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!

Betrayal at House on the Hill

The thing that makes Betrayal an interesting game is that it is different every time you play.  It's also semi-cooperative, with a traitor later on.  There are really two main parts to the game: exploring the house, and then the haunt.  Players take on the role of someone exploring a haunted house.  Your character has stats (a number between 2 and 8) for speed, might, sanity, and knowledge.  Throughout the game you are asked to roll dice based on your stats.  These dice are special, though: each one has two blank sides, two sides with a one, and two sides with a two.  For example, if you have a might of 4 and you are asked to make a might roll, you roll 4 dice.  This means you could get anything between a zero and an 8.  In most cases you are trying to roll higher than a certain number that is specified on a card or elsewhere.

The first phase of the game you explore the house by drawing room tiles and "building" the house based on where you go and what tiles are drawn.  These rooms have symbols on them, and could be an event, an omen, or an item.  An event will cause something to happen and may result in you gaining or losing stats, an item is something that you can use in the future, and an omen is an object you hold on to that may do something good, something bad, or nothing at all when you draw it.  Every time an omen is drawn a haunt roll is made.  If the roll on the dice is less than the number of omens that have been drawn so far, the haunt begins.

There are 50 different haunts in the game, and the one you play is based on the last omen drawn and what room it was acquired in.  Once the haunt begins, everything changes.  One player is assigned to be a traitor based on a chart in the rules (it could be the person that reveals the haunt, the person with the highest knowledge, etc.).  They then do in another room to read their traitor rules, while the rest of the heroes read their own rules for the haunt.  Every haunt is different and has a different way the heroes win and a way that the traitor wins.  However, you only know your own objectives and rules - you don't know everything else about what the other side might be trying to do.

3-6 players.  45-90 minutes.  No expansions available.  Easy-medium learning curve.

Becky says:

I really enjoy Betrayal because it has a lot of what I like in a game.  It's got a cooperative element but the excitement of having a traitor, it's got some fun role-playing, and it's pretty unique in that the game is really different every time you play.  With 50 different scenarios, it certainly keeps the interest level up.  That's a lot of different ways the game can be played, and to me I think it's both the best and worst part about the game.

The good news is that the haunt part of the game rarely gets tedious.  Until you've played over 30 times you won't often get a repeat haunt that you've done before, and if you do sometimes you might be the traitor while last time you were on the other team.  Or if you're like me, the last time you played the haunt was a year ago and you don't remember any of it anyway (unlike Jason, who seems to remember every little detail of every haunt ever played).  And there are some really great haunts out there that are a lot of fun.  The best ones are when the game is close between the heroes and the traitor, and it goes on for a good amount of time without knowing which side is going to win until the very end.

Unfortunately, that's not always the way it happens.  When you have 50 different sets of rules and basically 50 different games, it's not surprising that not every single one of them is great.  There are some that are just not good.  But the bigger problem is that some haunts are great in some situations and terrible in others.  One haunt might be tons of fun in a 6 player game but a total dud with only 3 players.  And some haunts are better with a smaller house, while some are better with a bigger house.  If you get a haunt really early on the game or really late in the game, that can definitely affect how well the rest of the game goes.

We've probably played this game 40 or so times by this point.  There are still some haunts we haven't gotten.  But you know what can get a little tedious?  Building the house in the beginning of the game.  That part doesn't really change so much.  Sure, you may take the coal chute to the basement without meaning to, but for the most part it's pretty much the same all the time.  And with no real goal for that part of the game it can get a bit old.

But let's talk about another good thing: it's pretty easy to explain to people.  The first half of the game is pretty basic, and people catch on pretty quickly, especially since the first part is cooperative and you can sort of explain as you go along.  Once the haunt begins everyone reads and learns the rules together, and they usually aren't too hard since you're learning them mid-game.  Sometimes it takes a few plays to figure out the best strategies though.  In some haunts there is really only one strategy, in others there's a few ways to go about it.  Usually haunts like the latter are better because it makes it more interesting, and even if you lose you wonder what would've happened if you'd done it differently.

Overall I do recommend Betrayal.  The theme, atmosphere, and role playing aspect are great fun, and even if your haunt doesn't go so well sometimes that can still save the game.   I'll just say that it was a lot more fun when we first got it.  Now it seems to be more hit or miss.  But we've gotten a lot of use out of it, and still like introducing it to new players.  7.5 out of 10.

Jason says:

The following reading will be an exercise in the appropriate use of the word “but.”  You will see many examples of its proper usage in the correct context.  Pay attention for this in the recurring format, “Betrayal at House on the Hill is a good game, but…”

So… Betrayal is a good game, but it is also strangely unbalanced and… stuff.  The game is, at its core, a role-playing game.  It’s Dungeons & Dragons lite in many ways.  The game is built as you explore, and random encounters happen in each room, testing your character statistics in various ways.  There’s also a ton of information about the characters that you can use to “play your character” if the spirit moves you (and you are with those kinds of people).  Becky was frustrated by the story provided, suggesting there are large gaps in the explanation for why these characters are exploring a house.  I suspect that this instead gives players the freedom to make up their own stories, and that half of the fun of the game comes just from geeking out about the character development you and your friends can make up.

That stuff is nice and all… but… most people probably aren’t into that kind of stuff.  The game still stands on its own as a good game… BUT… many people might notice a certain role-playing aspect to the game that is extraneous, tedious, or downright boring (I’m in the role-playing camp, if I could just find people who aren’t too self-conscious to do it with me).

So… the gameplay is totally fun with its unpredictable nature… BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT, it is elementary and unbalanced.  The first half of the game is just setup, then the real part begins with one of 50 semi-randomly-chosen scenarios of varying difficulty, quality, and engagement.  So, 50 scenarios is cool… BUBUBUBUBUBUBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTT!... the game setup is so random that these haunts can’t possibly predict the layout of the house, and thus the difficulty of the scenario.  Most of the time, it comes out either in favor of the traitor or in favor of the heroes, without question.  Sometimes, it comes down to a roll of the dice, or some other random factor.  Less often than I want, it comes down to an exciting duel between the forces of good and evil.  BUHUHUHUHUHUHUHT! when it does come down to that epic battle, this is a tremendous game.  When you play the game for the first time, regardless of the scenario, it usually feels like it works out this way, so somehow, the game manages to give a really good first impression.

For me, this game was really fun for a while, but I slowly realized that it boils down to the same die rolls with different role-playing disguises on them.  When that realization is made, no amount of scenarios is going to restore vitality to the game.

In the beginning, this was a really intriguing game to me.  8.1000000081/10.00000001  (8.1/10) but that is from the point of view of someone who hasn’t played as much as I have.  Keep in mind that I have played this game so many times that my wife and I together can’t count on all our fingers and toes combined (yes, 40+ times, I would reckon!) and after that much play experience, I would rate it a 6.5/10. It’s a good game whose beginning luster fades away the more you play it, BUTT!, after so many plays, maybe every game becomes exactly that: Butt.

Playing with a new group of gamers

Last weekend we had a great opportunity to play some games with a new group of people.  I’m struck by how interesting it can be to play with new people rather than the same group you’re used to.  We played a great game of Shadows over Camelot that everyone thoroughly enjoyed.  Half of the people playing were familiar with the game, but half of them were new.  I’m always a bit nervous about playing with new people because there’s so much to keep track of in the game and it really does help to know what cards are in the deck.

There were a few times when people did something that we normally would never do.  For instance, playing cards early on that we usually save for when the need is more dire.  Special white cards were played by everyone much more frequently than normal.  We were getting more life points left and right from that, and it showed me that it really does pay to use those cards early on, let them get shuffled back in, and then use them again when the situation calls for it.  Divine favor was another one that was played early, which we usually save for the very end of the game.  In this case it didn’t matter because divine favor ended up not even being relevant at any point and was never used.

Not only did the experience teach me to be open to playing with new people (who turned out to be a ton of fun!), it also let me look at a game we’ve played many times from a different angle.  When we play at the future, I may experiment with some new strategies, such as using more special white cards.

Oh, and the enthusiasm of this group was great.  Perhaps it was because they were experiencing it for the first time, perhaps it was the alcohol, but they were really into it and played really well.  So the moral of the story is: don’t be afraid to branch out and play with new people every once in awhile!

We're on Facebook!

Do you prefer to get your updates on your facebook newsfeed rather than by email?  If so, you can now "like" Across the Board on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/acrosstheboardgames

By the way, if you do want to get emails about updates, you can enter your email address in that bar over on the right.  You can also follow us with a yahoo or google account.

Thank you for your support!

Shadows over Camelot

In this cooperative board game, you take on the role of one of the knights of Camelot and are working together with the other players to earn white swords by winning quests.  Every turn, you must “progress evil” and then do a “heroic action.”  The progression of evil is the game taking its turn against you: you usually draw cards during this phase, and things will happen to hurt you or hinder you on your quests.  Then you do something good, such a making progress on a quest.  There are rewards for winning quests, such as white swords, but also penalties for losing them (black swords and/or siege engines).  You win when there are at least 12 swords on the round table and the majority of them are white.  You lose when there are 7 or more black swords on the table, when 12 siege engines have been placed, or when all of the knights are dead.

Most quests are completed by playing cards.  Explained simply, there are fight cards, with a value of 1-5, and grail cards.  There are wars, which are won by playing a straight (1-5, but only one card can be played at a time), and there are some quests where you fight by playing pairs or three of a kind.  And then Excalibur requires you to simply throw cards away, while the grail requires you to place a certain number of grail cards down.

The twist in the game is that there is the possibility of a traitor.  At the beginning of the game every player is given a loyalty card, which may tell them that they are “loyal” or the “traitor.”  It’s also possible for there to be no traitor.  The traitor plays hidden for at least the first half of the game, so it’s tricky for them to appear good buy actually hinder the group.  About halfway through the game knights can make accusations, which are rewarded for correct guesses and penalized for wrong ones as to who the traitor is.  If the traitor has been accused or reveals himself with the use of the “Fate” card, he can then play out in the open.  However, if the traitor goes undetected the entire game, then there is an end of game penalty that could very well mean the difference between victory and defeat.

There are some other minor but important rules, but this is the basics for Shadows over Camelot. We’re also doing the expansion, Merlin’s Company, in this review, as we really haven’t played the game without it.  The expansion adds a travel card deck, that requires you to draw a card and do what it says every time you want to move to a different quest.

3-7 players (8 with expansion).  Approximately 90 minutes.  Merlin’s Company expansion available.  Medium learning curve.

Becky says:

If you know me, you probably know that this is my favorite board game.  I love it for a million reasons.  I’m not sure I’ve ever had a bad time playing Shadows.  It’s always ridiculously fun, even if we lose by a landslide.

I’ll start with the themeing.  The artwork is great.  Even the little knight figurines are well detailed, instead of just wooden tokens or something like that. All of the little details to the legends of King Arthur are wonderful.  Everyone gets to be a specific knight from legend, and many of the cards in the black and white deck reference things from Arthurian legend.  I have to say that playing this game made me much more intrigued about Arthurian legend, to the point where I’ve now done tons of research and am a bit of a “knights of the round table” dork.  I’m even currently working on a children’s novel with a King Arthur theme, and it’s all thanks to this game that I got into it.

But on to the game itself!  It’s cooperative, which I definitely enjoy, because I like working together.  But with the possibility of a traitor, it also creates tons of suspense.  Let me talk about that – the suspense factor in this game, especially if you’re not sure if there’s a traitor and it’s getting towards the end, is huge!  There have been moments where I literally can’t sit in my seat because I’m so on edge about what is going to happen.  Sometimes I have to pace the room.

And the strategy.  I’ve heard a complaint on other reviews that you end up using the same strategy every time after you’ve played it awhile.  I’m not sure why, but for me this couldn’t be further from the truth.  We tend to play with many different people and different amounts of players, so that may be why, but it’s always tough to decide based on your cards where you should go first.  Is it better to win the big quests in the beginning, like the grail or Excalibur?  That gets them out of the way, but then all those black cards turn into siege engines – not good.  Should you stick together as team and all finish a quest, or spread out to hold off the evil in every area?  We do it different ways every time, and no one way seems to be better than the other.  The only thing that seems to be pretty consistent is if you want Lancelot’s armor, you’d better go right in the beginning.  And don’t be surprised if you get some suspicious looks, as the armor is a traitor’s best friend.

Speaking of the traitor, here’s my thoughts on playing that role.  I don’t generally like being the traitor because I hate to be so secretive about everything.  It’s just not in my personality.  I will usually choose to play the traitor in either one of two ways.  1. Be as secretive as possible and do nothing suspicious so that I go undetected the whole game, and then hope that the penalty for not detecting the traitor is enough to turn things my way, or 2.  Once the 6th sword or siege engine gets placed, immediately accuse any random person so they suffer that penalty.  This then leads them to know I’m definitely the traitor and I get accused, but that way I can play out in the open and do more damage.  Of course, even though I don’t usually like being the traitor, I have to admit it felt pretty good that one time when I was able to make a false accusation and then also use the “Fate” card to reveal myself!

Merlin’s company is a good expansion.  Those travel cards can be a pain in the butt, but Merlin’s awfully helpful sometimes.  Some of those travel cards are nasty.  If you’re playing with me you’d better know that you’re sure as heck not traveling anywhere without a pair of fight cards, because if you get charged and have to add that extra black sword I will not be a happy camper.  The expansion also adds the 8^th knight, which can make for some epic 8 player games.

Sorry this was such a long review, but I really love this game.  10 out of 10.  Maybe no game is perfect, but for me Shadows is as close as it comes so it deserves that elite rating.

Jason says:

Shadows is a piece of board game art.  Unlike other games, which convey their entertainment through strategy and competition, Shadows plays perfectly to draw on the power of cooperation and anticipation, then shatters the comfort of cooperation by turning friends and comrades against each other.  In Shadows, you feel the tension in the room as your mind warps every player's moves into acts of treachery and deceit.

I mean it, too, I'm not just trying to be ridiculous.  Art.  This game makes you feel things, and it does it so smartly and skillfully.  To start, I will discuss the mechanics themselves, since this is really the only part of the game to which I can draw comparisons to other, lesser games.

It's a cooperative game, so I'll compare to Pandemic.  In Pandemic, a team doing sufficiently well never has to worry about problems.  In Shadows, completing a big quest adds faster-approaching dangers, so endgame should always be a riveting experience (even moreso with the Merlin's Company expansion).  Furthermore, each player feels like they are contributing to the quest in some way, particularly because they aren't allowed to discuss plans in detail because of the traitor game mechanic.

Yes, the traitor mechanic.  This is how the game turns from a cooperative game into a social experiment on trust and paranoia.  Tension flows through everything because of the traitor.  And most fascinatingly of all, there isn't always a traitor, but because the game incorporates even the chance of a traitor, suspicions often boil over and irreparably rend the team, destroying the forces of good from the inside out.

Last of all, the flow of the game is masterful.  The whole game is sedate in the beginning, but the whole game works slowly, allowing people's suspicions to stew into healthy unfounded accusations.  By the end of the game, everyone is so exasperated that even the most rational person must fight against irrational reflexes.  Finally, when the possible traitor is revealed, the game explodes into a logical race against the machinations of a revealed threat.  Here, people jump out of their seats and furiously count cards, hoping for a ghost of a chance to make up lost ground.  Merlin's Company shines best here, where the travel cards are the element of chance that could mean success and failure.  Wait, did we draw the last Charged! card or might traveling get that last black sword?  Soon, I have to move!  What, Captured!?  We can't deal with this!

Of course, when you can't deal with it, but somehow you come out victorious, those are the best of victories.  Unlike lots of games, Shadows is crafted to supply this last-stand scenario pretty much most of the time, and many times it will end in failure.  This serves to supplement the victories, but it is still fun for me, even if I lose.

The more I thought about this game's review, the more I realized that, either by phenomenal coincidence or by excellent design, this game does everything right for a longer, intense game.  No jokes, no math: 9.9/10 and possibly the highest recommendation I may ever give on this website.

First Thoughts: The Castle of the Devil

Note: Jason and I try to play a game at least 4-5 times before writing a full review of it.  However, I thought it would be a good idea to share some initial thoughts after we've tried a game for the first time.

Castle of the Devil is a "hidden roles" type of game, where you're working with a team to achieve a goal, but you don't start off the game knowing who's who.  It sounded like a it might be similar to Bang!, a favorite around here.  It's also supposed to be a bit shorter, with the box claiming 20-40 minutes (though it took us over an hour, but it was our first time).

My initial impression is that this game is a lot tougher than it seems.  It was really hard for me to figure out a strategy.  Jason and I were on the same team, and there were several times that he was trying to do something and I wasn't really catching on.  Of course, this might change after we've played a few times, but it seems to me that it's still the type of game that I will probably never be very good at.  It will probably be better once we're familiar with the cards as well - there were some nasty ones in there that I wasn't expecting!  I also got into a bit of a rut, unable to really do anything useful on any of my turns for the first half of the game.  I'm not sure why this is and if it could have been preventable.

We also played with four people, the minimum amount required.  It seems that it would be more interesting with more, as we were able to figure out who was on our team pretty quickly.  I also think more people will much it much more difficult, and it seemed hard to me already!  Overall I'm intrigued by this game and want to play it more to see if I can develop a good strategy, but I don't think it's going to be one of my favorites.

Settlers of Catan Pick-up Lines

Thanks to my brother Tom for sending the link to these.  So - going to try any of these out?

To see the rest of them, view the original link here.

What's your favorite?

Battle Line

This two player card game is a competition to see who can win the most “flags” in this war.  You start out with a row of 9 flags, and players take turn laying down cards on their side of the table.  The cards range from 1-10 each in 6 different colors.  Once three cards have been laid by each player on one flag, that flag is complete and you see who won.  The best combination of cards you can get is a straight (8,9,10) all of the same color.  Then three cards of the same number but different colors, a straight of different colors, and so on.  Whoever has the better set of cards claims the flag.  You can also claim a flag on your turn if you can prove the other person can’t possibly win it no matter what cards they play because of what is already out on the table.    The game is over once one player has claimed 5 flags, or if they claim three flags that are next to each other.

What makes the game a little more interesting is the tactics cards.  These can be played on a turn instead of a regular card and have special effects, such as being a wild card or requiring a flag to have 4 cards on each side. 

2 players.  Approximately 30 minutes.  Easy-Medium learning curve.

Becky says:
It’s nice to have some good two player games for when our friends and family aren’t around and it’s just Jason and me.  Previously the only two player game that I had which I really enjoyed was Lost Cities.  Battle Line has a similar feel to Lost Cities but it’s a bit more complex, which I like.  It’s by the same designer, Reiner Knizia, who I’m a really big fan of.  I didn’t think much about designers/companies before, but now that I have experience playing  a wide variety of games I am starting to notice that I favor some designers over others.

There is a bit of luck involved here, but it’s really a lot about the strategy.  If you have several 9’s or 10’s, do you lay them down for the three of a kind?  Or do you try to build up for the more powerful straight first?  The game can also turn very quickly.  You might start out with some good cards, but if you don’t play them right you’ll probably lose.  Another common mistake I’ve noticed is that you don’t want to commit yourself to one thing on one flag, so you spread out all of your cards on different flags.  Then, if you get something that doesn’t fit with what you’ve already played, you have nothing left to do with it.

I think the most complicated part of the game is flag claiming.  It’s up to you to figure out when you can claim a flag, which means you have to be aware of everything and watching like a hawk.  This makes the game more challenging, but in a way it’s frustrating too.  Since you have to watch everything and contemplate every move carefully, it can drag the game out – especially when it’s not your turn, it’s easy to get bored.  I am also too honest of a person sometimes.  I feel badly if I see that my opponent can claim a flag but they haven’t realized it.  Sometimes I tell them.  Maybe I am too honest for this game, but I rationalize it by saying, “It’s the first time they’ve played” or “the second time they’ve played.”  How many plays do they get until I stop feeling badly?  I’m sure there’s a cut-off somewhere, but this game is still too new for us to be there yet.  But that is more of my own personal flaw then the game’s!

Overall I really enjoy this as a two player option.  Although it can feel long depending on who you’re playing with, it actually doesn’t last that long and it involves some really good, complicated strategy, which many two player games seem to lack.  I give it an 8 out 10.

Jason says:

I am finding it difficult to rate Battle Line because I don’t categorize two-player games the same way I categorize group games.  For one, I don’t like two-player games as much.  For another, I like to think of group games as sort of special events; I would call up a group of friends to come play games like Carcassonne, Bang!, and Dominion, but I wouldn’t call up a friend to visit just to play Battle Line, or Lost Cities, or Balloon Cup, et cetera.  Maybe it’s just a mental block that I need to eventually get over, some hidden prejudice against two-player games.

It’s a good game with good gameplay.  I suspect that, much like Chess, there are good opening moves and there are bad opening moves, and these are things that a player just has to experience (or maybe read about) to get a feel for what works and what doesn’t.  As the game goes on, it becomes a lot clearer how the pieces have fallen, and it really comes down to seeing whether or not your early-game preparations will see you through to the end (with a little bit of luck drawing the cards).

The game is lots of strategy, but it is also some luck (the kind of luck that is still strategy because you can still pick the “more likely” lucky outcome).  I like that.  I also feel like this game is the spiritual relation to another game, Lost Cities.  It plays the same sort of way that Lost Cities does, with each player playing unique cards on their sides and sometimes being forced to play cards they don’t like.  Except Battle Line takes a longer time getting there and just seems generally harder to comprehend.

So I’ll suggest this: I am not fond of games that have a high level of “obfuscation.”  By that, I mean that if I’d rather read War and Peace or read Ulysses than read the rulebook, that’s bad.  If the rules are about as intuitive to my experiences as quantum physics is to the Classical Model, that’s bad.  If I liken the game to Rube Goldberg machines, that’s bad.

Why is this game a Quantum Rube Goldberg Machine with an instruction manual written by James Joyce?  Okay, that’s a gross exaggeration.  But even though it’s a good game, there are games out there that do more for me, and do it better.  Lost Cities plays the same sort of way but is far less confusing, goes faster, and is still skillful.  If I wanted a hyper-strategic game that makes even my brilliant brain itch, I’d go with Chess.  Lastly, if I wanted to make pretty matches of cards, I’d play Rummy.

For now, I’ll give two-player games a different rating system, until I can come to terms with two-player games and (n>2)-player games in the same space.  Battle Line gets a B grade from me.  I guess now is the appropriate time to say this: I’ve never once earned a victory in this game.  I did technically win once, but it’s because the other player was distracted.  And I failed to clarify a fairly pivotal rule before it became pertinent.  And it was a pity-rematch anyway.

Meme Monday - Monopoly Jokes

Jason is not a fan of Monopoly.  I have a feeling he would agree with this graph to an extent.  Though I don't think he would ever reach "WOOO LET'S DO THIS"

Surprising Stories about Popular Board Games

While clicking around mindlessly on the internet, I stumbled upon this very interesting board game related article:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18995_5-classic-board-games-with-disturbing-origin-stories.html

Apparently, many of the popular games that children enjoy weren't so innocent when they were first created.  Some of the items I'd heard bits and pieces about before, such as Monopoly being based off of another game and Clue originating during the era of the Nazis.  I think I was most shocked to learn that the game of Life originally had a square for "suicide"!

What did you think about this article?  Did you know any of it already?  What was most surprising or interesting to you?

Where do you get your games?

Let's face it.  Most of the board games we play aren't items that you see on the shelves of most stores.  Sure, you might go into Toys 'R Us or any number of stores and find Monopoly, Yahtzee, Life, and Candyland.  But what if you want to acquire more games like Bang! or Pandemic?  Where do you go for those?  This is a question that was posed to me recently, and I thought it would be something good to discuss on the blog.

The simple answer to this question is: Amazon.com.  Almost all of the games that we've played or bought are available on Amazon.  Sometimes it's directly through them (which means free prime shipping!), and sometimes they're listed on Amazon through other sellers.  Amazon usually seems to have the best prices as well.

If, however, you're looking for another place to get games, there are other options out there.  Barnes and Noble has a games section, and usually has one area of "strategy" games where you'll find Settlers of Catan, Risk, and others.  Last time we were there we saw Escape from Atlantis, a game that I didn't buy because I thought I could get it cheaper on Amazon (turns out it's not there - for some reason it is not really available many places right now!).  I posted earlier that Target started carrying a small selection of strategy games.  Another great place to look is independent shops.  We've discovered a few that are dedicated almost solely to games.  Although they are usually retail price (no discounts), it is nice to be helping out small businesses, especially since some of them also host gaming events and other activities.  There are also plenty of websites out there besides Amazon that sell games.

I don't know where all of our games come from since we tend to get a lot of them as gifts.  It seems that if someone doesn't know what to get us for a birthday or Christmas they usually go with a board game - and that's just fine with us!

What about you?  Do you buy most of your games from Amazon like we do?  Or are there other places you know of to get board games?

Bang! Gold Rush

For the original Bang! rules and review, go here.  Gold Rush is the most recent in a line of many expansions for Bang!.  There are two major differences in the game: the gold nuggets and equipment deck, and the shadow variant.  First, the equipment deck.  This is a new deck of cards that you can purchase while you play.  Some of the cards you use immediately when you buy them, others are cards that are put in front of you.  They can cost anywhere between 1 and 5 gold nuggets.  Three cards are face up and available for purchase at a time.  The way you earn gold nuggets is by attacking other players.  Every time you cause someone else to lose a life point, whether it’s from a bang! card, Indians, duel, or whatever, you gain a gold nugget.  You can also trade in beer cards to gain gold nuggets.If you want to destroy a permanent equipment card in front of another player, you can’t use any regular cards like cat balou – you must pay gold nuggets equal to the item plus one.  There are several new characters added to the game that have powers that have to go with gold nuggets and equipment cards.

The other major change is the shadow variant.  This effectively allows players to continue playing, even when they’ve been eliminated.  If you’ve been killed, at the start of your turn you draw two cards that you can attempt to use.  You don’t get any life points back and you also don’t get to live.  You use what cards you can and discard the rest.  You can, however, hold on to your gold nuggets that you’ve earned, which allows you to buy immediate use equipment cards.  Once your turn is over you go back to being dead.  If the renegade is killed, he joins the team of whoever has the most people dead (outlaws or team sheriff).  You can choose to play Gold Rush with both new elements of the game, just the equipment cards, or just the shadow variant.

4-7 players.  An expansion to Bang!  Easy learning curve if you’re familiar with the original game.

Becky says:
First, the equipment cards and gold nuggets.  They are a lot of fun and add an interesting element to the game.  Everyone we’ve played with seems to really like this addition.  Most of the cards are fairly straight forward – use as an extra bang or an extra cat balou, or put it in front of you and you can now hold up to 8 cards in your hand.  These are neat.  There are also ones that seem a little too good and pretty much give you the power of another character.  For instance, there is a card that makes it so that cards with a diamond do not affect you – that’s Apache Kid’s power, and a 3 life point one at that.  However, the “really good” ones are not too many of them, and there are many of the other cards, so you may not even see these at all every time you play.  One thing I noticed about the gold nuggets – people get greedy for them, and they speed up the game considerably.  You see something that you like out on the equipment deck, so you shoot whoever’s next to you to get nuggets, not really caring who they are.  This can mess with the strategy a little bit and makes the game a bit more… blood-thirsty.

Now, the shadow variant.  What I love about this is that it means you’re never completely out of the game.  You still get to keep playing, which was a bit of a flaw before.  We would have people die in the beginning or middle of the game and still have it go on for 45 minutes, while they had to sit there and do nothing (or more likely, text someone or play Words with Friends).  I know some people feel it makes the game longer but I don’t think it does very much, because the shadow turns are so brief.  And when you combine it with the gold nugget stuff it evens out.  We have noticed a trend when we play with the Shadow variant though, and that is that it seems to help the sheriff’s side way more than the outlaws.  I haven’t quite put my finger on why that is, but most times the sheriff wins when we play shadow variant – it seems like a bit of an issue for a balanced game.

Finally, the new characters.  For the most part I think they are very good.  Most of them deal with the new gold nuggets and equipment cards, such as Raddie Snake, whose power is that he can choose to exchange a gold nugget (up to 2 times per turn) to draw an extra card.  However, there is at least one character that seems pretty unbalanced and too powerful.  That’s Don Bell – his power is that at the end of his turn, he “draws!” and if it’s a heart or a diamond, he takes another turn.  Effectively it means that every turn he has a 50% chance of getting another turn right away.  And he starts the game with 4 life points.  If he had 3 I could maybe be okay with his awesome power, but 4 is too much.  Too powerful characters either dominate the game or get killed right away.  Our Don Bell got killed right away because his power was too good and no one wanted to see it used.  They all ganged up on him just to get him out of the game, which is really no fun either.  Also, other older characters might not be as good in Gold Rush – we discovered that “Big Spencer” became a “Big Target” when people wanted gold nuggets because he almost always has to take the hit.  Poor Big Spencer got killed right away, and people gained a lot of gold nuggets.

Overall I really like the gold nuggets and the equipment deck.  They speed up the game, which has always been an issue with us.  I also do like the shadow variant because I hate being killed and not getting to play anymore, but I can understand why some people don’t like it.  I give this expansion an 8.5 out of 10.

Jason says:

Dodge City pushes the game further along the asymptote toward perfection, High Noon/Fistful breathes further life into it, and Wild West Show sorta-kinda goes overboard a bit.  Gold Rush puts in a good effort, but for me, not good enough.

I commend Gold Rush for trying to fix the dead-players-out issue.  Unfortunately, the fix is a problem in itself.  In theory, gold nuggets are a good addition that fit into the genre; I like the fact that it is an extra incentive for shooting people.  I do not like the fact that it adds a whole separate class of cards that don’t really mesh with the rest of the game and that are supremely powerful.  When a card like the Calumet or the Boots comes up, there is no reason not to go for them.  Worse yet, those cards are duplicates of powers already assigned to characters, making those characters less unique.  There is something sacred to me about powers.  They are things that make a player feel like they have a personal edge… but not anymore.  I will no longer pick Apache Kid if I know I can just grab a Calumet.

Next are the extra rules to fit the expansion in with the rest of the deck.  First, you can discard beers without regaining life to instead take a gold nugget; bad, it doesn’t make sense.  Second, black-border cards cannot be discarded by Cat Balou; bad, too powerful.  Third, you can force other players to discard black cards by paying the price of that card + 1.  Why would a living player ever do that!?  Just buy your own black-bordered cards if you have enough money!  Only a ghost would force discards, since they could never hang on to black-border cards themselves.  What a boring way for a ghost to spend its hard-earned nuggets.

That brings me to the Shadow Variant, inherently flawed because it requires the gold nugget part to play well.  I think it is a bit too powerful, since it’s almost the Ghost Town card from High Noon, permanently (making that card a moot point also).  As an added minus, it ruins more cards, like characters Pedro Ramirez and Kit Carlson who can manipulate the draws of the next player, but not if a ghost throws off all of that planning.  Silliest yet, the Renegade is no longer a Renegade when he dies, and is instead a swing-vote for the losing team.  It’s all very unsatisfying to me.

My last thought is the characters, which are, to varying degrees, over-powered.  In particular, Don Bell, who gets to play an extra turn on aDraw! of hearts or diamonds.  Arguably better than Black Jack in every way.  This is just another example of a card that I think directly suffers because of this expansion.

So you might be thinking, “Wow, you just panned that game like a prospector in a gold rush!  Can you do better?” to which I would say, “Good pun!  And yes, yes I can.” The market part is a completely separate deck of cards that don’t really fit into the rest of the game.  Instead, why not make a market out of cards from the deck, all costing four nuggets?  As for the Shadow variant, instead of interrupting the flow of the living players’ cards, maybe allow dead players to take one of just a few indirect actions, or maybe have a separate deck for them to play off of (I know there is a website called the Bang! blog which has an unofficial expansion that does this).

So what does it come down to?  I will give Gold Rush a 5.75/10, which mathematically comes out to a 5.75/10.  For all of the panning I did, I would have given it a much lower rating, but I do respect that Gold Rush speeds up the game and allows dead players to play.  I wouldn’t personally include Gold Rush in a game of Bang!, but our house rules say that the designated Sheriff gets to determine the expansions we play with, and if that sheriff says Gold Rush, I won’t say no.

Meme Monday - lolCats

Dominion

This is a deck-building card game in which players attempt to earn enough points to be the others.  Everyone starts with a basic hand of 7 copper coins and 3 estate cards (worth one point each).  Each turn you play off of your own individual deck.  The turn begins by drawing five cards.  You then have an action phase, in which you can play action cards.  Then there is the buy phase, which allows you to purchase new cards to add to your deck – these might be action cards, money cards, or victory point cards.  Finally, you end your turn by discarding all cards played and any that still remain in your hand into your own personal discard pile.  You immediately draw 5 new cards from your deck to prepare for your next turn.  When you run out of cards your deck gets reshuffled.  The game continues in this manner until either all of the province cards are gone (victory point cards worth 8 points) or when any other three stacks of cards have been exhausted.

2-4 players.  Multiple expansions and other stand-old versions available.  Approximately 30 minutes.  Easy-medium learning curve.

Becky says:

One nice thing about this game is that the basic rules are simple enough.  The variety of different action cards can make it seem a little overwhelming, but once you accept that you’re just going to have to take some time to read the cards and get to know them, the game can go pretty quickly.  One thing that I really like is how the playing experience can be different every time, depending on what cards you use.  There are pre-set arrangements that they recommend, but you can also just randomly select which cards will be played with for each game.

One thing that is both a pro and a con is that it can be very difficult to figure out what strategy you want to use, and that can change depending on which cards are used.  Many people I play with build up these amazing chains of action cards, going through almost their whole deck in one turn.  Somehow I just can’t get that strategy to work for me.  I find that if I’m buying action cards it means I can’t upgrade my coins, and if I have mostly action cards I don’t have enough coins to buy what I want anyway.  It’s a delicate balance that you have to find. 

I also love how fast paced the game is.  It’s not like Citadels, where I feel like we wait forever for everyone to make their selections, or even Bang!, where a turn can drag out for far too long.  I know Jason will complain that this game doesn’t move quickly enough for him, which frankly I don’t understand.  I find that half the time, by the time that I have drawn my cards for my next hand and figured out what I want to do with them, it’s already my turn again.  I will note that we don’t own this game, his brothers do, so we only play when they come over which means that it’s always a 4 person game.  It would be interesting for Jason to try 2 person Dominion and see if that fixes his issue with the pace.

While Dominion is a very good game, if I have to note some negatives I will say that it doesn’t always seem perfectly balanced, especially when you choose which cards to play with randomly.  Sometimes it feels like you are getting nowhere fast, so you might as well start buying Duchys so you can get some points.  And while I don’t have a problem with the general idea of the attack cards, some of them seem much worse than others and a few I personally feel are too harsh or annoying and don’t really add much to the game.

Overall I enjoy Dominion, but probably not as much as I could because Jason usually is resistant to play, and what fun is it to play a game when one of the players isn’t into it?  I still give it an 8 out of 10 as it’s a fun game and I am pretty much always willing to play it.

Jason says:

I was really fascinated with Dominion the first time I played it.  It was like a breath of fresh air.  It’s another one of those solitaire-feeling games, where you play your game, other people play their game, and (except for a few exceptional cases of indirect influence) everyone compares their work at the end of the game.  In my mind, I put it into the same style class as 7 Wonders.

Like Bang!, Dominion fills a void in my gaming heart that was once reserved for collectible card games.  Bang! fills the game playing part, but Dominion appeals to the deck-building fun.  Yes, a lot of the fun that people find in collectible games like Magic: The Gathering is the search for the perfect deck design.  Dominion knows this, and it turned that search into a game in and of itself.

Regretfully, the more I play Dominion, the less fond of it I have become.  It is fast-paced, especially for a game that goes by turns, but I still get impatient waiting for people to take their turns.  Normally I have the patience of an immortal, but Dominion just hits some spot in my brain that can’t seem to wait.  That complaint might just be my personal problem, so I think others should judge for themselves on that; let me know what you come up with.

My real gripe with the game is the Attack cards, the part that makes people interact more directly.  Because the game feels like such a personal endeavor, attacks and disruptions feels contrary to the spirit of the game.  Also, they make the game slow down more.

I rate it a 6.6/11, which really just comes out to 6/10.  Even though it is one of the lower scores I have given and despite how critical I am of it, I do enjoy playing it, and there are many times I would rather play Dominion than games like Pandemic or Bohnanza.  I will point out that almost everyone I play games with disagrees with how low a score I gave to Dominion, but because of how impatient the game makes me, I'm sticking with my decision.

"Real" Board Games come to Target

While in Target today I decided to take a detour down the board game aisle just to check it out.  I expected the usual - kids' games, and more mainstream titles like Monopoly, Life, and Scrabble.  All of those were there, but something else caught my eye.  Toward the bottom shelf there was a section of "real" games!  The type of games that we like to play!

They didn't have many, but I did see Lord of the Rings, Munchkin, Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, Stratego, and one or two others that I didn't recognize but seem to be similar strategy games.  The prices were reasonable too.  Though they didn't have tons of options, it is exciting to see the games that we enjoy in a common store such as Target.  Hopefully this is a sign that we'll be able to get games more easily and perhaps more people will start playing these games!

7 Wonders

This is a card game in which each player is working independently to create their own civilization.  You start off with a hand of 7 cards, of which you can pick one to build.  The rest get passed to the person next to you.  You usually start by building resources, which are often free, and then you have to use resources to pay for bigger things you want to build later.  There are also ways to earn coins, which can help you pay to build cards.  There’s a variety of different card types of build, and it is often good strategy to pick one or two card types of focus on that.  They include military, civilian structures, commercial structures, scientific structures, and guilds.  The game has 3 rounds, and at the end you add up the points that your structures are worth and whoever has the most points wins.

One other aspect of the game is your wonder.  There are seven different ones, and each one has different rewards on the bottom.  At any point during the game instead of playing a card you can choose to build a level on your wonder and get the reward for that.

2-7 players.  1 expansion available (Leaders) and one coming out soon (Cities).  30-45 minutes.  Medium learning curve.

Becky says:

For one reason or another, I was a little bit hesitant about trying this game, and didn’t really care for it the first time I played.  All of the different cards just seemed so overwhelming, and I was playing with people that had played several times before.  I didn’t even understand what those “green cards” were, and so I ignored them – while other players were getting 30 points from them!  When it comes down to it, though, I really enjoy the game after playing it more.  It is very similar to other card playing, point gathering games, such as Race for the Galaxy and Dominion.  While I am not great at those games I really like them.  I think one of my favorite things about such types of games is that it doesn’t feel as competitive as other games.  You are working on your own little thing and not caring what other people do very much, except maybe when passing cards or building military structures.  That’s not to say that you shouldn’t pay attention to what other people are doing – that’s a good way to lose the game.  But it’s not usually your main focus.

Another plus – I really love the little scoring pad.  It seems like such a simple thing, but it helps a lot for tallying up the points at the end.  Speaking of scoring, while some of the areas are straightforward in terms of scores, other ways to gain points are a bit more subtle.  Science, for instance, is probably the trickiest type of card to go after.  Military is somewhat straightforward but the results can vary greatly depending on what the person next to you is doing.  I like the fact that there are different ways to play the game.  I often alter my strategy based on which wonder I get, which makes the game fun and a little different every time.

The biggest downfall for me is that sometimes you just can’t get the right cards.  I was stuck in a game once where I built the resources I thought I would need, and then it turned out there were a few other things I needed later on – which neither of the people next to me had.  So I just went turns where I couldn’t build anything at all, or had to build pathetic little things.  Those games are very frustrating, though that may just be bad luck.  You also have to keep in mind that the game changes based on the number of people playing.  If you have less than 7 you remove cards from the deck.  If you’ve played a lot and have specific cards in mind that you might be searching for, it can be difficult to remember which ones remain in play with fewer people.

Overall I give the game an 8.5 out of 10.  I enjoy playing it a good deal but it doesn’t quite make it to my list of favorites.

Jason says:

Before having played this game, I had been exhausted of all of the "point-scoring" games out there because it had become a stale mechanic to me.  Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, Master's Gallery, tons and tons of other games out there are just mathematical processes (these are all games that we will review some day).  They just bored me (I'll also talk/rant about that some day).  But when 7 Wonders came around, it was unique, it was entertaining, it was complex, and most importantly, it was just plain fun.

One of the best parts of 7 Wonders is that everyone takes their turns at the same time.  Fast thinkers and impatient people can breathe a sigh of relief when they play this game, because every turn is your turn.  On a turn, each person selects a card from their hand, then everyone plays their selected card simultaneously.  When you have seven people playing the game, that's seven turns for the price of one!  For comparison, imagine how long it would take if seven people all played Carcassonne.

Alright, so far, I've given this a pretty good review.  What's the catch?  Glad you asked.  The learning curve is steep and high.  Someone playing for the first time shouldn't expect to know what they're doing at all.  You can have an expert teacher who can literally insert information directly into your brain, but you won't completely understand what a good strategy is until you play the game through once.  Maybe even several times, depending on 1) how experienced you are with games in general, 2) how genuinely interested you are in trying to learn the game, and 3) what hints your teachers give you through those playthroughs.  The game is great though, provided you stick it out for that first game.  or five.

So I think I'll give this game a 2.7/3, but of course, if you run through the math, 2.7/3 is exactly the same as saying 27/30, and if you divide both the numerator and the denominator by three, you end up with a 9/10.  So there it is.  9/10.  Or a grade of 90%.  Revel in this, because not many more games will get the "A" rating that I've been giving out lately.

PS: Yes, I know that Carcassonne only holds up to five people.

PPS: If you've never played Carcassonne, then just substitute your own experience with a game that's wretchedly long because everyone takes their turns separately.