Zee, you weren't the only one to recommend this to me at Essen, but you were the clincher. I played it and bought it as soon as it became available on the French market. Usually with these little card games I can see how they are clever, but I still don't care. This one with the backwards scoring keeps my brain engaged from start to finish, and that's all I ever want in any game.
Everybody's talking about the "reverse scoring", but it actually appears as convoluted as the star shaped movement in the original version of "Carpe Diem". You could make the scoring a lot simpler by leaving all the cards face-up, start by scoring the sanctuaries, then score the first (leftmost) card and remove it from your tableau (or flip it face-down), then proceed to the second card, and so on. The only reason to do it backward is because the most valuable cards will be scored last, adding to the excitement (if you find scoring exciting).
Yea i was thinking about this point too. At first i thought when you play the first card, it stays face down hence the reverse scoring might make sense but the memory part of it could be too much to manage
I was thinking the same thing. Personally, I find describing it as "scoring in reverse" false and misleading - the scoring is "forward" - each card is scored based on what comes after it. Now come to think of it - it might be fun to truly play "score in reverse", with cards scored based on "cards before it" - that would be the brain burner that "I thought" this was.
A lot of people don’t like games with complex scoring mechanics 😅 although this looks like a great game and I’d love to own it, because the scope of audiences on this is limited, I can’t imagine this game will do well.
Surprised it took this long to review it. It was a hit at Essen where I preordered it. Nearly everyone I’ve introduced it to has enjoyed it. Also the 6p game is less luck and more “what’s best for me” and less “hate draft.”
A strong 8 from me. I really like it, just wish the cards would have been normal size instead of that square shape. They're quite annoying to handle and shuffle and they take up more space, plus I have to go buy special sleeves just for them. 😕
I hate sleeving square cards. If you are not aligning them based on the back you might put some inside the others and rip the sleeves. In rectangular cards they might end up some up some down. No issue, the longer are safe to shuffle into.
Yeah, I sleeved Wild Space that also has square cards, and I've torn more of those sleeves than all my other games combined. Too easy for them to get turned around and rip each other.
Thanks for the review, helps me to try this one out. I think it would be really good if the team can mention during reviews if a game is on BGA or tabletopia. Lots more virtual groups since the pandemic - we are always looking for new stuff.
If its on BGA (and others) changes quite quickly tho. I guess its easiest to mark those you like from the reviews and then check if that exists on your site. Or vise versa of course :)
Played this on BGA last month for first time and it hit my wishlist to buy immediately. Need to try it out with higher player count to see how that plays differently, but if it is as much fun as it is with 2 or 3 players and it doesn't slow the game down too much, I would also say 8.5. If there was a decent theme to relate to with great artwork, I would give it a 9. These weird, obscure fantasy settings are not appealing to me and actually I would have never tried it if it wasn't on BGA.
You play a card, then you start collecting ressources to unlock that card. That's the usual way tasks work in a game. And whether you score backwards or not literally makes no difference but is rather a subjective choice. It's the definition of "gimmick" that Zee asserts the game wouldn't have.
To clarify: you score backwards because the resources of earlier cards do not count towards later cards. Resources on later cards count for cards played before it.
indeed, but that's the case for every, let's say quest-like tasks in games. This statement about "scoring backwards" just adds an unnecessary obstacle for newcomers to understand a very simple matter (they already know how to fulfill a task in the future!). "Look at a card, add ressources right to the card" That's the way to expain the plain normal mechanism. No need to make anything "backwards", one doesn't even need to flip the cards and it works in any order you want. disclaimer: I like the game.
I see what you're saying. Yes, that's true, and I can grok that pretty easily but I've taught this enough times and seen people who understand it more easily the way the rulebook recommends. I personally don't flip over my cards and assumed most people would also understand it without doing that but I've seen enough people who get confused. I think your way makes perfect sense to you but would trip up other people. But your right, multiple ways of getting to the same result.
That's right. On bgg the designers themselves (I think) stated it was a decision almost solely based on theme and flavour. That's why there are so many variants. It's unfortunate they didn't work the way "home" into the rules (for example by flipping the card after you've played it although the game would become ultra hard, then :-D).
This is one of those games that i find more "smart" than "fun". Dont just autobuy this because its hyped. You really need to like tight/agonizing efficiency puzzles to enjoy it imo
