Saturday, March 17, 2012

Rich Burgundy

It's been quite a while since I've posted a board game review, in part because the time I've been able to find for games had shriveled up there for a while. But that particular ebb and flow is starting to flow again, and I should once again have a few new games (or new to me, at least) worth commenting on.

One is from a designer I've come to enjoy and admire greatly, Stefan Feld. He has contributed yet another game to the so-called "Alea large-box series," The Castles of Burgundy. There's an interesting similarity between it and his previous entry in that series, Macao, in that both make compelling use of dice. The games aren't actually very similar, but both take a random element of dice -- which are usually anathema for me in a really enjoyable game -- and find a way to make them work in the context of a truly strategic game.

Stripping out several of the nuances, the game is essentially this: each player has his own personal board, a large hexagonal grid on which he's trying to place tiles (earning special powers in the game as each is placed). The tiles are "bought" off of a common board shared by all players, where purchase options are divided into six categories. Each turn, every player rolls two dice, then takes one action with each of his rolls. He may use a die to acquire a tile in the corresponding number category from the common board, or play an already acquired tile to a matching numbered space on his own personal board.

The dice element works here for a number of reasons. First, players roll a lot in the course of the game -- 25 times, to be exact. It feels like enough rolls for the occasional bad roll to even out in the long run. (Plus, players have chips that can be spent to change the outcome of an undesirable roll.) Also, players have some flexibility in managing their actions. If your roll this turn is bad for placing tiles on your board, maybe it will be better for purchasing new tiles... or vice versa. You can usually find a way to make your intended strategy work over the long run, even if you hit a few temporary bumps in the road.

I don't find the level of resource management here to be quite as satisfying as that in Macao, but the game is also a good deal easier to explain and wrap your head around than Macao. In short, both are worthy additions to a game collection, in my opinion -- one or the other to be brought out on any given night depending on how taxing a game the players want. After maybe half a dozen plays, I'd rate this one a B+. It's not as solid a game as some of Feld's earlier work, but the man does keep making games I would always be happy to play.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

At last a new boardgame review!
(And I'm really happy to see you're getting more games under your belt!)

My main concern with this one is that it looks so plain. I mean, compared to Notre Dame or In the Year of the Dragon, the visuals are a snoozefest.

But the gameplay is solid, and I'll never turn down a game of the Castles of Burgundy.

But now you owe it to yourself to check out Feld's masterpiece: Trajan.

Go! Run!

FKL