Tamsk Review

 
The last game from the original Gipf project that I've been able to try is Tamsk. (The link is to Board Game Geek, since Tamsk is out of print and not on Amazon. Plus, Tamsk was originally part of the Gipf project, but was later replaced by Tzaar; hence it being out of print.)

In Tamsk, your goal is to get rid of as many rings as possible.  Players take turns moving timers along a hexagonal shaped board, and after each move, they drop a ring around their new location.  Timers can only move to locations that still have room for another ring on them, and depending on where the location lives on the board, each location can hold anywhere from one to four rings.  Players alternate turns until no more legal moves exist, at which point the player with the least number of rings is the winner.  To add more challenge to the game, you may also play where each turn you must flip the timer that is being moved - and if a timer ever runs out of sand, then it is no longer legally allowed to move.  Finally, if you want to add even more challenge, a 15-second timer is included which you can flip over on your opponent's turn.  If they do not complete their move before that timer expires, then they lose their turn, and you are allowed to place an extra ring.

Jockying for position

Though I have now reviewed many different abstract strategy games, I still haven't developed a good vocabulary for describing what I like and dislike about the games.  I often feel like my review consists of "I thought it was a good game," or "it was fun."  Basically, this is like reviewer caveman talk - "Josh like that round piece moves!"  Regardless, I will try to describe my thoughts about Tamsk.  The crux of the game is in positioning your timers to leave a maximum number of options, while limiting your opponent.  One of the interesting elements that Tamsk adds to the formula, however, is that the closer you move to the middle, the more times that a specific location can be used (the center spot can hold four rings, but the outer edge can only hold one).  This element forces players to decide whether they want to move towards the center of the board, where they will be able to move around, but will have a lot of moves blocked by other timers, or whether they should stay along the exterior of the board where each move might eliminate a location, but where there will be less conflict over each location.

The next pro that I found for Tamsk is that there are interesting choices that you have to make about when to un-block an opponent's timer.  Generally, you want to block your opponent's timers.  This prevents them from moving, and thus it allows you to take extra turns - thus playing more of your rings.  However, because the locations can be used more than once, if you are blocking an opponent with one of your timers, they will quite likely be allowed to take your vacated space as soon as you leave it.  Therefore, you have the upper hand since you have temporarily blocked your opponent, but if you don't take advantage of this by positioning your other timers while they are blocked, then this advantage might only be temporary.

Showing off a red timer that has died

However, though these elements are interesting, I had some definitely cons with Tamsk.  First, I hated playing it while actually flipping the timers.  Instead of trying to optimize your movements, this changes the game so that you are simply making a game of when you flip each timer.  The rules specify that as a "gentleman's agreement" you should move quickly.  However, if you start moving quickly (as you're "supposed" to), and don't alternate turns between your different timers, then you might wind up flipping  a timer that you have just flipped - causing it's time to be almost completely expired.  So, you aren't even necessarily always waiting on your opponent's timer to expire - you might be waiting on your own timer to run down so that it will have more sand in it on your opponent's turn.  Ultimately, I felt like this element of the game encouraged sitting around and waiting for timers to be close to expiring more than it encouraged playing the strategic part of the game. 

The second con that I had for Tamsk was that it simply felt too simplistic.  There didn't seem to be all that many strategic elements to it.  Like I said before, I don't have a good vocabulary for how to explain this better.  Essentially, it felt like in Tamsk, there are just not many choices - do I move towards the center, or along the edge?  Do I unblock my opponent yet?  That really seemed like about it.  Without the timer element (which I hated), you are left with a fairly basic and generic abstract game.

Overall, I give Tamsk a 6.5/10.  Part of my disappointment in the game may be that it took me a long time to track down a copy to play, but the game wasn't phenomenal, like I was hoping.  However, since I truly dislike the timer element to the game, I will probably move my copy along to someone new.

If you enjoy abstract strategy games, then you might want to check out the other games (that I've reviewed) from the Gipf project - Gipf, Dvonn, Punct, Yinsh, and Zertz.

Quarto Review

A little while back, I ranked my top ten abstract games. After I made that post, you all (my readers) suggested a few more that I should try. Notably, Quarto and Arimaa. Well, I listened and traded for a copy of each of them. And, though Arimaa is yet to hit my table, it is time to give Quarto a review.

Quarto is a simple game (read: "this review will be short") of piece placement.  The game is played on a 4x4 grid, and there are 16 total pieces.  Each piece has four different attributes - color, height, shape (square or round), and hollow or filled-in.  On each turn, one player selects a piece and hands it to his opponent.  That player then places the piece on the board.  When placing a piece, if you successfully create a line of four pieces in a row that all share an attribute (and realize it), then you win the game!  If you didn't notice it, but your opponent does, then he can claim it and win.  Play continues until either all of the pieces have been played and there are nobody noticed a four-in-a-row's (you tie), or until one person has won.

The most brilliant pro about Quarto is that you select which piece your opponent plays.  If each person got to pick their own piece, there would be half as much strategy (maybe even less) and the game simply would not be fun.  However, since you get to pick your opponent's piece, you can give him pieces to try to force him into setting you up for a victory on your turn.  You also have to be much more aware of how your opponent is trying to win - if you give him the piece he needs, then you will inadvertently give him the victory! I was very impressed with the strategic depth that this presented.  I found myself thinking about which pieces would win the game, how I could setup more pieces to be "winning" pieces, and how to stage it so that I could give my opponent the last possible non-winning piece.  (And yet, with all this thinking, I still lost!)

There are only so many things to take pictures of in Quarto.

The next pro that I have for Quarto is that the game is easily visible.  In many of these "get a bunch of things in a row" games, there is something that either makes it hard to visualize what is going to happen, or makes it hard to actually physically see what is going on (Quadrago is a good example of this).  However, in Quarto, you can easily see all of the pieces, and each attribute is distinct enough that, though you may miss what your opponent is trying to do, it won't be because your vision was blocked.

My third pro for Quarto is that it is a great combination of fast and replayable.  Since the game can only take up to 16 turns (and each turn only consists of placing a single piece), it goes fairly quickly.  However, when you win the game (especially if you lose), you will find yourself wanting to play a rematch.  This makes Quarto a really good game to play when are looking to fill an indeterminate amount of time (when you're waiting on someone to show up, for example).  I also see Quarto being a great game to play while simply hanging out with friends to socialize - a coffee shop type of game.

The only real con that I have with Quarto is that each game seems to have a bit of a ramping up element early on.  What I mean by this is that the first few piece selections and placements probably will not have very much strategy.  After all, when there's nothing on the board, there's nothing that you really have to watch out for.  So, at least when I have played, the first few turns are somewhat like, "here, take this one - throw it on the board somewhere; then, randomly pick another piece, and I'll do the same."  I'm sure that people who have played Quarto a lot more than I have will find much deeper strategies, and will start executing them from the beginning of the game.  But, I still think that the first few turns (though necessary to make the game work) don't really matter very much strategically.

Overall, I give Quarto an 8.5/10.  I really like the game, and I will continue playing it.  However, I will play it as a time-filler or as a game to play when I'm wanting to chat while playing, not a game that I will get together with a friend specifically to play.

If you like abstract games, you should also check out Quoridor, Brandubh, and Dvonn.

Jumpin Review

At GenCon 2011, I purchased a box of 3M titles at the auction. Honestly, I knew nothing about them and only bought them because I was interested in Feudal. Knowing that I might as well try them out, one of the other titles made me Jump (hehe)! Jumpin was a spatial reasoning game! Excellent.

In Jumpin, each player controls a set of 12 pawns (lined up in two rows of six) that they are trying to move across the board into their opponent's starting zone. The twist to the game is that pieces may only move by jumping. They are allowed to jump over any number of pieces, can jump horizontally or vertically, can jump over any player's pieces, and they can "multi-jump" from one empty space to the next, as long as there remain pieces to jump over. The only thing that they cannot do is move a single space without jumping (or jump over multiple empty spaces). Players take turns selecting and jumping with a piece until one person has successfully moved all of his pieces across the board. Whoever successfully does this is declared the winner.

The first thing that I like about Jumpin is that it is an abstract reasoning game, but it is unlike any of the other ones that I have played. (Yes, I have heard analogies to Chinese Checkers, but I believe that the inability to move a single piece truly sets Jumpin apart from even Chinese Checkers.) Moreover, if I played games that were similar to Jumpin, it would probably be because they borrowed mechanics from Jumpin, not the other way around (the copyright on the one I bought is 1964). My favorite element of all abstract reasoning games is that they challenge me to think in new and different ways, and the fact that Jumpin is so unlike anything that I have played is wonderful.

The next thing that I like about Jumpin is the challenge that each player faces in navigating his pieces into his opponent's starting position. If there were simply a line that the pieces had to cross, and then they were removed from the board, then the game would be completely changed (and I think it would be much worse). However, once a player starts getting some of his pieces into his opponent's starting zone he is forced to pay attention to how he will successfully navigate his other pieces into the zone. Normally, the "easy" path that he has created will get blocked because of pieces that have already crossed - therefore, he will be forced to repeatedly readjust where his pieces are, thus costing extra moves. Whoever is able to anticipate this and plan accordingly will have a distinct advantage.

One element of Jumpin that I haven't decided if I like is the fact that you can strand a pawn. If you jump away from a pawn, thus leaving it completely by itself, there is no way of moving that pawn unless you backtrack to it's location on a future turn, or if your opponent is kind (foolish) enough to move adjacent to it. For the most part, I have been able to avoid stranding pieces, as this was a trap that I very quickly noticed. The few times that I did strand a piece, I found it to be incredibly frustrating. And, the game is unforgiving enough that stranding a piece will most likely cost you the game against a good opponent.

A pawn's eye view

An unpleasant element that I noticed about Jumpin that I do not recall experiencing in other spatial reasoning games is that there feels like a lot of down time. The game starts off fairly slowly as each player is simply jumping over one or two pieces. After a little while, the game really starts to get exciting as players will be able to jump their pawns across the entire game board in one or two moves. After this exciting phase, the game slows down again as the players are attempting to finalize their navigation into their victory area. I wish the game did not have these "slow" phases, but was able to maintain the feeling of excitement that it had in the middle of the game.

My next con for Jumpin is that it feels much more like a race than a challenge against an opponent. In most spatial reasoning games, you are constantly facing decisions of whether to move in a way that benefits yourself, or move in a way that blocks your opponents. I think the best example of this is Abalone in which you feel like two sumo wrestlers attempting to move each other. However, in Jumpin, I rarely felt like what I did affected my opponent. Yes, he was able to jump over any of my pawns that I moved, so I would occasionally have to make sure that I did not help him with my movement. A few times I could even block a move that he was planning to make. For the most part, though, you will only be jumping over your own pieces, he will jump over his, and you will see who managed to race to the finish line faster.

Overall, I give Jumpin a 7.5/10. It was quite a pleasant surprise to me that I had received a spatial reasoning game, and I enjoyed playing it.  The slow parts of the game and the fact that I don't really feel like I'm challenging my opponent keep it out of my upper tier of spatial reasoning games, though. (And, it doesn't help that I feel like I get worse at the game the more I play it. I can't really understand what's going on with that element of it.)

If Jumpin sounds interesting, you might also want to check out Pentago, Ingenious, and Stratum.

Gipf Review

 Ironically, one of the last games that I got to try in the Gipf Project was actually the original - Gipf.

In Gipf, which is played on a hexagonal board, each player starts with 3 "Gipf" pieces on the board (these are the same as normal pieces, but are two pieces stacked on top of each other). The object of the game is to remove all of your opponent's Gipf pieces, or to prevent him from being able to make a valid play (by capturing too many of his pieces). The hexagonal board is divided into triangles, and the playing pieces rest on the intersection of these triangles. Each intersection along the edge of the board also has a line out from it with a dot. Players take turns placing a piece on any of the dots along the outer edge of the board and then pushing the new piece into the playing area (and pushing any pieces in front of it one space further into play - but it is not legal to push a piece off the edge of the board). Whenever one player has four of his pieces in a row, those pieces are immediately removed from the board - along with all of the other pieces that are connected to them on that row. The player who owns the four in a row gets to re-use his pieces, and his opponent's pieces are captured. The one exception to this is that it is legal (and advisable) to leave Gipf pieces on the board. Play continues like this until either one player has no more Gipf pieces on the board or until one player has run out of pieces and cannot move any more into the playing area.

The first thing that I like about Gipf is that it is not your normal in-a-row game. There are a lot of spatial reasoning games that are all about getting a set of pieces in a row. Many of them are even very fun games that I enjoy playing. However, I like that Gipf freshens this up by using the in-a-row system to add depth to its gameplay. Gipf is not about getting pieces in a row. It is about capturing pieces. Because of this, and the fact that when you do achieve an in-a-row you get to remove the pieces, the game is more of a game of spatial reasoning tug-of-war than an "oh, I missed that and instantly lost" kind of game.

The next thing that I like about Gipf is the pushing mechanic. Every place on the board has at least two directions that it can be pushed from. This means that there is not a place that is "safe". Any move that I make can be countered by my opponent, which is amazing. In addition, the fact that pieces are removed causes there to be gaps in between pieces, which adds to the strategy of the game. You may be setting up your opponent to lose his Gipf piece. However, he can push it one space and get it outside of the line that you were setting up for him. What's more, if he is able to complete your line, then suddenly you don't even have any pieces near his Gipf. Unfortunately, there are two edges of this strategy - sometimes your Gipf piece is in danger, and it is in the middle of the board with no other pieces adjacent to it.  And, thus, you cannot move it in a single turn - thereby having no way to protect it.

The next thing I like about Gipf is something that I believe Go claims about itself. "Minutes to learn, a lifetime to master." (After Googling, I was wrong, and this is actually Othello).  I don't know that Gipf takes a lifetime to master, but it is definitely very easy to teach and yet has quite a bit of depth to strategy.  Games that are easy to teach allow you to have more opponents.  More opponents mean someone that has never played might beat the snot out of you at the game simply because they take a strategy that you hadn't thought of.

In a very short time, Gipf has quickly become one of my favorite abstract strategy games. I think that it is as good as Yinsh and Dvonn, which are my two other favorite games in the Gipf project. However, I am still unsure of whether I think people would get together specifically to play Gipf, or if I think they would get together to hang out and then play Gipf while they are there. I decided that they would for Yinsh and that they would not for Dvonn, hence Yinsh was given a 9.0 and Dvonn an 8.5, even though I like them both the same. I'm not sure how I decided this - I think it was pretty arbitrary. So, without further ado....

Overall, I give Gipf a 9.0. I think that people might get together to play it. I have also convinced myself that they probably would for Dvonn, and that I should have given it a 9.0 also. Oh well. If you enjoy spatial reasoning games, I think it is definitely worth your time to check out all three of these games from the Gipf project.

If Gipf sounds interesting, you should also check out Abalone, Ingenious, and Jin Li.

Brandubh Review

A classic game that has lasted for centuries is Brandubh.  Brandubh is one of twelve games of Bibelot Games' "Reliquary Collection."  This collection has taken many ancient board games and is re-printing them with very high quality components and packaging that provide you with a very easily portable, nice, yet ancient feel.  Brandubh specifically, is from Ireland around 600 AD.  If you're interested in learning more about the Reliquary Collection, check out their Kickstarter project - I think that they're worth backing.  Also, as a final note, the pictures that I have provided in this review are of a prototype of the game, so the final product may look slightly different - but Bibelot has told me that they are not intending to change the look or feel. 

As I said, Brandbudh is a classic game like Chess or Go.  It is from Ireland around 600, and Bibelot Games didn't have to change or adjust any of the rules.  Brandubh is the game of the Kings and the Ravens.  All of the pieces are setup in a cross, with the High King in the center.  The Kings have a total of five pieces, whereas the Ravens have eight.  The Ravens are attempting to capture the High King by surrounding him on all four sides, whereas the Kings win if the High King successfully moves to one of the corners of the board.  Each turn, the active player moves a single piece as far as he wants in a straight line.  If, by doing this, he flanks one of his opponent's pieces (other than the High King) on opposite sides, then that piece is captured.  Also, the High King is the only piece that is allowed to move into the corners or through the center.  Players alternate turns back and forth until the High King has either escaped or been captured.

I love the suede pouch

The biggest pro that I have for Brandubh (specifically the Bibelot edition of it) is that the packaging is amazing.  It is packaged in a suede pouch that also lays flat to serve as the board.  In addition, the pieces (they claim that they are marble, but I have no idea) fit very well with the age of the game and the ancient feel presented by the suede pouch.  Overall, when playing the game, you really feel like this could have been how it felt to play this game hundreds of years ago, and it is just amazing that the game has survived for so long.  I really hope that one of the things that Bibelot does with their project is to provide the history of each of the games, but I don't know how far along they are in the publishing, and so I don't know if this is feasible for the first printing.

The next thing that I like about Brandubh is that it is actually a solid game.  It is balanced, but not symmetric.  The Kings have a much easier victory condition, since all they have to do is escape.  However, the Ravens have a significantly larger force.  I have seen both sides win, and whenever I have played it, I felt like the side I wasn't using always had the advantage - which I think means that the game is balanced well (and that I'm not very good at it).

The game itself is fairly simple, so instead of more pros and cons, now I will just cover the basic strategy for both sides.  With the Kings, the goal is to escape at all costs.  It doesn't matter if any of your Kings other than your High King survives.  You should use your Kings as blockers, setting up a section of the board for your High King to quickly be able to move through.  Basically, just get your Kings in the way of the Ravens.  In addition, since the High King is the only piece able to move through the center, don't be afraid to quickly switch directions.  If the Ravens are blocking you on one side, it might be good to switch to the other side of the board, and try to get some of your opponents blocked by the center piece.

The components fit the vintage (ancient) feel of the game

With the Ravens, you have to capture the High King.  Unfortunately, he has a lot of lackeys.  Well, he has a whole lot less of them if you start capturing them.  You probably won't win with the Ravens if the Kings still have all of their pieces - so capture them as often as possible.  But, when doing this, make sure that the High King doesn't slip through your fingers.  You have to strike a careful balance between capitalizing on every opportunity to capture a piece, but also being attentive to what the High King might be setting up as an escape route.

Overall, I give Brandubh an 8.5/10.  When talking to the people at Bibelot, they told me something along the lines of "we think the world is better with these games in it," and I would have to say that I agree.  Not only the world, but my game collection is better with these games in it.  It may not come as a surprise to many of you that I have "a few" games (I think it was around 300 last time I looked), and so many of the games that I play for this site wind up being traded after I review them.  Brandubh I think will stay in my collection for quite a while, and I'm very eager to try the other games from the Reliquary Collection, so I wish Bibelot all the success in the world with their Kickstarter project.  And, as a reminder, you can check them out here if you are interested in backing them in order to get a copy of Brandubh or any of the other 11 games in the Reliquary Collection.

If you like Brandubh, you might also like Atlanteon, Hive, and Abalone.

I would like to thank Bibelot Games for providing me with a prototype review copy of Brandubh.

Top Ten Abstract Strategy Board Games - January 2012

So recently I have been debating what I want to do with this site. I enjoy writing reviews, and I still intend for that to be the bulk of my posts. However, one thing that I've heard from some of my readers is that they like when I compare games to each other. Also, I got to spend some time with Jason from Play Board Games recently, and he encouraged me to start writing "Top Ten" lists - he said that they're both fun to write and engaging to readers. So, why not? Feel free to add comments to my Top Ten, missed games, and whether you like the addition of Top Tens to the site!

Some of these games I have reviewed, and some I haven't. If I've reviewed it, I'll give you the link to my review (instead of the normal link to Amazon, but feel free to use this Amazon link and search for any of these games in the search bar).  If I haven't reviewed some of these yet, I'll try to get around to writing one for you! And, since I just completed my self proclaimed "Abstract Strategy Month" of December, what better place to start than...

Top Ten Abstract Strategy Games!!

 

10. Tsuro

Simple but enjoyable. This may be the only abstract strategy game that I know of that can support up to 8 players!

 

9. Stomple

Gorgeous and engaging. This game is perfect for anyone with children, but the amount of luck involved in your initial setup keeps it from placing higher.

 

8. Abalone

This is basically sumo wrestling as an abstract strategy game. It can be incredible fun, but can also become tedious if you and your opponent are too experienced at it, if you are both able to avoid getting any pieces knocked off the board.

 

7. Jin Li

One of my surprise finds of 2011 was Jin Li. Having never heard of the game before I was given a copy, I quickly fell in love. Surprising depth with very brief rules, I wound up buying the iPhone version so that I could play it when I needed a 3-minute break.

 

6. Hive

One of my very first reviews, Hive is the game on this list closest to having a theme, but it's paper thinness allows it to still land on the list. Simply a brilliant game (another one that I've bought for my iPhone) of attempting to surround your opponent's queen.

 

5. Yinsh

The Gipf project finally cracks the list with what many believe to be the best game in the series. Unfortunately, it's up against some brilliant competition both from other games in the Gipf project, and some outsiders. Still, Yinsh combines some beautiful gameplay elements to make for a great experience!

 

4. Hey, That's My Fish!

A game that can be enjoyed by everyone, I would recommend that everyone buy a copy of Hey, That's My Fish since you can currently buy it for around $12 from Fantasy Flight. The setup time (especially in comparison to the actual gameplay time) is the biggest downside, which is why I have converted most of my time with this game to playing it on the iPad. However, anyone with children take note - this is a great game that you can play with kids, and I've played it with kids as young as 4, who were still able to understand and enjoy the game.

 

3. Pentago

Mindtwister USA's flagship game really is a prototypical example of what I look for in an abstract strategy game - easy to teach, easy to transport, and many levels of strategic depth. "Play one, twist one, try to get five in a row." It's much deeper than it initially appears.

 

2. Gipf

Yes, I should post a review about this one. The original game from the Gipf project, Gipf is an amazing game. It combines elements of pushing and matching pieces into a brilliant, amazing, and exciting game. (I'm running out of adjectives - I love all of the games on this list!)

 

1. Dvonn

A game that I gave a score of 8.5 to tops the list? Yeah - I always say to read the text and not to focus on scores, and this is a perfect example. I love Dvonn. Love it. What's more, the setup and the teardown of the game are the game allowing for essentially no downtime with either of these activities. Some people disagree, but I think that the ever-collapsing board makes for a great play experience!

Honorable Mention

Rise, Tzaar, Ingenious, Multiplayer Pentago, Cityscape.

Any of these could have easily made the list, as they are all solid titles, but the real question would be - what do I take off of it in their place?


I hope you enjoyed my inaugural Top Ten list. Feel free to leave comments and let me know what you think I got right, and where you think I was way off! (As a note, I've never actually played Go, if you're wondering how it got completely left off of the list.)

Ingenious Review

A game that I initially tried because there was an iPhone app for it was Ingenious (and if you notice from the picture, I actually had the Travel Edition).

Ingenious is an abstract spatial reasoning game. The game is played on a hexagonal shaped board in which players alternate placing pieces that are two hexes put together (like hex dominoes). After the first placement (in which players must place next to the symbols built into the board), the pieces can be placed anywhere on the board, but will primarily be placed next to other pieces with matching symbols. Once a piece is placed, you score points based on how many of the corresponding symbol are connected to the newly placed piece in each of the five lines beginning at the new tile (not going through the other half of the tile). If the newly placed tile causes the active player to score 18 in any of his colors, he can immediately place again. If not, he draws a new tile and then the other player takes his turn. Play goes on like this until no more tiles can be laid; at this point, whichever player has the highest number of points in his lowest scoring color/symbol is the winner (yes, it is by Reiner Knizia, in case you were wondering by this mechanic).

Let's begin with the paragraph that is in each of my spatial reasoning reviews: I don't really know how to express what I like about these games. I think other people had this issue, too, which is why they termed these games "abstract". So, if the rest of this review seems more like "rambling" (even more than normal) than it does "concise thoughts", you'll just have to get over that.

I really like how the placement of pieces works in the game. Especially because you can use pieces both offensively and defensively (and I imagine if I get better at the game, I'll be able to use them as both at the same time). You can use the pieces offensively by placing a color next to pre-existing tiles of the same color - this scores points and continuing the line of colors, but this also leaves it open for your opponent (or you on a future turn) to be able to score even more points. You can also play defensively by cutting off a long line of a single color by placing a different color at the end of it. However, then nobody will be able to score that line anymore. The ideal situation is to be able to place your tile in such a way as to be able to score the long line and then have the second half of your tile block off any future scoring of this line (preferably while scoring it's color, too). That would prevent your opponent from being able to easily earn points in one of the colors - which would then probably turn out to be his lowest scoring color.

Another thing that I like about Ingenious is the "Ingenious bonus". This is where you get to place two tiles in a row if the first tile caused one of your colors to finally be 18 points (the highest score on a specific color). Having 18 points in a color doesn't really help you in the game - after all, if a color has it's maximum number of points, then it won't be your lowest, and so it won't be the one that scores. However, with the Ingenious bonus, it is just rewarding enough to tempt you into scoring extra in that color. If I have a color that is around 15, I will start looking to get the Ingenious bonus in order to be able to go again - I'm not convinced it helps me very much strategically, I just really like getting to go twice in a row.

A final pro that I will mention is that I really like scoring based on your least valuable color.  Whereas I have seen this mechanic in other games, it seems to work the best in Ingenious.  Because of this mechanic, each player must make sure that they don't simply ignore one color.  More specifically (since each tile only has two colors on it) they must make sure that they don't ignore one color for too long.  You will probably not evenly place your colors throughout the game - you just have to make sure that as you place them you are planning ahead to where you will be able to score points on your other colors.  And one thing that helps in this (that I haven't mentioned yet) is that if you don't have any tiles matching the color that you have the least points in, you can discard all of your tiles and draw six new ones at the end of your turn.  This helps prevent the "score based on your lowest value" mechanic from causing you to lose simply because of what you draw.

I can't really think of any specific cons for Ingenious. I enjoy the game, but not quite as much as some other spatial reasoning games. I think this is really when my inability to speak in a very intelligent manner about the genre comes into play. I like the game, but there is just something about it that I didn't like quite as much as some of the others; and that's why it won't get quite as good of a score. However, don't hear me saying that it's not a good game, because it definitely is.

I'm sure that there's a lot more that I should say about the game, and that I'm not doing it justice by any means, but honestly I don't really have much more to add to this review. One thing that I will note is that I'm not a fan of the Travel Edition - I don't recommend buying it unless you actually intend to play it while traveling. The pieces are very small and it is a nuisance to try to pick them up. I didn't factor this into the score, though, since it is about the edition that I have and not about the game itself.

Overall, I give Ingenious an 8.0/10. It is a very solid abstract spatial reasoning game that I will continue to play. I still prefer Dvonn (which is growing on me more all the time), Yinsh, and Abalone, but Ingenious is a very solid title that I plan to continue playing for quite a while (though I did go ahead and replace my Travel Edition with the full-sized version).

Repello Review

Another intriguing looking game by Mindtwister USA (makers of the fabulous game of Pentago) that I had the opportunity to play was Repello (which for some reason they don't seem to sell through Amazon).

In Repello (the first game I've played by Mindtwister that doesn't involve twisting the board) the object of the game is to score points by knocking pieces off of the board. This is possible because every piece "repels" every other piece - but you (as the active player) get to choose which piece gets repelled, and which piece stays. To start your turn, you move your piece one space in any direction (and leave behind a round black disc from your pogo-stick looking marker). Each square on the board has a number on it, and after your initial single-space movement, you continue moving by this many more spaces. If you run into a wall, then you "bounce" back in the opposite direction (or at a 45 degree angle if you come at it diagonally). After your move is completed, you must check to see if any two pieces on the board are adjacent to each other. If so, you must move one of them directly backwards from the piece it is adjacent to - if there are several pieces adjacent to each other, you choose the order that the "repelling" occurs in. After this initial "repelling", you again check for adjacent pieces, and you continue this process until the board is in a "resolved" state (no two pieces are adjacent) - this repelling is how you knock pieces off (to score points). Play continues in this manner until each player's pogo-stick marker is out of black discs. At that point, the game is over, and players score points for each of their discs.

The first pro to Repello is that it is incredibly chaotic. The game starts off (and can end) a bit slowly, but there is a peak in the middle of the game where a player will push pieces all across the board. Since each turn adds another disc to the board, the game is setup so that there will be adjacent pieces at some point. And after several of these pieces have been left behind (and before too many of them have been knocked back off) there will be some turns in which a player may wind up moving 10 or more pieces. These turns are great, and they are really where some players start to get a major point advantage in the game.  This is also the most fun part about the game - "I'm going to move here and see what happens..." <five minutes later> "Ok, I'm done!" (after scoring 5 points).

The next pro to Repello is that it is really kid friendly. I can see people of any age playing the game, as the rules are simple enough to teach to kids (I would guess) as young as 6-8. What's more, kids may actually have more fun than adults with this game, as I could see them just enjoying the actual playing of the game, and so they would play it quickly (see the con below for how it works with adults).

The final pro that I will mention is one that I was the victim of the first time I played - you can knock off other players. Specifically, when you knock off other players, you get to steal a disc from their pogo-stick, and you also get to steal a disc that they had previously collected (such as that gold disc worth 5 points). This adds to both the fun and the strategy of the game; the fun because most people will enjoy knocking their opponent off, and the strategy because once you have collected valuable discs you need to make sure that your opponent cannot knock you off. However, after you are knocked off, you get to return to the board in one of the "green" (starting) tiles - and then you get to resolve all conflicts before making your move. This essentially gives you two opportunities to knock things off of the board! So, whereas it is not good to be knocked off (you lose a turn and a disc), you can really gain quite a few points when you come back on the board.

Now for the cons... ANALYSIS PARALYSIS (having so many options and/or so much input that you take forever to make a decision). Criminey, gee wilikers, and holy schnikes, Repello may as well have invented Analysis Paralysis! When playing with strategic minds, most of what you will see when playing the game is people sitting in their seat pointing at the board and counting to themselves. Each turn you have 9 different directions that you can move, and then you may have dozens to hundreds of combinations that you can do with repelling the pieces back and forth. In fact, you have so many options that when you finally do find what appears to be the "best" option, you then go back and ask yourself, "crud, now how did that start?" What makes this even worse is that you can't really do any of this until your turn starts because your opponents will quite possibly change up the entire board - and will at the very least change where they are located (which could mess with your entire chain). (I mentioned earlier that this is kid friendly. I don't think that they will deal with this as much, as kids are more likely to just play and see what happens.)

The next con is that the rules are not quite as clear as I would like in a few instances. For example, I'm still not entirely sure what all the rules are when a player runs out of discs on his piece. If, for example, one unfortunate player (me) has been knocked off the board several times, does his turn get skipped once he is out of pieces to leave behind? What about if he gets knocked off the board - does he get to come back on the board? I believe that the instructions do talk about these things, but it wasn't in clear enough language that we were confident that we were playing it completely correctly.

Overall, I give Repello a 7.5/10. I thought that it was fun, unique, and interesting. However, the Analysis Paralysis can cause this "30+ minute" game to take an hour and a half or more when I play it, and I think that this causes the game to drag a bit more than I would like. If you like spatial reasoning games, this is definitely one that you should consider - and if you have kids that like chaotic games, this can deliver there as well. 

I would like to thank Mindtwister USA for providing me with a review copy of Repello.

Jin Li Review

A game that I had never heard of was called "Jin Li". Then, a tornado blew up my house and lots of people sent me games. One of those people, David MacKenzie of Clever Mojo Games, sent me Jin Li. As I was looking for a new game to play, I asked myself "hey, what's that weird little game in the canvas zipper?" And thus... I found friendly fish.

In fact, the fish in Jin Li are so friendly that they want to touch each other (not in the dirty way, pervert - these are good, wholesome fish!). Instead, they just like being near the other fish. Because of this, they will reward you with their form of currency called "victory points" if you are able to get them adjacent to each other. Specifically, each turn you can move one of your fish and place a stone, or you can jump over a stone. You cannot jump over more than one stone or another fish. We call those things "cheating". However, if, after moving your fish, it is adjacent to other fish, then you score one point for each fish that is adjacent to the fish you just moved. Keep doing this until one person gets enough "victory points" to escape the fishbowl. Wait, these fish like each other... they don't want to escape. Oh well, the game is played to ten anyway.

The first thing that I like about Jin Li is that you only score on the fish that was just moved. If this weren't the case, I think that the game would be broken. After all, if your opponent moves his fish next to you, then at the end of the next turn you are still next to him. However, since it is only the fish that was just moved, you have to find a way to move and still be adjacent to the other fish. And there might be pesky stones in your way.

The second thing I like about Jin Li is the pesky stones that might be in your way. If it weren't for the placing of the stones, the fish would easily swim next to each other in peace and bliss forever (though you would punish them by leaving them in the game box (canvas zipper), since the game wouldn't be any fun). The stones, however, are the key element in thwarting what your opponent (and his fish) want to do. Stones can be used to both help your fish move more quickly (if a single stone is in front of you) and to block your opponent from moving (if multiple stones are in front of him). The stones combined with fish placement and the fact that you cannot jump over an opponent's fish all combine to make for an impressively strategic game with ridiculously simple instructions.

The main "con" to Jin Li is that it is a filler game. I won't ever go meet up with any of my friends simply to play Jin Li. I used to live 5 minutes away from the game store where I played most of my games; it would take about as long to get to the store as it would to play through a game of Jin Li. I really enjoy the game, but it is by all of my definitions a filler game that I will play in between longer games.

The nit-picky con to Jin Li is that the "board" (which appears to be a mousepad with the playing area screen-printed on it) does not like to lay flat.  Neither do the instructions.  I think that this is because they spend most of their life rolled up inside the canvas zipper.

Right, the instructions all fit on a single page.  So I should stop before my review of the game winds up being significantly longer than the instructions.

Overall, I give Jin Li an 8.5/10. It is a very nice little strategy game that is a great way of passing time when waiting for other games to be played. I would recommend that everyone go out and buy it but, unfortunately, it is not easily (cheaply) available in the United States. It is (as far as I know) only printed in Spain through Nestor Games. However, there is an iPod/iPad/iPhone version available for $0.99. I bought it and I have really enjoyed it - I would recommend you check it out as well.

Like abstract games?  You might also read my reviews of Abalone, Dvonn, Pentago, and Rise.

I would like to thank David MacKenzie of Clever Mojo Games for sending me a copy of Jin Li along with several boxes of other games from his personal collection to help rebuild my collection and to give to the people of Joplin after the tornado. Thanks, David!

Multiplayer Pentago Review

So, as those of you who have followed my site for a while know, I really enjoyed playing Pentago (see my review here). Because of this, I was quite intrigued about Multiplayer Pentago.

Multiplayer Pentago is the same as Pentago - play one, spin one, try to get five in a row. However, instead of only being two player, it can be played with up to four players (or on two teams of two). In addition, instead of only having a 2x2 grid, now the gameboard is a 3x3 grid - adding 5 new sections that can spin.

Now that you know the game, I'm not going to really re-iterate the pros and cons, because they're really the same as in the original. Instead, I'll discuss the differences with the basic game of Pentago to give you a better feel of which one you might prefer.

First, Multiplayer Pentago gives you more ways to win. In the original game, you could be sneaky. So sneaky, in fact, that your five in a row could be spread out across three different tiles. However, if you're that sneaky player in Multiplayer Pentago, you can spread it across four tiles! Plus, the simple middle lines can now spread across three different tiles, making a three in a row on any given tile much more dangerous - it can now be expanded in either direction.

Next, you have the simple fact that you can play the game with more people. I like this feature, and I've enjoyed playing with both three and four players. Three players has an interesting dynamic in which, if one player is leading, the other players can both stop him. Instead of being only one "spin" away, two players can easily join forces to spin the other player's pieces in the wrong direction. However, you can also get caught in a situation where one player keeps blocking the player in front of him - just to let the third player's strategy go undefended (this is the player that gets to win). Four player's dynamics feel more like the basic game, but you have to watch out for so many more connections!  When defending, though, you have help - if you don't see a five in a row coming, some of the other players might (or they might all be fooled! This happens too).

I also really enjoy the team aspect of Multiplayer Pentago. At first I didn't think that I would ever bother playing it. However, I think that it really is a fun way of playing the game - it can also be helpful if you play with a couple of people that don't have as much Pentago experience. For example, I have forced (ahem, "sweetly convinced") my wife to play Pentago quite a bit - so she's good at the game. We invited another couple over to our house and pulled out Multiplayer Pentago. It worked quite nicely for me and my wife to each pair up with a member of the other couple to form balanced teams. (And our house rule is that you can't talk to your partner; they just have to see the strategy. This prevents the player with more experience from basically just playing both turns, thus keeping the game more fun for all involved.)

The main place where I feel like the original Pentago may be better is in it's design - the original game was a great combination of sleek look with built in portability. Whereas I think that both games have a nice looking design, I think that the original Pentago just has a classic simple beauty to it. Plus, with the snap on lid (at least in the copy that I have) it is much easier to carry around - and with a much smaller footprint in my car (or bag).  (Though, to be fair to the Multiplayer Pentago when talking about design, the double-sided pieces have grown on me.  Instead of having four different kinds of pieces, there are still two - green/yellow pieces and blue/red pieces, and each player plays with his color up.  It's a nice little touch.)

Overall, I give Multiplayer Pentago an 8.5/10. It's Pentago - with more options. I still don't think that people will get together just to play it (hence the 8.5 instead of 9.0), but I think that when people get together and start playing Multiplayer Pentago, they will enjoy it. And now, they'll feel less exclusive while doing so!

I would like to thank Mindtwister USA for providing me with a review copy of Multiplayer Pentago

Rise! Review

Note: This picture is of a prototype copy of Rise!  Final copies may look different

An interesting game that I saw on Kickstarter was Rise! So, after they asked me if I'd be willing to check it out for them, I gladly obliged.

In the great world of Nameless Land, an epic battle raged on between the fearsome Blue Horde and the epic Red Minions (who were disparagingly referred to as "Brown Blockies" (because in my prototype they look brown). In this epic struggle, the two sides sent their round (did they eat too much, or are the a race of round aliens? You'll have to decide for yourself) peasants into the war zone to secure areas where they could build their alien landing pads. (I guess we went with aliens... maybe they should be Pyramids... wait, no! I have it! Blocks of shrinking size! This is the beauty of abstract strategy games.) But while building, these multipurpose round peasants must both fight off opposing round-ites and build their own blocks! They need three Pyramids before the epic destruction of their empire, their world, their universe, and this website! Oh no!!!!!

Ok, so really... Rise! is an abstract strategy game. The goal of the game is to build 3 towers - each tower consisting of 3 levels. Simple enough? The game is played on a growing hexagonal map and to construct a tower, you must have a hex surrounded with your pieces (and the center must be empty). At this point, a stage of the tower is automatically created, and each turn that you still have your pieces in place the next stage of the tower is built. Each turn consists of two actions. Here are your choices: place a new piece adjacent to one of your existing pieces, move a piece, remove a tower piece (rarely), "jump" a piece (capturing an opponent adjacent to you), place a new land tile, sacrifice two pieces to place one anywhere on the board, or sacrifice two pieces to remove any single piece of your opponent. Players alternate turns until either one player lost their last piece (I've not seen this happen) or one player has three towers completed.

What to say about Rise! Well. First of all, I must admit that Rise! has a different feel than any spatial reasoning game that I've ever played - and I've played a ton of them (after all, I even self-deemed this month "abstract strategy month"... though I noticed that no other sites bothered to join me). It's good when a game brings a fresh new feel to a genre. There are familiar elements - jumping, moving, building maps, but I've not seen them all together in a way that feels similar to Rise!  Kudos to Crash Games for coming up with something innovative.

Now that I've mentioned a pro, I'm going to mention my biggest con - then I'll just move on to rambling about the game. Let's be honest for a minute. My first game of Rise! was horrible! Afterwards, I thought to myself, "Well. That sucked." (Yes, I can be quite profane like that when I'm thinking to myself.) Here's why: we didn't interact. In Rise! it is critical to be adjacent to your opponent. If you look at how a hexagonal "circle" is built, when a person is able to encircle a single hex (and then places a piece in the center), he has an impenetrable fortress - it cannot be thwarted by jumping, because each piece has a defensive piece behind it. This leaves the option to sacrifice two units to remove one of his to break the circle. Well, if you are not in a position to fill in that newly formed gap, then you have three options: first, sacrifice two more pieces to fill it in; second, take it and allow your opponent to take it right back (costing yourself two pieces for the cost of one of your opponent's actions); third, give up and cede the tower to your opponent. This is not something we realized going into the game - so we spent too much of the beginning of the game playing in our own areas. So, when one of us started building a tower, there was absolutely nothing that the other player could do about it. It was horrible, and we didn't see the point to the game. But then we decided to try again (this is also called "giving my free review copy of a game a fair shot") - and this time we rushed at each other to make sure we stayed in position. And then the game got interesting!

Now I'm just going to talk about things that I think are interesting about the game. The first thing that I think is interesting is that, though the game is officially about "building towers", it is actually about controlling the board. The person with the most pieces on the board is probably going to win. He has options. He can sacrifice his pieces to clear out his opponent's most important pieces, and if needed, he can even sacrifice more pieces to take over that position. I've found that the best strategy is to focus on killing your opponent and then build towers. After all, who builds a tower without laying a foundation? The foundation in Rise! is the destruction of your opponent!

The next thing that I think is interesting is that there seems to be a tipping point in the game. There can be a back and forth struggle at the beginning, but at least in the few games that I've played, there is a point in which one player starts to run away with the game. And it's probably the player that has the most pieces. Because they laid a good foundation (see previous paragraph for ongoing joke. Now laugh. You're welcome. I never said it was "funny," so if you chose not to laugh, you should learn to be less picky about your humor).

As I stated before, it is very, very hard to break a circle that your opponent has started. In fact, it will always (unless I horribly missed something) cost you at least two pieces to attempt to break your opponent's in-progress tower. I find this interesting. Basically, I feel like it is the game telling you, "Well, then don't let them do that in the first place!" And, yet, if you are positioned well, you can actually do something about his tower. Or, if he sacrifices the pieces around his tower, you can even start destroying it (if you encircle it with your own pieces). At first I was annoyed that I couldn't break up my opponent's in-progress tower very easily, but as I kept playing, I realized that this adds to the strategy - you really have to work hard to prevent him from initially starting the construction.

Speaking of which, I think that the land placement adds an interesting element to the game. One of the things that the ever-growing grassy ice-flow allows is to easily jump your opponents (you can place a land tile behind him as a "landing place"). Another area where the land placement can affect the game is by one player forcing the other player to be the one placing all of the land. If I am able to get my opponent to place the land tiles (because he is trying to complete a circle, get better position, or whatever other reason) then I can often take advantage by gaining on him in number of pieces. Any action spent growing the board is an action not spent strengthening your position. And yet, at some point one of the players must make the board grow.

The final thing that I will mention about Rise! that I found interesting is that you really have to be careful to make sure that your "offensive" moves do not backfire. For example, if I have two pieces next to one of your pieces, but mine are at the edge of the board, it is a simple matter for you to take one of my pieces. Simply add a new land tile behind my piece and then jump over me. Poof! - my piece is gone. Of course, I'll probably use my next turn to place a piece back where I had one, and then to place a piece where your piece was. After that exchange, I have one more piece than I started with, you have the same number as you had before, and I'm in a better defended position. I'm winning because you went on the offensive! (If only school fights worked like this... "Johnny punched me in the face and then fell down because he broke his hand on my head.")

Overall, I give Rise! an 8.0/10. I debated this back and forth a bit, but I figured that if I had bought Rise! I would have been happy with my purchase. It is not my favorite spatial reasoning game of all time, but I think that it has a nice, deep strategy to it - and that the games will get better as you play it more. Plus, you have the opportunity to support it on Kickstarter until December 31, 2011, and help a fledgling game company try to achieve their dream! (As a note, I've given up on even pretending to care about every game that is on Kickstarter. There's no way for me to support all of them, and some of the ones I've wound up playing didn't necessarily deserve to exist. But you can get the basic game of Rise! for $20, and it's a solid enough game that I would actually recommend that you help out Crash Games.)

Like abstract games?  You might also read my reviews of Gipf, Ingenious, Dvonn, Pentago, and Jin Li.

I would like to thank Crash Games for providing me with a review prototype copy of Rise!

Quoridor Review

 An interesting little game that I classify as spatial reasoning is Quoridor

In Quoridor, each player controls a pawn that they are attempting to move to the opposite side of the board. They also control a certain number of "fences" that they use to block their opponent(s) from moving their own pawns across the board. Each turn a player can either move his pawn or place a fence. The only real rule about fence placement is that you must always leave a path for your opponent(s) to be able to reach his goal.

The first thing that I like about Quoridor is that a good player (I'm not one) can use his fences for both offense and defense. One way is pretty obvious - put fences in front of your opponent. However, once you become good at the game, you will be able to use your fences to protect yourself as well. There are very few rules, but one is critical - a path cannot be completely blocked off. Therefore, if you are smart with your fences, you are able to play your fences so that your opponent cannot play their fence as effectively as they would like. You do this by playing your fence so that if your opponent plays theirs in response it will completely block off the path. I wish that I were better at using my fence both ways, but, even though I'm not good at using mine like this, I like this aspect of the game.

Since my person rule is to try to not write a review longer than the rules, it's time for me to mention a con (and then stop writing - the rules are really short). The game can quickly turn into a race. Once all of the fences are placed, all that is left is to see who can get to the other side faster. This isn't a huge drawback, since the strategy is mostly in placing the fences, but it is somewhat anti-climactic once all of the fences are placed to just alternate moving pawns back and forth.

Overall, I give Quoridor a 7.5/10. It's not the greatest spatial reasoning game that I've ever played, but it is worth playing. If you like mazes and such, this is definitely a game that would be worth checking out.  I hope you're not too disappointed with the short review!

If Quoridor sounds like your kind of game, you might also want to check out Gipf, Brandubh, and Ingenious.

Quadrago Review

After absolutely falling in love with Pentago, I was interested in checking out other games by Mindtwister. Because of this, I asked to try out Quadrago.

In Quadrago, the goal is to get four pieces in a row. You are playing inside of a 4x4x4 cube which can spin in the middle. Each turn, you place a piece on one of the rods. Then, optionally, you may spin the middle 2x2 section 90 degrees (one "notch"). The first player to get four pieces in a row first - vertically, horizontally, diagonally, or a combination of these - is the winner.

The first thing that I like about Quadrago is that it is a gorgeous game. Not only are the pieces high quality, but the game also comes with a "box inside the box." Inside of the standard cardboard box is a wooden box which actually contains everything needed to play and could easily be set out on a coffee table or work desk. This is a wonderful game if you are someone who likes to place high quality wooden games around your home for decoration. And at the same time, the game is enjoyable and strategic - which helps quite a bit when a friend comes over and asks, "What's this?" You never want to have to answer with, "That's a game. It's called [I'm omitting the name here, but you know who you are, you crummy little game]. Let's not play it."

The next thing that I like about Quadrago is the three dimensional nature of the game. It is quite neat to have the ability to get your four in a row in so many different ways. You must pay attention to each layer, and placing each piece builds upon all of the previous strategy (or lack thereof) and affects the strategy for placing all of the upcoming pieces. As soon as you see that you're not going to win on the first layer, it may be time to start placing on the second layer and planning that assault - but make sure that you don't let your opponent win on the previous layer while you do this! (Yes, I did lose with the most basic four in a row on the first level because I was paying way too much attention to the second level.)

Third, I like the twisting element in the middle of the game. It isn't really as prevalent as in Pentago - I believe this is related to the twist being optional. However, it does add a new strategy to the game; more hiding what you're intending than winning through the careful twisting of the sections. Since there is only one twist-able section, and for the most part it can be placed where it needs to be in a single turn, the twisting seemed mostly like a hiding element.

Also, Quadrago is quite kid friendly - but this doesn't need it's own paragraph.  Unless it's a one sentence paragraph.  But I guess that last sentence messed that up.  Oh, and now that one... and this one....

Though I enjoy Quadrago, my main con is that most of the games seem to end in "Oh." Not, "Oh!" or "Ahhh!" Just "Oh." It seems like most of the games that we play end in someone simply not seeing something very basic that is right in front of their face. The three dimensional aspect of the game is a double-edged attribute. Whereas it really adds to the depth and enjoyment of the game, it also obfuscates (how's that for a five-cent word) the gameplay enough that it is simply hard to see what's going on. Most of the games that I have played have not ended in placing a piece and then twisting everything into place to win or trapping your opponent so that you can win no matter where they place. Most of the time they just end in someone placing the fourth one in an obvious straight line and their opponent didn't see it because of the pieces stacked everywhere.

Overall, I give Quadrago a 7.5/10. I debated giving it a bit higher, but I don't think that it has quite the addictiveness to it that Pentago does. I think this is because Pentago often ends in "Ahhhh!!!" whereas Quadrago often ends in "Oh." If you like beautiful games, "in a row" games, or are looking for a new game to play with your kids, it is definitely worth checking out - I think that there are people that will absolutely love Quadrago (people who are good at seeing everything going on in the game). But, whereas I think that everyone should play Pentago at some point in their life, I don't think that Quadrago will be a great fit with everyone.

I would like to thank Mindtwister USA for providing me with a review copy of Quadrago.

Orbit Rocket Race 5000 Review

A game that I first tried at GenCon and enjoyed enough to receive a review copy of is Orbit Rocket Race 5000.

In Orbit Rocket Race, each player is attempting to get rid of all of his cards. In order to do this, he must play a card in the innermost "orbit" that is not full. Every card must be played adjacent to at least one previously played card - but if you play adjacent to two previous cards you can force another player to draw a card or, if you are able to play adjacent to three cards, then you can take another turn. Where the game gets interesting, however, is in the rules about "wormholes." If you are able to setup a situation in which no cards can be legally played (based on the color distribution on cards in the game), then a "wormhole" is created. The person creating the wormhole immediately takes the top card of the deck and places it facedown on the spot, reverses the order of play, and then takes another turn. Finally, some of the cards have special icons on them - robots (his name is "Orbot") allow the player to take another turn, the laser gun forces an opponent to draw two cards, and the satellite lets you pick a card from an opponent's hand and play it facedown (and get any bonuses from playing it just like if you had played it from your hand). Once a player runs out of cards, he wins.

The first thing that I like about Orbit Rocket Race is that it is strategic enough to be worth playing, and simple enough to be social. Orbit is not so deep that you must constantly be focusing on what your next move is (though careful planning and scheming will help you win), and yet it is light enough that you can socialize with friends while playing the game. Especially when it's not your turn.  Specifically, when it's not your turn you'll spend a lot of time making fun of your friends for constantly flipping their cards over and over trying to match up colors.  Of course, when it is your turn, you will have to ignore them as they make fun of you for doing the exact same thing.

The next thing that I like about Orbit are the wormholes. These are really the most strategic aspect of the game. Setting up a wormhole so that the player after you is able to complete it is actually advantageous - even though it helps them. Since it causes the order of play to be reversed it means that, after your opponent takes his second turn, you will get to go again without waiting on everyone else in the game to play (so you get rid of cards faster - you know, because that's the point of the game). Plus, a careful player may be able to use his cards with Orbot (the robot), or a Satellite on them to setup wormholes and/or take extra turns.

Another pro is that I believe Orbit could easily be played with children. Having no children of my own (and not renting any while playing the game), I can't say for certain what ages could handle Orbit, but I would guess that somewhere around six or older could handle the game. Everything is color and symbol based (no reading required) so it could possibly even be played with a younger group. The only hesitation I have is that the game can take a while to play, so it could lose the interests of the younger children (and your scattered adult friends).

Finally, I like the reversing turn order. This is a neat mechanic - especially since the players are in control of this, and it is not luck based. Play can be reversed in two ways. The first way is by playing a wormhole. The second option is that a player can play his "challenge token." Each player starts the game with a challenge token. Whoever goes first sacrifices his challenge token but has the advantage of both going first and getting to play two cards. All of the other players have the opportunity, once per game, to use their challenge token to reverse the order of play (at which point no other player can re-reverse the order until a card has been played).

One point of note before going to the cons of Orbit - not everyone will like the social aspect that I mentioned. One of the reasons for the social aspect is that the game itself has a laid back feel (to me). I think most people will like this part.  Another reason is that there is not too much planning that you can do when it's not your turn. Perhaps this is simply that we aren't good enough at the spatial aspect of the game to plan ahead.  However, you will normally be deciding what your best options are based on what the players in front of you have played. The fact that you cannot do much to plan turns before they occur will bother some players - I was fine with this aspect.

The main con that I have in Orbit Rocket Race is the "Orbit" rule. In fact, when I was taught this game by the designers at GenCon, I even told them that I disliked the rule - so it should not surprise them to read it here. Here it is: when you are down to one card, you have the option to say "Orbit". If you don't say "Orbit", and one of your opponents realizes that you only have one card, they can call say it for you and then you have to draw. Sound familiar? Exactly like Uno? Yes, yes it is. I don't understand why a game as different and creative as Orbit Rocket Race 5000 chose to associate itself with Uno. However, I was able to resolve this problem by voting with my fellow gamers to not use the rule before the game started. Feel free to play the game with the rules as they are written (with the "Orbit" rule), or feel free to take my free variant and ignore it.

Another con to Orbit is that with all of the reversing in the game, a player can become a bit bored if he doesn't get a turn for a while. One of the first times that I played the game, I did not feel like I got a turn for the entire first half of it. When the game was over, I actually didn't have many more cards than anyone else because, when I was able to play, I was able to take several turns in a row. However, it was still quite boring until my turns occurred.

Overall, I give Orbit Rocket Race 5000 an 8.0/10. I won't play it every day, but it is a game that I could see myself playing every few months and thoroughly enjoying.

I would like to thank 42 Games for providing me with a review copy of Orbit Rocket Race 5000

City Square Off Review

An unimposing little game from Gamewright that I initially overlooked is City Square Off.

City Square Off is a spatial reasoning game in which each player is "planning a city" (placing Tetris-style pieces - oh and get used to Tetris comparisons) on a grid board. Both players start with a "city" in the middle of the board (each of a different shape). Once this incredibly simple setup is complete, each turn a player will flip the topmost card from the deck (representing a tile piece), and both players will have to place that tile on their board. Play continues like this until at least one player cannot place the appropriate tile, at which point the player that can place the tile is declared the winner. If neither player can place the tile, then the player with the largest number of uncovered contiguous spaces is declared the winner.

The first thing that I like about City Square Off is a combination of the city and tile pieces. Initially, I just assumed that this game was going to be a board game Tetris, but these pieces are what proved me wrong. Since the city pieces are each different, this forces both of the players to be playing differently - you cannot cheat and see what your opponent is doing, because that may not even be a valid play on your board. And with the tiles, there are no repeated shapes - once that tile has been placed, it will never be played again. In addition, I like that the tiles vary in number of blocks - they range from consisting of one block all the way up to five (this really helps set it apart from Tetris where they are all four blocks). Since the number of blocks in each piece are inconsistent, it really forces you to actually think instead of going into auto-Tetris-pilot.

The next thing that I really like about City Square Off is the high quality of the components. Normally, I don't really care about component quality - rather, I like high quality components, but I don't bother telling you about whether a game has them or not. However, with City Square Off, I believe that the game would be incredibly frustrating if they hadn't made the components so well. Since your goal is to set these pieces up, and it is crucial that they stay in place, if each player was given a flat board the pieces would slide and you would immediately get annoyed by the game. Fortunately, Gamewright took this into consideration and made sure that there were small "nubs" (for lack of a better word) on each grid point - and the tiles have small holes in them that allow them to lock into place with these nubs. Thus, no sliding of components, and the game is playable!

A very brief third pro that I have for City Square Off is that not all of the pieces fit on the board.  Therefore, you can't play the "perfect" game in which you successfully go all the way through the deck and place all of your tiles.  You will run into a time where you can't place things - it's simply a matter of "when" instead of "if".  I like this.

Finally, as with all Gamewright games, the final pro is that it is incredibly kid friendly. Anyone can play this game, as it is very simple to understand the rules. Yet, if you play this with kids, I think that it will help challenge their spatial reasoning skills and force them to plan ahead. If they don't pay attention to the fact that certain pieces are already used, then they will lose - until they learn that they need to watch for that.  Games that children can play, and yet are forced to expand their thinking are really good in my opinion.

The only real con that I see in City Square Off is that, though it did distinguish itself from Tetris to an extent, it does not force me to think in new ways as most spatial reasoning games do. The thing that I love so much about games like Abalone, Dvonn, and Yinsh is that they are so unlike anything that I have ever played or seen - and so they force me to think in entirely new ways. City Square Off challenges me more than Tetris, but feels comfortable enough that I don't feel my brain being stretched. With this, I must acknowledge that Gamewright's games are aimed primarily to be able to be played with children, and I believe that children will not experience this same con - they didn't all grow up playing the same games that I played.

Overall, I give City Square Off an 8.5/10. I debated this back and forth, planning on giving it only an 8 for a long time, but that was primarily because I prefer Dvonn and Abalone, each of which also received 8.5's. (I'm not convinced that I'm very consistent with my scores; but at least I never claimed to be.) Judging it based on it's own merits, City Square Off is a very solid game with the added advantage of being inexpensive and very kid friendly - so 8.5 it is.

If you're looking for games that you can play with kids, then you might try Monopoly Deal, Sorry! Sliders, and possibly Heroscape.

I would like to thank Gamewright for providing me with a review copy of City Square Off.