Wyatt Earp Review

A game that I bought last year while vacationing was Wyatt Earp.

Wyatt Earp is basically rummy with special cards. However, more specifically (in case you've never played rummy), here is what you do each turn... You may draw 2 cards from the deck or the one card on top of the discard pile. Next, you can play any number of cards from your hand (but only one Sheriff). When playing cards from your hand, the first time each "set" of outlaw cards is played, there must be at least three played (playing cards also puts reward money on the outlaws) - after that, you may play any number of them at a time. Finally, you must discard a card from your hand. This continues until the deck has run out twice or until a player runs out of cards in his hand. At this point, most of the robbers (based on what was played) are scored, with most of the money going to the player with the most "capture points" for that robber. Rinse and repeat (until someone has $25,000).

The first pro for Wyatt Earp is that it is a pretty fun, laid back game that basically anybody can play. (After all, you start the instructions with, "have you played rummy? Then you basically know how to play.") I like rummy; and so I like Wyatt Earp. It's not really a complicated game, but it can be fun to play with your non-gamer friends (and your gamer friends that need a break from strategy games).

The next pro for Wyatt Earp is the Sheriff cards. These cards are really what distinguish the game from rummy. Some of the things that Sheriff cards can do include: "hiding" your opponent's card set for a given outlaw, add points and/or money to an outlaw, draw extra cards, and ask an opponent for a specific outlaw card. These really do help the game, but do not really provide a drastic change - the primary cards that will be used include the "Hideout" (which hides an opponent's card set for a given outlaw) and "Wyatt Earp" (which counters "Hideout" or lets you draw extra cards).

Now for the main con for Wyatt Earp: the box is too big. Now, I realize that you're probably already thinking "really, that's it?" or "but this box is smaller than 90% of my game collection." You're right; however, compare it to a normal deck of cards. If I were to play Wyatt Earp without the Sheriff cards (we call this "rummy" - have you noticed a theme? In case you missed it, the theme is "Wyatt Earp is rummy"), then I would only need a standard deck of cards. A deck of cards is way smaller than Wyatt Earp (easily fitting in my pocket) and is also much more versatile (I can play Bridge, Euchre, Spades, Hearts, Pinochle, etc). Therefore, I'm probably not ever going to carry around Wyatt Earp - and since I don't carry it around, I'll never wind up playing it.

Now that I've typed all of that, I'm going to give up on this review. Hopefully you know enough about the game (it is rummy) that you can decide whether or not you like it (do you like rummy?). That's really the point of these anyway - to let you know whether you would like a game or not, and to let you know why I do or don't like it. Hopefully you have enough information to make that decision by now.

Overall, I give Wyatt Earp a 7.5/10. It's a fun game. However, again, I can play rummy with a normal deck of cards, so I'm going to wind up getting rid of my copy.

If Wyatt Earp sounds interesting, you might also check out Dixit, Glory to Rome, and Innovation.

Gloom Review

A "sad" little game that I got to play was Gloom.  (Yes, I like puns, and I think it is important to share them with the world.)

In Gloom, each player controls a family of soon-to-be miserable people. The object of the game is to make your family as miserable as possible... and then to kill them. Each turn consists of playing 0-2 cards and then redrawing your hand back up to 5 (if it was less than 5). The cards that you play can be on any character in play that is still alive - whether they belong to you or another player (but only the first card played can kill a character). Once one player has killed off all of the members of their family, the game is over, and the person with the most miserable family (only counting the dead family members) is the winner.

Gloom's first pro is its portability and ease of play. It is a small card game that can be explained in about 5 minutes or less (if you read the previous paragraph, you know most of the rules). Because of this, it makes it a good filler game for whenever you have a little extra time, wherever you may wind up (at an airport?).

The next pro to Gloom is in the transparent, stacking cards. I have seen this type of card elsewhere (in Hecatomb), but it is done differently and with less confusion in Gloom. Each of the cards is transparent, and there are 1-3 different modifiers on most cards. The modifier cards are placed on top of a character (and each other), and whichever modifiers are visible once the new card is played are the ones in effect. Therefore, if your opponent has a -30 on one of his characters in the middle spot, you can bring joy to his family member by placing a +10 on top of him. If this covered the -30, the +10 would replace the -30.

The final pro to Gloom is that the flavor text is quite amusing. I haven't read all of it, but the creators seemed to put some thought into the names of the cards as well as the characters. For example, the family that I played was a group of failed circus freaks such as the "Bearded Man".

The first con to Gloom is pretty obvious - not everyone will want to play a game about making people miserable and then killing them. More specifically, many people will not want to teach their children a game like this (of course, not everyone is this way, as my friends taught this game to their children at age 8). This has nothing to do with gameplay, but you should be aware of it when deciding whether you want to buy the game.

The next con is that the game isn't really all that complicated, and so it can become fairly repetitive. Every round will consist of doing very similar things - making your family miserable, bringing joy to others, or killing off characters. Because of this, it is important to not take this game seriously. It should be played as a conversation piece more than as a game itself. It can be fun, but it will not keep your mind very engaged.

Overall, I give Gloom a 7.0/10. It is a good little game, but I have several other card games that I prefer (like Lunch Money).  If a friend brings Gloom with them and wants to play it, I will probably be willing, but I don't anticipate seeking it out.

If Gloom sounds interesting, you might also check out Jab: Real time boxing, For Sale, and Dixit.

Eminent Domain Review

One of the hottest games that's been "abuzz" on the Internet recently has been Eminent Domain (that link takes you to Tasty Minstrel's store, or this one is for Amazon.

In Eminent Domain, each player represents a galactic overlord that is attempting to build his fledgling empire. He can do this by conquering or colonizing other planets (once he has surveyed them). He can also build up his trade network and research new technologies. How this works out in game-terms is that each turn a player is allowed to take one action (by playing a card and doing whatever it's "action" text is), then he must choose a role. When he chooses a role, he takes a card for the corresponding role (Warfare, Survey, Colonize, Research, Produce/Trade) from the middle of the table (if the pile has not run out), and then he is able to "boost" that role with any cards he has in his hand that have the same icon (such as previous cards that he gained by doing the role). After he finishes with his selected role, all of the other players have the option of following his lead - also performing that role, but without the bonus. If they choose not to follow him, they can "dissent", which allows them to draw a card. Finally, he can discard as many cards from his hand as he would like, and he draws back up to his current hand limit (which starts at five cards). Play continues until the victory point chips or a certain number of piles of cards (depending on the number of players) are exhausted. At this point, whoever has the most points between victory point chips, planets, and technologies is the winner. (There really should be more games like Golf and Hearts where you don't want points. I get tired of typing this last line.)

The first thing that I love about Eminent Domain (which I have never seen in any other game), is that you get better at your role as you keep doing it! Yes, this is implemented in a deck building mechanic, but I think that Eminent Domain feels much closer to Race For The Galaxy than it does to Dominion. The deck building is really just a means to an end. What is actually happening is that the game is rewarding you for continually choosing the same role. Are you a warmonger? If you repeatedly select this as your role, then you will gain more Warfare cards - which, in turn, allows you to have more at your disposal in future turns. This means that when another players chooses to play Warfare, you will quite likely be able to gain more Fighters than they do, even though they selected the role! This is a really awesome mechanic, and yet it makes complete sense.

Another inventive mechanic in Eminent Domain is the option to dissent. I love this! In every other game that I have played that has "roles", one of the best strategies is to select a role that helps you and nobody else. Whereas this is still a sound strategy in Eminent Domain, everybody else in the game will still get some benefit on your turn, it just might not be as much. Also, because of the option of dissenting, it adds another layer of choices to the players that are not the leader. If a player in front of me chooses the Warfare role (and I was planning to as well), should I follow suit, allowing me to select a different role on my turn? Or would it be better to draw an extra card and hope that it is a Warfare - thus making it more effective when I select the role? I like these additional decisions.

The next thing that I like about Eminent Domain is that the planets that join your empire help you in various ways. This is honestly why the Survey is important - it allows you to look at more planets to select the one that most fits into your plans. Planets can help you by giving you victory points, allowing you to research more technologies, allowing you to produce resources (to trade), increasing your hand limit, and by displaying icons for the various roles (thus acting like you had played a card with that icon, even if you don't have one in your hand). I really like this added level of depth to the game.

The final that I like about Eminent Domain (that I will tell you about) is that the Research action can be incredibly valuable, but it does not seem overpowered. I have played a lot of games in which there are new technologies available.  Normally, if a player does not focus on getting the best technologies he has no hope of winning the game. Eminent Domain is not like this. In Eminent Domain, Research is very valuable - it can give you bonuses like allowing your Research cards to act like any role card, and also give you victory points. However, since it is slower to get started (each research has a number of explored worlds that you must own before you can acquire it), it is simply one option when trying to win - not the only option available.

Ok, two more final pros - but I'll be brief, I promise.  I like that when selecting a role, what is in your opponents' hands are secret - this means that you have no idea what the other players will be able to do after you select your role (as opposed to Puerto Rico where all information is public).  I also like that the more success you have on other people's turns, the more limited your options are on your own turn - thus it's not always beneficial to use all of your Colonize's on an opponent's turn - having one left may be important.

One thing that you should know about Eminent Domain (before moving on to cons) is that it plays quite differently based on the number of players playing. It supports 2-4 players, and I have tried it with each of these configurations. I have enjoyed all of the games, but they really work out quite differently. In 2-player, you have much more influence over your own destiny - you get to select half of the roles in the game! In 4-player, you are often dissenting, as you will often not have the card(s) to make it worthwhile to follow the leader's role. Research is quite easy in 2-player, whereas in 4-player, it is hard to get the Research working, since you have to still acquire the planets before you can research (and by the time you acquire enough planets to gain good technologies, one of the piles (Colonize or Warfare) is probably close to exhausted). Again, I like the game with any number of players, but the feel is quite different between them - almost like playing a different game that uses the same pieces.

My biggest con about Eminent Domain is that my copy wasn't quite to the level of production quality that I would have liked. A few of the starting planets were scuffed when I opened the box (not a big deal, though somewhat annoying), but more importantly, my cards shuffled, but not especially well - which is a major nuisance in a deck building game! It makes me sad to have to tell you this, since I know that production quality is at least as important to Tasty Minstrel as it is to the people that buy their products, but it is true. Since I know the importance they place on quality, I imagine that this will be fixed in a future print run, so it shouldn't be a problem going forward. In all honesty, I just went ahead and sleeved all of the cards that could be placed in my deck (roles and technologies), and this helped with the shuffling problem (and probably extended the lifetime of my game). If I can spend about $5 to fix the biggest con in a game that I love, that's not a bad trade.

The final thing that I will mention (and I will list as a con, though I'm not sure it shouldn't be a "point of note") is that some of the roles (such as Produce and Trade) do not receive a leader bonus in 2-3 player games. Specifically, they get their leader bonus when the deck runs out. However, in a 2-3 player game, this is the end of game condition. I thought that this was odd - it didn't really hurt the gameplay, and all I can imagine is that in playtesting they determined that these roles were overpowered if you got a leader bonus too early on them. It was weird - again, not a major thing, just something that I found strange.

Overall, I give Eminent Domain a 9.0/10. I really enjoyed this game. I thought it was innovative and took mechanics that I already enjoyed and made a fresh and unique gameplay experience from them. I would highly recommend that everyone try Eminent Domain if you have the opportunity - whereas even if it does not become your favorite game, I think you will at least enjoy the time you spend playing it.

If you like Eminent Domain, then you might also enjoy Puerto Rico, 51st State, and Star Trek: The Next Generation Deck Building Game.

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

Princes of Florence Review

Here's a game that was very highly rated on the 'Geek, so I decided it'd be nice to try and thus traded for it: Princes of Florence.

In Princes of Florence, each player is trying to score the most "prestige points" (victory points) by (primarily) creating the most impressive works. To do this you must (of course) hire amazing artists... and what makes an artist amazing? In this game, it is by making them happy by meeting certain criteria (like having the correct building, landscape, and freedom in your kingdom, as well as having other artists and jesters). Each turn starts with an auction - this is where you can buy landscape, jesters, bonus cards, cards that re-use other player's artists, and builders. After the auction, you are able to take a couple of actions - this is where you can buy freedoms, hire new artists, have your artists create a new work, build buildings, and a few other things. Whenever you create a new work, you immediately get an amount of money equal to it's "Work Value" (calculated based on how happy the artist was, and which must be at least the minimum "Work Value" for that round), or you can trade in some or all of the Work Value for victory points (and the person with the nicest work each round gets a bonus 3 Victory Points). There are a few other rules that I won't bother covering, but this is the gist of the game - it continues like this for seven rounds, and then whoever has the most Victory Points (after playing the "Prestige Cards" that you can buy in an auction) wins.

There are several things that I really like about Princes of Florence, but here is where I will start: the random draws are not very random. Any time that you draw a card from one of the decks (whether a Prestige card during the auction or an artist or bonus card as an action), you get to draw 5 cards and choose one of them. This helps you to actually be able to develop a strategy; instead of simply drawing a card (telling yourself, "oh crap, that's not helpful") and trying to work it into a strategy, you can have a strategy going into the action, and normally gain a card that is actually able to help based on what you have done in the game to that point. This is amazing coming from so many games where I simply draw one card and almost always wind up drawing several useless cards throughout the game (several of which will still be in my hand when it is over as a monument to wasted actions).

The next thing that I like about Princes of Florence I will briefly describe as the game being "tight". The more long-winded way of saying this is that I like the fact that I can't do everything that I want to do each turn. Ideally, you will have the correct building, landscape, and freedom (and some bonus cards) before playing a work - after all, this is how it scores the most points! However, that's often not plausible, because if you wait until you have all of that, you will probably only build about one work per game. Therefore, you have to decide which works will have to be built without scoring full points. This tightness factors in both in the auction and the action phases of the turn - because there are several things that are incredibly valuable in the auction each round, but you can only buy one thing per turn. You wind up having to decide, do you want an advantage in buying buildings? Do you want a Jester which adds 2 to any work? Do you want a Landscape to be able to add 3 to certain works? These decisions of what is the most "bang for your buck" are the true heart of the game, and they show that it was very carefully balanced and playtested. And I enjoy the very slight frustration that it gives me to have to decide not to do one action in order to do another one that is ever so slightly better.

Another thing that I like about Princes of Florence is that it is up to the players to keep the game balanced. Specifically, in the games that I have played, if a player is able to get a Jester each turn (without paying thousands of dollars for it), he will often run away with the game. This is because each Jester adds 2 "Work Value" to a work - so if you have enough Jesters, you don't really need to worry about any of the other conditions on the card. However, the Jesters are only acquired through the auction. I would imagine that the designers of the game knew how good the Jesters could be, and that's why they only let you acquire one by outbidding your opponents (and only one can be sold each round). Therefore, it is up to the other players in the game to make sure that no single player winds up having 6 Jesters by the end; because if a player has that many, he will probably win the game (and it won't even be close).

An interesting aspect of the game that I will list in the "pro" section is this: the minimum "Work Value" to create a work goes up each round. This forces players to actually play with more strategy to determine how they are going to be able to create works both early and late in the game - this also factors into the decisions of whether you should hold onto your work until later in the game when everything is matched, or whether you should play it earlier and start working on the next one. I didn't ever really feel like this was a huge part of the game, but I do think that it is a very interesting little aspect that they added.

The final pro that I will mention is how important money management is in the game. There are two ways of getting money in the game - when you build a work you gain money, or at any time you can sacrifice victory points to get money (but you paid 200 per victory point and you sacrifice them for 100 per victory point). At the end of the game, additional money is useless. However, most actions in the game require money (aside from creating a work). Therefore, the player that is able to most carefully ensure that he has enough money to do everything that he needs to do, has enough that he can buy what he would like in the auctions, and doesn't have too much extra money at the end, will have a distinct advantage.

Another note that I will add to the game that isn't really a pro or a con is that there really isn't "that much complexity" (relatively) to this game (note I said "complexity" and not "strategy" or "depth" - there are tons of both of those). Whereas some games have millions of options throughout the game, and each card drawn is unique and opens up more possibilities, Princes of Florence really isn't like that. The cards in Princes are all very similar - all the Profession cards (works) have the same basic things, but are different based on what makes the artist "happy"; there are a few different bonus cards, but they are all based on the handful of things you would do anyway, and the same with Prestige cards. This means that once you catch onto to how the game works, it can probably be played in around 45 minutes, and yet has a lot of strategy through determining how to spend your actions and some highly important player interaction through the auction. However, people that really love games where the depth of the game lays in the cards each doing something unique and "breaking the rules" of the game will not see that element here.

Overall, I give Princes of Florence a 9.0/10. I was quite pleased with how my trade ended up, and I plan to keep Princes of Florence (and keep playing it) for quite some time.  Unless you have some significant aversion to auction mechanics, or to games that mention art (yeah, it's about "creating art", but only sort of), I highly recommend you trying this game.

If you like Princes of Florence, you might also check out Puerto Rico, Tigris and Euphrates, Power Grid, and Phoenicia.