Board 8 > another year of tabletop rankings and writeups

(+) Yeah! (+)

65. Isle of Skye (2015)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Bidding, tile-laying, city-building
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3
Game length: 45-60 minutes
Experience: 4-6 plays over 4-6 sessions with 4-5 players (2016-2018)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), 28/80 (2018)

Summary - Everyone is building a personal isle using square tiles. Each round, everyone draws three tiles and places them for offer. Knowing what everyone else is offering, you simultaneously (and secretly) assign values and an ax to each of the tiles you've been dealt. The values assigned are simultaneously revealed, and then in turn order, players get to use their leftover money to buy other players' tiles. At the end of the round, you buy your own unbought tiles and pay money to the bank for them. Scoring happens based on different island criteria each round.

Design - Isle of Skye has a few things going for it: the offer mechanic, the short play-time, and the tile-laying. The short play-time and tile-laying add to the accessibility - you can teach the game reasonably quickly and make a very cute city, making it a great game to bring to the table if you're playing with people who aren't as deep into the hobby/have shorter attention spans.

But of course, the simultaneous marketing mechanic is what defines the game. It's a lovely form of indirect player interaction, providing some big decisions. How much money do you hold back to buy others' tiles? Having to buy your own tiles if you overvalue them and no one buys them is a downright Knizian twist. How much are you willing to risk both your tiles getting bought? You almost always want to lay two tiles per turn, but set your prices too low and you'll lose both. Turn order plays an interesting role as well; going first gives you first pick of the tiles (you can get the many-ships tile perhaps, if ships score this round), but no one will be buying your tiles first, so you may have to lower the money you allocate to your own tiles (risking both getting bought) in order to afford other tiles.

The geometric puzzle in Isle of Skye is definitely fun, and it's an example of what can mitigate the pain of getting your ass kicked in Ra or Modern Art. Valuing tiles isn't that easy in Isle of Skye, since you don't know how your current tiles may affect the layout of future tiles, and then there are asymmetric values that allow you to enclose areas, or score points independent of the round-specific scoring conditions, or generate income for you to spend later. In short, good feels are available even to the losers of the auction, which is great.

Experience - I don't think I've ever won a game of Isle of Skye, but also, despite multiple feels-bad moments - getting both tiles bought; being poor as hell; getting your ass handed to you - I've never had a feels-bad game overall. It's reliably enjoyable and of course it plays quickly and it has tough decisions.

Future - If the friend who owned this would show regularly again, I think it would be a regular sight, and probably could leapfrog other games above this. It was ranked at #28 on the previous list, but as time passes since the last play, it falls more into memory and has to compete with other games that are up there because of memory instead of recency.
---

Isle of Skye is neat. I've only played it a few times but the most recent play was with the Journeyman expansion which lets you use a pawn to explore your kingdom which I thought was a nice addition.

---

i really dig the variable scoring system in isle of skye

the tile laying and even bidding stuff work well but don't seem particularly groundbreaking
but the scoring options? good stuff

---

I haven't played Isle of Skye yet, but I do enjoy Castles of Mad King Ludwig - which Isle of Skye seems somewhat similar to. Has anyone played both enough to offer a comparison?

---

My wife isnt super into tabletops. It's very hard to find games for us as she isnt very competitive and doesnt like deception games. And neither of us like co-op games that are super challenging to win.

---

castles of MKL offers a little more excitement in terms of the tile placement (the odd shapes and general "castle"-building theme shine through more) but has a lot more downtime relative to isle of skye (where the bidding occurs simultaneously)

i prefer isle of skye but i could see liking both for sure

---

64. Seasons (2012)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Card-drafting, tableau-building, dice-drafting
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 4
Game length: 60-75 minutes
Experience: 4-5 plays over 3-4 sessions with 4 players (2017)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), 32/80 (2018)

Summary - At the beginning of Seasons, everyone drafts an equal-sized hand of cards and divides them to be drawn at the beginning of each of three game years. Each year is four seasons, which advance by the last remaining die in a dice draft, which grants various resources, extra cards, and the like. These resources are generally spent to play your cards, which have instant abilities, ongoing abilities, and victory points.

Design There are several minigames within Seasons. It starts with a card draft, which essentially determines the powers and points you are capable of earning throughout the game, as well as which resources to prioritize. Then there's collecting those resources via the dice and trying to control the season track. And finally, there's playing the actual cards, deciding which order to play them in. Each of these is a fun game in and of itself.

Is Seasons somewhat less than the sum of its parts, though? Card-drafting like Sushi Go and dice-drafting like Grand Austria Hotel don't often go together, and that card-drafting phase, which takes perhaps fifteen AP-laced minutes at the beginning seems to take on an outsized importance in the outcome of the game, relative to more mechanically satisfying parts of the game: rolling the dice and actually playing the cards. Is there just a little too much downtime?

Experience - Seasons is like a fever dream in my mind: we played it twice in person and loved the feeling of the differently colored dice, the season-changing mechanism, tapping our cards for their abilities, tracking victory points. We agreed this was one of those games we could play repeatedly and get a feel for, get to know the cards, grow in together. Then we played online two or three times. And then... I think it might never have hit the table ever again. And now that was over two years ago.

Future - For some reason, maybe tied to reading online, Seasons with four seems rather daunting now. The card draft at the beginning feels cumbersome in my mind, and for some reason, I anticipate downtime. That said, I still want to give it another shot and reassess, if only because of that past great experience.
---

seasons is okay. i've enjoyed playing it online but i think your quote "less than the sum of its parts" is a really good summation of seasons and why i find it fairly underwhelming.

requiring (or at least point-penalizing) you to play all your cards makes the decisions of what to do with them much less interesting. and because you have to do that, you end up getting what i feel is too much time to run your engine - there's not enough tension between trying to build the perfect engine and not getting to run it for long enough.

it's still a decent enough engine builder, but it fails to capitalize on all the things i like most about engine-building games (and as a result, showcases why i think tom lehmann is an absolute genius)

---

Seasons is very pretty, but Ive never played it

---

Great_Paul posted...

Isle of Skye is neat. I've only played it a few times but the most recent play was with the Journeyman expansion which lets you use a pawn to explore your kingdom which I thought was a nice addition.

isle of skye is short enough that i'd be worried about adding a mechanic like that!

Naye745 posted...

i really dig the variable scoring system in isle of skye

the tile laying and even bidding stuff work well but don't seem particularly groundbreaking
but the scoring options? good stuff

like an anti-seasons, i feel like all the parts of IOS come together well!

cyko posted...

I haven't played Isle of Skye yet, but I do enjoy Castles of Mad King Ludwig - which Isle of Skye seems somewhat similar to. Has anyone played both enough to offer a comparison?

only played MKL once. the castle-building there is definitely more fun than IOS's, but IOS's market mechanic is probably a bit better? would take replays to discern

Maniac64 posted...

My wife isnt super into tabletops. It's very hard to find games for us as she isnt very competitive and doesnt like deception games. And neither of us like co-op games that are super challenging to win.

takenoko can be very relaxing, hope it goes well!

Naye745 posted...

seasons is okay. i've enjoyed playing it online but i think your quote "less than the sum of its parts" is a really good summation of seasons and why i find it fairly underwhelming.

to be fair, those parts are WAY better physically! the upkeep is slower (increasing downtime as you do arithmetic) but it's much more satisfying IMO
---

ive played it in-person also. i actually liked it better online because it feels too sprawling for what it is in person!

---

63. No Thanks! (2004)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Bidding, push-your-luck, sequence-building
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 0
Game length: 10-15 minutes
Experience: 10-20 plays over 5-10 sessions with 4-5 players (2015-2019)
Previous ranks: 36/100 (2016), 38/80 (2018)

Summary - Your goal is to minimize points taken via cards. There's one card in the center with a number on it (3 to 35), and on your turn you either add a token if you have one (-1 point) to it to pass on it or take it and all the tokens other players dropped. However, any sequence of cards that you assemble scores only the lowest number on it (so 5-6 will score only 5, not 11).

Design - Simple and brilliant, No Thanks! distills decision-making into a binary: do I want the card or not? But a lot weighs into this: How many points are you taking right now? How likely is it to get a connecting piece with future negative points attached to it? If I have the 33 and the 32 is up for bid, should I take the 32 now, or pass and let it collect negative points from other players first? How long can I afford to do that before someone says fuck it and takes it from me? Even if it's bad for me, can I afford to give up a token right now (and risk getting stuck with an even worse number later)? With nearly a third of the deck (nine cards) removed each game, what are the odds that I'll be able to see the cards I need to build the sequence? (This is particularly painful if you're trying to decide whether to get that 19 when you've got 17 showing.)

Due to its filler weight, No Thanks! is going to have a small hole or two. It is luck-dependent. And because of its peculiar brand of player interactivity, different players may see different opportunities: if the player to your right loves snapping up cards, then you'll always be first to be offered cards, and the decisions might not be as interesting. No Thanks! plays like a 6 nimmt! type of game that needs to be iterated to have any meaningful value due to the swinginess of a single hand. And of course there's some spite; since No Thanks! is clearly non-zero-sum, it's always a question if you want to be the one to "take one for the team."

Experience - I haven't played No Thanks! a ton. I haven't played it every year I've been in the hobby, and I don't feel the urge to play it. But it's really reliable as a palette cleanser. Have positive memories of waiting for others to finish a different game with it, or ending a long game night with it, or having it be a breath of fresh air early on when I was overwhelmed with heavy games.

Future - I don't know that I need No Thanks! in my collection but with any group from 3-5, hard to see me turning down a round. There are a lot of games in a somewhat fluid tier here. While NT has rather limited potential to rise, it also wouldn't really fall other than just becoming a bit tired of it, or other games surpassing it.
---

62. Terraforming Mars (2016)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Tableau-building, card-drafting, tile-laying
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 6
Game length: 90-150 minutes
Experience: 3-4 plays over 3-4 sessions with 4-5 players (2018-19); one play with expansions
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Each player is a corporation tasked with making Mars more hospitable to human life: increasing oxygen level with trees, increasing the temperature, and filling the oceans. Each age consists of players receiving cards and gaining income, then taking turns performing up to two actions until they all pass out of the age. The game ends in the age when all three terraforming tracks are maxed out.

Design - Terraforming Mars is messy. Its player board is notoriously bad (forcing you to track your income potential, your money, and all your resource counts with personal tracks that are very easily disturbed). The card art isn't particularly consistent.

It's fiddly. There are a bunch of resources to keep track of and mechanics that don't always tie great together and seem to be there mainly for the theme. It's easy to get sucked up in the cards and forget about the actions that are printed on the board as well; you can always pay twenty-five dollars to build a city or something, but you can quickly forget. You have to convert your energy into heat, and it doesn't seem to add anything to the experience except rules overhead and more things that can be disrupted with a bump of the table.

It's long. While in my games people have generally terraformed Mars at a fast rate, it's an engine-builder where games are known to go ages because people are more invested in running their engines than in pushing the endgame by planting trees or raising temperature.

It's random and sometimes mean. Resources are useless without the right type of cards; many cards have different synergies that you need luck to roll into. Occasionally you'll have cards that have a take-that feature in a eurogame that really doesn't need any.

And yet... I kinda like it. It's satisfying when you do string some actions together, and it's fun to hit those bump-lines when you terraform to just the right temperature. And of course there's the theme, which is the real excuse for all the fluff. The chrome in Terraforming Mars is what justifies all the mess - each card, with all its exceptions and garbage attached to it, generally makes sense as to why it behaves the way it does. Like of course you can only have livestock once the temperature reaches a certain degree. Of course predators eat others' animals. Of course a meteor is destructive. Of course you have placement rules for oceans and cities. The theme ties everything together (except possibly the funded awards and buying the cards) and that is great.

Experience - I've played TM a few times and found it good. There's a lot of hype behind the game which eludes me, but while I've never done particularly well, there is something inherently satisfying about competently runninga complex machines. Like hey, I found a way to use this titanium! Or whatever.

Future - It might be worth a few more goes to see if I can actually get any better at evaluating the cards (which seems to be the most important decision point of the game) and just to fill in Mars again. TM is probably a bit high on my list for what I've played of it; however, it could easily justify this ranking or go higher if I were to get a good engine going or to find more of what others love about it.
---

One of my favorites RIP

---

At game night last night I overheard somebody say that 3 is the best player count for Terraforming Mars. I corrected them and informed them that 0 is actually the best player count.

---

KommunistKoala posted...

One of my favorites RIP

my primary gaming mates right now are a couple who own TM, and it's possibly their single favorite game that they've played 2p. i haven't played TM with them in months, so maybe i should request it soon!

what are your favorite aspects of it?
---

61. Pret a Porter (2010)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Tableau-building, economic, set collection, worker placement
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 5
Game length: 90-150 minutes
Experience: 2 plays or 2 sessions with 3 players (2019)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Each player is an aspiring fashion mogul competing over one year in four quarterly fashion shows over number of outfits, demonstrated quality, PR points, and trend points. Each quarter consists of three months: two worker placement rounds and the fashion show, with a payday (monetary cost) after each months. During the worker placement phase, players can build a tableau of buildings/contracts/workers that can increase efficiency but raise monthly costs; get outfit ideas (i.e. draw cards); or purchase materials used to create those outfits.

Design - Hey, it's one of the first worker placement games to hit the rankings. Worker placement is a nice mechanic for indirect interaction - during any given round, you want to take a certain set of actions, but you need to prioritize them because other players may occupy some of your spots first. In a game like Pret where you're building your company's engine and collecting design ideas hat all fit a certain suit, prioritizing the actions you want any given year is very important.

The best parts about Pret: a unique theme, economic tightness changing with your engine, and the focus on the shows. I really like the fashion theme - Rococo is the only other tailoring game I've played, and I didn't like it much. Then there's the economic aspect - generally, most rounds of Pret, you're spending your way down or increasing your salary, making planning tough but payouts really satisfying when you're finally able to refill your bank account. And most interestingly, I like the fashion shows - you're judged based on how many of each category you're accrued relative to other players. This forces everyone to compete indirectly each time, so while it affects basically nothing else about the game, there's incentive to go after that PR specialist or to buy expensive threads even if the spot to buy cheap threads is open.

One area where Pret may suffer a bit is with saturation of rules and especially of the board state. While it is perfectly sensible to compete over the number of outfits of a line you can produce, the other three areas of competition - Quality, PR, and Trendiness - leave something to be desired. While it's thematic that you'd compete over them, they are simply tokens. Quality at least you get from buying more expensive (but otherwise identical) cloth, which makes sense. PR and Trendiness on the other hand seem to come mainly from cards. And there are twelve cards to read per season, which is an absolute ton of information to try to evaluate. That becomes visually noisy and hard to parse.

Add that to feeding after every worker placement round and a design decision to have action resolution in a separate phase from placement, and you have a recipe for slowing the game down. I think being one quarter shorter, given it's an economic snowball, wouldn't have been the worst thing for Pret.

Experience - I really liked Pret both times I played it. That said, winning can introduce a big bias, and I might have broken the game the second time - no one denied me a few buildings that turned into a massive snowball. Not having to worry about economic tightness really frees up the engine in Pret in a way that might not be great for the game, unless everyone can do it.

Future - Might be kinda hard to get to the table. I had originally considered buying it myself, but weight is a bit of an issue, and I'm not sure if the primary gaming partner loved getting pasted. Oops. I think on a per-play enjoyment average, it might beat two of the worker placement games above it, so further plays could help it rise or settle it into its rank here.
---

I played it for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I liked it a lot, but yeah it was definitely heavy and had lots of number crunching. I definitely want to try it again soon now that I have a better idea what I'm doing.

---

the best player count for Terraforming Mars is any count that allows you to play tbqh

SeabassDebeste posted...

The theme ties everything together (except possibly the funded awards and buying the cards)

buying cards is buying the rights to develop the technology

awards, though... I've got nothing
---

Terraforming Mars sounds cool, I just started watching the Expanse last week, and its got me really thinking about space stuff

---

I played that one and liked it but the friends that own it also own a lot of games that I like better

---

pret a porter seemed pretty neat but had horribly awkward english rules in its older printing.

dunno what exactly theyre doing with the new version but the cover looks lovely

---

SeabassDebeste posted...

what are your favorite aspects of it?

I just love all the different ways you can win in the game. There is some randomness to which cards you get, though there is a draft variant, where the 4 cards you draw get drafted and passed around the table like in 7 Wonders/Sushi Go which can eliminate some randomness and add more player interaction. The award system is great (even if it doesn't match the theme lol) with gambling on your ability to win an award early or waiting towards the end to pay more for an award you're more sure to win.

I do think it at least needs the Prelude expansion which makes the game have an asymmetrical start and helps avoid the boring 1st/maybe 2nd generation if you're only playing base game.

I've never played with less than 4 players and 1 person in particular always takes too long on his turns but otherwise it's great. Still need to try the new expansion

---

i cant remember if i said this about TM but i havent played it, think i would generally like it, but mostly would wish it was shorter and more streamlined than it is

---

Terraforming Mars is an excellent engine building game. Have you ever played with the card drafting variant? After your first game, i think that's almost necessary , because it evens the playing field and helps you get your engine going faster. Otherwise you might need to cobble something together from your opening hand while another player can snowball right out of the gate with a better opening hand.

I am shocked to see Pret a Porter up here! That's one of my favorite games of the last year. I only have the second edition - not the new third edition - and the rulebook is a huge mess, but printing up the re-translated book off of BGG cleared things up immensely. Ignacy creates some fun games, but his rulebooks are notoriously awful.

I do love the unique theme of Pret a Porter, though. It's entertaining to hear cutthroat arguments about fashion shows. That game is surprisingly intense. Oh, And endless Zoolander jokes - "that Boho - it's so hot right now..."

---

60. The Mind (2018)

Category: Cooperative
Genres: Sequence-building, restricted communication
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 0
Game length: 10-20 minutes
Experience: 8-10 plays over 3-5 sessions with 2-5 players (2019-20)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Everyone has a hand of unique cards numbered 1 to 100. The goal of the game is, without talking or indicating the cards in your hand, to have everyone play their cards in order. With each round, you're dealt an increasing number of cards, and sometimes you can earn one-off abilities to give you leeway for errors.

Design - The Mind is... weird. Many have argued that it's not really a game, and while you can make a case for that - with practically no structure - there also arises a clearly cooperative rhythm in the right group. The stripped-down ruleset of The Mind enables players to play intuitively, with some sense of push-your-luck while attempting to meld minds together.

Experience - That's what The Mind is - an experience. You can have good examples - where you lock in and put your hands on the table and groan when you just miss - and then it can totally miss in a group where the buy-in doesn't feel right. I've had both.

Future - I feel I've seen of what The Mind has to offer at this point. It always takes a few rounds to fall into rhythm together, and that getting-into-rhythm is what the game is about. That said, experiencing it with different people can make it worth it.
---

Played takenoko.

We definitely enjoyed it but I can already see some of the issues mentioned. Not sure how much we would replay and feeding the panda is so much easier and better for most the game. The shape objectives are way more difficult and worth the same amount or less. They all need at least one more point for each of them.

But our game ended 41 to 40 and we had fun slow it was definitely a good experience. I could see checking it out again to play with family once.

---

the shape objectives feel more viable if you are playing with more players

the mind was really neat the one time i played it (we did a few rounds) but i do wonder how much legs it has long-term. it's a neat concept though! (as is THE GAME)

---

The Mind has always been a hit with anyone I played it. No Thanks! was a sleeper hit a friend picked up on a whim that we have had a good bit of fun playing.

---

59. Tzolk'in (2012)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Worker placement, point salad
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 5
Game length: 90-120 minutes
Experience: 4-5 plays over 4-5 sessions (including online) with 2-4 players (2015-16)
Previous ranks: 34/100 (2016), 33/80 (2018)

Summary - Tzolk'in is a Mayan-civilization themed worker placement game, played over twenty-four rounds. On a turn you can either 1. place available workers on the lowest open spots of gears or 2. pull placed workers off of gears to gain benefits. The gears physically(!) rotate each round, moving each placed worker on it one spot higher. The higher a worker is on a gear when it is pulled off, the better the reward is gained. Goals include feeding workers, going up temple tracks, gaining resources, building monuments, and improving technology tracks.

Design - It's impossible to talk about Tzolk'in without talking about its gear system. They are its defining characteristic and by far its most distinctive visual feature. Each gear is themed: this gear is for resource conversion; this gear is for corn to feed workers; this gear is to upgrade tech tracks. And physically speaking, they're gear-shaped for a reason: they are all connected to one larger gear in the center of the board, which is turned each round (automatically moving your workers up gear tracks). The center gear represents the flow of the entire year as well; when it makes a full revolution (a full year), the game ends. Tzolk'in is almost painfully clever in that mechanism.

And how well does it integrate intp the gameplay? Pretty damn great -. There are two general flavors of worker placement: You place a worker (or workers) and immediately take the action (see Lords of Waterdeep), or you place your worker(s) during one phase and resolve them during another (see Caylus, Pret a Porter). Tzolk'in is undoubtedly a worker placement game, but uniquely, some turns you'll be seeding actions and others you'll be reaping them. The passage of time can give you a feeling of really "investing" in your workforce. It's really satisfying to pull off multiple workers in one go and make big turns.

All of the mechanisms of Tzolk'in are great, and on top of those, it's fun to play. You get a bunch of stuff to do, depending on the gear you've strategized in. You can build an engine and reap repeated rewards by going to the tech track; you can get a ton of resources and gain VPs from monuments; you can gain unique rewards off crystal skulls; and you can race people to get immediate and future resources and VPs by going up the god tracks. Feeding your workers isn't that punishing, and you can get large amounts of corn quickly on the corn track, and you don't need that much if you don't blow your corn by placing higher up than the bottom. The decision tree is very broad, which is great. Lots of good feelings.

I have to wonder, though, if Tzolk'in is particularly deep, or if it has a coherent strategy in mind. While I'm no expert (I've never won a game or been particularly close), it does have a typical "rush to max your workers" element to it. In a game where feeding workers is an element, I've noticed that occasional starvation can seem extremely profitable. The game feels a little too eager to throw you into the sandbox without fixed goals, but some synergies appear overwhelmingly strong compared to others. Maybe this is intentional. Hard to say! Nonetheless, deciding when to place and when to pull off your workers always feels like a satisfying puzzle.

Experience - Tzolk'in has been a staple on my list in the mid-high tier since the first one. Obviously, it's been a long time since I've played the game - it was one of my first heavier games that I enjoyed, which can be attributed both to its relatively forgiving game design and spectacular table presence. I've also played it online, which speeds up the game of course (especially the upkeep) and lets you see a little more clearly just how others are gaining those points, though not being able to turn the wheel naturally doesn't feel great.

Future - I think Tzolk'in is overdue to be played again! Once again, I find it somewhat unlikely it will hit the table for me soon given the people who own it - but I think it's very deserving of a "second" look.
---

I think that's the first writeup that's made me think "ooh I wanna try that"

---

58. Pit (1903)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Set collection, trading, real-time, limited communication, multiple hands
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 0
Game length: 5 minutes per hand
Experience: 20+ hands over 7+ sessions with 4-8+ players (2015-16)
Previous ranks: 66/100 (2016), 45/80 (2018)

Summary - Everyone plays as a commodity trader holding a hand of disparate commodities cards (cocoa, cows, etc). In real time, everyone makes trades of identical sets, but you can't say what you're offering! "Two! Two!" You might say, offering two cocoa, hoping to receive back two of anything else. A hand ends with the first person to assemble a full hand of nine identical items.

Design - Pit is really, really straightforward. In terms of what it's supposed to be, I think it mostly succeeds - it's hectic, loud, adrenaline-inducing, confusing, and fun. It's blatantly unfair depending on who decides to trade with whom; you can be very lucky or luncky easily; a person can technically break the game by getting singles of everything.

Experience - But the fun part of Pit sticks out to me. Like Two Rooms and a Boom, it's a game that I played mostly in those halcyon days, when large gatherings were plentiful and everyone hadn't moved away. Pit sticks out as one of those games that everyone played, including the significant others that didn't usually play, and which pretty much everyone enjoyed as well. I don't know that I've ever technically finished a game (you're supposed to keep track of your score across hands or something).

Favorite memory here is probably playing it at a vacation house at 2 AM or so with four people. Every player finished their set at the same second. There were a lot of laughs and a quick realization, "man, it's time to go to bed."

Future - Since no one in any of my current groups owns Pit, it seems unlikely I will play it again anytime soon. I wonder how it will hold up.
---

KommunistKoala posted...

I just love all the different ways you can win in the game. There is some randomness to which cards you get, though there is a draft variant, where the 4 cards you draw get drafted and passed around the table like in 7 Wonders/Sushi Go which can eliminate some randomness and add more player interaction. The award system is great (even if it doesn't match the theme lol) with gambling on your ability to win an award early or waiting towards the end to pay more for an award you're more sure to win.

I do think it at least needs the Prelude expansion which makes the game have an asymmetrical start and helps avoid the boring 1st/maybe 2nd generation if you're only playing base game.

I've never played with less than 4 players and 1 person in particular always takes too long on his turns but otherwise it's great. Still need to try the new expansion

drafting each round seems to favor experienced players who know the deck deeply. so while this could be an improvement, to someone like me, i imagine it's more a penalty - not to mention all the extra AP that would be induced by looking through so many extra cards...!

cyko posted...

I am shocked to see Pret a Porter up here! That's one of my favorite games of the last year. I only have the second edition - not the new third edition - and the rulebook is a huge mess, but printing up the re-translated book off of BGG cleared things up immensely. Ignacy creates some fun games, but his rulebooks are notoriously awful.

I do love the unique theme of Pret a Porter, though. It's entertaining to hear cutthroat arguments about fashion shows. That game is surprisingly intense. Oh, And endless Zoolander jokes - "that Boho - it's so hot right now..."

haha, i had never heard of this game but my friend went on an acquisition tear late last year and i wound up logging two plays thanks to it. thankfully i never had to go through the rulebook.

to me, the iconography on the board is messy, but the cards are understandable. and yeah, the art for the outfits themselves is dope.

this is more a point on game design than on the theme, but i like the contests because they focus your goals. in general those stars are the way to win the game, so they encourage everyone to compete on similar goals.

Maniac64 posted...

Played takenoko.

We definitely enjoyed it but I can already see some of the issues mentioned. Not sure how much we would replay and feeding the panda is so much easier and better for most the game. The shape objectives are way more difficult and worth the same amount or less. They all need at least one more point for each of them.

But our game ended 41 to 40 and we had fun slow it was definitely a good experience. I could see checking it out again to play with family once.

yup, replayability is probably my big question mark on takenoko! glad you enjoyed it.

Tom Bombadil posted...

I think that's the first writeup that's made me think "ooh I wanna try that"

in that case this was a success
---

Pit is my 7-year-old son's favorite game that we own. He always calls it "the yelling game". It's also under $10 on Amazon to get a copy so it won't put you out to buy a new copy!

---

tzolkin was definitely a neat game but it kind of bugged me how there were like only 2 pathways to getting points, and if you didnt figure out how to sequence them early on you were going to lose

that said it was way earlier in my experience with eurogames so i'd probably enjoy it more now
(but i've preferred a couple of the designers' other titles - teotihuacan and voyages of marco polo - a lot more)

---

I had wanted to play Tzolkin for a while and finally got to last month. I really enjoyed it and hope to play it again soon.

---

I have only played Tzolkin once and it was sweet. I need to try it again.

---

Yeah, that sounds very interesting

---

Oh yeeeaehhh pit. I used to play that with my ex's family. Loads of fun. Really brings out different personalities at a table, in fun and simple but exciting ways.

---

57. Jungle Speed (1997)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Party game, pattern-recognition, reflexes
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 0
Game length: 20 minutes
Experience: 10+ games over 7+ sessions with 6-8 players (2015-16)
Previous ranks: 17/100 (2016), 23/80 (2018)

Summary - Each person has a stack of cards with an intricate geometric pattern on it. Each turn you flip a card onto the top of your faceup pile. Flip the same pattern as someone else, and you duel, i.e. have to race to grab a totem pole set in the center of the table. The loser of a duel takes the winner's cards. A few other cards can cause everyone to participate. The first person to lose all their cards wins.

Design - Jungle Speed is the obvious predecessor to Anomia. It's simple and clean, with some deviously similar-looking-but-not-identical cards that can severely punish you for grabbing the totem pole out of hand. Its most obvious issue is people's proximity to the totem pole - a game designed to play eight, which relies on people being able to grasp a single object, naturally favors people closer to that object. (It also favors people more able to see the card being flipped.) Like Anomia, Jungle Speed has the fun, unique ability to turn an intelligent person's brain into mush in a split second.

What makes Jungle Speed so devastatingly effective is its change-of-pace cards - several cards can cause players other than the non-active player to become involved in duels. So not only are you always checking to see if you match the shape of the player who flipped the card, sometimes you need to check to see if you match anyone's color, or you need to flip your own card along with everyone else, or you need to just race and grab the center totem before everyone else. Because you're constantly off balance, you can never develop quite the right rhythm.

Experience - Jungle Speed, like several other games, was a game that's moved away but that saw a lot of play back in the day. It was a reason to look forward to bigger gatherings.

Future - Those bigger gatherings are rarer now, and trends go heavier. I feel nostalgia thinking about Jungle Speed, and those times. If that bigger group can be reunited for a game night, then yes. Otherwise, maybe I'll wait until it's a newer group of gamers.
---

Naye745 posted...

tzolkin was definitely a neat game but it kind of bugged me how there were like only 2 pathways to getting points, and if you didnt figure out how to sequence them early on you were going to lose

that said it was way earlier in my experience with eurogames so i'd probably enjoy it more now
(but i've preferred a couple of the designers' other titles - teotihuacan and voyages of marco polo - a lot more)

i think i liked tzolk'in more than teotihuacan, which i've only played once. the two have a lot in common, other than the central mechanism. i think tzolk'in definitely deserves a second look! (and teotihuacan for me.) haven't played voyages of marco polo.

SBAllen posted...

Pit is my 7-year-old son's favorite game that we own. He always calls it "the yelling game". It's also under $10 on Amazon to get a copy so it won't put you out to buy a new copy!

that's adorable and made me laugh out loud.
---

56. Cottage Garden (2016)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Drafting, tile-laying
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 2
Game length: 30-45 minutes
Experience: 2-3 games over 2-3 sessions with 3-4 players (2017-2019)

Summary - Each player is filling in their own rectangular-grid fields with Tetris pieces. Fill in a field and it clears, and you score both red points and blue points, depending on how many are still showing (though you may also cover them for expediency/sanity). On your turn you draft a tile from a grid, based on an arrow that moves around the perimeter of the board.

Design - Cottage Garden is simple. In fact, it's the spiritual (and mechanical!) sequence to Patchwork, designer Uwe Rosenberg's two-player first foray into tetramino-drafting and -laying. It's an inherently solitary puzzle, and the hate-drafting in Cottage Garden is of course smaller than Patchwork, accommodating more than two players. Anyway, Cottage Garden is more adorable than Patchwork (you can use a cat to fill a gap for some reason. It's cute.) You push a little wheelbarrow around at the beginning of your turn.

The offer mechanic might be a little out of place and there's not a lot going on in a game that's probably just beyond a filler for new players. But man, it's cute, it's relaxing, and it's fun.

Experience - We gifted Cottage Garden to a friend for her birthday and have played it two or three times. We consider it a requirement to make a squeaky sound as you push the wheelbarrow, which is about as roleplay-y or goofy as we ever get in a game. Later play went faster than the first - perhaps because it was three players instead of four, but perhaps because of familiarity with rules leading to snappier decisions - and it was really nice.

Future - I actually am pretty inclined to play Cottage Garden again. Want my primary gaming mate to get to experience it! There are eurogames of similar complexity higher up on this list, but it's possible that with more reps, Cottage Garden could make a play to fill that niche as well.
---

We used to play the shit out of Jungle Speed in high school. Lot of pain. Lot of flying totems. Great game.

---

cottage garden i havent played, but patchwork is pretty decent

that said there's a certain polyomino-placing game that i rather prefer to basically any rosenberg game!

---

55. Agricola (2007)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Worker placement, tableau-building, tile-laying
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 6
Game length: 90-150 minutes
Experience: 6-8 games over 6-8 sessions with 2-5 players (including online/app), 2015-2019
Previous ranks: 38/100 (2016), 37/80 (2018)

Summary - Each player runs their own farm, a 3x4 grid, and feeds a growing family of workers. Over fourteen rounds, players collect resources, gain special abilities (from cards dealt at the beginning of their game), grow crops, raise animals, upgrade the house's size and material, grow their family, and most importantly, make sure not to let their families starve. At the end of the game, you get points for basically everything above, with a twist that ignoring any given category nets negative points.

Experience - Agricola was one of my worst first-experiences ever. It was my first worker placement game. Without an actual proper meal myself, my stomach was experiencing some pains as people I kinda knew were crowded around the table - five in all - taking agonizingly long on their turns and alwyas doing something called baking bread. I was unable to get wood (needed to do basically anything), never first player, stuck with the fewest workers, and perpetually taking the sad "here's a few food items" option to stay afloat. The game lasted three and a half hours, and I trudged away with a sad defeat, no positive interactions, and (hey) at least I maxed out my house and humans.

And yet... unlike many longer strategy games I played back then, I returned to Agricola later (and never with five again). At different meetups, with at least some sense of round progression, I still was mostly bad and made for plenty of last place finishes. But the games moved faster, and I felt at least more empowered, being able to view the game as a decision space instead of a directive of "fuck you, you must do this." While I never played with that original group again, I did play once on IOS with friends casually and even once online with a friend (getting my ass kicked badly). In 2019, a friend brought it to a meetup, and I won my first ever game. It took some luck, but also obviously experience helped.

In short, and I suspect this is the case for many complex games with broad and deep decision spaces, experience matters. Not just for winning, though - also for enjoyment. And that's one of the tough things to grapple with ranking Agricola.

Design - One of the first words that comes to mind when I think of Agricola: punishing. Unlike so many other eurogames, Agricola defaults you at -14 points. It's very unafraid of negative points, and it shrinks your possibilities of expansion with a brutal subsistence farming message: you have to do everything. You need fences, stables, fields, corn, vegetables, and uneaten animals of every type. The game is relatively long in playtime, but not that long in actions. The scoring rubric essentially demands that everyone play the same game, which makes the worker placement cruel and brutal.

And many of these point-scoring mechanisms rely heavily on past actions, forcing you to go in some order. You realistically need fences before getting sheep; a home increase to grow your family; a plowed field and an acquired vegetable before you can grow them, which is its own action... and of course, you need to make sure to feed your family repeatedly throughout the game, so make sure not to eat all your vegetables/grain/sheep before the game ends. Your plans can be easily disrupted by other players (unintentionally) due to the worker placement blocking, but long-term planning is obviously needed. It's fiddly as hell; aside from replenishing all the resources, different action spaces are unlocked each round, and you basically need to internalize what you're "saving up for" before they're unveiled.

With the dizzying array of available action spots, almost none of which is useless - over twenty by the time the game ends - Agricola can be overwhelming if you don't have the right plans. (And remember, plans are necessary due to how each desirable outcome requires predecessor materials.) What's most important in actually succeeding at Agricola is developing an engine, for resources and/or food, and preferably both. That of course is where the cards (which are even more brutal to newcomers) come in: you're dealt fourteen cards at the beginning of the game, each of which grants a special power, generally increasing your incentive to take certain actions.

Every player should be trying to play one or two of their best powers early, which will drastically ease the pain of the game later and can define a strategy. Even in the first sad game I played, I was able to grasp for points late because of the occupation card which let me have cheaper upgrades to my house. Hello stone house. There is of course also the oven which is available to all players, which can ease the pain of feeding your family by allowing you to cook your grains or animals.

Why does it feel worth it? Why did I grow to like Agricola? Was it just Stockholm Syndrome and the feeling of "finally, I can win at this game, fuck you"? I don't think that's all. Part of what makes Agricola's punishing nature feel so bad is that it looks harmless and really enjoyable. Despite how the scoring goes, you'll always have your own farm at the end of the day. And it'll always be a little different. Did you get a fenced stable this time? How did you arrange your fences? Why do you have so many fields? Nice animals! Later editions of the game introduced animeeples and clearer wooden resources, further improving the game's visual appeal.

The game is also wonderfully thematic. Yeah, it's a mess and it's painful. But all of the ingredients make sense... it's subsistence farming. Even worker placement, which is often a fairly abstract mechanism, makes sense in most cases: only one person can use the plow per day, or harvest wood from the forest, or whatever. (Feel free to insert joke about only one hospital bed now.)

Uwe Rosenberg is one of the most respected game designers on the planet. While many people will have different favorite Uwes, Agricola is generally considered to be his masterpiece.

Future - Given that I've now got the experience, you'd think Agricola is likely to rise with future plays. The question now is how likely it'll be to hit the table, with no more copies in my regular game group and me being likely the most experienced at it now. Trying to bring others up to speed... rough thought.
---

I have somehow never played Agricola but I would like to

---

Agricola is completely unnecessary when Caverna exists imho

also terraforming Mars really getting shafted here!

---

never played caverna. have heard the setup is a nightmare and that every option is always open, which sounds pretty brutal for my analysis paralysis!
---

i preferred caverna to agricola, but i understand why people like agricola more - the card play really adds an extra layer compared to the perpetually available buildings.

that said, they're both inferior to a particular uwe rosenberg resource accumulation game that never seems to get mentioned among the best!! :(

---

well no point in playing coy at this point - i believe agricola is my highest-ranked uwe on this list.

i'm quite interested in fields of arle and have one confusing/long play of ora et labora.

feast for odin got its second play after i made the ranking. in 2021 or 2022 it'll make a showing.
---