I share my thoughts about the Reiner Knizia classic board game. chairman_board Patreon.con/chairmanoftheboard
Комментарии • 24
3 года назад+1
First and foremost, let me say that we play a lot of different games e.g. 1754, Blood Rage (ok here we use alternate rules), Cyclades, Dominant Species: Marine, Junta, Root, etc. but we keep coming back to this game (we prefer it over Yellow and Yangtze - which it also fun). After playing it a lot over many years, we came up with this variant (in two parts) we use occasionally: 1. Regions are delimited by tiles only (not leaders). Thus, a leader could be part of up to 4 distinct regions (well kingdoms since a region having at least one leader is a kingdom). As consequence, revolts are resolved between all conflicted players at once. Each one put a random amount of extra temples in their hands. Then they get revealed at once. Outcomes: If the attacker loses (maybe he tied), he must remove his conflicted leader from the board and everyone take back their committed temples. Else the other matching conflicted leaders are removed from the board. All committed temple tiles are removed from the game (hidden). In both cases, the player that had the most strength, with no tie, gains one amulet. 2. When you are adding a non-plague tile to the board, it must be put in a kingdom that you have a leader present.
I have both Tigris & Euphrates and Yellow & Yangtze. Both excellent, both scale incredibly well, and both are wonderfully replayable. I prefer Yellow & Yangtze, but you really cannot go wrong with either.
Can't help but notice the number of wording based mistakes: At 05:00 it would be worth nothing the temple must match in colour to the 4x tiles flipped, you also need to remember there isn't a Black or Green player, they're the Vase and Bull.
I have the sister game you mentioned, Yellow & Yangtze, in digital format on Steam. I just could not get used to the combat mechanism, it's extremely chaotic in nature such that I could never be sure of the resulting board state, win or lose. Especially since once there is one war, many times there is another war immediately following because losing one war makes one even more vulnerable for more attacks. Idk....I never minded conflict iin a game but this one made me rethink my position on that. But I do love these reviews of older games you do.....very few channels review older games like you do & I much appreciate it!
Great video as always. I just picked up a copy of this and haven't gotten to learn/play it yet. I noticed my copy is missing one of the twenty green 1-point tokens. Wondering if this matters. It seems like 16 would be the maximum that would ever be needed, that being if you had 4 players and each one had 4 green 1-point tokens. Each player would not ever need a 5th 1-point token. They'd simply grab a 5-point token. Is there any other use for the green 1-point tokens? Anything such as placing them on the board? Is there any possible scenario in which missing one green 1-point token could matter?
Weird, I think it's the best with 2 players. All tiles between you two, and you care about every single move. And no downtime. Brilliant 2 player game. My #2 of all time.
Yes, sadly I have only played it once, but it seems it will shine the most with 2-players. Also, I think the game is not working well with 3 players, so either 2 or 4. At 3 players, one player benefits too much by the other two players fighting, the same goes for Carcassonne.
0:00 - 11:27 rules overview which has already been done to death. 17:00 have to disagree here. All the US versions look like plastic porn. I have and keep the original European version which is all wooden disks and wooden cubes. 17:40 it is not deterministic, by the bag draw and by group dynamics. The games I bought in 1993-1997 I still have. The ones from 2017 on I all sold or am selling. I wonder why.
@@coltonbeatty6117 no I indeed did not. Because they are boring, suck or have a terrible rulebook. People lost the ability to write in the last decade. Thanks to phones and the web, I guess, but social media are to blame too. It feels bad, because I'm dumping shit to a greater fool. Name one good game from the last decade...
@@kosterix123 Okay. My guess, as for your tastes, is that if you hate 'modern Euros' and the approaches to game design that make them, then Lacerda is the worst, or close. I detest his releases.
First and foremost, let me say that we play a lot of different games e.g. 1754, Blood Rage (ok here we use alternate rules), Cyclades, Dominant Species: Marine, Junta, Root, etc. but we keep coming back to this game (we prefer it over Yellow and Yangtze - which it also fun). After playing it a lot over many years, we came up with this variant (in two parts) we use occasionally:
1. Regions are delimited by tiles only (not leaders). Thus, a leader could be part of up to 4 distinct regions (well kingdoms since a region having at least one leader is a kingdom). As consequence, revolts are resolved between all conflicted players at once. Each one put a random amount of extra temples in their hands. Then they get revealed at once. Outcomes:
If the attacker loses (maybe he tied), he must remove his conflicted leader from the board and everyone take back their committed temples.
Else the other matching conflicted leaders are removed from the board. All committed temple tiles are removed from the game (hidden).
In both cases, the player that had the most strength, with no tie, gains one amulet.
2. When you are adding a non-plague tile to the board, it must be put in a kingdom that you have a leader present.
I have both Tigris & Euphrates and Yellow & Yangtze. Both excellent, both scale incredibly well, and both are wonderfully replayable. I prefer Yellow & Yangtze, but you really cannot go wrong with either.
Absolutely. Tigris slightly edged it for me but it's splitting hairs.
Can't help but notice the number of wording based mistakes:
At 05:00 it would be worth nothing the temple must match in colour to the 4x tiles flipped, you also need to remember there isn't a Black or Green player, they're the Vase and Bull.
Yeah, I did put up a little text box at one point. Just a habit naming players by colour haha.
Been trying to get my hands on this for so long. So long!!!
I have the sister game you mentioned, Yellow & Yangtze, in digital format on Steam. I just could not get used to the combat mechanism, it's extremely chaotic in nature such that I could never be sure of the resulting board state, win or lose. Especially since once there is one war, many times there is another war immediately following because losing one war makes one even more vulnerable for more attacks. Idk....I never minded conflict iin a game but this one made me rethink my position on that. But I do love these reviews of older games you do.....very few channels review older games like you do & I much appreciate it!
Great video as always. I just picked up a copy of this and haven't gotten to learn/play it yet. I noticed my copy is missing one of the twenty green 1-point tokens. Wondering if this matters. It seems like 16 would be the maximum that would ever be needed, that being if you had 4 players and each one had 4 green 1-point tokens. Each player would not ever need a 5th 1-point token. They'd simply grab a 5-point token. Is there any other use for the green 1-point tokens? Anything such as placing them on the board? Is there any possible scenario in which missing one green 1-point token could matter?
Shouldn't matter. Just proxy with something else if need be
Weird, I think it's the best with 2 players. All tiles between you two, and you care about every single move. And no downtime. Brilliant 2 player game. My #2 of all time.
Yes, sadly I have only played it once, but it seems it will shine the most with 2-players. Also, I think the game is not working well with 3 players, so either 2 or 4. At 3 players, one player benefits too much by the other two players fighting, the same goes for Carcassonne.
Which are your top five games for two players?
The trackable hidden information of the scoring in this game is just stupid. Pointlessly adding a game of memory into the mix. Just smh
The game don't work well with three players. Only at 2 or 4 players.
0:00 - 11:27 rules overview which has already been done to death.
17:00 have to disagree here. All the US versions look like plastic porn. I have and keep the original European version which is all wooden disks and wooden cubes.
17:40 it is not deterministic, by the bag draw and by group dynamics.
The games I bought in 1993-1997 I still have. The ones from 2017 on I all sold or am selling.
I wonder why.
Why have you sold all your games from 2017 to present? You really didn't say why
@@coltonbeatty6117 no I indeed did not.
Because they are boring, suck or have a terrible rulebook. People lost the ability to write in the last decade. Thanks to phones and the web, I guess, but social media are to blame too.
It feels bad, because I'm dumping shit to a greater fool.
Name one good game from the last decade...
@@kosterix123 I take it you are not a fan of Vital Lacerda. Is that correct?
@@coltonbeatty6117 I may have played several lacerda games but don't have an active recollection, am impartial to vital.
@@kosterix123 Okay. My guess, as for your tastes, is that if you hate 'modern Euros' and the approaches to game design that make them, then Lacerda is the worst, or close. I detest his releases.
Piece of garbage game