Kris Hall: Castle Panic Impressions

My daughters like the cooperative game Ghost Stories--perhaps because they cannot lose without Daddy losing as well--and I was in search of other cooperative games to give them for Christmas.  I ended up getting Castle Panic, a low-complexity fantasy siege game designed by Justin De Witt and published by Fireside Games.

In Castle Panic players are defenders of a medieval castle which is under siege by hordes of Goblins, Orcs, and Trolls.  These creatures have one, two, and three hit points respectively, and they appear at the edge of the board and then automatically move toward the castle where they will destroy walls and towers.  If all the castle’s towers are destroyed, then the monsters win.  If the players survive the whole collection of monster tiles with at least one tower intact, then they win.

Players must use their cards to destroy these monsters before they reach the walls.  On a player’s turn, he draws cards to refill his hand (hand size is usually five or six cards, depending on the number of players), then has the option of discarding one card in order to redraw another.  Players may also trade one card per turn with another player.  Finally, players may play as many cards as they want to fight the monsters. 

The game board is divided into concentric rings around the castle, and these rings are divided into color-coded thirds.  Players attack the hordes by playing cards that specify the color and ring where they are effective (for example, a green archer-ring card).  Each card inflicts one hit point of damage.  A few cards are wild and can be played in any colored area.  And there are a few special cards that let players kill a monster with one card, or draw two extra cards above the usual hand limit, or have some other special effect. 

After taking his turn, a player moves all monsters one ring closer to the castle, and then draws two more monster tiles at random.  Some of the monster tiles have special instructions designed to make the hordes less predictable.  These will cause the monsters to move faster, to heal wounds, to move clockwise around the board, or cause extra monster tiles to be drawn.  Boulder tiles cause a giant boulder to be rolled from the edge of the board to the castle.  Giant boulders will always destroy a wall or tower that is in their way, but they also crush monsters unlucky enough to be in their path. 

The game is easy to learn, and my seven-year-old daughter had no trouble picking it up easily.  I suspect this is because the game is designed with young people in mind.  Certainly, the game will not have lasting appeal with serious gamers because there are few meaningful decisions to be made.  On his turn, a player will always play every card that can attack a monster--there is no reason to do otherwise.  Every played card will be replaced on his next turn.  Strategy consists of deciding which monsters to hit with the monsters who are closest to the castle being the most sensible targets. 

I’ve toyed with the idea of trying a variant in which each player gets four actions a turn.  Actions would be drawing a card, trading a card, or playing a card.  But I’m not yet convinced that this would make decisions in the game that much more meaningful.

My daughter seemed to like Castle Panic, but now she is asking to play Ghost Stories again.  I suspect Castle Panic might be a good introductory game for kids, but grown-ups may hope their children quickly demand more sophisticated board games.

© 2010 Kris Hall


Posted by Kris Hall on Jan 1, 2010 at 01:00 AM in ColumnistsKris Hall / 1495

Comments:

To comment, you must register with BGN. Registration is free, but donations are greatly appreciated!

You forgot the most important rule: the ACTUAL winner of the game.

It isn’t a true co-op game in the sense everyone wins or everyone loses. Whoever kills the most monsters is the “winner” if there is at least one tower standing in the end.

That DRAMATICALLY makes the game different. You’re only playing cards to get last hits on monsters, and pushing it as far as possible until you have no other choice but to shoot it and let a teammate get the kill—or else you could ALL lose.

I’d try the game again with this in mind, it seems like you just thought of it as the traditional co-op experience.

Posted by Stefan Lopuszanski on Jan 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM | #

I was aware of that rule.  And I suppose that players willing to risk losing the game for everyone will have the choice of setting someone else up for the kill, or playing selfishly and risking big time defeat.

But I tend to put the cooperative nature of the game first, and the competitive part second.  The result is that I play every card at every opportunity. (for good reason; we haven’t actually defeated the monsters yet.  I suspect that our chance of defeating the monsters would shrink even more if folks refused to injure monsters for fear of setting others up to kill them).

But I can see now that others may play differently, and therefore would have a different playing experience.

Posted by Kris Hall on Jan 1, 2010 at 12:57 PM | #

Played this several times with my 12 and 14 year old kids.  I think as a purely cooperative game, it would be a bit boring and too easy.  But if all the players get into the competitive spirit it works pretty well.

Posted by Jim Forsythe on Jan 1, 2010 at 03:30 PM | #



Advertisements

Follow Boardgame News on Twitter