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?
KateMicucci said:
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.