Mousquetaires du Roy in Review Hot

This looks great, I definitely want to give this a try. Does it play well with two? My significant other and I would be totally down for this, we just read the book together.

I am the Alpha Dog and I am here to tell you "Alpha Dog Syndrome" is not a bad thing. A Coop game is a team and a team works best with a strong leader. Those that think you can run a team with a focus group are full of shit. Focus groups don't work. Leadership is needed in a team and when the rubber hits the road or in this case the swords start swinging it needs to be done under strong leadership. Nothing is worse than playing a coop game where everyone tries to jockey for power. The game creeps along slower than an IGA Awards ceremony and is just as boring. It is not easy being the Alpha Dog but it is something I live with and its all in the reflexes.

It really doesn't matter what number of players you have because you play with all musketeers regardless. Two is fine, just one player controls all four. There's not that much to keep track of as long as you can manage four hands of cards.

If you've just read the book, I think you'll really like this a lot.

You are correct: it is a good game, there is loads of trash talking and innuendo made during game play, and the rulebook is truly, truly horrid. Worst I've ever seen. My copy of this game is for sale, btw, over on TOS, because my group does not share the love and this will never see the table again for me, unfortunately. Anyone interested in purchasing my copy, please PM me. Thanks!

Steve, that's actually a good point about leadership and I don't disagree with you. But there is a distinction between providing direction, support, and focus and just telling people what to do, and telling people what to do doesn't make sense in a board game. It's natural for a leader to emerge in a team, no doubt, I'm with you there. But don't tell everyone at the table what their best move is, what they're going to do next turn, and hog all the decision making. That's not fun.

Does the historical inaccuracy of the Old French "Roy" being used instead of the Modern French "Roi" ( Modern French was officially adopted in France circa 1539- not to mention that les Mousquetaires du Roi were created in the mid 17th century) it bother anybody else?

Just kidding. Bazinga.

I was wondering about that, billyz. Thanks for the explanation.

French has imploded.

The way to play is let the leader make the decisions but the leader will listen to input before he makes the decision. The fun comes from developing your skill at persuasion to a fine point and let the Alpha Dog accept your idea. It becomes a side game as to who can be the best advisor to the Alpha Dog. This is great training to for the real world also!

With an introduction as sarcastic as that, I can't be bothered to read the review. It's getting really old, time you found something new to rail against.

Agreed. I think its time for a little Old School Barnes. How about just a little personal attack for old times sake? Against Aldie? Derk? Schloeser? Knucklebones?

aaaand....not fun.

Not fun? I beg to differ! Why not try my Pandemic variant where one player is the director and has the ability to fire the other players. For example, the director yells as the Pandemic spreads, "You better get a copter her next turn or you are fired!" You know real Donald Trump style. The players that are fired can win the game if the Director fails to stop the Pandemic.

The 'Alpha dog' problem occurs only if you are playing a game with wall flowers.
I'm an alpha dog player by nature and could hog all the decision making - exept the people I play with are alpha dogs too. No one dominates the game because we all try and dominate, so everything end up getting argued/discussed until a consensus is reached.
That's why I have never had a problem with co-ops.

I don't see the 'alpha-dog' issue as a game flaw, but a game group flaw. Furthermore doesn't this issue spread to other game styles, like DoaM games? In such groups alpha dogs would easily win games as they'd be able to out negotiate everyone ("No attack him, he is really in the lead.....")

I like this game a lot, I think it's thematic, fresh, and fun. I even ordered the Treville miniature from Ystari in France, which just arrived today. Weird how they put his card in the base game but no fig, but it was worth the $4 I spent (postage included, for a nicely detailed greyscale miniature, from France. Not bad at all.)

Great review. I love this game.
But yeah I didn't learn from the rulebook. And then I tried to go back a month and half later and play without the guy who taught me and I was struggling a bit to put everything back together from the rulebook.
It has a great flow once you get it down.

Oh did you not mention the hourglass? That bit is also much more fun than it sounded at first!

So how does it compare to The Three Musketeers: The Queen's Pendant? It looks a little deeper but also more abstract.

I'm looking into The Three Musketeers: TQP myself currently, have to find a place to get a copy at a good price or get a trade hooked up. At first glance, it appears to be a tactical, smaller-scale telling of the events, and would be like one long set-piece from a Musketeers film where they battle their way through hordes of Richieliu's men in order to reach the Queen on time.

The alpha dog complex is a problem. Although I dig what Steve is saying and like his unique take on it. Our group is kind of like Skeletor's group in that we are all so aggresive there is no way one person can run the show anyway so it doesn't come up too often. Admittedly we don't play many co-op games
(excetp Space Alert which doesn't have that problem) to begin with as the group really likes competition and trash talking. Which can happen in co-op games but just not to the degree we usually want. This one sounds pretty interesting and I like the theme well enough. I just don't see myself going through a rule book that is this shitty so I'm probably gonna pass on this one with the faint hope that I know someone who will get it and teach it to me.

It's natural for a leader to emerge in a team, no doubt, I'm with you there. But don't tell everyone at the table what their best move is, what they're going to do next turn, and hog all the decision making. That's not fun.

I agree with "Mr. Alpha Dog Barnes" here...if someone has the urge to take over a game, they might as well just play solo.

And . . . we're done reading. Next title please.

S.

I don't see the 'alpha-dog' issue as a game flaw, but a game group flaw.
It depends. What if instead of "alpha" it's just "old"? Played this game a lot, know the tricks, so it's natural, even optimal, to defer.

That's why I like some hidden info in co-ops. Regardless of the alpha/old dog, you have your little view of the state of things and can form your own plans, and the group requires your input to proceed because they have to know what you can bring to the table. Yes, you can usually play de facto open-handed, but at that point, yeah, I think the group has a problem.

Anyway, I do think there are structural mechanisms that affect this issue that have nothing to do with the group, per se.

More like "Alpha Passive Aggressive Schnauzer" ...F:AT has imploded.

The Queen's Pendants is a cute little dungeon crawl--of just the rush through the palace. The premise is a little atypical---run through the palace with the "football". There isn't anything novel, but it is a nice package. The bits that are a little unusual are:

1. The football is hidden, and can be swapped between musketeers. Only one has to get through.
2. The event card for the turn randomizes turn order. This adds the the chaotic nature.

The rest is almost by the book dungeon crawl. Move+Fight actions, treasure chests, wimpy opponents plus a nastier boss.

Mouseketeers du Roy is definitely the better game. Each play has gone rather differently, and there is much more going on. TQP has a kind of classic Milton Bradley feel that is worth it if you pick it up cheap, though.

Rulebook problems are overstated, IMO. I learned the game fine from just the rulebook... though it probably helps to play a solo game first to do that before running it with others.

so what's up with the hourglass?

The treachery/perfidy and "pistol" thing is really stupid, no doubt. Somebody really should have realized those things would be a problem and changed them before publication.

I think the solitaire version works well, though. Yes, it takes away the uncertainty of where Milady is going and the surprise of confronting Rochefort there, and that does make the game a lot better multiplayer, but the solo game does still give you a lot of the same essential challenge, from the Muskateers side... and just because you know where Rochefort will be going, doesn't mean it's not a difficult choice about whether to go there or not. A lot of times you really need to get something done at a location, whether he's there or not.

The hourglass limits "long turn" syndrome and alpha dog syndrome to some extent.
Milady has a couple cards which are EMERGENCY! and when it is played, ALL the musketeers must complete their full turn before the timer runs out (it is 90 or 120 seconds I think).

Sounds crazy and like it doesn't fit at all, but it is amazing what you can do it a short time when pressed.

I looked at it at Essen and decided against it, fearing that it would be too abstract and euro. Didn't get a very extensive explanation at the booth, it being close to closing time. Will have to see now if it is possible to try it out somewhere.

That's because every Ystari game must contain the letters S and Y. No exceptions. No kidding.

You're the dog who licks his own genitalia.

Schweig!

I understand you have a problem with Weeks, but there's no need to go looking for a fight. This is just petty namecalling and not to the point. Natural course of things is that Weeks will self implode. So far he's been his friendly self, which is how we like him best and he actually adds value to this site.

What I wanted to do is ridicule his self pride, so maybe my metaphor was too vivid. You can tell me to be more polite, but I have a thing against pride and reserve the right to ridicule it.

Anyway, sorry to have interrupted the conversation.

I can't imagine Weeks taking himself seriously when he says that.

Controversy-stoking F:AT-goading introduction falls flat.

Like Gruds, I learned from the rulebook. Yeah, I did have to type up my own rule summary, but I did so from the existing rulebook.

The only little thing I'm not sure about is Milady's game-timer card that basically causes the Musketeers to lose a turn (by advancing the clock.) She hits a pair of those quickly, I'm not sure the Musketeers can win. I'm almost entirely leaning towards the variant posted in the back, allowing the Musketeers a One-for-all card at the start, so they can at least cancel her first try at this.

Without it, the early game should be exactly the same--Musketeer rush the La Rochelle battle to quickly get a One-for-all card. After that, though, like Frank says, different stuff is going to go down.

Still, it's a great, great game.