I love the format of this video. The 4 person ones in the past have been good, but the flow of this is perfect. Opening, overview, thoughts, and score. Before, the thoughts and scores seemed more overlapped. I dunno why, it just seemed better. Also nice adding the scores as it made it clean and clear who was going. Going around for many points about the game just was nice to hear each perspective. Hope this continues! Thanks for the review
Per Tom's complaints about the kids names and the theme: The theme, like the game, is not for kids or about modern kids. I believe it is playing off the nostalgia of its target audience, people like me, for their childhoods. We spent a lot of time out doors, building forts and club houses and such. Or at least attempting to. The fun was all about using our imaginations, which is something this game'e theme brings back, it you let it. Personally I love the artwork and the theme, for exactly that reason.
(Hmmm, I feel like I'm contradicting Tom quite a bit recently. Which is rather unfortunate considering how much I appreciate all that he has done for board gaming and my knowledge of the hobby as a whole. Perhaps I need to revisit some of my BGG blog entries re: Tom in case anyone ever actually reads them. Tom you're great, even if you are in the minority about this game (and Flamme Rouge :) ))
Plus reaching for "named by an old person from the 50s" is doing a disservice to some of the weirder kids: Icky & Sticky, Ghost, The Moles, The Rocket Bros, and Lil Boss, the kid who runs the super-soaker ambush squad and is never heard from again. 😎
The "theme and mechanisms don't match" comment was interesting; a few of us have been comparing this to its ancestor (SPQF) and universally our opinion was that the new theme in Fort is a perfect match for the mechanisms. Fickle kids that stick with you just as long as you keep playing with them... before leaving to play with someone else. With the notable exception of your two besties.
That is one mechanism that 'sort of' matches, no other mechanic in this game makes me feel like I am building a fort or "fighting" these other kids or whatever it is they should be doing. The toy and pizza resources can be anything and might as well be cubes.
@@southernfriedgamenight4304 The real Fort was the Friends we made along the way. Joke aside, i actually think it is clever that you dont really see the fort, because childhood wasnt actually about the stuff you did, but with whom you did it.
I think Fort is very thematic in a macro sense. The mechanic you mention, the feel of collecting stuff and building up your fort (although it'd be fun to have the fort be even more central). But on a micro sense, I start to lose that thematic feel. I can see where certain cards/friends match a mechanic, but most of the time it feels like any friend could have been used for that mechanic.
On one hand, the Yard mechanic _really_ fits the theme of kids going off to another group if you don't play with them On the other hand, the Fort level is presented as nothing but an abstract value. I guess it's to leave things to imagination, but still... I guess the divided opinion on the theme-mechanic integration depends on which part you focus your attention to
Wow! First time I disagree with everything Tom said. And first time I totally agree with Zee. 2020 is definitely a strange year. Really glad this game got all 4 opinions.
Hahaha such a mood. I have an ongoing debate as to whether Tom's recommendation for a game (or lack thereof) is a boon or a curse. I tend to disagree with him like you (even though I still disagree about this game... but we're GTR and Mottainai players here too so this feels at home with us)...my friend says you can't argue with his wall of credibility.
I really like this format; it gives me 4 different opinions about the game and brings up all the good and bad points of the game. Do more of these, please.
I was starting to think I was the only human alive that hasn't enjoyed Fort. I love the art, the boards, theme, etc. But I just never had fun playing, and that will always be my number one priority. I already sold it.
I couldn’t agree more. We sold it today after the sloooowest 4 player game. It took 2 hrs and everyone playing was bored the whole time. Awesome art, great theme, boring gameplay. Hopefully in the future someone else explores this theme and does it justice cause I’d love to have a game with this theme in my collection, but it’s definitely not this game.
Sounds like I line up with Zee quite a bit on this one. I watched previews and bought it from Leder because I liked the art, and thought the mechanisms fit the theme at least to me. Kids not being played with might go play with another group and that just fit to to me, copying another leader because kids like to do what is popular. I thought the getting kids in the yard make longer term planning harder, but makes each decision matter a bit more, due I want to keep this powerful card? Or do I want to use something that is more beneficial to me in this moment? Sadly I haven't been able to play it yet because shelter in place, and I thought it might be better at 3 or 4, but now I might try it at 2 player with my wife, but I'm still slowly introducing her to all kinds of games. But this is a good example of why I like these panel reviews. I don't need everyone to agree with me, but hearing various opinions is always good.
I totally love that one of the guys gives it an 8.5 and they give it the seal of excellence. I also love that this is a really transparent review. Well done.
Always been like that. If someone votes it 8.5 it gets the seal. Usually whoever is most excited or would like the game gets to review it (unless Tom uses his powers)
Wow everybody's score was way too low, I am with Zee this game is beautiful and the theme perfectly fits and made sense for our group to learn the game. Love the mechanics and how you have to care about what the other players are doing. Maybe you guys have so many games under your belt but I don't know many other games with a cute theme and as deep mechanics like Fort. 9 for me.
I found myself agreeing with a lot of Tom's points but I'm just not as harsh on it. For me it's around a 6 because it's a bit too much luck with the end goal drafting. The first to pick cards is huge for the special powers & the end game cards. There is no choice between which to go for because they are on the same track. It would have been better if you had to choose to go for one or the other.
Making it a bit like Food Chain Magnate's milestones, then? That would also address the criticism of the fort level being the somewhat dominant strategy. Granted, building a fort is what the game's themed to, but separating it into say 3 variables(representing 3 different parts of the fort -- each improving 2 out of 3 aspects) might make things more balanced & less randomness-decided
Absolutely agree with Tom on this game! He and the Broken Meeple are reviewers that my tastes most seem to align with and that really showed on this one! I do like this format though I also like it when Tom reviews on his own!
Woah - started off bad with Tom saying the theme doesn't exist! Still watching the review but I'm sharpening my pitch fork! My husband and I adore Fort!
Yas! Roy! Recess TV show! That's what it reminds me of!! I kept wondering why I had such a strong feeling of nostalgia playing it - that's why! The following is what helps you keep fewer cards from ending up in your yard so there's less stealing! I've had several times where my husband had no cards in my yard to chose from between following and boosting my play. #tomiswrong
On one hand, the yard mechanic is heavily integrated with the theme of kids leaving for other groups if they're left out of the fun. The suits and actions too, to some extent. But on the other hand, the fort level's presented as nothing but an abstract quantity(with some thematically justifiable capacity boost), instead of evocative illustrations or component arrangements. Granted, this leaves the fort's appearance to the player's imagination, but I can see why some players would prefer their imaginations being evoked instead
i like it when all of you work on one video i think it really makes the reviews feel more well rounded and having multiple peoples opinions on the game is a great way to help people make an informed choice a bout the game... Well done guys. Stay Hexy!
Played it with 2 and 4 players. With 2, the game is amazing. But with 4, there are a lot of issues I saw in that it is nearly impossible to catch up if you have 1 bad/unlucky round 1) If your early game strategy fails, it's very tough to switch to a new one without losing a ton of momentum and falling irrecoverably behind. 2) One bad hand that doesnt let you draw much can devastate you beyond recovery. 3) If you take an early lead, especially in upgrading a fort, then you have a massive advantage because you see all possible endgame scoring goals and get to draft the one that already suits the strategy you chose. The last place has to work with no knowledge of what others picked, and an endgame goal that is unlikely to fit their strategy. 4) The leader controls the pace of the game and also has the benefit of being safe (their cards mesh together well and thus are easily discarded). The only strategy for those who aren't winning is to gang up on whoever is in 1st, effectively breaking the 1v1v1v1 balance of the game. With 2 players, it's all very different but less interesting. 3 players is likely the sweet spot for this game
I also disagree about the following mechanism. It's what took a deck-builder from a solitaire combo-building game to a game where you care about what your opponents are doing
Agreed, though there might be other ways to do it, like EmDo or GtR do. Or even like Impulse, Mottainai, etc. Those two in particular seem to fit well to the usual effect card format in deckbuilding games, so easy to seamlessly integrate that one might even be able to make a Dominion variant out of those
I had actually bought this game a couple days ago...Buuuuut then cancelled it. Upon further inspection I saw that this game will (potentially) fall into the "samey" category after 5-10 plays... So I side with Tom on his assessment. I really wanted to adore it too, as a huge fan of Leder games. But if every game sees similarity strategies, it's going to get stale quickly unfortunately. So I'm comfortable with my pass on this one, but to each their own of course.
We have probably played 20 games of this by now and I don't think any two have been the same. Sometimes you have a tight deck with a great combo, sometimes you have a ton of cards because you keep stealing your opponents. Sometimes you are racing for points, sometimes you are building a fort, sometimes you have a bunch of kids in the lookout. Because the game is short, your starting hand and first few pickups really guide your strategy and the cards are wildly different, which means so are the strategies.
@@filmranker6092 Thanks for the reply! I actually ended up buying it and we all really enjoy it! :D My concerns about samey-ness were based on video reviews, but from my actual play I agree every game is very different. I saw in some videos people mentioned never triggering and game by earning 25VP, that the game is just a race to build Fort levels, but triggering endgame with points happens frequently in our games.. And not only that, but sometimes a player will build their last fort level and still lose because they negated points all game. So ya, we really enjoy it, and the theme and presentation is adorable and really adds to the experience.
Strategies that don’t focus on building a fort in this game are much less easy to execute, especially because the most common ways to get victory points aside from upgrading your fort are to either put resources in your pack or put resources in your lookout, and those are dependent on you upgrading your fort anyway. The exceptions are Munch and Kitty of the skateboard and glue suits respectively, which makes those cards slightly easier to use if you have the best friends of either of those suits. Both of these cards are able to fairly consistently give a well built deck 4 victory points per turn, which could hypothetically (almost impossible) end the game in about 8 turns and make it difficult for others to upgrade their forts, especially as the later fort upgrades basically require multiple turns of work to set up and execute. These cards can also just give you resources if you’d rather, adding to how good they are, and it seems the designers knew this because they only included 1 of each. If you upgrade your fort just twice and take the Minimalism made up rule, you can usually end up winning or at least staying competitive without focusing much on upgrading your Fort. The only easier sources of victory points remove themselves from the game after a single use. All that being said, if you don’t get ahold of either of these cards, and if you don’t have either of these cards the best strategy ultimately involves significant investment in fort upgrades, and even with them, unless minimalism is dealt as a made up rule (which you won’t know until very early in the game when you’ve upgraded your fort the first time), you’ll still want to spend some time and resources upgrading your fort, and the strategy is prone to disruption either from your ever expanding deck (you can mill cards, but it has to be manually or your opponents taking them from your yard) or from having them reach your yard and get taken because the circumstances weren’t right to play them one time.
The theme-mechanic integration is strong, especially with kids going to join other groups if they get left out of the fun, but the fort level itself is presented as nothing but an abstract quantity(with some linked thematically justified increased storage capacity), instead of an evocative illustration or component arrangement
I was on the fence about getting this. I like the theming but the options and sameness concerned me, even as someone who loves Ascension for its breezy play and sameness. But Zee liking it at 2 players is convincing me to try. The dude likes Neuroshima Hex so theyre all right by me.
Theme is fantastic, not pasted on at all. I think Tom and perhaps even the others underestimated the importance of stealing kids and following in this game. It isn't supposed to be just a bonus you might catch or a timing thing. Stealing is partly about stopping your opponents plans, and partly to force difficult decisions as they mentioned. But it is also about taking cards to utilize temporarily and then get rid of them, sometimes even in sneaky ways in which you effectively goat your opponents into removing the from your deck intentionally. It makes the game so incredibly dynamic and strategic that your decks are constantly changing. As for the following, this is key to playing well. The idea is not just to do an action early or hide cards, it is also to intentionally lean on other players' strategies so that you can avoid bothering with focusing on certain actions. This game is a race to have the best fort and you do not have enough turns to do everything on your own, nor do you really want a deck that stacked. The following allows you to keep a lean and directed deck while making up shortcomings by following strategically. I have played entire games in which I never once played my own fort upgrade card and did it entirely by following. You want to force other players into needing to do something worse than you so that you can swoop in and follow them and not have to waste your own turn or precious room in your deck on it. That's the real beauty of the follow system. You're all constantly capitalizing on each other and trying to give the other players worse opportunities to do so than you, which is quite challenging. If you are trying to win in a silo you are going to find the following and stealing annoying and you are also probably going to lose; playing that way is simply playing this game wrong. You have to specialize and then piece together what you are missing from the other players. It's really quite an elegant design. At first, yes the having to use one action fully before you are allowed to use a half action is a tad clunky up front, but it becomes natural very quickly and it's important because it forces you to be mindful about how you manage your deck and resources. This makes having just 2 types of resources with 2 places to store them and a small deck actually pretty interesting when at first it seems too basic.
I love the theme! I thought the names were great and we had a lot of fun telling little stories as we used or recruited cards. "Hey Sarge, I have lots of toys. Come play at my house!"
Regarding the card stealing, that can be mitigated by following other players with cards you would otherwise not play, so while more players means more hands that could steal from your yard, it could also mean more opportunities to not let those cards into your yard in the first place, by discarding them to follow Edit: it was mentioned at 15:09
I think it would have been better if you actually made “a fort”. I’d like to give this a try, but from the moment I first saw it, I have thought “...but where’s the fort?” Like it should have had a tile laying element, or something. It looks interesting and I’d like to give it a shot, though
Zee mentions that Fort has the best pieces of Glory to Rome. For someone looking for a lighter version of Glory to Rome, is Fort or Uchronia the better option? Is there room for both in a collection?
Tom is WRONG! By the way, my nickname when I was a kid was 'Prof.', and my best friend was ''Shadow'. So the theme was there for me. Also, I like the conflict level. I get so BORED playing multi-player solo euro games.
didn't the follow mechanism fix the problem of people taking your cards away from you? i mean, let say you have two awesome cards in your hand like the example tom said, then you should try to use one of those to follow other player, and play the other during your turn. The more players there are, you will get more chances to play your card. I'm just wondering, does it work that way and Tom just didn't get it? or is there something i'm missing about how the game is played?
The stealing is a personal thing which I get, but I think it adds a tough choice. Your best friends can’t be stolen so you can try and use your other cards more often and send your bfs to the yard to protect your most valuable cards. I like the “what cards are expendable, and what do I NEED to do” choice.
I also wonder sometimes with how many games Tom and The Dice Tower review whether they get to delve deeply into all the games they look at. I would like to know how many times each of the reviewers played the game they are giving their opinion about.
I agree with Tom wholeheartedly. I played this with 3 and it absolutely fell flat for us, and I don’t think there was a single turn where I had fun. On my turn I play my boring action On your turn maybe I discard a card as a follow On my turn I play my boring action And it just goes on for an hour, and the last turns feel exactly the same as the first turns and none of it was enjoyable. Overall I’m really disappointed that this didn’t really have any fun combos like something like Space Base, Dominion, Moonrakers, etc. It’s all just Play card, do action 1-4 times, move on.
I really like the format. The conversation was a little sloppy but that was because it was more organic. I fear making this more structured might actually dampen the conversation style. Maybe have a framework for where everyone should be looking at to talk about clearly? Otherwise, this is great and buddy on bottom left is hella cute #heygurrrlll #howyadoin
So Tom's initial complaint is that the naming of the kids is reminiscent of "The Little Rascals"? Clarence would've probably been a more contemporary option, but can you really blame them for going with the classic?
As someone with nephews and nieces around this game's age range, Tom's first half-joking point about the nicknames was spot on. Even back in the late 80s/90s when I was a kid no one would use those kind of nicknames.
i've seen a few reviews of this game.....and Im still coming back to the same question...where is the "FORT". Don't tell me it's the friendship we built while playing this game/
In the fort level track which increases your backpack & lookout capacity? Like what could happen when a fort gets bigger? Granted, it's represented as a very abstract quantity instead of an evocative illustration/arrangement of components, but it's a case of weak theming with a strong theme-to-mechanic integration, and it leaves how the fort looks like to the player's imagination
I often agree with Zee but when Tom disagrees heavily, it seems like Zee is almost trying to counter Tom rather than give a genuine, holistic look at the game.
I was in the minority in that I didn't like the aesthetics in Root at all (though I did like the game) and I like them less here. Tom's concerns seem to be my bugaboos as well, so I probably won't be picking this up.
shanerion I like his art, but I didn’t think it fit particularly well with Root. I thought there was a disconnect between presentation and gameplay. I think this theme is a much better fit for that style, and the artwork here looks awesome.
Have seen a lot of press about this and checked it out at my LGS. Cool art, novel theme, but not sure why an adult would want to play it. Usually agree with Zee but on Tom's side here (or even lower). Just don't know why this game exists or got into production at this scale. Proves there is a taste for everything and that preference is certainly not always mine (probably a good thing). Enjoy if it hits you right.
Idk if this will get read or not but I realize that may have come across too harsh. I only mean I value Tom’s reviews in the sense that we have very very different tastes and his dislike is usually a sign I might enjoy it. Meant no disrespect. Sometimes tone in internet comments can be lost.
i really like Tom and value his opinion - i've taken his lead many a time when comes to game selections.. but man, he can be such a stick in the mud sometimes when it comes to the more subjective preferences. the games that he cringes at the art styles or themes, i tend to love. a message to Tom.. keep rocking the great reviews as you do.. but your taste on art is so boring, leave those opinions in the box. ;) as far as my review for Fort goes, the only thing working in it's favor is the art and theme. the game play is a pass. (imho)
Y'all need to come up with a new name for these multi-person reviews. I don't always watch every review but I always watched Miami Dice. Review Rondel... Table Talk... Board Meeting... Dice Capades... Give us something!
Half of the video was about Tom listing his problems with the game and the others trying slip in the good things about the game. This is starting to be the theme for Dice Tower reviews. I’d appreciate more fair reviews, especially since most games are made for the average gamer.
Wait, how is this a seal of excellence? I thought 7/7.5 wouldn't amount to that? Damn, Zee tipping the scales I guess. By the way, really unimpressed with this game. Cute, but that's about it.
"It sounds like a mafia gang that got de-aged" ...yeah...that's why it's great. Would you rather they have normal names like Michael and Sarah? Come on, the theme and names in this game are amazing.
Also the comment about it not scaling well is an interesting one to me. You didn't like how it felt like you were losing more of your cards with more players but in my experience playing with more players helped me hold on to my cards more. It gave me more opportunities to play a kid earlier on so that I could keep him in my deck. If I pulled 3 kids I really like I made sure I sacrificed 2 of them on other players' turns (if I could) so that I wouldn't risk losing them. This gets easier to do with a higher player count. I feel like you either played wrong or just never grasped how to optimize your options. Obviously I love the game and understand it's not perfect, but I just don't feel like that critique is really all that valid. But great video guys, I really enjoy the back and forth of these group reviews
@@CocoDrawsGames I just realized that the followup mechanic didn't just balance the yard mechanic's potential drawback, but also it's scalability. Thanks
Because aquisition/searching for that for the perfect game is a massive part of the hobby. Also, just because a game uses similar mechanisms shouldn`t prevent you playing it. You might as well ask why you`d play Pillars of the Earth when you have Stone Age, or Skat when you can play Bridge.
Why shouldn't you just play San Juan instead of RftG? Or why play RftG instead of GtR? Just like how RftG's take on the "civilization-building role-selection with multipurpose cards" concept is different from San Juan's, so is Fort's take on "deckbuilding + role-selection with followup" compared to Eminent Domain's.
Eh... for what's in it for components I wouldn't call 30 dollars "super cheap." That's about the right price for this game. It's not over priced but it's not really a bargain to the level it's worth pointing out.
5? Really? I thought Tom loved the ‘follow’ mechanism. And you can take a kid from their yard. Fun game. Glory to Rome is out of print so not many of us have played it.
I disagree completely with Tom about the kid-stealing. My first game was with 4 players and we had a blast. The one player who kept having kids stolen from him the most is the biggest sore loser in our group, and even HE wasn't bothered that much. How seriously do you have to take this lighthearted game to feel bad about that?
I love the format of this video. The 4 person ones in the past have been good, but the flow of this is perfect. Opening, overview, thoughts, and score. Before, the thoughts and scores seemed more overlapped. I dunno why, it just seemed better. Also nice adding the scores as it made it clean and clear who was going. Going around for many points about the game just was nice to hear each perspective.
Hope this continues! Thanks for the review
Per Tom's complaints about the kids names and the theme: The theme, like the game, is not for kids or about modern kids. I believe it is playing off the nostalgia of its target audience, people like me, for their childhoods. We spent a lot of time out doors, building forts and club houses and such. Or at least attempting to. The fun was all about using our imaginations, which is something this game'e theme brings back, it you let it. Personally I love the artwork and the theme, for exactly that reason.
(Hmmm, I feel like I'm contradicting Tom quite a bit recently. Which is rather unfortunate considering how much I appreciate all that he has done for board gaming and my knowledge of the hobby as a whole. Perhaps I need to revisit some of my BGG blog entries re: Tom in case anyone ever actually reads them. Tom you're great, even if you are in the minority about this game (and Flamme Rouge :) ))
Plus reaching for "named by an old person from the 50s" is doing a disservice to some of the weirder kids: Icky & Sticky, Ghost, The Moles, The Rocket Bros, and Lil Boss, the kid who runs the super-soaker ambush squad and is never heard from again. 😎
The "theme and mechanisms don't match" comment was interesting; a few of us have been comparing this to its ancestor (SPQF) and universally our opinion was that the new theme in Fort is a perfect match for the mechanisms. Fickle kids that stick with you just as long as you keep playing with them... before leaving to play with someone else. With the notable exception of your two besties.
That is one mechanism that 'sort of' matches, no other mechanic in this game makes me feel like I am building a fort or "fighting" these other kids or whatever it is they should be doing. The toy and pizza resources can be anything and might as well be cubes.
@@southernfriedgamenight4304 The real Fort was the Friends we made along the way.
Joke aside, i actually think it is clever that you dont really see the fort, because childhood wasnt actually about the stuff you did, but with whom you did it.
I think Fort is very thematic in a macro sense. The mechanic you mention, the feel of collecting stuff and building up your fort (although it'd be fun to have the fort be even more central). But on a micro sense, I start to lose that thematic feel. I can see where certain cards/friends match a mechanic, but most of the time it feels like any friend could have been used for that mechanic.
On one hand, the Yard mechanic _really_ fits the theme of kids going off to another group if you don't play with them
On the other hand, the Fort level is presented as nothing but an abstract value. I guess it's to leave things to imagination, but still...
I guess the divided opinion on the theme-mechanic integration depends on which part you focus your attention to
Wow! First time I disagree with everything Tom said. And first time I totally agree with Zee. 2020 is definitely a strange year. Really glad this game got all 4 opinions.
When I heard Tom say he didn’t Ike it, I literally drove to the store and bought a copy.
Nice format of review, really enjoy it.
Now that I have played this game several times, I regrettably admit that I agree with Tom.
@@joshuaelek lol. Thanks for the update
Hahaha such a mood. I have an ongoing debate as to whether Tom's recommendation for a game (or lack thereof) is a boon or a curse. I tend to disagree with him like you (even though I still disagree about this game... but we're GTR and Mottainai players here too so this feels at home with us)...my friend says you can't argue with his wall of credibility.
It is a terrible game
Wow, big spread! I align the most with Zee, so I think I'll need to give this one a try!
I agree with all of the things he said :)
Me too. I have the most in common selections with Zee
Zee tends to align closest to my husband and I - my husband a bit more than me.
I always align most with Zee...
But this one sadly fell kinda flat for me, after I had good expectations for it.
I really like this format; it gives me 4 different opinions about the game and brings up all the good and bad points of the game. Do more of these, please.
I was starting to think I was the only human alive that hasn't enjoyed Fort.
I love the art, the boards, theme, etc. But I just never had fun playing, and that will always be my number one priority. I already sold it.
I couldn’t agree more. We sold it today after the sloooowest 4 player game. It took 2 hrs and everyone playing was bored the whole time. Awesome art, great theme, boring gameplay. Hopefully in the future someone else explores this theme and does it justice cause I’d love to have a game with this theme in my collection, but it’s definitely not this game.
I absolutely love this new format. 4 opinions at once. Zee's solo reviews are my 2nd favorite on your channel.
Zee is like "I want my 'Tom is wrong' vote back".
Have to say this format for a review is the best. everyone's thoughts in one video
Sounds like I line up with Zee quite a bit on this one. I watched previews and bought it from Leder because I liked the art, and thought the mechanisms fit the theme at least to me. Kids not being played with might go play with another group and that just fit to to me, copying another leader because kids like to do what is popular.
I thought the getting kids in the yard make longer term planning harder, but makes each decision matter a bit more, due I want to keep this powerful card? Or do I want to use something that is more beneficial to me in this moment?
Sadly I haven't been able to play it yet because shelter in place, and I thought it might be better at 3 or 4, but now I might try it at 2 player with my wife, but I'm still slowly introducing her to all kinds of games.
But this is a good example of why I like these panel reviews. I don't need everyone to agree with me, but hearing various opinions is always good.
I totally love that one of the guys gives it an 8.5 and they give it the seal of excellence.
I also love that this is a really transparent review. Well done.
Always been like that. If someone votes it 8.5 it gets the seal. Usually whoever is most excited or would like the game gets to review it (unless Tom uses his powers)
@@joseg.6187 sure, I understand that but this one is special as they are all giving their opinion together.
Wow everybody's score was way too low, I am with Zee this game is beautiful and the theme perfectly fits and made sense for our group to learn the game. Love the mechanics and how you have to care about what the other players are doing. Maybe you guys have so many games under your belt but I don't know many other games with a cute theme and as deep mechanics like Fort. 9 for me.
I found myself agreeing with a lot of Tom's points but I'm just not as harsh on it.
For me it's around a 6 because it's a bit too much luck with the end goal drafting. The first to pick cards is huge for the special powers & the end game cards. There is no choice between which to go for because they are on the same track. It would have been better if you had to choose to go for one or the other.
Making it a bit like Food Chain Magnate's milestones, then?
That would also address the criticism of the fort level being the somewhat dominant strategy. Granted, building a fort is what the game's themed to, but separating it into say 3 variables(representing 3 different parts of the fort -- each improving 2 out of 3 aspects) might make things more balanced & less randomness-decided
I LOVE Fort and everyone in my house loves it too! Tom is WRONG :P
Tom's always wrong!
Time to start compiling the list for "Top 10 Games Tom Is Wrong About, Part 2"
Absolutely agree with Tom on this game! He and the Broken Meeple are reviewers that my tastes most seem to align with and that really showed on this one! I do like this format though I also like it when Tom reviews on his own!
Awww thanks! Well I just bought Fort to try out........ 🥺
Woah - started off bad with Tom saying the theme doesn't exist! Still watching the review but I'm sharpening my pitch fork! My husband and I adore Fort!
Yas! Roy! Recess TV show! That's what it reminds me of!! I kept wondering why I had such a strong feeling of nostalgia playing it - that's why!
The following is what helps you keep fewer cards from ending up in your yard so there's less stealing! I've had several times where my husband had no cards in my yard to chose from between following and boosting my play.
#tomiswrong
Yeah, I love this game!
On one hand, the yard mechanic is heavily integrated with the theme of kids leaving for other groups if they're left out of the fun. The suits and actions too, to some extent.
But on the other hand, the fort level's presented as nothing but an abstract quantity(with some thematically justifiable capacity boost), instead of evocative illustrations or component arrangements. Granted, this leaves the fort's appearance to the player's imagination, but I can see why some players would prefer their imaginations being evoked instead
love the differing opinions - it shows the added depth of the 4 person review
LOVE this format! 4 opinions is what we need! Stunning idea! Keep this format Pls!!!
I really like seeing this review with all perspectives at the same time very interesting points to consider! Thanks, guys!
“Every turn I’m shufflin” now that songs in my head
i like it when all of you work on one video i think it really makes the reviews feel more well rounded and having multiple peoples opinions on the game is a great way to help people make an informed choice a bout the game... Well done guys. Stay Hexy!
Played it with 2 and 4 players. With 2, the game is amazing. But with 4, there are a lot of issues I saw in that it is nearly impossible to catch up if you have 1 bad/unlucky round
1) If your early game strategy fails, it's very tough to switch to a new one without losing a ton of momentum and falling irrecoverably behind.
2) One bad hand that doesnt let you draw much can devastate you beyond recovery.
3) If you take an early lead, especially in upgrading a fort, then you have a massive advantage because you see all possible endgame scoring goals and get to draft the one that already suits the strategy you chose. The last place has to work with no knowledge of what others picked, and an endgame goal that is unlikely to fit their strategy.
4) The leader controls the pace of the game and also has the benefit of being safe (their cards mesh together well and thus are easily discarded). The only strategy for those who aren't winning is to gang up on whoever is in 1st, effectively breaking the 1v1v1v1 balance of the game.
With 2 players, it's all very different but less interesting. 3 players is likely the sweet spot for this game
I think Zee is my dicetower avatar. He has such similar tastes and appreciations for games as me. Love it
I also disagree about the following mechanism. It's what took a deck-builder from a solitaire combo-building game to a game where you care about what your opponents are doing
Agreed, though there might be other ways to do it, like EmDo or GtR do. Or even like Impulse, Mottainai, etc. Those two in particular seem to fit well to the usual effect card format in deckbuilding games, so easy to seamlessly integrate that one might even be able to make a Dominion variant out of those
@@revimfadli4666 what are EmDO and GtR?
@@gadzooks2763 Eminent Domain, Glory to Rome
Excellent back and forth discussion at the end! Love this format.
I had actually bought this game a couple days ago...Buuuuut then cancelled it. Upon further inspection I saw that this game will (potentially) fall into the "samey" category after 5-10 plays... So I side with Tom on his assessment. I really wanted to adore it too, as a huge fan of Leder games. But if every game sees similarity strategies, it's going to get stale quickly unfortunately. So I'm comfortable with my pass on this one, but to each their own of course.
We have probably played 20 games of this by now and I don't think any two have been the same. Sometimes you have a tight deck with a great combo, sometimes you have a ton of cards because you keep stealing your opponents. Sometimes you are racing for points, sometimes you are building a fort, sometimes you have a bunch of kids in the lookout. Because the game is short, your starting hand and first few pickups really guide your strategy and the cards are wildly different, which means so are the strategies.
@@filmranker6092 Thanks for the reply! I actually ended up buying it and we all really enjoy it! :D My concerns about samey-ness were based on video reviews, but from my actual play I agree every game is very different. I saw in some videos people mentioned never triggering and game by earning 25VP, that the game is just a race to build Fort levels, but triggering endgame with points happens frequently in our games.. And not only that, but sometimes a player will build their last fort level and still lose because they negated points all game. So ya, we really enjoy it, and the theme and presentation is adorable and really adds to the experience.
Strategies that don’t focus on building a fort in this game are much less easy to execute, especially because the most common ways to get victory points aside from upgrading your fort are to either put resources in your pack or put resources in your lookout, and those are dependent on you upgrading your fort anyway. The exceptions are Munch and Kitty of the skateboard and glue suits respectively, which makes those cards slightly easier to use if you have the best friends of either of those suits. Both of these cards are able to fairly consistently give a well built deck 4 victory points per turn, which could hypothetically (almost impossible) end the game in about 8 turns and make it difficult for others to upgrade their forts, especially as the later fort upgrades basically require multiple turns of work to set up and execute. These cards can also just give you resources if you’d rather, adding to how good they are, and it seems the designers knew this because they only included 1 of each. If you upgrade your fort just twice and take the Minimalism made up rule, you can usually end up winning or at least staying competitive without focusing much on upgrading your Fort. The only easier sources of victory points remove themselves from the game after a single use. All that being said, if you don’t get ahold of either of these cards, and if you don’t have either of these cards the best strategy ultimately involves significant investment in fort upgrades, and even with them, unless minimalism is dealt as a made up rule (which you won’t know until very early in the game when you’ve upgraded your fort the first time), you’ll still want to spend some time and resources upgrading your fort, and the strategy is prone to disruption either from your ever expanding deck (you can mill cards, but it has to be manually or your opponents taking them from your yard) or from having them reach your yard and get taken because the circumstances weren’t right to play them one time.
My playgroup loved it. It oozes theme. I was skeptical going in, but loved it.
I DO NOT understand Tom's theme comment. This bleeds theme that makes sense.
The theme-mechanic integration is strong, especially with kids going to join other groups if they get left out of the fun, but the fort level itself is presented as nothing but an abstract quantity(with some linked thematically justified increased storage capacity), instead of an evocative illustration or component arrangement
I was on the fence about getting this. I like the theming but the options and sameness concerned me, even as someone who loves Ascension for its breezy play and sameness.
But Zee liking it at 2 players is convincing me to try. The dude likes Neuroshima Hex so theyre all right by me.
Theme is fantastic, not pasted on at all. I think Tom and perhaps even the others underestimated the importance of stealing kids and following in this game. It isn't supposed to be just a bonus you might catch or a timing thing. Stealing is partly about stopping your opponents plans, and partly to force difficult decisions as they mentioned. But it is also about taking cards to utilize temporarily and then get rid of them, sometimes even in sneaky ways in which you effectively goat your opponents into removing the from your deck intentionally. It makes the game so incredibly dynamic and strategic that your decks are constantly changing. As for the following, this is key to playing well. The idea is not just to do an action early or hide cards, it is also to intentionally lean on other players' strategies so that you can avoid bothering with focusing on certain actions. This game is a race to have the best fort and you do not have enough turns to do everything on your own, nor do you really want a deck that stacked. The following allows you to keep a lean and directed deck while making up shortcomings by following strategically. I have played entire games in which I never once played my own fort upgrade card and did it entirely by following. You want to force other players into needing to do something worse than you so that you can swoop in and follow them and not have to waste your own turn or precious room in your deck on it. That's the real beauty of the follow system. You're all constantly capitalizing on each other and trying to give the other players worse opportunities to do so than you, which is quite challenging. If you are trying to win in a silo you are going to find the following and stealing annoying and you are also probably going to lose; playing that way is simply playing this game wrong. You have to specialize and then piece together what you are missing from the other players. It's really quite an elegant design. At first, yes the having to use one action fully before you are allowed to use a half action is a tad clunky up front, but it becomes natural very quickly and it's important because it forces you to be mindful about how you manage your deck and resources. This makes having just 2 types of resources with 2 places to store them and a small deck actually pretty interesting when at first it seems too basic.
Much better format. I have been critical of the four person reviews. I like the score and quick summary at the end
Love the idea for this review and how you one by one present point of view. Well done 👍
Great recognition on vastly different opinions on your team Tom!
I love the theme! I thought the names were great and we had a lot of fun telling little stories as we used or recruited cards. "Hey Sarge, I have lots of toys. Come play at my house!"
Regarding the card stealing, that can be mitigated by following other players with cards you would otherwise not play, so while more players means more hands that could steal from your yard, it could also mean more opportunities to not let those cards into your yard in the first place, by discarding them to follow
Edit: it was mentioned at 15:09
Ordered this game a bit ago and can’t wait for it to arrive!! The artwork reminds me a lot of the old Doug cartoon!
I think it would have been better if you actually made “a fort”.
I’d like to give this a try, but from the moment I first saw it, I have thought “...but where’s the fort?” Like it should have had a tile laying element, or something.
It looks interesting and I’d like to give it a shot, though
I love the massively differing opinions in this review, especially because it seemed like everyone respected each others perspectives.
Thumb up for the new rating display !
This is more food for stuff Tom is wrong about :P
Zee mentions that Fort has the best pieces of Glory to Rome. For someone looking for a lighter version of Glory to Rome, is Fort or Uchronia the better option? Is there room for both in a collection?
Tom is WRONG! By the way, my nickname when I was a kid was 'Prof.', and my best friend was ''Shadow'. So the theme was there for me. Also, I like the conflict level. I get so BORED playing multi-player solo euro games.
didn't the follow mechanism fix the problem of people taking your cards away from you?
i mean, let say you have two awesome cards in your hand like the example tom said, then you should try to use one of those to follow other player, and play the other during your turn. The more players there are, you will get more chances to play your card. I'm just wondering, does it work that way and Tom just didn't get it? or is there something i'm missing about how the game is played?
oh, they mention it, i didn't reach to that part when i made the comment
I kept waiting for Roy to throw up the "Tom is Wrong" gif
Check out No Pun Included's review. I agree with them entirely, I don't get the grief that Tom is giving it.
Ouf! This was really diverse in the grading. Yeeesh... I dunno know! Buy now or buy later is what I’m coming down too, I think!
The stealing is a personal thing which I get, but I think it adds a tough choice. Your best friends can’t be stolen so you can try and use your other cards more often and send your bfs to the yard to protect your most valuable cards. I like the “what cards are expendable, and what do I NEED to do” choice.
I also wonder sometimes with how many games Tom and The Dice Tower review whether they get to delve deeply into all the games they look at. I would like to know how many times each of the reviewers played the game they are giving their opinion about.
I agree with Tom wholeheartedly. I played this with 3 and it absolutely fell flat for us, and I don’t think there was a single turn where I had fun.
On my turn I play my boring action
On your turn maybe I discard a card as a follow
On my turn I play my boring action
And it just goes on for an hour, and the last turns feel exactly the same as the first turns and none of it was enjoyable.
Overall I’m really disappointed that this didn’t really have any fun combos like something like Space Base, Dominion, Moonrakers, etc. It’s all just Play card, do action 1-4 times, move on.
I really like the format. The conversation was a little sloppy but that was because it was more organic. I fear making this more structured might actually dampen the conversation style. Maybe have a framework for where everyone should be looking at to talk about clearly?
Otherwise, this is great and buddy on bottom left is hella cute #heygurrrlll #howyadoin
My opinions usually line up best with Zee's so I will be getting this!
So Tom's initial complaint is that the naming of the kids is reminiscent of "The Little Rascals"? Clarence would've probably been a more contemporary option, but can you really blame them for going with the classic?
You'd think that after Vast and Root, the next game from Leader Games would get some buzz.
Has anyone ever heard of Fort prior to this video review?
Yeah it’s been quite popular on Instagram, and Watch It Played did a video on it a while back
As someone with nephews and nieces around this game's age range, Tom's first half-joking point about the nicknames was spot on. Even back in the late 80s/90s when I was a kid no one would use those kind of nicknames.
I know a little kid named Dash. That’s also the name of the kid from Pixar’s Incredibles.
Good to hear such a broad range of opinions.
2 years late but totally agree with Zee think this game is fantastic
i've seen a few reviews of this game.....and Im still coming back to the same question...where is the "FORT". Don't tell me it's the friendship we built while playing this game/
In the fort level track which increases your backpack & lookout capacity? Like what could happen when a fort gets bigger?
Granted, it's represented as a very abstract quantity instead of an evocative illustration/arrangement of components, but it's a case of weak theming with a strong theme-to-mechanic integration, and it leaves how the fort looks like to the player's imagination
Eminent Domain- that's a game that no one talks about anymore.
I often agree with Zee but when Tom disagrees heavily, it seems like Zee is almost trying to counter Tom rather than give a genuine, holistic look at the game.
I was in the minority in that I didn't like the aesthetics in Root at all (though I did like the game) and I like them less here. Tom's concerns seem to be my bugaboos as well, so I probably won't be picking this up.
Not liking Kyle Ferrin’s art is an early warning sign of psychopathy.
shanerion I like his art, but I didn’t think it fit particularly well with Root. I thought there was a disconnect between presentation and gameplay. I think this theme is a much better fit for that style, and the artwork here looks awesome.
@@marks6928 I suspect Root was the brutal violent game with cute artstyle that Tom tried to mention when collabing with Quinns
Ah the good old 3 friends smacking Tom Vasel. SEAL OF EXCELLENCE!👍👍👍
How it could be Seal of Exellence with average rating of 5+7+7.5+8.5= 7 ??????
Tom prefers discarding to a public yard
Does Tom know you can partially fulfill an action?
only if you fully fulfill the other action.
Starting to learn me and Tom don't have the same taste in games. He hates interaction and difficult decision making. Where as I love it.
12:59 - Tom is not pleased
Have seen a lot of press about this and checked it out at my LGS. Cool art, novel theme, but not sure why an adult would want to play it. Usually agree with Zee but on Tom's side here (or even lower). Just don't know why this game exists or got into production at this scale. Proves there is a taste for everything and that preference is certainly not always mine (probably a good thing). Enjoy if it hits you right.
If Tom dislikes a game that’s usually a great sign. Can’t wait to get my copy.
Idk if this will get read or not but I realize that may have come across too harsh. I only mean I value Tom’s reviews in the sense that we have very very different tastes and his dislike is usually a sign I might enjoy it. Meant no disrespect. Sometimes tone in internet comments can be lost.
Funny no one put a finger on Little Rascals as the theme on the kids with funny names!
I'm with Tom. Cute game but zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
SO, THIS IS JUST AS GOOD AS PARTNERS!!?!?!??! That review singlehandedly made this entire channel morally bankrupt :')
Danny van Holten huh?
Check zee’s review of partners. He gave it the same grade as Tom
Gives fort
P.S: It’s of course my feeble attempt at humor ;P
Another game to put on the list for TOM IS WRONG! Episode 2 video. :)
I think you mean it's their "Fort" game ;)
I don’t need a game to tell me who my friends are! #getoffmylawn
Tom also didnt like Brass Birmingham, you know, the number 3 game on BGG
Tom doesn't generally like heavy games though, so that wasn't much of a surprise. He likes games of this weight.
People like different things. who knew?
@@marks6928 wasn't that like the point? That there's a good chance you'll like something despite Tom not liking it?
Is this not just basically cheez geek
We like this game!
I want more ROOT!
i really like Tom and value his opinion - i've taken his lead many a time when comes to game selections.. but man, he can be such a stick in the mud sometimes when it comes to the more subjective preferences. the games that he cringes at the art styles or themes, i tend to love.
a message to Tom.. keep rocking the great reviews as you do.. but your taste on art is so boring, leave those opinions in the box. ;)
as far as my review for Fort goes, the only thing working in it's favor is the art and theme. the game play is a pass. (imho)
The thing that kind of sucks is games like this are so amazing and looks so cool, but then my friends can't come over because of the virus and play.
Sara Wilcker they have a free Tabletop Simulator mod made by the publisher
^that's how I got to play it
Thankfully I have family that I can play with. But I feel ya.
That's what I'm going through right now. It sucks. I haven't had a gam with my group in almost a year. :( gotta stay strong...
Y'all need to come up with a new name for these multi-person reviews. I don't always watch every review but I always watched Miami Dice.
Review Rondel... Table Talk... Board Meeting... Dice Capades... Give us something!
I believe Tom said this is in the works.
Half of the video was about Tom listing his problems with the game and the others trying slip in the good things about the game. This is starting to be the theme for Dice Tower reviews. I’d appreciate more fair reviews, especially since most games are made for the average gamer.
Tom is Wrong! #TomDoesLikeFun #ZeeIsRight
This game is great!
Wait, how is this a seal of excellence? I thought 7/7.5 wouldn't amount to that? Damn, Zee tipping the scales I guess. By the way, really unimpressed with this game. Cute, but that's about it.
You played it? Or is this based on some video
@@JerreMuesli Just watched full playthroughs, haven't played it myself. Doesn't look like my jam.
"It sounds like a mafia gang that got de-aged"
...yeah...that's why it's great. Would you rather they have normal names like Michael and Sarah? Come on, the theme and names in this game are amazing.
Also the comment about it not scaling well is an interesting one to me. You didn't like how it felt like you were losing more of your cards with more players but in my experience playing with more players helped me hold on to my cards more. It gave me more opportunities to play a kid earlier on so that I could keep him in my deck. If I pulled 3 kids I really like I made sure I sacrificed 2 of them on other players' turns (if I could) so that I wouldn't risk losing them. This gets easier to do with a higher player count. I feel like you either played wrong or just never grasped how to optimize your options. Obviously I love the game and understand it's not perfect, but I just don't feel like that critique is really all that valid. But great video guys, I really enjoy the back and forth of these group reviews
@@CocoDrawsGames I just realized that the followup mechanic didn't just balance the yard mechanic's potential drawback, but also it's scalability. Thanks
I didn't like it as well. Why shouldn't I just play Glory to Rome, or eminent domain, or even San Juan and race for the galaxy?
Because aquisition/searching for that for the perfect game is a massive part of the hobby. Also, just because a game uses similar mechanisms shouldn`t prevent you playing it. You might as well ask why you`d play Pillars of the Earth when you have Stone Age, or Skat when you can play Bridge.
Why shouldn't you just play San Juan instead of RftG? Or why play RftG instead of GtR?
Just like how RftG's take on the "civilization-building role-selection with multipurpose cards" concept is different from San Juan's, so is Fort's take on "deckbuilding + role-selection with followup" compared to Eminent Domain's.
All of Tom’s comments could be said about Innovation, a game Tom loves.
"The theme" Ohh pfft... Just Tom not liking the theme.
The Game is ok guys and gals lol..
Game is kinda bad imo. Mechanisms were mediocre at best. Tom is right.
First time EVER Tom's opinion and mine has been so drastically different. Who hurt you Tom? XD
You forgot to mention that for what it is it only cost 30 dollars. Which is super cheap.
Eh... for what's in it for components I wouldn't call 30 dollars "super cheap." That's about the right price for this game. It's not over priced but it's not really a bargain to the level it's worth pointing out.
Tom not liking a game is a great sign that I will love it
Fort is awesome and Tom is pretty off base about this one. To each their own.
“To each their own, but Tom is wrong” :)
5? Really? I thought Tom loved the ‘follow’ mechanism. And you can take a kid from their yard. Fun game. Glory to Rome is out of print so not many of us have played it.
A 5 is insane.
Different people like different things. Weird, right?
I disagree completely with Tom about the kid-stealing.
My first game was with 4 players and we had a blast. The one player who kept having kids stolen from him the most is the biggest sore loser in our group, and even HE wasn't bothered that much. How seriously do you have to take this lighthearted game to feel bad about that?