The Witcher: Old World | Kimberly's Final Thoughts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- Help Rahdo Run: / rahdo ❤️ Code of conduct: conduct.rahdo.com 🙂 And now...
A video outlining gameplay for the boardgame The Witcher: Old World.
For more game info, boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3...
Part I: Gameplay Runthrough
• The Witcher: Old World...
Part II: Final Thoughts
• The Witcher: Old World...
i like your enthusiasm - it's really contagious ! still not sure about the base game after a few 2 player and solo games - might have to check out the coop expansion
I've been very glad to see that game finally has been realised; I I need to play myself to know how good it is.
Have seens dozens of videos from Rahdo, nice to finally meet you Jen 🙋♂️
that's kimberly actually, but you can see jen in action in a bunch of videos here: jen.rahdo.com :)
Play this with my 7 and 10yr old and they are loving it. I read all the stories as if playing solo and then summarize to them their options. Boy loves the dice poker and reason why he loses while daughter likes the monster battles.
Cool i will check it out. awesome review. thank you.
Thanks for the review, I'm looking forward to playing it! I know what you mean about PvP games, I was recently playing a similar game with friends and family, and when one player attacked her 9 year old son - destroying his character and ruining the quest he'd been working hard to achieve - he did throw a tantrum that could have spoiled the game! Fortunately his parents diffused it and the game continued...
The game has one of the best PvP implementations I've seen in any tabletop game. The defender doesn't have much to lose even if they lose; they actually gain a card. As a defender, I'm incentivized to win to prevent the attacker from getting a trophy and cause them to forego a successful event phase but if I lose, I'm not punished. Imo, the attacker has more to gain but also more to lose than the defender.
Our group is loving this game. The only thing that keeps it from getting to the table more is game length. As BGG has it, it's best at 2-3 players.
yeah, i've seen similar things like this in some other games, where the more "aggressive" act is actually defending yourself from attack "HEY! why did you make me waste my turn!" :)
sadly even with 3 players, it is quite a long wait for your turn ... player downtime is what will kill this game for many ... in 5 player game, 5th player literally can have a nap till his turn comes again ... I think this was made as a solo game and multiplayer mode was added as an afterthought...or they would not have had steps 1-3 all in same turn ...
I wish this videos was listed, more people should see it as it's a nice take! Good job.
it will be made public on monday (the 3rd)... paulo needs time to goof check it over the weekend :)
I have only been playing this solo and been really enjoying the game.
Regarding Witcher vs. Witcher, could you have a house rule of not attacking eachother?
This game will remain in my collection.
Thanks for the video and take care.
sure, i guess you could just ignore that trophy. but what you probably really want to do is the get "wild hunt" expansion that adds co-op rules :)
Gra jest ŚWIETNA i tegoroczne wakacje mijają mi pod znakiem "WIEDŹMINA" 😎
The thing I worry about is when you have experienced those events you learn the outcomes of your choices and after a while there will actually not be a choice cause you know which one is bad and which one is good for you.
Since I have not seen the cards and how you resolve the choices I do not know if this is going to be the case or not.
Could anyone speak on that subject? :)
With the stacks of city and wilds cards being so big and always putting the card underneath the stack once it's resolved, it will take you many sessions just to revisit those familiar ones. And because you don't learn about the "other" outcome, it's difficult to memorize it. I think the game will stand up over time and multiple plays.
I agree, it is a great game. I have only played it solo, but when I eventually play with other people I will not tell them they can attack other players 😁👍
I'm surprised about no mention of game length. The time to play this game goes up exponentially the more players you have. While I do enjoy this game, I would never play this with more than 4, and that is only if we had a lot of time. 2-3 is ideal.
Yeah, game length is one of the biggest problems.
even with 3, it gets cumbersome as players get more cards ... takes forever waiting for your turn ... it sucks that players do steps 1-3 in the same turn... making player downtime a nightmare... I really think they made this game a solo experience then multiplayer was an afterthought
It is very long. Our 1st go as 2 players we didn't bother finishing ad it got so late. Obviously there was the learning curve but even after that this will be a whole game night.
Solo played great, still 2 hours but all enjoyable and I definitely overshot what I needed to take down the Striga
House rules can reduce the game by 3 hours.
I wrote only 3 changes, first is Set up where you start with some cards from a draft system, Second is starting at level 2 with 4+ players, third is more complex in jow it works but in short the Monsters do not Run away if nearly defeated.
These 3 things shortens 5 player game to about 1.5 - 2 hours.
So, you haven’t tried any extensions yet?
nope, the publisher only sent the base game for coverage
Rhado, you changed you hair!
keeping things fresh! :)
I agree with the PvP but there is no down side to the loser like other games. You don't take one of the trophies they earned or their gold. So really no reason to get upset if someone attacks you
i would say the act of defending yourself is the more aggressive one, paradoxically, since success that that makes your attacker have wasted a turn basically
Those super-cool dice look horrible, I'd never play with them.. ;)
I respect your opinion. I have to disagree. The game was heavily inspired on Runebound. I thought that they would've designed a polished version of that game by giving players more agency and limiting how luck can affect the game. Ultimately, they brought in a few new ideas that just shifted the presence of luck which is still somehow very high. The outcome of fights (both from monster attacks, to drawing the matching cards to pull off inexistent-to-amazing combos), explorations, dice poker, what cards are available in which spot in the market, you're ability to move where you want to in an efficient way, which potion you draw, etc, will all generally be 20% tactics : 80% luck. Which makes the gameplay unfun for people that value/prefer player agency as the main factor in a game's outcome.
Aside from that, the downtime can be a significant issue. I would never play this game over 3 players.
The art is amazing of course. One of the prettiest games around.
Regardless, I am never going to ask this game to be played again in my group. I think the only person that will is the person who ows it, as a sunken cost to justify buying it in the first place. But during the game, you could see the regret in that person's eyes since the game was really expensive.
Can't help but to feel that this game is highly overrated. 8.3 on BGG... feels like Kickstarter bias.
might be kickstarter bias, but might also just be that others value different things in gaming than you do. no reason to assume the worst of others and their opinions i reckon when "people like different things" is usually a safe explanation :)
@@rahdo I truly meant it when I say that I respect your opinion. I only explained why I disagree. I didn't say other peoples' experiences were invalid. I only shared my own. Comment sections are great to see a bigger sample of opinions for the game to see what others might say. I'm really happy that you loved the game, that's a great thing. But I wanted to warn others of potential things to look out for and express a different experience with the game. This might be worth something or nothing to each person depending on their tastes.
I enjoyed watching the video and like the content from this channel. I don't think my initial comment warranted a personal jab from you. Regardless, it won't discourage me to keep watching the channel and sharing my opinion (while reading and considering a ton of others'). Cheers🤘
sorry about the jab. on any given day, i see so much negativity and dismissal of others it can get a bit overwhelming for a positive person like me. i delete most of it because i don't want to be a source of it in the universe, but this comment struck me as "on the edge" because you were thoughtful and polite for the most part, but then ended with words to the effect of "people surely can't actually enjoy this game that i dislike... it must be they're biased becaus they backed it on kickstarter!" i found that to be a bit dismissive and thought i'd point it out.
@@rahdo No worries, I understand. Still a fan 🙂
I'll make sure to be more nuanced going forward. I know that negativity sucks.
And what I meant by the bias is that a common phenomenon with kickstarter games is that their initial rating is higher than where it settles. Probably because backers generally carefully use their money knowing that it is very likely that they would resonate with a given game. They usually inform themselves more thanks to descriptive crowdfunding pages which the wider audience won't see while browsing store shelves. And the backers review the game first. When the wider public gets access to it, the ratings often(not always) lowers to some degree and finds its balance.
Ultimately I am betting on the game finding its balance lower than an 8.3 eventually, but I could be wrong. Maybe the game gets better with time for a lot of people. Maybe even for myself. After all, the game has a very strong theme and great variety. So, only time will tell.
Omg, worrying so much of a player attacking you in a game where you don't lose anything even when defeated. Sounds dumb
there is a loss. the attacker is taking a turn to try to score points (a trophy) and the defender is doing their best to make the attacker have wasted their turn. in a race game like this, there's nothing more important than using your turns efficiently, and the defender job is to ruin the attacker's turn. it's no different than a footrace where one player purposely tries to trip the other racer to slow them down.
@@rahdo What is the loss for the Defending player? What is so concerning for her as being attacked or not so that she even altered the game rules? Defending player loses no cards in his hand - he can even gain more if he manages to win, he doesn't lose Reputation or any of his attributes, does not trash cards, nor losing gold - nothing. Even if losing a combat the Defending player will play the exact same turn next round. He even can benefit from losing because will draw 0 cost Action card.
So if Active player spends his turn defeating another player instead of a Monster the defeated player will actually benefit from that - first gaining 1 more Action card and secondly the opponent has missed opportunity to defeat a Monster (and replacing it with stronger one) - so there will be weaker monsters available for the Defending player on his own turn.
And if the Defending player actually manages to win he will benefit even more - the enemy turn would be wasted, and Defender will get gold and more Action cards for his next turn.
This whole idea of banning Witcher vs Witcher combat seems absurd. If this girls is so afraid of fighting against another player without even risking anything, then why does she even bother playing competitive board games?
yes, as you confirm, pvp cmbat can lead to one player's turn being wasted, which can make the player who caused that feel bad because they don't want to hurt their fellow player. that's reason enough right there to not want any pvp in my book.