Time to get our feet a little wet with these new game announcements.
[imageid=9531435 medium rep]▪️ Stonemaier Games sent out a May update with new expansions available for several titles, including Finspan. The expansion to Finspan is called Finspan: Sharks & Reefs and it adds 75 new cards, which include new shark cards and coral habitats. Lots of new strategies to pursue.
From the BGG Page:
Finspan: Sharks & Reefs adds to the variety of the core game with a focus on sharks and fish that live among coral reefs. This expansion introduces new coral reef habitats to your ocean mat and more incredible sharks—with fearsome new abilities!
Players can now nurture colorful coral reefs in each of their oceans' three dive sites. Healthy reefs enable you to play powerful reef fish, unlock fish abilities, and score bonuses at the end of the game. Meanwhile, sharks scatter schools of young (to form even more schools elsewhere) and leave behind food scraps that any fish in your ocean can consume.
To play this expansion, you need the Finspan core game.
▪️ Mythic Baths was just announced from Good Games Publishing with a release happening soon. Hopefully available at GenCon 2026. A cute game for 2-5 players that will play in about 30-60 minutes. Your objective is to treat the guests and collect as much aber as possible to win.
From BGG:
As our newest employees, it is your job to take care of our mythic guests; gathering ingredients for their baths, completing treatments, giving nourishment, and cleaning the baths to welcome new and potentially troublesome guests.
Players compete to earn the most amber tokens (victory points) by treating the mythic guests that visit the baths. Guests arrive with a set of ingredient requirements that must be met to complete their treatment. Over the course of the game, players will gather ingredients needed to treat guests, nourish them to earn their favour, and clean dirty baths left after their treatment.
Treating guests and cleaning baths earn players amber. More complicated treatments will earn you more, but if you complete any treatment exactly, you will be rewarded with valuable tips from our guests!
▪️ Six-Sided Seas Was just announced for GenCon 2026 release from publisher Solis Game Studio. This is a 2-pirate game, but you can add a set to allow it to play up to 4-pirates. Gain glorious victory in 15-20 minutes!
From BGG:
The dicey waters of the Six-Sided Seas have tempted many pirates with the promise of riches and glory. Legends tell of several powerful treasures lurking amongst the isles...powerful enough to control everyone and everything on these waters when combined together. There are many paths to becoming the most ruthless pirate in the sea, and the choice is in your hands. But be warned, you’ll face rivals at sea who also wish to claim the title, so prepare for a cutthroat battle or go down with the ship! It’s win or die on the Six-Sided Seas!
Six-Sided Seas is a push-your-luck, worker placement game. On your turn, you will roll dice from your supply to generate crew members for your ship that can be assigned to stations. After each roll, you can choose to roll again or stop. Be careful, though, because if you go over your limit, you will bust! If you choose to stop rolling and don’t bust, you will then assign crew members to stations on the ship. The stations on the ship allow you to deal damage to the opposing pirate ship, explore islands, or search for gold. The first player to sink their opponent’s ship, reach the maximum gold coin limit, or control the majority of the explorable islands wins!
I’m not quite sure what to make of the new game Rebuilding Chicago, the second game in a series from the team at WizKids that began with the 2023 release Rebuilding Seattle. Like the first game (which I have not played), Rebuilding Chicago puts players in the shoes of local officials tasked with rebuilding a major city after a tragic event—here, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.
Except…well, it’s not really about that at all. Rebuilding Chicago is a three-round tile-laying affair that takes place in three specific years: 1893, 1933, and 2016. I get the first two, since those are tied to the two World Fairs hosted by the city and they are widely celebrated as years when Chicago celebrated itself for rebuilding large parts of the city’s infrastructure. But 2016? That’s when the Chicago Riverwalk opened.
The Riverwalk is a blast. I’m just not sure I would call it a major rebuilding event across the city’s previous 125 years.
I’ve lived in Chicago since 2012, in a suburb just west of the city limits. When I first saw the round structure for Rebuilding Chicago, I kind of laughed. I wasn’t sure what the designer of the game, Quinn Brander, was going for with the Chicago framing. (Brander…
I know it is now June….I am usually done with this post by mid-March but this year we had a bunch of great games that came out in November and December and we just had to get several of them to the table before we shut 2025 down. Our opportunity to do so with full tables as there were several multi-player games in that bunch, was during Buckeye Game Fest in mid-March where we played lots of great games including Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 from Legion Wargames, Cross Bronx Expressway from GMT Games and Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations to name just a few. And now, with those final games getting played, comes the impossible task of distilling an entire year’s worth of gaming down to a list of the 10 games that we most enjoyed. I hate doing this. I love writing about, thinking about and sharing my experiences about the games we have played but hate having to make somewhat objective choices about which is better and which games should even be considered for the list. The first comment I would have is that not all games are the same. Not the same scale, the same play time, the same mechanically or even historically. Each game is unique and in my opinion, all games have something objectively good about them. Secondly, we didn’t get around to playing some of the new releases in 2025. I say some but we actually didn’t play a lot of the new releases and did the best that we could to play as many as possible. So we might leave off a game that you thought was very good and deserving and it probably is but we either didn’t get around to playing it or it just didn’t hit with us. But, in the end, I have to make this list and this is my best effort at doing just that!
In 2025, we played 33 unique titles from 22 different publishers. Some were operational, strategic or tactical scale and in the list this year I didn’t include any solitaire games. Some used counters. Some used cards. Some used wooden bits and some used miniatures. Some were only card games with no other components and some were cooperative. At the end of the day, in 2025 we played a lot of games! And here I present to you my list of the Top 10 Wargames of 2025!
10. China’s War: 1937-1941 from GMT Games
This is a game that I have been awaiting for a long, long time. Really since it was announced nearly 7 years ago in 2019. Yes you read that right…2019! And I am happy to report that the wait was definitely worth it as the game feels fresh and is a very worthy addition to the COIN Series. China’s War: 1937-1941 from GMT Games, which is volume 13 in the well respected and venerable COIN Series, examines the first five years of the 2nd Sino-Japanese conflict, when China stood alone against the whole of the Japanese Empire. Each player takes on the role of 1 of 4 Factions seeking to attack or defend the Republic of China including the aggressive and powerful Japanese, the harried Government represented by the Guomindang party, the rebellious Chinese Communist Party, or the unruly and fractious Warlords who are obedient when convenient but have their eye on gaining state power. Using military, political, and economic actions and exploiting various events, players will build and maneuver forces to influence or control the population, extract resources, or otherwise achieve their Faction’s goals and victory conditions. As with all COIN Series games that are Card Assisted rather than Card Driven Games, the deck of cards will regulate turn order, inject historical events into the game with major benefits or consequences, cause victory checks and other in game processes.
China’s War feels like a classic COIN Series game but in my opinion has 3 insurgent style factions against the powerful Japanese who don’t really act like the large Government factions in previous entries in the series. The focus really centers on the control of the Lines of Communication or LoC’s on the game board, which was a very refreshing approach that created some really interesting interplay and caused me to think differently about how I would go about achieving my Victory Conditions.
We find that Brian Train’s designs are just fantastic. I think that sometimes they can be a bit opaque, meaning that their true genius cannot be seen with just a few plays but will be unlocked over 4 or 5 plays as we have found with A Distant Plain, which has continually moved up on my list of favorite COIN Series games with each play that now numbers around 5. But China’s War was just special. It is totally unique as to its take on insurgency within the COIN Series, is really frenetic and active and gives the feeling of classic COIN while really turning things a bit upside down with the way the powerful faction works in the Japanese as they really only care about maintaining and cleaning off their Lines of Communication. In fact, they are so unique that they are the faction that will place Terror on the board, which is typically reserved for the insurgent factions to sway Support and Opposition.
We very much enjoyed the game and had a good time with it. We had a newer COIN Series player and they seemed to take to the game quickly and understood what it was that they were supposed to be doing. With that being said, with only the 1 play, I am sure that there are lots of things that we didn’t experience and will be able to discover those in future gaming opportunities. Suffice it to say that we can’t wait to play the game again and I am planning to bring this one along with me to the World Boardgaming Championships at the end of July.
We recently shot a First Impression/review video and you can watch that at the following link:
9. Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations
This spring, while attending Buckeye Game Fest in Columbus, Ohio, we were able to coordinate a 6-player game of Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations. Imperial Elegy is a card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games. Grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 unique major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
Imperial Elegy is a fantastically themed game that takes place over 7 turns, with each of the turns representing approximately a decade. If the Great War breaks out due to the World Tension Track reaching a certain level, the game can be extended by an additional 6 shorter turns. A turn in the game consists of player impulses that is driven by the play of action cards for their Command Points or for the printed events. Players will use CP and events to take actions like colonize, conduct diplomacy with minor nations, fight wars, as well as hinder their opponents by playing events that take away their actions or resources. A turn will end once all players have consecutively passed or when all players run out of cards.
The game is somewhat of a sandbox style game as you have so many options and choices about what to do during the course of the game. Obviously, your faction has some direction about what you should be doing but really it is up the player to spend their resources how they will to accomplish their ultimate goals and score Victory Points. I truly love that aspect about this game and as we played we saw that sandbox and the asymmetry between the various factions. Particularly at the start, each country has some specific goals that they have drawn from the National Goals Deck that are a source of Victory Points, in fact a major source of Victory Points, and players will need to prioritize these cards and decide which ones to attempt to go after from the start. With only 7 turns, they will have to make progress on these National Goals if they have any hope of actually achieving them.
Each of the represented nations in the game have their own special player board that contains various tracks that keep various information readily available to the players. Here is a look at the German player board. I very much enjoyed that they have gone to a great deal of effort to make these player boards and also that they gave each of the nation’s Stability, which decides whether various actions like war can be taken or if there are various positive or negative modifiers, the available Manpower that will determine how many armies can be built, Industry that tells how many action pointed you will have to spend during war to maneuver units, attack and replace losses. The focus of the game is about the control of territories both in Europe as well as colonies abroad and there is an automatic victory if a certain target number is met, in the case of Germany 15.
As we played, I started to realize that the key focus of the overall world stability and things like the Domestic Stability Tracks, which are focused of both the internal and external pressures faced by the powers. I really very much liked this thematic inclusion as no one wants to start a major global conflagration and there are steps that players have to take to skirt the inevitable troubles that result in their own actions and how they are seen by the other players in the game. But in our limited play, I never really felt threatened by this concept. Either our group was super skilled at avoiding the inevitable increase in tension or due to our short play we didn’t really experience some of the events that would have tipped this over the edge. I think that we say small increases in our full turn play but nothing that seemed unmanageable and we actually had an event that lowered it so it never became an issue. The game is about spending your resources wisely, in the form of your cards and your aspects like Stability, and to use your cards to do the events that could increase tension didn’t seem to be in our best interest, at least not in the 1st decade of the game. But maybe that will come later.
8. An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 from Bellica Third Generation
Earlier this year, I was able to host Francisco Ronco at my home to play a few games together. One of the games we played was published by his company Bellica Third Generation and was called An Impossible War. An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 is a block wargame that recreates the First Carlist War in the North of Spain which was a civil war between the Carlists who supported the succession of the late king’s brother Carlos de Borbón and the progressive and centralist supporters of the regent Maria Christina acting for Isabella II of Spain who were referred to as the Liberals. The game uses blocks representing units but also includes counters and uses cards.
An Impossible War is a fantastic design that attempts to capture the historical aspects of this titanic struggle for the throne of Spain in the mid 19th century. Historically, the Carlist forces who were defenders of traditional monarchy, regional privileges, and the Catholic Church, were a minority faction fighting an overwhelmingly larger, richer liberal government. The uprising phase reflects how the Carlists compensated for this disparity by forcing the Liberal government to fight on multiple fronts and suffer from logistical nightmares across hostile terrain. The Carlist Uprising Phase, and the use of its auxiliary Rest of Spain regional map, forces some really tough dilemmas on the Liberal player. They must attempt to divide their forces between the main Game Map and the Rest of Spain Map to prevent the opposition Carlist forces from overwhelming the home territory in the north. It serves as a vital strategic balancing act for the Liberal player that cannot be ignored and must be dealt with systematically and somewhat evenly. Too much focus on the Rest of Spain Map and the situation on the Game Map will quickly snowball and they will lose control. Focus on the situation on the Game Map and the protection of Cities and Towns and the Carlist Expeditions will gain momentum and turn the countryside red. While the primary war centers on the rugged terrain of northern Spain (Navarre and the Basque Provinces), the uprising mechanic abstractly models scattered insurgencies across the rest of the country. And as you know, insurgencies can be very unpredictable and difficult to contain. You stamp out one area only to see a fire start in another. The Liberal player must divert troops and supply resources to the secondary map to quell these localized rebellions and hunt down Carlist expeditions originating from the north. And, the important thing for the Carlist player and the expansion of the uprisings and the success of their expeditions is the possible generation of generation of Prestige and Victory Points, which is really crucial to their path to victory.
I very much enjoyed the asymmetry between the Carlist and Liberal forces in the game. It made for a very interesting tactical challenge for both sides as they have to play to their strengths and not get too overly concerned with the numbers. The Carlists will be much more mobile in their defense and look to exploit every gap in a supply line to move around and stay away from the numerically superior Liberal forces, whereas the Liberal player will have to move more methodically to take outlying towns and settlements to be able to shore up their lines and create less opportunities for end arounds by the Carlists. The disparity in the forces was a very interesting choice by the designer David Gómez Relloso and I am sure is reflective of the historical reality of the First Carlist War.
I very much enjoyed An Impossible War, even though I played just a few turns of a smaller scenario with Francisco Ronco. He was a master at the game, as obviously as the publisher and a playtester he is intimately familiar with the rules and strategies, and I learned a lot from him about how the game should be played. I am looking forward to future plays as the game is just very good and has some interesting aspects that create a very tense and interesting game of maneuver and strategy. The Game Map is very well done, from an aesthetic perspective as well as functionally, and the board makes playing the game easier.
I also was able to shoot a fairly short video summary of my game play with Francisco Ronco who is the owner of Bellica Third Generation and you can watch that at the following link:
Also I have embarked on a series of written Action Point post highlighting the various aspects of the game. Those published to date are as follows:
If you are interested in An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838, you can purchase a copy for 120,00 € ($139.08 in US Dollars) from the Bellica Third Generation website at the following link: https://bellica3g.com/en/product/una-guerra-imposible/
7. Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition from Decision Games
If you like classic wargames, and by that I mean simple I Go You Go Hex and Counter games from the 70’s and 80’s, then you are going to love Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition, which is a new updated version of 2 classic quadrigames from SPI covering several key battles from the American Civil War. Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition consists of the original eight games from the SPI Blue & Gray I & II Quadrigames but with massively upgraded components and counters and some better written rules. The key battles depicted are among the most important of the American Civil War and include Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga and The Battle of the Wilderness.
The Deluxe Edition part of the title is really just a few changes including a mounted board that is really gorgeous and pretty sturdy. The counters have been slightly enlarged and there are a few additional optional rules including things like night turns, fatigue, leader casualties. There also were some optional unit counters that could be used but overall this was an artist and layout reissue of the game with some other nice additions such as period fonts and a very solid choice of colors for the maps and the counters as they really compliment each other well. But the game is really extremely playable meaning that is doesn’t take long to pick up the rules and the system is very standard fair. The game mechanics used are based on the Borodino/Napoleon at Waterloo system and frankly are very easy to grock and to get into. I did very much like the back and forth of the scenarios as the players will tend to clash over control of certain key areas that have defensible terrain and that are only approachable from a few areas. But the game does have a few concerns for me such as generally no fog of war and no difficulty in activating any and all of your stacks. But that is what the system is and it will truly appeal to those that are looking for that nostalgic feeling from their childhoods.
But it plays well, fast and is solid and any good solid wargame is good with me.
6. Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division from GMT Games
One of my favorite tactical systems of all time is Combat Commander designed by the late Chad Jensen. I had yet to play his other tactical combined-arms series called Fighting Formations until the newest release came out in 2025 called Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division. Fighting Formations is intended to be an ongoing series of wargames covering WWII tactical combined-arms combat at the platoon and squad levels. Each game in the series will feature a distinct combat unit, highlighting battles in which that unit participated as well as its particular order of battle and fighting characteristics. In this second volume of Fighting Formations, GMT features the US 29th Infantry Division—“Blue and Gray”—as it fought from just after D-Day in June of 1944 to the end of the year.
The core mechanics from the original Fighting Formations remain unchanged in this volume. The difference from the original game is in the way the units will fight. The different costs on the matrix place an emphasis on certain actions and assets for the 29th ID that were different than the others games way of approaching a battle. This game is far from Combat Commander though as it uses cards but they are not the engine of the game. The game also has a very interesting and unique activation system where each of the orders cost a different amount of Initiative and tuns into and impulse-type back and forth where the various Orders carry with them a certain cost in Initiative. The game has a pool of 40 Initiative that is spent to give these orders and then to activate units for those orders. At the end of every order, the player with the most Initiative is able to give the next order. In response, the opponent can also spend Initiative to conduct both Opportunity Fire or Reactive Fire which keeps the game very dynamic and fluid. Just a really great way to approach this and if you have played Downfall from GMT Games you will notice similarities with the system.
The game also tells a great narrative of the differences between the US and German troops as the 29th had access to more battlefield support than their German counterparts and the card deck is tailored to that experience as well. The US player in the new game has access to more cards and at lower initiative costs, bringing artillery and air support to the forefront in a way that we have not seen before.
We did a RAW video after our 1st play and you can watch that at the following link:
The Rock of Chickamauga is the 2nd entry in the Black Swan Series from Flying Pig Games designed by Hermann Luttmann and follows closely on the heels of A Most Fearful Sacrifice. Using the same game system, which is based on the well received Blind Sword Series, The Rock of Chickamauga covers the entire Battle of Chickamauga, fought from September 18th through the 20th, 1863 in northern Georgia. The Union Army of the Cumberland, under William Rosecrans, is driving south from Chattanooga, hoping to envelop and trap Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee. But Bragg anticipates the maneuver, pulls back and then counterattacks the overextended Union forces. They meet along Chickamauga Creek, nicknamed the “River of Death”, in an epic struggle.
The Black Swan Series uses a card-draw activation system that functions similarly to a traditional chit-pull system. This system is a core mechanic for introducing uncertainty, friction, and the fog of war into the gameplay. The cards themselves contain specific game information and orders, which streamlines play and reduces the need to look up rules or charts, saving time compared to traditional chit-pull systems.
I also very much liked how the confusion and true fog of war that existed at the battlefield was included in the game play. Not only do to the commanders’ lack precise information about their opponent but also the physical nature of the battlefield. Both sides basically went into battle stumbling and bumbling through the woods, searching out what they thought was the enemy’s flank and actually being way off in their assumptions. The woods themselves were so uniquely characteristic in that they were mostly thickly grouped with little undergrowth (being cleared by the local farmers and millers), but still displaying significant canopies. This canopy functioned like a tropical jungle “roof” and trapped smoke and dust within it. To add to that, there had been little rain in the area and the trails, lanes, and roads were exceedingly dry and produced clouds of dust. My main concern therefore was replicating all that confusion and ignorance of the location of opposing forces and thankfully, that’s what the entire Blind Swords/Black Swan System is modeled to reflect. Therefore, I just doubled-down on the inherent “chaos” elements of the core system and made those factors even more prevalent.
I also love how the system models the units and their fighting prowess referred to as Cohesion. The Cohesion Rating of a unit is essentially a catch-all for its morale, training and experience and includes what the unit’s intangible fighting qualities are, other than just sheer number of men. It is probably the most important aspect of the game engine as it is the key element that will determine how well a unit will fight – and survive – during the battle. It is used throughout the game to measure a unit’s ability to fight and endure on the battlefield. The CR will fluctuate during the entire game, and it will do so often. Units that are Shaken or Battleworn will have their CR suffer. Units can also raise their CR temporarily through the use of various events or by providing them with Unit Support. A low CR makes units more vulnerable and increases their risk during a Break Test, which will cause them to leave the game if they fail. You have to focus on this aspect or you will be unable to consistently move your attacks forward.
Just such a great system and I love Hermann’s attention to the historical details and the way he tells these ACW stories. I love this Black Swan Series and look forward to future volumes.
4. BCS Inflection Point: The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir from Multi-Man Publishing
Over the past couple years, we have played a few venerated and respected series games from Multi-Man Publishing for the first time that frankly I had initially turned my nose up at for various reasons. These reasons were not really anything important or truly about the design or mechanics but included things like price, graphic design, style and somewhat because of the complexity and reputation of complexity of those systems. These series included first the Standard Combat Series (SCS) with our first game being Rostov ’41 and now the Battalion Combat Series (BCS) with our first game being Arracourt and since we have played several other volumes including Brazen Chariots and Baptism by Fire. I must admit here that I am actually embarrassed that I hadn’t played those series and readily admit that I just discounted and dismissed them out of hand. I am so very glad that we repented of our stubbornness and found this system because it really is very, very good at what it is trying to teach and demonstrate about warfare at this scale.
One of the best parts about this new volume in the series is that it is actually 2 games in the same box. One game which is smaller, with fewer counters and formations and that uses a smaller version of the board included in the game and one that is the full campaign with more counters and formations, a larger board and is much more involved. Overall, I would say that the BCS is a fairly straightforward series even for someone who is a beginner and has less experience with the BCS system like me. I think that I thought they were designing Arracourt as the entry to the series, and I still think that is the case, but this volume has some of the same flexibility and approachability that some of the larger titles don’t necessarily have. I feel that players can cut their teeth on this one using the smaller scenario while getting comfortable with the rules and system before you attempt the larger scenarior or even other larger games in the series. I also feel that the game requires somewhat of a paradigm shift before playing. What I mean by that is really two fold.
First, I really feel that usually these big hex and counter wargames are set in their combat methods, namely focused on odds based Combat Results Tables and counting up combat factors to get the perfect odds, and require a bit of calculation. But BCS doesn’t use a traditional CRT but breaks the combat down into more of a collection of DRM’s based on many factors.
Second, the game also has very low counter density, with the scenario we played having about 40 counters per side on the map at any given time, and stacking limits are just 2 combat units with other counters also allowed such as support units or HQ’s. There are not enough counters here to create the long contiguous line or wall of units that are typical in some of the larger systems, which lends this one to a bit more maneuvering of units to get into good position while using terrain to attempt to isolate and cut off units from supply or to prevent the enemy from doing the same to your units. This created somewhat of a back and forth dance for us that kept my focus and attention and was really quite entertaining. Supply is important to the system but not as focused on it as say the Operational Combat Series (OCS). The players must manage their HQ’s and their combat trains to keep their units in full supply and this becomes somewhat of a different type of dance that sees players cautiously keeping their units in a loose perimeter to prevent a freak breakthrough or run around to get to the back of the formations to take out supply sources and cut off units. I really liked the scale and feeling of this BCS system and had a very good time in trying to learn and understand it and also trying to figure out the best strategies to engage.
The counters included in BCS Inflection Point are dual sided but the back side is not to show a reduced unit as is normal with these wargames. The front side is the unit’s move side while the back side is its deployed side. Each of these stances is very important and must be used by each player to get the most out of their units and to take it to their opponent.
We also did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:
If you are interested in BCS Inflection Point: The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir, you can order a copy for $112.00 from the Multi-Man Publishing website at the following link: https://mmpgamers.com/inflection-point-p-418
3. Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo from Lock ‘n Load Publishing
Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo was such a surprise of the year for us. It is a tactical level wargame that is truly intense and chaotic that attempts to, and does a fantastic job of accomplishing, the brutal, up-close engagements of Napoleonic warfare. The game puts players in command of elite British, French, or Prussian forces as they fight for control of key battlefield positions. The designer has chosen to center on the two strongpoints of the battle of Waterloo including the La Haye Sainte farm and the Hougoumont Farm. First off, the game is just gorgeous and the maps are stunning. In fact, they are so good that I am going to highlight them in an upcoming entry on the blog in the Beautiful Boards of Wargaming Series. But, the Waterloo battles here are skirmishes around and for the taking of these two farms. The game uses a grand tactical system that works to attempt to to simulate the interactions between infantry skirmishers of small groups, artillery sections and cavalry in a fortified area. This leads to the game being uber violent and bloody as assaults are common but difficult particularly for the attackers who will have to scale formidable walls and then take on the awaiting crack troops inside. Officers and generals are very important to the battle as they will influence the battlefield with their command range and other attributes to add DRM’s to the troops by issuing orders, rallying troops, and trying their best to maintain discipline.
I really like this one as it is really a game. Meaning that the rules are simple yet impactful and the game provides each of the players with a deck of cards that act as events to provide bonuses, allow for greater movement distance or to perform heroic acts. They also provide the chance to attack and eliminate leaders with sniper fire to cause even further chaos and blood.
We did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:
2. All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 from Legion Wargames
We very much enjoy the Blind Swords Series originally designed by Hermann Luttmann. We love it for its chaos, unpredictability and for is crunchy combat system. This past year, a new designer Bryan Armor took up the call and took this Blind Swords System and put it into action in the Second Italian War of Independence. All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 simulates the decisive battle of the Second Italian War of Independence at the Brigade-level, with some additional Regimental-size and smaller detachments included.
And the other part that is so good about this system and the game itself is the activation chit pull system. The chit pull mechanic also very much aids in solitaire play, as does variable activation rules and reinforcement tables but it really makes for a lot of uncertainty about how and what units will activate. No battle is in your full control and this system really reinforces that truth about the battlefield.
One of the best parts is the morale system. Each corps has an associated Corps Morale marker on the Morale Track. Each Corps Morale marker will be reduced by one when they activate including movement and fire attacks but also when Leaders take casualties or break tests are failed. This can all lead to the corps becoming demoralized which means they will be unable to offensively move and attack and will be relegated to a defensive posture. So you really have to make good choices about what units and when they will activate. You cannot just wholesale activate each formation every turn but must look at their status to decide how best to manage this aspect that was a very interesting and nice addition to an all ready proven and very good system. This means that units are also prone to attrition and need to be covered or supported by artillery fire. They can be used most effectively if massed at certain points. The chits also effected the corps’ stance switching between aggressive or defensive and this is a choice that must be made with a full understanding of a plan of attack.
Just a very solid and playable game that felt like a big wargame that played fairly quickly and easily and didn’t get bogged down too much.
We did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:
If you are interested in All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859, you can order a copy for $58.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_AAB.html
1. Congress of Vienna from GMT Games
I am a big fan of the Great Statesman Series from GMT Games and several of its volumes including Churchill and Pericles are among my favorite wargames. But Congress of Vienna is a really great game, probably the best of the bunch, and has matured the system laid out by its found Mark Herman. Congress of Vienna has two different but related phases including the conference table where players first debate over the control of issues germane to the factions and the period of the war and second these issues are then used on the battlefield to recruit units, attack and take overall command of battles. The players will be playing cards from their hands to “debate” over the various issues that were placed on the table, which include all types of things such as Military Operations, Recruitment, who will lead the combined Coalition forces (Generalissimo), Future of French Government, British Financial Aid, Liberalism vs. Absolutism, Austrian Neutrality and several other issues, and then later the players will use their accumulated Resources gained from the issues to enact action on the Military Map and do things like mobilize troops, place Military Support Markers and the ultimately to conduct warfare.
The interesting thing about this mechanic is that sometimes the other players will win your issues by having them rest on their side of the conference table at the conclusion of the phase. In this case, the winning player will gain control of that issue and then will get the opportunity to choose where the issues will be placed on the Military Map, but the owner of the issue will still pay for it and must do where the placement is telling them to do, such as attack on a certain front. There also is a small area on the board where the Russian player must turn their effort to fight in Asia. This action has no real in game effect or benefit other than causing Russia to lose the choice of what they wanted to do in favor of doing something else. This can be a great tactic for the French player, or even for other Coalition players to spoil the plans of the Russian player and possibly box them out of gaining VP for military victories on various tracks.
The game relies on cards and cards can be used to negotiate, i.e. move an issue to your National Track. Cards can provide a particular issue with positive and negative DRM’s depending on which nation plays them and can also be traded with another player during the Diplomacy Phase. Certain cards are better than others for debating an issue moved by another player; and finally, if they are saved for the War Phase, staff cards can be used to modify dice rolling in battles. These are very versatile cards and the players will have to learn them and their benefits in order to be effective at the game.
But even though the game relies on cards and has an important Diplomacy Phase, without a doubt CoV is a wargame with DRM’s for units and military leaders, terrain, military support, a Casualties Table, retreat and advancing after battle, etc. However, both Phases are inversely related and if players use their Character Cards in the form of generals and military leaders for the Diplomacy Phase you will not have them available for the Military Phase. If you do not win enough issues during the Diplomacy Phase, you will not have recruiting or military operations where they are most important to your power.
I would say that the game is very involved and will take a few plays to really get comfortable with. I don’t want anyone to take this to mean that the game is overly complex and difficult to play. That is not the case. It is a very approachable system and game once you get the basics down through the play of a few turns. I would also say that there is a ton of differences and asymmetry with the nations and learning all of them well and understanding their tactics will take some time. But that is a good thing in my opinion and means that there is depth to the game and replayabilty is huge. And in my opinion, this was the best game that I played from 2025. Just fantastic!
Each year I feel compelled to tack on some games to this list just because they were so very interesting or dealt with unique settings that I feel they are worthy of mentioning. While they didn’t make the Top 10 list, they are each good games in their own right.
Alliance: Multi-Player Napoleonic Wargame from Columbia Games
All in all, we had a great time with Alliance. I think that we felt that the game was solid, with some great mechanics such as the card play and the block combat system, but was just missing some things. I would like to see what the community comes up with as far as variants and other changes over the next year. But the game delivers on its promise of a sandbox strategic level Napoleonic wargame with a focus on alliance building and maintenance. There is a lot to like and we plan to play this one again.
We also did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:
If you are interested in Alliance: Multi-Player Napoleonic Wargame, you can order a copy for $99.98 from the Columbia Games website at the following link: https://secure.columbiagames.com/products/3221
Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 from Legion Wargames
Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 is a COIN Series adjacent game designed by Clint Warren-Davey and Benjamin Feine and is an alternate history game, but the story that is presented is entirely plausible. Werwolf was a real underground guerrilla group, comprised of SS and Hitler Youth members. It was intended to lead an insurgency against the invading Allies and Soviets when it became clear that Germany was losing the war in a conventional sense in the mid-1940’s. They did in fact have a few successes and American intelligence officer Frank Manuel said that the Werwolves were prepared “to strike down the isolated soldier in his jeep, the MP on patrol, the fool who goes a-courting after dark, the Yankee braggart who takes a back road.” The game allows players to take on the role of the occupying Soviets and Western Allies along with this Werwolf insurgency and the Edelweiss insurgency.
This game was very good and frankly was a breath of fresh air in the COIN Series or COIN Series adjacent arena. This game was very kinetic and each faction had a ton of combat and had to engage each other to accomplish their goals. The cards were fantastic and the additions to the system such as Research Tokens, Heavy Weapons in the form of leftover tanks, Wunder-waffen and the Cold War Tension Track, were really fresh and well integrated into the game play. I loved the game and would play it again in a heart beat!
If you are interested in Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948, you can order a copy for $106.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_WER.html
Verdun from Dragon Dawn Productions
Verdun is a card game that is focused on the famous siege of Verdun during World War I. As player’s hands dwindle down as they play 2 cards per round but only draw 1, players will also have to play cards that help the other side, timing it strategically to minimize their own casualties. The teams alternate being the Attacker, and each card played leads to more and more deaths. You are fighting over positive victory points from trying to win several positions through over the top attacks that are worth a set amount of VP but that are hidden from view until they are taken so you never know if you are going for the high VP area or the low ones until you blow the whistle to initiate the attack.
A game of Verdun lasts about 16 rounds as players start with 12 cards, which they then play in a series of 12 tricks. When you win the trick, you gain the VP for the position but the winner will lose their lowest valued cards while the loser will lose their highest value cards to the dead pile representing mounting casualties. Low cards have fewer skulls on them representing deaths while higher cards have more. So even in victory you will be accumulating negative VP’s and this is one of the key aspects of the game…managing those deaths! Just like the high command.
In the end, the player with the highest score will win and this number will be very low or can even be negative. In our play of the game, my French defeated Alexander’s Germans by a final score of 3 VP to -14 VP. What a great little trick taking game! The really interesting part about the late game is that your hand has dwindled to being full of your worst cards as you have most likely used the good cards earlier to win tricks or cause losses to your opponent. The last few card plays just seem brutal and you are just hoping to not have to take a lot of skulls. This felt very fruitless and mimics the despair of commanders as they had to issue orders that they knew were not going to result in any positive gains but only the loss of life.
We did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:
Drop Zone: Southern France from Worthington Publishing
Drop Zone: Southern France is a company-level wargame covering the Allied airborne assault that spearheaded Operation Dragoon, which was the invasion of Southern France or the Second D-Day on August 15, 1944. The history behind this operation is really very interesting as early on the morning of D-Day, the allied First Airborne Task Force (1st ABTF) parachuted a dozen miles behind the Riviera landing beaches to seize key towns and road junctions, to prevent the German occupation forces from counter-attacking the amphibious landing, and to facilitate the advance of Allied forces. The 4:00 AM parachute drop was badly scattered due to an unexpected dense fog bank that blanketed the battlefield. Drop Zone: Southern France covers the first two days of this airborne operation in six game turns, when the American and British paratroopers and glider-men fought surrounded and alone, supported only by French resistance bands. This game is very good and is just a solid wargame.
This game is surprisingly good and we had a great time playing it! There are just so many interesting elements to consider including the various operations, objectives and paths to take for the Allies to attempt to capture their objectives as planned. We found the game to be imminently playable and were very pleased with the strategy and planning required to do well. This one is a winner and I would recommend it highly as an introductory wargame that plays in 90-120 minutes but gives some real meat to chew on.
We did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:
Chicago ’68 pits revolutionary spectacle against civil order at the Democratic National Convention riots of 1968. Players take the role of either the Establishment, consisting of the Chicago PD and Mayor Daley, or the Demonstrators, including the Yippies and MOBE, and is a fast-paced game of street battles and political maneuvers.
Each side plays from two asymmetric decks of action cards. The Establishment positions tactical forces and police platoons to co-ordinate mass arrests while working the convention floor. The Demonstrators, on the other hand, can pivot from direct clashes to radical street theater; their tactics can be reactive and unpredictable, allowing for wild cat-and-mouse chases and mischief-making across the tear-gassed avenues of downtown Chicago.
This game is an area control/area influence game that uses cards to take a predetermined set of actions that can be upgraded and replayed with better actions as the game progresses. Each player will fight for control of the delegates to the convention as well as exposure to the nation through the media. Just a very well designed game that was a ton of fun to play.
There I am finally done. My list of the Top 10 Wargames published in 2025. I had fun playing them and putting this list together as I got to revisit each of the games and think about why they were included on this list.
Please let me know what your top games of the year were and what you think of my choices and what games you would have placed on such a list.
Music has been a love of mine forever. I remember lying on my bed when I was seven or eight years old, listening to FM radio and later being enthralled by music videos, watching when my family first got cable in 1984. My first concert was seeing Anthrax opening for Iron Maiden in 1991, and […]
Vineyard Designers: Roberta Taylor, Eduardo Baraf, Katherine Waddell Publisher: Pencil First Players: 1-4 Age: 13+ Time: 60 minutes Amazon affiliate link: https://amzn.to/4dmUrX2 Played with review copy provided by publisher Welcome to wine country! Vineyard: A Winemaking Game is … Continue reading →
Meadow is a game about wildlife in the countryside. The key underlying concept is the food chain. You need certain terrain to be able to support certain plants, you need certain plants to be able to support certain insects, and in turn these insects are food to small animals, and then these small animals are prey of larger animals. You collect and play cards with various icons. The icons allow
It’s safe to say that The Guerrilla Generation is the wargame I’ve been looking forward to the most since its announcement on the heels of The British Way. Like that title, this is a multipack by Stephen Rangazas, once again using Volko Ruhnke’s COIN System to examine four different conflicts over the course of the 20th century. This time, our destination is Latin America.
And it all begins with a comparatively small urban insurgency in Uruguay.
Ah, my favorite bastion of Marxist corruption.
If you’ve played even one COIN game before, the basic arrangement of their maps have probably solidified themselves in your mind. There are typically three types of spaces: rural zones, drawn in green or brown depending on the terrain being represented; urban centers, portrayed as gray bubbles where the country’s population is most concentrated; and lines of communication, the highway or rail networks that string everything together.
What sets the Uruguay scenario apart from every other map is that it all takes place within one of those concrete-hued bubbles. Unlike most of the insurgencies depicted by the series, this game’s revolutionaries, the Tupamaros, have confined most of their activities to Montevideo. Right away, this presents both advantages and disadvantages. In the former column, there’s no denying that it’s much easier to traverse a single city than an entire country. Acts of sabotage and intimidation take place where their impact will be greatest. The state’s juiciest targets — the armory, the prison, the university — are all right there. It helps, too, that it’s easy to blend in among the million-plus population.
But there are some stark disadvantages as well, and it’s here that Rangazas pulls the system in two contrasting directions. As with The British Way’s anti-colonial movements, The Guerrilla Generation examines how its four insurgencies differed in operation, ideology, and outcome. For their part, the Tupamaros are relatively restrained. This isn’t to say they’re nonviolent, like some Latin American analogue of the Indian National Congress from Gandhi. Installations will still be sabotaged. Key figures will still be kidnapped and held hostage in a roving prison. Soldiers and policemen will still be assassinated. But limiting the insurgency’s activities to Montevideo means there’s less opportunity for the revolutionary fires to fan out of control.
Indeed, that’s one of the core questions asked of the Tupamaros player. Founded in the wake of Fidel Castro’s successful takeover of Cuba — as presented in the second COIN volume, Cuba Libre — the urban nature of the Tupamaros reflected the ideals of their core membership. This was a middle- and upper-class movement, staffed principally with students and tradesmen rather than farmers and day laborers. At the outset, it’s impossible to overlook the lone insurgent cell situated comfortably within the university.
Thus, a tension is presented. Should the Tupamaros confine their activities to their original vision or expand their base? Neither option is perfect. Keeping the message focused restricts the manpower the Tupamaros can bring to bear, a problem that only grows more pressing as increasing numbers of revolutionaries are imprisoned. But the instant the organization expands its recruitment pool, rogue cells might spark violent actions that disgust Montevideo’s populace and sway their sympathies toward the regime. It’s a familiar conundrum for students of revolutionary history, but to my recollection it’s the first time we’ve seen it presented so clearly in the COIN Series.
Events pull triple duty this time around.
This is only the first of the small touches that Rangazas deploys to great effect in the Uruguay scenario. The Tupamaros — who, it must be said, receive the module’s most interesting toys — are also the recipients of two other tweaks that speak to their urban nature.
First, supplies. At various points, the Tupamaros draw chits that represent the tools of their trade. Rather than being presented as generic “supplies,” here they’re delineated into distinct types that influence how the Tupamaros operate. Arms, for example, double how many sabotage markers their attacks place on the map, while escape vehicles make it easier to disappear after an operation. These chits are interesting, not to mention a great deal of fun to handle during gameplay, but their real advantage is that they imbue the Tupamaros with a certain materiality that has sometimes gotten lost in the COIN System’s sky-high perspective. Not to go all Marxist on anybody, but the organization’s material conditions inform its practice. (Or “praxis,” if we really want to lean into the forthcoming accusations.) Basically, you’re more likely to jump in guns blazing if you have guns. Or expand your organization if you have a bunch of order chits for bullying around your new recruits. Or lean into hostage-taking if the People’s Prison already has a few high-profile captives under lock and key.
While this gives the Tupamaros an ideological edge that’s missing from many of the more counter-insurgent-focused volumes of the COIN Series, an alteration to the function of the game’s event cards solves a very different issue. At the end of each turn, after both sides have had their chance to act, an event takes place. Not the usual event, the one that might be capitalized upon by either faction, but an unconnected occurrence in the third box at the foot of each card. This represents something happening beyond the reach of either the Tupamaros or the Government. An escape from a women’s prison, perhaps, or a worker’s strike somewhere in the city. (Or, in a subtle piece of humor, the United States Senate might denounce torture in Uruguay after sending advisors to teach proper torture techniques. The outcome of this denunciation: “No effect.”)
This makes the Uruguay scenario the most event-heavy of the COIN titles thus far, but also resolves one of the series’ underlying tensions — namely, the false perception that these particular actors would be all-powerful were it not for their rivals’ meddling. Here, it’s possible for things to occur that are simply beyond your control. Perhaps a new poll will show that the military has high approval ratings. Is that good or bad? Hard to say. It might be rather impactful indeed. Or it might not matter in the slightest. But it’s something that happens without the participation of the game’s factions. They can suppress the news, whether through propaganda or censorship, but either way they are thrust into a world in which they are major actors, but not the only actors.
Guns, cars, hostages… the Tupamaros get all the fun stuff.
For the most part, the Uruguay scenario’s increased resolution suits both the history and the gameplay. The Tupamaros in particular are presented as a lively bunch, if also ill-equipped to effect sweeping change.
But this tighter focus also shows a COIN System straining at its limits. Peculiarities gnaw at the foundations, concessions to balance that are probably necessary to make the game function as intended, but present as artificial constraints on the pieces sitting on the map. Insurgent cells spring across the city at will, while Government police cubes trundle from one district to another. Intel chits pad the Government’s actions, doled out as a result of interrogated prisoners, but the system feels ancillary at worst, and a less enthusiastic version of the Tupamaros’ supply chits at best. I don’t have any strong feelings on the game’s balance, as I’ve seen both factions emerge victorious, but the Government is a drag to play compared to their more freewheeling countrymen.
Fortunately, these quibbles fade alongside the scenario’s grander accomplishments. Historically, the Tupamaros lost the war but won the long-term moral conflict. The Government, pressed to their limit, eventually called in the military to subdue the insurgency. The operation was successful, shattering the organization and holding its ringleaders hostage in squalid conditions for twelve years.
The Guerrilla Generation portrays this turn of events as well. On their own, the Government is unlikely to quell the uprising, especially if the Tupamaros player cleverly manages their supplies and balances their organization’s expansion and control. The Government is therefore presented with the option to call in the military. This bolsters their numbers dramatically, adding darker-hued cubes to the map that are immune to the petty intimidation tactics that have been the insurgents’ stock in trade. Once deployed, it’s almost guaranteed that the military will crush the revolution.
But this sets off a different victory tally. Now the Government is faced with the prospect of a fatal coup d’état. If their legitimacy drops below that of the military, they lose the game outright. In theory, in the moment, this also looks like a Tupamaros failure. Thanks to hindsight, Rangazas presents it as a victory for the underdogs. Yes, the coming years will see civic governance gradually phased out in favor of military rule. Yes, Tupamaros leadership will languish in prison. But eventually military overreach will pave the way for democratic reform and amnesty for the captives. Presumably, such an outcome places the game’s conclusion not in 1973 with the military coup, but in 2010 with the Tupamaro and twelve-year captive José Mujica being sworn in as the country’s 40th constitutional president.
Deploying the military is likely the death knell of the Uruguayan regime.
There’s a certain reading of this outcome that might regard it as rose-tinted, perhaps even accelerationist in nature. Positioning a victory for the Tupamaros as more or less identical to their abject failure is a stark authorial choice. By no means was the civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay guaranteed to conclude in democratic reform.
Then again, I’d be more sympathetic to such a perspective if events had not, in fact, shaken out that way. All wargames are built on hindsight, through necessity if nothing else, and this is probably as close to true success as the Tupamaros were likely to get.
Either way, Uruguay provides a sterling entry point to The Guerrilla Generation. Its insurgency is a far cry from what we’ve seen from the series thus far, an urban uprising that struggled to obtain broad appeal, but made enough of a nuisance of itself to incite the suicide of the regime it opposed. We’ll see if the next three insurgencies are able to ride the tide of historical chance to similar highs. Spoiler: Don’t get your hopes up.
A complimentary copy of The Guerrilla Generation was provided by the publisher.
(If what I’m doing at Space-Biff! is valuable to you in some way, please consider dropping by my Patreon campaign or Ko-fi. Right now, supporters can read my first-quarter update of 2026: the best board games, movies, books, and more!)
“The Rangers keep the Valley safe, looking out for trouble and helping people wherever they can. They are wonderful human beings.” – Ren Kobo, Earthborne Rangers Rulebook
Disclosure: finished the campaign
Earthborne Rangers was one of the games that had been on our radar for quite a while. Many campaign games are also legacy games, which are often not replayable and happen to have many components that aren’t compostable. The components of EBR are compostable, but it’s also a replayable campaign game. For some time we’d wanted to play GMless RPGs with just the two of us; we tried, but it was difficult and we felt we needed more guidance. It seemed that EBR could scratch that itch, giving us some structure without being so restrictive that we couldn’t create our own narrative. Additionally, the art style is beautiful and captures the ecopunk vibe that we like (and we both love green). So we were very excited when we were able to get our hands on it.
Earthborne Rangers is a deck-building/construction game that relies on cards for the world building. Most of the game consists of cards. While there is a map that shows the location, there’s no board to place your character, and having minis isn’t necessary. It is quite similar to a tabletop RPG. But unlike many TTRPGs, players don’t have to rely on the GM to decide whether an action is permissible. The rules are all set up in the game. While TTRPGs offer more flexibility in terms of what a player can do, in EBR, players get to choose the personality and the aspects or the stats of their character and don’t have to rely on dice to randomly generate the stats.
The prologue got us hooked very quickly. During the prologue each player first chooses a number of personality cards, followed by cards representing their ranger’s background and specialty. One of us chose a Forager-Shaper and the other chose an Artisan-Artificer. While we weren’t able to update them regularly during the game, you can check our character sheets here and here. The resulting ranger deck slowly changes over the course of the campaign, as there are opportunities to engage in some further deck building.
The prologue also walks players through the setup process that repeats at the beginning of each day/session. First, players set up their individual areas and draw a starting hand of six cards. This is followed by shuffling the challenge deck, the function of which we’ll explain later. Next come the location, weather and mission cards. We really like these cards as they really help with the immersion (we’d recommend checking out the soundtrack if you want your game session to be more immersive). These are determined by the current state of the campaign, which is noted down on a campaign tracker. If you’re curious, check out our campaign tracker, but be warned: it contains plenty of spoilers.
Then comes the potentially most consequential part, building the path deck, which contains the flora and fauna, the beings, the people, and some structures/ruins. This will include cards based on the path that was used to arrive at the current location, specific or general cards based on that location and sometimes additional cards related to a mission or the weather. What we like about the path deck is that it makes the world come alive and it gives more variety to the game as who/whatever you encounter when you draw a path card is random even though its construction is determined by the factors mentioned earlier. Finally, there are arrival setup instructions on the back of the location card, which shape the initial conditions the rangers find themselves in.
One of the path cards
After setup, rangers take turns until everyone has decided to rest for the round. On their turn, each ranger can either play a card from their hand, perform a test or decide to rest. The test or the card that a ranger can perform or play is dependent on the available energy, the type and the amount of which is determined by the aspect, in their energy pool and the path card that they want to interact with. In the first few sessions we were trying to use all the energy in the energy pool effectively, but it gets tricky as the campaign and the days progress; we asked ourselves (and each other) whether we should use them all before we rest or just rest even if there are some left in the pool. We really like this mechanism since while at the beginning it seems that being efficient with your resources means using most of them before resting, eventually we would have to consider whether not using them all and drawing a ranger card during the refresh stage (the stage after resting) might be the better option. But this also means having to draw another path card, which could bring more risks and might have to be dealt with.
When a ranger performs a test, they have to draw a challenge card, which contains a challenge icon (mountain, crest, or sun). Some path cards, weather cards, mission cards, and location cards contain challenge effects, which are triggered if the challenge card drawn has the corresponding challenge icon. The challenge card also determines if the effort used is deducted, added, or stays the same. We feel that the challenge cards are the ones that create the tension as you don’t know whether it’s going to trigger some negative or postive effects. Depending on the location, weather, path card and the mission cards in play, drawing a challenge card may speed up fatigue. Fatigue is when a ranger sets aside a card facedown from the ranger deck without using it. If the ranger is forced to fatigue a card but they don’t have any cards left in the ranger deck, they need to end the day. We haven’t played all the specialties and backgrounds yet, but we think that Shapers have a huge advantage when it comes to decreasing randomness and mitigating fatigue since they have more options not to perform tests during their turn; they could, instead, play a card, which doesn’t require drawing a challenge card to clear or help clear a path.
Challenge Cards
Clearing a path card is one of the most important things to do in the game because it unlocks and helps progress some missions. But a ranger doesn’t have to clear every path card in play. How to clear a path card depends on the type of path card and the conditions written on the card to clear it. If the card is a being, a flora, or a fauna, it can either be cleared by harm or progress. We would always try our best to clear using progress if it’s a being. We were talking about the choice of using the term “harm” and what it means in the game. This is the part of the narrative that we wanted to be very much our own. We sometimes just define “harm” as disturbance. Sometimes we say that the fruits were harvested and the plants were disturbed, which what harm means in the context of flora. Sometimes when a companion causes a harm to the prey, it just means that they “shooed” it. We interpret the term depending on which context it was done. The narrative and the system are not too restrictive so that there is some space for us to add our own spin on things.
The results of our choices also didn’t feel punishing mechanically and let us freely choose based on what we think is the right thing to do. Without going into too much detail, there was a mission where we needed some prey. One of the preys happened to be not a living prey. When we read the entry after clearing the mission, we were so relieved that we got it. When we finally cleared the mission, the reward wasn’t something we found valuable, but we enjoyed curating the narrative based on which preys we got. We’re being vague here, but you’ll know once you’ve chosen and completed that mission. What we also find very interesting and really love is that clearing a being with harm may seem to require less resources than clearing it with progress, but every ranger has some Spirit (the aspect that provides energy needed to clear with progress) and is capable of compassion, but not every ranger has the means (cards) to cause harm.
Our Final Thoughts:
Earthborne Rangers is the type of game that we were looking for when we were looking for a more structured GMless RPG. It’s not a TTRPG, but it is also not a typical card game. There were times during the campaign where we hoped to not encounter Quisi (one of the characters of the Valley who is endearingly fatiguing) anymore, but we still enjoyed the journey a lot. The art style, the interaction between the mechanics and the theme, the balance between randomness and choice, and most especially having the space to create a world that is uniquely our own, are the things that make EBR one of the best games we’ve played together.
What we like:
art style
immersion
narrative
balance between choice and randomness
ecosystems
not mechanically punishing choices
stage for the theater of the mind
compostable components
What we do not like:
using paper bands for cards instead of wrapping them
not much variety in the individual path decks
What Kaysee also likes:
the aspects
What Max also likes:
finding combinations of cards with interesting effects
What Max also doesn’t like:
if you get very unlucky, the day could end too early
Title: Earthborne Rangers (2023)
Game Design: Andrew Fischer, Brooks Flugaur-Leavitt, Andrew Navaro, Adam Sadler, Brady Sadler
Illustration: Joe Banner (II), Evan Simonet
Publisher: Earthborne Games
"When a man with a 0.45 straight meets a man with a rifle three-of-a-kind, you said the man with the pistol's straight’s a dead man. Let's see if that's true. Go ahead. Load Shuffle up and shoot draw."
Sorry to any film aficionados, you’ll survive though. Rattlesnake is a two-player duelling card game, lightly inspired by deck-building games. Players start the game with identical decks of cards, numbered one to five, and a central market (The Saloon) between them that holds cards for purchasing. They take turns purchasing cards and attacking each other (or not) by placing runs (sequential numbers) or sets (the same number) face down on the table, then comparing. Defenders take a Hit card to their discard pile if the attacker wins, and when a player has no Hit cards left, they lose the game. At any time in the game, from the moment the game starts, players can play a card in their hand for its ability. The downside however is that card is removed from their deck permanently afterwards! As cards are bought from the Saloon, events come out that change the rules of the game permanently, and slowly push the players into finishing things. The game has an ebb and flow to it that tries to create the tension and stress of actually being in a pistol duel in a run-down western town.
[heading]Prologue[/heading] A little about me. I am an Australian/British/soon-to-be-Italian game designer, who lives in The Netherlands. By day I am an engineer, so working with systems, whether mechanical, electrical, or cardboard-based is all the same to me. I have been making games for a few years as a hobby/fun activity with friends, but this is the first game I actually decided to publish. More accurately, the first I felt was actually worth publishing. More on that later. What I like though, is telling stories. Board games are not ideal for this, but I try my best to fit a narrative into my designs in some way. The narrative might not be obvious at first glance, but Roland’s art definitely helps it stand out more. By the end of this design diary, I hope you can see the narrative in the game, and it brings it to life just a little bit more.
[heading]Act 1: We pass time between funerals and burials[/heading] I was watching For A Fistful Of Dollars while my wife was away one week: the original spaghetti western (Western movie made by Italian directors), directed by Sergio Leone. This is where the story of Rattlesnake starts. I was moved by the music, the cinematography, the style, and the simplicity of it all. So of course, I thought, let’s make a game about this. Naturally. What you interpret from that is “oh, he wants to make a game about people shooting each other, easy, seen it before”. I am not so shallow, and there are games that do duelling much better for those things (Kiri-Ai anyone?). I wanted to make a game that tells the story of two people who are stuck in a duel, hiding behind some scrap of anything, desperately trying to figure out how to not die. The same, yes, but also different.
The obvious link is poker. To preface, this was all started way before Balatro was released. Board games take forever to publish. The first step in developing a prototype, normally, is to experiment and fail a lot really fast. So I started researching the history of card games in the Old American West. It made sense at the time. Several Wikipedia rabbit holes later I emerged, bleary eyed, tired, and unaware of where I was, or what I was doing. So the next day I just grabbed a deck of French suited playing cards, and then made a second deck of ability cards, with random scribbled abilities on them. I wrote whatever I felt would be appropriate or just sounded cool.
Four hours pass by and the tattered remains of two playing card decks litter my desk, and my paper waste bin is overflowing and begging me to stop. This is what progress looks like. I had gone through about 20 or so versions of the possible game in a single evening. That’s a new game version every 12 minutes on average. I had also ruined several fine felt-tipped pens in my haste. No time for funeral processions, or even digging the proper hole, just bury the past iteration as fast as possible. Whatever is not dead will climb out of the hole. Eventually, I actually accomplished some design work, and I came up with this bizarre system of two decks, where one would have traditional playing cards, albeit slightly modified, and the other would be full of crazy abilities and bonkers things. I nicknamed this second deck “The Michael Bay Deck”. Players could then choose to draw from either of their decks on their turn. I used spreadsheets and a program called NanDeck to rapidly print out digital versions after this.
The first playtests went well. The testers reported that the game was “a little too swingy” and other quotes like “wait, let me read that card again” and “does this really do what I think it does?”. A resounding success. The cards were built around spending your traditional playing cards (symbols on the left of the ability cards) like a resource to play abilities, but also using traditional playing cards to attack your opponent in a kind of hand comparison game (like poker, ish). Everyone did have fun though, which was a huge positive. The game was more broken than politics, but people were laughing and enjoying it. Great! BURY IT!
I churned through so many prototypes of this that I lost count. I keep almost every version of each prototype I make in general. Version control started at version 0, but each version had decimals. Even the decimals had decimals after that! There were three separate characters, each with their own ability decks, and they were all around different themes and play styles. You’d think with around 20 cards to each character, multiple copies in each deck, that it would be easy actually. But no. In the end, we were just optimising a dead horse. Don’t optimise, just bury it and move on.
[heading]Act 2: Sometimes the dead can be more useful than the living[/heading] What if, now hear me out…the abilities were on the playing cards? It took much longer than I will admit to reach this conclusion. It was really quite simple, I just added numbers from two to seven, plus the face cards, to the ability cards, and then one entire deck was gone. Buried! Instantly half the components! Seriously, this was a game changer, literally and metaphorically. People went from “oh, that was alright” to “shut up Michael, I’m playing here!”. Great success. I kept very, very detailed testing notes after every single game and had a wealth of info to look back through and try spot the issues. Most feedback has value in it, if you can find the nuggets of truth buried deep within. The note that helped me the most was “there are too many cards and decks”. Insightful I know. But it took about 10 sessions before someone said that out loud. Before then, it was always some arbitrary problem, a feeling they couldn’t describe or explain. I was swimming in a vast lake of vague expressions and blind design suggestions, until someone just shouted “why are you wearing two snorkels?”. Obvious isn’t it? Remove the excess and bury it.
The game was finding its footing more and more with each revision. Five card hands, both players are refreshing at the end of any turn, and abilities are one-time affairs before they disappear forever. The keyword for removing a card from the game was of course, “Buried”. My testing notes document was swelling and gaining self-awareness, consuming and digesting copious quantities of feedback and test data. Every week there was a slew of new prototypes. Monday I would test with my closed group, Tuesday I would fix it and test solo, Wednesday I would semi-blind test with another local design group, then Thursday I would fix and solo test again. The game was starting to feel more and more like two idiots hiding behind barrels and overturned tables, trying to figure out the next move in an actual western stand off, and less of a “I play this card for X” kind of game. The downside is that I have never heard so much swearing in pubs before, and I grew up in Australia. This game brought out the worst in people. This is how I learned to curse better in Dutch as well though, so free language lessons I guess? It meant that I had tapped into the part of the brain I was searching for, poking the right neurons and getting closer each time.
Something was not right still though. So, I did what I normally do, grabbed a shovel and I buried most of it. Gone were the unique character decks, unique abilities, and also after much complaining, the black and white card design. Head play tester, and fellow game designer Steve van Bennekom, summed it up perfectly, “It looks like a spreadsheet threw up on a card game. Put some artwork on the cards please”. The Dutch are often criticised for being rude, but they just cut out all the filler words native English speakers use. Straight to the issue. There is never any “would you kindly” or “have you considered”. They make great play testers. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease though.
DISCLAIMER: Although I used AI art during the prototyping process to help with playtesting, no AI was used in the production of the final game. Roland MacDonald did all the art, which you will learn about later, I promise.
The game was now very similar to what you will see and play today, albeit with more cards and worse artwork. Symmetric decks numbered two to seven, a central market with the “face” cards, and of course wound cards. The Aces were considered as both ones and tens, depending on the hand of cards. This is what some might call the core concept. I can’t remember how many months it took to get to this point, but it was not quick. Balance was always a concern, but Steve, again, solved it in an evening's work one night. He wrote a python script that ran simulated hands both as the player and the opponent, and worked out the possibility of winning based on every single hand combination in the game. It keeps going. He then wrote me a full report, three pages long, detailing his findings, the outcomes, and where the likely overpowered combinations are. I paid for the drinks at the next test session.
Even more data in hand, I was refining more and more. This is also where the real work started. It was time to get serious. I needed more help. So I did what most normal people would do, and I started asking strangers. One such stranger was Roland MacDonald. I met him once, but didn’t know who he was at the time. I’m just going to paste some of the email I sent to him at a later date:
“We met a while back at a game design night, and you tore a friend’s prototype game to pieces (metaphorically). Are you around anytime for a chat and/or a drink?”
That’s really all it took. Turns out he lived 10 minutes from my house. We met up at a local pub, along with the friend who made the mentioned prototype (it was Steve, again). After many drinks, a long chat, we eventually tested out my game. Testing with experienced designers is a different world. Regular players give you a kind of “vibe”, while hobby designers and testers might start telling you a solution already. With actual designers and industry veterans, words sharper than razor blades is what you get. Not cruel, but precise, they cut down to the bone of the issue in a few words, leaving a huge, gaping wound that your ego, hopes, and dreams can ooze out of before you have time to blackout. It wasn’t that bad really, but you’re never prepared the first time. It feels worse, hearing these things the first time. Good feedback, would do it again. But it highlighted something I had forgotten in all the mechanisms and gameplay focus. It lacked something, some kind of spark or thing that really made it special. It was just…fine. Fine is a word you use when someone asks how you are and you want to be avoidant, not to describe something you actually like.
[heading]Act 3: You shoot to kill, you better hit the heart[/heading] Progress slowed for a little bit as I dealt with some work things, Christmas, and regular life. This would eventually result in me taking off several months from work. Complete happenstance, but Roland also found himself without a project for the first time in a long while. So we did what British people do best, and we went to the pub…..a lot! This wasn’t game design or anything, just two guys enjoying a drink while the rest of the world was at work. It was what I imagined the feeling of zen must be like…but I am probably remembering it wrong.
Problem is, both of us are the type of people that cannot sit still. I had begun guzzling art lessons like a dehydrated dog and revising my graphic design skills while stuffing publishing information into the remaining gaps in my brain, trying to prepare for any outcome for the game. Roland however, was bored. He had gone from full-time, non-stop projects for several years, to watching me twitch uncontrollably as I struggled to find mental space for everything. I got a text one day that just said “Do you mind if I draw some artwork for your game”? The answer is obvious. The ramp up from here on was intense. Roland and I were meeting maybe two to three times a week now, always at a pub, and we would playtest, discuss his latest card art, discuss the next changes needed. I don’t want to think how much money we drank these months.
I really hope Roland does a write up on the card art and the process he went through from initial sketches to final card art. It was really eye-opening for me, but also really shows you why it costs to buy art. The process can’t really be copied that easily, because you’re targeting human feelings, and that’s hard to do with an imitation. By now, we had cut the decks down to their current numbers, with only cards numbering one to five. Eventually, we would even remove one each of the four and five cards from each player’s starting deck (players started with three copies of each card). Even the Saloon cards would be changed to match this number scale, allowing much more freedom to players to craft a play style they like. Changes now were small and gradual. A fine rasp to take the sharp edges off, rather than the surgical shovel used in the early stages.
One problem remained though. Roland hated westerns. After Western Legends, he was sick of it. I think he tried for about four weeks to find a different theme that fit the game. Sci-fi, boxing, fencing, medieval sword fighting, and other weird ideas. Eventually Roland gave in, having found no suitable replacement, and I quote “if I’m going to draw it, then I’m going to draw it how I want!” This was still a man who had asked me if he could draw the cards. What came out of this though, was a look back at the art of the period. The colours of the Old West were not fifty shades of brown, but a colourful expression of a wild landscape that played with the sun and sky. This is where the colour palette used in the game came from, and it is all the better for it!
On the plus side also, pushing him into an uncomfortable style that he didn't want forced him to come up with one of the best card backs ever!
This was now a production outfit. Roland was operating as artist, I was handling game design still as well as layout and publishing, and we both managed play testing. It must be stated, that you need to have friction when making anything. If you’re not disagreeing at least a little, something is wrong. This was not a problem for us! The best example and culmination of this was centred around the card that is now called “Dodge ’n’ Shoot”. The card ability originally was “Topdeck. If you win, ignore an Injury you are about to receive”. Topdeck just means both players reveal the top card of their deck and compare the numbers. Higher number wins, repeat ties until someone wins. This seems simple, right? Well, during a test with Roland and a friend of mine, this was the “discussion” after the Roland played said card to the table and starter dictating what was happening:
Michael: That’s not how that card works, Roland. Roland: Yes it is. Michael: What do you mean? I wrote the damn card! Roland: It is! We both Topdeck, then combat is resolved by the Topdeck! It makes sense! Michael: No! You just ignore an injury! That is literally what is written on the card. Roland: The card is wrong, that is not what it says! ….
This continued for a while. The clock inched slowly over two minutes as we screamed at each other like an old married couple, in a crowded and busy pub, while my friend sat there awkwardly like a child in the middle of a divorce settlement. Eventually I stopped and tried to explain one more time what I had written on the card to Roland. The response eventually was: “Oh, I get it now….that’s dumb, why would it do that? It should just say what I said”. The table was silent for a few seconds. My friends eyes darting back and forth like he’s assessing the emergency exits. Then we just laughed after about ten seconds and continued playing as before. Like I said, you need friction, but maybe more important is the ability to resolve the friction. His version is in the final game by the way…
It is now March 2024, and the game is ninety percent finished. Artwork is mostly done, the rules have been ironed out to “clear enough”, and I had already started making the full 52 card print sheet. This is not normal. You should never, ever finish a game to this level before it is signed with a publisher (Kickstarter excluded). The awkward question I have been avoiding like the plague comes up, “So, ready to pitch the game now”? I am not given time to think however, as Roland most likely has already anticipated my response and simply says “Let’s go to UK Games Expo in May, it will be a good place to test it out”. I have zero excuses really, and I really should stop avoiding the part that is the most important. Flights, accommodation, travel companions, and wives are all organised in the week. Remember how I said the game was ninety percent complete? Well, that remaining ten percent would turn out to be around fifty percent of the work.
The following is a lesson in what you should not do. The artwork was finished, and I really do mean finished, and we spent maybe four weeks arguing over colours and fonts. I have a professional ink printer at home with proper, colour accurate cardstock, so naturally we spent a few days just printing out entire sheets of cards, artwork, boxes, posters, just to see and compare the colours. If you think that sounds silly, that’s okay. You’re wrong, but I don’t begrudge you for not wanting to go down that insanely deep rabbit hole. We made full art boxes, Roland cut and folded card inserts, I got all the cards professionally printed and cut, and I made full-art A4 sell sheets. All in all, we made about ten or twelve “prototypes” for giving away at the expo. The week leading up to UKGE I spent a minimum of twelve hours a day working on something, Roland was working on my desk next to me for about eight of those hours usually as well. It was also absolute overkill, and you shouldn’t ever do this!
So, UKGE rolls around… in Birmingham. The first day was all business. Roland dragged me around the expo, introducing me to publishers, sneaking some prototypes into their hands, other designers, and even a couple of pitch sessions he managed to organise last minute. I said little, just watched and learned, answered some questions when people asked me, and tried incredibly hard to absorb all of it. There was so much nuance to dealing with publishers. Nothing is ever a no, but it is an opening for another question though. The amount of info is overwhelming. Sometime in the afternoon Roland told our friend and I that he was off to have meetings for several hours, so we went off to actually explore the expo for the first time that day, and maybe even play a game or two!
Beer o’clock finally arrives (have you noticed the pattern yet?) and we head to one of the terraces outside the expo to relax and wait for Roland to catch up. It is sunny in England, serenity around the terrace, the dull patter of a nearby fountain and birds, and all is right in the world for a few minutes. Then Roland arrives and it begins. He’d been off with Trevor Benjamin (one of the designers for the Undaunted series, among other things) testing the game. Trevor liked it, and said he should show it to Osprey. What a coincidence Roland had a meeting with them shortly! They liked it also apparently. To top it off, the person at Osprey who would likely review it later was a huge fan of Westerns. I made sure to point that out to Roland every single chance I got by the way. Remember exploring the different themes, Roland?! Remember! I know you will eventually read this! Long story short, Osprey were keen, and would review it internally and let me know at a later date. Business as usual.
You’ve seen the box art, and the title, and the BGG listing so you know they took the game. But the story isn’t over. This was just Friday at UKGE, and I had booked myself a table at UK Playtesting for Saturday afternoon, I think it was three hours long? If you don’t know who Playtest UK are, look it up. A really great, helpful community that organise playlists all over the UK. I arrived on time, setup a couple of copies on the table, put the marketing stands, sell sheets, business cards and posters up. I looked completely out-of-place. Most people show up with actual prototypes, rough drawn art, simple place holders etc. Here I was with full art posters and an essentially finished game. The Saturday afternoon slot is supposed to be quieter though, as people are already tired and looking to relax. Wrong. I had three small tables crammed together, technically enough for six people to play in three pairs. Those seats were full from start to finish, and then some more. I had three games running at all times, and I was usually playing in one of the games. People came here expecting prototypes, so they knew what they were getting into, but still they are all very understanding. Every single person filled in the feedback forms, and gave really positive comments. Two people tried to buy a prototype, and I exchanged a couple of business cards with different publishers wandering around, as well as chatting with one or two others who were’t looking for this type of game, but really wanted to know more. It drew too much attention.
At the end of the test session, my friends scraped my semi-conscious body off the tables and helped me pack up. A long, low wheeze was all that emerged from my mouth. I sounded like an orphan from Victorian times with black lung, unable to make more than simple sounds and grunts, indicating mostly through gestures and coughing. More than three hours of yelling over the constant roar of bustling people had taken its toll, and my voice was basically gone. The obvious solution was finishing for the day and going to the pub early. Seemed to work. The rest of the expo was less eventful, and I returned to actually doing fun things for the last day, if you don’t count the eight hour queue at the airport to leave….
[heading]End Credits[/heading] Jeez, that is a huge wall of text and pictures. I wanted to give you all the actual story of the game development, rather than just the game changes with each iteration, etc etc. You know that the final game is the best parts of everything we tried, so those steps aren’t the real dev diary. Working with Osprey Games has also been quite painless. They would of course contact me in the first couple of months of their own testing, and ask questions about gameplay changes. However, remember all those test notes I took? Every time they asked for a possible design change I just told them the day and test result from that specific change, already tested. Eventually it became clear that we really had finished the game. They had a few artwork changes they wanted to make to meet their own guidelines and criteria, which is normal. Other than that we mostly argued about fonts and colours, and the rulebook of course…
It must be said, that without a lot of incredible people this wouldn’t be here today. My regular playtest group, mostly Steve van Bennekom, who played maybe over one hundred games in the course of development. He put up with my constant testing every week, and shaped so much of the game that you see today. Trevor Benjamin was a huge help, not just for his referral, but also advice and wisdom about the board game industry in the latter days of UKGE. Lastly of course, the game would not exist without Roland MacDonald. Not just because he drew pretty pictures, or knew the right people, or had the right experience, or pitched it to every man and his dog. He basically mentored me, without me knowing in the beginning, in a lot of aspects of creative design. More than that, he pushed me continuously, knowing that I needed a little push to really deliver. Hard work pays off, but you still need luck, and good friends. I know I was luckier than most people, but still had to do silly amounts of work. Hopefully my wife will read this and finally understand now that all her brilliant game ideas are not worth fifty percent of the money just because she thought of it, and that the real work is in the execution.
The world is now more inter-connected than ever. While this may sound like a good thing, it also means that a butterfly flapping its wings over the Straight of Hormuz can cause a cascading disruption to global supply chains, which you can doomscroll and read all about on any of your 3+ internet-connected personal devices. […]
Games heavily centered around “take that” mechanics live in a weird space for me. While I don’t have a problem with them, if I’m playing these games with one or more uber competitive, sore-loser types, the experience can be miserable.
With that understood, I approached Mantis with some hesitation. Luckily, my preconceived worries were unfounded, and the game turned out to be a hit with friends and family… even the ones who are typically sore losers.
Mantis accommodates 2-6 players and clocks in at a lightning-fast 10-15 minutes playtime.
Turns are snappy and consist of players choosing to steal or score before drawing the top card from a shared deck.
When attempting to steal, the active player draws the top card into a chosen opponent's Tank (personal play area). If the card matches the color of an existing mantis card in the opposing player's Tank, the steal is successful, and the active player moves all cards of the chosen color from the opponents Tank to their own.
In a two-player game, a successful steal additionally grants the active player another turn.
However—and this is a major point—if a steal isn’t successful, the targeted player gets to keep the card that the active player…
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#81: Baron von Steuben Trains the Continental Army from Washington’s War from GMT Games
Washington’s War is a war game, make no mistake about that. But, it is virtually impossible to win the game by focusing only on the field of battle. For that to happen, the Patriots need to completely drive the British forces out of the 13 colonies or the British need to wipe the American forces off the map. Both are extremely difficult and I would be surprised if any more than 1 out of 30 games ended in such a way. Rather, the ultimate goal of the game is to have political control of the colonies. If at the end of the game the Patriots control 7 colonies, while holding the British to control of less than 5, they win. If not, the British win. Simple as that. So, you can see that battle is not the main goal but control is. And more importantly political control.
I really like this about the design and feel that the real core of the American Revolution was the groundswell of patriotism and the desire to live free from the shackles of an overseas monarch who cared little for the American way of life. This desire led great men of the time to sacrifice themselves, their livelihood and their families to further the true cause of liberty and build a truly free and democratic nation where individual liberty and freedom was prioritized over anything else. And yes, I realize that this nation was not perfect, not without contradiction but the concept of liberty helped to form a country that would lead to the ultimate freedom of all people.
Washington’s War is a Card Driven Game, and as such, relies on cards to provide to players the actions needed to play the game. The cards contain OPS Points which can be used to drive various actions, including such things as activating leaders, who in turn will then move with forces to attack, and also contain written text in the form of events. These events can be played only by the side they are intended for and if drawn and played by the opposing side, they can only be thrown away while granting a few possible actions, such as placing or removing Political Control markers.
In today’s entry, I have chosen this card to showcase one of my favorite events from the history of the American Revolution. The card for today is called Baron von Steuben Trains the Continental Army and has a dual focus. It will add Combat Units or CU’s to go along with General Washington but most importantly changes the balance of the game for battles. The card text reads “May be played by the American player in any Strategy Phase. He immediately places two CU’s with George Washington. The British Regulars’ Advantage combat DRM is permanently lost”. Now don’t get me wrong, gaining a free injection of 2 CU’s worth of fighting forces is a nice bonus for the Patriots but the real benefit of the card is that it changes the game. At the start of the game, the British receive a +1 Dice Roll Modifier (DRM) in all battles until what is called the British Regulars’ Advantage is lost. The British Regulars’ Advantage will be lost immediately if the British lose 3 or more CU’s in a single battle and of course, the British may also lose the British Regulars’ Advantage as a result of the play of this card. I very much like this card and it is very important for the hopes of the rebellion. I have found that the +1 DRM is really difficult to overcome for the Patriots and I found that my hopes in combat at the beginning of the game are almost always a 50/50 proposition. But once this card is played, that changes and I feel like the Patriots can better go on the offensive and openly hunt down and attack the British with confidence.
I have always been impressed with the Patriot effort to bring in professional soldiers from Europe to assist them in training and leading the Continental forces. Names like Marquis de Lafayette (France), Baron von Steuben (Prussia), Casimir Pulaski (Poland), Tadeusz Kościuszko (Poland) and Baron de Kalb (Bavaria) to name just a few. These European Generals had experience and knowledge, which were commodities that the Patriots didn’t have a lot of.
Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand Fresher von Steuben was a Prussian-born army officer who played a leading role in the American Revolutionary War by reforming the Continental Army into a disciplined and professional fighting force. His contributions marked a significant improvement in the performance of Patriot troops and he is consequently regarded as one of the fathers of the United States Army.
Born into a military family, Steuben was exposed to war from an early age; at 14 years old, he observed his father directing Prussian engineers in the 1742 siege of Prague. At age 16 or 17, he enlisted in the Prussian Army, which was considered the most professional and disciplined in Europe. During his 17 years of military service, Steuben took part in several battles in the Seven Years’ War, rose to the rank of captain, and became aide-de-camp to King Frederick II of Prussia, who was renowned for his military prowess and strategy. Steuben’s career culminated in his attendance at Frederick’s elite school for young military officers, after which he was abruptly discharged from the army in 1763, allegedly by the machinations of a rival.
In 1775, as the American Revolution had begun, Steuben saw a reduction in his salary and sought some form of military work; unable to find employment in peacetime Europe, he joined the Patriot war effort through mutual French contacts with American diplomats, most notably ambassadors to France being Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin. Due to his military exploits in Europe, and his willingness to serve the Americans without compensation, Steuben made a positive impression on both Congress and General George Washington, who appointed him as temporary Inspector General of the Continental Army.
Appalled by the state of Continental forces, Steuben took the lead in teaching soldiers the essentials of military drills, tactics, and discipline based on Prussian techniques. He wrote Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, which remained the army’s drill manual for decades, and continues to influence modern U.S. army manuals. Steuben also addressed widespread administrative waste and graft, helping save desperately needed supplies and funds. As these reforms began bearing fruit on the battlefield, in 1778, on Washington’s recommendation, Congress commissioned Steuben to the position of Inspector General with the rank of major general. He served the remainder of the war as Washington’s chief of staff and one of his most trusted advisors.
Baron von Steuben drilling American recruits at Valley Forge in 1778 by Edwin Austin Abbey.
According to Peter Stephen Du Ponceau, Steuben’s personal secretary and interpreter, “The Baron loved to speak of…his sansculottes (radical partisans, urban laborers, and common people of the lower classes during the French Revolution), as he called us. Thus the denomination was first invented in America…when, it could not be foreseen, that the name which honoured the followers of Washington would afterwards be assumed by the satellites of a Marat and a Robespierre”.
After the war, Steuben was made a U.S. citizen and granted a large estate in New York in reward for his service. In 1780, he was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society, a learned society that included many of the nation’s most prominent Founding Fathers.
Here is a link to our full video review of the game:
For many board gamers, Spiel des Jahres is simply the little red pawn on a game box. Spotting it on a shelf often suggests that a game is worth paying attention to. That's not only true in the German-speaking board game world, but also in many other countries, including the UK. Over the years, winners such as The Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride have helped establish the award as one of the most influential honours in tabletop gaming. Yet, there is a lot more to this story. According to its own history and mission statements, the annual prize was never intended to be the end goal. Instead, it was created as a tool to encourage people to play games, to promote games as a cultural asset, and to help the wider public discover the value of gathering around a table. In the first in a series of articles, I want to look at this further.
dnup Designer: Kei Kajino Publisher: asmodee Players: 2-5 Age: 8+ Time: 15-20 minutes Played with review copy provided by publisher Your goal in DNUP is to empty your hand of cards. Each player starts with eight or ten cards in … Continue reading →
For the most part, that’s fine by me. Sometimes, too much of a good thing makes for a real tummy ache, and while it’s a rare week that doesn’t see me tackling at least one of the hobby’s elder statesmen, nothing makes a board game quite like a board. I will admit, though, there’s always the siren call of the latest pure tricker. “Come back to the table,” it sings, except in, I dunno, Greek. Calling me. Haunting me.
Dead Channels, for example. This is the latest title by Daniel Newman, whose designs we’ve tussled with once or twice.
Test signals.
In the fashion of elder trick-takers — modern ones still do this, but older ones too — this is one of those trickers where the designer mines untapped veins from the minutest of changes. The idea is that every card shows two states. One of those states is colorful, like the tuning image you’d get on an old television. The other is fuzzed gray with static. As you play, these states flip back and forth, informing everything about how the hand is played.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a trick-taker alternate hand functions. But what sets apart Dead Channels is the way your cards flip from one state to the other. When the channel is tuning, this is an ordinary must-follow trick-taker. If I play red, you have to play red if at all possible. The highest card in the led suit wins. Normal stuff.
But when someone plays off-suit, the game changes. Now everybody splays their cards the other direction and begins playing a must-not-follow game. If I play red, you better not touch the stuff. Only the high card among those that are eligible — as in, non-following — are permitted to win.
Of course, this might also become impossible before too long, forcing us to flip the channel back to tuning, then back to static, and so on until the hand concludes. Flip. Flip. Flip.
Like some of Newman’s games, Dead Channels feels haunted.
That’s simple enough, but what makes Dead Channels fascinating is that you’re always wrestling against your hand. It would have been easy to overclutter this one, but instead Newman sticks to a simple rubric. You want two tricks. That’s it. Two per player. Naturally, more tricks than that will be awarded, making this a razor-edged proposition. But that’s the idea. If you earn two tricks, you net zero points. For every trick you’re off, whether up or down, you earn a point. Points are bad.
What’s noteworthy about Dead Channels is the way this produces such a well-rounded experience with very little in the way of overhead. I’ll be the first to tell you that trick-takers are a fraught proposition. Between the card counting, goofball terminology (sloughing? really?), and the damoclean threat of contract bidding, this has always been a dense genre, one that’s simple enough on the surface but sharp with gravel once you go more than two inches deep. Dead Channels relies on a little bit of foreknowledge. Like plenty of other trickers, you can explain the rules to veterans with a flurry of jargon. But for the most part it’s as accessible as these things get, devoid of the extra bells and whistles that have been normalized in past years.
Is it the next great thing? The next Schadenfreude? I doubt it has such pretensions. But it’s nice to come back now and then, to see how clever designers are still adjusting the format in small ways that only seem obvious in retrospect. By embracing both must-follow and must-not-follow, Dead Channels effectively becomes two trick-takers in one — although, of course, the challenge lies in how you navigate that liminal space between them, flipping between one mode and the other.
Static still corresponds to suits. Don’t you see the fuzz lines?
I don’t play nothing but trick-takers these days. But like I say, it’s nice to circle back for a visit. In that sense, Dead Channels feels like coming home for a reunion only to make a new pal instead. Could have gone worse.
A complimentary copy of Dead Channels was provided by the designer/publisher.
(If what I’m doing at Space-Biff! is valuable to you in some way, please consider dropping by my Patreon campaign or Ko-fi. Right now, supporters can read my first-quarter update of 2026: the best board games, movies, books, and more!)
For years I’ve written a cautionary tale about the pros and cons of being the face of a brand or company. Yet it wasn’t really until this year that we started to act on the potential perils–more on that in a minute.
This topic came to mind because I recently received an email from Emily in marketing at Alkem Gear (which I mentioned in this article). A lot of what Emily shared was centered around Tim, the founder and creator of Alkem, yet I saw very little of Tim on Alkem’s website or the Kickstarter project. So I asked this:
“How does Tim remain closely connected to the campaign despite partnering with others–like you–for public-facing roles?“
Tim himself wrote back with a detailed answer; here are the two key quotes:
“One thing I believe is really important as a founder is understanding my own limitations. My background is in engineering and product development, not marketing, so I’ve always believed the best way to build something meaningful is to surround yourself with people who are genuinely better than you in certain areas. My role is to help set the vision, establish the values behind the brand, and make sure every decision stays aligned with the kind of community we want to build.
At the same time, I’m intentional about not making the brand revolve around me personally. I’m happy to do interviews, demos, podcasts, or community discussions, but my goal isn’t to become the face of the brand. I want Alkem to have its own identity, one built around service, humility, quality, and community. I want something that can outgrow any one individual.”
This is a really solid answer. I’ve talked in past articles about the power and appeal of a creator sharing themselves with backers during a crowdfunding campaign (opposed to outsourcing to other people or marketing services); see links at the end of this article. However, as someone with 7 coworkers, I also understand the value of delegating to people who are far better at their jobs than I am (or was, as I once wore nearly every hat here). I admire Tim for wanting Alkem to have its own identity.
Despite that, it’s still me (Jamey) writing these articles, replying to questions on social media and email, posting on Instagram, writing newsletters, recording the podcast, running the livecast, and recording YouTube videos. There’s plenty of upside to this personal touch, but the downside is that if you don’t like Jamey, if Jamey is hit by a bus, or if Jamey is no longer part of Stonemaier Games, it would be an abrupt transition to suddenly see someone else appear in my place on social media.
So a few months ago I talked to my coworker, Erica, to see if she would be interested in joining me on some YouTube videos. Not only does it put another face to Stonemaier Games, but you also get to hear from someone else who cares passionately about the tabletop hobby. Our latest video just posted yesterday, and it delves into a subject that was dear to Erica when she worked at a local game store.
Also, I would be remiss to point out that I’m far from the only face or name you’ll see if you have different experiences with Stonemaier Games. If you attend a convention, you’ll probably see Dave or Alex. If you’re a retailer, you’ve probably talked to Susannah. If you’ve had a customer service request, you’ve likely corresponded with Joe. And if you’ve submitted a game to us, you may have heard back from Alan. There’s also Christine (graphic design), but that’s truly a behind-the scenes role.
There’s still room for more versatility, but I really appreciate Erica for joining me as another friendly face on the YouTube channel. She’s also very active in the comments of our shared videos. She and Susannah have also stepped up for the livecast when I’ve traveled (I think Alex may have been on one of those too).
What are your thoughts about the delicate balance between making a company approachable, personable, and relatable without putting all your eggs in the same face?
Anmelden/pic9407111.jpg)
/pic9160486.jpg)
The Players' Aid
Tabletop Games Blog
