Luckily players on BGG gave the game more thought than Tom did :( Well, at least that' what the 6.9 rating from 141 users show. You could give the review above about many card games as well, "you draw a card, play a card, draw a card, play a card, nah nah nah, you don't do anything interesting", I'm sorry, but it's freaking stupid. The interesting part is in the combination and timing of the tiles, and yes, even the tiny rule that you don't lose your turn if you draw a piece that does not match does matter for your strategic considerations and risk-taking, and as timing is so important it clearly shows one has not played the game enough if the 'cost 6' action tile was never worth using. I don't want anyone agree with me on games I like; I just don't like unfair verdicts on strategy and gameplay values when one does not even try to go deeper.
I didn't particularly like this game either, but you've made a small mistake: You don't lose your turn if you draw a piece that does not match. You can keep one piece for later.
That's disappointing. I really liked the look of this and thought the tactile aspect sounded interesting but it definitely sounds like a pass. Thanks for your always concise reviews. At least I've got Babylonia to fall back on.
Maybe the Pagoda parts shouldn't be in the bag? Suppose you had them in an open box, and you draw cards from a deck which give you color options. Think the "rent" pieces in Monopoly's card game. If we assume 60 cards, maybe you have 8 single-color cards, 32 2-color cards (choose a Pagoda piece from one of these 2 colors), 16 4 color cards, and then 4 wilds (1 of any 8). Maybe make the deck 70 cards, so you can have 10 action cards you could draw (though maybe that'd be better for an expansion?). Then again, maybe doing 6 Pagodas/colors would be preferable to 8? I also wonder if there's a way to collapse the rest of the mechanics into a second deck. Suppose the remaining (non-Pagoda) action cards and victory cards each shared a back - an "Action" back that lets you tap them to draw from the Pagoda deck. Set aside the 8 Victory Point cards, Deal out 1 face down and 2 face up cards, and then put the remainder in a pile and set aside, say, 3 for a "store" people could purchase. Each turn you could tap your face-down cards to take an action (Draw from the Pagoda deck, etc.). When you get a victory point card, you flip it face down as a action card you can tap for a 2nd action that turn. You can turn your 2 face up cards face down permanently by paying some cost listed on them. Maybe some of these have tap actions themselves, or static effects, so there's some tension in whether to flip them face down or not. Finally, you could purchase the top card of the face down store pile for a set price, or purchase the face up ones for a set price (either on the board, or perhaps the same cost it costs to turn them face down?). Then again, at this point I wonder if the Pagodas themselves could be done in card form; you could set the whole game up to work from 2 60 card decks, though this would need a mechanism to trade the Pagoda cards to complete the set in front of you. (Then again, there could me multiples of the Pagoda cards; suppose each Pagoda needs 6 cards to build, 3 on the bottom, 2 on the middle, and 1 on the top. You could have 18 color 1, 12 color 2, 12 color 3, 12 of color 4, and then 6 wilds? Maybe the wilds count as negative unless you get all 6, in which case they're worth more?) I mean, the board and the plastic Pagoda do seem like fun; so maybe having the color deck and the action deck alongside them would be good enough.
Just boil it down to announcing a level and chucking an 8 sided die for the color, but at that point you can see what the game really is and who’d wanna play that?
Maybe if you haven't seen the pay 6 MPs, get another action tile in action you haven't played the game enough yet? Or haven't given enough thought to the game?
We were utilizing our 6 MP tile at towards the end of our first game. I second your questions. This isn't the first time I've gone back to a TV review after playing the reviewed game and not recognizing a lot of what I'm hearing.
Luckily players on BGG gave the game more thought than Tom did :( Well, at least that' what the 6.9 rating from 141 users show. You could give the review above about many card games as well, "you draw a card, play a card, draw a card, play a card, nah nah nah, you don't do anything interesting", I'm sorry, but it's freaking stupid. The interesting part is in the combination and timing of the tiles, and yes, even the tiny rule that you don't lose your turn if you draw a piece that does not match does matter for your strategic considerations and risk-taking, and as timing is so important it clearly shows one has not played the game enough if the 'cost 6' action tile was never worth using.
I don't want anyone agree with me on games I like; I just don't like unfair verdicts on strategy and gameplay values when one does not even try to go deeper.
Pulling the biggest one was alot more fun at college. With this game not so much...thanks for review.
I didn't particularly like this game either, but you've made a small mistake: You don't lose your turn if you draw a piece that does not match. You can keep one piece for later.
My apologies. You don't lose a turn, but you essentially don't do anything interesting.
Thank you for the honest review of the pluses and minuses
He sounds so happy building these pagodas! :)
That's disappointing. I really liked the look of this and thought the tactile aspect sounded interesting but it definitely sounds like a pass. Thanks for your always concise reviews. At least I've got Babylonia to fall back on.
Maybe the Pagoda parts shouldn't be in the bag? Suppose you had them in an open box, and you draw cards from a deck which give you color options. Think the "rent" pieces in Monopoly's card game. If we assume 60 cards, maybe you have 8 single-color cards, 32 2-color cards (choose a Pagoda piece from one of these 2 colors), 16 4 color cards, and then 4 wilds (1 of any 8). Maybe make the deck 70 cards, so you can have 10 action cards you could draw (though maybe that'd be better for an expansion?). Then again, maybe doing 6 Pagodas/colors would be preferable to 8?
I also wonder if there's a way to collapse the rest of the mechanics into a second deck. Suppose the remaining (non-Pagoda) action cards and victory cards each shared a back - an "Action" back that lets you tap them to draw from the Pagoda deck.
Set aside the 8 Victory Point cards, Deal out 1 face down and 2 face up cards, and then put the remainder in a pile and set aside, say, 3 for a "store" people could purchase. Each turn you could tap your face-down cards to take an action (Draw from the Pagoda deck, etc.). When you get a victory point card, you flip it face down as a action card you can tap for a 2nd action that turn. You can turn your 2 face up cards face down permanently by paying some cost listed on them. Maybe some of these have tap actions themselves, or static effects, so there's some tension in whether to flip them face down or not. Finally, you could purchase the top card of the face down store pile for a set price, or purchase the face up ones for a set price (either on the board, or perhaps the same cost it costs to turn them face down?).
Then again, at this point I wonder if the Pagodas themselves could be done in card form; you could set the whole game up to work from 2 60 card decks, though this would need a mechanism to trade the Pagoda cards to complete the set in front of you. (Then again, there could me multiples of the Pagoda cards; suppose each Pagoda needs 6 cards to build, 3 on the bottom, 2 on the middle, and 1 on the top. You could have 18 color 1, 12 color 2, 12 color 3, 12 of color 4, and then 6 wilds? Maybe the wilds count as negative unless you get all 6, in which case they're worth more?)
I mean, the board and the plastic Pagoda do seem like fun; so maybe having the color deck and the action deck alongside them would be good enough.
Just makes me wanna play Pagoda.
Just boil it down to announcing a level and chucking an 8 sided die for the color, but at that point you can see what the game really is and who’d wanna play that?
Maybe if you haven't seen the pay 6 MPs, get another action tile in action you haven't played the game enough yet? Or haven't given enough thought to the game?
We were utilizing our 6 MP tile at towards the end of our first game. I second your questions. This isn't the first time I've gone back to a TV review after playing the reviewed game and not recognizing a lot of what I'm hearing.
Good to know that I will pass on this one and play "Pagoda"
I wish I could build something by meditating
Pagoda pagoda pagoda!
“There’s nothing to this game. “ I said that about Lama
Dang! Disappointing.
Yeah, I was worried as soon as you said Reiner Knezia. I just have no love for any of his games.
First?