"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 slippery. Ideally, it should be lined with green or brown (the color of the real battlefield) fabric. Meanwhile, players choose factions and assemble an army to their liking on the points provided by the chosen heroes, or use the ready-made set offered by the game. In addition to units, you need to choose battle order cards. The dimensions of the battlefield are defined by four cardboard corners: the standard size is 3 by 3 feet (approx. 90 by 90 cm), which is three times as long as the ruler from the set. The ruler, in turn, is divided by colors into three ranges for shooting in a small, medium and large radius.  Players decide which side of the field they start from, determine the initiative, and randomly draw a scenario card from the deck, which determines the special conditions in that battle. Her lower half is the player's secret goal, for the fulfillment of which he will receive victory points. Also, each player randomly draws starting position cards. Each type of start provides certain advantages.  Then 4 terrain cards are selected, and players take turns placing the corresponding tiles on the field. Even before the start, the actual units are placed on the field. They can be placed only in the starting zone (within the middle range of the ruler from the edge of the field on your side) in front of the starting position cards. The number of deployed units is also determined by these cards, others will go into reserve. After that, the players draw order cards into their hands. At the beginning of each round, a player secretly chooses the order they want to use first and places it face down on the table. Orders are opened simultaneously. Each of them belongs to strategy 1 of 4 types (from "decisive" to "slow"), their interaction determines whose order will be executed first. The number in the upper left corner shows how many disks can be activated with this command. Many orders also give passive or one-time bonuses at the time of activation.  Each disk can only be activated once per round. Available actions are movement, special abilities (in some discs) and ranged combat. Movement points determine how many times in a row a player can flip the disc: this is how they move around the field. If the disc covers at least part of the enemy disc, then the enemy is considered attacked in melee and can move; the activation of the attacking disk is completed at this point (activated disks are marked with the appropriate tokens to avoid confusion). The result of the battle will be decided in the battle phase of the same round. Colliding disks exchange blows (attack power - number in black circle, counterattack power - number in white circle), receiving the corresponding number of wounds. As soon as the number of wounds becomes equal to the health of the disc, it dies and is removed from the game, moving to the destroyed pile. The exception is discs with durability: they need to deal damage equal to their health more than once. Unlike hand-to-hand combat, distance combat is less deterministic — cubes are used there. For shooting, the enemy must be within the shooting radius (different for different disks). The result on the cube can be a hit, a critical hit (for the rest of the round, the disc is considered already activated), a miss, or the result jumping to the disc closest to the target. Some terrain types block the firing line. Both sides continue to play order cards until they run out of order cards or until all discs are activated. This ends the round: the activation tokens are removed, the order cards are returned to the hand and a new round begins. The game lasts 5 rounds, after which everyone counts their victory points, the number of which depends on the success of the secret objectives. Whoever has more points becomes the winner.  Warhammer: Diskwars does a great job of porting the atmosphere and tactics of miniatures wargames to the tabletop, while simplifying it (primarily due to the lack of a movement ruler) and reducing game time. The simplicity of the game and the freedom of maneuvers cannot fail to fascinate. Beginners will especially appreciate the offered ready-made sets for each hero. With the additions Hammer and Hold and Legions of Darkness, the variability of armies will increase even more; with one basic set, the room for customization is very limited. Armies consist of 1-3 units. The number of units on each side determines both the duration of the game and the tactics, since each unit must be led by one hero. There are also certain restrictions on the construction of armies, in particular on belonging to the alliance of factions, the number of copies and unique units.  However, the game is not only about units. Order cards in the hands of players, if used correctly, can change the course of the battle. Other elements also add tactics and depth; first of all, it is the selection of terrain maps and the disposition of troops. Players will occasionally have to take risks when betting on dice in ranged combat — sometimes with success, sometimes not, which contrasts interestingly with some melee.  Warhammer: Diskwars is an exciting tactical game that encourages thoughtful actions, maneuvers and thoughtful battle plans. The player must constantly remember his secret goal, try to surprise the opponent and find a weak point in his disposition. And about the special abilities of the units, which are indicated directly on the discs with sets of keywords. However, the latter can be a problem for a beginner: until he has mastered the game, he will have to regularly consult the rulebook. It is for beginners that the rulebook contains a training scenario. In general, the game today is extremely friendly by the standards of the genre: the rules are simple, not voluminous, and the game is based on a few very simple mechanics. In terms of game time, a standard game with two units per player can only be played in about an hour. You can, of course, increase the number of units: then the variety and time of the party will increase. There is an option of a battle with the participation of more than 2 players in the rules; however, we tested this option only once with one base, and there may be a problem with downtime. The discs are beautifully illustrated, so you will hardly miss the missing miniatures. The cardboard is dense, the terrain tiles are clearly visible, and the activation tokens make it easy to navigate during the round. The only problem (for some table-toppers) is where to find a table of the appropriate size. You shouldn't judge by our photos, because we specially compressed it to make it easier to take photos. Overall, Warhammer: Diskwars is a very fan-friendly and easy alternative to miniatures wargames. The mechanics are well thought out, the game has enough tactical depth. And with additions, everything becomes more interesting. Diskwars is a great way to pass the time...

 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 out. The main difference between AI zombie modes and zombie player modes is how zombies appear on the field. The zombie player can choose which find card the human players get, so he has some control over the zombies' movements. Additionally, on each noise check, he can apply a special ability from one of his zombie cards.  When the find deck runs out, all human players can go down again. If they manage to complete 3 tasks, they immediately win. Zombies win if people fail to complete the task in time or if too many people die. PROS  - Tiny Epic Zombies has some truly epic moments. The most memorable situations were when the character managed to kill 4+ zombies in one turn due to the drop of the overkill symbol on the melee die. - Meeples can be armed with plastic weapons; it's easy to do and looks cool. Adds a lot of atmosphere. Also, the abilities of some items make you very powerful - a nice touch as well. - All game modes are fully playable, which is an impressive achievement. True, the differences in mechanics are small, but it is nice that there are modes for every taste. - The tasks are well thought out. Personally, I like the task where you need to bring 4 tanks to the middle of the shopping center, preventing zombies from being in the same room with them on the way. - The parties, regardless of the number of participants, are fast, but at the same time do not leave the feeling that you played in an inferior crowd. - Redrawability is high. The layout of the shopping center is random, you have different tasks and different combinations of characters every time, plus many game modes to choose from. CONS  — Some people like playing zombies, but I found it boring. Although your task is to make life difficult for the human players, you will hardly have to make interesting decisions. — I would like the location and character cards to be a little thicker. They can easily shift and move important items/characters with them. — The font on the location cards is very small. After a few games you get used to it, but in the first few games someone will have to look at them almost with a magnifying glass and read them so that everyone knows which rooms have some features. - I don't know if this is a general problem or if I'm just unlucky, but my zombie meeples have paint coming off and splattering everywhere. CONCLUSIONS  Although there are no zombie fans in our group, everyone enjoyed playing Tiny Epic Zombies, so maybe the game will appeal to those who are indifferent to zombie settings. I've tried all modes except solo and zombie vs human competitive. They were all fans. Although I don't really enjoy playing as a zombie, this game was the most intense. If you like a zombie setting or like the idea of a compact board with a bunch of different modes, I recommend giving Tiny Epic Zombies a try...

 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. Thus, out of 12 action cards, each player plays only 6. Correct and timely selection of cards to be played and discarded is the key to success. Action cards allow you to get resources, participate in construction or cure residents from the plague (receiving victory points for this good activity), build personal houses that bring additional income in the form of resources, trade in wool and cloth. As you can see, the central ideas of the games we are considering are completely different. Perhaps, at this stage, it seems that Pillars of the Earth is a more random and competitive game, because it has a canvas bag and frequent cases when one player "crosses the path" of another player with his chips, occupying the right area of the field. However, let's not rush to conclusions and see what the central mechanics of the games in question are tied to. In Pillars of the Earth, before placing "executive workers", players deal with order cards, which essentially give the right to send a certain number of workers to a mining zone for a specific resource. These cards are dealt in turn order, one card at a time. Once the artisans are placed and the field zones are activated, players distribute the resources they receive between their artisan cards, converting them into victory points and/or money.  In World Without End, choosing two action cards from your hand precedes the reveal and triggering of a square event card. This card contains a textual description of an effect that changes the game in any way, or even directly cancels or adds a rule. These cards come in both instant and long-lasting effects, but none of the effects can carry over from one turn of the game to another. Icons of resources (money, victory points) are indicated on each corner of the open map. The first player is given the opportunity to orient this card on the field in one of 4 possible ways. After that, each player takes from the bank the resource whose image is on the corner of the map facing the player. An arrow on one of the sides of the card square also indicates an additional bonus that the first player receives. After the event card's effect is executed and resources are drawn from it, the action card phase described above begins and it all starts over. However, at the end of a round (which lasts 6 rounds), the game requires players to drop a certain set of resources. If a player fails to do so, fines and penalties apply. This "Sword of Damocles" mechanic strongly resembles Agricola or the same Le Havre, and as a result, World Without End turns into a rather tough strategy in the key of crisis management. So, Pillars of the Earth is a highly competitive, yet still family-friendly game. In World Without End, despite clearly stronger solitaire (due to identical sets of action cards, players still interact with each other much less than in PotE), there is too strong a vein of crisis management, which is further strengthened by the will of chance at the moment of revealing the event cards at the beginning of each round. Among experienced players who are accustomed to planning, both strategic and tactical, PotE ranks slightly higher than WWE because in the latter there is no getting around the relentless effect of the newly revealed event map. Sometimes it could be softened - if I hadn't sent the right action card to reset a couple of rounds ago. Event cards in WWE work like an inexorable fate, and in such conditions it is difficult to plan development. And yet, despite this, there is something attractive in World Without End. Fate in the form of event cards often strikes a chord, but planning to use your own action cards is very interesting. "Infinite World" is unlikely to collect a bunch of prizes, like its older sister, it will not become as popular. The games are completely different, but there is a lot of good in both, and I can't clearly prefer one of them. May they both remain in my collection. After all, these two boxes look good on the shelf next to each other...

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 following minus follows from the second minus: Such games cannot last forever This is due to the need to maintain the functionality of the program/site, for which the publishing house will have to spend money from year to year. As soon as the game becomes irrelevant for users, the manufacturer will want to close the electronic part because it will cause losses. At some point, this can simply turn the game into a brick that can no longer be used. Of course, you can finance the work through the release of re-releases or add-ons, but this option still does not mean that one day your favorite game will stop working, unlike standard games, which never lose functionality. In addition, you need to take into account the possibility of bugs, technical problems and similar things, which can also leave a negative impression on players. PROS Well, now let's move on to the positive points and the first of them: New technologies allow you to create new, previously unavailable mechanics In my opinion, this is one of the key tasks for which technology in general needs to be integrated into games. So, for example, AR allows you to interact with the surrounding space during a board game, which gives developers and game designers a lot of imagination. In the "Crime Scene" game, which I wrote about above, it consists in finding evidence at the crime scene. Artificial intelligence and neural networks allow you to generate and create anything at all, from game elements (cards or fields) to various plot twists or enemy actions. These technologies are now mainly used for drawing illustrations and cards in games. The only question is the desire to use VR technologies, because as you know, they require special equipment that costs a lot. And it's impossible to keep the feeling of a board game when you're sitting in a helmet. Such games are easier to play An application or site can simplify the rules of the game, because algorithms can calculate various outcomes of events, tell you what to do or where to go. This is especially valuable in games with a gigantic number of different rules. Yes, all in the same "Crime Scene", the algorithm gives hints and at the end tells whether the players solved the case correctly. This can be very valuable for players who don't like to read too much into the rules and just go and try. The game becomes more varied and replayable The electronic part of the game is also good in that it allows you to add more action options to the game, because if earlier the player had a field drawn on cardboard with which nothing could be done, now it may well be digital and dynamically change as the players progress. The same can be said about other elements - cards, indicators, moves of enemies, random phenomena, and everything else. This also has a positive effect on replayability, because it is impossible to learn all the cards and moves, there are simply an infinite number of them. And if you connect artificial intelligence to the opponents, everything will play in completely different colors. CONCLUSIONS The use of new technologies is quite controversial. On the one hand, it goes against the very concept of board games, which should be physical, which is why they are loved. On the other hand, they allow you to invent new mechanics and make games more diverse. Here we can even say that their mass use is able to start a new era in the development of tabletop game design and the industry as a whole. My prediction for the future is this - I believe and believe that in the near future AR and AI will be very tightly integrated into the use of board game manufacturers, but it is still too early for that Well, you can express your opinion in the comments, I will always be happy to discuss this topic there)..

 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! :-) Now let's talk about the interaction of players. "Agricola" and "Loyan" are games with a high value of the "solitaire" parameter. Each player boils in his cauldron, on his personal field. And only in a certain separate phase of the round do the players' interests intersect. In "Agricola" these are the moments when the members of the farming family are sent for day work to the common playing field. In "Luoyang" there is a drawing of cards according to certain tricky rules in order to get clientele for sales, new fields, markets or one-time assistants. In Havre, this "solitaire" is significantly less. At the personal disposal of the player is only some set of buildings/ships and resources built or bought by him. At the same time, the action phase is full of moments of activation of someone else's building. Players always use the capabilities of other people's buildings, often paying the owner of the building a penalty for doing so. And the main nuance is that such actions can greatly damage the plans of other players, because for now there is a chip on a specific building, it cannot be used. In fact, a good half of every player's moves in Le Havre are interactions with other people's personal zones. Food as a payment for development occurs at the end of each round in Agricola and Le Havre. The sword of Damocles hangs over the players for not being diligent enough in this matter. This forces you to divide your tactics into two fronts: get food and try to do it as efficiently as possible, so that more actions are left for the direct development of the farm (construction of buildings/ships). By this factor, Luoyang's gameplay is distinguished by a simpler formula of the player's goal: more money and no additional aspirations. Perhaps that is why this game did not reach the top ranks among experienced and experienced players: it is too simple. Winning points (PZ) and methods of obtaining them. Here, all the games of the trilogy demonstrate different approaches, and the most complex scheme is observed in "Agricola". Here you need to try to set all lines of development in motion so as not to catch fines. The farm should be self-sufficient, it should have fields with wheat and vegetables, and pens with different types of livestock. The state of each line of development will result in a certain amount of points, which are added up. Calculating software in Le Havre is almost identical to the same process in Race for the Galaxy: the values of each building/ship constructed plus the cash remaining on the balance are added up. "Loyan" flaunts a unique software acquisition system. The main difference is that here the SPs are calculated at the end of each turn, and not just at the end of the game. Accumulation occurs by spending the money earned by the player, that is, points are simply bought. For a small fixed price, a player can advance his chip only one position per round. Each additional move costs a lot of money, and the higher the player's position on the software line, the more expensive the additional steps. The very fact that Luoyang buys points every round might also knock this game off the list of veteran players' favors: again, too easy. Finally, I want to say the main thing: all the games of the trilogy, despite their commonality in some areas and belonging to the same class of eurogames based on resource management, play completely differently, so it is quite normal to have all of them in your collection. I will only stop those who are looking for a family game to spend time with their children from blind buying. A child under the age of 12 is unlikely to be able to draw up rules and seriously plan their own development strategy...

 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 almost everyone, although at the end some complained about their brains being melted by the game. The game is designed quite nicely. Robots' disguises are so generally amazing. Cardboard components are thin in places, but this is not critical. It is strongly recommended to wear protectors on the deck of cards. During our game, she mixed up every move. Yes, I almost forgot. We were not able to finish even the first - the simplest - track in any way. In an hour and a half of the game, we mastered the rules "excellently", passed one or two flags and determined the winner by voting. Everyone was satisfied, because the main thing in Roboral is not the victory, but the exciting gameplay. PS People who can't distinguish between "right" and "left" better not even look at this game to avoid a migraine...

 Town is a 2-4 player board game by Shun and Aya Taguchi. Since I've played Glenmore, one of my favorite mechanics has been tile activation. I just really like it. The game itself is played over four rounds. Everything is fine with the design, it is more than suitable. The picture on the box is good, the buildings are a bit cartoonish. The playing field is two-sided with three types of resources: stone, fish and wood - pre-printed on the map. The box is nice and small, with a great organizer that has enough room for more tiles or additions. The game is very simple. Each turn, players will either place a worker on a square on the map, activating the eight squares around it, or build a building. There are twelve buildings to choose from plus five cornfields. Every time you build a house, you get victory points. At the end of the round you need to feed your workers (at which point everyone sighed). This was already seen in Agricola or Tsolkin, but here feeding is not burdensome: only one fish or corn per worker, and this is easily achieved, especially if you are building a field. If you want, you can exchange three coins for a resource of your choice.  There are several interesting buildings available. Fields produce wheat and stand one tree, and also yield 3 WP. Other buildings give you software or money for resources. The Pawn allows you to trade two resources for two others, while the statue gives you 10 programs. The bar and the well just bring VP, and the bookstore and gold mine produce coins. There are four more special buildings: cathedral, residence, castle and watchtower, which give you VP at the end of the round/game depending on the surrounding tiles - for workers that activate buildings, constructed buildings and empty squares. Players need to think carefully about where to place their workers in order to get the resources needed to build the right buildings to get the bonuses. As the game progresses, the tile placement area becomes more and more crowded, so it becomes more and more difficult to use the buildings. And money is also tight. Finding combinations from buildings and pre-printed resources is where the game shines. The object of the game is to score as many victory points as possible, and the scoring track is located at the bottom of the playing field. There is an extra token for each player if they score more than 60 points. COMPONENTS The game features cards, cardboard tiles, and wooden dice and tokens, as well as a wooden mallet for the first player, point markers, and a round marker. The course is small which is a bonus for me as I mostly play in pubs with small tables. Bonus cards are also small. The tiles are thick, with rounded corners. Preparation is simple. Places for tiles are clearly marked. The number of workers and buildings depends on the number of players. There is variability in the preparation, which is that there are more buildings (29) than are needed for the game (12) and more objective cards. The goals are easily achievable and bring 2-3 points. As such, they don't have much impact. I wish the goals were a little more difficult to achieve. GAME PROCESS The gameplay is smooth and fast. There is active interaction between players because you can use your opponent's buildings by paying them a coin. Also, as more buildings are placed, a sense of development appears. Towards the end of the game, you can activate four or five squares on your turn. With only twelve buildings, you compete to build the building you want. By the fourth round, most buildings will usually be built, so you'll be looking for opportunities to activate buildings to score victory points. DESIGN AND SUBJECT The design in this game is suitable. The subject feels weak. There has been some criticism from my band about the definition of the grid lines on the playing field. As with any game with resource cubes, you want to upgrade these cubes to more realistic resources and coins to metal ones. But what I like is that it's a cheap and fast game. CALCULATION OF POINTS This is an entry-level game - a simple game with tile activation, the engine here is also simple. The game lasts from 20 to 30 minutes. It's quick and easy to teach her. But there's still some depth for die-hard gamers. The overwhelming thought after the party was that I want more. More bonus cards, more buildings. I want to be able to rebuild! The game includes a promo with four additional buildings. Overall a great game that will remain in my collection. Fingers crossed for new buildings or additions. POSTSCRIPT Since I wrote this, my cell has broken down this game a few more times, and it's even better than I first thought. Each batch was radically different depending on the buildings chosen and the places where people built them. If you have a bank or other building that generates income, this means that there will be much more interaction in the party as players activate other players' houses. If you have a building that makes two fish, then foraging becomes easier and you build more buildings quickly. A building that allows you to exchange two goods for two others allows you to build houses more strategically. Buildings that give points for empty squares or people around them are always tactically blocked. Buildings that generate VP will be used more often unless specific resources (usually food) are rare. Every time we play I see different little chains/combinations of buildings. As I said in another post, we played Town with four workers instead of three, which makes the field more crowded. But we don't mind! Blocking each other just adds to the fun and interaction in this game. As a result, this small, fast-paced game gives you the opportunity to make great decisions!..

 Dungeon Twister is a dueling game with a minimal impact of randomness. At the start, players place 8 characters and 6 objective cards each on the dungeon tiles, hidden from the enemy. The goal of the game is to be the first to score 5 victory points. Points are usually awarded for killing enemy characters and for getting your characters out of the dungeon — beyond the enemy's starting line. A character standing on an adjacent cell with a closed tile can spend an action point to turn it over. New characters and items are placed on the inverted tile. Having turned over a tile, the player decides how to place everything on it (except his items), which is a rather important advantage. Each tile has a cage with a mechanism. The staff on it can spend an action point to turn that tile 90 degrees in the direction indicated by the arrow, or a matching tile with the same number if it's already flipped.  In the database of both players, the same sets of characters and items, but they are very different and interesting in their own way. For example, a goblin is fast and weak. However, due to his weakness, you get extra software if you bring him out of the dungeon. There is also a wizard: frail, but able to use powerful magical items unavailable to other characters. You'd expect a game with secret placement of units, tons of fantasy characters and items, and rooms that rotate as the game progresses to be simple thematic filler. But actually Dungeon Twister has nothing to do with them. This game is closer to chess than Descent.  When characters meet in battle, players simultaneously play a card from their hand, the value of which is added to the character's base strength. The loser gets a wound. Injured characters become items that can be carried by their teammates, but are essentially useless cargo until they are healed. They cannot attack and have a base strength of 0, although they can defend. As for combat cards, you can play as many +0 cards as you like, but cards from +1 to +6 are disposable. Therefore, the battles are quite mind-blowing thanks to the possibility of bluffing and double bluffing. However, even if you have a base power advantage, you can't be sure of victory unless you're willing to say goodbye to your best battle cards. This creates an interesting tense atmosphere and forces you to spend cards carefully.  Dungeon Twister is an amateur game. It's too slow, too mind-numbing, and too random for most players. Although it is designed thematically, there is neither a plot nor a campaign here, which again can repel many fans of themed games. The drawing also looks outdated. In addition, not everyone can imagine in advance what effect the rotation of such a room will have on the game. Lovers of abstracts may not like the combat mechanics or the element of randomness (laid out on open tiles), etc., etc. In Dungeon Twister, player skill and experience are very important. An inexperienced player will literally be crushed by an experienced one and probably won't even realize what he did wrong. The developer came up with several options to compensate for this advantage: to give experienced players fewer characters or battle cards (though there are none in the digital version). I think they can even out the balance. The problem is that not all players are happy when they are given a penalty. In general, Dungeon Twister will not be suitable for everyone, and those who will find it difficult to find an opponent. This does not mean that the game is bad at all. On the contrary, I think she is wonderful. All the characters are well thought out, and the dilemma in the meantime, whether to keep a character on the field to help in combat, or to take him off the field for the sake of the software, is very interesting. So is the tension in combat: you want to both not lose too many battles and keep powerful one-time cards. Base Dungeon Twister offers exciting gameplay and high replayability, although it is not without flaws. The gameplay is quite slow; seems too slow at times. Sometimes this procrastination is interspersed with bursts of action. Sometimes it feels like a single move can  decide the outcome of the game. This is not entirely true, but if a more experienced player gets involved in a large-scale fight and in a turn deals damage to, say, two enemy characters, and the enemy healer is out of order, then most likely the weaker player will not stand a chance. Also, in basic Dungeon Twister, as in chess, players will likely prefer to position each piece the same way with minimal variation. Partly because some starting combinations are clearly better than others, partly because of personal preference. Therefore, games with the same opponent can be quite similar. But there is an important element that brings novelty to the game: additions. When the base game was first released, the developer already had many additions planned. Add-ons perfectly expand the game, making it more interesting. In addition to single-character splashes, 6 major additions have been released in each Dungeon Twister: new items, characters, and tiles. They can be played both separately and mixed. All the expansions I've played (Prison, P&D, etc.) I like on their own, but they look best when mixed together. You can give each player the same set of characters and items, you can draft, you can choose secretly. I like all the options; although the draft and secret picks can throw off the balance of the game if the players are not of the same experience level, they are very fanciful. Unfortunately, the add-ons have a bunch of characters and items that are of interest only in certain, specific combinations. For example, if you secretly choose characters and objects, and one player chooses a bunch of characters tied to the darkness mechanic, and the other does not, it can result in a very slow game. And the sword that kills the dragon is useless if there is no dragon in the party... But still, the additions add a lot of variety to the game and banish the feeling that all the best combinations and debuts have already been calculated. On the other hand, it means that you have to look for add-ons to an old, long-discontinued game, which can present a problem. And if you don't find yourself enough opponents, you probably won't play enough games to need the dops. In my opinion, Dungeon Twister needs a new revision, partly because it's a great discontinued game and partly because it couldn't hurt to improve it a bit. Improved art — perhaps in a more playful style. The content is closer to the card Dungeon Twister, where each player has 25 characters and 10 items. This will introduce variety, enable drafts and secret selection of characters and objects, but you will not have to learn many additional rules. It will also remove the problem of poor compatibility of characters and mechanics from different add-ons. Minks or even cardboard boxes of the new edition, I think, are useless; enough tokens and a convenient souvenir. And then an add-on could be released to the new edition with new types of terrain and characters and items to go with the base. I really hope that something similar will work out. Then newcomers will come to Dungeon Twister, and perhaps this will push the developers so much to release more games in this rather popular genre. However, Dungeon Twister will always have a small but devoted gaming audience. I don't remember any Dungeon Twister analogue with similar gameplay or feeling from the game. Dueling fairs with fast games and tireless layouts are lacking, as are more thoughtful, less random duels like Dungeon Twister. This game has settled into my top 100 and I'm very happy to be able to play the online version because my main live opponent is already tired of our single digit games. If you can get hold of Dungeon Twister or Dungeon Twister Prison on the cheap, I'd recommend doing so—provided you have an opponent who likes thoughtful duels lasting 45-90 (if you think slowly) minutes. Otherwise, it's worth trying before you buy. Most often, it takes two or three games to decide whether you like Dungeon Twister or not...

 SolForge Fusion is a hybrid card game from Richard Garfield (Magic the Gathering, Solforge, etc.) and Justin Gary (Ascension). Half decks are generated by a special algorithm, each of them is unique. Kind of like Keyforge, yes. You choose two factions, mix them and form a deck. One of the unique features of SolForge is that when you draw a card, it automatically levels up. You start with weak cards and end with very strong ones. In addition, your leader Forged is also leveled. Each leader has three abilities that you can use during the game. ABOUT THE GAME Quick layout, simple rules. You start with 50 lives. There are three stacks of cards in front of you: Level 2 cards, Level 3 cards, and the starting deck. You and your opponent take turns making moves, taking control of the forge, which turns each turn, indicating who moves first that round. As a rule, you can play 2 cards at a time. The first to play the card that controls the forge, then the opponent, then again he and again the opponent. Cards are placed in one of five slots on the field. You can play both creatures and spells. When both players have finished their turn, a battle is played out in all slots at the same time. Buffs, debuffs and damage from phase to phase are preserved; they can be tracked with dice or tokens. 3 player moves - one cycle. At the end of the fourth cycle, the one with more life wins - unless, of course, you reduced the opponent's life to 0 even earlier.  SolForge is distributed in two ways. First, there is a starter set with 4 random decks (one for each faction), 2 paper play mats, 12 minion cards, 26 parameter modifier cards, and 2 paper Kowalski counters. RRC - $34.99. Second, there are boosters with 4 random decks and 4 bonus cards. RRC - $29.99. Let's analyze the pros and cons. Is the game worth the price? PROS OF THE GAME — The gameplay is well-thought-out and very fan-friendly. There is a lot of strategy here, but at the same time, the game is not so mind-blowing that you miss something. It's great that you only have to keep track of 5 slots; thanks to this, you don't have to mess around too much with the calculation of battles. The strategy here isn't in deciding how or when to attack, but in the cards you're dealt. Should I play a suboptimal map just to pump it? The choice is yours.  - Deckbuilding. When building a deck, you have to make a few decisions too, and I love that. If you got a bad deck in Keyforge, you can't do anything, it's your problem. However, in SolForge, even if your half of the deck doesn't look too promising, there is always an opportunity to find a perfect match for it and go destroy the opponents. - Game speed. There's a lot of room for strategy here, but little fiddling, so you can play games pretty quickly. — Availability of fashion in TTS. SolForge's Tabletop Simulator is completely free to play! So testing SolForge is not difficult at all. - Game support. SolForge plans to actively hold tournaments in which you can participate, in particular, remotely. Prizes and awards belong. - Development company. Stoneblades are simply stunning. They listen to feedback and actively interact with the community. Great company. - There are no bad logs. I have many, many SolForge decks, and I haven't seen any that are truly trashy. Even if she is inferior in strength to the average, you can always mix her with another, suitable half that will strengthen her, which is awesome. At Keyforge, you bought a deck, then you have to deal with it - and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. The strength of different decks there varies very dramatically. Here, all logs are at least rakeable. Maybe not everyone is capable of winning the tournament, but there is no complete garbage. CONS OF THE GAME - Art. To be honest, I love the art and I think it suits the game perfectly. But if you expected high-quality illustrations of the level of Magic or Flesh and Blood, then you will be disappointed. Everything is rarer here. - Absence of a rule book. Yes, there is no rulebook in the starter set. Personally, it doesn't bother me too much, but I've seen a lot of complaints about it. But you probably have the Internet at hand and can easily read it online. In addition, in games of this genre, the rule book is usually not included in the set. I played Magic in the 2000s without a rulebook, accessing the Internet via a modem. You could argue that Keyforge has a rulebook, but it's incomplete, so you still have to look up the rules online. - Play mats. The only minus, with which I will not argue. I recommend throwing away paper ones and buying decent ones. There is $19.99. The paper ones are not terrible, but they have an offset pattern and I don't really like them. CONCLUSION I love SolForge. Haven't played such an exciting game in a long time. It is atmospheric, fun, fast and inexpensive. I highly recommend it. SolForge is actually a Keyforge without the Keyforge drawbacks. Definitely worth a try. Especially you Magic players, given that Hasbro is trying to drown your game; it's time to run from the sinking ship! :-)..

 "Yukon Airlines" is the first game that came out from under the wing of the author Al Leduc, as well as the first localization of RollinGames. That's why I think it's important to talk about this game in more detail! In the game, we will have to take on the role of a seaplane pilot who transports travelers to various points in the Yukon. In addition to this, you also need to improve your seaplane! At the end of the game, whoever earns the most money by transporting passengers wins! GAME PROCESS To understand the gameplay, I will briefly describe how your game will go. The game is divided into 6 rounds, where in each round we have to play 4 phases.  Phase 1: landing. In this phase, the player takes all passengers (cubes) of the same color from any cell, and each digital cell brings its own bonus.  Phase 2: Flight. At this stage, we use ticket cards to transport passengers to various points in the Yukon, but we need to take into account the amount of fuel, because it will not work to make too long flights without it. Also, after the trip, you can upgrade your gaming tablet by improving various indicators or unlocking new abilities to make it easier for you to transport passengers. ;)  Phase 3: Income. In this phase, we receive income from transportation, as well as completed missions.  Phase 4: Maintenance. This round is preparation for a new day. All players draw cards and roll dice. PERSONAL EXPERIENCES To be honest, a bit above I tried to talk about the game in a neutral way to be as impartial as possible, but now I want to say everything I think about it. The history of the appearance of the game is quite sad. In 2014, Al Leduc's father died and he decided to honor his memory with this game. The author transferred all his love for his father in one cardboard box. In addition to his father working as a pilot in Yukon Island, he also left many cute and very heartfelt moments in the game that remind him of his father. For example, the 6 game rounds are the days of the week from Tuesday to Sunday, because on Monday his father had a day off, or on the onboard tablets the players have nice drawn photos - this is a copy of the real photos of his family (different photos on each tablet).  And a lot of such moments! All this together gives a very pleasant and meditative atmosphere. While games nowadays try to impress the player, Yukon Airlines provides the comfort that every person needs. If we talk about the game from the mechanics side, it is a very nice family game, in which there is no evil interaction, but at the same time it is not completely toothless, because resources are limited and you have to try hard to get them in time. In my opinion, this is the perfect balance of interaction in the game. CONCLUSIONS Yukon Airlines is a great example of being proud to say, "Made with love." The game gives space for game actions and miscalculation, and together with a soulful story and very soft visuals, it encourages you to play again and again!..