Review: Arkham Horror - Innsmouth Horror Expansion:: Innsmouth Horror Review (or, Watching Your Friends Pronounce "Y'ha-Nthlei")

Review: Arkham Horror - Innsmouth Horror Expansion:: Innsmouth Horror Review (or, Watching Your Friends Pronounce "Y'ha-Nthlei"): "

by thinwhiteduke

My biases first: I am a big fan of theme in games and do not mind reaching through piles of chits if the theme and game play is good enough. While I do favor confrontation, chits, bits and polished pieces of AT games, there are still a large number of Euros that I'll build my farm on or attend auctions at and be quite content at the end of my experience. I am also a role-player at heart and also a big fan of Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, even to the point where I've eschewed tabletop RPGs and boardgames to don costumes and get involved in some Cthulhu Live LARPs at cons. Arkham Horror is also one of my favorite games and it sees a fair amount of game play with my core group (all of whom are also Lovecraft fans who, save for one, have also been known to LARP the mythos as well).





The Overview:



I will assume that you are familiar with Arkham Horror at this point, so this review will just focus on what the expansion brings to the game. Innsmouth Horror is a 'big box' expansion for Arkham Horror. The expansion adds the city of Innsmouth as a region that can be travelled to in order to continue exploring the mysteries of Arkham. Innsmouth adds a number of dangers that fit into the theme of the Lovecraft Story, 'The Shadow of Innsmouth'. The expansion also expands on the backgrounds of all of the existing character from the base set and the expansions, giving them more personal dangers to manage and maintain while trying to stop the Ancient One.



So far, out of all of the expansions that have come out for Arkham Horror, this one best acknowledges the previous expansions and provides components compatible for the expansions' rules and at the same time does not needlessly water down item decks with unnecessary items.





The Theme:



Arkham Horror is already steeped in theme and this expansion adds to it in a number of ways. Now 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth' isn't one of my favorite Lovecraft stories, but the elements of the tale that are brought into the game work exceedingly well. Innsmouth, for the most part, feels like a city that is already corrupted by a greater evil. Some of the encounters seem a little light compared to the elements in the original story, but working the risk of being arrested into moving around town adds to the theme of oppression.



Also introduced on the Innsmouth board is the Deep Ones Rising track. There are six spaces the Deep Ones Rising side of the track and six spaces on the Feds Raid Innsmouth side of the track. Whenever a gate does not open because of an elder sign on its location or from an investigator’s ability, a token is added to the track. Also, the Innsmouth board has vortexes on it similar to the Dunwich Horror expansion. If a monster moves into a vortex, a token is added to the track. If all six tokens are added, the Ancient One immediately awakens and the final battle begins. However, during their Upkeep, any investigator in an Innsmouth neighborhood can spend 1 or more of their Clue tokens to place a clue token on the Feds Raid Innsmouth side of the track. Once the sixth token is placed, Feds raid Innsmouth and all of the Deep Ones Rising tokens are removed. They can be added again, but it at least slows down the advance.



Perhaps one of the best additions to theme, however, is the Personal Story cards that are introduced in this expansion. Each character from the base game and each of the expansions is given a Personal Story, which expands on the character's background and history and further expands on their reasons for being in Arkham. Each story is different and character specific. Besides just the flavor story, the Personal Story cards have a Pass or Fail trigger on the card and you have the chance to resolve only one of the outcomes. The Pass triggers vary from 'If you have 3 or more Gate Trophies' to 'You may spend X amount of Clue Tokens at X location' to 'If you are Blessed'. However, the Fail trigger acts as the timer, meaning you have to achieve the Pass trigger before the Fail trigger comes up. Fail triggers vary from 'If the Terror Level reaches X' or 'If you are knocked unconscious or driven insane' or 'If there are X amount of Doom Tokens on the Ancient One'. Whichever result occurs first is the one you resolve. Achieving the Pass trigger means something good happens, and depending on the character, it varies in strength and power. However, if the Fail trigger is achieved usually a penalty occurs to the character, often times brutal, but sometimes manageable, depending on the character.



The effect of the Personal Stories, however, is not just a game effect and stat boost or penalty. The stories give flavor and a bit of roleplaying background to the characters you are playing. The other effect, however, is that you find yourself more attached to the character. Sometimes you make decisions to try to pass your story instead of doing the optimal move to stop the Ancient One. This is very thematic and makes the decisions personal. You may find yourself so close to recovering your lost sister, but the Fail trigger is one hand. The other investigators are urging you to ignore the personal story and jump into a gate to close it to try to stave off the Ancient One from awakening. So, do you sacrifice your sister and all you've set up to save her for the greater good? Or do you risk it and save her, but risking the destruction of the city in the process? It's harder to jump in and sacrifice characters now. The Personal Stories help in attaching you to the process of the story and makes the characters a little more real.





Learning the Game:



This is an expansion to Arkham Horror and there are very little rule additions here. The Personal Stories are a very easy mechanic to learn (especially for those who are familiar with Android, which uses the same mechanic). The Deeps Ones Rising Track is easy to understand, but can be easily forgotten in the first couple of games.





The Components:



The expansion introduces the same quality components as in all of the Arkham Horror series. Specific components for the Ancient Ones and Deep Rising Track are included as well as expanding on a number of existing components. What that means is that besides introducing an additional board to the game, Innsmouth Horror also adds the following:

*A New Expansion Board for the city of Innsmouth

*16 New Investigators

*8 New Ancient Ones (plus the corresponding Ancient One Plot Cards)

*2 New Heralds

*42 Innsmouth Location Cards (for 8 New Locations in 3 New Neighborhoods)

*36 Arkham Location Cards (for the Original 26 Locations in the Original 9 Neighborhoods)

*36 Mythos Cards

*26 Gate Cards (though no new Otherworld Locations are introduced)

*48 Sets of Personal Stories Cards (2 for each character from the base and all expansions)

*32 New Monster Markers (5 Ancient One related markers not added to the cup, 2 Mask Monsters, 5 Markers of Monsters introduced in older sets (4 kinds), and 20 Markers for new Monsters (7 kinds)





Playing the Game:



The additions to Arkham Horror mechanic-wise are minimal and easy to manage. However, what this expansion adds is theme.



It is very amazing how much the Personal Stories have added a life to old characters that we have not touched in ages. However, the rest of the game feels the touch of Innsmouth.



I strongly suggest that to really enjoy the game that you remove most of the components of the previous expansions, including the monsters (this gets a better ratio of Aquatic monsters into the mix). One of the ongoing issues with the expansions of AH is that adding too much waters down the experience of each of the expansions, killing a lot of the theme. I've also taken out all of the Arkham Encounter cards from each of the expansions as well. We've kept the Dunwich Horror and Kingsport Horror items and spells in the decks, but have removed almost everything else from those expansions (except for characters, Ancient Ones, Injury and Madness cards and the Ancient One Plot Cards).



Once you find the mix for you (again, I strongly suggest that you consider less is better), you will find the theme and pressure of the Innsmouth experience very strong and very fulfilling.



I also suggest not reading through the Personal Stories until you have the characters in play. Then, only read the first card. Only take and read the Pass/Fail effects after you’'ve achieved one of them. This way, you don’t know if you are sacrificing a lot for a small gain, or inadvertently crippling your character's abilities by not heeding the story close enough.





Scalability:



Innsmouth Horror keeps the same scalability of the base game. While some expansions (such as Kingsport Horror) tend to favor large groups, Innsmouth fits most ranges. My wife and I have played with one investigator each and found it to be a good fit. And we have played with a total of four players with one investigator each and found no problems in the scalability. Innsmouth does not require one player spending all of his time up there as Kingsport did. The only issue that I found that Innsmouth suffers from with fewer investigators is that eventually sneak checks are required to move around in Innsmouth or else the investigator will be arrested. The problem that this poses is that with a smaller assortment of active investigators, you had better plan ahead to make sure that at least one of them has a good sneak skill. Otherwise, Innsmouth will be too brutal in the second half of the game.





Does the Wife Like It?:



The most important category. I play games without her, but she's an integral part of my core gaming group and my most frequent game partner. That being said, Arkham Horror is one of her favorite games (probably in her top three). Innsmouth Horror has revitalized our AH play more than any other expansion that has come out previously. Whenever we would sit down to play, she would usually grab one of her two favorite characters (Rita Young or Daisy Walker) and never think of playing anyone else. Now, she’s taken a new character in each game, curiously uncovering their personal stories and finding a whole new experience with otherwise forgotten and unused characters.





The Pros:



*The most thematic expansion to date.

*More location cards, making them more variable.

*Adds a lot without watering down the base games equipment cards any further.

*Personal Stories revitalizes old characters, balancing some of the 'unbalanced' characters by the effects and costs of their stories.

*Consistently good components.

*New mechanics introduced are easy, flowing, seem natural and are easy to track (unlike portals in Kingsport Horror).

*New Mythos Cards only have gate bursts in Innsmouth, creating a threat and a natural reason to keep going there.





The Cons:



*Requires expansion and deck management to really get a good experience.

*More bits in an already bit heavy game.





Overall:



Innsmouth Horror is a must have expansion for a great game. I almost wish that it game with another set of Injury and Madness cards so that I could fully endorse this expansion as the first one to get instead of Dunwich Horror (really, Injury and Madness cards are all but necessary fixes in the game, but are found in just the one expansion). No other big box expansion has done as a good job of keeping a consistent theme and feel throughout. Even though we still spend most of our time on the Arkham board instead of the Innsmouth board in game, the theme and presence of Innsmouth is strongly felt. Innsmouth Horror is our group's favorite expansion and it is one that is necessary for any fan of Arkham Horror.



However, if you are looking for your first expansion for AH, Dunwich Horror has some key game fixes. If you feel that the base game is a bit broken, grab this game. But if you think it plays fine, but want more theme, grab Innsmouth Horror and make Dunwich your second grab.



"

Review: Call of Cthulhu LCG:: New Casual Player, Short Review, Core Set Play

Review: Call of Cthulhu LCG:: New Casual Player, Short Review, Core Set Play: "

by funkenmittens

Relevant personal background: My CCG background is limited entirely to Magic: The Gathering, which I played off and on for years. I started playing the original release, dabbled in some of the expansions, dropped everything out of financial frustration, then got back into it a couple of years later. I never aspired towards tournament play, however I enjoyed being competitive with my deck. I just couldn't keep up with all the cards, and had fewer and fewer people to play with.



With this in mind, the LCG model - which takes the random 'baseball card' collecting mechanism out of building a deck - interested me greatly. I also find that I am happier in the role of a casual player, and was looking for a card game I could play out of the box with my wife.



My interest in Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos was enough to put me over the edge and pick up a copy of the Call of Cthulhu LCG at my local game store. This is my first review on the Geek, and while I realize many good CoC LCG reviews have been written (covering rules and cards in much more depth) I'm hoping this one might be another helpful opinion for casual players looking to get involved at the ground level with a Core Set.



=Below expectation

=At expectation

=Exceeds expectation







QUALITY/QUANTITY/TYPE OF BITS





The domain drain markers (solid, heavy plastic Cthulhu figurines) are a very nice touch. The cards are well printed and finished on nice heavy cardstock. Though I may receive threatening messages from CCGers, I'm a big fan of the white borders on these CoC LCG cards. I don't keep my cards in sleeves, and I know they're going to get handled. Unless they print them on solid black core paper, I think the white edges wear better. The board is solid, a simple horizontal bi-fold, clearly laying out the center of the action between the two players.



The Rulebook has large print and clear directions, including a lot of good examples. Especially helpful is a full-page flow chart, which explains a lot of the dicier timing mechanics. Having said this, I find myself posting a lot of questions on the Geek, anyway, then learning later that the flow-chart would have answered my question just fine.



I do wish they had included 6 designated domain cards, 3 for each player. I know it's not a huge problem to place three unused cards upside down to do the job (as stated in the rulebook) however domain drain markers could have been cardboard chits instead of statuettes, and that would have been one less nice touch, too. When packing up after a game, I've almost always packed up the domain marker cards in the deck I was playing, and have to dig them out later after realizing my error.



The box is well constructed, but enormous. The insert becomes useful in an upside down position in the box once you crack open the three provided cellophane-wrapped stacks of cards. I suppose all the space is for your Asylum Pack purchases in the future? But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Personally, I removed all the parts, put the cards in a smaller box, and keep the chits and domain markers in tupperware until I can build a nice box to hold everything. Alternatively, take a look at Poor Ronnie's lovely tuckboxes, here:



http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/43265



ARTWORK





As a fan of the Cthulhu literature, I'm used to imagining all of the monsters and madness in my head. The box illustrations, and those on many of the cards, therefore, fall short of the mark for me. This is no fault of the illustrators (they had to make images of some sort, after all, and they draw well). It's kind of like reading Tolkien, however, and then finding an illustrated copy that doesn't quite gel with what you had imagined.



My attraction to Cthulhu stories include the lurking but unrevealed nature of the creatures, the slow onset and/or abrupt shock of madness from terrors explained by the protagonist but not fully exposed to the reader, and the implication of terrific and portentous eventualities, barely staved off by humans on the verge of darkness. Less the head-on physical clash of man vs. mind vs. beast (aiming pistols at twelve-headed and betentacled demons) I may have reacted better to more atmospheric - less illustrative - imagery.



GAMEPLAY





Playing with only the Core Set, matching two 20 card factions together, plus 7 neutral cards each for a deck of 47 per side, has been a blast. In my first 8 games, there have been no runaway blowouts, no stalling, and plenty of good fretting, bluffing, and nail-biting.



Using the above setup, both players have roughly 50 cards each to use in an effort to be the first to win three Story Cards. They achieve this using characters, events, and support cards from their deck, choosing some cards to play out of their hands, and others to contribute as permanent resources among the player's three domains. Each of the three resource domains can be drained - once per turn cycle - in offensive and defensive actions, including bringing out new characters, playing support cards, and paying for events and card-specific abilities. Characters and support cards may only be played during a player's own turn, while events may be played at various stages throughout both players' turns in an effort to help or hinder their respective progress in completing stories.



Judicious resource management - knowing when to add cards to a domain, and when to drain domains - is a huge part of a successful strategy, as is deciding how to deploy characters, support cards, and events. Do you commit all of your characters to a story? This exhausts your characters, generally meaning they can not be used to challenge your opponent while they commit characters to stories themselves. Do you sit back on your heels and play defense? This may keep your opponents victories to a minimum, however don't get too far behind or you might not catch up again. A balance of offense and defense, as well as holding on to some disruptive event cards, always seems to lead to good matchups, and more than a few surprises.



OVERALL





More often than not, while playing this game - with many faction pairings and against a variety of opponents - I find myself very pleasantly satisfied. I initially thought I would be luke warm on this game as it is not so much story driven in a narrative sense (see the Mythos card game), as the idea of stories simply represent a central game mechanic. That being said, the effects of winning stories - indicated on each story card by special text - has swayed a couple of games both in my favor, and against me when employed by my opponent. I like that aspect of the game, because I do not feel I am simply throwing my characters at whatever story is unoccupied, just to get a quick victory. Depending on the tabletop situation, and what my hand looks like, certain stories become much more attractive, and I find myself willing to take bigger risks to challenge the other player for their completion.



Overall, and regardless of what factions I match up with my opponents, the Core Set covers enough ground that I feel I can make intelligent choices to counter my opponent's strengths, with rare instances of simply drawing a useless lot of cards and getting railroaded on any particular turn. The factions seem fairly character heavy, which is fine for the Core Set experience. As an introduction to the game, I expect to mostly manage my critters and investigators, do my best to play off of my opponent's weaknesses in that department, then throw in some well-timed events to elicit groans of frustration from the other side of the table.



Explaining the rules to new players has been very easy, and much of the basic gameplay is very intuitive, or explained well enough on the cards themselves, that very few training rounds have been necessary.



For people looking to get a good 2 player game for casual play, grab the Core Set. If you want to expand your options and get trickier, the Asylum Packs add a lot of dimension to the factions, especially with the addition of more unique event cards. More than wrangling creatures and crunching numbers to calculate the outright winner in a contested story, these expansions provide deck builders the opportunity to get sneakier in their strategies . . . in accordance with the Cthulhu theme, nothing is as it seems.



It's always worse."

Review: Condottiere:: 10 + 1 points about a card game that definitely sees a lot of table time anymore

Review: Condottiere:: 10 + 1 points about a card game that definitely sees a lot of table time anymore: "

by tcollett

I have always been a big fan of card games. I grew up playing tons of ten point pitch (learned a lot of different styles of pitch as well). I used to stay with my grandparents off and on and my grandfather would take me down to the local coffee shop with him. We would then sit around and play 6 and 7 point pitch for quarters with the other older men. We played a lot of Uno and Rook as well. The big draw to these games growing up was close to bedtime, we could get in a couple of card games without much issue.



A person at the local gaming group brought out Condottiere as a starter game for one evening. Having never played, I was definitely open to the idea because I love card games. After having the rules explained to us, we began and it took little to no effort to get right into the game and to truly understand what was going on.



Since then, I have played quite a few times with various people and with various numbers of people (I have played 2 player, 4 player, and 5 player games with it). The game plays well with any number of people really but again, the more the better in my opinion.



Here is my list of 10 things I have heard, seen, and learned from the game after multiple sessions.





- When I broke out the game with some of my friends, one person asked if the game was like cribbage at all since it had cards and a small board. I never really thought of it that way, and I basically told him you can make some comparisons but not a lot. I figured if it made him happy to have something that he knew how to play to compare it to, I wasn’t going to argue. *laugh*



- Do keep track of your own score when laying out the cards and call it out when you lay out another card. At first I thought it was a dumb rule in the rule book, but I learned very quickly it is very nice to have everyone know their own score and can tell you their score right away. It keeps the flow of the game moving, and I have to admit it gets irritating to have someone have to count their points each time (especially if they aren’t good at math).



- Don’t be afraid to play to just move the condotierre token by playing courtesan cards. Sometimes a battle is being fought in a place that can’t help you at all (and others are already fighting to keep another person away from it) so it is sometimes best to just play to move the token to a location that will help you in the long term.



- If a person needs a particular location that currently has the token on it, watch closely how they are playing. If the lead out with a lot of mercenaries that are just a value of 1 (and maybe a heroine), then they could be waiting to drop a bishop card or a winter card. That may be the only cards they have but more often than not it seems to be bait or to hold out to get some higher cards out to negate them.



- The scarecrow card can be your friend when winter is played. Having a mercenary of 10 dropped down to a value of 1 (or 2 if you have a drummer out) isn’t fun and if no one has spring card to counteract, you may be better off pulling back in your large value mercenaries for later in the game. Also you may want to pull back cards in hopes of someone eventually dropping a spring card and then you can put the cards in your hand back out on the table.



- Use a surrender card wisely because there aren’t many of them. Sometimes it is a good idea to keep your score higher than others just to prevent a surrender card from coming out and ending the battle. This isn’t always a good idea though (watch out for the bishop and winter cards).



- Getting spaces on the board is beneficial to not only winning the game (duh right?) but also to get additional cards when new cards are dealt out. Having a couple of additional cards in your hand can really change the course of a battle (with the right cards of course).



- Sometimes you have to fight a battle to just keep someone else from taking over the space on the board. It becomes an interesting decision within the game as to do you continue to battle to keep the other person from getting the space? Do you pass and try to make someone else battle for you in hopes of getting a better space later? Do you just let the person have the space and then work to battle for other spaces that may help you more in the long run?



- Personally, I think the biggest value of the spring card is to negate the effects of the winter card. While adding 3 to the highest valued mercenaries on the table is nice, if you don’t have one of those high valued mercenaries, it can definitely work against you. This is where the bishop can also come in to help you and get rid of those really high mercenaries and hopefully get yours to the top of the heap for a round.



- The drummer, in my opinion, is the biggest battle changer. Even if winter is played, the drummer still takes each mercenary and makes it 2 instead of 1 in value. This can put a person that is last in a battle into first pretty quickly.



- Lastly, I like the compact size of the game. The game board cracks me up with its size but it definitely works for what a person needs it for to play. You can definitely take the game with you about anywhere and have a pretty quick game without issues. Analysis paralysis doesn’t really come into play as much with this game as others which is nice and people pick it up pretty quickly. I have had nothing but positive comments about the game. It definitely gets played as a nice warm up game or a nice cool down after a heavy gaming session (sounds like a real workout doesn’t it?).

"

Carcassonne: The Castle:: Reviews:: A Newbie Couple's Comparison of the Castle to Carcassonne

Carcassonne: The Castle:: Reviews:: A Newbie Couple's Comparison of the Castle to Carcassonne: "

by leungd

My girlfriend and I started to really get into gaming when we first got Carcassonne several years ago. It was our gateway game. Since then, we've gotten a few of the expansions and it remains one of our favorites to this day---we always play with the base Carcassonne game with the Carcassonne - Inns & Cathedrals and Carcassonne - Traders & Builders expansions. Although we've been curious about the other Carcassonne games, as newbies we delayed getting them in favor of trying out other, more different games. Still, Carcassonne: The Castle was the one that interested me the most, since it seemed like the most different from the rest of the series and it had a design spin by the famed Reiner Knizia. The fact that it was exclusively two player didn't really affect us---we think that Carcassonne is a terrific two player couples game and that's how we primarily play it. We finally got a chance to try it and it indeed feels quite different from the main game.



This review focuses on the differences between the regular, base Carcassonne game (including expansions when necessary) and the Castle, and which one is more suitable for the newbie gamer. It assumes a basic knowledge of the traditional Carcassonne gameplay.

[c] [/c]

Images courtesy of BigWoo and Robotman





What’s Similar



Generally speaking, the gameplay is still Carcassonne. You still draw a tile and place it on the board. You can then potentially claim a feature on the tile with a meeple. When those features are scored, the meeples are returned. Thus, there is a sense of identifying the best place to put the tile as well as a sense of 'meeple management' (how to best maximize the scoring opportunities of your limited set of meeples).



Some more specific similarities:



1. Roads basically play the same function in both games. They score 1 point per tile upon completion. The Inns and Cathedrals expansion for Carcassonne adds the Inn by the Lake feature, which doubles the points of your road. Similarly, the Castle contains a Fountain feature (although they look more like wells) that perform the exact same function. The biggest difference is that most roads in Carcassonne have endpoints when they branch---thus, most roads only have two ends to worry about. In contrast, roads in the Castle can branch without ending the road, so you have to start worrying about finishing a network of roads with multiple endings.

[c] [/c]

Images courtesy of mpot and josefm



2. The grey “Keeps” in the Castle are similar to “Cities” in Carcassonne. When finished, both give you two points per tile.

[c] [/c]

Images courtesy of Topdecker and maka



3. The green “Courts” in the Castle are similar to “Fields” in Carcassonne. When you play meeples in these features, they are permanently lost and are only scored at the end of the game. In the base game Carcassonne, these farmer meeples score three points per adjacent city (using the new 3rd edition rules). Meeples in the Courts in the Castle are known as merchants and score three points for every market in that Court. This feels more similar to the field scoring in Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers and is slightly easier to understand than the confusion over the various farmer rules in Carcassonne.

[c] [/c]

Images courtesy of devine and Skyjoker



4. Some of the bonus tiles in the Castle (see below) give features that are present in some of the expansions to Carcassonne. One of the bonus tiles lets you take another turn, which is similar to the Builder piece in the Traders and Builders expansion to Carcassonne. Another bonus tile lets you score 4 points per market rather than just 3, which is similar to the Pig piece again from the Traders and Builders expansion.





What’s Different



Although part of the Carcassonne line of games, the Castle almost feels like an inverted Carcassonne game. Knizia took most of the original Carcassonne gamplay ideas and turned it on its head, while adding some new unique features.



1. There are no Cloister equivalents in the Castle.



2. There are new red features called Houses. Structurally, they are similar to Keeps but score like Roads (one point per tile). However, there is a running tally over the largest House that you’ve claimed throughout the game. At the end, the player who had the largest completed House gains a bonus. This mechanism feels similar to the Carcassonne - King & Scout expansion, which awards a bonus for the longest road or city completed during the game. In this case, the bonus is points awarded for the largest negative space in the Castle---i.e., one point per tile for the biggest hole in the map. This is another way that the Castle inverts the usual Carcassonne feeling---it can pay to have bigger holes in the map.



3. Unlike regular Carcassonne, at the end of the game you do not score claimed, but uncompleted features. There are bonus tiles that do let you score them (e.g., score uncompleted towers, houses, and roads), but since you can’t count on them, you have to pay more attention your scoring opportunities and make sure to get your meeples back before the end of the game. This makes the meeple management aspect slightly different. Combined with the different tile placement rules and the bonus wall tiles (see below), there are less giant structures in the Castle compared to Carcassonne, as you need to be conscious of completing them more quickly.



4. In the base Carcassonne game, the tiles generally radiate outwards as the French countryside spreads out before you. In contrast, the tiles in the Castle are constrained within the walls, which double as the scoring track. As a result, each tile placement forces the two players closer together, which should result in increased conflict, although we found that this was counteracted by the relaxed tile placement rules (see below).



The wall also contains several bonus tiles that you receive if you get that exact score. In theory, this gives you some incentive to not just build the biggest Keep/Road/House you can, but to get the right amount of points to snag those bonus tiles without going over. There isn’t anything like this in the base game, where it usually pays to build as big as you can get (since you generally even get points for uncompleted features at the end of the game as well). This gives enforces the feeling of constraint and restraint that’s unique to the Castle version.

Image courtesy of rbrockfam



5. This is the BIG one---the tile placement rules are relaxed in the Castle. In the original Carcassonne game, all tiles have to match their all of their edges with all adjacent tiles in order to be placed. This results in relatively intuitive placement that taps into the jigsaw puzzle solving portion of the brain---city edges have to meet up with city edges, roads to roads, fields with fields. In contrast, in the Castle, roads are the only features that have to be matched on the tile edges. So a tower edge can be placed directly next to a house edge. Any tile edge can be placed next to the wall, even the road just ends at the wall.

Image courtesy of Geoff



Especially coming from Carcassonne first, this totally messes with your mind. When you place a tile, you instinctively try to match up the edges. It’s a total paradigm shift in Carcassonne, and while it was probably necessary to counteract the effect of shrinking playing space, it’s not necessarily for the better. Since the tile edges no longer have to match, it can be confusing---my girlfriend kept trying to place tiles that were “shifted by half a tile” rather than the whole edge since many tile edges share half Keep or House features. Aesthetically, this results in a multi-colored jumble compared to the nicer, more attractive flowing art of Carcassonne.



This also makes the Castle feel less thematic. While it may be silly to think about the “theme” of Carcassonne---ultimately, both games are abstract, pattern matching, tile laying games---the gameplay and artwork in Carcassonne does give enough of a feeling of building up the French countryside with your cities and roads. The Castle feels a lot more abstract. Since nothing has to match, no feature really “feels” like a Keep or a House. They could just as well be symbols or patterns that you have to match. It makes the game feel much less personal.



Lastly, one of the main sources of competition in Carcassonne is stealing other people’s features by connecting more of your meeples to it. With the relaxed tile placement rules, one would think it would be easier to steal features in the Castle, but in fact it feels harder since it’s much easier for your opponent to place a tile and just block you out since they can play just about any tile against yours. As a result, this feels like you’re losing a major source of confrontation.





Overall



All in all, there are more things to consider in the Castle. There are more places to put your tile. There are more features to score (Keeps, Roads, Houses, Courts), and you have stricter meeple management since generally you don’t score uncompleted features. You have to be mindful of the overall spatial aspects of the map, particularly with how large or small the biggest hole is. You have to try and get the right score to grab the bonus wall tiles before your opponent. And you still have to try and block and/or steal your opponent’s features at the same time if you can. All of this can add up to a bit of analysis paralysis.



Ultimately, due to this, the base game Carcassonne is more newbie friendly compared to the Castle. It’s more attractive, thematic, less complex, and as a result easier to get into. It’s still a great two player game, but can support more. The base game also has many different expansions that you can mix and match to tailor the gameplay---this may be an advantage or disadvantage depending upon who you ask. In contrast, the Castle only supports two players and demands more of you. On the plus side, it is a standalone game, so it doesn't have any additional essential expansions that you have to buy. However, as newbies gain more experience and look for new games, it’s hard to recommend getting the Castle right away. It’s probably a better investment to get completely different games to try out at that point to explore more of the gaming hobby. In that sense, the Castle is both too different and not different enough to recommend highly to new gamers. The best audience is likely to be experienced gamers looking to go back to a more thoughtful Carcassonne game, or players who are more comfortable with more analytical, abstract games.

"

Hansa:: Reviews:: Hansa - A Pictorial Review

Hansa:: Reviews:: Hansa - A Pictorial Review: "

by weekee77

Hansa is one of the those good board games that occassionally slide under the radar. Hopefully this review would do the game some justice. Read on and I belive you will like this hidden gem.



Overview

Hansa is a game for 2 to 4 players by Michael Schact and published by Uberplay. In this game, players are merchants of the Hanseatic League (aka Hansa). Players get to control a ship that travels to different ports of the Baltic area. Through the trading of goods at the various ports, players gain victory points.



Game Components



Despite the small box packaging, the game components are of high quality. The game board is beautifully illustrated and function well though I would prefer it to be slightly bigger.

The single sheet rulebook is simple and well layout with clear illustrations and examples.

The game bits are simple but of great quality as what you would expect of Eurogames.

The beautifully crafted wooden ship definitely gives this game its unique character.

I believe you would agree that the Thalers (currency used in the game) look just as great!

The round wooden chips represent the market booths in the game...

and of course the goods that players get to buy.



Game Play



Players strive to get the most victory points and this is mainly done through selling of goods and setting up of their market booths in different ports. Players can move the ship through different shipping routes and visit different ports to buy goods.

Rhis task is not as simple as it looks. Moving the ship and buying of the goods require players to pay Thalers. However players get only 3 Thalers at the start of their turn and can only keep a limited amount of Thalers and goods at the end of their turn. Planning a good shipping route is crucial to do well in this game.

Apart from buying goods, players need to also setup their market booths. Market booths play an important strategic role in the game.



Being a market leader in any port (most number of market booths) will allow the player to get the goods for free. Other players wanting to buy goods at the port will have to pay the market leader as well.

They are also crucial for players to sell their goods. Although players can buy goods at any ports, they can only sell their goods in ports which they have at least a market booth. To sell their goods, players need to sell at least 2 of the same goods (based on the color).

Selling goods will enable player to gain victory points. The more goods (by number of barrels) you sell, the more points you get at the end of the game.



Though the gameplay sounds simple, what make Hansa really shines is that it requires players to make tough decisions.

At each port, players can only perform one of the 3 actions (buying goods, selling goods or setting up their markets). Hence players need to plan their routes well.



Each action also has its trade off. To setup their market booths, players need to discard their goods which mean that they have less goods to sell for victory points.



Similarly, selling goods at a port requires players to give up one of their existing market booth. Selling goods also mean that you have less goods that can be used to setup the market booths.



Wrestling with the decisions is what makes Hansa challenging and deeply satisfying.



Game Theme



I like the the trading theme in the game. The gameplay and component fits the theme well. Using the Hanseatic league is a nice touch, bringing players back the trading era of the middle ages.

The different colors of the goods work well in the game but I think having different type of goods such as corn, sugar, etc, would make the game theme even better.



Conclusion



Hansa is a great game which I think deserves more attention. The decision making part of the game is interesting and satisfying as players try to come up with the most effective sequence of decisions.



This is also a more tactical game instead of a strategical game. It is hard to plan ahead in this game since what you can do is highly dependent on the actions taken by the previous players. The shipping routes could also get a bit repetitive which could affect the replayability of this game.

There could also be moments of downtime as players can get stuck in analysis paralysis during their turn but it isn't really that big deal considering the quality of the gameplay that you get from the game.



So if you have yet try Hansa, it is definitely one of the hidden gems worth checking out.

"

A Castle for All Seasons:: Reviews:: Fierce

A Castle for All Seasons:: Reviews:: Fierce: "

by mattx

This unassuming game seems to have slipped under a lot of people's radar because of its similarities to games like Pillars of the Earth and Stone Age. It deserves more reviews so I'll add my 2 cents.



The other reviews here cover mechanics well so this review features mostly my opinion punctuated by some experiences from my plays of the game.



Speed

This game is fast. I'm talking 'blow your head off' fast. Even with rules teach this is a 50 minute game.



Decisions

This game has resource collection, building, money acquisition, and point accumulation, this alone would make for a challenging game. What puts this game into the stratosphere though is the central role selection mechanic. It feels like you need every character on every turn and the result is high tension and awesome challenging decisions.



Opinion/Analysis

This game is two games in one. On the surface this looks like a worker placement game: get some meeples onto the board and get some goods for production and points to win the game right? Wrong.



This game is a role selection game: much more of a role selection game than a worker placement game. As a matter of fact this game reminds me MUCH more of Citadels or especially Mission Red Planet than of Pillars of the Earth or Stone Age.



This role selection mechanic is the source of all the decisions in the game and is one of the best implementations of a role selection mechanic I have ever played.



The player interaction resulting from the role selection is just awesome. There are 8 role cards, 3 different workers, messenger, trader, stone mason, brick layer, and master builder and they execute in a fixed order. They also use the mechanic where you can't get the roles back into your hand until you use a certain role card a-la Mission Red Planet or El Grande Action cards.



The roles are extremely tight and highly interactive.



The messenger gives you money but if the bank runs out of coin which can happen you don't get paid. So you'd like to play your messenger when other people don't.



The workers get resources right away but you can't use them until the end of the role resolution. In the mean time anyone who played a stone mason can buy a resource from you for a paltry 1 coin. If more than one stone mason is played you might get only a single resource from your worker. A worker lets you build but gives you only half of the VP's from the building.



The trader allows you to place a worker next to a resource. From this point on you will get that resource whenever anyone plays a trader. If everyone plays their trader on the same turn you all get paid once. That's it. So you want to play your trader on different turns than your opponents so you can get more resources. When you get resources via the trader you have to donate some to the building of the defense tower. The defense tower gets paid first so if there aren't enough resources too bad!



The brick layer lets you take all of one type of resource from the defense tower, build up to 2 buildings, and place up to 2 workers in buildings that have been built. When you build with the brick layer you get money for the buildings NOT VP's. Placing workers into the castle is how you generate end of game VP's but it's expensive and there isn't a lot of money in this game.



Also when more than one person plays a role they are resolved clockwise from the start player. So if several people play brick layer there might not be the resources you want in the defense tower by the time you play. Another tough call to make...



The stone mason lets you buy cheap resources from workers, build up to 2 buildings for VP's and place up to 2 workers. The purchase can be devastating to the players who played workers. You want to try to predict when people will play workers so you can get cheap resources. The VP's can be huge, but where will you get the money you need to buy into some of those coveted castle spaces for your workers to get end game points?



The master builder lets you take your cards back into hand. Typical and boring right? Wrong. The master builder also scores you 5 points for every building built in the turn. If people are building buildings with workers and getting half the VP's for them you are going to make out like a bandit. You want to play this card when people are going to build. Can you predict when this will happen? I hope so.



So I hope you can see now that the role selection is the heart of this game and the worker placement is almost an afterthought although it is absolutely central to VP generation at the end of the game.



Weird Mechanic?

This game's building cost mechanic is unique. Each resource has a value associated with it (there are 4 types of resources and silver which is a wild card). Each building must be paid for with exactly 3 different types of resources whose values add up to the cost of the building. Fairly mind boggling but not too taxing in practice since buildings all cost even numbers and many of the buildings are repeated so you'll get used to making 8's.



Winter Side

This game has a summer and winter version. The winter version adds event cards that change the game in various ways. I have not played with the winter cards. I don't think it's necessary but it can certainly provide some variety and longevity to your enjoyment of this game.



Conclusion

Obviously I like this game. The rules are simple but slightly unintuitive until you sit down and try the game. You'll probably be a bit lost for the first few turns but hey folks this is a 40 minute game. Just start over once you have the hang of it... or better yet finish a quick game and play another.



The game is tight, the decisions are hard, the production quality is high, and you could play 3 games of this in a couple of hours. The building benefits for end of game are interesting and the roles are just right.



This is a sleeper hit and should be on your self if you like short very intense games.



This game is an easy 9 for me. Go get it.



Check out my blog at http://metroburbgamers.blogspot.com for more session reports, reviews and articles..."

W. Eric Martin: Reviews Under Review

W. Eric Martin: Reviews Under Review: "

Over the past two years, several Boardgame News readers have asked about my game reviews, so I thought I’d take a column to spell everything out, both for readers and for designers and publishers who might send games for review.

My primary goal when reviewing a game is simple: Give BGN readers enough information so that they can decide for themselves whether they’ll want to play the game. I know that my tastes don’t match anyone else’s. Each of us will approach the table with different goals for what we want out of the playing experience. Even if you and I enjoy the first ten games we play, we’ll spit blood at each other over game number eleven. On the other end of the spectrum, no matter how different your background from mine, I’m confident that we can find games that we’ll both want to play.

Given that game design is an art, I have no desire to convince you that my tastes and preferences are superior to yours. They aren’t; they’re just different. Instead I try to acknowledge those tastes and preferences within a review so that you can process the information and experience that I provide into something usable. Take, for example, my negative review of Wizard’s Gambit in May 2008. The game did nothing for me; actually it annoyed me, both through the restrictively forced game play and the poor graphics, and I said as much in my review – yet two people contacted me the day that my review was published and asked to purchase the review copy from me. For them, all the negative elements that I had found were positives, or rather they at least recognized elements of the game that they might enjoy and were curious enough to want to play it. Mission accomplished!

Nothing Personal

When reviewing a game, I focus on the mechanisms that make up the game play and how those mechanisms play out for different people and for different numbers of players. For me, the mechanisms are the game. Without the mechanisms, that is, without rules for how players can interact with one another and with the game components, there is no game. The components and graphic design might receive some attention, but they’re of secondary importance unless they interfere with your ability to play the game or they add some compelling quality that makes a game more appealing.

I’ll admit that most game themes do nothing for me as my brain just doesn’t work that way. I’ve never identified with the characters in books, movies or games, being more interested in the ideas and situations presented than in the fates of make-believe characters. (Favorite author: Borges; favorite movie: Brazil.) As I noted in a BoardGameGeek thread about Masters of Venice, a game I reviewed solely from a mechanisms point-of-view, I’m neither a merchant nor a patrician nor a patron; I’m a dude trying to win a game. Aside from being a memory aid, the setting of any game is a disposable backdrop. I can appreciate novel themes, but that’s because it’s more fun to write and talk about something new rather than something I’ve covered previously, not because I have more interest in being a bug-wrangler or nursing home attendant than a merchant or spaceship pilot. I know this approach will disappoint some people, but better to be honest about my worldview than pretend to have an opinion about a game’s theme one way or another.

While keeping the focus on a game’s mechanisms, I stay away from a topic that I feel has no place in a review: My opinion of the designer or publisher as a person. Given that I run a website about game news and travel to various conventions, I’ve met and emailed with hundreds of personalities in the gaming industry and have chatted with many of them on a personal level. All of that information and background is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a game succeeds as a game.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I believe that every game designer is honestly trying to present players with a creative work that will engage them. Their name is on the box and their reputation on the line, so they want to present a product of which they’ll be proud. Thus, for a game that doesn’t live up to its promise, I’ll state that the game fails for reasons A, B and C, not that the designer fails. I can still respect a designer as a person for taking chances in a creative endeavor, while simultaneously not caring for his or her creations, and that’s the attitude that I want to project in my reviews. To repeat what I said above, not everyone shares the same tastes and it’s foolish to level insults at another person because we disagree on what makes a successful game.

Tastes also come into play in another subject, that being whether a game is worth the price being charged. One person’s $30 find is another person’s $30 ripoff, and given my support of brick-and-mortar game stores and a publisher’s ability to set prices on its products, I rarely make any comments along these lines, instead preferring to lay out the positives and negatives about a game and letting you reach your own decision. Besides, price is rarely a good indicator of a game’s value. Money is spent on a game only once, while the game itself lasts for years – assuming it’s any good, that is.

All of my reviews express my honest opinion of the games covered and are not sugar-coated because I receive a free game, or know the designer, or accept advertising from that publisher. As I noted in February 2009, I’ve stopped soliciting ads from publishers and would prefer to replace all the advertising with member support to remove any hint of impropriety. By keeping the focus of my reviews on the games rather than their creators I trust that designers will accept my comments in the spirit they’re given. Finally, given the stacks of comped review copies that await my attention, some dating back to late 2006 when I first started editing BGN, I’d have no problem with companies not sending me games for review. While I appreciate the opportunity to discover new and exciting creations, I take the responsibility of providing fair and well-rounded reviews seriously and that requires time that could be spent playing other games, games that I already know and love.

Bye the Numbers

The most frequent question I’m asked regarding game reviews is why I don’t append a numerical value to each written review, and I don’t do so for the very reason that people want such a value: The number turns into a shorthand for the entire review. There’s no nuance in a number, so all of the qualifiers and details and arguments that I make in a review would be boiled down to a single digit, and that digit would be argued against or misinterpreted rather than what I took the time to spell out in detail.

Larry Levy has endured a beating along this line for a couple of years, thanks to his Gathering round-ups, such as this April 2009 report that rates fifteen games a 7. Most commenters ignored the substance of Levy’s game critiques, instead focusing on that number and responding with incredulity, as if it’s impossible for a person to play fifteen games that he feels are okay, if nothing special. Hundreds of games are released each year, and if you try games from established designers and publishers, then most of the games will be okay at a minimum.

I do rate games numerically on BoardGameGeek, in addition to posting short critiques and full reviews. Why do so there but not on BGN? The Geek functions best through the accumulation of hundreds of data points, so I do my part by contributing data. The reviews on Boardgame News, on the other hand, are meant to stand alone as the personal opinion of the author.

That said, I admire the rating system used by The San Francisco Chronicle with its jumping guy, clapping guy, attentive guy, sleeping guy, and empty chair – woe be the films that receive the empty chair! – and have thought of adopting something like that of my own for the sheer ridiculousness of it. My system, however, would use laughing and crying baby heads, with the number of heads varying based on the quality of the game being reviewed. Who’s up for hydra-headed babies?

"