Impressions from Yellow & Yangtze

 An event occurred in 2018. It took place only for fans of abstract beautiful games, and perhaps it is even worth cutting the circle of those involved in "fans of Rainer Knytsia's work". But it definitely happened. The reincarnation of his best game (of which there are several hundreds) Tigris & Euphrates was released. An abstract deck that was reissued even by FFG, one of the trendsetters in the field of amerithrash!

 "Tiger and Euphrates" is one of my favorite games, even in the 10x10 challenge I recorded it for 2019, so I was intrigued, to say the least, when I heard about its "re-release" called Yellow & Yangtze. And since I am deep in the topic, I will try to cover a little today not only the game itself, but also in the part about the impressions to show its distinctive positive and negative qualities in relation to the progenitor, when they appear.

WHAT IS THE GAME ABOUT?

 Apparently, this is one of the most thematic (if not the only) boards of the "soulless" genius of Knytsia. Players act as the rulers of the country, who seek to squeeze as much territory as possible and subdue all spheres of life in the state, spreading influence wherever possible. On the common playing field, party members build empires using tiles representing different classes of people, from fishermen and merchants to governors and governors.

 Actually, the theme of the game about the "class struggle" for territories is very strongly felt during the game (for the abstract). And although the process itself is more reminiscent of something like go, I can say that for me personally, the thematic nature of this abstract is at the highest level among all boards of this class. Perhaps because all these permutations of colored tiles are quite varied, each with its own rules and exceptions, well tied to what is happening on the game map. You always understand how and why fishermen or certain governors act, because their actions are logical, and it is impossible to confuse them.

WHAT'S IN THE BOX?

 The components in the foreign box are excellent, as in principle, and in the two previous versions of the game (both from FFG and an older version). Their number and woodenness is impressive. In addition to the playing field, piles of wooden cubes (150 pieces), 140 cardboard tiles and wooden leader tokens, stuffed with all kinds of markers, screens and other goodies.

 I don't know why, but in this Knytsia game, the content has always been luxurious. (Maybe that's why she's his top 1?)

GAME PROCESS

 Yellow & Yangtze is one of those complex abstract games, where the rules have more nuances and exceptions than in some box with a simple Euro, so I'll limit myself to a general description. So, the playing field is a country divided into many hexagons, in his turn the player places tiles of different colors on the field from a hand randomly selected at the beginning of the game (it is replenished every turn). In addition to the tiles, each player has chips of the leaders of various "professions" corresponding to the colors of the tiles. They can also be displayed on the field and receive points for this according to certain rules, depending on the built configurations of the tiles.

 Enemy leaders can and should be pushed out of territories with the help of wars, trying to put their own in the most fertile places created by the players themselves. As people create and populate different areas of the playing field, pagodas, such high-rise buildings, will appear on it, which passively form glasses for you. There is usually a war for possession of the latter.

 Thus, moving tiles from hand to turn, players turn a desert field into a country inhabited by people and built with pagodas, in which the leaders of different factions fight for control of territories, pushing each other out of their strongholds and trying to create profitable areas. At the same time, the points in the game are of several colors (leaders of different colors, which the player puts out, give him the corresponding points), and the one who scores more in his weaker color wins. So we will have to develop in all directions, well, or develop one thing and take the other from our neighbors.

 Those who played "Tiger and Euphrates" will get into the nuances from the first time, because there are changes, but they affected only some aspects of the rules, mostly everything remained in the old places.

IMPRESSION

 I'll probably start right away with the feeling about the Tigris & Euphrates progenitor - they are a little different. The general concept on which both decks are based is, of course, identical, but the approach is slightly different. In general, when I had to explain the T&E rules, it often ended in misunderstanding the first-second-third time, because there were enough exceptions, branches and nuances in the rules: in one case red tokens, in another blue/green/black are considered - and that's very similar actions. It is quite difficult for beginners to remember exceptions and twisted rules. Y&Y simplified things, but not in a bad way, more like TI 4ed compared to TI 3ed. The author has made the game more dynamic with the time and the trends of the industry, leaving its former depth. The rules were adjusted in the direction of trimming some nuances.

 The question is, has everything become so much simpler and easier that the game has lost something that inevitably drew players to the best Knytsia game according to BGG - maybe the wide selection of actions inherent in T&E has disappeared, or something else? I specifically played before writing the review on my old box (not FFG) and updated my impressions of Y&Y.

 What can I say? Periodically I will play both, but more often a new version inevitably appears on the table. Why? There is one reason here, which is very important and which even the opponents of the board will not argue with. Introducing newcomers to the updated rules has become much easier. It is difficult to deny that learning T&E is a difficult and often thankless task: behind the simplicity of the mechanic, there are so many nuances that with its primitiveness, it seems that even experienced players had to re-read the rules after a long absence from the game. Yes, just in case, so as not to miss any nuance.

 Y&Y took a different route, with an example of a war that now takes place in one stage, instead of the previous several consecutive battles between leaders of all colors. This not only accelerated the process, but also changed the tactics of entering and imposing battles, because now victory points are given only for one leader in the war, regardless of how many of them participated in the battle. That is, the player, in fact, now chooses a more profitable color for himself, which must be tightened, without straining too much with calculating the entire battle in advance. That is, it remained the same scale, but the result became less decisive, giving way to strategic planning for the future and tactical maneuvers with the help of tiles/leaders on the field.

 The war has become more positional, and the attention of the party members is now focused on the correct position and the alignment of tiles to establish their kingdom-state, capable of giving out maximum points. The emphasis in obtaining PO has shifted a little towards pagodas (monoliths in the old way): since the field is now divided into hexagons, for the construction of a pagoda you need not four (as before), but only three prepared places.

 But the coolest change affected the properties of the colors of the tiles — it would seem that Knitsia simplified, simplified, and introduced new bells and whistles into the game: each color has some special property-action that can help in the implementation of the player's plans. For example, blue tiles can be laid out in a stack at once if certain conditions are met; when laying out the green, there is an opportunity to get the desired tile into the hand; etc. As a result of this, some "combo" signs appeared, as in some Euros. In addition, leaders off the playing field also bring some bonuses - that is, on the field they give points, and off the field they can be used to get any profits; so, on the one hand, the rules have even become more complicated, but... But no.

 The whole game as a whole began to feel much lighter, or more airy. As before, there are many rules, but they are embedded in the head faster, more clearly, so to speak. Of course, there are reminders on the inside of the players' screens that explain in detail all the actions available to the players. Knitsia was able to rework his hit box into something completely new - it was not for nothing that I mentioned the TI 3ed and TI 4ed (two practically identical decks, but the latter is a "lighter" version of the first). And so here: Yellow & Yangtze - a fresh version of grandmother Tigris & Euphrates. And no matter how much I have loved my friend for many years, I have to admit that urban design does not stand still, and the new is not just a well-forgotten old, but also polished to a shine over the years of existence.

 Again, I will say that both boxes have the right to exist on the table, because although they are mechanically similar, they still play a little differently. Maybe it's my attachment to T&E, because all the last times only a fresh box (besides the "reminiscent-nostalgic" one) is being decomposed. One of the reasons, of course, is that it is a novelty, but the second is that people still refuse to enter the rules of the "Tiger and Euphrates", and few people manage to be jailed for the second batch, while Y&Y is much more warmly received by everyone .

 I thought at first that it was due to the design, but the FFG version also had a chic design, but not much changed in terms of gathering new board followers. And it seems that the reason for the greater popularity of the fresh box was found by me. It lies in feelings and general impressions. If T&E is a pure abstract, played like an abstract, thought at the table with it like any abstract, then Yellow & Yangtze is more Euro. Not actually, but with a feeling. Think for yourself: here you have the special properties of the tiles, and the leaders can now do everything off the field (also basically squirrels), and combos can be rolled on the tiles. All this within the framework of the same rules, but thanks to small changes, the process turned into a kind of Euro-dynamic engine. So the game now occupies a niche in my performance between abstract and euro.

 The tiles of each color have more individuality and specialization, they have become a little less soulless. Here there are no checkmates, which met in "Tigris and Euphrates", when you built such a position or conducted such a war, after which the opponent only had to scramble at the end of the glasses, everything happens more smoothly here, everything smoothly scores points, which is what they specialize in, in general, as in the euro, I say. And at the same time, the game remains original. I would even call it "an opportunity to smoothly introduce Euro gamers to good abstracts."

 Another thing I liked about Yellow & Yangtze was the options for actions on my turn. If in the progenitor each move was something similar to preparing to build a combination, as in the same chess, that is, you conditionally rearrange your tile-figures for ten moves in such a way as to bring the playing field to the state you want, then in Y&Y you do something every move significant This became possible thanks to the addition of additional properties to the tiles and leaders, which allow you to rotate the combo-wombo. The player does not just lay out a cardboard die and pass the move, but can lay out one-two-three, lead the situation on the field to more unexpected results for opponents. At the same time, preparation and planning in advance have not gone anywhere, because there are strict limitations and clear frameworks of possibilities.

CONCLUSION

 A livelier and less dry abstract from Knytia, bordering on Euro, which I think will find a lot more fans than the initial version of the game. This is just a feeling and an opinion, but it seems that the target audience of the new box is much wider, because it offers, so to speak, involvement in the process without memorizing combinations, openings and endgames. We just sit down and play, and when we're done, we don't get up from the table with prostration and understanding that everything was done wrong and to understand how to do it right, you need to play more than one or even two games. In general, it was as if the doctor did it for people, and not for robots, as usual =)

 Whether it will eventually become Knytsia's #1 game, I can't say, but at least it's a worthy sequel to #1.