Hello, all. First time on the channel, got curious about this game after hearing Tom Chick talk about it. Incredibly hard to wrap my head around it until y'all started playing, but I think you did the absolute best job in the world of explaining. Great production, great video. Thanks a lot.
The teach ends around 1:19:00, for those wanting to jump straight to the game play itself. I'm kindof surprised it took that long to do the teach, but they are trying to be very thorough so there's that.
For those just reading comments, @24:33 Fundraise example is incorrect. You move equal numbers of cubes from Capital to Wealth & Debt to Wealth. Then, move all cubes from Wealth to Capital. In this example, he would Move 1 Cube from Capital to Wealth & 1 Cube from Debt to Wealth, then Accumulate. @28:35 is incorrect. You must ALWAYS spend money from the highest box 1st and when allocating cubes, they must always come from the highest box.
Money Generation - If an Action is costly (i.e. costs money), generate the required money by moving Agents to a lower box on your finance board (E1) and/or by Patent sales (E2). You generate one money for each Agent shifted down your board (i.e. from capital to wealth, or wealth to debt). >>You must always choose one of your uppermost Agents to shift.
I'm sure you are correct about the example at 24:33 (my copy of the game is still in the post so I can't check the rules yet) but the end result is the same. Edward seems to be working on the principle of "move all capital down, then move as many debt up as you moved capital down; and if there is less debt than capital, then move up as much debt as you can, i.e. all of it." But given that you then move all wealth up to capital, those extra two cubes which moved down and back up again end up in the same place as if you'd followed the correct rules. The mistake at 28:35 is presumably more significant but a few people have already commented on that.
@@mathmethman Correct. That is the error I was trying to point out. (This rule is hidden in the glossary regarding money generation, not in main rule book. And it is really a 'costly action' rule instead of money generation rule. Oh well.)
1:25:15 Your forth $ could be spent from capital (or yellow patent) but NOT from wealth . You have to spend from top level of your financial board. Even with this restriction installing from anywhere is strong.
Splay Viability: if its two Disciplines appear in a Discipline Pair, i.e. visible on any two adjacent cards in a Splay. The order does not matter, but if there is any Future Shock on a splay card, only those players with that Future Shock may use it for discipline pair viability.
Hello, thank you for the video! Pretty helpful! I have one question about Splay availability. To check if the card can be commercialized you can only check the edge? (last 3 cards) or all the splay? Or only the last pair or colors? Thank you! Love your channel!
With this dense of a game I have a hard time understanding if the actual gameplay will be good once I have learned how it works. In short: Is it worth the struggle? There are so many games that are also complex but easier to learn. What makes this one worth the struggle? Sincere question
Fun stream for sure, but having prepared a teach for this a few month ago I would just like to say that the rulebook is bad. Really bad. There are things missing from the main body of the rules, which only show up in glossary, majority of information is dispersed throughout the rules so finding something in particular can be a challenge. So good job Edward for making a comprehensive teach, and still, no offense, there were crucial things that did not fit into the upfront teach but came up during streaming, like futureshock blocking viability or spending from capital first (which is one thing we got wrong during our plays and what feels like a very arbitrary thing after doing so).
At the 1:27 Point or so Andrew takes a research action. He says the cost is five because there are five barriers. However his marker was on women’s rights before he moved it so shouldn’t cost have been four?
Answering my own question. I thought that the pairs for viability in the splay were only from the Cutting Edge, but I now found in the rules that the full Splay is used for viability pairs.
Hmm... "Is it so hard to imagine that ...." Well... no. But in the current political climate it's hard to imagine that's enough to solve our problems. ... the intro strikes me a bit political.
@@freudianslipper2764 ... yes... well.. .I'm a libertarian too, but I'm not a science denier. And some of the things Eklund has said about climate science forced my eyebrows a bit. I have nothing against being political. I do have some thing against being political at the expense of scientific fact.
I agree Peter. It's typical "capital cures all" nonsense from the Eklunds. The idea that capitalists will solve income inequality is hilarious, given the current economic reality. I still enjoy the game though despite its ideological bent.
“Usually games that are set in the future tend to have a bit of a dystopian feel to them” Nope, hardly at all Terraforming Mars Underwater Cities Pretty optimistic settings for games actually.
@@generalluxun one of the games I mentioned is the #3 game on board game geek and probably one of the top selling games of all time. I'd say that's a pretty good example. The obvious other I didnt mention is Star Trek which has an abundance of games. There are games like Euphoria, which is a dystopia and ofcourse Warhammer 40k which is grimdark. The top 100 is here boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame The two games on the list I think could be considered dystopian are Forbidden Stars and Android. But there are other games set in Earth's future right there. Scrolling past the top 100 you do find The Resistance, but also Pulsar 2849. So no it is not usual for games that are set in the future to have a bit of a dystopian feel to them.
This was tremendously helpful! Thanks!
Hello, all. First time on the channel, got curious about this game after hearing Tom Chick talk about it. Incredibly hard to wrap my head around it until y'all started playing, but I think you did the absolute best job in the world of explaining. Great production, great video. Thanks a lot.
Really glad you found the channel and equally glad you enjoyed the video! Cheers, OM👍🏼
The teach ends around 1:19:00, for those wanting to jump straight to the game play itself. I'm kindof surprised it took that long to do the teach, but they are trying to be very thorough so there's that.
As someone that has taught the game many times now, it only takes about 20 minutes.
Thx guys for the playthrough, help us to understand both each of the action and end game conditions based on the regime. Thx a lot guys
It's the most useful video in whole RUclips) Thanks!
For those just reading comments, @24:33 Fundraise example is incorrect.
You move equal numbers of cubes from Capital to Wealth & Debt to Wealth. Then, move all cubes from Wealth to Capital.
In this example, he would Move 1 Cube from Capital to Wealth & 1 Cube from Debt to Wealth, then Accumulate.
@28:35 is incorrect. You must ALWAYS spend money from the highest box 1st and when allocating cubes, they must always come from the highest box.
Money Generation - If an Action is costly (i.e. costs money), generate the required money by moving Agents to a lower box on your finance board (E1) and/or by Patent sales (E2). You generate one money for each Agent shifted down your board (i.e. from capital to wealth, or wealth to debt). >>You must always choose one of your uppermost Agents to shift.
I'm sure you are correct about the example at 24:33 (my copy of the game is still in the post so I can't check the rules yet) but the end result is the same. Edward seems to be working on the principle of "move all capital down, then move as many debt up as you moved capital down; and if there is less debt than capital, then move up as much debt as you can, i.e. all of it." But given that you then move all wealth up to capital, those extra two cubes which moved down and back up again end up in the same place as if you'd followed the correct rules.
The mistake at 28:35 is presumably more significant but a few people have already commented on that.
@@mathmethman Correct. That is the error I was trying to point out. (This rule is hidden in the glossary regarding money generation, not in main rule book. And it is really a 'costly action' rule instead of money generation rule. Oh well.)
Excellent video! Great to see that you had such a good time while playing :)
1:25:15 Your forth $ could be spent from capital (or yellow patent) but NOT from wealth . You have to spend from top level of your financial board. Even with this restriction installing from anywhere is strong.
It's annoying that this is not spelled out in the rulebook section about generating money, but in the glossary.
Splay Viability: if its two Disciplines appear in a Discipline Pair, i.e. visible on any two adjacent cards in a Splay. The order does not matter, but if there is any Future Shock on a splay card, only those players
with that Future Shock may use it for discipline pair viability.
Hello, thank you for the video! Pretty helpful!
I have one question about Splay availability. To check if the card can be commercialized you can only check the edge? (last 3 cards) or all the splay? Or only the last pair or colors?
Thank you! Love your channel!
Yups, the last pair and other with the future shock on it (for the owner's piece)
Thank you for this video. It really helped me to play this great game.
Your close ups with the camera is out of focus. Could you put a time stamp for when the game starts? 55:22 out of focus.
Great video, great game. I just love theme of it.
With this dense of a game I have a hard time understanding if the actual gameplay will be good once I have learned how it works. In short: Is it worth the struggle? There are so many games that are also complex but easier to learn. What makes this one worth the struggle? Sincere question
Yeah, I'm also wondering whether it's worth the time. To me it seems like the theme is plastered on rather than tightly enmeshing with the dynamics?
Great play
That was an excellent game rules overview and playthrough. Has this hit the table since this game?
Fun stream for sure, but having prepared a teach for this a few month ago I would just like to say that the rulebook is bad. Really bad. There are things missing from the main body of the rules, which only show up in glossary, majority of information is dispersed throughout the rules so finding something in particular can be a challenge. So good job Edward for making a comprehensive teach, and still, no offense, there were crucial things that did not fit into the upfront teach but came up during streaming, like futureshock blocking viability or spending from capital first (which is one thing we got wrong during our plays and what feels like a very arbitrary thing after doing so).
At the 1:27 Point or so Andrew takes a research action. He says the cost is five because there are five barriers. However his marker was on women’s rights before he moved it so shouldn’t cost have been four?
OMG an hour to teach?
Does anyone knows why Blue-Gold was viable at around 2:44:00?
Answering my own question. I thought that the pairs for viability in the splay were only from the Cutting Edge, but I now found in the rules that the full Splay is used for viability pairs.
A simple hour long teach 😅
Ouch!
Hmm...
"Is it so hard to imagine that ...."
Well... no. But in the current political climate it's hard to imagine that's enough to solve our problems. ... the intro strikes me a bit political.
It's a politically laden game. So duh. (Also, everything is politics.)
@@freudianslipper2764 ... yes... well.. .I'm a libertarian too, but I'm not a science denier. And some of the things Eklund has said about climate science forced my eyebrows a bit.
I have nothing against being political. I do have some thing against being political at the expense of scientific fact.
I do think that Matt does not share all his father's views, though.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen Maybe ... I don't know. I just found the phrasing odd.
I agree Peter. It's typical "capital cures all" nonsense from the Eklunds. The idea that capitalists will solve income inequality is hilarious, given the current economic reality. I still enjoy the game though despite its ideological bent.
“Usually games that are set in the future tend to have a bit of a dystopian feel to them”
Nope, hardly at all
Terraforming Mars
Underwater Cities
Pretty optimistic settings for games actually.
Indeed, two examples entirely closes the issue
@@generalluxun one of the games I mentioned is the #3 game on board game geek and probably one of the top selling games of all time. I'd say that's a pretty good example. The obvious other I didnt mention is Star Trek which has an abundance of games. There are games like Euphoria, which is a dystopia and ofcourse Warhammer 40k which is grimdark.
The top 100 is here
boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame
The two games on the list I think could be considered dystopian are Forbidden Stars and Android.
But there are other games set in Earth's future right there.
Scrolling past the top 100 you do find The Resistance, but also Pulsar 2849.
So no it is not usual for games that are set in the future to have a bit of a dystopian feel to them.
@@unachimba9 you don't seem to understand that quality and quantity are different things.
@@generalluxun thanks for telling me what I understand and don't understand
@@unachimba9 well you keep offering examples of quality games, top 100(many of which aren't future at all) and so on rather than quantity.
Elon Musk: the game
Hmmm. Another work placement game. Too many every week these days
Welll is not exactly a worker placement game actually.... Is more collective tablue manipulation