I feel like every IS expansion comes with printing errors or spelling errors. I wish that they spent more time proofing the expansions before sending them out. Sad to hear that it's only cards for the base game factions as well.
Hey ZeeGarcia! I got the expansion. One question. Is there a limit of Conquests per turn? Because Romans can keep Razes... so if it produces a lot, on last turn it can conquest many builds in one round.
Thanks for nice review but could you tell your opionion about the thing that expansion does not include Atlanteans and Aztecs cards? Do not you recognize that as an expansion drawback?
I was kinda dreading this would happen. Every mini expansion needs additional cards for new new factions, and every new faction expansion needs to include additional cards for past mini expansions. Just higher and higher production costs per expansion as time goes on. It's unfortunate that they're focusing just on the core factions, but I understand why.
Oh, you mean maybe it's time for you to stop with the mini expansions? Okay, i didn't understand is for the first time that why are you want to take away my joy for obviously selfish reasons. It's an expension for the base game. Not for an expansion. The other way i could be feel left out with those cards that i can't use because i don't have other factions.
It is not an expansion for the base game. This statement is just your opinon. "3 is a magic number" was realesed after Atlanteans and does include their cards. They could do the same with "We didnt start the fire". I assume you feel sorry for all those who bought "3MN"but didn't buy Atlanteans?
What did Trzewiczek actually say? Not including aztecs and atlanteans is the biggest disappointment of this expansion and a missed opportunity on Portal's part.
I think it makes sense that the are furthest from the centre of your empire is easier to take over. But then why do you then place it closest to the centre of your empire? That doesn’t seem to make sense to me, places on the borders should potentially change hands several times.
Cthulwho? Thematically it doesn't make sense, but mechanically It's to prevent the opponent from just taking their card back with two swords. In that case, you two just wasted a turn doing nothing.
The one thing I didn't like about Imperial Settlers was the ability to attack opponents locations. Since this addition seems to deal exclusively in that aspect, I will be skipping this expansion.
So, one of the main "cool things" that this expansion adds is a new rule that you can play with without having the expansion in the first place?! Awkward.
Why don't you guys just play a cooperative game? I just can't get the concept of people playing solitaire competitive games. You know it's like "Me VS you", right? Playing against someone premises that you are trying to win over him... The way people who don't like interaction play makes it possible for you to play your part, then the other guy sit on the table play his and eventually compare scores ...
Some people like racing where you try to be the fastest to win. Some people like boxing where you hit each other in the face to win. We are more like the first group, you seem to be more like the second one. Either way, I have no idea why you consider it necessary to criticize what I like...
I'm not criticizing, you can like whatever you want. I'm just trying to understand. I see your point, but you just can't compare "I took your card" with "I smashed your face with my fist". It's like not liking playing "War" as a kid because highest card takes the other and instead play it so we just show each other cards, everyone keeps their card and at the end we score who had the higher cards so we all stay friends. That's just how I define "I want to play Imperial Settlers against you!" or any other game. I play only with my GF and can't grasp the concept that competitive games are somehow mean in real life. :)
The game War is not comparable, because it is just luck. I'm not emotionally involved in winning or losing a card. I'm not against mean games per se, but I will never play a long and/or involved game where you can actively attack another player. The fun for me lies in making a strategy, building up my stuff and doing it more efficiently than my opponent, not being better at destroying stuff.
So you classify the majority of competitive games out there as "Not being better at destroying stuff". The strategy you are talking about can be made without an opponent. Just sit on the table make a strategy and check on BGG or somewhere what other people did and voila, you've played a game with them :) You have the right to be against any kind of games, it's your choice, of course, but maybe the difference is that I just can't classify games in which we actively PLAY a GAME against each other as "mean". 90% of the modern computer games can be classified as "mean" and just trying to "destroy stuff" kind-of-games in that sense. :) Anyway, cheers!
I remember when the Roman conquested many of the more European countries, countrizising them into their empiring...
Best moment of the day so far.
I feel like every IS expansion comes with printing errors or spelling errors. I wish that they spent more time proofing the expansions before sending them out. Sad to hear that it's only cards for the base game factions as well.
Thanks for the review! I will wait for Amazons, but only because I mostly play two player with a very competitive partner! Talk about an arms race.
Hey ZeeGarcia! I got the expansion. One question. Is there a limit of Conquests per turn? Because Romans can keep Razes... so if it produces a lot, on last turn it can conquest many builds in one round.
cannot understand those peace gamers, by the way, attacking each other has nothing to do with being mean
Thanks for nice review but could you tell your opionion about the thing that expansion does not include Atlanteans and Aztecs cards? Do not you recognize that as an expansion drawback?
I was kinda dreading this would happen. Every mini expansion needs additional cards for new new factions, and every new faction expansion needs to include additional cards for past mini expansions. Just higher and higher production costs per expansion as time goes on. It's unfortunate that they're focusing just on the core factions, but I understand why.
Oh, you mean maybe it's time for you to stop with the mini expansions? Okay, i didn't understand is for the first time that why are you want to take away my joy for obviously selfish reasons.
It's an expension for the base game. Not for an expansion. The other way i could be feel left out with those cards that i can't use because i don't have other factions.
It is not an expansion for the base game. This statement is just your opinon. "3 is a magic number" was realesed after Atlanteans and does include their cards. They could do the same with "We didnt start the fire". I assume you feel sorry for all those who bought "3MN"but didn't buy Atlanteans?
What did Trzewiczek actually say?
Not including aztecs and atlanteans is the biggest disappointment of this expansion and a missed opportunity on Portal's part.
I think it makes sense that the are furthest from the centre of your empire is easier to take over. But then why do you then place it closest to the centre of your empire? That doesn’t seem to make sense to me, places on the borders should potentially change hands several times.
Cthulwho? Thematically it doesn't make sense, but mechanically It's to prevent the opponent from just taking their card back with two swords. In that case, you two just wasted a turn doing nothing.
How did the errors get past Ignacy's keen eye? I hope they do a reprint.
Kenneth Wong there were errors in Aztecs too, annoyingly becoming a trend?
there were lots of misprints in both Aztecs and Atlanteans, it's a real shame.
The one thing I didn't like about Imperial Settlers was the ability to attack opponents locations. Since this addition seems to deal exclusively in that aspect, I will be skipping this expansion.
This is a very aggressive expansion. It’s very mean.
So, one of the main "cool things" that this expansion adds is a new rule that you can play with without having the expansion in the first place?! Awkward.
Pass. We play the game with the optional pacifist rules only, so we do not need additional ways to be mean.
Why don't you guys just play a cooperative game? I just can't get the concept of people playing solitaire competitive games. You know it's like "Me VS you", right? Playing against someone premises that you are trying to win over him... The way people who don't like interaction play makes it possible for you to play your part, then the other guy sit on the table play his and eventually compare scores ...
Some people like racing where you try to be the fastest to win. Some people like boxing where you hit each other in the face to win. We are more like the first group, you seem to be more like the second one.
Either way, I have no idea why you consider it necessary to criticize what I like...
I'm not criticizing, you can like whatever you want. I'm just trying to understand. I see your point, but you just can't compare "I took your card" with "I smashed your face with my fist". It's like not liking playing "War" as a kid because highest card takes the other and instead play it so we just show each other cards, everyone keeps their card and at the end we score who had the higher cards so we all stay friends. That's just how I define "I want to play Imperial Settlers against you!" or any other game. I play only with my GF and can't grasp the concept that competitive games are somehow mean in real life. :)
The game War is not comparable, because it is just luck. I'm not emotionally involved in winning or losing a card. I'm not against mean games per se, but I will never play a long and/or involved game where you can actively attack another player. The fun for me lies in making a strategy, building up my stuff and doing it more efficiently than my opponent, not being better at destroying stuff.
So you classify the majority of competitive games out there as "Not being better at destroying stuff". The strategy you are talking about can be made without an opponent. Just sit on the table make a strategy and check on BGG or somewhere what other people did and voila, you've played a game with them :) You have the right to be against any kind of games, it's your choice, of course, but maybe the difference is that I just can't classify games in which we actively PLAY a GAME against each other as "mean". 90% of the modern computer games can be classified as "mean" and just trying to "destroy stuff" kind-of-games in that sense. :) Anyway, cheers!