You’re right to highlight the veto option, and honest to explicitly state your dislike for it. It’s a crucial aspect of the game, and an option that is meant to be used often. As far as making sense thematically, these were fast times and there weren’t stuffed shirts in a boardroom making these decisions. They were men in pubs. Or trading punches in the streets. Land speculation and the intent to merge with other railways where they had invested were self-interested motivations. Merges happened often. Concerns about grades and other land issues were another major point of contention in determining routes, but this isn’t reflected in the game. Knizia’s designs are frequently described as having tacked-on theme, but for the complexity involved in this game (and it isn’t high and I think makes a good step up after Paris Connection) I think he really nailed it. I gave it a “meh” when I first played it 15 years ago, but like many of his designs they’ve either gotten better with age or my ability to judge and enjoy a game has changed :)
Well, I gave it some hate when you did the last text change, so I must say that it was WAY easier to read this new change. Thanks for listening to the viewers.
Totally appreciate it’s not Tom’s style, of course he and we all have an opinion, but it’s a cracking Knizia puzzle, full of interaction, it’s has both short-term tactics and long-term strategies once you get your head around the scoring. It is mean, but if that’s your thing for at least some of your games, this is great.
Excellent game. Very tactical, deep, where you cannot play on autopilot. Veto mechanism gives great interaction and confrontation; it does not slow down the game at all. Theme that aspect? What serious player can care about that?
I have just been assessing this game for purchase. I have listened and read a number of reviews. On the one hand we don’t want loads of sanitised middle of the road reviews, that isn’t helpful. On the other hand reviewers need to be careful that they are right to review that game. Tom’s review came across unbalanced and subjectively reviewed rather than objectively reviewed. How the game makes you feel is fine, but one does get the view it’s that it’s a classic but bad from Tom, at least in terms of fun to play (style).There seemed to be little attempt to think through the mechanics related to the theme. I only have one other Knizia game, Tigres & Euphrates and it is also somewhat abstracted from it’s theme, but as a player you have to actively ‘get into a game’ sometimes and think about how the theme fundamentally works. In this game you are arrogant rail baron businessmen, playing the stock market, using companies as pawns to your wealth, merging them for a fast buck and reputation (maybe infamy). You take advantage of the supply and demand of commodities like textiles, steel etc. All of that is synthesised down into a ruthless cut and thrust of manipulation of the emergence of railway companies. Think highly skilled business acumen changed to highly adept game play by working out how to use the scoring system to optimise your victory points, and outwit your opponents.
Rocket never operated in the South or Midlands of England. Only on the Liverpool to Manchester, which just manage to make it onto the top of that map; and later in Cumberland which is farther north and not even shown. Most of the cities shown icluding London and Birmingham, weren't even connected to a railway line until years after Rocket started service.
The thematic argument for paying shares to veto, could be based on a number of reasonable thematic reasons a) selling shares to the bank to bribe local officials to support the track going in the direction you want b) selling shares to pay for a media campaign to sway local opinion on track direction e.g. ecology reasons, staying within budget due to cost of terrain excavation etc. If your Lon-term shareholding is important don’t do it.
When it's veto time, a player may have to make a very important decision, unless they know they can win with no effort, or just don't care, depending on their situation. I have certain mixed feelings about it. On one hand you don't necessarily have complete confidence in your plans, but on the other it does make you think twice about your intentions. Be sure of what you're doing, and don't have all of your eggs in one basket. Thematically, I guess it can represent the volatility of those early times. Like all games, we either like it or we don't. I just hope Tom's review doesn't keep anyone from doing a thorough checking out of the game before just tossing it aside like it's junk.
I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I respect your opinion and your right to give a game a negative review. On the other hand, this is a classic game that has been sorely in need of a reprint for years. Appropriately, a Grail Game for many people. Given that, I don’t understand why you felt the need to blast this game so viciously. Why bother review it at all if you hated it so much? Was it just a good opportunity to dump on a sacred cow? It just strikes me as odd to acknowledge how many people will love a game, and then to utterly destroy it. I feel I should also point out that the difficulties experienced by the publisher while bringing this game to market put them out of business.
Are you saying Tom should only review games he likes? If he didn't like it he didn't like it and should say so. The fact that the company has gone out of business should have no bearing on his feelings for the game.
@LordBollocks - I think your questions/concerns are completely valid. But, as the other poster pointed out, it doesn’t seem to make sense for the DT to only put out that they like. For many people, whether the DT likes/hates a game isn’t the final say whether one will purchase the game. When the guys have a proper critical review, many people can interpret whether they will like the game despite whether the reviewer likes the game. There are several games that Tom dislikes that I really enjoy. And, there are games that he loves that I hate. For example, he really enjoys the Dice Thrones Seasons. . . . I hate them. But, from his review, I could tell the game wasn’t for me. So, when a friend wanted to play it, I played it once and moved on. Also, for me, I think it is better to have a solid critical review (whether good or bad) of a game than no review at all. I personally won’t purchase a game if I can’t get enough data on a game to make an informed decision. IMHO, I think Tom did give enough data to help others make an informed decision.
I agree somewhat with your concerns, but I think the mistake Tom made is in reviewing it at all. The DT crew feel pressure to review as many games as possible. Like drinking from a fire hydrant. Handing off the game to the correct reviewer is important. This clearly is not a Tom game and he should have recognized that. It's definitely more of a Jason game.
You’re right to highlight the veto option, and honest to explicitly state your dislike for it. It’s a crucial aspect of the game, and an option that is meant to be used often. As far as making sense thematically, these were fast times and there weren’t stuffed shirts in a boardroom making these decisions. They were men in pubs. Or trading punches in the streets. Land speculation and the intent to merge with other railways where they had invested were self-interested motivations. Merges happened often. Concerns about grades and other land issues were another major point of contention in determining routes, but this isn’t reflected in the game.
Knizia’s designs are frequently described as having tacked-on theme, but for the complexity involved in this game (and it isn’t high and I think makes a good step up after Paris Connection) I think he really nailed it. I gave it a “meh” when I first played it 15 years ago, but like many of his designs they’ve either gotten better with age or my ability to judge and enjoy a game has changed :)
Well, I gave it some hate when you did the last text change, so I must say that it was WAY easier to read this new change. Thanks for listening to the viewers.
Totally appreciate it’s not Tom’s style, of course he and we all have an opinion, but it’s a cracking Knizia puzzle, full of interaction, it’s has both short-term tactics and long-term strategies once you get your head around the scoring. It is mean, but if that’s your thing for at least some of your games, this is great.
Excellent game. Very tactical, deep, where you cannot play on autopilot. Veto mechanism gives great interaction and confrontation; it does not slow down the game at all. Theme that aspect? What serious player can care about that?
My great great great uncle built the real Stephensons rocket our name is now spelled Stevenson
I have just been assessing this game for purchase. I have listened and read a number of reviews. On the one hand we don’t want loads of sanitised middle of the road reviews, that isn’t helpful. On the other hand reviewers need to be careful that they are right to review that game. Tom’s review came across unbalanced and subjectively reviewed rather than objectively reviewed. How the game makes you feel is fine, but one does get the view it’s that it’s a classic but bad from Tom, at least in terms of fun to play (style).There seemed to be little attempt to think through the mechanics related to the theme. I only have one other Knizia game, Tigres & Euphrates and it is also somewhat abstracted from it’s theme, but as a player you have to actively ‘get into a game’ sometimes and think about how the theme fundamentally works. In this game you are arrogant rail baron businessmen, playing the stock market, using companies as pawns to your wealth, merging them for a fast buck and reputation (maybe infamy). You take advantage of the supply and demand of commodities like textiles, steel etc. All of that is synthesised down into a ruthless cut and thrust of manipulation of the emergence of railway companies. Think highly skilled business acumen changed to highly adept game play by working out how to use the scoring system to optimise your victory points, and outwit your opponents.
Yay for mentioning Acquire!!! It's my favorite game ever!!!
Rocket never operated in the South or Midlands of England.
Only on the Liverpool to Manchester, which just manage to make it onto the top of that map;
and later in Cumberland which is farther north and not even shown.
Most of the cities shown icluding London and Birmingham, weren't even connected to a railway line until years after Rocket started service.
Best sci fi reprint of the year
lol
The thematic argument for paying shares to veto, could be based on a number of reasonable thematic reasons a) selling shares to the bank to bribe local officials to support the track going in the direction you want b) selling shares to pay for a media campaign to sway local opinion on track direction e.g. ecology reasons, staying within budget due to cost of terrain excavation etc. If your Lon-term shareholding is important don’t do it.
When it's veto time, a player may have to make a very important decision, unless they know they can win with no effort, or just don't care, depending on their situation. I have certain mixed feelings about it. On one hand you don't necessarily have complete confidence in your plans, but on the other it does make you think twice about your intentions. Be sure of what you're doing, and don't have all of your eggs in one basket. Thematically, I guess it can represent the volatility of those early times. Like all games, we either like it or we don't. I just hope Tom's review doesn't keep anyone from doing a thorough checking out of the game before just tossing it aside like it's junk.
Stephenson is pronounced "Steven-son" not "Steffen-son".
(Think Good King Wenceslaus)
Not even 30 seconds in and facepalm.
@@BuckishDweeb
He and Sam get so many words wrong in pronouciation and meaning.
I wonder how the Koreans they taught English to are getting on...
Steeeeeephenson's Rocket - unbelievable! Probably right about the crummy game, tho.
You know what else has a good production quality? This video! Great work, guys!
Fair play m8,saved me forking out again thanks
It sounds dull and that ability to veto seems annoying. If someone brought it to a meetup I'd still give it a try but I expect to dislike it.
I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I respect your opinion and your right to give a game a negative review. On the other hand, this is a classic game that has been sorely in need of a reprint for years. Appropriately, a Grail Game for many people. Given that, I don’t understand why you felt the need to blast this game so viciously. Why bother review it at all if you hated it so much? Was it just a good opportunity to dump on a sacred cow? It just strikes me as odd to acknowledge how many people will love a game, and then to utterly destroy it. I feel I should also point out that the difficulties experienced by the publisher while bringing this game to market put them out of business.
Are you saying Tom should only review games he likes? If he didn't like it he didn't like it and should say so. The fact that the company has gone out of business should have no bearing on his feelings for the game.
Fair enough I guess. It just struck me as oddly mean spirited. His mocking tone throughout the review really bothered me.
@LordBollocks - I think your questions/concerns are completely valid. But, as the other poster pointed out, it doesn’t seem to make sense for the DT to only put out that they like.
For many people, whether the DT likes/hates a game isn’t the final say whether one will purchase the game. When the guys have a proper critical review, many people can interpret whether they will like the game despite whether the reviewer likes the game.
There are several games that Tom dislikes that I really enjoy. And, there are games that he loves that I hate. For example, he really enjoys the Dice Thrones Seasons. . . . I hate them. But, from his review, I could tell the game wasn’t for me. So, when a friend wanted to play it, I played it once and moved on.
Also, for me, I think it is better to have a solid critical review (whether good or bad) of a game than no review at all. I personally won’t purchase a game if I can’t get enough data on a game to make an informed decision.
IMHO, I think Tom did give enough data to help others make an informed decision.
I agree somewhat with your concerns, but I think the mistake Tom made is in reviewing it at all. The DT crew feel pressure to review as many games as possible. Like drinking from a fire hydrant. Handing off the game to the correct reviewer is important. This clearly is not a Tom game and he should have recognized that. It's definitely more of a Jason game.
im gon to ask my dad to
wait for him
thats good i like that game
Railway not railroad😡😡😡
i saw the board and thought "german railways. already have that
" lol
i like trains too you no
It does not look in any way fun or intuitive.
The veto thing pretty much destroys the game. Well that and it’s a train/share game that usually does it by itself! 🤪