 November 2024 Games I played for the first time this month, from worst to best, along with my ratings and comments.   ÂTaco vs Burrito – 3/10 The Exploding Kittens people have a tendency to basically make the same game over and over again. And here’s another from them. Unfortunately, it not only ends up being mostly the same game, it also somehow manages to be worse. Taco vs Burrito is a take-that card game where you will play positive point cards into your own taco (silly ingredients) and negative point cards into your opponents’ tacos (stomachache cards). The player with the highest point taco when the deck runs out is the winner. If you prefer, you can add cards to your personal burrito instead of your personal taco. However, this choice offers no mechanical difference, and each player is free to choose the same option, which rather undermines the theme implied by the game’s title. As you would expect, there are a few special cards as well. Steal a card from someone else’s taco, swap tacos with an opponent, cancel an opponent’s card, etc. So naturally the endgame devolves into attempting to steal the best taco and cancelling your opponents’ attempts to steal it from you as the draw pile dwindles. Given this already rather chaotic design, it’s truly baffling that the designer also decided to include two “Health Inspector” cards that, when drawn, not only force you to lose your turn but also to discard your taco and start all over. This is frustrating when it happens to you, but barely even registers as satisfying when it happens to your opponents; it’s far more engaging to deliver such crippling actions by choice than to simply watch a capricious deck deliver the knockout punch on your behalf. Taco vs Burrito fails to capture the tactical take-that of Doomlings or the irreverent humor of Exploding Kittens, two games that I’m already inclined to avoid playing (both rated 5). Given the alternatives, I’m not sure why anyone would choose this.  ÂFinca – 5/10 It needs to be said that my lone experience with Finca was a 5-player game, which I found out afterwards is generally not recommended. The original edition of the game accommodated a maximum of four players (and most felt even that was too many), so it’s a bit baffling that the new printing has upped the player count even further. Finca is largely an abstract game with very little randomness. Yet each player’s simple turn so changes the landscape of options that some say it feels chaotic at player counts any higher than two. And I could believe that. The goal of the game is to collect various resources then turn them in for points. The available exchanges are listed on face-up tiles (example: 3 figs and 2 lemons for 5 points) and these tiles provide the game’s only random element. Nevertheless, each resource is just as rare as any other, and exchange rates are always 1 good for 1 point, regardless of quantity or quality. This design choice may be balanced, but it’s certainly not interesting. Of greater interest is the way in which these resources are collected. Using a Mancala-inspired system, you will choose one of your pieces to move around the circular path. The number of pieces on the space you start on is how many spaces you must move. The number of pieces on the space you land on is how many resources you get (with the destination space also indicating what resources those are). Because all resources are effectively worth a point each, and because the trade-in options can change so rapidly, there is rarely any incentive to take any action besides “the one that gets me the most resources”. Sometimes, unfortunately, that will only be one. Other times, it could be a half dozen. And these variances are worse at higher player counts. There are other wrinkles and subtleties to the design, such as bonus points for players who deliver the most of each resource type. But these tend to create a rich-get-richer problem, rewarding players who have been fortunate enough to collect and turn in lots of resources, and thus are already in the lead. Finca is not a long game, but its 45-minute playing time is still too high for the lack of relevant decisions that can be made. As a two-player game, I might anticipate situations where simply “taking the most resources” might not make sense, if it opened up your opponent to getting even more, for example. But the chaos injected with each additional player makes the game dramatically worse. At least for now, this is not a game I have much interest in trying again, but if I did so, it would have to be at a player count of two or maaaaaybe three. At higher counts, this rating would be even lower.  ÂBrazil: Imperial – 6/10 Brazil: Imperial is the first game designed by Ze Mendes, who would later go on to create the quite excellent (and lighter) World Wonders. But there isn’t much to compare between the two games. Instead, nearly everyone who plays Brazil: Imperial is immediately struck by the similarities to one of the greatest games of all time, Scythe (don’t @ me). And this is not without reason. The action selection system is very similar, with a personal action board that blocks you from taking the same action twice in a row. Also, you will build up an engine of resources to harvest, expanding your territory as you do so, and eventually compete with or even fight against your opponents who are trying to do the same. The ways in which Brazil: Imperial changes this formula are many, but it’s difficult to say how any of them can be considered objective improvements. There are only four “factions” and the action boards for each faction are exactly the same. Resources are stored both on the board and off the board, depending on how they are acquired. There are seven actions instead of four, but many of them will rarely (or even never) be used. There are four different types of military unit instead of two. In all of those cases, the sense is that knobs have been turned and fiddled with, but it’s not clear why. Does the fact that none of us used more than two of our four military unit types mean that the game still has lots of design space to explore? Or does it just mean that this aspect doesn’t add enough to the game to justify its rules overhead? This is not an easy question to answer, especially after only a single game. Yet my overwhelming feeling is that Brazil: Imperial has a ruleset that is less clean and intuitive but also fails to provide tactical payoff for that fiddliness. That said, it’s hardly an insult to call a game “not as good as Scythe”, so I’m not entirely ready to write it off. And yet it wouldn’t shock me to look up years from now and see it languishing on my shelf unplayed since now. Will I want to relearn the finer points of the rules for an experience that is similar but lesser than a different game I already own? And how should one rate such a game, which on paper is a fine design yet so fails to spark the desire to play due mostly to the presence a superior alternative? I’m not likely to suggest this game but neither am I likely to turn down another opportunity to give it a try.   ÂSuper Mega Lucky Box – 7/10 ÂSuper Mega Lucky Box is a flip-and-write game with very simple rules. Each player will receive a few 3×3 “bingo cards” and attempt to complete as many of them as possible by the end of the game. In each round, you shuffle 18 cards (numbered 1-9 twice), then reveal nine of those cards one by one. Each time a card is revealed, each player may check off that number on one of their cards. Strategy here involves taking bingo cards that have a wide variety of numbers, since it can be disastrous to not be able to check a number off when your opponents do. While completing cards will grant you the bulk of your points, completing individual rows and columns will grant you bonuses. Sometimes, these are bonus points or tokens that can modify the number that is flipped (very useful), but most often they grant additional checkmarks of certain numbers. So the tactics here involve trying to sequence your bonuses to create a cascade of additional checkmarks, thus allowing you to complete more cards than your opponents by the end of the game. Having only played Super Mega Lucky Box a few times, I have yet to get bored of it. However, random chance is definitely a factor here and it’s possible my rating could slip a bit if the decisions start to feel meaningless after more plays. Regardless, this is a quite accessible experience, right at home alongside games like Just One and Flip 7. Anyone can play and enjoy this for 20 minutes, but how many times they will want to do so remains to be seen.   ÂBeacon Patrol – 7/10 I’m not usually much of a co-op guy. Oh sure, story-driven stuff like Return to Dark Tower and Defenders of the Last Stand are very much my jam. But I did not expect an abstract, 30-minute puzzle game to be as enjoyable as it was. Players take on the role of coast guard members, each with their own boat. They will need to patrol as much of the ocean as possible before the game ends. All boats start on the same tile in the center of the table, but players will add tiles to the map each turn and boats will sail onto those new tiles. This rapidly-growing map demands Scooby-Doo-style teamwork (“let’s split up, gang!”) Despite the game not enforcing any anti-alpha-dog measures, the fact that each player will likely be working in one particular section of the map creates a kind of organic responsibility delegation. Why wouldn’t I defer to the person who has been carefully crafting and exploring their own section of the map, just as I’m doing with my own? Only fully explored map tiles score points and a map tile can only be considered fully explored when surrounded on all sides. Of course this means you can’t possibly score every placed tile, but some are worth more points than others and so prioritization is key. Not only that, but the water and landmasses must line up perfectly, and no rotation of tiles is allowed, so it’s wickedly easy to paint yourself into a proverbial corner. Because players are merely competing for high score against a chart in the rulebook, some may find the denouement unsatisfying. But for me, this final score made me interested in playing again to try to beat our previous record. Compared to many co-ops, Beacon Patrol distinguishes itself by generating very little pressure on the players. There are no surprise emergencies that must be immediately dealt with, no random events that cause an instant loss, or anything like that. Instead, the feel is puzzley and peaceful, with the scores positively motivating improvement rather than punishing mercurial failures.  ÂQuadropolis – 8/10 When I played Meadow for the first time about a year ago, I was unaware of how much of its design it owes to Quadropolis, which predates it by about five years. While thematically opposite (urban versus pastoral), both games share a central mechanic in which you select tiles from a grid by using numbered tokens. For example, to select a tile two spaces into the grid, you will need to spend your “2” token for the round. Already-selected rows or columns cannot be selected by any player, which demands careful planning and also generates player interaction. Quadropolis doesn’t trouble itself with any other type of alternate actions. Each turn, you will simply take a tile and place it onto your own personal board. This final placement is a puzzle all its own, and rather reminiscent of Between Two Cities. Certain tile types provide bonuses or penalties for their proximity to other types, some provide resources, and some provide bonuses based on the resources provided by other buildings. Further complicating this placement is that buildings can only be placed into a row or column on your board that matches the number token you used to take it. This double-layer of restrictions means you’ll be constantly making compromises from your ideal preferences, but you’ll also occasionally get a very satisfying moment where a placement works perfectly. Ultimately, this is a points-optimization exercise but it’s also only gateway weight. I found this less of a brain-burner and more of a brain-lightly-toaster, which I think is the ideal niche for it. Quadropolis is not a must-buy, but it does what it does remarkably well, striking just the right balance between fun and challenging.  ÂGreat Western Trail: New Zealand – 9/10 The original Great Western Trail released in 2016, and then a slightly altered second edition released five years later. In the following years, two more versions were released (including this one), making this a trilogy of games that share many aspects, but include slight changes to the player options. This is not unlike the various versions of Ticket to Ride, though Great Western Trail is a good deal heavier. The complexity here comes not from any one aspect, but from the sum total of lots of different mechanics. There is some deck-building, in which you purchase rarer and more valuable livestock and add them to your deck. There is a rondel for the actions you take (the titular trail), but you are limited in how far you can move. And you will also purchase new buildings (actions) to add to the trail. This not only creates more powerful actions for you, it also makes the trail more arduous for the other players. No single action or mechanic is overly complicated, but there are a lot to choose from and you’ll need to be both strategic and tactical. Having now played all versions of GWT, I think it’s safe to say that this version (New Zealand) is my favorite. The deck-building aspect is more pronounced here as you will fill your deck not just with sheep but also special cards. You also have a greater ability to cull weak cards. This is still not a combo-style deck-builder by any means, but it feels closer to that tradition than the mere “stable of livestock” your deck remains in other versions. In lieu of the train (which is mostly a glorified progress track anyway), New Zealand provides an entire separate board for players to sail boats around. Each harbor on the board provides various bonuses and scoring opportunities. And this isn’t a single-path affair; you will need to plot out at least a general travel plan fairly early in the game and execute it throughout. The sheep cards, too, contribute to this more open-ended experience as they now have two different values: one for shipping them as normal at the end of the trail (like the cattle in other versions), but another value for shearing them for wool. This shearing can be done at various places along the trail to create a cash infusion and also cycle through your deck. These additional opportunities to get money are quite welcome. Though there is certainly a place for games that demand a penny-pinching optimization-style approach to your finances, designs like this demonstrate how giving you plenty of money but even more choices of what to do with it can create a similarly strategic atmosphere that’s just so much more fun to play. You really can’t go wrong with any of the Great Western Trail series and I’m sure others will choose a different favorite for any number of reasons. And this version probably slightly edges out the others in rules density, but it is those very additional rules that so equip New Zealand with the vast array of choices to make it so satisfying.  A highly recommended game that I have most certainly played prior to this month, probably many times.  ÂCyclades – 9/10 Cyclades may look like a typical “dudes-on-a-map” game in the vein of Risk, but in practice this is only about half true. The other half of the game is an auction, yet these two sides are beautifully intertwined into a cohesive whole. The goal of the game is to control two metropolises. A metropolis is comprised of four different buildings. Each building is granted by a different god, so a player wishing to construct one will have to eventually win the favor of all four gods. However, one can also control a metropolis simply by taking it from another player. The board contains various islands, some of which generate money each turn. This money is what is used to bid on the favor of the various gods. Yet each god has a different way of bringing you closer to your goal. Some allow you to move your people around the map, gaining more money production or fighting over buildings/metropolises, some make things cheaper for you to buy, and some can even help you towards a metropolis through card collection (a completely different way of getting one). The real brilliance of the game comes in forcing tough decisions on a player. There is never enough money to do exactly what you want, and players will step on each other’s toes even without direct attacks. There will be times where you need to go first in a round, but this means you will go last in the next round. Masterful play demands planning at least a round ahead, sometimes more. Each god allows for various abilities, all useful, but all demanding payment. And that’s not even getting into the various mythological monsters that show up each round. Some are extremely powerful, and a player that ignores them (or at least their potential) will be in a world of hurt. Cyclades is conflict done right. It is a brutal struggle against the other players at the table that manages to avoid feeling like a “take that!” kind of game. Every action you take has far-reaching effects on everyone else at the table, and they know it. Their question is the same question you must answer about them: is it worth me paying to stop this from happening or should I focus on my own goals? Every turn is a choice between defense and offense, or some hybridization. There is never a “surprise win” or runaway leader with experienced players. It always comes down to management of risk and management of resources. This game is a masterpiece.  |
Recent Comments
