Konja: A four-sided game review

Konja* is a two-player only dice and card game from the same design/art team (Simon McGregor and Rob Van Zyl) that brought us Ancient Terrible Things and Snowblind. A game lasts 30-60 minutes and while the age on the box says 8+, that may be a little low (I’d probably guess 10+ unless they’re a full-on gamer child).

Players are duelling wizards; a popular theme, but as usual with Pleasant Company Games the art style makes it stand out from the rest. Also like the aforementioned games, this is a dice-chucking push-your-luck game with cards throwing in special abilities and one-off powers along the way.

In the box you’ll find 11 custom dice, 40 cards, five wooden idols, five thick cardboard tiles that make up the play area, and about 100 cardboard chits in various shapes and sizes. All the components are of the usual high standard: fair value at around £20-30. There’s also a handy card effects cheat sheet separate from the rulebook.

Teaching

Konja is a straight race to 21 points. Between the two players are five god tiles (inspired by African mythology, which makes a nice change), one of which the active player uses on their turn.

Once all five have been used, they’re reset and the players go through them again (and again, until the game ends). These powers grant a special one-off ability to the player choosing it, then another ability that both players benefit from.

Next the active player rolls five dice (plus any extras they may have accrued), using various cards/tokens to change or reroll the results until they’re happy – or out of options. Their opponent then gets a chance to mess with them by rolling a dice that can cancel one of these results. Finally, the active player ‘spends’ their roll on various benefits: end game points, tokens to help in future rolls, or both.

The meat of the decision making comes in what you spend your tokens on. Magic tokens help you cast spells (instant discarded effects that can do everything from steal from your opponent to make your rolls better); while money can buy/upgrade victory point tokens, or buy new and improved ancestors (each player starts with three of these, which may be activated for various dice rolling effects). Finally, power tokens are used to power (der) the ancestors.

When one player’s end game points hits 21 or more, the round is completed and the player with the most points is the winner.

The four sides

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

  • The writer: What makes this series of games stand out, Konja included, is the wealth of mitigation on hand for those pesky dice. This also has a nice blend of visible (ancestors) and hidden (spell cards), so you never quite know what your opponent may do. I think I’d mix it up even more, giving each player a replacement choice in round one for one of their starting ancestors. But, with all that in mind, it was a shame the player who won most times simply hoarded money for buying points, rather than buying ‘fun’ stuff like ancestors.
  • The thinker: While there are many interesting ways to mitigate your dice rolls, Konja still felt much like an exercise in futility. You can add as many bells, whistles, twists and turns as you like, but if one player rolls ‘well’ and the other badly – guess who is going to win? Sure, I’m not the target audience here and I certainly didn’t have a bad time playing – the game is short enough that the high level of luck is acceptable. But there doesn’t seem to be a viable, more strategic option available here. For me the best dice games have a ‘roll and hope’ model that may win you the game, plus a slow and steady one with less outliers.
  • The trasher: I’d really looked forward to Konja, as the thought of a straight push-your-luck dice battle always excites me – but I was a bit disappointed. There’s hardly any real interaction between players and it certainly doesn’t feel like the advertised ‘dice duel’. Sure, there are some spell cards that liven things up but beyond that – how is ‘roll dice, mitigate bad roll, repeat’ a duel?! A duel should be action packed! This game is ponderous, with a player’s turn feeling long and convoluted even after repeat plays. Not for me.
  • The dabbler: As always, I loved the artwork and effort put into the components. The little skulls on the dice are adorable, which sounds weird – you’ll have to check them out. We really didn’t like the red ‘screw you’ dice power, which lets you mess with the other player’s results. Luckily there is a variant included where, instead of removing a dice from the other player, the red dice is used to upgrade one of your own dice if you roll something better with it. We found this also sped the game up a little, rather than slowing it down and frustrating us. Played like this, I found plenty to love in the world of Konja.

Key observations

For a game that revolves around a one-on-one dice chucking mechanism, Konja is actually a slow and thoughtful game. This thematic break can be hard to overcome and feels like a misstep for some players. This is not King of Tokyo.

While the god abilities is a good mechanic, the five choices are so specialised that they rarely feel like choices. Normally one choice is the obvious one, no matter what style of play you choose – at least one tends to be pointless, for example, or one may clearly favour your opponent. It also feels like a very mechanical step that breaks game flow for what is often a very small payoff.

Some have said that the card powers are unbalanced, but I can’t say this is really something I noticed – and even if it is a bit of an issue, the game is short enough that it is unlikely to be much of an issue. spell cards are one-and-done, while players start with identical ancestors: those you buy later will only be used a few times each, so are unlikely to have a massive impact – especially when you’re rolling a load of dice, which are pretty random themselves…

Conclusion

When a design team decides to keep revisiting the same mechanism, as a punter you hope they’ll continue to refine – or adapt – to create a set of games that fans of the original will love. Mac Gerdts and Uwe Rosenberg are the obvious proponents of this design ideology, and who can argue (sensibly) with their results?

Pleasant Company are doing it with this ‘dice quest’ game system and while I loved the first two offerings (reviews linked above), for me Konja feels like a small misstep. But hey – you can’t win them all, right? And I’m sure some players will prefer this to the others – if you like puzzley, gorgeous push-your-luck dice games you should definitely seek it and give it a try, especially if you haven’t played anything in this series. But why wasn’t I sold on it?

For me, a great two-player experience means getting inside the head of your opponent. This can be done in the simplest to most complex games: I love anything from The Rose King to Race for the Galaxy two-player. I want to be worrying about what the other player will do next but here I didn’t feel that. Take other Yahtzee-style games, such as Heck Meck or Decathlon. These aren’t ‘two player’ games, but when played with two you need to think about what the other player is up to: can I steal their tile, do I need to go for it on this event etc. Konja feels too restrained, despite all the mitigation. I just didn’t feel as if there were any truly satisfying ‘Hail Mary’ moments.

I know the guys have another game in the works with the same dice mechanism. Titled ‘Grim Heroes’ and slated for a 2019 release, it takes this dice system into the co-op fantasy realm – where I have high expectations for it working wonderfully.

* I would like to thank Pleasant Company Games for providing the game for review.

Transatlantic: A four-sided game review

Transatlantic* is an economic card-driven euro game from designer Mac Gerdts. It plays two-to-four players and takes one to two hours (once you know the game), taking longer at higher player counts.

There’s quite a lot going on here, so the age suggested (12+) feels about right. But if your kids are younger and have player other Gerdts games, they’ll be equally at home playing this one.

Transatlantic sees players taking the roles of shipping companies in the age of steam, taking a historic journey from the earliest commercial steam ships (mid 1800s) through to the early 20th Century (yup, The Titanic is in here). You’ll buy modern ships and watch older ones become obsolete, but hopefully long after you’ve made a solid profit from them. The theme is fine, and there’s the usual PD Verlag history document in the box, but it’s as dry as it sounds.

The components are a mixed bag, which I’d have to conclude fall a little short of what we now call average. The main and player boards are dull if functional; the card stock fine but with some odd graphic design – and poor colour – choices; the paper money is thick and nicely designed, but it’s paper money; and the cardboard chits and wooden pieces are fine but uninspiring. Overall it doesn’t look great on the table but is perfectly serviceable; although using largely dark shades for the cards was a big misstep.

Teaching

If teaching to players used to playing previous Mac Gerdts games Concordia and Navegador, this will be a breeze. But even if not, Transatlantic has an easy to follow and well written rulebook – including a separate sheet for setup.

While setup is a little fiddly it does skip through what would be a boring couple of opening rounds, while setting all the players up competing in the various oceans of the world. This is a game with an underlying economic element built around area control, so forcing everyone to place their first two ships into different areas gets things off on the right foot.

After this you’ll be taking typically Gerdts short, snappy turns – as with Concordia, you’ll play a card and do its action: that’s it. One of your cards (you each start with the same hand of eight cards) allows you to pick up all your played cards back into your hand, so you can do those actions again.

When you do this you also get to take a new card from a public display, so as the game goes on reach player’s hand of cards start to deviate from the rest (you probably get slightly less extra cars than in Concordia, but there are several that feel more specialised and unique than in his previous release).

Standard actions see you buying and then deploying new ships; filling those ships with coal; or using the coal on ships to earn profit by transporting goods or passengers. You’ll also be buying trade houses, coal bunkers and business markers – which then help you score victory points as the game progresses. Trade houses encourage you to use your ships in the sea you place them; while the rest of the markers will increase the value of ships you have of a certain colour.

Whenever someone buys ships, one that hasn’t been bought goes into the ‘docks’; meaning ships of this colour will be worth one extra victory point later. This means ships in a colour no one is buying become more valuable – but of course there are less of them around. You can try to specialise or diversify, but as usual in Gerdts games the name of the game is efficiency: the player who best uses their tactical situations to feed their long term strategy is likely to come out on top.

The four sides

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

  • The writer: As a big Gerdts fan, and a lover of Concordia, I’d looked forward to Transatlantic with growing enthusiasm – especially after it was delayed a year to make sure it was just right. I also like how he takes a mechanism (such as the rondel) and runs with it for several games. Concordia kept just enough of his usual style but was an interesting take on deck-building – so another instalment was welcome. I even quite like the theme. It was easy to learn too, and despite some fiddliness easy to teach. But sadly, despite the pedigree, there just wasn’t a spark.
  • The thinker: This game is way more tactical even than Concordia, especially at higher player counts. Ships rocket past in the buying market and money margins are so tight (especially early on) you’re left with little to no control over what to buy. I’m sure that with practice this feeling may dissipate, but after several plays it still felt more random and fluctuating than i feel comfortable with. And while this is offset by the short-ish playing time, I’d rather player a game with more control that plays longer. Unfortunately, a disappointment.
  • The trasher: With a dull theme and look, I was surprised to find anything at all I liked in Transatlantic – but it definitely has some interesting interactions. Shipping decisions are often predicated by which ships have coal at what times, as sometimes you can ship a whole region – so timing can be crucial. Control of areas is also interactive, as you can’t beat pushing players’ ships out of areas they’ve spent money building trade houses in. And then there’s the Blue Riband – the only free victory point generator, but you can only get it by putting out the fastest ship into the North Atlantic.
  • The dabbler: I was quite surprised that I liked Concordia, but I really couldn’t warm to this one. It looks pretty ugly and without a main boar to move around it simply isn’t spatially appealing. I was moving things around and playing cards, but so many of the actions felt as if they were just variations on a theme. I certainly didn’t hate the game, and everything worked, but I never really felt engaged. And for me it wasn’t the theme – I like something a little different and it’s nice seeing the old style painting of all those classic ships. I just couldn’t really get into it.

Key observations

The more critical words players kept coming back to while playing Transatlantic were ‘abstract’ and ‘dry’ – which is odd, as several of my group (including me) really like dry, abstract games!

During play the games seems fiddly, but I think this is exacerbated by its repetitive nature: you’re son dong the same things over and over, in the same fiddly way, but the payoff doesn’t seem to improve with time. Sure, you’re getting more money per transaction and maybe a slightly better action from a new card – but these things don’t feel different.

While I didn’t have any issues with the rule book, it seems a lot of others did. Sure, its a bit of a dog’s breakfast in terms of layout – but personally I didn’t find it slowed me down. That said, it doesn’t flow well and I had the advantage of being familiar with Concordia – which works in a similar way. So do be aware mileage in this department may vary.

Finally, colour blindness issues with the cards really need a mention. One ship colour is white – but unfortunately the others are black, darkish blue, dark green and a deep maroon red. No, I have no idea what they were thinking – and to make it worse, there is no symbology to tell them apart (they all have the same shape flag on them with no pattern). This is pretty unforgettable in modern gaming, and it does feel a little as if some of the older, traditional German publishers are getting left behind.

Conclusion

I don’t own every Mac Gerdts/PD Verlag game, but have played and enjoyed all the ones I’ve come across – including this one. But Transatlantic is the first I’ve owned that won’t be staying in my collection. Perhaps if it had come along before Concordia, the card play would’ve been enough to keep me playing – but this very much feels like a backward step from that, rather than a forward one.

If you’re a Gerdts fan, like economic games, or if the theme appeals, I’d recommend seeking it out for a play. It is a solid design and mechanically there’s nothing wrong with it at all. But in comparison to his other recent titles, I found it a little lack lustre in terms of a hook, a spark, or a reason to keep coming back. Transatlantic is a solid 6.5, but I just didn’t find anything to love.

* I’d like to thank PD Verlag for providing a discounted copy of the game for review.

Terraforming Mars: A four-sided game review

Terraforming Mars is a tableau-building, engine building card and board game for one to five players. While a solo game can be done in an hour, more will mean two to three hours (so if you want to play with five people, you’re in for the long haul).

The 12+ age rating is justified, as there is a lot of symbology and writing on the cards and it has a long play time – but the mechanisms are pretty straightforward (no more than medium gamer complexity).

And yes, the theme is in the title. Each player will be managing a corporation hoping to make its name by most successfully completing terraforming projects on Mars. I think the theme comes through well, as designer Jacob Fryxelius has clearly gone the whole nine in making the cards make thematic sense – and has managed to do so without a dice or a plastic miniature in sight.

The component quality is open to debate. The board is clear and functional, the 400 plastic cubes and 80 cardboard tiles perfectly serviceable, and the player boards super thin but functional (for the majority of players). But the 230+ cards leave a little to be desired in quality, and the art is a strange mishmash of drawings and photographs. Personally I find this strangely endearing, but I understand it’s a problem for some so you may want to take a close look at an opened copy if that sounds like you.

Teaching Terraforming Mars

For a group of new players the game can be daunting, but once up and running it’s surprisingly fluid and simple. You only need one experienced player to make things run super smoothly, and even if you don’t have that luxury a group of gamers will easily be up and running by the middle of their first game.

Between you, players will be collectively (but competitively) increasing the temperature (creating heat), oxygen level (largely through placing vegetation tiles) and sea level (ocean tiles) to make the planet habitable. Each time you increase one of these you’ll improve your ‘terraforming rating’ – which is a good thing, as it equates to both your income each turn and also the starting base of your endgame score. Once all three have been raised sufficiently, the game will end.

The majority of actions you’ll take in the game will be via playing cards from your hand. Each turn players will be dealt four new cards, which they then decide if they wish to hang on to: each will cost you three money to keep, with the rest simply discarded. As this is done simultaneously, it’s not really a chore. Players then play cards (or take other actions) in turn until everyone has passed, which triggers the next round.

Cards give you an immediate benefit, an ongoing one, or both. Many give you ways to increase your ability to create plants or heat (raising your terraforming rating), while others help raise your income (opening up the ability to play better cards, as well as having more flexibility in playing basic actions).

All the important actions can be done simply by paying for them, but this is always less efficient than card play – it just means you can do it when you like, if you can afford it. But the game has many subplots running alongside the main goal.

There are cards that give end game victory points, awards for finishing certain goals first, plus awards for being the best at certain things at the end of the game. While many of the better cards need certain conditions to be met before they can be played: you may need to have played a certain amount of cards with a specific symbol into your tableau, or need the game to have reached (or not passed) a certain point to be valid – for example, the temperature may need to have reached a certain level.

While the game has a variable end time, all paths lead to Rome: most things you do are pushing the game towards its conclusion, so games tend to last a similar amount of turns and ramp-up significantly, and satisfyingly, as the game reaches its climax. But multiple paths to victory and different starting corporation powers for each player means every game feels significantly different.

The four sides

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

  • The writer: The three paths needing to be completed in Terraforming Mars make each game a very different tactical battle. You only want to spend enough to make hay until a path maxes out, as every penny spent could be used elsewhere. Another nice tactical element is the simple addition of being allowed to play one action, or two, on each of your turns. This can equal extra considerations in several situations, such as trying to stay in a round to see what opportunities – or taking a double turn to secure some a bonus.
  • The thinker: While this is clearly a well-designed game deserving of praise, it’s not going to appeal to all strategic players. The 200+ unique cards and multiple strategies mean luck of the draw can very much damage your chances: not idea in a game that can last several hours. Some have turned to drafting to get around this, but for me it is not an adequate solution. It merely moves the luck, rather than solving the issue, while bringing in a player’s seating position as an additional issue (sitting left of a hate drafter, or a player keeping the best cards for them), will make a big difference). I certainly wouldn’t play with more than three players.
  • The trasher: Terraforming Mars is a winner for me despite its length. Interaction is limited to a little board placement and a few minor ‘take that’ cards, but I love having to deal with the random draw. Other great elements include trying to eke out any possible advantage to win an award at the end of the game, to beating your opponents to a bonus through a smart double action. I also like the fact your engine can be evolving radically right up until the final turn, allowing a smart (and lucky) player to really play the table and roll with the punches.
  • The dabbler: When I first look at the massive deck in this game I was tempted to run to the hills – so many different ‘cards with words’! But after a few turns things start to make sense and the theme just works. The symbology is simple after a while and if a card looked a bit much I simply discarded it lol. While all the cards may be different, they’re essentially different ways to do the same core set of things – most of which work in a straightforward way: when you get enough of A, you can do B. Sure, pretty much everything could’ve been prettier (except the ‘Pets’ card!) but in a complex game I’ll take function over form this time.

Solo play

Not that I have a load of experience with them, but Terraforming Mars has quickly become my favourite solo board game experience. The game plays in exactly the same way as usual, meaning you don’t have to deal with ham-fisted solo mechanisms – while the massive unique card deck and multiple starting corporations are already enough to make every game unique.

The big challenge the solo game offers is trying to get all three of the paths completed in a very limited amount of turns. At first this seems impossible, but the speed at which you can get things done really ramps up as the game goes on – making for a great narrative arc. Also the fact you have to do everything makes a nice change of pace from the competitive game, where you’re jockeying with your opponents and able to ignore certain parts of the game.

Key observations

While Terraforming Mars has proven hugely popular since its release, it certainly isn’t for everyone. And two (often linked) problems more often than not rise to the surface. First is the luck inherent in the random card draws – second is game length.

For some, the card choices are obvious each round – if you have any good choices at all. I would argue this tends to balance out over a game, as you’re seeing a lot of cards, but sure: some players are going to come out of this process better than others.

When you combine this with the game’s length, especially at higher player counts, it’s no surprise more strategic players get frustrated fast. Downtime can feel interminable with five players, even for a fan such as me; especially as very little your opponents do on a turn is likely to change your plans. You’re just waiting for your next turn. This doesn’t seem to be an issue in my groups, as one negates the other: easy decisions means fast turns, while the slow bit (deciding what to keep) is done simultaneously. But I can see this being a nightmare with new, slow, AP prone players.

While I had no big problems with the rulebook, it has been flagged up as problematic for some players. When you combine that with some component issues, it’s easy to understand why some also grit their teeth at the game’s relatively high price point. Again, I have some sympathy with this – and if you’re in any doubt, try the game before you buy where possible. Personally, there’s nothing in the box component wise that really bothered me – and its high replay value means I’m happy with my purchase.

Conclusion

A point I’ve read several times is, instead of playing this why not just play Race for the Galaxy four times instead? But for me, the two games really complement each other.

I love Race, and it’s still my favourite game, but Terraforming Mars is high in my top 10 game list. It scratches a similar itch, but it’s more than just ‘Race with a board’. You not only get to build an engine, but you also get to use it and really see it purr – where in Race the game ends just when things start to get interesting. It’s nice to have this as a slower alternative.

I wouldn’t defend or recommend the game to a strategist, as it is unlikely to appeal (unless they’re an absolute Mars nut). Nor will I defend the price point, although I understand the high initial cost of having to pay for all the art (as amateurish as much of it may look). And I’d really rather not play it with four or five players. But on my own or with a couple of friends, this is currently one of my favourite gaming experiences – and that is with my plays already well into double figures (and a couple of expansions available to me if the sheen starts to come off).

Exploriana: A four-sided game review

Exploriana is a push-your-luck and set collection gateway level game for two to five players (I’d say three to five – see below) that usually plays out in around an hour.

The box states 10+ for the age range and that feels about right. While the game has very familiar mechanisms for gamers, there is quite a lot going on throughout.

The game is not yet published, but can be backed on Kickstarter now from £30 (which I think is great value). If you want to be kept up to date on its progress, and the Kickstarter launch, you can sign up for updates on the official Exploriana website.

While not a particularly thematic game, the central tenets of exploration and discovery, risk and reward, do shine though in the gameplay. As intrepid 19th Century explorers the players will be heading off to South America, Africa and the Far East to unearth ancient civilisations and exotic animals (gather cards for victory points): anyone familiar with games such as Archaeology and Thebes will find themselves in familiar territory.

The version I received was pre-production, as it is due on Kickstarter soon. But I hope they keep the gorgeous card art, which has a unique and compelling style. I also presume the component list won’t change much: central board (plus five player sheets), around 80 cards, 40 or so counters and some currency (I had cardboard coins). I have no idea about pricing options, but this is a medium sized game (the prototype was in a Carcassonne-sized box, which I see no reason to change).

Teaching

Prototype image

Exploriana is a super simple game to teach gamers, as everything you do feels completely familiar. And it works through three very distinct (yet simple) phases, so with less experienced players you can easily walk through one round of these to familiarise everyone, then rewind and start playing properly.

The game is played over several rounds (the amount varies on player count and potentially end-game conditions), each of which plays out in the same way: item auction, worker placement, exploration. The auction lets you gain equipment (for one-shot benefits and to bolster end-game scoring); worker placement sees you choosing which of the three areas you want to explore; then exploration sees you pushing your luck (or not) to collect cards from those areas – either for victory points, money (auction funds) or renown (for turn order and some end game scoring).

The auction couldn’t be much simpler, or much quicker. In turn order, players choose one of the available pieces of equipment (2-4 are made available each round) and put it up for auction by making a one-time bid for it. Each other player (in clockwise order) then either drops out or raises the bid until you’ve been around the table – and the winner takes the item. This clearly puts the opening bidder at a disadvantage (unless they have the most money), but of course they can choose an item they don’t want to be in better position later for the ones they do. Unlike a game such as Power Grid, there’s no limit to the number of auctions you can win – so going heavily for cash (over victory points) in early explorations to get lots of items is a legitimate strategy.

Prototype image

Each player has two workers (or thematically, explorers). The board has three areas depicting the three continents you can explore. Each area has space for 3-4 explorers (again, dependent on player count) which are placed, one each at a time, in turn order.

This is a very quick phase, but not without its interesting decisions. Being first into an area is only going to be good if what you want is already on show, or if the path forward is looking fairly risk free (see below) – while following a player who is taking a different path to victory than you could be equally beneficial.

Exploring is done from the top worker on the board to the bottom. There will always be at least two cards in an area when your explorer starts his turn, although there could be up to four. The active explorer has four choices: flip over a new card (if there is less than five on view), hire a helper (once per explorer), use a piece of their equipment, or stop exploring and cash out. If you cash out, you get your choice of one prize (normally one card) from that area – unless you have managed to turn over five cards in the area, which allows you two picks. Double the prize is clearly a strong incentive to keep pushing; but fail and you’ll get nothing.

So how do you fail? Each card in the exploration deck has a good chance of having one of three symbols on it, representing a disaster that may befall your intrepid explorers. If the flipped cards in your area ever have either one of each symbol, or three of the same ones, its curtains for you (you do get some coin back for your trouble). The three areas have increasingly higher chances of including those symbols on their cards, but – you guessed it – also have more valuable rewards. The rewards themselves are your bog-standard selection of set collection style scoring systems, while some give immediate boosts to your renown or cash pile. If a deck of cards for an area runs out, the game ends prematurely. Either way, the player with the most victory points will be the winner.

The four sides

Prototype image

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

  • The writer: In an age where a ridiculous number of games are released each year, it’s hard to get behind an elegant game which brings nothing new to the table. That said, there’s always a place for games that put existing mechanisms together in a satisfying way – and Exploriana does just that. The auction and worker placement are both satisfyingly interactive without any ‘take that’ or blind luck spoiling them; while the push your luck is just that – but with a bit of mitigation available to smooth the edges.
  • The thinker: There’s little here for the serious strategist, but the game doesn’t pretend otherwise. If a player simply flips cards and gets lucky, taking two prizes per turn but with no investment in mitigation, they’re likely to come out on top. But the game plays quickly and does exactly what it says on the tin, so no complaints from me. You can go for money and try to get items that help mitigate the luck – but frankly I’d rather just play something else.
  • The trasher: I rather enjoyed Exploriana. It’s fun trying to out-think your opponents in the auction, trying to work out what they’re holding their money back for; while good placement of your workers can make a real difference. And even if you think you’re losing, there’s nothing to stop you just going for it! There are different paths to victory to: go for money early to invest in items, stick straight for points, get turn order, or mix it up. All have their merits, making for a wealth of tactical decisions.
  • The dabbler: This game is right in my wheelhouse. The exploring theme works well with the push-your-luck idea, while the auction and card-flipping lend themselves perfectly to a bit of table talk. The different character sheets also add a little theme, while the card art is gorgeous (at least in the version we played). Add in the short-ish play time, simple set up and straightforward rules and you have yourself a winning formula for more casual gamers. And you get loot! Who doesn’t like loot?

Key observations

Weirdly, when I play Archaeology: The Card Game, I don’t feel the weight of our colonial past on my shoulders – but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a small but constant niggle here. It wouldn’t stop me playing, but I can see it putting some people off. The fact you’re so clearly taking treasures from places you shouldn’t reminds me of the Bugle Podcast gag: The British Museum is the biggest open crime scene on the planet.

As with so many 2-5 player games, that player count stretches reality a little – and this time, as in so many auction games, it’s the two-player version that suffers. It employs a clumsy mechanism in the worker placement phase that does its level best to imitate more player’s playing, but frankly – if you specifically want a two-player game, there are loads of good ones out there. Move along, nothing to see here.

Replayability is also a potential concern. I’ve enjoyed my five plays to date and am certainly not bored by any stretch, but I’d have liked a bit of variety squeezed into the box. This is very much a matter of opinion, as there’s a lot to be said for exact information in a bidding/push-your-luck game. But I’d have liked something: more items, perhaps another continent deck, individual player powers – take your pick.

Conclusion

I don’t often take games that are offered to me that are ‘coming soon on Kickstarter’, but with a long enough lead time to get a good number of plays in – and on reading the rules – I gave this one a punt. And I’m glad I did.

You can’t escape the fact Exploriana is purely a rearranging of the game design toolkit. Basic bidding, basic placement, and the ‘two picks for five cards’ push your luck element from Port Royal – job done. But you’d have to be pretty cynical not to be able to see past that when there’s a really solid execution underneath, as there is here.

I’ve had to pass this copy on to another reviewer, but when it (hopefully) comes out the other side of its Kickstarter adventure I plan on adding a copy to my collection of gateway games.

* I would like to thank Counters Out for providing a copy of the game for review.

The Dwarves – New Heroes: expansion review

The Dwarves is a fantasy co-op board game based on the Markus Heitz novel series of the same name, released in German in 2012 and English in 2016 (reviewed by me in 2015).

I’m a big fan of the base game, which does a great job of injecting the theme of the books through a storytelling narrative built around completing quests to advance the game. Better still it has an ingenious method of introducing enemy troops to the board that really ramps up during play, often resulting in a thrilling finale.

The small Combined Might expansion did a great job of mixing up the quest system by adding around 30 cards which really ramped-up the game’s replayability. This time, as you may have guessed from the games title, the idea was to up the number of playable characters from the base game’s original six.

What does New Heroes bring to the party?

The Dwarves: New Heroes expansion does exactly what it says on the tin – you’ll get six new character sheets with associated minis (doubling the six in the base game), plus a deck of spell cards (the only new rule) for one of them, Andokai. The other non-dwarves are the favourite travelling companions from the first book – Furgas, Rodario and Narmora – alongside Queen Xamtys II and the ‘true’ Tungdil.

An expansion dwarf (left) next to an original

Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the plastic miniatures are not at the same scale as those in the original game. How on earth do you make that mistake? Especially when the UK reprinting of the base game was made around the same time this expansion was released?

Personally, minis don’t bother me at all and in no way help my immersion – I’d be happy if they were wooden figures (and even wooden cubes, hehe). But I can see this being a really big issue for anyone who cares about that kind of thing. And even though it doesn’t affect my enjoyment, it is undeniably incredibly sloppy.

How much does it change the game?

The biggest change to the game is Andokai’s spell book. As an alternate action she can draw a spell into her hand (she can up to five of the nine available) and play it later – and the casting does not take an action. The spells feel a little like items, which is good as with experience you tend to use items less and less.

Quests for them tend to be a distraction from what is increasingly, with higher difficulty, a tight race against time and the randomness of the items means you can do a lot of work to get something you may never use. Spells are easy to get and are invariably useful (reroles, move characters, discard threat cards etc).

Furgas helps you gain extra equipment; Xamtys moves the council token forward when completing an adventure; while the True Tungdil gives bonuses to other dwarves in his space – all excellent choices in a game with more players. Rodario is a great all rounder, adding a +1 to any die when he tries to complete tests, while Narmora can move through spaces containing enemies and also kills an extra enemy on a roll of six in battle – both great all-round skills, but particularly suited to games where you have fewer players.

Is New Heroes value for money?

At around £15 you’re not getting an awful lot of physical content in the box. The card stock is the same quality as that in the original game: thin but sturdy cardboard for the character sheets and OK card stock for the spell cards. The minis are nothing to write home about it terms of quality either, especially combined with the size issue mentioned above. But in terms of general expansion costs across the industry, this is about par.

Is the New Heroes expansion essential?

If you are a fan of the Dwarves novels (particularly the first one) and have missed not being able to play the roll of some of your favourite characters, you’ll want to pick this up: all the new characters start in the right places and have powers that suit them, which is great.

Alternatively if you’re more into the game than the books, much as with the Combined Might expansion, your need to own this one is going to come down to how much replayability you want. The spell book adds a genuine extra dimension to play and characters such as Narmora and True Tungdil add genuine new strategies, so it certainly adds to the base game.

… and does it fit in the original Dwarves box?

As already mentioned, there’s hardly anything here in terms of physical components so yes, it will very easily fit into the base game box.

* I would like to thank Pegasus Spiel for providing a copy of the expansion for review.