Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game

Image by Surya
Fantasy Flight has been on a roll in 2010. Early in the year they released my new favorite game, Runewars. That alone would be impressive but they didn't stop there. More recently they've come out with Space Hulk: Death Angel (a very fun cooperative game I plan on covering as part of my cooperative series soon), Battles of Westeros (interesting take on the Battlelore system), Dungeonquest (crazy dungeon romp) and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game (referred to as Civilization from here on). I love civilization building games so there was no way I could pass up giving Fantasy Flight's take on the genre a go.

Kevin Wilson was the designer behind this new version of Civilization and I admit that had me a bit hesitant going in. Kevin has done some fantastic work at Fantasy Flight, most notably Descent: Journeys in the Dark. My only concern was that his designs are often fairly - if not overly - complex and I was hoping this could be the Civilization game our group could play in an evening. While it shares the same name, it has nothing to do with the Eagle Games published title. This is an all-new take based on the classic Civilization PC series, clearly drawing heavily from Civilization IV and Civilization Revolution.

While am I a big fan of the series (particularity Civ Rev and Civ V), I'm not going to do any sort of comparison. Suffice it to say that I'm extremely impressed at how well Kevin managed to take concepts from the video games and turn them into cardboard form. Here's what really makes the game:

Image by henk.rolleman

+ Multiple Paths to Victory - Civilization games are known for allowing the player many different ways to win the game. Culture, science, military and economics are all valid choices in the game, each with their own unique victory conditions. Sometimes paths may intersect but each requires players to plan their path and execute better than their opponents. It really is a race game with the player that most effectively executes their strategy while keeping their opponents at bay coming out on top. While I have certainly not played exhaustively at this point I am comfortable saying that all the victory conditions seem well-balanced and fun to boot.

+ Technology Pyramid - Researching technologies has always been a big part of the computer games and we've seen this concept in board game form before. Certain technologies lead to others and players need to decide which path to follow. It's a classic formula but certainly restricts players, forcing them down predetermined paths.

Kevin tossed this idea out the window and instead introduced the technology pyramid. Level one technologies form the base; each level two technology requires two level one technologies to support it and so on. This is a fantastic system as it still requires some degree of required early technology research but gives players the freedom to pursue whatever paths they wish. Yes, it can lead to humorous situations where you learn how to fly airplanes and later come back to figure out how to make pottery but I'm perfectly happy to make that trade-off for the freedom this system allows. It's an extremely elegant design and really is the keystone to the game.

Image by haarrrgh
+ Modular Terrain - I love games with modular terrain and Civilization doesn't disappoint. The map is made up of four-by-four tiles that are revealed as players explore. There's a variety of terrain that provides different resources and you'll encounter friendly and hostile barbarians. Terrain is important and the land around your starting area will certainly impact your overall strategy but has never felt too limiting or imbalanced.

+ Unique Civilization Abilities - Each civilization (six come with the game) has a special ability or two and start with different learned techs. It's very clear that some civilizations are certainly geared more towards certain victory conditions. For example, the Germans are a good military force while the Russians can have easy access to technology. At the same time I think each can succeed in at least two different paths if not more; sometimes those bonuses are just as important in helping you towards another goal. I'm not entirely convinced they are all balanced, but they never really were in the computer games either. I've seen all civilizations do well and that's really all that matters.

As you can tell, I've really been enjoying the game. I was afraid it may end up overly complex but Kevin designed a very clean, intuitive game packed with lots of fun and great replay value. There are a just a couple of things that keep it from taking the throne away from Runewars as my favorite game, though:

~ Game Length - While not as epic in length as Twilight Imperium 3, Civilization can push the ability to get a game in an evening. It's not impossible, mind you, but the game length seems to be highly variable. There's the obvious learning time for new players but even with a group that knows the game well I've found that some games simply end up at more critical decision points than others. Three players seems to be the sweet spot for balance and game length, clocking in around a little over an hour per player. Time per player actually seems to go up when adding a fourth, simply because there's more difficult decisions to make and often more deal making as well.

Image by henk.rolleman

- Combat System - While I'm listing this as a downside to the game, let me first say that I think the core combat system is actually quite good. There are three different types of military units that battle in a rock-paper-scissor style system. It works well and does a nice job of reflecting modern computer strategy games. My only complaint is how your armies are tied to your units on the board. Military is represented in two ways: by plastic figures on the map showing where you have presence and by a deck of cards representing your military forces. When you battle you draw from your deck of forces and do combat. It's a nice simplification from having lots of different units running around the map but it has the unfortunate side effect that a battle on one side of the map can diminish your military strength on the other side of the map as they both pull from your same pool of military units. Retreating is not possible so you are forced to play each battle out to its bloody conclusion. There's also no way to voluntarily remove figures from the map so your army figures can actually become a serious liability if someone is heading for your cities. Ultimately this means you need to decide very early if you will be playing offensively or defensively. There's nothing inherently wrong with that but things get ugly if you find yourself having to change tactics mid-game.

When all is said and done, though, Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game really nails what I want out of a civilization-style game. I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in civilization style games or someone interested in a solid direct conflict game playable in a few hours. You really feel like you are building your civilization from the ground up, exploring new lands, making deals with and fighting against your neighbors. I'm really amazed at how well Kevin Wilson managed to take the complexity of the video game series and turn it into a board game while really keeping the spirit of the series. I think they've already confirmed an expansion is in the works and I'm hopeful that maybe they will address the issues I have with the combat system.

I even enjoy it so much that I put together a player aid to conserve some table space and help players better plan their strategies. Check it out over at BoardGameGeek!

Cooperative Series - Saboteur, Bang! and Shadow Hunters

Following up on Forbidden Island, I thought it'd be fun to take a look at a couple more light cooperative games. Both are card-based hidden role style games that support a wide number of players. Originally I was going to hold off on comparisons between cooperative games until the end of the series but these three fill such a similar niche I thought it best to talk about them at the same time.

(image by samoan_jo)
Saboteur

Dwarves love mining for gold. It's a pretty simple job unless there are traitors amongst them! Veins of coal and broken equipment are surely signs of dwarves gone bad. Will the loyal miners be able to out the saboteurs and find the gold in time?

Yes, Saboteur's theme is a bit silly but it works well given the game's mechanics. Three target cards are set out face down on the table: two show lumps of coal and the third is the gold mine. Eight spaces away from these target cards is the mine entrance. At the start of the game each player is dealt a loyalty card saying if they are a miner or saboteur. Players have a hand of cards showing various tunnel configurations, broken and repaired equipment. On your turn you play a card to either extend the tunnel system or break or repair someone's equipment. The loyal miners win if they reach the gold mine before the deck runs out, otherwise the saboteurs walk away victorious!

That's really all there is to to the game. It's simple, fast and very fun. The goal cards are face down but there are some cards in the deck that let you peek at one or more of the goals to help you figure out where to go. Saboteurs want to slow progress to the gold mine while miners want to get there as fast as possible. The coal veins are dummy targets; reaching one does not end the game but it does result in wasted time and cards.

(image by spearjr)

If you start your turn with broken equipment in front of you your turn is skipped until you or someone else plays a matching repair card on you. Breaking equipment is great for both sides but also have risks. The benefit is obvious for the saboteurs but can easily give your identity away. Miners want to slow the saboteurs if they can but a wrong guess means they are stopping a fellow miner from taking a turn. It's a very simple form of hidden loyalty and you'll be accused as being a saboteur for only having a hand full of dead end tunnels as often as you will actually be a saboteur but that's all part of the fun.

Should the saboteurs stop the miners, they each receive gold nugget cards based on how many saboteurs were in the game. If the miners reach the gold mine a number of random gold nuggets cards (showing one to three nuggets) are randomly dealt and picked in order from the miner that played the connecting tunnel. The winner is whoever has the most gold nuggets after three rounds.

Rarely do we play exactly three rounds. In fact we usually don't even care about the score that much as the scoring is fairly random. Saboteur's fun is in the sheer simplicity of the game and mechanics. A single round usually doesn't take more than ten minutes making it the perfect filler game. Play as many rounds as you want until you are ready for something else!

(image by samoan_jo)
Bang!

I'm really surprised that the Wild West theme isn't used more often in board games. Gun fights, duels, train and bank robberies, gambling, expansion of the Western frontier, cattle rustling... it seem like there's no end of possibilities!

In Bang, players are dealt out secret identities placing them in one of three factions: the sheriff and his deputies, outlaws and the lone renegade. Only the sheriff is known from the start; everyone else will spend the game trying to figure out who their allies are while taking down their opponents. The sheriff and deputies win when all the outlaws are face down in the dirt, the outlaws win by taking down the sheriff and deputies and the renegade wins by being the last man standing. Your identity is only revealed when you are killed, though, so you need to try and figure out loyalties by where the lead is flying.

Unfortunately, for me Bang really only delivers on the theme. Here's a rundown of what I think does and does not work:

+ Theme: Yep, the Wild West theme is great and overall it fits well mechanically. I can imagine a massive shootout in an old dusty western city where the lead is flying and you aren't quite sure who is friend or foe. In an homage to spaghetti westerns all of the cards have both English and Italian text which is a lot of fun, too.

+ Range: One of the most clever mechanics is that your weapons have a limited range. Pistols have a range of one while rifles may have a range of three. Range is counted by player order to your left or right, so a weapon with a range of two lets you shoot at people seated up to two places away from you. I love the concept of range actually being how physically far away people are seated from you and have never really seen that used in a game before. Very fun.

(image by Nodens77)

- Iconography: Cards use icons to depict what ability that card confers. Unfortunately I find the symbols confusing at best. Some can be easily explained and intuited while others have long descriptions in the rules that are not on the card. I know this has been addressed in the new version of Bang but I still think they could have come up with better symbology.

- Loyalties, Randomness and Length: Unfortunately I don't think the secret factions really do much for the game. Only the sheriff is known from the start so you sort of figure out who's on your team by who fires at the sheriff and who fires at the people firing at the sheriff. Unfortunately your ability to attack and defend are entirely up to the luck of the draw. This not only makes it difficult to properly play your role but can also result in wildly varying game lengths. Sometimes the game will be over in fifteen to twenty minutes, other times it can take over an hour for people to finally draw the right cards to kill their enemies. This is especially painful since the game features player elimination and the game mechanics simply aren't meaty enough to support a game of that length.

In the end I've been very disappointed with Bang. It seems like a really cool game but I've never had fun playing it. The confusing icons and heavy luck factor combined with potentially drawn-out game play and player elimination has not resulted in an enjoyable experience.

(image by drakecoldwinter)
Shadow Hunters

Take the Western theme off of Bang and replace it with monsters, monster hunters and humans. Welcome to Shadow Hunters. There are a few differences but overall I found the experience to be extremely similar to Bang. Keep in mind my impressions are based on a single play:

+ Loyalty Guessing: Many hidden loyalty games have you guessing a player's loyalties based on their actions over the course of the game. Shadow Hunters uses a pretty clever mechanic where you can play a card on them that will force them to reveal some information to you. Only you and your target get to see the card and their result is usually a yes/no style response or choosing between two actions based on what faction they belong to. It's a nice mechanical way to help you narrow down friend and foe.

- Lack of Strategy: Every turn you roll dice to determine which action to take. Usually you'll end up resolving a card which is either some sort of event, item to use or one of those loyalty guessing cards. The actions are broken up into regions on the board and after resolving your action you may attack someone else in the game region as you.

(image by Grimwold)

There are two problems. First, you don't get to make many decisions as your action is determined by a die roll at the start of your turn. You also immediately resolve cards you draw so there's no hand management. Your only real decision is who to attack and generally you'll wait until you know who's on your side, which is pretty easy thanks to the loyalty guessing cards. Second, the game length can be variable as your position on the board (and who you may attack) is random. If you keep missing your targets you'll never get to smack them around.

I do think Shadow Hunters has some clever mechanics but the game really was not at all satisfying. The loyalty guessing cards are fun but you can often know someone's loyalty after a single card play and figure out the rest by who attacks whom.

In Conclusion

I think some groups will find a lot of fun in both Bang and Shadow Hunters. They are certainly not bad games and bring some cool mechanics to the table. Unfortunately I find both to be very unsatisfying experiences. Saboteur's strengths are its simplicity and fast playing time. If Bang and Shadow Hunters could be played in a shorter fixed amount of time I think they'd be much better; they just don't sustain themselves when the variable game length pushes on the long side.

Not only is Saboteur the cheapest of the three, it's also the most enjoyable. There's a lot of fun to be had in that little deck of cards!

Quick Hits: Alien Frontiers and Britannia

Alien Frontiers

(image by CleverMojo @ BGG)
I enjoy a dose of luck in my games and especially love clever dice mechanics. Alien Frontiers had a lot of buzz leading up to its release, in part due to it being funded through Kickstarter and also due to the high component quality. The game saw a fairly limited release but a friend of mine got his hand on a copy and we were able to table it up the other night.

First off it is a beautiful game, especially for a small publisher. The artwork is a little goofy but nice (sort of retro sci-fi-esque) and doesn't distract or muddle up the cards or playing area. I thought the game board was very clean, easy to understand and overall rivaled productions from larger publishers on the market.

Players are trying to colonize a new planet, using their spaceships to gather the resources needed to build new colonies. The game ends when someone builds a target number of colonies (based on the number of players), earning points for each colony built and for regions on the planet where they have the most colonies. Dice represent your ships and on the start of your turn you roll to determine which actions you can take. Each space station on the board requires different sets of dice to activate; some areas need pairs, triplets, or a straight while others will accept whatever you have available. Stations generally gain you energy and ore which are needed to build colonies on the planet.

(image by soosy @ BGG)

In a typical worker placement game, players go around the table placing workers out one at a time and resolving them once everyone has placed. Alien Frontiers plays with that formula a bit. When a player places their ships (dice) they immediately take the corresponding action. The catch is that you don't pick your dice up until the start of their next turn, meaning those spaces are tied up for everyone else. It's a pretty clever system and I wouldn't be surprised to see it used more in future worker placement games.

While the dice mechanic is fun I found the area control portion of the game lackluster at best. The four player game ends when someone builds their sixth colony. There are eight regions on the planet so you will likely end up focusing on only a couple of regions. Usually area control games have some interesting back-and-forth for domination of an area but not so in Alien Frontiers. Player colonies are too limited for there to be any interesting jockeying of position.

Unfortunately this led to an underwhelming gaming experience. The dice action mechanic is clever but there didn't lead to interesting enough decisions, both in ship and colony placement. Granted my rolls were fairly poor overall which may have impacted my feelings toward the game but I think more competition in the colony placement portion of the game would help a lot.

Alien Frontiers does play quickly, though (under and hour) so a little lack of depth is forgivable for faster play time. There are options to use more colonies in the game which would help address my issues with limited area control but I'm afraid the game might outstay its welcome with increased play time. It certainly doesn't feel like a bad game but there are other diced-based games (Yspahan, Kingsburg) that offer up more interesting decisions for the players. Maybe future plays will result in a better understanding of the mechanics and better competition for resources as well. I'm interested to see how the game holds up under repeat plays.

(image by Toad @ BGG)
Britannia

It's been quite awhile but we finally managed to get in another game of Britannia. Players control different nations as they invade the island of Britannia over the course of one thousand years or so. It's long, epic and seriously fun.

I'm most impressed by the game's balance. I've played several games now and never does one nation seem too powerful or the game too predictable. Every player is strong at different points in time, giving them a chance to shine (where shining results in destroying lots of opposing armies). Some nations are destined to be very populous on the map while others are generally minor players serving as an annoyance. Even with such asymmetry and lots of dice rolls it always feel like every player has a chance to win and it's all about the choices they make.

By no means am I a history buff but I enjoy the balance Britannia has found between historical accuracy and replayability. Nations come into play and receive reinforcements at specific points during the course of the game, leaders rise and fall and players earn points for holding specific territories during scoring rounds. Everything matches up nicely with the small bit of history I do know but the game gives you plenty of room to play. Nations get most of their points for holding territories that were historically significant to them but there are plenty of extra points to be earned by bending history to your will. I've seen games where a starting nation only lasts a handful of turns, others where they survive until the very end of the game. There are always certain nations that act as major forces in the game but the decisions players make and the outcomes of battles result in a highly dynamic game.

(image by filwi @ BGG)

I do have a couple of small complaints,. First, the first edition by Fantasy Flight has some print errors on the board. They are easily accounted for but are still irritating. Thankfully if you are picking up a new copy it should be corrected. Next, there can be a fair amount of down time for some players. Everyone has high and low points during the game and the low points may see you doing little for a turn or two. Some nations - like the Caledonians - are going to do little over the course of the entire game and may cause some frustration for their player. Finally, the game does take awhile. Our games often clock in near six hours, relegating it to weekend play. An experienced group of players could likely play in four hours but I doubt we'll ever get to that point.

Britannia isn't a game you'll see hit the table every week but if you enjoy epic, well-balanced games and marching armies around to smash your opponents you will find a lot to love. I would encourage everyone to play it at least once for the experience. It's one of those games you will think about for days and weeks after you finish!

Kickstarting Eminent Domain

The fine folks at Tasty Minstrel Games - makers of Homesteaders, one of my recent favorite games - are hard at work on getting their latest project to the printers. Eminent Domain (designed by Seth Jaffee) is a deck-building style game reminiscent of Dominion and Glory to Rome. Seth also designed Terra Prime, another Tasty Minstrel game that I will hopefully be talking about after it hits the table again.

To get Eminent Domain out in a reasonable amount of time, Tasty Minstrel is turning to the community to help fund the project. You may find more information on the project at Kickstarter:

Eminent Domain at Kickstarter

They even have the rules available:

Eminent Domain rules

You may pledge as little or as much as you'd like. $35 will get you a copy of the game shipped to your door (additional cost if you are outside the US); it seems like a great deal if you have any interest in this style of game. What makes Kickstarter great is that you pledge your support but will only be charged if the project meets its goal. If it's something you are interested in there's no risk, you are only helping it see the light of day! They have until November 23rd to make their goal so head over to Kickstarter and see what it's all about.

I've made my pledge and plan on giving away a couple of copies through some sort of contest here once the game is released. If you pledge to the Kickstarter project and enter my content when it happens you'll get a second entry! That's right, your single pledge could get you two copies of Eminent Domain! With a deal like that you are losing money by not pledging.

Quick Hits: Defenders of the Realm, Carson City

Defenders of the Realm

Defenders of the Realm has been hitting the table a lot lately, going over particularly well with my Monday night group. This time we decided to work in the free mini expansions that Richard Launius provided on BoardGameGeek. Here's a quick look at the expansions and what they bring to the game:

(image by holepuncher @ BGG)
Winds of War - Winds of War adds a side board and a new deck of cards. Whenever Quiet Night darkness spreads cards are revealed or heroes play special cards they are stacked up on the Winds of War board. Every three cards triggers a random event that the heroes must deal with. These are extremely nasty but usually may be canceled by discarding cards or making other sacrifices.

We've played with this twice now and I would almost consider it an essential expansion. There are some very powerful special hero cards and little reason to not play them all. Now with the Winds of War events players need to think very seriously about when to play these specials. Is it worth the risk of the event that may happen? Can we afford to negate it if it's too harsh? Those added decisions add a lot of fun to the game.

Forging of Heroes - With Forging of Heroes, the players level up their heroes and unlock their three special abilities instead of having them available from the start. Experience points are earned by killing groups of enemies, completing quests, building magic gates and wounding generals. To make up for this increased difficulty the evil generals start off of the map and slowly enter the game, giving the heroes more time to deal with the threat.

I think Forging of Heroes is a good addition as well. It puts much more importance on quests and building magic gates; generally you only did those when absolutely necessary in the main game as you often just had to fight fires all the time. With the slower start you have time to work on quests and will need to so you can level up and unlock your powers. Like Forging of Heroes it adds in more decision points which is great.

(image by Titus SWE @ BGG)

My only complaint is that players rolling poorly in combat or stuck with a tough quest will struggle to earn experience, preventing their heroes from reaching their full potential. It can be a little disheartening to see your teammates fly through levels while you are stuck at level one. This variant may also add more time to the game which may or may not be a good thing depending on your group.

Be sure to print out Winds of War, it is an incredibly simple way to add in more fun decision making. Forging of Heroes is a clever way to add in a leveling-style system and encourages players to take time performing actions you may otherwise ignore in the base game. It does increase the complexity and length of the game, though, so it will not be ideal for everyone.

Carson City

(image by aqwerty @ BGG)
We've had Carson City on the shelf for awhile now but haven't had a chance to table it up until recently. Homesteaders really captivated us so we got a bit distracted!

Carson City is a worker placement game where players are cowboys settling a new town in the Western frontier. You earn points for the buildings you contribute and money you've earned. Overall the game is a fairly straightforward worker placement style game but does have a couple of things that make it stand out:

Parcels - Purchased buildings must be placed on the land grid. A building's income is determined by adjacent squares; for example, the bank's income is increased by adjacent mines and homes. I like having that spacial competition in a worker placement game. It also adds in another level of player interaction which is sometimes missing in these types of games.

(image by francobollus @ BGG)

Duels - What's a Western town without duels? Most worker placement games only allow a single player per action. While that's true in Carson City, multiple people may attempt to take the same action but must duel to see who emerges victorious and performs the action. Duels are resolved by a simple roll of a (massive) six-sided die plus your on-hand weapons and cowboys in reserve. Worker placement games tend to be fairly passive-aggressive so it's fun to see some serious direct competition.

We played two games back-to-back and my feelings are still mixed. At its core, Carson City seems like a very solid worker placement game. There are multiple paths to victory and you get that delicious tension of not having enough actions to do everything you want. It also plays fairly quickly - around 90 minutes - but doesn't feel like it is lacking in decision making. There are a couple of things that are keeping me from instantly falling in love with it, though:

Story Arc - I've talked about the importance of story arc in board games before and Carson City falls a little flat. With only four rounds of play you don't build much of an internal engine; the game seems to end at what I would generally consider to be the midpoint of most other games. Given the game's fast play time I don't mind as much but you do feel like the game is ending just as you've started to get going.

(image by francobollus @ BGG)
Luck - Generally I enjoy a bit of luck in my games but I think the duels may hurt Carson City. I've only played two games but both were essentially won and lost on duels. Risk management seems to be central to the game; you can take measures to increase your odds in a duel but it also seems like you'll have times where you just have to take a chance. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but seems very counter to the solid euro underpinnings of the design.

I need to get more plays of Carson City in before I pass judgment. If every game comes down to the last couple of duels I think the game will lose a lot of its luster, but if over time strategies emerge that better incorporate risk management and solid planning I think it could have some good staying power. I certainly enjoyed it enough warrant revisiting, which is a good thing!

Interview at Grinding to Valhalla

For those that may be interested, Randolph Carter over at Grinding to Valhalla just posted an interview with me. He's been doing interviews with folks in and around the video game industry (particularly MMOs) for a couple of years now and has a very extensive set of interviews on the site. Lately he's started to make a shift towards cardboard and as part of his adventure has started branching his reviews out to the world of board gaming.

Many thanks to Randolph for the opportunity. If you have some time I highly recommend looking through his catalog of interviews, there's some great stuff in there!

Cooperative Series - Forbidden Island

(image by keebie @ BGG)
I love games with depth. Give me lots of interesting strategic and tactical decisions, multiple paths to victory and interesting rules that hold up to repeat plays. Many of the cooperative games I've covered so far have many of these features but also take an hour or more to play. As much as I love epic gaming sessions, though, sometimes you just want a quick filler or something with an easier rule set if your audience isn't your normal gaming group.

Enter Forbidden Island, Matt Leacock's simplified version of Pandemic. It has many of the same core features as Pandemic but streamlined to play in less than a half hour. Instead of curing diseases, players are treasure hunters trying to seek out ancient artifacts and return them to the helicopter before the island sinks. It's an impressive simplification of a great cooperative game, although some may find it a little too watered down:

(image by @ mikehulsebus BGG)

+ Components and Price: Forbidden island is a beautiful game. It comes in a neat tin container, has some really nice artwork and awesome (but unnecessary) plastic figures of the treasures you are trying to collect. For $15 retail you'll be hard-pressed to find better components and quality!

+ Easy and Fast: As I mentioned, the game is very simple to learn and plays quickly. While the mechanics don't allow for as much interesting decision-making or teamwork as Pandemic, the fast play time makes up for the simplicity. It also makes it a fantastic introductory game for new or younger gamers.

+ Modular Board: The game board is made up of tiles representing the various island locations. Every time you play you'll end up with a different island layout and combined with the randomness of the flood deck you will have different priorities every game. There are also variant board layouts online which add more challenge and replay value.

(image by TunaSled @ BGG)
- A Little Lacking: I think some will find the game a little too simplistic, lacking real decision making. At the end of your turn you draw flood cards to see which parts of the island start to sink. At first they are flooded - which can be remedied by players shoring up those locations - but will sink into the ocean if they are hit again. Used flood cards are reshuffled and placed back on top of the deck when you hit a water rising event. Like Pandemic, this means you know which locations will hit again after the water rises, allowing you to set your priorities. Unfortunately the player actions are more limited and the map smaller so these decisions seem less interesting and more luck-dependent than in Pandemic.

Forbidden Island probably won't hit the table much with serious game groups - Pandemic and Defenders of the Realm offer up much more interesting game play but Forbidden Island wasn't meant to deliver that type of experience. What you get is a beautiful game that offers up quite a bit of fun in a small package. I was a little taken aback by Forbidden Island's simplicity after my first play and wasn't entirely sold on the game. Coming back to it with proper expectations, though, I found myself enjoying the game a lot for what it offers.

For the simplicity, components and especially the price I think Forbidden Island is a fine game.

Cooperative Series - Fury of Dracula

(image by ColtsFan76 @ BGG)
I'm relatively new to the board game scene so I missed out on Avalon Hill, Milton Bradley, Games Workshop and others in their prime. Thankfully many classic games from that era are finding their way into reprints and redesigns by new publishers, giving new gamers like me a chance to see what all we missed out on!

Fury of Dracula is Fantasy Flight's reprint of the 1987 game of the same name. One player is Dracula, running around Europe hiding from the team of hunters trying to bring the Count down. Dracula will forever disappear if the hunters take too long, but defeating him is no easy task - especially once the sun sets. The hunters will need to work together to pick up Dracula's trail and have the strength to defeat him. Dracula, on the other hand, will need to be crafty in his movements and use his available tools wisely to set traps for the hunters and throw them off his trail.

Dracula may be looking for fresh blood, but not everything about this game sucks:

+ Hidden movement - I love the mechanic of hidden movement. Playing as the hunted is usually the most entertaining as you try to outsmart your opponents, but it's also fun for hunters to work together and try to give Dracula as few escape opportunities as possible. The game's length and difficulty does hinge around the Dracula player, though; poor play or mistakes can make the game incredibly easy for the hunters.

(image by Jasly @ BGG)

Fury of Dracula also uses a pretty clever card system for tracking Dracula's movement. The Dracula player has a deck of cards representing all of the location on the map. Each turn they put their next destination face down and also place an encounter marker on top of the card. The movement track is eight spaces long so Dracula essentially keeps a history of his last eight movements. This gives the hunters a chance to pick up Dracula's trail but will have to encounter the token Dracula placed on that location card. It also means Dracula can't double back on his trail (without the use of some special cards) as he only has one of each location on the map. It's very clever and a great way to handle Dracula's hidden movement.

+ Gorgeous map - I'm a sucker for maps and Fury of Dracula has one of the nicest maps I've seen in a board game. The design is clean and clear and I love the color palette. It is bound to turn some heads when set up.

+ Event cards - On their turn the hunters have the option of drawing an event card. Unlike most decks, they draw from the bottom because the card back designates if the event card goes to that hunter or to Dracula. It's a clever risk-reward system as the event cards give the hunters some nice bonuses and abilities but they risk giving cards to Dracula to make him more powerful or easier for him to escape.

Unfortunately in some ways I find the concept of the game better than the actual implementation:

(image by Filippos @ BGG)
- Event cards - While there's a fun risk/reward system for the hunters in drawing event cards, they can take some of the fun out of the game depending on the timing of certain events. For example, some events allow the hunters to scout out areas on the map without moving there. If they get lucky and pick Dracula's hiding spot early in the game the hunters can quickly mob Dracula, resulting in a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion.

- The hunt - Trying to pick up Dracula's trail or trying to avoid the hunters is a lot of fun. Unfortunately once the hunters pick up Dracula's trail the game can often turn into a big of a slog as they chase him down. Dracula has some tricks up his sleeve during nighttime but during the day it's not too difficult for the hunters to corner. Yes, it will take several rounds of combat for the hunters to ultimately defeat Dracula but it often feels like just a matter of time.

- Combat - I'm really not a fan of the combat system. Ultimately it is functional but highly unintuitive and I generally have to relearn how it works each time we play. There's essentially a rock-paper-scissors style element with card plays and some dice rolling to determine which player wins the battle. My main complaint is that between the charts, symbols and text used there's no way you can just look at a card and even begin to guess how the combat system could possibly work. Once you understand it there's actually some subtleties and I do like that Dracula is far more powerful at night, but I do find combat to be the least interesting part of the game.

(image by Filippos @ BGG)

- Length - Often running a solid two hours I feel like the game can outstay its welcome. Mostly this comes towards the end when it's fairly clear the hunters will win. At that point Dracula could just toss in the towel but that takes away some satisfaction the hunters get from finally capturing their nemesis. The length can also be highly variable based on how quickly the hunters manage to track down Dracula, which isn't always a fault of the game but can still result in an unsatisfying experience.

Fury of Dracula is at its best when Dracula manages to elude the hunters for a couple of days, giving him time to run around and force the hunters to really stretch themselves thin and cover as much ground as possible. When you get that fun game of cat-and-mouse going the game is fantastic. Unfortunately my last couple of plays have been pretty unsatisfying with Dracula getting revealed early via event cards, ending the game long before any buildup happened.

In the end I think Fury of Dracula is good to pull out from time to time for the fun of the hunt but doesn't have quite enough going to keep it hitting the table on a regular basis.

Cooperative series - Defenders of the Realm

(image by Gryphon Eagle @ BGG)
Matt Leacock's Pandemic sort of took the gaming world by storm. There had been other successful cooperative games in the past but Pandemic proved there was serious demand for purely cooperative gaming. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery so we're starting to see a rush of cooperative games hit the market and Defenders of the Realm is one of the newest entries.

Four evil generals are marching towards Monarch City, sending their minions out to defile the land and bring about a new era of evil. Players are the heroes of Monarch City, stepping out to defeat the generals and maybe earn a little extra glory along the way. Defenders of the Realm is mechanically very similar to Pandemic: four colors of generals, minions that spread across the board when too many fill one area and players collecting sets of colored cards to defeat the generals. The heroes save the day if they defeat the generals; unfortunately if any general marches to Monarch City, if their minions taint too much of the countryside or become too populous the heroes lose. Like many cooperative games there are many ways to lose but only one way to win.

At a glance it is easy to see Defenders of the Realm as a Pandemic clone. Once you dig into the game a bit, though, you'll see that Defenders has enough to stand on its own:

(image by rsolow @ BGG)

+ Hero Abilities - Each player controls a unique hero with special abilities, not unlike the roles in Pandemic. All of the heroes are very powerful and have fairly unique abilities, though, so every turn you feel like you are doing really awesome stuff that nobody else at the table can do. Some of the heroes are certainly more powerful than others but I think they all give you the satisfaction of contributing something special to the team.

+ Dice-based Combat - Some purely cooperative games break down into a group puzzle solving exercise, leaving little room for individual decisions. Defenders of the Realm certainly has some of that but combat against minions and generals is dice-based. Nothing is guaranteed so it is much more difficult to determine the optimal move for any given player. Sometimes there are clear actions you need to take but other times - especially early in the game - players are more free to do what they want. Some will go for big risks, others will play the safer odds.

+ Taking Down Generals - In order to take down generals you need to collect cards matching their color which determines how many dice you roll in the epic showdown. What I really like is that multiple heroes may meet up and take on the general at the same time, giving a nice epic feel to battles against generals. Players run around the countryside keeping minions at bay and when they are ready to strike they meet up and assault the big bad guy. It's also crucial to be prepared because failure against a general can be devastating.

+ King's Champion - This small competitive aspect may be more important to some groups than others. Players win or lose as a whole but individually earn points for completing quests and slaying generals. At the end the most renown hero is declared the King's Champion. This is generally a fun little bonus for our group but I could see where other more competitive groups might play to become MVP. It's a small touch but I think it works well and doesn't add any extra complexity.

As much as I enjoy Defenders of the Realm, the game isn't without fault:

(image by Titus SWE @ BGG)
- Graphic Design - Eagle Games always seems to struggle with graphic design. Larry Elmore's artwork is great but the font choices are questionable at best and the map is a hindrance. It's a map of a fictional fantasy world and the locations on cards are referenced only by name. Each time you read off a location players have to scan the board to figure out where they go. Familiarity does come with time but it would've been nice had the cards given you some reference on where on the map to look. A small complaint perhaps but it is an annoyance.

- Game Length - Unlike other cooperative games there's no real built-in timer for Defenders of the Realm. The game only escalates as you kill generals so it's possible to get into maintenance mode where you are just keeping up with everything that's going on without making any real progress. Sometimes it can take awhile to get the right mix of cards to take on a general, so you spend a lot of time cleaning up the countryside hoping to draw the cards you need. Depending on the number of players a game can easily take 1 1/2 to 2 hours. I don't feel that the game outstays its welcome but it does play long compared to similarly styled game.

- Story Arc - I feel that great boardgames follow some sort of story arc. You build over the course of the game to the climax with spikes of tension along the way, ending with a quick winding down to the conclusion. Due to the game's pacing being mostly in the player's hands, I feel that there's not a very strong arc in Defenders of the Realm. The game is highly oppressive which adds to its challenge and sense of urgency but you don't always get a very nice progression. Constantly being at that heightened state can make the game feel relatively flat.

(image by EndersGame @ BGG)

Overall I'm very pleased with Defenders of the Realm. It is challenging - giving the game plenty of replay value - and each game seems to play out a little differently. Sometimes the generals march straight on to Monarch City, forcing you to content with them quickly. Other times minions spread out of control, sending the heroes scrambling across the countryside. It really evokes the fantasy theme and offers what seems to be a fairly well-balanced gaming experience. Unfortunately I think the game's length may turn some away from it, especially with similarly-styled games running much shorter. It's also too bad that Eagle Games still struggles with graphic design issues.

If you have the time to play a longer cooperative game and can live with some poor graphic design choices, I think there's a lot of fun to be had in Defenders of the Realm.

Cooperative Series - Dungeons & Dragons: Castle Ravenloft

(image by scottandkimr @ BGG)
Dungeon crawls all share a similar formula: kill things, get stuff. The excitement comes from the random encounters you have and the loot you find in the process. Several board games have tried to capture this excitement over the years to a varying degree of success. Wizards of the Coast took cues from modern board games and video games with the release of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons, especially in the highly tactical combat. I've played some 4th edition and have always thought it would translate well to a board game. Not surprisingly Wizards of the Coast felt the same and they've started turning some of their classic adventure modules into cardboard, starting with Castle Ravenloft.

Castle Ravenloft is a cooperative dungeon crawl for one to five players. Unlike other dungeon crawl board games, Castle Ravenloft is strictly cooperative, meaning the heroes play against the game system and pre-programmed monster intelligence instead of a live opponent. The game comes with over a dozen scenarios, each with varying layouts and goals. Players explore the mostly random dungeon, trying to complete their mission while fighting off monsters and surviving dangerous encounters. If any hero should permanently die the group fails the mission, strongly highlighting the cooperative nature of the game.

I've managed several plays now and overall I'm very pleased with the system Wizards has put together. Here's a quick rundown of the highs and lows of Castle Ravenloft, broken down by classic D&D alignments!

Lawful Good

(image by Toynan @ BGG)

* Scenarios are fast, usually playing in an hour or so. Your first learning game will take longer but once players understand the system turns go quickly. I appreciate the overall simplicity of the rules and should questions arise players can easily agree on what is best in the spirit of the game. The overall turn structure is simply activating your hero (moving and attacking), explore a new tile if you end on an unexplored edge, resolve an encounter if necessary and active your monsters. Quick and easy, just as it should be.

* I love the card-based monster system. When you place a new monster on the board you take the corresponding card and place it in front of you. At the end of your turn you activate all of the monsters in front of you, following their pre-programmed commands. This is great as it essentially splits the role of dungeon master across all the players. It also adds some interesting tactical decisions as you often prioritize targets based on when they will next activate. I've found it to be a very elegant solution to what is often a difficult problem in a dungeon masterless dungeon crawl.

* The game system forces tough decisions on the players. You want to stick together to help each other out and take advantage of special abilities and synergies but encounters often affect all heroes on a tile, meaning multiple people will get injured if you stay bunched up. Also, if you don't explore new territory you are forced to resolve an encounter which are often worse than any monsters you may run into. This means players need to decide if they split or stay together and how close together they work. It's a great balancing act and leads to some really fun situations.

* I feel like Wizards of the Coast did a great job of keeping the spirit of 4th edition while distilling it down to the basics. The five characters included in the game keep the themes of the classes from the full roleplaying game but greatly simplify their powers and abilities. Mechanically Castle Ravenloft is nothing like Dungeons and Dragons but I think it captures the overall spirit of the system.

Neutral

(image by Zelgadas @ BGG)
* Health is the currency of Castle Ravenloft. Players are knocked unconscious if they drop to zero hit points and the group fails the mission if any player starts their turn unconscious with no healing surges remaining. I like how health management is one of the most important parts of the game as it forces players to think about positioning and the risk/reward factor of exploring over drawing encounter cards. Unfortunately I think this also lends to a small scaling problem; I'm not convinced the difficulty of extra monster activations and encounters balances against the extra pool of health another player adds.

* Overall I really like the minimalistic design. It roughly follows the aesthetic Wizards has been following with 4th edition overall and I think it is clean and clear. Yes, it'd be nice if some of the cards (especially the treasure deck) had artwork but in this case I'll gladly take function over form. It may not be quite as eye-popping as other games but the design is very functional which I appreciate.

Chaotic Evil

* The encounter deck is your true enemy in Castle Ravenloft. It is filled with all sorts of nasty stuff that will whittle away at your health. My main complaint with the encounter deck is that you often have no control over the results outside of rolling the die. It becomes more apparent later in a scenario when you are done exploring tiles and are resolving encounters each player turn. Overall the game feels balanced as many of the scenarios I've played have been extremely close wins or losses but the constant encounter fatigue can wear on you. I wish more encounters gave the players decisions to make instead of just causing damage with a die roll.

* Generally speaking monsters are programmed to attack the nearest hero which will almost always be the hero exploring a new tile. If you explore you are almost guaranteed to have that new monster take a swing at you. Again, this isn't mechanically a problem but it does take away a little bit of tactical choice from the player.

(image by Toynan @ BGG)

* While game tiles are made up of 4x4 squares and player movement is defined in squares, the real unit of measurement is tiles. Monsters attack and move by tiles and heroes generally either attack adjacent enemies or by tiles. Outside of scenario-specific rules there are no terrain or dungeon features on the tiles that impact the players outside of walls and corners. Terrain plays a huge part in 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons and I think it is too bad there's no difficult or special terrain to navigate.

Overall I'm very pleased with Castle Ravenloft. The rules are simple, the game plays fast and it certainly scratches the dungeon crawling itch. I'm very impressed with their simplified take on 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons combat; in fact, I think some concepts could serve to make the roleplaying game combat system more enjoyable! At the same time I do feel the encounter deck's constant oppression of the heroes does detract from the experience a bit. I understand its purpose and it makes for some very tense moments but generally it feels like the game is just beating you down turn after turn no matter how well you do. It gives the game a much more "beer and pretzels" feel - which is fine - but I know some will want a deeper, richer game. Castle Ravenloft is as much an experience as it is a game.

For a first attempt I think Castle Ravenloft is certainly a success. I've been pleased to see the designers have been active in discussions on the game and look forward to seeing the system evolve over time. If you like pure cooperative games or want a fast, easy dungeon crawler experience, give Castle Ravenloft a try. It isn't perfect but is a very solid first attempt.

Cooperative review series

Cooperative games are all the rage these days. Most board games pit player against each other with one claiming victory over the rest. Some games, though, have players working together against the game system (strictly cooperative) or in a many-against-one scenario (semi-cooperative). There are even sub-genres within semi-cooperative games: some with set adversaries from the start and others with a "hidden traitor" aspect where you discover who is and is not loyal to the cause over the course of the game.

These are certainly not new concepts but cooperative games have seen a major resurgence as of late. I've covered some cooperative and semi-cooperatives games here already: Pandemic, Battlestar Galactica, Shadows Over Camelot and Space Alert. Lately my gaming groups have been on a bit of a cooperative kick, though, so I thought I'd take some time to dig a bit deeper into the realm of cooperative gaming.

My next few reviews are going to cover a wide variety of cooperative games, both old and new. For the most part, each will be discussed on its own merits. Here's a quick rundown of some of the games I'm thinking of discussing:

Lord of the Rings
Defenders of the Realm
Arkham Horror
Dungeons and Dragons: Castle Ravenloft
Red November
Ghost Stories
Forbidden Island
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Last Night on Earth
Fury of Dracula
Betrayal at House on the Hill
Saboteur
Bang

Some discussions will certainly be more in-depth than others but hopefully I can give them all a fair shake, even if it has been awhile since I last played some of these. Maybe it'll be a good excuse to go back and revisit a few, although some may ultimately not make the cut if I'm not comfortable enough with my knowledge of the game. At the end of the series I plan on compiling my thoughts on how they stack up against each other, grouped by mechanic (cooperative, one vs. many, traitor). There's a lot of ground to cover but I hope to get through them fairly quickly to help keep the thread going.

Are there any games not listed that you'd like to see included? I can't guarantee I'll have a chance to get them tabled up but I'd love to hear about other cooperative games I may not be aware of! Right now the most obvious omissions from my list are Castle Panic, The Republic of Rome and Battlestations. I have access to both The Republic of Rome and Battlestations but doubt they will have a chance to hit the table any time soon.

I'm a big fan of cooperative style games. I find they often provide a low barrier of entry for new gamers as they are often more comfortable working together with more experienced gamers instead of against them and rules questions are easily answered without giving away individual strategies. There's also a lot of fun to be had in the camaraderie of rallying against the odds of a challenging game system or flying under the radar and keeping your treacherous motives hidden. Cooperative games provide a very different and highly enjoyable social gaming experience than traditional versus style games.

My thoughts on these games will hopefully get posted over the next few weeks. If the thought of cooperative gaming already has you excited, though, check out some of my earlier posts or grab any one of the games I've mentioned above. If you've never tried any cooperative games before you are most certainly in for a new experience! For those that love cooperative games, I'd love to hear about your favorites.

Quick Hits: Android and Dixit

Time for a couple of quick hits on two games that could not possibly be more different: Android and Dixit.

(image by rsolow @ BGG)
Android

When Fantasy Flight puts out a new game there's usually lots of fanfare leading up to its release. They love announcing games in advance, giving lots of previews and even making the rules available prior to the game's availability. Android was a complete departure for their marketing department as they went with an ARG-style viral campaign and no major hype machine.

To be honest, this approach had me hesitant on the game (why the deviation?) but the Blade Runner-esque theme really had me interested. Players are private detectives in a gritty future trying to find evidence to incriminate who they believe is guilty while struggling with their personal lives. At a glance the game seems to have everything a science fiction geek like myself should love: androids, flying cars, space elevators, a moon base, rival corporations... it's all there.

Unfortunately the game mechanics felt extremely clunky. There are really three games going on simultaneously:

(image by kilroy_locke @ BGG)

Assigning guilt - Each player is secretly assigned one suspect they want to prove guilty and one to prove innocent. As you move around the map you'll collect evidence which you place face-down on the suspect of your choice; the higher the value, the more incriminating the evidence. At the end of the game all of the evidence for each suspect is added up with the highest value resulting in a guilty sentence for that suspect. I really love the concept of private investigators trying to influence evidence in their favor. While it does work mechanically the entire system is a bit too involved and makes it hard to properly disguise your biases. At the same time there's so much going on it's also very difficult to even keep up with what everyone else is doing, making it hard to figure out which suspect they may be going after.

Discovering the conspiracy - There's a jigsaw puzzle in the corner of the game board that allows you to play puzzle pieces that link up different pieces of the conspiracy behind the murder. Ultimately these links influence end-game scoring. Again, it is a very cool idea but in some ways it feels like too much of a distraction and makes it hard to really plan properly for scoring victory points as some links may not get finished until near the end.

Dealing with your storyline - Each detective will work through two plot lines that result in a variety of good or bad things happening depending on how they resolve. The stories themselves are pretty cool; I played an android that had to follow three Asimov-style rules of robotics but my plots allowed me to break free of those if I was willing to take the risks. As you play you collect good and bad baggage which determine how your plots play out. Other players often are responsible for taking actions that give you baggage and it was very difficult to keep track of how everyone collected baggage and what impact it would have for them.

(image by Grimwold @ BGG)
Ultimately Android felt like a whole bunch of really cool, innovative mechanics that resulted in an overly complex game. To be honest I actually enjoyed it overall but the learning curve is extremely steep. If you had a group dedicated to the game I think it could result in a decent amount of fun. With so many other great games out there, though, it is hard to justify devoting that kind of time to a single game. If you are looking for a complex, thematic game that is equal parts experience and game it might be worth giving Android a look.

(image by @ Dottor_Destino BGG)

Dixit

All hail the 2010 Spiel des Jares! I've heard lots of great things about Dixit and after looking at some of the artwork online I simply could not pass it up. We finally got to table the game the other week and it is well worthy of the award.

Dixit is essentially a more creative version of Apples to Apples. Players are dealt a hand of tarot-like cards covered with gorgeous, bizarre artwork. One player is the storyteller and selects a card from their hand to describe with a word, phrase, quote... anything is fair game. Everyone else picks a card from their hand they think matches that, then all the cards are shuffled and displayed. Finally, players secretly vote on which piece of art they think the storyteller was originally describing.

(image by Magdalicious @ BGG)
Here's the catch: if everyone guesses the right piece of art or if nobody guesses, then the storyteller failed and all other players earn points. The storyteller only earns points if some people correctly guess their art; players also earn points if others guess their art instead, giving each player incentive to pick a card that seems to match.

It's a simple twist but the scoring mechanism forces the storyteller to really be creative with their description and also possibly play off of their knowledge of the other players at the table. If you are too specific then everyone will be able to guess correctly but if you are too vague nobody will guess it. You need to find that middle ground and that really forces you to think creatively.

Which is awesome. The artwork is very abstract and surreal; you'll be amazed at how often two, three or more pieces of art all seem like perfectly viable options for the original storyteller's description. It's fun to find out what the original piece of art was, why the storyteller chose their description and how everyone interpreted the different pieces of art. The art also makes it very easy to draw inspiration as the storyteller.

(image by Toynan @ BGG)

I know some are surprised that a very light party game won Spiel des Jares but I think Dixit is absolutely worthy. Yes, it is a party game but it easily brings out creativity in people in ways that other games struggle to do. There's no real barrier to entry as it doesn't ask people to do or say silly things or rely on talents they may not have (drawing, writing, sculpting, etc.). You just look at a piece of art and come up with a description you think some people will figure out. That type of elegance is what makes a great game.

If you don't own a copy yet, get one. Previously Balderdash was my party game of choice; Dixit may now take that place of honor.

Cult of the New: Nuns on the Run

(image by manz1982 @ BGG)
I love being surprised by new games. Often there are new releases I've been anticipating for months - even years - in advance. Sometimes they've been in development for a long time with lots of press building up to the releases, others were major hits at Essen and take time to find a publisher in the United States. Then from time to time there's one game that seemingly comes from nowhere and really impresses you.

Nuns on the Run is a hidden movement game turned on its head. Typical hidden movement games (Scotland Yard, Fury of Dracula) have one player running around hidden while the rest move around the board trying to find them. Many consider the hidden role to be the most enjoyable as you are sneaking around trying to avoid detection. Nuns on the Run reverses the roles; most of the players are novice nuns sneaking around the convent at night trying to get whatever it is they want and make it back to their rooms undetected while one (or two) players control the elder (guard) nuns on patrol. If the guards capture the novices enough times or if fifteen rounds pass the guards win, otherwise the first novice to retrieve their item and make it make to their room wins.

There are a few things that really make Nuns on the Run work:

(image by Tobold @ BGG)

Patrol paths - The guards are not allowed to just wander anywhere; they must follow specific patrol paths on the board. Once they complete a path they pick a new one and the old path may never be patrolled again unless they use one of their two "u-turn" cards. This means the novices know exactly where the guards are going although they don't necessarily know exactly how far they will move each turn. The paths are perfectly designed to mess with the novices and make them sweat bullets. It also forces the guard controller to think through their routes and ensure they keep their options open later in the game.

The Hunt - Novices secretly plan their movement, recording their trail on a sheet of paper. Their movement determines how much noise they make (modified by a six-sided die roll) and if they are heard or seen the guards are allowed to deviate from their path and take chase. So long as a guard sees or hears a novice they may continue to move freely and hunt them down; only if they see or hear nothing are the guards required to resume their patrol. The fifteen turn limit means the novices cannot simply sneak everywhere so eventually they will need to make some risky movements and try to bluff and outsmart the guards. I really like the noise checks as it adds a fun push-your-luck element for the novices and things really heat up once the guards are on someone's trail. The novices also have no idea where each other are at and can often find themselves getting accidentally flushed out!

(image by GeoMan @ BGG)
The Catch - Getting caught does not immediately send the novice back to their room. Instead, they are forced to start walking back towards their room and as soon as they are out of sight they may resume sneaking around. I love this mechanic as I easily envision the novices slowly walking back, constantly looking over their shoulder to see when the guards are no longer looking. It's thematic but also slows the novices a bit without completely ruining their game.

As much as I've enjoyed Nuns on the Run, I do have a couple of complaints:

Rulebook - The rulebook is somewhat of a disaster. It is too verbose and repetitive, making it very confusing to parse and almost impossible to use for reference. There's plenty of room for confusion which is too bad for such a relatively simple game. Things start to click once you get into the game but getting there might be challenging.

Game Board - While I really like the art style the board itself is tough to read. There are lots of colored paths showing the different patrol routes but it isn't exactly clear which routes go where. Colors are reused; there are actually three or four green paths with different destinations and the novices need to keep referencing the guards' guards to see where they are going. Even worse are the doorways and obstacles. Line of sight is incredibly crucial and it is very difficult to tell where the doors are, especially with all the colored paths covering things up. They really should have had the doors cross over the paths to make the breaks easy to see. As much as I hate to modify my games I may try to find a way to better mark these in my copy. It's a shame, too, because one misunderstood doorway can have major ramifications on the game. Accidentally revealing yourself on the map when you were actually hidden takes away a lot of fun.

(image by itchyrichy @ BGG)

Even with these issues I still think Nuns on the Run is fantastic. The rules are simple (although difficult to parse), the theme is lighthearted and the game is filled with lots of great tension. Once the hunt is on all heck breaks loose and the novices will sweat bullets as the guards move around the board. Nuns on the Run delivers a level of fun and excitement that few board games manage. It also supports two to eight players; while I think there's probably a sweet spot with five or six it's nice having that level of flexibility.

After a few plays, Nuns on the Run is easy to recommend! I think it works well with gamers of all experience levels and offers up a lot of fun. It's one of those games you want to play again as soon as you are done.

Homesteaders and math

(image by UnknownParkerBrother @ BGG)
Lurking behind most boards games is mathematics. Card and dice games are build around probability, the foundation of many games; others rely on geometry, pattern recognition and complex formulas. Any discussion of balance is really a discussion about the math behind the game.

Some games certainly do a better job than others at hiding its math from players. Reiner Knizia's Kingdoms is all about addition, subtraction and multiplication while players likely never consider the balance of features on the tiles while playing Carcassonne. I don't think it is always necessary to disguise math in a game - Kingdoms is a personal favorite. However, math can be problematic when it surfaces as analysis paralysis - a player's inability to make a decision as they attempt to work out the ideal move. Some players and games are far more prone to analysis paralysis and will often lead to frustration at the table due to downtime for other players and increased game length.

Players in Homesteaders are settling the Western frontier, helping build a new city. A Vegas Showdown/Amun-Re style auction for land grants drives the game and players need to build their economic engine to make bids and gather the resources to construct new buildings. The theme is not exactly pasted on; in fact, auctioning off the land grants zoned for different types of buildings really works well and the different buildings certainly evoke images of the wild west. There's just little covering up all the math you'll be doing over the course of your ten turns.

Here's a quick look at exactly what makes Homesteaders tick:

(image by absurdjohnny @ BGG)

Specialization - I've found I am not a fan of games where you need to be a jack-of-all-trades; I much prefer choosing a specialized strategy and making it work (adjusting as need be). Homesteaders has a lot of different buildings that work together in all sorts of interesting ways. It's not only satisfying to see your buildings work together but to also look around the table and see how your opponents' strategies and buildings differ. There's something extremely gratifying about getting money and resources from your buildings, exchanging them at the market and using it all to outbid your opponent and get the building you need when you need it.

Trade chits - There is one resource that everyone needs: trade chits. You may buy and sell goods at the marketplace but each exchange requires you spend one trade chit. They aren't particularly difficult to acquire but you rarely have quite as many as you'd like. They put a practical limit on how much you can do each turn and also require you really plan out your resources appropriately. Some strategies will rely on these more heavily than others but everyone will find a use for them, especially at the end to make your less valuable goods worth something. It's a nice implementation of the market concept that I haven't seen used before.

Components - I love the wooden resources. Steel I-beams, apples for food, wooden planks and the cows are even painted with spots and eyes! The cardboard quality is not as impressive though, especially the auction mat. Everything is cleanly designed, easy to understand and functional if not a bit dull in appearance, especially when compared to the wooden bits. I certainly appreciate the clean design but I'm not sure I would have paid the game much attention had I not played it first.

(image by absurdjohnny @ BGG)
Money is tight - Rarely will you find yourself with too much money; bids are often lost by a single dollar raise. It adds some delicious tension to the bidding portion of the game as you need to heavily weigh how much you can afford to spend just to get a building. Passing is always an option and will net you a small something. Sometimes you are better off passing and setting yourself up for the next turn. Unfortunately this decision making can lead to...

Analysis paralysis - It is very easy to get stuck over-analyzing every choice in Homesteaders. Money and resources are tight and trade chits are limited so you naturally want to maximize each turn. Often you'll find yourself running through all your options, calculating exactly how much you need to get the building you want and then how much you have leftover to bid with. There's no limit on how much debt you may take so you also must consider taking debt and then figuring out how or if you can pay it off before the game is over. It's amazing how often a single dollar raise causes someone to have to sit and reevaluate their turn.

Even though the game can get exceedingly mathy towards the end I've really enjoyed Homesteaders. The auction mechanic works well and really forces you to carefully manage your money, especially with debt always an option. Watching your buildings activate every turn and form a strategy is very satisfying but you'll also look at your opponents and become jealous of how their buildings are working together; before the game is over you will already be thinking about new building combos for the next game. It's easy to over-analyze the game and get bogged down with analysis paralysis but even then the game will last at maximum a couple of hours, probably less. There's a lot of great decision making to be made in a relatively short amount of time. I'm especially impressed at how satisfying the economic engine you build is given how few turns there are in the game.

It may look a little unassuming at first glance but Alex Rockwell and Tasty Minstrel Games have crafted one of the most enjoyable Euro-style games I've played recently. It packs the depth and decision making of other more complex games into a fast, fun, easy to learn package. Given enough plays I suppose certain building combos may reveal themselves to be more powerful than others, but I think the small amount of randomness combined with the auction mechanic should be more than enough to give the game some serious legs.