You got a rule wrong in Bloodstones that will drastically change the game length. You regroup after 2 refreshes with 3+, and 3 refreshes with 2. No wonder your games ran that long! Maybe it was better, though? I'm a fan of long games that are interesting throughout.
Oh man... That's how we played it! It just came out backwards in my head when explaining it!. I need to put a note in the description. Thanks for the catch.
So glad I'm not the only one who really digs this game. I've seen a couple of other reviewers who have bounced off it, and it had me thinking I would be on an island. I haven't written my review yet as I'd like a few more plays, but it's really got its hooks in me.
It's phenomenal, and a game that really reveals more depth the more you play. You can really feel its war game DNA because you really feel the arc of the play session. Every battle won or lost, territory gained or ceded -- by the end of the match you can feel the impact of those losses and you see it on the map. I'm not going to name names, but in a lot of contemporary games of conflict -- even ones I love -- the battles you have in round one are all but forgotten but the end of the game whereas the conflicts leave their mark on the map.
I have played twice at 6, in each scenario players were all new and drinking, still an easy teach and people picked up the rules easy, very efficient game, 5 min setup, 5 min pack up and 10 min teach. Gameplay is actually pretty light, but the game does take a bit longer than you might think at first. I just love how Bloodstones makes an asymmetric board game accessible to even casuals, without losing the feel of your faction being unique and fun. Planning out your turn and fighting out the combat is interesting and rewarding and surprisingly there is quite a learning curve and plenty of different ways to play.
I agree with everything above - I just wish the game was a bit shorter because it definitely does take longer than you might expect. I've been enjoying the solo campaign too.
@@gregorys9629 I won't ever play the solo personally, but I have not heard one bad report from anyone on the solo mode. Glad to see they nailed that too.
This game is right up my alley... I really don't know how I missed it during the original crowdfunding campaign since I watch KS/GameFound quite closely. I'd love to get this game right now but it seems the smart way to get it would be to wait until the expansion campaign and reprint that they are planning for late this year... so I'll probably, for once, wait since it sounds like they are trying to address some minor bag related issues and it's very expensive right now for the few copies they have available. The cost will certainly go up from the original campaign... I think folks that got the game in the original crowdfunding got a great price, but it does seem quite inflated right now. Can I wait to have the game until sometime in 2025? Yeah... I think I can do that. I think.
Fantastic review! I kind of wish I backed it for some of those extras but I may have to get this at retail. It does remind me of Wizard Kings but way streamlined and more solo-ready.
I'm not.. but just watched a little intro video on it. They seem very different honestly. Burning Banners looks interesting though. I think (obviously kind of guessing) that Bloodstones has a bit more of a unique feel to it with the multi-use dominoes bit, but Burning Banners has very nice ascetic and looks pretty cool in it's own right.
In the four player game it wasn't bad. We had a little bit of it, honestly, because two of the players were coming in cold. But, after everyone gets the hang of it, it plays pretty snappy. I can imagine a six player game might get out of hand in that regard.
I was surprised you didn’t mention Martin Wallace’s Mythotopia when comparing Bloodstones to other games. To me it seems like Mythotopia with some asymmetric factions and dominoes instead of cards. Even the map artwork looks the same!
Looks really interesting. I'm a bit burned on games where the main strategy is to build the biggest doom stack of counters and dogpile another doom stack. Was wondering if that's the main crux of this game. That first map looks a lot like Britain with Ireland on the West 😁
Yeah, but if you use all your tiles on recruiting units you won't really be able to move them much or build Villages, so there is a balance there you have to manage.
I really like the idea of the game, what makes me hesitate is how big the spread in combat can be. With 3 tiles, they will decide most fights, not your tactics.
That doesn't work out to be true actually. We had more close combats than not. If you go in equally matched... you're leaving it up to the tile draw, but it forces you to commit for more certainty... which again has it's own implications for putting all your eggs in one or two baskets. It's definitely not swingy. And, if you lose.... you lose one unit.
Most of my game plays are at 2. I rarely get to play at 3 or 4+. I know you said you haven't played it at 2 and that you think you'd prefer it at 4 or 5 but do you think it'd be good enough at 2 to warrant purchasing it?
@@chrisjohnphillips6352 Honestly, I don't think so. Definitely a try before you buy there. There are a lot of maps and a six difference factions with more to come that could keep it interesting... but I think it would be a little too much zero sum with two.
