going first next round or taking money, but in as a whole there is a sort of sequence of uninteresting events that open most rounds. From there you’re really just grabbing whatever spots are available that enhance the strategy you chose pretty much at the start of the game. Which brings me to the other problem, in almost all games once you figure out what Engineers you will get based on the round robin sequence you can calculate in advance you will know what strategy you will go with to the conclusion of the game and in essence prioritize what spots you will take each round with your workers. The strategy really then becomes about trying to figure out what your opponents strategy is (or will be) and taking beneficial action when you can and taking action to deny your opponent beneficial actions when you can’t take one for yourself.  I guess this is what qualifies as competition in Russian Railroads, but it feels less like a competition between Railroad Barons and more of a competition between two mathematicians.

Sure there is some interesting choices now and again and certainly when playing with experienced players this puzzle can become fairly complex and sometimes even dynamic. It isn’t enough to carry the game though, in particular since any choice you make will have some form of alternative so while you can sometimes slow opponents down you really can’t stop them. Experienced players will generally focus on simply finding the fastest route to their method of scoring and among experienced players the game really becomes more of a race.

This may draw some interest at first as you try to figure out the pattern in the novelty of it all, but after a couple of games you will have unlocked the puzzle and the game really becomes a monotonous game of choosing from many choices with one very obvious best option you must clearly make each time your action comes up. You feel neither like an operator of a railroad or like you’re making decisions and more like you are working according to a pre-ordained plan adjusting only when someone does something unexpected, typically when a less experienced player makes a mistake or a more experienced player catches on to your strategy and diverts his attention to blocking you rather than doing something beneficial for his own strategy.

If you really must try it, save yourself some money and try it for free at Yucata.de where you will find a great implementation of the game.
If you really must try it, save yourself some money and try it for free at Yucata.de where you will find a great implementation of the game.

The novalty wears of quickly with Russian Railroads. It’s unfortunate that Russian Railroads did not leverage some of the more interesting worker placement mechanics that came before it like Lords of Waterdeeps quest cards and Lord cards which could easily be adapted in Russian Railroads as Baron cards and mission cards just as an example. Instead Russian Railroads went with the very stuffy and largely uninteresting ultra-simple worker placement mechanic with little else driving it or evolving through the course of play. Other than the very limited engineers you don’t unlock anything interesting, there are no deviations, or randomized elements to mix things up and for the most part there is kind of a packing order of devolving options, getting less interesting with each passing round. Very dry stuff.

One of the big failures of Russian Railroads as well is that it’s really tough to catch up and very unfriendly to beginners, if a player gets ahead on points, in particular on the points earned per round where its cumulative, a game can be effectively over halfway through. This is something that happens quite easily in particular when experienced and inexperienced mix making this a poor choice for mixed groups.

You ultimately want to play with already experienced players, but as you’re showing people how to play they are going to have to drudge through 2 or 3 games before the strategies kind of click into place and they can offer something that resembles competition for you. Worse than that though is that the game is not intuitive despite being very simple, so it takes a couple of games before you have any idea how the engine works and it’s easy to make a mistake that will take several rounds to correct by which time, again, you are so far behind that the game is effectively over.

In the end the conclusion is that pretty much every worker placement game I have played in the last 10 years has better game play than this one and no one is more surprised than me because this game rates so high with so many reviewers and gaming communities. I was really kind of hoping to have found a gem in the rough. In particular something coming out of Z-man games.

Replay ability and Longevity

Verdict: christmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: You can play it for free on Yucuta.de with a wide variety of opponents of different skill levels allowing you to explore replay-ability of this game to its fullest extent.

Cons: You discover the game has virtually no replay-ability and thank Yucuta.de for saving you some money.

Another huge fail in my opinion and as a worker placement game this will have the greatest impact on the game’s final score. In short, there is very little longevity here.  After you have played this game 2 or 3 times there really is nothing of interest that will either surprise or delight you. I played this game at least 20 times to be sure, in fact I kept hoping that at some point I would discover some new strategy, some new puzzle piece or string to pull on but in the end it really is kind of a shallow game. I can’t recall a single memorable moment or a close game that wasn’t pre-ordained early on, In fact by round 2 or 3 I knew whether I would win or lose in most games and the final rounds where players largely just going through the motion.

I suppose the one nice element of the games replay-ability is that the game really changes a great deal when you play with different amounts of players. It’s a very different puzzle as the boards themselves are actually different for different player counts with 2, 3 or 4 players, so you could conceivably extend its life and explore the new challenges different amounts of players produce. In the end though, there just isn’t enough variation in the game to sustain multiple replays, given that there are so many wonderful worker placement games with innovative and interesting mechanics, a simplistic and straightforward variant like this really just doesn’t hold up.

Conclusion

Russian Railroads is a highly acclaimed and often well-spoken of game but like many Euro games I have a tough time explaining why that is. Like Settlers of Catan, Agricola, and Puerto Rico it just falls into that category of games where most people seem to love them and I just don’t. I really think as you read this review you have to consider the reviewer. If you love Agricola and Puerto Rico and don’t understand why someone doesn’t, Russian Railroads might turn out to be a great pick for you. I do think it’s worth pointing out however that there is a difference between disliking a game and objectively believing it’s a mediocre design. For example I do believe Agricola and Puerto Rico are or perhaps better to say were innovative designs for their time, If I reviewed them I would expect them, despite my dislike for them, to get good reviews from me. I guess the point I’m making is that I didn’t just look at Russian Railroads and decide I don’t like it and gave it a bad review, I think it really does lack the elements that great board games have. Whether I like it or not.

Russian Railroads is neither innovative, clever or interesting and I believe very objectively that it’s just not a very well designed game.

Sure it has good structure, it’s streamlined and balanced, but that’s not a selling point of a game in today’s world of designer board games, that is an expectation from every game. These are automatic. A great design must be innovative, must add something to the genre, must have some dynamics and cleverness to it. None of those descriptive terms can be applied to Russian Railroads, it is by very definition of the word a very status quo game, relying on the most basic elements of worker placement game design. Worse yet its implementation is so far removed from the theme, there is hardly a point of pretending that its somehow relevant to the game.

I can’t recommend this game, even to worker placement fans. The list of fantastic worker placement games is long and distinguished, Russian Railroads is just not among them.

7 Wonders Duel By Repos Production 2015

Designers:  Antoine Bauza & Bruno Cathala

Final Score: christmas_starchristmas_starhalfstar (2.5 out 5 Stars)

When 7 Wonders the card game originally released it did so to great acclaim and positive reviews. It was the talk of the town and it seemed like it was being played everywhere, all the time. When I finally got around to trying it, it sort of landed flat with me. It had some interesting mechanics and all together not a bad game but it just didn’t stir a whole lot of interest in me or my group. Hence when the opportunity to try 7 Wonders Duel I wasn’t expecting a whole lot out of it. Today we take a quick peek at this alternative two player version of 7 Wonders and see if its anymore interesting then the original.

Overview

In 7 Wonders players will be trying to build 4 Wonders by drafting cards from a structured card pyramid as part of a general effort to score the most points and/or win the game with an immediate victory by completing one of two objectives. It’s effectively a game about gathering resources then applying those resources to building things that either directly score or lead to scoring points. It’s the same premise as the original, but designed specifically for two players with some altered mechanics to make the core concept of 7 wonders work better as a two player game.

There are three different ways to win the game. The first is scoring the most points at the end of the game which is how most games will finish. The second and third is a science or military victory in both cases its effectively just about building sufficient amount of science or military cards to overwhelm your opponent. More difficult, but very possible alternatives.

It's a colorful game and looks great on the table, but this is an abstract game, the art is just to be pretty.
It’s a colorful game and looks great on the table, but this is an abstract game, the art is there just to be pretty.

The game shares many of the mechanics and concept from the original game so 7 Wonder players will take to the iconography and mechanics very quickly and of course being a two player game it’s much, much faster. There are however sufficient changes to the mechanics, most notably the way card drafting works that really make the game significantly different enough that liking its big brother doesn’t necessarily mean you will like this one and of course vice versus as was the case with me.

Components

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Good components made to last, nice clear art eases and streamlines play, good use of Iconography.

Cons: No complaints, they got it right in 7 Wonders and simply copied the same success to 7 Wonders Duels.

In essence the component quality is almost identical to that of 7 wonders, which is to say it’s built to last, shares the same art and maintains that bright eye candy feel. That said there is nothing particularly spectacular about the components, it’s clear that the design is largely geared towards clear functionality rather than anything else. Which is a good thing, since the game is so abstract it’s far more important to be able to identify and grasp the iconography and colorization of the cards then to be able to identify its thematic meaning.

Game publishing has gotten to the point where putting out good components is the norm, there are no more valid excuses. 7 Wonders Duel components are sturdy and attractive and that is to be expected.
Game publishing has gotten to the point where putting out good components is the norm, there are no more valid excuses. 7 Wonders Duel components are sturdy and attractive and that is to be expected.

I always look at component grades and ask myself, what could have been done better and the truth is outside of perhaps more focus on aesthetically appeal, this is effectively a card game with tokens and what is here is well thought out, organized, easy to identify and despite fairly heavy iconography actually very simple to deduce and adapt to. Easily a passing grade, but it’s not going to blow you away.

Theme

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

Pros: The theme is mostly irrelevant to the success of the game, but Civilization building aesthetically works well.

Cons: This is an abstract game, the theme is very thin.

It’s an abstract card game about Civilization building but the extent of its abstraction really renders it mostly irrelevant and really as you play the game you are never going to have any sense of a theme. The art is there just to be pretty but the game really could have been about anything. The fact that it is about Civilization building however actually works quite well at least in terms of the aesthetic appeal.

Given its intended theme and beautiful art you almost wish the theme was more present, but ultimately this is an abstract strategic card game and you won't care about the theme 30 seconds into the game.
Given its intended theme and beautiful art you almost wish the theme was more present, but ultimately this is an abstract strategic card game and you won’t care about the theme 30 seconds into the game.

In the end though you are not going to focus on the theme when playing this game, it really is all about the mechanics and play here.

Gameplay

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Simple to grasp, plenty of tactical decisions, doesn’t over stay its welcome.

Cons: While it has no major flaws that I was able to note the game itself wasn’t good enough for my personal shelf.

This is really where all of the 7 Wonder Duel thunder is. The game is very simple in terms of mechanics and the choices are never terribly hard but as a light card game it has some smarts and gamers and casual gamers alike are going to find plenty to contemplate.

The removal of the round robin card drafting in place of the pyramid drafting mechanic I think is golden, it’s actually the core reason I didn’t really care for the original 7 Wonders. I actually wish the original used this mechanic because it’s really a significant improvement. Memorization games are really not my thing and in the original game it was so vital to be able to keep track of what is in each deck that is passed around, in a 3 or 4 player game this became increasingly difficult to the point where you really almost ignore it and just pick the card you want dissipating any strategic intention of the card draft. In Duels with the pyramid drafting you are making decisions on information you have and that makes this a much smarter game.

The Pyramid drafting is such a huge improvement over the original 7 Wonders round robin drafting to the point where you wish they would make a 7 Wonder Duel multiplayer version.
The Pyramid drafting is such a huge improvement over the original 7 Wonders round robin drafting to the point where you wish they would make a 7 Wonder Duel multiplayer version.

The resource management, combat and science portion of the game works similar though not exactly as it did in 7 Wonders and these mechanics are really just straightforward and intuitive. The military and science victories are difficult to achieve because they are fairly easy to block, but often simply by threatening someone with one or the other victory forces their hand which can disrupt their plans and open up opportunities for you. This is a really clever system and it works well to create tension and tactical choices. In essence you often take cards you don’t need or absolutely have to take to block or slow down an opponent. It can sometimes get a bit mathy but usually decisions are driven by your strategy and/or by trying to block your opponent’s strategy. Same principle as 7 Wonders except you aren’t punished for having the memory of a gold fish, you make decisions based on what’s in front of you.

The game is also quick, I think we finished our first play in under 20 minutes, though I suspect as you become more skilled at the game your speed will actually reduce as you start to understand and ultimately analyze the information you’re presented with. Speed is important for card games, slow card games usually don’t work particularly well for me, especially abstract ones, so Duels really falls into that sweet spot of tactical choices and speed.

I have to admit, I’m at a loss to point out any major faults with the game, it really just comes down to how much I like it rather than a comparison of the good vs. the bad elements. I don’t think Duels is a game going into my collection but I certainly don’t mind playing it. The fact that it’s not going into my collection however is not the result of any portions of gameplay being bad, just that while interesting and fun, doesn’t really reach for the stars and I like to keep my collection tight. The only thing going in there are things that absolutely blow me away and Duels really didn’t ever hit that high. For fans of 7 Wonders though, I think this is going to be well worth the cheap retail price to get into.

Replay ability And Longevity

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Great dynamic game with plenty of strategies to explore.

Cons: It’s a simple card game, it got boring after just a few replays.

This is the mecha for Euro and abstract games especially, they really have to have solid replay ability and I actually think Duels does quite well here. Each game is going to be quite unique given the mixtures of Wonders, Cards and science tokens. Each game has to be approached with a “let’s see what we got” kind of approach, there is no puzzle to solve here, or at least not as far as the game is concerned as a whole goes. You certainly solve plenty of puzzles for each specific game, but that puzzle is very different every time.

The first time we played it I immediately wanted to play again and then again, so the game  starts out with that addictive Euro game nature, though its simplicity and speed make this a far better candidate for a phone app or online version rather than a game night type game. When we were done however, I feel fairly certain if I never play it again I won’t feel it’s absence which is not to say it doesn’t have replay ability, but definitely lacks longevity.  It just didn’t have anything particularly special about it that you would want to pull it out with any frequency. It’s a pretty decent 2 player filler for those nights when friends show up late.  In the end however we got bored really fast with it, I was tempted to give it 3 stars and I would have if I had any desire to play it again, but the magic is just not there.

Conclusion

7 Wonders Duel is 7 Wonders for 2 players, they have captured the same concept and made clever alterations to the existing 7 Wonders game for two players. I think you can say mission accomplished here because I’m pretty sure that is exactly what they were going for with this design. It’s a simple card game and while that really isn’t my thing, I do think most 7 Wonders fans are going to appreciate it. I did enjoy it a great deal more than 7 Wonders and more than I thought I would, in fact I will go out on a limb here and say that if you didn’t like 7 Wonders mechanically but liked it conceptually, Duels is a far better implementation and you might really enjoy this version of 7 Wonders. I think that’s largely due to the change in the drafting mechanic going from memorization style to the pyramid, decision, style mechanic.

It’s always hard to review simple card games because there isn’t much to say about them other than “yes I like it” or “No I don’t”, in the case of 7 Wonders Duel, it’s definitely a “Yes”, but no so much that I would clear shelf space for it.

 

Stone Age by Zman Games 2008

Designer: Bernd Brunnhofer

Final Score: christmas_starchristmas_star3.9Stars (2.9 out 5 Stars)

When I first heard about this game I was not terribly thrilled, it appeared to be yet another of the “farming” line of Euro games that lean on the worker placement mechanic to create yet another way to move wooden cubes around for victory points. Suffice to say we already have the Agricola, Terra Mystica and Caverna’s of the world and I really didn’t the see the point in another one. Still through word of mouth I’m constantly asked about this game and it just seemed silly not to review it given that the game already has a variety of implementations online not to mention has remained in heavy print since release.

Now sometimes these worker placement games do pleasantly surprise me, Pillars of the Earth for example remains one of my favorite with some sturdy gameplay, as well as Lords of Waterdeep which packs a surprisingly large amount of theme in a cube pusher and take that mechanic. How does Stone Age hold up? Let’s find out.

Overview

Stone Age is kind of your standard worker placement fair with a few twists that separate it to make it its own thing. Each player starts the game out with 5 workers which can be used in a variety of worker placement spots to earn resources most of which you use to score points and others like food you need for survival of your little Stone Age village. The trick is that the resources aren’t guaranteed, you roll 1d6 die for each worker placed on a resource spot and depending on the type of resource (some are harder to get then others) the amount you get is based on a 6d roll. You can supplement rolls with tools which is another type of resource you can gather through the worker placement mechanic. For the most part however the game boils down to trying to figure out how to get the resources you need to score points, nothing particularly revolutionary or inspired.

You can try Stone Age for free at boardgamearena.com . There is also an Iphone app available.
You can try Stone Age for free at boardgamearena.com . There is also an Iphone app available.

What resources you need varies from round to round as two separate types of cards are available for purchase. One type requires different combinations of resources to score points directly and the other type has you collecting the card for the end game scoring, on these cards you score for collecting certain elements in the game like there might be a card for your village size, your agriculture level etc. They get multiplied the more of these cards you collect so there is strategy to what you kind of go for long term.

All and all the game is simple to understand and not terribly difficult to master as are most of these worker placement games. There is a luck element to the dice rolling but it isn’t terribly overwhelming, usually the player who manages his village the best will ultimately come out on top.

I think defining Stone Age as an entry level worker placement game is a pretty accurate description, because that is exactly what it is.

Component Quality

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

Pros: Colorful and bright play area make it aesthetically pleasing, sturdy components made to last.

Cons: Iconography takes a bit of time to learn, hidden point scoring at the end of the game based on that Iconography make it difficult to know how well you’re doing during the course of the game.

The component quality is quite solid and the design of the components is very intuitive and colorful. There is a sort of stylistic cartoony nature to the bright colored game that is pleasing to the eye. The game Is streamlined from a component perspective with no fiddliness at all giving it a really strong fluid core. I did find that towards the end game there is a fair amount on the table so while this is certainly an entry level game it might not exactly look like one if you see it in late stages.  It looks great on the table however and honestly this is what I wish all Euro games would look like.  When you consider most cube pushers favor mechanics and gameplay over theme and components, adding nice art, good quality components that last and clean organization with lots of thought put into the handling of the game is not too much to ask for.  Stone Age does a fantastic job of presentation in this regard.

There is no denying its visual appeal, its bright, colorful. Its easy to get gaming goggles.
There is no denying its visual appeal, its bright, colorful. Its easy to get gaming goggles.

I think the biggest complaint about the components casual gamers might have is the iconography, it takes a few games to come to grips with it all and while there is a fixed standard where you eventually can figure out what something does based on the understanding what other similar symbols do, there is a bit of a learning curve here, but it’s quite reasonable. It’s not nearly as complicated as one might initially feel it is but it’s going to take some explaining to get it all straight. Since the iconography is vital to understanding scoring in the game though it will be difficult for players to understand whether they are winning or losing until they have a good grip on it. Even then, because players gather so many cards, often it’s difficult to know how your actually doing until the final scoring, more on that later as this falls under mechanics but the fact that it’s all translated in the art I think it’s kind of a combination issue with components and mechanics.

A passing grade to be sure, the leather dice rolling cup is a nice thematic touch.

Theme

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Nice feeling of growth during the course of the game.

Cons: Theme is interchangeable and largely irrelevant to the game.

I don’t expect much in the way of theme in most Euro worker placement games so I was pleasantly surprised that there are some nice touches here. You genuinely have a feeling of growth and building in terms of improvements to your little stone age village. Though as far as theme goes this game could have easily been re-themed to represent just about anything, so there isn’t exactly a feeling of time and place here. It’s a game about Stone Age farming, but really its theme is its art, mechanically you are effectively collecting cubes to use them to score points and there isn’t much on the table or in the course of play that elevates the theme beyond that.

This is a strategy game, one designed around mechanics and resource management so the fact that it has a theme that’s recognizable is more than sufficient for the expectations.

I think for what it is and what it attempts to be, its fine. I don’t expect to get excited about farming in the Stone Age so the fact that the theme is lite really doesn’t deter from the game.

Gameplay

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Great streamlined mechanics keeps everyone engaged, easy to grasp with plenty of tough decisions for everyone to make. Plays well with any amount of players.

Cons: There is a puzzle to solve here, once you solve it, playing against people who haven’t results in wildly diverging end games.

I think this is really where the game shines and I have to admit while my expectations for this game where that it would be a sort of “more of the same”, it actually had some surprising amount of strategy and mechanical elements to keep the game interesting. There is some real mastery here and good players will pounce newbies without mercy. It takes many games to gain this mastery and when you pit room full of experienced players the competition gets very cut throat and the game becomes very thinky. There are no automatic or obvious decisions, strategies vary and change in the course of the game depending on what becomes available. Turn order in particular will affect many of your options and as it rotates the game becomes as much about when you do things as what you do.

There is this “limited” feeling of wanting to do lots of things but only being able to do a small amount of things, so it’s all about stretching your resources and efforts and really building a long term strategy of slowly chipping ahead on points. While there is pretty limited interaction between players the turns are fast and there is a lot of interest in what others do, in fact more often than not your strategy will be a reactive one based on the actions of other players. This effectively nullifies the fact that there is little interaction between the players directly, very nicely done in my opinion.

Iconography is important to understand as its used at the end of the game for scoring. Its confusing at first but becomes intuitive quite fast.
Iconography is important to understand as its used at the end of the game for scoring. Its confusing at first but becomes intuitive quite fast.

I especially liked how you can have a long term strategy but opportunities present themselves occasionally that you just can’t pass up that might actually shift your strategy in later parts of the game. There are times for example when you really want to take a particular point scoring card but you have an opportunity to increase your population or take a card that will prevent a player from scoring points, or sometimes even just something that coincidently will score you a lot of points. There are lots of tough decisions and often one or two mistakes in the course of the game can ultimately result in a victory or a loss, in particular when playing at a table with experienced players. Every action, every moment in the game is important. There is a constant re-assement, you’re always reviewing the board and trying to push what you have to become more valuable.

Unfortunately towards late game it becomes really difficult to know whether you’re winning or not as most of the points are scored during the end game calculation which is too complex to do in your head. You might for example be up 50 points at the end of the game on the scoreboard but your opponent ends up winning by 100 points thanks to a combination of development cards he purchased in the course of the game. This gets a little easier to see with experience but ultimately slows the game down and makes it very mathy when you’re constantly trying to figure out where you and your opponents are at and what moves that you can make that will either hurt your opponent and/or help you. As you develop more advanced strategies the game unlike most actually gets slower as everyone at the table is constantly doing this math in their head as its key to the game. It’s not an uncommon problem in Euro games to have end game scoring and I don’t fault it too much but it does often result in rather un-climatic end game where someone might have been way ahead all along but you just didn’t realize it until the final scoring phase.

That said though the mechanics are simple to understand, difficult to master, fun to execute and relatively easy to teach. It’s also a pretty fast game with a fixed ending so there is very little “stretching” the end game. Stone Age has all the elements of a great Euro and while many games of its ilk functions in a pretty similar manner, Stone Age is very intuitive which might explain its popularity. It’s a great alternative to the boring Catan or played out Ticket To Ride to act as an introduction to board gaming type game.

Replay ability and Longevity

Verdict: christmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: The game can be revitalized in a group of experienced players as the complexity and dynamics come out with experience.

Cons: Once you solve the puzzle, the game becomes repetitive and not terribly entertaining. As an introduction game, mastery of the mechanics has too much influence on results.

Replay-ability is huge for Euro games and unfortunately Stone Age isn’t exactly what I would call an infinitely re-playable game. It does have the speed to act as a light albeit slightly longer filler which helps, in particular since the game plays very well with any amount of players, but its not enough to give this one high marks. It has a pretty short shelf life among experienced players in particular looking for a challenge or pulling out a game for casual gamers as an introduction. There is a puzzle to solve here and once you figure it out it’s not difficult to outscore less experienced opponents by 100+ points which isn’t a particularly great introduction to board gaming for new players.  Its hailed as a great introductory game, but I beg to differ, their is some mastery here and new players are going to get smoked.

Pillars of the Earth is amazing for many reasons but my favorite is that there is no puzzle to solve here, even first time players can be a real challenge to beat.
Pillars of the Earth is amazing for many reasons but my favorite is that there is no puzzle to solve here, even first time players can be a real challenge to beat, one area where Stone Age really fails.

Mastery of a game however is not a fault of a game per say, get a group of experienced players together and they will likely discover new challenges in a game that really is geared more for casual gamers. As such it can sort of come around and I can see that while I wouldn’t want to play it all the time, dusting it off now and again might allow it to live in someone’s collection for a long time.

I think the trouble with Stone Age and this is definitely a personal view is that I already have other, much better worker placement games that most definitely scratch the same itch and have far more dynamics. Stone Age has nothing on Pillars of the Earth for example and even if you want something with a bit of dice chucking, Kingsburg I think is a better choice. For more mathy and complex versions of Stone Age you have games like Russian Railroads or Terra Mystica that take that same sort of worker placement cube pushing point scorer but take it to that next level. I suppose what I’m saying is that when I reach for a game off my shelf that fits the bill that Stone Age would, I’m likely to pick something else and it’s probably related to the fantastic re-playability of those mentioned games. Stone Age doesn’t have that addictive nature where you’re eager to try out different strategies because while there are several routes, there are a few that are definitively better and you are likely to find yourself in a rut during multiple replays.

Conclusion

Stone Age is a fine addition to a Euro Gamers collection and I think it has a colorful and easy to learn presentation that casual gamers will appreciate. For more advanced gamers looking for a challenge Stone Age will start interesting until you unravel the puzzle, at which point it becomes a bit repetitive. You will find yourself making the same standard strategies that work. There is a bit of a rhythm here, after several replays the games start to merge together and nothing terribly memorable happens from then on.

I think Stone Age has some clever versions of existing mechanics, it certainly is worthy of a few play throughs but it’s not one that will find a permanent home in my personal collection. I found Stone Age to be a bit too dependent on mechanics many games that came before it have done a much better job off. I like those mechanics, so seeing them in a new variant in Stone Age was interesting, but ultimately not sufficient to make the plunge.