Small World

(image by MarkKaufmann @ BGG)
Sometimes a game comes along that seems like it should be right up my alley but ultimately falls flat. I'm a sucker for a fantasy theme and I really enjoyed my single play of A History of the World (the game that inspired the game Small Word is based on) so I thought that Small World would be a no-brainer. Sadly that has not been the case.

Small World is all about taking control of the land with various fantasy races. As you hold territory you earn points and whoever has the most points at the end wins. You have all your standard fantasy fare with elves, dwarves, giants, sorcerers, undead and many others. What makes Small World tick is that each race is also assigned a random attribute like flying, wealthy and spirit. Some combos are clearly going to be better than others and a good chunk of the game is deciding which powers you think you can best leverage.

The game takes place over several rounds. To start the game players select their new army and bringing them out on the map. Several race/attribute combos are laid out in order. You can take the bottom-most combo for free or you can work your way up the list by dropping a victory point on each race you skip over. This means the weakest races will filter towards the bottom but will also collect points that go into the coffers of whoever picks that combo. After you pick your race you bring them in on the edge of the map and start claiming territory. To take an area you need two tokens plus one per piece of cardboard on the map; cardboard is typically enemy units or terrain features. Enemies lose one unit and the rest are forced to retreat if possible. At the end of your turn you may redistribute your units however you want, most likely fortifying areas you need to hold or think will be attacked. At the end of your turn you earn points for each territory held.

(image by Jeff_Wells @ BGG)

Instead of activating your current army you may instead put them into decline. That turn you do nothing but score points, but on your next turn you get to select a new race/attribute combo to bring into the game. Your old army may no longer be activated but they will continue to earn points so long as they are on the board. Putting your army into decline is almost inevitable as you have a limited number of units and will likely lose some during combat. Eventually you'll reach the max potential for one race, see a combo you can leverage nicely and will want to grab it to try and earn you even more points. Knowing when to time this switch is central to success in Small World.

The game comes with several player boards, each designed for a specific number of players. It's a much better solution than just removing regions from a map or playing on a map size that is less than ideal for the number of players you have. The maps seem fairly well balanced and makes playing with a wide range of players feasible. I also really like the different races and powers. As the combos are different each game you get a ton of variety and it is fun to try and figure out which combo will be most beneficial to you and when to bring them into play.

Unfortunately the game just doesn't do much for me. I really enjoy the artwork but the board is far too cluttered. Regions can be a little hard to distinguish and all of the cardboard pieces blend in. It's even more tricky when a nation goes into decline as they flip to the grayed-out side of their chits which are even more difficult to find on the map and distinguish from each other. Even more offending is that the player reference included with the game is not only not useful but detrimental to play. They tried to summarize all of the races and attributes but they left out highly crucial rules on some of them which can have a major impact on play. Toss out those player aides as they will cause much more harm than good.

(image by lacxox @ BGG)
I also find the game just isn't all that exciting. Generally you'll go through two or three races and the key is knowing when to make that switch. There are a very limited number of turns in the game and going into decline takes your entire turn so by the end I always feel like I haven't done much. Combat is deterministic which by itself isn't bad but combined with the limited number of turns and and limited mobility on the map I find that my turns often almost play themselves. The real decision-making comes in figuring out when to decline and which race/attribute combo you think you can best exploit. Everything else is just a little too straightforward.

When all is said and done I find Small World to not be very satisfying. A single match can easily be played within an hour so there is certainly be something to be said for the ease of play. I think it would be perfectly for a younger or less gaming-oriented crowd but for a group of serious gamers I really think Small World has little to offer. The fantasy theme is great, artwork is fantastic (if not a little busy) and the rules are easy to teach. I just feel like there aren't many interesting decisions to be made and the deterministic nature of combat can lead to lots of analysis paralysis which goes counter to the goal of a fast-playing game. Small World is not a bad game by any means, it just isn't for me.

Galaxy Trucker and chaos in games

(image by @ henk.rolleman BGG)
Time to tackle another game element: chaos. Your initial reaction may be to equate chaos to luck but I feel they two are very different things. Luck is when the outcome of an event - a die roll or card draw, for example - has a percent chance to result in a given outcome. When you roll a standard six-sided die you have a 1 in 6 chance of any number rolling up. You may not have control of the outcome but there are set odds going in and a random result coming out.

Chaos, on the other hand, is the lack of control in a game. A chaotic game often has little to no room for strategy, forcing more tactical play as you deal with your turns as they come up rather than planning ahead. Chaos may come from luck but there is often more than just luck at play.

I often refer to chaos when describing how a game feels with varying number of players. Alhambra is a great example. With two to four players you can attempt to make plans based on the tiles up for sale, what you believe the other players will purchase and what may be left on your next turn. With five or six there are just too many players going between your turns, making nearly impossible to plan ahead. You lose control over your fate, forced to play turn by turn rather than planning ahead. One of Alhambra's core concepts is competing with other players for majority control of different tiles; too much chaos eliminates that strategic element and fewer turns per player gives more impact to lucky turns.

Don't think that chaos is always bad, though. Galaxy Trucker uses chaos at its core to create a tense and exciting game.

(image by @ henk.rolleman BGG)

Not unlike Space Alert (another Vlaada Chatvil game), Galaxy Trucker has two distinct phases: real-time building of your ship and turn-based resolution of events. Assuming your ship survives you earn points based on your place on the distance track, your cargo and how nice your ship looks. High score after three rounds wins the game.

Building your ship is the bulk of Galaxy Trucker. Each player has a set of identical ship templates that vary from round to round. All of the available ship tiles are set face-down in a pile. One player starts the sand timer and all players simultaneously start building their ship. You grab a tile, bring it over your player mat, look at it and decide if you want to place it on your ship, keep it for later or place it face up back in the pile for others to grab. There's a wide variety of ship components including engines, lasers, shields, cargo holds, crew cabins and more. At any time after the sand timer has run out a player may turn it over to signal they are done and take the 1st place marker. That player may not make any further changes to their ship and the rest of the players have one full sand timer's worth of time to finish their own designs.

Each tile has zero to three connectors going out of each edge. Three-pronged connectors are universal and may hook into any other connector while one- and two-pronged connectors may not connect into each other; also, connectors may never connect to an edge with no connectors shown. Once you've placed a tile on your ship it may never be moved so there's a very fun puzzle element when constructing your ship. You need a variety of components but must connect everything properly while other players are possibly taking the very pieces you could use!

(image by Toynan @ BGG)
Once everyone is done (or time runs out) the ships are complete and are "run through the gauntlet." First, players are ranked on the distance track in the order they finished their ships. Then a stack of event cards are dealt out and resolved in random order. You may find cargo to fill your cargo holds, space pirates that steal cargo or kill crew members, asteroid storms that tear your ship to pieces and many other crazy things. Most events are resolved in player order on the distance track and their outcome may adjust your position. For example, taking cargo typically moves you backwards on the distance track, meaning your turn order may be adjusted for resolving the next event. Other events - like space pirates - go in turn order and hit each player with some penalty (often losing goods or crew) until one of the players eliminates the threat.

The real excitement comes from attack cards. A meteor swarm, for example, will show a list of asteroids, their size and direction they attack. Your ship has a designated facing and a grid of numbers with sevens on the middle axis. You roll two six-sided dice to determine which tile on your ship will be hit. Some attacks may be defended with shields or lasers. If it isn't defended (or is unblockable), small attacks will destroy a tile if there's an exposed connector while large attacks will destroy the tile outright. The real key here is if that tile is the only link back to the core of your ship for other tiles, that entire portion of your ship will break off!

Losing parts of your ship is bad. Not only do you lose whatever was on those tiles (cargo, crew members, guns) you also earn negative points at the end of the round per tile. If you have no crew or no engine power your ship is a derelict and scores no points at the end of the round. Likewise, if your core is hit your ships explodes.

(image by kreten @ BGG)

Given all these dangers, building a solid ship is key to success. Your core is at coordinate 7,7 meaning odds are good attacks will trend towards hitting the middle of your ship. As you build you need to plan your components and connectors to ensure redundant connection paths and plenty of defense for the core of your ship. At the same time you must try to ensure you have enough crew members, cargo space, firepower, engines and shields to survive and avoid having outward-facing connectors. It is a lot to balance - especially given the real-time aspect - but I love the puzzle aspect of building your ship.

Unfortunately I think the game's strength may also be its weakness. While you may peek at some of the upcoming events to give you a feel for what may be important (lots of room for cargo, more attacks from the left) I feel that you generally must make as balanced of a ship as possible. A well-designed ship should be able to weather most anything thrown at it, especially if you ensure you have a well-defended core and redundant connections. While you'll never design the exact same ship twice you will always have the same rough idea for what you need: engines in back, shields in all directions, lots of forward guns, one gun on each side and then as much cargo and crew as you can cram in. I could see where many repeat plays of Galaxy Trucker may render the ship-building portion a little dull as it becomes a quick search for the best pieces rather than a fun puzzle-solving exercise.

(image by slith @ BGG)
As chaotic as the event resolution is, I find it also offers up some nice choices to make. Do you take cargo and lose a few days, putting yourself back in turn order? If you looked at what was in the deck, you may want to drop back and let someone else deal with a nasty upcoming event or maybe you want to stay up front for an even better haul. Knowing when to power up your shields and where to store your cargo in case part of your ship tears off also makes for some good fun. These little decisions give you some small control over the madness of running your ship through the gauntlet.

Chaos can be a great element for adding excitement and replay value to a game when it is built in to the game's design. It can also be a negative when it turns up as an unintended side effect. Not all players are going to enjoy chaos in their games, but Galaxy Trucker proves that solidly-designed chaotic game can be seriously fun. The real-time puzzle element of building your ship offers a unique challenge you don't find in other games and it is fun watching your ship suffer through waves of attacks. You just have to be willing to accept that your ship's outcome is not entirely in your hands. I do recommend playing Galaxy Trucker before purchasing if possible. Either you'll fall in love or never want to see it again! If you do enjoy the game then I highly recommend picking up the expansion as it only makes the game even more chaotic and fun.

Tide of Iron

(image by zombiegod @ BGG)
Fantasy Flight knows how to push my buttons. They are well known for their massive, epic games with tons of plastic and cardboard. I take one look at a new release and any semblance of willpower I have crumbles to the ground. When I first saw the images of Tide of Iron, I knew I had to have it. Tactical squad-based World War II combat with awesome plastic army men? Sign me up!

Tide of Iron is Fantasy Flight's answer to Memoir '44 by Days of Wonder and Squad Leader by Multiman Publishing. The former is a very simple card-driven combat game based on the Commands & Colors system used in Commands & Colors: Ancients and Battlelore, while the latter is an incredibly detailed tactical battle simulation. Tide of Iron finds the middle ground, offering far more complexity and a system closer to Advanced Squad Leader but toning down the scope and providing tons of chrome.

There are really three parts to Tide of Iron:

Components

Tide of Iron is gorgeous, no doubt about it. The game comes with extremely thick modular hex boards to build maps, hex overlays for different terrain and chits to represent entrenchments, pillboxes, razorwire and more. I really love the terrain components as everything is very clear and heavy duty.

(image by ram47 @ BGG)

While the terrain looks fantastic, the real stars of the show are the plastic army men. The base game comes with American and German units with different molds for infantry, elite infantry, commanders, machine gun nests, mortars and a bunch of different vehicles and tanks. These immediately take me back to my youth playing with the classic green army men and lend a seriously awesome "toy factor" to Tide of Iron. Each unit has a peg on the bottom which snaps into a round base with four peg slots. The base represents a single squad which you may customize however you'd like. Infantry take up a single peg while heavy weapons like the machine gun take up two. You could have one squad of three infantry and a commander while another has a machine gun nest accompanied by a normal and elite infantry. The round bases also have a clip on back where you can stick in a specialization chit to turn them into special units like medics or engineers.

The concept behind the squad creation is one of the really cool features in Tide of Iron. Each scenario gives players a set number of units but you can split them into squads however you'd like. Unfortunately the figures also lead to one of my main complaints with the game. While I understand what Fantasy Flight was going for with the pegged army men plugging into the squad bases, the problem is that they don't fit in that well. Most have extra flashing on them and aren't uniformly shaped so they either fit poorly or don't fit at all. I actually took time to trim the extra flashing off of each peg and even then some still don't make a very good fit. Ones that fit too loose are a pain because they fall out too easily when you handle the squad but others fit too tight and are tricky to get out, possibly breaking off the pegs.

Ultimately the figures end up as more fiddly than cool. I love the customizable squad concept but the bases are not as easy to use as I would like. It isn't a deal breaker but you will no doubt feel some frustration with the squad bases at some point. I'm actually considering trying to modify my bases and units to use magnets somehow; we'll see if I ever get inspired enough to make it happen.

Gameplay

Fantasy Flight sometimes struggles with rule books but I feel they did a great job with Tide of Iron. The book is filled with lots of great examples and offers a really handy index. Sure, you may still have a few questions here and there but overall I think the Tide of Iron rulebook may be their best.

Tide of Iron really shines when it comes to mechanics. Scenarios detail the objective, setup, victory conditions and number of turns played. Players are given specific units they assign to squads and set up on the board. A single game turn is played over several rounds of back-and-forth unit activation as listed in the objective. For example, each side may activate three units at a time (until all units have been activated for both sides) or it might be lop-sided with the Germans activating three and the Americans two It is a great system as it helps lend to the real-time feel of the game and gives players very interesting decisions to make. After all units have been activated the turn ends, you check for control of victory conditions, do some cleanup and continue.

(image by Konwacht @ BGG)
You have several different options when activating a unit. Generally you either move, fire, go into "op fire" (delay your attack until an enemy moves into line of sight) or play a strategy card. After activating a unit you place a fatigue marker next to them to indicate they may not be activated again this turn. Op fire is a big part of the game as you need to decide which units need to be used offensively and which can be used defensively in reaction to enemy movement. You also have two options when it comes time to shoot: normal and suppressive fire. A hit on normal fire simply kills off an enemy figure (removing them from the squad base) while a hit on suppressive fire pins that squad, essentially making them inactive for the rest of the turn. When you make an attack without moving (called concentrated fire) you may also combine fire with other unfatigued units within line-of-sight of the target, allowing you to make a single stronger attack rather than multiple weaker attacks.

I really feel like the combat system nails the feel I want from a tactical squad-level game. Killing off units permanently weakens a squad but sometimes you need to pin down a unit (especially machine gun nests) so you can push forward. Combining fire can be extremely powerful but it fatigues every unit that participates so you need to weigh the odds and determine how important that additional firepower really is versus another separate attack. There are rules for cover (adding to a unit's defense) and special units that give bonuses (commanders add plus one defense against suppressive fire, for example) which all add complexity of the decision-making process. Running through open ground towards a machine gun nest will almost always result in your squad getting mowed down but laying down suppressive fire on that nest first might open up a window for you to advance and get a better position. Those decisions and the moments that play out really make Tide of Iron fantastic.

Scenarios

As a historical game, Tide of Iron comes with a bunch of scenarios recreating battles during World War II. No matter how great the game system is, poor scenarios in a scenario-based game can really ruin it. I won't go so far as to say that the scenarios ruin Tide of Iron but I feel like they don't always make the fun immediately apparent. Many scenarios put one player as the attacker and the other as the defender. This usually results in the attacker having interesting tactical decisions to make while the defender holes up and adjusts as necessary. In many war games the idea is that you switch sides and play a scenario twice. Given a single scenario can easily take two to three hours to play out, that's not always an option in Tide of Iron. Unfortunately this means that one player may be stuck in the less interesting role.

(image by joebelanger @ BGG)

I've seen many comment that the scenarios are not "balanced" but I think they miss the point of these scenarios. They are based on real battles, few of which I doubt had equal odds for both sides going in. As a simulation I think Tide of Iron succeeds and the scenarios succeed in giving players a feel for the situation they are attempting to recreate. Unfortunately that does not always equate to equal fun for both players. I think it is very possible to create scenarios that are very well-balanced but they will likely be less historical. How much you enjoy the scenarios will likely depend on how much you really care about a truly balanced outcome.

One aspect I think the scenarios do a great job with is abstracting out elements that fall outside the squad-level focus of the game. There are a bunch of different card decks and special cards that come with the game. Each scenario details which decks each side gets. For example, the Americans might get the Air Support Deck to help represent bombing runs the player can perform while the Germans get the Reinforcement Deck to help represent additional support that appears over the course of the scenario. Rather than represent these on the board they come into play through cards the player draws and puts into play. The cards really add a lot of depth to the game while adding almost no additional complexity.

When All is Said and Done

Tide of Iron sort of straddles the line between war game and designer game. The rules and underlying system are fantastic and really capture the feel I want in a tactical war game. There's enough complexity to give you really interesting decisions to make but not so much that everything can't be summed up on more than a couple of pages of cheat sheets. The components are gorgeous but not quite as functional as they should be. Scenarios really set the stage for a historical simulation although they don't always result in an equal match between sides.

When all is said and done, I love Tide of Iron. It is not without its flaws but I think the good far outweighs the bad. Like many of Fantasy Flight's other games the experience of playing is what matters, not the outcome. This isn't a game for everyone, though; I highly recommending playing before buying if you can. Tide of Iron does have elements that will easily turn someone away, but if it hooks you it is all over. I only get to break out Tide of Iron a handful of times each year but for me it is worth it every time. I just hope Fantasy Flight takes away some valuable lessons in component usability.

Bootleggers and theme in board games

I'm always fascinated by the use of theme in board games. I think games tend to fall into one of the following five groups:

* No theme - Usually found in abstract strategy games like Go, these games have no theme. They are simply a set of rules to play but the components are not meant to represent anything specific. It is the purest form of gaming.

* Abstract theme - There is a theme but it does not really relate to the mechanics at all. Any number of themes could easily be placed on top of the mechanics and it would work equally well. Many games fall into this category, especially designer Euro-style games like Ra and Puerto Rico. The theme is generally irrelevant and does not impact one's thoughts on the game.

* Applied theme - Here the theme makes sense in terms of mechanics and probably helps contribute towards your thoughts of the game. Ticket to Ride is a great example; building a network of links works perfectly with a railroad theme and people may very well have their feelings about the game influenced by the rail theme. At the same time it could easily be themed differently and work just as well.

* Integrated theme - This is all about the theme; the game really would not function without it. Most war games probably fall into this category as the game is about that specific war. The theme often contributes equally with mechanics - if not more - when it comes to your enjoyment of the game.

* Pure theme - You play this for the theme and experience, not the mechanics or depth of play. I think many classic children's games fall into this grouping as well as something like Tales of the Arabian Nights or comedy-heavy games like Munchkin. Even thought there may not be much in the way of mechanics, the theme can often be enough to make these games highly enjoyable.

(image by Fawkes) @ BGG)
Bootleggers is one of the best examples of integrated theme I've played. It is prohibition in the 1920s and each player is a mob boss producing hooch and running it to the speakeasies across town while trying to take out the competition. Whoever has the most cash at the end of twelve rounds wins.

The game play is fairly simple. Each player has a hand of numbered "muscle" cards and at the start of the round each player picks one in secret and reveals simultaneously to determine turn order. Then, in turn order, each player gets to pick up one "Men of Action" card which usually involve all sorts of rule breakers. After picking cards, players roll dice to determine how many crates of alcohol they've produced, load them into their trucks and send them to the speakeasies to sell for profit.

First, the components do a great job of evoking the theme. The main game board shows all the different speakeasies around town with era-appropriate store fronts and the track for Men of Action cards has different entertainers and other characters all dressed straight from the 20s. Each player has a set of plastic Tommy gun toting mobsters and trucks that the wooden cubes (representing crates of booze) actually fit into. One look at the game and you can immediately figure out what the overall concept is, even without knowing a thing about the rules.

(image by angelotti @ BGG)

What impresses me most is how well the mechanics tie into the theme. The most brilliant part are the Men of Action cards. Many allow you to upgrade your stills to roll more dice for production or get more mobsters to influence the back rooms of the speakeasies, making it more likely for you to turn a profit there. The rest are rule breakers, though, and these are the key to the game. Most can be held in your hand until you wish to play them. In true mobster form, though, deals may be made at any time for anything you can imagine and nothing is binding. More often than not the Men of Action cards are used to extort money from another player. The threat of playing a card on someone can be more powerful than actually playing it on them!

Many other games have "take that" mechanics where you may play cards and take actions that directly (and usually negatively) impact other players. The mobster theme in Bootleggers fits perfectly with that style of play. Combine that with freestyle non-binding negotiations and you have a game that perfectly nails the mob theme. For example, I may have a card that allows me to hijack someone's truck once it arrives at a speakeasy and steal the profit from its sales. Instead of outright playing that on someone I can threaten to play it on them unless they split the profits. After all, receiving something is better than receiving nothing, right? Better yet, they may counteroffer to give me an even larger split to play it on someone else at the table. Many games with deal making often have fairly strict rules around what can and cannot be negotiated; Bootleggers has no such restrictions and these threats and negotiations really become the heart of the game.

(image by basilmichael @ BGG)
The other thing all this negotiation does is help reduce some of the luck in the game. You roll one or more six-sided dice to determine how many crates you produce and how many crates the different speakeasies will purchase. You can mitigate luck in production by buying and selling crates or buying/renting trucks from other players; at the speakeasies you play influence which may give you preference when it comes to selling, or you may be able to strong arm your way into others' profits by using Men of Action cards. There is most certainly luck but I feel it is very manageable.

My only real complaints are with some of the components. The artwork is great but the there's a lot of extremely small text on the cards and many of them are unique. This means each round you spend time reading the cards out loud - often multiple times - to make sure everyone knows what is available. As much as I enjoy the artwork I think they could have made it a little smaller in favor of larger text. Also, the little plastic trucks are extremely cool but they come in three sizes: small (4 crates), medium (6 crates) and large (9) crates. The problem is that the trucks are all the same physical size and are only differentiated by the number 4, 6 or 9 on the roof. There's no line to help to know which way is up for the numbers so it is very easy to get confused between the 6 and 9. Finally, the game comes with paper money which I think we all know by now I'm not a fan of. Use poker chips; not only is it easier to handle but it fits perfectly with the theme!

Thankfully none of that takes away from the fun to be had. This isn't a game for everyone; you need to accept that you'll get screwed over and blackmailed by other players. Once you accept that and start having fun with the theme, Bootleggers shines. Few games marry theme and mechanics together this well. You can find it for cheap online ($20 or less), which is sadly the only reason I even became aware of it. If a mafia-rich theme and a little dice rolling sound good to you then I strongly suggest you get Bootleggers into your collection.

Tales of the Arabian Nights

(image courtesy UniversalHead @ BGG)

Before you sits a massive board game. You've never encountered a box so dense or a game so unique.

You would love to open the box and play the game. Turn to page 83.

You need to put on your hernia belt before lifting the box. Turn to page 15.

The sheer size of the box sends you fleeing in terror. Turn to page 102.

For those that grew up in the 80s you no doubt remember Choose Your Own Adventure books where you read a paragraph and made a decision that led you to another page in the book. They were really unique with branching paths and multiple endings, meaning you could experience a new story each time (assuming you didn't cheat and read ahead).

Tales of the Arabian Nights is a reprint of the original by the same name from 1985. It is, in essence, a massive choose your own adventure. Players will move around a map, run into a random encounter, choose how to react and see what happens. Sometimes you'll earn great rewards, other times you'll have some horrible status inflicted upon you. Ultimately you want to collect story and destiny points and return to Baghdad. The first to do so wins the game.

At the start of the game, players have two main decisions to make. First, you get to choose three skills for your character. There are over a dozen to pick from and range from quick thinking and piety to storytelling, seduction and beguiling. Skills generally don't do anything by themselves but they will give you options as you resolve events. You might pick ones that sound fun or - like me - think what type of character you imagine yourself as. For example, I might decide to be a grizzled old wizard and go with magic, enduring hardship and wisdom.

You must also decide how you want to win the game. As a reward for your encounters you'll often earn story and/or destiny points. You need to earn 20 points to win the game but before the game begins you get to decide how you want to split those between story and destiny. So you could go for 10 and 10, or 12 story and 8 destiny... whatever you want to do.

(image courtesy betume @ BGG)

Once everyone has made their decisions the game starts. Going around the table each player moves and resolves an encounter. When you land on a spot you draw an encounter card that tells you what type thing you've run into, like a beggar or a witch. Then you roll a die and that gives you the adjective for that thing, so maybe you've encountered an imprisoned beggar or a wealthy witch. Based on what you've encountered you will have a list of reactions you may choose from. For example, if you find an imprisoned beggar you might have options to aid, rob, talk, avoid or attack them. Your action is referenced on a chart that tells you what paragraph from the book will be read to you.

First the reader will read aloud the start of the paragraph. Then there may be a list of outcomes that start off with various skills in bold. If the player has one of these skills they may choose to have that result read to them, otherwise you default to the "no skill" paragraph. The result is read (hopefully very dramatically) and then some rewards are given out. Typically you will earn (or possibly lose) story and destiny points, plus you may earn new skills or gain a status. There are a bunch of different statuses: some good, some bad. You could become lost (reduced movement), imprisoned (encounter a jailer each turn until you escape), envious (must always rob when given the option) or blessed (always choose the result when you roll a six-sided die) just to name a few. These statuses do all sorts of crazy things and are going to help and hurt your progress throughout the game.

Normally I don't dive this much into the rules but in all honesty that's really all there is to Tales of the Arabian Nights. There's no strategy, no tactics, no real decisions to be made. You just move around the map, have encounters, choose a reaction and hope it works out! You have quests you are working on which give you reason to travel to specific cities on the map but that mostly just helps focus your movement so you aren't wandering aimlessly the entire game. In all honesty there is not much "game" to Tales of the Arabian Nights.

(image courtesy bullseyetm @ BGG)
The experience of playing is really a lot of fun, though, and unlike anything else out there. You'll encounter a beautiful princess and then decide how to react. Your options might include courting her, kidnapping her, robbing her or just talking to her. You might make your decision based on what type of character you are pretending to be or maybe you'll go for the choice that you think may lead to a good result. Sometimes you'll pick "enter" when you encounter a small artifact just because you are curious how the heck that is even possible! You can't "play well" but making these decisions are still a lot of fun.

Then you get to see how your decision played out. The Book of Tales is 300 pages long and has something like 2600 paragraphs, each often having two or three outcomes. I really like that your skills determine how an event plays out and it's always fun to wonder "what if." You could choose to navigate that mystical river and when the reader asks if you have Seamanship and you respond no and get the "no skill" result, you can't help but wonder what would've happened if you did! I've never read the actual 1001 Nights tales but from the little bit I know it certainly seems like the encounters and results in Tales of the Arabian Nights are very much in the spirit of the original tales. The paragraphs are very well written and highly entertaining, plus they just beg the reader to add in all sorts of dramatic flourishes.

I only have two small complaints with the gameplay itself. First, at the beginning you have to decide what your target story and destiny points are. There's really no reason to deviate much from a 50/50 split, otherwise you'll just be prolonging the game for yourself. I've read that others forgo that decision up front and simply play until someone reaches a combined total of 20 points. In the future I may go that route as well. Second, the game technically plays two to six players but I would never play with more than four unless your players are extremely patient. Your turns are quick and there's nothing to be planning outside of your turn so players may grow tired of the game. I really think that the game will be best with two or three.

(image courtesy @ UniversalHead BGG)

Other than that I think the game is a lot of fun and the experience is second to none. However, I do feel that some of the components could use some work. There are over a dozen skills and over two dozen different statuses. The game comes with a bunch of cards and cardboard chits to represent all of these and there aren't enough enough for all the players even though you aren't supposed to be limited by the components in the game. Thankfully BoardGameGeek exists and there are some fantastic player mats out there but honestly something like that should have come with the game; I can't imagine playing without one. Each spot on the map represents some type of terrain that may be used when resolving encounters but I found the colors hard to distinguish and the legend is a little misleading as well. Finally, the Book of Tales is a massive 300 page spiral bound book. The cover is a little flimsy and is already highly creased and bent after only a few plays plus the spiral binding keeps twisting off the ends.

These are really minor complaints in what is one of the most original games out there. As I've mentioned there is no strategy, no grand planning, not even any true decisions to make. You just move, deal with your encounter and hope the outcome is good. The stories that get told are highly memorable, though! One friend of mine tried to court everyone he came across and kept getting thrown in jail. Another had a precious gem taken from him and for the rest of the game had to try and steal from everyone he encountered because he was envious of their belongings. Tales of the Arabian Nights isn't a game you will want to play too frequently as eventually you will start to repeat events. Thankfully there are 2600 paragraphs or so and with each often having different outcomes based on a couple of skills you will still find new events and encounters each time you play.

So long as you go into Tales of the Arabian Nights understanding exactly what you are in for I think you will find a lot to love. It really is a storytelling game and as such it excels. You may want to print out some player aides from Board Game Geek but with those in hand you will have one of the most unique and entertaining experiences out there.

Space Alert

(image courtesy karel_danek @ BGG)

In space, nobody can hear you scream. Apparently nobody told that to Vlaada Chvátil (designer of Space Alert) because this game is anything but silent!

Space Alert is the latest in the wave of cooperative games that have been hitting the market lately. I've talked about some like Battlestar Galactica, Shadows over Camelot and Pandemic but Space Alert is an entirely different beast. Players are members of a star ship, hopping to new sectors in space and dealing with (read: destroying) whatever they encounter. Space is unforgiving, though, and the crew will struggle to keep their ship in one piece!

The game takes place in two parts. Part one is the planning phase which is played out in real time to a CD soundtrack. Yes, that's right: a CD soundtrack. Each player has a track with 12 spots where they will play action cards designating what they will be doing on that turn. The catch is that you are planning your actions out in real-time as the soundtrack barks out commands. A single mission lasts seven to ten minutes and is divided into three phases. You may only play cards on the spots that correspond to the current phase you are in, making planning even trickier. The soundtrack is going to give out commands like:

"Phase one ends in 20 seconds."
"Data transfer."
"Threat T+3 zone blue."

(image courtesy fehrmeister @ BGG)

There are a variety of things that may happen but the core of the game are the threats. The ship is divided into three sections (red, white blue) and the soundtrack will announce which turn (T+3 means turn 3) a threat appears. You then draw a random card from the threat deck to see what appears in round three and what you need to do to deal with it. Then players start planning out their actions, turn by turn, to figure out what needs to be done. You are free to move your pieces around on the board to help you visualize but you are not actually doing anything in this phase, only programming your actions for each turn.

Once the mission is done, the game board is reset and the resolution phase of the game begins. You now walk through the actions and events turn-by-turn to see how well the crew's plans work out!

It may sound simple but the game is anything but. Resource management is key and you'll be fighting it your entire mission. The ship has a limited amount of energy and firing weapons and powering shields draws from the energy pool so you must make sure there's enough energy in the right place at the right time. Taking down enemy ships is also often tricky as typically you need to coordinate attacks from multiple guns at once if you want to do any real damage. Threats will also attack back and you also need to plan for when they'll be firing and what you need to do to prepare for it. Do you try and take it down before it does much damage or raise the shields to absorb the hits? Once you play the full game (there are several introductary scenarios to help you get up to speed) you'll also have threats on board your ship to deal with, screen savers to keep from kicking in, battle bots to control and windows to look out of.

(image courtesy Meat @ BGG)

If Space Alert sounds crazy, that's because it is. This is, without a doubt, one of the most insane board games I've played and I love every second of it. When you first see two CDs in the box you'll cringe, afraid of what that could possibly lead to. Thankfully the "soundtracks" are really bare-bones audio files that mostly just have the computer voice barking out commands. There is a lot to coordinate across all players and you'll scramble to get everything worked out and planned before the next phase begins. Failing to deal with a threat will typically either damage the ship which causes it to perform less efficiently or may cause players to delay a turn. Delaying can be very bad as all of your actions will slide down one spot to the right, meaning everything else you had planned is now one turn off from what you originally expected. Truly devistating when coordination is such an important part of the game.

I can see where some will really not care for Space Alert. It is a stressful game and requires a lot of communication amongst the group. You need to be a very assertive player; you won't do anything unless you start planning out actions but to succeed you need to coordinate with your fellow players. You also need to be very tolerant of others' mistakes as all it takes is one person doing the wrong thing on one turn for all your well-made plans to fall apart. Failure is always an option (and a likely one at that) in Space Alert; some may not enjoy seeing themselves or others make mistakes that cost the game for the whole group.

(image courtesy filwi @ BGG)

I love this game. The real-time planning phase is brilliant and is unlike anything else out there. Random encounters mean near-infinite replayability and when you use everything the game has to offer it is pretty much impossible to fully plan out all of your moves correctly. Sometimes you'll look back and curse one mistimed action that cost you the game while other times nothing clicks for the group and hilarity ensues. The more you play with the same players, though, the better you'll become at communicating efficiently and the better you will do. Each mission takes 7-10 minutes of real-time play and probably an equal amount of time to resolve. Don't be surprised if you find yourself playing two, three or more missions back-to-back.

I wish words could do this game justice but it really needs to be experienced to appreciate. Vlaada Chvátil is quickly becoming one of my favorite game designers and I will always be up for some Space Alert.

Shadows Over Camelot

(image courtesy Erich @ BGG)
Board gamers tend to be geeks and geeks tend to love Monty Python. It's inevitable that Monty Python quotes will occasionally come out during gaming sessions. Pull out Shadows Over Camelot, though, and it is a guarantee. If you want to have some fun, keep a running log of how many seconds it takes upon pulling out the box before the first quote comes out. The results may (or may not) surprise you.

Shadows Over Camelot is in fact about King Arthur and the Round Table. Dark forces are taking over the land, Camelot is under siege and one of the knights may even be a traitor! Similar to Battlestar Galactica, Shadows Over Camelot is a cooperative game with a traitor element. Each player is a Knight of the Round Table and at the beginning of the game everyone is dealt a secret loyalty card that says if they are loyal or the traitor. Given the game's setup there is at most one traitor but it's possible there may be none, adding a bit to the suspense.

Players work together completing quests and try to out the traitor (if one exists). As quests are completed, white swords are placed on the round table and black swords are added as quests fail. The game is over when all 12 spots on the table have filled. If half or more of the swords are black, evil prevails and the traitor - if there is one - wins the game. Should the knights manage to have more white than black swords, though, they have kept evil at bay and rejoice merrily.

(image courtesy kilroy_locke @ BGG)

At its core, Shadows Over Camelot is really a rummy game of sorts. You are trying to collect sets, straights and pairs of cards to play on different "quests." Some quests - like the duel against the black knight - may only be attempted by one player at a time, while others allow multiple knights to work together. You may only play one card per turn so generally you need to work together to complete quests in a timely fashion.

Completing quests quickly can be important because at the start of your turn you must first "progress evil" which involves drawing and resolving a card from the deck of bad things. Generally these cards push a single quest closer to failure. As these bad things come out on each player's turn it really is important that the players work together; it's not unusual to see your hard work go down the drain quickly with a few bad card draws.

The knight's special powers and the traitor mechanic really make the game. Each knight has a rule-breaker special ability that they may use on their turn. King Arthur, for example, can exchange one card with another player while another knight may use special white cards as a free action. Some knights work well together, others just help the group as a whole. You really need to make sure you put your special powers to use as they can easily be the difference between winning and losing.

(image courtesy flieger @ BGG)
Then there's the traitor mechanic. At the start of the game a deck is built consisting of one loyalty card per player plus one traitor card. These cards are shuffled and one is dealt to each player. Players look at their card in secret and now know their role for the game. Odds are there will be a traitor but there's a small chance there's none so that adds a fun unknown element. The traitor has a very important part to play as they want to influence events so that the heroes lose but want to keep their identity hidden if possible. Most cards are played and discarded face down so you never know the true value or type of card someone got rid of. The traitor could, for example, sit on the quest for Excalibur and throw away all of their best white cards. While each white card discarded moves the Excalibur quest one step closer to victory, by burning their best cards the traitor is making the group weaker as a whole.

There's a lot of subtlety when it comes to playing the traitor. Once there are six swords at the round table or six siege engines at Camelot, players may start making accusations. If the player make a successful accusation then one white sword is added to the table; guess wrong, though, and one white sword turns to black which can be devastating. Should the traitor make it to the end of the game undetected, two white swords will turn to black which will almost certainly equal doom for the good guys.

Unfortunately I think there's almost too much subtlety when it comes to playing the traitor. My main complaint is that, as the traitor, there's really not a whole lot you can do. Sure you can waste some time on a quest here, throw away good cards there and try to generally play sub-optimally without giving away that you are the traitor but none of those actions are all that exciting. Shadows Over Camelot is a challenging game all by itself. There's often not a whole lot the traitor even needs to do to tip the game in their favor.

(image courtesy kilroy_locke @ BGG)

Mechanically the quests work but I also find they are not all that exciting. All you do is play cards in various ways on different locations. That's fine, but when battling off the Saxons and Picts involves playing a straight and dueling the Black Knight has you playing two pairs... well, that doesn't do much for the theme. You are also only allowed to play a single card per turn. This forces cooperation as players need to work together to complete quests quickly but it also means that your individual turns aren't all that exciting. If you have a straight in your hand you may spend the next five turns at the Picts playing them down, which can be quite dull as you wait for the other players to go.

Given my complaints you might think I dislike Shadows Over Camelot. Quite the opposite! I think it is great fun, especially with the right group of people. By the nature of the game the traitor can often be difficult to weed out but it is really necessary for the heroes to do so if they want to succeed. Drawing from the "bad deck" each turn means that the group's priorities are constantly in flux. A single quest can easily go from nearly complete to just about to fail in a few turns, so the group is always re-evaulating what needs attention and trying to coordinate how to best tackle the issues at hand.

(image courtesy IntvGene @ BGG)
What really impresses me most is that I don't think I've found anyone that just does not like Shadows Over Camelot. The rules take a little while to explain but are pretty straightfoward once you start playing; combine that with the gorgeous art and components and the Knights of the Round Table theme and you have a game that you can teach to anyone and have fun. I've played with gamers and non-gamers alike and it goes over well every time. The game is not without its flaws but the good parts are good enough to make for a great gaming experience. Personally I find Battlestar Galactica to be the more engaging cooperative/traitor style game but Shadow Over Camelot's relative simplicity makes it a better introduction to cooperative gaming.

Note that there is an expansion for the game called Merlin's Company. Stay away: you have been warned. Some folks complained that they had pretty much "solved" the base game so Days of Wonder put out an expansion to bump up the difficulty level. Unfortunately I found that the expansion just sucked all the fun out of the game. The main offender is that you now have random encounters as you move from quest to quest and usually the encounters involve bad things happening like you losing your turn. You are already so limited in what you get to accomplish each turn that I found this expansion to be maddening, not fun. Stick with the base game and enjoy.

Agricola

(image courtesy cuazzel @ BGG)
There's a new king in town and it goes by the name Agricola. For quite a long time Puerto Rico claimed the number one spot in the rankings over at BoardGameGeek. When Agricola released at Essen in 2007 it quickly climbed and at some point last year it finally knocked Puerto Rico off its throne. Agricola had a lot of buzz about it and the speed which it rose was really quite impressive; is the game equally as amazing?

Agricola is a worker placement game about farming. The game takes place over 16 rounds with harvests happening after every few. Over the course of the game you will place your family members (initially two but you may get more later) to raise animals, plow fields, sow crops, expand and renovate your house, bake bread, collect food and much more. There are a lot of aspects to the game and essentially you earn points for everything you've managed to do and lose points for the things you haven't.

As a worker placement game I think Agricola succeeds. There are a lot of different areas to place your family members and even with five players there's almost always something useful you can do each turn. One aspect I really like is that there is a base set of actions (determined by the number of players) and then each round another action is made available. Family members determine how many actions you'll be performing each round so as you grow your family and as more actions come up you do get a sense of growth and accomplishment as you manage to do more each turn.

(image courtesy richardsgamepack @ BGG)

One of the more interesting parts of the game are the occupation and improvement cards. Each player is dealt seven of each at the start of the game and will be able to bring these cards into play over the course of the game. What's most impressive is that every single card is unique and there are even three different decks that come with the game but only one is used at a time. This means there is a ton of replay value as you'll probably never be dealt the exact same set of cards twice. There's also a good chance these cards will help you formulate your strategy and set your course for the game.

Unfortunately this also leads to one of my main complaints with Agricola. The occupations and improvements do a lot of cool and varied things but I feel there is a significant luck-of-the-draw aspect to the game. Sometimes you just get dealt really awesome cards that work well together. If you don't have that same level of synergy you are already at a significant disadvantage.

I've discovered that Agricola really stresses me out but not in a good way. There is something like a dozen different areas where you can gain or lose points. Generally you need to make sure you are doing a little bit of everything; focusing too much on one aspect means you are forgoing something else and losing points. You'll feel real despair when the end of the game is rolling in and you see how much more stuff everyone else has managed to accomplish compared to you. Case in point: I think my highest scoring game was my first when I had no idea what I was doing. I played turn-to-turn and did whatever looked best at the time. Every game since then I've tended to focus on whatever I was lacking in last time, meaning something else was ignored and my scores suffered greatly. I've found the trick is to really play more tactically and try to maximize each turn rather than try and plan some great strategy. Take what you can when you can get it and you'll do well.

(image courtesy timsteen @ BGG)
I also feel like the game is dull for the first half to two thirds of the game and then really quickly escalates towards the end. There's a good chance you won't be getting your third family member until nearly halfway through the game and harvests come more quickly towards the end. Usually it seems like things really don't start clicking until round 10 or later at which point you are well over halfway through the game and often things won't really come together for you until the last couple of rounds when you fill in those last few missing pieces that you need. It'd be nice if the game had a more gradual curve than the somewhat sudden crecendo I often feel.

For all my complaining, though, I do think that Agricola is a good game. Does it deserve the number one spot on BoardGameGeek? Probably not. The mechanics are solid and the game has really high replay value which is fantastic. Unfortunately I think the cards can put you at a disadvantage from the start and I find having to do a little bit of everything not as satisfying as other games where you can really focus on a strategy and see it unfold. I'm not going to turn down a game of Agricola and I might even recommend it from time to time, but generally there are other games I'd rather play.

Dominion

(image courtesy monteslu @ BGG)
BoardGameGeek - while a great site - isn't always a good thing for me. Whenever a new release really catches on there I have a tendency to fight against that game; I'm always skeptical that it can be remotely as good as the masses claim. Early reviews are always in that honeymoon period (which I get caught up in as well) so it can take a little while for the game to "settle" to its proper place on the site. Dominion caught like a wildfire when it released which is surprising since it's just a card game and the BoardGameGeek community tends to favor more in-depth strategy games. Race for the Galaxy had a similar fever around it when it released and while I think it is a good game the complexity and learning curve means it rarely hits the table. With comparisons being drawn between the two on BoardGameGeek I found myself having a hard time getting excited about Dominion.

Then I played the game and realized what the fuss was all about.

Dominion is a deck building card game for two to four players. There are 25 different kingdom decks that come with the game, 10 of which will be in use for a single match. You'll also find copper, silver and gold cards - the currency in the game - and estate, duchy and province cards - worth 1, 2 and 3 victory points respectively. Player start with seven copper and three estates, shuffle them up and draw five into their hand. Over the c0urse of the game players will be playing cards from their hand to acquire new kingdom cards which will in turn allow them to earn yet more cards. The ultimate goal is to pick up victory points. Once either the provinces or three of the 10 kingdom card stacks runs out, the game is over and whomever has the most victory points wins.

(image courtesy garyjames @ BGG)

What makes Dominion so brilliant is that the rules are incredibly simple. On your turn you have an action and a buy that can be done in any order. Your action allows you to play a card marked as an action from your hand. Many action cards give you more actions (listed as +1 action) or more buys (+1 buy). More actions allow you to play further action cards from your hand, possibly chaining them together. Each buy allows you to purchase one kingdom card using the money cards in your hand. Everything purchased, spent and unused from your hand is put in your discard pile and you draw five new cards, reshuffling your discard pile as needed.

That's really it! Dominion is a deck building game and everyone starts on equal footing with the same 10-card deck. On your turn you'll be able to purchase new cards which go directly into your discard pile and will get shuffled in when you need to reshuffle. It is a great mechanic because you are trying to seed your deck with the proper types and amounts of cards that you feel will get to you victory the fastest. The fate of your game is mostly in your hands based on how you build your deck with a little bit of lucked tossed in based on what cards you draw.

The rest of the rules are printed on the cards themselves. For example, play the Cellar and you get +1 Action plus you can discard any number of cards from your hand and redraw new ones. The Woodcutter gives you +1 buy and two more copper to spend on your turn. As you look at the available cards you'll be able to visualize combos building up that allow you to burn through your deck more quickly and get to the cards you need.

(image courtesy Filippos @ BGG)
While all these actions are nice, money and victory points are extremely important. Provinces - worth three victory points - have a cost of 8. If you can't get 8 worth of money into your hand you'll never have a chance of winning the game. Copper is worth 1, silver worth 2 and gold worth 3. You don't want to flood your deck with copper because you need eight of them to get a province, whereas three gold gets you there too. Since your initial hand is only five cards, you need to find a balance between more actions to draw through your deck and more efficient money to get you more with less.

What's really brilliant is that victory points are also cards that get shuffled into your deck. They have no inherit value and are of no use to you while you play the game, they are just your points at the end. Any victory points you draw into your hand are dead weight so you need to start the game early by building up your infrastructure of actions and money and at some point switch over to grabbing victory points. Finding the proper balance for your deck and deciding when to make that transition is your key to success. Once one player picks up the first province it is often an arms race to grab the rest.

Not only is Dominion incredibly simple it is also just a lot of fun to play. With 25 different kingdom cards the game is going to play different every time. Even with the same set of 10 kingdom cards in play there will probably be at least two or three viable ways to build your deck, maybe even more. Everyone will find a slightly different balance and it's hard to describe the satisfaction I find in selecting the right cards, building up my deck and seeing it execute properly. It's also interesting how your card draws influence what cards you plan on buying. I may have bought a few Cellars but based on their distribution in my reshuffle I might feel like they just aren't coming up often enough and will try to play accordingly. There's an interesting balance in building your deck mathematically to play the odds and playing by gut reaction as you go.

(image courtesy EndersGame @ BGG)

I honestly have no complaints about the game. The artwork is a little bland but it works and doesn't distract you at all. It is a little pricey for a box of cards but the game is very well designed and a ton of fun; you'll get your money's worth. My main fear is the upcoming expansions. There is another full 25 set of kingdom cards being released soon. It'll function as a standalone game but can also be mixed in with the base set. I think there are more expansions planned. My fear is that it'll just get too bloated with all of these expansions and the fun will get lost along the way. Thankfully the base game is enough fun and has so much replay value that I'm not sure a person would never need to get these expansions. I just don't want them to dilute the value of the game by pumping out too many expansions too quickly.

Nobody is forcing me to buy expansions, though, so I'm going to continue to enjoy Dominion for a long time to come. It is incredibly easy to teach, has a lot of replay value and is highly satisfying to play. A couple of guys in our group have had a somewhat lukewarm reception to it, but overall it has been received with great enthusiasm. I think it will be a staple for our gaming group going forward.

Battlestar Galactica

(image courtesy Surya @ BGG)
Competitive/cooperative games are sort of the new hotness in board games. Shadows Over Camelot is one of the most popular in the genre but there are others like Bang!, Saboteur and Betrayal at House on the Hill. Typically these styles of games have players working together against the game system; the catch is that one or more players are secretly working against the "good guys" and are trying to make them lose. It's a really interesting mechanic that adds a lot of tension to a game and generally results in a lot of player interaction.

Battlestar Galactica is the newest in this style of game. I'm a huge fan of the television series so I was both excited and nervous about the game. Like video games, board game movie tie-ins generally don't turn out to be that good. Usually they are just a cash-in on the franchise. Early press made Battlestar Galactica sound like little more than Shadows Over Camelot with a science fiction twist. Thankfully it turned out to be much more!

(image courtesy @ henk.rolleman BGG)

Here's a real quick rundown of the story as it applies to the board game. Humans created a robotic race called Centurions to do their bidding. Eventually the Centurions rebelled, left on their own and created the Cylons, robots that look and act exactly like humans. Finally the Cylons invaded the human home world of Caprica and forced the remaining survivors to flee and look for a new home. The humans are looking for the mythical planet of Earth and need to get to the planet Kobol which supposedly will point them in the right direction. They are being chased by the Cylons, though, and worse yet have no idea who in the fleet may in fact be one of them!

Mechanically this sets the game up perfectly for a hidden traitor mechanic. At the start of the game everyone picks a character and is then dealt a loyalty card that says if you are human or Cylon. If you are human you want to get the fleet to Kobol; if you are Cylon you want to blow up Battlestar Galactica, overtake the ship or make the humans run out of resources. Only one side will come out victorious.

As a Cylon you generally want to keep your loyalty hidden as you can do a lot of damage that way. Each turn players draw a set of skill cards of five different possible colors, defined on their character sheet. Then they take a "good" action which might involve fighting Cylon ships, repairing Galactica or throwing someone in the brig. After that you are forced to resolve an event which is never good. These represent things like new Cylon ships appearing, prison riots, hostage negotiations and the like. At the bottom of the card are symbols showing if Cylon ships attack and if the battlestar spins up its faster-than-light (FTL) drives which is key to jumping closer to Kobol.

(image courtesy filwi @ BGG)
The top portion of the card is typically some sort of skill check to pass or a decision to be made and these are the real crux of the game. Decisions are made by either the current player, the president or the admiral (roles that are assigned to players over the course of the game). Usually you have to pick between two different bad things and decide which is the lesser of two evils. Skill checks make up the bulk of the event cards. On the card is shown a target level, which of the five skill card colors apply towards success and what happens if you pass or fail the check. First, two random skill cards are added to start the pile, then going around the table each player has the option of playing face-down as many skill cards as they would like. Once all the cards are in the pile is shuffled and the cards are totaled. Each skill card matching the colors on the event adds its value towards success while each non-matching cards subtracts its value. If the total equals or exceeds the target you pass, otherwise you fail.

This part of the game really lets the hidden Cylons mess with the humans. Assuming everyone is loyal there should be a maximum of two bad cards in the stack if both random cards were bad. Everything else should be good. If not, you know someone intentionally played a bad skill card! As a Cylon you can try to toss in bad cards to push the event towards failure but you risk revealing yourself. While you don't know who threw in a specific card, process of elimination based on what color the card was and what skill cards each player draws can help narrow down the traitors. There's also the possibility for some bluffing and blame-laying; you can even toss in cards to try and frame someone else! The amount of mind-games and deduction is extremely fun and players are always interested as the totals are added up.

There's one more mechanic that makes Battlestar Galactica work. At the start of the game the loyalty deck is built with a specific number of human and Cylon cards based on the number of players. Only half of the deck is dealt out at the start, giving each player a single loyalty card. Roughly halfway through the game the second half of the deck is dealt, giving each player a second loyalty card. This means you may have been a loyal human at the start but you have now switched and become a Cylon! Players may have had everything figured out from the start but halfways through it can almost become a new game as the paranoia settles in all over again.

(image courtesy avyssaleos @ BGG)

While I love Battlestar Galactica, it isn't perfect. My first complaint is that they used stills from the show for a lot of the artwork; this is going to make the game age really poorly. Second, the pace of the game is often determined by the random event deck. Sometimes you can go awhile without anything too exciting happening. Granted, skill checks always keep people involved but the game is typically more "fun" when there are Cylon ships attacking as well. There's also the possibility for a player to get stuck and unable to contribute much to the game if they are in the brig or keep getting sent to sickbay. Finally, it is a long game (plan on 3-4 hours) and might outstay its welcome for some.

For me, though, Battlestar Galactica is pretty much the ultimate competitive/cooperative game. It improves upon other games in the genre by adding in the second round of loyalty cards (allowing for changing loyalties) and players are involved every single round as they add cards to skill checks. I do think it runs a bit long and there are some minor balance issues but I've had a ton of fun every time I've played. It does a great job of invoking the feeling of the show and I think fans of the series will get into the game even more. Both sides of the game - human and Cylon - are engaging throughout the entire game, something other games in the genre struggle with. Assuming we have the time, Battlestar Galactica will always be my "traitor" game of choice.

Railroad Tycoon and Rails of Europe

I'll admit it, I'm a sucker for expansions. If a publisher adds on to an existing board game, odds are I'll end up getting. Often expansions add more content, simply adding on to the base game (Descent: Journeys in the Dark). Others make changes to the original game that some argue are critical to truly enjoying the game (Twilight Imperium 3rd edition). You also have expansions that give you new ways to play the existing game (expansion maps for Power Grid). Rails of Europe is the first expansion for Railroad Tycoon and it is a mix of all the above; thankfully it turned out to be great.

First, a bit on Railroad Tycoon. As the name implies it is a rail game where each player works to build the best rail company they can. The game features a hex map of the eastern United States. Cities of various colors are located around the map and each starts with a certain number of randomly-colored cubes. Ultimately the goal is to build links of track and deliver these cubes to cities of the matching color. You earn a victory point for each link of yours that the cube travels over; it is possible to use other player's links to get to your destination but you feed them points in the process. The number of links you may use per delivery is based on your engine size which may be upgraded over the course of the game. Whoever has the most points at the end wins.

(image courtesy EndersGame @ BGG)

One of the more interesting concepts in the game is that you start with no money. Income is based on how many victory points you have; outside of that you must take shares to get money. Shares are subtracted from your income at the end of the round (considered to be paying dividends) and each share is worth minus one victory point at the end of the game. You may never get rid of shares so each one you take is one less point for you when all is said and done. Early on you need to take shares so you have enough money to get started but take too many and you are hurting yourself in the long run. Planning early short deliveries to earn points to get you going while setting up long routes and getting your engine upgraded is where the real fun of the game lies.

All of this works really well and the core mechanics are solid. Unfortunately a few things hold Railroad Tycoon from being great. First, the map of the United States is way too crowded in the northeast and far too sparse everywhere else. You can't let one person control the New York area so you'll have two or three players fighting it out there while others pretty much do their own thing in another part of the map. Play with less than six and you can go the entire game without ever having to run into another player. Second, the track laying rules are far too ambiguous when it comes to rivers. You are supposed to pay an extra $3000 when crossing a river but there's always arguments over what is considered "crossing" thanks to how the map is drawn. Third, there are cards dealt out each round that players may purchase to give them extra bonuses. Some cards are actually bonus points for successfully connecting two cities. It is impossible to plan for these because you never know if or when they'll come up so it actually feels a little random when people manage to score those points.

(image courtesy keithblume2 @ BGG)
Enter Rails of Europe. The core mechanics are all the same: lay track, deliver goods, earn points. What you get is a new map, a new deck of cards and some rule changes.

First off, the Europe map is awesome. It may not quite be as accurate a representation of Europe but it is perfect in terms of game balance. Cities are spread out nicely and there are far fewer of them meaning everyone is going to be thrown into the fray. They also cleaned up the track cost rules, getting rid of the highly ambiguous river crossing. Now if there is any water in a hex it costs $3000. It might not be quite as realistic but I think the simplicity really helps the game flow much more smoothly and makes the map more balanced. Another very nice change is that the city connection bonuses are no longer in the deck of cards but are all printed on the map and available from the start of the game. It allows players to build strategies around these connections and get some bonus points early on to help offset the much more challenging map build conditions.

Essentially every single complaint I have with Railroad Tycoon is fixed with Rails of Europe. The map is better, the rules are simpler and the game play is tighter and far more fierce. Our group has played several games of Railroad Tycoon before but when we set up Rails of Europe for the first time we just all stared at the map, uncertain of how to formulate our strategies. It really is a different game.

(image courtesy EndersGame @ BGG)

There's really only one remaining issue: the color choices for the cities and cubes are terrible. In the original print of Railroad Tycoon they did a very poor job matching the dye colors of the blue and purple cubes to the blue and purple cities on the map. They've since fixed that but now it is difficult to tell the blue and black cities apart, especially when you have bad glare on the glossy map. With so many colors and hues to pick from I'm not sure why they had to pick ones that look so similar. Thankfully there aren't many cities in Rails of Europe so it is easy to point out which cities are what color and people can easily remember. Still, I'd love to see them fix up the colors some day.

Outside of that I honestly think Rails of Europe fixes everything that was wrong with Railroad Tycoon. As Rails of Europe only supports five players and Railroad Tycoon supports six the only time I'll probably ever play the base game again is if we have the full compliment of six. I'm hoping that Rails of Europe does well because I would really like to see Eagle Games put out more expansion maps. If they can keep up this level of game play quality I think having a variety of maps will really add a lot of life and replay value to the game. Rails of Europe easily bumped Railroad Tycoon up several notches for me and it is a game I will always be willing to play. It really hits that sweet spot of complexity, depth and play time.

Finally, I will mention this is another game where you will want poker chips to replace the paper money. Paper money equals bad, poker chips equal good. You would be wise to remember that.