Board 8 > another year of tabletop rankings and writeups

(+) Yeah! (+)

i just took a look at what's coming up. there are maybe 5-10 games that are a little iffy (mostly in the next 20), but almost every other game above this cutoff has one or more of these qualities:

- would eagerly play it again
- find its design super interesting
- gotten a lifetime's value out of them
- i've had at least one incredible play with it
---

Hype.

Im interested to see what type of games you really like.

---

I feel like the vast majority of games I've played haven't shown up yet. So either you haven't played them or they're really good...

---

Grand Kirby posted...

I feel like the vast majority of games I've played haven't shown up yet. So either you haven't played them or they're really good...

A couple shared so far are my favorites, but 90% of the games I own havent showed up yet, so Im wondering the same thing, lol.

---

75. Burgle Bros (2015)

Category: Cooperative
Genres: Point-to-point movement, tile-exploration
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3
Game length: 30-45 minutes
Experience: 3-5 plays over 2-3 sessions (2017-2018) with 3 players
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Everyone works together to explore and then rob a building with three separate floors, then escapes via the rooftop. After each player's turn (during which they can move around to explore the floor, move between floors, or try to crack a safe) the guard on the floor blindly moves a certain number of steps. Any player getting caught is an insta-lose.

Design - Like many co-op games, Burgle Bros follows a recipe of "you get some basic actions most turns but have to perform a few special acts to win the game - most of the time you'll be staving off loss." It distills the board's escalating actions into one threat: the threat of getting caught by a guard. I really like the way escalation just means the guards move more steps per flip, and how there are just a few ways to avoid them other than running. The multi-tier approach is interesting as well; it encourages everyone to spread out onto different floors (and thus explore early). There's an odd little dice minigame when you attempt to crack the safes that can be a little frustrating, but it adds just enough weird variety to distinguish it from the regular gameplay - and of course, dice allow you to get that little rush when things go right.

A really cool game with a great aesthetic.

Experience - Learned this at a meetup alone, then taught it and grinded through it a few times. I've gotten both blown off the face of the map and made it pretty far, but don't think I actually won any. Burgle Bros may be better designed than some co-op games higher up than it, but it just hasn't really gotten the reps to really worm its way into my heart.

Future - If it winds up landing in our game group, then yeah. I've had a tendency to play co-op games a lot until I beat them historically, though my desire to replay them drops a bit afterward depending on how complex. Could see it rising if that happens.
---

74. Shipwreck Arcana 2017

Category: Cooperative
Genres: Clue-giving, deduction
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 1
Game length: 20-30 minutes
Experience: 4 plays over 2 sessions (2019) with 2-3 players
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Each player receives two number tiles, 1 to 7. They keep one (that must be guessed) and place another on one of four revealed cards, each of which states a fact about the remaining number (fate), such as "the number is even." The others can either guess or not. The next turn a second tile is drawn and again, one of those two tile has to be placed on a card that may give more information. Once enough numbers are placed on cards, the cards "fade," and a guess soon becomes compulsory. Right guesses advance your score while fading increases the losing clock.

Design - Shipwreck Arcana is really, really simple to play. It's a logic puzzle that occasionally puts you in a spot where you have to perform a coin flip or one-in-three shot, or a coin flip that could lead to another coin flip. While it's not a particularly game-y mechanism, like word games or social games, process of elimination is fun, and based on the clues present, you can often infer something about the cluegiver's hand ("It would be more helpful to reduce us to 1, 4, 7 than to tell us "odd numbers," so we can assume it's not 1, 4, or 7... so it's probably a 3 or 5.") Therefore, you have opportunities to feel clever, and due to the timer mechanism, you also get chances to high-five each other when you guess correctly based on luck.

There's also a painful element in the game where you'd ideally want to keep giving clues about the same fate, placing newly drawn tiles as clues. However, it can often happen that the new fate you draw cannot be played on any of the hint cards. In such cases, you actually must place your existing fate, if able. And that definitely happens, which can really throw your teammates off!

In a game this straightforward, you really look for nice components, and the art absolutely delivers. Each player gets their own set of deduction tiles, which the guessers can request be turned over to indicate which numbers they have eliminated. The tiles themselves are a beautiful black and white design; the cards with clues on them, aside from statements, have completely unnecessary but gorgeous art. In this incredibly simple abstract, component quality is fantastic and really improves the feel. I believe nominally the theme refers to fortune-telling, and it feels ominously occult thanks to the art.

Experience = Full disclosure - I've never lost a game of Shipwreck Arcana. That said, that includes plays with some expansion cards, which are more difficult, and a few of those were relatively close calls. That can put in a bias, but in my opinion, Shipwreck being relatively easy doesn't really detract from its fun. It may not necessarily be a huge challenge to win, but there's a calm satisfaction in the thinkiness of it, just like there's a calm satisfaction in the mindlessness with which you can wreck the AI at Hearts on your phone.

Future - I'd like to check out the expansions, which I could definitely see causing me to lose a game. Shipwreck Arcana feels like an amazing game to have as a warmup because of the atmospheric-looking art, which makes you want to be contemplative and quiet as you examine and think through it. Alas, my main two-player potential gaming mate isn't big on the deduction type where the guesser benefits a lot by trying to infer the cluegiver's intentions. So it's not joining my collection, but will remain on the radar for future plays when we just want to feel kinda smart together.
---

73. Word Domination (2017)

Category: Player vs Player, Cooperative
Genres: Word game, area control, spelling
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 2
Game length: 30 minutes
Experience: 4 plays over 2 sessions (2017, 2019) with 2-4 players
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Letters are laid out, representing territories. Your goal is to use sets of them to form words. Getting multiple uses of a letter can eliminate it and make it yours, and the area control ultimately helps you to win the game. In the co-op variant, you're instead trying to hit every letter with a theme of sawing legs of a building down.

Experience - My first few plays of Word Domination were dull. The area control mechanism seemed take-that-ish and to resist the fun aspect of spelling games. Thus, playing the co-op variant months later was a shock - I absolutely loved it. Having only played that variant twice in one setting, I'm not ready to bump this game super-high.

Design - Why does Word Domination work as a co-op but not as an area control game? Well, part of that probably has to do with the player's appetite for area control. Essentially, in order to claim a letter in the original WD, you want to hit that letter multiple times, ideally in the same word. Letters you don't use enough can be bumped off, which encourages defensive play. Plus, your plans can get foiled turn to turn and you get fewer options as letters get bumped off.

None of that is fun when it comes to word games! You want more options as a game goes on, not fewer, and it's no fun to have to reevaluate each turn instead of being able to plan ahead. The co-op game takes care of pretty much solves every complaint of mine. Instead of having to play defensively and kick other people off of being able to form full words, you get to collaborate and plan ahead (given the board's predictable issues) on how you want to put words together a few turns in advance. Meanwhile, a tactical element with fresh blood of letters gets injected from its spectator mechanic - an increasing number of extra letters that, when it exceeds a certain limit, loses you the game. So you're incentivized to use those letters, but you're still focused on your long-term goals of the "main board" letters. Plus, everyone can join in.

Future - I don't have a burning desire to play Word Domination, but I feel like it could potentially fit a very interesting niche. Cooperative word games are really rare, and the rules overhead is quite low.
---

Burgle Bros was neat, though I haven't played it in years. One of my friends made a laser cut wood tower for his copy and it definitely adds to the presentation of the game. I'll probably end up playing the sequel when my friend gets his copy in.

---

havent played the past 3 games

---

Shipwreck arcana sounds pretty neat

---

i have never played those games but shipwreck arcana does have half the name of one of my favorites

---

alas i have not played rex arcana!

might be able to crank out a few tomorrow and get back into rhythm
---

SeabassDebeste posted...

alas i have not played rex arcana!

I wouldnt recommend it!

Okay not really, its probably worth a try. I know its popular but I personally didnt really like it.

---

bad take

---

not sure how much purge timer has been shortened (assuming it has) bump

---

72. Quacks of Quedlinburg (2018)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Deck-building, push-your-luck, simultaneous action selection
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3
Game length: 30-45 minutes
Experience: 4-5 plays over 3-4 sessions (2019) with 3-4 players
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Each player is a quack medieval doctor randomly adding ingredients (chits, drawn from a bag) to their potion, which both increase the potion's marketability (giving gold to buy more ingredients, and victory points) but can also cause the potion to blow up (and therefore only award gold or VP, but not both). You get to choose when to stop drawing ingredients. The game ends after a fixed number of brewed potions.

Experience - As I see it, winning can have an outsized impact on people's enjoyment of a game. I've only won Quacks once, but it was the first time I played, and it did successfully make me want to play it more.

Design - Push-your-luck is a mechanism that distills the "yes -- yes -- NO!!!" or "ugh... YES!" sensation. Building a bag, like in Quacks, is the same process as building a deck. But unlike most deck-builders and even bag-builders, Quacks will never cycle through the whole bag. At the end of every round, the ingredients you bought go into your bag along with the ingredients you just drew to make your latest potion. So there's no guarantee you'll ever see any given potion you put into the bag. That type of luck can be frustrating but is a good reminder not to take the game too seriously.

There's a lot of fun stuff about how the game works, too. Real time drawing makes sense; it's largely a multiplayer solitaire other than the racing mechanic. To prevent an economic snowball, there's a minor (though arguably insufficient) catchup mechanic depending on your current VP count. There are lots of feels-good chits you can draw - a few of the basic ingredients have synergies with others, but possibly only when drawn in sequence, or preferably at the end, or preferably at the beginning. The track by which you measure your progress is fantastic: a spiral, where you start at the beginning and move gradually outward.

On the downside of Quacks, aside from luck, I'd say that building a giant, giant spiral is fun but arguably not as fun as it could be. It's a necessary evil, of course, but the victory points don't accelerate in any way as you get further into your potion. This is obviously in place to prevent runaway leaders by a single round of amazing luck, but it diminishes a bit from the adrenaline and keeps the stakes low when you're deep into your potion.

One important thing Quacks does to keep the game fun, in my view, is protect you from your own failures. In many push-your-luck games, busting once can obliterate your prospects. Quacks lets you keep either the gold or the VP when you bust, which is extremely forgiving.

Future - Quacks is a little long for a filler, and it's not particularly interactive, but its simultaneous play, whimsical theme, and fun mechanisms (not to mention relative recency and presence in my friends' library) make it a good candidate to hit the table again. With limited depth, though, I don't think it could realistically rise much higher.
---

Those bgg plastic chips are so good for this game. The first time I played, I played a copy that had them. The second time I played was a copy that didn't and I really did notice how much better it felt to use plastic chips over the cardboard.

---

quacks is pretty good, not sure how much legs it's got, but i've also heard the expansion is great (and helps with that)

---

Great_Paul posted...

Those bgg plastic chips are so good for this game. The first time I played, I played a copy that had them. The second time I played was a copy that didn't and I really did notice how much better it felt to use plastic chips over the cardboard.

this pimping out has to cost like at least 60% of the game's value, right?
---

Oh yeah, maybe even more than that haha.

---

71. Acquire (1964)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Tile-laying, economic, stock market
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3
Game length: 45-75 minutes
Experience: 3-4 plays over 3-4 sessions (2016-2017) with 4-5 players
Previous ranks: 26/100 (2016), 48/100 (2018)

Summary - Each player is an investor trying to acquire the greatest net worth at the end of the game. On your turn, you choose one square tile from a small hand to lay on the printed (on-tile) coordinates on the grid of the game's map. The tile you lay can either found a new hotel chain or expand one (if it touches an existing one), and you have the option of buying one share of that chain's stock. When you lay a tile that merges two hotels, the larger chain acquires the smaller; the shareholders of the smaller chain get dividends plus an option to sell (the only time when you can sell). Larger chains' stock is more valuable than smaller chains'.

Design - Acquire is incredibly elegant and clever. In those senses, it may be one of the best designs on my list. Investing in hotels can be counterintuitive and inherently has some sort of "push-your-luck" element. Liquid money starts drying up as the game wears out, meaning you have to pick which chains to invest in carefully. Adding to the difficulty of the decision is the fact that you can never increase the value of your stock on the same turn that you buy it - the simple fact is, you can only buy stock after making all the existing shareholders richer (by expanding that hotel), but when you buy stock, it's at the new, inflated price. Inverting this would change the incentives - it makes the decisions more infuriating but meatier.

And then there's the game's namesake, the acquisition events. Nothing makes people excited like getting paid (even if it's with shitty paper money), so mergers are absolutely thrilling.

Acquire is from the '60s. It has its share of luck limiting your agency (tile draw determining where you can place), and some might criticize its rather grim, dreary color palette (though it has its own beauty-of-the-game thing going for it). Paper money is an annoying component to deal with (though of course it can be overcome). And it can feel punishing when you are out of money and can't figure out how to score points anymore. Sometimes, a player's early decisions win the game, sometimes based off luck, even though they appear to do little else throughout the game (though that said, it's nice that the winner isn't always the person who takes a long time make a bunch of extra moves.)

Experience - I've played Acquire three times and generally sucked at it. Crappy tile draw and being low on cash can be tough in any economic game, and I don't know if it's because I wasn't in last place that it wasn't more painful. But it was interesting enough that following the arc of the game as a somewhat active participant was exciting.

Future - Given its appearance and age, I'm (perhaps hypocritically) not as inclined toward buying Acquire (and notably, it's not a 2p game). The friend who owns Acquire rarely comes to game night anymore. However, its playtime is extremely manageable, it's interactive, and earning money is fun. I feel there's unexplored depth to this game that I'd like to plumb, if only time and circumstances allowed.
---

I actually just found a 1969 copy of Acquire at Goodwill last month. It looks like it's never been played. One of the very few worthwhile games I have found at Goodwill.

---

71. Takenoko (2011)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Tile-laying, set collection, point-to-point movement
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 1
Game length: 25-40 minutes
Experience: 2-3 plays over 2-3 sessions (2015) with 2 players
Previous ranks: 31/100 (2016), 48/80 (2018)

Summary - Players lay hexagonal tiles in an imperial courtyard of Japan, attempting to provide bamboo for the emperor's pleasure and to feed a particularly hungry and adorable panda. Dice can give you some extra actions, but for the most part, you'll be expanding the garden, planting bamboo by moving the gardener, and moving the panda, who will eat food. Combinations of hexes, eaten bamboo, and grown bamboo complete hidden objective cards, which provide the game's scoring.

Design - Antoine Bauza is super-interesting. You wouldn't expect the dude who came up with Ghost Stories to put out a game so... not Ghost Stories. "Punishing" is the last way you'd describe Takenoko.

Takenoko is simplistic and not particularly strategic - the dice aren't necessarily fair; objective cards vary greatly in ease and value; and decisions aren't too hard. Its decision space is limited and it is calming to play. And it is gorgeous to look at - the tiles you lay, the way the bamboo stacks on top of itself as it grows taller, the thin bars representing streaks of irrigating water that flow along the hexes' borders, the best panda I have yet to encounter in a hobby game.

I could try to say more about it, but that's really it. That's the appeal of Takenoko. It's really fun to play something beautiful (which is clearly game-y; you make meaningful if simple decisions to achieve your objectives) and soothing and cute. If you like pandas, this is for you. If not, I mean, it's a game with a big-ass panda on the cover.

Experience - I played Takenoko twice, borrowing a friend's copy. It was fun and had great table presence. And it had a panda.

Future - The only people who own Takenoko in my group I usually encounter in larger-than-four settings. I wonder if it would be a good game to play at home, or if it'd be too simplistic and gaming buddy #1 wouldn't be as into the panda. But despite its not being the most interesting game, the mere process of writing about it has gotten me interested in playing the game again.
---

there's a rule in the expansion that gives you a bonus 3 points for a set of each type of card, and i would argue it's essential (and should totally be part of the base game rules).
going ham with the panda and eating bamboo is generally stronger than anything else.

as far as the game goes, it's cute, and has a nice table presence, but is fairly mediocre. my biggest gripe is the weather die feels really uneven, and some bad rolls can really put you behind through no real fault of your own

---

Takenoko looks so good but I always feel like I'm floundering all the time I play it. It seems like a lot of times my plans fail not because someone worked against me but because they accidentally did something that randomly hurt what I was doing. Being undermined by blind chance is kind of disappointing.

Then again, maybe I wouldn't feel that way if I won more... but I really like the aesthetic of the game a lot at least.

---

Surprised Takenoko is so high. I own it and have played a couple times but it's never really clicked with any of us. The components are nice to look at, though.

---

69. Modern Art (1992)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Set collection, push-your-luck, bidding
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3
Game length: 35-50 minutes
Experience: 2-3 plays over 2-3 sessions (2018-19) with 4-5 players
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - During each of four rounds, players choose to offer and then bid on pieces of art (cards from hand) from five artists (suits/colors). At the end of a round, depending on how many total paintings were sold of each artist, the paintings are valued and sold to the bank. There are four different types of auctions, which are specific to the cards sold, including blind bids, English-style open auctions, single-circle bids, and fixed price bids.

Design - Modern Art is another Reiner Knizia game, one of his earliest breakout games. Knizia is renowned for the simplicity of his rules, the difficulty of the decisions, and the interactivity of the gameplay. The experience is often described as emergent, and that comes through in Modern Art: you have to decide to what suit to offer but also how you want it to be valued; how to value pieces on offer; which suit(s) to gamble on; whom to buy from (should you get the choice).

Thematically, Modern Art suggests there's no inherent value to the artwork you're bandying around. The most valuable art is the art that is marketed the most. But that value then is carried over to subsequent rounds: value gained from popularity in round three is added to value from popularity gained in rounds one and two: Last season's fashions continue to inform today's prices.

But in one of the most Knizian twists of the game, only the three most popular artists' paintings get bought each round. So if it's round 2 and you're investing in round 1's most popular paintings and hoping for a boost to its already strong value, you could actually wind up getting nothing at all for your investment. The market has a light card draw effect but is otherwise almost entirely set by what players chose to offer. And therefore, it's incredibly interactive. Beyond even that, there's a minigame of who you want to buy from; if you buy my offer then I get that money, while if I'm stuck buying my own offer, I pay to the bank. Whose pain is better? Who are you letting profit?

In a similar move to Acquire's pain point where you can only buy stock after you've already boosted its value, Modern Art allows you to end a round by offering a fifth piece of art from any one suit, guaranteeing that it will become the most popular artist of the round... but, no one actually gets a chance to bid on that piece of art, so you ensure you don't get that piece - or the proceeds from selling it.

Experience - I think if I were just slightly better at it, Modern Art could be a lot higher up. As is, I haven't got quite enough reps in on it. The nature of Knizia games can be rather punishing if you don't grasp them quickly, and since the game is short, it's not like I've gotten a ton of time to bask in its design.

Future - Alas, the person who owns it in my group doesn't play much anymore, and it cannot be played with two players, which makes it a very iffy buy for me at best. But I'd love to play it more, due to its elegance and quickness and how much I admire its design. I could see Modern Art rising a lot - but it's constrained by experience.
---

you skipped 70

oh Takenoko was supposed to be 70

---

yup, that was an error and it's too late to edit :(
---

modern art is a really neat game and i've enjoyed it a decent amount every time i've played. obviously, if you can't stand auctions or bidding games in general i think you're not going to have fun no matter what you do, but it's among the best of that genre. the art/production of the most recent version is also exceptional and showcases real artists, which is super neat

that said, it just sits in the shadow of its massively superior knizia auction cousin, ra. dunno if you've played that one and it will show up later on this list, but my word, ra is such a wonderful and special game that really squeezes the finest juice out of the auction and set collection mechanisms.

---

Bidding can be a lot of fun with the right crowd. As i was reading that explanation, I was thinking that it reminded me of ra. Makes sense why, if they're from the same person!

---

68. Blokus (2000)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Abstract, tile-laying, area control
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 0
Game length: 20 minutes
Experience: 4-6 plays over 4-6 sessions with 4 players (2017-2019)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Each player sits at the corner of a grid, with around twenty-five Tetris-like pieces of their own color. On your first turn, you place a piece on the board that touches your corner. On your subsequent turns, you place a piece onto the board such that it borders at least one of your pieces, corner-to-corner. You cannot have your pieces border one another's edges. The winner is the player who has the fewest pieces not on the board at the end of the game.

Design - Blokus isn't really a designer game. It's published by Mattel Games, which publishes Uno (not ranked). It's utterly abstract and doesn't do anything particularly new or innovative. I think I might have left it off my 2018 list even though it would have qualified, simply because I wasn't sure if it belonged.

And yet... it's really fun. It's a perfect-information abstract, but due to being a four-player, interactive game, it doesn't have 100% optimal plays like chess or checkers or tic-tac-toe (or Tak/Hive, for that matter). The endpoint of this game is technically player elimination (you'll eventually no longer be able to put any pieces on the board, and that point will be earlier for some than others), but the game has a very finite turn limit in the number of pieces everyone has to start the game.

Every game of Blokus I've played has had something of a similar arc: people rush from their corner toward the center with large, awkward pieces and attempt to establish control there. With the board divided into four like an X, everyone tends to find a natural enemy or enemies, as you decide which side to pursue, which territory you can "leave for later," which players you can block.

Because you can lay your pieces adjacent to others' (whereas you cannot for your own), blocking someone from entering your territory is difficult, and it gets contentious pretty quickly. It's a very interesting take on something like area control and one that relies a lot on spatial reasoning and tactics.

Experience - I don't always do even particularly well at Blokus, but almost every time I've made a move I felt was cool or been able to congratulate someone else for finding a really nice way to slip into others' territory. Blokus can make you a big loser, but games are also fast enough that you don't need to stew over it.

Future - Blokus doesn't feel like a "hobby game" for reasons I mentioned before, and as a result, I'd never do a game night centered around it. Combined with its strict player count, I have a hard time seeing it being added to my collection currently. But if there are exactly four and the call asks for a shortish game and players play fast and it's there, I'd always be up for it.
---

blokus is okay. its undoubtedly the most fun with four, but it cant help but feel a little random on whether people decide to crowd out your own territory or not.

---

67. Ra (1999)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Bidding, set collection, push-your-luck
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3
Game length: 40-60 minutes
Experience: 2-3 plays over 2-3 sessions with 4-5 players (2017-2018)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), 46/80 (2018)

Summary - Over the course of three age, players try to collect various different tiles. Points are awarded after the round and some of them are cashed in, while some others persist 'til the end of the game. On each player's turn, they pull a tile from the bag and add it to the collective offer pile. A player can also declare Ra for an auction on the offer pile. Bidding is done once around the table using numbered sun tiles. An age ends when all players have taken the offer or a certain number of Ra tiles have been drawn.

Design - It's interesting how different set collection games can be. Some tableau-builders go the whole game and let you become absurdly powerful or amass large swaths of victory points. Ra's rounds are fifteen minutes long and wipe out nearly your entire board afterward, and it they punish you each time if you have the fewest of a certain type of (otherwise useless) tile. Ah, Dr. Knizia, you sly bastard.

While I don't find it quite as streamlined and beautifully designed as Modern Art (with a mess of different tile types), there are several points of interest in Ra. Ra's auctions are more homogeneous than Modern Art's. All of them follow the same format, and they use sun tiles, which are far less fungible than the money found in Modern Art. You can win three offers in each round of Ra, period. You'll just get more or less contested offers with better tiles. While this is intrinsically a feature of open auctions, Ra codifies the use of the "bait" bid, where you can essentially force someone to overspend on something they value, if you have a tile that slots between two desired values.

I'm not actually good at Ra, and it can be frustrating because of some of the strategic subtleties. The most notable one to me is valuing the sun tile in the middle (which replenishes your hand for the future round). It's really damn easy to get stuck with a whole round of shit bids, and if that happens in round 3, well that just sucks.

The anti-push-your-luck feature of Ra is great, too: the Ra tiles. It can be tempting to sit out a round and let everyone use up their high tiles and then have the pick of the litter among remaining tiles. Yes, you can do this, but if you've waited that long, you'll likely be in danger of the final Ra tiles being pulled. Only one person effectively winds up playing this game of chicken, but it can be significant, and you can lose if you're greedy.

Honestly, my favorite part of Ra is just taking the little statue and declaring "Ra" on my turn. I rarely wind up getting the better of an offer (both paying a good price and getting back a good number), but it can be really fun to frustrate others about not having a fuller offer, even though they want some of what's up already. It's a sort of visceral satisfaction that I think will age well in future plays.

Experience - I've only played Ra a few times, but its relatively simple. As I described, I'm not particularly good at it, but it feels satisfying and interesting.

Ra is the final Knizia game on this list. Incidentally, since I made the list, I've gotten two more plays in of another Knizia title which might rank decently (perhaps above Ra!) in the future.

Future - Only one friend owns Ra and it's not widely available (though it might be a tough sell for me anyway, not playing two players). For my money, I admire the design of Modern Art more and would be more eager to replay Modern Art. But I also want more reps of this slightly-over-filler bidding game that has you trying to collect so many items with so few items, where you never have to declare an auction but so often want to, and where you have so little theme-related mechanics but so many Egyptian-themed tiles.
---

ah man, i actually think ra is WAY more streamlined than modern art, specifically because it takes out the biggest problem i have with most auction games that offer too much freedom in what to bid - "what the heck constitutes a good bid?"

in most bidding games you have newbies who don't know what number to bid (or even experienced players who bid a bit arbitrarily). by limiting the numbers you have, and putting everything on the table (literally), it makes it WAY easier for everyone to understand exactly where they stand. i know who can outbid me with a given number, how many "good" and "bad" options i'm leaving behind, and how that all factors for everyone else.

and despite this, the decision making from these small options is tense and outstanding. you will often find yourself in a position agonizing over whether you should bid or pass, and end up ruing that choice by the next turn. it's awesome.

the set collection stuff is secondary here, but it works well and provides a satisfying feeling akin to the multiple avenues of scoring of 7 wonders - you can do a little of everything, or go big in a couple categories

ra is knizia's masterpiece. and that's saying something, from a designer who has several games that could fit that mold (and i'm sure plenty of people would argue with me for tigris & euphrates or several others of his)

it's in my personal top five! i'm interested to see where this list takes us, because i have a feeling we're gonna get heavier and heavier as we go along (in general), but for my money, i still rate mostly ~1 hour games that are just full of tasty decisions and replayability at the top of the heap

---

Ra is one I'm definitely interested in trying since I do like Egyptian themed games.

---

Naye745 posted...

ah man, i actually think ra is WAY more streamlined than modern art, specifically because it takes out the biggest problem i have with most auction games that offer too much freedom in what to bid - "what the heck constitutes a good bid?"

in most bidding games you have newbies who don't know what number to bid (or even experienced players who bid a bit arbitrarily). by limiting the numbers you have, and putting everything on the table (literally), it makes it WAY easier for everyone to understand exactly where they stand. i know who can outbid me with a given number, how many "good" and "bad" options i'm leaving behind, and how that all factors for everyone else.

and despite this, the decision making from these small options is tense and outstanding. you will often find yourself in a position agonizing over whether you should bid or pass, and end up ruing that choice by the next turn. it's awesome.

the set collection stuff is secondary here, but it works well and provides a satisfying feeling akin to the multiple avenues of scoring of 7 wonders - you can do a little of everything, or go big in a couple categories

ra is knizia's masterpiece. and that's saying something, from a designer who has several games that could fit that mold (and i'm sure plenty of people would argue with me for tigris & euphrates or several others of his)

it's in my personal top five! i'm interested to see where this list takes us, because i have a feeling we're gonna get heavier and heavier as we go along (in general), but for my money, i still rate mostly ~1 hour games that are just full of tasty decisions and replayability at the top of the heap

so, you're not wrong about all those points about ra. it certainly forces a lot of decisions on you quickly (you almost never draw two tiles on the same offer, for starters!) - and you can definitely feel bad very quickly

and as for your comment about the trend of this list as we go higher... i'd like to deny it, but you might be right in many respects! i think one thing that knizia enthusiasts love about his designs is that "gamer's game" sensation - a strong feeling of zero-sum/playing the players.

a lot of "more modern" eurogames and engine-builders (which, spoilers, are coming up) are a lot more forgiving and are interested in providing you with a positive experience even when other players are better than you are.

now this doesn't mean that you can't play poorly and start to hate yourself, but i think the skill threshold to enjoy yourself is generally lower among pretty much all the games higher on this list.
---

i think ra definitely rewards skillful play, but you generally get to win some auctions and collect stuff regardless of skill - i don't think it's quite as painful as some of the more punishing euro games (both modern and old-school)
unless of course you get one of those wacky rounds where a bunch of ra tiles come out and everyone gets squeezed. those are both the best and worst, lol

---

Great_Paul posted...

Ra is one I'm definitely interested in trying since I do like Egyptian themed games.

Have you ever played Egizia? That's probably my favorite "Egyptian " game.

---

cyko posted...

Have you ever played Egizia? That's probably my favorite "Egyptian " game.

Yep! I played it a bunch and liked it enough to back the new edition on kickstarter.

---

I love Blockus. It has a lot of strategy elements that you pick up the more you play it. Rushing to the middle and sectioning off stuff isn't always optimal. There is also a 2 player version with a slightly smaller board where you start in a different spot, which feels a bit more strategic and less chaotic, which can be good depending on what you are looking for.

---

66. Tokaido (2012)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Set collection, point-to-point movement, point salad
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 2
Game length: 30-45 minutes
Experience: 3 plays over 2-3 sessions with 3-5 players (2017-2018, including online)
Previous ranks: NR (2016), 51/80 (2018)

Summary - Everyone is vacationing in Japan, traveling down the same path. On your turn, you can advance to any open spot ahead of you and take the action there - usually getting some form of card that will be worth points - as many times as you want, as long as you're at the back of the line. Once you pass someone, then the new person in the back of the line acts. A few times, everyone assembles to eat food.

Design - In 2018, I ranked Tokaido 51 and Takenoko 50. They probably do belong next to each other. Both Bauza designs, set in Japan, published only a year between one and another, and with a soothing, gorgeous design. And yeah, Tokaido's art is fantastic, with the aesthetically particularly nice on the panorama cards if you can assemble a full painting.

The downside, of course, is that Tokaido is also not the tightest design. It's perhaps a little overly punny to say that the design is straightforward, as you literally just move in a line. The decisions at most points are relatively limited, with the goal of victory points almost vague. It's definitely more one of those games that's about the journey than the destination, and that journey is a relatively calming experience. It's honestly pretty thematic in that sense - not a lot of tension in a nice trip through Japan.

Experience - Tokaido is probably a bit high because of my first encounter with it - I just wanted to try out the game when it was brought to our game night, and I learned it via the rulebook while the owners of the game were involved in a different game. Suffice it to say that given how much of the experience comes with the physical experience, my one time playing it online was... bad.

Future - I'm not sure Tokaido has too much of a future - it's not a two-player game, which means it's less likely for me to buy at this weight, and it's ultimately not interesting enough for me to clamor to bring to the table, either.
---

Naye745 posted...

i think ra definitely rewards skillful play, but you generally get to win some auctions and collect stuff regardless of skill - i don't think it's quite as painful as some of the more punishing euro games (both modern and old-school)
unless of course you get one of those wacky rounds where a bunch of ra tiles come out and everyone gets squeezed. those are both the best and worst, lol

oh, yeah. i guess my thing is, as you pointed out, the actual set collection is a little threadbare. you're not gonna look down at your board after a game of ra and go "aw yeah, i built a fucking civilization"

Naye745 posted...

blokus is okay. its undoubtedly the most fun with four, but it cant help but feel a little random on whether people decide to crowd out your own territory or not.

TomNook posted...

I love Blockus. It has a lot of strategy elements that you pick up the more you play it. Rushing to the middle and sectioning off stuff isn't always optimal. There is also a 2 player version with a slightly smaller board where you start in a different spot, which feels a bit more strategic and less chaotic, which can be good depending on what you are looking for.

i think chaos in a game isn't the same as randomness. it can feel unfair since you don't have the control, but it's not really random - it's player-driven. IMO.

not surprised that there are better strategies than the straight rush - maybe if you let someone extend diagonally into you as you spread laterally, you can cross them? haven't played enough to experiment!

as for 2-player - pass! that's a chess-lite (or chess-extra) and those don't interest me as much.
---

Great_Paul posted...

Ra is one I'm definitely interested in trying since I do like Egyptian themed games.

haha, fair warning - ra is a good game but it is very theme-light, outside of the way the tiles look
---

the "god tiles" are actually different egyptian gods, so there is that

tokaido looks nice, but ive never played it

---

Tokaido is cool and one that I would use for less-experienced gamers. Though otherwise I really preferred to use the first expansion because it gave an alternate option at each location so there was more strategy.

---

Naye745 posted...

tokaido looks nice, but ive never played it

doubt it'd be up your alley!

Great_Paul posted...

Tokaido is cool and one that I would use for less-experienced gamers. Though otherwise I really preferred to use the first expansion because it gave an alternate option at each location so there was more strategy.

yeah, it strikes me as a nice, rules-lighter game you can easily get to the table, more than a gamer's game. i guess the expansion making it more gamer-y is another similarity to takenoko!
---

So the library in the city I just moved to has board games that can be checked out. Picked up Takenoko and look forward to finally trying it and some other games.

---

Tokaido is fun to play exactly once, then it's just a shallow game with very pretty art and theme.

---

I've enjoyed Tokaido but haven't pulled it out for much serious play in a while. It's primarily, again, more of a "hey this group isn't SUPER into tabletop so let's pull out something that isn't going to make their heads spin and has a quick setup and expansion".

I do really like the way it changes the turn-taking paradigm, I'd say it's worth going through it just for that even if it weren't pretty.

---