Stone Age

I played this for the first time the other day, and thought it was quite good as worker placement games go. The theme was very well represented (gotta love "the hut", where you place two meeples to create a new one), and there was a LOT of screwage in the placement choices, even to the point where I was plotting together with one of my opponents to make sure another opponent didn't get something in particular.

The end game is not a fixed time, either, which is nice compared games like Pillars where's it's 6 turns and that's it, or Race for the Galaxy where it's just getting started and then it's over. The players have some control over the end time, which adds another element to the decision making.

There's also dice rolls for resources, which is handled nicely... You roll a number of dice equal to the meeples you placed at a resource and get one of that resource for each multiple of the resource value (gold=6, stone=5, etc.). You can gain tools throughout the game to add some points to your die rolls, so for example, if you're going for gold and you roll a 10, if you have tools valued at 2 you can add 2 to the roll to equal 12 and get 2 gold instead of 1.

I thought it was OK after playing a bunch of games on BSW. It is very much another worker placement, resources to victory point efficiency game. It is fairly simple and quick and light compared to say Caylus. The theme made less sense with the mechanics than the standard build a cathedral/castle/farm. The hut made me smile but the rest? So stone age tribes didn't trade or fight, they sent so many of their people to collect wood or clay that it stopped other tribes getting wood or clay, so those tribes couldn't build houses.

I only played it on BSW. It has very little innovation over the countless other "efficiency engines" out there. Except of course for the dice, but the expected utility of everything has been computed to death on BGG, to the point where randomness isn't a factor anymore. I don't dare play this on BSW again, as I didn't read those strategy articles so I'll certainly get my butt kicked (and people yell at me for giving the game to the player on the left). It seems to be another of those games that have multiple paths to winning, but you better pick a path that no one else pursue and optimize that.

In all, I would play this with people like me who don't take gaming seriously, otherwise I'll pass.

Yeah, I'm hesitant to play this on BSW until I know the game better, because you get the impatient twits on there that throw a fit if you don't make a move in 5 seconds. Hey, it's a board game... I might want to actually take my time to think about my move...

I just read a BGG thread from a guy who has played this about 200 times on BSW and says how after that many plays, there still seems to be no dominant strategy... there are many different ways to win. At first, I thought, well that's great, but then realized that's one thing I don't really like about some Euros, that it's not always about playing well, it's about finding one of the dozens of different means to gain VPs and trying to be the most efficient with that. Sometimes, it's better if there really is only one or two dominant strategies for a game, and it's more a matter of who executes them the best.

Yup. My favorite of these types of games so far.

I just like the fact there is no text on the cards.

Boring but short enough that it's not painful.

it's not a bad game, the meeples are of a new rastafari type and it all plays with relative ease. But it has very little going for it. Theme, gameplay and interaction are not unique.

It seems that this game depends a lot on which strategies are competed for. If you have a strategy (like Tools) to yourself, you can score big. If somebody else is also scoring off meeples or the number of advance cards, you are in trouble.

It'll probably be forgotten in a few years time