A cube metal co-op fantasy skirmish/dungeon crawler of sorts from Chip Theory Games (creators of Cloudspire and Hoplomachus) with a variety of scenarios and final bosses. Personally, I prefer the expansion (which can be played as a full game) of Undertow, because there is more variety - admittedly, and more rules. I LIKE + Setting (not a particularly serious fantasy with dwarves) + Components (custom dice pile, neoprene game mats, dice tray, poker chips, waterproof) + A bunch of different characters, each with their own abilities (some characters from the add-on are especially original). Each character has a unique tree of skill cubes that can be unlocked during the adventure. + It is important to properly adapt/level up characters based on the current game situation, group composition, enemies and tyrant + Monsters have different sensations, and players have to change tactics, adapting to them + Predictable and easily calculated enemy AI + Battles are not as random as it might seem at first glance, since the spread of values on the dice is small and they are quite "predictable". + The backup plan track on the player's tablet helps to eliminate failure (unsuccessful dice rolls) + Diverse encounters and characters provide high variety and replayability. The random selection of enemies also contributes to replayability, offering new challenges to players each time + Creative meeting cards; they offer several options for action that make you think about the risk-benefit ratio. Sometimes you will encounter mini-games or new game rules. TMB is not limited to the "kill all monsters" framework. + Battles take place in an abstract arena made of cells. Competent positioning is very important. Players are placed on the field after enemies, which adds tactical depth. + Units and their health are represented by stacks of poker chips, which is convenient. However, it can fall with careless handling + Loot cards with various effects - equipment and disposable items + The..

EXCURSION INTO THE HISTORY OF CARDS Nobody knows where and when cards and card games appeared. The earliest references to maps date back to the 12th century and are associated with Asian countries. China is mentioned, where cards were played with some long strips, India, where the cards were round (!), and Korea. According to other sources, cards allegedly existed in China as early as the 8th century, when some stick games were invented, which were later replaced by the predecessors of modern cards - strips of paper with symbols printed on them. There is another version according to which cards appeared in Ancient Egypt.  It is reliably known that maps reached Europe before 1367. More precisely, they appeared in Europe, probably before that, and by 1367 they had become quite widespread, because it was in this year that card games were banned in the city of Bern. Little is known about the history of card games in Russia. Cards entered our country somewhere in the middle of the last millennium, and in 1817 industrial production was established in St. Petersburg at the Imperial Card Factory. Card games are usually divided into commercial and gambling. Commercial include games that require more or less significant intellectual effort from players  ("bridge", "preference", "whist", etc.), and gambling includes games where chance plays a decisive role ("blackjack", "storm" ») ). There are other classifications of card games, for example, there are games for discarding cards ("witch"), games for knockback ("fool"), games for collecting bribes ("splash"), games for collecting points on bribes ("thousand"), games for seniority of combinations ("poker").  All these are so-called traditional card games, known to probably everyone. After all, literally the whole country plays "fool", "witch" and "drunkard" in our country (I wonder why the most popular games in our country have exclusively negative names?). But, of course, we are more interested in..

 I bought "Galerist" at a time when the wow effect from the variety of board games and mechanics had already subsided, and I no longer wrote reviews for everything in a row. However, "Galerist" is still worth mentioning, since this game is distinguished by a good overlay of mechanics on the theme and without unnecessary conventions. Players appear as competing gallerists with empty galleries, two assistants, and a dozen follower profiles. The task of each player is to fill his gallery with works of art, invite visitors who have nowhere to spend money, and sell canvases and sculptures at a reasonable price. The most successful gallerist wins. Success is determined by earned money, which is more pleasant than a counter of abstract software around the perimeter of the playing field. And since you have to spend a lot of this money during the game, you have to use it wisely. "Galerist" does not pretend to be hardcore. On the contrary, its rules are so simple that people without desktop experience can easily learn them; tested on relatives who did not follow Rummikub. But our party was in some sense phenomenal: we managed to increase the popularity of five artists as much as possible. The endgame trigger is a popularity boost of at least two. The game does not have a fixed number of rounds, but there are three events that mark the approaching end of the game. As soon as two of them are triggered, the game is over. The second trigger is visitors who gradually enter the field and at some point run out. The third is tickets to the box office, which are needed to attract these visitors. Visitors are divided into VIPs, investors and collectors. VIPs increase the gallerist's influence, collectors help popularize artists, and investors bring money. And the fact that the gallery is filled with them increases the capabilities of the gallerist many times over.  There are only eight actions in the game, divided in pairs between four locations. In..

 At high speed, the Formula 1 car is approaching the pit stop. Stop or drive? Driving into the pits is lost seconds, during which rivals rush forward. But will the tires last to the finish line if you rush past? Drive or stop? Why am I? I just remembered the games where you have to make a similar decision. I have two such games in my collection. And if the first one is quite well-known, then few people have probably heard of the second one... CAN'T STOP You don't need to be a smart board or probability expert to figure out that two dice can only add up to a number between 2 and 12, with the middle values more often than the extremes. The playing field for Can't Stop is not a regular octagon, as it may seem at first glance, but eleven independent tracks of different lengths, numbered from 2 to 12. The outer tracks consist of only three cells, but the central one, corresponding to the seven, is almost in five times longer. The task is simple - to be the first to run the track to the end. It actually looks like this. During his turn, the player receives four cubes and three chips of neutral (white) color - they are shared by everyone who plays. He throws the dice and at his own discretion divides them into pairs, thereby determining the numbers of the two tracks that he has the right to move. Now he has two moves, one for each pair of dice. If the corresponding track already has a white chip, it moves forward one space; if not - the player is obliged to place a white chip on the appropriate track (even if he does not want to). Of course, for this he must have this white chip - and there are only three of them...  Yes, we must say about the forbidden tracks. Where someone (perhaps you yourself) has already reached the end, you cannot place another white chip. If movement on one of the tracks is impossible (the track is prohibited or there is no free white chip) - no problem, instead of two moves, one move will be made. Moreover,..

 "Each step becomes more and more difficult. My feet hardly leave the ground. We have been wandering through this inhospitable area for the third day. At the end of the journey, we are likely to face a difficult and bloody battle. I don't know if I can fight in this condition. They say the strength of an army is the strength of each soldier in its ranks; if this is correct, then our chances of victory are slim. I'm afraid we will be defeated." — The last entry in the diary found among the bloody orc corpses. Fortunately, players don't have to worry about that: the Warhammer: Diskwars board game puts them right into the thick of the battle. The game was released in 2013 in the setting of Warhammer Fantasy - one of the most popular gaming universes. But unlike its big brother, known for its miniatures and hours-long battles, this game fits into one surprisingly small box. However, there are as many as 62 units inside. This became possible because the units are not displayed as miniatures, but as double-sided discs made of thick cardboard in three sizes: small, medium and large.  All disks are arranged in the same way: at the top are 4 numbers indicating the unit's movement, attack, counterattack and health. Most of the disk is occupied by the image, below it is the name and three icons: these are the price, race and belonging to a certain set (in this case, the basic one). Some units also have a durability option.  In addition, players will find terrain tiles of various shapes and sizes in the box, which add variety to the playing field. There are also a bunch of tokens (injuries, activations, wounds, corners of the field, etc.) plus three custom cubes and one standard one, as well as almost 50 cards: decks of formation, terrain, scenarios and orders. And a constant companion of Warhammer games is a ruler (here it is needed only for remote combat). At the beginning of the game, you should make sure that the surface of the table is not..

 Tiny Epic Zombies has as many as 5 game modes: Co-op, Competitive, 1 Player Zombie vs Human Co-op, 1 Player Zombie vs Human Competitive, and Solo. In co-op and solo modes, people simply try to complete 3 tasks before time runs out or zombies eat too many characters. In competitive modes, people are busy with the same thing, but each player tries to complete 3 tasks before the others. In modes with a player as a zombie, their king gets some control over the zombies and access to unique zombie abilities.  The character's moves in all modes are practically the same: he can move three times through the shopping center, killing zombies along the way, completing tasks and interacting with the premises in which he is, after which the zombie's turn begins. Each character has a special ability, a wound counter, and an ammo counter. People die when their wound and ammo counters meet on the same distribution or bypass each other. If a character dies, their items stay in the room, their card flips over to the zombie side (which gives zombies new abilities), and you take a new one. You also remove one survivor token. If there are no such tokens left in the supply, people lose. Humans kill zombies mostly with melee or ranged attacks. Melee attacks can be carried out on zombies in the same room as you, and long-range attacks on zombies in neighboring rooms. Melee attacks are guaranteed to kill zombies, but you have to leave a die and possibly get extra ones. effects such as a wound or free movement. Ranged attacks do not have this side effect, but they do consume ammunition.  At the end of the turn, you search the room you are in and place the card of the item you found in it. The find card also indicates where the next group of zombies will appear; you pass a "noise check" by placing zombies in rooms with the corresponding symbol on the card. And if this symbol corresponds to the room in which you are, then even more zombies will come..

 After the game Pillars of the Earth ("Pillars of the Earth"), developed by the German duo of Michael Rinek and Stefan Stadler based on Ken Follett's novel of the same name, was swept off the shelves at the Essen exhibition and won many awards, the authors created World With. . The place of action remained the same - a typical English town of Kingsbridge - only since the construction of the local cathedral, the clock has turned its hands for several centuries. Let's see what the authors came up with this time and how World Without End differs from Pillars of the Earth. At the heart of Pillars of the Earth is the mechanic of placing chips on the field, "maple placement". At the beginning of the game, the "executives" put the players in a bag and then blindly take them out of it. The sooner your "executive" appears from the bag, the more expensive you will have to pay to the bank in order to put this chip on the field, thus occupying the zone the player needs. On the other hand, it is also bad to be at the tail end of the process: you will have to pay a minimum, but most areas of the field will already be occupied by representatives of other players. You can pay nothing at all and leave the finished product pulled out of the bag for the second round. These losers will be placed in the remaining field zones at the very end of the round. Then the zones of the field are activated in order, and the chips standing on them allow you to perform various actions: collect resources, "mow" from taxes, trade, replenish the squad of artisans (cards that allow you to convert between resources, money and victory points)...  World Without End is based on action cards - players have identical sets of 12 pieces. During the main phase of the round, players choose two such cards from their hand: they play one by performing the action attached to it, and discard the other. Discarded cards will return to the hand only at the end of the round, which lasts 6 rounds...

TECHNOLOGIES IN BOARD GAMES Today, within the framework of this article, I would like to discuss the integration of technologies in board games, namely virtual and augmented reality, neural networks and artificial intelligence. The market of board games is quite conservative regarding the use of IT technologies. Yes, there have been talks about their use for a long time, and at exhibitions you can meet smart gaming tables and similar things, but there is still no full-scale use of information technology. So let's figure it out - what are the pros and cons of such integrations and do the world need new technologies so much? CONS Well, I would like to start with the disadvantages of using technology and, probably, the key one of them: Due to the use of technology, the user loses the feeling of playing a board game. Yes, such a problem can really occur, because when using new technologies, the user is forced to use some gadget. This distracts him from the game process, unfocusses his attention on the game table and, as a result, instead of a warm and pleasant evening, he is constantly stuck in the "number". As an excuse, I can say that such a problem can occur in the case of not quite correct game design. If the program or site is made in the same color design as the game (that is, completely omniscient), then the transition of the user will be perceived seamlessly and will not cause discomfort. The main thing here is not to overdo it, so that you don't get a video game at the end. A good example is the game from the company FFG called "The Lord of the Rings: Journeys in Middle-earth". They managed to make the program in such a way that it integrates into the gameplay as succinctly as possible. Using technology makes the game more expensive And this is absolutely true, because now the publishing house must also pay for the work of developers, website support and bear other costs that are also included in the price. The..

 Today, many thousands of people play flash games dedicated to the development of personal virtual farms in various social Internet networks. They grow virtual crops, sell them, earning virtual money for the purchase of virtual equipment, seeds or elements of the exterior. Uwe Rosenberg's "Harvest Trilogy" (Agricola, Le Havre, At the Gates of Loyang) allows board game lovers to do almost the same thing. Agricola, as you know, was the #1 game in BoardGameGeek's overall tabletop rankings for a long time, until it lost the honorable "gold" to good old Puerto Rico, falling to second place. Le Havre ("Havre"), which came out a year later, firmly established itself in the top ten and is currently in 6th place in the overall standings. The third part of the trilogy - At the Gates of Loyang (hereinafter simply "Loyang") - in my opinion, is greatly underestimated and is now in 113th place. Despite the fact that these games are very different, they also have undeniable similarities, which we will talk about. According to Rosenberg himself, "Loyan" was created even before "Agricola" and, in fact, the first part of the trilogy took a lot from this prototype. Therefore, it makes sense to consider "Loyan" as a prequel rather than as the final part. Perhaps that is why Le Havre stands out somewhat among the games of the trilogy, even by the parameter that gave the trilogy its name. The mechanics of crop harvesting in Agricola and Loyana are identical: the player sows the field and removes a resource unit from the field each round. In Havre, everything is done more mechanistically and abstractly from reality. Everything is simple there: the player has at least one unit of wheat - get one more, has at least two cows - get one more. There is no need to sow fields and build pens, resources multiply by themselves. And what did you want? A game about a port city, not a farm. After all, many of the city dwellers do not even know about how the harvest actually turns out!..

 Today, a pilot game was played in "Roboral". Impressions from the game are the most positive. It turned out to be extremely fun to chase robots around a strange room, breaking down every minute and arriving at a completely different place than you planned! The essence of the game is simple. There are works, there is a map with numbered flags. The goal of the game is to go around all the flags on the map in order. Whoever is first, well done. The difficulty is that the track is covered with a network of conveyor belts, here and there lasers stick out from the walls, gears are spinning on the floor, etc. Players play the role of operator-programmers, and the success of the "racers" depends only on their ability to navigate the complex industrial environment. And also from the cards in the hand... This is where the main trick lies. A lot really depends on the program cards in the hand. There are no turns - you drive straight. Acceleration did not come - you spin in place. And there's nothing you can do about it... We've had moves several times, during which robots simply turned left and right. Obviously, a situation may also arise when the robot will be forced to go beyond the edge of the map simply because there are no cards other than "gas, Seryogo!" did not sleep in the hand. And still a lot of fun to play. The inscription on the box with the game says: "A frenzied race filled with computer-driven chaos!". And so it is, hell take it and eat it! But to make your way to the cherished flag through a crowd of scrap metal that has come to life, or to accurately shine a laser in the back of the enemy is terribly pleasant. What is characteristic, despite the conflict of the game, that it seems that there were no quarrels at the table even once! Everyone jostled, shot at each other, flew off the field, dumbfounded and cursed at bad cards. There was an atmosphere of silly fun over the table, like a game of water pistol war. The game was liked by..