Scythe?

[Silva]

I know we're a bunch of Ameritrash grognards here but who knows... has somebody played Scythe here? If so, what's your impressions?

It looks like a fairly default eurogame with some sweet production values and theme (alt history post-WW1 europe). I'm not a big fan of Euros myself but lately I've been opening my mind more about it (after playing Dune Imperium).

Thanks in advance, faggots.

 

[Catacombs]

Are you talking about the physical or digital? I like the concept of the game and played both.

The board game is harder because not many people know the rules, and it can be a pain to teach if there are people who aren't remotely interested. With the physical game, there are many components, which makes unpacking and cleanup a pain. The digital version is nice because everything is automated and clears up vague rules encountered with the physical game.

The physical version is best played with a group of four or more players; there's the opportunity for alliance, trades, and negotiations. Anything less isn't as fun. The digital game allows for bots regardless of available players.

If you are interested in playing but don't have a group, I recommend the digital version.

 

[JamesDixon]

It's a tool and a weapon to harvest grains and other grasses...


No, I've never heard of it.

 

[Snorkack]

Very good 4X (well, 3-and-a-half-X) that's quite simple (but not shallow) and fast.
If you love games like Eclipse, but hate the fact that they take long to set up, long to play, long to explain the rules and you have a lot of downtime while the other players are making their turn, Scythe is the perfect alternative.

The thing that surprises most new players is that a lot of matches end without a single battle having taken place. Military is more about creating a threat than actually attacking, as it usually comes with a high price for all parties involved.

The Rise of Fenris is a fantastic expansion that provides both an interesting Legacy-Style campaign as well as a lot of modular modifications you could spice up your regular games with.

For me, an easy 5/5 for both base game and expansion.

 

[Silva]

Thanks for the info.

My group only recently got enamorated with Euro games - we loved Dune Imperium, I guess baited by the theme - but we probably wouldn't care for the more dry/abstract ones like Catan or something, we come from a strong tabletop RPG background and need a solid theme/flavor, something Scythe seems to do well.

How are the expansions? Any mandatory ones? Confessed weeboo that I am, the one with a japanese clan seems rather interesting. EDIT: Rise of Fenris looks awesome but it's not translated here in Brazil yet. It's in the pipeline of the local publisher though, so I can wait.

 

[Silva]

The physical version is best played with a group of four or more players; there's the opportunity for alliance, trades, and negotiations. Anything less isn't as fun.

My group is usually 3 players, going to 4-5 sometimes (when a RPG session flops).

Could picking nearby positions on the map mitigate the lack of interaction for 3P? Say, a Polania-Saxony-Crimea game?

 

[Catacombs]

Could picking nearby positions on the map mitigate the lack of interaction for 3P? Say, a Polania-Saxony-Crimea game?

If you want to guarantee border clashes, this is fine. The rules might say otherwise, but fuck em; make your own game.

 

[Snorkack]

Re: expansions. Fenris is surely the most outstanding, get it as soon as it is available.

Also, the game is designed in a way that all pieces (except the manual and the event cards) are language-agnostic and communocate their effects via symbols. One person on the table that comprehends english is absolutely enough.
OTOH the Fenris campaign story is decently written. If you care about such stuff, then waiting for a translation seems reasonable.

I don't care much about the airship expansion and from what I've read online, most people don't, either.

The new factions from the 7 Player expansion are kinda gimmicky, don't particularly like them. Also, they take significant time to get their mobility boosts and to arrive at the board center.

Also, 3 Players is imo definitely enough to create border tensions galore. If you really want to ensure battles happening, just make saxonia a mandatory faction.

 

[Lazing Dirk]

It's a very good game, probably the second-most played game between my friends. I like how many paths there are to victory, and that each player can usually find a different thing to focus on. It's also interesting that the player who gets their 6th star and ends the game isn't always the one who wins. I've had a few occasions where I've purposely lost to another player to give them their final star from winning the combat(s) because I didn't want to give them the time to further expand on subsequent turns, and won the game because of it. I also once won a game just by hoarding gold and resources whilst the other players squabbled with each other. The game can take a little bit of time to set up and put away though, especially if you have the expansions. It's best when you can dedicate a good chunk of the day to it, rather than trying to knock out a quick game.

I don't care much about the airship expansion and from what I've read online, most people don't, either.

The new factions from the 7 Player expansion are kinda gimmicky, don't particularly like them. Also, they take significant time to get their mobility boosts and to arrive at the board center.

I like the airships, but it depends on what ruleset they have. Some of them enable interesting new tactics, others are just fluff that end up ignored for most of the game. Not a big fan of the 2 new factions either; only being able to move 1 hex at a time is horribly limiting, and I generally don't even bother trying to get to the factory. The one time I did nearly made it to the factory I was 1 move away and some fucker blew it up (from the expanded quest whatever cards). That expansion was a weird one. Some of the new cards are kinda fun and interesting, but others just seem completely broken. Like the card that will let you place ALL the remaining food on a nearby hex, which is both potentially worth an enormous amount of points, and prevents other players from using it for enlisting - assuming you can hold onto it.

 

[Lagi]

I play it twice. Scythe is on top ten of many people from my game group.
there is many, many ways to victory. And each faction is bit different each time - that is the greatest feature IMO.
this game focus a lot on your personal mini board, same like Terraforming Mars or Ark Nova.
Interesting is, that Scythe is not a wargame. The battle occur quire rare.
Game has nice background graphics and world setup, very uncommon.

I dont deny its excellent design game. But i prefere other games (eclipse 2nd ed, or Ankh).

p.s.
playing board game on PC is an abomination (with bots a pure heresy). I play board games, to stop staring at the screen, have some social interaction, and nice, human opponent that try different things.
im living in small town and here are like 2 gaming groups for board games only. You dont need to ask your siblings any more to play with you. Go and google, you will be surprise.

 

[Silva]

What about popular alternate/house rules?

I've stumbled on this vid by the author where he talks about some regrets with Scythe, he says prefers the alternate rule (present in the official FAQ) where the 6th star triggers an endgame phase where the other players have a final action (except move), instead of the game ending immediately.

Has anybody tried this? Lots of people on BGG adopt this variant, and argue it makes scores tighter and endgame more exciting.

 

[Catacombs]

where the 6th star triggers an endgame phase where the other players have a final action (except move), instead of the game ending immediately.

Has anybody tried this? Lots of people on BGG adopt this variant, and argue it makes scores tighter and endgame more exciting.

I haven't tried it, but that seems like a much better way to end the game. From previous games, the abrupt end really kills the build up to it.

 

[Silva]

where the 6th star triggers an endgame phase where the other players have a final action (except move), instead of the game ending immediately.

Has anybody tried this? Lots of people on BGG adopt this variant, and argue it makes scores tighter and endgame more exciting.

I haven't tried it, but that seems like a much better way to end the game. From previous games, the abrupt end really kills the build up to it.

It also seems to clean up the whole ending process - reading through the instructions manual and it has a bunch of rules for edgecases that could happen when someone gets the 6th star, like when you still had a lower action to enact, or combats to resolve, etc. With this variant there's no need for any of that.

 

[Catacombs]

With this variant there's no need for any of that.

Sounds like you got a plan. Are you playing the physical game?

 

[Silva]

Sounds like you got a plan. Are you playing the physical game?

Not yet, but I'll order the box soon.

Game seems deliciously deep and nuanced (imbalances and all). Gives me a similar vibe to playing with builds in videogames.

 

[Silva]

BTW, where is this map situated? I would guess Ukraine or Belarus judging by the factions starting positions.

 

[KateMicucci]

I don't really care for it. It's solitaire but you have to wait for the other players anyway. I remember having my next 8 turns planned out in advance but I had to wait for the retards I was playing with to finish overthinking their turns, being reminded over and over of the rules and smoking.

I think it is mostly popular because of the artstyle. Most board gaymers are hopeless pleb consoomers.

 

[Silva]

Catacombs ,

Thinking again on that Endgame variant, it favors "builders" (to use a Civ jargon) too much, by allowing a final turn for each player where they can only build stuff but not move or do combat actions. It seems this would screw the combat-oriented factions (Saxony, Togawa, Albion?) even more. The fairest solution would be letting the round when the 6th star hits to complete it's course, that is, everybody that still didn't move in that round, do so. Example: if there are 3 players A, B and C with priorities 1, 3 and 5 on their mats respectively, and by round 20 the player B hits 6 stars (thus triggering endgame), then only player C should do a final action. This way all players would have had the same number of rounds to finish the game, which seems only fair. The only way I could see this being a problem would be if the game mechanisms naturally favor the last player to some degree. Is that the case?

think it is mostly popular because of the artstyle. Most board gaymers are hopeless pleb consoomers.

I admit the art was a draw for me, but ultimately the gameplay was what made me so interested. I love games that combine theme and rules seamlesly and this one seems to do it in spades.

About the solitary part, I agree and usually prefer more interaction, but this game's clash of industries and their different types (agro, mech, patriot, military, innovative, etc) feels very interesting to me. Of course, there's a chance I hate it after actually playing it, who knows.

 

[KateMicucci]

The different mats and top/bottom actions thing was cool, but that's just one element of the game. I think if the map and mech part were removed (which felt empty and pointless in the games I played) and it was a pure eco game I would like it better. I won without ever building a mech and the combat was very boring anyway so I wasn't inclined to. The designer of Race for the Galaxy has made a game which is supposedly similar to Scythe's mat system but I haven't checked it out yet.

 

[Catacombs]

This way all players would have had the same number of rounds to finish the game, which seems only fair. The only way I could see this being a problem would be if the game mechanisms naturally favor the last player to some degree. Is that the case?

Your explanation is how I assumed the alternative ending should happen: everyone plays out a final turn, like in Ticket to Ride; when a player ends their turn with two trains left, everyone else has a final turn to do whatever before the two-train player ends the game with his or her last move.

 

[Silva]

Yeah, but my reading of the "official unofficial" rule in the FAQ is not what you're saying. It's this: "after a player gets the 6th star, the other players have one more action where move/combat is disallowed.

What you're saying (and I prefer) is: "after a player hits the 6th star, the game has one final round where everybody gets to act (move/combat allowed) and game ends.

 

[Catacombs]

What you're saying (and I prefer) is: "after a player hits the 6th star, the game has one final round where everybody gets to act (move/combat allowed) and game ends.

We agree this is the best way to end the game. If you're playing the game soon, I'm interested to see how you feel the ending went.

 

[Silva]

You bet I'll do that.

Snorkack , any idea on these endgame variants? How do they sound to you?

 

[Silva]

Catacombs , forget it all.

After watching playthroughs (by this guy FOMOF, check him out) and reading more discussions, I see it's all about the racing aspect. So it's imperative to give the endgame-triggering player an advantage, which...

1) the Rule as written reflects. It makes for an abrupt endgame, sure, but it's the fairest option considering the "racing" aspect is so intertwined in the game (even the player mats are based on this, with the mats that act later in the round having more resources to compensate the possibility that they end up with less turns at endgame).

2) The FAQ variant, which gives other players a final action (exceptuating a Move) reduces that advantage, but not by thaaaat much because, see, by denying other players a Move type action, it denies 'em an otherwise big source of points. So it's in a desirable threshold that still conversates with the racing, while making endgame less abrupt which is a plus.

3) Our variant though - giving everybody a final round with any and all actions permitted - would take out any advantage from the player hitting 6 stars/triggering endgme, since the others would have all means to catchup with him in the final turns. It would disincentivize players from triggering endgame altogether, thus breaking the racing aspect.

Sorry for creating this shitstorm Lol. I think the FAQ variant (2) above would be my preferred due to the less abrupt ending. I can see now why the author regretted not making this the default.

 

[Snorkack]

You bet I'll do that.

Snorkack , any idea on these endgame variants? How do they sound to you?

I mean, you seem to already come to the same conclusion, but I never thought that there would be anything wrong with how the game ends. The most memorable matches were when one player thought he had the game in the bag with 5 stars and the 6th one in reach, but then another one pulled off the surprise two-star powerplay.

If I were you, I'd just go with the regular rules and then adapt as seen fit. If you're really set on houseruling before even having played the game, I'd rather consider banning op mat combos like industrial russkies.