While I almost never overlap with Roy on his perspective on games - I think this episode is a really good use case for WHY the "group reviews" Dice Tower does are a good thing. I play with some players more like Roy, I play with some players more like Tom, etc. By seeing greater than one perspective we can see "well, THIS player might hate that, THIS player might actually like that".
This seems like one good idea in search of a good game. Keep the first half - quick light deckbuilding - and replace the second half with an actual game. Something on the order of Mindbug, where you have some actual choice in how you play. If it was that kind of game, it would be brilliant. I hope someone else evolves this concept.
@@philthephreak I actually own Challengers! and I really think it is a great and also strategic game. That said - the group reviews showed that not everyone might share my enthusiasm - this has been correct. I have some people I play with that I would never bring this game out, and this review warned me that that was the case before my purchase - helpful
yes, or "Idle fantasy combat (with gatcha)"! I hate everything that says idle and tells me it plays when my phone is off and therefore it doesn't need me.... This game doesn't need me to play my deck, and I don't need to play this game (again) either.
I picked this one up about a week ago, and I'm 100% with Tom on it! The decisions are light, but make a big difference. You make your choices, and see how it unfolds. There's a bunch of luck in how the cards come out, but it's silly and fun. Once you run through a round, you get an idea of how you should adjust for the next one. It's honestly a bit like betting on a race. You make your choices ahead of time, and then watch what happens. You don't have any agency in what happens during the race itself. It has choices like a filler, and plays like a party game, and the rounds are quick enough that it works!
I think we can all feel Roy’s pain here. Everyone has one game that they hate and they can’t understand why other people even play it 🤣I definitely want to give this one a try
I’d like Roy’s reaction to Tom’s score as a GIF please! I often worry that the Dice Tower people are yes men to each other and Tom and a lot of group think, so I actually LOVED Roy’s reaction. He actually cannot believe Tom likes this game and has a twinge of disgust over it. Nice!
I think the rules explanation glossed over (and simplified) the impact that "redrawing" has. During the drafting phase, you can discard any number of cards and redraw that many, THEN choose which cards to keep. So for example, if you draw 5 and get one 1 card you might want, you can discard and redraw 4 more (or keep 2, draw 3). Then from those 5 you can choose which 2 to add to your deck. It might sound small, but this really does make the decisions more interesting and impactful than just "draw 5 keep 2. It's still a light, silly game, but there's slightly more meat than this review suggests.
@@Nebenerwerbsbauer you're right, i forgot that we've house ruled it a bit differently for more flexibility. Here's the original rule text from the rule book: "Once per Deck Phase you may discard the cards drawn this round and draw that number of new cards from the same Level Pile. If you are allowed to pick 2 cards you may discard and draw new cards before or after you picked your first card."
I could actually see this being a great transition from war to other games. My nieces enjoy war and I always liked it as a pastime, but I would much rather pull this out for that same feeling plus a bit more interest. War has a certain feeling of being able to win even when you shouldn't. It's also a game where losing doesn't really matter. It's fun just for the comparisons between values and the upsets. Light, light, light.
This has been on wishlist for my family since I heard about it and I still really want to get it, but mainly to play it with my kids. Surprised that wasn't brought up in this review that this would be a great family game. Did anyone play it with their kids, and if so, what did they think of it? As for agency in the game, I think there is enough for me during the deck building phase when I am playing with my family. I like how the actual game play is on auto pilot (like War) as this would make it easier for my younger kids to play.
I noticed that you hadn’t had any replies yet. I’ve been playing with three of my kids, ranging in age between 12 and 18. They all enjoyed it, although my 12 year old got a little salty when losing in the final to me. “Luck!” he shouted when my cowboy made one of his better cards hit the bench. Ultimately it won me the final. I had two cowboys in my deck though so had a good chance of that happening. He wanted to play a revenge tournament the next day though so it’s all good. It’s simply a silly fun game. I enjoy it very much. Not every game has to be so serious with many meaningful decisions. Games can be fun too.
only thing is you have to be lucky to hit certain cards at certain points but building a good deck mitigates the randomness.. i mean why is dominion different it is also random and automatic to an extent... like most deck builders are....a rarely stupid great game, for me a 9/10...roy needs couple more plays cause there is strategy involved here it is not just pure luck...i just build an almost yellow only card deck where i had basically full control on how and when some cards came up and also had some great when on bench bonuses...surely with more plays you can become better it is not pure chance...
More bumper cards than bumper cars, actually. I love Tom's smug smile during the whole video, first in anticipation of Roy's rant and then amused by his indignation at his own "8". I'm definitely getting this game; with the right people it's gonna be a blast.
I've played kitchen table MTG, but never got into Friday Night Magic or any other tournament TCG's like Yugi-Oh, Pokemon etc. Always wanted to have the experience of a sealed deck tournament, but having gotten into TCG/CCG's later in life I found the point of entry more difficult, so in the past few years I've found myself jumping into digital CCG's like Hearthstone and Marvel Snap, and leaning more towards the classic euros or themed co-op table tops for in-person game nights. The premise of Challengers being a microcosm of a CCG tournament experience, all in one self-contained box with approachable, "light" mechanics and rules to easily get players of all skill levels and experience playing quickly is really intriguing, and the physical adaptation of the relatively new genre of "auto battler" games is very interesting as well. Just ordered a copy and am excited to bring it to a group, and of course will make sure to level-set with them that it will likely be more of a "zany" fun experience with occasional strategic choices in deck construction, rather than a "true" MTG-like approach of player agency and tactical play.
I really would like to love this game but there is a disconnect I can't ignore. In an autobattler you have more options and a lineup. So you have more control. And I think the missing of the lineup is what bothering me. Hopefully there will be a expansion introducing a new mechanic between the deckbuilding and the battlingphase for more control. Only a little bit, but if there only will be new characters its a pass for me.
I held back on this for awhile because of Roy’s comments. Eventually tried it on BGA and LOVED IT! Went and bought the physical copy later. Fun game. Lol
This is a game that you just shouldn't take too seriously. If you win you win, if you lose you lose, its most of the time not the ultimate best player winning but (in our games) always people having fun! Its basically hearthstone battleground or teamfight tactics in a board game, it actually simulates those quite well.
@@pridas5202 I agree with your point, which is why I would never play this competitively. But I do think that this boardgame comes closest to simulate autochess, because of the multiple battles against switching opponents, basically as if you are in a lobby together. Apart from that, influencing the deck that you are playing with every round and then hoping for the best with the setup you made does give me a similar feel as those games previously mentioned.
This one looks interesting to me. For light games to play with people who honestly don't want to think too much (theres a lot of them), this is nice. Its always neat to see a game that focuses on a single concept and tries to expand only on the one concept without adding too much complexity. It kind makes me think of it as a marble race, but you're allowed to modify your marble before you start. Does it really matter what you did to modify it? Maybe not, but lets see who wins anyway. Definitely a game you only want to introduce to certain people in a certain mood. Might be a good one for the young ones.
Just played this weekend with nongamers is what a huge hit. I don’t like party games but really enjoyed this one. Plan on buying myself. We played from 4 to 8 enjoyed all plays
What Tom, Chris and Roy didn't mention: This is one of a rather small number of games that you can play with 8 players, that isn't overly long and where the players have little to no downtime. It's easy to learn and play, so you can play it with your kids as well as with seasoned gamers and even if someone doesn't like it, like Roy, it's over rather quickly. I think the luck factor is too high, both when drawing cards and when playing them, but it's still fun turning over your cards not knowing what will come next. Now, for up to 5 players, there are plenty of games that I like more. When it comes to games for 8 players, I can recommend Challengers!
Would try it just to see if it's really that bad - Roy's tastes are usually to niche for me (space, fantasy, big), but based on his arguments, this sounds like something I wouldn't enjoy
The first round or two are very random, yes. But you get the agency Roy's asking for by drafting cards that give you better control over your deck; it really seems like y'all just didn't play long enough for Roy to see that in action. There are plenty of powers that let you cycle cards back into your deck, rearrange your deck, and even search through your deck to find specific cards... you just have to draft them as opposed to other cards. That's one of the reasons I love this game, we've played about ten times so far and I've tried different strategies for each one.
Team Roy! Playtested at Essen, maybe got a bad explantion, but essentially stopped after 2nd round as there seemed zero decision possibility. So yeah... maybe a 3 or 4 for me, but not higher
Ha, this is amazing! I'm definitely with Tom on this one, love this game! I can totally understand Roy as well though, the first time I played this one of the players dropped out after the second round.
Played this the other day with 7 other people. It was all our first time playing the game. Interestingly we did actually make a mistake. When we benched cards, we simply put any number of cards that just lost on the same pile together, rather than spreading out and stacking any with matching names. But the game still worked perfectly fine, our rounds were probably a bit longer but that wasn't a problem. The deck building was fun, each round got more and more interesting with more complex cards. And swapping seats to play different people helped us to interact with people we didn't know that well. While I see a more experienced board gamer might not like the 'automatic' card plays, I didn't find it an issue. I had added plenty of cards in my deck that let me look through my deck, sometimes moving cards within it. And in the end I had the most fan points, a little due to the slight variation in points for a rounds trophy. But I did lose in the extra final showdown round, which was fair enough as my opponent had cards with higher stats and got to clear plenty of cards from his bench. Really liked it overall, and so did the rest of the players. And it was always hilarious getting to say things like: 'My dog benched your cowboy.'
I played this a lot on board game arena with two other friends who have played hearthstone battlegrounds and teamfight tactics before. For context, I've hit Diamond in tft, one of my friends has hit Gold, and the other has hit Challenger multiple times on the NA server. There's actually a surprising amount of depth in the game especially with the reroll feature, and while there is a lot of luck involved there is still plenty of skill expression and it always feels fun. Auto battlers inherently have a lot of luck anyways, with random shops and fight rng, so I think the variance is actually a good thing.
This game is great. Played with my family and we all had fun. If i played with my gaming group, i would really hate it. But as a family game where my kids and mom can play along it is really funny.
Seems it'd be fun for a nice filler or end of night game especially with families. Something you don't take seriously and kind of turn your brain off. I grew up playing card games with a traditional deck of cards before bed every night, this seems like it would work in a similar vein. Definitely a lot of space in the design for expansions. I hope they come out with an app for it.
I feel like this is the first of a new type of card game and it will be iterated on (even by challengers 2) and better games will come out that surpass it in every way.
Yes, Roy, agree that I want agency. Which is why I avoid so many games that turn on rolling dice to battle, and seeing what happens. I don't care that I can sometimes mitigate the rolls; i have The Worst Luck Of Any Human in History.
Im with Tom and Chris on this one. Its such a fun, super simple, goofy game. There is no ego involved in this game, you can sit down with the right group and just have fun 🎉
Hey that game looked super boring to me at first. But I love your review of it guys. The synergy between the 3 of you having different opinions was on point, I can relate to everything each of you have said ✌️ love it. I will give this game a try for sure
I think this game looks like it has more skill involved in it than Roy thinks. Knowing what cards to pick, which to ditch and how to build cool combo potential into your deck will have a huge impact on the success of your deck. If it is anything like Super Auto Pets, then that will definitely be the case. Of course, this means that having played it a few times means you will have a much better understanding of what kinds of decks work well so you should in theory get better with more plays. Can't wait to play it myself. The fact that it plays 8 is awesome.
This reminds me a lot of the old "Quickstrike" card game from Upper Deck. It only had three sets: Avatar, Pirates of the Caribbean, and some random anime.
When I watched the tutorial I more and more got the creeping thought: oh no... I really dislike this... So my score would very likely be near Roy's. Not my cup of tea I think.
Not sure where i stand for this game . The gamer side doesn’t like it , too lucky not enough ´´game ´ ´ The average joe side really loved it and had fun playing it !!! 🤷🏻 Might be between 7 and 8
It is a stupid game but fun!!!! 😂 It’s absolutely not supposed to be for serious gamers. This is indeed a game you should put in your « big group/party game » category. It’s absolute fun with large family groups and everyone can join (the kids, grandma, etc….) 😊 It’s a good 1st deck builder experience for your family members that do not game 👍
Well, this review throws the idea of "review score groupthink" out the window... the disparity is delicious. I rate the game an 7 with 4+ casual players, and a 2 as a 1-3 player game.
Did Roy enjoy Quacks of Quedlinburg? I liked Quacks but my biggest issue was that the only real decisions in the game was during the buy phase. After that, your just placing randomly pulled chips. There’s a few decisions like the blue tokens that let you pull multiple tokens at once or deciding when to stop, but for the most part it’s pretty simple. It seems like this game has that same flow. Build up your deck/bag, and then see what happens.
Glad you mentioned quacks here cuz that’s another SdY’s winner that I personally dislike. The thing I accept with Quacks however is that is actually innovative, and I can see how a different type of player may enjoy it - and you are actually improving your probability each time you buy new tokens for your bag. Challengers is the most undeserved winner of SdY since its inception (especially for the kennerspiel). It makes me question the entire awards enterprise. There’s zero innovation here, virtually zero agency. It’s the monopoly of 2023 except monopoly WAS innovative for its time. Tom says he prefers playing against real players versus the robot but to be honest, the other players could go play a decent game in another room whilst their Cardbaord cutouts play this game and the game would play just the same and Tom would have just as a good a time (apparently!). Somebody somewhere is pulling some strings to give this game some traction as in reality it should be confined to board game Alcatraz!
It's definitely not a 7 or 8. But slightly better than 2. But i agree this game doesn't have enough decisions to make it interesting. I much rather play Libertalia than this
100% agree with Roy. You shuffle and play in this random order, no decision, then you pick extra cards, after 2 rounds you understand you need more of the same rather than diverse cards with various powers (none of which are actually very interesting...). You're lucky enough to have picked 3 Sharks or 3 T-Rex? Oh but you may not be lucky enough and you wont draw them at the right time! right... And then at 6 it drags for soooo long... Plus artwork is ugly, everything looks like a cheap card game prototype... Wow. Never again with me.
This game seems to fall into the same category as Quacks, and Galaxy Trucker. Approx half of the game is decisions with some impediment and then the other half is watching the results of what you did. Neither of those two worked for me, I suspect this would be the same.
Roy, preach brother! The description of this game reminds me of politics. One person says something smarter than the other so the other just keeps talking more nonsense until they drown out the first person with some nonsense that the first person didn’t include so now they’ve won. But wait! The first person takes a breath then just talks more than the other person did and now they’ve won. Rinse and repeat until they’ve gotten so caught up in wild random things that they both forget the substance of what is required to make a good conversation and solve the issue. Roy solved it in 1, it’s a game so let’s see, and 2 walking away from it cuz there isn’t Might as well flip quarters at the base of a wall and come up with bunch of different reasons why you won 🤣
I am 100% in camp Roy here. I like plenty of lighter games, but, as Roy said, there's basically zero decisions in the gameplay here. This looks like hot garbage.
wrote the comment before Tom's Analogy: So this game to war is 'magical athlete' to a dice-based simple race. maybe less funny and seems like not enough 'special' in the special cards.
I watched BGG's Gamenight episode with this game and found out that there are no choices/decisions during matches. If Tom showed 10 sample matches with these cards with the same card order, those matches would be identical. Not same winner, all 10 matches would be IDENTICAL in every move. You could save time, reveal first card and owner of strongest card gets a win. There are cards that can change this, but looks like they are rare. I didn't see them in this video, they were not in Gamenight playthrough. I am with Roy on this one.
Uh what? "If you set up the cards in the same order, every game will be the same!" Well duh. But thats not what happens, the same decks could play out very different with a different shuffle.
@@mahuloq7562 And, if You shuffle differently in my version where strongest top cards win, top card would reveal different outcome. That doesn't mean it's interesting game. You didn't change my opinion on this game.
"Come on guys! Please hate the thing I arbitrarily decided I hated based on petty, bad logic and my own terrible decision making. 😦" The fact that he then arrogantly claimed Chris only liked it because he was winning is as hilarious as it is frustrating. What a nuclear bad take.
