Considering how often the supervillains incarcerated at Arkham Asylum mount successful escapes, we’d do better to confine them inside a Chuck E. Cheese. At least that way they’d have to contend with food poisoning and sticky benches.

Still, the idea behind DC Breakout: Arkham Asylum is a strong one. Designed by Geoff, Sydney, and Brian Engelstein, this is another entry in the “wacky race” genre, marking it as the fourth such title in the past year. How does its coterie stack up against bun bangers, slippery bananas, and underdog brontos? I’ll put it this way: in any other race, it might have won a medal.

DC Breakout opens with one heck of a great idea. Rather than having everybody out for themselves, what if our supervillains decided to work together? Not all together, obviously. These are the bad guys. If cooperation was their strong suit, they’d have stomped the Bat decades ago. But two at a time? A three-legged race? Evil duos temporarily setting aside their differences to escape the slammer? Sure. They can do that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the game’s pitch was that you’re playing Magical Athlete with two characters at a time, because that’s pretty much how events proceed. During setup, everybody receives a hand of supervillains. There will be two races, with the winner of the first receiving some advantage in the second race. Now you pick your duos and head for the starting line.

As openers go, this is as good as they come. There are heaps of villains to choose from. Forty. That’s the number. Forty villains, each with their own ability. It helps, too, that Batman’s rogue’s gallery is probably the most recognizable in comics history. This gives the Engelsteins room to play, but even more importantly ensures that the abilities are able to map to what we expect of any given character.

More or less, anyway. Some are more familiar than others. The Riddler, for instance, turns his movement roll into a bluffing game. Sure. That’s Riddler shit. Talia al Ghul can flip her die to its opposite side. Sure. She’s tricky. Hugo Strange lets other players reroll their dice, but earns extra movements whenever they take him up on the offer. Sure. He’s always manipulating people to get ahead. Scarecrow rotates the tile he’s on, flipping the leader to the reverse and anyone in the rear forward. Sure. That’s his fear toxin causing hallucinations.

Others are less direct. Catwoman takes an extra turn when she ends on a triangle space. That one requires some explanation. Basically, Arkham Asylum is a series of shaped rooms. Most are squares, fewer are circles, and fewer still are triangles. So Catwoman is there to play the odds, hoping to land on the rarest of spaces in order to leap forward again. Which, yeah, that’s kinda Catwoman-ish, I suppose. Close enough.

But what does it mean when Cluemaster moves another team forward to add one to his roll? Or when the Penguin massages his die roll up or down by one pip? Or when Killer Moth… look, I’m not going to pretend to know who Killer Moth is. But what about Condiment King? Why does he get extra movement when he’s trailing? Is this a condiment thing? Is pickle relish associated with losing? Don’t answer that.

Of course, what these abilities mean is that there’s only so much creativity that can be crammed into the system presented here. Fair enough. Not every supervillain can be transformative. For every Joker, there’s gonna be an Egghead. Except the joke’s on us, because the Joker is sort of a bummer in this one. He forces other teams to reroll. I guess the Joker is about chaos. Still, that’s not exactly what I was hoping for from the Clown Prince of Crime.

To be fair, there’s a huge range of abilities on display. Some villains use henchmen. Calendar Man, for example. He starts with one henchman, and can set his die to however many henchman he has at the current moment. If he does, he adds another henchman. Aha! He’s progressing through the days of the month! Good thing we locked him up. Poison Ivy, meanwhile, spends her tokens to force rival duos to move toward her instead of toward the finish line. Cleavage! The strongest of the fundamental forces.

Simultaneously, there are gadgets to consider. Gadgets are single-use powers that can be earned whenever you stop on an armory space or by earning a solid placement in the first race. There are quite a few of these. Fewer than the number of villains, but still, for a deck without any duplicates, there’s a solid range to potentially draw.

Which brings us back around to that core idea. Two villains. A handful of gadgets. A simple roll-and-move race to the exit. What could possibly go wrong?

It’s tempting to say “plenty,” but the more honest answer is that DC Breakout: Arkham Asylum is surprisingly solid. It’s just that it isn’t as solid as its competitors in this unexpectedly crowded field.

At heart, DC Breakout is about breaking the game. With the right combination of villains and tools, it’s possible to… well. I’ve watched as one duo created a near-unbroken loop of extra turns. Another duo was able to reuse items and draw a bunch from the gadget deck, permitting a series of teleports and adjusted rolls that was so unfair that its rivals were still way back at the starting line when it was peeling out toward Gotham City. These races were “unfair.” Hilariously so. Infuriatingly so. But they were also the result of previous prep work. Sacrifices in the first race to acquire extra gadgets. Or the opposite, a hard-fought initial race in order to acquire better tools and a boosted villain draft.

Or, right, dumb luck. DC Breakout is full of that. Again, fair enough. That’s the genre.

But what’s interesting to me is the way this game’s chance feels more chancy than the chance in something like Magical Athlete. Not only more chancy, but more irritating. Perhaps it’s the veneer of skill overlaid atop the dice rolls. Or maybe it’s the way gadgets intrude into the regular process of play. A bad roll is a bad roll. But when you get a good roll and another player deploys an item that overturns it? Or worse yet, flips the entire map around so that they’re in the lead? I’m not going to get mad about it. But a scrunchy face? Sure, I’ll make a scrunchy face. Wacky races, as a genre, are full of bullshit moves. But there’s bullshit and then there’s bullshit. DC Breakout is full of the latter.

Which is fine, as these things go. Part of the game’s fun lies in not only getting lucky, not only in building the right supervillain pairs, not only, even, in managing the micro-decisions that occur during the race. But also in bullshit-proofing your team from rival shenanigans. Some of those unsexy abilities start to look mighty tempting when you realize they boast a stronger immune system to outright cancellation. Most of my best combos, for instance, have arisen from characters I was only dimly aware existed. Cameos from video games, footnotes or curiosities, late-night fan-wiki deep-dives, those were often the characters I needed to leap forward to victory.

The result is a game that’s sometimes very good and sometimes so lopsided that it stops being interesting at all. When multiple players are breaking the game in sync, busted powers firing all over the place, it’s a hoot. But when one duo skip-teleports to the finish line while everybody else huddles around the office water cooler, the problem isn’t that the game is unfair. It’s that it’s boring. It’s like watching a race between a prize stallion and a certain unnamed sciatic board game reviewer. Also, the prize stallion just played a gadget that made the sciatic board game reviewer run backwards for ten seconds. Whee.

Which is to say, there are moments of real brilliance here. The range of abilities in the game’s generous cast. The delight of watching a guy with a ketchup nozzle defeat a mobster who was so uninventive that he named himself after his matte facewear. Even just the idea of pairing racers to become even more idiosyncratic and game-breaking. There’s a ton of good stuff in DC Breakout.

But it’s a game whose peaks don’t always justify its troughs. Not only in relation to Magical Athlete, Hot Streak, and Dino Racer — in relation to itself.

 

A complimentary copy of DC Breakout: Arkham Asylum was provided by the publisher.

(If what I’m doing at Space-Biff! is valuable to you in some way, please consider dropping by my Patreon campaign or Ko-fi. Right now, supporters can read my first-quarter update of 2026: the best board games, movies, books, and more!)

I recently had an excellent, candid, meandering chat with Peter Vaughan (Cardboard Alchemy), facilitated by Will from the Hungry Gamer YouTube channel. Peter highlighted some really important reasons that publishers–even experienced publishers–consider crowdfunding, including a revelation about changes in distribution and localization.

I believe that crowdfunding remains an incredible tool for all types of publishers, especially newer creators, established publishers who are undergoing an important change, and publishers who want to offer super deluxe version priced beyond the limits of retailers. Here’s a quick checklist of considerations for new creators considering crowdfunding.

There isn’t just one way to serve customers, and I love seeing publishers trying and refining different methods to accomplish that goal, even if their methods are different than ours (we wait until our products are ready to ship before launching them on our webstore, like with the upcoming Finspan: Sharks & Reefs and Euphoria Essential, both on May 13).

Feel free to check out our 35-minute chat if this is a topic that interests you or that you’ve been debating. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Maybe it's my old age catching up with me, but I don't have time for 3-hour marathons unless it's something truly special, like Hegemony. A Familiar Find caught my eye with wonderful artwork and stellar graphic design, with the box promising a fun family experience in under an hour. So when Darrington Press offered a review copy, I said yes.

You play as a fantasy familiar gathering ingredients for an adventurer. The game is apparently set in a fictional campaign world from Critical Role, although my connection to that entire media empire is a glowing 404 error. The core mechanic has you claiming one of three available card piles per turn, with players seeding those piles from their hand to set themselves up for a future turn or nudge an opponent toward something they don't want. Not every card is a gift or even face up, making the game feel like a "pick your poison" for a good portion of the time.

Familiar Territory

Winning is as straightforward as the premise. You're collecting ingredients into sets, either 2 sets of 4 or 4 sets of 2, for example. There's also an instant win condition where collecting 3 Astral Essence cards ends the game in your favor. The flip side…

The post A Familiar Find Game Review appeared first on Meeple Mountain.

While I’ve had my share of visits to art galleries and spent a reasonable amount of time reading the tiny placards or wall explainers of exhibits, I can’t say that I’ve ever looked into some of the well-known rivalries. I may be a heathen in admitting this but when I looked at the premise for […]

Source

Explore islands, valleys, moving dungeons, IKEA, New Zealand, and more

Continue reading on Board Game Beat LLC | W. Eric Martin

Under normal circumstances, it might seem a bitter irony that Paolo Mori and Alessandro Zucchini’s partnership will be lauded for Toy Battle over the supernal Battlefields of the Napoleonic Wars. But these are no normal circumstances. Not when Toy Battle is currently up for a Golden Geek alongside its crunchier sibling, which I’m sure has infuriated a certain class of grognard, but strikes me as maybe the perfect encapsulation of that silly award. (If you needed further proof that the Golden Geeks aren’t especially rigorous, my podcast is also up for one. “LOL,” as the kids say.)

It helps, too, that Toy Battle is a tremendous little plaything. I’d even say it’s good in much the same way that Old Boney’s Battlefields is good, threading an uncommon needle between strategy and chance, heft and approachability. Or maybe I’m just saying that because it’s colorful, feels great on the fingertips, and my twelve-year-old can give as good as she gets.

For those who aren’t in the know, Toy Battle is effectively Toy Story 6, a joke that will grow even further out of touch when in a half decade they wheel Tom Hanks and Tim Allen out of the crypt for yet another unexpectedly delightful coming-to-terms with mortality. Basically, the toys have mobilized for war. Why? They are toys. War is their raison d’être.

From its very first moments, Mori and Zucchini pack the box — which is surprisingly small — with so many goodies that to call it a toy chest would be appropriate, if far too cute for any self-respecting critic. In addition to two full armies, staffed by mismatched rubber duckies, painted unicorns, green army women, and many others besides, there are eight full maps to wage conflict over. It’s nothing if not generous.

The basic concept is so simple that it would only clutter the game to describe. My six-year-old figured it out from two minutes of standing on the sidelines. But in short, toys can be placed on any space that traces ownership back to your base, but only if their target space is empty or, if occupied, their strength exceeds that of any unit already there. There are two main ways to win, whether by chaining your toys to your opponent’s base or encircling spaces to earn a certain number of star badges. Both approaches are viable, and indeed may prove distractions from their opposite number, prompting little tussles where a rival is so busy with logistics that you merrily gobble enough stars to sweep the rug out from under their feet.

In every case, this feels wonderful. Everything about Toy Battle feels wonderful. Every map has its own special rule, like a cursed cemetery that keeps popping units out of your graveyard or a volcanic jungle where untimely eruptions frighten troops into hasty retreats. The same goes for the units. There are eight types in rotation — with plenty of duplicates, naturally — and there isn’t a single extraneous member in the entire roster. There’s a monkey that paratroops behind enemy lines, a fire-breathing tyrannosaur whose entire thing is that he’s a fire-breathing tyrannosaur, a punch-robot for slaying enemies and a wind-up robot for slaying enemies but in the opponent’s hand rather than the battlefield. Some, like the skeleton, seem brittle until they circle around to being exactly the tool you need for the pickle you’re in at this very moment.

It’s tempting to leave the game there. Toy Battle doesn’t require belaboring. It has that childlike spark to it, the quality that makes me recoil ever so slightly when I see people discussing the breadth of its strategies or the unexpected combinations it permits.

But those are a not-insignificant portion of its elegance. Because while Toy Battle straddles the line between adolescence and adulthood, it doesn’t feel like it was designed for the under-fourteen demographic. Not only for them, at least. There are real considerations here. Logistics, for instance. Having to trace a line back to your base in order to keep the troops rolling out is every bit as relevant here as in a denser wargame, and as prone to disruption, too. I mentioned the airborne monkey, right? These stuffed apes aren’t the toughest grunts in your roster, but as delaying and disrupting tactics, they can’t be beat. There’s also a plastic army woman named Cap’n, whose combat number is the second-lowest in your company, but who permits another unit to be added to the map afterward. She’s effectively her own Red Ball Express, especially if you can deploy multiple copies to swiftly encircle multiple objectives.

In its own way, the game even includes resources and the need to rest your army before another push, though in this case both concepts are represented as the troops in your tray. Most turns consist of placing a unit, but you’ll see plenty of pauses to draw a pair of new tiles. If this were a WWII game with periodic breaks to refuel armor columns, we would laud it for its careful modeling of the operational situation. Instead, you just recruited a rubber ducky that can defeat anything on the table and a unicorn with light reinforcement potential. Special forces and combat engineers, anyone?

Of course, I’m half-joking about the game’s potential as a Serious Battlefield Simulator. The half that’s not joking is the part that believes this to be a surprisingly deep experience despite all appearances, which I hope you don’t think I’m knocking, and its sub-ten-minute duration. For example, I just played a four-minute session on Board Game Arena to make sure I wasn’t misusing a particular piece. I won the session by bum-rushing the enemy base and then hoovering up badges while my opponent scrambled to regain territory. Like everything else in Toy Battle, it felt great. Even the randomness of the draw, while not inconsiderable, is one of the game’s highlights. In this case, I sincerely hope the randomness eased the thrashing I delivered to my foe. It wasn’t your fault, Tristi7. It was the pieces you drew. Promise.

Honestly? I hope Toy Battle sweeps the wargame category in the Golden Geeks. Not out of spite, mind you. Popularity contests serve a special purpose in any hobby, and I don’t begrudge the Golden Geeks for that.

Rather, it’s because Toy Battle is every bit as smart and as forward-thinking as Battlefields of the Napoleonic Wars. It’s a game that feels obvious in retrospect, a perfect little gem that must have always been there, only it took many decades and two veteran designers at the top of their game to fashion one of the best expressions of both childlike delight and groggy combat simulation. This one is perfect. I think I’ll tackle another five-minute session right now.

 

(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!)

by Steph Hodge

▪️ Hachette Boardgames USA has been on it with announcing new games! Today, I will highlight some of the smaller games coming out in the next several months.

[imageid=8969959 medium Rep]▪️ Canal Houses just released this April and should already be hitting the stores. From the Gigamic catalog, Canal Houses is a 20-minute game where you build up the beautiful streets of Amsterdam. The colorful houses and charming artwork are used for scoring at the end of the game. From the newsletter:



▪️ Another new release from Gigamic is Pirate King! this June! Pirate King is a push-your-luck card game for 2-5 players and will play in about 15 minutes. Pick your captain and build your deck, but don't be too greedy, or you just might bust out.




▪️ Leaf It! is a new dexterity game from Edition Spielwiese releasing this June. Leaf It plays 2-4 players and takes about 10-20 minutes. There is a mix of memory and dexterity as you have to assemble the canopy and then dismantle it, collecting the most valuable animals as you do.

From the newsletter:

▪️ HUCH! is a new partner with Hachette, and they just announced 3 mini games releasing this May! All of the games support 2-5 players and can be played in about 15 minutes.









If you are on the go or are looking for some quicker games for the collection, these seem like they would fit the bill.

The Tactical level wargame is a staple in my collection and in our hobby. I have played a lot of the various offerings out there over the past 10 years including Advanced Squad Leader from The Avalon Hill Game Company, Lock ‘n Load Tactical from Lock ‘n Load Publishing, Combat Commander from GMT Games, Fields of Fire from GMT Games, Conflict of Heroes from Academy Games, Old School Tactical from Flying Pig Games, Assault from Assault Games, Fighting Formations from GMT Games, Combat Infantry from Columbia Games, Valiant Defense Series from Dan Verssen Games, 2GM Tactics from Draco Ideas and Squad Battles from Flying Pig Games to name just a few. Tactical level wargames are just so gritty, action packed, bloody and in your face and I love that about them. But, there are some things that I don’t love, as with all games. In this edition of The Love/Hate Relationship, I want to share what I love and hate about Tactical level wargames. 

Love

I love tactical squad level combat. I will say that I am partial to World War II tactical games but am always open and willing to play other time periods. There is just something about the strategy, the tension and fear inherent in the game that really draws me in. What is going to happen when I run my squad out from their comfortable and relatively safe building to cross an open field, offering little to no cover, in order to get into position to eliminate the enemy? I don’t know but whatever it is it will be fun!

I love that tactical level games focus on individual units, which can range from vehicles and squads all the way up to platoons or companies. These units are assigned rating factors based on what types of individual weaponry the units carry, reflected in firepower, range and usually movement. Tactical games are usually designed so that a rudimentary knowledge of military tactics will facilitate good gameplay. But this personal vantage point, as you control an individual soldier or small squad of soldiers, really feels personal to me. As opposed to larger Operational or Strategic level games where I am making decisions about 1,000’s of men and machines and it feels more generic and removed from the action, in the Tactical level game I get to put myself in the shoes of a soldier named “Joe”.

One of my first experiences with Tactical level games was Combat Commander. I remember sitting down and doing the Example of Play scenario laid out in the playbook where I was paying as the Russians going up against the Germans. The Russians had the initiative and immediately began taking shots at the Germans using an infantry gun controlled by a Weapons team. The first shot was a miss and I was disappointed. I wanted to see their aim be true and do some damage to the Germans but it wasn’t meant to be. I will say that it was amazing to see the range of the gun, which showed me the power of this type of ordinance. The Russians then finished their first turn by moving forces north from the orchard through the forest on a path to be within striking distance of the Germans holed up in the buildings. I saw the power in leaders as well as by activating a single leader, you can control the actions of the units within their command radius.

I remember feeling the angst and weight of the role of Sergeant Kaminsky who was desperately trying to inspire his men to move up on the buildings to engage the enemy and knock them out of that fortification. I also experienced the disappointment of the German leader Sergeant Ganz as his troops were forced to retreat to the north to try to repel the Russians who were threatening the German troops in the buildings. I felt the disgust in my unit’s performance when the very powerful infantry gun continued to miss its targets! I was relieved when the random event put a blaze marker in between my troops and the German forces in the woods obscuring their line of sight and not allowing them to effectively fire. I love this aspect of Tactical level games because it is personal.

Another favorite part for me is the narrative that is told as the battles unfold! As I have played Tactical level games such as Combat Commander, I imagine that I can feel what the squads felt in combat. The narrative is always the best part and allows my mind to participate in the battle, even though I am not there. It is a similar feeling to a well written book that forces you to take the role of characters and experience their feelings as you read the story as it unfolds on the written pages. If a game can do all that, it is definitely good!

I do love the strategy and tactics at play when playing a Tactical level wargame! Scoot and shoot, fire from cover, suppressing fire, using smoke to obscure movement, group fire, flanking, use of off-board artillery and fire support and all of the various elements of this level of fighting. I am in control of the game and have the tools and abilities of my troops at my disposal to try and best solve the tactical puzzle laid out before me and to plan how best to go about reaching my goal. Sometimes in these tactical games there are unit abilities that can be called upon. An example of this is found in the Squad Battles Series from Flying Pig Games. Special abilities or “Powers” that different types of units and Leaders have can be activated by playing the right type of card (see below pictured card with the word POWER shown) and really pay off when you can get them played. This element really adds some variety to the game play and always has me really thinking about how I need to effectively build my squads.

Finally, I really like the granularity and realism of some of the Tactical systems out there. One of the best games in regards to this aspect is Advanced Squad Leader. Admittedly, I have only played the Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit #4, but got a real taste for the gritty minutiae that the system demonstrates. I have asked many people what the appeal is for them with Advanced Squad Leader. They typically all refer to many aspects of the game, including things like its depth, rules complexity (not I am just joking with this one!), granularity and realism as well as the thought that anything worth playing should be hard to learn. But, I would agree that the granularity of the game and its focus on realism are two of its greatest advantages.

But I think that the systems used in ASL and the rules that prop them up are really quite realistic and provide you the player with a good understanding of the factors involved in these small tactical engagements and their pitfalls. I do really think that the system mimics the process and actions of soldiers in many ways. Does it do this perfectly? Probably not but I am unsure that I can’t definitively say at this time in my journey but I want to learn more and understand the answers to those questions. And hopefully I can play it again to get a better feel and understanding. I also think that people really enjoy the bits and pieces of chrome that are injected into the system. I bring this up as I experienced the chrome of banzai charges as we played ASLSK#4 The Pacific Theater of Operations.

Hate

Hate is such a strong word for me but there are things that are very displeasing about the medium of Tactical level wargames. First off, sometimes a Tactical level game can feel pretty generic, meaning that we have just thrown a scenario together that isn’t necessarily realistic or tied to a specific historical event. As a player of historical games, and an admitted lover of history, I really like playing games that are rooted in the events of the time portrayed. If I am just covering a generic run across an open field or an assault on a fortified line of trenches, I am not necessarily as interested or vested in this situation. But if you throw a name to it, such as the Marine defense at Alligator Creek, the British defense at Rorke’s Drift or the chaotic Battle of Castle Itter, then I sit up, take it a bit more seriously and can dive into the details of the fight. I just wish that more of the systems out there did a better job of integrating the actual small scale battles into their scenarios.

Sometimes Tactical level games are not necessarily realistic as they are games and they always have some gamey elements such as the activation system, dice or the use of cards to determine results. Now before you blow me out of the water, my use of realism here isn’t to say that these Tactical games are simulations. Sometimes systems, such as ASL, gives the players a sort of God’s eye view of the whole battlefield and the omnipotent understanding of the situation and of what can and will happen. This allows for the players to somewhat plan around any difficulties or traps and make the best of a situation. And I think that any battlefield commander will tell you that this is not the case as you never know exactly who you are fighting, their makeup, their numbers and capabilities nor their support. But, keep in mind that one of the keys to any battles is the use of reconnaissance and scouting of the terrain and battlefield before committing so maybe there is more to this than I think.

Well, in summary, I love Tactical level wargames. They are the best and I love them for many reasons including those I have listed above but also because they are fun and exciting to play. Part of the reason that I play games is to be stimulated and to have to exercise my brain to come up with a workable plan and then to execute that plan in the face of adversity and poor dice rolling. Tactical level games give me this and I will always want to play them.

What do you love and hate about Tactical level wargames? What are your thoughts on my observations? Please share.

-Grant

Saashi challenges you to deliver luggage with care

Continue reading on Board Game Beat LLC | W. Eric Martin

 I will be at the Asian Board Games Festival (ABGF) in the Philippines this coming weekend 2 - 3 May 2026. If you are in Manila, come and say hi! 

Innovation debuted in 2010, accomplishing the impressive feat of packing an entire interactive civilization game into a mere 105 cards. Its popularity has led to subsequent printings of three other editions, each with slight tweaks to card balance and artwork. Additionally, there have been four expansions that add to and alter the existing gameplay in […]

Source

Disney Lorcana Master Token Set and Token Set for Pokémon TCG - Andrew Holmes

I’m not much of a player of collectable card games, living or otherwise. I like the boards of board games too much, I guess. Recently, however, this has been changing thanks to the interests of two of my frequent gaming partners: my wife enjoys basking in the nostalgic art of Disney Lorcana, whilst my 8 year old son keeps evolving his creatures to defeat me in Pokémon TCG. Both are fun, I can see the appeal even if I can’t always see the card text.

For our first forays into the two games, we got the starter sets: Disney Lorcana: Gateway and Pokémon TCG: Battle Academy. They’re both well put together, easing us as a family into the bottomless waters of duelling card games. I doubt we’ll swim all that much deeper but these are enjoyable boxes with everything you might need to get started, including tokens for tracking health.

The tokens are a mixed bag though, especially for a board gamer who enjoys the luxury of a wooden resource or a stack of Iron Clays. Tabletop games tickle the senses, and tactility is important. In fairness the Lorcana tokens from the Gateway box are perfectly fine, but the Battle Academy ones are little more…

The post Buy The Same Token Gaming Upgrades Review appeared first on Meeple Mountain.

    DC Breakout Arkham Asylum  Designers: Brian, Sydney and Geoff Engelstein  Publisher: Wizkids Players: 2-6 Age: 8+ Time: 30-45 minutes Amazon affiliate link:  Played with review copy provided by publisher Make a mad dash out of Arkham Asylum – … Continue reading →

BGI 417 The one with a lot of updates

Board Games Insider – Join our Guild on Board Game Geek Guild | Like us on FB

Social media:

Ignacy Trzewiczek / Portal Games: website | FB | Twitter | Youtube

Corey Thompson / Above Board TV:  website | Youtube

Stephen Buonocore / “The Podfather Of Gaming”: website | FB | Twitter | Youtube

Intro Music: Happy Rock – Bensound.com

💾

So, in late Jan/Early Feb I heard Dark Pact was coming out soon and asked my FLGS to get a copy. One month later they were sure it was coming into their distributorship “soon” and a month after that it was sold out at the distributorship and they never got a copy. It is things like this that make me wonder if they are money-laundering front for … someone¹. (Despite that they have a pretty good selection of games). So I got it from Amazon.

I don’t like Ascension, the game Dark Pact is closest to (IMO). Looking at my archives², I never really get into it, but there are a few things that jump out at me.

• The random nature of what’s available at any given moment means that often the game is decided by “Oh, he bought a great card, a terrible card showed up. I bought the best thing available … and the next person got a great card.” At least, it feels like that. (Or you can get combat points when you want money points and vice-versa).
• It’s a snowball, but it takes a long time to roll downhill.

OK, two things.

Since Dark Pact is by Tom Lehmann, I naturally assumed he’d address both of those problems and they are … mitigated. (It is probably impossible to eliminate them).

First — each player has a grimoire of a few staple cards that they can buy if they don’t like what’s on the offer.

Second — what counts as a victory point depends on which Dark Pact(s) you purchase. For Player A it may be curse cards, for Player B it may be treasures, Player C might want Insight Points, etc. “One mans trash is another’s treasure” means that you might be fighting over cards, but you might not.

On the other hand, you need a Dark Pact to win³ and it’s possible that the only ones you see are terrible. But in my five games so far that hasn’t been an issue. (I did play with the “everyone starts with a reasonable Dark Pact” variant once).

Dark Pact still has flaws. I’ve seen people complain that they played their turn and then flipped up Gold/Multiplier cards (which are usually good) for the next player (the first flaw above), and that when it’s not your turn sometimes another player is taking a 2-3 minute turn of play a card, draw some cards, play a card, etc and running through their deck and that you have nothing to do.

That’s true, but it’s also common for the genre. Dominion can (depending on the setup) have that in spades. But for Dark Pact, it is usually a sign that the game is about to end … that player’s engine is up and running …. whereas in Ascension/Dominion you have to wait for the supply (of cards or points) to empty. But Dark Pact has sudden death⁴ … when a player draws their entire deck, the game is usually over on their turn (or perhaps a turn or two later if they’ve figured out which card their engine is missing).

It’s not totally flawless … setup and teardown take longer than Ascension (or a game of Dominion with just a set or two) unless you always play with the same # of players, but any other flaws are pretty much built into the game’s DNA (unless you object to the art or the theme, I suppose).

Dark Pact is admittedly tedious if you are playing with someone struggling to build an engine, who takes too long on their turns. But that’s always true. I don’t think that Dark Pact is going to be one of Tom’s games that easily flies to 50+ plays,⁵ but a few dozen plays seem likely.

Rating — Suggest

1. Occam’s Razor suggests I’m overthinking things. ︎
2. Most of the searches for “Ascension” turn up Slay the Spire stuff, since I am referring to Ascension levels there…. ︎
3. Probably ︎
4. Or Sudden Enlightenment ︎
5. I expected Dice Realms to make fifty, and it didn’t, but he’s got more than any other designer (for me). ︎

by Nicolas Cardona

Hi, I’m Nico Cardona, a board game designer and publisher based in Barcelona, where I also run my small label, Too Bad Games. Today I want to share the design journey behind President, which is probably my first larger design outside the filler space, after titles like Rudolph, Mala Suerte and Panots. More than just telling the story of where the idea came from, I want to focus on the design problems behind it, the systems that failed, and the decisions that finally made the game click.

The Initial Spark

The first seed of President came from a somewhat unusual place: my master’s degree in organizational engineering.

One of the topics that stayed with me the most was game theory. I think it is fascinating for any designer, because at its core it is about incentives, prediction, trust, and decision-making under uncertainty. I was also very interested in graph structures, and at some point those two ideas clicked together in my head.

I started imagining a hierarchy represented almost like a graph or an organizational chart, where your position in that structure would determine how much power you had, and therefore how strong or relevant your actions would be. That was the first real idea behind President. I knew very early that I wanted a game with three levels of hierarchy. Everything else was still unclear.

What I did know from the beginning was the type of experience I wanted. I wanted a game for many players, one where trust mattered, where people had to negotiate, whisper in each other’s ears, make promises, read intentions, and sometimes betray each other. The political theme came later as the perfect frame for those dynamics, but the real starting point was not theme, it was structure and interaction.

The Core Design Problem

The real design challenge was this: how do you make a game for large groups that feels socially alive and interactive, but still has enough weight to feel like a proper game?

I love social games, but many games for large groups tend to fall into one of two extremes. Either they become hidden role games, where the entire experience depends on secret identities, or they become very broad party games, where the interaction is loud and fun but mechanically light. I wanted something in between.

I wanted a game that could handle a big player count, but where the interaction came from timing, hierarchy, negotiation, reading people, and managing risk, not just from shouting or acting.

That ambition created a lot of problems immediately. Early versions were much bigger, with more systems, more layers, more moving parts. In theory, some of those ideas were interesting. In practice, players got lost. The more I added, the more the game drifted away from the fast, readable, socially sharp experience I was actually trying to build.

At some point I had to be honest with myself. If I wanted President to work for a broader audience, and if I wanted the emotions to be immediate, fast, and easy to read at the table, I had to cut aggressively.

That became the real design process of the game: not adding the right things, but removing the wrong ones.

The Versions That Had to Die

One of the earliest versions looked nothing like the final game. At that stage, I was still exploring hierarchy in a much more literal and structural way.
President went through a huge number of prototypes. Some ideas lasted much longer than they should have, simply because I liked them too much.

One of the earliest concepts was that there would be two sides, blue and red, and at some point players could switch allegiances. The idea was that you would push for your side in order to earn bonuses, but maybe change camps when it became convenient. On paper, it sounded politically rich and full of tension. In practice, it was too much. It added another strategic layer, but not the kind of layer the game actually needed. It made the system heavier without making the experience sharper.

There was also an early version where players did not all have the same card set. Instead, cards were drawn, and your position in the hierarchy influenced whether you got stronger or weaker options. Again, this sounded exciting in theory. Higher status could give access to better tools, and the game could reflect power in a more literal way. But it quickly created too much volatility, too much information to track, and too much friction for a game that needed to stay readable, especially at high player counts.

Another difficult thing to abandon was the idea that being President should simply give better rewards than being Vice President or Secretary. At first, that was the direct logic: the higher your office, the bigger your reward. But this created all kinds of problems. It made the hierarchy too obviously dominant, flattened some of the interesting decision-making, and pushed the game toward a more static reward structure.

What finally worked was not giving the top position a directly better reward, but creating situations where being higher in the hierarchy became advantageous depending on what everyone else had played. That shift was crucial. The hierarchy stopped being a blunt reward ladder and became something much more interesting: a system of timing, initiative, leverage, and opportunity.

I also explored versions with more modules, more accumulation systems, and more phases. Some of them were individually fun. But the more I tested, the more I understood that President did not need more content. It needed more precision.

The Breakthrough

At this stage, the game was already much closer to its final identity, but I was still testing which actions deserved to stay and which ones had to disappear.
The real turning point came when I found a cleaner hand system.

Once I moved toward the idea that everyone should share the same set of cards, the whole game began to make sense. From there, I iterated many times, around twenty or thirty meaningful iterations, just to find the final seven cards. I was looking for a very specific combination: cards that worked mechanically, fit the theme, were easy enough to understand, and most importantly created strong interaction, replayability, tension, and memorable moments.

The other big breakthrough was the retrieval structure. Players use cards and lose access to them temporarily, then recover them through specific effects. That gave the system rhythm. It made timing matter. It made players pay attention not only to what others were doing now, but also to what options they might regain later.

At that point, I also realized something essential: if I wanted the game to scale to very high player counts, it could not be turn-by-turn in the traditional sense. The game needed simultaneous action selection. That was one of the decisions that truly made large groups possible.

But I did not want pure simultaneous chaos either. So the solution was subtle: players choose actions simultaneously, but they do not all resolve simultaneously. Resolution unfolds in order, shaped by the hierarchy. That gave the game speed without losing tension. It also made the hierarchy feel meaningful, because it effectively became a shifting initiative system.

That was when the game stopped feeling like a collection of ideas and started feeling like an actual design.

Defamation and the Social Engine

If there is one mechanism that made the whole design click, it was Defame.

Defame allows you to predict another player’s action, either in the current turn or even the next one. If you are right, you steal a victory point from them.

That may sound simple, but in play it changed everything.

The moment this mechanic entered the game, negotiation, promises, and public table talk became much more dangerous and much more interesting. Suddenly you could not afford to become too predictable. If you openly signaled your intentions, someone could exploit that. If you lied too often, people would learn to read you differently. Every deal, every bluff, every political speech at the table became part of the real game state.

In other words, Defame did not just create a fun effect. It connected the social layer to the scoring layer.

That mattered a lot. Many social games have plenty of table talk, but the conversation exists somewhat outside the formal system. Here I wanted the opposite. I wanted the game to reward reading people, misdirecting them, and choosing when to be transparent and when to manipulate. Defame was the mechanism that turned all of that into something tangible.

It is probably the hardest card to explain in the game. I know that. But I made a conscious design decision to keep it anyway. Sometimes you remove complexity because it is unnecessary. Sometimes you keep a little complexity because the payoff is worth it. For me, Defame was absolutely worth it.

Simplifying Without Hollowing It Out

One of the hardest lessons of President was learning that “simpler” does not automatically mean “better”, but it often means “clearer”, and clarity is essential when you want a socially dense game to work with many people.

There were moments when I tried to make the game deeper in a more conventional, gamer-friendly sense. More sub-actions, more differentiation, more layered effects. At one point, even with a smaller set of cards, each card could contain multiple sub-actions depending on hierarchy and context. The result was exactly what you would expect: too much information to retain for a game that was meant to sit somewhere between family game and social strategy game.

The issue was not that players could not understand it eventually. The issue was that every extra rule took energy away from the real experience: reading the table, making alliances, lying convincingly, spotting opportunities, and reacting quickly.

That became my filter for every design decision: does this rule improve the social engine of the game, or does it merely make the system denser?

If it only made the system denser, it had to go.

Scaling to Ten Players

From the beginning, I wanted a game that could work in big groups. Part of that came from watching large groups play games like Secret Hitler and thinking: I want that social energy, but I do not want to rely entirely on hidden roles.

Getting there was not easy. A game that works at eight, nine, or ten players can easily become too flat at three or four. The reverse is also true. Many systems that feel rich at smaller counts become painfully slow or unreadable at larger counts.

What made President viable at ten was not one single trick, but a combination of constraints. Simultaneous action selection reduced downtime. Shared card sets reduced rules overhead. Ordered resolution kept tension and readability. And then the “day cards” added just enough variety to keep the table alive from round to round.

Those day cards were another area where I learned the value of cutting. Early on, I had more than twenty. Eventually I realized that I did not need that much variety. What I needed were six or seven that were truly excellent, cards that created conversation, forced commitment, or encouraged bluffing in a clean and memorable way.

One of my favorites asks players to declare at the start of the round which action they will play. They may lie, of course, but if they actually do what they said, they recover a card. It is a tiny rule, but it creates exactly the kind of moment I wanted from the beginning: table talk with real consequences.

What the Game Taught Me

More than anything else, President taught me how games are really designed.

Theory matters. Studying systems matters. Understanding incentives matters. But at some point you are no longer dealing with theory. You are dealing with a living system that resists you. A prototype is not an idea. It is an argument with reality.

This game forced me to learn through repetition, through failed versions, through mechanics I loved and had to cut, through moments where I thought I was close and then realized I was still too far away.

It also reinforced something I believe very strongly as a designer: interaction is not decoration. It is not just a bonus layer you hope players bring themselves. If you want a game to be socially memorable, you have to build that social energy into the mechanics themselves.

For me, the best moments in games often come from looking at another player and thinking: what are you about to do, and can I trust you? That tension is alive. It creates stories. It creates laughter. It creates the kinds of memories that survive long after the rules are forgotten.

That is what I was chasing with President.

Looking Back

After all the cuts, failed systems, and repeated testing, this was the final form the game took.
People sometimes ask what I would do differently today. The honest answer is complicated.

Of course there are always details one could revisit. Every design contains a thousand possible alternative paths. But in a deeper sense, I would not undo the mistakes, because those mistakes are exactly how I learned what this game needed to be.

I am the designer of President, but I also handled the art direction and published it myself together with Zacatrus, a well-established publisher in Spain that supported the project. By the time the game was already quite advanced, I also showed it to other publishers and saw strong interest there too. That was reassuring, but more importantly, it confirmed something I had started to feel during testing: the long process of cutting, refining, and insisting on the core idea had paid off.

To this day, President is the game of mine I feel strongest about. Not only because of the final product, but because of what it demanded from me as a designer.

It taught me that when a game is trying to do something unusual, especially for large groups, you cannot afford to protect every idea you love. You have to protect the experience instead.

And sometimes, if you keep doing that for long enough, the game finally starts telling you what it wants to be.

The toughest games to review are the ones that are right on the line. They are generally not bad, maybe even a hair better than that, and don’t really stand out. Often, games like this end with one or more players being asked what they thought, and those players doing an exaggerated shoulder shrug, as if to say “yeah, it was…good? Well, I mean, it was…alright? I’d play it again, but only if you wanted to. What are we playing next?”

Cytress, designed by Sean Lee and published in 2025 by Good Games, broadly fits this description. Cytress is a cyberpunk-themed, engine-building worker placement game. You’ll build an engine using cards that can be purchased at one of four locations to increase your income or make trading deals progressively sexier. You’ll place a worker—either a Leader token or one of your three cute, futuristic-looking cardboard car tokens—on a space to trigger an effect. With the car spaces, any other player can also use the action, so there’s no worry or tension tied to opponents blocking the space you want.

When players buy cards and add those to the engine, they also place a crew member on a mini-map, representing the area below the great city of Stratos. This placement…

The post Cytress Game Review appeared first on Meeple Mountain.