LogFAQs > #932828763

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	another year of tabletop rankings and writeups
SeabassDebeste 01/12/20 4:12:17 PM #221:	93. Small World (2009) Category: Player vs Player Genres: Dudes on a map, area control, player combat Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3 Game length: 45 to 75 minutes Experience: 4-5 plays over 4-5 sessions with 3, 4 players (2015-2017) Previous ranks: 15/100 (2016), 41/80 (2018) Summary - You pick a fantasy race and a magical power for that race and then start trying to conquer territory using the race and its powers. You score points for the territory you control at the end of your turn. Eventually, attrition will wear down your race, which has no way to marshal new forces. At that point, you can send your race into decline and sit out a turn... before picking a new one with which to invade! Experience - I loved Small World the first time I played it. There's no engine to build, and you score points without any weird mechanisms, and combat is straightforward. It's just super-clean. I also played it just enough for some of the shine to come off it. Design - Area control, especially dudes on a map, can be a vicious genre. Small World eases a lot of that pain by letting you know you don't necessarily need to hold territory to enjoy the game - you get victory points from offense, not defense. Add variable player powers to that, and it's a fun recipe where you can go around beating the crap out of each other without necessarily having those negative feelings that can come up so easily. That said, getting your troops wiped out still doesn't feel great, since you're forced into decline faster, but it's never super-punishing. Making a confrontational genre less confrontational is definitely the best part of Small World. Future - I'm not a master of Small World or anything, but I'm not sure there's a ton more depth to see. There are 2 main decisions: valuing your race and which path to attack. So beyond a gateway/novelty game (which I think it is excellent as, don't get me wrong), I'm not super-interested in playing much more of Small World. --- yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they inhale its fickleness <cite>SeabassDebeste posted [p:932828763] in another ye... [t:78284791]...</cite> <quote>93. Small World (2009) Category: Player vs Player Genres: Dudes on a map, area control, player combat Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3 Game length: 45 to 75 minutes Experience: 4-5 plays over 4-5 sessions with 3, 4 players (2015-2017) Previous ranks: 15/100 (2016), 41/80 (2018) Summary - You pick a fantasy race and a magical power for that race and then start trying to conquer territory using the race and its powers. You score points for the territory you control at the end of your turn. Eventually, attrition will wear down your race, which has no way to marshal new forces. At that point, you can send your race into decline and sit out a turn... before picking a new one with which to invade! Experience - I loved Small World the first time I played it. There's no engine to build, and you score points without any weird mechanisms, and combat is straightforward. It's just super-clean. I also played it just enough for some of the shine to come off it. Design - Area control, especially dudes on a map, can be a vicious genre. Small World eases a lot of that pain by letting you know you don't necessarily need to hold territory to enjoy the game - you get victory points from offense, not defense. Add variable player powers to that, and it's a fun recipe where you can go around beating the crap out of each other without necessarily having those negative feelings that can come up so easily. That said, getting your troops wiped out still doesn't feel great, since you're forced into decline faster, but it's never super-punishing. Making a confrontational genre less confrontational is definitely the best part of Small World. Future - I'm not a master of Small World or anything, but I'm not sure there's a ton more depth to see. There are 2 main decisions: valuing your race and which path to attack. So beyond a gateway/novelty game (which I think it is excellent as, don't get me wrong), I'm not super-interested in playing much more of Small World. --- yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they inhale its fickleness</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1