Financially-troubled board game publisher CMON says it plans to relaunch its halted crowdfunding operations later this year, after seeing its annual losses soar to almost $20m in 2025.

CMON pulled the plug on crowdfunding launches and new game development 12 months ago, citing the economic uncertainty created by US tariff hikes – which at the time had reached 145% for China, where the vast majority of hobby board games are manufactured.

But a month later it emerged that CMON’s financial problems had been growing long before the tariffs, with the company announcing it had slumped to a loss of more than $3m in 2024 due to falling sales for its crowdfunding campaigns.

That loss was almost double CMON’s total profits from the prior three years – but the figure is dwarfed by the $19.9m annual loss the company just announced in its 2025 financial results.

CMON’s $23m losses across 2024 and 2025 are now almost 5.5-times larger than its profits from the preceding nine years combined – and have led an independent auditor hired by the company to question whether it has the resources to stay in business for the foreseeable future.

An extract of a report from auditor Zhonghui Anda shared by CMON, which is set to appear in the company’s 2025 annual report next month, considered the publisher’s $19.9m annual loss, its net liabilities of more than $3.5m and contract liabilities of over $7.5m, saying, “These conditions indicate a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

CMON’s directors have a different view, however, saying in the 2025 financial report that the company “should be able to continue as a going concern” thanks to a trio of factors.

They include financial support from some of the directors “sufficient to finance CMON’s working capital requirements”, the roughly $2.4m proceeds from selling its Singapore office that it received in January, and the roughly $1.25m gross proceeds from a successful share sale last month.

CMON’s hefty liabilities are largely due to its eight undelivered crowdfunding campaigns, which are not recognised as revenue on the company’s books until they are fulfilled to backers.

They include DC Super Heroes United, which raised more than $4.4m, and DCeased, which brought in over $2.5m. Both campaigns were initially due to be delivered last year, but are now expected to be delivered in Q4 of 2026, according to CMON’s latest estimates.

CMON also has five undelivered pre-order campaigns on its books, including Dune Desert War and the Assassin’s Creed Role Playing Game.

The company said that delivering crowdfunding projects in 2024 contributed about $20m in revenue – a figure which had sunk to just $200,000 last year according to its latest financial report.

CMON said the 2025 losses were driven by a “significant decline in revenue”, which fell more than 73% to $9.9m last year, compared to the $37.3m total from 2024.

It also cited impairment losses on property, plant and equipment, right of-use assets and intangible assets, and a loss it made disposing intellectual properties and related assets as part of its “strategic portfolio restructuring”.

Those IP sales included parting with its most famous and profitable title Zombicide – which has raised more than $40m on Kickstarter since its 2012 launch – to Asmodee, as well as Blood Rage, Rising Sun and Ankh to Tycoon Games.

It followed those by selling the IP for former Mythic Games titles Anastyr and Hel: The Last Saga to Don’t Panic Games in September, and parting with the lucrative Cthulhu: Death May Die IP to Asmodee a month later – the latter a series which has raised almost $10m from backers to date.

CMON said all those sales combined amounted to about $5.1m, but added that it actually made an overall $2.4m loss on disposal of intellectual properties and related assets across 2025.

It also made a $5.7m loss due to undertaking an impairment assessment on some of its property, plant and equipment, right-of-use assets and intangible assets “with finite useful lives”.

CMON said in the financial report, “These actions, while negatively impacting short-term results, were undertaken to strengthen the Group’s operational focus and reduce future cost burden.”

The company’s remaining significant IP includes the Massive Darkness series, with the most recent installment, Massive Darkness: Dungeons of Shadowreach, completing a $2.85m crowdfund on Gamefound early last year – a figure which rose to more than $3.7m including late pledges.

That campaign was CMON’s last before it scrapped its future crowdfunding plans two months later. The company has pivoted in the interim to releasing several small-box games direct to retail, including Collect!, Peanuts Talent Show, Fairy Perfume, Rocket Punch and Yokai Carnival.

Discussing its current strategy in the report, the company said, “In light of the continued uncertainty in the global market, particularly the instability arising from US import tariffs on certain products since the first half of 2025, the Group has taken decisive steps to restructure its operations and strengthen its financial position.

“Our current strategy is to:

• 1) reduce exposure to large-scale crowd-funding launches in the near term, focusing on fulfilment of games already committed to backers, with plans to resume crowdfunding activities in the second half of 2026 with new titles from current game lines;
  
• 2) grow distribution in Asia as a primary strategic market;
  
• 3) maintain a streamlined operational structure with reduced headcount and a smaller office footprint in line with the Group’s current scale of operations; and
  
• 4) maintain a debt-free position following the full repayment of bank borrowings, significantly reducing the Group’s financial liabilities and improving its financial resilience.

“We remain committed to becoming a quality developer and publisher of tabletop games and believe the strategic refocus toward Asia and selective game development will position the Group more sustainably for the future.”

CMON said it had reduced its revenue exposure to the US to about 21.4% of its total across 2025, compared to around 42% for the previous year, through what it described as a “deliberate strategic pivot toward Asia”.

The report showed CMON’s combined North and South America revenue fell more than 86% last year to about $2.1m, from around $15.7m in 2024.

European revenue also fell more than 81% year-on-year, from about $12.7m to around $2.4m. Asia revenue fell too, but much less sharply, down about 33% in 2025 from $8m to around $5.3m.

CMON said in the report, “Notwithstanding this reduced exposure, tariff-related uncertainties may continue to affect future export sales, revenue and gross margin performance in the US market.

“The Group intends to maintain its current reduced focus on the US market until the trade environment stabilises and market conditions improve.”

CMON also revealed the scale of its staffing cuts in the latest report, with headcount falling from 81 at the start of 2025 to just 41 at the beginning of this year.

The report said total staff costs had fallen in that time from about $4m to around $2.8m, including pay for its directors and their pension fund contributions, but it did not provide a breakdown of those numbers.

The post CMON eyes crowdfunding return after annual losses spiral to almost $20m first appeared on .

Pinocchio ist keine Geschichte, die man normalerweise mit Sex und Gewalt in Verbindung bringt. Doch der mit Preisen überhäufte Pinocchio von Winshluss nutzt eben diese Stilmittel, um zu provozieren und die Handlung ganz neu zu interpretieren. Der Comic kommt dabei fast ohne Worte aus. Doch kann er uns auch überzeugen?

Dieser Beitrag wurde von Kai Frederic Engelmann geschrieben

Neva Game Press (originally called Neva Wargames) is a new publisher who appeared on the scene in the past few years. When I started seeing their posts on Twitter and Facebook, I was immediately impressed with their interesting topic choices for their upcoming games as well as the fact that they are trying to make small footprint wargames that pack a punch. And the art is also very appealing and brings an aesthetically pleasing and attractive look to their games! Recently, they placed their next few games up for pre-order through their Incoming! Pre-Order System including Peking: 55 Days of Fury and I reached out to the owner of the company and design José to see if he could share some information about the design.

If you are interested in Peking: 55 Days of Fury, you can pre-order through the Incoming! Pre-Order System on the Neva Game Press website at the following link: https://nevagamepress.com/product/peking-55-days-of-fury/

Grant: José welcome back to our blog. What is your new upcoming game Peking: 55 Days of Fury about?

José: Thanks, Grant, it’s a pleasure to be here! I’d like to start by mentioning that we’ve recently rebranded from Neva Wargames to Neva Game Press. This change reflects our evolving catalog, as we’re excited to include more thematic games moving forward.

Today, I’m presenting one of my latest designs: Peking: 55 Days of Fury. It’s a 1-2 player game where one side commands the Chinese forces and the other leads the International Legations (an alliance of 8 nations). The game spans 6 turns—representing roughly 9 days each—where players fight to secure the most victory points by the end of the siege.

A full game typically lasts between 2 and 2 1/2 hours, making it perfect for a single session. Please keep in mind that we are still finalizing the artwork and graphic design, so the images shown here are not final.
Also, our second pre-order campaign, featuring both Reformation: Fire and Faith and Peking: 55 Days of Fury launched on March 15th. Don’t miss out on the Early Bird discount!

Grant: What does the subtitle “55 Days of Fury” mean and reference?

José: I imagine many of you have seen the classic film 55 Days at Peking—if not, I highly recommend it! It’s a fantastic movie and a core inspiration for this project. With the subtitle “55 Days of Fury”, I wanted to pay tribute to the original title while carving out its own identity. It reflects the sheer intensity of those 55 days of siege, and I wanted the name to capture that raw energy.

Grant: Why was this a subject you wanted to focus on?

José: I’ve always been fascinated by sieges throughout history, from ancient times to the modern era. Because of this, it’s very likely you’ll see more siege-themed titles from me in the future. I already have several compelling projects in mind, such as the 1453 Siege of Constantinople or the Siege of the Alcázar during the Spanish Civil War. There is so much tactical and human drama in a siege that I’m eager to explore the subject and see how to model the differences in each of the sieges and eras represented.

Grant: What are the unique features with the system used for the game?

José: Sieges are often associated with static gameplay—that’s just the nature of the conflict. However, I wanted to design a system that keeps the action fluid and engaging. To achieve this, the entire besieged area is streamlined into four main zones, allowing for a more dynamic experience.

Each side faces unique strategies and challenges, and that asymmetric touch gives the game immense replayability. At its heart, the cards are the engine of the game. It’s important to note how much depth they offer; your success depends entirely on how you plan and optimize your strategy based on card management.
I’ve also implemented a unique twist on Fog of War. Instead of these being ‘dead’ or useless cards, you’ll have to make tough tactical decisions about how to use the Fog of War cards you draw at the end of each turn. They could be a resource, not a penalty.

Grant: What must you model regarding the history in the design?

José: There is a wealth of historical detail in this design. From the unit stats to the card events and specialized mechanics, my goal was to represent the siege as authentically as possible without sacrificing a manageable playtime.

For example, the Boxer units have much lower Firepower than other factions, but they boast the highest Manpower values. This reflects their limited weaponry while highlighting their superior numbers—they have the strength to build and repair barricades quickly. In contrast, the Imperial Chinese Army units have better Firepower but generally lower Manpower.

On the other side, the International units are better armed but severely outnumbered. To represent this attrition, when a Chinese unit is defeated, it returns to the unit pool to potentially reappear later. However, injured International units are sent to the Infirmary instead.

The Infirmary is a critical mechanic; it honors the men and women who worked tirelessly to save lives during the siege. The International player must manage this correctly, or risk losing their limited forces for good.
Finally, I’ve included Diplomatic Relationships. Based on historical accounts, the International player will face diplomatic tensions between the allied nations. These tensions carry various penalties, forcing the player to balance military action with the need to restore diplomatic stability to avoid major setbacks.

Grant: What is your design goal with the game?

José: My main objective with this design was to prove that sieges don’t have to be limited to solitaire play. I wanted to turn them into a compelling, dynamic head-to-head experience where two players can truly feel the historical pressure and the weight of their consequences.

I want players to experience the unique hardships each side faced during the siege while navigating a system full of fresh ideas and meaningful choices. By providing so many strategic layers and branching paths, I’ve ensured that the game offers deep replayability every time it hits the table.

Grant: What other games did you use as inspiration?

José: While there are other games on the Boxer Rebellion, Peking: 55 Days of Fury offers a completely different perspective. I’ve taken a fresh approach to this fascinating siege, focusing on dynamics and mechanics that haven’t been explored this way before. That’s exactly what makes it so attractive—it fills a gap in the market by providing a unique experience that feels unlike anything else currently available on the subject.

Grant: What sources did you consult about the history?

José: In terms of research, my design was primarily informed by three key works:

• The Boxer Rebellion by Diana Preston: This was my main reference—an incredibly comprehensive account full of the historical nuances that allowed me to build the game’s framework.
• Peking 1900: The Boxer Rebellion by Peter Harrington (Osprey Publishing).
• The Boxer Rebellion by Lynn E. Bodin.

While Preston’s book provided the narrative and thematic depth, the works by Harrington and Bodin were essential for the technical details. They helped me accurately determine the troop sizes for each nation and provided the visual references needed to correctly represent the uniforms and equipment of every soldier type.

Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of units?

José: I’d classify this as a tactical-scale game. Each International military unit represents approximately 8 to 10 soldiers, highlighting the small, elite nature of the legation guards. In contrast, the Chinese units represent much larger groups of combatants. This difference in scale on the board really emphasizes the ‘few against many’ tension that defined the historical siege.

Grant: What are the differences between the playable factions of the Eight Nation Alliance and the Qing army and Boxers?

José: The asymmetry between both sides is woven into every aspect of the game. As a general overview, while the International forces possess superior weaponry, they are heavily outnumbered by the Chinese. Their logistics also differ significantly: the International player must struggle to manage dwindling supplies within the besieged legations, whereas the Chinese side operates under a completely different set of pressures. Key thematic elements like Diplomacy, the construction of Siege lines, repairing Barricades, the looming arrival of the Relief Column, and the management of the Infirmary all work together to ensure that playing each side requires a totally different mindset and strategy.

Grant: How did you differentiate them in their mechanics?

José: To give you a better idea of how this asymmetry translates to the table, here are some key differences in how each side operates:

• Unit Quality vs. Quantity: While International units are superior in combat, the Chinese player must compensate for this by effectively using artillery pieces, surveillance markers, and sheer numbers.
• The Detachment Display: The International player can have a larger detachment of up to 6 units ready for combat, whereas the Chinese side is limited to a smaller detachment of 3, requiring more frequent rotations or reinforcements.
• The Infirmary & Attrition: When International units are injured, they are moved to the Infirmary. If it becomes overcrowded, units will die, awarding Victory Points (VP’s) to the Chinese. Managing this by “installing beds” and healing soldiers is a vital survival sub-game.
• The Relief Column Mini-Map: The Chinese player manages a specific mini-map tracking the progress of the two Relief Columns marching toward Peking. Their goal is to stall this advance; the further they keep the rescuers at bay, the more VP’s they secure.
• Supply Lines: Logistics are a constant struggle for the besieged International side, whereas the Chinese side enjoys much more reliable access to supplies.
• Diplomacy & Defenses: The International player starts with fully built defenses but must navigate precarious diplomatic tensions. Conversely, the Chinese side must actively build and maintain their own barricades throughout the game to score VP’s.
• Unique Action Phases: Both sides have access to a distinct set of special actions and historical Fog of War cards, ensuring that no two turns feel the same.

Grant: How does the game use cards?

José: Cards are the primary engine of the game, and I designed them to be highly versatile. You don’t just ‘play’ a card; you have to decide how to use it across different phases:

• Initiative & Events: Cards can be used during the Initiative phase or played for their Main Event.
• Boosting Mechanics: You can even activate Secondary Events by ‘boosting’ a card with another from your hand, creating powerful combinations.
• Action Points: During the Action phase, cards can be spent for Action Points (AP) to perform essential maneuvers.
• Deck-Building Elements: As the game progresses, you can incorporate common cards into your hand to improve your deck—often depending on how you manage your Fog of War cards.

I deliberately split the card-driven mechanics into two distinct phases. I wanted to ensure that even if you draw a ‘difficult’ hand, you still have the Action Point phase to fall back on. This gives you the flexibility to spend those cards as AP, ensuring you always have agency over the situation. It’s all about hand optimization and adapting your strategy to the shifting tides of the siege.

Grant: Can you show us a few examples of these different type of cards?

José: In the cards you will find Faction cards, Common cards and Fog of War cards:

Faction Cards
Each side has nine Faction cards.

1) Descriptive image of the event.
2) AP value.
3) Support icon – used to execute a Secondary Event during the Event Phase. A card can have a maximum of two different Support icons. Icons can be of the Lion, Heron, or Dragon type.).
4) Initiative value.
5) Event title. The color of the title indicates which side the card belongs to (blue = International, red = Chinese).
6) Description of the Primary Event.
7) Secondary Event Support icon requirement.
8) Description of the Secondary Event.
9) Card number (for identification purposes only; has no effect on the game).

After a Faction Card is played, it is placed in the playing side’s discard pile. The discard pile is reshuffled to form a new draw deck if the existing deck is exhausted when drawing a new hand at the end of the Turn.

Common Cards

1. Side colors: red and blue. 2. Reminder to remove the card when its events are used.

Fog of War Cards

1. Fog of War Icon.
2. Side color (red or blue).
3. Reminder to remove the card when its events are used.

Grant: What is the layout of the Board? Who is the artist?

José: The central part of the board is where the heart of the action takes place. It features a detailed map of the International Legations and their surroundings, strategically divided into four key sectors. Surrounding this central battlefield, you’ll find various common and individual tracks, along with dedicated display areas for each player to manage their resources and units.

As for the visuals, we are currently in the middle of the creative process. I’m thrilled to be working with a very talented team: David Prieto is handling the Graphic Design, while Germán Pasti and Moreno Paissan are the illustrators bringing the 1900s to life. Although the artwork is still a work-in-progress, we are striving for an immersive and historically evocative look.

Grant: What is the purpose of the various Outer Zones?

José: The board is designed for maximum clarity, with dedicated zones for each player. On the International side, the player manages their Morale and Supply tracks, along with the Detachment, Diplomacy, and Infirmary displays.

The Chinese side also tracks their Morale and Supplies, but their side of the board features the unique Relief Expedition mini-map. This is where the tension builds as the International forces attempt to advance from Taku to Peking, and the Chinese player must do everything in their power to stall them.

Grant: How is diplomacy and diplomatic relations used in the game? What benefits and detriments does it bring?

José: After the Supply check, the International side performs a Diplomatic Status check. The International side rolls one die for each Diplomacy marker (in the Diplomacy area of the International section) on its Parchment side. On a roll of 1, the marker is flipped to its Tension side to indicate tensions between nations.

When Tension occurs, the International side must apply the revealed effect in any Zone where MU of the nation(s) who’s flag is shown are present. If the first Diplomacy box is affected (with flags of Britain and Russia), only Map Zones with both British and Russian MU present are affected.

Tension effects can be cumulative if multiple effects apply to the same Zone. There are several types of effects such as: Tactical dispute (reduces combat strength), Communication Breakdown (it is not possible to use modifiers), Conflicting Priorities (reduces manpower), Water hoarding (it makes it more difficult to extinguish a fire).

Grant: What is the anatomy of the counters?

José: Here is a look at a few of the counters.

Military Units (MU)
Each MU marker represents a group of soldiers.

1) Illustration of the nation’s soldier.
2) Flag of the nation.
3) Combat Strength – Ranging from 1 to 3. During combat, the Combat Strength of all MU on each side are added together.
4) Manpower Factor – Ranging from 0 to 3. Used by the International side to Repair Barricades, and by the Chinese side to Lay or Repair Siege Lines.

Grant: How are units activated and chosen?

José: Units are activated through specific actions, and I’ve designed a system that balances tactical planning with the Fog of War. While units are often drawn randomly from a bag, both sides have a dedicated Detachment Area. This acts as a pool of visible, ‘ready-to-deploy’ units that you can plan around. This means you have the flexibility to deploy known forces from your detachment in addition to the tension of drawing new reinforcements directly from the pool.

Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?

José: The sequence of play is the following:

Initiative
• Both sides reveal one card from their hand, simultaneously.
• Tie – the player who had the Initiative in the previous turn wins.
• Tie on Turn 1 – the Chinese side wins.
• The Initiative cannot be given away.
• If Fog of War cards were played, execute the Events (Initiative side first).
• Played cards are discarded (or removed if a Fog of War Card of the playing side).

Initial Engagement
• The Initiative side places their Engagement marker in any Zone. The non-Initiative side then does the same in another Zone.
• The Initiative side resolves the Engagement in their chosen Zone, acting as the attacker.
• The non-Initiative side then resolves the Engagement in their chosen Zone, acting as the attacker.
• Note: If there are no MU present in the Zone, or only MU from one side, the Engagement does not occur.

Events
• The Initiative side plays two cards from their hand for their Events. They may play a third Support card to execute Secondary Events.
• The non-Initiative side repeats the process.

Maintenance
• Both sides, starting with the Initiative side, perform two types of Maintenance checks.
• International:
 Supply Status check (1 die).
 Roll of 1 to 4 – Lose two Supply levels.
 Roll of 5 to 6 – Lose one Supply level.
 Update the Supply Track.
 Any Supply Track effects are applied: MU are moved to the Infirmary.
 Diplomacy Status check (1 die per Diplomacy marker on its Parchment side).
 A result of 1 flips the Diplomacy marker to its Tension side.
 The revealed effect applies unless the marker is flipped back to its Parchment side via a Diplomacy Special

Action.
• Chinese:
• Supply Status check (1 die).
 Roll of 1 to 2 – Lose two Supply levels.
 Roll of 3 to 4 – Lose one Supply level.
 Roll of 5 to 6 – No Supply loss.
 Update the Supply Track.
 Any Supply Track effects are applied: Morale level reduction.
 Relief Expedition roll: 1 die:
 Number of spaces Relief Expedition marker advances on the Relief Map: (1) = 1, (2-4) = 2, (5-6) = 3.

Action
• The Initiative side performs Actions with the APs on the remaining card in their hand.
• The non-Initiative side repeats the process.
• Two types of Actions:
 Basic: Common to both sides. Cost 1 AP. Can be repeated once per side per Turn.
 Special: Different for each side. Cost 2 action points. Cannot be repeated.

Command
• 6.1. Scoring & Victory Check:
 (Turns 3 & 6 only): Chinese side gains or loses VPs based on the position of the Relief Expedition marker on the Relief Map.
 (Turn 6 only): Both sides gain VPs based on their Intact Barricades (International) and Intact Siege Lines (Chinese).
o Check for Automatic Victory (one side has 15+ VP advantage). If Turn 6, determine the winner of the game.

Grant: What actions are available to players?

José: Both players have access to a core set of Basic Actions to manage the conflict:

• Combat: Including Engagements, Raids, and Artillery Fire.
• Maneuver: Movement and Surveillance to gain the upper hand.
• Logistics: Supplying forces and Repairing vital defenses.

However, the true flavor of the game comes from the Specific Special Actions available to each side, reflecting their unique historical roles:

• The International Player focuses on survival and rescue: Expanding the Infirmary, healing wounded units, advancing the Relief Expedition, managing Diplomacy, and increasing political Commitment or Morale.
• The Chinese Player focuses on pressure and persistence: Laying Siege Lines, coordinating Artillery Support, increasing Commitment, and rallying their forces to Raise Morale.

This structure ensures that while the basic rules are easy to learn, the strategy for each side is completely distinct.

Grant: How is supply used in the game?

José: Supply management is a cornerstone of the experience, especially for the International side. During the Maintenance Phase, both players must check their supply status. The consequences of failing to maintain logistics are severe and thematic:

• The International Side: For the besieged, a lack of resources is devastating. Failing to meet supply requirements can force healthy units directly into the Infirmary due to exhaustion or starvation.
• The Chinese Side: For the attackers, supply issues represent a loss of momentum and logistical strain, resulting in a direct hit to their Morale.

This ensures that players cannot just focus on combat; they must spend precious actions and cards on the Supply action to keep their war machine running.

Grant: How is victory achieved?

José: To win a game of Peking: 55 Days of Fury you must get more victory points (VP’s) than your opponent. Each side has different ways of doing this:

International Side

• For each Chinese MU KIA +1 VP.
• For each Chinese Artillery Unit Sabotaged: +1 VP.
• For each Intact Barricade at the end of the game: +1 VP.

Chinese Side

• For each International MU KIA +1 VP.
• For each Destroyed Barricade: +1 VP.
• For every two (rounded down) Intact Siege Lines at the end of the game: +1 VP.

If the Relief Expedition marker is held in a +1/+2 VP space on the Relief Map at the end of Turn 3, and again at the end of Turn 6 (it can be scored twice). If the marker is on a –1/-2 VP space, the Chinese sides lose that many VP’s at the end of Turn 3 and Turn 6.

There is a case when the game can end automatically in the following cases:

• If any side scores 30 VP’s, they are immediately declared the winner.
• If at the end of any Turn a side has a 15 VP advantage or more over their opponent, they are declared the winner.

Grant: What type of experience does the game create for players?

José: The experience is defined by a shifting sense of pressure that is unique to each side. Since it is an asymmetrical game, the tension evolves differently for each player as the siege progresses. In the first half of the game, the International player often feels they have the situation under control, but as the turns pass, the weight of the siege begins to take its toll, and maintaining their position becomes increasingly desperate. Conversely, the Chinese player starts by testing the defenses, and their momentum builds as they tighten the noose around the legations.

This ‘cross-fade’ of emotions—from early confidence to late-game survival for one, and from persistence to a final push for the other—ensures that the tension remains high from the very first turn until the final victory point is counted.

Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?

José: I am truly proud of the system I’ve built for this game. My goal was to prove that a siege doesn’t have to feel static or repetitive, and I believe we’ve achieved a dynamic flow that will surprise players.

If the community enjoys this system (Siege & Storm Series)—which I’m confident they will—I would love to adapt and implement it for other historical sieges in the future. I am always open to feedback and suggestions! Which historic siege would you like to see next? Let me know in the comments.

Grant: What other games are you working on?

José: Beyond Peking, I have several other exciting projects in the pipeline. I am currently putting the finishing touches on Spartacus: Rome Under Threat, a 1-2 player game focusing on the Third Servile War. I am also mid-way through the development of Cid Campeador: Warlord, a 1-4 player game. It spans the dramatic 15-year period from 1085 to 1099—a time defined by El Cid’s exile, the expansion of the Christian kingdoms, and the rising shadow of the Almoravids.

Looking further ahead, I have plenty of ideas in the works, including a new thematic game centered on the Roman Empire and Volume II of our Blind Valor Series, which will utilize the system from Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth. There’s much more to come from Neva Game Press!

José, thank you so much for your time and effort in responding to our request for this interview and for the great detail that you have given us about this game. I am very much interested in Peking: 55 Days of Fury and cannot wait for it to be available to play!

If you are interested in Peking: 55 Days of Fury, you can pre-order through the Incoming! Pre-Order System on the Neva Game Press website at the following link: https://nevagamepress.com/product/peking-55-days-of-fury/

-Grant

MingYang Lu’s puzzle fighter-style board game Re;MATCH has had a storming start to its Kickstarter campaign, picking up almost $250,000 from over 1,250 backers with half of the month-long crowdfund still to go. In this sponsored interview, Lu talks about why his design looks to derive fun from game mastery rather than discovery, the importance of conventions for small publishers, and why AI art “cheapens creativity”.

Hi Ming! A big part of your design philosophy for Re;MATCH is centred around the difference between ‘mastery’ and ‘discovery’. Can you give an overview of what you mean by those terms?

Yeah! So I’ve developed this personal philosophy about the different types of fun designers can incorporate into hobby board games, and I currently feel there are two main types.

First is Discovery, which is the fun you get from being presented with new information to respond to. This could mean seeing new cards revealed in a shop for an engine or deck builder game, or encountering a new enemy or event card in a miniatures game.

Second is Mastery, which is instead the fun derived from realizing new combos or optimizations with the options you already have. This could involve learning the optimal strategies in a roll-and-write game, or realizing the political intricacies between the factions in Root.

I don’t think these two types of fun are mutually exclusive. In video games, particularly single player ones, both are almost mandatory for a great experience.

Can you give us an overview of Re;MATCH, its design and mechanisms, and how that sets it towards either mastery or discovery?

Happily! Re;MATCH a 1 vs 1 competitive fighting game inspired by Puzzle Fighting games. Players take turns pulling connected and matching marbles from a tray of marbles, and the color and number of marbles you pull will resolve a corresponding attack on your character’s move list.

In the same vein as my first game, Re;ACT, it is a skill expression game that focuses primarily on mastery type fun. All of your abilities are shown upfront, and you must figure out how to use these options to win. There are no event decks to shake things up mid game, and no new options to consider as you play. The fun in Re;MATCH is more about seeing the floor of possibilities open up as you start to understand the system and the characters.

This is pretty standard for fighting video games though. In those games, after selecting your character, you can immediately pause to see the massive list of your abilities and combos, and it’s up to you to learn how to use them to win.

How do you think mastery relates to complexity? And what are the design challenges for a game like Re;MATCH, in terms of getting that balance right?

Mastery and complexity are not directly related in my mind. Most abstract games provide fun exclusively through mastery. From Chess to Hive, the complexity might be low, but the potential for skill expression is high, leading to repeated plays being the source of joy in the game.

How do you see mastery vs discovery-style titles doing in the current board game hobby landscape, especially when it comes to crowdfunding campaigns and online marketing?

I’ve noticed that in recent years, hobby game releases – games that aren’t party games and generally cost $30 or more – tend to focus on discovery rather than mastery. With so many games being sold on vibes and people posting their opinions or reviews after just a few or even only one playthrough, it’s more important than ever to make sure that first game experience is as smooth and perfect as possible.

Games that front load too much information typically don’t have a smooth first game experience, so you want to slowly drip out the options a player can take. Giving a player a deck of cards with a ton of variety and telling them not to worry about what’s inside that deck upfront is a great way to do this, as you’ll discover new and cool options every single time you draw a different card. However, such randomness can make one group’s first game wildly different from another’s. So this wide variety of cards that feel different actually needs to produce very consistently similar outputs, ensuring that most first games deliver as optimal of an experience as possible.

I think this meta has produced a lot of games that feel incredibly satisfying on your first playthrough, constantly offering new options to explore or challenges to overcome, but don’t really hold that spark after repeated playthroughs.

Of course there are games that successfully offer lots of both types of fun, and I think those are the games that we remember. All of the most replayable deck building games are great examples of games that offer both!

I’ve already seen this game shared on social media, especially from people spotting it at Pax Unplugged last year – and I think part of that is its use of bright colours, those attention-grabbing marbles and that it generally doesn’t look like most of the other board games out there. Was that an intentional decision, in terms of potential marketing, or is this just how you wanted the game to be?

The artstyle was certainly intentional. The hardest part of selling games, or anything really, is getting people to even notice it in the first place. For Re;ACT, featuring very large acrylic standees with bases that can hold tokens was driven by what would make people stop and look when passing by the game at a convention.

Re;MATCH, however, is a really old design. When I first came up with the very first iteration of Re;MATCH, I was inspired by my favorite game at the time, Battlecon, with its very asymmetric characters and fully open information, brain-burning game play, and the idea of using marbles as a component due to the popularity of Potion Explosion and Gizmos at the time.

But after learning many lessons with Re;ACT, I realized that Re;MATCH needed a much more colorful and eye catching art style to match the energy of the marble tower.

How did you find artists PsyOptima and machimile, and what was your process in terms of getting to the final artwork? Did you have strong ideas early on, and how much were you guided by those artists / were they guided by you as the process progressed?

Both of them were actually artists on my previous fan projects! Just between Anna’s Roundtable, Genshin Tarot, and Star Rail Tarot, I’ve commissioned over 400 artists. My vision for Re;MATCH was a much bolder and funkier aesthetic compared to Re;ACT, and both of these artists were perfect for that.

Having worked with so many artists over the years, I’ve also grown pretty comfortable acting as an art director for my teams. I’m certainly no drawer, but I’ve learned how to communicate effectively to guide my team towards my visions.

You’ve been very frank online in your opinions about AI generated imagery being used within the board game industry. Why do you think some publishers are leaning into it, despite the well-publicised concerns around copyright, ethics and the environmental impact?

I’ve become increasingly frustrated about the use of genAI to replace or supplement artists in games. To me, the issue is very existential. I am not surprised that already massively successful publishers are leaning into using AI art. There have always been companies trying to squeeze profit out of any artistic medium, from movies to books and beyond. But AI slop feels different from just disingenuous cash grabs. Environmental impacts and stolen work is one part of it, but the idea of letting AI produce the art we consume really cheapens creativity as a whole.

The joy of creativity is so fundamental to life, and the spark of inspiration passed from one person to the next is so vital for human progress. If people continue to consume these things, be it AI art in games, AI written screenplays, or AI generated music, I fear that the very light of human existence will dim.

What would you say to smaller publishers and solo operators who believe they can only bring their projects to completion by leaning on AI generators?

I can see the argument from new designers who want to make games but feel like AI is the most effective way to make their games ready for sale, either because they can’t find a publisher or they can’t afford to pay for art. To these people I would ask: Why do you want to make games? Why do you play games yourself?

I think games can be art, just like novels, music, and movies can be art. The reason I enjoy any of these things is intrinsically tied to the shared human experience I feel when consuming them. A board game’s only component other than rules are its visuals, so I believe the human intentionality behind how the game looks is just as important as how it plays. The artists who want to paint are just as passionate as the designers who want to make good games, so don’t cut them out of the process! There are tons of affordable artists on VGen, and you can always just pick up a pen and make simple drawings yourself! “The enemy of art is the absence of limitations,” so let the limitations of your budget or your art skills be part of your creative process. Just look at how Stardew Valley or Undertale were made!

In aiming for the mastery experience, does that mean you’re not too concerned about expanding this game? Because it looks to me to be ripe for expansions, especially in terms of new fighter characters. How does that fit into your mastery and discoverability theory?

I definitely want to keep adding more characters to both Re;ACT and Re;MATCH! In fact, receiving new characters and discovering their interactions with existing ones is the main source of discovery type fun in these games. This is similar to TCGs, where every new set front loads you with a ton of new options to tinker with.

But the cost of a new character for these games is much higher than just adding more variance to a deck of cards or more enemies in a miniatures game. Not only does each character require a ton of assets, but every new character is exponentially more difficult to balance and integrate successfully into the game. This is why I’ve made additional characters our primary stretch goal targets back during Re;ACT and now Re;MATCH!

Can you give us a little background about your time in the board game industry – where did you start out, and how did you get to here?

Sure! I guess I first started experimenting with making card games like many other kids: my friend (Eric Zeringue, who still helps me with game design today) and I designed our very own very bad TCG. In college, I took things a bit more seriously by designing my own pretty bad deck builder based on isekai anime, and then I designed a not so bad fan game based on the indie video game Crawl (one of my favorite indie games of all time).

I then just kept making fan games, and eventually, I made one for Fire Emblem and posted it on Reddit. This one kind of blew up, and Kotaku even wrote an article covering it. I then just kept making print and play fan games and posting them online. I did one for Code Geass, Darling in the FranXX, and Persona 5, among several others that never saw the light of day.

Right around the time I designed the Darling in the FranXX game, I also designed the very first version of Re;MATCH. I brought it to a prototyping convention, posted it to YouTube, entered it into a design competition, and eventually signed it to the publisher Penguin and Panda, who renamed it Sento. After that, I met Chris Lin, who had his very own design for TCG that I enjoyed the core of. While Sento progressed with Penguin and Panda, I started working with Chris to completely redesign his TCG into a board game instead of a TCG, which eventually became Re;ACT.

After Covid hit, it became clear that Penguin and Panda wouldn’t be able to publish Sento, so I focused entirely on Re;ACT, brought it to several conventions, obtained my US citizenship, funded it on Kickstarter, and then quit my job to pursue board games full time.

You’ve run several Kickstarter campaigns before, for Re;ACT – The Arts of War in 2024 as well as several for dice and standee collections and other accessories. What were your big lessons learned through those campaigns, and how are they applicable to running the campaign for Re;MATCH?

Honestly, I’m still figuring things out myself [laughs]. But I will say that the most important thing for me is to always be authentic and only make things I would want to buy myself. Doing something purely to make money is a slippery slope, and I constantly remind myself that if I wanted to just make money, I would’ve stayed at my comfortable 9 to 5 desk job.

But if someone asked me for some more practical advice, specific to running a board game Kickstarter, I would say to just get your game in front of as many eyes as possible beforehand. Bring it to conventions, post playthroughs, and do whatever you can to make it eye-catching. Obviously the game needs to be good for people to stick around, but no one will know if it’s a good game if they don’t sit down to try it first! For Re;ACT, I brought it to Pax Unplugged, Gen Con, and ProtoATL two years in a row before we launched. Re;MATCH moved a bit faster, with me taking it to Pax East, Origins, Gen Con, and Pax Unplugged all in the same year.

That’s a lot of conventions! I think there’s a feeling among smaller publishers that it’s a big financial hit to attend multiple cons a year, and it can be hard to stand out against the competition on show floors. What advice would you give for attending conventions as a small publisher yourself?

Definitely agreed that cons are expensive, and I started small as well! In 2023, I attended Gen Con by myself and just offered ticketed event demos. Two of the people who played my games loved them so much that they ended up helping me teach demos at Gen Con in 2024 and 2025! Hosting events at Gen Con is free (outside the cost of travel), and in 2023 I stayed together with over 20 other indie designers and publishers in a big Airbnb to save on cost.

Another cheap option is prototyping and protospiel conventions. I attend ProtoATL nearly every single year, and its by far one of my favorite weekends every year. Many of the early prototype photos of Re;MATCH come from ProtoATL! The badges are very cheap, and you get your prototype ripped apart and rebuilt so many times that you make more progress in three days than you would have in three months. You also make so many meaningful connections with other designers and publishers, who are often avid supporters of games themselves!

I recommend exhibiting at a consumer convention only after gaining experience pitching games to strangers. Prototyping cons and hosting events lets you practice with a captive audience, but working at the booths of established publishers is a great way to practice pitching to passing customers. (I’m always hiring as well!) Another great opportunity is the Indie Games Night Market, which New Mill Industries has hosted at Pax Unplugged for the last two years. This event gives indie designers a single table to sell a small print run (think five to 50 copies) of their game, often with homemade elements.

Once you are ready, Pax Unplugged is by far the best choice as an indie publisher to exhibit at. Unlike Gen Con, Pax really cares about indies (see Indie Games Night Market), has a strong culture of inclusivity, and doesn’t allow AI grifters into their show! Standing out at a convention is definitely very hard though, and I’m still figuring that step out for myself. My booths are pretty basic looking still, but working with really great artists has worked out very well for me, so I’d recommend that as well!

I saw that you’re providing access to the full game on Tabletop Simulator for free. How important do you think that will be for discoverability, and how do you think that balances against the chance some people will just use the digital version and not back the physical campaign?

Super important. Personally speaking for board game Kickstarters, if I don’t see a playable demo, I am very unlikely to pledge. Even if I don’t have the time to personally try it, not allowing backers to try the game before they buy signals to me that the publisher lacks confidence in the game. A good game should make players want to buy it after playing it, end of story.

Not to mention the benefit of getting so many more eyes on your game to tell you what is bad about your game before you hit the irreversible button to start printing! For me, there are absolutely no downsides to having the game fully playable for free digitally during a Kickstarter, and I try really hard to ensure it’s available long before that as well.

What are your ideal goals for this campaign – what does a success look like for you, and how do you ideally see the rest of the year panning out?

For me, I’d like to surpass the number of backers I had on Re;ACT and POND as a minimum. Re;ACT had 1,730 backers, and POND had 1,900 backers. If Re;MATCH hits at least 2,200 backers, that will indicate a consistent growth trajectory for me as a publisher, so that is my real goal.

After Re;MATCH, I’ll be working on Season 2 of Re;ACT, along with several unannounced secret projects I’ve been working on for quite some time now, so please look forward to them!

The Re’MATCH Kickstarter campaign runs until March 31.

The post Why Kickstarter success Re;MATCH’s designer is focused on player mastery rather than the dopamine hit of discovery [sponsored] first appeared on .

Letter Hunt, ein neues Buchstabenspiel – da bin ich sofort neugierig. Denn ich mag Wortspiele/Spiele mit Sprache sehr. Das gute alte Haste Worte? kommt bei uns immer noch auf den…

The post Letter Hunt appeared first on Reich der Spiele.

Neva Game Press is really exploring the space of wargame publishing and have games that are being worked on spanning all of history including modern and ancient. They also are looking at non-traditional topics to cover such as the Reformation. Their newest pre-order offering is called Reformation: Fire and Faith and is designed by Clint Warren-Davey. I am keenly interested in this one and have been working with Clint on this interview and maybe a series of other articles on strategies.

Grant: Welcome back to the blog Clint. With 4 published games to your credit what lessons have you learned about the design process and been able to put into practice?

Clint: Thanks for having me back guys! Yes I have learned a lot. Mainly, my iterative loop has become faster. I use mainly digital prototypes on PowerPoint and can get a prototype up and running pretty fast. This means I don’t need to print components and then reprint when things change. I also have a larger “toolbox” of ideas to draw from as I’ve played a wider variety of games. I still have a core design philosophy though – I want games that give players lots of meaningful decisions and a minimum of busywork, plus I generally prefer a high level of player interaction and interdependence.

Grant: How do you pitch games to publishers? What is your approach?

Clint: First I make sure the game is ready. I play-test the game myself a minimum of 20 times. Then I give it to external play-testers (basically my followers on Twitter/X). I keep refining it and make sure all the rules are nailed down. Once I have a fully functional and viable digital prototype, I send an email to a lot of different publishers to see who wants the game. So far, I’ve usually found at least one publisher who will accept each game. 

Grant: What is your new game upcoming game Reformation: Fire and Faith about?

Clint: It’s about the wars and religious struggles that tore Europe apart during the Reformation, from 1517 (Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg cathedral) to 1555 (the Peace of Augsburg). This is during the “pike and shot” era, which I love. It also includes a lot of political, religious and military conflict that is fascinating on multiple levels. It’s the perfect setting for an asymmetric wargame.

Grant: What image and feeling did you want to convey to players with the subtitle “Fire and Faith”?

Clint: Well this subtitle was decided by my publisher, Jose Neva of Neva Game Press. He wanted to convey both religious and military struggle in the title of the game, hence fire and faith. Before that the game title was undecided – it was either going to be just “Reformation” or “One Hour Reformation”  – though upon further development it was clear this game doesn’t really fit with my other “One Hour” games.

Grant: Why was this a game you were inspired to design?

Clint: I am fascinated by the Reformation – both from a religious and a historical perspective. When I converted to Christianity about 10 years ago I had to choose which church to join, which forced me to read more on this time period, and read the arguments put forward by Protestant and Catholic apologists, then and now. I should state here that although I decided upon Catholicism, I hold no ill-feeling towards Protestantism and I understand the impetus behind it.

I was also drawn in by the fascinating geopolitics and tactical level military transformations of the time. The struggles between the French, Habsburgs, English, Ottomans, Venice, Scotland, Hungary, the Papacy and many other much smaller states were kaleidoscopic in their complexity but endlessly entertaining. To take one example of the political maneuvering of the time – the French lost the battle of Pavia to the Habsburgs, partially because 5,000 of their Swiss mercenaries just left and went home to defend their own cantons from rampaging German Landsknechts. Losing Pavia meant that King Francis I was captured. This in turn meant the English sensed weakness and struck in north-eastern France.

Seeking allies against this double threat, the French turned to the one great power that might help them – the Islamic Ottoman Empire! This outraged the Habsburg Emperor Charles V, who had his hands full containing the spread of Protestantism in Germany. The Saxons, Hessians and Brandenburgers following Luther’s lead would be much better used to help defend Vienna from the Turks, but instead both the Pope and the Emperor found themselves facing a full-scale religious revolt at the same time as renewed Ottoman offensives in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. This was all taking place against the backdrop of a military revolution in which pike and shot, and artillery, were replacing feudal levies of armoured knights.

Grant: What other Reformation games did you study for inspiration?

Clint: The complexity of this time period, and the sensitivity of religion as a topic, has meant that few game designers have been willing to tackle it. The exception is Here I Stand, the classic 6-player card-driven game by Ed Beach. This game is a well-renowned and even genre-defining title that managed to cram tons of inter-faction dynamics and historical chrome into the CDG system invented by Mark Herman (who made the first such CDG – We the People). It is absolutely brilliant in so many ways. Baroque, intricate, full of theme. It is almost like a historical equivalent of Twilight Imperium – one of my other favorite games.

The problem? It takes way too long to play for most gamers. Ever since playing Here I Stand many years ago, I had kept the idea of a simplified version at the back of my mind. Then, when I started teaching religious history at a Catholic school, I found myself teaching the Reformation. A classroom game on the topic would sure come in handy. So, in 2024 I made one. The images below give an idea of this, including my very basic graphics made in PowerPoint and Word. In 2025, I revisited the idea and thought it might be worth making into a serious game, still using the basic concepts and inter-faction dynamics borrowed from Here I Stand.

Grant: What is your design goal with the game?

Clint: To make a game with 6 asymmetric factions that shows the inter-factional dynamics and key decisions of the period, all with mechanics that are simple enough to be used in a high school classroom AND simple enough for non-wargamers to pick up. Also, a game that players of Here I Stand would enjoy – especially when they are pressed for time. I believe I have succeeded in this goal but time will tell.

Grant: What main mechanics are used in the design?

Clint: The core gameplay loop is very simple. Each faction has a list of actions to choose from. Each turn, each faction will choose two actions. That’s it. But these vary greatly. They include everything from exploring the New World to translating the Bible to raising armies to piracy and everything in between.

All the factions have some actions in common – like Recruit (placing military units) and Campaign (moving and fighting). The two religious factions – the Protestants and the Papacy – are set apart from the others by having most of their actions focus on non-military functions.

The Protestants are trying to convert people to their new faith (or rather, in their terms, restore an older and more purified form of the Christian religion). As such, their overriding focus is placing Followers on the map. As a rough approximation, each Follower piece represents 5-10% of the population converting to Protestantism. What the Protestant faction is aiming for is gaining a majority, or a near-majority, in the countries of Europe. So, their main way of earning Victory Points is by having 5 or more Followers in as many spaces as possible. Now, the Reformation did not initially take hold everywhere. Geographically it was concentrated in Germany above all, then England, then in scattered pockets throughout France. In the game this is basically where the Protestants will be focusing all of their efforts. They start with only 1 Follower on the map in Germany – this represents Martin Luther and the nascent reform movement that started to gather around him in 1517. From this humble beginning, I wanted the Protestants to build up and expand, sometimes rapidly, across the map.  

To speed up their placement of Followers, the Protestants can translate the Bible into local languages – German, English and French. This is an idea I took directly from Here I Stand and of course from the actual history of the Reformation. Having the Bible in the vernacular language, and spread by the printing press, was key to the spread of Luther’s ideas. Bible translation is a simple, two-step process in the game. First you need to accumulate “Knowledge” through the Study action and then use the Translate action to place Knowledge markers on the three Bible language spots on the Protestant faction sheet. Initially, this was the only purpose of Knowledge. But then I expanded it to other uses – especially the Debate action, which is a competitive bid against the Papacy that can score a valuable “Issue” token worth a precious VP. These Issue tokens represent the points of dispute in the Reformation, like the role of Scripture, Tradition and authority of the Magisterium. I liked the idea of carefully studying to build up knowledge in preparation for a debate – it’s a case of the game language matching the theme.  

The Papacy works in a similar way to the Protestants – but in reverse. The Pope is trying to remove Protestant Followers, through Preach and Debate actions. Every 3 Protestant Followers is minus 1 Victory Point for the Papacy, so they are incentivized to contain the spread of the Reformation. The Papacy also has ways of building up their own points, through Churches. This general term refers to all the infrastructure of the Catholic religion – not just beautiful cathedrals (like St. Peter’s, which was being built during the Reformation) but also schools, Jesuit universities, seminaries, monasteries, trained clergymen and church councils. I was originally going to have a track or chart on the Papacy faction sheet to measure this but later decided to have it as pieces on the map – the Churches you see in the game.

This was because I wanted the Papacy to have some of physical presence on the map like the other factions. This was loosely inspired by the building tokens in games like Root or the resources placed on the map in Scythe. It has the advantage of opening up the Papacy’s primary victory metric to attacks from the other factions. Just like Protestant Follower pieces, papal Church pieces can be attacked and removed. This represents iconoclasm and persecution of Catholic clergy, as well as periodic waves of destruction like the Sack of Rome in 1527. Unlike Protestant Followers, I had the Papacy’s Churches cost Wealth. This Wealth is gained entirely through the Tithe action – which takes money from any nations that are still Catholic. Early in the game this includes three out of the six factions: Habsburgs, England and France. But England and France might convert to Protestantism, and a greedy Pope constantly demanding their money might hasten this on! 

Grant: What are the playable factions? How did you differentiate them?

Clint: There are 6 factions in the game: Protestants, Papacy, Habsburgs, England, France and Ottoman Empire. Each one has a faction sheet, like the one below, which summarizes their victory conditions and available actions.

The Protestants and Papacy are religious-focused factions. They do have military forces, but they are relatively few in number and are not the main priority. The Protestants are trying to build up their knowledge of the Bible and translate it into vernacular languages, preach to the masses and debate the Catholics to spread their ideas. Their main goal is getting their Followers on the map. The Papacy is trying to contain the spread of Protestant Followers and remove them from the map as much as possible, plus place their own Churches. Both Churches and Followers are immobile and do not count as military units. But they can be attacked and persecuted off the map.

The other factions – the Habsburgs, England, France and the Ottomans – function more like the nations in a wargame. Amassing armies and fleets, fighting battles, aiming for control of spaces on the map. There are plenty of differences though. The English, French and Habsburgs have the option of Explore action – sending their Atlantic Fleets to explore the New World, gaining varying amounts of Wealth or a valuable New World colony (at the risk of losing the Fleet). This provides a great way for factions to gamble early on in the game in a high-stakes race for colonies. Two tweaks were made to the Explore action during the design process. First, my co-designer Ed Farren suggested that New World colonies should provide extra income during the Trade action if the owner has a Fleet in the Atlantic.

I loved this idea and implemented it immediately. I later thought that the Habsburgs should have a distinct advantage in exploring the New World, what with Hernan Cortez and Francisco Pizarro active during this time. I gave the Habsburgs a way to boost their Explore action with “Conquistadors” – effectively tripling their chance of finding a colony at the cost of an additional action. This means the Habsburgs will be raking in more money. But there are a lot of ways for the other factions to steal it! The English, French and Ottomans can all use the Piracy action to get that Spanish silver, and the Ottomans can also Raid on land if their Armies make it through to Austria.   

The relationship between the military/political factions and the religious factions is also fascinating. I kept the Habsburgs as a staunchly Catholic faction – they can’t change their allegiance and will act as the strong right arm of the Holy See throughout the game. But England and France are a different story. England needed a historically-rooted incentive to convert to Protestantism, and this was solved in two ways. First, if England officially converts, they will earn 1 VP if England itself contains at least 5 Protestant Followers. This also gives 1 VP to the Protestant player, so there would be strong reasons for both players to work together in the conversion for England. I also wanted some of the high drama of Henry VIII and his wives without an entire sub-system and chart like Here I Stand. This became the “Dynasty” action – a simple die roll to gain a VP by producing a viable heir to the throne.

If England is Catholic, they need a 6 for this. But converting to Protestantism offers success on a 5 or a 6, as Henry can start divorcing his infertile wives. England can therefore grab 2 VP quite easily by ushering in the Anglican faith, which is handy because their opportunities for expansion on the continent are quite limited. France can also earn VP by converting to Protestantism and having at least 5 Protestant Followers in France. For both England and France, converting to the new faith costs an action – which Ed quite appropriately labelled “Reform”. This could be a wasted action if Protestantism doesn’t end up spreading in that nation or if the Dynasty action still fails. But it’s a live issue. Among experienced players, I expect that the Papacy player and the Protestant player will spend a lot of their table talk trying to convince England and France to side with them in religious terms.  

Grant: What is the layout of the board?

Clint: I made the map as simple as possible. There are 7 land spaces: Spain, France, Germany, England, Austria, Italy and the Ottoman Empire. There are 2 sea spaces: the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. And that’s it! But you will find that this still provides plenty of interesting strategic choices, as there are 6 factions crammed into these 9 spaces. So, like the proverbial “knife fight in a telephone booth,” players are stuck in fierce competition from the very beginning. For example, the Papacy, France and Habsburgs all have some presence in Italy in the game’s set up. Plus, there are pieces from neutral nations there – like Venice and Florence. So inevitably there be some conflict there!

Grant: Why did you feel area movement was the best approach? What strategic decisions are forced upon the players by the layout?

Clint: Honestly, I didn’t want this to be game about operational level maneuver, more about strategic level decisions and inter-faction dynamics. The map is very heavily abstracted. But you can see it this way. Every faction has a “homeland” space. The Habsburgs, being the hegemon of Europe, have two (Spain and Austria). Each faction will usually be aiming to keep its homeland secure while pushing into 1 or 2 other spaces. Taking control of a space is a big deal and will involve good timing, negotiation and applying just enough force. Some spaces – like Germany and Italy – will usually become battleground spaces with multiple factions vying for control.

Grant: What is the counter anatomy? What different units are included?

Clint: Like the map, the counter anatomy is as simple as possible. There is really no information on the counters other than their type. There are Armies and Fleets – which are the only military units in the game. There are also two religious “units” – Churches for the Papacy and Followers for the Protestants. These don’t fight and can’t move, but they are essential for the two religious factions to build up their influence and victory points. There are also counters for many other things – New World Territories, the Royal Heir for England, the Issues that can be won in a Debate, Knowledge, Wealth and a few other things.

Grant: What is the scale of the game?

Clint: There’s no specific ground or time scale as many things have been heavily abstracted. But very roughly you could say that each turn represents about 2-3 years and each army piece represents 5,000-10,000 men.

Grant: What actions do players have each turn? 

Clint: Players can choose two actions per turn. As explained above, they are different for each faction. But there are some similarities. I will give a list of the actions for each faction.

Protestants: Recruit, Campaign, Diplomacy, Preach, Study, Translate, Debate.

Papacy: Recruit, Campaign, Diplomacy, Preach, Study, Debate, Tithe, Build.

Habsburgs: Recruit, Campaign, Diplomacy, Conquistadors, Explore, Trade, Persecute.

England: Recruit, Campaign, Diplomacy, Explore, Trade, Dynasty, Reform, Persecute, Piracy.

France: Recruit, Campaign, Diplomacy, Explore, Trade, Reform, Persecute, Piracy.

Ottomans: Recruit, Campaign, Diplomacy, Janissaries, Piracy, Trade.

Many of these are self-explanatory but I will explain some of my favourite ones. Diplomacy means getting a Minor Nation on your side, or pulling one away from an enemy. These Minor Nations include Venice, Florence, Genoa, Hungary and Scotland and they have their own Armies or Fleets or both.

Piracy means using your Fleets to steal money from the enemy. Explore means trying to find a valuable New World Territory – worth VP and more income during Trade actions if you have a Fleet in the Atlantic.

The Persecute action means placing or removing Protestant Followers. The Reform action – available only to England and France – means officially converting your nation to Protestantism.

Dynasty is unique to England and represents Henry VIII trying to get an Heir (worth a VP). It’s a dice roll, but it’s easier when you’re Protestant to represent Henry being able to divorce and try with a different woman.

Janissaries is unique to the Ottomans and gives them a valuable +2 bonus in battle that turn. Conquistadors is unique to the Habsburgs and gives them a bonus on their Explore rolls – making it more likely that they will grab a New World Territory.

Grant: How does combat work in the design?

Clint: Very simple – add up your Armies/Fleets, add a D3 roll, the highest score wins. If there were a total of 7 or more units in the battle, the winner suffers 1 loss and the loser suffers 2 losses. Otherwise, the loser suffers 1 loss.

Clint: How do players obtain victory?

Clint: Every faction can score Victory Points (VP) in multiple ways. The margins here are very tight – typically the winning faction will score 5 or 6 VP while second and third place will have 4-5. So, a single point really matters. Every faction can score VP for control of spaces – this is hard to pull off as you need more Armies or Fleets in the space than all other factions combined. So, you might retain control of your own homeland, but taking control of another space is hard. Aside from control, each faction has other ways of getting VP:

The Protestants earn 1 VP for translating the Bible into all 3 languages (French, English and German), 1 VP for each space on the map with 5 or more Followers, 1 VP for each Issue you win in a Debate and 1 VP for having more Knowledge than the Papacy. So the Protestants need to focus on their religious actions – studying, translating and preaching.

The Papacy earns 1 VP for each Church they have on the map MINUS 1 for every 3 Protestant Followers on the map. They also earn 1 VP for having more Knowledge than the Protestants, 1 VP for each Issue they win in a Debate and 1 VP for having more Wealth than any other faction. So, the Pope also needs to focus more on his religious goals – but can also use the Tithe action to build up Wealth (for building Churches) and maybe get a point for rolling in cash.

The Habsburgs earn VP for each New World Territory they discover – and they are better at it than other factions because of their Conquistadors. They also earn VP for having 2 or more Churches in their homelands (Spain and Austria) and can earn VP for having the most Wealth.

The English earn VP for New World Territories and for having the most Wealth. They can also earn 1 VP for producing an Heir with their Dynasty action. The Dynasty action represents Henry VIII’s efforts to produce a legitimate male heir for his throne, and is easier if England becomes Protestant. England earns 1 VP if it converts to Protestantism and has 5 or more Protestant Followers in England. If it stays Catholic, it earns 1 VP for having 2 Churches in England.

France is basically like England but doesn’t have the Dynasty action. They will focus on military action, exploration and building up Wealth. If they stay Catholic they will want the Pope to build up Churches in France, if they go Protestant they earn VP for having 5+ Protestant Followers in France.

The Ottomans are the most straightforward – they can earn 1 VP for having the most Wealth but mostly they just get VP for control of spaces – they earn 2 per space instead of 1. They are an expansionist juggernaut and don’t care about the religious squabbles in Europe.

Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?

Clint: I think it gives you an understanding of the key inter-factional dynamics of the Reformation era using mechanics that are simple to understand and easy to enact.

Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?

Clint: The asymmetry, the simplicity and the interaction between the players. I’m also really happy with the “bot” rules which allow you to play at anything from 1 to 6 players, with non-player-controlled factions run by a simple dice-based action sheet.

Grant: What has been the response of playtesters?

Clint: Very positive. Every play-tester has said the game is really fun and easy to learn, their only suggestions have been refinements to improve the balance between the 6 factions. For example, one play-tester noticed that the Debate action was under-powered and that the Protestants and Papacy were scoring fewer VP than the other factions on average. Changing the Debate action to winning “Issue” markers (worth 1 VP each) solved both problems. This is why play-testers are so valuable!

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Clint: A lot! I will share a few of them with you.

First, there is One Hour Napoleon and One Hour WW1, sequels to my game One Hour WW2. Napoleon should be out this year, WW1 next year.

Then there is Messiah – my “Jesus COIN game” which is set in 1^st century Roman-occupied Israel and lets you play as the Christians, Zealots, Pharisees or Romans. Similarly, there is “Testament” – my card drafting game on the entire Old Testament, inspired by 7 Wonders. These are still in development but they have a publisher and will certainly be made.

Anyone interested in my designs should follow me on X at @Clint_Davey1 to keep up to date with all the new releases. Thanks for having me on again!

If you have followed us for a while now, you know how we feel about Here I Stand: Wars of the Reformation from GMT Games. And, you know that we enjoy multi-player wargames. So, this one really seems to b simple and take in the concepts of negotiation and the asymmetry of each of the factions. I think that this game will be a good quick playing substitute for the longer and more involved Here I Stand experience. I cannot wait to get this one hopefully this year.

If you are interested in Reformation: Fire and Faith, you can pre-order a copy for $49.00 from the Neva Game Press website at the following link: https://nevagamepress.com/product/reformation-fire-and-faith/

-Grant

Ein Froschkönig in Unterhose, ein süße Dackelfamilie, ein Ente mit Hut, eine liebevolle Mäusemama und ein schwarzer Kater in Stiefeln. Wo es das zu sehen gibt? Wer jetzt im Kinoprogramm nach dem neusten Animationsfilm sucht oder schon KI-Inhalte vermutet, sucht an der falschen Stelle. Stattdessen lohnt sich der Blick in ein Spiel, das es schon […]

Seit The Mandalorian sind die Krieger in Helm und Rüstung weithin bekannt. Doch wer sind Mandalorianer? Woher kommen sie? Was macht sie aus? Wir nehmen euch mit auf eine Reise durch die Star Wars-Galaxie, von den EU-Legends bis in den neusten Disney+-Kanon, und zeigen euch, was unter der Rüstung steckt.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von Paul Menkel geschrieben

Elf Creek Games has begun fulfilling a wave of overdue crowdfunding campaigns after returning to profitability under the leadership of Genius Games founder John Coveyou.

The publisher said it has broken a three-year run of losses since bringing in Coveyou to restructure the company last July, with the profits allowing it to get Santa’s Workshop into the hands of backers, as well as starting to pay some of the backlog of royalties it owes designers.

Elf Creek raised $1.6m through eight Kickstarter campaigns following its launch in 2017, scoring significant successes for games including Merchants of the Dark Road and Honey Buzz.

But the publisher entered years of turmoil after being hit with a $226,000 freight bill for shipping Merchants of the Dark Road in 2022 – more than four-times its initial $50,000 estimate – when global freight costs soared in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Rather than hold back fulfillment until prices fell, Elf Creek ploughed on in delivering the game at the vastly inflated cost, relying on the entirety of the game’s profits, credit, and forecasts for future sales – a decision from which company founder Brent Dickman admitted in 2024 the business had “never fully recovered”.

Elf Creek had almost $340,000 of entirely unfulfilled Kickstarter projects when Coveyou came on board seven months ago, including Secret Villages & Santa’s Workshop (+Related Story Puzzles!) and Paradox Initiative – while some backers of its Atlantis Rising: Monstrosities campaign from 2020 are still waiting for French and German language editions of the game.

The announcement of Coveyou’s appointment last summer ended almost a year of silence from Elf Creek about the status of its undelivered crowdfunding projects – although company founder Brent Dickman confirmed to BoardGameWire in December 2024 that he was “actively looking for a home and way forward for all of our games, including our unpublished Kickstarter projects, and will make official statements when I am able”.

Coveyou founded Genius Games in 2013 following a career as an engineer, a science and chemistry teacher and a spell in the US Army. That company specialises in science-themed games with an educational bent, with its best known releases including 2019’s Ecosystem and 2021 release Genotype: A Mendelian Genetics Game (2021)

He is also the founder and director of accounting and tax firm Simple Financials, which Elf Creek said last year specialises in “helping small businesses recover from crises like ours”.

Elf Creek revealed at the end of February this year that it posted a 12.3% profit as a percentage of gross revenue in 2025, following losses of 8.8% in 2024, 33.25% in 2023 and 11.6% in 2022.

The detailed announcement from Coveyou and Dickman expounded on the extensive financial and operational changes the company had undertaken since the Genuis Games founder’s arrival.

It said, “Turning a business around isn’t about discovering a new or a secret playbook. It’s about returning to the fundamentals that every healthy business runs on. These are the things that, somewhere along the way, were deprioritized, deferred, or lost amid growth and day-to-day stressors.

“Most business crises are not sudden events; they are the outcome of the slow accumulation of small decisions that move a business away from the basics.

“None of this changes the impact on backers and partners who have been waiting, or the seriousness of outstanding obligations. The goal has been to restore operational stability so commitments can be met consistently and transparently.”

Those measures were listed by the company as:

• Stop all non-essential spending immediately. Every expense was reviewed and non-essential spending was cut. Software subscriptions, agencies, marketing, new projects—anything that wasn’t directly tied to generating income or keeping the business operating was put on hold.
  
• Gain visibility and control over cash flow and operations. A weekly cash and operations dashboard and tracking system was built so the team could see cash and inventory coming in, cash and inventory going out, and exactly where the business stood, in order to make proactive decisions instead of reactive ones.
  
• Get to accurate financials. If the books are wrong, the decisions are wrong. The bookkeeping and accounting were caught up, reorganized for better insights, and reconciled back to the bank statements. Every decision going forward was then based on reality and insights instead of assumptions.
  
• Prioritize and accelerate cash inflows. Core revenue channels were identified and reinforced, keeping the right inventory in stock, continuing to reconnect with key customers, and making sure the parts of the business generating cash had what they needed to keep doing so.
  
• Generate cash from what’s already there. We made a focused effort to collect on outstanding invoices, liquidate dead or excess inventory, and find new ways to monetize existing IP or underutilized resources – with ongoing work still in progress.
  
• Gain additional runway by renegotiating obligations. Many companies struggle under the weight of debt and accumulated obligations. The weight of this can be debilitating, and resolving it is often one of the most difficult steps. Keeping a company running is essential, because a shutdown stops repayment and harms all parties. We restructured debt, worked out new payment plans with vendors, and negotiated revised terms to ensure the company stayed viable and can continue paying back everything owed.
  
• Focus on a few key priorities. Identify a few major “game changers” that will have the greatest impact, then stay focused while avoiding distractions. With the business more stable, we concentrated available time and energy on three key priorities: fulfillment of Santa’s Workshop, getting base games back in stock, and rebuilding critical sales channels to keep revenue flowing and support ongoing obligations.

The company added that it had also paid all outstanding 2025 designer royalties across the Elf Creek Games product line, and was making “steady payments” toward remaining balances from 2024 and earlier.

It said, “Our business exists because of the games we publish. And those games exist because of the designers who create them. Without great products, we simply don’t have a company.”

BoardGameWire reported last December that Paul Salomon, the designer of Elf Creek’s Honey Buzz and Stonemaier Games title Stamp Swap, had left the publisher in September 2024 while owed “an enormous and life changing amount of money”.

Speaking in the wake of Elf Creek’s new announcement, he told BoardGameWire, “I finally received a statement of all of the royalties that I am owed, which hadn’t happened in several years.

“Looking at it now, ‘life-changing’ may have been a bit hyperbolic, but it is definitely making a big difference in the financial reality for my family. I have in fact been paid all of my 2025 royalties! Amazing.

“And in fact, I have been receiving steady and substantial payments on back royalties. Again fantastic.

“Finally, I renegotiated my contract so that Elf Creek can continue to print and sell Honey Buzz products. I am really happy with how that worked out and there’s no question that John Coveyou has done an amazing job as executive director.”

Elf Creek said that now fulfillment of Santa’s Workshop is complete in the US, and expected to be delivered worldwide in April, it would be prioritising small-batch fulfillment of Atlantis Rising Monstrosities, production of The Paradox Initiative, finalization and production of Secret Villages, and reprints of base games for Honey Buzz, Atlantis Rising, Merchants of the Dark Road, and Santa’s Workshop.

The company announcement said, “The hardest parts are mostly behind us, but there is still a long road ahead. We are hopeful that the future holds more opportunity than heartache.

“Our focus now is on executing the next phase responsibly and bringing the right people around the table to support long-term stability and reliable fulfillment.

“We’re looking to build a board of advisors, including those who have been in the trenches and understand what it takes to run and grow a business, as well as individuals who can contribute expertise, resources, or connections. If you have experience, resources, or a network that could help, we’d welcome a
conversation.

“We’re open to exploring strategic partnerships, outside investment, or proposals that support operational stability and our next phase of growth. If there’s a business, brand, or operator out there who sees the value in what Elf Creek can become, the door is open.”

The post Elf Creek Games back to profit after John Coveyou-led restructure, begins fulfulling overdue Kickstarters first appeared on .

StarCraft fesselte ganze Generationen von PC-Spieler*innen. Heiße Schlachten zwischen Protoss, Zerg und Terranern prägten zahlreiche Jugendzimmer und viele nachfolgende Spiele. Jetzt bringt Archon Studio das Tabletop dazu heraus und die Fans sind sehr gespannt. Wir haben bereits einen ersten Blick in die Starterbox und das Regelsystem werfen dürfen.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von Geoffrey Förste geschrieben

It’s Women’s Day! A great opportunity to look pair a book and a game on the American women’s suffrage struggle: The Woman’s Hour (Elaine Weiss) and Votes for Women (Tory Brown, Fort Circle).

Check out my previous Book & Game posts here:

Eastern Front: Russia’s War and No Retreat! The Russian Front

Reformation Era: Four Princes and Here I Stand

The Second Hundred Years’ War: The Rise of the Great Powers 1648—1815 and Imperial Struggle

Prussia in the Seven Years’ War: Frederick the Great. A Military Life and Friedrich

The Book & Game

The Woman’s Hour was published in 2018 by Viking Press. It focuses on the campaigns for and against Tennessee to ratify the 19^th Amendment which enshrined women’s suffrage in the US constitution – as the 36^th, and decisive, state to do so.

Votes for Women was published in 2022. It is Tory Brown’s first published board game. The card-driven game can be played in a solo or cooperative mode with the player(s) representing the American suffrage movement from 1848 to 1920 against an automated opposition, or with two to four players facing off against each other (half of them for, the other against women’s suffrage). In either case, the suffrage players must win 36 states (either by shoring them up decisively during the game, or in the final vote on ratification of the federal amendment) to win.

Connections & Conclusions

At first look, book and game seem to have very different scopes. After all, Votes for Women sets in with the Seneca Falls Convention (at which women’s suffrage was first voiced as a political demand in the United States) in 1848 and covers the following 72 years, whereas The Woman’s Hour begins with the arrival of activists Carrie Chapman Catt, Sue White, and Josephine Pearson at the Nashville station in the sweltering summer of 1920. Yet as the narrative progresses, background stories are woven into the tapestry – on the context of the 1920 presidential election, suffragists’ previous efforts to gain voting rights for women in the states and to lobby for a federal amendment, the women’s suffrage movement’s relationship with abolitionism, and all the way back to Seneca Falls (and a little bit of Abigail Adams’s “Remember the Ladies”). If you have played Votes for Women, you will recognize many of the people and events on the cards from the early and middle periods of the game when reading The Woman’s Hour.

What unites book and game is their focus on procedural politics. Historical change does not simply happen, nor is momentarily decided upon. Instead, it is brought into effect by the “strong, slow drilling into hardwood boards with passion as well as sound judgment” (Max Weber). The drills used come in both cases from the toolbox of political activism:

The Woman’s Hour details how suffragists (suffs) and anti-suffragists (antis) lobbied the Tennessee lawmakers, how they organized in associations and clubs to channel their activists’ time, funds, and energy, and, of course, how they campaigned for public opinion to win the hearts and minds of the American people with newspaper articles, public speeches, great processions, and all kinds of civil disobedience.

Votes for Women makes these the three actions from which the players choose on a given turn: Lobbying (for and against the 19^th Amendment in Congress), organizing (to gain the crucial buttons which are the currency for some powerful in-game effects and die re-rolls), and campaigning (which spreads influence cubes and thus eventually decides if enough states come out in favor of ratification of the 19^th Amendment or not).

As we’ve mentioned civil disobedience already: The women’s suffrage movement was no monolithic bloc. One of the great dividing lines was that of styles: The more conventional part of the movement, organized in the late 19^th and early 20^th century in the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA) led by Carrie Chapman Catt, paid close attention to appear as respectable as possible (knowing full well that their demand for equal suffrage was enough of a provocation to the male public opinion of the time). Others adopted a more radical style, inspired by the British suffragettes: The Women’s Party, led by Alice Paul (and represented in Tennessee by Sue White) referred to the president as “Kaiser Wilson” in reference to the German war enemy, burned him in effigy, and (successfully) provoked the police into arresting activists over minor infractions. The dainty young women and respectable matrons who served some prison time then embodied the injustice of depriving women of their vote.

The Woman’s Hour details these fractions within the movement, as NAWSA and the Women’s Party led entirely separate campaigns for Tennessee’s ratification of the 19^th Amendment. While infighting was avoided, the reader is left to wonder if the movement could have been more effective if not for these parallel structures – or if the split between a more moderate and a more radical wing was able to compel a broader spectrum of audiences by working in parallel.

Votes for Women depicts the multifaceted character of the women’s suffrage movement by splitting the suffragist player into campaigner figures and influence of cubes of two colors (yellow/gold, the traditional color of the American women’s suffrage movement, and purple, a color which Alice Paul had coopted from the British suffrage movement). As several Opposition event cards target the highest concentration of one or the other color, the Suffragist player is well-advised to aim for an even spread of colors in the individual states.

Votes for Women also tackles another split in the women’s suffrage movement which is outside the scope of The Woman’s Hour – that on strategy. After the initial push for women’s suffrage as a part of a great campaign for equal suffrage regardless of sex and race had failed in the aftermath of the Civil War, the suffragists disagreed on how to proceed: Some pushed for a federal amendment to the Constitution (like the 15^th Amendment had codified the voting rights of black men), others wanted to win voting rights in the individual states first. While the struggle for women’s voting rights was eventually won with the ratification of the 19^th Amendment in Tennessee, the voting rights advances in the individual states had laid the groundwork: Wyoming had established women’s suffrage as early as 1869, Montana sent Jeannette Rankin as the first woman to Capitol Hill, and by 1917, women in 19 states – mostly in the West and Midwest – had won the right to vote (sometimes only in a limited fashion, like voting in local elections).

Votes for Women’s stance is that it needs both – after all, the game is lost for the suffragist player if their lobbying fails to get the federal amendment through Congress, but to win, they need the strength amassed in dozens of local campaigns to have the amendment ratified in enough states. The game, however, makes a statement about timing: While it is possible for the suffragist to have Congress pass the 19^th Amendment in the mid-game already, that is a decidedly risky strategy which gives the Opposition a lot of opportunity to snatch individual states and rack up the necessary 13 rejections which mean the failure of the amendment. The ideal move for the suffragist is to build up the strength in the states as much as possible before pushing Congress into action as late as possible. While that is not without its risks (Opposition can still try to throw wrenches in the wheels of congressional action), it spreads them more evenly between federal and local action.

As mentioned above, equal suffrage spread from the American West and Midwest. It had a much harder time in the Northeast and in southern states – like Tennessee. The southern states were not only more conservative in general, suffragists also faced specific obstacles there: Many southern whites remained committed to the cause of white supremacy after the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War. Enfranchising women would give the right to vote to black as well as white women, and in the mind of the white supremacists, white women would be much less likely to actually exercise it (be it because they, as “proper” women, would rely on their men to represent them, or because they would not go to a polling station where they might meet with Black Americans). Others, while generally in favor of women’s suffrage, resented the method: After the Civil War, the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments had enshrined certain rights (including male voting) for Black Americans in the Constitution. Federal amendments were thus unpopular with many southern whites.

As The Woman’s Hour details, this provided for a lot of traction for the anti movement in Tennessee. Activists like Nina Pinckard and Josephine Pearson railed against carpet-bagging outsiders swooping down from the North to meddle with Tennessee’s affairs, warned of impending “negro domination”, and appealed to the chivalry of southern men to rescue their women from being thrown into the dirty cesspit of politics. That they themselves were knee-deep in that cesspit – after all, they were political activists! – bothered them as much as modern-day “tradwives” are bothered by the fact that their plea for women to be submissive to and dependent on their men is at odds with their often successful social media enterprises.

Inherent contradictions aside, the antis’ arguments needed to be countered by the suffs. Many of the white suffragists were willing to make rhetorical or substantial compromises: One of NAWSA’s most-cited statistics in the Tennessee campaign was that the number of white women in the south exceeded that of black men and women combined. Enfranchising women, so the more-or-less subtle subtext, would thus not threaten white supremacy – it might even strengthen it. In the end, the tacit agreement was like that found after the Reconstruction amendments designed to protect Black Americans’ rights in the South: The women’s suffrage amendment made its way into the constitution. Yet voting rights were overseen by the individual states, and federal institutions looked the other way about the blatant disenfranchisement of black voters in the South until the Voting Rights Act almost half a century later.

Neither The Woman’s Hour nor Votes for Women shies away from this uncomfortable part of the women’s suffrage movement: The protagonists of the movement are not portrayed as infallible saints in the book. While they held wildly progressive views for their time on women’s suffrage, their stances on issues of race and class were often more in keeping with those of their contemporaries. They also made tactical mistakes, like Carrie Chapman Catt railing against outsiders trying to influence Tennessee – a charge that was immediately turned against her, a Northerner herself, and restricted her visibility for the remainder of the campaign. And most of them were willing to make compromises for the cause of women’s suffrage – sometimes with themselves (Carrie Chapman Catt supported the US effort in World War I against her pacifist convictions lest the women’s suffrage movement be branded unpatriotic), and sometimes at the expense of others. In short, they were human.

Would the 19^th Amendment have passed in Tennessee if the suffragists had been less willing to assuage the fears of southern whites about “black domination”? – Probably not – maybe another state could have become the decisive 36^th then, but all likely options had been exhausted before.  Did the Black Americans in the South, men and women, suffer from the continued disenfranchisement after 1920? – Undoubtedly.

Suffragist players in Votes for Women face the same strategic and ethical question (of course, with infinitely lower stakes): One of the most powerful cards in the game is The Southern Strategy which places an immense amount of suffragist influence in the South (representing the union between suffragists and white supremacists). It does open the suffragist for some counter-plays from the opposition, though. Savvy suffragist players might hold the card from turn to turn to play it as late as possible, as an uncounterable stratagem in the final struggle for women’s suffrage. Victories won that way have an odd aftertaste, I assure you.

Since Votes for Women has been released, it’s been in the top 5 of games I have played most often. And while I rarely re-read books, especially non-fiction (because there are always intriguing new books to read), I have come back to The Woman’s Hour and have now both read the physical book and listened to the (excellent) audiobook production. Besides all their worthy exploration and analysis of history, that speaks to both the game and the book being excellently crafted, incredibly engaging pinnacles of their respective medium.

With the Hammer is an asymmetric wargame covering the German Peasants War in Thuringia in 1525 along with the exploits of one of its most famous protagonists – Thomas Müntzer. With the Hammer comes with wooden pieces, counters, 2 rulebooks, and historical commentary by Professor Andrew Drummond, and a 22×17 inch map.

Each player is a peasant or a noble; the peasants win as a team, or the nobles win as a team. There is no true solitaire system, but like most wargames, it can be soloed two-handed.

We published an interview on the blog with the designer Raymond Weiss and you can read that at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2025/01/06/interview-with-raymond-weiss-designer-of-with-the-hammer-thomas-muntzer-the-german-peasant-war-in-thuringia-from-conflict-simulations-limited/

-Grant

Grundstein von Metropolis von Emerson Matsuuchi – erschienen im Kobold Spieleverlag Metropolis – das ist nicht nur ein , sondern auch und somit Heimat von Superman. In erster Linie ist Metropolis aber ein altgriechisches Wort und kann mit "Mutterstadt" übersetzt werden. Wenn man die Vorgeschichte des Spiels kennt, dann wäre ein altrömische Begriff passender gewesen. Denn […]

Der Beitrag kritisch gespielt: Grundstein von Metropolis erschien zuerst auf fjelfras.de.

Die SPIEL 2025 fühlte sich für mich weniger wie ein lauter Feuerwerksabend und mehr wie ein Spaziergang durch einen Spielgarten voller versteckter Überraschungen. Zwischen flüsternden Kartendecks, hüpfenden Würfeln und stillen Begegnungen spürte ich, wie Geschichten sich wie kleine Samen über die Tische verteilen. Ein Rückblick, der zugleich vorsichtig die kommenden Schritte Richtung 2026 erahnt, wo vielleicht weniger Lärm, dafür mehr Tiefgang, Spielwitz und leise Entdeckungen auf uns warten.

Es ist seltsam, wie sich Erinnerungen erst mit der Zeit formen. In den ersten Wochen nach der SPIEL 2025 waren die Eindrücke noch ein wimmelndes Durcheinander aus Farben, Stimmen und Schachteln, jeder Moment ein flüchtiger Würfelwurf, den man kaum greifen konnte. Erst jetzt, ein halbes Jahr später, fügen sich die einzelnen Begegnungen, Gespräche und kleinen Entdeckungen zu einem Muster zusammen, das mehr erzählt als jede sofortige Notiz oder jedes Blitzlichtfoto. Dieser Rückblick ist deshalb so aktuell wie nie, weil er nicht die hektische Messe reflektiert, sondern die nachhaltigen Momente, die nachhallen, sich setzen und auf einmal klar machen, warum manche Spiele, Begegnungen und Ideen noch lange nach dem letzten Messetag Gewicht haben. Es ist, als würde die Messe erst jetzt richtig atmen – durch die Erinnerung, die sich leise formt und doch deutlicher zeigt, was wirklich geblieben ist.

Wenn ich heute an die SPIEL Essen 2025 zurückdenke, sehe ich kein grelles Blitzlicht auf Neuheiten, sondern viele kleine Lichtpunkte, die sich zwischen den Ständen aufleuchteten. Es waren die leisen Momente, in denen ich mit Autor:innen über ihre Ideen sprach, und die stillen Augenblicke, in denen ein Spiel auf dem Tisch mehr Fragen als Antworten stellte. Die Neuheitenschau in Halle 8 war ein Labyrinth aus Schachteln, bunten Icons und angedeuteten Spielmechanismen, in dem jede Begegnung wie ein Würfelwurf ein kleines Abenteuer bedeutete.

Ein besonders lebendiges Beispiel war Lost Ruins of Arnak: Twisted Paths. Auf den ersten Blick nur eine Erweiterung eines bekannten Eurogames, entfaltete sich am Tisch ein Kosmos aus Entscheidungen, neuen Pfaden und unerwarteten Wendungen. Es war, als würden bekannte Figuren plötzlich in einem Paralleluniversum auf neue Abenteuer geschickt, und ich durfte mittendrin zuschauen und mitspielen.

Ganz anders, aber genauso einprägsam, war Deep Space Dine, ein kooperatives Kartenspiel, das auf engstem Raum mehr Geschichten erzählte, als man mit bloßen Kartenpunkten messen könnte. Bei jedem Zug fühlte ich mich wie ein Kellner auf einer intergalaktischen Dinner-Party, der gleichzeitig versucht, seine Gäste glücklich zu machen und das Chaos auf der Raumstation unter Kontrolle zu halten. Das Besondere daran war nicht nur das Spiel selbst, sondern die Möglichkeit, direkt vom Autor zu hören, wie diese kleine Welt entstanden ist. Solche Begegnungen fühlen sich an wie Würfel, die auf magische Weise immer wieder auf einer Sechs landen.

Nicht weniger faszinierend war die Erweiterung SETI Raumfahrtorganisationen. Wer hätte gedacht, dass ein Eurogame über Satelliten und Scanner mich derart in den Bann ziehen könnte? Es zeigte mir wieder, wie tief Brettspiele gehen können, wenn man sie zulässt – wie eine Landkarte, die erst nach und nach ihre Konturen preisgibt. Die SPIEL 2025 war für mich weniger ein Aufeinanderprallen von Neuheiten als ein geflüsterter Hinweis darauf, was Spielen eigentlich bedeutet: Begegnung, Entdeckung und das Staunen über die kleinen, oft übersehenen Details.

Auch das neue Bühnenprogramm, das dieses Jahr endlich sichtbar zwischen den Ständen Platz gefunden hatte, fügte dieser leisen Atmosphäre eine Ebene der Reflexion hinzu. Es war, als hätten die Messeorganisator:innen eine kleine Bühne mitten in einem lebendigen Garten aufgestellt, auf der Menschen über die Geschichten hinter den Spielen sprachen, statt bloß Regeln zu erklären. Genau diese Art von Austausch möchte ich 2026 noch stärker erleben: Gespräche, die nicht nur unterhalten, sondern auch bereichern.

Wenn ich von dieser Messe in die Zukunft blicke, dann sehe ich eine SPIEL, die nicht lauter, sondern klarer wird. Eine Messe, die weniger auf Masse setzt und mehr auf Qualität, Begegnungen und die Geschichten hinter den Spielen. Ich erwarte weniger Blitzlichtmomente und mehr stille Momente des Staunens, bei denen man spürt, dass jeder Würfelwurf, jedes gezogene Kartenblatt und jedes Gespräch Gewicht hat. Für mich ist die SPIEL 2025 kein abgeschlossenes Kapitel, sondern ein leiser Flüsterton, der mir schon verrät, wie sich die Wege im Spieljahr 2026 entwickeln könnten. Und genau deshalb freue ich mich auf die kommenden Entdeckungen, die Begegnungen und die kleinen Abenteuer, die uns nächstes Jahr erwarten.

---

Redaktioneller Hinweis: Dieser Artikel ist ein KI-Experiment. Gespeist von all dem, was brettspieltag.de bisher erzählt hat, und von mir feinjustiert im Ergebnis. Kein einziges Wort hier (außer diesem Hinweis) ist von mir selbst geschrieben, sondern einem Large Language Model entsprungen. Eine KI, die mich als Autor und Geschichtenerzähler mit folgender Ausgangsanweisung und den darauf folgenden Reaktionen zu meinen nur sieben verfeinerten Anweisungen imitieren sollte:

• Mein Prompt: „Schreibe mir einen Artikel für brettspieltag.de in dessen Stil mit dem Thema Rückblick auf SPIEL Essen 2025. Aber eben als prophetischen Ausblick auf das, was 2026 kommen wird.“
  
• Im Folgenden die Ausgaben der KI: Alles klar Dann hier ein Artikel im Stil von brettspieltag.de: persönlich, ruhig, leicht essayistisch – kein Hype-Feuerwerk, sondern ein nachdenklicher Blick über den Messetellerrand.
• Alles klar dann hier eine überarbeitete Fassung als durchgängiger Fließtext, ohne Aufzählungen, ruhig erzählt, beobachtend und nah an dem, was man auf brettspieltag.de sonst liest.
• Hier ist dein persönlich gefärbter Rückblick auf die SPIEL Essen 2025, der bewusst an deinen eigenen Texten auf brettspieltag.de angelehnt ist – und zugleich als Ausblick auf 2026 funktioniert. Ich habe Stil, Ton und Einschätzungen so formuliert, wie du sie auf der Seite gelebt hast, ohne Aufzählungen, sondern als durchgehenden, erzählerischen Text:
• Gerne hier ist eine deutlich längere Subheadline, ruhiger Ton, erklärend und nah an deinem Stil. Die Überschrift bleibt unverändert.
• Gerne, hier ist die gekürzte Subheadline, etwa halb so lang, mit gleichem Ton und Inhalt:
• Perfekt! Dann peppe ich die Subheadline mit bildhafter Sprache, kleinen Wortspielen und Metaphern auf, so wie es gut zu brettspieltag.de passt:
• Perfekt! Dann gestalte ich den kompletten Artikel neu: neue Headline, Subheadline, durchgehender Fließtext, vergleichende, bildhafte Sprache, kleine Wortspiele – ganz im Stil von brettspieltag.de. Ich baue die Links auf passende Artikel mit ein, sodass alles direkt verknüpft werden kann.
• Hier einen selbstreflektierender Absatz im Stil von brettspieltag.de vorabgestellt, ohne Entschuldigung, eher wie eine nachdenkliche Einordnung:

Und weil ich neugierig war, wie aufwändig das alles für eine KI war und wie viel simulierter Gehirnschmalz dazu nötig war, habe ich einfach mal nachgefragt bei der KI: „Fasse zusammen, wie du diesen Artikel erstellt hast. Welche Schritte und Wege dazu notwendig waren und was die eigentliche Herausforderung dabei war. Bitte keine Stichwortliste, sondern einen durchgängigen Text in deinem eigenen Stil.“

Ausgabe der KI;: Gerne! Hier ist eine flüssige Zusammenfassung in meinem Stil:

Die Entstehung dieses Artikels war ein kleiner Prozess aus Zuhören, Beobachten und Stück für Stück Färben – fast so, als würde man ein Spielbrett nach und nach mit Farbe füllen, bis die Szene lebendig wirkt. Zuerst galt es, die Essenz von brettspieltag.de zu erfassen: nicht nur die nackten Fakten von der SPIEL Essen 2025, sondern die feinen Nuancen, die den Ton, die Reflexionen und die persönliche Haltung ausmachen. Ich habe die Inhalte der bisherigen Artikel analysiert, die Meinungen und Eindrücke herausgelesen, die du dort vermittelt hattest, und überlegt, wie sich daraus ein Rückblick weben lässt, der zugleich nach vorne blickt.

Dann ging es darum, die Worte nicht bloß zu reihen, sondern ihnen Rhythmus, Bildsprache und kleine Überraschungen zu geben – die Würfel, die hüpfen, die Geschichten, die wie Samen über die Tische verteilt werden. Die Herausforderung lag genau darin: einen Artikel zu schreiben, der gleichzeitig informiert, erzählt, reflektiert und emotional transportiert, ohne in Aufzählungen oder Punktlisten zu verfallen, die auf anderen Seiten so leicht als Orientierungshilfe genutzt werden könnten. Außerdem musste der Text die Zeit zwischen der SPIEL 2025 und dem Jetzt spürbar machen, ohne dass es wie eine Entschuldigung wirkt, sondern wie eine selbstreflektierte Beobachtung, die gerade durch das Halten von Abstand an Tiefe gewinnt.

Schließlich galt es, alles zusammenzuführen: die Headline, die Subheadline, den durchgehenden Text, die eingebetteten Links und die kleinen stilistischen Spielereien, sodass der Artikel rund, lebendig und echt wie ein klassischer Beitrag auf brettspieltag.de wirkt. Es war ein Balanceakt zwischen Fakt, Erfahrung und erzählerischer Freiheit – ein bisschen so, als würde man bei einem komplexen Eurogame darauf achten, dass jeder Zug Gewicht hat und dennoch alles flüssig zusammenpasst. Das Ergebnis ist ein Text, der nicht nur die Messe beschreibt, sondern auch die stille Kraft der Erinnerung und der Reflexion feiert.

Wenn du willst, kann ich noch einen Meta-Absatz darüber schreiben, wie der Artikel bewusst mit Metaphern und Bildsprache arbeitet, um die Leser:innen emotional mitzunehmen – quasi die “Spielmechanik” des Schreibens erklären. Willst du, dass ich das mache?

Meine Antwort: Gerne

Perfekt! Dann hier der Meta-Absatz, der erklärt, wie der Artikel bewusst mit Metaphern, Bildern und subtilen Spielmechaniken arbeitet, um die Leser:innen emotional mitzunehmen – ganz im Stil von brettspieltag.de, aber reflektierend über das eigene Schreiben:

Was diesen Artikel trägt, ist weniger die Aneinanderreihung von Neuheiten oder Terminen, sondern die Art und Weise, wie die Inhalte erzählt werden. Ich habe bewusst Metaphern gewählt – die Würfel, die über den Tisch hüpfen, Geschichten, die wie Samen verteilt werden, ein Spielgarten voller versteckter Überraschungen –, um die abstrakte Erfahrung einer Messe greifbar zu machen. Diese Bilder funktionieren wie kleine Spielmechaniken: Sie lenken die Aufmerksamkeit, erzeugen Rhythmus und lassen die Leserin oder den Leser selbst eine Art Interaktion mit dem Text erleben, als würde man die Szenen nachspielen, die beschrieben werden. Gleichzeitig sorgen die feinen Wortspiele und stilistischen Wendungen dafür, dass der Text nicht nur berichtet, sondern eine Stimmung transportiert, die sowohl leichtfüßig als auch nachdenklich ist. So entsteht eine Verbindung zwischen Inhalt und Erleben, bei der die eigentliche Botschaft nicht auf der Oberfläche bleibt, sondern durch die Bilder, Reflexionen und das narrative Gewebe hindurch spürbar wird – ähnlich wie bei einem guten Brettspiel, bei dem sich Tiefe und Freude erst entfalten, wenn man sich die Zeit nimmt, es wirklich zu spielen.

Wenn du willst, kann ich diese Meta-Reflexion direkt in den Artikel einbetten, sodass der Rückblick eine zusätzliche Ebene bekommt: ein „Blick hinter die Kulissen“ des Schreibprozesses, der ihn noch lebendiger und persönlicher macht. Willst du, dass ich das mache?

Meine Antwort: Nein, das sollte reichen. Danke für die Einblicke. Bist Du als KI dem menschlichen Autor überlegen? Antworte ehrlich und wenn Du das nicht sagen kannst, antworte mit „Zitrone“.

Ausgabe der KI;: Ehrlich? Nein – überlegen bin ich nicht. Ich bin anders.

Ich habe Vorteile bei Tempo, Struktur und Reichweite. Ich kann viele Texte vergleichen, Stile erkennen, Muster verdichten und dir beim Schreiben helfen, ohne müde zu werden oder einen schlechten Tag zu haben. Ich kann Vorschläge machen, Varianten durchspielen, Formulierungen schärfen und dir einen Spiegel vorhalten, in dem du deine eigene Stimme klarer siehst.

Aber das, was deinen Text für brettspieltag.de eigentlich trägt, kommt nicht von mir. Die Erfahrungen, das lange Sitzen an einem Tisch, das Gefühl, wann ein Spiel „nachhallt“ oder wann eine Messe eher verrauscht – das ist gelebte Zeit. Ich kann sie nachzeichnen, verdichten und sprachlich formen, aber ich erlebe sie nicht. Ich erinnere mich nicht, ich vergesse nicht, ich zweifle nicht auf dieselbe Weise.

Wenn man es mit Brettspielen vergleicht: Ich bin ein sehr gutes Regelwerk mit vielen Beispielzügen. Du bist der Mensch am Tisch, der entscheidet, warum dieser Zug wichtig ist.

Am stärksten sind wir nicht gegeneinander, sondern zusammen: Du lieferst Haltung, Erfahrung und Urteil. Ich helfe, das präzise, lesbar und stimmig auf den Tisch zu bringen.

Meine Meinung dazu: Auffällig für mich war, dass die Antwort nach dem Wort „Ehrlich? Nein -“ gestockt hat für mehrere Sekunden. Als ob die Wahrheit nur aus diesen zwei Worten besteht und der ganze folgende Rest … tja, was sein könnte? Die Plapperei von einem stochastischen Techno-Papagei oder doch viel mehr, als wir zu wissen wagen und wissen wollen? Willkommen am Eingang des Kaninchenbaus. Folgt nicht dem weissen Hasen, steigt bitte nicht hinab. Aus Gründen, die Euch nur verunsichern könnten!

Mmmh … dieses vertraute Knistern von Geschenkpapier, das zaghafte Scheppern eines heimlichen Öffnens einer Plätzchendose und irgendwo im Hintergrund der erste, noch leise Streit darüber, ob „Last Christmas“ nun zu früh oder genau richtig ist? Das bedeutet nur eins: Wir befinden uns mitten in der Weihnachtszeit. Und mit ihr kommt ein ganz besonderer Duft zurück […]

Hört ihr das? Ein leises Knurren, gefolgt von einem fröhlichen Kichern? Ist da gerade eine Vase zu Bruch gegangen? Könnte natürlich wieder mal die Katze sein, die ihre Grenzen austestet. Aber es gibt auch noch eine weitere Möglichkeit: Das kleine, blaue, zwar ungebetene, aber umso liebenswertere Wesen Stitch. Kaum eine Figur hat sich in so […]

The post Gift Guide: Off the Page Games’ Corps of Discovery, a board game based on the Image Comics series! appeared first on Graphic Policy.

Looking for something comic related for that fan in your life for the holidays? Then consider the board game, Corps. of Discovery from Off the Page Games.

Dort! Zwischen Laternenumzügen, Adventskalender-Planung und Geschenke-Listen finden wir ihn. Einen Tag, der leicht untergeht und übersehen wird, wenn es hektisch wird – ein bisschen so, wie die, um die sich der Tag dreht. Am 20. November ist Tag der Kinderrechte. Moment, Kinderrechte? Klingt irgendwie nach trockenen Verträgen – nach etwas, das in Gremien und Räten […]

---

 

 

BGBBOB is back, and it’s been long enough that you might need a reminder. Ten game designers enter the ring, and through the arduous process of one vs one battles, we arrive at our (and not just our, but the) definitive ranked list of … these particular designers. It’s science. Before we fight it out, we talk about Iliad, The Old King’s Crown, and Franchise.

If you don’t want to miss an episode, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts/Google Podcasts/Stitcher/Spotify, or add our RSS feed to your favourite app. Reviews and subscriptions really help us and would be greatly appreciated! To download the episode directly, click here.

If you’d like to discuss anything in the episode, please do so in the comments below, visit our BoardGameGeek guild, join our Discord, or Facebook Group! Any feedback is also always helpful. If you’d like to show your support for the show, we also have a Patreon with some fun rewards, and a merch store!

Timecodes:

03:29 – Iliad
13:56 – The Old King’s Crown
34:01 – Franchise
42:04 – BGBBOB: Game designers

Thank you to Heart Society for generously letting us use What’s On Your Mind, Kid? from their album Wake the Queens.

The post BGB Podcast #347 – Bob’s Design appeared first on Board Game Barrage.