You guys actually won the game!!! The rules says victory occur instantly when the trials pile is empty and no one has any cards left in hand. Meaning that you win even if a player has more than four hard-knocks, since the hard knocks are only assessed after support is given!
also.. the player giving the speech is not supposed to discard a card from their hand.. only the other players can do so.. The speeches are recycled only in the case of a two player game.
About the conversation at the end, this is a cooperative game that puts the personal responsibility back into coops. In most coops it becomes far too easy to abdicate your own personal sovereignty to the group, letting you just run along for the ride. The Grizzled doesn't let you do that, it puts you into your own corner and you have to hold up the group as best as you personally can. And that's what I like about it the most. I agree with Lincoln on the topic, and actually think it should go further. If/when I get this game and introduce it to my play group, I'm going to say that this is a game we must play in silence. It's just you, your cards, and no man's land; to win, everybody must know what needs to happen when it needs to happen.
Great game! Sounds really hard, but fun! I think you guys should try Codenames some time. I saw it on Watch It Played and it looks like a really cool party game. I bet your group would like it! Thank you for all of the great games that you play for us!
great first play through learning rules- didnt think speeches discarded a card from the orators hand, and would have aa once shown must play rule, otherwise effectively telling players whats in your hand. but first session grants lattitude, train hard fight easy
I didn't see anyone mention this either.. the player making the speech is not supposed to remove any cards from their hand, so that is another important rule they messed up. This playthrough gives an idea on how to play the game, but there are better rule videos out there
I think Lincoln is absolutely right here... IMO there is no gray area. Players cannot say anything that would hint that another player should play a certain way during their turn. Otherwise, what's the point? Just play with open hands. So to me, saying something like "I highly recommend you play a speech token this turn" is definitely against the rules. However, saying something like "In general, I'd say it's better strategy to get rid of trap cards earlier in the mission than later." is okay since it's just general advice that applies in any situation, not a situation specific to what cards the players happen to be holding that turn (or have seen played so far in the game.) I feel like the point of this game is SURVIVING as a group against incredible odds, not communicating as a group to make the game easier to win.
Thanks for showing this very interesting game. The inability to communicate is rather thematic, conveying the "fog of war" and the generally chaotic nature of the battlefield. This was quite true in WWI during and after exceedinly heavy artillery barrages - both the "shell shock" and the effect of turning huge patches of land into churned-up wasteland full of gas-poisoned water, mud, blood, animal carcasses and corpses. It was, of course, hugely frustrating.
Loved this video, but for people that see this in the future puzzled about the rule issue with hard knocks at 42:10... Lincoln's Wounded card only counts as one hard knock card, not two. This is pretty clear in the rules and in the BGG forums. Since Linc had support after a successful mission, he should have discarded both of his Hard Knocks cards (3 total knocks) instead of just the phobia one.
Also, the speech-giver isn't supposed to remove cards from their hand. Not mention the whole "don't tell other people what cards you have" rule (even if you don't say the card's name, giving so many blatant hints has same effect).
Looks cool - the communication contract makes a nice fog of war - I think it's a great way to invoke the theme. The support tokens kind of seem to fall through the cracks on that one though. On my list now! (grrrrrr)
Thanks guys. I had heard about this game, but really didn't get a feel for the gameplay at all. This has really helped me see that I'd like to play this, and probably try it before buying it. I don't see our group getting it to the table much, but it seems like a relatively rules light but deep game. And you guys seemed to have fun with it. I didn't get the feeling that you were trying aggressively enough to win the game. Early on, I think your intensity should have been higher. Thanks again!
12 minutes in and this game seems hard to explain....I hope its one of those games which are much easier to understand in a playthrough...we shall see 45 minutes into the video and the game is starting to make sense - seems a tough game
For me a cooperative game need to give me the feeling of cooperation. I need to feel that I on purpose help the other players in a moment that they need my help. This game don't give me that feel. In this game I just feel that if I do something that help other player is just by luck.
For me it sounded complicated when Dave was explaining it, but then after watching a few rounds it fell into place and seemed easy. Easy rules that is, not easy to win.
I don't mean to troll, but throughout the video Nikki is constantly referred to as "she", almost never being spoken to directly. Everyone else is referred to by name, even when two males are speaking (meaning there's only one male that "he" could refer to). I enjoyed watching, but found myself (as a male) cringing throughout
Lee Ko 8:07 11:37 20:19 20:53 21:37 21:40 24:19 26:15 26:36 27:45 29:04 29:06 31:28 32:08 32:35 32:46 34:08 really dude? There are moments that they indirectly refer to Nikki eg 21:08 26:40 28:03 28:30 but it's only done to highlight and explain a specific rule( it has nothing to do with her and she is used only as a reference point). You understand that these people are friends playing a boardgame right? The fact you get thumbs up for such an idiotic and wrong comment is really sad...
lets not troll, i thought it was interesting point as a few references to she had caught my ear (but i had she's the cat's mother beaten into me). would put it down to friends chatting and 3 hes needed more differentiation generally if not being directly spoken to. felt lincoln and nikki had less grasp on the game, but lincol's cards were easier to play creating less talking over for him.
@@nellyprice Hi Nelly, I appreciate the linguistic distinction, but I think it would be incorrect to explain the issue entirely as that. There is also the issue of rarely being talked to and instead being talked about. I think it's a bit more than linguistic satisficing. And while this may be a result of friends being friends, I think BGG is a big enough platform to have to reflect on how it presents itself and what its actions represent (which is not to say that they have failed to do this; I'm just saying that it can't be explained as simply "that's just friends being friends").
@@leeko8581 yes it's a fine distinction. But I feel uncomfortable with what teeters on an accusation of discrimination against people who we neither of us know, on a snapshot of their relationship in a singular environment, and without an opportunity for them to defend themselves. But that's just my twopennyworth . Cheers
You guys actually won the game!!!
The rules says victory occur instantly when the trials pile is empty and no one has any cards left in hand. Meaning that you win even if a player has more than four hard-knocks, since the hard knocks are only assessed after support is given!
+Axel Lundblad but they unwittlingly "cheated" using way too many speaches. they are discarded from the game when played.
also.. the player giving the speech is not supposed to discard a card from their hand.. only the other players can do so.. The speeches are recycled only in the case of a two player game.
Note that Speeches only affect all other players, not the player giving the speech.
About the conversation at the end, this is a cooperative game that puts the personal responsibility back into coops. In most coops it becomes far too easy to abdicate your own personal sovereignty to the group, letting you just run along for the ride. The Grizzled doesn't let you do that, it puts you into your own corner and you have to hold up the group as best as you personally can. And that's what I like about it the most.
I agree with Lincoln on the topic, and actually think it should go further. If/when I get this game and introduce it to my play group, I'm going to say that this is a game we must play in silence. It's just you, your cards, and no man's land; to win, everybody must know what needs to happen when it needs to happen.
+Khift I can't imagine playing any game in silence. Doesn't seem practical.
+Robert Johnson There's actually one card in the deck where you are not allowed to say a word during the time that card is out, called "Mute" lol
Great game! Sounds really hard, but fun!
I think you guys should try Codenames some time. I saw it on Watch It Played and it looks like a really cool party game. I bet your group would like it!
Thank you for all of the great games that you play for us!
great first play through learning rules- didnt think speeches discarded a card from the orators hand, and would have aa once shown must play rule, otherwise effectively telling players whats in your hand. but first session grants lattitude, train hard fight easy
30 min in and still everyone looks puzzled :D dunno if this is for me man
It's so funny when Nikki clearly doesn't know nor care wtf is going on
Lincoln seems to either really hate this game or to just not be in the mood to be playing games.
I think he had a hard time enjoying it because he didn't find it intuitive and it left him unimpressed...which is okay tbh
I didn't see anyone mention this either.. the player making the speech is not supposed to remove any cards from their hand, so that is another important rule they messed up. This playthrough gives an idea on how to play the game, but there are better rule videos out there
25:00 the speech in question
I think Lincoln is absolutely right here... IMO there is no gray area. Players cannot say anything that would hint that another player should play a certain way during their turn. Otherwise, what's the point? Just play with open hands.
So to me, saying something like "I highly recommend you play a speech token this turn" is definitely against the rules. However, saying something like "In general, I'd say it's better strategy to get rid of trap cards earlier in the mission than later." is okay since it's just general advice that applies in any situation, not a situation specific to what cards the players happen to be holding that turn (or have seen played so far in the game.)
I feel like the point of this game is SURVIVING as a group against incredible odds, not communicating as a group to make the game easier to win.
I think the rules say that once a speech is made the speech token is removed from the game? (pg 6 rules)
Also, the updated English rules state when making a speech, only the other players discard the threat. (not you).
@@richardwilson8318 that is kind of poetic.
Aaron's enthusiasm is neutralized by Nikki's indifference, not to mention Lincoln's revulsion. ;-)
FYI : the speaches are DISCARDED FROM THE GAME the moment they are played, so you used way too many of them
Thanks for showing this very interesting game. The inability to communicate is rather thematic, conveying the "fog of war" and the generally chaotic nature of the battlefield. This was quite true in WWI during and after exceedinly heavy artillery barrages - both the "shell shock" and the effect of turning huge patches of land into churned-up wasteland full of gas-poisoned water, mud, blood, animal carcasses and corpses. It was, of course, hugely frustrating.
The wound hard knock only counts as one card for purposes of getting removed by support, contrary to what Dave says around 42:16.
Loved this video, but for people that see this in the future puzzled about the rule issue with hard knocks at 42:10... Lincoln's Wounded card only counts as one hard knock card, not two. This is pretty clear in the rules and in the BGG forums. Since Linc had support after a successful mission, he should have discarded both of his Hard Knocks cards (3 total knocks) instead of just the phobia one.
12:40...she's done. LOL
Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is ww1, there are rules.
can you guys play 'One Night Revolution'?
Litte rules nitpick: you must remove the speeches from the game after you use them.
Did they give more than 4 speeches during the game?
+Torben L. They did.
Also, the speech-giver isn't supposed to remove cards from their hand. Not mention the whole "don't tell other people what cards you have" rule (even if you don't say the card's name, giving so many blatant hints has same effect).
expansion changed this, but yup, only 4 speeches max this version
Glad I finally got to see this game played. Really enjoyed it.
And it was uploaded on my birthday. Win/win!
Looks cool - the communication contract makes a nice fog of war - I think it's a great way to invoke the theme. The support tokens kind of seem to fall through the cracks on that one though.
On my list now! (grrrrrr)
Man I have to re-read the rules after watching this.
Stop referring to someone sitting at the table with you as “she”. This is poor etiquette- otherwise enjoyable
"Everyone talks about the weather...", but nobody is willing to sacrifice a virgin to change it.
Loved this episode. Nikki was in a tough spot for the last few rounds.
+Alex Dalliance She didn't seem like she was enjoying the game much the whole time either.
Highly recommend no traps used first game or two played
So glad you put out this video. I bought the game on Saturday and got five plays in tonight. Great game but really tough and we lost every game.
Great episode as always.
Glad you kept Dave's shuffling at the begining of the game! He is a natural.
Thank you
it's a great game I learnt it my bro and mum in 5 minutes. Extremely hard though but keeps you coming back for more
Mission: Red Planet would be great to watch!
+Indecision101 Great game!
You talked way too much about your cards :D
Great game!
Great game. I think Nikki should have lost her Absent Mindedness at 29:13 since she got two support tokens.
Thanks guys. I had heard about this game, but really didn't get a feel for the gameplay at all. This has really helped me see that I'd like to play this, and probably try it before buying it. I don't see our group getting it to the table much, but it seems like a relatively rules light but deep game. And you guys seemed to have fun with it.
I didn't get the feeling that you were trying aggressively enough to win the game. Early on, I think your intensity should have been higher.
Thanks again!
I love the game!... great video!
24:10 Lincoln is right, that's how you basically deal with that Trap card.
12 minutes in and this game seems hard to explain....I hope its one of those games which are much easier to understand in a playthrough...we shall see
45 minutes into the video and the game is starting to make sense - seems a tough game
This game seems like it should be easy to understand and I’m lost
This was good. There were a few things we were doing wrong. I do like this game though.
Bring this back with the expansion please
Nikki held it in. th-cam.com/video/INZtEvvBZEc/w-d-xo.htmlm2s
AHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Riffle shuffle and bridge....
4:55 lmfao
This game surely brings out the alpha gamer.
For me a cooperative game need to give me the feeling of cooperation. I need to feel that I on purpose help the other players in a moment that they need my help. This game don't give me that feel. In this game I just feel that if I do something that help other player is just by luck.
You guys ever try this with the expansion? i hear its great
Indecision101 the expansion actually makes it way a little easier to win
Oh boy... it is complicated =(
+yes4me Not really complicated, just a little difficult. Still a very neat game.
+yes4me not at all!
For me it sounded complicated when Dave was explaining it, but then after watching a few rounds it fell into place and seemed easy. Easy rules that is, not easy to win.
+TabithaBear Gaming normally Dave is very good at explaining games but this one he seems to have struggled I think
If you guys wouldn't have tied that one time and given support to nikki or dave you would've won the game, thats frustrating!
28:30 If Nick receive 2 support, why she didn't remove the bad card?
+Rafael Borges because dave also got 2
She pass to him? Oh!
+Rafael Borges Because both Nikki and Dave had two support. Since neither had more than anyone else, they couldn't get the benefit.
I don't mean to troll, but throughout the video Nikki is constantly referred to as "she", almost never being spoken to directly. Everyone else is referred to by name, even when two males are speaking (meaning there's only one male that "he" could refer to). I enjoyed watching, but found myself (as a male) cringing throughout
Lee Ko 8:07 11:37 20:19 20:53 21:37 21:40 24:19 26:15 26:36 27:45 29:04 29:06 31:28 32:08 32:35 32:46 34:08 really dude? There are moments that they indirectly refer to Nikki eg 21:08 26:40 28:03 28:30 but it's only done to highlight and explain a specific rule( it has nothing to do with her and she is used only as a reference point). You understand that these people are friends playing a boardgame right? The fact you get thumbs up for such an idiotic and wrong comment is really sad...
Lee Ko i feel cringy from your comment
lets not troll, i thought it was interesting point as a few references to she had caught my ear (but i had she's the cat's mother beaten into me). would put it down to friends chatting and 3 hes needed more differentiation generally if not being directly spoken to. felt lincoln and nikki had less grasp on the game, but lincol's cards were easier to play creating less talking over for him.
@@nellyprice Hi Nelly, I appreciate the linguistic distinction, but I think it would be incorrect to explain the issue entirely as that. There is also the issue of rarely being talked to and instead being talked about. I think it's a bit more than linguistic satisficing. And while this may be a result of friends being friends, I think BGG is a big enough platform to have to reflect on how it presents itself and what its actions represent (which is not to say that they have failed to do this; I'm just saying that it can't be explained as simply "that's just friends being friends").
@@leeko8581 yes it's a fine distinction. But I feel uncomfortable with what teeters on an accusation of discrimination against people who we neither of us know, on a snapshot of their relationship in a singular environment, and without an opportunity for them to defend themselves. But that's just my twopennyworth . Cheers