Category: Syndicated

The problem starts when you look at where you play. If you play kitchen table, everything is fine. You just have a game with mini-expansions and some excitement when you buy them. But when the only way to play it is at the FLGS, it usually means tournament style play. And that soon translates to “keeping up with it” where you need specific answers to cards of your opponent to stay competetive. And that’s where it turns from being a fun kitchen table game into being a lifestyle game.

It’s not necessarily tied to the random-booster distribution, that just makes it a bit more expensive to get what you want since you have to either buy singles or use the shotgun approach (buy displays and hope you find what you look for, selling the rest as singles). But it definitely is tied to the “extensible format” and the competetive scene.

I play MTG only kitchen-table style mostly, so am in no pressure to keep up with standard or with changing meta or anything, so don’t have to deal with the financial pressure as some people who play MTG competetively in the standard or modern format with their regular changes to the card pool (in modern in the form of ban list changes that lately shook up the format heavily by killing some major combo decks).

And it doesn’t even have to be the competetive factor, it can even turn into a bigger pull when you just have that competionist streak (like me with LOTR:LCG player cards 😉 ).

The problem starts when you look at where you play. If you play kitchen table, everything is fine. You just have a game with mini-expansions and some excitement when you buy them. But when the only way to play it is at the FLGS, it usually means tournament style play. And that soon translates to “keeping up with it” where you need specific answers to cards of your opponent to stay competetive. And that’s where it turns from being a fun kitchen table game into being a lifestyle game.

It’s not necessarily tied to the random-booster distribution, that just makes it a bit more expensive to get what you want since you have to either buy singles or use the shotgun approach (buy displays and hope you find what you look for, selling the rest as singles). But it definitely is tied to the “extensible format” and the competetive scene.

I play MTG only kitchen-table style mostly, so am in no pressure to keep up with standard or with changing meta or anything, so don’t have to deal with the financial pressure as some people who play MTG competetively in the standard or modern format with their regular changes to the card pool (in modern in the form of ban list changes that lately shook up the format heavily by killing some major combo decks).

And it doesn’t even have to be the competetive factor, it can even turn into a bigger pull when you just have that competionist streak (like me with LOTR:LCG player cards 😉 ).

Nobody suggested Citadels or Ohne Furcht und Adel, yet. So I will do it. Nice small-box game with a role-drafting mechanics and some really mean elements in it, that works very well in bigger groups. Base game plays 2-7, with the expansion it can play 2-8. And there is a new edition coming out soonish, that will add more flexibility in the selection of roles (still only 9 roles, so only up to 8 players, but what 9 roles are out is variable within limits). Citadels became my go-to game to have around when we go to board game meetups in case we are more than our usual 4-5 people (and even with 4 or 5 it is a hoot – my wife and me like it with just 2 players, too, so it’s a quite versatile title for us).

Nobody suggested Citadels or Ohne Furcht und Adel, yet. So I will do it. Nice small-box game with a role-drafting mechanics and some really mean elements in it, that works very well in bigger groups. Base game plays 2-7, with the expansion it can play 2-8. And there is a new edition coming out soonish, that will add more flexibility in the selection of roles (still only 9 roles, so only up to 8 players, but what 9 roles are out is variable within limits). Citadels became my go-to game to have around when we go to board game meetups in case we are more than our usual 4-5 people (and even with 4 or 5 it is a hoot – my wife and me like it with just 2 players, too, so it’s a quite versatile title for us).

If she is not a heavy gamer, I would say 7 Wonders: Duel over Castles of Burgundry. 7W:D is definitely more in the “stepup from Jaipur” class, but not yet in the hard euro land where I would see CoB – the structure of 7W:D lends itself to surprise victories and shenanigans that even give a less experienced gamer a chance to fight their opponent and see cool combos and plays. I’ve played it around 40 times now with my wife and can therefore say that it’s replay value is quite high – the variability of setup is quite good for that. It’s definitely a very good 2 player game, to me one of the best. And well, the setup is just so super fast, you don’t really mind to pull it out – no dreaded “man, I have to sort through stuff now to build play decks” or whatever shenanigans some games come up with. It’s more or less “topple over box, push some stuff around and you are ready to go”.

If she is not a heavy gamer, I would say 7 Wonders: Duel over Castles of Burgundry. 7W:D is definitely more in the “stepup from Jaipur” class, but not yet in the hard euro land where I would see CoB – the structure of 7W:D lends itself to surprise victories and shenanigans that even give a less experienced gamer a chance to fight their opponent and see cool combos and plays. I’ve played it around 40 times now with my wife and can therefore say that it’s replay value is quite high – the variability of setup is quite good for that. It’s definitely a very good 2 player game, to me one of the best. And well, the setup is just so super fast, you don’t really mind to pull it out – no dreaded “man, I have to sort through stuff now to build play decks” or whatever shenanigans some games come up with. It’s more or less “topple over box, push some stuff around and you are ready to go”.

Something I like in that broad area of “conquest games” is 1775, especially since it can easily play 2 or 4 players (with 4 it is a team game, which is perfect if the other two people you play with are more of the casual kind, as you can each team up with one of the “noobs” easily). It is kinda like a card-assisted/driven variant on Risk, just with much more handleable play time and lots of fun. It obviously is about the american revolution.

If you stick to two players, another one would be Wir sind das Volk about the ideological and economic fight between west and east germany from 1949 to 1989. Again, it is kinda card driven, with cards denoting events in the history of germany being played for effects or economic points, both sides trying to get the other side down (or in the case of the east usually more like trying to survive). Very interesting game play, very unlike other games I played, but still gives a strong “conquest” vibe (allthough obviously you don’t really concquer, but just expand your economy). Despite the name, it’s both in english and german.

And Polis: Fight for the Hegemony is another one that could work, this time about the fights between Sparta and Athens. Again only two player, though. But again not too deep (unlike a full-blown war game) but more leaning towards euro games with historic war theme integrated into the system.

All three games share that the sides are asymmetric, so playing as one side feels quite different from the other side (WsdV has the biggest asymmetry, though). All three games are on the borders from euro games to war games, which I feel is much more like PC concquest games than actual war games, which usually put much more burden on the player due to much more special rules for thematic reasons. War games can sometimes feel much more like study than like playing. The wuro (war-euro) games give a much quicker pace, while still keeping the theme (at least for me) intact.

Something I like in that broad area of “conquest games” is 1775, especially since it can easily play 2 or 4 players (with 4 it is a team game, which is perfect if the other two people you play with are more of the casual kind, as you can each team up with one of the “noobs” easily). It is kinda like a card-assisted/driven variant on Risk, just with much more handleable play time and lots of fun. It obviously is about the american revolution.

If you stick to two players, another one would be Wir sind das Volk about the ideological and economic fight between west and east germany from 1949 to 1989. Again, it is kinda card driven, with cards denoting events in the history of germany being played for effects or economic points, both sides trying to get the other side down (or in the case of the east usually more like trying to survive). Very interesting game play, very unlike other games I played, but still gives a strong “conquest” vibe (allthough obviously you don’t really concquer, but just expand your economy). Despite the name, it’s both in english and german.

And Polis: Fight for the Hegemony is another one that could work, this time about the fights between Sparta and Athens. Again only two player, though. But again not too deep (unlike a full-blown war game) but more leaning towards euro games with historic war theme integrated into the system.

All three games share that the sides are asymmetric, so playing as one side feels quite different from the other side (WsdV has the biggest asymmetry, though). All three games are on the borders from euro games to war games, which I feel is much more like PC concquest games than actual war games, which usually put much more burden on the player due to much more special rules for thematic reasons. War games can sometimes feel much more like study than like playing. The wuro (war-euro) games give a much quicker pace, while still keeping the theme (at least for me) intact.