I've played only at 4 players, so I don't know about the player count problem. I know it's your opinion, but I disagree about the event deck, I actually prefer a little chaos and randomness in my games. Also I love it when a negative event comes around , just the way we like to play I guess. I really like that I finally have an easy to mid game to teach, and we play at about 90 minutes so that's a sweet spot for me, no problem with the length. I do agree about the theme, or the lack of it, also I did expect a little bit more of a complex and crunchy game, it's maybe a little too basic for my taste. Still a good game, a also gave it 7/10
Hey Luke, thanks for the great video. You are right about the Event cards. The simpler way to make those more fair to the players is to resolve the effect at the end of the round, this will give players the opportunity to meet the requirements if the care for the banefit. On the other hand, you are a little bit wrong about the player count. In a 3-player game, there is a different way to play the game and win. Even if you get the empty province there are a lot of options for you to build, not to mention that buildings are the main source of Glory points therefore Followers. Instead of having a disadvantage, the player who plays in an empty province will have an advantage in building the most rewarding buildings. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. In a 2-player game, a lot of things change. Fewer trade cards, fewer buildings, fewer quest cards, fewer Pantheon pieces (all of which are removed from the game). Also, players sit in opposite provinces, so it is more balanced as the board rotates. Have you played it one-on-one? Anyway, always great to get your feedback! Cheers
Glad you watched it! Yeah I played at all counts, but certainly latched on to 4 more. The buildings are of similar relative reward as the game goes on, cost to vps, and also if you're saying that the player has a big advantage that means it's not balanced against the other players. Better to just have 4 equal districts going all at once. Certainly the event cards can be easily house fixed.
Well Luke, try to think of it like this, the player with the empty province has a disadvantage in the action phase (as you correctly said) because of the fewer buildings BUT clearly has an advantage in the building phase because of the more empty spaces. So there you have your balance. IMHO the 3 player game is better than the 4 player game.
I think an empty area gives you more options to build your strategy. It's about economics and how you manage your money. If you play it right, an empty area can give you a big advantage. That's my opinion and I think in three players it has different options than in four players, but the quality is the same.
A typical house rule I use for games with Event decks, is to always show the current one as expected AND the next upcoming one. So instead of revealing the next event for the current round, you're instead seeing what's on the horizon for the next round. I've found that to bring the drama of the events without the unplanned swinginess.
I havent mathed it out, but regarding 3 player- I think the rotations indicated on the event deck are distributed in such a way that the board won't be bouncing back and forth between a dud space.
Haven’t had a chance to play my copy yet but I can see the problem you state as far as barren areas in lower player counts. I wonder if closing off a section per missing player would solve that problem? I also wonder if a future expansion could be added for like a voting mechanism to add more meat to the politics totem? A lot of good things I see in this game and I’m still very excited to get it played, just maybe with a house rule or 2 going into it
There's another game coming out this year with a similar turning board, Fromage, which has a simultaneous worker placement mechanism. I backed that one on KS so will see what it's like later in the year. Are turning boards like this about to become a thing?
The game looked, good, start sounding good, then, it didn´t, mayor problem is the theme missing, it has to be in it, or is just another point salad, and I have some of those, yes the rotating thing looks good, but then, they didn´t use it, maybe they can fix it with an expansion? who knows, time will tell. Well, lets hope is not the last review copy they send after this review, it was a fair one, with good critics and points, as always, nice to see some truth from all the other reviewers that just disguise the bad as much as posible so they can get the free stuff.
I've played only at 4 players, so I don't know about the player count problem.
I know it's your opinion, but I disagree about the event deck, I actually prefer a little chaos and randomness in my games. Also I love it when a negative event comes around , just the way we like to play I guess.
I really like that I finally have an easy to mid game to teach, and we play at about 90 minutes so that's a sweet spot for me, no problem with the length.
I do agree about the theme, or the lack of it, also I did expect a little bit more of a complex and crunchy game, it's maybe a little too basic for my taste.
Still a good game, a also gave it 7/10
Hey Luke, thanks for the great video.
You are right about the Event cards. The simpler way to make those more fair to the players is to resolve the effect at the end of the round, this will give players the opportunity to meet the requirements if the care for the banefit.
On the other hand, you are a little bit wrong about the player count. In a 3-player game, there is a different way to play the game and win. Even if you get the empty province there are a lot of options for you to build, not to mention that buildings are the main source of Glory points therefore Followers. Instead of having a disadvantage, the player who plays in an empty province will have an advantage in building the most rewarding buildings. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
In a 2-player game, a lot of things change. Fewer trade cards, fewer buildings, fewer quest cards, fewer Pantheon pieces (all of which are removed from the game). Also, players sit in opposite provinces, so it is more balanced as the board rotates. Have you played it one-on-one? Anyway, always great to get your feedback! Cheers
Glad you watched it! Yeah I played at all counts, but certainly latched on to 4 more. The buildings are of similar relative reward as the game goes on, cost to vps, and also if you're saying that the player has a big advantage that means it's not balanced against the other players. Better to just have 4 equal districts going all at once.
Certainly the event cards can be easily house fixed.
Well Luke, try to think of it like this, the player with the empty province has a disadvantage in the action phase (as you correctly said) because of the fewer buildings BUT clearly has an advantage in the building phase because of the more empty spaces. So there you have your balance. IMHO the 3 player game is better than the 4 player game.
I think an empty area gives you more options to build your strategy. It's about economics and how you manage your money. If you play it right, an empty area can give you a big advantage. That's my opinion and I think in three players it has different options than in four players, but the quality is the same.
I agree. With three players the game has the same value.
A typical house rule I use for games with Event decks, is to always show the current one as expected AND the next upcoming one. So instead of revealing the next event for the current round, you're instead seeing what's on the horizon for the next round. I've found that to bring the drama of the events without the unplanned swinginess.
I like that idea! Might us it myself now.
That can work too. Though theme wise it's a bit weird.
I havent mathed it out, but regarding 3 player- I think the rotations indicated on the event deck are distributed in such a way that the board won't be bouncing back and forth between a dud space.
Haven’t had a chance to play my copy yet but I can see the problem you state as far as barren areas in lower player counts.
I wonder if closing off a section per missing player would solve that problem?
I also wonder if a future expansion could be added for like a voting mechanism to add more meat to the politics totem?
A lot of good things I see in this game and I’m still very excited to get it played, just maybe with a house rule or 2 going into it
There's another game coming out this year with a similar turning board, Fromage, which has a simultaneous worker placement mechanism. I backed that one on KS so will see what it's like later in the year. Are turning boards like this about to become a thing?
I backed Fromage, looking forward to getting it 😁
Not heard of that one!
A nice review...😊
Thank you 🙂
The game looked, good, start sounding good, then, it didn´t, mayor problem is the theme missing, it has to be in it, or is just another point salad, and I have some of those, yes the rotating thing looks good, but then, they didn´t use it, maybe they can fix it with an expansion? who knows, time will tell. Well, lets hope is not the last review copy they send after this review, it was a fair one, with good critics and points, as always, nice to see some truth from all the other reviewers that just disguise the bad as much as posible so they can get the free stuff.
Many thanks for the kind feedback!
can't you just block one of the provinces in a 3 player game like in kemet for example
But then how do you do the movement of the board so that everyone gets a used district.
When board rotate just skip the marked area. I didn`t played the game but sounds like a easy fix :)
With 3 players, can you just cover 1 quadrant?
Not really unless you played the strategic variant and skip it. That also limits the amount of variation in the game.
Thanks for the review