|
|
|
|
Rick Thornquist: Immortal Eyes Games / Shogun
This week I thought I’d take a look at the games of Immortal Eyes Games, who are relatively new on the game scene. Now, Immortal Eyes isn’t exactly a publisher in of themselves, they are actually an imprint of Winning Moves. So why not just publish the games under the Winning Moves label? Well, in North America, the Winning Moves name is pretty much associated with mass market games - Monopoly: The Card Game, Super Scrabble, Super Duper Scrabble, Super Duper Duper Scrabble - and other games that make me shudder. The Immortal Eyes name was created to differentiate a new line of games that are specifically geared to the hobby game market. These games will be found at your local game store, as opposed to your local Wal-Mart.
The first three games from Immortal Eyes came out this summer - Pecking Order, Conquest of Pangea, and Terra Nova. From talking to the guys at Immortal Eyes, I understand there was a conscious effort to make the initial three games different from each other - one is a simple two player card game, the second is a multiplayer conquest game, and the third a German style game.
Taking the lead from Alea they have numbered the games, though the effect is not quite as good as all the games come in different sized boxes. Not only the box sizes don’t match, but the physical components don’t really match either - not surprising since they are all manufactured in different countries - the U.S.A., China, and Germany.
Let’s take a quick look at each of the games.
Pecking Order is a simple two player card game designed by Richard Garfield. This is another game in the vein of Lost Cities and Schotten Totten. The game is easily explained and plays quickly. It’s mainly a bluffing game, but there is dash of strategy there, especially if you are keeping track of what cards the other player has played and what you have left. I know some other find the game too simplistic, but I find the game to be a fun two player romp when I’m looking for something light and fairly quick.
Conquest of Pangea is more of a heavier multiplayer game. This is a conquest game, where there is a map divided into areas. One neat thing about the game is that the map is made up of pieces which start together at the beginning of the game but will break away during the game. Players control their own markers which can pro-create, expand into adjacent areas, or conflict with other player’s pieces. The idea is to control areas worth more points than the other players at the end of the game to win.
I do have a number of criticisms of the game. The game is tough to get into because the game is very much on the fiddly side - none of your streamlined German-style mechanics here. Making things worse is the fact that the rules just aren’t very well written and when I first played there were many unanswered questions. An FAQ is definitely needed. Also, the initial setup can make for an unbalanced game, though changes to the initial setup rules have been posted to BoardGameGeek to fix this problem. There too much randomness as well.
In the end, I think there are just too many problems with the game to recommend it. I have a feeling with a little more development - streamlining the systems and rewriting the rules, this could have been a good one. There are some good ideas here, but they just don’t gel into a good game.
Terra Nova is the third game in the line. This one is a multiplayer game that very much in the German style (as a matter of fact, it’s an English version of a Winning Moves Germany game). The board is a hex grid where player move their pieces around to enclose areas to score points. Sound familiar? While there is a theme, it is so thin that this one could basically be classified as an abstract.
The game is easily explained but in practice is quite a bit of a thinker. I’ve played it quite a few times and people who play it seem to fit into two diverse camps - those who love it and those who think it’s too derivative, dry, or abstract (or all three). I’m in the latter camp, but certainly I admire the elegant mechanics and for those who don’t mind a game that is more on the abstract side I can certainly recommend it.
So those are the first three games from Immortal Eyes. I think they are a pretty good first effort, though Conquest of Pangea could have been better. I’m looking forward to seeing what other games they have in store for us.
Games Played
Because of my hectic schedule, it was a very quiet week for gaming. This was a bit of a disappointment in there were a lot of game sessions I could have gone to, but I was either just too busy to go, or had to cut my visits short. I only got to play three games, though one was a biggie - the new Queen game Shogun. The other two were Terra Nova and Yspahan.
Yes, I finally got to play it. I won’t go into the differences between Shogun and Wallenstein here - I pretty much did that in my article First Impression: Shogun. What I will do here is talk about how the game actually plays.
Actually, I can sum up the gameplay very easily, and this is going to be no big shock - it plays like Wallenstein. The game is very much the same except for the different map and the bidding for turn order / special cards.
The map does play a bit different from Wallenstein for two reasons. Firstly, the map is long an thin and that can make for a nice defensible position if you control a peninsula. This is a lot harder to do in Wallenstein. In our game, one player had a nice peninsula where he could defend his front line strongly while leaving the rear areas fairly empty. I’m not saying this necessarily as a criticism, more like an observation. I’d have to play the game some more to see how it affects gameplay with more experience players.
The other reason the map plays differently is because of the sea routes. These routes allow you to jump to another part of the board instead of always having to attack adjacent areas. I liked this addition very much
Then there was the bidding for turn order / special cards. I liked this addition a lot - it got rid of the randomness of the turn order in Wallenstein while adding another layer of strategy.
So what’s the final verdict? Well, I’d say if you have Wallenstein and you don’t play it much, adding Shogun to your collection may be a bit redundant. If you play Wallenstein a lot and like the system but are itching for a new map, Shogun should scratch that itch. And finally, if you don’t have Wallenstein at all, I’d very highly recommend Shogun - it improves the gameplay of Wallenstein, which I thought was great in the first place.
That’s it for this week! Next week I’ll have first impressions of two more Essen games - Tara - Seat of Kings from Surprised Stare Games and Take it to the Limit! from Burley Games Limited. See you then!
Posted by Rick Thornquist on Sep 26, 2006 at 03:00 AM in Columnists, Rick Thornquist / 1391
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!|
Rick wrote: “Taking the lead from Alea they have numbered the games, though the effect is not quite as good as all the games come in different sized boxes.” I had asked Joe Sequino about the numbering when I playtested Terra Nova, mentioning that doing so is a great incentive for collectors to pick up everything, and was surprised to learn the boxes would all be different. The numbering still might be a good idea in case someone encounters one of the games and likes it, since they’ll know more are available. The organizer in me shudders, though… Posted by W. Eric Martin on Sep 26, 2006 at 07:32 AM | #
|
|
< In North America, the Winning Moves name is
You forgot to mention The Candyland Card Game! Actually, The Clue Card Game (designed by WM’s Phil Orbanes, who also created Conquest of Pangea) is quite good, definitely better than Clue or any of its other spinoffs. I highly recommend it to other deduction game lovers, particularly if they’re tired of the needless dice rolling in Clue. Among its other North American designs, WM also gave us It’s Mine!, Knizia’s fine distilled card game version of Ra. Like the Clue Card Game, I prefer it to its parent game. Based on reports I’ve heard, I’m slightly disappointed in the first group of Immortal Eyes games. Here’s hoping the next group will appeal more to gamers. Posted by Larry Levy on Sep 26, 2006 at 08:16 AM | #
|
|
Thanks for the review, Rick! When those first photos of the game were posted, I noticed a slight difference in the two sides of the map board that I think might have some bearing on your observation about defensible peninsulas. It looked like, just from the photos, that one side of the map was designed for just what you describe, very defensible regions with short borders, while the other side redistributed the regions so that they had much longer borders and would be less defensible because of having so much more “surface area” to attack. Is that just my imagination? or did you get a chance to look at both sides, and if so, which side were you playing on? Posted by J.M. Green on Sep 26, 2006 at 10:17 AM | #
|
|
J.M. - I haven’t analyzed the maps in detail, but you may be right. I did check out the sea routes, though, which would have an effect on the defensibility of the peninsulas. On the Sun side of the board there are only 6 sea routes and on the Moon Side there are 8. Because of that I think the peninsulas on the Moon side are less defensible. We played the Sun side. - Rick Posted by Rick Thornquist on Sep 26, 2006 at 09:51 PM | #
|
|
What are the differences, Larry, between It’s Mine! and the Amigo card game version of Ra!, Razzia!? Posted by Jeff Allers on Sep 27, 2006 at 07:08 AM | #
|
|
For me the introduction of the sea routes into SHOGUN solves one of the only ‘problems’ with WALLENSTEIN, so could make it a possible purchase. There’s no doubt that the corners of the WALLENSTEIN map are far more easily defended than any of the central areas - a problem not restricted to this game, of course. So it’s either a case of buying the new version or turning Germany into an island and introducing a few sea routes. I’m sure they’d probably quite like the idea once they got used to it. - Derek Posted by Derek Carver on Sep 27, 2006 at 09:11 AM | #
|
|
They’re completely different games, Jeff. Razzia is a simplified card version of Ra. It’s Mine is just inspired by Ra (I’m assuming). It’s a real time game in which one player turns cards up one at a time until an opponent slaps the table to claim the stack. Some cards give you points, others subtract, some only give points in pairs, others only if you have the most of them, etc. You are limited to the number of stacks you can claim. So some similar ideas to Ra, but no auctions and no Sun tiles. It’s Mine is a nice light game that plays quickly but still requires good judgement. Posted by Larry Levy on Sep 27, 2006 at 02:27 PM | #
|
|
Ah, yes. Then I’ve played a Simpsons re-themed version where each player is Homer and slaps donut cards (house rule requires other players to shout “doh!") Posted by Jeff Allers on Sep 27, 2006 at 07:19 PM | #
|
Next entry: Board 2 Pieces: September 26, 2006
Previous entry: Counter Magazine Number 34 - September 2006 Issue Available
