New to Me: Summer 2015 — A Lot of Good

I played a lot of new games during the Summer — almost 20. And for the longest time, most of them were good but not better. Fortunately, toward the end of the season things improved and move games appeared in my Very Good to Great range. As always, this is a listing of games that I’d never played previously, and it’s my personal take on the games, as a medium-serious game player.

The Great

KeyflowerKeyflower (2012). This Richard Breese game is a couple of years old, but I played it for the first time a few weeks ago, so it makes the list. All of the Breese games I’ve played to date are dense combinations of classic Euromechanics, and this one’s no exception. In fact, it’s an auction/worker-placement/tile-placement game. (Seriously!)

I found the combination of auction and worker placement to be both innovative and interesting. Each turn you either place meeples as workers (to take advantage of a tile’s action) or else you place them as bids (to try and purchase a tile for future usage and/or victory points). The balance is a really tricky one because you might want to grab an action before anyone else, or you might try to make an all-important first bid; doing either also allows you to determine the color of meeple (currency) that must be used for all future bidding on working on that tile.

The tile placement is a lot less important than the other mechanics because your empire is pretty small, but nonetheless it’s notable, because you need to move resources among your tiles in order to increase their victory point values.

The mechanics are classic and abstract, but they’ve combined in an innovative manner, and there are lots of tough choices throughout the game, making it a superior release (even three years later).

The Very Good

Don't Turn Your BackDon’t Turn Your Back (2015). This game is by my friend Eric B. Vogel, so take what I say with a grain of salt … but it’s my favorite game that he’s created. It’s a deckbuilding game that mixes things up by constraining the play of card to specific locations on a board, making it sort of worker placement. Most of these locations then are fought over as a majority-control battle using the worker-cards.The result is innovative, tense, and thoughtfully tactical.

I also adore the theming of this game, which is related to Evil Hat’s Don’t Rest Your Head roleplaying game. I’ve never played the RPG, but the theme comes across here as weird and eerie, and it’s beautifully illustrated. Graphically, this is the best deckbuilder I own, and mechanically it’s at the top of my pantheon, below just a few of the demigods like Ascension and probably Dominion.

EvolutionEvolution (2014)To a certain extent this evolutionary abstract is very abstract. The core of the game is about species of animals taking turns collecting food — either from a central supply or from gnawing on other critters. It’s pretty basic, and I wasn’t particularly enthused in the first round or two of play.

However, that nutritional simulation is built on a very clever system for defining those species. They can have size, they can have population, and most importantly they can have up to three special characteristics. The special characteristics come from cards, and they’re quite well designed. Not only can you create great combos within a species, but you can also create useful synergies between multiple species that you control.

The simulation also goes beyond creating species that work well or that work with each other; you have evolve creatures that can survive in the current environment — created by the amount of food being contribued to the watering hole and by any carnivores in the game. The result really does feel like a simulation, even though it’s largely based on player choices and some pretty simply rules for how food is taken.

The simulation aspects of this game keep it a bit distant from the German core, but it still plays quickly and lightly. When I was done, I wanted to play again, to see what species would arise in different circumstances.

Kingsport ThumbnailKingsport Festival (2014). This is basically the dice-rolling game Kingsburg (2007), redone with Lovecraftian theming. So, you roll your dice, and then use the result to access the power of Lovecraftian gods. This in turn gives you resources that you need to build buildings … which is the prime source of victory points in the game.

There are some nice additions over the original Kingsburg. You can acquire spells (cards), which let you gather resources, adjust die rolls, or fight battles. You also have to monitor your sanity, which will cost you victory points if it drops too low. Finally, scenarios can change the game just a little bit, to make each session unique. Overall, this game is at least as good as Kingsburg, which was a phenomenal combination of dice and worker-placement when it came out — though it was also too long, a flaw that this game shares.

Unfortunately, Kingsport Festival is also plagued by quite a few bad decisions regarding its component design. The Cthulhu theming is damaged by muddy artwork and a lack of names on the gods. Then there’s a somewhat overwrought game board and some usability issues, and it all takes up too much table space. Many of the problems are clearly the result of internationalization, which sadly did some serious damage to this release.

Still, like Kingsburg it’s a strong game.

Patchwork (2014). This two-player Uwe Rosenberg game has a pretty simple premise: you’re laying Tetris-like tiles onto a 9×9 grid, trying to create a perfect patchwork. However, there’s quite a lot of depth to it. You have to balance spending money and spending time with earning victory points, and you also have to decide how much of your board to fill as you work on all those other priorities. There’s enough complexity here, that you can actually AP if you start trying to plan too many turns ahead, which means that it’s a wonderfully big game for its deceptively small box.

Ascension: Dawn of the Champions (2015). Ho-hum, another Ascension expansion. The big addition here is the eponymous Champion, which is a player-card that gives you bonuses for purchasing and using cards of a particular faction. This turns out to make a pretty big difference, because it gives you an orthogonal sort of strategy — as you decide whether to buy the best card you can, or the one within your faction.

Beyond that, it’s what you would expect from Ascension #8: nice cards, nice theming, and a nice balance. I think this set is more complex to play than many of the Ascension expansions, as late-game turns can get pretty convoluted, but that’s not a bad thing to have in the seventh expansion for a game. However, I do find the randomness of some of the new mechanics a big too much. Still, it’s recommended … but I’ve been a fan of all the Ascension sets (with some qualms about the new mechanics in boxes #5 and #6).

The Good

SOS TitanicSOS Titanic (2013). As a connoisseur of co-op games, I’ve been wanting to try this one out for a while. It’s basically multiplayer solitaire, but I mean that in the best possible way. You have a bunch of solitaire-like tableaus in the middle of the table, which represent passengers politely lining up to get off the sinking ship, and you have solitaire-like foundations off to the side, which represent passengers reaching lifeboats. As you’d expect, you’re trying to rearrange the tableaus to eventually get the passengers to safety.

However, this solitaire-like play is just the mechanic that keeps things running. Most of the actual gameplay centers on playing action cards and deciding on risks when you draw new passenger cards — which  can result in the ship sinking further if you risk doesn’t pay out. This in turn messes up your tableaus as compartments flood (and eventually ends the game).

Overall, I was impressed with the way that Cathala and Maublanc adapted solitaire mechanics to co-op play and to the Titanic theme. However, it also didn’t have some of the tension and independent thought that I like to see in co-op games, which is why it topped out at a very high Good rating.

Star Trek Five-Year MissionStar Trek: Five-Year Mission (2015). A dice-rolling co-op. You draw cards that show crises, then you roll dice to try and solve those crises. The game is generally well-done with there being lots of choices and lots of chances for interactivity. There’s also some great theming, with the cards being full of events from either Star Trek TOS or Star Trek TNG, as you prefer.

My only complaint with the game is the difficulty, which is on the light side — and increasing the difficulty just requires playing longer, not harder. Other than that, it’s a very nicely designed co-op; because of its lightness, it’d make a great intro game.

Catan World Championship Berlin 2014 Special (2014). This is a teeny Catan (1995) expansion that’s being distributed by Mayfair as their promo #17. I don’t usually note this sort of micro expansion in my quarterly lists, but I thought this one was worth having for Catan fans. It consists of two Berlin hexes (which you use to replace the desert and the “2” die roll space) and a bear (which you use to replace the robber). The bear steals and blocks just like the normal robber (“Bear! Please stop breaking my things!”), but whenever the bear lands on a hex, then anyone who has one or more settlements or cities on the two new Berlin hexes gets a resource of the type that the bear just covered.

I liked this expansion because it adds variety; I liked it because it eases the pain of getting nothing on the roll of a “7”; and I liked it because it can be used tactically if you roll a “7” and need a very specific resource. I might not use it in every game, but I’d generally be happy to use it, and like The Fishermen of Catan (2005), it’s one of those expansions that I think can reduce the frustration of Catan a little bit.

Renaissance WrasRenaissance Wars (2015). One of my favorite “surprise” games many years ago was Havoc: The Hundred Years War (2005), a clever card game that took Poker and turned it into a strategic game of resource management. Renaissance Wars basically does the same thing for trick-taking. You play through a set of “skirmishes” where you win some cards and try to build some sets, but much of the play is in service to building a great hand so that you can crush your opposition when the “battles” occur.

Unfortunately, this is all wrapped in a ton of complexity. There are so many cards, and they enter and reenter play in so many different ways, that it’s pretty boggling for the average player. A few games in, this might well be your favorite game ever, but its harsh first-time edge is probably going to keep it out of my play-bag, despite the fact that I love the mechanics and the style.

(My other notable issue is the randomness, which comes about through events: some are minor nuisances and some are major nuisances, but there’s at least one card, the “Detente”, which entirely destroys the gameplay; if I played this more, I think it’d have to go out of the deck.)

MottainaiMottainai (2015). When Ed Carter and Carl Chudyk designed Glory to Rome (2005) as the second member of the “role civilization” genre of card games, I found it an interesting and deep game that was unfortunately too complex and too long. It’s stayed in my collection, and it occasionally gets played, but it’s a bear to teach, and it takes the right group to play. Thus, I was very intrigued when I saw that Chudyk had designed a new game in the genre that claimed a 15-30 minute playing time on the box.

With three players, the game came in at a very reasonable length, though it was certainly longer than 15-30 minutes. Despite the short length, I really felt like I got to develop a tactical game. Unfortunately, the complexity was not reduced. If anything, Mottainai is more complex than Glory to Rome. Not only are you moving cards around a play area in ways that aren’t entirely intuitive, but there’s also confusing new terminology and really confusing scoring.

This is going to stay in my collection too. I really love the innovative things that Chudyk does with cards, and this is a fine example, and a pretty fast-playing one. But like most of its predecessors it’s going to be a hard teach for a select group — and I’m not convinced that it actually improves on Glory to Rome, except when you’re looking for a relatively short game.

One Night Ultimate WerewolfOne Night Ultimate Werewolf (2014). I’m not a big fan of Werewolf in part because I’m not in love with the main point of a game being lying to other people. Despite that, I have to acknowledge that this is a very well-designed version of the Werewolf game, and one that I’d actually be willing (though perhaps not happy) to play. So, it might violate my usual rule that I rate games on my quarterly list based solely on what I think of them.

In Werewolf you’re a werewolf or a villager and you’re trying to kill off the other team. It usually has awful problems with dragging on forever and eliminating players along the way. This variant simplifies things so that you only have one short period of negotiation, and then you choose one person to kill, and that’s the whole game. It’s a masterful revision, and this version also seems to have really good character roles that add a lot to the game. I think this is the third or fourth version of the game I’ve played, and it’s not just the best, but the best by huge amounts.

Bruges Zwin SupplementBruges: The City on the Zwin (2014). Ho-hum, a Bruges supplement. There’s absolutely nothing wrong it, but it’s not particularly exciting either. It contains four expansions: new cards, pieces for a fifth player, and two new rule systems. You’ll probably always use the cards, and it’s nice to have variety. Meanwhile, this is a game that’s both short and fast enough to support a fifth player, so that’s another winner. As for the new rules systems, I think they’re 1 for 2.

One system makes one action slightly better for the first 5 or 6 players that take it each round. There’s nothing particularly wrong with this mechanic, but I didn’t feel like it added much either. The other mechanic makes the canal-building action somewhat better by letting you sacrifice a worker for a bonus. This was a big win, because the canal action was previously underpowered, and the bonus actions can allow for some great new tactics.

At this point, the new cards are permanently in my deck, and I think I’d usually play with the canal bonuses, because I believe they help balance the game for a medium-sized increase in complexity.

Mogul (2002, 2015). This classic Michael Schacht game was recently revised and expanded. It’s a game of acquiring railroad stock that’s built around the same auction method that was later used by No Thanks! (2004). You bid a chip at a time, and when you drop out you get the money that everyone bid to that date, which makes it a very tactical exercise. When you win a bid by being the last player in, you can either take the stock, or else sell a different color of stock or else build track for later points (apparently, the last was what was added in this new version of the game). The bidding mechanism is clever and tense, and like any good auction, this one causes players to develop different interests, and thus bid differently over time.

Having played No Thanks! a lot (23 recorded plays, plus another 11 of the similar Lascaux), I felt that Mogul overstayed its welcome a bit, given the simplicity of the core mechanic. However, my biggest issue was the swinginess of the game. You basically win or lose the game on whether you can sell your stock, and you can get dramatically lucky or unlucky with that. Notable luck also shows up in some of the other interrelations of when cards comes out. I can deal with luck in a game of this length, and even swinginess, but when the luck informs the swinginess … it’s more problematic.

Mogul certainly gets points for pioneering this clever bidding method. I’d probably adore this game and have played it dozens of times if it was the first game I had using the mechanic.Ultimately though, I think some of the later games used the mechanic better.

UluruUluru: Tumult am Ayers Rock (2011), which is aka Pelican Cove (2013). A friend brought this for me to see after a recent game of Ubongo (2003). He wanted to offer it up because it’s another real-time spatial-logic game but (as he put it) everyone can win; it’s not just a game where one player achieves victory before the others.

The actual spatial-logic of Uluru can be really tough. You have eight dreambirds that you’re placing on an eight-space board, you have special rules each turn for which can be placed where. These rules might say where birds can be placed on the board or where they can be placed in relation to other birds. In same cases, things get even more complicated, when you’re told that a bird has the same rule (or the opposite rule!) of another bird.

I found the game a lot more complex than Ubongo, but also a lot more consciously thoughtful. There’s definitely a skill to Ubongo placement, but it’s largely unconscious, where Uluru was thought-thought-thought. I didn’t like it as much. Part of this was that the rule cards had really dreadful iconography which confused you (perhaps purposefully?) about what the rules were. But thoughtfulness of the real-time placement made it so frenzied that it didn’t feel as fun. Still, I was catching on by the end of the game, and I’d play it again.

The OK

ElysiumElysium (2015). I loved the look of this game when I saw it. It’s basically set collection, but all the cards have special powers. There are also some tight economics involved with getting the cards into the sets, centering around temporarily expending a set of four resources that you have. This resource system is really the heart of the game because you use the same resources to both qualify for and purchase cards, so you need to expend resources that won’t be required to meet future qualifications! For me, this added up to a colorful and evocative game with solid mechanics.

Unfortunately, I didn’t love the game as much in actual play. The biggest problem was AP. There are 13 cards out for play at the start of each turn, plus possibly 4 more, and they all have special powers. The iconography is decent, but the end result is that you’re trying to figure out all the powers and then make decisions from a very large set. The first couple of rounds of play were really painful. This is another game that would work better if you regularly pulled it out for the same group of friends … but I suspect first games are never going to start out well.

Elysium also has some psychological flaws. If you don’t manage to hang on to the right resources, then later in the round you can miss out on getting cards or a turn order marker; you’re then punished by taking a second-best replacement. This is depressing; it made everyone feel sad when it happened. Add a lot of chaos and randomness to a game that feels you should have a lot of control, and everyone wasn’t lovin’ it at some point in the play. I’d probably play Elysium again, but I don’t think it was developed enough to keep up with the great ideas at its core.

I played this five days before the SdJ announcement, and my thought was, “Not a winner”. (I was right, Broom Service won the kennerspiel instead, though I also had qualms about a revamp winning.)

Extra! Extra!Extra! Extra! (2015). This is another set-collection game; you’re placing workers to get cards, then turning those cards into newspaper stories which you lay out on your paper. As a one-time school newspaper editor who used to lay stories onto the front page with hot wax, I loved the theoretical theming. But unfortunately it turned out to be al little dull: I got almost no theme from colored cards and plain tiles placed on gridded spaces.

The worker-placement works fine and it does have one notable innovation: you can spend money to bump another worker from a space, effectively mixing worker-placement with an auction system. But it wasn’t enough to really make the game stand out.

In the end, I didn’t have any problems with Extra! Extra!, but I didn’t find it particularly exciting either. It needed something to jazz it up.

New Salem (2015). This team-focused game is a pretty obvious mix of 7 Wonders (2010) and Saboteur (2004). You draft cards, trying to play cards that complete triptychs or match your two or three sorts of buildings. The catch is that some of the players are witches and most of them are puritans. Witches want to have lots of evil black cubes on the board and puritans don’t; the final count of those cubes says which team can win … and then the player from that “team” with the most points does.

Unfortunately, this game loses a lot of 7 Wonders’ depth because the cards don’t do anything except act as elements of set collection. The game’s depth improves some with its deductive elements, which include “events” that can be purchased semi-cooperatively. But it’s still a relatively shallow game in comparison to 7 Wonders beyond that.

Oh, and multiple players in our game (including me!) felt that the theming of witches-are-bad-and-should-be-killed and puritans-are-good-and-virtuous to be a bit offensive, especially given the fact that the actual Salem Witch trials were mob-based murder, but YMMV.

Liked it? Take a second to support Shannon Appelcline on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.