 Cover image from BGG. What is this game about? After the Virus, designed by Jacob Fryxelius and published by FryxGames, is a cooperative deck building game about surviving wave after wave of zombies. There are several different missions to complete within the game, starting with some easier ones (haha) and ending with brutally difficult challenges. You can either play each mission as a one-off or enjoy them in order as an overarching storyline. Although the game comes with four characters, only up to three players can play at a time. In most deck builders, you look to cull your deck and repeatedly draw the most powerful cards. In After the Virus, however, you want your deck to be as big as possible. This is because every element of the game is contained in that deck—including the zombies who attack you in increasingly large numbers. Each time you have to reshuffle your deck, you have to shuffle a new and larger horde of zombies into it. In fact, if you don't shuffle well and draw a whole bunch of zombies at once, you can lose the game immediately. While you can afford to take two zombie wounds and still survive, if you take a third, it's game over for you. Even though you want your discard pile to stay full of exciting zombie-killing equipment (or at least some survivor cards), you'll also want to thin your deck and put cards in your tableau, then pay even more cards to prepare them. The weapons, equipment, and other goodies that you set aside this way are necessary to help you deal with the challenges ahead. Whatever you do, you'll need to prevent too many zombies from clogging up each individual hand, then spewing into your tableau and overwhelming whatever defenses you've managed to put up. How does it play solo? After the Virus is a game for one to three players, and it plays very well solo. In fact, I have only ever played it single-handed and have had no problems whatsoever. When cooperating with others, the main difference is that you end up taking on more zombies, because players can help each other with zombie problems and will have to keep an eye on threats to each other as well as to themselves.  There are a lot of zombies in After the Virus, and they are ugly! Overall Thoughts
I did not expect to enjoy After the Virus as much as I do. Frankly, I hate the art style—those bobble heads are not doing it for me. But I'm glad I didn't judge this game by its cover. After the Virus is endlessly tense, riveting, and a good bit of fun. The fact that you can use cards in multiple ways—as themselves, as currency to acquire or prepare other cards, as discards that allow you to scout for even more cards—leads to some very interesting decisions, every single hand. It also means that no card ever truly goes to waste, because if you don't want a card for its action and don't have enough cards to pay for something, you can still scout. I love deck builders that never have wasted cards because there is always something you can do. The intensity of the waves of zombies flooding your deck is also something I enjoyed a lot more than I expected to. It is true that you can sometimes get an absolutely terrible draw, even to the point where you can instantly lose the game on an early turn through no "fault" of your own. While this can feel unfair, the game is so fun and snappy that it really doesn't bother me, and actually just adds to the tension of it all as I draw up each round. Even if you get good draws, After the Virus is a brutally difficult game, especially in later missions, and you should expect to lose. Brutally. Repeatedly. After the Virus is also a surprisingly small game, but trust me, there is a lot of game in there. You can get a copy for less than $20 on Amazon, and the box is maybe 8 x 8 inches—small enough to slide into a backpack or messenger bag. Setup is incredibly quick, and you can be playing in moments. And the game plays quickly—especially if you lose. Again. While After the Virus' small footprint is mostly a blessing, however, it is also a bit of a curse. Expect to see the same cards over and over again, because each player has the same deck to work with (although each character has different starting cards) and that deck isn't overly large. Do I recommend it? Yes! If you like zombies, deck builders, and games that are fast-playing and intense, then After the Virus is a great choice. At its price point, you will definitely get your money's worth out of it. Overall Rating: 4 stars 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. Enjoy this review? Want to support my site? Buy me a coffee here!
1 Comment
 What is this game about? Renegade, designed by Richard Wilkins and published by Victory Point Games, is a cooperative, deck-building area control game in which you (and other players, if you want them) are hackers who are fighting against an evil, matrix-like computer that controls humankind. Your main objective is to survive until the end of the game—the AI will consistently throw "countermeasures" at you that erase the work you're doing and flood the network with hostile Sparks and Guardians. You must manage these threats: If at any time you need to put another Spark or Guardian on the board, but find that the supply is empty, you'll lose the game. At the same time, you'll be improving your own deck (new cards go directly into your hand!) while using your cards to destroy enemy countermeasures, move, turn the AI's Sparks into your own allied pieces, and even create "uplinks" that let you influence activities all across the board, regardless of your avatar's location within the network. A game of Renegade takes place in three-turn rounds. During each round, you'll work through your entire 15-card deck (your deck is always 15 cards—you get rid of an old card every time you purchase an upgrade), and you will pursue increasingly difficult goals each round. The objectives are divided into three categories: Copper (easier), Silver (medium), and Gold (difficult). The number of challenges you'll face at each difficulty level is determined by which AI boss you intend to fight. Renegade comes with several of them, from the relatively tame Alpha-Moby to the brutal and decidedly-not-nurturing "Mother." While technically you do not have to succeed at all or even any of your objectives—you only have to still be standing at the end—you are punished with in-game consequences for failing them. You'll also get fewer points when you calculate your score to see how well you did. You may "win" the game by surviving to the end, but you triumph by getting a high score. How does it play solo? Renegade feels more like a solo game that was expanded to accommodate more players than a multiplayer game with a solo mode. This is not at all surprising. Its designer, Richard Wilkins, is better known as Ricky Royal, a mainstay of the solo gaming community! Renegade is a cooperative game, but it scales down well—your objectives change depending on how many players are in the game, and you get bonuses to compensate for a lack of allies to help you cover the entire network. It feels completely natural to play either true solo or two-handed, and I enjoy it both ways.  Set up for a battle against Alpha-Moby! Overall Thoughts
Renegade is a fantastic game. I have played it a lot, I want to keep playing it, and I can't wait to see the expansions in store for it. If you enjoy puzzly games with multiple solutions to a given problem, then Renegade is a great match for you. I love figuring out the smartest ways to upgrade and deploy my cards, and it's so satisfying to pull off good combos. You are subject to the whims of fortune in some ways—you might not always draw the cards you need, or you might get objectives that are difficult in combination with each other, or you could have a bad die roll that results in a badly-placed Spark or the destruction of one of your viruses. But Renegade is overall one of those games where skill really pays off, and where intimate knowledge of what the game can do truly feels rewarding. The deck-building aspect of Renegade is immediate and exciting. Each turn, you can purchase cards from a market row that go directly into your hand, while culling the weaker cards you used to pay for them. I personally love getting to use my newer, better cards right away, and I like that choosing which ones to buy and how to deploy them can have an immediate effect on the game. I'd actually like to see more options in upcoming expansions to the game—there are only 36 advanced cards in the base game, and I am hungry for more variety! (In fairness, there are a couple of expansion packs available already.) I also love the various ways that in-game actions combine with each other. Some of your contaminants, like viruses, have more obvious in-game uses. But figuring out how to use uplinks—contaminants that allow you to push game pieces around from the other side of the board, or in some cases to project yourself to another location and act as if you were actually there—really takes Renegade to the next level for me. That said, Renegade has its flaws. While I haven't played it at higher player counts, I think it might be best for one or two players. There is a lot going on, and I personally love to agonize over my game turns. The box says 90 minutes, and I'd say it takes me 60–90 minutes to play a full game by myself, depending on the difficulty level. Most importantly, however, Renegade hurts itself a little by having a high cost of entry. The rulebook is not an easy read, and it is made more difficult by the inclusion of a lot of thematic jargon that is difficult to keep track of, especially when you are new to the game. Once you've gotten the hang of things, Renegade flows well and is tremendously absorbing. But I still refer to "Faith" as the "Purple Server" and to the "Infect" action as "Attack." Do I recommend it? YES. I absolutely recommend Renegade. If you like intense, brain-burning games that present you with interesting decisions, but don't take an eternity to set up and play solo, you will love this one. Overall Rating: 4.5 stars 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. Enjoy this review? Want to support my site? Buy me a coffee here!  Cover image from BGG What is this game about? Agricola, Master of Britain, designed by Tom Russell and published by Hollandspiele, is a game in which you control the Roman legions under Agricola as they attempt to subdue ancient Britain and bring about Romanization and stability. Agricola was an interesting guy living in interesting times—the Emperor Domitian was incompetent but obsessed with staging military victories, and was notably jealous of men like Agricola who had actual capabilities in the field. We also have a notably biased but still interesting biography of Agricola, written by his son-in-law, the Roman historian Tacitus. (Tacitus is a damned good read, especially if you enjoy learning about those wicked, wicked Roman emperors!) Anyway, in Agricola, Master of Britain, you begin in a really tough situation—you are surrounded by hostile tribes, and your armies really could be better and more experienced. The game lasts for eight turns, and can end in your defeat for a number of reasons. If you fail to meet each turn's VP threshold, you lose. Empty treasury? Lose. Lose a battle? Definitely lose. Rome must always win battles! If you fail to deal with the leader Calgacus at the battle of Mons Graupius, and he's still on the board at the end of the game, you will also, you guessed it, lose. To win a game of Agricola, Master of Britain, you need to generate increasingly large amounts of victory points. After turn 1, you only need 3 VP to continue. But by the end of turn 8, you need to have generated 75 or more of them—and in this game, VP are very hard to come by. Each turn, you get 1 point for regions that are empty of hostile tribe markers (good luck), 1 point for each Roman legionary who has been promoted to the highest level (if they don't die in battle), 1 point for each fully-developed settlement (which takes two turns and a lot of money to create), and 1 point for each dead tribal leader in the dead pool (nice if you can kill one early). You can also spend money—of which there isn't much—to purchase VP as you go, and if you can afford to sacrifice actions, you can choose to pass and earn 1 VP for every one foregone. But you'll have a lot of fires to put out! If things go well, you'll end up with several sources of VP that help you out over several turns. But you will feel choked out at the beginning of the game, with no guarantee that things will get better for you. As you're trying to build a viable VP engine out of essentially nothing, you will find yourself challenged by angry British tribes no matter what you do. Shifting loyalties are represented in Agricola, Master of Britain by an interesting chit-pull system, where enemies can be in the "friendly," "unfriendly," or "hostile" cups. While you can occasionally bribe some people into the friendly cup, most things you do make the local population more hostile, moving chits from friendly to unfriendly, and from unfriendly to hostile. You will also end up provoking hostile tribe reactions, which means that you pull chits from the hostile cup and place them on the map. Depending on what you do and how you handle it, it's easy to get overwhelmed. If three chits end up on the same spot, they may engage in internecine warfare—but they're also in open rebellion against you. If you pull a tribal leader from the chit cup, he will unite the people in his region in ways that seriously hamper your own activities. How does it play solo? Agricola, Master of Britain is specifically a solitaire game, so I'd say it solos pretty well!  This game starts with you hemmed in on all sides. Overall Thoughts
Agricola, Master of Britain is a very interesting solo experience, not quite like any others I've had to date. The chit pull system, with tribes shifting between different cups, is fascinating and a fun challenge to manage. And the pressure you feel in the first turns of the game, when you are hoping desperately to create sustainable sources of VP that will see you through eight turns, is intense. I lost early a lot when I was first learning the game, and it can still happen if I get extremely unlucky. Thematically, I'd say that makes sense. The Roman army was powerful, but Julius Caesar himself had a really hard time during his attempted invasion of Britain, and he barely left with his dignity intact. (And he probably only managed that because he wrote the reports himself...) By the time Agricola was governor of Britain, it had been under Roman rule since the emperor Claudius "conquered" it, but we should probably leave that word in quotation marks. The tension in those early turns of Agricola, Master of Britain is almost unbearable, but in a fun way. Once you figure out how to build up VP and keep 'em coming, you get a little more breathing room... but never enough, especially when you have a tight timeline and so much to do! Chit pulls also stay very tense, because you'll constantly have to deal with the threat of bad pulls that can sometimes lead to raids. In most games, Calgacus will appear and you'll have to deal with him in a massive battle from which it can be difficult to recover. In other games, he never emerges at all... but you're still waiting and wondering if he will. Overall, I'd say this is a very good game. But Agricola, Master of Britain has a few issues, for me at least. The main one is the battle system. After all of that careful planning and building, you can still get absolutely screwed by some bad die rolls, especially at the massive battle of Mons Graupius, Luck in games doesn't normally bug me too much, but I get tetchy about it when I've been putting so much effort into planning and puzzle-solving, only to have it all go up in smoke. (In fairness, many Roman generals probably had this feeling, too, but with actual weapons involved.) What makes this more difficult is that the battle system does not allow for the same level of planning as the rest of the game—you essentially line up the soldiers on both sides, then roll a die repeatedly for each of your units' attack and defense turns until one side is entirely defeated. In larger battles, that is a lot of die rolling, and while the attack and defense values of your units can help to mitigate your rolls, there is nothing else you can do to influence the outcome. In my opinion, this is the clunkiest aspect of an otherwise tight design. The other feature of gameplay that I personally find frustrating is that there are serious limitations on movement. You can't move more than one adjacent space at a time, and you can't even do that without pairing your movement with an action. This means that if you suddenly end up out on your own, without an enemy right next to you to fight and without any more settlements to build, you can end up kind of stuck. The only solution is to spam peacekeeping actions—which can lead to a general decrease in hostility, but which can't be carried out in regions with a tribal leader present—to get your legion where it needs to go. For this reason, I highly recommend you always leave a legion near the camps and able to summon reinforcements, because otherwise it's going to be a royal pain to move back there to do it. I know Tom Russell had his reasons for building the game this way (he is very active on BGG!), but this aspect of the gameplay drove me crazy in a bad way. What is a Roman legion without its famed double-time movement? Obviously, I find Agricola, Master of Britain very engaging and have spent a lot of time thinking about it. Why else would I be writing so much? But I will say that I think it has a limited lifespan. The frustration of your initial plays and the satisfaction of learning how to puzzle your way most efficiently through game turns is the most powerful when you are still new to the game and figuring it out. Now, after multiple plays, I've gotten to the point where I am trying to do generally the same things every time I play, albeit with a slightly different board state. Once you've figured out roughly what you need to achieve, and on what timeline, Agricola, Master of Britain isn't as replayable as it was during that initial rush of discovery. That said, I definitely got my money's worth—this game was only $30.00, and I have gotten more play out of it than out of many games at much higher price points. I will probably leave it on my shelf for a while, then discover it anew once I've cooled off for a bit. Either that, or I'll pick up Charlemagne, Master of Europe, which is based on this system but apparently more refined. Do I recommend it? If you're looking for a challenging solitaire game with an interesting historical theme, then yes. Agricola, Master of Britain is a great buy and a fascinating solo gaming experience. Overall Rating: 3.5 stars 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. Enjoy this review? Want to support my site? Buy me a coffee here!  What is this game about? Railroad Ink is a roll and write game about building a network of roads and railroads. During each of seven turns, you'll roll a set of dice with various configurations of roads, railroad tracks, and stations, and you'll draw all of the ones you roll. A few times during the game, you'll also be able to add one of a set of helpful "extra" stops and intersections to your board. At the end of the game, you'll score points based on several different variables—how many exits on the board you connected to each other, your longest road and railroad, and how many central spaces you built in. You'll also lose points for every dead end left on your player board at the end. In addition to these base scoring conditions, Railroad Ink allows you to add some variety. In the Blazing Red edition of the game, there are Lava and Meteor expansions that both complicate your in-game life and give you additional chances to score. Lava creates a mess that you'll need to try to contain, while Meteors leave craters in your grid that mess up your route plans... but also might allow you to gain points by mining them. There is also a blue edition of the game with river and lake expansions. The sets can be combined to accommodate more players, in addition to adding a little flavor through the expansions.  A game of Railroad Ink will look like this partway through. How does it play solo?
Railroad Ink has no player interaction, and is all about getting the highest score you can. That makes it very suitable for solitaire play as long as you don't mind a beat-your-own-score setup. Overall Thoughts I adored my first few plays of Railroad Ink. The initial rush of trying to find the best way to draw the die faces was exhilarating, and trying to make everything work together seemed frustrating in all the right ways. While I still think it is a fine roll and write game, I also feel that Railroad Ink lacks staying power. Even with the expansions, the game feels repetitive after multiple plays, as you stare at endless configurations of roads and railroads. While attempting to solve the puzzle of designing the most effective transportation system can be interesting, I don't find it particularly exciting in the long run. Railroad Ink doesn't provide the positive feedback loop of other roll and writes that I feel more passionate about playing (e.g. Fleet Dice). Nor does it give you as many opportunities to plan ahead and set in-game goals (e.g. Welcome To... and Cartographers). I also think seven rounds might be a bit too long—by the end of the game, I've had a good enough time and I want to know how I did. But I'm also very ready to move on instead of reset and play again. There are people who adore this game, and I think it probably comes down to a matter of taste. But for me, Railroad Ink is a decent roll and write that I'll willingly play on game night... but not one that I'll ask to play myself. I like it just fine, but I like other roll and writes a lot better. Do I recommend it? If you're a roll and write enthusiast, then go ahead and give Railroad Ink a try. It's fine. But I'd try it before buying it. Overall Rating: 3 stars 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. Enjoy this review? Want to support my site? Buy me a coffee here!  Image from BGG page. What is this game about? Sprawlopolis is a microgame from Button Shy that is about building a city according to various challenging scoring conditions. It fits in a wallet-sized case and consists of only eighteen cards, but don't be fooled. There is a lot of game in there. Each card has a scoring condition on one side and part of a city map on the other. At the beginning of each game of Sprawlopolis, you draw three random cards and place them text-side-up. These three cards dictate your scoring conditions for the game, and the remaining fifteen cards are placed with those conditions in mind. Scoring conditions have different levels of challenge and, as a result, different point values. That means that you'll have a different target score for each game, depending on your goals. Placing each city card is a seriously brain burning experience. You'll have three cards in your hand at a time, and you'll have to choose one of those to place in your city. All cards must be placed horizontally, but you can turn cards 180 degrees, overlap one or more quadrants, or place them next to each other in any way you like as long as the cards are partially adjacent. (I.e. you can place a card with only one quadrant adjacent to another, but not with just the corners touching.) In addition to the scoring goals for the game, you'll need to keep two scoring mechanisms in mind that are consistent for every single game. Each game, you score for your largest groupings of the same type of city block (for example, four parks connected to each other will score four points). You will also be penalized one point for each road that is present in your city—a serious incentive to connect your roads and not just have little road fragments all over the place. How does it play solo? Sprawlopolis is a cooperative game and can easily be played as a solo puzzle. I don't usually get analysis paralysis, but I actually prefer to play this game by myself in part so I can agonize over all of my choices.  A completed game of Sprawopolis. Some games will be far more spread out, others more compressed. Overall Thoughts Sprawlopolis is excellent. While its "gimmick" is its small size, its main selling point in my opinion is simply that it is such a great game. It's easy to learn Sprawlopolis, and you could really teach it to anyone. But it's so hard to be good at it. You have to decide what your priorities are with each card you place. Should you prolong a road? Or do you need to focus on putting multiple industrial areas together? Should you overlap part of a card that is worth points in order to set yourself up for a better play later? Do you make a move that you know will cost you points because you think you can make up for them in the long run? Your choices are difficult, and you'll always be wondering how you could have done better. Also, the different scoring conditions ensure that even with only eighteen cards, every game will feel different. The incredible variation among the cities you create will surprise you. And its small size basically guarantees that Sprawlopolis will never leave my bag again. This game is an instant classic.  HALP. That said, no game is perfect. Because this is a pocket game, the rulebook is short—so short that there are occasional rules ambiguities. (Can an internal edge count as the "edge" of a city? Does the Outskirts card, which allows you to score a point for every road that ends inside of the city, cancel out the -1 penalty per road that you normally score at the end of the game?) There is also one more serious problem: Sometimes, the scoring conditions in a game of Sprawlopolis can seem completely antithetical to each other. And it's more than just a matter of managing conflicting goals—I mean that to pursue one goal is to actively lose points because of another one. For example, "Concrete Jungle" rewards you a point for every industrial block that shares a corner with another industrial block, while "Go Green" causes you to lose 3 points for every industrial block in your city at the end of the game. Once you've played enough games of Sprawlopolis to spot a bad combination of scoring conditions, it's simple to just put a card back and draw a different one. But it's a frustrating blemish on what is otherwise a fabulous game.
Do I recommend it? Yes. I think this game is fantastic. Also, frankly, Sprawlopolis is so inexpensive that even if it ultimately isn't for you, buying it is still worth the risk. If you get it straight from the Button Shy website, it will cost about $15, including shipping. If you get it as a PnP, it's a whopping $3. Overall Rating: 4.5 stars Rating Scale: 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. Enjoy this review? Want to support my site? Buy a coffee here!  What is this game about? Herbaceous Sprouts is a dice drafting game set in the same universe as Herbaceous, a small set collecting game. It's also from the same design team (Steve Finn and Eduardo Baraf) with the same fabulous art (by Beth Sobel). In Herbaceous Sprouts, players will attempt to collect various sets of dice (same kind, all different kinds, pairs, flowers), as well as tools that allow them to manipulate those dice. They will then plant "sprouts" in various spots in the garden, each of which has a different point value. The player with the most points wins. Whereas Herbaceous was a bit more streamlined, Herbaceous Sprouts has more interesting choices. You'll need to choose what card to draft each round based on the tools and dice available on the card—as well as what your opponent seems to be going for. You'll also need to gauge risk/reward effectively. You can often choose to spend your dice to plant a sprout on a lower-value location right away, and you will need to decide whether to go for the easy points or hold out for something bigger. Herbaceous Sprouts, like its card-driven cousin, is very light and filler length (ca. 30 min.), but it is slightly meatier.  How does it play solo?
As with Herbaceous and Sunset Over Water, Keith Matejka of Thunderworks Games has designed the solo mode for Herbaceous Sprouts. As expected, he has done a very good job. In a solo game, the player will alternate between playing as the Master Gardener and the Assistant Gardener. On the Master Gardener turn, you get to draft first, but the automated Rival Gardener will potentially plant two sprouts. When you are the Assistant Gardener, the AI gets to "choose" a card first (using a special solo deck) but also only has a chance to plant one sprout. Early in the game, it might feel like your rival is absolutely crushing you. But as the turns go on, some clever drafting can stymie it—the AI's location of choice is determined by the spots indicated on the cards it drafts. If those spots are already taken, the AI doesn't get to plant. This element of the game makes drafting more fun, because you need to consider not only the dice and tools you need, but whether you should draft a card that helps you more effectively block the Rival Gardener. I should emphasize that this is no throwaway solo mode—it smoothly integrates into the game with minimal upkeep. In fact, the same Rival Gardener is used to balance 2 and 3-player games by taking up spots in the garden each turn to create more tension with fewer players. Overall Thoughts I was not a big fan of the solo mode for Herbaceous, although I still adore playing Sunset Over Water. The solo mode for Herbaceous Sprouts is not quite as exciting for me as Sunset, but I definitely like it. It really suits the spirit of a Pencil First game—it's got enough tension to be an engaging game, but its overall vibe is relaxed, almost meditative. If you're looking for something heavier, then Herbaceous Sprouts will not sustain you. True to theme, this is a salad, not a steak. I myself am a steak and potatoes sort of gamer, and would not purchase this game strictly for solo. That said, this may be a game that I keep for my classroom or for newcomers on game night. If, on the other hand, you want a chilled-out work night solo game, or a filler game that you occasionally play solo to blow off steam, then Herbaceous Sprouts may be an excellent choice for you. The game works beautifully, solo upkeep is smooth, and the game is very aesthetically pleasing. The one comment I have on the game's production is that it might have been nice to have a built-in way to keep track of your score. Your sprouts end up scattered all over the garden and you need to be systematic about counting up points! Do I recommend it? If you're looking for some very light solo fare, or for a filler game that you occasionally take for a solo spin, then Herbaceous Sprouts is a good choice. Overall Rating: 3.5 stars Rating Scale: 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh.  Image from BGG What is this game about? VivaJava: The Coffee Game: The Dice Game, designed by T.C. Petty III and published by Dice Hate Me, is a roll and write implementation of VivaJava: The Coffee Game, a game about brewing the best coffee blends. In the dice game, you'll roll dice on each turn and perform one of two possible actions: Make a coffee blend, or conduct research to make it easier to brew better blends in the future. Blends are the way to earn a lot of points, and the first player to 21 points wins. But there's a problem: There can be only one "featured blend" at a time, which means you'll have to have the best roll. If you manage to snag a featured blend, you then have to decide how long to hold onto it. From turn to turn, your blend will degrade one die at a time—all while other players are trying to beat your blend with one of their own. Research is what you do when you aren't rolling well enough to make a blend. Each game, there will be five different research powers, each associated with a die color. If you choose to research, you can only use one die color from your pool to cross off one space per die on the research track. When you reach certain thresholds, you gain benefits from your work. Some powers let you flip or reroll dice, and others give you advantages on the research track. Reach the end of a research track, and you lose your abilities—but also gain points. So you have to time your research cleverly to get the most out of it. How does it play solo? VivaJava Dice comes with two evil AI corporations to pit yourself against. One is permitted to reroll repeatedly in pursuit of that featured blend, while the other gets to keep adding extra dice to its dice pool to increase its chances of success. If the AI opponents roll well, they put up a real fight. And if they don't roll well, the game slowly builds in advantages for them to help them challenge you! One issue with the solo game, however, is that it isn't really built for all of the variable research tracks and player powers that are included with the VivaJava advanced game. Some of the advanced variants allow players to play semi-cooperatively, among other things that might make the game extra interesting for non-solo players. There is a solo-specific board with powers that are fine-tuned for solo, but those don't offer the same variety. You can go ahead and try the WILD board instead, and see what powers you draw, but you'll need to sift a few out that don't really work for a single player.  Cato very much enjoyed the dice! Overall Thoughts
VivaJava: The Coffee Game: The Dice Game is fun and very aesthetically pleasing. But it's also a bit uneven. When you are rolling well, it can really feel like you're making progress, and it's fun to try to gauge how long you should stay committed to one of your blends. Even the research track is satisfying when you get cool powers. But if you are rolling badly, it's possible to get—and feel—very stuck for turn upon turn. I think this is especially true in the solo (and possibly two-player) game, because there aren't other players to challenge your opponent's trudge towards total dominance. The solo game also doesn't give you full access to the range of what VivaJava has to offer, which I find a bit disappointing. It would be helpful to have more opponents, or more solo-friendly powers earmarked for solo play. Do I recommend it? This is a totally decent roll and write, and might be a good investment for those not planning to play it primarily as a solo game. The production values are spot on, and there are plenty of variants to keep things interesting. For just solo play? You may love it if you adore the theme or if you are a serious roll & write enthusiast. Overall Rating: 3 stars Rating Scale: 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. Enjoy this review? Want to support my site? Buy a coffee here!  Image from BGG What is this game about? I have not played the original La Granja from Stronghold Games, but La Granja: No Siesta! is a dice game meant to condense the experience into a roll and write. No Siesta! is all about rolling and drafting dice, collecting goods, and allocating those goods to various spaces on your game sheet. You can choose several areas of focus, including working on your own homestead, shipping your goods overseas, and completing market tracks before other players do to earn extra points. Some actions will also yield bonuses, which will either help you on a future turn or give you extra goods right away. There is also a siesta track, which is worth some investment because it allows you to score extra points, as well as to carry extra goods when you draft from the dice pool. If you stack your dice, helpers, and bonuses skillfully, it's possible to trigger some satisfying combos. How does it play solo? There is a dummy player in the solo variant of La Granja: No Siesta, but you don't try to beat its score. It just messes with you throughout the game. At the start, the dummy player will automatically take the higher score for one market track (which leaves you with the lower one), as well as claim one of the endgame scoring bonuses. During the game, you need to be careful about how you draft dice—the dummy player can end the game early by reaching the end of the siesta track, and it will cause you to lose points regardless if it ends the game ahead of you. Additionally, if the dummy player reaches any market spaces on the track, it will also score for another market row and occupy another bonus scoring space. In this way, the solo game forces you to pay attention to what your opponent has, not just what you want on your turn.  Lots of spaces on this score sheet, but it's not as complex as it looks. Overall Thoughts
La Granja: No Siesta is a decent roll and write, but at times it did kind of make me want a siesta. There are definitely some moments in the game when you can pull off a big move, or moments of frustration when you have to choose between achieving your own goals and trying to prevent the dummy player from moving ahead yet again. If someone wanted to play this on game night, I'd be happy to. It's just that La Granja: No Siesta! isn't the most thrilling roll and write I've ever played. It's not quite as streamlined as other games in the genre, which means there are more moving parts (literally—with multiple boards and small pieces) and also fewer truly tense decisions. That lack of drama means that it's perfectly pleasant to play it, but it doesn't inspire much passion. I did, however, like that the game came with a dummy player that could give me something to think about when drafting dice. Do I recommend it? If you love La Granja or are a true roll & write enthusiast, then you might enjoy La Granja: No Siesta. But as roll & writes go, I'd say it's middle of the pack. Overall Rating: 3 stars Rating Scale: 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's ok. 1 star — Meh.  Kickstarter is alive, well, and full of very interesting projects! This is the month in which my wallet gently weeps. 1. Roll Player: Fiends & Familiars It's no secret that I'm a fan of Roll Player. So there's no way I'm going to miss this expansion, which adds new monsters, new characters, and pets. Awesome fantasy pets! There's also a big box version of the expansion, which will come in a box designed to hold the base game, Monsters & Minions, and Fiends & Familiars. This was an instaback for me.  2. The Isle of Cats Frank West, designer of City of Kings, has a new game out--Isle of Cats! Ok, so officially the title starts with "the," but just say Isle of Cats out loud and you'll understand why I never intend to use the full title outside of formal review settings. In this game, your goal is to rescue cats from an island by fitting them onto your boat in the correct configurations. This is much more difficult than you'd think, because, well, cats—and polyominoes, which basically means Patchwork, plus cats. This premise has me hooked, and I am excited to get a crack at the full game.  3. Dwellings of Eldervale
I haven't been tracking this game very closely, but the art looks great. This game has a lot going on—asymmetrical factions, but also worker placement and area control. It has a fantasy theme, so you should expect some big monster fights, as well as interesting magical discoveries. If you're into deluxe add-ons, Dwellings of Eldervale also has some pretty swank-looking minis. It looks like there's a lot going on here, and I am planning to take a closer look at this one myself.  Full Disclosure: Brotherwise Games sent me a review copy of Call to Adventure. What is this game about? Call to Adventure is a game about creating a hero and helping them progress through an epic story, beginning with the hero's origin and culminating in an ultimate destiny. To build your hero, you begin with three cards—an origin, a motivation, and a destiny—then pick up character traits and complete challenges across three acts in order to "fill in" that character's story. Your hero may be more heroic or skew a little towards the dark side, with consequences in terms of what cards you're able to play based on your current ethical orientation. In a multiplayer game, the first person to complete Act III triggers the end of the game. In a solo game, players race an adversary who is trying to gain a certain number of experience tokens before their hero can fully take form. Call to Adventure is also a game about building up your dice pool. Instead of dice, however, the game features very fun two-sided "runes" that you can cast to complete challenges. Each card you gain will give you some sort of benefit in future challenges, and will make changes to the "pool" of runes that you can cast on your turn. You can also take a risk and cast "dark runes," which can provide enormous benefits in a challenge, but can also corrupt your hero. Although Call to Adventure is essentially about acquiring cards for your hero, it is not enough to just acquire a random assortment of trait and challenge cards. The ultimate winner of a multiplayer game will be the hero with the most points, and different cards will offer different rewards, including story points or interesting bonuses. In a solo game, a player must defeat the adversary on their last turn in order to win the game—so you'd better be looking for cards and configurations of runes that lend themselves to victory.  A lovely assortment of runes. How does it play solo? Call to Adventure does have a solo/co-op mode in which players face off against an Adversary from the game. In this mode of play, you are essentially racing to acquire character cards and ultimately defeat the Adversary before the Adversary gains a certain number of experience points. The Adversary will also have turns during which it plays cards that interfere with players' attempts to complete challenges. Overall, though, the Adversary can't do too much to you—the main thing is figuring out how to build your pool of runes in a way that will help you achieve victory against the Adversary later. Overall Thoughts I really wanted to like Call to Adventure, and there are a lot of things to appreciate about it. The component quality in this game is excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed the card art, and casting the runes feels very satisfying. There's something a little extra exciting about those! The overall outline of a story that you can create for your character by the end of a game of Call to Adventure is also fun. While not required, it is recommended that players tell their heroes' stories at the end of the game, and I think that Call to Adventure could be a fun way to inspire new DnD characters or perhaps even short stories. It's fun to see an epic narrative distilled down to its bare bones, and future expansions of this game promise further excitement in this area—they will incorporate real story elements from the works of Patrick Rothfuss and Brandon Sanderson. I think a lot of fantasy fans will find this exciting. It's enough to keep me waiting to see if Call to Adventure continues to evolve as a game system. But in the end, Call to Adventure in its current form feels only partially baked, especially when it comes to solo mode. Although the Adversary has a deck of cards that can interfere with you, it never feels like Adversarial intervention is that big of a threat—and thus there is not that much tension in the game. You can definitely get unlucky if you fail too many challenges or if you are not revealing cards with the correct runes on them, but that feeling of slugging it out with an opponent isn't there. I'd really like to see meatier solo/co-op play, or I might as well just shuffle the cards and lay them out in interesting combinations to create homebrew fantasy narratives. (Which actually sounds like a fun idea...)  A potential origin, motivation, and destiny. The rulebook for Call to Adventure has some issues, as well. Although this game is light as air, I found myself rereading several sections and hunting around for information that wasn't intuitively placed. It took me a moment to really understand how to complete challenges because the visual example provided was not crystal clear, and the solo/co-op rules could also use some clarification and perhaps an example of gameplay. In a game that is otherwise so well-produced, I found this particularly frustrating.
Finally, as is often the issue I have in games that try to both be a game and help you create a fun story, Call to Adventure sometimes gets in its own way. The winner of the multiplayer game is the one who tells the "most interesting story," as determined by points earned throughout the game. But often, you find yourself picking the card that is worth more points instead of the card that actually tells a more interesting story. In solo, there is no score at all—just a drive to collect cards fast and beat a final challenge. Because failing even one challenge can really set you back, you'll find yourself inclined to go only for challenges that you're fairly certain you can win. Taking big risks is great fun in a story, but it can backfire in a board game, and that's a restriction I don't enjoy when going for my own version of "most exciting" epic narrative. Do I recommend it? In its current form, I do not recommend Call to Adventure. Some people will like it—it's light, it's relaxing, and if you're the imaginative type you can create some fun narratives with it. But as a game, I don't feel it's entirely there. I would at least wait to see if there are improvements made to gameplay when the next KS campaign rolls around. Overall Rating: 2.5 stars Rating scale: 5 stars — I love it! 4 stars — I really like it. 3 stars — I like it. 2 stars — It's okay. 1 star — Meh. |
AuthorMy name is Liz Davidson, and I play solo board games. A lot of solo board games... Archives
October 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed