Hey, turns out Spock accidentally left his warp stabilizer in the video we just published. This is a bit frustrating, but we're pretty much on the road now (to Essen Spiel), so we either leave the video as is or take it down and publish it next week. I think we'll leave it.
Sorry, I really don't get what you are referring to. Are you talking about the stabilizer of the camera or about an object in the video ? I have just spent the last 20 min to understand by rewatching the video. And now I feel like my life is empty if I don't have anything better to do than rewatching a video because I didn't understand a comment.
I love your honesty and your point of view. The hype around this game is palpable, and you guys really seem immune to hype while being aware of it. There is a huge difference between wanting to love something new and shiny and actually really enjoying it. Thank you!
Wow. Ok then. Some people wear their love of a game like armor and take personal offense when someone disagrees with them. I’m glad you like the game. I’m sure some people do. Back to thanking this great channel for an objective review.
I love this game, it's quickly become one of my all time favourites, and it's all my group and I are playing at the moment. BUT, I 100% agree with your comment: "This game needed more rigorous testing and development before being rushed out to buyers". We already have thousands of games worth of data, and it's already showing wild imbalances in the win-rates of factions. Futurists are very clearly over-powered, in contrast to the under-powered Traders. The data shows that very clearly, even with a hefty margin of error and scope for considering other factors.
I LOVE civilization-building games and would have bought this game at the outset, but something had really been nagging at me about this game. You’ve nailed it in this review. Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.
Great review - refreshing to hear some honest and very valid critiques of the game. Totally agree with the Discard 3 Tech Cards space - it’s so counterproductive and paltry compared to the other tracks’ Discard actions. Every game I’ve played it had players scratching their heads wondering why it exists.
Ok, bit late now after 6 months. But I played it online with friends last night. With the step being so late, one player had between 5 and 10 event cards out already. Once events are upgraded to the max you won't get any points from them anymore anyway (as far as I have seen) and you can't upgrade all anyway. Then those are 10 easy points.
The power of the ultimate top-deck is the same reason I don't resonate with Viticulture - the winter visitors that allow for a 2-for-1 action on spaces that are inevitably crowded can break an otherwise exciting race to the finish line into a foregone conclusion. They don't feel rewarding for the time I have invested into them.
What's that, Eric? You've given up being a Los Angeles detective and started running a hotel in Torquay? Yes! Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it and I don't agree with that in a workplace!
Agreed with you at the beginning, the anachronistic nature of the cards really bothers me and it's not the game for me. Great review, love your content!
I totally feel for Elaine. I recently played Everdell and watched every other player at the table have a lovely time building a colourful tableau, while I never got a single combo going and spent two hours hating the game and my time at the table. I have friends who love the game, and I know my experience is not the norm. But I will never play that game again because in my mind it is never going to be fun, especially as, even if I have a better game, I will constantly be thinking that maybe someone else at the table is having a bad time, and that doesn't make me want to share it.
I thought I was the oddity regarding Everdell. I am glad someone else had the exact same experience that I did. Certain design and graphic choices of Everdell did not appeal to me. The tree was more of a nuisance than help and I did not find combos to be consistent as well. After watching this video, I don't think Tapestry will be my cup of tea either.
Great review and all valid points. I love the game still, I think it provides a fun experience of romping through make believe land and let's you come up with crazy stories for why your civilization is just now creating medicine, years after you have explored space. Win, lose, or draw the table always had a good time. We did house rule to draw two tapestry cards and pick one, to balance the swingy nature/power of some of them for your engine.
Strong review, Efka! I liked the breadth and depth of insights you provided into the game. I've got it but it still hasn't hit the table yet, so I'm eager to see what I make of it.
Loved the Big Lebowski reference. I'm so happy that someone else feels the same way I feel about this game. I also felt that the game needed a lot more play testing and that every action just seemed really random. On top of that with the random tapestry cards in the random technology cards I really felt the game was just too random for me.
Fantastic review Efka. I do wonder will this get an essential edition aka a fix. With flat card board cut in interesting shapes for the city. Or less wacky more functional looking buildings. Tracks with more interesting actions and maybe even choices. A sequence to the cards. Both tech and tapestry cards could easily be printed with numerals on the back I to IV I suppose basically im looking for what I've grown accustomed to from jamey, a sense of coherence.
Thank you for this great reaview as always ! I was hesitating to buy the game (Stegmaier/Scythe-Fanboy), but price and randomness convinces me to keep my money (and my friends )
This is almost exactly what I've been saying about this game. The fundamental idea is great, but it's let down by its own bloat and sheer randomness. You can also completely ignore the technology track, I'm convinced.
It's funny that I've also heard the exact opposite of what you're saying on BGG, basically that the Technology track is the best strategy to go after if you were to win the game.
This review mirrors our experiences exactly. After a bunch of 2-player games which increasingly convinced my husband and me that this game had serious issues, we invited a friend to play. He ended up playing an Espionage card on my Marriage of State card, which he used to remora himself onto my husband's Science track advancement and completely tank my husband's plans. Our friend won handily, and once we finished, he said, "I'm never playing that again." His victory felt so empty and unearned that it just killed the game for him.
A great observation! Part of the joy of playing a game for me is not whether I've won against someone, but feeling a sense of achievement because I found a solution.
@@NoPunIncluded True! It's a very rare game (such as Innovation) where we can have a cheap win and not feel bad about the time investment, sharing a laugh instead.
Thank you for being 100% honest with your reviews. This game is not only quite bad, but it's also quite obvious that this is the case. I really lost some respect for reviewers who ignored or tiptoed around this games flaws for political reasons. Good to see I still have a few honest reviewers to trust.
I'm happy to see you pointing out the parts which you didn't like about the game so that players can take informed decision on whether to buy this or not, and not getting swept up in the hype train. Having said, I'll probably buy it as i like the puzzly aspect and don't really have a similary themed/mechanics game with me. I'll also keep a note in the box with the imbalanced 2 player factions and such. Thanks, and amazing video as always
I enjoyed this game, but it may be because I won… 😂 I definitely agree that some people at the table really hated it, and those who focused on a track only to have it not pay off, were frustrated. One thing we were confused about was that the rule book said a great game would have players achieving 300 points, and while most of our group got close to 200, we were struggling to understand how 300 was even possible. I think we left the table wondering if we missed something.
Magic The Gathering was an inspiration for some powers and combos in Tapestry. I tired Magic a few times and I don't know how to fully take advantage of every single card, but experts do. "Why would I want to roll a die 4 times with no effect?" If you are far along on the science track then set yourself up to take advantage of that. Would you not like to skip over those 3 cost spaces and get to the powerful 2 costs spaces? Rolling the die 4 times could help with that if your other 3 markers are waiting next to or one those 3 costs spaces. Or.... Why would you want a second CIV? If you want that to be useful then just focus on the military track, ignore the other tracks. Get the second CIV early and use them for the other tracks.
The way tapesrty is explained like a card game but as a board game. Draw then play by spending resourses there are 5 card types that stay or gets discarded after use. Magic before you explain you need to read the cards. Where the games gets nutz with rules
Great stuff as always! I was so looking forward to this ore release but after a couple reviews that were critical of some things that I was pretty sure would make the game not very fun for me I still held out hope. Your review was the tipping point though. Thank you for saving me from myself and also $100 US. Still looking for that under 2 civilization game...
This isn't a top 10 game for me (or 20 for that matter) but despite the randomness I enjoy the game. Maybe it is because of the randomness as you have to try and adjust your plan/engine based on what tech and tapestry cards are available.
Starting with Two Tapestry cards helped with some of the crazy early game variance. Agree 100% with this video, not something I would ever buy but didn't hate playing it. The buildings are hilariously cliche Kickstarter bloat.
One of the funniest reviews you've done yet! I burst out laughing a few times. Great job! Not interested in the game in the slightest and now I know why.
I would prefer a cheaper game unless the deluxe components really matter. oh and yea the end there? I'd rather not risk buying an expensive game that will get people frustrated out of bad luck
"It needs more time to be developed" is the EXACT thought I had after playing it once. Usually Jamey's games are right up my alley if I don't want to play something heavy but oh boy, Tapestry is easily his weakest game.
@@greytoeimp if you're not feeling burned from buying Tapestry I wholly suggest picking up Viticulture Essential Edition. It's easily his best game and probably one of the best games to come out in the past decade.
If I didn't know anything about it, or hadn't played it, his review would have sold me on getting it! is quirky review just enhanced my estimation of this game - and the more I play it, the more sane it gets! :)
Ouch. And I'm waiting for the Spanish one to come to me. Well, that teaches me to not preorder. Not that I'm going to take the advice :P Hope we have fun with it but you mention some very good points for it being... random in that regard.
I preordered my copy from SG and I was reading comments about how random and not too good it is ever since, yet I enjoy the game SO MUCH that I don't regret buying it at all, it's been a blast every time I got it to table. Don't get disappointed until you actually play the game, pal, you might actually enjoy it in the end!
I myself completely failed at the game focusing on science. With my Alchemists civilization I had tremendous bad luck the first two income periods rolling double on the second roll. That made for a terrible start. And way too late I realized that I should - somehow - have built much more income buildings. The Exploration track seems so much more powerful, especially at the end, unlocking so much more and giving so much more points. The game should at least give a recommendation at which civilizations to first try and play the game with. They're just too unbalanced.
I love this sweet mess of a game but only as a solo affair. When left to my own devices this is a puzzle playground that I can enjoy, and a safe place where I can live with all the random variables without feeling resentment towards other players that just lucked into better tapestry cards or civilization draws. I also concur that there was no need for the buildings and I would've loved this game with tiles and a $60 price point versus the $100. I wonder if the expansion has fixed some of the glaring oversites the game design has built into it?
Actually, if you limit the comparison to just 2 civs many of them are already glaringly imbalanced. Futurists for instance get 12 free advancements AND four resources, while Alchemists MIGHT get 12 free advancements OR 4 resources. It doesn’t need thousands of plays to “prove” its imbalanced. The math proving its imbalance is very easy to demonstrate. The problem are all the folks who bought it for $100 and don’t want to acknowledge that its basically still in the beta stage of balancing.
Hey everyone, so i bought this game when it came out... Now If i buy Tapestry: Fantasies & Futures Expansion do I still need to buy the Revised Civ Pack or is there an expansion that will revise it all for me? I just dont want to buy something that I don't need...
I'm sorry if I'm exactly three years late onto this but.... ... not a coincidence that your casette tape was called Ur in a game about Civilizations, surely? Surely?
you do definitely one of the most intelligent reviews in the business, love to just listen to them. Although i do not understand an approach to discredit games like Rising Sun (notabene in which review i think you missed the spirit of this game unfortunately) just because the price - these are just games made in more (justified or not) luxury way and there are people who can afford them - otherwise they wouldn't been published and game's cost say nothing about the quality of the product, here with Tapestry i have exactly the same feeling as you had. A Gimmick only - sadly. I would also say RNG is a little to big here. Nontheless great stuff, great review and hope to see another reviews soon. Big Cheers from Poland!
Fantastic review, thank you! After foolishly exposing myself to a lot of board game related media in preparation for Essen, and due to some personal experiences with people who claim to "review" board games, I've grown really sick and tired of the spineless and greedy character that sets the tone for how board games are discussed in the public today, especially on youtube. You do a great job, so remember to always keep up your spirits! Also, the other day at SPIEL I managed to take a peek at you guys at the King Racoon booth while I was busy playing Tsukuyumi and you were busy talking to some King Racoon guy and looking kind of tired (which you handled well). In my 2 hrs of testing I had a blast though, so I'd love to hear your opinions on the game one day. :)
Also agree the game looked like a mess before I bought it but it looks like a good theme park game for new players. Though price tag makes me agree. If BGing isn't your life hobby stay away.
We played this once. After we did we saw the errata/addendum where they give certain factions a large amount of VPs while others give all their opponent's bonus VPs, and these are not small numbers. This made me glad I didn't buy it and only played it that one time. Not a terrible game but it felt very empty and rather dull. I love Civ games but this felt like Civ with all the bits assembled by a drunken sandwich.
This is a little off topic, but I noticed or at least I think I noticed that you don't have a Patreon account. I think there are many of us subscribers that would love to contribute. Please consider
I don't see myself investing 100 dollars in an imbalanced game (wich is what many reviews of Tapestry are telling about it). Moreover, to me it looks "overproduced" just in order to get more money from the the buyers.
You should have been passed Traders or Chosen instead of Inventors. Inventors are actually interesting in Tech the same way Militarists are in Military or Nomads are in Explore.
I'm sorry for doing this but couldn't forgive myself if I didn't. Technically squares are a type of rectangle and not, as you stated (in jest I know), the other way around. Sorry again!
A game in which the designer sets a Faction to start with almost 50 points to have chance to Win... If its not unbalanced then I have no idea what this is!
Between NPI and 3MinBG, the criticism towards the Tapestry cards is strong. It is a blaring oversight for a game that I really want to love. It is such an imbalance.
I usually disagree with you guys and consider you delve very hard on stuff I find irrelevant, but on this one I agree, good review, basically, untested game with too much luck for what its trying to accomplish.
Watching this again after three expansions and many balance sheets have come out... The game is still in my collection...still feels unbalanced. In fact every game about half the people at the table had a great time and the other half really didn't. The game is an enigma. I do pull it out still (mostly solo these days). And I think it will continue to stay in my collection but I couldn't explain why. Maybe it's the gambler in me? Will I have a great time tonight or will I wish I never opened the box? We shall see....
Played my first game of Tapestry tonight 3P, not even a question its not balanced in any way shape or form. If people even want to argue this, it's laughable, and again I am certain after a single play and not seeing even all the Tapestry cards, or technologies, I could put together a faction and set of cards that would guarantee a high probability of a loss. And this is what game testers and Jamie should be checking. For e.g. while unlikely you could pull a set of trap cards. So play the game with just trap cards, which again while unlikely is a possibility and see if you can win. Compare that to the tapestry cards that allow you to pick a player and every time they use an action on one track you get to duplicate the basic action (without paying any cost!). Just ridiculous. This game is a classic example of knowing 100% after even a single play its completely unbalanced and broken.
I thought about making my first stonemaier game when i started seeing news about a pre-order. But the more i looked into it I changed my mine based on the aesthetics and price and the fact the landmarks didn't seem to do much. More I've heard about the caveats from reviewer I'm okay with that decision.
And never forget the stupid and incredible unbalance in the game that had..... can't recall already changes after no longer that just a 2 weeks of its release, I said exactly the same thing, that needed A LOT more of playtesting and I was practically lynched by the community
In the near future, i think this game with be widely acknowledged as the board game that was rushed to market. This game is a pricey mistake - glad i didn't get caught up in the fervor.
@@NoPunIncluded Oh I mean, I know that's why they're there. Otherwise you wouldn't have them! I'll be fine. When we get those games. In a month. Even though they're already on store shelves. Ohhhh
I keep hearing people say you can't determine game balance issues after a first play or a few plays and I am continually disagreeing with this and I have found issues with games after a single play multiple times. Admittedly the heavier the game, the harder this is, but it also depends on the mechanic/card/rule etc. I can point to multiple posts I have had on BGG about this, but an example would be Magic The Gathering. There are many cards\sets now and I haven't played since the early days of mostly third edition, but I would say any reasonable gamer would realise after playing a couple of games, how overpowered Mox's and say the Black Lotus cards are, so if they played in a deck with them and some other ultra powerful cards, they wouldn't need to know every card and every permutation of cards to realise the game revolves around mana and those cards are super powerful. I haven't played Tapestry, but I have had some argumentative discussions about Scythe, the Invaders expansion and more recently Fenris campaign and game balance issues with those games, that didn't require me to play even tens of games to determine issues.
That's fair to say, but most of the time I see someone complaining about things being overpowered they follow a one-track thought. Realising there are issues is good, but an issue doesn't necessarily mean it's unbalanced, maybe you just haven't thought of the answer to the issue yet. I'm not saying every issue can be solved... but in my experience a lot of players only go by the gut-reaction experience - and scream OVERPOWERED - rather than actually thinking of how they might be able to overcome said issue and just write off the game as unbalanced.
For heavier games this is obviously the case, but there are many games I have picked up issues after a single play, that impact balance. And others clearly have too as often I see others either agree with my post, or I search and find others have noticed the same. Some may be design choices, I dislike too much randomness In games, doesn't mean others agree, but there are some clear examples of things like Takenoko, and the Panda objectives being clearly overpowered. Didn't take even one play to realise that, half way through the first game that was obvious! and so I question why wasn't it play tested and balanced. I love Jamies games, but I think he has issues with balance. I own everything for Viticulture and love it, but I often feel the visitor cards are a little to random when I play, and I have had a number of discussions about Scythe. A classic example is the new invaders factions that have limited movement. In low player count games, the ability to only move 1 hex, unless you get a factory card is a massive imbalance in my opinion. 2 stars are dedicated to combat and because of the single movement, in lower player count games, it is often easy for your opponents to stay out of your reach, and if they have there movement unlocked, pick when they choose to attack you, meaning for 2 stars your at a big disadvantage. Higher player counts with a tighter map this is likely less an issue, but in 2/3 players games, I think both invaders factions are at a huge disadvantage, and I noticed this after my first play, so I question why this wasn't either noticed by Jamie, or any of his play testers?
@@zorbageek8432 In your Takenoko example, isn't that perhaps more of a design flaw rather than a balance issue? Mind you, I've played it once or twice a long time ago, I remember there being one thing - most likely your mentioned panda objectives, which the owner of the game told us were best to go for, so we all did. Does that make it overpowered? Compared to the other objectives sure, but if everyone can go that route I wouldn't say it's a balance issue. I mean if you take chess, a queen is obviously better than a rook, in that comparison the queen is overpowered, but both players have a queen.. so it's not exactly a balance issue is it? I'm not saying it's good design, but I personally wouldn't say that it's a balance issue. To clarify, for me a balance issue is when a player has an unfair advantage others can't ever do anything about while the other players also do not have a comparable advantage of their own. As soon as it 'evens' out over the course of a game one can argue it's balanced. I can't comment on the Viticulture example, I unfortunately haven't played it. Scythe I have played. My gut reactions to the invader factions were 'Wait they don't start behind rivers?' followed by 'Oh but they don't have speed'. I partially agree with the balance issue here. For Togawa I'd agree, they don't get enough other goodies to make up for the lack of speed. For Albion I can make a compelling case as to why they can make up for their lack of speed if you play them differently. They are in fact a faction that does very well at our table also at low player counts. It does seem that you always have to play them the same way to do well with them - or well we haven't really found another way yet - which is more of a design flaw than a balance issue, unless you like that style of play. But saying they can't get 2 combat stars because they lack speed while they are vulnerable to attacks themselves is a balance issue is too simplified, there are far far more factors which come into play, before you can call it so. That said, I think Albion's village location when Nordics are in play is far more of a balance issue and glaring oversight than both of the invader factions combined.
I lump some design flaws in, because as you say, the other objectives almost become moot. I don't know if the game was designed this way for a reason, or just it lacked play testing. I should also state issue I have found don't always mean you will never win, s whilst the Panda objectives are overpowered, its not to say if you used other objectives, got lucky and played with less skilled players, you couldn't win. In my last play of Viticulture, 2 players made 10+ points in a single round, which to me seems a little swingy, based on game only requiring 20 points to trigger end game. As for Albion, absolutely its unbalanced at lower player counts. Not only are you hamstrung with combat because of your movement, getting the objectives with slow movement, means many of them are much more difficult, as an example lets say getting finishing your turn on 3 mines. That requires much more planning and effort when your mechs move 1, vs 2 movement. Your also susceptible to having to spread out earlier, because end game, lack of movement doesn't allow you to drop off workers like having 2 movement does. So as an example, with standard factions and unlocking 3 movement, and your speed mech, you can drop off workers and spread out to 6 hexes in one round. Albion can do half that. Forget about trying to get the objective of having 6 of your tokens or say 5 workers in a hex, whilst you can achieve those objectives, unless your playing with less skilled players your likely not to be able to easily spread out which is required for you to make use of the extra territories that give you points needed. I haven't played the factions at higher player counts so I can't say if these issues are still present, I believe with a tighter map its likely to be more difficult to avoid Albion in combat and there power in combat is good, if they are given the opportunity to make use of it. In a 3 player game and possibly even 4, if your playing with skilled players, its likely going to be something dictated by your opponents on if and when you can attack, which makes there power less useful. I would be interested to see how people in your group play and if they are confrontational or simply let Albion move around and do what they want and spread how they want. Albion at lower player counts has to play defensively, and they are still dangerous to attack, but if your opponents have a 5 attack card up there sleeve, and speed mech, they can often hit you when they want, or when your susceptible and with right move, and you may not even have the ability to counter attack. I have lately been seeing to many games I feel are just not properly play tested, or the play testers are not giving good feedback, or stress testing the games properly, or developers are not listening to issue? I have a friend who has Tapestry now so will get to play it soon, and given the criticisms I have read, its sound like it will be even more unbalanced than Scythe. I still love playing Scythe, solo and competitively so it may not make a difference if the game is still great fun, but I think when a game is swingy, and random and I feel I have no control over winning, then that can leave a sour taste in my mouth, so ill have to see how it goes.
@@zorbageek8432 With Albion in particular though you seem to forget all about their rally ability. Rally allows them to move further with the use of workers - admitedly not on territories controlled by opponents, but it is a valid move. Secondly if you are attacked and as you mention Albion aren't the easiest targets since their power is quite good, they can simply counterattack by rallying back onto the flag. Additionally they can potentially gain more territory points (due to flags) with fewer units compared to other factions, allowing their defensive playstyle to even out a bit. Also don't forget that the base factions they need either 2 mechs (speed + other) or the speed mech and a mine to cross those rivers. To compare that equally Albion would have 1-2 added mech abilities. I actually play Scythe the most at 3 players and in our games it's like a mexican stand off with all factions, we play quite aggressively yet because of how we move there's rarely more than 1-2 combat stars total, since everyone awaits that first move and then the other two players counteract. I agree that it's more difficult for Albion to take advantage of combat late game, but early-mid game especially if you position yourself properly you'll definitely reduce the mobility of your opponents until they're 'forced' to take speed to overcome it. You are forced to move early as Albion to make up for it later, but if you do, you can do quite well. Mind you, I'm not saying they're the best, but they're not the worst, in our games they perform above Saxony, Togawa and Nordics on average. If you purely look at mobility then you're absolutely right, but you when you look at a full balance standpoint you need to take the entirety of the game into the equation. Additionally one could argue how you measure balance, as far as Scythe factions go I'd say if their winrate is around average - regardless of how you pull it off - it's fairly balanced. In our groups it's mainly Nordics and Togawa that are quite low, Togawa for obvious reasons, Nordics because quite a few players just aren't making the most of their ability, followed by Saxony since a lot of players in our group tend to go an all or nothing warfare heavy strategy with them. Tapestry has some powerful things in it, but a lot of them are only powerful if you get them at the right time or if you plan for them and use them at specific times. The luck/randomness aspect isn't that swingy in my opinion, mostly because there's so many instances of it, it evens out over the course of the game. There's of course (as always with luck) a possibility someone would be lucky the entire game, but I haven't seen that happen yet. There are some things which get a lot of gut-reactions of being overpowered, the Marriage of State Tapestry card in particular which really is only slightly above average when you compare it's impact on the entire game. Any player that realises it's all about unlocking income buildings and who looks for combinations between the tracks and ways to prolong their eras when it matters, will do very well and most likely outperform anyone who doesn't realise that and only relies on luck. I personally think the Terraforming Tapestry card is too powerful if it's in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, and a Civ like Historians is far too powerful at a player count of 2-3, which is one of the few things I really do wish they would've done, make a civ list of which work best with a certain player count, because that's where the most unbalance lies. Most other things every player can get and is very situational and only a small part in the grand scheme of the game.
Hey, turns out Spock accidentally left his warp stabilizer in the video we just published. This is a bit frustrating, but we're pretty much on the road now (to Essen Spiel), so we either leave the video as is or take it down and publish it next week. I think we'll leave it.
I'm so confused.
Edit: so after WATCHING the video, I now understand. 😂😅
Step aside everyone, I’m about to write a blog post about this injustice.
Sorry, I really don't get what you are referring to. Are you talking about the stabilizer of the camera or about an object in the video ? I have just spent the last 20 min to understand by rewatching the video. And now I feel like my life is empty if I don't have anything better to do than rewatching a video because I didn't understand a comment.
@@MegaZombywoof timestamp 10:17
I sincerely thought that was left on purpose as a joke.
This is one of the best critical reviews I've seen and I hope to see more that are willing to be so direct about problems in otherwise good games.
Seems odd not to mention that warp stabiliser requires clip dimensions to match sequence.
You can just fix this by nesting.
Plot-twist: it was already nested.
@@NoPunIncluded Hahahaha
I love your honesty and your point of view. The hype around this game is palpable, and you guys really seem immune to hype while being aware of it. There is a huge difference between wanting to love something new and shiny and actually really enjoying it. Thank you!
Wow. Ok then. Some people wear their love of a game like armor and take personal offense when someone disagrees with them. I’m glad you like the game. I’m sure some people do.
Back to thanking this great channel for an objective review.
I love this game, it's quickly become one of my all time favourites, and it's all my group and I are playing at the moment. BUT, I 100% agree with your comment: "This game needed more rigorous testing and development before being rushed out to buyers".
We already have thousands of games worth of data, and it's already showing wild imbalances in the win-rates of factions. Futurists are very clearly over-powered, in contrast to the under-powered Traders. The data shows that very clearly, even with a hefty margin of error and scope for considering other factors.
I LOVE civilization-building games and would have bought this game at the outset, but something had really been nagging at me about this game. You’ve nailed it in this review. Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.
Great review - refreshing to hear some honest and very valid critiques of the game. Totally agree with the Discard 3 Tech Cards space - it’s so counterproductive and paltry compared to the other tracks’ Discard actions. Every game I’ve played it had players scratching their heads wondering why it exists.
Ok, bit late now after 6 months. But I played it online with friends last night. With the step being so late, one player had between 5 and 10 event cards out already. Once events are upgraded to the max you won't get any points from them anymore anyway (as far as I have seen) and you can't upgrade all anyway. Then those are 10 easy points.
it drove me crazy that the buildings do not fit perfectly on the puzzleboard!!!
You can very easily fix this by nesting.
I love your reviews, man!
You really make it a fun experience, keep it up!
The power of the ultimate top-deck is the same reason I don't resonate with Viticulture - the winter visitors that allow for a 2-for-1 action on spaces that are inevitably crowded can break an otherwise exciting race to the finish line into a foregone conclusion. They don't feel rewarding for the time I have invested into them.
"I mentioned Brexit once, I think I got away with it."
What's that, Eric? You've given up being a Los Angeles detective and started running a hotel in Torquay?
Yes! Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it and I don't agree with that in a workplace!
Another. Outstanding. Review. Have fun in Essen!
Agreed with you at the beginning, the anachronistic nature of the cards really bothers me and it's not the game for me. Great review, love your content!
I totally feel for Elaine. I recently played Everdell and watched every other player at the table have a lovely time building a colourful tableau, while I never got a single combo going and spent two hours hating the game and my time at the table. I have friends who love the game, and I know my experience is not the norm. But I will never play that game again because in my mind it is never going to be fun, especially as, even if I have a better game, I will constantly be thinking that maybe someone else at the table is having a bad time, and that doesn't make me want to share it.
We've never played Everdell, I'm sorry you had a miserable time with it.
I thought I was the oddity regarding Everdell. I am glad someone else had the exact same experience that I did. Certain design and graphic choices of Everdell did not appeal to me. The tree was more of a nuisance than help and I did not find combos to be consistent as well.
After watching this video, I don't think Tapestry will be my cup of tea either.
Same experience here. Loved everything about the game, but not the game itself.
"Who needs planning when you're mostly drank."
That sums up my experience in university.
I CAN’T DO THAT DAVE.
Great review and all valid points. I love the game still, I think it provides a fun experience of romping through make believe land and let's you come up with crazy stories for why your civilization is just now creating medicine, years after you have explored space. Win, lose, or draw the table always had a good time. We did house rule to draw two tapestry cards and pick one, to balance the swingy nature/power of some of them for your engine.
Strong review, Efka! I liked the breadth and depth of insights you provided into the game. I've got it but it still hasn't hit the table yet, so I'm eager to see what I make of it.
Wow! Great review! Balanced and direct. I was looking at this one, but now I think Tapestry might not be a good game for my group. Thanks!
Loved the Big Lebowski reference. I'm so happy that someone else feels the same way I feel about this game. I also felt that the game needed a lot more play testing and that every action just seemed really random. On top of that with the random tapestry cards in the random technology cards I really felt the game was just too random for me.
I came here to comment on the BL reference too :) ua-cam.com/video/e_S558EYzVo/v-deo.html
Fantastic review Efka. I do wonder will this get an essential edition aka a fix.
With flat card board cut in interesting shapes for the city. Or less wacky more functional looking buildings.
Tracks with more interesting actions and maybe even choices.
A sequence to the cards. Both tech and tapestry cards could easily be printed with numerals on the back I to IV
I suppose basically im looking for what I've grown accustomed to from jamey, a sense of coherence.
Yeah, I never saw Gandhi the same way after that nuclear strike.
Thank you for this great reaview as always ! I was hesitating to buy the game (Stegmaier/Scythe-Fanboy), but price and randomness convinces me to keep my money (and my friends )
This is almost exactly what I've been saying about this game. The fundamental idea is great, but it's let down by its own bloat and sheer randomness. You can also completely ignore the technology track, I'm convinced.
It's funny that I've also heard the exact opposite of what you're saying on BGG, basically that the Technology track is the best strategy to go after if you were to win the game.
It's a shame the little houses were inedible. I'm growing tired of this injustice.
Merlandese I heard the Azul tiles are quite crunchy.
This review mirrors our experiences exactly. After a bunch of 2-player games which increasingly convinced my husband and me that this game had serious issues, we invited a friend to play. He ended up playing an Espionage card on my Marriage of State card, which he used to remora himself onto my husband's Science track advancement and completely tank my husband's plans. Our friend won handily, and once we finished, he said, "I'm never playing that again." His victory felt so empty and unearned that it just killed the game for him.
A great observation! Part of the joy of playing a game for me is not whether I've won against someone, but feeling a sense of achievement because I found a solution.
@@NoPunIncluded True! It's a very rare game (such as Innovation) where we can have a cheap win and not feel bad about the time investment, sharing a laugh instead.
I recently started watching your videos. They’re so much fun!
Thank you for being 100% honest with your reviews.
This game is not only quite bad, but it's also quite obvious that this is the case.
I really lost some respect for reviewers who ignored or tiptoed around this games flaws for political reasons.
Good to see I still have a few honest reviewers to trust.
Did you know that the warp stabilizer requires clip dimensions to match sequence? You can fix this by nesting.
I do believe your experience and criticisms are fair. However I've had a really good time with the game despite some of the randomness issues.
When I saw that beautiful painted miniature in the bowl and efgar was talking about gravy, I was scared for a sec
Excellent, excellent, excellent work! This is your best review.
Your comedy is great and you made learning really entertaining! haha Subscribed!
I'm happy to see you pointing out the parts which you didn't like about the game so that players can take informed decision on whether to buy this or not, and not getting swept up in the hype train.
Having said, I'll probably buy it as i like the puzzly aspect and don't really have a similary themed/mechanics game with me. I'll also keep a note in the box with the imbalanced 2 player factions and such.
Thanks, and amazing video as always
I enjoyed this game, but it may be because I won… 😂 I definitely agree that some people at the table really hated it, and those who focused on a track only to have it not pay off, were frustrated. One thing we were confused about was that the rule book said a great game would have players achieving 300 points, and while most of our group got close to 200, we were struggling to understand how 300 was even possible. I think we left the table wondering if we missed something.
Hello😊. You are still the best when it comes to give an honest review. Love your videos.
Awesome review. Love the honesty. Keep going
Magic The Gathering was an inspiration for some powers and combos in Tapestry. I tired Magic a few times and I don't know how to fully take advantage of every single card, but experts do.
"Why would I want to roll a die 4 times with no effect?"
If you are far along on the science track then set yourself up to take advantage of that. Would you not like to skip over those 3 cost spaces and get to the powerful 2 costs spaces? Rolling the die 4 times could help with that if your other 3 markers are waiting next to or one those 3 costs spaces. Or....
Why would you want a second CIV?
If you want that to be useful then just focus on the military track, ignore the other tracks. Get the second CIV early and use them for the other tracks.
The way tapesrty is explained like a card game but as a board game. Draw then play by spending resourses there are 5 card types that stay or gets discarded after use. Magic before you explain you need to read the cards. Where the games gets nutz with rules
Great stuff as always! I was so looking forward to this ore release but after a couple reviews that were critical of some things that I was pretty sure would make the game not very fun for me I still held out hope. Your review was the tipping point though. Thank you for saving me from myself and also $100 US. Still looking for that under 2 civilization game...
Immediately liked the video when I saw the (90-minute) Maxwell tape!
I kind of giggled at that point, because it's not "Maxwell."
This isn't a top 10 game for me (or 20 for that matter) but despite the randomness I enjoy the game. Maybe it is because of the randomness as you have to try and adjust your plan/engine based on what tech and tapestry cards are available.
Starting with Two Tapestry cards helped with some of the crazy early game variance.
Agree 100% with this video, not something I would ever buy but didn't hate playing it. The buildings are hilariously cliche Kickstarter bloat.
It wasn't a Kickstarter
I'll be honest from not having played it, I'd assume that Feast For Odin is a better investment unless you've played that to death and back already.
We'll revisit A Feast for Odin soon on our podcast, especially now that there is a meaty expansion
"Oh, nice move! Now you can either take some points cream or a resource!" "I think I'll pass on the points cream and just take another mushroom."
One of the funniest reviews you've done yet! I burst out laughing a few times. Great job! Not interested in the game in the slightest and now I know why.
I would prefer a cheaper game unless the deluxe components really matter.
oh and yea the end there? I'd rather not risk buying an expensive game that will get people frustrated out of bad luck
"It needs more time to be developed" is the EXACT thought I had after playing it once. Usually Jamey's games are right up my alley if I don't want to play something heavy but oh boy, Tapestry is easily his weakest game.
Which is a shame, because with a bit of extra care, it could be his greatest. I still love playing Tapestry, but I'm sad it's not better.
ofc this is the first one of his i actually buy fml lol
@@greytoeimp if you're not feeling burned from buying Tapestry I wholly suggest picking up Viticulture Essential Edition. It's easily his best game and probably one of the best games to come out in the past decade.
This guy is so adorable, I could watch him reviewing pretty much anything.
Keep going your great job, I'm waiting for your Orléans Stories review ;)
There's a "Tweaking Tapestry - A List of Small Changes" thread on bgg forum with some simple houserules to mitigate randomness.
If I didn't know anything about it, or hadn't played it, his review would have sold me on getting it! is quirky review just enhanced my estimation of this game - and the more I play it, the more sane it gets! :)
Ah bless your warp stabiliser banner, haha.
The Heralds are just fine in a two player game, in fact I'd say they're over-powered.
Ouch. And I'm waiting for the Spanish one to come to me. Well, that teaches me to not preorder.
Not that I'm going to take the advice :P
Hope we have fun with it but you mention some very good points for it being... random in that regard.
I preordered my copy from SG and I was reading comments about how random and not too good it is ever since, yet I enjoy the game SO MUCH that I don't regret buying it at all, it's been a blast every time I got it to table. Don't get disappointed until you actually play the game, pal, you might actually enjoy it in the end!
Artiiiq454 So did I, I‘m very happy with the games the way it is 🙂. Greetings from Germany.
I myself completely failed at the game focusing on science. With my Alchemists civilization I had tremendous bad luck the first two income periods rolling double on the second roll. That made for a terrible start. And way too late I realized that I should - somehow - have built much more income buildings. The Exploration track seems so much more powerful, especially at the end, unlocking so much more and giving so much more points.
The game should at least give a recommendation at which civilizations to first try and play the game with. They're just too unbalanced.
I love this sweet mess of a game but only as a solo affair. When left to my own devices this is a puzzle playground that I can enjoy, and a safe place where I can live with all the random variables without feeling resentment towards other players that just lucked into better tapestry cards or civilization draws. I also concur that there was no need for the buildings and I would've loved this game with tiles and a $60 price point versus the $100. I wonder if the expansion has fixed some of the glaring oversites the game design has built into it?
Actually, if you limit the comparison to just 2 civs many of them are already glaringly imbalanced.
Futurists for instance get 12 free advancements AND four resources, while Alchemists MIGHT get 12 free advancements OR 4 resources.
It doesn’t need thousands of plays to “prove” its imbalanced. The math proving its imbalance is very easy to demonstrate. The problem are all the folks who bought it for $100 and don’t want to acknowledge that its basically still in the beta stage of balancing.
Hey everyone, so i bought this game when it came out... Now If i buy Tapestry: Fantasies & Futures Expansion do I still need to buy the Revised Civ Pack or is there an expansion that will revise it all for me? I just dont want to buy something that I don't need...
Do you have a list of board games you enjoy?
I'm sorry if I'm exactly three years late onto this but....
... not a coincidence that your casette tape was called Ur in a game about Civilizations, surely?
Surely?
you do definitely one of the most intelligent reviews in the business, love to just listen to them. Although i do not understand an approach to discredit games like Rising Sun (notabene in which review i think you missed the spirit of this game unfortunately) just because the price - these are just games made in more (justified or not) luxury way and there are people who can afford them - otherwise they wouldn't been published and game's cost say nothing about the quality of the product, here with Tapestry i have exactly the same feeling as you had. A Gimmick only - sadly. I would also say RNG is a little to big here. Nontheless great stuff, great review and hope to see another reviews soon. Big Cheers from Poland!
Fantastic review, thank you! After foolishly exposing myself to a lot of board game related media in preparation for Essen, and due to some personal experiences with people who claim to "review" board games, I've grown really sick and tired of the spineless and greedy character that sets the tone for how board games are discussed in the public today, especially on youtube. You do a great job, so remember to always keep up your spirits!
Also, the other day at SPIEL I managed to take a peek at you guys at the King Racoon booth while I was busy playing Tsukuyumi and you were busy talking to some King Racoon guy and looking kind of tired (which you handled well). In my 2 hrs of testing I had a blast though, so I'd love to hear your opinions on the game one day. :)
Also agree the game looked like a mess before I bought it but it looks like a good theme park game for new players. Though price tag makes me agree. If BGing isn't your life hobby stay away.
We played this once. After we did we saw the errata/addendum where they give certain factions a large amount of VPs while others give all their opponent's bonus VPs, and these are not small numbers. This made me glad I didn't buy it and only played it that one time. Not a terrible game but it felt very empty and rather dull. I love Civ games but this felt like Civ with all the bits assembled by a drunken sandwich.
I've played this once at a new years gaming day. I enjoyed my time with it. But it's not worth dropping $100 on.
This is a little off topic, but I noticed or at least I think I noticed that you don't have a Patreon account. I think there are many of us subscribers that would love to contribute. Please consider
Thank you very much! We opted for yearly Kickstarter campaigns instead of Patreon. Next one's in March.
I don't see myself investing 100 dollars in an imbalanced game (wich is what many reviews of Tapestry are telling about it). Moreover, to me it looks "overproduced" just in order to get more money from the the buyers.
some really good points.
You should have been passed Traders or Chosen instead of Inventors. Inventors are actually interesting in Tech the same way Militarists are in Military or Nomads are in Explore.
I'm sorry for doing this but couldn't forgive myself if I didn't. Technically squares are a type of rectangle and not, as you stated (in jest I know), the other way around. Sorry again!
Have you lost weight Efka? You look sharp! :)
A game in which the designer sets a Faction to start with almost 50 points to have chance to Win... If its not unbalanced then I have no idea what this is!
Between NPI and 3MinBG, the criticism towards the Tapestry cards is strong. It is a blaring oversight for a game that I really want to love. It is such an imbalance.
10:53 nice OOO. Short but sharp
A what grown in English soil? dykrone? Eh? 20:20
A mild flavoured winter radish!
Thank you google
That was entertaining :) Hope to meet you at Essen!
You missed a trick... the review should have concluded with “I will leave you to discover that on your own” ;)
So, You didnt have fun playing it? not at all?
Youre My favourite brutal reviewer
I usually disagree with you guys and consider you delve very hard on stuff I find irrelevant, but on this one I agree, good review, basically, untested game with too much luck for what its trying to accomplish.
Watching this again after three expansions and many balance sheets have come out... The game is still in my collection...still feels unbalanced. In fact every game about half the people at the table had a great time and the other half really didn't. The game is an enigma. I do pull it out still (mostly solo these days). And I think it will continue to stay in my collection but I couldn't explain why. Maybe it's the gambler in me? Will I have a great time tonight or will I wish I never opened the box? We shall see....
I wish you continued success in never knowing what to think about Tapestry. One day, maybe, humans will be worthy of unravelling this puzzle.
Hi From Bangladesh!
Played my first game of Tapestry tonight 3P, not even a question its not balanced in any way shape or form. If people even want to argue this, it's laughable, and again I am certain after a single play and not seeing even all the Tapestry cards, or technologies, I could put together a faction and set of cards that would guarantee a high probability of a loss. And this is what game testers and Jamie should be checking. For e.g. while unlikely you could pull a set of trap cards. So play the game with just trap cards, which again while unlikely is a possibility and see if you can win. Compare that to the tapestry cards that allow you to pick a player and every time they use an action on one track you get to duplicate the basic action (without paying any cost!). Just ridiculous. This game is a classic example of knowing 100% after even a single play its completely unbalanced and broken.
'Income face.'
Fantastic review!
This game is 100 bucks? Haha what the heck?!!!
You had me at tapes try. Lol
I thought about making my first stonemaier game when i started seeing news about a pre-order. But the more i looked into it I changed my mine based on the aesthetics and price and the fact the landmarks didn't seem to do much. More I've heard about the caveats from reviewer I'm okay with that decision.
And never forget the stupid and incredible unbalance in the game that had..... can't recall already changes after no longer that just a 2 weeks of its release, I said exactly the same thing, that needed A LOT more of playtesting and I was practically lynched by the community
As an “English person” I am truly offended
In the near future, i think this game with be widely acknowledged as the board game that was rushed to market. This game is a pricey mistake - glad i didn't get caught up in the fervor.
Oh, how cool, you have Vast: Mysterious Manor. Unlike every Kickstarter backer in Europe and Australia. Some days. Some days.
If it helps, they're there for work and not play (but to be fair, our work is play, honestly I don't know what's what anymore).
@@NoPunIncluded Oh I mean, I know that's why they're there. Otherwise you wouldn't have them! I'll be fine. When we get those games. In a month. Even though they're already on store shelves. Ohhhh
I’m glad I didn’t give in to the hype and wait for reviews. The money saved can be invested in better games.
Thanks for sharing. Although there is a lot of hype about this game I'm not going to buy it and have no interest to play it.
I keep hearing people say you can't determine game balance issues after a first play or a few plays and I am continually disagreeing with this and I have found issues with games after a single play multiple times. Admittedly the heavier the game, the harder this is, but it also depends on the mechanic/card/rule etc.
I can point to multiple posts I have had on BGG about this, but an example would be Magic The Gathering. There are many cards\sets now and I haven't played since the early days of mostly third edition, but I would say any reasonable gamer would realise after playing a couple of games, how overpowered Mox's and say the Black Lotus cards are, so if they played in a deck with them and some other ultra powerful cards, they wouldn't need to know every card and every permutation of cards to realise the game revolves around mana and those cards are super powerful.
I haven't played Tapestry, but I have had some argumentative discussions about Scythe, the Invaders expansion and more recently Fenris campaign and game balance issues with those games, that didn't require me to play even tens of games to determine issues.
That's fair to say, but most of the time I see someone complaining about things being overpowered they follow a one-track thought.
Realising there are issues is good, but an issue doesn't necessarily mean it's unbalanced, maybe you just haven't thought of the answer to the issue yet. I'm not saying every issue can be solved... but in my experience a lot of players only go by the gut-reaction experience - and scream OVERPOWERED - rather than actually thinking of how they might be able to overcome said issue and just write off the game as unbalanced.
For heavier games this is obviously the case, but there are many games I have picked up issues after a single play, that impact balance. And others clearly have too as often I see others either agree with my post, or I search and find others have noticed the same. Some may be design choices, I dislike too much randomness In games, doesn't mean others agree, but there are some clear examples of things like Takenoko, and the Panda objectives being clearly overpowered. Didn't take even one play to realise that, half way through the first game that was obvious! and so I question why wasn't it play tested and balanced.
I love Jamies games, but I think he has issues with balance. I own everything for Viticulture and love it, but I often feel the visitor cards are a little to random when I play, and I have had a number of discussions about Scythe. A classic example is the new invaders factions that have limited movement. In low player count games, the ability to only move 1 hex, unless you get a factory card is a massive imbalance in my opinion. 2 stars are dedicated to combat and because of the single movement, in lower player count games, it is often easy for your opponents to stay out of your reach, and if they have there movement unlocked, pick when they choose to attack you, meaning for 2 stars your at a big disadvantage. Higher player counts with a tighter map this is likely less an issue, but in 2/3 players games, I think both invaders factions are at a huge disadvantage, and I noticed this after my first play, so I question why this wasn't either noticed by Jamie, or any of his play testers?
@@zorbageek8432 In your Takenoko example, isn't that perhaps more of a design flaw rather than a balance issue? Mind you, I've played it once or twice a long time ago, I remember there being one thing - most likely your mentioned panda objectives, which the owner of the game told us were best to go for, so we all did. Does that make it overpowered? Compared to the other objectives sure, but if everyone can go that route I wouldn't say it's a balance issue. I mean if you take chess, a queen is obviously better than a rook, in that comparison the queen is overpowered, but both players have a queen.. so it's not exactly a balance issue is it? I'm not saying it's good design, but I personally wouldn't say that it's a balance issue.
To clarify, for me a balance issue is when a player has an unfair advantage others can't ever do anything about while the other players also do not have a comparable advantage of their own. As soon as it 'evens' out over the course of a game one can argue it's balanced.
I can't comment on the Viticulture example, I unfortunately haven't played it. Scythe I have played. My gut reactions to the invader factions were 'Wait they don't start behind rivers?' followed by 'Oh but they don't have speed'. I partially agree with the balance issue here. For Togawa I'd agree, they don't get enough other goodies to make up for the lack of speed. For Albion I can make a compelling case as to why they can make up for their lack of speed if you play them differently. They are in fact a faction that does very well at our table also at low player counts. It does seem that you always have to play them the same way to do well with them - or well we haven't really found another way yet - which is more of a design flaw than a balance issue, unless you like that style of play.
But saying they can't get 2 combat stars because they lack speed while they are vulnerable to attacks themselves is a balance issue is too simplified, there are far far more factors which come into play, before you can call it so.
That said, I think Albion's village location when Nordics are in play is far more of a balance issue and glaring oversight than both of the invader factions combined.
I lump some design flaws in, because as you say, the other objectives almost become moot. I don't know if the game was designed this way for a reason, or just it lacked play testing.
I should also state issue I have found don't always mean you will never win, s whilst the Panda objectives are overpowered, its not to say if you used other objectives, got lucky and played with less skilled players, you couldn't win. In my last play of Viticulture, 2 players made 10+ points in a single round, which to me seems a little swingy, based on game only requiring 20 points to trigger end game.
As for Albion, absolutely its unbalanced at lower player counts. Not only are you hamstrung with combat because of your movement, getting the objectives with slow movement, means many of them are much more difficult, as an example lets say getting finishing your turn on 3 mines. That requires much more planning and effort when your mechs move 1, vs 2 movement. Your also susceptible to having to spread out earlier, because end game, lack of movement doesn't allow you to drop off workers like having 2 movement does. So as an example, with standard factions and unlocking 3 movement, and your speed mech, you can drop off workers and spread out to 6 hexes in one round. Albion can do half that. Forget about trying to get the objective of having 6 of your tokens or say 5 workers in a hex, whilst you can achieve those objectives, unless your playing with less skilled players your likely not to be able to easily spread out which is required for you to make use of the extra territories that give you points needed.
I haven't played the factions at higher player counts so I can't say if these issues are still present, I believe with a tighter map its likely to be more difficult to avoid Albion in combat and there power in combat is good, if they are given the opportunity to make use of it. In a 3 player game and possibly even 4, if your playing with skilled players, its likely going to be something dictated by your opponents on if and when you can attack, which makes there power less useful.
I would be interested to see how people in your group play and if they are confrontational or simply let Albion move around and do what they want and spread how they want. Albion at lower player counts has to play defensively, and they are still dangerous to attack, but if your opponents have a 5 attack card up there sleeve, and speed mech, they can often hit you when they want, or when your susceptible and with right move, and you may not even have the ability to counter attack.
I have lately been seeing to many games I feel are just not properly play tested, or the play testers are not giving good feedback, or stress testing the games properly, or developers are not listening to issue?
I have a friend who has Tapestry now so will get to play it soon, and given the criticisms I have read, its sound like it will be even more unbalanced than Scythe. I still love playing Scythe, solo and competitively so it may not make a difference if the game is still great fun, but I think when a game is swingy, and random and I feel I have no control over winning, then that can leave a sour taste in my mouth, so ill have to see how it goes.
@@zorbageek8432 With Albion in particular though you seem to forget all about their rally ability. Rally allows them to move further with the use of workers - admitedly not on territories controlled by opponents, but it is a valid move. Secondly if you are attacked and as you mention Albion aren't the easiest targets since their power is quite good, they can simply counterattack by rallying back onto the flag. Additionally they can potentially gain more territory points (due to flags) with fewer units compared to other factions, allowing their defensive playstyle to even out a bit.
Also don't forget that the base factions they need either 2 mechs (speed + other) or the speed mech and a mine to cross those rivers. To compare that equally Albion would have 1-2 added mech abilities. I actually play Scythe the most at 3 players and in our games it's like a mexican stand off with all factions, we play quite aggressively yet because of how we move there's rarely more than 1-2 combat stars total, since everyone awaits that first move and then the other two players counteract. I agree that it's more difficult for Albion to take advantage of combat late game, but early-mid game especially if you position yourself properly you'll definitely reduce the mobility of your opponents until they're 'forced' to take speed to overcome it.
You are forced to move early as Albion to make up for it later, but if you do, you can do quite well. Mind you, I'm not saying they're the best, but they're not the worst, in our games they perform above Saxony, Togawa and Nordics on average.
If you purely look at mobility then you're absolutely right, but you when you look at a full balance standpoint you need to take the entirety of the game into the equation. Additionally one could argue how you measure balance, as far as Scythe factions go I'd say if their winrate is around average - regardless of how you pull it off - it's fairly balanced. In our groups it's mainly Nordics and Togawa that are quite low, Togawa for obvious reasons, Nordics because quite a few players just aren't making the most of their ability, followed by Saxony since a lot of players in our group tend to go an all or nothing warfare heavy strategy with them.
Tapestry has some powerful things in it, but a lot of them are only powerful if you get them at the right time or if you plan for them and use them at specific times. The luck/randomness aspect isn't that swingy in my opinion, mostly because there's so many instances of it, it evens out over the course of the game. There's of course (as always with luck) a possibility someone would be lucky the entire game, but I haven't seen that happen yet.
There are some things which get a lot of gut-reactions of being overpowered, the Marriage of State Tapestry card in particular which really is only slightly above average when you compare it's impact on the entire game.
Any player that realises it's all about unlocking income buildings and who looks for combinations between the tracks and ways to prolong their eras when it matters, will do very well and most likely outperform anyone who doesn't realise that and only relies on luck.
I personally think the Terraforming Tapestry card is too powerful if it's in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, and a Civ like Historians is far too powerful at a player count of 2-3, which is one of the few things I really do wish they would've done, make a civ list of which work best with a certain player count, because that's where the most unbalance lies. Most other things every player can get and is very situational and only a small part in the grand scheme of the game.
👏. . . . 👏 . . . 👏 . . 👏 . 👏 👏👏👏
Fun game but incredibly imbalanced, some races are straight up overpowered, same goes for the tech track
Tapes-Try LOL
Ritalin in Coca-Cola? I have no idea what that metaphor means. Are you using the SU&SD gaffe printer?
Nice review, but boy, that thumbnail....