Keyflower Review

Sometimes a game's box doesn't immediately attract your attention, but something else causes you to try it out.  For me, Keyflower was a perfect example of this.

In Keyflower, you play a series of four rounds ("seasons").  Each round is a combination of auctioning and worker placement.  Going around the table, each player has the option of placing workers.  These workers can be used to bid (or increase a bid) on a tile, or they can be played on top of a tile to activate its effect.  At the end of each round, players take any tiles that they have won, and they connect them to their village (previously purchased tiles).  That is the crux of the game.  However, one action that can be performed is worth noting - tiles can be upgraded.  By acquiring goods (and moving them (another action) to the correct locations), players can upgrade their existing tiles to make them better - either they will have a stronger effect, they will be worth more points, or both.  At the end of the four rounds, whoever has the most points wins.

So, to be fair, there are a lot more rules than the very trim overview that I just gave.  And one specific rule leads to my first pro.  Each tile can be bid on (and/or activated) by only one color of meeples ("miniature peoples").  What does this mean?  There are three basic colors of meeples - red, blue, and yellow (there are also green meeples, which are harder to get).  Each player will have a varied number of these meeples, and they will use them to bid on tiles.  So, when I bid on a tile, I might bid one yellow meeple.  If someone else wants to overbid me later, they have to bid more yellow meeples than I bid - they can't use green, red, or blue.  This causes a really interesting dynamic in the game.  Sometimes you want to have an even distribution of colors - that would let you bid on anything, and you won't have to worry about what other players bid.  Other times it might be in your best interest to have a whole lot of one color.  This would let you be much more likely to win a tile that you really want - assuming that you're able to set the color on it.

Bidding in yellow meeples

The next pro is that owning a tile isn't always better than not owning it.  Why?  Because anyone can activate your tiles - not just you.  And, when activating a tile, whoever activates it first selects what color is used for activating it.  So, if I have a lot of red meeples, and you have a tile that I really want to activate several times, then I might choose to activate it with red meeples (each additional activation costs an extra meeple; and each tile can only be activated up to three times per round).  And, since I placed red meeples on your tile, I may have prevented you from being able to use your own tile!  (That is, assuming you don't have any red meeples.)  Now, at the end of the round, you get to keep any meeples that were played on your tiles, which can be wonderful.  But that isn't always better than getting to activate your own tile, specifically on the last round of the game.  So, whereas it is very good to own tiles (you can at the very least control things like when it is upgraded), it is sometimes much better to go first!  (And, of course, you get to go first if you win the auction that determines who goes first.)

My third pro for Keyflower is that the game has a very tense feeling.  What I mean is that often during the game I will want to perform about five actions on each turn.  And, I'm actively waiting on my opponents, hoping that they won't do "that one thing" that I need to do.  Which, inevitably, they will do.  One of the marks of a good game is that you are forced to decide the "better" move between two good moves.  And, in my opinion, Keyflower nails that characteristic.

The final pro that I will mention is how the fourth round ("winter") works.  At the beginning of the game, each player is given a few different winter tiles.  Before the start of winter, each player has to select which of their tiles (at least one) will be available for auction that round.  So, you have some control over what will be worth victory points.  Or, probably more truthfully, you have some control over what will not be worth victory points - by burying the tiles that would be most beneficial to your opponents.  Granted, just because you select a tile doesn't mean that you will actually keep it - you still have to win the auction.  But, I like that the final scoring tiles are determined by player selection instead of random chance.

Meeples waiting to be collected

Though there are not very many cons that come to mind for Keyflower, I will mention this one: the game can be negatively affected by the random tiles that are used in a given game - especially with a smaller number of players.  Each game you use a different random selection of tiles.  Great - replayability!  However, depending on which tiles appear, certain elements of the game can be neglected.  For example, if no tiles are drawn that allow you to create green meeples, then this very important aspect of the game will be completely missed.  (Granted, this is not a common situation; I did, however, play a game where only one of these tiles was drawn - and that one was drawn in the last possible season.)  Additionally, if the tiles that allow you to collect certain types of resources are not drawn, then you will have a hard time upgrading many of your tiles.  These situations are not common, but with less players (the less players in the game, the less tiles you use), they can definitely happen.

My other (very minor) con for Keyflower is that it is difficult to quickly see what is happening.  Since everyone is bidding with the same thing (colored meeples), and colors are not associated with players, it takes a second to register where you are bidding, what you are winning, and where you might want to play.  (If you're wondering, you bid by placing your meeples on the side of the hexagonal tile that faces you.)  This is a small price to pay for the incredibly well executed auction mechanic, but it is a nuisance nonetheless.

Overall, I give Keyflower a 9.0/10.  It is one of the most pleasant surprises that I've found recently in gaming, and I think it will stay in my collection for quite some time.  (And, hopefully I will get at least decent at it - I never win!)

If Keyflower sounds interesting, you might also check out Kingdom of Solomon, Legacy: Gears of Time, and Power Grid.

I would like to thank Game Salute for providing me with a review copy of Keyflower.

Innovation: Echoes of the Past Review

After enjoying Innovation, I decided that I should track down a copy of it's first expansion Echoes Of The Past. As I normally do in my expansion reviews, I will assume that you are familiar with the original game - if you're not, then please check out my Innovation Review.  There are four main additions in Echoes of the Past, and so we'll simply go through them: Foreshadows, Echoes, Bonuses, and Extra Achievements.  

Foreshadowing is the first new concept, and is probably the "most different" from what you experience in the base game.  Various new cards will give you a dogma effect that allows you to "foreshadow" a card.  When you foreshadow, you take a card of the appropriate value and place it in your "foreshadow" area next to your score pile.  Then, on any future turn in which you perform a meld action, you can play a foreshadowed card of value less than or equal to the card just played - and immediately perform it's dogma action.  This is a neat way of stacking up extra cards and getting a nice one-two punch on turns, but in the games that I have played, this hasn't really been done especially much. 

The next new concept is "Echo" effects.  Some of the new cards have text in the place of an icon (this is the "Echo" effect).  When you perform a dogma effect for a color that is showing one or more Echo effects, these Echo effects are performed first, just like additional dogma effects - they are even shared between other players that perform your dogma effects.  I like the Echo effects.  I think that they can be very useful, and I like that they are balanced by the fact that Echo effects takes up an icon space, which prevents the card from being overpowered.  And yet, if you have several Echo effects, you can really make certain colors incredibly powerful.

Artificial Heart has a huge bonus!

The third concept is Bonuses.  This is really my favorite new mechanic, though it's one of the more simple ideas.  Essentially, certain cards have point values in place of an icon.  This value is added to a player's total score (for purposes like determining if you can achieve).  However, to keep the bonuses from growing too powerful, you only get the "full" value for your most valuable bonus, and you get one point for each of the others.  So, if you have a "10", "12", "8", and "5" showing, instead of getting 35 points, you only get 15.  But, this is still a nice way of getting points by melding instead of always having to find ways to add points to your score pile.  Again, this is my favorite addition to the game.

The final new mechanic is "extra achievements."  Essentially, certain cards will allow you to achieve a card if able.  This includes achieving an Age that you have already achieved.  But, to keep this from being waaaay to powerful, each time that you achieve the same Age, you have to have add the Age's score requirement an extra time - so, the first time you achieve in Age 1 you have to have a score of 5.  The next time your score would have to be at least 10, then 15, 20, and so on.  This element just adds another way for players to gain achievements, which adds more diversity in possible strategies, so I also like this new concept.  (There are also some new "special achievements" that the expansion adds, which provide even more ways of acquiring achievements.)

Bangles uses three new mehcanics

Now, with the primary new mechanics covered, I should mention the setup.  In the basic setup (there is a variant that can be used also), you shuffle some cards from the expansion with some cards from the basic set, but the basic cards significantly outnumber the expansion cards (by the way, this makes the setup and cleanup a bit of a nuisance).  Because of this, some games will have a lot more of certain new effects like foreshadowing than others - after all, some games may not even have cards that allow you to foreshadow!  The thing that I really like about this new setup is that it changes the color distribution of the Ages - instead of having 2 card of each color (minus the achievement card) like in the basic game, you could actually have 4 cards of one color and none of another in a certain Age.  Realizing this and trying to capitalize on this knowledge can really be helpful - especially when using dogma effects where you are guessing colors and drawing cards accordingly.

Overall, I give Innovation: Echoes of the Past an 8.0/10.  I didn't find it revolutionary, but I did think that the new concepts were well implemented, and added some additional variety to an already enjoyable game.

If you like engaging card games like Innovation (and Echoes of the Past), you might also check out 51st State: The New Era, Friday, Glory to Rome, and Sentinels of the Multiverse.

I would like to thank Asmadi Games for providing me with a review copy of Innovation: Echoes of the Past via Game Salute.

Flash Duel Review

Recently I've been trying out several games by smaller publishers. One of the ones with a strong reputation is Sirlin Games (makers of Puzzle Strike) - so I took an opportunity to try out Flash Duel.

In Flash Duel, you take on the role of a fighter that is trying to knock out his opponent. Fortunately for you, your opponent has a glass jaw - one hit and you'll take him down for the round (unless you're playing the dragon scenario). Unfortunately, you're a bit of a wimp, too, and you have the same weakness. To start the game, you each get five cards in your hand. These cards have a numeric value from 1 to 5. On your turn, you play a card - using this card you can either move, "push" your opponent backwards, or attack. In order to attack, the card played must represent the distance between you and your opponent. If you have several copies of the needed card, you can play all of them to "power up" your attack - thus forcing your opponent to play the same number of the card in order to block. If he can't, then he goes down, and you win the round. Also, after a move, you have the opportunity to do an attack (in the same way as a standard attack). However, this move/attack combo is called a "dashing strike." If your opponent cannot block your dashing strike, they have the option of playing a card to retreat (instead of getting knocked out), but then on their turn all they can do is draw cards. At the end of your turn, you draw back up to five cards. Play continues like this until a player is hit with an attack (at which time they collapse into a heap and lose the round), or the draw deck runs out. If the deck runs out, you each have one last opportunity to hit each other, and then whoever has advanced further along the track is declared the winner (in the "you couldn't hurt a fly" (also known as the "I like dancing better than boxing") division). After a round, you reset the board and go again. You typically play either best out of 3 or best out of 5.

The Dragon is pretty awesome

The first thing that I like about Flash Duel is that it has a lot of different modes that you can play. Ultimately, though, don't expect the game to play too differently in any of the modes - they are all the same core game, and I see them more as variants that allow you to play the game with anywhere from 1-5 players (instead of it being a strictly 2-player game). I personally like the Dragon scenario the best. In it, one player takes the Dragon character (who actually can take multiple hits - he must be in the heavyweight division), and all of the other players use standard characters. The Dragon is trying to knock out all of the other characters and they (other than trying to just not die) are trying to knock out the Dragon. (Seems like bribing him to leave you alone would be easier... but then again, didn't your parents teach you that you need to stand up to bullies?)

Another thing that I like about Flash Duel is that there are 20 different characters that you can use - each with his own abilities. Even more than this, there is also a "Clockwork" mode in which you can select powers from several different characters. This allows you some variability between games so that you don't feel like you're doing the exact same thing every time. However, the game will primarily still come down to whoever makes the best use of the cards they draw.

Finally, Flash Duel just "flows" well as a game. It is pretty smooth and intuitive. It doesn't take a long time to setup, and can be played with just about anybody. In this way, it's the epitome of what a "filler" game should be - a nice way of spending time while waiting until a longer game starts.

One of the more interesting abilities

My first con with Flash Duel is that the characters don't seem well balanced. Yes, you could argue this with me, and tell me about how each character is best in certain situations. That's fine, but from the games I have played, there seem to be some characters that have much more useful abilities than others (after all abilities like, "Draw until you have 6 cards total" after retreating from a dashing strike isn't especially helpful, since you would have drawn up to 5 cards on your turn anyway.) Fortunately, if you get too frustrated by this, you can simply play the Clockwork mode instead of the standard fighting mode, and you can select the abilities you want to use.

My only other real complaint with the game is that it seems to cost too much for what it is. I recently have thought this about a different game because of the limited number of components. That is definitely not the case with Flash Duel. I feel like the number and quality of components that you receive for the list price of $35 is just fine. However, the game takes 5 minutes to play. The box claims 15 minutes, but I'm guessing that is a best out of 5 scenario, or includes setup time. (Including reading the rules?) To me $35 just seems a bit too high for a 5 minute game.

Overall, I give Flash Duel a 7.5/10. I think that it is a fine game, and I definitely understand why people enjoy it, but I think that for $35, I'd be disappointed with just how brief the game is. (Though I guess "Flash Duel" is an appropriate name for it!)

If you like fighting games, you might also check out Yomi, BattleCON, or Jab.

I would like to thank Sirlin Games for providing me with a review copy of Flash Duel via Game Salute.

Fealty Review

An interesting area control game by a small publisher (Asmadi Games) is Fealty.

Fealty, at it's core, is a very simple game. The (full) game consists of eight rounds, in which players each place a single piece. Specifically, each player starts with three cards in his hand. Each player selects one of his three cards and all of the players reveal them at the same time. Whoever placed the lowest numbered card places first, followed by the other players in ascending order. Finally, each player draws back up to three cards. There are a couple of rules to note when playing pieces (your cards each correspond to one of your pieces), though. First, you cannot place on the same "duchy" (one of the boards that makes up the playing area) as another player in a single round. Also, you cannot place in the same row or column that you have placed a figure in earlier. Finally, you can't place on top of "obstacles" - mountains (apparently there are no dwarves in Fealty), other pieces, etc. At the end of eight rounds, you add up influence - again, starting with the lowest numbers claiming tiles, and continuing until all of the pieces have claimed everything that they can. Whoever has the most influence is the winner.

The first thing that I like about Fealty is it's simplicity. Essentially, the designers have been able to distill area control to it's core; and what is left is the game of Fealty. Everything you need for a quality area control game is included, but there is really very little excess. This allows you to have a game with depth, yet it can be played in around 30 minutes. You are able to have a give and take interaction with other players where you can block them from claiming influence (of course they'll do the same to you), or you can peacefully each try to claim as much as possible (well... at least theoretically you can do this - I've not seen it.  Of course, I'm normally the one doing the underhanded blocking of my opponents, so maybe I'm the wannabe warmonger in this scenario.) Due to the nature of the scoring, it is entirely possible to remove most of the value of your opponent's early placed piece by placing a piece of your own (with a slightly lower number) which will claim several of the squares around your opponent - thus cutting off his access to other tiles.

The next thing that I like about Fealty is it's replayability. The game comes with double-sided terrain, and also comes with two different sets of pieces. You can play the game where all nine of your cards are available to you from the beginning, or you can play where you draw three at a time. You could even play where you get to pick cards from each of the two sets, if you really wanted to.  These fairly minor inclusions add quite a bit of replayability. I could play it repeatedly (which is really the definition of replayability - which Blogger keeps telling me isn't even a word; stupid Blogger, it should play more board games) and not feel like I always know where the best placement of my figures should be on the board (since the board will be different every time).

The third thing that I will mention is the collapsing options throughout the game. I thought this part was very interesting. Since you can't place in the same row or column that you have previously used, the number of options you have throughout the game will decrease (and the importance of some of the pieces' powers that allow you to move will increase). This adds quite a bit to the strategy (though I'm far from having mastered it). You have to decide whether you want to use your large pieces, which can claim a lot of territory, in the middle of the board early (while you can still legally place there); thus opening yourself up to having your opponents block most of your scoring, or if you want to wait until the end to place that large piece. You have to decide if you should leave an open spot somewhere in the middle for your piece(s) to be placed towards the end of the game - and hope that your opponents don't take it from you. As the game progresses, your options become more and more limited as you eliminate a row and column each round, and if you're not the first person to place, your opponents will even be eliminating entire duchies!  By the end of the game, you may only have about 5-10 legal placements.  And these placements may be horrible if you don't plan ahead (author's note: this is from experience; my final placements in Fealty are often horrible).

However, I did have some cons with Fealty. First, I felt that the rules were unclear on some points. Fortunately, there were examples, so I was able to figure out what I think the correct rules are, but I'm still not entirely sure. I wish that they had addressed some of my issues more directly. Specifically, (I will admit that I may have missed these things in the rules) I never saw the rules explain what a "conflict marker" does (we assumed it was an obstacle). I also never saw it clearly tell me if an opponent's influence marker counts as an obstacle to prevent you from drawing a path through them to claim tiles on the other side. (An example suggests that opposing influence do count as obstacles, so we played it that way).

The other con that I have is harder to explain. Because of how the scoring works in the game (and that the person influencing any given tile might change from one round to the next until final scoring), the first game or two will be very hard to see how well each player is doing. Until the end when you place all the influence markers, you won't know if you are doing winning or getting obliterated. However, once you get past this initial blindness, you run directly into "Analysis Paralysis" (taking a long time to decide what to do on a turn because of too much information or too many choices). Since the influence is not immediately visible, you will have to continually look around the board to determine what positions might be valid. And, inevitably, once you finally find the correct position it is illegal because of your previously placed pieces (there's an alliteration for you), and so you have to start looking all over again!  This is almost begging for a computerized version of the game that allows you to highlight where each person is successfully influencing (and where you can legally place).

Overall, I give Fealty an 8.0/10. I was actually quite pleasantly surprised with the game. It's not something that I'm going to yearn to play repeatedly, but I thought that it was very intuitive and really a very solid title. This is now the second game I've played by Asmadi Games (Innovation being the first), and I am pretty impressed with this small publisher!

If you like Fealty, you might also read about Princes of Florence, Smallworld, and Alien Frontiers.

I would like to thank Asmadi Games for providing me with a review copy of Fealty via Game Salute.

Puzzle Strike Review

A game with an interesting take on the deck building mechanic is Puzzle Strike.

Specifically, you could say that Puzzle Strike is "what Quarriors was trying to do" (build a "deck building" game without cards). Instead of cards, Puzzle Strike is played with chips. And, instead of the traditional means of victory (victory points of some sort at the end of the game), it mixes in an element of classic Nintendo-style puzzle games like Tetris. Each turn you ante a gem into your pile (like having rows fall down on your screen), and the last person to have his ante pile filled up is the winner. So, to start each turn, a player takes a one point gem and puts it in his ante pile. Next, he is able to perform an action using the chips in his hand (actions can include combining chips into larger chips and "Crashing" chips to remove them from your ante pile and send them to the opponent on your left (who can counter Crash, etc)). After playing an action, you have to buy a chip from the bank. If you have no money, then you have to buy a wound chip - which does nothing, but it makes your deck worse because it keeps you from drawing something useful. Finally, you discard all of your chips and draw back up to five. And, depending on the size of your ante pile, you may draw some bonus chips (one bonus chip for every three points in your ante pile). Finally, you check to see if you have ten or more points in your ante pile - and if you do, then you lose (after all, your screen has filled up - you can sit there envisioning a TV screen with a pixelated "Game Over" label flashing).

Gambling Panda

The first thing that I love about Puzzle Strike (yes, love) is that there are character specific chips. Each "deck" starts with six one-point gems, a Crash gem, and three character specific gems. I have not played enough to see if any of the characters are overpowered (I've played 4-5 times), but they at least all seem balanced. However, each character plays quite differently. Some are good at defense, some help you perform extra actions, one transforms into "Dragon Form" which causes him to ante 2's instead of 1's, but also makes his crashes un-defendable - and one (the Gambling Panda) has a chip that can only be used when he has 10 or more points in his ante pile (is about to die). I wish that more games would start doing this! Can you just imagine playing the Star Trek: Deck Building Game and getting to pick whether you're using the Klingon, Romulan, or Federation starting deck? Sure, Nightfall allows you to draft at the beginning of the game to make player-specific piles, but Puzzle Strike is the only game I've seen that allows you to actually start with different items that have different powers - and it does it well!

The next thing that I like about Puzzle Strike is the vintage puzzle game feel. I really think that this theme allows it to be played and enjoyed without feeling as competitive. Yes, I want to win (as with all games), but the theme is just relaxing and allows you to enjoy the act of playing the game - almost like it reminds me of my childhood to an extent.

Dragon Form!

Next, I think that it's interesting that, essentially, the entire game is played with a countdown timer. Every turn, each player gets closer to losing. Sure, you can counteract this by playing Crash chips to send some of your pile at your opponents, but unless you actively do something to prevent it, you will lose the game simply by playing. For whatever reason, this mechanic resonated well for me.

Finally, I like that the closer you are to losing, the more chips you get to draw. This leads to more combos being played. If I am doing incredibly poorly, I am more likely to draw several Combine chips (these let you combine two gems in your ante pile and perform another action) and then Crash a larger gem at my opponent. It also gives me a better chance of drawing something that helps me to defend. It can do quite a bit to balance out the luck of having to draw the right chips at the right time.

For the most part, I really enjoyed Puzzle Strike. However, there were a few things that I should point out. First of which is that a lot of the chip piles will be left untouched in most games. Whereas, in our first game every chip seemed crucial (and, truly, I haven't seen any chips that aren't ever useful), some are simply better than others. Specifically, Crash and Combine are better than a lot of the other Action Chips - so unless there is a chip that lets you string together several Actions, you will probably find yourself mostly focusing on buying the Crash & Combine (and 2-4 of the other chip piles; especially if there are some that let you steal other people's Crashes and Combines... and then you'll be quite pesky.  And other people will have to play the "Really Annoying" chip on you.  That's right - that's what the chip's name is.  Why?  Well - because it's really annoying.). To be fair, though, this is true in any deck building game - you are trying to hone your deck as much as possible, and so you will often avoid buying good cards in an effort to get better cards. (*cough* I mean chips.  Did I say cards again?  It's like there's not really a difference or something.)

The next con is something that has already been addressed by the game company. It is very easy in Puzzle Strike (during your turn) to get your hand, in-play chips, and ante piles confused. And, if this happens, it can inadvertently change the game dramatically (by changing how many gems are in your ante pile). Fortunately, the Puzzle Strike Upgrade Pack provides you with playmats to keep track of each of these things separately.  Sweet - now if only it weren't $25.  I'd guess at some point they will combine them and sell them together for a discount.

Those are really my only two (very minor) cons. I will mention two other things briefly, though. Using chips instead of cards is unique. It doesn't really affect gameplay at all (which is why I kept referring to chips as cards), but it does reinforce the theme, so that was nice. Finally, the rule that forces you to buy a chip each turn is interesting. It forces players to pay attention to how they construct their deck to ensure that they can always afford to buy something. At the same time, it can water down a deck - which I think is intentional. This prevents the game from dragging out if several players are all able to build decks that consist of only Combines and Crashes.

Overall, I give Puzzle Strike a 9.0/10. I was quite pleasantly surprised by this game, and I'd recommend that anyone that likes vintage puzzle games or deck building games should "hit start" on this one.  (Whoa!  Vintage Game reference!!!  If only anybody else thought I was nearly as funny as I did!)

And, if you like deck building games, you might also want to read my reviews about Thunderstone or Dominion; or if you like the Fantasy Strike world that Puzzle Strike is set in, check out Yomi.  Or, for a complete change of pace, you might check out Glory to Rome.

I would like to thank Sirlin Games for providing me with a review copy of Puzzle Strike via Game Salute.

Yomi Review

A somewhat hotly debated board game that came out recently is Yomi.

Yomi is a fairly simple fighting game. Each player takes on a character and attempts to knock out his opponent. This consists of a series of rounds in which both players will play a card and (depending on what cards are played) one player will most likely take damage. Specifically, each player chooses a card (and a side of that card) to play each round. Both reveal at the same time, and there is a Rock/Paper/Scissors style resolution. Attacks beat Throws, Throws beat Blocks & Dodges, Blocks & Dodges beat Attacks. If both players play the same type of card, then the tie is broken based on the speed of the attacks. Once a player successfully scores a hit, depending on the Attack or Throw, they will probably be able to combo that attack to score more damage. His opponent has the opportunity to counter by playing a Joker, though - or to bluff and pretend that he is playing a Joker. If the person being attacked truly played a Joker, then all of the combo damage is deflected.  Otherwise, he takes all of the extra damage and loses the card he used to bluff!  Finally, both players have the opportunity to "Power Up" by discarding various poker hands to retrieve Aces (each character's super moves) from the discard pile and/or deck. Play continues in this manner until one of the characters is knocked out.

Now that you understand the rules of the game, it's time to discuss the crux of the game (I normally jump into pros and cons, but this is a much more topic in Yomi). The crux of the game is the Attack/Throw/Block (Rock/Paper/Scissors) mechanic. As opposed to standard Rock/Paper/Scissors, in Yomi you aren't just guessing at what the other person will play. You know enough information that you will be thinking, re-thinking, and over-thinking the situation. Each character has a different breakdown of cards in their deck (with a cheat sheet on their character card telling you this breakdown on a 0-5 scale). Therefore, you know if your opponent is more likely to have Attacks, Throws, Blocks, or Dodges. You also may know if they have a Block (if they have successfully Blocked previously). You also might know if they have some Aces, and if you paid attention, you'll know how that Ace can be played. But you also know that they know all of this. Therefore, the game of Yomi is truly a battle of wits against your opponent as you both try to stay one step ahead of each other as you try to outwit one another. If you like this type of mechanic, then you will absolutely love Yomi. If this sounds like something that you are uninterested in, then you should definitely stay away.

Characters add flavor

The first pro that I have found in Yomi is the different characters. This game could mechanically work with a standard deck of playing cards (where you make each suit a certain type of move), but it would have no flavor. Instead, with the characters, the differences in decks, and the different breakdown of moves, you truly get the feel that each character has a unique style that you need to embrace in order to win.  Along the lines of theme, the next pro that I have for Yomi is that I really enjoy the artwork. Whereas I don't often care much about the components in games (unless they are really good or really bad), I found the art in Yomi to be a definite highlight of the game.

Next, I really liked the fact that each card was double sided. This essentially doubles the possible plays that you have available. This is critical as you are trying to stay one step ahead of your opponent. If all of your cards were one-sided, then you would be more likely to guess what your opponent is going to play based on how many cards they have in their hand. However, with the double-sided cards, you are almost guaranteed that they at least have a chance of countering whatever card you are going to play.

Double-sided cards add variety

When playing Yomi, however, I found that I was often frustrated by not having my deck "flow" well. I will freely admit that I have not played Yomi to the point where I consider myself a master at the game, and so this con may go away with continued play. However, I often found myself short on cards, which makes comboing and powering up very difficult (these actions both require several cards to perform). Without being able to combo, you are not able to hit your opponent for more than a few points each turn, which in turn leads to the pace of the game being much slower. Now, Blocks allow you to draw extra cards, so if you are very good at picking the right time to play a Block, you may not suffer from this problem - but it was frustrating in the games that I played.

My other con is really just a confession - I was not in love with the Attack/Throw/Block mechanic. I think that it works, but it wasn't something that captured my imagination and made me want to keep playing it. Since this is the crux of the game, you can imagine that the game didn't really click very well for me.

Overall, I give Yomi a 7.5/10. Even without being enamored with the key mechanic, I thought that it functioned well enough to give it a respectable score. The closest comparison that I know of is BattleCON, which I also gave a 7.5 to; however, in a direct comparison, I believe that Yomi would score the victory.  At $100 for the complete Yomi set, I would highly recommend trying out a friend's copy or buying some of the smaller sets before investing in buying the complete set.

Want some more opinions? You can read a review of Yomi at Play Board Games, or another , or another Yomi review at Games With Two.

I would like to thank Sirlin Games for providing me with a review copy of Yomi.

Innovation Review

One of the most innovative games I've played in a while is Innovation! (First, yes I love puns. Secondly, this is actually a true statement.)

Innovation is an abstract version of a civilization building game. Whereas you go through "ages", your powers get better but you never really feel like you're building an empire (and you don't really get troops to attack people with). But that's ok. What you actually do is this: each turn you get to perform two actions. These can be to draw a card, play ("meld") a card from your hand, "achieve" if you have enough score (gaining a certain number of achievements wins the game), or activate a card effect for one of the cards you have "melded" ("perform a dogma"). That sounds pretty straightforward and possibly even boring. Where things get interesting, however, are when you are performing a dogma. When activating a card's power, the power is related to a symbol - a castle, leaf, crown, clock, etc. If another player at the table has more of the corresponding symbol showing than you do, then they have to do the card action first.  The game keeps going like this until one person has enough achievements to win (or the last draw pile is empty and someone has to draw from it; or one of the instant win conditions is met).

The first thing that I like about Innovation is how the dogmas work. Specifically, there are two different kinds of card powers - there are "demand" powers, and there are normal powers. Both of these are related to the number of resource icons each player is showing. If you perform a demand action, then all of the players with less resource icons than you of the given type are affected (generally negatively). If you perform a standard action, then everyone with as many of that resource icon as you get to perform the action first (this generally helps them, but it can sometimes allow you to perform the action more powerfully). This works really well. It encourages people to both have good cards in front of them, but also to make sure that they have large amounts of resources showing - specifically for whatever power their opponents are using.

Splaying Up

My next pro is something unique to Innovation (as far as I know). It's a concept called "splaying." Splaying is especially important because of the previous pro of how dogmas work. There are various cards in the game that allow you to "splay" cards in different directions. What this means is that you can take a stack of your cards (by default you can only have one card showing of each type (color)) and you can reveal part of the cards underneath the top one. For example, when "splaying right", you slide your top card along with each card underneath it to the right so that the far left resources of each bottom card are displayed. This can be very powerful as it can allow a player to suddenly have large numbers of resources showing - and since resources let you perform actions on other people's turns (or prevent them from doing actions on your turn), this is a crucial component of the game. This is a mechanic that works masterfully, and only works because the cards are both well thought out conceptually and well laid out graphically.

Skyscrapers - A very powerful card!

Now, with those brilliant pros, there are some other things that you need to be aware of with Innovation. First, there feels like a runaway leader mechanic while playing the game. If you are losing (especially because you have less resource icons showing), you can start to feel hopeless. However, there are enough resource types that it is very difficult for one player to be winning in all of the different categories. And, there are some incredibly powerful cards that can quickly sway a game. For example, if one player is winning in every category except for the "crowns", they can have entire piles of their empire (including all of the splayed cards underneath the pile) removed with the "Skyscrapers" card - suddenly the leader is the one playing catch-up! On the other hand, if a player that is already winning gains a powerful card like this, they may be able to completely obliterate their opponents! Essentially, it felt to me like one of the "balancing" mechanics was to make cards that were more and more powerful as the game progressed. This makes sense to some degree from a thematic perspective (we have better weapons and technologies now than 100 or 200 years ago), but you really need to be prepared for this kind of giant power swing before trying the game.  Some people will not have any concerns with this, but I wasn't a huge fan of it (granted, Skyscrapers was used against me, so take that how you will).

Another thing to realize before deciding whether you would like Innovation is that the game plays out quite differently with different numbers of players. I have played it with 2, 3, and 4 players. With 2, obviously you have the most control over what happens in the game - you're going every other turn. However, you have the hardest time catching up if a player starts winning (I believe) because you have nobody to help you slow down the leader. On the other hand, a 4-player game is almost chaotic because so many things can happen between your turns that you almost feel like the game is out of control. Yet, with key strategic moves, you may be able to score a victory. There is a good chance that you will have a strong preference of what size of game you enjoy most when playing Innovation.

My main con for Innovation is that I felt like it deserved to have some better art and graphic design. This isn't something that I normally care much about, but I felt it warranted mention here. Whereas the graphic design that allows for the splaying is beautifully setup, much of the art feels like generic "Clip Art" that you would find anywhere on the Internet. Plus, whereas the player aids are helpful, it would be nice to also include what the end of game conditions are as well as how to gain the non-age specific achievements (these are some special achievements that you can get throughout the game for being the first player to match a certain condition - like having all of the cards on top of your piles be from age 8 or higher).

Overall, I give Innovation an 8.5/10. I really felt like this game brought some fresh new ideas and I really enjoyed them. However, the power swings in the game are a bit more extreme than I would like, which kept the overall game score down just a touch.

If Innovation sounds interesting, you might also enjoy Glory to Rome, Race for the Galaxy, and Sentinels of the Multiverse.

I would like to thank Asmadi Games for providing me with a review copy of Innovation via Game Salute.