AquaSphere Review

AquaSphere - mid play

Thanks to my friend Kurt for this guest review of AquaSphere.  If you like Kurt's opinions, check out his new video series on solo games.

First off, let me come clean with this -- I’m not a fan of Stefan Feld games in general. Even if I like a game of his, they don’t leave me thinking about them afterwards in terms of what I learned and want to do next time. But I played AquaSphere at the same convention where I tried a bunch of other new games and was surprised to find myself … thinking about it afterwards. In fact, I ended up getting a copy because my gut told me there were several plays here, and I’m glad I did. I mention this context as emphasis that this review is an endorsement of a Feld game from someone who’s usually not a Feld fan, so take that for what it’s worth.

AquaSphere is mechanically well designed and thematically disconnected, but that’s pretty much par for the course with Feld, isn’t it? The multiple ways to get points but limited actions gives it some heft without being too much of a brain burner. It’s really quite simple once you get past your first learning game as there’s an illusion of abundance of choice due to the two interrelated boards and all the actions, but you can really only program three (or so) actions a turn, so for some people the first play may be a “head wrapper” but the light should go on pretty quickly especially with an adept teacher. And I don’t mind the lame thematic connection to my actions. I know when I’m playing a Feld game it’s about the mechanisms, and I find them engaging enough here to not care why octopods are invading and why I should want to “clean” them.

I’m clearly entertained by games where you chain actions together in ways that pay off relative to what other players are doing. This one reminds me of two other action chaining games I quite like, Kanban and Tzolkin: the Mayan Calendar, for how you coordinate your actions against the pull of not just “what’s good” but “when’s good.” You're working on your own priorities in a shared space with others to beat them to bonus thingies and also time your actions in such a way that you bump their pieces out and end up with your pieces in the right spots at the end of the round. It’s a quintessential action puzzle game.

The thrust of the play is programming versus acting. You have two separate boards (that appear garish to the neophyte) that work interrelatedly. On the Headquarters board, you will move your scientist pawn to program your bots with certain actions from the seven available. Then you move your scientist dude on the Lab board using “time” to get around and poop, er, drop a bot to then instantly take the action it was programmed for. So, 1) program bot, 2) move scientist (or not), 2a) take action with programmed bot. Repeat until you have to pass. It’s actually pretty simple.

Headquarters board

Of course, since this is a Feld game, this aforementioned process is put in a blender. The seven actions available in the game are randomly aligned each turn on the Headquarters board in such a way that you can only move to (and thus program) any three of them, and they’re on sort of a track such that some are on one side or the other and you have to commit to one side at some point meaning you can’t necessarily do what you want in order. You might want to do A-B-C (in that order) but can only get to C-A-D/E (in that order) or some such other suboptimal configuration. What’s the best puzzle you can configure for this turn?

You essentially have a load-then-fire process which provides a surprising amount of player interaction via the signaling of everyone’s motives in the form of their programmed actions. If I can see you have a bot ready to do something that I want to do, I will have to consider my turn carefully. What’s the point of programming something that you’re about to do on your turn anyway? More player interaction happens in the placing of bots on the board in a Highlander, “There can be only one!”, way. When you drop a bot, you displace any previous ones there, which is a way of scoring VPs for yourself and taking them away from others. (Ooh, maybe this should’ve been themed as such with the bots being the heads of other immortals?) Less direct interaction happens in the race to get particular bonus power cards or lab extensions.

And what are these actions that you’re going to all this trouble to program? Without going into a full blown rules explanation, you’re either acquiring bonus power cards or lab extensions that help your ability to do stuff in the game or you’re actually doing that stuff. Bonus power cards are pretty self-evident. Lab extensions serve to increase your capacity for stuff but also may have letters A-F on them.

Collecting lab extensions with letters is worth points in the standard triangular scoring sequence that applies to all collected stuff in the game. Furthermore, the game squeezes you by requiring your scientist pawn to use time markers to get around the undersea lab. You may have the bot programmed the way you want and the opportunity staring you in the face, but not have enough time to get to that side of the board and take the action. So some of your actions are simply spent acquiring more time which always feels suboptimal to me considering you can only program three actions per turn. Part of the challenge then is finding other ways of getting time such as via bonus power cards.

Now, let’s take a look at the depth of strategy in the game. I would say the game is heavily tilted towards tactics but is not without strategy. Your strategy may be to go for the A-F lab extension bonus or the placing submarines bonus or something else in concert with a bonus power card. Between the “action blender” and the interference of other players, you will focus each turn more on what you can do versus what you would like to do, but there is some player agency towards an overall strategy, and the bonus power cards and lab extensions you collect will contribute towards that focus (or you’re not playing well).

Personal pod after multiple improvements

The more I play the game, the more I find myself able to look above the fog created by the game and more carefully consider my opponents’ actions relative to mine. As I said above, you only get to program three bots a turn and you’d like to place them after other people to knock them out and not vice-versa, but if you’re early in turn order that’s a bit more difficult. Plus, more bots on the game board means more points for you in the end of round scoring, so you look for bonus power cards that give extra programming actions. Being able to place the last bot of the round is a very powerful move, and you can make that happen with some crafty planning. Moreover, once a round you may spend three time markers to program a bot. It sounds expensive, and it is, but after a handful of plays I learned how to make this happen a couple of times in a game and found it to be a very powerful workaround that opens the game up considerably.

And therein lies the fun of the game: cutting off Mr. Feld’s restraints each turn (action blender, time markers) to execute actions that fit into the framework of your strategy while outmaneuvering your opponents to move before (to get stuff before they do) or after (to knock their bot out and place yours).  It’s all a series of mini action puzzles that you’re trying to put together for yourself each turn while cutting off the heads of other immortals as they try to configure theirs. So what’s not to like?

No game is perfect, and what I don’t like about this one is the fiddliness involved, especially setting up and resetting between turns. I probably have felt this more prominently due to the fact I have taught new players in all my plays so far so I’m the one setting up the game and directing how to reset the board between turns. You have to reset the game before you play and then essentially set it up all over again between turns. It grows a little tiresome though it’s certainly manageable.

Also, we seem to forget in every game to give points for placing submarines and taking bonus power cards. Most probably because it’s counter-intuitive to get points for doing things that are already helping you (I take a bonus power card AND I get VPs? Huh?). But it’s Feld after all, and he’s not ashamed to give points willy nilly. He doesn’t care, and to prove it, he gives three points to people who walk by and watch the game for five seconds or more. Don’t believe me? It’s in the rule book. Probably.

All in all, I enjoy this one the more I play it. At first it felt like you could only focus on fighting the action blender but I’ve come to appreciate how you wrangle the game and combat other players at the same time. The variable setups ensure each game plays out differently, and a review of the game forums reveals that more experienced players find the scoring avenues are equal. I find myself thinking about those avenues and how I could’ve managed my bonus power cards in better concert with my actions. I look forward to more time under the sea answering those questions.

Board Game Reviews by Josh would like to thank Tasty Minstrel Games for providing a review copy of AquaSphere.

Rialto Review

When I learned that Stefan Feld and Tasty Minstrel Games teamed up, I figured that I really should try whatever they came up with.  And thus, I got the privilege of trying out Rialto.

In Rialto, players vie for power in Italy - you know, by building bridges and placing councilmen and such.  (Just like I do in my daily life…)  The game is played over six rounds, and each round has three phases (and each phase has certain buildings that correspond to it).  The first phase consists of collecting a set of six face up cards and two random cards (of which you can only keep seven).  The second phase has the players play these cards at various times for different effects - gaining money and victory points, building bridges and gondolas, and placing councilmen.  The final phase simply consists of activating a certain type of building.  After the six rounds, players add up points based on how much control they have over each district (and how much those districts are worth) as well as which buildings they control.  Whoever has the most points is declared the dictator for life over Italy!  (Or the winner of the game - whichever title you think you are more likely to be able to retain.)

The first pro that I have for Rialto is that you must spend a coin to activate any of your buildings.  This rule, honestly, was something that seemed very trivial (even nuisance-y) as I was reading through the rules.  However, as I've played the game, I have grown in my appreciation for this.  And, to give you a better understanding, this is the only use for gold coins.  If you don't have buildings, then you don't ever have to worry about collecting gold!  And yet, buildings can be incredibly useful.  They can allow you to draw and keep more cards in the first phase.  They can also allow you to change what kind of cards you have in the second phase.  And they can give you direct victory points in the third phase!  So, I like the fact that you must spend a gold whenever you want to use a building, because it helps the game retain a bit more balance.  (And keeps it from being all about who can build the better buildings first.)

Player board for the builder in your group

The next pro that I have for Rialto is that you are encouraged to perform all of the actions during the game, and yet you are rewarded for specializing in certain ones.  You are encouraged to perform all the actions, because they are all good - they move you up on the Doge track (turn order and tie breakers), give you gold (to activate buildings), build buildings, gain victory points, unlock councilmen, and place councilmen.  If you neglect any of those, then you might have some serious problems.  Some of them (such as placing councilmen and gaining victory points) need to be performed every turn to have the maximum effect.  And yet, whoever plays the most cards of each type gets a bonus - with the effect often being the same as playing an extra card.  So, if you're able to get two bonuses, then it is similar to getting to play nine cards instead of seven!  But, in order to get those bonuses, you will inevitably be neglecting other areas of the game.  This tension really gives players some interesting choices.

The final pro that I will mention for Rialto is that I enjoy the scoring mechanism.  Each district is worth a number of points based on what bridges and gondolas connect to it.  (Both bridges and gondolas are placed as a bonus for playing the most cards of certain types during the second phase, and thus their locations are determined by players.)  Whoever has the most councilmen in the region gets the full number of victory points.  Second place gets half as many (rounded down), third place gets half of what second earned, and so on.  This means that it can be as valuable to be second (or even third) place in a district as it is to be first place in another.  And so, players are encouraged to win districts, but also to be careful about which districts they win - and are also encouraged to win the bonus that allows them to place bridges, to add more value to the districts that they are already winning!

Initial card selections

Now, though there are a lot of great features in Rialto, there are a couple of cons that I'd like to mention.  First, I felt like there was too much emphasis on placing councilmen in the first (and to a lesser degree second) round.  The reason for this is that after these councilmen have been placed, at least one player has a district that they are winning.  (It is actually possible that it could be tied, and you also can lose control over a district that you are winning, but it is rare.  Another player would have to get the bonus allowing them to place a gondola, and then they are allowed to place a councilman adjacent to the newly placed gondola - such as in the district that you were controlling.)  And so, after the initial round or two, placing bridges is performed in one of two ways - if the person controls a region, then they will place the bridge on their own region; otherwise they will place it far away on a region that nobody controls yet (which isn't terribly strategic - it's just a stalling tactic).  Now, the counter argument for this is that controlling a region initially is the reward for going after councilmen early in the game instead of performing an action like building buildings, but I still find it a bit annoying.

The other cons that I have are very minor, and don't really warrant much elaboration.  First, there is a lot of re-shuffling the deck in the game - especially in larger games.  (The deck is 77 cards, and in a 5 player game, 36 cards are out to start the round, 10 more will be drawn, and buildings can cause another 45 more (though realistically probably closer to 21) to be drawn.  So, the discards will have to be collected and re-shuffled almost every round.)  Second, there is quite a bit of emphasis on card counting in the game, which I'd just as soon not have to bother with - yet to not count them leaves you at a strategic disadvantage.  (If you remember what your opponents selected then you can have a good idea of what they are going to play.  And knowing what they can play helps you determine whether you can win bonuses.)

Overall, I enjoyed Rialto, and would give it an 8.5/10.  It is a game that I could continue playing, and I appreciate that it is relatively quick to play while offering some fairly deep strategic elements.

If Rialto sounds interesting, you might also check out Notre Dame, Terra Mystica, and Belfort.

I would like to thank Tasty Minstrel Games for providing me with a review copy of Rialto.