Nightfall in Review Hot

This is probably the only review you've ever written that I couldn't get through, and it has nothing to do with your quality of review or writing. God damn this deck building stuff bores the shit out of me. Even hearing it a deck building game described for two paragraphs makes me completely tune out.

Two things make this a buy for me. The fact that the game is AEG and the fact that you can attack. While Thunderstone is in my opinion a great game and game of the year for me, it did lack some interaction. Will check this out.

Like Gary, I'm bored by the deckbuilding games. Sounds like Nightfall adds in a couple of additional mechanics, but the wafer-thin theme is disappointing. I am curious about this card-chaining effect... is it like one of those atrocious Magic or Shadowfist card resolution messes, with a complicated last in/first out resolution order? Is it difficult to keep track of who played what? Or is the timing and resolution of these chains pretty slick?

I think the chaining works great, but I'll confess that some of us have had some confusion with it. I don't much care for the theme, either, and honestly, you could strip the theme right off and let it be abstract, and probably have a better game.

The last card does resolve first, but chain cards are played in front of you, so it's not hard to tell who played what. It's the highlight of the game, especially because some cards let you cancel orders played in the chain and throw opponents all out of whack.

But then, I also think deckbuilding is a really cool game mechanic with a huge number of uses and lots of unexplored potential.

You also can only chain in turn. The active player makes plays all his cards on a chain, and only then does the person on his left play cards on that chain. There are no "instants" that can be played in response to someone elses cards ala M:tG. I've only played once, but I was intrigued and will hopefully be getting in some more games this weekend.

I have burned out on deckbuilding; Nightfall is going to have to really wow me to make me consider buying it.

My only complaint, and apologies if this is in the review (can't read it at work), is the card quality. They aren't of quit the thickness of stand CCG/Dominion cards, plus they have a black back that shows fingerprints very easily. The game basically seems to require sleeves to hold up to repeated plays.

Grant, that is so true about the card quality. I have already put a bunch of my wounds cards at the bottom, because they're getting all marked up. I would sleeve it, but my wife hates card sleeves.

Gary, I hear you but the fact is that deckbuilding is probably at this point the most signficant development in hobby games in quite some time. Dominion is a HUGE seller, getting into Carcassonne/Ticket to Ride and possibly, in time, Settlers sales territory. The problem is, that it's the tightest designed but least fun out of the games and it set a standard for the games being centralized around the mechanic. Nightfall (and Thunderstone for that matter) give it more context and purpose, and Nightfall in particular puts the deckbuilding in the service of a broader game.

As for the chaining...there is a cognitive slowdown that it creates, no doubt, but it has to do more with "wait, can I do that" than in the resolution. The resolution is simple, just go back down the line. It does get a little tricky when cards start disappearing out of the chain or other effects happen, but it's about as straightforward as it can be.

The card quality, I didn't think it was a big deal until I got Thunderstone. Those cards are definitely better than Nightfall's. But I'm also playing with one of the preview sets they sent to reviews, I'm not quite clear what's different in the retail version- cards might be better quality there. Anyone know?

Absolutely no criticism of you reviewing or covering the deck building wave. Just my 2 cents.

Mike,
Remove "development" and add "profit builder" from that first sentence. Deckbuilding games is the flavor of the month, but at the end of the day, it's getting very played out. They're all becoming clones of one another with a tweak here and a tweak there, and I find all but Thunderstone to be incredibly painful. Dominion, for the lack of theme and interaction, has yet to be unseated as the reigning queen of deckbuilding, and the rest are all trying to be it, or so it appears to me.

Personally, I understand that it's a cheap game to make, and the only costs are the art and printing, but these cunts at the game publishers really need to start expanding their scope to games that will WOW the world, like Space Hulk 3-Ed did, and like others certainly can. I don't want more shitty, cheap card games. I'm ok with Race for the Galaxy. We need more REAL Ameritrash, and when I'm far more excited, as a consumer, about the reprint of a 30-year old game than a bunch of new shit, there's something wrong with the industry.

More TToA, less card games. More plastic, murderous little devils, less plastic, yet arful, cards.

Pete, people said the same thing about CCGs. We're in the rush right now similar to what happened after Magic. Everyone wants to get that "lightning in a bottle" success. What will eventually happen is that the best games will stick around, the pretenders will vanish. But the deckbuilding genre will remain, and what's more significant is that it will trickle into other games as a mechanic. This is not a bad thing at all, seeing how positively influential Magic has been...with Dominon being an example of that.

Economics are definitely a factor. It is a lot cheaper to produce a deckbuilding game, and a lot less risky. It's not even as risky as doing a new CCG, because if it tanks, you just don't release more cards. Dominion is a profitable, successful model that probably has a tremendous margin. If you believe in captialism, then publishers are doing exactly what they should. It is disappointing to see once-innovative companies like FFG jumping on the monetization bandwagon, but it's smart business whether we like it or not.

I definitely agree that there is the danger of too many "me too" products, but looking back on the deckbuilding games I've played, I've actually liked pretty much all of them. They're fun card games. They're not trying to be "real Ameritrash".

I've said it many times, but I could give a fuck about what constitutes "real Ameritrash", that ship sailed a long time ago (as in, the 1990s), and I _REALLY_ could give a fuck about plastic figures. If you think that even games like Space Hulk can "wow the world" then you my friend are much less cynical than I am.

I definitely do agree with you that something's wrong when we're more excited about Ogre or other reprints than new games.

I find it unlikely that deck-building games will ever amount to much. They are simply CCGs stripped of all but the most basic mechanics plus a card-drafting system. There have been plenty of CCGs that did an outstanding job of matching up theme and mechanics in an engaging game.

Yeah, you might be right...also, hip hop isn't music and people will never stop reading newspapers.

Sorry, but that's a pretty 2009 attitude!

Well, screw all you guys, I like deck building games just fine. They're perfect for lunch at work. We never play them on the week-ends or anything but for a short burst at work they are great.

I was really interested in this one but now that I've heard about Runeage I'm gonna wait and see. I already have Puzzle Strike and Dominion to keep me going for now, plus my buddy has Thunderstone and expansions... we're set. Actually it might be worth waiting to see if that new edition of Arctic Scavengers comes out soon too. With a few new additions that game could stand up to any of them.

The genre presents a great way to add variety to a game without bogging it down in different pieces and they always play quick. These are two great features and if Dominion is like Crib then games like Thunderstone, Puzzle Strike, Arctic etc.. are showing a way to add theme to them in a convincing manner. They will never be as thematic as the heavier games but it's not really the point and I think to completely dismiss the genre is a mistake. Role Selection, Worker Placement, Area Control... these are just mechanics and I don't think I would avoid any game for that reason alone.

I agree with Michael here. You may not like deck building games - why not? There's no problem with disliking a whole genre. But to dismiss them as a flash in the pan or flavor of the month is simply being obtuse. They're here, they're the most influential style of games right now - for better or for worse.

Sure, we're seeing a glut of them, but their influence upon the board game world is undeniable.

I didn't dismiss them as a flash in the pan, Tom. What I said was that they are indeed the flavor of the month. As Michael said, "What will eventually happen is that the best games will stick around, the pretenders will vanish." I concur. Eventually there will be Dominion and a few others that will hang on.

The problem is not that the games exist, the problem is that there are apparently so bloody many of them coming out all the time that it waters down the entire genre, and at the end of the day, it isn't going to remain viable. People are not going to go out and buy every deckbuilder when they find them to be mostly similar, and with the customer base being mostly constant, there will be more product out vying for the same constant or diminishing dollars.

It may appear, on its face, "less risky to make a DBG", but I'd argue it isn't necessarily the case because with each Dominion knockoff that comes out there's going to be ten others out there that are more or less just like it. So, the publishers are betting that their theme or derivative mechanic will be enough to get people past the "isn't that just like so and so..." and buy their product. In short, it's being lazy, and it will eventually be just like CCGs where people avoid them as me-too franchises and go to the real deal, Dominion.

Their influence on the board game world is indeed undeniable. They've made designers and publishers lazy. Why go out and produce a compelling, novel game when you can just produce a cheap card game that shares 80% of the concepts with its competitors, change the theme to so-and-so, and pop it in a box. Pair that with the neverending supply of expansion after expansion that adds very little to the core gameplay, released bi-weekly, and now you've got a recipe for market overcrowding and people starting to want something more than a box full of cards.

Of all of the Deckbuilders, the only ones I can palate are Dominion, Thunderstone, and Bhazum. The rest are all variants of the the former two, and of all of them, only Dominion and Bhazum (that I've played) have any novel concepts within. It's sad that people are so willing to knock off Dominion, since it's the first and biggest, while ignoring smaller, less exposed games like Bhazum that would certainly allow more interesting knock-offs.

As I said, I have yet to be truly wowed by anything this year. There's been some interesting stuff, but the only really compelling stuff has more to do with being attracted to the theme than anything else, such as Omen, the LARPer adventure game from FFP, and a 30 year old, 100$ reprint.

Sure, we're seeing a glut of them, but their influence upon the board game world is undeniable.
It may not get much love here, but what do you think the army building system in Civilization is?

I've been having good fun with Nightfall. I think it has some solid groundwork, but the expansions (which, in this case, I don't mind as we pretty much EXPECT there to be expansions) will make or break it. I'm right there with you, Barnes, that you _must_ attack with everything first thing on your turn is awesome. And I really like that everyone is involved on everyone else's turn, between defending attacks and playing cards in the chain.

"expansions will make or break it" does not exude confidence that the core game is all that shit hot, Josh! :)

Let's get something straight here: deckbuilding simply means, that you start with a small drawing deck of cards, and through the game you acquire more and more, add them to your discard pile, which will be eventually shuffled back into your drawing deck. That's all. It's a mechanism, and saying something is a deckbuilding game doesn't say anything about whether the game is good or bad, quasi-solitaire or highly interactive, thematic or dry, etc. It doesn't even have to mean it's strictly a card game, because the mechanism could be easily integrated into a boardgame.

When someone says he hates deckbuilding, it usually means he hates Dominion, even if he played Thunderstone as well (or only), the latter being basically just a less well-tested clone of the former, with a pasted on fantasy theme and a clunky dungeon-crawl mechanism. The others are so obscure compared to these, that even the least popular Dominion expansion is played by more people. Not that it matters, because almost none of them tries anything really new compared to Dominion, and those that do, are just not good enough (Puzzle Strike may be an exception, as far as I know).

There was a time not long ago, when most ameritrashers said they hated auction, worker placement, the Rondel, etc, basically because they knew these mechanisms from Eurogames they have found too dry. Then along came Cyclades (the auction mechanism of Amun-Re), Dominant Species (worker placement with a sequential resolution, a la Caylus), Imperial (rondel), and suddenly you find almost no AT'er who complains about these mechanisms. I'm sure the same will happen to deckbuilding, once we have a really aggressive and thematic DBG. But to have it, it's necessary for good designers "jump on the bandwagon".

Personally I'm really intrigued by Nightfall, and especially Rune Age. These may bring a much needed fresh perspective, that shows, that a deckbuilding game is not necessarily a multiplayer solitaire. The fact that these are developed by bigger companies is definitely a plus, since they may reach a wider audience.

Yeah, that's the other worrying trend. Not only does every publisher think they can strike gold by making a cheap deck builder, they imagine that it will also guarantee future gains through expansions.

I said it was worrying...frankly it doesn't bother me too much. I think Dominion and one or two others will stick around and everything else will vanish. That's the way it works, and it works across all areas of entertainment. Avatar goes stratospheric with 3D tech and suddenly there's all these shitty movies coming out with shitty 3D. Guess what, no one really cares about 3D anymore. Everything stabilized. Eventually the 'new thing' just gets absorbed into a pool of available tools within the hobby.

Deck-building is certainly here to stay. Sounds like some of the people who don't like it are assuming that most people feel the same way, which just doesn't seem to be the case.

And for those who dismiss this as a Dominion clone, you really should play it first before dismissing it. It's not super-thematic, but it's the first deck-building game that feels like it can stand in a game collection with Dominion and not occupy the same space. It's really more about card-play than deck-building.

Exactly. Dominion appeals to non-gamers. At the two game stores I frequent people come in off the street and ask the cashier where Dominion is. They've played someone else's copy and want one of their own, and don't really care about the 300 other boxes they walk past to get to it.

Getting even a 1% slice of that 99% of the market means a dependable income to pay rent and salaries. That's good news for us -- it's seed money for other efforts that likely will suit us better. In the meantime, if you don't like it, don't buy it, don't play it.

Personally I love deck-building games because they made everyone realize how crap-ass Worker Placement is. You guys really need to set better priorities for your complaint time.

S.

Very insightful comments about ATers "adopting" or accepting game mechanics, wice. Though you still will find complaints about the auctions in Cyclades...but not, for example, Risk 2210.

Before Dominion (pretty sure it was before) StarCraft had deckbuilding as just one part of a big ol' AT kill-a-thon. And it was highly thematic too. So deckbuilding doesn't have to be dry and mechanical.

Barnes, how would you stack this up against the Resident Evil one? This one sounds better mechanicaly, whereas RE sounds more like the other Dominion clones, but imho zombies > vampires.

I seriously don't understand why anyone would complain about expansions. Nobody is forcing you to buy them. If you enjoy your base game without them, that's fine, and in case of a bad game you certainly won't buy expansions. On the other hand, if a game is awesome, then I'm more than happy to buy some expansions to it, if they enrich the experience. For example, Mansions Of Madness, as a surprise-filled, scenario-driven game, obviously _needs_ expansions, and seriously, I will be pretty disappointed, if I have to wait more than a couple of months for the first one.

ufe: Well, fuck me sideways, you are right! I just checked the rules of StarCraft, and it had a deckbuilding mechanism a whole year before Dominion, although it works very differently (you have to shuffle back your discards into your draw deck every time you add a new card), and I'm pretty sure Dominion isn't a rip-off, since it was in development for years before it came out.

wice, the problem with expansions is that companies have evolved to the model of "cripplewaring" their games by leaving key things out for the purpose of selling expansions. FFP is the single worst offender, in my opinion, with the nickel-and-diming to death of their customers and fans. A friend recently told me that the new FFP adventure game seems to have been designed with this in mind, and that just grates on me.

Summoner Wars is the perfect example of how to do expansions right without alienating your base. They don't change the core game mechanics while allowing you a truly optional way to expand the variety of the game. For that matter, Dominion, for what it is, does a good job with expansions as well. There's a lot of new stuff in each expansion that really adds to the game.

At least publishers have stopped doing the Magic model of power creep where in order to remain competitive you have to get the latest-greatest...that's the worst offender in my opinion.

superflytnt: I have no idea which FFG games you think have been "cripplewared". Mansions Of Madness (I guess this is their new adventure game you are talking about) is definitely not crippled (well, the serious fuckups with the errata aside...), it's perfectly playable right out of the box many times.

FFG? FFP.

FFG? FFP.
Oh... OK, I don't know anything about FFP games, never played one. You may very well be right about them.

But just because some companies are evil, it doesn't make expansions automatically evil. Just stop buying games from companies that try to sell you broken basegames in the hopes that you will buy the expansions to make it worth playing. (BTW, I find this "cripplewaring" idea pretty silly: if your basegame is shitty without the expansions, what makes you think anyone will buy expansions for it, as opposed to trading it away as soon as possible? But maybe i just have too high expectations regarding my fellow gamers' IQ...)

I think the expansions are a problem because you are given just enough to think -- as Josh says above -- "the expansions will make or break it". With Deckbuilding games, you are often looking for a strong foundational "system". Even Dominion, as good as it was, really doesn't shine until you get at least Intrigue or Seaside in the mix.

For all intents and purposes, deckbuilding games are the same as CCG games except the collection is fixed and players share the same pool of cards. So what they accomplish is getting rid of variability due to an individuals resources; however, they almost completely come up short on any type of gameplay dimension.

The only problem I have with the expansions, and Dominion is especially horrible at this, is the packaging. I understand that you need a big box of air for the base game to get it noticed on the shelf, but once I have been hooked, it's pretty damned annoying, especially when I'm still paying like $50 MSRP.

Since I'll have to come up with some creative way to store all that junk after a few expansions anyway, I wish they'd just cut the BS and make M:TG "Fat Pack" sized boxes or something similar for expansions, though fat packs with cardboard dividers would mean I might just stick with the originals. I've been too lazy to organize my Dominion stuff just yet and lugging around three full-sized boxes for a card game is getting pretty rediculous.

I think the comment made above that most people who don't like deckbuilding games are really saying "I don't like Dominion" is quite true. I doubt most of the deckbuilding opponents have played more than one or two of the examples available now, and likely then not to the extent that those more receptive to the idea have. It also goes back to that idiotic (and false) AT dogmatic that "whatever they like we don't".

Deckbuilding is here to stay, and it is an important development. Does Dominion suck? No, it just isn't a fully realized concept. It's a steppign stone to incorporating those ideas into games. Yep, Starcraft beat it to the punch, but it wasn't nearly as complete an idea as it was in Dominion. If you think this is all just a flash in the pan, you're kidding yourself.

As for expansions, yes, it sucks that companies do things like what Pete calls "Crippleware" but guess what? Game publishers aren't doing this to make you happy or just because they love publishing games. They're trying to turn a profit, and if you think that there is any other reason for it then you're kidding yourself on that too. I may give FFG hell for the asinine shit they pull and their cynical, "our customers are easy screws" marketing techniques but at the end of the day if they're in the black and turning a profit then they're doing exactly what a business in a capitalist economy should be doing. Regardless of how ripped off you feel. You don't have to buy it if you don't want it.

I joke about it myself, but it's sort of a myth that there's all these deckbuilding games all over the place. I've said something to that effect myself, mostly as a knee-jerk reaction to another announcement of another one. But if you step back and look at it, it's just not true. The truth is, there's not that many in scale to other releases. You just notice them more. By my count, there's: Dominion, Thunderstone, Arctic Scavengers, Ascension, Resident Evil, Puzzle Strike, Nightfall, Bhazum, Rune Age, Heroes of Graxia, that zombie one who's name I can't remember, Arcana, and maybe two or three other ones. That's still less than 20 or so titles in three years. That's far less than the number of DoaM, adventure games, dungeoncrawls, or whatever "True AT" (bullshit term) games there are out there, and there isn't any complaint.

Pete, you say there's too many, but how about Summoner Wars? There's plenty of card-based, light wargames available. Many you even play on a grid, ala SW. And god knows there's ample coverage of the stock fantasy races in the game Why does that one get a pass but an entire genre is dismissed?

This myth that there are all these "Dominion clones" is preposterous, and only someone who hasn't played the games would state that. They all do things differently, and so far have I yet to play _any_ that felt like a knock-off or repetition of Dominion. There's plenty of inspiration and brining ideas forward, but each game is fairly different. Some are better than others, some are more successful than others...but you know what? I have yet to play one- including Dominion- that just completely didn't like.

I do think it was disappointing when FFG announced one (and a Terrinoth one at that) because they're a company I've associated with innovation and progress and not bandwagon-jumping. But the tone and goals of leadership have changed there and they're more profit- and brand- centered than before so it makes business sense for them to do one. Who knows, it may be something worthwhile. It'll have to be something great to convince me away from the four or five games in the genre I like best.

This old man cane-shaking at these games is so silly. You're fighting a losing battle. Dominon won.

I like deckbuilding games, and sometimes I love them. And I'm really interested to see where the "next gen" ones, which I think Nightfall represents, are going to take the genre.

Knuckle dragging is more fun that deck building. Last time I built a deck I wound up with a sore back and a brutal sunburn.

Pass.

Actually, while there's been power creep in some directions in Magic, it's really more "power redistribution": they've made the parts of the game they think are more fun more powerful, and the parts of the game they think less fun less powerful. I'm actually totally befuddled by this accusation, which applies much more to some other CCGs than to Magic.

No, if you're going to accuse Wizards of any bad practice in order to convince people to perpetually buy new cards, it's that the most popular tournament format, Standard, only allows you to use cards from the last two years. But on the other hand, you can also understand how this format makes it easier for a new player to start playing in tournaments, so it's got its plusses and minuses.

My primary objection to deckbuilding games is that there is too much process and not enough fun. There is card buying, card playing, and card shuffling, and a light theme pasted on. Remember theme? Theme is one of the big differences between AmeriTrash and all the other games. Without a decently-implemented theme, the rest of the stuff is just process, and not especially fun. I was bored out of my mind when I played Thunderstone.

Shuffling cards isn't fun. If it was, game companies could sell blank decks of cards and pass them off as card shuffling games. Buying cards to play is pretty minimal fun... back in the days of CCG booster drafts, players generally considered drafting to be a process that delayed the start of the tournament, not a fun activity in and of itself. Playing card combos can potentially be fun, but that isn't an activity that is unique to deck-building games.

dragonstout, that's a good point about power creep. One of the worst offenders in the power creep category is AEG, with their Legend of the Five Rings CCG. Fortunately, power creep doesn't make sense with respect to deck-building games, because all the players will still be drawing off the same deck, so there is no advantage (or disadvantage) to buying into subsequent sets with more powerful cards.

"As for expansions, yes, it sucks that companies do things like what Pete calls "Crippleware" but guess what? Game publishers aren't doing this to make you happy or just because they love publishing games. They're trying to turn a profit, and if you think that there is any other reason for it then you're kidding yourself on that too."

The most surefire way to make a profit is to make an exceptional product and offer it for a fair price. It's been that way forever, and it shall so remain. Making a 2/3 complete game so you can get another $25 bones from people is a really shitty practice, and I'm not buying games that "may be good with the expansion". It had better be fucking amazing to get my cash, and it shouldn't need an expansion to make it what it should've been in the first place.

Summoner Wars is, at its core, a light skirmish wargame, not a deck builder in the vein of Dominion/Thunderstone. It's a minis game without the plastic. That's why I view it differently.

Michael Barnes

Well, at least in the case of Thunderstone the "Dominion clone" evaluation is pretty accurate. In general, it's almost completely the same mechanism, players have their own turns when others just wait him to finish, they buy stuff in the "village", and ocassionally they "fight a monster", but it doesn't really differ from buying victory points, it's only a bit more compicated to calculate whether you can or cannot do it. I think it really shows that it was developed in a hurry (over about one year, which is ridiculous) after the success of Dominion, so they can be the first to cash in on the new craze.

Ascension is not that different either: again, you are basically buying cards on your turn, it's just that sometimes you use a different stat other than money. The only big change (the cards coming out randomly instead of being always available) doesn't seem necessary (although at least it makes setup faster), but it diminishes the possibility of stategic thinking, which I consider a negative in this case.

On the other hand, there are some DBG's that tried to do something different than Dominion, my favorite example being Arcana, where you are fighting over cards instead of buying them, which would be pretty awesome, if the cards weren't so fucking boring.

The fact is, there are no good and widely available deckbuilding games that are really different from Dominion, so there's plenty of room for others. That's why I don't see a reason to be disappointed by FFG releasing a DBG. As much as we can know about it right now, it's going to be nothing like we have seen so far in this genre: asymmetrical player powers, scenarios, changing victory conditions, possibility of cooperative play, players fighting with each-other over cards (in a probably more interesting fashion than in Arcana). And it's designed by Corey Konieczka, one of the most creative designers today. Granted, there's a chance that it will suck, but I would bet my shorts it won't.

For example, was Mansions Of Madness a disappointment, because FFG ("a once innovative and progressive company") "jumped on the bandwagon" of survival horror games? Yes, it is survival horror, but it's fucking different from everything in this genre, and wildly innovative.

BTW, just read what you had said about Nightfall back then, when it was announced, long before you had a chance to play it. As I recall, it was along the lines of "not another deckbuilding game, jumping on the bandwagon, the chaining mechanism was developed by BGG users, that sounds bad, etc". While, if you had actually had read the rulebook, it would have been obvious that there is something really interesting going on in this game.

I would have thought you have learned from the "rondel" story. ;)

It's hilarious how all the DBG haters take up the majority of wall space on this review. Ya know, I hear there are reviews on DOAM, worker placement, auction, role selection, CCG's etc... you don't need to loiter around the youngin's space here. You guys are pretty funny, hating a game based on one mechanic. But why keep hanging on, we get it already.

BTW, just read what you had said about Nightfall back then, when it was announced, long before you had a chance to play it. As I recall, it was along the lines of "not another deckbuilding game, jumping on the bandwagon, the chaining mechanism was developed by BGG users, that sounds bad, etc"

Mike always sounds silly when a game is announced but he usually calms down by the time his review comes out. He hates on games without knowing a thing about them but once they're on the market he gives them a chance. That's the difference here.

Besides, are you honestly using that as an example "Hey mike, you jumped off a cliff, so why criticize me when I do it?".

JJ, the reason I post these comments about DBGs isn't to be a hater. It's because I know that publishers will eventually see this and hopefully take at least some small bit of advice from a game-addicted consumer: Make something exciting, novel, and interesting with a great theme, and I will buy your product.

I don't care if you guys like Dominion or its simulacra, and I'm truly glad you guys have games you like. I'm just getting my 2c out there in case someone at FFG, FFP, or some other publisher reads it and understands that the practice of releasing a neverending sea of virtually identical games cannot last forever as a business model.

Actually, my big beef with Nightfall was that they said something to the effect of "designed with input from Board Game Geek members" more than anything else. And I do have to say that recently my thoughts on deckbuilding have evolved somewhat, particularly after playing more of what's available and not doing what some of these people have done and write off an entire emergent genre because of Dominion and trying to maintain this visage of only like "Ameritrash" games.

My primary objection to deckbuilding games is that there is too much process and not enough fun.

Would you list the deckbuilding games that you've played beyond Dominion and Thunderstone? How many times have you played either of those?

There is card buying, card playing, and card shuffling, and a light theme pasted on.

You just described every CCG ever made, including V:TES.

The most surefire way to make a profit is to make an exceptional product and offer it for a fair price.

What is this, the 1950s? That's ESPECIALLY not true in leisure industries including hobby games. There isn't a big enough market to just put out a good, fair price game and make a profit. If this were the case, companies wouldn't have been trying so hard to recapture the Magic/Pokemon boom or now the Dominion boom. And FFG wouldn't churn out Arkham Horror Expansions at a rate approaching those released for Munchkin.

To cross over into video games, that's another place where that doesn't cut it which is why almost every game has paid DLC now, so that these huge dev budgets can be recouped and projects can make money. It's a shitty practice for the consumer, but if you claim to be a capitalist, then that's how it works, boss.

Summoner Wars is, at its core, a light skirmish wargame, not a deck builder in the vein of Dominion/Thunderstone. It's a minis game without the plastic. That's why I view it differently.

And also Colby is your friend, and so is Clowdus which is why you won't cast Bhazum in the same light as the other deckbuilders. ;-)

There is NOTHING minis about Summoner Wars, btw. But we're splitting hairs, it's an awesome game and I'm not trying to drag it into this unrelated conversation.

Shellhead

As I said in an earlier DBG thread, it would be fairly easy to make thematic sense of deckbuilding games (like: Your heroes come out only once in a while to fight, then they are discarded? They have to rest after the fight. You purchase money cards, but get to use them only later? See it as an investment. You can only draw five cards every turn? It's because you can't manage your whole kingdom the same time. And so on.), it's just that Dominion didn't really try, because it's basically a Eurogame, so you necessarily need a suspension of disbelief regarding the mechanics, and the followers saw it works this way, so they followed suit.

Granted, Nightfall doesn't seem any more invested in making thematical sense, but Rune Age looks like it at least tries.

Also, take M:tG for example: it's pretty much AT, while it's pretty weak thematically. Why would a powerful wizard unable to summon any of his creatures, as long as he has the mana? Why should he wait them to show up at an unpredictable point of the battle? Are they so irresponsible that they are late when their master's life is at stake? Then why doesn't he fire them, especially in these hard economic times, when many people are getting fired for lesser mistakes? Excruciating questions without any answer at all.

Something else to add...this idea of what is/isn't "Ameritrash" and trying to determine if you're supposed to like or not like something based on that is fucking stupid at this point.

I was surprised to find a discussion on the proper acronym for the "deck building" mechanism! I think the mechanism has without question gained popular traction.

JJ

Have you actually read my comment? I wasn't hating on Nightfall or DBG's in general.

So, I used it as an example, as in "Hey Mike, don't jump off the cliff, remember, it wasn't that much of a great idea last time you did".

Word.

"Something else to add...this idea of what is/isn't "Ameritrash" and trying to determine if you're supposed to like or not like something based on that is fucking stupid."

Bullshit. The last time I checked, this is still Fortress: Ameritrash, so it's a safe bet that everybody here is interested in Ameritrash games. I'm not saying that should be the only criteria, but it's certainly a relevant one here. You of all people should know this.

the real problem with the so called "deck building games" is they have taken themes that have been true in most CCG (and recently LCG) and honed in on one or two mechanics -- then they are lauded for being innovative and "next generation". This is the part that is a bunch of bunk.

Just to pick MtG, as a counter-example it does all of these things and usually much better (and I like Dominion, so that is not my beef).

1. Deck building -- nothing but card drafting from a fixed pool
2. Nightfall's chaining -- nothing but a dumb-downed version of "the stack"
3. All the dude's attacking -- nothing but a variation of an aggro deck
4. Puzzle Strike & purples -- nothing but a MtG combo loop
and on and on and on. Most, if not all, of these ideas exist in CCGs and are usually more successfully implemented as the playtesting is much more indepth. DBG are nothing but CCGs in disguise do the expansion wheel -- and most of them are not good on the base game alone.

Deckbuilding is going to be nothing but lame ripoffs until it is incorporated into the larger context of a boardgame. Starcraft is the innovative idea here. Hell, at its core, Twilight Struggle is a reverse-deck building game where you are trying to seed the deck to your favor by getting rid of opponents cards and keeping your own. Both of these games make the DBG look lame.

The biggest potential may be the Lord of the Rings LCG coming out. Deck-building tailored around a Space Hulk mission layout -- giving the decks and cardplay immediate context.

You're treading in dangerous waters, Mike. Put a smiley on the back end of impugning my character makes it no less an insult.

My relationship with Colby is incredibly strained at best, Michael, not that it's your business, and the fact that Clowdus is my friend has little to do with the fact that Bhazum is an original, novel work. It's no Dominion, and it's no Thunderstone. It stands on its own, and there are very, very few concepts within that I've seen elsewhere.

SW is indeed a minis skirmish game with cards, and Colby has publicly equated it to such in passing. I've argued that the Heroscape influence is very evident and that if you took the cards off of the mat and proxied them with metal minis, it would be Heroscape without the funky dice and plastic tiles. Obviously that's dumbing it down a little, but it's certainly unlike anything else I've played before as far as the gameplay versus format.

But all of that isn't what I'm most curious about...

Of course it is, or are you saying that you'd knowingly pay good money for a shitty game? A perfect example of an excellent product for a fair price was Space Hulk. People were more than happy to pay $100 for the game because it represented a great value. Same with Earth Reborn, or Merchants and Marauders; both great products that people identified as worth the value and people equated it for a fair price.

What the fuck school of business did you go to again? McDonalds U? The quality of a product is what causes the demand, and the demand is what commands the price. Games like Forbidden Island, for instance, sell inexpensively and they could've charged more for it and retained their sales, but there's a great example of a superior product with a fair (and again, in my estimation, CHEAP) price point. Summoner Wars, again, is another example of a great product with a fair price.

Fair price is what customers believe is a good value for the dollar, and of course that's completely subjective. That being said, if you look at the top 10 games, note that they all have the same thing in common: people felt the games were a good product for a fair price.

No offense intended Pete. I'm just pointing out facts, just like you like to do. It's hardly "impugning your character", no need to be over-sensitive. All I know is that you know and presumably are friends with these guys and that's totally OK. I'm friends with Clowdus, and Colby sends me promos of all the Summoner Wars stuff. It's all above board.

As for business, you are blowing my mind here. "Quality creates demand"? Is _that_ why McDonalds is so popular or why Homefront sold a million copies last week? In smaller, more discerning markets you might have a point be the case but in the larger marketplace things like marketing, price, availabilty, and other factors are more important than quality. But that's really outside the scope of the discussion here.

Besides, you're talking about mostly middle class people spending leisure money (or credit)..."fair price", too often, doesn't enter into the equation unless the buyer is crusing the deep-discount sites to get a bottom-dollar price on what they want to blow their money on.

You also listed as examples Earth Reborn and Merchants and Marauders- two games that will assuredly engender expansions, possibly multiple ones.

Bullshit. The last time I checked, this is still Fortress: Ameritrash, so it's a safe bet that everybody here is interested in Ameritrash games. I'm not saying that should be the only criteria, but it's certainly a relevant one here. You of all people should know this.

I guess I don't. Oh well, Ameritrash is dead anyway.

I guess you can call this site Fortress: Deckbuilding. You're going to need another new name in less than two years, when the next game fad comes along. Fortress: Pog-Tossing or Fortress: Collectible Dexterity Games or some such. Or maybe just Fortress: Cult of the New.

I'm totally down with Fortress: POGs

"Alf pogs! Remember Alf? He's back... in pog form!"

And so I continue to ignore the newest deck building game while I wait for the Blood Bowl deck building game. A theme where the concept perfectly works has occurred to FFG, but why isn't it out yet :(.

The problem with deck building games is that they are like DOAMs. You find your favourite and stick with that one as the others are just too similar.

I absolutely stand by that, Michael. McDonalds is viable because people see the value there. Sure, the meat is likely about as close to real meat as I am to real African, but people perceive it as a value. That's the part that keeps them going. When I said that quality commands price, that's why you can get 2400 calories for $3.99, but if you go to Outback, you get 1400 calories for 12.99.

And FTR: AT isn't dead, it just retired to Europe and is sitting on the front porch with Christophe Boelenger, right? Wasn't that "Real Ameritrash"?

That's right Pete- and half the people here hemmed and hawed over Earth Reborn, didn't they? I've felt many times that we should rename the site Fortress: Fantasy Flight Games because that's the genre many of these folks are really into, not the games that the late great Robert Martin posted in his inital list of Ameritrash games.

But yeah, Ameritrash is dead because it's fallen into the same dogmatic crap that Eurogames did, and now there's people like Shellhead that have these hilariously unbudging attitudes about what games they're SUPPOSED to like and NOT SUPPOSED to like. You're not supposed to like new games, not supposed to like deckbuilding games, not supposed to like auction games, not supposed to like games with wooden cubes, not supposed to like games that have a rondel, not supposed to like games published by Rio Grande Games, not supposed to like games in the BGG top ten, not supposed to like games with the color brown. on and on and on.

Is "Ameritrash" defined by what you're NOT SUPPOSED to like? If that's the case, fuck Ameritrash. That isn't what I've ever stood for, nor any of the folks that started this site or the people who raised a ruckus about it so many years ago at BGG.

As for basing McDonald's value on calorie count per dollar...that makes me sick. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

My unbudging attitude is that people shouldn't automatically like a game for being new. While I have a strong bias towards Ameritrash games because they deliver the level of interaction, drama and theme that I want, I don't automatically like a game just for being AmeriTrash. I do prefer to spend my time at F:AT instead of BGG, because F:AT is more likely to give favorable attention to the kind of games I enjoy. I don't fault you for trying all kinds of new games, because that's your job as a professional reviewer, but it's disappointing to see you caught up in a shallow fad.

What did you think that McDonald's value was based on? All fast food -- and much of the western world's obesity problem -- is based on calorie count per dollar. I don't even understand how someone can disagree about that; seems like fact.

To more frutiful discussions beyond calorie counts and the horse carcass that is the definition of ameritrash, what are your thoughts about the point I raised earlier? Specifically, the big "leap forward" for DBG will be when they quit trying to be games unto themselves --- which are really just poor copies of more interesting card games --- and integrate the mechanic into the core structure of a boardgame. That seems like the manner in which the theme will be highlighted the most.

Space Ghost - that's the idea I've been tinkering around with now. How best to incorporate DBG mechanics into a board game. For me it's about having decks represent characters to some extent so as the decks evolve, so does the character. Unfortunately thus far the result has not been close to what I'd call "fun" - but such is the design process.

Interesting point Space Ghost. We've already seen deck-building incorporated into boardgames. Starcraft, apparently, and more recently, High Frontier. At least that's how the early part of the game struck me, the hour that we all spent trying to come up with a workable combination of gear that could escape the gravity well.

Yeah -- I would like to see it highlighted a little more. That is also what MEQ does with "training" in terms of character development, but the deck is so big -- and the training cards seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things -- the notion gets lost.

My unbudging attitude is that people shouldn't automatically like a game for being new.

Who the hell does this? This is so weird and ridiculous...

As for this being a "shallow fad"...you really, really sound like an old, out-of-touch and cranky man at this point.

1. Reasonable discussions are difficult when you use the same word to mean different things.

2. It's not so unreasonable to say 'I don't like not-Ameritrash'. Admittedly, the only times I've played Euros is on PC or iTouch, but I've learned one thing--it's always a fucking bore. Some of us play games specifically for the things that are uniquely AT.

3. I love McDonald's. And capitalism.

You don't understand, Bullwinkle, Ameritrash is dead because several people here didn't like the design of the cards for Earth Reborn.

Some of us play games specifically for the things that are uniquely AT.

So...you guys play "these games of ours"? Or "those games of yours" as the case may be?

Some of "us" like to play games because they're good games, not because of what genre they fit best into.

You don't understand, Bullwinkle, Ameritrash is dead because several people here didn't like the design of the cards for Earth Reborn.

Yeah, Ameritrash is dead when "ATers" start acting just like Eurogamers did, what with all the passive-aggressive talk that y'all used to criticize the BGG crod for.

Shellhead and Barnes are both right.

It is irrelevant if a game being discussed or reviewed is classified as AT or not.

It is relevant that our writers have shared interests and preferences with our readers, and that our writers cover games and other topics that may be of interest to our readers.

So...
Barnes does have a preference for AT games.
Many of our readers are interested in horror themes and in deck building games.

Therefore, what the hell is the problem and why are people sniping at each other?

So...you guys play "these games of ours"? Or "those games of yours" as the case may be?

This is silly. There's no snobbery involved. It's personal taste.

Some of "us" like to play games because they're good games, not because of what genre they fit best into.

You have this exactly backwards. I don't like games because they fit into a genre. The qualities in games that connect with me just happen to be what are traditionally thought of as AT. I also like wargames such as Hornet Leader/Ambush/Armageddon Empires that are like wargame-AT hybrids, because those games also have the qualities I like: well-executed theme, randomness, conflict, etc.

I've tried some Euros eagerly, and each time, I've come away thinking 'this is missing what I want'. I never met a Euro I liked, but it's not like I'm refusing to. They're just missing what I want. So from my (and only my) perspective, they're not 'good games'.

Put it this way: I'm a huge videogamer. I fucking hate shmups. Pointless exercises in memorization and manual dexterity, as far as I'm concerned. I know lots of people love them, especially here (including you), and I respect that. But there's absolutely nothing in a shmup that appeals to me, and yes, I will dismiss the genre (for my own gaming) because of it.

There's definitely a tone of "those games" and "our games" in what you said Bullwinkle- maybe if you hadn't have used that "some of us" line the tone would have been different.

As for Shellhead, I just want him to list the deckbuilding games that he's played along with at least a rough idea of frequency so that we can all better frame his objection to the genre and provide some qualification to his criticisms. How about it?

Dominion once. Thunderstone twice. Haven't tried any of the others. Most of my gamer friends are too cheap to buy games, so if I want to try something, I often have to buy it myself, which goes a long way to explaining my wariness about new games. Fortunately, I didn't need to buy Dominion or Thunderstone because a friend already owns them. Anyway, three games worth of eye-rolling boredom is enough to turn me off on deck-building games until I see some an additional element that really captures a theme. Bloodbowl might be that game.

It is a damned shame when a line this hilarious gets completely ignored in favor of a bitter, academic discussion that boils down to people not all liking the same thing.

I think Dominion sucks a big one. On the other hand, even with it's flaws, I like Thunderstone quite a bit. One thing I really do appreciate about Thunderstone is that they appear to be making each successive boxed set better than the rest. That is highly unusual for game sequels. AEG should slow the hell down on their rate of expansions, however, so as not to alienate their current fans. It appears that the sales numbers are on their side for now from the comments I see from them so maybe I don't know Jack Diddly.

Like all bubbles, the deck building in a box game will fall and fall hard. Only the very best of the pack (and maybe even boring ass Dominion) will remain. The saving grace with these games versus the CCG wave is that they are self contained and don't have the stigma that the money sucking CCGs had. They are also attempting to make something other than a one of a million one-on-one cardbased battle games. The best CCGs actually played well with more than two and the 'you build it in a box' games appear to have learned the lesson that deck building card games may be best served up with more people.

There's definitely a tone of "those games" and "our games" in what you said Bullwinkle- maybe if you hadn't have used that "some of us" line the tone would have been different.

Okay, I can see how that might come off. I certainly didn't mean it that way, though.

To me, Dominion is in the category of "resource gathering" deckbuilding games all by itself. Thunderstone and Nightfall are in a "battle" deckbuilding genre. Comparing Nightfall and Dominion seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Was the comparison between Nightfall and Dominion simply because Dominion is so well known? I would think a comparison between Nightfall and Thunderstone (or even Puzzle Strike or Yomi) to make a little more sense.

Danger! Danger! Black Barney! Wall of text incoming!

Michael Barnes wrote:
"I joke about it myself, but it's sort of a myth that there's all these deckbuilding games all over the place. I've said something to that effect myself, mostly as a knee-jerk reaction to another announcement of another one. But if you step back and look at it, it's just not true. The truth is, there's not that many in scale to other releases. You just notice them more. By my count, there's: Dominion, Thunderstone, Arctic Scavengers, Ascension, Resident Evil, Puzzle Strike, Nightfall, Bhazum, Rune Age, Heroes of Graxia, that zombie one who's name I can't remember, Arcana, and maybe two or three other ones. That's still less than 20 or so titles in three years. That's far less than the number of DoaM, adventure games, dungeoncrawls, or whatever "True AT" (bullshit term) games there are out there, and there isn't any complants."
Obvious much? Saying there's not many compared to other releases is a straw man; of course there wouldn't be as Dominion was only released two and a half years ago. The reason we notice them more is because of the frantic rush to jump on the bandwagon. By your count, how many are there including expansions? Dominion has six boxes now, meaning they're published faster than two per annum. They're breeding like rabbits I tell you! Like rabbits!!!

"Pete, you say there's too many, but how about Summoner Wars? There's plenty of card-based, light wargames available. Many you even play on a grid, ala SW. And god knows there's ample coverage of the stock fantasy races in the game Why does that one get a pass but an entire genre is dismissed? "
Because of the bandwagoning I would imagine. Had Summoner Wars inspired it to the same degree, then it would be a valid comparison.

"This myth that there are all these "Dominion clones" is preposterous"
You created that myth, Michael, you only have yourself to blame. :p

"And I'm really interested to see where the "next gen" ones ... are going to take the genre. "
Ew, Barnes, that's just so Cult of the New!

Pat II wrote:
"Knuckle dragging is more fun that deck building. Last time I built a deck I wound up with a sore back and a brutal sunburn. "
LOL

Shellhead wrote:
"Shuffling cards isn't fun. If it was, game companies could sell blank decks of cards and pass them off as card shuffling games"
Announcing Shufflescam, Q3 2011, Mayday Games., includes "Extra Thick(TM)" card sleeves.

"The most surefire way to make a profit is to make an exceptional product and offer it for a fair price. It's been that way forever, and it shall so remain. Making a 2/3 complete game so you can get another $25 bones from people is a really shitty practice, and I'm not buying games that "may be good with the expansion". It had better be fucking amazing to get my cash, and it shouldn't need an expansion to make it what it should've been in the first place."
QFT! I'd much rather buy an expensive game that has everything in it, and get good value for money, than a game where I'm wondering if 'just one more expansion' will make it work. Earth Reborn got this right.

Michael Barnes wrote:
"Actually, my big beef with Nightfall was that they said something to the effect of "designed with input from Board Game Geek members" more than anything else."
That's would put me off it too. Your best selling point is 'designed by a committe of Euro-sheep'? Bye, bye any game design integrity.
Two wankers on TOS have been constantly vocal about High Frontier's ET Produce > Retool rule. Despite Phil's original intent being crystal clear from his own posts (except one posted vaguely and in haste, now haunting him by being requoted whenever there's a disagreement), and three of his son's, he has given into the pressure and changed the wording in the Living Rules. And it's crippled the game. Plus, all the public argument about rules by morons, can only have harmed the game.

"And I do have to say that recently my thoughts on deckbuilding have evolved somewhat, particularly after playing more of what's available and not doing what some of these people have done and write off an entire emergent genre because of Dominion and trying to maintain this visage of only like "Ameritrash" games. ... Would you list the deckbuilding games that you've played beyond Dominion and Thunderstone? How many times have you played either of those?"
And Michael throws a one-two, leading with a straw man, followed by a low blow to the gut implying any h8trz haven't played enough to understand.

Space Ghos wrote:
"the big "leap forward" for DBG will be when they quit trying to be games unto themselves --- which are really just poor copies of more interesting card games --- and integrate the mechanic into the core structure of a boardgame."
Imperial 2060: DBG meets the Rondel!

Shellhead wrote:
"We've already seen deck-building incorporated into boardgames. Starcraft, apparently, and more recently, High Frontier. At least that's how the early part of the game struck me, the hour that we all spent trying to come up with a workable combination of gear that could escape the gravity well."
An hour! Splutter!

Michael Barnes wrote:
"So...you guys play "these games of ours"? Or "those games of yours" as the case may be?"
No. I play 'these games of mine'.

ubarose wrote:
"Barnes does have a preference for AT games.
Many of our readers are interested in horror themes and in deck building games.
Therefore, what the hell is the problem and why are people sniping at each other?"
Because Michael doesn't have a preference for AT, he's 'turned Euro'?

/flies into thread

...who paged me? What's the problem? I almost flew right smack into that last post.

There he is! Get him!

Ditto. After scanning the posts my eyes glazed over and I started wondering how BGG took control of this thread.

My opinon? : Deck building games suxxor. Where are my plastic minis?

Steve"Deck Building? Deck Building? We don't need no steenking Deck Building!"Avery

The one thing I don't like about Nightfall's randomized archives is if I want to play a second time, tearing down the first game and setting up the second is annoying. Since the cards are not in slots like Dominion and Resident Evil (the only two other DBGs I've played), it's a pain to fumble with the rolodex/card catalog organization of it all. Maybe it would help if the box isn't 90% empty too. I like the chaining and magic-esque combat system, but I agree there wasn't enough variety in the actions and the theme wasn't there at all. It doesn't matter if vampire attacks vampire or hunter vs. hunter, and most of the actions seemed to be based around either wounding minions or players. Which is fine, but this game needs an expansion before it'll hit the table as much as RE does for me. Speaking of which, I hate it when there are rules and effects that have no impact on the game and therefore are obviously given for expansions. I'm thinking bite, bleed, and burn here.

Winston Draft Magic is a good deck building game, it also has a fun combat phase after the deckbuilding phase is done. StarCraft TBG is also a good one. I also enjoy Dominion and Thunderstone, largely because I can feel clever by making a cool deck and they have short play times. That seems to be the appeal of the lighter DBGs, to me anyway.

Fast food is about convenience. Period. McDonald's can give you a highly convenient way to fill your stomach for your dollar. No one picks where to eat based on how many calories per dollar they can get.

If you want good calorie/dollar value, go to the grocery store.

I thought y'all might be interested in Seth Jaffee on Deckbuilding. It seemed appropriate for this thread.

The problem with CCGs, at least for me, has always been casual play (come in, sit down, let's play a game). Unless you're hardcore, or have a deck already built, it's a PITA (lemme see, let's split out these 400 cards here, then you take your 200 and make a 50 card deck; or, let's spend an hour passing cards back and forth...). That can be a lot of fun, but it's not very accessible.

Deckbuilding games make all that easy, but so far at the price of losing some of the intricacies that make CCGs enjoyable. I guess it's a fair tradeoff, but it depends on what you want from a game. I've been hoping with all these games that THE GAME would emerge. And it probably will. But so far, not yet.

Nice review and discussion. I think I'll pass on Nightfall for now and revisit if/when an expansion arrives, as I have to agree with the crippleware remarks above. Still holding out some hope for Arctic Scavengers (where the hell is it?). Question about Nightfall: is it as kingmaker-ish as it reads?