Articles Reviews Next of Ken, Volume 40: In the cold depths of Planet Hyboria's Frontier--Reviews of Homesteaders 2nd Edition and Core Worlds!
 

Next of Ken, Volume 40: In the cold depths of Planet Hyboria's Frontier--Reviews of Homesteaders 2nd Edition and Core Worlds! Hot

NOK_40_Banner

Come on in for Next of Ken, where this week I'll be reviewing Homesteaders 2nd Edition and the newest offering from Stronghold Games, Core Worlds.  All that, plus thoughts on why "gaming intelligentsia" members should take the time to actually play games before forming opinions--my two reviews today are proof of that.  Join us, won't you?

 


 

It's all too common on gaming websites these days to run into people who have rabid opinions about games, but when you press them, it becomes obvious that they've never played they're mouthing off about at all.  Internet opinions become an endless parade of parroted ideas.  It's why you'll run into people who will say that A Few Acres of Snow is busted due to the Hallifax Hammer issue, but that's honestly the only thing they know about the game.  It becomes a lengthy, repeated squawk of ideas and opinions that someone who read someone who read someone will spout endlessly on any internet soapbox they can find.

Some argue that "I've played so many games, I can form an opinion without actually playing it, just by reading the rules."  If I've learned a hard lesson though these past few years, that notion is utter and complete hogwash.  I find myself constantly surprised at how much I'll enjoy a game I thought I'd hate, or at how differently a game feels in play when compared to how it seemed reading through the rules.  King of Tokyo and Summoner Wars are both like this--reading the rules will leave you going, "That's it?"  Then you play them, and you realize just how much fun they really are.

Having said all that, let's just jump in to the pair of reviews, shall we?  I promise, it all ties together.

 


 

"Why Do You Ride That Crazy Horse?" Inquires the Shadow with Little Remorse

 

Let's face it, I'm not one of the biggest fans of worker placement games.  Generally, the mechanism is used in such a way that makes almost zero thematic sense.  Sure, I get that I have people that work for me, and I can send them out to work their little midieval asses off, but the whole thing breaks down when you tell me that my dude can't bake bread this turn just because yours is at the moment.

And don't get me started on the "Love Hut" space in Stone Age...what, they've got one communal tent for humping?  Man, cleaning *that* thing has got to be THE worst job in the world.  "Hi.  I'm Grog.  My job?  I clean up caveman spooge."

Homesteaders_2nd_Edition_CoverI do like western-themed games, though.  It's a theme that isn't explored nearly enough, and even more rarely is it explored successfully.  So when a review copy of Homesteaders 2nd Edition (Alex Rockwell, Tasty Minstrel Games, 2-4 players, 1 hour) arrived on my doorstep care of Game Salute (thanks, Game Salute!) I wasn't sure what to expect.

First things first--Homesteaders is pure Euro and makes no apologies for it.  There's no getting around that fact.  If you are absolutely, 100% against Euros of *any* kind, you may want to move on to my Core Worlds review below.

Still here?  Good.  You'll remember what we talked about in the opening paragraph?  It totally applies here.

Because I have to admit that, y'know, Homesteaders is actually pretty damned good.  This fits squarely in the Ken B. official category "Euros that Don't Suck".  It's not a position easily earned, I assure you.

Homesteaders is all about building up the best Homestead (well, duh.) The game takes place over 10 auction rounds, where players compete for permits to create certain types of buildings.  These buildings are numerous, and there are several in each category, allowing players who earn permits a nice choice of what to actually build.

You only start the game with one worker and six silver.  The costs for creating buildings is in a variety of resources, and these resources are generated by activating certain buildings with your workers.  Some buildings don't require a worker to activate, others have multiple spaces to allow workers to use a building multiple times.  There is a large variety of goods in the game, including Wood, Food, Steel, Gold, Copper, and Livestock.

Winning an auction is what allows you to build, but losing an auction allows you to advance your marker on the Railroad Devvelopment track.  Each advancement allows compensation, either by what's pictured on that spot or a choice of any one of the previous rewards.

Workers can be bought, but Workers will want to get paid, so having more dudes means higher payroll.  Hey, cowpokes want to get paid, what can you do?  You can go into debt to earn more money, but the more debt you take, the steeper penalties you'll have in the endgame scoring.  You'll want to take some debt to be competitive, but how much can you manage?

VIRGIL_EARP
The only mustache on the planet more bitchin' than Wilford Brimley's

The other commodity that you can earn and spend is a little odd in that it's a "Trade Chit."  Spending a Trade Chit is often necessary for buying or selling, though you can do this at pretty much any time.  I am still not sure what a Trade Chit represents, but it means if you don't plan carefully, you can have a lot of stuff to sell, but no access to actually sell it.  It's definitely weird, and the best I can figure is this is meant to be an important throttle on your would-be economic engine.

That's pretty much the entire game.  You go through auction after auction, beefing up your buildings, earning victory points, tuning your engine, and in the end, one Homesteader will have the highest VPs.  However, you're not trying to impress some provost--you're hear to win by having the largest Homestead--and being the richest guy on the frontier.  I'm sure your neighbors will be impressed, but that's about as far as it goes.  More capitalism, less ass-kissing--an idea I can definitely get behind (Har har) in terms of game themes.

So why on earth do I like this?  Several reasons.  First up, the usual nonsense about worker placement doesn't apply here.  Once I have a building, I send my workers there, no questions asked.  None of this stupid 'cockblocking' stuff.  You can't keep me from building a fence just because your guy is driving some pole at the moment (HI-YOOOO!)  I hate how unthematic that makes worker placement games feel.  Guess what?  It doesn't happen here.

Second, even though the theme may seem thin,the choice and presentation of a theme can make all the difference in the world.  I like the time period, there's some rich history there.  I don't have to deal with a dour bored Euro-dude glaring disapprovingly from me at the cover.  We're talking fluff here, but fluff can be important.

team-america-world-policeThird is the playing time.  Most Euros have a large deal of wash, rinse, repeat, but in montage style ("...and with every shot you show a little improvement...") and yet the design is so self-important that they actually think you want to spend over two hours doing that sort of thing.  Homesteaders squeezes in nicely in an hour, so the ramping up is more immediately noticeable.  It means you are more quickly exploring combinations of buildings, and going from nobody to Virgil Earp in one short hour.  The mechanics are crisp, clean, and keep the game singing right along.

Last is the awesome set of components.  If you've had problems with Tasty Minstrel games in the past, let me assure you that they've solved their issues.  Even though the first edition of Homesteaders suffered from a lot of production problems, second edition is a whole 'nother ball of wax, pardner.  You've got awesome little bits in the shape of the various goods you're trading.  You don't have white cubes, you have little cows.  You don't have red cubes, you have little apples for food.  What this does is inject a great deal of color and style into the game.  It's funny how the dusty west should be barren and brown, and yet this game has more color than many other popular but extremely boring-looking Euros.  Everything about the production is top quality--solid wooden bits, thick tiles, well-written rules.

I will warn you though that the first time you play this, you're not going to have a clue as to what you're building, what you should be bidding, and what you should be building towards.  After one full game, you'll start to see the posibilities, how to get your buildings to interact, how to pursue certain strategies, and how better to get your economic engine revving.

So Homesteaders--a game I shouldn't like, but turns out I do way more than I expected.  Good pacing, crisp gameplay, the perfect length for a game like this, enough meaty options and combos to keep your brain churning, all in a nice, attractive package with nice bits.  It's not a game I'm going to bring out all the time, but this slides comfortably into the "Good Euro" wing of my game collection.  While it may be a solid 7, it's an extremely rampagingly firm 7.

(Disclaimer: no cattle were harmed in the creation of the above review.  Even game reviewers have standards.)

 


 

His Black Mane Sweeps Across His Face, Grim and Silent With a Steely Blue Gaze

Core_Worlds_Box-cover_sample-300x250Core Worlds (Andrew Parks, Stronghold Games, 2-5 players, 60 minutes) is the latest in what I've dubbed the "2.0 Generation of Deckbuilders."  I know, I know, you've heard the phrase, "But this is a different type of deckbuilder!" before--and we should shoot on sight the next marketer that spouts that phrase--but...this is a different type of deckbuilder.

(Disclaimer:  I am not a marketer.  As I mentioned before, even game reviewers have standards.)

Core Worlds is a game that reflects a decaying galactic empire, and the barbic kingdoms that are choosing this moment to strike, moving their fleets gradually from the outer sectors all the way to the Core Worlds and ultimate victory.  Players are rival barbarian lords who seek to establish the most powerful empire amongst their barbaric brethren.  (Understand that "barbarian" here is relative; you've still got spaceships.  If it helps you picture Conan flying a laser-beam blasting starfighter, cursing to Crom all the while as he counts the dead, then be my guest.  Actually that would make for a pretty bitchin' t-shirt, now that I think about it.)

These rival usurpers are too weak to take on the titular (huh, huh) Core Worlds themselves as they begin their campaign of space conquest.  Armed only with the basic supply of grunts and starfighters, they hope to conquer and plunder along the way, strengthening themselves for the final conquests to come.

Each player starts with an identical deck save for one Hero with a special ability, and a series of five decks are also laid out side by side.  There are five cards relating to each of those decks with two spaces apiece and a little fleet token that is used to show how far the barbarians are advancing along the way.  As they advance, new cards are revealed from the appropriate deck.

What do you do with these cards?  I'm glad you asked, Space Arnold.  Each player has a limited number of actions along with the energy his world(s) generate at the start of the turn.  Players take turns using their actions to do a variety of things.  Players can draft units from the revealed cards, spending an action and amount of energy to purchase it.  Where does the purchased unit go?  You guess it--the discard pile, to be reshuffled in and used as the game progresses.

Unlike many deckbuilders though, you're not slapping down the cards all in one turn and getting some benefit.  Core WorldsCore_Worlds_Card_Images_1 uses permanence to much the same degree as a game like Nightfall.  Before you can use these units you're drafting, you have to spend actions and energy to get them into your Warzone.

From there, you use the infantry, vehicles, starfighters, space cruisers, robots, and even unique heroes to conquer worlds that are revealed in the central zone.  The reason you do this is because worlds grant you some combination of victory points and energy production.  Worlds have requirements to be conquered in two categories--Fleet Strength and Ground Strength.  To conquer the world, you'll need to discard from your Warzone an amount of strength of the appropriate types.  Unlike units, you don't place these into your deck, but instead place them in front of you, where they will provide energy for the remainder of the game.  You also have the option to "Colonize" by placing a generic grunt or starfighter used in the invasion underneath the just-conquered planet; you do this primarily to thin your deck and give you faster access to the better units you've been acquiring along the way.

Cards in the central zone won't be available forever.  After they've stayed out for one turn, a bonus energy chit is placed on them--if you draft them, you get the bonus energy.  However, if a card starts the turn in the central zone with the bonus energy chit on it, it's discarded from play.  As these barbarian fleets move along, these opportunities are only available for a short period of time.

Players are tuning their decks for the final assaults on the Core Worlds in sectors 9 and 10.  These worlds have mammoth requirements to conquer but grant a monstrous amount of victory points.  They also provide victory point bonuses based on certain things about your final deck construction; a typical thing is for one to grant you a bonus for each of a particular type of unit you have in your deck.

Core_World_ContentsOnce these final two rounds pass, players tally up their points and see who is the winner.  In case of a tie there are satisfactory tie-breakers.  Much barbaric chest-thumping ensues as you count your space booty and interplanetary groupies.

Now, you folks already know that I'm a deckbuilding fan, and I've watched with great pleasure as this genre of games continue to evolve.  What is so awesome to me about Core Worlds is how it shifts the balance from purchasing strategy to playing strategy.

What do I mean by that?  For most deckbuilders, the lion's share if not all of the decisions are in the purchasing.  If you're making the right purchasing decisions, your deck should basically play itselft.  Think Dominion, where your hand of cards has an "obvious" tact for the turn...there's not much thought, because you've made those decisions when you purchased the card in the first place.  And a lot of deckbuilders are like that.

Core Worlds turns the concept of "smart buys, brain-dead gameplay" on its ear..  Yes, purchasing and drafting units is extremely important.  But because you have a limited number of actions, and drafting a card costs you both an action as well as precious energy, the focus of the entire game is not on the purchasing process.  In fact, there will be plenty of turns where you'll grudgingly draft a unit, knowing you'll need it but cursing at what you're having to pass up to get it.

A lot of this has to do with the permanence factor I mentioned previously.  You have to take the time to deploy these units before you can use them, and that also takes energy and actions to get them into play.  So you're looking for this careful balance of getting the new stuff you need, conquering enough worlds to give you energy as well as crucial special abilities, and deploying units that you may not need right away but you'll need to stockpile for a future conquest.  It's a furiously tight balance, and there will be lots of time where you have many things you want to accomplish but not enough energy and/or actions to get it all done.

The shift to putting more emphasis on skilled play while also retaining the importance of good purchasing is highly welcome.  You'll have important decisions to make as the game goes on.  Spend too much time conquering worlds, and you'll have fistfuls of energy and nothing to spend it on.  Buy too many expensive units with not enough energy to support them, and they'll just clutter up your hand and gum up your ability to develop a powerful Warzone.  Some cards have great "in play" effects, but if you use them for an invasion, they'll go into your discard, removing your access to that ability.  Is getting that world right now worth more than the benefit you were getting from the invading card?  And hey, if I'm worrying about all this stuff, will the guy next to me nab that card I really, really need?

As quality games like Core Worlds come out, it will be harder and harder to go back to those deckbuilders where the gameplay itself is on autopilot.

What's also great about this game is how it taps into the CCG nature of "typing" cards.  You know how when you playedCore_Worlds_ArtMagic the Gathering, saw your first Goblin, and THEN saw your first Goblin King?  Core Worlds features cards that have characteristics such as "Infantry" or "Robot", and then uses other cards to key in on that type and provide you bonuses and synergies based on that.

This opens up a diverse array of strategies.  While it's tempting to start gunning for a particular Core World from the get-go, you have to understand that if you don't plan well, someone will snatch it away from you.  Also, you have to realize that if you pass up opportunistic point grabs along the way, in the end those missing points could cost you dearly.

In my last game of this that we played during the Super Bowl, I had my engine set up flawlessly--I was dropping Cruisers for cheap, had the buffest Warzone you could imagine, and timed my strikes just right so that I was able to claim not one, but TWO Core Worlds.  But along the way, I had been so laser-focused that I'd skipped a few opportunites to grab points.  And guess what?  I lost by two points.  If I'd taken the time to smell the roses and hot been so totally keyed in on my little Cruiser deploy engine, I could've snuck in an extra few points, and that would've made all the difference.

If there is a cricism of the game, you need to be aware that the player interaction is very indirect.  Your only ability to screw other players is to take cards that they want.  But don't mistake that for "no interaction."  We've already had several instances of players cursing audibly when a card they wanted was snatched away from the Central Zone.  Also, because you know that other players might swoop in and take something you'll like, it often forces your hand to go ahead and grab it first, even if the timing is rotten and there are other things you'd like to accomplish.  The tension is palpable when you take the risk, leaving out something you want just to build your fleet up, then you have to sweat and wait for it to come back around to you.  And yes, expect a loud "DAMN IT!" when you nab something that someone else really wanted.

To which you can respond in your best Schwarzenegger voice, "By Space Crom's Stellar Beard, condsiduh dis a Galactic Divorce!"

My recommendation?  This is one of those titles that may get people off the fence who haven't liked deckbuilders previously.  With the deckbuilding aspect not being the dominant element of the game, and the focus being put on solid play and strategy rather than just smart buys, this might just be the game to make a few converts.

How would I compare it to Eminent Domain, another space-themed deckbuilder that I enjoyed?  Despite their theme, these are radically different games.  It's hard for me to say right now which I like better.  Eminent Domain does a great job of developing a deck specialization and the flexibility of cards as roles/actions keeps the game moving very well.  But Core Worlds does a much better job of giving you that feeling of "Mine!"--that these ships, these worlds, these planets are MINE, I earned them, I paid for them, I conquered them. Eminent Domain never feels like you're actually conquering, just discarding some tokens.  At any rate, I really like the gameplay of both, and it's too early to call a favorite here.  I'm happy owning both.

As for Core Worlds, the lack of direct, player-on-player conflict may be a bummer to some, but with everyone competing for units and worlds in the Central Zone, there is plenty of actual player interaction.  You also get a satisfying sense of building up military strength and executing smart combos to give you an edge on your foes.  Toss in gorgeous art (seriously, there is some pretty awesome artwork in this game), solid quality tokens and cards, and an extremely cool theme, and you've got yourself a winner.  This is one of those games that came out in the waning days of December 2011; I'm counting it for my games of this year, and I expect to see it mentioned again in my "best of 2012" lists when the time comes.  I like it a lot, and I think there's a strong possibility you will too.   I will warn you that the first time you play, you will play badly.  Stick with it; it's worth that second play.  Find a friend who has this and give it a try.

 


 

That's going to do it for this intergalactic homesteading episode of Next of Ken.  Until next week, try to avoid the chilling wrath of Space Crom, who like Virgil Earp could easily and skillfully be portrayed by Sam Elliott.  Until then, I'll see you in seven.

 

 

Ken is a weekly columnist for Fortress: Ameritrash and a member of our staff.  When he's not knee deep in playing games for review, he's most likely opening the boxes and getting high off of the plastic vapours.
Click here for more articles by Ken.

Powered by JReviews
Comments (24)
  • avatarChapel

    Damn it, you are such a dick. I totally was not going to buy this game, and now I'm itching for it.

  • avatarKen B.

    That's why I'm here, Chappy ol' buddy.

  • avatarMichael Barnes

    Huh...as somebody that actually likes deckbuilders, I'm interested to see how this moves them forward...may have to pick it up.

    Parks also did Parthenon a couple of years ago, which was actually pretty decent.

  • avatarKen B.

    It's definitely a continued move from the ephemeral nature of "this is my hand for this turn, and then my hand for the next turn", and that's all there is.

    I am pretty sure that deckbuilders as we move forward will continue to feature more and more "permanents." The important thing will be keeping the flow of cards back into the deck, or else it ceases being a deckbuilder and more of a time-delay tableau draft or something.

    Nightfall solves this (and the turtling problem) with the "everyone attacks and then scuttles off to the discard pile." That is one of the rules that makes that game so good and keeps it moving, plus allows you to have "critters" to attack without sacrificing the deckbuilding part.

    With Core Worlds, you can save them up until time to attack, or even leave them out for deck-thinning purposes. The reason that works here is because there's a cost in getting them back out of your deck, so the deckbuilding concept is perfectly intact while still allowing you to have "permanents."

    (I'd really like a better name for that...it's rooted in Magic terminology and, since these cards do go to the discard pile after use, they're not strictly "permanent.")

    Anyway, having cards in play adds that extra dimension to deckbuilding games. Now, the contest isn't just taking place solely within the confines of the deck, but also in the dimensions of items that are in play and interacting with each other.

    I'm really looking forward to the expansion. If you notice, cards in Core Worlds have a faction icon that is not in use yet. As I understand it, that will play a factor in the expansion. I can't wait to see how that plays out.

  • avatarKen B.

    I think something I didn't make clear in the review of Core Worlds is the fact that the turn is threaded. That's why the competition works the way it does. I may have four actions at my disposal, but I can only take one at a time. Then, the player to my left gets his action, and I have to wait for it to come back around to me.

    There have been several times already where I have three things I want to do in a turn, but I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I do one certain thing, I'm going to lose access to a card in the Central Zone. But if I take the time to go ahead and buy the card, guy next to me invades the world that I wanted.

    You can deploy lots of units at once as your turn, at the cost of 1 action per unit, but you can take those actions all at once. This means that you can't fall too far behind...you can spring an instant army if you need one. However, if you end up running out of actions, you're forced to pass and end the round. You may end up giving several consecutive actions to one of the other players, and that is a very, very sweet spot for them to be in.

  • avatarJosh Look

    Holy shit, do I love Core Worlds. It really stands up to repeat plays. I have yet to play a game that I did not like more than the last.

  • avatarNagajur

    I listened to Parks' interview regarding "Core Worlds" on one of the recent "On Board Games" podcasts. They put a ton of work and testing into this game. It was in development just a few months after Dominion came out. The excitement that he had for the game and the level of effort put into development had me wanting to try it regardless of anything else. The other big selling point was that his team did not develop the game in a vacuum. They had a lot of feedback from people with no vested interest in the game.

  • avatarstormseeker75

    Glad to see Core Worlds getting love. Such a great game.

  • avatarChapel  - re:
    Michael Barnes wrote:

    Parks also did Parthenon a couple of years ago, which was actually pretty decent.

    Parthenon is definitely a hidden gem, and a game that never found it's audience. Nothing like a game that kicks your ass. I think it came out looking like a euro at a time when euro types made the grade. But it was a brutal system with lots of press your luck elements which I think scared off the robots and it's pictures of mass amounts of cards floating around thinking it looked too fiddly and not "elegant" enough...But it wasn't, game played very quickly.

  • avatarKen B.

    I dig Andrew Parks' work a lot. He's come a loooooong way since Camelot Legends, which was a nifty but overstuffed little game where the knights had like seven stats each and there might be three or four cards in play that modified them.

    He's super-fast to answer rules questions and a genuinely friendly guy.

    I've never tried Parthenon. Sounds like I might need to.

  • avatarSan Il Defanso

    There's a bargain-table copy of Parthenon sitting at my game store. Or rather, it was last week. I wonder if it's still there...

  • avatarDukeofChutney

    The only deck builders i've played are dominion, AFAOS and Core Worlds, of the three i'd say Core Worlds is the least yawn fest. However that didnt stop me from trading it for a ton of Netrunner cards. Netrunner is a better game in my view.

    I really like the way the narrative varies in the game, with the 5 different decks, and that it always keeps you short on actions or energy, making decisions tough.

    "strategy rather than just smart buys" i agree with this, but it does make me wonder that given its taken the genre several years to get to where most of the rest of the gaming world has been for decades, are deck builders abit backwards (i suppose you could argue other deck builders do this, but i havent played enough of them to detail).

  • avatarKen B.

    @Duke--Personally, I think the notion of deck building was so radical (in boardgaming terms, us CCGers have been drafting and deckbuilding for years!) that the earliest of games sort of had to come to grips with that mechanism.

    That is to say that the act of buying cards, putting them in your deck as you go, and using them, was such a large shift in the way most players normally played games that there was only so much that could be stuffed into a game.

    Think of the earliest auction games. They were content just to let you auction; that was the entire mechanism. Set collection was the scoring, but the gameplay? All bidding.

    So it was just enough for players to come to grips with learning how to deal with buying cards for their deck--what to buy, what to shoot for, what to fill their decks with--that if you'd added additional layers, it would have collapsed. In other words, games like Core Worlds would have likely been too much in terms of the "first of its type" game. It would have been rejected out of hand by gamers for being alien and, to boot, too complex.

    I've played a lot of these games now, and it's easy to forget how much you take for granted when you sit down to the next deckbuilder. When I explained it to my brothers, both of whom had played several deckbuilders with me, literally the only thing I described about getting cards from the Central Zone was, "Spend an action and this amount of energy on the card, it's yours." They knew what that meant. No need to go into the whole "this is how you buy, this is where it goes, you reshuffle your deck when it runs out," yadda yadda yadda. And yet, I'd just described to them 90% of Dominion's rules, in one short sentence. The familiarity and evolution made that type of summary possible.

    So I think the evolution was necessary. A good Dominion deck may play itself if you buy your cards right, but you had to get to the point where you understood buying your cards right.

  • avatarMichael Barnes

    Camelot Legends was like the first time I ever gave a review copy a bad write-up. It was a mess, definitely a "first time designer" product.

    But yeah, Parthenon. It's kind of a neat game with some unusual things going on...probably my favorite session was playing with this guy that's fairly well-known among Southern gamers. He's also a total ASS. He started slagging the game one turn in because of the luck and adventure game elements (this guy is a huge Ricochet Robots fan, if that tells you anything) and proceeded to spend the entire game just trashing it. I got fed up and said "if you don't like this game then don't fuckin' play it. Go sit somewhere else." He shut right up. One of those brash, know-it-all nerds that never has somebody just call them out, and then they clam up when somebody does.

    As for deckbuilders, the problem has been Dominion's success. It's resulted in a lot of games where the gameplay is the mechanic. At least at first. We're starting to see games play with that a lot more and leverage the mechanic better, which is good.

    Dominion is really simple, it's literally just about drafting, chaining, and churning. But look at something such as Nightfall and how far removed it really is, or even the games like Few Acres that are putting the mechanics into different contexts.

  • avatardragonstout

    After playing my third deckbuilding game, I'm much more sympathetic to the people who say they hate all deckbuilding games. Frankly, it's just an annoying mechanic no matter WHAT the game is, purely because of all the constant shuffling that has to be done. It seems like a mechanic made for electronic games more than paper games. And there's basically no way to meaningfully do a deckbuilding game without constant shuffling, because you need some way to get those cards you just purchased into your deck. I guess a solution could definitely be to put more game into the individual turns and have fewer turns, maybe with shuffling in every turn so that there's not this emphasis on cycling through the deck to get your cards in (and fewer turns = less shuffling, and smaller decks so that each card makes a big difference and you don't have to constantly cycle to get to your cards).

    Basically what deckbuilding gives the designer to work with, in all forms, is similar to a standard ability purchase situation, with the major gain being that more randomness is added to it: you have more variability in how much you can afford each turn, and there is more variability in when you can use the abilities you've purchased.

    That's actually a pretty powerful mechanic with great advantages over standard ability purchase, where you've got $X income to spend on abilities that you then permanently have every turn. It's just that constant shuffling is so annoying.

  • avatarKen B.

    Well, the good thing about Core Worlds in that regard is you really only go through your deck four, maybe five times. That's it. The usual deck-thinning stuff doesn't exist here, nor do the endless, degenerate card-drawing combos (the chief offender of why Dominion games can require a metric buttload of shuffling.)

    There's even a "reshuffle" at the beginning of turn 9, because stuff you bought in turn 7 and 8 might not have gotten shuffled in yet; this makes sure you get a chance to use those units too.

    Not sure if it would make the difference with you, but this is a game where yeah, deckbuilding and to a small degree shuffling are part of it, but it is only a small part of the larger whole. I spend much more time thinking about what I need to attack, how much energy I need, and what to do with my actions than I do buying cards and reshuffling them.

  • avatarZMan

    Andrew also did Ideology, one of my favorite games.

    Parthenon sold out years ago so I'm quite happy with the result (though yeah, it would have been neat to have it been in more demand to require a reprint).

    Andrew also worked on a fantasy war game from an idea I had. I hope to have news on that one in the near future.

  • avatardragonstout  - re:
    Ken B. wrote:
    Well, the good thing about Core Worlds in that regard is you really only go through your deck four, maybe five times. That's it. The usual deck-thinning stuff doesn't exist here, nor do the endless, degenerate card-drawing combos (the chief offender of why Dominion games can require a metric buttload of shuffling.)

    There's even a "reshuffle" at the beginning of turn 9, because stuff you bought in turn 7 and 8 might not have gotten shuffled in yet; this makes sure you get a chance to use those units too.

    Not sure if it would make the difference with you, but this is a game where yeah, deckbuilding and to a small degree shuffling are part of it, but it is only a small part of the larger whole. I spend much more time thinking about what I need to attack, how much energy I need, and what to do with my actions than I do buying cards and reshuffling them.

    Yeah, sorry, I should've made clearer that it sounded like Core Worlds does some work towards solving that exact problem. Really I was just venting my thoughts about the chief problem with deckbuildings and the chief (basically only) benefit.

  • avatarSan Il Defanso

    I wasn't going to give Core Worlds a second look, but you might have sold me on it.

    I've played and loved Dominion, but the last time I played I really felt that auto-pilot thing that a lot of people here complain about. I still say that Puzzle Strike has done the best job at creating a game with some actual strategy but still with the addictive quality of Dominion.

    I am really happy to see that we're starting to get some games that contain deck-building, not just a bunch of deck-building games. It's another tool, like any other mechanism. It's a good one too, so it deserves to be put in a better setting.

  • avatarKen B.

    My thoughts exactly, San. Dominion brought us the mechanism, now games are incorporating it into the larger scope of traditional designs, including non-traditional elements that deckbuilding makes possible (such as the aforementioned randomization of previously acquired resources.)

  • avatardragonstout  - re:
    Ken B. wrote:
    non-traditional elements that deckbuilding makes possible (such as the aforementioned randomization of previously acquired resources.)

    As I said, I really think that this is the ONLY new thing that deckbuilding makes possible. It's a pretty nice thin, no doubt, but does anyone disagree?

  • avatarDukeofChutney  - re:

    @ Ken B
    I see where your coming from, and your probably correct, but i dont totally agree.

    I have played Dominion with people who just haven't got it. Two weeks ago i played A GAme of Thrones with one player who had never played a modern boardgame before, and she got it.

    I dont think its a matter of complexity interms of accessability for new players. Dominion can be difficult for new players because it is both very abstract and it's core mechanic like you say was very radical and different. In my view A few acres and Core worlds are actually easier to teach than dominion because although they are more complex they are more grounded in their theme and the object of the game is more conventional than just collect cards. I think the simplicity of dominion almost decivies peoples minds when they first approach it. It seems too simple to be all there is to the game. Having said this, i suspect your right, that a game such as this would have been rejected by the board gaming community if it had come earlier, but perhaps thats a negative reflection on the gamer community more than the game. In both AFOS and CW deck building is a means to an ends - capture stuff, in Dominion the means is the ends, this is where it confuses people imo.
    When i explain dominion to people, i usually describe it as magic with all the interesting bits stripped out, because this leads into explaining that its about building an efficient engine etc, which a simple rules explanation doesnt do.

  • avatarKen B.

    I can see your point, Duke. Explaining a mechanism that is a part of a larger thematic whole can be easier, because you have the shell of theme to help folks remember what you're doing and why you're doing it. That makes sense.

    But it's not uncommon overall for a game to come out that's basically a bang-zow new mechanism that struck like a bolt of inspiration while on the toilet or something, and that mechanism defines the game; when successful, that mechanism becomes absorbed into the toolbox of designers everywhere, where they make it a part of their larger designs.

    Exactly like worker placement, or even "my dudes in this territory attack your dudes in that territory, roll some dice" (which was basically all Risk was back in the day; look how far we've come now.)

  • avatarEvilOne

    Somehow I missed commenting on this for 2 months... sorry... :(

    Ken, thanks for the great review. Yeah, it's an overused term, but Core Worlds is "Deck-Building 2.0"... Maybe (just to be more geeky), "Deck-Building: The Next Generation"... :)

    Thanks for the in-depth and stellar review. It is greatly appreciated...

Only registered users can write comments!
Text Size

Top