Tooth & Nail: Factions Review

The first game that I've managed to play from the company Smallbox Games is Tooth & Nail: Factions (which Amazon actually doesn't sell).

In Tooth and Nail, each player takes on a faction, and they are fighting for superiority - which is attained by reducing their opponent's deck to zero cards.  In the game, there are two important areas: your command zone, and your war zone.  Each turn, you start by drawing one card, gaining an action card, "readying" (un-tapping) all of the cards in your command zone, and readying a single card in your war zone.  Then, for each card in your command zone (there is a maximum of three cards in that zone, and six in your war zone), you get to either draw a card or gain another action card.  Then, you can spend your actions.  Actions can allow you to play new cards from your hand into either zone, or attack.  There are two types of attacks - attacking with a single card, and attacking with a specific group ("formation") of cards (as defined on your Faction card).  If you attack with a formation of cards, you also get a bonus.  Finally, without spending any actions, you can use cards in your command zone to do two things - either you can use the ability printed on the card, or you can "drain" (tap) two of them in order to use your Faction's special ability.  If you use the ability printed on the card, then you have to discard them from play unless you have a matching card in your hand that you can discard instead.  Play alternates back and forth in this manner until one player's deck has been exhausted.

Tooth and Nail: Factions is an interesting little game.  The first thing that I like about the game is some of the interesting decisions that it presents.  For example, each time that you play a troop, you have to decide if you want them in your war zone or your command zone.  If you play them in your war zone, then you can directly attack your opponent (the object of the game), whereas in your command zone, they give you future actions (and you can use their abilities).  Another interesting element of the game is that only one of the troops in your war zone un-taps each round; so, you won't be able to do your formation attack each round unless you find a way to un-tap more troops, or you play more from your hand.

Fighting it out in the war zone

Some more interesting decisions that you have to make in this game relate to the command zone.  At the start of each turn, you get to either draw a card or gain an action for each card that you have in your command zone.  Throughout the game, you are constantly in need of both of these things - and so, having to pick which one you want (or how you're going to split your picks) can alter your turn quite a bit.  Additionally, deciding when to use the abilities of the troops in your command zone is important.  Sometimes, you have to decide if you want to go ahead and use their ability when you don't have a corresponding copy of the card in your hand, thus forcing you to discard them afterwards.  Other times, you have to decide if you want to go ahead and let them get discarded so that you can get a different unit into your command zone.  All in all, the game has a lot of interesting decisions.

The last pro that I will mention for Tooth and Nail: Factions is that I liked that each faction has a very different feel.  Part of this is that the artwork in the game, which is fun, unique, and really helps tie each faction together.  One of the factions focuses on attacking you with sheer numbers, another thrives on getting cards back from the discard pile.  A third faction constantly puts cards out of play and gets them back, whereas another deck steals cards from your opponent's deck and puts them into your own.  Each faction definitely has strengths, and a good player will focus on these strengths during the game.

The command zone provides extra actions

Though I like quite a bit about Tooth and Nail, there are some cons that I noticed.  The main one is that the game seems to play itself a bit too much.  Or, this could also be worded that too much of the damage to your deck is the simple attrition of playing the game.  In the standard game, you get 30 cards in your deck.  You start the game by drawing five of these.  Then, each turn you draw a card.  Many of your other abilities and such also let you draw a card.  And any time you use an ability of a troop in your command zone, you lose a card - whether from your hand or from the table.  On a good turn, you may be able to draw and play several cards down on the table, and then attack your opponent.  Formation attacks (the strongest attacks) will generally deal 2-6 damage.  But, in order to deal that damage, you may have played three cards from your hand!  So, whereas there is definitely strategy in the game, the attrition of simply playing the game deals about as much damage to your deck as your opponent will do, which can be a bit frustrating.

The next con that I will mention about Tooth and Nail is that the factions do not seem to be balanced.  Specifically, I feel like the Marauders are ridiculous.  (Granted, I have not extensively played this game, so I will admit that there is a chance that I just "missed" some bit of strategy that helps keep them from running away with the game.)  The Marauders strength is controlling the game.  They are able to gain extra actions, force their opponent to discard cards from their hand (at random), and also force their opponent to take cards from the table and put them back into their hand.  That last ability - the ability to force their opponent to pick up cards (in their command zone) is insane.  Why?  Because having cards in your command zone to start your turn is how you gain extra cards and actions.  And, the strength (damage that can be dealt) of troops in each faction are equal (from what I can tell).  So, this faction is able to deal just as much damage as any other faction, but is able to cripple their opponent's next turn while doing so, preventing them from attacking back with any kind of success.

Overall, I give Tooth & Nail: Factions a 7.5/10.  I enjoyed my time playing the game, but I don't see this as something that I will come back to often.  With that said, if someone else suggested that we play the game, I would be interested - assuming that we didn't use the Marauders.

If Tooth & Nail sounds interesting, you might also check out Summoner Wars, Star Wars: Customizable Card Game, and Gloom.

Top Ten Two-Player Games - Spring 2013

Sometimes you only have one friend.  (Hey, it's better than not having any, right?)  Regardless of whether you are looking to play a game with your significant other, your best friend, or some person that you just met, there is a time and a place where you need a good two-player game.  So, here's my list of current favorites.

Here are the rules: it's a two-player game.  Not 2-4, not 2-6, not 1-2.  Two player.  That's it.  With that said, let's get to my...

Top Ten Two-Player Games

 

10. Jab

Real Time Boxing

Not every game has to be deep and strategic in order to be a lot of fun. And, Jab is a great little real-time game when you're looking for something quick but engaging. It can be a bit of a problem when you and your opponent aren't evenly matched, so it might be best to pick one person that you play Jab with and reserve it for them.

9. Arimaa

For some reason, abstract strategy games tend to be two-player. I could have easily made a list of two-player games simply consisting of them (but, if you want that, you should really check out my top ten abstract strategy games). Regardless, Arimaa is a great game in it's own right, and I would be remiss to not include it.

8. 1960: The Making of the President

Well, in the United States, we currently have a two-party political system. And, we've had it since well before the 1960's. And so, it's only natural that there should be games made about this very important aspect of our country. Whether you find actual politics fascinating, or are somewhat apathetic about them, you still might find 1960 to be a fun game.

7. Game of Thrones: The Living Card Game

So, at this point you may be throwing a flag and pointing out that Game of Thrones: The (Living) Card Game states that it is 2-4 player. Yes, you would be right, and so this game technically breaks my criteria. Yet, in my opinion this game was designed as a two player game with rules for additional players tacked on later (like with Magic, Star Trek: CCG, and many others). Regardless of that, Game of Thrones is a fabulous game where you are constantly struggling back and forth with your opponent in a number of different "challenges". Since I first tried this game, I became hooked and just wish that I played it more.

6. Hive

Hive has beautiful Bakelite pieces

Returning to the abstract strategy genre, Hive makes an appearance on the list. This could honestly be considered a low position for Hive, as it could easily have beaten out most of the games above it, depending on when I put this list together. When I think about two-player games, Hive is one of the first that comes to mind, and is one that I enjoy sharing with others.

5. Jaipur

Jaipur can be considered the "significant other specialty." (Yes, I just made that term up.) Of all the games on this list, I think that this is the best one for playing with a "non-gamer" spouse. Sure, some of you may be married to people that love to play games just as much as you do. However, the more common scenario seems to be marriages in which one person loves to play games drastically more than the other. For these situations, I think that Jaipur may be an ideal game to play with your special someone.

4. Dvonn

The #1 game on my abstract strategy list only manages to make #4 on this one. This one was hard for me to rank, as abstract games feel so different than "traditional" strategy games. In fact, when I first thought about this list, I completely neglected all of my abstract strategies - then remembered them and had way too many games. So, as a happy medium, I've added the three you see - with Dvonn being the top representative of the genre once again.

3. Star Wars: Customizable Card Game

The game that truly shows that each of these lists is based on my own opinion and not any indisputable facts is definitely Star Wars: CCG.  This game has been one of my favorites for an incredibly long time. Though the game hasn't been in print for years, and I dislike the collectible format of the game, I still find the game itself to be amazing, and I get excited when I find new people that I can play the game with. (Don't worry - I have plenty of cards. You can make a deck with my collection, and then we can play!)

2. Summoner Wars

One of the best two player games to come out in the last few years is Summoner Wars. Though I don't play it as much as I'd like (isn't that the story of this entire list?), I have continued buying every expansion as they come out because I know... some day.... I will play it more! And at that point I will have dozens of factions that I can use.

1. Twilight Struggle

Really, did this surprise anybody? I'm guessing no. As I said in my review, Twilight Struggle is enough fun to tempt me to give up this site so that I can dedicate more time to playing it instead of to learning new games. Though not flawless, it is an immaculate tug of war that epitomizes what a two player game can be!

The winner!!

Honorable Mention:

This top ten list really had a lot of titles that I was sad to whittle away. I could have easily justified including Star Wars: The (Living) Card Game or Android: Netrunner, but I didn't want to list too many Living/Customizable Card Games. I was also shocked when I didn't have enough room for Jambo. A few others that just barely missed the cut were Dungeon Command, Mage Wars, and Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation. Finally, Crokinole, which would have been my lone dexterity entry, only missed the cut because of the technicality that it can be played by two or four players.

Well, I hope you enjoyed the list - feel free to add comments about what you think I missed, where you agree, or some games that I should try out! And, if you like top ten lists, you should also check out my Top Ten Cooperative or Solo Games, Top Ten Lunch Games, and My Top Ten Most Played Games

Lord of the Rings: The Duel Mini Review

A game that sat on my shelf for a long time before finally getting to the table is Lord of the Rings: The Duel.

In Lord of the Rings: The Duel, players relive the duel between Gandalf and the Balrog.  And, since they don't want to be dueling forever, they agree to only duel four times, and whoever has done the best will be declared the winner.  In the first three duels, you draw nine cards and play six of them (putting the rest towards the final duel - in the final duel you actually use all nine cards that you've set aside).  Each card that is played is used both for offense and defense, and this is determined by the gems showing on the sides of the card.  There are four slots for gems, and each one that is filled in counts as an attack against the opponent's adjacent card.  Thus, when playing a card, the left-side of the card attacks your opponent's last played card (attacking the right-side of their card).  In each of the four slots that one player has a gem and the other doesn't, the player without the gem loses a health (because they just got energy punched in the stomach).  Each duel continues until one player has run out of energy or until both players have played all of their cards.  Then, the winning player scores points (moves up on the bridge) based on how badly they defeated their opponent.  After one player goes to the top of the bridge (scores five points) or the players have completed four duels, whoever has the most points (is highest on the bridge) wins the game.

My initial pro for The Duel was that I thought it was interesting and unique how the cards are played.  Each card serving a dual purpose of both attacking and defending is neat, and it is executed in a unique, yet intuitive, way.  I liked how easy it was to determine who was dealt damage, and how much.  However, after I played it for a little while, I realized that it doesn't matter terribly much where the gems are located.  If I play a card with three gems against your card that has one gem, I'm going to have an overall gain of two energy points against you.  This may be that I lose one energy and you lose three, or that you lose two and I don't lose any.  But, ultimately, the difference in number of gems is vastly more important than their location.  The only time that their actual location matters is when one player is very close to running out of energy, and dealing each player damage will push them over (or at least precariously close to) the edge.  But, for the most part, the number of gems is much more relevant than the placement of them.

Line up the gems to see what damage is dealt

The next pro for Lord of the Rings: The Duel is that it is kid friendly.  I think that you could play the game with anyone that can read, and they would understand the game.  (Some of the cards have special abilities, and if your child is old enough to read, they're probably also old enough to understand how those abilities work.)  And, as long as your wee one is at least fairly strategic, I think that they will have a decent chance for victory and that they will probably enjoy it.

And, honestly, I think that it is important that The Duel is kid friendly, because I view it more as an activity than a game.  There aren't tough strategic decisions that pull me in and want me to play it repeatedly and explore what the game has to offer.  I'm sure that there are some strategic elements to the game that I've missed (like when you should try to obliterate your opponent, and when you're better off keeping stronger cards for the final duel), but, honestly, I did not find the game engaging enough to come back and try it out more.  The game is so well balanced (as it needs to be) that it just seems a bit dull, in my opinion.  There are a few special cards, but mostly, the players have the same cards - so if I get a one attack/three defense card now, you will probably get a comparable card later. So, we're probably going to lose roughly the same amount of energy - the strategy is simply determining when to deal this damage (which quite possibly will be dictated by when you draw various cards).

Overall, I give Lord of the Rings: The Duel a 6.0/10.  The game works; I just didn't find it exciting enough to keep coming back to it.

If you're looking for light two-player games, you might check out Jaipur, Mr. Jack, and Atlanteon.

Jambo Review

When looking for two-player games to play, one title comes up fairly regularly - Jambo.

In Jambo, the players take on the role of competing merchants attempting to gain money by buying and selling wares.  Each turn, the active player has five actions.  For an action, you may draw a card.  After drawing, you may either keep this card or discard it and draw another one (as another action).  You can do thus up to five times, but you can only keep one card - and it must always be the last one you drew.  After drawing (or choosing not to), you may play cards from your hand and use utility cards that are in play.  Cards from your hand can attack your opponent, buy or sell wares, build an extra market, and several other things.  Similarly, utility cards go into play in front of you (you can have three in play at any given time), and they do similar things, but at a cost - pay a gold to draw a card, take a ware from your opponent but then give them one of yours, discard cards from your hand to collect gold, etc.  If you end your turn with two or more actions remaining, then you earn an extra gold.  Play continues back and forth until one player has more than 60 gold.  At that point, the other player has one final turn to try to out-earn them, with the player having more gold winning!  (Or, if they're tied, then the second player - the one not triggering the end of game wins.  This is odd to me.)

The crux of the game is buying and selling wares

The first pro that I have for Jambo is that the game is deeper than it initially seems.  When you first start playing the game, you are basically just attempting to buy goods and immediately sell them (which, when this does happen, is very nice).  However, there are a lot of cards that will allow you to acquire the combinations you need more quickly.  The interesting balance is when to use these, and when the cost is too great.  One of the utility cards allows you to collect any ware that you want for 2 gold.  This can be very good to fill in a missing good, but costs more per ware than using ware cards.  So, it is less effective for filling in all of the goods for a given ware card.  Yet, it is still more valuable than not completing a ware card (unless you could have drawn a ware card that you were closer to completing).  There are also cards that let you sell wares without completing ware cards; but when you do this you only get 2 gold per ware, instead of the 3-4 that you get when you complete a ware card.

The next pro for Jambo is that everything in the game has a price.  In fact, doing well at Jambo requires a player to carefully balance these prices.  But, this pricing is balanced well enough to allow for neat combinations (and tough choices).  For example, one utility card allows you to spend 1 gold to draw a card; another lets you discard a card from your hand for 2 gold.  If you start doing this every turn, you will start making 1 gold per turn.  Yet, you gain 1 gold per turn whenever you end your turn with 2 or more actions - and this combination costs 2 actions!  So, there are many costs that you must balance in the game, including opportunity costs.  Another example of an opportunity cost is in the draw - you can draw up to five times in the hopes of getting a card that you need; but every extra draw prevents you from being able to play as many cards in the next phase.

An example utility card

One quick point of note about Jambo before moving on to the cons.  The game has a direct conflict feel, to me, because of the animal cards.  The animal cards are essentially attacks - the Hyena lets you steal a card from your opponent's hand (but then return one from your hand), the Crocodile lets you discard one of your opponent's utility cards, and so on.  Some people love direct conflict in games, and some prefer to avoid it entirely.  So, whereas a game like Jaipur allows you to affect your opponent by performing actions before they can, in Jambo you affect your opponent by attacking them.  There are also "Guard" cards that can cancel an animal attack, but there are not enough of these to cancel all of the attacks, if you find yourself in a very conflict-intensive game.

My first con for Jambo is that, like with many card driven games, luck of the draw can play a major factor.  One example of this is the small market.  There is a rule that if you fill your large market (your starting card, which can hold six wares), then you must spend 2 gold (heavily cutting into future profits).  The small market card can allow you to hold 3 additional goods - which is helpful in itself, because you have extra room to hold combinations of goods.  But, the small market also allows you to avoid paying the two extra gold for filling your large market.  If one player draws a small market in his opening hand and the other player never sees one, the player with the extra market seems to have an advantage.  Yet, other good drawing can defeat this advantage.  There are multiple copies of any given ware card in the deck (I think that there are two of each).  One example of a "lucky draw" is a player that draws both copies of a certain ware card into their hand - poof, use one card to buy the wares and immediately sell them with the other card and make around 7 gold at the cost of 2 actions!  There is not a more effective play in the game!!

My other con for Jambo is that sometimes you feel like you're doing as well by skipping actions as you are by the actions you actually perform.  Remember the rule that you earn an extra gold if you end your turn with 2 or more actions?  Some of the games that I have played I have felt like half of the money I earned was by ending my turns with actions left!  Now, I realize that as you play the game, you will get better, but I think that this feeling can still persist even after your first couple of games.  If you're simply not drawing cards that work well together, a large percentage of your profits can be earned simply by passing. 

Overall, I give Jambo an 8.0/10.  It is one of the better two player games that I have played, but because of the direct conflict, I probably won't play it repeatedly (direct conflict games don't work well between me and my wife - and if you're married, that's probably who you're intending to play most (non-war) two-player games with).

If you are looking for good two player games, you might also check out Hive, Jaipur, and Babel.

Jaipur Review

"I know that gold would be helpful, but think of all the things I can do with FOUR camels!!" If you find yourself saying this a lot, then Jaipur might just be the perfect game for you!

Jaipur is a two-player trading (with the bank) game. On your turn you can either do two things - take cards or sell cards. When taking cards, you can either take a single card (if you're not at your hand limit), you can trade any number of cards from your hand (and camel herd) for any number of cards in the available pool, or you can take all of the camels (though there might be a smell involved) and place them in your herd. When selling cards, you can sell any number of matching goods (you have to sell at least two when selling the three best goods). When selling, you collect a victory point chip per good traded - and the chips decrease in value as players collect them. However, if you trade 3-5 matching goods at a time, then you get a bonus scoring chip (worth a lot of points). Once three goods piles run out, each player counts how many points they have. Best two out of three determines the best camel trader on the planet! (Which, I think, may be similar to best port-a-potty cleaner when it comes to smell, but fortunately I wouldn't know first-hand.)

You definitely want to collect chips first

The thing that makes Jaipur amazing is that it gives you tough decisions. The most obvious tough decision is when to sell your goods. Selling early can make each of your goods worth more victory points - yet, if you can collect enough to gain a 5-good bonus, then this can be worth 10 points! To add to the challenge, your opponent may also be trying to collect the same goods, and you are incentivized to trade before he does (you'll take the valuable chips). Since it is a strictly two player game, any points you keep from your opponent are just as good as points scored - so if you see that he's collecting leather, and you can swoop in and take the top two leather chips, then instead of getting chips worth 4 and 3 victory points, his highest valued chip will be worth 2!

The next tough decision that Jaipur gives you is which goods to collect. Do you always collect the most valuable goods? If so, then it will be much harder to actually gain very many of them since there is a smaller number of them available in the deck (I think), and your opponent will also be trying to take them. Yet, if you choose not to collect the more valuable goods, then you are leaving your opponent uninhibited when collecting the most valuable goods! Plus, what happens when you have two copies of three different goods in your hand (the hand limit is seven), and there are two copies of the goods you need in front of you? You have to decide which ones to take, and what to put back, which then may give your opponent a collection of matching goods!

Aren't the camels pretty?

Finally, I really like the camels in Jaipur. I think that it is brilliant that you have a "camel herd" that doesn't count towards your hand limit. In all honesty, whoever is best at managing the camels is probably the player that will win. After all, whenever you trade in a large number of goods, it leaves your hand depleted. Remember, the only way to get more than one good at a time is to trade for them. So, if you have a large herd, then you can quickly replenish your hand by trading camels. But, if you sell a large number of goods and have no camels, then you will have to replenish your hand with a single card each round (until you decide to take all of the camels to build a herd). Really, the camels make the game unique and amazing - I cannot say enough good things about them... and they're pretty... for camels.

I didn't really find any "cons" with Jaipur. However, it does have a very limited gaming appeal. By this, I don't mean that only certain people would like Jaipur - I really think that most anybody could enjoy it. However, it is only two player, and takes about 15-30 minutes. So, because of it's length, you probably wouldn't get together just to play Jaipur, and you also probably wouldn't play it 5 times in a row. Plus, with only two players, it's not especially amazing as a filler, because I normally have more than two people waiting around on game nights. However, with all that said, when you do need a short game for two players, it is amazing. And, obviously, the most common situation that requires two-player games is playing games with your spouse. I think that Jaipur works wonderfully for this, and in fact, I have played it with my own wife.

Overall, I give Jaipur an 8.5/10. Again, if I don't see myself getting together just to play a game, then I don't like to give it a 9 or higher, but that is really the only criteria that keeps this score so low. However, it is in the upper echelon of filler games, in my opinion. I believe that everybody (not just gamers) should try Jaipur, and I plan to keep it in my collection for a long, long time.

If you have a love affair with camels, you might also want to check out Through the Desert. Otherwise, some other nice little two-player games are Babel and Atlanteon. Or, if you want some more thoughts on Jaipur, check out I Slay the Dragon's Jaipur Review, or this other review of Jaipur by Games With Two.

Dungeon Command Review

One of the prettiest games that I've had the opportunity to play recently is Dungeon Command.

Dungeon Command is a two-player skirmish game that uses Dungeons and Dragons minis.  Each player builds their army (or uses a faction pack) and attempts to reduce their opponent's morale to zero.  To start the game, each player takes a leader - which gives them a certain number of character cards and order cards in their hand; as well as a starting leadership value, morale, and a special ability.  Using your starting character cards, you will play forces - with a total value up to your leader's leadership value.  Now, you are ready to play.  Each turn, you can activate each of your units once.  This includes moving and attacking, playing an order, or activating an ability.  You can also play any number of "minor" orders on a minion each turn.  When attacking, damage is simply dealt to the targeted creature - there is no die rolling to determine success (and, if you destroy them, then their controller loses morale).  However, the defending character has the option of playing orders from his hand, or he can "cower."  If he chooses to cower, then he loses morale equal to the amount of damage that the minion would have taken (divided by ten - for example, 20 damage loses two morale).  Once you are done activating all of your characters, your leadership value goes up by one and you have the option of playing more forces - again, up to your (new) leadership value.  Play continues until either only one player has troops on the board, or until one player has run out of morale.  The last leader standing is the winner!

My first pro for Dungeon Command has absolutely nothing to do with Dungeon Command.  When Wizards made this game, they decided to make all of the characters valid to use in their Dungeons and Dragons adventure games (like Legend of Drizzt and Castle Ravenloft).  That is absolutely amazing!  Plus, my biggest complaint with the D&D adventure games was that it felt like you were playing the same game each time - there were only so many monsters, and you encountered them repeatedly.  Buying all of the different adventures helped a little bit, but not terribly much.  However, now with Dungeon Command, you have the ability to play those games with a lot of different monsters!  I applaud Wizards of the Coast for doing this - I think that it is a brilliant business model, and it also is something that is great for their customers.  I am also hoping that they decide to make all of the enemies in Drizzt and the other adventure games playable in Dungeon Command, but I haven't heard anything about that yet.

A formidable army

The second pro that I have for Dungeon Command is that I enjoy the combat system that doesn't include dice.  Honestly, I'm not opposed to dice, and the skirmish game that most reminds me of Dungeon Command (Summoner Wars) uses dice.  However, if you play games with me, you will realize something - I am horrible at rolling dice.  I'm inevitably the guy that needs to roll a 3 or higher on 15 dice to win the game, and I will roll straight 1's and 2's.  That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I do occasionally get frustrated with dice.  Now, just because there are no dice in Dungeon Command doesn't mean that there's no randomness involved.  Between drawing the creature cards and the order cards, there will still be a random factor.  If you draw all low level characters to start the game, for example, then your attack strategy will have to be much different than if you had drawn all dragons and amazing wizards.  Either way, I think that the combat system is actually pretty intuitive because of the lack of dice.  It also helps you plan out your strategy more during your opponent's turn - you can see exactly how much damage you need to deal to a creature to kill it, and you can plan accordingly (and assume that your opponent will not cower - though them cowering can be very good for you).

Speaking of cowering, I think that it is another positive element to Dungeon Command.  I don't know that I've ever played a game where you can just flat-out ignore damage.  Granted, it hurts you considerably to do this, but it is still an option.  If I have a gigantic dragon that is about to unleash a massive attack on my opponent, but he gets attacked for just enough to kill him, I can choose to just take the damage as morale hits and then proceed with my attack.  Now, it is very important to choose wisely about when you want to do this, as you can end up losing far more morale by keeping a unit alive than by letting him die (and so, often isn't worth it with one of your wimpy little guys).  But, if that character is going to be dealing the deathblow to one of your opponent's better minions on the next turn, it might even be worth it to allow him to cower (after all, it's more fitting for little twerps to cower than for your Umber Hulk, but sometimes even the big guys have to live to fight another day).

The minis are definitely pretty

Now, with all of the things that I do like about Dungeon Command, the biggest negative is definitely the price.  A faction pack comes with 12 figures and 36 order cards for an MSRP of $40.  That's somewhat pricey, but not totally out of line for a miniatures game.  However, you really need to have two faction packs to play the "full" game - which means you already have an $80 investment in the game without any customization (yes, I realize that you can buy this on Amazon for a bit cheaper, and I even provided you the link above).  However, another neat element of the game is that you can customize your forces - putting extra copies of some orders and creatures in your deck, and removing others (and, in fact, I think that you'll probably get bored playing with just the basic factions).  But, to do this, you are going to be buying even more faction packs.  So, I think, to really play Dungeon Command and to get the most for your money, you're going to need friends that also enjoy the game enough that you are each providing your own figures.  For example, if I enjoy the Drow, then I may get two copies of the Sting of Lolth set, and expect my friend that I'm going to play against to buy a copy or two of the Heart of Cormyr faction pack.

Overall, I give Dungeon Command an 8.5/10.  If you enjoy the Dungeons and Dragons adventure games (and own them), then you should buy this game!  If you are just looking for a two-player skirmish game, then this is definitely one to consider; essentially, you just have to decide how much you're willing to pay for your skirmish game.

If you want a second opinion, check out Play Board Games' Dungeon Command Review. Or, if you want to read about games similar to Dungeon Command, then you should definitely check out Summoner Wars, Legend of Drizzt, and BattleLore.

I would like to thank Wizards of the Coast for providing me with a review copy of Dungeon Command.

Epigo Review

A game that I've been wanting to review for quite a while is Epigo.

Epigo truly strikes me as the love child of Robo Rally, Abalone, and Yomi. The basic game is fairly simple. You have pieces numbered 1-7, and they are setup in a line (along with an X) in whatever order you would like. Your opponent does the same thing, and at the same time, you reveal your pieces. Now, on each turn, you and your opponent select three pieces to move (and a direction) and you reveal them the same time (Robo Rally). The higher numbered piece goes first, and you execute all of the moves. If both players show the same number in the same move (for example, if you both are trying to move the 5 as your second move) the orders cancel and do not occur (Yomi). If when trying to move your piece, but there are more of your opponent's pieces in front of you than your own pieces (at any point on the line), then you cannot make your move (Abalone). The goal of the game is to push three of your opponents tiles off of the board (More Abalone).

Whereas I mentioned that Epigo has elements of other games that I have played, it really melds them together into a fresh and unique gaming experience. Each turn you are trying to figure out how to move your pieces to successfully push your opponent off the board - or set it up so that you can do it later. At the same time, you have to balance preventing your opponent from pushing yours off - and sometimes the only way to do that is by successfully canceling their order! Sometimes, however, if you can out-think your opponent, you might be able to even move out of the way just in time and get him to push his own piece off the board! I like that the game is very simple, and yet can really make you think (and overthink) your moves. It truly strikes me as an elegant design and gameplay that works remarkably well.

21 variants!

The next pro for Epigo is the replayability. Even in the base game, because of the element of out-thinking your opponent, there is significant replayability. However, in case you are one of those people that likes to play something new every time (I'm like that), Epigo has 21 two-player variants included with the base game. 21! And, that's not including the four-player variants!! I have definitely not played all of these, but I played around with some of them, and I enjoyed what they added. Some of them seem a bit confusing, but some of the others do interesting things. One of the ones that I really enjoyed has you setup the board a bit differently, but also has you leave your "X" marker on the board after setup - and this piece acts like a black hole and any pieces that are pushed into it are lost, just as if they were pushed off of the board. I would say that more than anything else, the greatly varied options of Epigo are it's greatest strength.

There's really not that much to Epigo, so I will go ahead and move to the cons now. Really, I only had one con. For whatever reason, Epigo didn't grab me and leave me wanting to play it more. I enjoyed the game every time that I played it, but I still didn't find myself wanting to pull it off the shelf. I think that this might simply be because I'm not very good at pre-planned movement games (like Robo Rally and duck, duck, Go!). I'm willing to admit that I'm not good at these games - and I'd bet that if I were better at them, then I would enjoy them all quite a bit more.  Either way, though, I can only base my opinions of a game on my experiences - and Epigo isn't one that I run to the closet to grab.

Overall, I give Epigo an 8.0/10. If you like Robo Rally, then you will really enjoy Epigo. If you like Abalone, you will probably enjoy Epigo. If you like the out-thinking your opponent aspect of Yomi, then you might like Epigo. If you like planning movement in advance, or really like games with variants, then you will love Epigo!

If you like Epigo, you might also check out Yinsh, Stratum, and Quoridor.

I would like to thank Masquerade Games for providing me with a review copy of Epigo.

Babel Review

A nice little two-player game that one of my friends introduced to me was Babel.

In Babel, the players are competing to try to build the largest temples. On any given turn, a player will draw three army cards, perform any number of actions (such as building temples, playing armies, using army powers, or once per turn doing a "migration" which consists of moving a group of 3 armies), and then draw two new temple cards that are available for either player to build (placing the lowest numbered one on top of the stack). In order to build a temple, they must have a corresponding number of armies cards present at that location - for example, in order to build a level four temple, they must have four army cards present. However, each of the army cards represents a different race of people. If three of a given race are in consecutive order, then the player may discard one of the three cards to perform that race's special power. Play continues in this way until one of the "game end" conditions is met; basically the game ends when one player has 15 points of temples and the other player has less than 10, or when one player gets 20 points of temples (or if the temple draw stack runs out, whoever has the most points wins).  Did I make that crystal clear?  Well, there's a reason it's called a "summary" and not an instruction manual.  Oh, you didn't see where I called it a "summary", because I didn't use headers?  Well, that's just whining...

For the first pro in Babel, I really liked the different races and their powers.  Granted, I have not played this game enough to determine if one power seems "better" than any of the others, but in the games that we have played, each race's power had times in which it was crucially important.  The Persians (which let you skip a level when building your temple) I initially thought were the weakest of the powers, but I used them to secure victory in one of the games!  Some of the other powers are much more directly offensive (one of them lets you rob the top level of your opponent's temple, another lets you "emigrate" (kill) their troops), but finding the correct time to use your powers, while preventing your opponent from capitalizing on his (and maintaining enough units to actually build temples!) is the crux of the game.

The next major pro for Babel is simply what the game itself is - it is a fairly quick, somewhat deep, easy to learn two-player strategy game.  There are some of these available (I think this was actually part of a product line several years ago of two player games).  However, none of the other ones that I played from that group seemed to actually gel as well as Babel does.  It claims to be 45-60 minutes, but I would think that around 30 minutes would be a bit more realistic.  To actually learn the game from the rules takes about 15-30 minutes, and to teach it takes about 5 minutes.  And yet, while playing the game, you feel like you're actually engaged in a strategic experience where one person legitimately wins primarily based on skill (and there's enough depth to it that the game won't be "mastered" after a couple of plays through).  And, to go with all of that, the box is also compact enough that it could pretty easily be slipped into a backpack to be played at a coffee shop or, better yet, at an airport!  (Yes, I'm back to really liking games that can be played at airports.)  Setup time is incredibly short, and so it is an ideal game for these kinds of situations.

When it comes to cons for Babel, nothing truly jumps out to me like in many other games.  That by no means is the same as saying the game is flawless.  It simply means that its cons seem more nuanced.  For example, I have questions about the replayability of the game.  Whereas I have enjoyed my plays of it, I'm not really certain that it will be a game that I will really think "I really need to play that" about, nor was I immediately motivated to start a new game after completing the previous one.  I definitely wouldn't go out of my way to get a game of it in.  I think this really starts relegating it to the filler category - something that you play because you want to play a game, and often that you're playing while waiting for a different game to be played (such as if several people in your gaming group are regularly late).

Overall, I give Babel an 8.0/10.  I debated between a 7.5 and an 8.0, really thinking that this one isn't quite as good as Hive (which I also scored at 8.0).  Eventually, I determined that I think I simply should have given Hive a higher score, as this one seems to fit in perfectly at 8.0  I think that it is a solid game, and would truly be ideal for someone looking for a game that they can carry around with them and teach whomever might be interested in gaming.

Pentago Review

A game that I've been drooling over since I first laid eyes on it, and was very excited to demo at GenCon (partially because I didn't expect to get to demo it) is Pentago.

"Play one, spin one; try to get five in a row." That is the entire rule summary that I provide when teaching the game. Granted, they have the board in front of them, and so it helps my summary to make a bit more sense. The gameboard consists of four 3x3 quadrants (see the picture for clarity). Each of the four quadrants can slide out and spin. As stated before, each turn a player will place one of his marbles, spin one of the four quadrants by 90 degrees, and then pass to the next player. Play continues in this manner until one player has successfully placed five marbles in a row.

The first pro to Pentago is how simple it is to teach. It truly takes about 30 seconds to teach the game to someone. Whereas they may not immediately grasp all of the strategy, they can begin playing very quickly. I have played a large number of games ranging from incredibly simple to ridiculously convoluted, and I believe that Pentago may be the easiest game that I have ever taught - it's easier to teach than Uno!

Whereas you would think that the simplicity of teaching Pentago would imply that the strategy is simple, you would be wrong. I have been impressed with the amount of strategy involved in this simple 10 minute game. I do not claim to be an expert by any means, but I have played it a dozen times or more - and the games continue being different. Now, obviously, I have gotten to a point that I can often beat a new opponent quickly, after a few games, they will be able to master the basic strategies and move on to become a much greater challenge. In fact, according to the strategy guide (that comes with the game), there are only four different combinations to get five in a row. And yet, even with these limited choices, thwarting your opponent's strategy while attempting to execute your own can be quite difficult.

A neutral point of note about Pentago is that I'm unsure of it's replayability. As of the time of this writing, I have played Pentago a dozen times or more, and I am still more than willing to continue playing it. However, I do not know if I will remain as eager to play it, or if that eagerness will eventually begin to dissipate; if I will ever start to feel like I have "mastered" the game. Either way, playing a game over a dozen times and still being more than willing to play it is a testament to the quality of the game itself.

The only "con" that I can say for the game isn't really much of a con. More specifically, this paragraph is more of a disclaimer of why Pentago's score won't be a 9.0 or higher. I do not see people getting together specifically to play Pentago (which is one of my current criteria for giving a 9.0 or higher). Now, I can see people bringing Pentago with them whenever they plan to go visit friends, but I think it would be more of a secondary thing. For example, I can see someone saying to himself, "Hey, while I go visit Steve, I should bring Pentago," but I don't see people saying "Man, I really need to play Pentago; I think I'll go see if Steve wants to play." (By the way, Steve is fictional.) This game would also make a great filler game while waiting for people to arrive to your local game store, or when waiting for people to make decisions about what to play, where to eat, etc. It would also make a great game to take to a coffee shop or local cafe.  I just don't see it as being the driving factor to motivate people to meet up with each other.

Overall, I give Pentago an 8.5/10. This game is great, and I really recommend that everyone look for a copy of it. With a retail price around $20, I would say that this game is definitely worth the price.

If you're interested in Mindtwister's games, I also have reviewed Multiplayer Pentago, Repello, and Quadrago.

I would like to thank Mindtwister USA for providing a review copy of Pentago for me to play.