Tsuro

Tsuro is a simple, easy to learn game using a board and tiles.  The tiles create a path for your marker to travel on.  The goal is to stay on the board, and not create a path that will take you off of it.  Whoever is the last one still on the board wins.

Players start with three different tiles from the stack.  These tiles have lines that will create various pathways.  The board is set up as a grid, and your tile must be played in front of your marker in a way that will progress it onward.  If your path intersects with a tile that has already been played, you must follow any paths that your marker comes across.  If the stack of tiles runs out you must wait until another player is eliminated to get another one.

2-8 players.  10-25 minutes.  No expansion available.  Very easy learning curve.

Becky says:

This game is super simple, and one of the best parts about it is that it is so versatile.  It makes a good "filler" game, that is, something that you can play if you're looking to pass just a little bit of time or if you don't want to dedicate a whole evening to board games (we often play in large groups where multiple games are going on at once, so we use filler games when one group is finished and waiting for the other group so we can decide on the next big game).  It holds anywhere from 2-8 players, and usually only takes around 10-15 minutes, though we've had games as short as 5 minutes and as long as 25.  It's pretty easy to explain as well.

Also, for a simple game, the artwork is really lovely.  They use some lovely colors, so instead of your typical red/blue/green/yellow pieces, you have gray, white, black, a dark red, a "caramel color," and a few others.  The dragon and phoenix art is gorgeous, I feel like it's something that I want to frame and hang up on my wall.

I personally feel that there's not a ton of strategy involved, and it tends to lean much more toward a "random" game where luck plays a big part.  That being said, there is still at least a bit of strategy, usually closer to the end of the game, to help you feel like you have a little bit of control in it.  In do encourage people to try not to strategize too much, because I think it can really slow down what is otherwise a quick game if players spend a long time analyzing each piece and trying to plan multiple turns in advance.

Overall I like Tsuro.  It's an enjoyable filler game, though it doesn't exactly blow me away in any way.   We've probably introduced it to at least 20 people by this point, and everyone that has tried it has enjoyed it - gamers, non-gamers, young, and old.  So I think there's something to be said for a game that appeals to such a wide group.  8 out of 10.

Jason says:

I've been on a bit of a kick for the smaller games lately.  The ones that don't have to be epic, intense, hours-long experiences.  Tsuro fits into the smaller category.  In fact, Tsuro may have the simplest learning curve of any game I've ever played.  Yes, it might be easier than Candy Land (because there's no counting of colored dots).

So, to recap the rules:  you have three tiles with winding paths on them.  Play one, and find out where your dragon stone goes.  Fly off the side of the board and you lose.  Be the last one in play.  I love it because a toddler could play it and enjoy it.  Even if someone can't fully comprehend the consequences of their turns entirely, it can still be a nice game with a refreshing pace and some very pretty artwork.

The whole game is over within ten or fifteen minutes, which means it definitely doesn't test anyone's patience.  Better yet, players still feel involved during other players' turns;  because of how dramatically any one tile can change the whole game, you are compelled to pay attention.

Now, there might be one criticism about the game: since every turn can have a huge impact, when more people play, it becomes chaotic to a point where it all seems based on how lucky your path is.  However, I don't think that is so, because sometimes it's just about watching the chaos unfold and having a good laugh about the crazy things the pieces do on their way off the edge of the board.  Sometimes it's just about following your path.

What can I say negatively about the game?  Well, I haven't decided if this game has a lot of replay value or not.  With fewer people, you do get more turns, but it is easy to fall into a defensive style and just try and avoid your opponent.  If this happens, you each just spend most of the game wandering around until the very end, when either you die or you don't.  If you are competitive and you try to actively thwart your opponent, it can be a little better, but then again it could still be frustrating how little control you can wrest from your opponent.  Moral of the story is this: the game is for fun, not to compete.  If you play this game just to win, then you've already lost everything valuable this game can give.

Oh, one more thing: I love how easy it is to take a conversation about the game and turn it into something philosophical, like "you must follow your path, wherever it goes," or "our paths meet, and I am in your hands now" or "the path will always end once all the tiles are played, and you should only hope to stay on the board as long as you can."  Yes, these are pieces of conversations I've actually had about the game, and for that alone, I think this game deserves some credit. 7.5/10 worth of credit.

New version of Fluxx available at Target

Looney Labs recently announced that a new version of Fluxx would be available for the mass market at Target stores.  Recently I was at Target and was excited to see some of our favorite games available there for purchase, such as Lord of the Rings and Munchkin.  I was hoping they would continue to branch out and add more games.

However, this Target version of Fluxx is going to be different from the original.  The press release describes it as having "simpler rules," and contains only the 4 major types of cards (action, keeper, goal, new rule).  They state that 73% of cards are the same.

What do you think about the fact that this version of the game is essentially a more dumbed-down version of the one we're used to?  Is it a good idea to draw in as many potential game players as possible, or do you think this is a bad idea and disappointing for the hardcore game players?

Poison

This is a rather short card game coming to us from one of our favorite game designers, Reiner Knizia.  There are three cauldrons in which to brew potions, and set of cards with potions of four different colors - red, blue, purple, and then the green "poison" cards.  Each cauldron can only hold one color (not counting the poison cards), and can only hold up to 13 points total.  The cards have values on them that range from 1 to 7.  Players go around playing potions into cauldrons, and if you force a cauldron to go over 13 points you must take all of the cards in that cauldron.  At the end of the round you tally up the potions.  If you got the most of one color (not counting the poisons) then those cards don't count for you.  Whoever has the least amount of points wins.

Interestingly, there is also a different, slightly simpler version of this game known as Baker's Dozen.

3-6 players.  15-25 minutes.  No expansions available.  Easy learning curve.

Becky says:

I like having some good, quick games that still involve strategy and fun.  This game does that.  At first the strategy seems clear cut - avoid taking any cards.  This is usually done by placing your largest numbered cards, like the 7's, first, so that later on you have some 1's and 2's to help you out in avoiding taking the cauldron.  However, sometimes the strategy of trying to get all the cards of one color will work really well.  You have to make that judgment based on what hand you are dealt.

It's easy to learn and easy to explain, which I appreciate.  It's a good filler game but it also isn't too predictable.  I also appreciate games of numbers, which this essentially is.  Other than that, however, I  don't really have a ton to say about Poison.  It doesn't wow me like some other games do, probably due to the simplicity, but I really appreciate it for what it is.  8 out of 10.

Jason says:

When I host a board gaming night, there are two classes of board games that get played: the big games that can take a lot of focus and energy, and the little, intermittent games that are played to cool down between big games.

Granted, it’s not just black and white, and a little game doesn’t have to be played as a little game, and maybe some people don’t even agree on which little games are little.  All I know is that I don’t think of playing Pandemic as a relaxing “warm-up,” and conversely I won’t call Incan Gold the pinnacle of hard-core gaming.  I would play Incan Gold to get things moving, and when everyone’s gotten comfortable, I will bring out Pandemic.

Poison falls into the “little” category, where it’s a simple game with simple rules and a simple objective.  Sure, it’s not going to floor many people with its amazingly intricate gameplay, but it does very well for the category it’s in.  It is fun, and it is definitely worth having in your collection of games.

The game plays very much like Hearts or Pinochle, yet it has a more contemporary flavor to it.  There is definitely strategy to it, and I think if I played it enough, I could get very, very good at this game.  Despite that, just like Hearts and Pinochle, it’s random enough that periodically you can get a stinky hand that just isn’t meant to win.  That’s not a bad thing either, because it keeps even the skillful potions experts feeling mortal.

Also, the artwork is fascinating, the cards look really cool.  It’s a pretty game, what little there is to be pretty.

Now, let’s bring this back around and think: what did I rate Pandemic and what did I rate Incan Gold?  I bring this up because I want to emphasize a very important point: “little” games are not inferior to “big” games.  In my opinion, Incan Gold beats Pandemic by a whole 2.6 points out of 10, and it is a well-earned extra 2.6 points.

I am really fond of Poison.  I think I will rate it an 8.1/10 and because it’s a little game and because it can be a good gateway game, I give my personal recommendation that every gamer have this game.

Playing for fun vs. Playing to win

While we usually have a little bit of each in us, I've noticed that there are really two types of gamers: those that play primarily just to have fun, and those who play more competitively to win.

This was really brought to the forefront when we started attending a board game event with many people we had not played with before.  While we appreciate trying to win, we are mostly in it for fun.  However, we played with some people that cared so much about winning games that they made game playing negative for us.  It was the little things, like not willing to count an extra point because someone felt that rule hadn't been adequately explained to them (mind you, this was at the end of the game and the person was already up about 40 points - counting that one point would not have made any difference).  It's people who use psychological mind tricks to try and get inside your head to affect your strategy - not so cool when I'm playing a game for the first time and still learning.  And it's people that go so far as to almost cheat, like when at the end of the game they find an extra card in the box that wasn't used and decide to add it back in, even though knowing how many cards are left affects the entire gameplay.

And to be completely honest, it's been these experiences that have made me less excited about writing this blog.  If the majority of game players are so crazy competitive, I know they'll scrutinize our reviews and probably won't agree with a lot of what we say because our focuses are different.

I still absolutely love playing board games.  I've just learned that it's better with certain types of people.  Please assure me that those of you who love to play for the fun of it are still out there!  And if you are, let's try to play together sometime :)

If you like Pandemic, then try...

This is a new column we hope to run fairly often, which compares similar games to each other.  If you like one of the games, hopefully you'll like others on the list!  Ideally we hope to add these similar games to the reviews as well, but for now I thought it would be fun to start a separate column.

To kick things off we'll start with Pandemic, a fun cooperative game.  If you're a fan of Pandemic, here are five other games we think you might like:

1.  Flash Point: very similar to Pandemic, but with a bit more added.  The theme of this game is trying to put out fires in a house and save everyone within it.  It's completely cooperative, and in my opinion a bit better than Pandemic because there is more involved.  I only played once, but it seemed pretty challenging as well.

2.  Forbidden Island: The same makers of Pandemic, the game play here feels very similar.  One nice thing is that it plays well with 2 players, making it a fun game if you're a couple or just have one close friend or sibling to play with.  Like Pandemic, there are different difficulty levels, the hardest of which can be quite intense.

3.  Lord of the Rings:  A bit more complex than Pandemic, Lord of the Rings is probably one of the most challenging purely cooperative games we've tried.  It's a ton of fun though.  Like Pandemic, everyone takes a turn but they are all working toward the same goal.  This game also has the rule that you can't share what cards are in your hand, fixing a problem we had with Pandemic.

4.  Red November: Though it's not Jason's favorite, Red November is also a decent cooperative game you might enjoy if you like Pandemic.  Everyone is working together to save a sinking submarine.  It has a similar feel to Pandemic in that it will never feel like you're very close to winning until you actually do - every game seems to come down to the wire.  Plus, Red November can hold up to 8 players - though keep in mind that if you use that many, the game can last for quite a long time (over 2 hours sometimes).

5.  Shadows over Camelot:  It's not completely 100% cooperative, but it's a fantastic game so I have to mention Shadows over Camelot.  For the most part you are working together against the forces of evil, though there is a possibility of a traitor.  You can choose not to play with the traitor to make it purely cooperative, though it tends to be a lot less challenging that way for advanced players.

Citadels

Citadels is a card game in which you collect gold in order to build "districts."  Each district costs a certain amount of gold.  The game ends when one person has built 8 districts, and whoever's districts are worth the most (including some end of game bonuses) wins the game.  Every turn you have the option of either taking two gold pieces or drawing two cards and keeping one.  You then have the chance the build a district.  Then your turn is over and it's on to the next person.

It sounds pretty simple, right?  Well, the twist comes in with the roles/characters.  There are 8 characters, each with its own special ability.  The thief can steal gold, the merchant gets a gold bonus, the architect gets extra cards, etc.  The cards are passed secretly around so that you can select your role - and try to guess what the person before you took, and what the person after them took.  It's not as easy as it sounds to pick a role.  If you want more gold, you'll be tempted by the merchant - by the assassin might want to prevent you from getting that gold and will kill the merchant.  It's all about strategy, and who you pick can make or break the game.

2-7 players.  45-60 minutes.  Dark City expansion available.  Medium learning curve.

Becky says:

For some reason, Citadels tends to fly under my radar.  I'm never dying to play it, and I don't think I'd ever suggest it, but if someone else suggests it I'll definitely play.  I just tend to forget about it, mostly.  It is a fun game, it just isn't a stand out for me like some of the others that we've played.

Our group tends to have a rather large problem that others might not experience, and that's how much downtime there seems to be.  We play with many people that really take a lot of time to strategize and plan out exactly what move they're going to make.  The process of choosing what role you want and then pass the cards around can take over 5 minutes for us.  I've heard from other people that their games don't take nearly this long, so this might only be a concern if you know you play with a group of people that like to take their times with stuff like this.  Also, once the round begins, you take your turn one player at a time, and the majority of other players turns don't affect you, so there's some down time there as well.

But on to the good things: it does take some interesting strategy to try and win the game.  If you want to do well you'll be tempted to take the more powerful characters, like the merchant, who gets plenty of extra gold.  But the powerful characters also have a big target on their backs, so you can be sure the assassin and the thief are after them.  You not only have to make good decisions for yourself, you have to predict what you think your opponents will do and how it will affect you.  And they're doing the same thing, so they might do something different than they normally would if they're thinking about what you're doing.  It's definitely a game where it helps to know your opponents and their style of game play.

One other comment - the two player version of this game is a big flop, in my opinion.  Even though they try to change the rules up to make it less predictable, it doesn't really work.  You can still tell pretty easily what your opponent has chosen.  Plus, the person that goes first seemed to have a gigantic advantage and pretty much controlled the game.  I wouldn't bother with it if you've only got 2 players.

Overall, we play Citadels infrequently enough these days that I enjoy it when it does come out, but I'm never dying to play it.  It's good when we need a change from the regular games we've been playing.  I'm also surprised to find out that Jason enjoys it much more than I realized, as you'll see below.  As for me, I give it a 6 out of 10.

Jason says:

Citadels.  It's a game.

Yep.

It's one of my favorite games, actually.

What stands out about this game is the characters and how much sway their powers hold.  Picking the wrong character can cost you a turn, or all of your gold, or a large portion of your points, maybe a combination of the three.  So basically, the stakes are really high every turn.

Also interesting is that it isn't a matter of numbers or excellent strategy, it's actually a matter of understanding your opponents' motivations.  When you lose your gold, it's because someone else decided to steal from your character; tough luck, you might've avoided it had you considered that that person would steal from the character you picked.  Lots of people suggest that they just have rotten luck playing this game.  However, I say that luck really isn't much of a factor in this one.  Instead, it's about figuring out what everyone will do and how you can maximize your profits from the way things will go.  The strategy eludes lots of people, and lots of other people just don't want to put forth the effort to think things through.  Of course, flying by the seat of your pants is a legitimate strategy, but if you're playing with someone who is really attentive, it is also a losing strategy.

So my short description of the game's great qualities is this: the strategy is person-centric and relies only a little on luck; any single turn in this game is high-stakes, giving the game an extra sense of intensity; the game is simple to learn, but monolithic to master.

Citadels has drawbacks too, and one of them is that some people will be intimidated or discomforted from the intensity of the game.  Some people show this through nervousness, while others simply fail to see why it is so intense.  The game is not for everyone.

So, when playing with those kinds of people (the people that this game isn't for) you get several phenomena; they get distracted during character picking, or they stop caring because they don't "get it."  Unfortunately, this brings the game down for everyone, because it's such a person-centric game.  I'll admit, it feels like a slow game, but it will only feel slow if you fail to see the value of paying attention to the important decisions.

This was a tough review, because no words can truly describe what it feels like to play a good game of Citadels.  I will give Citadels a 8.8, and that is out of a possible 9.999995, but since 99.99995% (also known as 5σ) is good enough to declare a discovery in high-energy physics, it's as good as a 10 for me.  So, 8.8/10.

Survive Escape from Atlantis: first thoughts

We've played this game a handful of times, and so far it's left a pretty good impression.  The first time I played it was a bit grumpy at first.  I was playing with people who had all played before, so I was the only newbie.  And when it came to the part where you decide where to place your men, this seemed extremely unfair as I had no idea of what the strategy was, and didn't know where to place them.  So I was grumpy for a few turns, certain that I would lose.  Well, needless to say there is definitely some luck in this game, and I'm not a terrible game player - I ended up winning, but aside from that I had a great time playing.

I like the fact that there is a good amount of luck and strategy involved.  It seems to be well balanced in that regard.  There are also a number of variations to the game which will probably keep it fresh (we've only played the most basic version).  I kind of hate to admit this, but I think this type of game favors me.  That's because it's easy for other players to go after who they think is going to win and sabotage each other, leaving me on my own for too long - long enough to get ahead and win.  I'm often underestimated and I find it works in my favor, at least with the people we play with (you'd think they would learn by now!).

I'm eager to play this one a bunch more times, but we were a little disappointed to see it wasn't widely available for sale online.  However, a new version is being released this month, so we'll probably be placing an order soon!