Gosh I'm glad I discovered your channel. No lie, your reviews are the best I've seen. Your format is unique. You don't make jokes that fall a mile from being funny. You show passion. Most importantly, you don't spend 40 minutes going over every possible rule in the most boring way possible. Long story short: Nicely done, Jon.
Awww so weird to go back to this 4 year ago review; you seem far more comfortable with your format and on camera presence nowadays- though you can’t deny this energy (especially in a Euro review). Thanks for the review Jon 🙂
Ha, your telling me! My Scythe playthrough is still the 2nd most watched video on my channel and every time I happen to see it I cringe at how fast I was moving and how loud I was yelling at the camera :P
I know that many see the extra gold as a catch up mechanism. Somehow it is. But it also puts more emphasis on later scoring possibilities, D-scoring or scroll tiles. As always, great review Jon !!
Really satisfied with your review. I can't ever seem to find reviewers that breakdown player count. This is essential to me since I basically only play games with my wife. Bottom line I subscribed and I will be coming to you a lot more in the future.
Great to hear :) I added the "replayability/variability" and "player count" sections mostly because I saw people talking online about how no one did it so I figured I should try :)
Excellent review as always, Jon. I've played the game about a dozen times now (3 and 4 players) and still greatly enjoy the replayability. It's a favorite of various groups for a few months now. :D
As always, your reviews are excellent. I am getting this game tomorrow on a trade and saw you had a review. I knew very little about the game, but it looked good and I love Alexander Pfisters designs. I play games primarily at 2 players so I was happy to hear you enjoyed it so much at that player count. A lot of people seem to prefer it at higher player counts, but I can see how at that count you can really focus your pricing without becoming overwhelmed by too many other players. 5 players definitely seems like a lot to consider.
I'm glad I found your channel. Significantly better than all bigger boardgame channels I saw so far. Fun fact: First video from your channel I watched was the Tzolk'in review. I love the game, and you kinda trashed it (well, in relation to other reviews and critics at least), so I barely managed to resist giving a thumbs down out of saltyness. :D
That one was interesting because it was my first negative review and it was for a game I originally loved too. I want to come up with a term for games that do that for me, where they are SO close to being a game I love but for some reason they flop over to the "dislike" column. Like trying to jump over a canyon and almost reaching the other side only to fall down into the pit :P
Great review! I actually think the extra-gold-catch-up mechanism doesn't help as much as being more selective in your tile purchasing, particularly in the two rounds before end round. This way the money you save for later rounds can make a huge difference.
+JonGetsGames, what makes the game 'less great' with 3 in your opinion? Having not played the game, it would seem to me the 3-player game would combine the best of both worlds: having a pretty good idea about what your opponents may want or do, tracking their progress, and on the other hand more tiles to choose from and a somewhat more interesting bidding round. For many 2-4 player games that I really like at 2-player, I find that the sweet spot lies at 3-player because 4-player is to much chaos/too little control over planning. It is interesting that you find this game great at either 2 or 4 players, and I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the 3-player game. :)
Mostly it's the increased number of tiles that are avaliable to purchase mixed with the fact that the game doesn't generally feel much longer with 4 than it does with 3. I certainly agree that 3 is often the sweet spot, but in my experience that is mostly with games where downtime can be a bigger consideration.
Yes! This was actually my pick for the kennerspiel and I've completed my Pandemic: Legacy campaign as well as playing the first Time Stories module. All three games were great, I had so much fun playing Time Stories and the narative arch in Pandemic Legacy was awesome and intense. At the end of the day I just felt that the elegance and vast replayability of Isle of Skye won me over to thinking it should win the award. I honestly think it's a modern classic, and was super pleased to see it win this award.
very nice video! subscribed, liked, and bought the game :) really good format on the side, and mentioning scalability between the number of players was the cherry on top
+Carl Frodge Or have people create a first player auction stack behind the screen behind the tile costs each turn. This is their bid for starting player. This bid stack is revealed with the prices and is processed after at the end of the round. The person with the most money in the "first player auction stack" wins first player for the next round. Maybe the money stays with them, but they just can't use it that round (locks up their money for that round, but gives them a better chance of being first player next round). Or maybe the winners bid goes to the bank and the other players bids are kept. You'll need a tie breaker as I expect there will be often ties. Highest/lowest score of highest bidders. Or next left/right player of the current first player of the highest bidders. Having a "first player" bidding spot allows you to save your money on turns when the tiles don't work for you and apply them to have more power when they might help you more. The alternative is to do nothing with the money (boring/dead turn) or put the money to bid up the tiles in front of you which results in you paying money for tiles you might not want to block other people from getting them, which you might not want to spend your money doing.
+David Flowers This an interesting idea! There are quite a few times where I actually wish I was later in turn order so that I would have more buying power so I'm not sure how that'd turn out if no one bid anything, but it's a good start to a turn order variant. My current hypothetical variant is based on the cost of the tiles purchased in the previous round. The player who took paid the least money goes first, then second least and so on so that the person who spent the most money in the last turn picks last next turn. THey may be happy about this because they are broke, or maybe they won't go for that expensive tile because they want to go earlier in the following turn. Abit fiddly to track this perhaps, but it could give me the outcome I'd prefer.
I like that idea as well. In the situation I proposed, you would be bidding for next round which you have no information above other than scoring rules and not the current round which you have limited information on (the tile possibilities, but not the cost of the tiles). There is a bit less AP potential there (which our group can suffer from a bit). So my suggestion is more for the case of "this round stinks for me, I'll save my money for next round". Your suggestion adds a bit more depth into pricing what a tiles is worth in the current round. This makes it a bit more interesting, but also a bit more AP prone. It also kind of puts you in a position sometimes of not wanting to buy tiles or put high cost down on your own tokens. It gives you an incentive to not playing a round. My suggestion does something similar, but it is done blindly rather than reactionary to what other players have done that round already: "oh, he bought that tile that I really wanted, rather than buying this 'okay' tile, I'll do nothing to go first next round". In the blink auction there isn't as much incentive to tank an entire turn. I suspect most people wouldn't bit all of their money to go first, but rather a smaller fraction so they can still buy tiles. I personally don't care for game mechanisms give an incentive to not play. Another possible suggestion to consider is to do the auction, but for the current round. That might be interesting. Everyone places a blind bid for first player. Then you determine play order on the reveal. The player to highest bid to the left of the current start player is first, then to the left of him/her with the same bid, etc. then move down to the next highest bid left of the last starting player. Go around until everyone has had their turn. In this case people would put their bid in when they get their turn so you could track who has gone by who has money and who has tiles. If they bid and still have their money there, they haven't gone yet. If they don't have money, but have a tile in that location, they went already. if they have no money and no tile, then they didn't bid any money and haven't had a turn yet. Easy enough to track. Or just get colored pawns for each player and put then in turn order at the reveal then pull pawns back as people play their turn. You can't completely control being last (unless you are to the right of the last start player and bid 0), but you can have reasonably good odds of being later in the turn order by bidding 0 if you assume most people will bid a 1-2 coins to be higher in the order. Anyway, lots of possibilities to try. Great review. Thanks for pointing out this nuanced area for improvement in the game. Many reviews may have skipped right by it.
+David Flowers Great stuff David, thanks for entertaining my small nit pick of the game :) In the end I understand why the design went with clockwise, it is far simpler a mechanic and doesn't really hurt the game, but it is fun to think of ways to tighten up the play experience and add just a bit more depth to the decisions.
Thanks for the conversation. it gave some interesting ideas. I'll put these on a sheet in the rule book as possible variants to try. There are lots of games like this where round robin doesn't seem best, but I really do appreciate simplicity in rules so... Happy gaming!
Gosh I'm glad I discovered your channel. No lie, your reviews are the best I've seen. Your format is unique. You don't make jokes that fall a mile from being funny. You show passion. Most importantly, you don't spend 40 minutes going over every possible rule in the most boring way possible.
Long story short: Nicely done, Jon.
What a polished format!! I am so stunned.... Best reviews in the whole industry, soooo goood, keep it up!
Awww so weird to go back to this 4 year ago review; you seem far more comfortable with your format and on camera presence nowadays- though you can’t deny this energy (especially in a Euro review).
Thanks for the review Jon 🙂
Ha, your telling me! My Scythe playthrough is still the 2nd most watched video on my channel and every time I happen to see it I cringe at how fast I was moving and how loud I was yelling at the camera :P
I know that many see the extra gold as a catch up mechanism. Somehow it is. But it also puts more emphasis on later scoring possibilities, D-scoring or scroll tiles.
As always, great review Jon !!
Really satisfied with your review. I can't ever seem to find reviewers that breakdown player count. This is essential to me since I basically only play games with my wife. Bottom line I subscribed and I will be coming to you a lot more in the future.
Great to hear :) I added the "replayability/variability" and "player count" sections mostly because I saw people talking online about how no one did it so I figured I should try :)
Excellent review as always, Jon. I've played the game about a dozen times now (3 and 4 players) and still greatly enjoy the replayability. It's a favorite of various groups for a few months now. :D
Such well organized reviews, love it!
As always, your reviews are excellent. I am getting this game tomorrow on a trade and saw you had a review. I knew very little about the game, but it looked good and I love Alexander Pfisters designs. I play games primarily at 2 players so I was happy to hear you enjoyed it so much at that player count. A lot of people seem to prefer it at higher player counts, but I can see how at that count you can really focus your pricing without becoming overwhelmed by too many other players. 5 players definitely seems like a lot to consider.
I hope you ended up enjoying it :)
@@GettingGames I did! Such a great game
I just got Isle of Skye Big Box. Love this game! Great vid!
I'm glad I found your channel. Significantly better than all bigger boardgame channels I saw so far.
Fun fact: First video from your channel I watched was the Tzolk'in review. I love the game, and you kinda trashed it (well, in relation to other reviews and critics at least), so I barely managed to resist giving a thumbs down out of saltyness. :D
That one was interesting because it was my first negative review and it was for a game I originally loved too. I want to come up with a term for games that do that for me, where they are SO close to being a game I love but for some reason they flop over to the "dislike" column. Like trying to jump over a canyon and almost reaching the other side only to fall down into the pit :P
Great review! I actually think the extra-gold-catch-up mechanism doesn't help as much as being more selective in your tile purchasing, particularly in the two rounds before end round. This way the money you save for later rounds can make a huge difference.
Jon, one Of the best reviews i've ever seen. fantastic !!
Thanks! :)
+JonGetsGames, what makes the game 'less great' with 3 in your opinion? Having not played the game, it would seem to me the 3-player game would combine the best of both worlds: having a pretty good idea about what your opponents may want or do, tracking their progress, and on the other hand more tiles to choose from and a somewhat more interesting bidding round. For many 2-4 player games that I really like at 2-player, I find that the sweet spot lies at 3-player because 4-player is to much chaos/too little control over planning. It is interesting that you find this game great at either 2 or 4 players, and I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the 3-player game. :)
Mostly it's the increased number of tiles that are avaliable to purchase mixed with the fact that the game doesn't generally feel much longer with 4 than it does with 3. I certainly agree that 3 is often the sweet spot, but in my experience that is mostly with games where downtime can be a bigger consideration.
Do you think this game deserved the kennerspiel?
Yes! This was actually my pick for the kennerspiel and I've completed my Pandemic: Legacy campaign as well as playing the first Time Stories module. All three games were great, I had so much fun playing Time Stories and the narative arch in Pandemic Legacy was awesome and intense. At the end of the day I just felt that the elegance and vast replayability of Isle of Skye won me over to thinking it should win the award. I honestly think it's a modern classic, and was super pleased to see it win this award.
very nice video! subscribed, liked, and bought the game :) really good format on the side, and mentioning scalability between the number of players was the cherry on top
House rule it so the player in first place takes the first player token.
+Carl Frodge Or have people create a first player auction stack behind the screen behind the tile costs each turn. This is their bid for starting player. This bid stack is revealed with the prices and is processed after at the end of the round. The person with the most money in the "first player auction stack" wins first player for the next round. Maybe the money stays with them, but they just can't use it that round (locks up their money for that round, but gives them a better chance of being first player next round). Or maybe the winners bid goes to the bank and the other players bids are kept. You'll need a tie breaker as I expect there will be often ties. Highest/lowest score of highest bidders. Or next left/right player of the current first player of the highest bidders.
Having a "first player" bidding spot allows you to save your money on turns when the tiles don't work for you and apply them to have more power when they might help you more. The alternative is to do nothing with the money (boring/dead turn) or put the money to bid up the tiles in front of you which results in you paying money for tiles you might not want to block other people from getting them, which you might not want to spend your money doing.
+David Flowers This an interesting idea! There are quite a few times where I actually wish I was later in turn order so that I would have more buying power so I'm not sure how that'd turn out if no one bid anything, but it's a good start to a turn order variant.
My current hypothetical variant is based on the cost of the tiles purchased in the previous round. The player who took paid the least money goes first, then second least and so on so that the person who spent the most money in the last turn picks last next turn. THey may be happy about this because they are broke, or maybe they won't go for that expensive tile because they want to go earlier in the following turn. Abit fiddly to track this perhaps, but it could give me the outcome I'd prefer.
I like that idea as well.
In the situation I proposed, you would be bidding for next round which you have no information above other than scoring rules and not the current round which you have limited information on (the tile possibilities, but not the cost of the tiles). There is a bit less AP potential there (which our group can suffer from a bit). So my suggestion is more for the case of "this round stinks for me, I'll save my money for next round".
Your suggestion adds a bit more depth into pricing what a tiles is worth in the current round. This makes it a bit more interesting, but also a bit more AP prone. It also kind of puts you in a position sometimes of not wanting to buy tiles or put high cost down on your own tokens. It gives you an incentive to not playing a round. My suggestion does something similar, but it is done blindly rather than reactionary to what other players have done that round already: "oh, he bought that tile that I really wanted, rather than buying this 'okay' tile, I'll do nothing to go first next round". In the blink auction there isn't as much incentive to tank an entire turn. I suspect most people wouldn't bit all of their money to go first, but rather a smaller fraction so they can still buy tiles. I personally don't care for game mechanisms give an incentive to not play.
Another possible suggestion to consider is to do the auction, but for the current round. That might be interesting. Everyone places a blind bid for first player. Then you determine play order on the reveal. The player to highest bid to the left of the current start player is first, then to the left of him/her with the same bid, etc. then move down to the next highest bid left of the last starting player. Go around until everyone has had their turn. In this case people would put their bid in when they get their turn so you could track who has gone by who has money and who has tiles. If they bid and still have their money there, they haven't gone yet. If they don't have money, but have a tile in that location, they went already. if they have no money and no tile, then they didn't bid any money and haven't had a turn yet. Easy enough to track. Or just get colored pawns for each player and put then in turn order at the reveal then pull pawns back as people play their turn. You can't completely control being last (unless you are to the right of the last start player and bid 0), but you can have reasonably good odds of being later in the turn order by bidding 0 if you assume most people will bid a 1-2 coins to be higher in the order.
Anyway, lots of possibilities to try. Great review. Thanks for pointing out this nuanced area for improvement in the game. Many reviews may have skipped right by it.
+David Flowers Great stuff David, thanks for entertaining my small nit pick of the game :) In the end I understand why the design went with clockwise, it is far simpler a mechanic and doesn't really hurt the game, but it is fun to think of ways to tighten up the play experience and add just a bit more depth to the decisions.
Thanks for the conversation. it gave some interesting ideas. I'll put these on a sheet in the rule book as possible variants to try. There are lots of games like this where round robin doesn't seem best, but I really do appreciate simplicity in rules so... Happy gaming!
We hated it. Unless at gunpoint I will never play it again.
Catch-up mechanic? No thanks. Big pass.