Cody, you needed to mention that there is an official FAQ on the BGG forums from the designer that addresses any and all rules issues people had with this game.
I preordered this one a while back and played 4 times since I got it. I knew you’d like this one too. Once you have the rules down, it plays so smooth. And yeah, echo’s of 1775 are noticeable in the design.
I had just read Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee and Empire Of The Summer Moon when this game came up on P500. It was an insta-purchase, though in yet to play it. Can’t wait though!
@@TheDiscriminatingGamer If you have the chance, give Navajo Wars a try. I own it and love it. Joel Toppin is the designer. The game was made to tell the story of the Navajo people who I believe he grew up with. As a historian, it should be in your wheelhouse. Cheers!
Thanks for the review. I picked this one up a few months back but have been hesitant to play it with all the "bad rule book" hate. You gave me the push to open it up and give it a go!
Solo gamers are misleading people about the problems with the rules in the main rule book which are minor: 1. No mention of how the American Indian player keeps track of Calvary kills, 2. How enduring card effects works is wrong, 3. A few more minor typos. Every major rules question is answered in the official FAQ on the BGG rules forum.
I was pretty sure you'd like this one. I have an earlier game on a similar topic, Geronimo (Avalon Hill 1995). That game has a very difficult rulebook and many fiddley rules. Plains Indian Wars is a very enjoyable game. It is more streamlined than Geronimo. Glad you like it!
Haven't played it yet with just two (only three and four), but I get a sense it would work very well. For me, however, I love the negotiation between partners.
Interesting. To what extent have you found yourself making decisions based on scoring? I'm not a fan of points salad type systems, but other than some of the territory control scoring sounds fairly organic to the scenario.
Well, for instance, as the Native Americans you have to decide if you want to occupy the enemies territories, or if you want go all out to obstruct the completion of the railroad.
I could get into this, the theme is legit. I just don't know if I can get my game mates into it. Which is an especially daunting task when one realizes the We would be playing it solo.
@@TheDiscriminatingGamer I think the colonialism hand wringing is ridiculous, it's like these folks are clueless about history in general and just want to feel guilty for something...they didn't even take part in.
@@denroy3 It’s a cancer that’s affecting the UK too - we must now hate everything that our culture is built upon (no matter how long ago things happened). No amount of apologising will satisfy the cultists so no point in trying.
@@pudgedooley that's not empathy in reference to the outrage about the colonialism subject. These people are faking moral superiority, while ignoring that most of their games come from China, where forced labor and slavery is still happening. They are not to be taken seriously and I don't waste my time worrying about what happened in the past. Empires were a thing, conquerors were a thing. It's best to study history to learn from it, not sanctimoniously pretend not playing a game changes it. Thank God for Western culture by the way...the ninnies would be in a pickle without it.
Love your other channel but in this image movement era it needs an overhaul, some images, graphics, etc. yes I know, it’s a lot of work and your have to play and understand all these rules…. 😉
Until they revise the rulebook, i can't give this "game of the year" nomination. The rules for control of territory are just too complex. For instance, one section says the wagons do not prevent control of a region, later on the rules it says the wagons do prevent control of a region for the NPT/SPT side. Also, i would give it high marks for presentation if they were able to use miniatures instead of cubes. But the cards and the board are really well made. IF you played 1775, you'll be able to figure this game out. Main point on this game, rulebook is a mess, definitely not for the novice wargamer.
I'm of the mind that typical GMT counters would serve better than cubes. Miniatures would not make sense as their scale to the map would be ridiculous.
I agree the rulebook needs work. As for the minis - when 878 Vikings came out they had minis rather than cubes. I found I missed the cubes. I learned a while back that not every game needs minis.
All rules questions are addressed in an official FAQ in the BGG rules forum from the designer. There are slightly different rules, including how wagon's control region depending on if you play 2, 3 or 4 players. These are clearly separate sections of the rule book and I did not find this confusing. There are some typos in the rule book and how enduring cards should work is very different in the official FAQ but none of these are hard to figure out or adapt to nor do they prevent you from successfully playing the game. This game is slightly more advanced than the Birth of America series and the next step up from them.
@@davidbarr9343 I actually dislike games with counters and find that cubes visually look very good in this game as they do in 1775 due to the classic nature of the games.
I feel giving this game a "Game of the Year" mention with this poor of a rulebook (actually two poor rulebooks, the regular and the solo book both have issues) is a mistake and is rewarding poor development. We, as game reviewers, need to be honest about the condition of these games when they are released, if only to hold publishers accountable. I agree with you the gameplay is excellent. Good review Cody.
The problems with the rules in the main rule book are minor: 1. No mention of how the American Indian player keeps track of Calvary kills, 2. How enduring card effects works is wrong, 3. A few more minor typos.
@@WayneHansen They are minor in the small amount of them. All of the rules issues are addressed in an official FAQ in the BGG rules forum. I have had to look up less rules for this game than I did many others.
@@Andrew_NJ It is appreciated that the designer(s) are active on BGG and are taking the time to issue errata and answer questions. We don't always get that from game designers. However, let's be clear, that doesn’t excuse the poor rulebooks at release.
@@WayneHansen I am not saying it excuses the rule book or that the rule book does not need a revision. Almost every game I have every bought needed an updated rule book and every single game I own from GMT has had their rule books updated. What I am saying is the issues with the rule book are all addressed in the official FAQ and the 2, 3 or 4 player game is very playable even without the additional 15 minutes reading through the FAQ online. With every game I buy, I immediately look online for a newer revision of the rule book or for an FAQ at BGG. GMT is very good about updating their "living" rule books between printings online. Other companies are much slower at addressing rules issues. For instance, CMON took almost a year to release an official FAQ for Blood Rage, the designer of this game did it in less than a month. The irony here is Cody did not even know about the FAQ and was able to play the game multiplayer, something people online have been complaining is not possible which I am vehemently disagreeing with. People also need to be clear if they are talking about the SOLO rules or the 2, 3 and 4 player rules because those are two different rule books. Solo gamers should not misinform everyone interested in this game that it is not possible to play a 2, 3 or 4 play game using the printed rule book as this is absolutely not true.
I have played this a bunch of times now. Very mixed feelings, going back and forth. Rulebook is pretty bad. My understanding of the rules has evolved over playing of all these times. And I really dislike several of the rules choices. Frustrated me, then I enjoyed it, and then it ultimately frustrated me. Feels like it needed more playtesting, more editing and someone to mentor the game designer through some poor rule choices. Also, after reading through the solo rules, they're garbage. Won't even attempt it solo. Also, FWIW, people don't say Indian anymore and they put it in the title. Almost very cool, but just lacking execution in so many ways.
@@Andrew_NJ This argument, made by many people, is silly. Think about negative terms used about marginalized groups, say African Americans. Would you seriously use a derogatory term about Black people in a game title today, just because it is historically accurate? This argument does not hold.
@@timoseppa9124 What is silly is the woke portion of society that try to tell other people what words they can use. "What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, Indigenous, or Native? All of these terms are acceptable." - National Museum of the American Indian (Smithsonian)
@@Andrew_NJ Good info, thank you, but don't make insinuations of what I am. I am trying to be respectful of others. Again, this isn't about telling other people what words to use - that's inflammatory and not correct. This is being sensitive to what groups want to be called.
Cody, you needed to mention that there is an official FAQ on the BGG forums from the designer that addresses any and all rules issues people had with this game.
Hadn’t seen that. Thanks.
I preordered this one a while back and played 4 times since I got it. I knew you’d like this one too. Once you have the rules down, it plays so smooth. And yeah, echo’s of 1775 are noticeable in the design.
Indeed. Fun game.
1775 is one of my favourite games. I'll like this one I'm sure. thanks for reviewing
Thank you. You will.
I had just read Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee and Empire Of The Summer Moon when this game came up on P500. It was an insta-purchase, though in yet to play it. Can’t wait though!
Great game.
Wow! Possibly game of the year? It looks amazing. Thanks again for the video. Have you tried Navejo Wars by GMT? Great one player game.
Haven’t played that one. Heard it’s great!
@@TheDiscriminatingGamer If you have the chance, give Navajo Wars a try. I own it and love it. Joel Toppin is the designer. The game was made to tell the story of the Navajo people who I believe he grew up with. As a historian, it should be in your wheelhouse. Cheers!
any good solo?
Haven’t played the solo version.
Thanks for the review. I picked this one up a few months back but have been hesitant to play it with all the "bad rule book" hate.
You gave me the push to open it up and give it a go!
Solo gamers are misleading people about the problems with the rules in the main rule book which are minor:
1. No mention of how the American Indian player keeps track of Calvary kills,
2. How enduring card effects works is wrong,
3. A few more minor typos.
Every major rules question is answered in the official FAQ on the BGG rules forum.
Thanks!
I was pretty sure you'd like this one. I have an earlier game on a similar topic, Geronimo (Avalon Hill 1995). That game has a very difficult rulebook and many fiddley rules. Plains Indian Wars is a very enjoyable game. It is more streamlined than Geronimo. Glad you like it!
Thanks! I really do!
Who won? The U of U hat guy or the BYU shirt guy?
Ha! Both.
Really good game. Loved it.
Excellent.
I agree with you. The game is great. Thanks for good video.
Thank you.
Thank you.
1754 is one of my TOP TOP games. love it. how well does this go for 2 player?
Haven't played it yet with just two (only three and four), but I get a sense it would work very well. For me, however, I love the negotiation between partners.
I've only played it with two (3 games in so far). I think it works great at that player count.
Interesting. To what extent have you found yourself making decisions based on scoring? I'm not a fan of points salad type systems, but other than some of the territory control scoring sounds fairly organic to the scenario.
Well, for instance, as the Native Americans you have to decide if you want to occupy the enemies territories, or if you want go all out to obstruct the completion of the railroad.
Your enthusiasm for the game has me rethinking my decision not to purchase this one. The map is just so beautiful Thanks!
Happy to help!
colorful cubes means someone wants to sell it with mechanics and not plastic figures
For this game I’d rather have cubes than minis.
If i already own 1775 is it worth it to own this too? Or does it offer the same experience?
I'm planning on keeping both. PIW has some unique ideas - like the railroad, the wagons, specific events, etc... They are different enough for me.
I could get into this, the theme is legit. I just don't know if I can get my game mates into it. Which is an especially daunting task when one realizes the We would be playing it solo.
Hope you get a chance to hit it. Great game.
This is an interesting subject to game. When we played Cowboys and Indians as kids, I've always played the Indians.
Fun game.
You got younger! I thought from the title on the P500 list that it was the 3rd in Toppen's Indian Wars games for GMT...not.
It happens.
@@TheDiscriminatingGamer I think the colonialism hand wringing is ridiculous, it's like these folks are clueless about history in general and just want to feel guilty for something...they didn't even take part in.
@@denroy3 It’s a cancer that’s affecting the UK too - we must now hate everything that our culture is built upon (no matter how long ago things happened). No amount of apologising will satisfy the cultists so no point in trying.
@@denroy3 Why do people weep for other people's kids killed in a classroom? Because empathy.
@@pudgedooley that's not empathy in reference to the outrage about the colonialism subject. These people are faking moral superiority, while ignoring that most of their games come from China, where forced labor and slavery is still happening. They are not to be taken seriously and I don't waste my time worrying about what happened in the past. Empires were a thing, conquerors were a thing. It's best to study history to learn from it, not sanctimoniously pretend not playing a game changes it. Thank God for Western culture by the way...the ninnies would be in a pickle without it.
Love your other channel but in this image movement era it needs an overhaul, some images, graphics, etc. yes I know, it’s a lot of work and your have to play and understand all these rules…. 😉
Indeed. Thanks.
Until they revise the rulebook, i can't give this "game of the year" nomination. The rules for control of territory are just too complex. For instance, one section says the wagons do not prevent control of a region, later on the rules it says the wagons do prevent control of a region for the NPT/SPT side. Also, i would give it high marks for presentation if they were able to use miniatures instead of cubes. But the cards and the board are really well made. IF you played 1775, you'll be able to figure this game out. Main point on this game, rulebook is a mess, definitely not for the novice wargamer.
I'm of the mind that typical GMT counters would serve better than cubes. Miniatures would not make sense as their scale to the map would be ridiculous.
I agree the rulebook needs work. As for the minis - when 878 Vikings came out they had minis rather than cubes. I found I missed the cubes. I learned a while back that not every game needs minis.
All rules questions are addressed in an official FAQ in the BGG rules forum from the designer. There are slightly different rules, including how wagon's control region depending on if you play 2, 3 or 4 players. These are clearly separate sections of the rule book and I did not find this confusing. There are some typos in the rule book and how enduring cards should work is very different in the official FAQ but none of these are hard to figure out or adapt to nor do they prevent you from successfully playing the game. This game is slightly more advanced than the Birth of America series and the next step up from them.
@@OnesUponaGame Totally agree. Counters would be an improvement. I personally don't like playing games with cubes, just a personal choice.
@@davidbarr9343 I actually dislike games with counters and find that cubes visually look very good in this game as they do in 1775 due to the classic nature of the games.
I feel giving this game a "Game of the Year" mention with this poor of a rulebook (actually two poor rulebooks, the regular and the solo book both have issues) is a mistake and is rewarding poor development. We, as game reviewers, need to be honest about the condition of these games when they are released, if only to hold publishers accountable. I agree with you the gameplay is excellent. Good review Cody.
The problems with the rules in the main rule book are minor:
1. No mention of how the American Indian player keeps track of Calvary kills,
2. How enduring card effects works is wrong,
3. A few more minor typos.
@@Andrew_NJ Typos are minor. Problems with mechanics, sequence of play, scoring, and card effects, are not.
@@WayneHansen They are minor in the small amount of them. All of the rules issues are addressed in an official FAQ in the BGG rules forum. I have had to look up less rules for this game than I did many others.
@@Andrew_NJ It is appreciated that the designer(s) are active on BGG and are taking the time to issue errata and answer questions. We don't always get that from game designers. However, let's be clear, that doesn’t excuse the poor rulebooks at release.
@@WayneHansen I am not saying it excuses the rule book or that the rule book does not need a revision. Almost every game I have every bought needed an updated rule book and every single game I own from GMT has had their rule books updated. What I am saying is the issues with the rule book are all addressed in the official FAQ and the 2, 3 or 4 player game is very playable even without the additional 15 minutes reading through the FAQ online. With every game I buy, I immediately look online for a newer revision of the rule book or for an FAQ at BGG. GMT is very good about updating their "living" rule books between printings online. Other companies are much slower at addressing rules issues. For instance, CMON took almost a year to release an official FAQ for Blood Rage, the designer of this game did it in less than a month. The irony here is Cody did not even know about the FAQ and was able to play the game multiplayer, something people online have been complaining is not possible which I am vehemently disagreeing with. People also need to be clear if they are talking about the SOLO rules or the 2, 3 and 4 player rules because those are two different rule books. Solo gamers should not misinform everyone interested in this game that it is not possible to play a 2, 3 or 4 play game using the printed rule book as this is absolutely not true.
Why did the Plains Indian go to the bison to fund his war ?
...
...
...
for a Buffaloan...
(Nods respectfully)
That's nearly as bad as Cody's jokes!😂
@@davidbarr9343 nope mine are much, much worse.
Disappointed Beau and I were not consulted on this. GMT refused to give us recognition. booo....
but congratulation to John for putting together a great game.
You should have received some credit, sir.
I have played this a bunch of times now. Very mixed feelings, going back and forth. Rulebook is pretty bad. My understanding of the rules has evolved over playing of all these times. And I really dislike several of the rules choices. Frustrated me, then I enjoyed it, and then it ultimately frustrated me. Feels like it needed more playtesting, more editing and someone to mentor the game designer through some poor rule choices. Also, after reading through the solo rules, they're garbage. Won't even attempt it solo. Also, FWIW, people don't say Indian anymore and they put it in the title. Almost very cool, but just lacking execution in so many ways.
Agree with you on the rulebook, but otherwise I really enjoyed it.
Plenty of people refer to Native Americans as American Indians and to be historically accurate that is the correct term to use.
@@Andrew_NJ This argument, made by many people, is silly. Think about negative terms used about marginalized groups, say African Americans. Would you seriously use a derogatory term about Black people in a game title today, just because it is historically accurate? This argument does not hold.
@@timoseppa9124 What is silly is the woke portion of society that try to tell other people what words they can use. "What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, Indigenous, or Native? All of these terms are acceptable." - National Museum of the American Indian (Smithsonian)
@@Andrew_NJ Good info, thank you, but don't make insinuations of what I am. I am trying to be respectful of others. Again, this isn't about telling other people what words to use - that's inflammatory and not correct. This is being sensitive to what groups want to be called.