Treasure Hunter* is a light fantasy themed card drafting card game from Richard Garfield, the man behind the Magic (and Android: Netrunner, RoboRally, King of Tokyo etc).

The game is listed for ages 8+ and should keep two (I’d say three) to six players entertained for about an hour. I can’t see a UK price listing yet, but it should retail at about £30 when it hits game stores soon.

Treasure Hunter sees you draft a hand of nine cards then play them out over a simple three-step round (a bit of bidding, some winner-takes-all and then basic accumulation). This is done five times, with the person gathering the most goodies (ie, victory points) being crowned the winner.

In the rather oversized box (I can only presume many expansions are planned…) you’ll find the game board, 75 cards, about 100 cardboard tiles and a bunch of cardboard coins. The components are of a pretty high standard and the artwork from Markus Erdt is great - as long as you like your fantasy art with a very cartoony style (think World of Warcraft - in fact he did the ‘Soul of the Forest’ card in HearthStone).

The one downside is the lack of a linen finish on the cards. This is a card drafting, which means you’ll be shuffling five times per game and handing round/using the cards almost constantly. Not going the extra mile to make the cards super sturdy is a big shame.

Teaching

Treasure Hunter may not be as simple a drafting game as Sushi Go, but its also a long way from the complexity of 7 Wonders.

A game sees players essentially doing the same thing five times over five rounds and the rounds are pretty quick. This means its easy to do a dummy round if you have competitive players who really want to win, even on their first play through of a game.

The small game board isn’t necessary, but does add a little theme while nicely showing how the game turn plays out: after drafting you’ll be sending adventurers into three different (colour coded) adventure areas, then dealing (or not) with the local goblin horde - before counting any spare change you may find in your backpack.

These adventures, as you may have guessed, are played out with your nine cards. One of Treasure Hunter’s real strengths is that while there isn’t a huge variety in the cards there feels like the exact amount there needs to be to make it work: no surprise really, knowing Richard Garfield’s pedigree with card games. In short, cards are either adventurers, equipment, hounds or money. Adventurer cards must be played when their colour adventure comes up; equipment can be laid optionally to help your adventurers; dogs fight off goblins and money is just simple points.

Set-up shows what spoils will be on offer that round, so is the perfect time to explain the tiles on offer. This saves a lengthy pre-game description session that you know half the players will forget anyway.

You only need to explain one thing at first: some tiles have an automatic score, others need you to turn them in on a round to score - meaning they get riskier the longer the game goes on (you may score points for each money card you had in a round, for example - so the more chances you have to nail that condition the better off you should be - in theory at least).

Drafting couldn’t be simpler - deal nine cards to each player, then each player keeps one (placing it in front of them) and passes the rest on. Rinse and repeat until you all have nine cards, then begin the round. No discards, no funny business.

Next you play out the three adventure areas. Lay all your adventure cards (numbered 1 to 12) of the current colour and see who has most: this player leads the ‘bidding’, where players can add equipment cards to help them win tiles. You’ll notice each area will reward both the high and low score in a round, keeping all the cards important - especially as some of these ‘rewards’ are actually cursed - meaning negative points.

Then comes your hounds versus the goblins: a simple case of first seeing players pay out on any goblin they couldn’t defeat - then the player who had the most hounds taking any spoils left my their fellow players (plus the goblins themselves for a small extra reward). Coins just give bonus points at the end of rounds - boring, but they add up and its nice to have a card you know is safe bet. After five rounds, the player with the most points wins.

The four sides

These are me, plus three fictitious players drawn from observing my friends and their respective quirks and play styles.

• The writer: Its no surprise that Garfield got it right - the bigger question should be, how has it taken so long for a great drafting game of this weight to arrive? Treasure Hunter isn’t big or clever and there is nothing even vaguely new here. The theme is a paste-on, it has little to no ‘narrative arc’ and could even be accused of being repetitive. So why do people keep asking for repeat plays? Because it’s FUN, of course. You draft a hand and use it and if it all goes wrong, who cares? You start again the next round. The tiles you need to use to score add a nice ‘push-your-luck’ element to scoring, while the ‘cursed’ negative tiles mix things up nicely too.
• The thinker: I was a little sceptical about playing a ‘light’ drafting game, even after the rules explanation backed the game’s light credentials to the hilt. But despite my reservations I found a game packed with enough decisions, and fun, to easily hold my attention for the hour-ish we played for. Especially in a three player game you have the delicious prospect each round of knowing a third of the cards in play - and that you’ll keep three of that starting hand. A few seconds later you get the next third - but what did they keep? And then you see the last nine - and realise how things may pan out. Make no mistake - this is a very good, if light, drafting game.
• The trasher: I haven’t been a fan of drafting games before, but Treasure Hunter won me over almost immediately. Because there isn’t a lot of different cards, and each round plays them all out, even the most innocuous card can be be significant in a round. Tactical players will be especially engaged, as you have to change your plans on the fly as you see more of what’s in the round. Choosing your battles (of the three colours) becomes more important with higher player counts as less players are rewarded, and despite its simplicity every hand plays out differently.
• The dabbler: I enjoyed this one too - a rare clean sweep of praise! But that being said, I can’t work out if its greatest strength is just that - the fact everyone is happy to play it. There are games that are more, well, everything really. As mentioned it doesn’t bring anything new to the table, it has a a hackneyed (if popular) generic fantasy theme and little depth. It has already been backed with an expansion, and it’s easy to see how it can be changed-up in almost every area for those who want to do so. But will it live long in the memory? To be honest I don’t care - it’s just nice to have a game everyone is happy to play!

Key observations

My only issue with Treasure Hunter is listing it as a two-player game. I know this means a big jump in sales, but drafting and bidding really are three-plus player mechanics and I’d have no desire to try this with two.

It does add ‘special’ rules for two players, but this is only in how you draft. You still have a ‘min’ and a ‘max’ tile, so essentially you’ll both be winning something every round - unless a duff card deal means one player gets both tiles. This, frankly, sounds awful. Its not for two.

Some say the game plays a little long but I would suggest that would be down to the players, not the game. Sometimes its hard to pick a card but this isn’t the game’s fault. And as the game plays in five rounds, there’s no harm in house-ruling down to four or even less if you want a faster experience.

Others say the only choices you get are in the card selection (drafting) part of the game. If this is a problem for you, I guess you already ran a mile at the ‘light card drafting’ in the first line of the review. If not, go now. That is the game, and its why it works.

A lack of innovation is a sound criticism, but I think I forgive it because there simply isn’t a stand-out game in the category. It’s not like Dominion, which arrived fully formed - then every Joe Shmo with a box of half-cocked fantasy art made a worse version of it the following year. Drafting has been under-represented and this is a very good addition.

Comparisons to ‘7 Wonders’ are lazy - this is a very different animal. Comparisons to Donald X Vaccarino’s ‘Greed’ I unfortunately can’t comment on, but having enjoyed this (as well as some of Donald X’s other games) I really want to play it. Any comments on this comparison would be welcomed, while I’ll update here once I’ve gotten to try it myself.

Conclusion

Treasure Hunter has flown surprisingly below the radar in terms of English speaking media so far, which strikes me as very odd. There are few safer pairs of hands in the industry than Richard Garfield, while Queen Games is one of Germany’s biggest publishers and no stranger to massive hits (if also a little controversy).

It doesn’t help that it hasn’t hit the retail shelves in the UK yet, of course. I can only think its just a matter of time as there were plenty of copies available at Essen for its launch. Hopefully it will be easily available before Christmas.

I guess you’ve guessed by now but, for me, this is one of the games of the year. It won’t win any award for innovation, or super high Board Game Geek ratings, but it gets a massive thumbs-up for doing what no other game has done until now for me: get the formula for a light drafting game absolutely right.

* I would like to thank Queen Games for providing me with a copy of the game to review.

Celestia* is a small box push-your-luck card game for two to six players, designed by Aaron Weissblum. Listed as for ages eight and up, it plays in around half an hour and will set you back around £20.

The game reimplements the 1999 release ‘Cloud 9’, giving the art (by Gaetan Noir) and components an amazing overhaul (the old wasn’t bad itself) whilst adding some special action cards that spice things up a bit.

Where once players were travellers in a balloon, you’ll now be in a fantastical airship travelling past a series of beautifully illustrated cloud islands. At each island you can choose to get off and claim a prize - or continue on to greater riches, but also greater danger. And if the airship fails to make it to the next island, you’ll end up back at the beginning empty handed.

In the Celestia box you’ll find more than 150 cards, four dice, nine city tiles, six player pawns and a fantastic cardboard airship you have to assemble - but once made it just about fits in the box so you don’t have to fiddle with it again. All the components are top notch and while the player pawns are a little dull in comparison to the rest of it you can even upgrade those - for a limited time - to gorgeous sculpted ones (see link below).

Teaching

Celestia is very light on rules and the basics of the game are super easy to teach.

Each turn a player is assigned as the captain of the airship (this moves clockwise after each player turn). The captain then roles as many dice as indicated on the current city (two on the easy ones, progressing to four at the highest cities) - with each dice having four symbols (essentially suits) and two blank sides.

Each player other than the captain now decides if they think the captain can ‘beat’ what they rolled with the equipment cards in their hand. Equipment cards mostly match the symbols on the dice, while there are some wild and special cards to spice things up a bit.

The trusting stay on board while the nervous get off at the current city - and claim a treasure card from it. And yes, the treasure cards (mostly just victory points) are better the longer you stay on the ship.

Once everyone has decided whether to stay or go, the captain either discards the equipment cards necessary to continue (to beat the dice) or moves the ship back to the starting city. If the latter happens, the journey is over and those who risked it get nothing (but all players draws one more equipment card). On a success, the remaining players move on to the next city while the others curse their luck.

Players have to spend the basic equipment cards they need to beat the dice if they have them - but can choose not to play any wild or special cards. If a player has reached 50 points by the end of a journey they can declare the end of the game: at which point whoever has the most points wins.

The only wrinkles come in the shape of the special cards. None of them are particularly complicated, but unfortunately the publisher has decided to go for style over substance - there is no iconography on the cards and no player aids, which means players will constantly be reaching for the rulebook for the first few games. It’s a shame, as everything else is so simple, and I’d suggest leaving these cards out for a younger audience.

The four sides

These are me, plus three fictitious players drawn from observing my friends and their respective quirks and play styles.

• The writer: It bears repeating: this game is beautifully produced. While the theme is pretty thin the whimsical art really draws you in - and I’m not usually someone blinded by shiny goodness. And the theme is carried through: cannon cards beat the pirate dice, a compass beats a clouds roll etc. The airship piece really is fantastic, while each player also gets a little cardboard chit with their character’s portrait on it - another little unnecessary extra that shows this is a publisher (Blam!) that’s happy to go the extra mile to make its games look great - and that should be applauded.
• The thinker: When you hear ‘push your luck’ its easy to presume strategy will be non-existent, but good knowledge of the cards and the ability to closely follow what’s happening around the table (what’s being discarded, who failed to beat which rolls etc) can definitely give you an edge - at lest in terms of percentages. The special cards throw a spanner in the works to a degree, with the jet pack (lets you get a card even if the boat crashes) being particularly unbalanced. But if you start playing a game of ‘luck-pushing’ it’s only to be expected - and this is a fun one.
• The trasher: I think Celestia is a lot of fun - but don’t play with anyone who might cheat! The game relies on honesty to really sing, so keep an eye on the less trustworthy members of your group. The game’s special cards give some great screwage opportunities too: there’s nothing like playing a ‘hard blow card’ on an airship you’ve quit to make them re-roll the dice - then watch them crash and burn! Or kick someone out of the airship as you’re cruising towards some easy points. Just watch your back afterwards!
• The dabbler: Played with the right group you can really get a fun role-playing atmosphere going here. ‘Oohs’ and ‘aahs’ meet every dice roll, with captains sucking their teeth to bluff their position while their shipmates loudly pledge support or wave a dismissive hand as they bail over the side - then just listen to the cheer and boos as the airship sails on - or crashes and burns. Beautiful and brilliant fun, with the game losing nothing (for me) if you remove some of the nastier cards for a more passive group (described as the ‘beginner variant’).

Key observations

As mentioned earlier Celestia is a reprint of old game Cloud 9 and while this is a clear upgrade in terms of components and artwork, some players clearly prefer the simplicity - and balance - of the original.

Luckily this isn’t an problem as it is very easy to leave out the cards you don’t want to use and play what is largely (from what I understand) the original game anyway.

There are some complaints about the variation of points gained on the treasure cards making the game too luck driven, but I haven’t seen this decide a game so would tend to disagree.

It has also been noted that this game isn’t a million miles from Incan Gold (or its predecessor Diamant). Incan Gold has the advantage of playing up to eight players, but Celestia has the bigger advantage, for me, of being fun at a lower player count - Incan Gold is crappy with three or four, where Celestia shines.

But as already noted above there is a problem with almost constant ‘rulebook diving’ when it comes to the special cards. It’s not that they have obscure iconography that’s tough to understand - they have no iconography at all! I would very much hope that this will be addressed in later editions - or that some bright soul publishers a nice crib sheet on Board Game Geek that players can print off.

Conclusion

When I targeted Celestia on the Essen 2015 preview list it was a combination of the art and the simple ‘push your luck’ idea that hooked me - and when I saw it in the flesh it became my first purchase.

What I didn’t expect was just how much fun it would be - and that we’d play it back to back, two nights in a row, with a mixed bunch of gamers who like everything from serious war games through euros right down to the simplest of card games.

I’m a big fan of Can’t Stop and Pickomino - both of which will never leave my shelves - so you could argue I didn’t need another push-your-luck dice game: but Celestia will be taking its place alongside those classics for a good time to come. It plays well, looks great and covers a wide range of gaming abilities - and that’s more than good enough for me.

* I would like to thank Blackrock Games for providing me with a discounted copy of the game to review at Essen 2015.

Codenames* is a party game for two (or four to get the full competitive experience) to eight players which mixes deduction and word game elements into a spy-themed team game. You can even go more, to 10 or 12, with the right group.

Published by Czech Games Edition and designed by the highly respected Vlaada Chvátil (Through the Ages, Tash-Kalar), it attained ‘number 1 party game’ status in the Board Game Geek ratings just a few months after its release - no mean feat.

Better still it retails at less than £15, which is pretty good value. You’ll find 200 double-sided codename cards, equating to 400 words (you use a random selection of 25 per game which interact differently each time). There are also 25 cardboard agent cards, 40 square key cards (with a standee) and a sand timer.

Component quality isn’t really an issue here, as it’s all about the gameplay. However what you’ll find is of average quality and I found nothing to complain about. Playtime is listed at 15 minutes, but it can go WAY longer than that depending on whether you bother with the game’s sand timer. But more on that later…

Teaching

As you’d expect from a party game, the rules are pretty simple - and as Codenames is a team game, as long as one person knows what they’re doing it is easy to cover any rules queries as you play.

Once the game is set up, it’s time to decide who will be the two spymasters. These players will be devising the clues while their team mates will be trying to deduce the words they’re hinting at, so it makes sense to find your spymasters before you split into teams. Not everyone wants the job, so if you split into teams first you may have a reluctant spymaster when a couple of the people on the other team would’ve taken the job.

The two spymasters sit together at one end of the table, so that only they can see the keycard. This tells them which of the words in the 5×5 grid relate to their own spies - and which are either their opponent’s spies, innocent bystanders, or the assassin. The spymaster whose team successfully identifies all of their own spies first is the winner.

To do this a spymaster will identify which words are theirs and then try to find connections between those words; but importantly, connections that couldn’t lead their team mates to think of other words also in the grid - especially the assassin.

You then say the connecting word, followed by a number: this tells your team how many of your words relate to the clue and gives them that many guesses (plus one - more on that later) to identify them.

For example, if two of your words were ‘angel’ and ‘god’ you could give the clue ‘holy, two’ - but if one of the other cards said ‘sacrifice’ you could be in trouble. If your team guesses wrong your turn is over - and if they pick the assassin you automatically lose. Otherwise you keep going until one team identifies all of their words, with the guessed words being covered up as you go.

The four sides

These are me, plus three fictitious players drawn from observing my friends and their respective quirks and play styles.

• The writer: Having the spymaster of each team sitting together is a stroke of genius. It means spymasters can make their own rules decisions. There are some grey areas in what can and can’t be used as clues, but you can discuss this and make your minds up with too much rule lawyering required.
• The thinker: I hate to rush any game, so the Codenames sand timer stays firmly in the box for our group. Sure games are longer, but like a good crossword the mind needs to cogitate when you are faced with finding connections between a possible nine words! I also appreciate the attention to detail here: signs of a well tested game, such as putting each word backwards on the cards so everyone can read them, and giving the start player an extra word to solve to balance their advantage.
• The trasher: Ignore the thinker! Without the sand timer, boy can this game drag. But at the same time, either way, having a poor spymaster can make for a really dull game - you can just end up with a string of “something, one” questions that are super easy and the game goes nowhere fast. We house-ruled that until you have half of your spies you have to say at least two and we use the sand timer. It can make for some hilarious and short games but this is meant to be a party game right?
• The dabbler: While Codenames is a great party game, like many others it needs to be played with the right people and in the right spirit - as always, you have to fit your game choice to your audience. It’s easy to cheat my accident (facial expressions etc) and any game with teams can end in arguments - especially when a spymaster makes a booboo and misses an obvious wrong answer that throws a cat amongst their team’s pigeons. It’s also not great with uneven teams - especially five, which means one team has a single guesser and the other team has two. But when it all gels, this really is one of the great party games.

Key observations

It may sound obvious, but when a game has this much hype it bears reminding people that - at its core - Codenames is a word-based guessing game: if you don’t like them at all you’re unlikely to have this convert you to the genre.

Elsewhere, others point out this isn’t a ‘party game’ in the classic sense - it can be entertaining and anyone can play it, but it’s unlikely to have them rolling in the isles and it’s anything but boisterous. As a word association game, it adds a clever twist to the team guessing game genre and enough gamery elements to be good fun - but it is no way game-changing or genre defining. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a great game.

It also needs reiterating that many people will not enjoy being the spymaster - clue-giving is stressful and difficult and can cause the hugest AP possible in the wrong players. This can really spoil the game, so whatever you do don’t make people do it - and try to get experienced players to go first if others haven’t played it, so they can see what they’re in for before they decide if they want to give it a go themselves.

Less forgiving commentators say this wouldn’t have been given a second glance by many if it hadn’t had Vlaada’s name on the box and that it simply won’t stand the test of time as it lacks variety. I don’t think the first point matters - many more people are enjoying the game than not, if the ratings are to be believed, so who cares? That just sounds like sour grapes to me. And as for standing the test of time, I guess time will tell…

Conclusion

I have very much enjoyed my plays of Codenames to date and am definitely in the positive camp - but with the caveats mentioned above.

It is a good word game for teams, so you need the right crowd - but isn’t that true of any game?

And it can run long (and painfully) if the wrong people are asking the questions, so you need to be sure to set your teams up right - but again, this is pretty much the same for any team party game. Some people simply hate certain situations and it’s no fun for anyone involved (except idiots who like laughing at other people’s suffering) if you thrust them into them.

But if you’re in the market for a teams word game for up to 10 people - perhaps for the office do, with Christmas party organising fast approaching - then this is a great addition to the cannon at the more intellectual end of the party game spectrum.

* I would like to thank Czech Games Edition for providing a copy of the game for review.