Ever wanted to play a game that would make you feel strange feelings about your childhood religion? Heyo, Greg Loring-Albright’s Keep the Faith is the title for you! In this conversation, Greg joins us to discuss whether board games or role-playing games are better, our respective religious traumas and hopes, and how a board game might prove illuminating of historical forces. You know, light chit-chat!
Honestly, there are no timestamps for this one. The conversation was rather stream-of-consciousness on my part, and I’d rather not break it into discrete portions. I’m sorry. =(
(If what I’m doing at Space-Biff! is valuable to you in some way, please consider dropping by my Patreon campaign or Ko-fi. Right now, supporters can read my first-quarter update of 2026: the best board games, movies, books, and more!)
‘Twas elegantly done — ignoring the fact that the cards are a downgrade from tiles — but were the graphic designers for the new AllPlay edition were trying to convey colorblindness to the rest of us? The five colors of money cards are “brown,” “beige,” “orangeish brown/beige” “purpleish brown” and “I’m not sure what it is … let’s call it … cocoa?”
Honestly, I’m not sure what the colors were, except all very similar. Seriously. Game looks beautiful, but ugh.
Matt Leacocks Tolkien-Koop ist zurück in der BGG-Hotness: Der Herr der Ringe: Das Schicksal der Gemeinschaft (Originaltitel The Lord of the Rings: Fate of the Fellowship) klettert nach den jüngsten Mittelerde-Ankündigungen wieder nach oben. Das Spiel erschien 2025 bei Z-Man Games, wird also nicht durch eine Neuauflage, sondern durch frisches Interesse rund um Asmodees Tolkien-Lizenz angeschoben.
Worum geht's?
Jede:r Spielende übernimmt zwei Figuren aus dem Umfeld der Gefährten und unterstützt Frodo auf seinem Weg zum Schicksalsberg. Schauplätze, Ereignisse und Gegner wechseln über 24 Szenarien hinweg, dazu kommen 14 Ereignisse und 13 spielbare Charaktere. Mechanisch verbindet Leacock vertraute Pandemic-DNA – Aktionspunkte, Kartenhand-Management, Würfelkonflikte – mit Set-Collection-Elementen und einer „Hoffnung"-Spur, die das Spielende bestimmt: Wer den Ring vor Frodos Verzweiflung ins Feuer wirft, gewinnt. Ein Solomodus ist enthalten.
Schnellfakten
Designer: Matt Leacock (Pandemic, Forbidden Island)
Illustration: Jared Blando, Cory Godbey
Verlag: Z-Man Games (Asmodee-Imprint)
Erscheinungsjahr: 2025
Spielerzahl: 1–5 (auf BGG bestens zu dritt)
Spielzeit: 60–150 Minuten
Altersempfehlung: ab 14 Jahren
Mechaniken: Kooperativ, Aktionspunkte, Würfeln, Handmanagement, Set Collection, variable Spielerfähigkeiten, Solo
BGG-Bewertung: 8,33 bei rund 8.900 Stimmen, BGG-Rang 87, Thematic-Rang 22 (Stand: Mai 2026)
DACH-Relevanz
Der deutsche Titel Der Herr der Ringe: Das Schicksal der Gemeinschaft ist bei BoardGameGeek bereits hinterlegt; die Veröffentlichung erfolgt über die Asmodee-Schiene mit Z-Man Games. Vor dem Hintergrund der jüngsten Partner-Ankündigungen rund um Asmodees Mittelerde-Lizenz dürfte das Spiel im deutschsprachigen Handel zusätzlichen Schub bekommen.
Unsere Einschätzung
Mit einem BGG-Rang in den Top 100 und einer Bewertung jenseits der 8,3 ist Schicksal der Gemeinschaft kein flüchtiges Hotness-Phänomen, sondern ein bestätigtes Koop-Schwergewicht. Wer auf erzählerische Pandemic-Verwandte steht und mit 60 bis 150 Minuten Spielzeit kein Problem hat, sollte das Spiel auf dem Schirm haben – gerade jetzt, wo Asmodee die Mittelerde-Pipeline öffnet.
Jacob Fryxelius dreht das Terraforming-Mars-Universum auf Kampagnenformat: The Legacy of Mars soll 2027 bei FryxGames erscheinen und tauscht die einzelne Partie gegen eine Mission-zu-Mission-Erzählung. Die Crowdfunding-Kampagne läuft auf Gamefound, das Spiel rangiert seit Tagen weit oben in der BGG-Hotness.
Worum geht's?
Statt eines abgeschlossenen Spielabends erwartet die Spielenden eine Kette aus Missionen, in denen unterschiedliche Planeten und neue Seiten des Mars terraformt werden. Wer eine Mission gewinnt, wird zum Gouverneur dieses Planeten – mit Zusatzpunkten für das finale Szenario, das den Gesamtsieger ermittelt. Mechanisch baut Fryxelius auf der bekannten Terraforming-Mars-Engine auf und ergänzt sie um Bevölkerung, Arbeiter, schmelzende Gletscher und einen wachsenden Pool an Innovations- und Entwicklungskarten. Jede Mission spielt mit neuen Parametern und einem eigenen Kartenpool – laut Designer „im Grunde mehrere Spiele in einer Schachtel".
Schnellfakten
Designer: Jacob Fryxelius
Illustration: Isaac Fryxelius
Verlag: FryxGames
Erscheinungsjahr: 2027 (Crowdfunding auf Gamefound)
Spielerzahl: 1–5 (inklusive Solo-Modus)
Spielzeit: 150–300 Minuten pro Mission
Altersempfehlung: ab 12 Jahren
Mechaniken: Kampagnen-/Szenariospiel, Closed Drafting, Handmanagement, Plättchenlegen, variable Spielerfähigkeiten, Solo
DACH-Relevanz
Die deutschsprachigen Ausgaben der Terraforming-Mars-Reihe betreut traditionell der Schwerkraft-Verlag. Eine offizielle deutsche Lokalisierung von The Legacy of Mars ist bislang nicht angekündigt – sollte FryxGames den eingespielten Weg gehen, ist Schwerkraft die naheliegende Adresse. Backerinnen und Backer aus dem DACH-Raum sollten bei der Gamefound-Kampagne genau auf den späteren deutschen Vertrieb achten.
Unsere Einschätzung
Ein Kampagnenformat auf Terraforming-Mars-Basis ist nach Ares Expedition und der jüngst angekündigten Terraforming Mars: The Big Box der nächste logische Schritt – und gleichzeitig der riskanteste. Die durchschnittliche BGG-Wertung von 4,7 spiegelt vor allem Crowdfunding-Skepsis und sehr wenige tatsächliche Stimmen wider; aussagekräftiger ist die Wunschlisten-Zahl. Wir verfolgen die Kampagne weiter und schauen besonders auf die Frage, ob die Missionen narrativ tragen oder am Ende doch nur Setup-Variationen bleiben.
Ein Museum voller Mammuts, Flugsaurier und Dinosaurier: Mit First Giants bringen Matthew Dunstan und Brett J. Gilbert ein kompaktes Kartenspiel auf den Tisch, das die Hotness-Liste von BoardGameGeek nach oben klettert. Verleger ist Space Cowboys, das Erscheinungsjahr 2026. Im Mittelpunkt steht ein Wettlauf um die prestigeträchtigste Ausstellung – mit dem typischen Kniff, dass jede ausgestellte Karte ihre Effekte verliert.
Worum geht's?
First Giants ist ein Set-Collection-Kartenspiel mit offenem Draft. Die Spielenden rekrutieren Karten, die Dinosaurier, Flugreptilien und prähistorische Säugetiere darstellen, und kombinieren deren Effekte zu einer Engine aus Bernstein, Siegpunkten und Ausstellungsmöglichkeiten. Der Twist: Ausgestellte Karten zählen Punkte, verlieren aber ihre Effekte. Wer wann seine besten Stücke aus dem Tableau in die Vitrine schiebt, entscheidet die Partie. Die Spielzeit liegt bei rund 30 Minuten, das Material zeichnen Maud Chalmel und Jessica Cognard.
Schnellfakten
Designer: Matthew Dunstan, Brett J. Gilbert
Illustration: Maud Chalmel, Jessica Cognard
Verlag: Space Cowboys (international), Hobby Japan (JP), Rebel (PL)
Erscheinungsjahr: 2026
Spielerzahl: 2–5 (auf BGG bestens zu dritt)
Spielzeit: ca. 30 Minuten
Altersempfehlung: ab 10 Jahren
Mechaniken: Set Collection, Open Drafting, Tableau-Aufbau
BGG-Bewertung: 6,6 bei 161 Stimmen (Stand: Mai 2026)
DACH-Relevanz
Space Cowboys ist ein Imprint der Asmodee-Gruppe; die deutschsprachige Distribution läuft erfahrungsgemäß über Asmodee Deutschland. Bei BoardGameGeek ist bereits ein deutscher Titel als Museum der Urzeitriesen hinterlegt. Eine offizielle Ankündigung für den deutschen Markt steht aktuell aus – wir behalten den Asmodee-Neuheitenkalender im Auge.
Unsere Einschätzung
Dunstan und Gilbert haben mit Elysium bereits gezeigt, wie elegant sich Set Collection mit einem „jetzt oder später"-Dilemma verschränken lässt – First Giants spielt offenbar in derselben Liga. Für 30 Minuten Spielzeit ist die Themenwahl ein willkommener Bruch mit dem ewigen Burgenbau, und die Kombination aus offenem Draft und Bernstein-Engine verspricht knackige Entscheidungen ohne Downtime.
Asmodee has agreed to buy the rights to party game Time’s Up! from R&R Games, continuing an expansion push predicated on social games being the fastest growing category of the board games market.
Time’s Up!, first published by R&R in 1999, is based on classic party game Celebrities, in which players write down names on pieces of paper, which teams then take turns guessing based on a single player’s descriptions.
The game increases in difficulty over two subsequent rounds, with players having to describe the same names using just a single word alongside actions and gestures, while in round three the describer cannot speak at all.
Time’s Up! Family, published by Asmodee studio Repos Production
Celebrities has been reworked into multiple different boxed releases from various companies over the years, with Peter Sarrett’s design Time’s Up! and Monikers from CMYK among the best known versions.
Asmodee has been a publisher of Time’s Up! since its 2020 acquisition of Repos Production, which had been putting out various versions of the game in Europe since 2004 through a licensing agreement with R&R.
Last year the board game giant shifted Time’s Up! to its Zygomatic studio alongside fellow small-box social games such as its bestselling Dobble range, Werewolves of Miller’s Hollow, the Timeline series and Jungle Speed.
Asmodee said the rights purchase cemented Time’s Up!’s presence as once of Zygomatic’s flagship titles, adding that the Zygomatic team would focus on focus on “expanding the IP and further strengthening its global reach particularly in English-speaking territories, where there is a significant growth potential for the brand”.
It added that it would undertake a “rationalisation and modernisation” of the Time’s Up! range in 2027, which will see it “streamline the product line, refresh the brand positioning, and ensure stronger competitiveness and accessibility across markets”.
Asmodee said Time’s Up! Express, which was launched in January, marked the first step in its refreshed strategy for the game – with its faster gameplay and broader accessibility reaching new audiences “while remaining faithful to the core experience that made the game successful”.
Asmodee said at the time that it expects a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for social games of between 4% and 8% between 2025 and 2030, compared to about 4% for the wider board games market, citing mass market sales research for the US and ‘main European countries’ conducted by Arthur D Little.
Company CEO Thomas Koegler said in the company’s Q2 report last November that Asmodee had seen “good momentum” in its lower price-point products in the US mass market, singling out Exploding Kittens as a particularly strong performer in what he called a “challenging market”.
The ATM deal followed five other acquisitions from the past 12 months – including the buyout of Japon Brand from CMON, anchoring the board game giant’s push into a “currently untapped market” for the company.
Speaking about the Time’s Up! deal to Board Game Beat, R&R Games president Frank DiLorenzo reportedly said multiple companies had reached out over the years to inquire about buying the title or the entire business, but added that “most offers either didn’t align with our valuation or came from partners we felt would not fully honor and support what we’ve built”.
He said of the Asmodee buyout, “We’ve had a longstanding relationship with Asmodee, particularly following their acquisition of our European partner, Repos.
“They have a deep understanding of the game and a clear vision for maintaining its longevity and appeal. Their offer was both attractive and well balanced. We believe this agreement creates meaningful benefits for both companies and for the players who love the game.”
He added that R&R would transition out of publishing the game over the next few months, winding down its remaining stock through direct sales on its website.
„220 PS!“ … Erwartungsvoller Blick in die Runde. Inständiges Hoffen, dass niemand den Lamborghini auf der Hand hat. Kennt ihr das? Vielleicht, wenn ihr die PS-Zahl gegen Stockmaß, Alter, Preis oder Zylinder-Anzahl austauscht? Wem das bekannt vorkommt, der hat mit Sicherheit schon mal TOP ASS gespielt – vielleicht im Kinderzimmer, vielleicht auf langen Autofahrten oder […]
The Banana Ball League, which started in Savannah, is a new type of baseball where the entire focus is on entertaining fans. In fact, Fans First is the title of the book written by founder Jesse Cole, and across several examples it’s clear the extent to which he applies this ideology.
Here are my top 4 takeaways from Cole’s recent chat with Simon Sinek on the A Bit of Optimism podcast:
Every game might be someone’s first game. The Bananas have an incredibly long wait list to watch them play–over 4 million people. So when someone attends a Bananas game, there’s a good chance it is their first game. Knowing this, the Bananas approach every game like their first (and perhaps only) chance for every fan to have a great time. I think that’s a neat approach to tabletop games too: What if my game is someone’s first game? Or it ends up being the only game they play for a long time?
Fans can impact the outcome of the game. One of my favorite rules twists in Banana Ball is that if a fan catches a foul ball, it’s an out. In some ways, this is akin to crowdfunding, where backers can have a direct impact on a game’s final form. In others, it’s more like a game being a living entity that fans shape over time via fan-made content (like Wingspan’s promo birds) or lore-driven decisions (like what Thundergryph is doing with Etherstone).
The fan experience is prioritized over the sanctity of the game. I love sports, but I think sometimes long-standing, classic sports forget that they are ultimately a form of entertainment, and that means evolving with the times. A brilliant example from the Bananas is this rule: After a game reaches the 2-hour mark, no new inning can begin. This effectively puts a time limit on a sport that is notorious for dragging on, instead prioritizing the fan experience.
Look at the game through the eyes of the customer. The Bananas travel around the US to a variety of baseball stadiums, and whenever they arrive at a new place, the first thing they do is walk through the stadium and look at the field from various perspectives, including the most distant seats. They do this to see the game through the eyes of every fan, as they want to make sure they aren’t just serving those in the first few rows. I love this mentality, and it’s a great reminder for me to approach our platforms in a customer’s shoes (the content we create, our website, webstores, how our games appear at local retailers, etc).
Have you been to a Savannah Bananas game? I’m hoping to go someday, and I’d love to hear about your experience.
Financially-troubled board game publisher CMON is pinning its future on a push into video game development and blockchain-based projects, beginning with a $2.1m investment in NFT game maker Blissful Link.
CMON’s board said it planned to transition its titles such as Massive Darkness and Super Fantasy Brawl Reborn into “high-quality digital assets”, adding that it believed integrating its board games with digital and Web3 technologies “would enhance the long-term commercial value of the group’s portfolio”.
The company has kicked off that shift by agreeing to acquire a 2.2% stake in Blissful Link, which operates Capverse, a play-to-earn video game built on blockchain technology in which players buy NFT ‘Sumer’ characters to battle with online.
CMON’s investment values British Virgin Islands-incorporated Blissful Link at more than $95m. Blissful Link made a loss of about $197,000 in 2024, on revenues of just over $408,000, and had net liabilities of about $889,000, according to unaudited figures provided by CMON. It did not include finances for 2025.
A statement from CMON’s board supplied to the Hong Kong stock exchange, where the board game publisher is listed, said, “Over the years, traditional board and other table top games have merged with digital ones providing digital convenience, offering online multiplayers, automated rules and apps that enhance physical play.
“The company believes that in order to continue to be relevant in the games industry and to expand the group’s revenue stream, the group would need to conduct digital transitioning and venture into video game development and Web3 projects.
“Digital transitioning would have the benefits of enhanced visual effects, have apps that handle scoring, timing etc, would enable a diversified number of players and are more accommodating to players not within the same vicinity.
“Added to this, entering into Web3 projects often emphasise social responsibility and ethical practices such as transparency and fairness on decision marking. By participating in Web3 projects, the company can demonstrate its commitment to social responsibility and sustainability.
“However, the group would continue to supplement this digital transformation as physical games would still offer a ‘screen break’ for individuals as well as foster direct face to face interaction.”
Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are digital assets which represent specific items – such as an illustration, trading card or piece of music – each with an individual signature stored via blockchain technology, which includes information such as who created it, who owns it, who sold it and for how much.
Two years ago CCG project Wonders of the First had to pull a $1.4m campaign from Kickstarter after falling foul of the crowdfunding platform’s ban on NFTs. The game went on to raise about $1.2m after relaunching without NFT content.
CMON, a long-time heavyweight in board game crowdfunding thanks to games such as Zombicide, Blood Rage and Cthulhu: Death May Die, slumped to a loss of more than $3m in 2024 due to falling sales for its crowdfunding campaigns.
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 pressed the company into a string of asset sales as it attempts to fulfill more than $14.3m of as-yet-undelivered crowdfunding campaigns.
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.
Last month an independent auditor hired by the company questioned whether it CMON had the resources to stay in business for the foreseeable future, saying the publisher’s $19.9m annual loss, its net liabilities of more than $3.5m and contract liabilities of over $7.5m “indicate a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the group’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
CMON’s directors had a different view, however, saying in the company’s 2025 financial report that it “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 about $1.25m of gross proceeds from a successful share sale in February.
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.
After playing 18CZ (again!), I was trying to pin down why I thought it was “OK” and not “Great.” Why does 1822 PNW make me want to get it back to the table, while CZ is merely a “Yeah, sure.” (I mean it’s still a positive feeling, but more “indifferent plus” than “suggest” or “enthusiastic“) and I think this comes down to one thing that I have touched upon a few times over the years, but bears repeating.
Entanglement — The (Not So) Secret Sauce
By their nature 18xx games are more entangled than most business games. In typical games, each player controls their own (single) corporation. What is good for the company is good for the player, and vice versa. In 18xx, a player can juggle multiple (competing) interests; it can be great to trash a company under your control (shifting its assets to a ‘better’ company).
This brings up the Principal-Agent Problem , but also Implicit Collusion because there might be other shareholders and they will want to know if the company is going to pay out or with-hold, and if it will be headed for a glorious future or Chapter 11.
It can be impossible to state the “right” play is for a company merely by looking at the board. You need to understand the stock split dynamics. Does the president own 60% (and 40% is in the IPO/Bank). Or is it a 40%/30%/30% (in a three player game). Treating those situations identically is a recipe for disaster.
So — The board position is entangled with the players’ stakes. That’s the “hook” of 18xx.
(Acquire also does this, and is rightly acknowledged as one of the greatest games of last century1. Its board play is much simpler, the stock entanglement does the heavy lifting. In Chicago Express the entire game play revolves around implicit collusion — getting the incentives right so that others make plays to your benefit)
Of course there are levels of entanglement, and ripples to the chaos.
How many companies (and which ones) will open?
If the same companies open in the same order every game, the game will likely start to feel the same (although various splits of minors still have interest)2. Varying how many companies (and which) provides variety because the “train rush” is triggered by that one additional company operating. In many games, there might be “semi-permanent” trains. If X companies open, they last. The X+1st company opens and they rust.
Some games (like the ’22 family) randomize the order that some companies show up in, this forces each play into a new line but also means that the number of viable companies might change, which has implications on the train rush.
More subtlety, 1846 achieves the same effect by having some dubious companies that frankly aren’t great. Is it worthwhile to open a second company? Uh, sometimes. For a long time the fact’ that the game’46 had mediocre companies puzzled me, but borderline companies are a ticking time bomb. If the incentives are right, someone will open them just to watch the world burn trains rust. The fact that their ROI isn’t great is borderline.
Thinking about this with 18CZ; I suspect that it does do better at this that I thought … but three players is not its sweet spot3. The train limit is a bit too generous at that count (at least in our meta). Again compare this against ’46, where the number of companies (and trains) varies based on player count to keep things tight.
How entangled is the board?
The game board should be small enough so that each company’s track plays have ripple effects.
The game that best exemplifies this is, naturally, Go. There are “joseki” — opening lines that theoritically should provide roughly equal chances for either side … in that particular corner. Professional players spend an inordinate amount of time on the first 20-30 moves (out of 150-250 ish) because the corners influence each other and the josekis will combine. Joseki A (in the NW corner) may be great if Joseki B is in the NE corner, but terrible if Joseki C is in the NE corner.
So you want to leave things in flux and arrange joseki(s) that work together in your favor.4
In our last few games of CZ, Eastern Side of the Board never impacted the Western Side … everyone met up at Prague, which held enough token slots that most companies could get through, and the ones that didn’t at the end had their runs on the appropriate side. Sure, there was jockeying between companies on each side, but the corners never impacted each other. (Again, might be a problem that is solved at more players).
Which is not to demand that “every company cares about every other company,” but there should be some tension and chokepoints; companies fighting to place track or station tiles. For example, ’46 has Chicago (and Toledo, and Indianapolis). PNW has Seattle and Portland literally fighting over growth.
CZ (at least with three) felt like it had walled off suburbs. My branch in the SE eventually merged with the NW companies (and the Northerner), but it was a minor event. Like finding a run worth an extra few dollars in share. A rounding error, not a bomb.
(1862 almost achieves “every company really cares about every other company”; because of merger opportunities but also because the board is so tight and different company charters will have very different track preferences).
And even companies far apart and destined to ne’er meet; they might compete over tiles. Every 18xx player knows the sinking feeling when you discover a needed tile is missing.56
What doesn’t interest me
Hunting out the extra dollar and operations minutiae all the time. (Hunting out extra money in the opening is the entire point of compound interest). Yes, sometimes that extra dollar really matters. A few bucks might make the difference between buying another certificate. In that case, the extra few dollars is a “bomb7” (a big deal).
Token wars, snatching up the right train, ownership battles, dumping companies … those are always bombs. If the few extra dollars is a bomb only 1% of the time, it can be simplified away. But I’ve learned that in order to entangle the board (and stock) you have to have the possibility of not entangling it. Sometimes even great games can have a relatively dull run.
There are other things that don’t interest me. (I’m no longer fond of the ’30 family’s script of “first company low, second company saves first.” Nothing wrong with that play … but I’ve seen it enough). But in general I’m looking for a reason to play an 18xx title and most of them give me plenty.
I owned 1835 back in …. ’92 or ’93, but never got to try it. I know it has its defenders and variants…. ︎
After writing this, I went and checked BGG and 4p is listed as best with 3p and 6p having the lowest recommended numbers. ︎
I don’t play Go well enough to know how to do this; but I played enough to know this is true. See the proverb “Memorizing Joseki loses two stones.” ︎
Yes, its a horribly gamey thing …. why should the fact that some company hundreds of miles away built a branch mean you can’t? Well, just imagine that they got a compliant politician to hose you. ︎
Also, I swear that 1846 is influenced by Coriolis rotation of the earth, because tiles that are mirror images with 4 each will have one set empty and the other set untouched. ︎
As I have done with my Top 10 Wargames of each year list I am going to do the same with the Top 10 Solitaire Wargames/Games that I played that were published in 2025. I played a total of 17 new published solo games in 2025 so take this list with a grain of salt as I didn’t play all the titles released in 2025 nor even all of the games that I purchased this past year. The games that I played include the following:
Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Solo Game of the Month
Iwo Jima 1945 from Worthington Publishing
The Pursuit of John Wilkes Booth from Blue Panther
Operation Dragoon Travel Game from Worthington Publishing
Crusaders: The Siege of Acre 1291 from Art of Wargames and Blue Panther
SPQR: The Battle of Alesia 52 BC from Art of Wargames and Blue Panther
Siege Works: A Napoleonic Siege Roll & Write from Solo Wargame
War In The Pacific: A WW2 Roll & Write from Solo Wargame
Fields of Fire Deluxe 2nd Edition from GMT Games
Europe at War 1940 Solitaire from Worthington Publishing
Shogun Solitaire from Worthington Publishing
Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs Fascist Italy 1935-1937 from White Dog Games
Empire of Grass from White Dog Games
Onoda from Salt & Pepper Games
Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth from Neva Game Press
La Der de Ders – The War to End War from Hexasim
Thermopylae: Last Stand from Solo Wargame
I have really grown to love my solo wargaming and it is partly because there are plenty of well designed and engaging games out there that continue to feed my curiosity and hunger for a tough challenge. Here I present to you my list of the Top 10 Solitaire Wargames of 2025!
10. Crusaders: The Siege of Acre 1291 from Art of Wargames and Blue Panther
A new solitaire game is always welcome on my table…and if that game is about the Crusades, even better! Earlier this year, Blue Panther released a new game designed by Joe Fernandez called Crusaders: The Siege of Acre 1291. The game is what I would call a lite dice-chucker with some very interesting aspects of a siege baked into the game. There are tracks on the board that track the condition of the outer wall, inner wall and accursed tower and the Crusader Knights, including Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights, inside the city of Acre have to defend against the Mamluk siege for 13 turns.
The game has a random event that kicks off each turn that will do damage to the city walls, kill knights and advance the Mamluk miners who are attempting to tunnel under the walls. There is just one event that if rolled can do a loss to the attackers but this occurs only on a roll of 3 on a 10-sided die.
The rules are very simple clocking in at 5 pages and are easy to understand and once read the game can be played only from the excellent player aid. I very much enjoyed the Deus Vult actions that are special actions that can be used to do things like repair a wall, reverse a Mamluk mining action or sally out of the city to offensively attack the besieging units. But, these actions can be nullified if certain conditions occur so you should use them while you have them and not wait too long or they might disappear.
I feel like this game really scratches that quick playing, easy to get into but intense and difficult game itch. The Crusaders have an uphill battle for sure as they really don’t have as many options or choices as I would like to see but what is there makes sense, is full of historical flavor and plays well. I have not been that successful with the game, meaning that I haven’t won very often, but despite that I still want to come back play after play and that should tell you something about the game and what it is. If your dice luck is really bad, this one can snowball quickly ending in a catastrophic defeat. I think that the other real attractive part of the game is that it is quick to set up, has good rules and plays quickly. This one will not blow your socks off but it is good for what it is and it comes in a small box that is very portable. In fact, I played it first while attending a work conference.
Staying in the small, travel sized wargame department is Shogun Solitaire from Worthington Publishing. I say wargame, but it is probably more of a strategy card game with a war theme being set in the period of the Sengoku Jidai. Shogun Solitaire is a card based dedicated solitaire game where the player is leading a coalition of four clans to unite feudal Japan. These clans are one of 4 different colors in the game including green (Hōjō), purple (Takeda), red (Katō) and blue (Amago). Each of the clans must secure 3 objectives within their territory to achieve unification under a single Shogun including the port, village and castle of that region. To accomplish this, you’ll need to deploy armies in the form of cards in strategic combinations to gain control of those objectives. These cards are built up in the players tableau and you must get a run of 3 same colored cards (not the same type of soldiers although you cannot play 2 of the same soldiers consecutively) played in order to win the next objective. But, there are Enemy cards colored black or gray that represent assassins, Ronin and raids. There are also neutral Envoy cards that are bronze colored that act as dead space in your tableau and represent the court responsibilities and diplomacy of the Shogun with allied clans and if you ever build up too many of them in the area you will have to take a breath and wipe the slate clean by sending them home.
The really great part of this game is that each of the different types of cards have different special abilities and you must deploy them properly in order to gain the greatest advantage before the 102 card deck runs out. There are six types of Shogun cards that represent the available forces that can be deployed to seize objectives. Samurai can protect and will cancel enemy cards before they can do damage. The Ninjas allow the player to search the top 4 cards of the deck and then reorder them in order to finish a run of the same color cards before bad things can happen. And one of the most important cards is that of the Leaders which act as a wild card that can be played like any Shogun card of its color. I found that trying to utilize these cards to their highest effect was very fun and tense and I found myself really trying to utilize each ability at the right time.
This game is fast playing, playing in 20-30 minutes, and is very fun. But it can be very luck dependent as when you draw bad cards a few hands in a row, there is not much that you can do and the game begins to pound you down and it can come to an end very quickly. But, this game is very good and well designed for what it is; a lite, card based, quick playing travel sized game that is also very beautifully produced with gorgeous period art, thick cards and a fantastic board that flips over to show a
A look at a very lucky win! Notice the back of the board turned over the reveal the beautiful art!
A few years ago, Worthington Publishing published their first game in the Island Fight Series called Tarawa 1943. That game was awesome and was truly difficult to win, as it should be. Now, they have published the 2nd volume in the series called Iwo Jima 1945 that covers the only island assault during the Pacific war that the attacking US forces would suffer worse casualties than the Japanese defenders. On February 19, 1945 the USMC would land 30,000 marines on the island against a Japanese defensive force that numbered roughly 21,000 Japanese soldiers. Facing a Japanese commander who had learned valuable lessons from the losses on other Japanese islands, the USMC would eventually land over 70,000 marines and suffer over 25,000 casualties during the 36 day campaign.
In this solitaire game, the player takes on the role of the USMC commander leading the invasion of Iwo Jima. The game system, driven by cards, will simulate the strategies of the Japanese defenders, often referred to as the Japanese AI, adding a layer of historical authenticity to your gaming experience. If you have played Tarawa 1943, you will be familiar with the system.
Iwo Jima’s play deck is larger than that of Tarawa’s, which provides a bit of breathing room in the game but doesn’t necessarily change the difficulty appreciably. There are also added mountain positions on the island where the attacking USMC will roll 1 less attack dice making it very challenging to overtake several of the key positions and that will need the player to use special cards to assist. The USMC player is allowed to play any number of the cards from their hand during their turn as opposed to just 3 from the previous entry in the series. The other rules are almost all the same, and you can begin playing with just a brief read of them.
I have played this one about 10 times and have not even come close to winning. It is tough and the way the dice system for combat works it is truly difficult for the Marines to score hits quickly enough to make significant progress, which is how it should be. But, the game is fun, tactically challenging as you have to manage your Cohesion as well as decide when to deploy and replace front line troops with fresh troops and plays pretty quickly. I have never had a bad play of this system and very much look forward to other entries in the series.
I am always on the lookout for an interesting and different type of historical game. And when that game is solitaire and allows the player to experience and gain insight into the life of a tragic figure then I am very interested. A few years ago, I came across this very interesting looking solitaire game designed by Francisco Gradaille called Onoda from Salt & Pepper Games. Onoda follows the tragic life of Hiroo Onoda who was a Japanese soldier who wouldn’t believe that Japan had lost World War II and stayed at his post on the island of Lubang in the Philippines from 1945-1974 when he finally surrendered after a visit from his commanding officer. I have played this one several times and can say the game is very interesting, educational and also gives the player an opportunity to learn and gain insight into the life of this person who is remembered as an insane criminal and a story of tragedy.
During 6 rounds of variable duration, the player has to obtain a number of resources represented by rice that will allow them to finish the round without suffering penalties, such as reduced health and morale. In each round, the player will have to undertake a series of missions, earning honor points for accomplishing them. During the game, the player will get to experience some of the events that the real-life Onoda had during his stay in Lubang as well as some of the tragedies. The missions includes things like sabotaging key infrastructure, gathering equipment and other useful items all the while trying to evade detection and capture. But the game goes deeper than that as the crux of the game is the management of morale and the level of insanity in the mind of the soldier due to paranoia, death of comrades or illness.
During these missions, the player will have to draw tokens from a draw bag that represent the level of alarm that is present on the island due to his shenanigans. Each time that a player has to perform a check to accomplish a mission or to avoid danger from the random events, the player must take a Resource/Resolution token from the bag and check its number side against the relevant level of alarm or paranoia in the are where the operation is being undertaken. These Checks are successfully passed when the token’s number is higher than the Alarm or Paranoia level so keeping these low and also moving around the island stealthily will spread out the alarm level and keep Onoda safer and more able to accomplish these missions. Failure will lead to negative effects and lost opportunities as the game has only 6 turns.
I very much enjoyed this game and also loved it because it made me think about this tragic “hero” and his motivations and life those 30 years on the island. What commitment he must have had as well as derangement and you have to respect that or at least give it some thought. Just a great little narrative generator with some very gamey mechanics that create an interesting experience.
6. Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs Fascist Italy 1935-1937 from White Dog Games
I have really enjoyed my plays of several games designed by R. Ben Madison. He has a knack for including elements of the history into the gameplay while placing the events into the framework of his chosen system, which is usually the States of Siege Series…but not always. His newest offering called Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs. Fascist Italy 1935-1937 from White Dog Games uses the States of Siege Series System and delves into pre-WWII conflict in Africa.
First off, this game is very challenging, as is to be expected as the Ethiopians are desperately outmanned and outgunned by the Fascists as they invaded to take over the oil rich area for their own purposes and I have not done well at it at all in my few plays. I normally would have played it a few more times before adding to the list but I just had such a good experience with it and the history that I felt that I needed to add it to the list. It uses the States of Siege Series but in a bit of a different layout as there are not tracks per se but there are paths that lead through various regions of the country of Ethiopia as they converge on the capital of Addis Ababa.
The game is chit pull and the chits that are pulled give instructions about the actions of the AI Italians as they move on each path. The player will also gain a number of action points that can be used to take actions such as attacking to drive back the invaders. I very much like the concept of support of the Fascist invasion as they have the ability to place their support focused bases on the map as they advance and this leads to the player no longer being able to drive them back to beyond that point so the pressure really ratchets up as the game goes along.
As is the case generally with these games, Black Skin Black Shirt is an easy-to-play, straightforward solitaire game that creates a very interesting historical narrative about how the conflict plays out. There are really lots of tough choices and the game is about the management of your resources and assets, such as your Ras warlords who can go out and make devastating ambush attacks but can also be killed in action and removed from the game, The game forces the player to take charge of the defenses, by calling up troops and marshalling resources as well as attempting to call on the League of Nations for aid and support.
Here is a link to my unboxing video:
If you are interested in Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs Fascist Italy 1935-1937, you can order a copy for $56.00 from the White Dog Games website at the following link: https://www.whitedoggames.com/ethiopia
5. The Pursuit of John Wilkes Booth from Blue Panther
A few years ago, while attending the WBC, I had the chance to meet Wes Crawford who was demoing his upcoming game Engine Thieves. He was a very nice guy and his game was pretty interesting as well. Since that time, he has another game that has been released designed in partnership with Ryan Heilman in The Pursuit of John Wilkes Booth published by Blue Panther. I had a chance to play the game solitaire (with Wes overseeing the game and giving me guidance and pointers) at WBC in 2024 and have since played the game on my own several times and had a really great time with it. Great little solo game with several other modes where the player uses resources like police and detectives to search for clues in the hunt for Lincoln’s assassin after the events at Ford’s Theater on the evening of April 14, 1865. Definitely not a subject that has been gamed before and it is really refreshing to be able to experience this history in an interesting and engaging game. There really is a lot to like with the way that clues are found and chits are blindly drawn to verify clues from a bag. There is also a great little movement mechanic with police and detectives to try to acquire more clues.
I know that this is not a traditional wargame but the topic is just so very interesting and the variety of modes you can play in is also very cool. I think that this one is a game that will stay in my collection for years to come and I think that you will enjoy the chit pull, use of your special Stanton Cards that give special events or actions and the way that the movement, searching and raiding works when you find Booth.
4. Siege Works: A Napoleonic Siege Roll & Write from Solo Wargame
Until a year or so ago, I had literally never heard of the concept of a Roll & Write game. But, I started seeing these things pop up on Kickstarter from a new company called Solo Wargame and I was immediately intrigued as the topics for the games were so interesting and varied that I thought that there just might be something worth looking into. Since that time, I have played 2 of these Roll & Write games from Solo Wargame and really found that Siege Works: A Napoleonic Siege Roll & Write was my favorite. I say my favorite because who doesn’t like a siege game and a game set during the Napoleonic Wars is always fun!
Roll & Write Games are typically small and portable games, some are even Print ‘n Play games like Siege Works, that involve the player rolling dice and then marking the results on sheets of paper or sometimes erasable boards. These markings can mean several different things including goals being met, pre-requisites being completed or enemies defeated. The genesis or archetype for these Roll & Write Games is Yahtzee, where players roll a handful of dice looking for various combinations of results to mark off on their sheet that then score points in the end. But recently that game genre has started to include a bit more player agency and choice about how they go about reaching goals including dice selection from those that are rolled, choosing results that are needed at the time but may be less than optimal in the long run and in completing certain goals that will open the door for additional future beneficial options for the player. Don’t get me wrong. A Roll & Write Game is very simple and is not a traditional style of wargame with hexes, counters and Combat Results Tables. But the game tells a story of a siege and how it works. So I was initially skeptical about this form of game and just had to give it a try to see what it was about. I have actually played 2 of them and found them to be lite, fun and interesting. And Siege Works is a solitaire Roll & Write Game so I have played it by myself on my gaming table and had a good time with them.
The biggest plus to the game is the simple rules, easy setup and fast onboarding with learning and being able to get the game played. You can play this easily with a simple read of the rules and a bit of review of the Game Sheet before playing. The sequence of play is very good and easy to follow as well and I found that the game is pretty intuitive. My only issue with the rules was that I found that they sometimes needed just a few more words or an additional sentence for clarity. But this is combated somewhat by the fact that the rules contain a lot of good play examples for the different actions in the game.
3. La Der de Ders – The War to End War from Hexasim
La Der des Ders – The War to End War from Hexasim is a 1-2 player slightly abstracted strategic level look at World War I. The game allows the players to relive the First World War at a strategic level, with each player controlling one of the 2 sides either the Entente, consisting of France, England, Russia, Serbia and other minor nations or the Central Powers including Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and a few minors. La Der des Ders can also be played solo, with a dedicated solitaire bot called “Athena” who utilizes special Cornflower Cards to make decisions about what technologies to invest in, where to undertake offensives and how to utilize limited resources and reinforcements. Each turn, players gain an amount of Resource Points dependent on what nations are in the war, which they can allocate to different areas to guide their overall strategy. Victory is achieved by launching offensives that drain the morale of enemy nations, forcing them out of the conflict through collapse.
One of the best parts of La Der de Ders, and typically the best part of any strategic level wargame, is the Technology Phase and the player’s ability to spend their limited resources on various types of technologies to improve their performance on the battlefield and in the economic war. But, keep in mind that there is a risk here as resources are limited and you have to pay to develop these technologies and there is no guarantee of success as it is up to a dice roll, albeit a modified one at that. Each of the players has their own Technology Tree board that is used to track their technological progress over the course of the game. There are a total of 6 different Technologies that can be researched including Attack, Defence, Artillery, Aviation, Naval, and Air Raid.
The process of taking Offensives is really pretty simple as players take turns to activate one of their sectors that has not yet been activated this turn. The sector chosen will then be activated and must launch an Offensive against an adjacent enemy sector. There is a cost to the launching of Offensives though as the player will have to pay the appropriate cost by first choosing the size of their Offensive, which in game turns means the number of dice they will pay to roll in the Offensive. The size of the Offensive must be at least 1 and can be up to the current Operational Value of the attacking sector. The player launching the offensive then spends as many Resource Points as the size of the Offensive. Dice rolling is fun and the real key here is how to plan for an prioritize your chosen Offensives as you cannot just do one each turn or you will risk collapse and will be unable to do other things such as invest in technology development.
Victory in the game is well done and I very much like the concept of only calculating the value for those countries who have not Collapsed and who are still in the war when the end game is triggered. We all know that it is easier to negotiate a peace that is favorable to your side when you are still a threat and if too many nations of either side have collapsed then their Prestige Points will reflect this as those countries won’t contribute to the final value. And I also like the simplicity of the scoring system. If certain key countries like France and Germany surrender, then that equates to a victory for the side causing the surrender and if the game continues to grind on through the final turn, then there is this calculation that is really pretty simple and gives importance to each goal with a different value that can be earned. Just a solid method for determining victory that makes sense and fits with the historical aspect of the outcome of the Great War.
The Athena bot is the solitaire mode of the game and it is not just tacked on but is very well done and creates an interesting and challenging game. It is a really well designed system that removes most of the work by the player when playing solitaire. There will be times when you have to make a decision, such as the priority of how Offensives occur from the non-player side, but these decisions are easy and the hard work is done by the simple flipping of a card. I do want to point out one final thing. The sequence of play differs slightly from the 2-player game as it rearranges when the Athena bot does a few of the steps during the Spend Resource Points Phase as shown below. The human player will start by doing their Reinforcements first followed by their Technology investment. Athena will then go and do their Technology investment first followed by Reinforcements. Both players will then move into the Offensive Phase and the player with initiative as shown on the turn track will take the first Offensive of the turn.
I wrote a series of Action Point posts on the game and you can read those at the following links:
Neva Game Press (formerly Neva Wargames) is a new publisher who appeared on the scene 2 years ago. 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 released their first game called Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth which is a solitaire look at the amphibious invasion of the island of Iwo Jima in 1945 during the end of WWII.
Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth is the first game in their Neva Skirmish Line and it is a hex and counter wargame with some interesting mechanics for combat and a combination of secondary mechanics to keep the game fresh and replayable. This solitaire game lets you play as the U.S. Marines during Operation Detachment. It offers a challenge for both intermediate and experienced wargamers and is really very, very good. I have only played the game 1 time all the way through but as the year is getting away from me already I had to finish up and decided that this was a very good experience deserving of the position on this list. I hope to play again very soon and put together some video content to share more about the game.
One of the things that I really liked was the focus on the hidden Japanese units that play a significant role in the game. Collecting intelligence for the U.S. as they move up the beaches and onto the mainland ensures more strategic planning and greater success of attacks. Additionally, hidden units, combined with a randomized initial Japanese unit setup, enhance the game’s fog of war and replayability. No play will be the same and I think that is a good way to design a solitaire game. U.S. intelligence has some information about potential Japanese defenses, but it is important to verify on the map that there are actual units at those locations. Additionally, more information about those units should be gathered by revealing them to see their actual composition and plan a better attack. Units can be revealed through successful bombardment, combat or reconnaissance. Making a better attack means that the player has access to different type of weapons and attacking a tank unit with a heavy weapon will give modifiers that will not be gained if the asset is not present.
If you attack a hidden unit or if a hidden unit is supporting the attacked Japanese unit, you will draw Intelligence Chits that provide information about the unit and their combat support value. While attacking hidden units can be risky in certain situations, it is essential to continue advancing to achieve timely victory. Understanding when to attack hidden units or gather intelligence through reconnaissance actions is crucial for success and one of the better parts of the game.
Combat is varied and there is a lot of choice about how to go about attacking the defenders. A unit can engage in combat through Direct Attack, Indirect Attack, or a combination of both. In a Direct Attack (with a maximum of 2 U.S. units adjacent to the target), the combat factor value of these units is utilized. For an Indirect Attack (with a maximum of 3 U.S. units if conditions are met), the units’ combat support type and value are used to participate in the combat. Units involved in a Direct Attack may also be used for Indirect Attacks as needed. The next step of combat involves comparing the combat ratio to determine the appropriate table column for checking the die result. Die Roll Modifiers must then be determined, based on factors such as the type of Japanese defense units, which could include Trenches, Pillboxes, or Caves, the comparison between the combat support from the U.S. player and the Japanese side, and terrain effects. The combat is very crunchy and fairly involved and I will definitely classify this one as a good hex and counter wargame experience.
I need to get this one back to the table soon but this is a keeper and I cannot wait to play again.
1. Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Best with 1
I love a new and interesting way to tell the story of a key battle and I found a very interesting one called Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Best with 1 earlier this year. This is a solitaire only game and for each game the player will draw four objectives from a possible 12 that you must survive and capture before time runs out. On your turn, the player will roll special dice and then spend those to take actions such as movement, attack and take special actions from different unit action cards that will be set up in a square from from 1 to 10. The numbers coincide with the dice of the attacking Japanese and as the player moves through the rondel they will be able to activate and use their different soldiers to attack the Japanese defenders or use their special abilities to gain tokens that can be used for rerolls or healing of wounds
I think that the best part of the game is the concept of resource management as you have to use the dice appropriately to move and fight and also to manage your troops as you can upgrade certain cards as you pass the midway point of the round as well as when special actions are granted via the special resource chits. Upgrading units is very important as this will unlock things like heavy weapons in the form of bazookas, a Sherman tank and planes to be able to take out the Japanese armor units defending the island. The game is about efficiency of movement and doing the most with what you have. The dice determine what you can and can’t do and movement is optional as you don’t have to move unless you feel it is advantageous. But remember, that you have to defeat the defenders and the various objectives to be able to advance to your final objective and sitting in one space too long is not advisable.
The different units have various functions including attack, such as the Rifleman, Machine Gun Team and Sniper but also have secondary functions to remove the fog of war, heal your damaged units or gain additional resources. The Japanese defenders are well hidden and also have various defenses such as pill boxes and caves that will require the player to defeat these before moving to attack the units located inside.
In the end the game is about defeating the Japanese defenders while doing so in a set amount of revolutions around the rondel setup. This can be as few as 2 times around or as many as 4 and knowing when to use your resources to reroll your dice, as you either didn’t get the run of consecutive numbers you were looking for or just need a specific number, you will run out of resources quickly and you must plan them out as best you can to win the game. This one is really fun and I have played it about a dozen times winning about 70% of the time. The game plays in about an hour and the action is fast and furious and you are immediately beset by the staunch Japanese defenders and must act quickly.
Here is a link to our unboxing video:
Here is a link to my playthrough video:
Here also is a link to my video review:
If you are interested in Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII, you can order a Print and Play copy from the Best with 1 website at the following link: https://bestwith1.com/product/okinawa-pnp/
There you have it. My list of the best solitaire wargames/games that I played in 2025! What a year. There were just so many great games but unfortunately only so much time. There were other games that I was unable to get played that I had acquired and I regret not getting to but there is only so much time.
What were your favorite solitaire wargames from 2025?
Asmodee arm Fantasy Flight Games is discontinuing the latest iteration of its veteran dungeon crawler Descent, citing rising manufacturing costs, “global economic shifts” and the expense of developing the game’s companion app.
All three games featured large amounts of plastic miniatures, cardboard terrain pieces and map tiles, while Legends of the Dark also leaned into an integrated companion app to help manage campaigns and individual scenarios.
A statement from FFG announcing the end of the game said, “Simply put, the game is too expensive to make. Between ever-increasing manufacturing costs, lengthy and pricey app development timelines, and global economic shifts making everything more expensive to produce, it became abundantly clear that continuing to make this game is just not feasible.
“This is far from the outcome we wanted – again, we all love this game and hoped to see it grow for years to come – but even if we were to sell every last copy, we would still ultimately be doing so at a loss.
“In a fiercely-competitive board game industry, that simply isn’t sustainable, and because of circumstances outside of FFG’s control, there are no adjustments we could make that could lower costs enough to continue printing the game.”
Standees from Frosthaven || Photo credit: Cephalofair Games
Other competitors in the space have included CMON’s Massive Darkness series – based on its huge-selling Zombicide system – which has raised more than $10m acrossa trio ofcrowdfunds since 2017.
Using crowdfunding for those large-scale, component-heavy games has helped publishers Cephalofair and CMON reduce the risk of developing expensive titles by being able to accurately gauge demand, as well as receiving financial backing for the projects up front.
Even with that data, however, both publishers have run into problems amid the heavy global economic uncertainty over the last couple of years – especially around volatile US tariff policy aimed at countries such as China, where the vast majority of board games are manufactured.
Asmodee has almost entirely avoided crowdfunding for its own games to date, with its only launched campaign believed to be Lookout Games’ Kickstarter for the Grand Austria Hotel: Let’s Waltz! Expansion & Deluxe Upgrade, which raised about €383,000 during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.
Its only other prior exposure to crowdfunding is thought to be via the company Exploding Kittens, in which it made a strategic investment short of a buyout in 2021. That business has since raised more than $977,000 in a Kickstarter campaign for Hand to Hand Wombat the following year.
Its statement about the end of Descent: Legends of the Dark said, “While we don’t have anything to share at this time, there is always a possibility that we will revisit Descent in the future.
“It would take a different form and would not be Legends of the Dark, but this game universe is near and dear to FFG’s heart.
“The future is always uncertain, and even though we have to close the book on Descent today, we hope that, someday, we’ll be able to dream big with it again.”
FFG’s other major titles currently include collectible card game Star Wars Unlimited, ‘living card games’ Marvel Champions and Arkham Horror: The Card Game, heavyweight space opera board game Twilight Imperium and veteran bluffing and negotiation game Cosmic Encounter.
The company said that although Act III of Descent: Legends of the Dark is no longer in development, the company would continue to support the game’s companion app for the first two acts of the game, albeit without any new content being added.
In February Artefacts Studio unveiled Terrinoth: Heroes of Descent, a video game set in the Descent universe which FFG said “captures the classic dungeon-crawl feeling of the Descent board games in a whole new medium”.
Einst herrschten sie über die Sterne, getragen von ihrer psionischen Einheit und dem unerschütterlichen Glauben an den Khala. Doch die Heimat Aiur ist gefallen, und was bleibt, ist ein Volk zwischen Tradition und Überleben. Wie schlagen sich die Protoss im StarCraft Tabletop Miniatures Game (TMG) auf dem Schlachtfeld?
Da Brass Birmingham eines meiner langjährigen Lieblingsspiele ist, war ich natürlich von Beginn an daran interessiert, aber auch durchaus skeptisch, was das Spiel betrifft. Aber auch Brass Birmingham (2018) war ja bereits eine Weiterentwicklung des Ur-Brass (2007), welches dann bei Roxley in einer optisch stark überarbeiteten Version als Brass Lancashire (2018) neu aufgelegt wurde.
Brass Pittsburgh ist damit übrigens das 4. Spiel der „Brass-Reihe“. Hier wird gerne das Spiel Age of Industry (2010) vergessen, welches die 1. Weiterentwicklung von Brass war. Age of Industry hatte die Besonderheit, dass es hierfür weitere Karten als Erweiterung gab. Das ursprüngliche Spiel spielt hier in Neu England und ist ein gestreamlintes Brass.
Die Entwicklung von Brass 2007 bis 2018
Aber nun zu Brass Pittsburgh. Ich habe mir in den letzten Wochen einige Videos von us-amerikanischen Youtube-Kanälen zu diesem Spiel angesehen, um mir eine Meinung dazu zu bilden. Vor allem das Let’s Play von Before you Play hat mit hier geholfen einen Überblick über die Änderungen zu den Vorgängern zu bekommen.
Und das sind doch einige. Es gibt in Pittsburgh keine Kanäle mehr, aber nach wie vor 2 Ären. Und auch hier werden die 1er Industrien und ein guter Teil der Transportmittel (welche hier ausschließlich Züge sind) abgeräumt. In dem Spiel gibt es jetzt leichte und schwere Züge. Beim Bau der leichten Züge benötigt man Kohle, beim Bau der schweren Züge Stahl, das zusammen mit Koks eine der neuen Ressourcen im Spiel ist. Die schweren Züge bleiben auch über das Ende von Ära 1 auf dem Spielplan, alle leichten Züge werden entfernt.
Auch hat man zu Beginn des Spieles nur 2 schwere Züge zur Verfügung, alle weiteren muss man sich erst freispielen, indem man Industrien baut oder mit Entwicklung von seinem Spielertableau entfernt.
Es gibt auch jede Menge neue Industrien, wie z. B. Kerosin, Stahlwerke, Koks, ein Generator, eine Ölstadt, Produktionsstätten für schwere Züge und Autos und außerdem noch Wolkenkratzer. Neu ist auch, dass man manche Industrien zwingend überbauen muss, um das nächste Level davon zu bauen. Auch werden wohl jetzt die Siegpunkte von Industrien gewertet, die man überbaut, was bei Birmingham und Lancashire nicht der Fall ist.
Neu sind auch die Ressourcen Stahl und Koks und die „dezentralen“ Ressourcenmärkte, die zudem unterschiedliche Preise für die Ressourcen. Da muss man auch immer aufpassen, von welchem Markt man kauft oder an welchen Markt man verkauft, wenn man mit mehreren davon verbunden ist. Zudem gibt es in Brass Pittsburgh die Möglichkeit Ressourcen von Cornelius Vanderbilt zu kaufen. Dazu muss man auch mit keinem Markt verbunden sein, man zahlt jedoch kräftige Aufschläge.
Statt Bier, wie in Birmingham, benötigt man in Pittsburgh jetzt Öl zum Verkaufen. Dazu muss man zuerst Pipelines zu Ölfeldern bauen. Wenn diese genutzt werden, erhält man zusätzlich einen Bonus (Geld, Einkommensschritte, Siegpunkte). Zu Spielbeginn hat man nur 1 dieser Pipelines, die man bauen kann, weitere muss man erst über sein Spielertableau und das Bauen von Industrien freischalten, genau wie die schweren Züge. Ein Ölfeld kann man immer über mindestens 2 Wege anbinden. Es gibt aber auch die Möglichkeit einen dieser Wege zu blockieren, damit die Mitspieler gezwungen sind über die eigene Pipeline auf das Öl zuzugreifen.
Neu sind auch die einmaligen Bauboni, die man durch das Bauen von Zugverbindungen und Pipelines erhält. Und last, but not least, gibt es in dem Spiel jetzt Whiskey. Diesen kann man Einsetzen, um eine seiner Orts- oder Industriekarten zu einer Jokerkarte zu machen. Eine weitere Option ist das Abgeben von Whisky, um die neuen Premium Aufträge (Quality Rewards) zu erfüllen. Für diese muss man Güter verkaufen, auf deren Industrieplättchen Sterne abgebildet sind. Für einen fehlenden Stern kann man 1 Flasche Whiskey abgeben. Die 3 Premium Aufträge können jeweils nur 1x in der Partie erfüllt werden und bringen Siegpunkte, Einkommenssschritte, Geld oder Whiskey.
Es gibt noch ein paar weitere Besonderheiten, wie z. B. Industrien, die man nicht verkauft sondern nur überbaut, oder die Wolkenkratzer, die sofort nach dem Errichten eine zusätzliche Verkaufsaktion bringen.
Vor Ende der Gamefound-Kampagne soll auch noch die Anleitung zur Verfügung gestellt werden (Stand 08.04.26 war diese leider noch nicht verfügbar). Auch soll noch ein Playthrough von Heavy Cardboard, mit dem aktuellsten Prototypen und dem letzten Stand der Anleitung kommen.
Heavy Cardboard hatte in den letzten Wochen bereits Playthroughs von den bisherigen Brass-Versionen, inklusive Age of Industry, gestreamt.
Es gab auch noch eine Abstimmung welches Cover die Collector’s Edition von Brass Pittsburgh erhalten soll. 3 Cover standen dabei zur Wahl. Gewonnen hat das Cover mit dem Stahlwerk (Auch mein persönlicher Favorit). Allerdings kann man in der Kampagne auch noch die beiden anderen Cover für die Collector’s Edition auswählen.
Fazit: Ich habe mich entschieden in die Kampagne einzusteigen und die Brass Pittsburgh Collector’s Edition zu unterstützen, auch weil ich natürlich nicht gefeit bin vor nettem Chichi, wie z. B. den Synth-Karten, den hölzernen Industrieplättchen, den metallenen Ölfässern oder den schicken Ressourcenwürfeln.
Das mit den Double Layer Spielertableaus ist insofern etwas doof, da man auch in Brass Pittsburgh Industrieplättchen übereinanderstapelt und diese in der Höhe dann über das Tableau hinausragen, auch wenn es nicht so viele sind wie bei Brass: Birmingham oder Lancashire. Auch den nicht spiegelnden Spielplan bräuchte ich persönlich nicht und statt der zugegebenermaßen schicken geprägten Blechdosen hätte ich viel lieber ein Insert, in welches ich die Industrieplättchen in der richtigen Reihenfolge einsortieren könnte.
Alles in allem haben mich die Playthrough Videos aber angefixt und ich würde das Spiel gerne spielen. Und wenn es dann am Ende doch nicht so oft auf den Tisch kommt, dann kann ich es bestimmt auch wieder zu einem vernünftigen Preis weiterverkaufen.
Es gibt aber auch 2 Punkte, die mich bei der neuen Brass-Version nicht überzeugen. Das sind die Bauboni, die man für manche (nicht alle) Zugstrecken oder Ölpipelines bekommt und das sind die 3 Quality Rewards, die jeweils nur 1 Spieler erlangen kann. Für mich passt das nicht so recht zum sonst sehr eleganten Brass Spielablauf. Es wirkt für mich eher so, als wollte man hier noch ein, zwei neue „Gimmicks“ einbauen. Es sind übrigens auch die einzigen Wege, außer dem Bau der Güter-Fabrikation Stufe IV, um an Whiskey zu kommen. Da hätte ich mir auch noch einen anderen Weg gewünscht.
Nur die neuen Metallmünzen kann sich Roxley wirklich behalten. Zum einen bin ich ein großer Fan von Pokerchips und zum anderen habe ich auch Bedenken hinsichtlich des Designs. Ich bin mir nämlich ziemlich sicher, dass sich in diesen „Münzen“ am Ende einiges an Dreck sammeln wird und das die dazu prädestiniert sind, den Spielplan zu verkratzen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DCeased from CMON || Kickstarter image
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.
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.
Collect! from CMON, designed by Jérémy Ducret and Johannes Goupy
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.
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?
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 andI reached out to the owner of the company and design José to see if he could share some information about the design.
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
Side colors: red and blue. 2. Reminder to remove the card when its events are used.
Fog of War Cards
Fog of War Icon.
Side color (red or blue).
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!
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.
Re;MATCH being demonstrated at PAX Unplugged in December 2025
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.
The game board for Re;MATCH character The DJ
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!
Re;MATCH designer MingYang Lu
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.
An early version of Re;MATCH being demonstrated at the ProtoATL convention in 2018
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!
Anmelden
