A honest review, which is exactly what a review* should be. Review = a critical appraisal of book, film, game, play, tv show.... synonyms: criticism, critique, write-up, notice, assessment, evaluation, judgement, rating, commentary; piece, article, column; informalcrit Nicely done too 🎲
The rulebook issues aside, that dividend thing is a real head-scratcher. As you were describing it, all i could think was "why would you ever withhold"? All "this rule does not exist in the game" got a "WOW" out loud moment from me. The decision space in a game is critical to me, so this seems like a pass. Good review Paul. Top notch.
If your stock is sold out you might need to withhold just to get money into your company. If you don't own a majority of your company and the other players do then you might want to withhold. Also if you are taking the worker placement spots to pay out dividends then you can get your money out in another way. It's a game I have criticisms of, and Paul made a good video. But just because you can't see the reason for something doesn't mean that there aren't (good) reasons for it.
There are quite a few reasons to withhold the dividend: 1. Hold back one round to have enough cash for a triple jump next round. 2. Another player has more stock in the company than you do. 3. Another player is cash poor so holding back presses your advantage 4. Company needs operating capital for the next round and there are no shares left. 5. You're in the lead heading into the last decade, no need to give opponents cash to invest and improve their position. 6. Depending on which company you have, holding back will give you an injection of cash to be able to release your 3rd partner sooner,( by buying enough workers ) or to buy salesmen / managers that give significant benefits in all subsequent rounds. The issues with the rulebook aside, there's a difference between a bad game and someone not being able to figure out strategy.
@@theapparatus3801 good point. In the advanced game that is the case yes. Not in the basic game though. And really, the game is best when played with the advanced rules.
I very much appreciated your review and your honesty will keep me as a patron. I see board games like books. Not every book is for every person. Your review is similar to my experience with Bring Out Yer Dead. As I kickstarted this l, hopefully it will work for me.
Honestly this was one the most entertaining reviews I've ever seen! I loved how insightful your negatives were and the video could easily have been twice as long and I still would have enjoyed it.
Respect that you're able to give an honest, negative review. I've played it once (taught to me, not by rulebook) and really liked it. In my case, I think I like the more euro-y elements, with less emphasis on stock manipulation like you might see in an 18xx. Not sure how it will hold up on repeated plays - some of the issues you highlight may become apparent
Great job, Paul, and thank you for putting this out there. Haven't played it myself, so can't comment on the critique, but really appreciate reviews that are obviously honest assessments of the game.
Played this with wife and friends at the weekend and the entire 5 hours was a blast, we all enjoyed it. Although the rule book was an absolute pain as you describe, I was able to infer the meaning having watched the Heavy Cardboard playthrough twice before the game arrived. It fits neatly between Arkwright (which I love) and 18XX (jury still out here) but is lighter than both. Thought your review was excellent, maybe a bit of a ‘Marmite’ game.
Great to see an honest and insightful review Paul. I just received my KS copy and hope my experience will be more like some of the players you have gamed with. Really useful information on the sub par rule book also, it looks like some digging into FAQ's on bgg is a must. I have never played Arkwright either but only ever hear great things about it :-)
Insightful critique into the rulebook and graphical issues. Learned a bit about game design from watching it. I backed this on Kickstarter and am still quite looking forward to playing it as I like the mechanics and feel the game gathers momentum. Thanks for making this review!
I'm a fairly new subscriber. I generally don't watch online reviews unless I'm particularly interested in a game (learning it for a game night, or deciding to back a KS 2nd edition, etc). This one spoke to me, for some reason. I appreciate the insight into rules and graphic design, in general. Its clear you have experience with what "works" with rules and natural game progression. It was interesting...I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a design meeting on how to build a rule book. :)
Become one of Paul's supporters on Patreon. it gives you access to a Slack channel where rule book writing process is discussed loads and you often get a chance to see the process at various stages.
Thanks Rico. I have a lot of experience with working on rulebooks, both from a text and layout point of view. I personally find it "interesting", since I am always wanting to make things better, but I also know that I take everything way too seriously and can be a pain to work with as I keep pointing out things that need fixing :)
So interesting. I had zero problems with the rulebook. Taught and finished our game in about 3 1/2 hours with 3 players. Everyone loved it. Have played and taught a few more times in the past week. I really found no issues with the rulebook either. Our only question we had was if the meeple on the appeal track was a salesman or a manager. I've played a lot of 18xx, so maybe that's the difference. Either way, appreciate your review.
@@LectureFilms There are things that happen in the game not covered in the rules, such as the one Graham mentioned. Another one is "what happens when a company starts on appeal 3 - do they get the appeal 3 bonus or not?" - this has now been answered on BGG but wasn't clear in the rules. And as you say, you had to make up a ruling in that case of what you should do. And that is ok - as gamers, we need to decide on what to do and just decide, but I class that as "an issue with the rulebook" - where it doesn't say, so we have to make something up.
Matthew Robinson “We had no issues with the rulebook” because “we chose to do things” which “seemed logical”. Ironically, that doesn’t seem very logical to me.
Great job, Paul. The gaming world needs to have access to more honest negative reviews. If a person doesn't like a game, more should do what you did: explain why, say it's your own personal opinion, and leave it at that. Hopefully it will help designers, editors, rulebook writers and gamers.
Great video, Paul. I've watched Heavy Cardboard's play through. About 45 minutes teaching, about 3 hours playtime with 4 players. After watching the playtime for about an hour, I decided it was not my kind of game. Didn't even watch the discussion about the game.
Thanks for the video Paul. My favorite part was setting concrete examples of issues you found in the rule book. It's kind of cool peeking behind the curtain and seeing the thoughts of a professional on this. I wonder if you'd consider reviewing other rulebooks in the future or putting out a general video (in case you wanted to avoid calling out specific games) on what you do like and don't like in rulebooks, and some of your thoughts on how you draft a rulebook
Great review, Paul! I played this last night. Really enjoyed it. However, I can't disagree with most of your points. They all came up during our gameplay. We only played the "basic" version and I'm hoping that the advanced game might open it up more but I'm not sure. I would definitely like to play it again. I love the building/action selection mechanism that replaces the route building phase. However, I'm not convinced that it's all that impactful. If anything, it seems to mostly push down those that are struggling already. Regardless, I enjoyed it and look forward to playing it more. Not sure if it will hold up to repeated plays but I love the design. It's a great concept. Again, this is a great review even if it's one that I'm somewhat sad to see because it's rather spot-on. It's important to address some of these issues. This game is very close to being a classic.
Excellent review. My response when I first heard of this game was very positive. I'm having second thoughts now. I'll pause for more information. Thanks.
Great Review Paul, I am still excited to receive my ks copy non the less. Heavy Cardboard has a great teach video as alternative to reading the rules :)
Not all games are for everyone - you can’t possibly like every game you play - but a good ‘review’ nonetheless. Absolutely brilliant rule book review though and it’s looks like the new set up is working well! :)
I've played the game twice and really enjoyed it both times. Both times the game was taught by someone else so I have not had to read and struggle with the rulebook yet. I did find the stock and appeal tracks odd for going down as they improve. Overall I appreciate the honest review.
Sth worth mentioning: at the begining of the third era, every player gets one extra partner. This is only mentioned as a side note somewhere ein the rulebook, since the "moving of the era token" is not mentioned anywere :-(
I have played Arkwright and I was trying to remember but that appeal mechanic, I thought it dropped after you sold goods. That way other companies could compete. Of course I’ve not played this game, so I don’t know how that plays out here.
I was taught the game by the artist at GenCon in 2018. We got through 4 rounds in 2 hours (so 80% of the game). I think the game is really solid. It does feel more of a eurogame first which is what I like anyway. This is not a game about being tight but racing with increasing amounts of money and making the right decisions along the way. However, the art and graphic design is horrible. That is my big critique, but I haven't read the rules. I think this is a case of a designer with good ideas who needed a true developer and publisher to really iron out the bugs. And Raymond should not have cheaped out on hiring his girlfriend to do the art and graphic design. Very bad decision. I know a lot of people who were turned off from the art and graphic design. For me, this is still a 9/10 because I think the core conceit of the game is solid and it plays to the type of games I like. I prefer the engine building approach which allows me to explore multiple paths rather than starvation approach of games like Pipeline, Agricola, or Antiquity. Although, I really want to play my copy of Arkwright that has sat on my shelf for 2 years now never been played by me.
Nice refreshing review, I'm glad someone tells us how they really feel even though many people don't want to hear it. I've spoken to the designer about some of these same issues after a demo and then a full game at Gencon and he was not willing to accept criticism. He wouldn't even acknowledge the problems as problems. I'd surmise that many of the issues you pointed out were apparent during playtesting but the designer was to bull-headed to change.
Thats interesting to hear. I've had a response from the designer on BGG that he felt my criticisms were valid and I'm actually going to working with them to try and fix some things. I will do what I can. Maybe he just needed to hear it from multiple people. Assuming we're talking about the rulebook and graphic design issues. Gameplay is another thing entirely.
I get the impression paying dividends is most often the right one, true, but the way you play will greatly influence if it is a no brainer vs actual decision. My 1st game was a 2p trial and like what you described, everything just ran and unsold shares kept the operating cash flowing back in. My second game at 4p, others at the table bought out my company shares and I realized I had 0 source of renewing operating capital in round 4 to do any of the Partner (worker placement) actions unless I wanted to withhold or waste a Partner just to get cash for the company. But, either way, even if the dividend payout is a fairly nondecision, there is still the stock buying, the worker placement, and the goods market that give decision points. I was quite happy with the 4p gameplay. While I disagree on your assessment of the game, I do agree on the rulebook and more importantly, the tracks improve downwards. I'm sure that is the reason for the right/left share arrows. If they made the improve arrow point downwards, players wouldn't know whether it meant improve the share price down the track or to lower the share price. All of that could have been avoided if the tracks just went upwards (or right/left).
Anyone knows if Quined Games will improve the rulebook? I know that they're copies are already printed, but other than the name there's a remarkable difference with the ks parallel version?
The first 14 minutes of this video were riveting. Few notables from my research. There is a teaching video by Parallel Games on RUclips. They disabled comments on it-Yikes! No one has uploaded a teaching aid or FAQ on BGG yet (crosses fingers). Commentary on the rule book on BGG shows that KS backers were collectively reading the rule book and offering edits. There were 13 versions of the rule book from what I gather. Hmm. I could not find a Quined rule book; so I do not know if there is a difference. (Disclosure-I own the game, too. Guess that means I have to go buy poker chips.)
Hi Paul, i Rally like your Videos a lot, but this one makes me think you played the game wrong. Not concerning the rules, but in the way you played. It's not that easy to feed you company if your opponents invest in it early or drop your initial share price let's say to 10 or 20. The hint to not decrease the share price if there are some in the pool, is what it is... a hint, not a rule. You are right with your criticism of the tracks orientation. Is it possible that YOU mixed up the "cleanup phase" (supply chain) and the "end of turn" (capital assets) procedure?
My phone always wants to correct my spelling to german, argh! So you can play this game like a Workerplacer moving up (down) the track. Or you play it cutthroat like an 18xx Game. The sweet spot in my opinion is in the middle of the two. I "own" the pnp version from the kickstarter, if something important has changed, pardon me. Best regards, Andreas
I have a feeling that half the rulebook issues are purely down to the fact that it's been written by an 18XX veteran targeted at other 18XX veterans. So if you've played a few of those games then you just need it as a reference.
I disagree graham, as I have this with other 18XX rule books, people say oh just play it like an 18XX , trouble is I have over 100 18XX all with different rule quirks you cannot say x happens in an 18XX game as there isn’t a definitive 18XX game you can base the rules on Anymore.
Why have the option to withhold? Well... It is a feel well factor game that you should not have to withhold, BUT if you make bad choices you might need to. And you say about company owning 70% which assures you will never withhold... What if a company however is left with 30% 20%, 10% or even no stocks... so likely no income. So when someone is buying stocks has to think, will I make this company withhold... (but you do add some capital when you buy the shares) or... do I want to force it to withhold... and on top of it sell my share afterwards. Or sell my share to the bank so the company does not get the money. So that rule, even though it rarely gets used needs to be there as an option. it is baffling how a rulebook can be so bad. It is true that people s minds work in different ways but should be universal that rules about a specific action or concept should be all together. Anyway, this happens, and it is good that there are teaching videos, and even BGG that you can find an updated rulebook. Should you have to, NO. is it the most important? No. Game play is for me The Graphic choices I do not mind. If the track is going upwards, downwards, left or right... whatever... it is artwork :) I do not mind. Does not affect gameplay. However, as everyone else has said, it is great that you come out and say you do not like the game, and WHY you do not like it, and that people you played with loved it. Thats is why we love you. I believe that the rulebook (because you write rulebooks) has annoyed you too much to start with :) Anyway... it is truw if we do not like a game... there so many others... no need to insist :) thank you for your honest opinion :)
If I want to play 18XX, I’ll just play 18XX, which I quite enjoy. I’ve been on the fence with this one for a while and this settles it for me: I think I’ll pass.
I do not agree with this review at all and I tend to like your reviews. The rule book is def a bit confusing, but really not hard to figure out. The only issue graphic design is the manger and sales people. As for the game play, this game is awesome. The withholding makes sense. It not something you want to do, and if you are running the company right, then you shouldn't have to withhold. However if your stock is sold out, you might withhold in the forth or 5th round. Also strategy wise toward the end you might not withhold to keep money out of the other players hands. This is probably one of my fav games of the year.
How are all his perfectly valid critiques of the rulebook and the graphic design not an issue? I mean OK it's not hard to deal with a price drop represented by a marker going up but that doesn't make it less stupid. It also begs for confusion when you are asked to "move the price up" and then you wonder about whether it refers to the marker or the actual price.
18xx rulebooks are atrocious. Wargaming rule books try to compete for that crown. Had you not mentioned that the down arrow actually means “N/A”, I would have assumed bank pool shares equals a drop per 18xx convention, especially since it has a down arrow on the board. That is very bad even for an 18xx veteran. Sadly, though, that clause in the rulebook advising you to use chips is in a very large number of 18xx rulebooks. 18OE has it, for certain and I think 1844 does. I’m confident there are even more. Trains rusting is a large mechanism for why companies withhold. Without that mechanism, company withholding does become a less attractive option. However if someone buys all your shares, there are still reasons to do it. It depends on the players you play with and what they choose to do. The appeal mechanic is straight from Arkwright and I never cared for it at all. It means you get to hog the market and the other player gets stuck with unsold goods. The rich only get richer is an awful gaming mechanic.
@@GamingRulesVideos Your aspect of treating the companies, chances of competing at same markets are some crucial points for me, which I didn't reflect before.
You are full of hate and you show zero respect to anyone involved in the creation of this product. in 6:56 sou say it's the worst game you've played this year. Have you played any other games this year ? I don't own the game, but it appears to be a lovely economic design. Which games have you designed again ? Unsubscribed.
I'm a bit disappointed by listening to you. First of all, I understood none of what you said about the company price simply going up since I did not play the game. I don't feel it was well-explained and worded, a thing you should probably try to correct since you are a reviewer and that your job is to facilitate the understanding of a game. Secondly, playing the game only twice and then making a negative review is a long shot with such a small number of plays under the belt. When I do negative reviews, I ensure myself to have done at least five games. I want to make sure that my points are well-explained and clear, so that people can clearly understand what I mean and that there may an open space for discussion. Here, you simply mention straight-forward that you did not like this game (or should I simply say ''bashing'' the game?) and you do not seem to be willing to admit that you may be wrong on some cases. And please, don't counterargue by saying you mentioned the positive points. Trying to do it and conveying people that there are good things in this game are two different things, and clearly you did not convey anyone with your ''positives'': it is just obvious from the beginning that you just despise the game. Also, it is not the first time that you put up front the fact that you are writing rules. Why do you feel the need to mention this? By the way, your criticism towards the rulebook is quite ironic, as you seem very fond of Gloomhaven, a game which is probably one the best examples for having an atrocious rulebook, so bad that the FAQ on BGG is almost endless. Finally, this game is a heavy euro mixed up with 18xx. Do you really think this game will fully unravel itself after only one or two plays? Maybe you should have considered this too before presenting a very messy review as yours is. I apologize if I sound very rude, but I don't think this is a good review. I was very disappointed; I don't mind bad reviews, but I had no idea why you disliked the game. Probably because, as I said, I did not get anything you said concerning gameplay, but also I don't feel there was much thoughts put in this review to make your opinion clear and concise...
@@WanderingLunatic Because when you are a reviewer you should try games at all player counts, play the game multiple times and try different strategies. Thats what a good reviewer does. My two friends do a podcast and they will not do a review without playing the game 5 times, whether they like it or not
@@markhorsburgh76 this is an excellent game. Definitely one of the best games of 2019. It really captures the essence of 18xx AND heavy euro, resource management game in a magnificient way. Many thoughts on the game he makes do not make sense; according to me, his criticism shows how little his understanding is of 18xx games and economic games such as this one. For instance, paying dividends or not is a HUGE decision to make about a company. You can ruin a company by deciding not to, or even by deciding to do so. Someone could decide to withhold the shares in order to gain more money in the treasury (and then pay for necessary stuff for the good of the company), or even downgrade the company, selling all your shares and making another player the new owner of the company, something that is AWFULLY painful if the company has touched the bottom of the barrel. And this is just one example of many subtleties the game possesses, but you definitely need to play many times in order to see them. He played 2 times and this is just unacceptable. If it were a Lacerda, everyone would think it's unacceptable. Why then is it more, considering the similar heaviness of City of the Big Shoulders? I really admire the ingenuity and cleverness in this game. Although I appreciate him for being honest, thoughts expressed in this video show definitely the lack of gameplays.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
A honest review, which is exactly what a review* should be.
Review = a critical appraisal of book, film, game, play, tv show....
synonyms: criticism, critique, write-up, notice, assessment, evaluation, judgement, rating, commentary; piece, article, column; informalcrit
Nicely done too 🎲
Nice honest review. I was going through the rule book this morning and had written a page of questions myself, glad it wasn’t just me !
The rulebook issues aside, that dividend thing is a real head-scratcher. As you were describing it, all i could think was "why would you ever withhold"?
All "this rule does not exist in the game" got a "WOW" out loud moment from me.
The decision space in a game is critical to me, so this seems like a pass. Good review Paul. Top notch.
If your stock is sold out you might need to withhold just to get money into your company. If you don't own a majority of your company and the other players do then you might want to withhold. Also if you are taking the worker placement spots to pay out dividends then you can get your money out in another way.
It's a game I have criticisms of, and Paul made a good video. But just because you can't see the reason for something doesn't mean that there aren't (good) reasons for it.
There are quite a few reasons to withhold the dividend:
1. Hold back one round to have enough cash for a triple jump next round.
2. Another player has more stock in the company than you do.
3. Another player is cash poor so holding back presses your advantage
4. Company needs operating capital for the next round and there are no shares left.
5. You're in the lead heading into the last decade, no need to give opponents cash to invest and improve their position.
6. Depending on which company you have, holding back will give you an injection of cash to be able to release your 3rd partner sooner,( by buying enough workers ) or to buy salesmen / managers that give significant benefits in all subsequent rounds.
The issues with the rulebook aside, there's a difference between a bad game and someone not being able to figure out strategy.
@@jeffmackey2740 well written Jeff.
@@jeffmackey2740 If another player had more stock in a company, would he not be the President?
@@theapparatus3801 good point. In the advanced game that is the case yes. Not in the basic game though. And really, the game is best when played with the advanced rules.
I very much appreciated your review and your honesty will keep me as a patron. I see board games like books. Not every book is for every person. Your review is similar to my experience with Bring Out Yer Dead. As I kickstarted this l, hopefully it will work for me.
Oh my, Truly appreciate the less than positive review. It’s refreshing compared to other board game reviewers; where everything is wonderful.
Interesting review. I appreciate that it's a true review, not all happy-clappy, trying not to upset anyone. Thank you.
Honestly this was one the most entertaining reviews I've ever seen! I loved how insightful your negatives were and the video could easily have been twice as long and I still would have enjoyed it.
Respect that you're able to give an honest, negative review. I've played it once (taught to me, not by rulebook) and really liked it. In my case, I think I like the more euro-y elements, with less emphasis on stock manipulation like you might see in an 18xx. Not sure how it will hold up on repeated plays - some of the issues you highlight may become apparent
Great job, Paul, and thank you for putting this out there. Haven't played it myself, so can't comment on the critique, but really appreciate reviews that are obviously honest assessments of the game.
Played this with wife and friends at the weekend and the entire 5 hours was a blast, we all enjoyed it. Although the rule book was an absolute pain as you describe, I was able to infer the meaning having watched the Heavy Cardboard playthrough twice before the game arrived. It fits neatly between Arkwright (which I love) and 18XX (jury still out here) but is lighter than both. Thought your review was excellent, maybe a bit of a ‘Marmite’ game.
Great review - I'm playing tonight on BGA for first time so that's gonna be interesting.
Great to see an honest and insightful review Paul. I just received my KS copy and hope my experience will be more like some of the players you have gamed with. Really useful information on the sub par rule book also, it looks like some digging into FAQ's on bgg is a must. I have never played Arkwright either but only ever hear great things about it :-)
Thanks Mark.
Sometimes your ut just tells you if you like it on not. Good on you for always being honest to us. Thank youuu
Insightful critique into the rulebook and graphical issues. Learned a bit about game design from watching it.
I backed this on Kickstarter and am still quite looking forward to playing it as I like the mechanics and feel the game gathers momentum. Thanks for making this review!
Great review! Thanks.
I'm a fairly new subscriber. I generally don't watch online reviews unless I'm particularly interested in a game (learning it for a game night, or deciding to back a KS 2nd edition, etc). This one spoke to me, for some reason. I appreciate the insight into rules and graphic design, in general. Its clear you have experience with what "works" with rules and natural game progression. It was interesting...I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a design meeting on how to build a rule book. :)
Become one of Paul's supporters on Patreon. it gives you access to a Slack channel where rule book writing process is discussed loads and you often get a chance to see the process at various stages.
Thanks Rico. I have a lot of experience with working on rulebooks, both from a text and layout point of view. I personally find it "interesting", since I am always wanting to make things better, but I also know that I take everything way too seriously and can be a pain to work with as I keep pointing out things that need fixing :)
Thank you for you honest and well thought out view points. Keep up the good work.
Was thinking of learning this for BGA.... i guess not. haha thanks for the heads up.
So interesting. I had zero problems with the rulebook. Taught and finished our game in about 3 1/2 hours with 3 players. Everyone loved it. Have played and taught a few more times in the past week. I really found no issues with the rulebook either. Our only question we had was if the meeple on the appeal track was a salesman or a manager. I've played a lot of 18xx, so maybe that's the difference. Either way, appreciate your review.
When did you move the round marker? Because that really isn't in the rulebook or answered on any forums I've seen.
@@WanderingLunatic We chose to do it at the end of the round. Seemed logical.
@@LectureFilms There are things that happen in the game not covered in the rules, such as the one Graham mentioned. Another one is "what happens when a company starts on appeal 3 - do they get the appeal 3 bonus or not?" - this has now been answered on BGG but wasn't clear in the rules. And as you say, you had to make up a ruling in that case of what you should do. And that is ok - as gamers, we need to decide on what to do and just decide, but I class that as "an issue with the rulebook" - where it doesn't say, so we have to make something up.
@@LectureFilms We went with before that because the refresh phase is worded as "for the next decade" so figured that made a bit more sense.
Matthew Robinson “We had no issues with the rulebook” because “we chose to do things” which “seemed logical”.
Ironically, that doesn’t seem very logical to me.
Great job, Paul. The gaming world needs to have access to more honest negative reviews. If a person doesn't like a game, more should do what you did: explain why, say it's your own personal opinion, and leave it at that. Hopefully it will help designers, editors, rulebook writers and gamers.
Great video, Paul. I've watched Heavy Cardboard's play through. About 45 minutes teaching, about 3 hours playtime with 4 players.
After watching the playtime for about an hour, I decided it was not my kind of game. Didn't even watch the discussion about the game.
Thanks for the video Paul. My favorite part was setting concrete examples of issues you found in the rule book. It's kind of cool peeking behind the curtain and seeing the thoughts of a professional on this. I wonder if you'd consider reviewing other rulebooks in the future or putting out a general video (in case you wanted to avoid calling out specific games) on what you do like and don't like in rulebooks, and some of your thoughts on how you draft a rulebook
Great review, Paul!
I played this last night. Really enjoyed it. However, I can't disagree with most of your points. They all came up during our gameplay. We only played the "basic" version and I'm hoping that the advanced game might open it up more but I'm not sure.
I would definitely like to play it again. I love the building/action selection mechanism that replaces the route building phase. However, I'm not convinced that it's all that impactful. If anything, it seems to mostly push down those that are struggling already.
Regardless, I enjoyed it and look forward to playing it more. Not sure if it will hold up to repeated plays but I love the design. It's a great concept.
Again, this is a great review even if it's one that I'm somewhat sad to see because it's rather spot-on. It's important to address some of these issues. This game is very close to being a classic.
I welcome and appreciate negative reviews actually especially when well explained like you always do.
Just finished playing this again tonight and then watched this.
I'm late on the comments here, but 100% agree on the rulebook but 100% disagree on the game. One of my top 10.
Yep. I am aware I'm in the minority on how much I liked the game. For a few of my friends, it was their GotY
Excellent review. My response when I first heard of this game was very positive. I'm having second thoughts now. I'll pause for more information. Thanks.
Great Review Paul, I am still excited to receive my ks copy non the less. Heavy Cardboard has a great teach video as alternative to reading the rules :)
Rules video or not, still needs a good rulebook :)
Gaming Rules! Completely agree, your criticisms on the rulebook were on point
Not all games are for everyone - you can’t possibly like every game you play - but a good ‘review’ nonetheless. Absolutely brilliant rule book review though and it’s looks like the new set up is working well! :)
I've played the game twice and really enjoyed it both times. Both times the game was taught by someone else so I have not had to read and struggle with the rulebook yet. I did find the stock and appeal tracks odd for going down as they improve. Overall I appreciate the honest review.
Sth worth mentioning: at the begining of the third era, every player gets one extra partner. This is only mentioned as a side note somewhere ein the rulebook, since the "moving of the era token" is not mentioned anywere :-(
Someone mentioned you to me in high regards. Good job. We'll have to send you some of our games.
Please feel free to drop me an email. Please don't just send me games :)
Great Review Paul
Good review, no apologies necessary. Games frequently show a great lack of player testing, which would show these weaknesses.
Love the T-shirt!
Its old!
thanks for your honest review
I have played Arkwright and I was trying to remember but that appeal mechanic, I thought it dropped after you sold goods. That way other companies could compete. Of course I’ve not played this game, so I don’t know how that plays out here.
I loved this review. Everything was so well described. I can see completely why you didn’t enjoy the game.
I was taught the game by the artist at GenCon in 2018. We got through 4 rounds in 2 hours (so 80% of the game).
I think the game is really solid. It does feel more of a eurogame first which is what I like anyway. This is not a game about being tight but racing with increasing amounts of money and making the right decisions along the way. However, the art and graphic design is horrible. That is my big critique, but I haven't read the rules. I think this is a case of a designer with good ideas who needed a true developer and publisher to really iron out the bugs. And Raymond should not have cheaped out on hiring his girlfriend to do the art and graphic design. Very bad decision. I know a lot of people who were turned off from the art and graphic design.
For me, this is still a 9/10 because I think the core conceit of the game is solid and it plays to the type of games I like. I prefer the engine building approach which allows me to explore multiple paths rather than starvation approach of games like Pipeline, Agricola, or Antiquity. Although, I really want to play my copy of Arkwright that has sat on my shelf for 2 years now never been played by me.
Nice refreshing review, I'm glad someone tells us how they really feel even though many people don't want to hear it. I've spoken to the designer about some of these same issues after a demo and then a full game at Gencon and he was not willing to accept criticism. He wouldn't even acknowledge the problems as problems. I'd surmise that many of the issues you pointed out were apparent during playtesting but the designer was to bull-headed to change.
Thats interesting to hear. I've had a response from the designer on BGG that he felt my criticisms were valid and I'm actually going to working with them to try and fix some things. I will do what I can.
Maybe he just needed to hear it from multiple people.
Assuming we're talking about the rulebook and graphic design issues.
Gameplay is another thing entirely.
I get the impression paying dividends is most often the right one, true, but the way you play will greatly influence if it is a no brainer vs actual decision. My 1st game was a 2p trial and like what you described, everything just ran and unsold shares kept the operating cash flowing back in. My second game at 4p, others at the table bought out my company shares and I realized I had 0 source of renewing operating capital in round 4 to do any of the Partner (worker placement) actions unless I wanted to withhold or waste a Partner just to get cash for the company. But, either way, even if the dividend payout is a fairly nondecision, there is still the stock buying, the worker placement, and the goods market that give decision points. I was quite happy with the 4p gameplay.
While I disagree on your assessment of the game, I do agree on the rulebook and more importantly, the tracks improve downwards. I'm sure that is the reason for the right/left share arrows. If they made the improve arrow point downwards, players wouldn't know whether it meant improve the share price down the track or to lower the share price. All of that could have been avoided if the tracks just went upwards (or right/left).
Thanks for your review. I KS this game and hope I enjoy it more than you.
Anyone knows if Quined Games will improve the rulebook? I know that they're copies are already printed, but other than the name there's a remarkable difference with the ks parallel version?
I'm curious to know too.
The first 14 minutes of this video were riveting. Few notables from my research. There is a teaching video by Parallel Games on RUclips. They disabled comments on it-Yikes! No one has uploaded a teaching aid or FAQ on BGG yet (crosses fingers). Commentary on the rule book on BGG shows that KS backers were collectively reading the rule book and offering edits. There were 13 versions of the rule book from what I gather. Hmm. I could not find a Quined rule book; so I do not know if there is a difference. (Disclosure-I own the game, too. Guess that means I have to go buy poker chips.)
Hi Paul, i Rally like your Videos a lot, but this one makes me think you played the game wrong. Not concerning the rules, but in the way you played. It's not that easy to feed you company if your opponents invest in it early or drop your initial share price let's say to 10 or 20. The hint to not decrease the share price if there are some in the pool, is what it is... a hint, not a rule. You are right with your criticism of the tracks orientation.
Is it possible that YOU mixed up the "cleanup phase" (supply chain) and the "end of turn" (capital assets) procedure?
My phone always wants to correct my spelling to german, argh!
So you can play this game like a Workerplacer moving up (down) the track. Or you play it cutthroat like an 18xx Game. The sweet spot in my opinion is in the middle of the two. I "own" the pnp version from the kickstarter, if something important has changed, pardon me.
Best regards, Andreas
I have a feeling that half the rulebook issues are purely down to the fact that it's been written by an 18XX veteran targeted at other 18XX veterans. So if you've played a few of those games then you just need it as a reference.
Half of them maybe, but the other half are still issues no matter what the game :)
I disagree graham, as I have this with other 18XX rule books, people say oh just play it like an 18XX , trouble is I have over 100 18XX all with different rule quirks you cannot say x happens in an 18XX game as there isn’t a definitive 18XX game you can base the rules on Anymore.
The rule book & graphic design criticism were really insightful.
Why have the option to withhold? Well... It is a feel well factor game that you should not have to withhold, BUT if you make bad choices you might need to. And you say about company owning 70% which assures you will never withhold... What if a company however is left with 30% 20%, 10% or even no stocks... so likely no income. So when someone is buying stocks has to think, will I make this company withhold... (but you do add some capital when you buy the shares) or... do I want to force it to withhold... and on top of it sell my share afterwards. Or sell my share to the bank so the company does not get the money. So that rule, even though it rarely gets used needs to be there as an option.
it is baffling how a rulebook can be so bad. It is true that people s minds work in different ways but should be universal that rules about a specific action or concept should be all together. Anyway, this happens, and it is good that there are teaching videos, and even BGG that you can find an updated rulebook. Should you have to, NO. is it the most important? No. Game play is for me
The Graphic choices I do not mind. If the track is going upwards, downwards, left or right... whatever... it is artwork :) I do not mind. Does not affect gameplay.
However, as everyone else has said, it is great that you come out and say you do not like the game, and WHY you do not like it, and that people you played with loved it. Thats is why we love you. I believe that the rulebook (because you write rulebooks) has annoyed you too much to start with :) Anyway... it is truw if we do not like a game... there so many others... no need to insist :)
thank you for your honest opinion :)
13:30 McFly is annoyed that Paul addresses himself in the 3rd person.
If I want to play 18XX, I’ll just play 18XX, which I quite enjoy.
I’ve been on the fence with this one for a while and this settles it for me: I think I’ll pass.
I do not agree with this review at all and I tend to like your reviews. The rule book is def a bit confusing, but really not hard to figure out. The only issue graphic design is the manger and sales people. As for the game play, this game is awesome. The withholding makes sense. It not something you want to do, and if you are running the company right, then you shouldn't have to withhold. However if your stock is sold out, you might withhold in the forth or 5th round. Also strategy wise toward the end you might not withhold to keep money out of the other players hands. This is probably one of my fav games of the year.
How are all his perfectly valid critiques of the rulebook and the graphic design not an issue?
I mean OK it's not hard to deal with a price drop represented by a marker going up but that doesn't make it less stupid.
It also begs for confusion when you are asked to "move the price up" and then you wonder about whether it refers to the marker or the actual price.
In my gaming group I'm the teacher and I hate bad rulebook. That is simply unexceteble nowadays.
The rule book is the skeleton of the games body..... if poorly written the game fails.... I’ll still try it tho
18xx rulebooks are atrocious. Wargaming rule books try to compete for that crown. Had you not mentioned that the down arrow actually means “N/A”, I would have assumed bank pool shares equals a drop per 18xx convention, especially since it has a down arrow on the board. That is very bad even for an 18xx veteran.
Sadly, though, that clause in the rulebook advising you to use chips is in a very large number of 18xx rulebooks. 18OE has it, for certain and I think 1844 does. I’m confident there are even more.
Trains rusting is a large mechanism for why companies withhold. Without that mechanism, company withholding does become a less attractive option. However if someone buys all your shares, there are still reasons to do it. It depends on the players you play with and what they choose to do.
The appeal mechanic is straight from Arkwright and I never cared for it at all. It means you get to hog the market and the other player gets stuck with unsold goods. The rich only get richer is an awful gaming mechanic.
Always love cubies in my games. So it's a shame this one is no good. Though a 5 hour first game and an inferior rulebook is damned off-putting too!
This game is amazing, don't let this review keep you from playing it.
Just watch the Heavy Cardboard Streams about this game... they love it and call it a contestant for "Game of the year"... so it can´t be that bad.
You know, why I cancelled my pre-order, don't you?
were the issues I raised clear back then?
@@GamingRulesVideos Your aspect of treating the companies, chances of competing at same markets are some crucial points for me, which I didn't reflect before.
You are full of hate and you show zero respect to anyone involved in the creation of this product.
in 6:56 sou say it's the worst game you've played this year. Have you played any other games this year ?
I don't own the game, but it appears to be a lovely economic design.
Which games have you designed again ?
Unsubscribed.
"it appears"... oh well it must be a great game then. Someone has a different opinion to you, get used to it, that's life.
@@markhorsburgh76 Who told you I'm not used to it ?
I'm a bit disappointed by listening to you. First of all, I understood none of what you said about the company price simply going up since I did not play the game. I don't feel it was well-explained and worded, a thing you should probably try to correct since you are a reviewer and that your job is to facilitate the understanding of a game.
Secondly, playing the game only twice and then making a negative review is a long shot with such a small number of plays under the belt. When I do negative reviews, I ensure myself to have done at least five games. I want to make sure that my points are well-explained and clear, so that people can clearly understand what I mean and that there may an open space for discussion. Here, you simply mention straight-forward that you did not like this game (or should I simply say ''bashing'' the game?) and you do not seem to be willing to admit that you may be wrong on some cases. And please, don't counterargue by saying you mentioned the positive points. Trying to do it and conveying people that there are good things in this game are two different things, and clearly you did not convey anyone with your ''positives'': it is just obvious from the beginning that you just despise the game.
Also, it is not the first time that you put up front the fact that you are writing rules. Why do you feel the need to mention this? By the way, your criticism towards the rulebook is quite ironic, as you seem very fond of Gloomhaven, a game which is probably one the best examples for having an atrocious rulebook, so bad that the FAQ on BGG is almost endless.
Finally, this game is a heavy euro mixed up with 18xx. Do you really think this game will fully unravel itself after only one or two plays? Maybe you should have considered this too before presenting a very messy review as yours is.
I apologize if I sound very rude, but I don't think this is a good review. I was very disappointed; I don't mind bad reviews, but I had no idea why you disliked the game. Probably because, as I said, I did not get anything you said concerning gameplay, but also I don't feel there was much thoughts put in this review to make your opinion clear and concise...
Why would anyone ever play a game they hate five times?
@@WanderingLunatic because sometimes people are open enough to try to understand why they don't like a game rather than simply bashing on it ;)
@@WanderingLunatic Because when you are a reviewer you should try games at all player counts, play the game multiple times and try different strategies. Thats what a good reviewer does. My two friends do a podcast and they will not do a review without playing the game 5 times, whether they like it or not
cheer up! have you played it now then? Why is he wrong?
@@markhorsburgh76 this is an excellent game. Definitely one of the best games of 2019. It really captures the essence of 18xx AND heavy euro, resource management game in a magnificient way.
Many thoughts on the game he makes do not make sense; according to me, his criticism shows how little his understanding is of 18xx games and economic games such as this one. For instance, paying dividends or not is a HUGE decision to make about a company. You can ruin a company by deciding not to, or even by deciding to do so. Someone could decide to withhold the shares in order to gain more money in the treasury (and then pay for necessary stuff for the good of the company), or even downgrade the company, selling all your shares and making another player the new owner of the company, something that is AWFULLY painful if the company has touched the bottom of the barrel.
And this is just one example of many subtleties the game possesses, but you definitely need to play many times in order to see them. He played 2 times and this is just unacceptable. If it were a Lacerda, everyone would think it's unacceptable. Why then is it more, considering the similar heaviness of City of the Big Shoulders?
I really admire the ingenuity and cleverness in this game. Although I appreciate him for being honest, thoughts expressed in this video show definitely the lack of gameplays.
Possibly the least exciting game of this generation.