So, completely agree on the player count thing, we will never play this with 5 again! That said, my wife and I have played at other counts and everyone who has played it (even at 5 tbh) has had an absolute blast. I don't knooowwww, can't say I disagree with you, but not sure we find your complaints as egregious as all that . I mean, you know, having fun for 2.5 hrs is still fun!
I absolutely agree. With u. Knowing the game is long and going into to it knowing that helps. That games a blast and I don't see any issues other than a few small finniky rules
Our first disagreement! How momentous! (If I'm having fun, I don't really care about a 3 hour game time. Can't really think of many 4-5 player games I like that are much quicker. And I dont see bag-building as an inherantly inferior mechanic that doesnt deserve as much time as any other mechanic, so long as it's done right - and WW does it very right imo.)
@@TheBrokenMeeple I think I'm going to start using a stopwatch once I'm past the "teach the game" part and we actually start playing. I don't buy that 25min/player figure. That means a 4 player game should take less than 2 hours. I've never come close.
Very informative review as always, thanks. It does seem that we have more reviewers every day, and yet fewer who can be relied on every day. They do need to try to be critics rather than simply cheer leaders. It is good we have the few such as yourself we can rely on to be honest. Having said that, I watched the review simply because your reviews are good; I never entertained any thought of getting this game as I can't imagine a theme that would appeal less to me!
This is a solid review and I do not disagree with the negatives. I did not notice how long the game was because I had such a good time playing this. Your timing summary is accurate (2.5hours for a 3p game, learning the rules with a teach), and the setup-takedown is fiddley. Overall, 8/10 for me. I had a great time playing, but as you say, I would never play with 5. There are just some games that… shouldn’t ever be 5p even if the rules allow.
VERY FEW games should be played at 5 players - but publishers put that number on the box to make them sell or use as a cheesy KS stretch goal tactic. Look everyone, we're putting in a 5th player, ain't that cool and worth paying us £150 for this game? NO! I never asked for it and I'd bet money that most others didn't either. 2-3 players should have been the only count really for this.
Really well done game overview and you are right with the points you are criticising. Luckily those are no game breakers for me and so far I like it :)
Thank you for doing such a great job on a comprehensive review compared to most other reviewers. Your breakdown of the game has confirmed it's not a game for me.
I recently got my deluxe KS for this delivered and am hoping to play it soon when I get back from vacation. I’ve been less interested in giant KS boxes over the past few years, but what got me jazzed about this was that anytime I went to a convention where a prototype of this was present (without expensive or finished components), it seemed like everyone enjoyed the gameplay. I’m also a huge fan of Manny Trembley’s artwork from Dice Throne, so I’m excited to see this splayed out on the table!
I’m definitely keen to give this one a shot. I had 2 buddies in our game group back this so I didn’t feel the need to pull the trigger myself. Sure looks pretty. Appreciate the review Luke!
While luck is a factor in this game, I think it is *LESS* of a factor than most people claim. One of the things I've been doing when teaching this game to new players is to have them keep the chips out of the bag until the beginning of the war phase. When the war phase starts, I tell them to count their madness chips and their "good" chips and figure out what their ratio is, and to keep that ratio in mind when forging any chips. Of course, I can have a 3:1 ratio (and often do) and still draw 4 madness back-to-back. That's luck of the draw unfortunately. One of my players drew 6 back-to-back when he was sitting at about a 3:2 ratio still in the bag, and lost a crucial round 3 fight. I admit, that's disheartening to some. Not to me, this is one of the few luck based games that I'm able to just shrug off the loss to bad luck and enjoy the time spent playing.
@@TheBrokenMeeple 2-3 hours is how long most Euro games take to play so I dont really get this argument. And yes I know this isn't a Euro game. Im just saying 2-3 hour playtime is normal in the board game industry.
@ACE99299 but why does THIS game need to be 2-3 hours is what I'm getting at. It's a luck based bag building game with not that many rounds. Such a thing should be at the most 90min, Quacks of Quedlinberg is 60-90 already and that's too long for that game. Long games should try to mitigate blind luck as much as possible.
Any game's value is subjective to the individual player and I can't rebut your complaint that this game is just too long for what it is as this will depend upon your enjoyment of the gaming experience. Personally, I love my deluxe KS version. I am ok with the game length as I greatly enjoy the theme, artwork and mishmash of game mechanics employed. You're right, it's not a dumb reach or a quick filler game. This is a game that demands the engagement of all the players in the same way as, for example, Eldritch Horror (another game I love to play with a similar game length). Ironically, Quacks just doesn't butter by parsnips in anything like the same way.
I am really enjoying playing this with my husband and senior father in-law. I agree that it is too long but at the same time sometimes I wish there was one more round or at least be able to grab more cards. I feel maybe the leaders are a bit unbalanced but I have not played it enough to be sure, right now it is just an impression. I think the board could have been smaller and an extra kick should have been given to the retail cardboard chips since it is a bag builder, specially when you have few chips in the bag (like in the beginning), it just doesn't feel great at all to try and 'shuffle' them....neither is shuffling a deck of 5 cards. I hated Quacks and can see way more strategy on Wonderland's War, yeah there is luck but you have a few ways to play around with it and prepare...although you are never truly safe once you've spent your shield and are down to your last 2 units. Overall I think I would have been better off waiting for retail, although the miniatures are nice, the game's presentation is totally ok without them. I did not get the premium chips, I would have preferred if those were the deluxe upgrade rather than the miniatures. re Setup, the deluxe edition comes with a tray (meant for the premium chips) that I kept and loaded with all my cardboard chips, it makes setup super fast because I just keep it on the table and players grab the ally chips from it.
The luck can be mitigated but you can still draw bad chips regardless and in a long game, that hurts more. If WW was 90 min, it wouldn't matter too much. Leader abilities I agree, Alice going counter clockwise really doesn't make much of an impact. Hatter and Cat have way more useful ones. Also I get that the deluxe version has the insert but i review based on retail editions as that's what you can go into the store to buy. I never give credit for what a deluxe set offers because the obvious question is "why can't that be the retail box?"
Love this game, brilliant easily a 9.5/10 gone straight to the top of our list. Played it at all player counts.😉 Great video Luke, even if I disagree with most of it..🤣 Im pretty bored of comments regarding game length, if people want to buy a short game, then fine. But, this game is very good fun and 2 -3 hours of fun, is well, just fun. Not all games need to be short, in fact im loving longer games more than short ones Nowadays. Not everyone has time for longer games, but that does not make it a worse game.
Having a long game utilise a lot of luck though and become repetitive by the end (by Act III I'm done as nothing changes and nearly two hours are up) does however. There are great long games out there but it's about justifying the length and keeping people engaged throughout.
@@TheBrokenMeeple Well we are engaged, without exception, every group of ours who have played this, even at the long 5 player count game, have all really enjoyed it. Each to there own.
It seems like we will be able to get it onto the table a lot more than Rising Sun. So far, we are having fun, three rounds is just right. If it were five rounds, that would be way too much, but it seems just fine for the time
Thanks for the very informative review, Luke! I had been intrigued by the game based on all the rave reviews, but will now definitely try before I buy. 🤓
Agree that the game is a bit long and less enjoyable when playing with 4 or 5 and there are 1 or 2 who have never played the game before. I love this game and after a few plays, my preference for the best experience is to play with 3 players who are familiar with the game.
If you think of the game as an area control game then the game length is far less of an issue. I think the perception people sell of it as a quacks replacement leads people to think of it as a shorter lighter game and it is not. I also think that the runaway leader problem is also down to the genre of game, area control tends to rely upon people targeting the leader but this is where the game does have a slight weakness as your points are often not gained at the expense of the leader so you are not encouraged to do so and may end up in you hitting the weakest player instead. Overall though I think it is a brilliant game (even at 5) and ended up buying the deluxe with chips even though I’d already got the retail copy.
It's difficult to think of the game solely as an area control game when the main crux of what you are doing is building the bag and drawing the chips. 😁
@@TheBrokenMeeple I just view that as the random element as other games have with cards,so for example comparable with Condottiere as to the cards you draw, and that you all fight in each location. Now of course Condottiere does not have the deck/bag building element as you draw from a central deck but I really like how they’ve integrated that part in to the game, But the crux of my point is that I would categorise it as an area control game and it is far more than just the bag building which is where the quacks comparisons come in. I’d also argue it is a wargame as well, not sure that would go down well with many grognards!
My biggest problem with the game is the quests. The game is already random enough. Easiest solution is just to hand out two quests to a player and that player chooses to keep one (if they are the same grab another). That prevents players from being stucked with a quest they can never hope to complete and removes a bit of the randomness.
I agree with most and i love the game but i will say that the only real thing it has in common with Quacks is that you are pulling chips from a bag. That's where the comparison ends for me and the people i play it with. Quacks is more of a party game and i cannot for the life of me figure out how it takes 60 minutes to play Quacks when it's at most a 30 minute filler game.
Agreed that the game is long, but for me, it's never *felt* long - and I'm one that typically starts to feel creeping apathy after the 2 hour mark. But, I think the length of the game isn't as much a criticism as a "something to know going in". If you love the light hearted theme and game play, but just don't enjoy longer games then....yeah....this game may not be for you. However, I can't see any way to make this game shorter without taking some of the magic out of it (for me personally anyway). It's what makes so many people say "Yeah, Quacks is ok, but this game is superior". If you shortened this game to 60-90 minutes with 4 players....well....you're probably just left with Quacks and that doesn't really intrigue me the way this game does.
If this game could be 90 minutes, it would destroy Quacks. Either the rounds need to be shorter or there needs to be only two rounds, each game always felt one round too long when at higher player counts. I doubt one less round would kill the game, you are just going through the motions again, if need be just add a couple extra cards gained in the first two tea party phases.
@@TheBrokenMeeple totally respect your opinion! And honestly, I think it's beneficial for people to see both positive and negative reviews in order to truly evaluate if a game is for them :) Enjoyed the review!
We enjoy it at two players. Has similar concept to Quacks, but I love the card drafting aspect that Quacks does not have. We'd never get a chance to play this (or any game that isn't light) with 4-5 players, so not a big concern for us. I agree the setup and tear down is a lot. I'd like to try it at three players. The premium chips are great. Rest of the deluxe stuff I can deal without
What's the problem with a 2-3 hour game? Sure there is a lot of luck, but there is still a lot of strategy/choices in what you are doing. Also, with the deluxe edition, setup doesn't take that long at all. You just pull the chips/minis out of the insert as you need them.
A lot of luck in a 3 hour game is problematic though when all that time investment is undone by random chance. The game does also get a bit repetitive and stale after all that time. Also its looking at the retail version because that's the one that most consumers will have. Can't give brownie points for a deluxe version that costs infinitely more cash.
I will say that I like that you aren't purely on board the hype machine and have these honest negative comments, but I do think that you're kind of overblowing the length issue. First time playing, with teach, with 3, was just under 1:45 for me. That's a perfectly reasonable length. Yeah, I can see 5 as dragging, but as long as there are player counts at which the game works, I'm not going to ding a game just because it's slow with the max player count. Honestly, that's the vast majority of games out there. I agree with most of the other criticisms, though.
Games stating that they are playable with wide player counts should work at those player counts otherwise it's misleading. Imagine if you bought 7 Wonders knowing it could handle 2 players and then came across that awful 2 player variant in the box. You'd be annoyed right? Under 2 hours for 3 people with a teach feels like an anomaly even if not impossible. Though including setup and takedown also........less feeling it. To keep the game short, it's had to be played at 2, max 3. At 4-5 it's just insane and bear in mind this is a game that relies on 75% luck with the bag drawing aspect. Such randomness shouldn't be in long games.
@@TheBrokenMeeple re player count. Yes, I’d be annoyed. Talking about good player counts for a game is important so that people are informed. But I also don’t tell people that 7 Wonders is a bad game because it doesn’t support 2 players well. I just say that it’s good with 4 or more. The fact that it’s bad at two isn’t a knock on the game. It’s just a fact that consumers should be aware of when making a decision. Same goes here. As to length, I can only speak to my personal experience as it’s all I have to go on. You can doubt all you like but frankly I think it’s kind of a dick move. I was just trying to add a data point. Set-up was done before we got there and takedown wasn’t that bad. It’s the time we use to talk about the game anyway. I actually agree that the game is a bit too luck dependent for the length regardless.
My only downside with this game for me is if you haven’t brought the deluxe version then set up and take down time plus organising the box is a nightmare. Love the game though it’s fantastic but it really needs an insert and/or capsule organiser 😂
Deluxe gives you game trayz does it? Thats fair enough, however I will always review based on retail versions because most people will be playing that one and with the price that deluxe versions rack up, you can only get so many brownie points for getting the aesthetics right. For e.g. Elf Creek and their retail games.
I’m still on the fence with this. I love Quacks for its simplicity and I’m not a fan of area control much. Also after seeing the deluxe boxes I don’t want to get the retail version. I still don’t like drawing cardboard chits from a bag. Willing to try someone else’s copy. But not having the chips is already -20pts from my enjoyment. Lols
I'm not a fan of area control myself, but this game I actually LOVE. I think it's because there's really no aspect of other people "killing" your people. You're taking them out yourself as a result of pushing your luck. It just doesn't feel as bad because of that to me. It also feels way more lighthearted and fun than serious. There's more laughter and cheers than cursing and anger (well, there's still cursing, but it's out of a sense of fun, not being frustrated lol).
Yep looks cool but I'd never table this, these day outside of solo games it's tough to play things longer than an hour. I've started requesting refunds for a few KS that I now know would not fit my gaming habits and only backing something like RA. In fact I have started to buy games that are quick and easy to play with non-gamers like mysterium park or colt super express. Do you have any games that are fairly cheap, teach in less than 10 min for anyone to enjoy that you would recommend?
Ontiama for 2 players is one of the quickest games to teach ever. On The Underground is also very quick to teach. Rune Stones is mighty fast. As is Seasons.
I felt the same way when I got dragged into the game at one of my game nights. This game is obnoxiously garish in its art, and the theme is not one I’m the least bit interested. So imagine my surprise when I played the game and fell in love with it. Fast forward two weeks to find me scouring eBay for a copy of the deluxe version. This game is definitely one of those that sneaked out and bit me. If I had any complaints it’s that the asymmetrical aspect of this game has not been adequately play tested. The Mad Hatter’s power set is ridiculously good, especially when compared to the mediocrity of Alice. Fortunately, any leader can win - we had a game last night that the Alice player (new to the game) blew everyone out of the water, and I widely regard Alice as the weakest of the player options. We have a number of house rules that fix the game. Now if I could just somehow get people to play it a little faster. Last game session we played took 4.5 hours.
4.5 hours I mean for a bag building push your luck game that's just insane. The game has fun mechanics hence my score, but it loses a lot for that horrible time length. I also agree on the player balance. I don't find the Jabberwocky that useful either but Alice's power means so little compared to the Hatters ALWAYS useful powerful ability.
@@TheBrokenMeeple To be fair, an hour of that was probably teaching it. But even 3.5 hours is ridiculously long. One of my friends made a point last night though. Unlike a lot of other long games I've played and complain about, for some reason Wonderlands' War doesn't FEEL like a long game, if you're not watching the clock. Each round should not take an hour, and yet it basically does. But there's so much going on that you're never really feeling like you're sitting around *waiting* for someone else to do their turn (unless they take a long time in the tea party drafting - then its painful).
Thank you for the review. Interested in the game after watching reviews praising this game. But after watching your review, I now know this game is not for me because my gaming partner don't want to play any game that take more than 10 minutes to learn. Unless there is a good official/unofficial solo mode released, I gonna give this game a pass.
No official solo mode and I guarantee you can't teach this in 10 min, other reviewers don't mention this detail though. You're investing time into this.
My wife and my friend's wife are similar. Generally, we play shorter, lower complexity games because they don't like long rules explanations. However, I'm working on a way to introduce that won't feel quite as laborious. They prefer to learn as they go, so if I can just give the basics and explain the rest as we play the game, I think they will dig it. So, I'm going to start with a mock War phase. Going to try it without modifying bags - that would just complicate things. Show them how it works first with nothing but Supporters, then do an example with castles, leaders, and Wonderlandians in the mix (depending on how they're doing, might even do three sample battles and split this up more). At this point, they'll have a firm grasp on how the war phase works and, by proxy, they'll have a good idea of what is valuable when it comes to drafting. You can then reset the battlefields and go into Tea Party 1. Give them the option to choose, but if they're not sure, have them roll the Shard die and advance that many spaces (or better yet, a standard d6 with the result divided by two rounded up). Explain the cards they land on and when they feel ready, they can pick their own. After that, your back into the War Phase, but this time, for real. I've also played around with the idea of leaving out Wonderlandians, ally chip powers, and Forging/upgrading initially - removing any of these things can help ease someone into the game without putting them to sleep going over each intricate detail. Hopefully, it will work!
I would like to point out the irony that your biggest complaint is the duration but you have a large number of movie/tv show clips that extends your video and makes it like 5 minutes longer than necessary. 😂😂😂
Honest question - Does this guy ever ever get really excited about a board game? I feel like every review I've seen he's been 'it's meh, at best', lol.
I'm less forgiving than others for sure ;-) But certainly some games are worth talking about! It just means more when I do compared to when people just rate everything 7+ no matter what :-)
@@TheBrokenMeeple Thanks for the response. I do agree that some other board game reviewers are TOO positive, so I do appreciate the honesty. I guess I just like it when I can tell a reviewer is really passionate about a board game and makes a convincing argument as to why. TO be fair I did buy Whistle Mountain based on your review.
That's what it says on the box. All publishers lie on the box about the time of games. You will not finish a two player in 50 min and certainly not a four player in less than 1 hour 40 min. Guaranteed!
Why is playing a game for 3+ hours that has some luck a bad thing? Look no further than what has happened with Texas hold'm. It has tones of luck and tournaments can go a full day or longer and yet it has exploded in growth the last decade. A card game that is televised to millions that can come to a coin flip after 15 hours of play. I don't usually care for games with a lot of luck but when done right, they can be fun. I just played my first game of Wonderlands War yesterday. We played the retail version with 5 players and it went about 3 hours and I must say, I enjoyed the whole 3 hours. Meanwhile, the table next to us started a 4 player game of Arc Nova 2 hours before us and ended an hour after our game. I would venture to say that we had more fun in less time than they did.
They were AP-ing like crazy and likely reading the rules from scratch if they took that long with Nova. It should have been a similar time frame. Poker is a game dating back hundreds of years with people earning life fortunes out of it. The fun comes from the bluffing aspect. WW is a game that could easily take 90 max but has been stretched out to 3 hours. By the time Act III begins, most players are done at the table. You've spent two acts getting your bag up to speed, now you're essentially cranking the handle at that point, adding nothing new but everything can still be undone by a bad bag draw.
@@TheBrokenMeeple the premium chips were an add on for the Deluxe set - so you could get the deluxe and just have the cardboard tokens. I know....I went all in and I can tell you the wallet pain that resulted from adding those chips lol.....but I'm soooo glad I did
@@TheBrokenMeeple page 14 under feats. When a battle is finished declare you have completed a feat and place face up on your play area, you can only complete 1 feat per battle. The portion end of the game can be effectively stacked, but not the feats.
@@SinamonX ah I think we have misunderstood each other. I'm referring to the objective part. I know that feat parts have to be declared at the time that's fine. What I'm saying though is that once out, if multiple objectives share the same requirement, the rules don't stop you scoring for all of them which is bonkers.
@@TheBrokenMeeple your video stated you got 27 points by not doing anything in the last round when getting 3 quests which is a little bit misleading. You had to take those actions in the tea party over other things, you also had to fulfill 3 feats in 3 different battles, that is the only way you can get 27 points. I agree there is some randomness in the game but is not as random as you make it to be.
@@SinamonX I got those 3 feats in 3 battles. In act III none of the quests are difficult to achieve though I got lucky with a couple of "finish with these chips" quests. Once the feats were done I already had 7 rooks and 7 creatures from another quest/prior antics so two of them were automatically done and the other was automatic under some other condition. There is still plenty enough luck and swingyness to make the 2-3 hour game length a bit extreme.
@@TheBrokenMeeple What I mean is it seems like a personal preference. I like games that last several hours. I had no problem playing this game for several hours.
@@mithrandir404 A lot of people don't like games taking longer than they deserve. A game of Hegemony deserves to be long. This bag builder slug fest does not. The term is "overstay your welcome*
Oh right, odd. You wouldn't be the first though, certainly the whole time length thing is divisive (guessing that's the main issue). Many have said it's very long but there's more in that group who don't mind that and still love it, which is cool. In any case 7 is still good!
