The Need

If there's one thing all boardgamers can agree on, it's this: boardgames and their accoutrement take up a lot of room. Space is at a premium. And, if you're like me and you live in tight quarters to begin with, the idea of ever owning a nice boardgame table such as the Bandpass Firefly Board Game Table is nothing more than fantasy. In my home, we have three surfaces on which we can game: the dining room table which measures roughly 40 inches in width and 80 inches in length, a folding 4' x 4' card table, or a folding 6' x 4' picnic table which takes up the entire living room once it's been deployed. None of these are designed with modern boardgaming in mind. The largest of the three, the picnic table, struggles to contain large, sprawling megaliths such as Frosthaven or any Vital Lacerda game.

This is why I got excited when I saw the Relic Gaming Tabletop Table pop up in my social media feeds one day not too long ago. On paper, it seemed to be the answer to all my prayers, utilizing the airspace above the game table to relieve the pressure on the game table. But, how functional is it in practice? How much does it cost? And,…

The post Relic Gaming Tabletop Table Review appeared first on Meeple Mountain.

A little over a year ago, I took a dive into the entry-level skirmish game Heroscape. Long considered a “grail game”, Renegade Games Studios brought Heroscape back to the masses with brand new content (fully compatible with the original). Not to be content there, they have since released a number of expansions to keep the […]

Source

With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.

#76: Military Uprising from The Republic’s Struggle: Battle for the Republic, Spain 1931-1939 from NAC Wargames

The Republic’s Struggle is a thematic Card Driven Game that tells the story of the historical events that took place in Spain after the resignation to the throne of King Alfonso XIII, and the proclamation of the II Spanish Republic in 1931. With the creation of the new regime, the struggle for power between the different social, political and ideological sectors increased, which gave rise to continuous changes of political power, alterations of public order, armed uprisings and violent acts, carried out by the numerous ideological factions of the moment; which culminated in 1936, in a failed military uprising. The failure of this coup d’état was the origin for the Spanish Civil War.

The Republic’s Struggle is based on Twilight Struggle from GMT Games and uses the same concepts of area control while adding in some actual combat with units represented on the board. During the game, the Republican player and the National player, will be able to recreate events of the period to increase their popularity in the localities by carrying out political propaganda, recruiting troops or militias, generating revolts or assaults, establishing diplomatic relations or carrying out bombardments. All this will be done by playing their hand of cards in an alternative way, either by using the events or by playing the action points or icons to perform any of the other actions available to the players.

One of the interesting parts of the design is that each player has what is referred to as a Special Card that is included in their hand from the start of the game and can be played during their turn. These cards don’t count towards the maximum number of cards that each player can have in their hand at the beginning of each turn. The 2 cards are Military Uprising, which is given to Nationalist player and Proletarian Revolution, which is given to the Republican player. These cards are single-use event cards and can only be used during the first 4 turns of the game, or in other words during the period referred to as Phase 1 – The Republic. If, after this phase, these cards have not been played, they must be discarded and removed from the game. Both players can choose to use their Special Card in an Action round, instead of using one of the cards from their hand. These cards are played like the rest of the Operation Cards either using their Operations Value or applying the effects of the printed Event. Once played, the card will be removed from the game so it is use it or lose it.

Both cards are very powerful but have some fairly difficult criteria that must be met to fully realize the value of the printed Event. In the case of our featured card Military Uprising, the top part of the card first gives the player the chance to downgrade the European Status Quo Track by 2 levels. The European Status Quo Track allows players to appeal to and in some ways manipulate the stance of the other European Nations regarding their view on the Spanish Civil War. It also the determining factor in how Victory Points are awarded for the crucial Armed Actions aspect of the game. At the end of each turn, if the number of Armed Actions carried out by a player equals or exceeds the current level of the European Status Quo, that player will score 3 Victory Points. Also, as long as the European Status Quo Track is set on level 2, players cannot carryout any action using the Operations Points of cards played to advance in the Diplomatic Relations Track. So this is another tied result to the card as if the level is 1, no cards can be played to advance the Diplomatic Relations Track.

But, remember I said that to fully realize the effects of the card, the Nationalist player would need to control Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and every Naval Base Location or every Air Base Location. If this is the case when the card is played, then the Nationalist player will earn an automatic victory. Frankly, this is next to impossible, but has a sliver of possibility depending on how diligent and attentive the Republican player is as well as the hand of cards that are drawn by the Nationalist player. If they draw certain other events, as well as have a hand full of higher Operations Point value cards, they can make a run at this but it is not necessarily recommended. The card also has a very useful secondary use as if the condition isn’t met, they will get to place out on the board 1 combatant cube, representing one of their combat units, and also remove all of the influence of the Republican player in Morocco and Galicia and gain 2VP. In order for the card to be used in this manner though the Nationalist player will have had to previously play the El Director card.

Either way this is a very good card and a shrewd Nationalist player can make some significant headway in their efforts to push the Republican out of power in Africa and northwest Spain as well as add combat strength to areas that they wish to conduct future Armed Operations.

In 1934 there was widespread labor conflict and a bloody uprising by miners in Asturias that was suppressed by troops led by General Francisco Franco. A succession of governmental crises culminated in the elections of February 16, 1936, which brought to power a Popular Front government supported by most of the parties of the left and opposed by the parties of the right and what remained of the center.

A well-planned military uprising began on July 17, 1936, in garrison towns throughout Spain. By July 21st, the rebels had achieved control in Spanish Morocco, the Canary Islands, and the Balearic Islands (except Minorca) and in the part of Spain north of the Guadarrama Mountains and the Ebro River, except for Asturias, Santander, and the Basque provinces along the north coast and the region of Catalonia in the northeast. The Republican forces had put down the uprising in other areas, except for some of the larger Andalusian cities, including Seville), Granada and Córdoba. The Nationalists and Republicans proceeded to organize their respective territories and to repress opposition or suspected opposition. Republican violence occurred primarily during the early stages of the war before the rule of law was restored, but the Nationalist violence was part of a conscious policy of terror. The matter of how many were killed remains highly contentious; however, it is generally believed that the toll of Nationalist violence was higher. In any event, the proliferation of executions, murders, and assassinations on both sides reflects the great passions that the Spanish Civil War unleashed.

Here is a link to our full video review of the game:

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Schmalkaldic League from Here I Stand: Wars of the Reformation, 1517-1555 from GMT Games.

-Grant

Limit covers a serious topic. It is a simulation of modern human civilisation. It is based on the Meadows Report "The Limits to Growth", which says that because our planet and its resources are finite, constant growth is impossible. We will sooner or later hit a saturation point. Yet humans behave as if there is not such limit. Every corporate CEO is expected to achieve ever higher results.

Amabel Holland dives through a gamer's history via a forgotten game

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

Let it not be said that I don’t take requests. A number of readers have pointed out that it’s been a long time since I’ve covered any print-and-play games. Too true. But there’s a reason for that. Voyages, the six-map design by Rory Muldoon and Matthew Dunstan and the launchpad title from Postmark Games, is both an illustration of my reticence and a roundhouse kick to that same reticence’s noggin.

This is how Voyages is supposed to look. Soft hues, perfect for covering with pencil marks. (Or, if you’re a consummate professional, a dry-erase marker.) Weathered at the edges, giving it the feel of a brine-worn map. Crisp, with sharply defined edges, all the better for making out the proper boundaries of everything, from the sea’s hexes to the spaces for tracking the depletion of your sailors.

And this is how my version of Voyages looks:

Gray. Somewhat dull. Concealed beneath a much-abused plexiglass. Dice not included.

This is a very good thing. Because my main hangup with print-and-play games is that I only own a black-and-white printer. It works roughly a quarter of the time. The ink is sold at a premium by a cartel with armed enforcers and semi-legal firmware updates that mark my bootleg cartridges as empty until I bend a plastic doohickey, perform a hard reset, and offer three Our Emperors to the Omnissiah.

Discussing business practices isn’t very sexy. There’s a reason I don’t talk much about the publishers or marketing schemes behind the games I feature here. But in the case of Postmark Games, the business practice is the format. Buying a game gives you access to a Dropbox folder. That folder includes assets for both high- and low-ink printers. It’s as indie as it gets. A little fly-by-night. Shabby, if you’re the sort of person who demands a custom link to everything.

But the beauty of this format is that it’s also easy to use. Even with my wonky printer, I was able to get everything working in about two minutes. After another hard reset, I even had the rules sheet and a few warm maps ready to go.

The gameplay, as befits a one-sheet roll-and-write game, is elegantly simple. You roll three dice and then assign them to three roles. One is your ship’s heading, which of six compass directions it will travel. The second is your speed, how far you’ll travel. You know, provided you don’t run aground on an island, hit a reef, or smack into the map’s edge. Between these two assigned dice, you’ll steer around the map to… well, it depends on the map.

Which brings us to that third die. This one governs your crew’s duties. But those duties differ from map to map. In the first map, this is a simple number-crossing game. If your third die shows a 3, you scratch off a 3 on your sheet. If this happens to finish a row or column, you earn a bonus. Easy.

But as the maps progress, the rules grow increasingly tricky. Not hard, exactly. Just tricky. Frankly, it’s impressive how much territory Muldoon and Dunstan are able to cover. Where one map sees your vessel racing to ignite beacons on lonely islands, another becomes a hard-bitten game of survival in arctic waters. The first map has some simple pick-up-and-deliver gameplay. Basic stuff. But another is all about catching the wind to drift between coral arches.

More often than not, these extra rules are handled by the die you assign to your ship duties. Repairing your vessel when it rams into icebergs or gets swatted by a whale. Tacking into the wind. Diving for treasure. Scavenging artifacts.

It’s a lovely system, surprisingly open-ended despite the stark limitation of three dice, and while there’s obviously a great deal of luck involved, it’s open to manipulation thanks to sailors who can be exhausted to ensure you don’t drift endlessly back and forth. More than once, I found myself thinking back to The Guild of Merchant Explorers, another flux-and-write game that threaded the needle between limitation and expression. That’s not exactly a coincidence, given that Dunstan co-designed that one with Brett Gilbert, but it’s notable how Voyages manages to produce an entirely different tale under similar constraints. To sail these waters is to be both buffeted by the winds and master of your own fate. It’s a wonderful paradox.

At first, my assumption was that Voyages would be a solitaire game. Because that’s what print-and-play games are for, right? And it is. A solitaire game, I mean.

But the solo mode is merely okay, a race to unlock three objectives (out of five) before sixteen turns have expired. Personally, I found that goal not only achievable, but usually laughable, barring a series of becalmed rolls. Anyway, what’s the fun of rushing all the time? The seas are full of things to discover. I’d rather take the time to poke around a corner before darting off to the next objective-indicating star.

Where Voyages shines is in multiplayer. The race element is still present, with those aforementioned objectives triggering the conclusion of the session, but the emphasis on scoring feels more natural to both the format and the setting. In this mode, there’s room to explore some more, everybody keeping one eye on their own heading and another on their opponents’ progress toward those objective stars. There’s also the pleasure of seeing what someone else did with the same rolls that caused you so much trouble. I was delighted by how quickly Summer picked up those first couple of maps, sailing gracefully from one isle to the next, scooping up sailors from their rafts and weaving between hazards. Compared to my bumbling from one island to the next, it was quite the sight. Also, her dry-erase lines are really sharp. Apparently I smush the felt into the plexiglass like some sort of ape.

If Voyages shines with multiple hands, it really glows when strung together in a campaign. This adds a little bit of everything. There are moonshot objectives to pursue, like visiting every single special zone on a single map or ensuring a half-dozen members of your crew upgrade to elite status. Stars can now be exchanged for upgrades, adding new ways to score points or mitigate a bad roll. And these newfound abilities are offset with the presence of a nemesis that adds increasingly difficult restrictions to the rules.

In the case of our campaign, our nemesis was Scar. Early on, he threatened to snipe any sailors we rescued from the water. Not too bad, given his shoddy marksmanship. But in the campaign’s later stages, he sent us sailing straight through islands rather than stopping automatically and eventually turned our three dice into a measly pair plus a duplicate. At the apex of our power, we found ourselves forced to wring every advantage from our abilities just to make a pit stop or sail the proper currents. The result was another careful dance between limitation and permissibility, stretching the system but never so far that it snapped.

On the whole, I came away deeply impressed. With the business model, with the design, with the way the game actually came out okay on my cartel-operated printer. Crud, even with the way Voyages manages to be a roll-and-write that isn’t just sums and filling in test-sheet bubbles. As much as I enjoy some of those titles, free-ranging movement has its own organic appeal. I’ll go where I want, winds be damned.

Or tacked into, anyway. As I’ve noted before, Voyages is a masterclass in the way board games excel when they lean into the limitations of their medium rather than trying to escape them altogether. Voyages is something special. It seems I’ll be getting back into print-and-play games.

 

Access to the files to print Voyages was provided by the publisher/designer.

(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!)

This article is an attempt to starting clarifying my (evolving) thoughts about Slay the Spire II by putting them into words. There are presumably (much) better players than me, but are they writing anything? My normal answer is ‘Nope.’ but actually Youtube is awash with videos by people who monetize content, so actually there are. But you are here, so presumably you like the printed word over audiovisual.

I’ve played … a lot. Probably 200-250 hours solo¹. Right now I’m at a roughly 5²% solo win rate³ on the most difficult ascension level (A10) in Slay the Spire II, which is approximately where I was at on the most difficult ascension in the first game first game, but that was with Act IV, which doesn’t exist yet.

So … not great, but not terrible. Good enough to pounce on a great card/combo when it shows up; not good enough to jury-rig a win out of spare parts. (This influences my thoughts). My “micro” could be better. I often take a few extra points of damage due to negligence; which is a huge leak on my win rate; but I’ve been getting quite a few more “almost” wins, which is a good sign.⁴

This post is just a mish-mash of thoughts, but not really re-hashing general thoughts from the first Slay the Spire that transfer. (A few for emphasis). I was going to write some thoughts on cards/etc, but those are ever changing. For clarity, I’ll do this as bullet points.

(Also check out Jorbs’ recent video on “How to win with Silent (and other Characters)“⁵

General Concepts

• You play three of your five cards each turn (in a simple world where everything costs one). So you’d like 1) huge attack(s), to end the fight or when you aren’t attacked 2) huge block(s), when you are being attacked 3) flexibility for the remainder (often long term scaling, covering weaknesses, etc).
  • You don’t care how many “cards” you convert to attack/block/whatever, you want to be able to convert your mana to attack/block/whatever efficiently. This means a “2 Mana — Block 12” card is often (much) better than a “1 Mana — Block 7/8” … you’d get more with two of the latter in your hand, but that also requires two card picks.
  • Realistically, early on you’ll play 2/3 mediocre attacks/blocks. Starter decks lack density.
  • Playing two-three cards leaves room for cards that are dead most of the time (or all of the time for curses), but solve an important fight or two.
  • But, Dead cards leave you vulnerable to variance, particularly multiple dead cards. If you only have three cards you can play, your only choice is the order/targets. So (some decks) may want a bigger deck, to double the staples, which creates space for more specialized cards.
• Extra block survives more variance than extra attack (because if it doesn’t win right now, you take a hit). Even in Act I the elites (and some hallway fights) dish out 20+ damage a turn.
  • The more I play the happier I am taking two cost block cards.
  • This does lead to decks that block for 5 turns then get outscaled, but I lose less often that way than to being to aggressive. I still need to tune that variable.
• As I get better I’m more prone to save a potion for a boss/problem floor.
• I’m fine skipping elites in later acts once I’ve bottled the lightning, unless I’m just confident in the matchups. Even a good start needs to snowball.
• The Act II ancients give you a lottery ticket that’s a winner, but often just a small/medium winner. The Act III Ancients usually grant a golden ticket.⁶ I am OK having no idea how I’m going to beat the Act III bosses if I feel confident that I can get to Act III, and let the blessing (hopefully) clarify things.

Act I

Act I is tough⁷. In StS 1 I’d sometimes die to an early Gremlin Nob (before the middle floor treasure) or the Act I boss; in this version I perished in Act I often — a too early elite or just damage accumulating 3-4 floors in a row. The elites hit hard. For a while I was skipping most of them, but you have to start engine building. To win you need a cornerstone: a card/relic that provides a clear direction towards victory. It may not be the best option, but a cornerstone is an understandable option.

In early games, I hit an early elite and died … then realized my deck would have lost to any of the elites. But that just delayed the loss to the Act I boss or early Act II You need to start that snowball of growth. A good deck will roll through the second half of Act I like butter. Now I prioritize hitting as many late elites as I can, or trying to highroll a gift from Neow into a deck that can hit an early one … and then decide how many elites to take. Ideally I’d fight 3-4 elites in Act I (as late as possible).

Why fight them? If you get 10 relics 7-8 of them are going to be “yeah, that’s OK” but the great ones really help and form your cornerstone. (Best get it early, then you can work on combos and covering weaknesses). Elite fights are lottery tickets, but you aren’t going to win on slow steady investments. You need to hit the lottery (rare card or relic). As you get better what counts as a hit will grow.

And it’s not like the hallway fights are cakewalks. (Moreover, there are only three elites and you won’t duplicate until you’ve seen them all, so you can often tailor your picks against them. The hallway fights have a much bigger pool to select from). Even the events are a mixed bag.

Neow’s Gifts

(I have much less experience with the new ones that just appeared a few weeks ago).

Great

Leafy Poultice is my top pick. You trim out two basic cards via transformation … and get two lottery tickets that may have downside (at worst, a do nothing curse), but usually are strict improvements. Sometimes you high roll and a solid foundation. Losing Max HP is next act’s problem (mostly).

Silver Crucible — Getting an early “Common Attack+” or “Common Block+” really helps your deck’s density and with three upgraded cards you can handle the early elites (maybe not well, but you’ll likely survive). An early upgraded uncommon (or rare) can snowball.

Cursed Pearl … sure the curse is bad (a dead card roughly every other turn at the start), but that first store will hopefully give you at least a spark to bottle, if not lightning. (Golden Pearl to a lesser extent, and these both assume an early store).

Stone Humidifier is another big deal. I know I said Max HP could be ignored for now, but Stone Humidifier can let you skip a few elites for extra rests. Each rest becomes “Upgrade a card OR take a +5HP relic when you rest” (if upgrading a card isn’t that important. Also, Miniature Camp and Waterfall Giant are in the game and a high max HP is a great way to avoid a random loss due to variance. But in the last few weeks I think I might downgrade this a notch.

Winged Boots — These let you path very aggressively into multiple elite fights where variance would likley kill you 25%+ of the time. You take the first fight, if it goes great, you take the second. If not, you jump over to a rest.

Avoid

Precarious Shears — Removes two cards (like the Poultice), but has no possible upside and 13 damage (as compared to Max HP) is a big problem right now.

Lava Rock — You need help now, not at the end of act I.

Neow’s Torment — 10 Damage and some cards back is OK, but there is almost always a better option.

Anything not listed is OK … I certainly take Lead Paperweight and Pomander often enough, I’m just not terribly psyched when doing it. I’m actually kind of fond of Neow’s Talisman, which just upgrades a strike and defend. Partially because the Spiral enchantment event shows up fairly regularly (replay one) and also because removing all your strikes and defends is much harder in this game than in the first. You are probably carrying a 1-2 of them throughout the game. The defend (in particular) can really help with the chip damage accumulating across fights.

Overgrowth vs Underdocks

This has been discussed elsewhere (Jorbs covers it in a video) so I’m not going to touch on it too much, but be aware of which elites are in the pool and which aren’t. The big “Bomb” in the Overgrowth is the Bygone Effigy, a cakewalk if you can slam out the 132 (!) damage by the end of turn 3 (or turn 4, taking a single hit). Without the Effigy, if you can just block for 15-20 a turn (and still do reasonably damage) you’ll be fine, particularly if you have some AOE damage. With the Effigy‘s high HP and massive hits, you need a damage source (or slow source). Both Byrdonis and the Phrog Parasite scale up …. Byrdonis by adding strength and the Parasite by shoving junk into your deck. So you are going to want to favor attack over defense, since long term fights don’t favor you. (Byrdonis is arguably more dangerous than the Effigy, but it’s less of a Bomb. Both are damage races; both can kill you but since Byrdonis attack each turn you probably have to eat 20 damage even if you win on turn three (just going all out) but Effigy gives you three free turns, so a one turn difference is a bigger jump.

But in the Underdocks you can focus more on block than in general. Sure, the Phantasmal Gardners grow (slowly), but they punish multiple hits (and the Skulking Colony caps damage per turn). The Terror Eel is trickier, but big block + poison will work great, unlike in the Overgrowth.

The Underdocks (literal) Bomb is Waterfall Giant, responsible for over 8% of my deaths in the game⁸. Impressive considering it only shows up in ~16% of the games! If your deck is a fast attack deck, you might kill it but still need to tank a hit for 30 (either having block or enough HP left), and if your deck is a big block deck, you are probably slower and will need to tank a bigger hit. The Waterfall Giant is one reason I like the Stone Humidifier. A higher Max HP means a higher current HP in your final fight, so you can eat a bigger hit. This is also true of the Act III double bosses, where you need a buffer (unless your deck is absolutely purring), but with the Giant you need it.

Part II at some point …

1. I am retired, after all. ︎
2. There are few enough runs that a single win will drive it up and then drift down, but “1 in 20” seems roughly correct. ︎
3. Multi-player games are a whole different thing, with a win rate around 15%. I attribute this to the fact that a) either player can “go off” and win the run more-or-less solo (or with a the partners dealing with a troublesome fight and/or providing support) and b) sometimes you die due to variance in either game, but in multiplayer you get resurrected when your partner survives the fight, a recovery not possible in solo. ︎
4. My win rate also crept up after the first adjustments, make to make Act I easier and Act III harder, and I think this is not variance. I have not tried the Beta branch. ︎
5. Cliff note’s version: 1) Improve your Worst turn, 2) Improve your Best Turn, 3) Condense your Solution, 4) Improve your initial velocity, 5) Don’t overscale, 6) Understand Short term value vs Scaling Density & 7) There is a max hand size ︎
6. Darv (the merchant who offers relics from the first game) complicates things because he can show up in either Act. ︎
7. Written before the first balance patch of ~3 weeks ago. Still true, less so. ︎
8. This was written a month ago, before the patch, and a) he is now slightly weaker and b) I have really focused on beating him. Now he’s back in line with the rest of the baddies. ︎

Welcome to this week’s batch of crowdfunding campaigns. We have a variety of offerings here, so we hope you will find something that catches your eye. Also, if you want to chat with the BGQ team, join our Discord Server where we talk about games, movies, sports, and other fun stuff. Check it out and […]

Source

I picked up a copy of the new trick-taker Movie Tricks during my visit to SPIEL Essen 2025. It has a box cover that made at least one person in my circles wonder if the cover was generated by AI…not because of the illustrations by credited artist Eirik Belaska, but because the title, characters, explosion and car bursting out of the middle of the cover image feel so generic.

This is also to say: expectations were low for Movie Tricks. My 12-year-old thought that the game’s title was terrible, even if we all agreed that the title was pretty accurate: Movie Tricks is a trick-taking game where players take turns playing cards to the table, with each trick’s winner getting first pick of market cards that get added to their personal movie tableau.

The trick-taking is standard fare—Movie Tricks is a “must follow” game with a trump suit that may or may not change after each trick. Over the course of 10-13 tricks, players will build up their tableau to score points using a set collection mechanic (Props), a majority mechanic (Soundtracks), a simple scoring multiplier (CGI), and a slightly different set collection scoring tool with a balance component (Roles). In addition, players score based on their “Best Movie”—aligned with the highest scoring row of cards across…

The post Movie Tricks Game Review appeared first on Meeple Mountain.

April 2026 Games I played for the first time this month, from worst to best, along with my ratings and comments. ­­ Barcelona – 7/10 ­Barcelona is the third Dani Garcia game I’ve played. My first was Arborea, which is well-loved … Continue reading →

We became familiar with the work of Javier Romero when we played his game Lion of Judah: The War for Ethiopia, 1935-1941 from Compass Games in 2017. Since that time, we have done 6 designer interviews with him for World War Africa: The Congo 1998-2001 in Modern War No. 52 from Strategy & Tactics Press, Soviet Fallout: The Nagorno-Karabakh War: 1992-1994 in Modern War No. 54 from Strategy & Tactics Press, Santander ’37 from SNAFU Design, The Chaco War, 1932-1935 in World at War #86 from Decision Games, Caporetto: The Italian Front 1917–18 in Strategy & Tactics Magazine #337 from Decision Games and most recently Bosnian War 1992-1995 in Strategy & Tactics Magazine #351 from Decision Games. A few months ago, I saw where Javier was redesigning a formerly published game of his from World at War Magazine called Partizan! The War in Yugoslavia, 1941-1944 from a Chinese wargame publisher called Kilovolt Studio. I immediately reached out to him and he was more than willing to talk with us.

Grant: Javier welcome back to the blog. What historical period does your new game Partizan! cover?
What did you want the title to imply to the players?

Javier: Many thanks. Glad to be back.

Well, I wouldn’t call it a “new” design. A first version of Partizan! was published in World at War Magazine back in 2011. Partizan! is a simulation of the Guerrilla warfare in World War II, from the Axis invasion in the spring of 1941 to late 1944, when the Soviet forces entered the region and the guerrilla struggle ended in the south and east of the country, even though the war iWan Yugoslavia would go on until May 1945.

The title, of course, evokes the epic of the Partisan struggle, the foundational myth of the Communist Yugoslav regime of Josip Broz Tito, “Tito” is a prime example of “Sic Transit Glory Mundi” if there is one. Upon his death, in May 1980, Tito went from being idolized at home and hailed abroad as one of the most outstanding leaders of the 20^th century, to being reviled in his own country and all but forgotten abroad.

Grant: Who is publishing this new edition of the game?

Javier: Chinese editor Kilovolt Studio did this new edition.

Grant: How has the game changed from its original publication in 2011 in World at War Magazine?

Javier: It is a boxed version complete with upgraded graphics, a sturdier map and pre-rounded counters. The editor added errata, rules and counters that were left behind from the original version and later published as add-ons online and in later issues of World at War Magazine. Apart from that, the game is basically the same.

Grant: What was your inspiration for this game? Why did you feel drawn to the subject?

Javier: Well, that region of the world (let’s call it Southeastern Europe – “Balkans” can be found offensive by the locals for a number of reasons) is one of my pet subjects, so to speak. So far I have designed several games on WWII in Yugoslavia (Partizan!, Balkans ’44) as well as on the Yugoslav Wars of Independence in the 1990s, including War Returns to Europe: Yugoslavia 1991 and Bosnian War for Strategy & Tactics. As mentioned in earlier interviews, I have travelled extensively across former Yugoslavia and the neighboring countries and always had a great time there.

Grant: What was your design goal with the new edition?

Javier: The game mechanics basically remain the same, although the editor added an important element that was left out from the first edition, namely the Chetniks or Yugoslav royalists that played a key role in the war.

For the Chinese wargaming public, this subject has a particular interest as well because in the People’s Republic of China the Partisan epic (one of the ideological/propaganda foundations of Socialist Yugoslavia) was, and is, wildly popular so much so that the Chinese edition is called Walter’s War. “Walter’s War” refers to the 1972 Yugoslav film Walter Defends Sarajevo (Serb Croatian: Valter brani Sarajevo) based loosely on the military feats of Vladimir Peric, aka “Valter”, who defended Sarajevo during the German retreat from the southern Balkans in late 1944.

Walter’s War is one of the most famous examples of the “Partisan movies” subgenre, a series of films on the Partisan epic made in Yugoslavia between the 1960’s and the 1980’s. It was particularly popular in the Eastern bloc countries-on the year of its release, it was viewed by some 300 million people in the People’s Republic of China alone. Fifty years later, it is still something of a cult movie in China and other countries.

Grant: What type of research did you do to get the details correct? What one must read source would you recommend?

Javier: Thankfully, over the last 20 years quite a few books have been written on the Yugoslav War. This interest in guerrilla warfare was partly due to the use of historical models to understand modern insurgencies such as Iraq in the GWOT years.

Another historical player that began to receive long overdue attention were the Yugoslav Royalists, or Chetniks, that until the early 21^st century were almost forgotten or considered a footnote when compared with the Partisan epic of Tito and his guerrilla army. The military museum in Belgrade, Serbia reflects this perfectly. The first time I visited the military museum there were two floors, one dedicated to praise the feats of Tito and his partisan army, the other covering the rest, from Medieval times to the 1999 War against NATO. The second time I visited the museum, in the early years of the 21^st century, I found out that the “Partisan” area was closed for reforms, and all Communist era exhibitions were being replaced with exhibitions dedicated to Col. Draza Mihailovic and his Chetniks.

Grant: What from World War II in Yugoslavia was most important to model?

Javier: Simulating what was de facto a three player game (Partisans, Chetniks, Axis and local Allies).

The third player – the Chetnik – presents a major problem. Basically, they didn’t fight the Axis- their policy was to wait for the Western Allies to arrive while preparing for the final showdown against the Communists. On the other hand, while the Partisans had a central command, the Chetniks were a loose coalition of local leaders that followed orders when it suit them to do so, and often reached temporary agreements with the occupying forces to fight the Communist Partisans. Tito had mobile troops which could operate everywhere and hit the enemy targets without concern about the inevitable and brutal enemy reprisals. In fact, the reprisals ended up being a source of recruits for his Partisan army. Mihailovic’s units, however, were strictly territorial, and he could not control them. Most of them (especially the Chetnik units in Bosnia) recognized him only as an honorary leader, but only followed their orders when, and if they matched with their own priorities. So, in practice, the Chetniks are not a “player” in the game, but they can be mobilized by the two players (Axis and Partisans) depending on a number of circumstances.

Grant: What is the scale of the game?

Javier: Turns are quarterly (three months per turn, covering from mid 1941 to late 1944). So to speak, each turn condenses several major operations and smaller actions.

Grant: What different unit types does each side have access to?

Javier: Being a guerrilla war in the Balkans, the standard unit is leg infantry, of course. There are a handful of motorized/armored and cavalry units, but almost all units are infantry. There are air support markers and a Special Forces unit or two.

Grant: What is the anatomy of the counters?

Javier: Units have two basic factors: conventional and guerrilla combat. Guerillas, of course, are better at guerrilla combat, regular units are better at conventional Combat. There are two Combat Tables, guerrilla and conventional-which that is used depends on leadership, initiative and terrain. A guerrilla force fighting in forest or mountain hexes for example has a better chance of using the Guerrilla Table. A conventional unit fighting in a railroad or clear hex has better chance of using the conventional table.

Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play? What type of experience did you want the Sequence of Play to invoke?

Javier: In general, the Guerrilla player has the initiative, while the Axis player has to react. The turn begins with the guerrilla phase were the Partisan player determines resources receives and recruits/upgrades units. This is followed by the objective placement phase, where players deploy a number of targets on map representing intelligence on possible targets provided by their network of spies and other intel sources. Then the Guerilla player moves and attacks targets, and/or enemy units. After that the Axis action phase begins. Upon receiving reinforcements, the Axis player may attack guerilla units. However, catching guerrillas can be difficult-they can easily avoid being forced to fight in particular in forest areas.

The Axis player begins the game with large forces (Germans, Croatians, Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians) while the Partisan begins with a handful of odreds (detachments). However, as the play goes on, the Italians surrender and the Axis player is increasingly stretched thin. Besides, Bulgarians and Hungarians cannot move from their respective regions. The German and Croatian policies in Yugoslavia all but ensured that the population would join the Partisans.

Grant: What is the layout and area of Yugoslavia covered by the game map?

Javier: The map covers all of Yugoslavia and neighboring areas, from Slovenia to Macedonia and parts of Hungary, Albania and Bulgaria. The map contains all charts and tables needed to play.

Grant: What strategic pinch points does the terrain create?

Javier: Terrain is important, like in the systemic cousin Red Partisans (published by Paper Wars in 2025). Forest, mountains and swamps are the Partisan’s friend. Avoid flat terrain, and particularly railway hexes, that can be reinforced quickly. However, railroads are a major objective of the Partisans, so the Partisan player must strike a balance here.

Grant: What is your focus on Zones of Control in the game?

Javier: In general there are no Zones of Control. Zones of Control are exerted depending on the unit and terrain type. Regular units, for instance, do not exert ZOC on mountain or forest hexes for Partisan units.

Grant: What is the Guerrilla Political Phase? What does this represent from the history?

Javier: Basically, it represents the prestige of the Partisans among the local populace and abroad. If the guerilla player attacks at least one ground attack against an Axis ground unit, they roll for Tito’s Prestige. The higher the prestige, the more resources he can receive from the Western Allies. Tito’s prestige begins at box 1. When it reaches box 6, the Partisans can receive extra resources and the support of the Balkan Air Force (Allied bombers). When it reaches level 7, the Partisans can deploy and use a British Special Force unit, the 2^nd SAS.

This simulates the increasing prestige of the Partisan guerrillas among the Western Allies, who initially opted to provide support to the Monarchist forces of Col. Mihailovic. After the reports by the Deakin mission came from Yugoslavia in 1943, and thanks also to ULTRA intercepts, Tito began to be regarded as the only effective guerrilla movement fighting the Germans, while Mihailovic did nothing, or, even worse, reached agreements with the enemy occupiers to fight the partisans.

Grant: What is the Allied Landing Scare roll? What does this represent?

Javier: Several of the major Axis anti-partisan drives in Yugoslavia (Operations Schwarz, Weiss…) were launched with the objective of clearing the coastal areas from hostile guerrillas and prepare the defense of the Balkans against an expected Allied landing. Beginning with 1943, there were several “landing scares” that had all sides (Partisans, Chetniks, Axis) scrambling to occupy the best coastal positions before the arrival of the Western Allies.

For instance, in January 1943, fearing Allied landings in the Balkans, the Axis launched Operation Weiss (White), the largest anti-partisan drive to date, involving 90,000 troops, aimed at destroying Tito’s stronghold at Bihac. Tito planned to move back to Serbia and Eastern Bosnia to destroy the Chetnik forces there before they could join forces with the Western Allies.

Grant: What is the purpose of the Weapons Cache markers? How are they concealed in combat?
How does combat work?

Javier: Weapon Cache markers represent weapons sent by the Western Allies along with arms captured to the enemy, used to improve Partisan detachments into Partisan brigades and divisions.

Grant: What is the makeup of the Combat Results Table? What unique odds are represented and why?

Javier: There are two Combat Tables, guerrilla and conventional-which one is used depends on leadership, initiative and terrain. A guerrilla force fighting in forest or mountain hexes for example has better chances of using the Guerrilla Table. A conventional unit fighting in a railroad or clear hex has better chances of using the conventional table.

Grant: How do Replacements and Withdrawals work?

Javier: The Guerilla player collects replacements-the more territories they control, the more replacements received. Control of towns greatly increases recruitment, but guerrilla units are much more vulnerable in urban terrain. Axis reprisals increased the number of recruits. They also receive “weapons caches” that can be used during the game. They represent clandestine weapon factories, and, as the game goes on and Tito gains popularity among the Western Allies, they represent weapons shipments from the West. Certain game results yield weapons caches as well. These can be used to upgrade partisan units into Brigades and Divisions.

The Axis reinforcements and replacements work differently-They receive a fixed number of replacements per turn, with the exception of “Allied landing scare” turns, when they received extra replacement with which to launch anti partisan drives and clear the coastal areas of Partisans.

Grant: How are Artillery, Air and Naval Support handled?

Javier: There are no artillery units in the game. It is modeled into the regular brigades and divisions. There are only two air support markers that add or decrease odds shifts in attack or defense.

The Partisan army, of course, had no air support units, although they can receive the support of the Allied “Balkan Air Force”. The Axis has only one marker -Yugoslavia was very low on the priority list of the Luftwaffe. Naval Support is handled by the “Partisan navy” counter that provides an odd shift in attack or defense in combats in coastal hexes. The Partisan navy counter enters play after the Italian surrender.

Grant: How do players win the game?

Javier: The Partisan player can add Victory Points by blocking railway lines from resource centers (there are five on map) to Germany. This represents the disruption of resource exploitation in the Balkans. Another way to score Victory Points is to destroy objectives such as fuel depots, train stations or bridges, or rescue downed Allied pilots, determined prior to the turn by the objective table. During the Victory check phase of each turn, the Partisan player rolls 1D6 for each objective marker under their control and adds the corresponding modifier for that objective. Destroying a Dam, for instance, adds +3 to the die roll. The final result is the number of VP’s scored for that objective. Control of towns and cities at the end of a turn gives extra VP’s to the Partisan player. (Control of towns and cities, even temporary, allow Partisans to recruit extra manpower and liquidate collaborationists).

Finally, “Landing scare” turns allows the Partisan player to earn VP’s for controlling port towns and cities, from Bar in Montenegro to Zara/Zadar in Croatia. This simulates the chaotic fight that followed the Italian armistice of September 1943. The Italians controlled large parts of former Yugoslavia, and their surrender ignited a race to arrive first to the huge caches of arms and supplies in the Italian zone, in a free for all between Partisans, Germans and Chetniks. Tito was furious at the Allies for not warning him of the upcoming Italian surrender. Some of the Italian forces joined the Partisans against their former Croat-German allies. This is included in the game as well.

The Axis player must try to deny VP’s to the Partisan player, and make him pay dearly for every VP gained: each guerrilla ground unit eliminated deducts 10 VP. The Axis can also kill Tito. If Tito is eliminated, the Partisan player loses 2 VP’s at the start of each subsequent turn, and their prestige is reduced to 1, so they receive no more extra resources from the Western Allies. The Axis player can try an assassination attempt with the 500 SS Parachute Battalion that historically tried to kill or capture Tito in May 1944, in operation “Knight’s Move”.  

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

Javier: The game creates a cat-and-mouse experience, quite similar to the history, where the Axis launched constant anti-partisan drives but Tito and his Partisan army always escaped to fight another day, despite of suffering huge casualties. By the mid to late game, after the Italian surrender, the Partisans are too powerful and the Axis player lacks enough resources to launch mass offensives, thus remaining mostly on the defensive. It is now time for the Partisans to gain as much terrain as possible before the arrival of the Soviet forces in the Fall of 1944.

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

Javier: I think that the game gives a fair idea of what happened in Yugoslavia in 1941-44. It was an extremely complex situation, with many different national and political loyalties at play. The Axis conduct of the Balkan counterinsurgency was a case study of how not to wage a guerrilla war. Their policies, and in particular that of the Croat state, created the perfect conditions for the Communist movement to thrive and take over: they destroyed the existing authority, set the different nationalities against each other, but lacked sufficient strength and brute force to impose a different system. The final result was anarchy and an ideal situation for the triumph of a revolutionary war, which Tito exploited to the fullest.

Grant: What has been the response of playtesters?

Javier: As far as I know, many players really enjoy the Partisan hidden movement rules in Partizan! and found the cat-and-mouse game play quite engaging. They appreciate the combination of simple rules, short playtime, and asymmetrical game play, with a full game often completed in just one day. The scoring mechanism, which rewards destroying objectives, forces Partisan players to carefully consider their strategy—whether to focus on scoring points or increasing their forces. Axis players get a true feeling of frustration of counterinsurgency operations.

Facing an Axis player with a good memory can sometimes be challenging for the Partisan side. Partisans can counter this by swapping the positions of units within the same hex. Overall, the game offers a simple yet enjoyable take on Partisan warfare. Although some players find it a bit troublesome to place markers every turn, the Chinese edition includes tables and numbered markers to help the setup. Most players find the experience enjoyable.

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Javier: Strategy & Tactics just published Pensacola 1779-82, and soon will be publishing Forgotten Front: Italy 1944-45. Curiously enough, in these games are featured both irregular and conventional forces. In Forgotten Front, for instance, guerrilla and counter guerilla operations play a key role as the ORBAT includes not only regular Axis and Allied divisions and brigades, but also Italian partisans and Fascist Italian counter guerrilla forces, such as the infamous Black Brigades. Pensacola 1779-82 includes irregulars, militias and Indian levies that are highly useful for recon, foraging and to harass enemy regular forces.

World at War will publish my design on the 1945 Burma campaign, where (again) guerrillas played a decisive but little known role.

I am currently working on a number of designs for Decision Games, Paper Wars and Banzai Magazine. I am currently working on the playtest and development of Aragón ’38 for SNAFU Design and Battle for the Mediterranean for VUCA. You can see here some spectacular previews of Battle for the Mediterranean by Pablo Bazerque here.

As always, thanks for your time Javier in answering our questions as I know you are a busy man and always have lots of interesting gaming subjects on your design table.

-Grant

by Justin Bell

A few months ago, I joined two friends for a play of The Gallerist, one of my favorite titles from designer Vital Lacerda. (Also, Vital: thanks for the intel on hot spots in Lisbon. The pastéis de Belém were absolutely magnificent!)

A friend was celebrating his birthday weekend, so he was hosting an all-day gaming session where folks like me would show up in waves to play the birthday boy’s favorite titles. It had been maybe a year since I last played The Gallerist, so I watched a teach video to warm my brain up to the rules and reminded myself of some of the things I’ve seen work when I’ve won, and (more often) watched others do to win.

The host, who we’ll call “Schmeven”, had built a schedule for the day that was pretty tight. We’re talking two-hour blocks, with some games that were already going to push on the soft borders of that Google Sheet’s time window. The Gallerist was set for 11:30 AM, the first game on the slate. For this particular day, I was intent on arriving a couple minutes early, to help Schmeven keep the events on schedule.

I rolled up at 11:28 AM and buzzed Schmeven’s apartment. Walked in, sat down, and readied myself for the play. Schmeven, who, like me, ensures that the first game of the day is locked and loaded when guests arrive, had done his part and the game was set up and ready to go.

Then Schmeven got a text. Our third player, who we’ll call “Slim”, was running late. Slim had taken the wrong bus line to Schmeven’s house, so he was going to be delayed for another 20-30 minutes.

Foolishly, I had made other plans with the family to start about a half-hour after the originally scheduled end time of 1:30 PM. That part is on me; two hours for The Gallerist with players I don’t know is potentially a gamble. But, hope springs eternal. My thinking: if Slim moves at the velocity of Schmeven and I, we’ll be fine to wrap up The Gallerist in 90 minutes or so.

Schmeven’s quick turn-taking is well established; Schmeven and I have done a two-player game of The Gallerist in just over an hour, and we’ve done two games of Speakeasy in a single sitting in under three hours. He has earned the Justin Bell Gold Speed of Approval and is always welcome at my table; he, like me, takes snappy turns. Even though Slim was the wildcard on this particular day, he just had to play at roughly the speeds Schmeven and I normally play at, and we would be in great shape.

Well...not exactly.

***

Slim arrived, exchanged pleasantries, apologized for the delay, and sat down at his station near me at the table. Slim is a seasoned strategy gamer who entered our gaming circles with a wealth of street cred. I was excited to see what he would bring to The Gallerist during our play.

After everyone was seated, I turned to Slim. “When’s the last time you played this one?”

“Gosh, maybe six, seven years ago? It’s been a while, so I’m a little rusty…I didn’t have time to do a full rules refresh, but I think I remember how most of this works…the player aid IS really good, so I can always fall back on that.”

My heart sank. My soul—what little soul I had left—sank lower, if that was possible. We were definitely going to have to sorta play and sorta teach this game to Slim while taking our own turns. There was no way we were getting through this one in 90 minutes.

Separately, in my review crew, everyone knows that I have a hard and fast rule when it comes to tabling games: if there is a teach video anywhere on the interwebs in English, players have to watch those videos before they come to game night. It saves SO MUCH TIME, and it ensures everyone has skin in the game when it comes to the investment part of knocking out multiple plays of different games in a single night.

I am more lax about this with other groups, and for this play of The Gallerist, I think there was an unspoken expectation that everyone knew the rules, but we never called that out when setting up the birthday schedule. After this experience with Schmeven’s birthday play of The Gallerist, I’m thinking about changing my tune.

***

As I expected, Slim tested every bit of my patience during our play. I’m told patience is a virtue, but I’m beginning to question that.

I’ve only joined Slim for a couple of game nights, but I have found that Slim is a player who verbally talks out his options before taking a turn. I do this from time to time, especially late in a game with friends where I can talk through one or two options on a turn that might swing the game. But certainly not on every single turn.

Slim’s turns looked a lot like what some friends call “min-maxing”: exploring many, if not every, possible outcome before making a selection most beneficial to the current game state. Again, no problem late in a game, and I am on record as telling other players that on the final turn of any game, you can take as much time as you want…no one wants to see a player lose a game because they made a major blunder on their final action.

But, Slim’s min-maxing happened on almost every turn for the first nine, maybe ten turns.

The Gallerist is an action selection game where players have a choice of four major locations. Each major location—the International Market, the Sales Office, the Media Center, and the Artists Colony—offers two unique actions. When a player moves their pawn to a new location, they pick one of the two actions there, and execute it. On successive turns, the active player must move their pawn to a new location to take a different action.

I never mind when a player is thinking through which of the three locations they want to move to next, nor how they will best execute the action at their chosen location. But a player needs to fully understand what’s possible at each location, and Slim’s rust showed during those moments. Often, that meant Schmeven and I were explaining what actions were possible at each of the three locations available to Slim on that turn, which meant talking through the possible outcomes of SIX different actions.

Every turn.

When I do a full teach of any serious strategy game for new players—this exact scenario happened just two weeks ago, when I got to play Chicago 1875: City of the Big Shoulders with a couple new players—I just turn my brain off completely when it comes to building my own in-game strategy. That’s because I find it difficult to manage both what I want to do, and what others need to understand in order to enjoy their play of the game. Just when you begin to think through your own turn, a question comes in that breaks your concentration.

For a learning game, totally fine. For this play of The Gallerist, I was pretty excited to get into “the art of strategy,” the game’s tagline.

I quickly became the surly, impatient curmudgeon who rushed through his own turns so that we could simply wrap up the game. By turn four, my main focus became trying to mask my anger, in service of Schmeven, the birthday boy who (I hope) was having a great time just getting a game off the shelf that doesn’t see the table nearly as often as it should.

Maybe two-thirds of the way through our play, Slim was in great shape on the rules and finished off a victory, navigating his own turns with ease. And, to Slim’s credit, he acknowledged the help that was provided by his tablemates during the game. Our play took just over two hours, which in some ways was a miracle.

My only regret? Not doing a full teach of The Gallerist for Slim the moment he acknowledged that he hadn’t played the game in years. Teaching The Gallerist to a new player only takes about 20 minutes—the player aid really is great as a teaching tool—and for a seasoned player with even distant plays under their belt, getting a quick re-teach is usually enough.

It’s also fun to see how I change as I get older. I don’t mind losing, and I’m certainly less competitive than I was ten years ago. But, I do mind waiting. (Yeah, it’s your turn!) If patience really is a virtue, then I guess all I can say for now is that I am working on it!!

Everything seems to get ever bigger. Cars. Phones. Board game boxes. And the cities whose history and board games we explore are no exception: We started with Venice, moved on to Amsterdam, and today, we’re starting with New York. I say starting, because unlike the previous two cities, there is no way to do the vast number of board games set in New York’s history justice in a single post. Thus, this will be a mini-series with (tentatively) three instalments.

If somebody asked you what New York is, you’d probably start by saying it’s a city in the United States. Today, we’re looking at it before it was that – first, when the area which is today New York was settled by Native Americans, then, when the first Europeans founded an outpost there, and finally, when this little settlement received the name it bears until today.

The First Settlers

Names are given by people. “New York” was what the English called the settlement they took over in 1664, but the place had been inhabited by thousands of years before. While that is thus technically not the history of New York, we’ll take a short look at it.

We don’t know very much about the first humans to live in what would become New York: The indigenous people did not keep written records. Archaeology is hard to do in a place which is almost entirely covered in buildings and streets today. And the oral tradition of the Indians was largely destroyed when the westward expansion of the European colonists pushed them out of their native homes, broke up their communities, and finally confined them to reservations.

Five hundred years ago, several thousand Lenape Indians inhabited an island they called Mannahatta (“island of many hills”). They lived off slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting, and fishing. I am not aware of any board game which depicts their lives before the arrival of the first Europeans, but I think it would be a nice change of perspective while still retaining the familiar geography which draws many board gamers (of course, especially those from New York and its surroundings) to games about the city.

In 1524, Giovanni da Verrazzano, an Italian explorer employed by the king of France, sailed into what would be called New York Bay. There, he met a group of Lenape in their canoes. He called the area New Angoulême to honor the French royal house of Valois-Angoulême. For the next century, European fur traders would occasionally visit the Lenape, but not attempt to build a permanent presence.

Nieuw Amsterdam

Only in the 1620s did the Dutch, by then the premier commercial and maritime country of Europe, decide to colonize parts of North America. They resolved that this colony should include Mannahatta to take advantage of the rich beaver population whose pelts were much sought after in Europe, and put the merchant Peter Minuit in charge of the operation.

Minuit arrived on May 4, 1626. He met with some of the Lenape, and, according to his written report to Europe, purchased the southern tip of Mannahatta from them for trade goods worth 60 guilders. Even though nobody knows any details beyond Minuit’s own account, the deal is the founding story of New York. One thing that stands out about it is that it was a business transaction. Unlike other cities in North America, New York was not founded by a royal agent or religious refugees, but in the spirit and through the means of commerce (which has since remained the supreme political order and religious faith of New York). In that sense, Minuit’s purchase is either a very smart business move – after all, a large tract of land in such a prime position was surely worth more than the trade goods he handed over – or the hostile act of an unscrupulous merchant taking advantage of the less business-savvy (both actions hallmarks of New York’s commercial culture until today). Beyond the foundational myth, the transaction mostly shows different ways of thinking about land – the Lenape only accepted the right to temporarily co-use it, whereas the Europeans subscribed to the tenet of permanent, exclusive ownership.

While the Dutch colonized the whole mid-Atlantic coast of what is today the US, their settlement on Mannahatta was meant to be its center – as evidenced by its name of Nieuw Amsterdam (New Amsterdam), after the Dutch capital. Nieuw Amsterdam grew into a trading hub based on its deep natural harbor, the best on the Atlantic coast. The fur trade was soon complemented by Dutch farms which extended ever further north on Mannahatta, which triggered conflicts with the Lenape. This period is represented in New Amsterdam (Jeffrey D. Allers, White Goblin Games), which casts its players in the shoes of Dutch traders who will gather resources and expand New Amsterdam (at the expense of the Lenape).

Nieuw Amsterdam already contained the seeds of some characteristic New York traits: Its demographics diversified (Africans lived in Nieuw Amsterdam in 1626 already, an Italian followed a few years after); and the municipal council established in 1653, the first of its kind in America, was the start of the great democratic tradition of the city.

The English Colony

The Dutch colony did not last long. When the commercial and maritime rivalry with England flared up again, an English fleet seized Manhattan in 1664. To honor the heir presumptive, James, Duke of York, they renamed the city New York. The Dutch briefly recaptured the city in the next Anglo-Dutch war, but had to cede it permanently in 1674.

New York’s fine deep-water harbor was as valuable to English as it had been to Dutch traders, and the city continued to grow larger and more prosperous. When the British parliament imposed taxes on the American colonies from the 1760s on, the merchants of New York found themselves in a bind: On the one hand, like all entrepreneurs, they resented being parted from money. On the other, a rupture between Britain and its American colonies would cut off trade entirely – much worse than having to pay a moderate due. New York became thus both a hotbed of anti-British activism and one of the places in the American colonies which least wanted a war with the British motherland.

Fierier heads than those of the New Yorkers prevailed. War between Britain and the colonies erupted in 1775. Once George Washington had expelled the British from Boston in the first major action of the war, he moved his headquarters to New York. The city was thus the biggest possible prize for the British smarting from their first defeat. If they could beat the colonials there soundly, force Washington to surrender with his army, they could still quash the rebellion quickly… or so they thought. The amphibious campaign against New York would become the biggest operation of the entire War of Independence. While the British defeated Washington’s army and took the city, the wily colonial commander extricated most of his forces and lived to fight another day. The city of New York, however, would remain under British occupation for the rest of the war.

The British occupation cut New York off from its sister colonies. Many New Yorkers fled to towns which were under control of the American rebels. The loyalists left the town when Britain recognized American independence. In 1783, New York’s population had fallen by 60% compared to the pre-war number of 30,000. From then on, however, the city would know nothing but spectacular growth for over a century… but that’s a story for next time.

Games Referenced

New Amsterdam (Jeffrey D. Allers, White Goblin Games)

Liberty or Death (Harold Buchanan, GMT Games)

Further Reading

For a concise introduction, especially focused on local politics, see Lankevich, George J.: New York City. A Short History, New York University Press, New York City, NY/London 1998.

If you want a treatment which is both more in-depth and more journalistic (and lavishly illustrated) and don’t mind its history practically ending around 1970, see the book version of the 17-hour PBS documentary from 1999: Burns, Ric/Sanders, James/Ades, Lisa: New York. An Illustrated History, Knopf, New York City, NY 2001.

by Mantita Games

We'd been kicking around the idea of a digital card game for a while, and when we landed on Witchcraft! it all clicked. It's a fantastic game, with a really powerful card mechanic, and on top of that it has the kind of complex, demanding strategy that hooks us. We love hard games — the ones that make you think — and Witchcraft! was a perfect fit.

So we got to work.

[heading]The challenge we thought would be the big one: the interface[/heading]
The first thing that worried us was how to translate the reveal/hide card mechanic to a screen. It's the game's most distinctive feature, and on the table it's completely intuitive — the card is split in two and you can see both sides clearly. In digital… well, that was another story. How was the player going to keep track of which side they were playing? How would they choose?

Our first instinct was drag-and-drop. We went all in and built a system where, when you picked up a card, two distinct zones appeared and you dropped it into one or the other depending on the side you wanted to play. On paper it looked great. We tried it on mobile and it fell apart: clunky, unclear, artificial.
Our second idea was to put two little buttons, one on each side of the card. Our designer really went for it here — he came up with some lovely buttons, full of personality — and with that solution we reached our first testing phase feeling pretty good.

And then the first two people who tried it told us the same thing, with almost the same look on their faces: why can't I just tap the side of the card I want to play? We looked at each other. We felt a bit silly. And right then it hit us — the solution had been right under our noses the whole time. No dragging, no buttons, no inventions. Just tap the card. Sometimes the road to the obvious is longer than it should be.

[heading]Meanwhile, on the visual side[/heading]
While we were tangled up with the interaction question, there was another thing on our plate: how all this was going to look. And here we had a huge head start — Albert Monteys's illustrations. Honestly, just dropping them into the mobile layout already did half the work. I mean, wow. With illustrations at that level, the question wasn't whether they'd hold up — it was how we were going to make the design around them live up to them.

Luckily, the original game's graphic design was done by Meeple Foundry, so we weren't starting from scratch — not even close. Everything was very well prepared to edit and tweak, and there was a clear design language that helped us enormously in figuring out where to take things.

From there, we put together some pretty scrappy wireframes — really scrappy — and handed them to our designer, Lorenzo Berzosa, who helped us pull it all together in a consistent, coherent way. We knew what we wanted on each screen; he turned those sketches into something that actually holds up visually.

Ugly wireframes

Actual designer work
[heading]The challenge we didn't see coming: the tutorial[/heading]
In our heads, teaching people to play Witchcraft! wasn't going to be complicated. The rulebook is short. The mechanic didn't seem convoluted to us. We had it figured out.

Our first tutorial was a disaster. Most of our early testers got lost in the tutorial. Yes, lost. They understood the individual actions, but not how they connected to each other or why they mattered. That's when we remembered one of the harshest lessons in development: just because you understand something after months up to your neck in it doesn't mean it's easy to explain. If anything, it usually means the opposite.

We went back at it. We rethought the pacing, changed the order of the concepts, cut things, swapped explanations for playable examples, cut again… and bit by bit the tutorial started to work. There was no single magic change — it was pure iteration: try it, see where people get lost, adjust, try again. Even now there's still room to grow, especially because the game has so many strategic layers and it's hard to cover all of that in five steps.

[heading]And then came the fun part: the campaign[/heading]
I'll admit, the campaign was by far what I enjoyed programming the most. It was exciting and challenging in equal measure. On the architecture side, we were able to put together something pretty solid that let us configure each tale almost automatically, and from there it was test, test, and test.

I got pretty obsessed with the final tale. In fact, I started to believe it was impossible. I remember anxiously asking Salt & Pepper: but has anyone actually beaten the game? Is it even possible? Until one night, at three in the morning… I did it. The achievement system popped up right on cue telling me I'd completed the campaign, and I almost teared up. An epic moment I keep with a lot of fondness.

[heading]Magical challenge unlocked[/heading]
It's been a long road. A lot of design revisions, a lot of hours in front of the code, and the involvement of a bunch of testers who got really invested and contributed ideas and suggestions that ended up shaping the game you can play today. This digital Witchcraft! is, in large part, theirs too.

On April 15th, 2026 we went live in the stores. And with the launch comes another pile of lessons learned… but that's for another day.

Thanks for reading.

For the past several years, the last weekend of March meant one thing: I was in Anaheim for WonderCon. San Diego Comic-Con’s slightly smaller, slightly more relaxed sibling. The routine was comfortable. Fly in, badge around my neck, wander the floor, admire the cosplay, sit in on a panel or two, and eat something from a food truck that probably violated at least three municipal codes.

This year I broke the pattern. Instead of Anaheim, I booked a week in Milwaukee for AdeptiCon,  the annual gathering of the tabletop miniatures faithful, recently relocated from Chicago to the Baird Center. About 12,000 attendees. Wall-to-wall wargames. And me, showing up without a painted army to my name.

That last part turned out to matter more than I expected.

A Convention That Knows Exactly What It Is

AdeptiCon is not trying to be everything, and it makes no apologies for that. It is a miniatures wargaming convention, full stop. If you love tabletop miniatures, building them, painting them, deploying them in anger across a felt-covered battlefield, this is your Super Bowl. If you don’t, you may find yourself wondering where the panels, cosplay contests, and celebrity signings wandered off to.

The big systems dominate the floor: Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, Star Wars: Shatterpoint,…

The post I Went to AdeptiCon Without an Army appeared first on Meeple Mountain.

Trick-taking games keep coming with Fishing 2, Beastro, and Masquerade Trick Party

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

Explore the wonders of birds, and discover June 2026 releases from Asmodee North America

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

 The Design & Play (DNP) game design competition is back! This is a competition open to all Malaysians. It is organised by Malaysia Boardgame Design (MBD). This was first held in 2025, so this is the second year we are doing this. We have the same team of six judges - all local designers and indie publishers. This year, the criteria is a little different. Instead of being limited to

by Tom Lehmann

Race for the Galaxy: Xeno Counterstrike
Rio Grande Games
Designer Preview by Tom Lehmann

Xeno Counterstrke is the second and final expansion in Race for the Galaxy's Xeno arc. Introduced in the Xeno Invasion expansion, the Xenos are a violent xenophobic alien race that cannot be negotiated with.

Taking place after their invasion of galactic space, Xeno Counterstrike portrays the galactic empire's expansion through the frontier zone into Xeno space.

Xeno Counterstrike features two play experiences: a frontier game, with powerful new worlds to explore and settle, and a bonus counterstrike game, which continues the invasion game from Xeno Invasion and takes the fight to the Xeno worlds.

The Xeno Invasion expansion is recommended but not required for the frontier game, which can be played by 2-4 players with just the RFTG base set. The counterstrike game requires Xeno Invasion, which also adds a 5th player option to both experiences.

Frontier Ho!

The frontier game adds 46 frontier worlds divided into two separate decks of Near and Far frontier worlds, plus a new Frontier Settle action card.

Frontier worlds are located in the starry rift section of space that separates the galactic empires from Xeno space. These worlds are populated by a mix of pioneers, outlaws, and worlds previously conquered by Xenos.

Xeno Counterstrike uses several concepts introduced in Xeno Invasion:
* mix-with-hand for all Explore actions,
* Xeno worlds -- worlds already conquered by the Xenos,
* specialized military vs. Xenos (similar to military vs. Rebels), and
* the Anti-Xeno "keyword" -- groups opposing the Xenos.

Initially, players can choose to settle only Near frontier worlds. Once an empire has grown to 5+ cards in tableau, it can settle either Near or Far frontier worlds.

Settling a frontier world is a plunge into the unknown. To do so, a player plays Frontier Settle (triggering a normal Settle phase for the other players) and draws 3 cards from a frontier deck. They can choose to play and pay for or conquer one of them, discarding the other two worlds face down to that deck's discard pile. (Unlike a normal settle, they don't draw a card afterwards, as their card bonus is the card they drew.)

If the player is unable or chooses not to settle any of them, they keep one card for a later normal settle or card payment; thereby losing a tableau-building tempo, but gaining a card.

However, this risk is balanced by the frontier worlds being cosiderably better than similar cost regular game worlds. Deciding when you are ready to settle frontier worlds and whether they should be Near or Far ones adds new decisions to the game.

Some cards have powers that help you settle frontier worlds and some 6-cost developments reward players for settling frontier worlds.

Thematically, settling frontier worlds is a resource committment across considerable time and space, so each player can do so only every other round (their used Frontier Settle card is tucked under their start world for one round to mark this). When playing the experienced 2-player variant, players may do a Frontier settle every round.

Design Considerations

Mechanically, having frontier worlds be separate decks, instead of adding them to the game deck, solves two potential expansion issues:

First, in an expansion, players want new, fun cards to play. Satisfying this desire often leads to "expansion creep", where expansion cards are just better than the original cards. By placing the better worlds in separate decks with a risk-reward mechanism to obtain them, I can give players access to lots of really great worlds without diminishing the base game worlds (as players still need to build up to afford frontier worlds and also need worlds to settle when other players call Frontier settle).

On the development side, the higher military defenses in the Far frontier deck creates a need for more military cards, allowing me to make a few fun but costly military cards:

Second, single-deck games (such as Race for the Galaxy) have the "sample variation problem" where, as the deck grows in size, the odds that a player draws a bunch of one type of cards (say, developments) and none of another type (say, worlds) increases with each expansion that adds more cards, increasing the luck of the draw.

This issue, along with a desire to tell different stories, led me to create separate expansion arcs.

With almost half this expansion's cards in the frontier decks, I could design a lean addition of 6 start worlds and 25 game cards to the main deck, concentrating on interesting variations of existing cards that didn't produce expansion creep:

These cards had to provide enough Xeno Worlds, military vs Xenos, and Anti-Xeno keywords so that Xeno Counterstrike could work without Xeno Invasion.

Testing revealed an issue: namely, the game was a bit too short for the powers of Far frontier worlds to have an impact, as by the time players had built up and acquired them, it was often over.

The solution was to add some VPs to the initial common pool (15, not 12, VPs per player) and to play to 15, not 12, cards in tableau to make the game 1-2 rounds longer. This still keeps the frontier game reasonably short and snappy, but allows those big Far frontier worlds a chance to strut their stuff.

The Empires Strike Back

Beyond depicting a varied frontier, I wanted Xeno Counterstrike to continue Xeno Invasion's storyline: what happens after the invasion is repulsed? Can the empires then take the fight to the Xeno hive worlds? Could I give this an epic feel?

The optional counterstrike game begins as a combined frontier and Xeno Invasion game until the invasion is successfully repulsed (if the Xenos win, the players all lose). Then it shifts into the counterstrike game, replacing the invasion game tiles and cards with the counterstrike versions.

To ensure that this game doesn't end prematurely, I greatly enlarged the VP pool (to 30 VPs per player) and eliminated tableau size as an end condition. Players have to either exhaust this larger VP pool, conquer all the Xeno systems (which scale with number of players), or have a combined military vs. Xenos that is equal to or greater than the Xeno conquest value, as shown on this track:

After a successful repulse, play resumes, except that now the players are on the attack and the Xenos, if at least one Xeno system isn't attacked each round, carry out retaliatory strikes (similar to the old invasions, but with a new deck).

The Xeno systems are a deck of Sattelite and Hive worlds of varying strengths.

To attack them, an empire plays their Frontier Settle card, using its conquest portion, provided they have either 16+ cards in tableau or contain at least one Far frontier world. A failed Xeno system conquest increases their retaliation strengths that round.

Some Xeno retaliation strengths and all Hive world strengths are equal to the the attacking empire's military + military vs. Xenos + 2-6 more. To defeat them, the empire must have at least 9 military vs. Xenos and additional temporary military equal to the card's extra 2-6 military.

Thematically, this represents Xeno swarming tactics, where they bring more than the opposing force to overwhelm them. Only surprise tactics, represented by temporary military, can defeat them.

The extra awards for successful defeat of retaliating forces is the reverse of Xeno Invasion, which favored being the smallest military capable of holding them off. Now, the military that defeats the largest attacking force gets the extra awards.

Players can win either by military conquest or by churning out massive war production represented by VPs (as all empires are now assumed to be on a fully mobilized war footing).

The optional counterstrike game changes Race for the Galaxy considerably, as tableaus of 20-25 cards are not unusual and game time is roughly doubled. This is the version for the players who want a longer, more epic version of Race for the Galaxy against a common foe.

Finishing Touches

In developing Xeno Counterstrike, I was aided by my long-time partner Wei-Hwa Huang, his wife Trisha Huang, and Chris Lopez. They tirelessly playtested both versions and made many useful suggestions. Thanks!

With more than 75 different card illustrations, this was a demanding assignment for the illustrators, Martin Hoffmann and Claus Stephan, and the graphic artist, Mirko Suzuki. This product marks more than 20 years we have worked together. I would like to thank them for all their contributions over the years.

Jay Tummelson of Rio Grande Games, as always, was very supportive. Bringing games to market during these times is quite difficult and I deeply appreciate his efforts in doing so.

It's been a privilege to work on Race for the Galaxy and be able to tell different stories. I'd like to thank all the fans for their interest and support. I hope you enjoy the stories of exploring the frontier and defeating an xenophobic race that Xeno Counterstrike offers. Enjoy!

-- Tom Lehmann