I 100% agree with wishing for double layer player boards. I would get that in a heart beat. I agree 4 is the best player count. I found the winner can go any way. I don’t agree with rich getting richer. Many times they lose lots of points the third round because they have more madness chips and shards to subtract points. They do good the first rounds for grabbing good cards that have those expenses. I also bought a great insert that makes set up superrr fast. So when I play with people who know the game it honestly does go quick. Playing with different characters and different cards really makes every game feel different. I LOVE it. Wayyy better than quacks.
Love the review. Also just a fun fact this video is a full circle for me since the very first video I saw from Alex was the Wonderlands war and why I am backing it .
I disagree on the “player aid” which is less of an aid and a more of a quick reference. It’s a fantastic summary of the games flow that makes it incredibly easy to get back into months later, and answers most questions on timing and sequence of events you may have in the most direct and succinct way. I wish more games included a flowchart-laden quick reference.
@@elgo93 each player already gets a player aid. Explains how each tea party and war phase works in simple terms. That is just one giant square with dimensions of the rulebook with a giant diagram. Technically you could call the rulebook a player aid.. It’s good for having more specific details than the player aid cards players get but without needing to break open the rules.
Good review, I like the game a lot. I don't think the runaway leader thing is as big of an issue as you say it is. Early on wins are not a big deal, getting 2-6 points. Castles make a small difference yes, but battling in the same place you have a castle and winning means you are giving up points for winning somewhere else and putting down a castle. In addition, if you are going hard into winning a battle, quests are probably taking a back seat. I have seen many games where a player does not do well with the area control and winning on the board, but had tons of fully completed quests cards giving them massive end of game scoring.
Exactly. It’s a game where you can’t do everything. You gotta pick a route. To do area control and get castles everywhere and upgrade the castles points from forging? To focus on points on the board? To focus on quests and getting second place on the points? Etc etc.
More people need to get this game. Back the second print... Great game with tactical, strategic, and timing depth. (Luck makes it perfect for middle weight non hardcore gamers)
Another thing on production - the game has a long setup. This could have been helped more with a better designed insert where player trays could be removed. I am happy with our 3 player games so far. The play time is a bit better and there was still a lot of contests for locations.
Have been waiting for this review. Have received the game, read the rules, set it up and run through it myself to make sure I've read it correctly. Waiting for the right group to play it. Please to hear its a solid game.
Agree with all your critiques. Our group has managed to get the game down to around 2 hours with 4 players and that still feels a little long. Quacks give me the same feeling tho so I gladly play this instead. I'm thinking of house-ruling to "Ragnarok" 2 battle regions in a 3-player game and 1 region in a 4-player game from the onset (redraw quest cards for corresponding regions) to increase player interaction and possibly shorten the game. What do you think about the balance among the leaders? There's discussion about how the Jabberwocky is underpowered and the Mad Hatter being OP. I just don't think the Jabberwocky is a fun leader to play with and may never include him in my games again which is fine since I would not consider playing this game at 5 players anyways. Hopefully the expansion will give us dual layer boards and adjust/balance the leaders.
The Ragnarok idea is good for house ruling shorter games but maybe take one less yes card or something. The nice thing about all the areas being open is deciding how thin to stretch because your bag gets depleted. If you get the same benefits with less areas nobody will struggle or push their luck as much. For me I don’t like quacks nearly as much, I like the drafting and fighting in this.
@@KMReviews Good point on stretching thin. Yeah, since both games feel long, I rather play Wonderland's War over Quacks. Reminds me of my favorite game, Blood Rage, with the drafting and area control.
This game has become one of our favorite games in our household. Me and my son absolutely love it. I’ve really enjoyed it at 2, 3 & 4 players. I do agree it can get long but it speeds up A LOT once people know how to play. Our last 4 player game was 1hr and 50min.
This is a great game and it does run about 30 mins too long. It seems like there should be a place where they could have streamlined something. Also, I have to disagree on the complaints about it being luck driven. Every game has luck involved. This one gives you a lot of control as to what you put in your bag as well as when to stop pulling chips from your bag. I'd rather it be this than just a dice roll, although I think this pulling/reveal step might be what eats up that 30 mins. Also if you aren't involved with a battle, you have nothing to do until it's done and then you have to go to every region for a battle. Also, I don't know how dual layered player boards were skipped with the Kickstarter for this. It's not a deal breaker at all, but its noticeably absent. I did find the player aid odd as well. It's not that it's bad in concept but it honestly makes the game seem more complicated than what it is. Maybe the layout could have used another QA pass or something. It's more of a design document than a player aid or quick reference. Also forging. This was the part of the game I found it hard to wrap my head around for some reason. Maybe the terminology or something...it doesn't feel like what you expect forging to feel like in a game. Once you get it, it's fine, but that was the one part I had to keep going back to the rule book for.
Not every game is lucky driven there are quite a few deterministic games that all information is known. Then you have varying levels of randomness that exist frome very little to almost completely random games. Trying to ignore this is just inane. People like different levels of randomness and you telling then that it isn't too random is your feelings and pretending that all games have randomness to attempt to bolster your claim is just an attempt to deceive others, whether you feel like you are or not.
I really enjoy this as well, but you are right - the playtime (and down time) kills it. With 4 it often takes between 2 - 1/2 hours which is way too long for a game as simple as this.
Why does it matter if it is simple or not. If people are having fun playing it then what does completely matter? Complex games doesn't equal fun games for everybody. You may like all the crunchy bits when others hate the exact same things in a game you value. Your "its too simple" argument is just gatekeeping, which isn't always bad but this gatekeeping is another facet of elitism, like wine "connoisseurs."
@@thomgizzizI don't think he means that he doesn't like it cause it's simple. I think he just feels that the game could be more streamlined given the simplicity of what's happening on the table, as more complex games could be played in the same or less time. There are people though that discredit more simple games and I definitely echo your sentiments.
This is not an area control game. This is a push your luck + bag-building game. If people get this game thinking this is an area control or war game, they will be disappointed. This game is more straightforward than it looks, but the marketing and looks make it look bigger and broader than what it really is; a push-your-luck + bag-building game.
I sold this one. Juice wasn’t worth the squeeze. Needed to be streamlined for quicker play, more enjoyable and rewarding mechanics, and ease of set up and rules recall. The added layers add complexity but not strategy, just extra things to do and handle. So then really it could’ve have been more of a Cubitos experience and would’ve then been a home run. We immediately fell in love with Cubitos and it was a “fun cannon”, as Board Game Ramblings say, but this was wasn’t nearly as fun to us.
Quacks. It doesn't outstay its welcome while delivering more fun. The area control aspect isn't that interesting. Other games do it better, just not with bag building.
@@BoardGameCo Understandable, I need to get more plays in as well to really make a firm opinion. The reason I ask is that our first game felt extremely lopsided, and it happened to coincide with the popular oppinion on the matter.
