All right! I don't normally go back to games, but due to popular demand, I'll play all the modules of this, and then come back and re-review it. I'll give it the fairest shot I can.

@nuuqbgg

4 жыл бұрын

This is really great thing to do. You might still not like it. It maybe doesn't deserve another shot. And we can disagree,but... Going back to the game you don't really like to do it right for your viewers is just amazing. Good job Tom.

@benlauson555

4 жыл бұрын

Awesome! Your gonna love this game! Your gonna find out - with all the modules this is like game of the year material! It's gonna blow your mind! 🤯 ✨🌟🤩🌟✨

@WizarDru

4 жыл бұрын

The Dice Tower I understand your point about modules, but I also have to say my experience with three games has been significantly different. Luck certainly is a factor, but t his game is as much an engine-building game as a deck-builder. The idea, for example, that tables are always good hasn’t borne out over my plays. They CAN be, but if you haven’t purchased good patrons, there’s no good. Servers are far better. Three modules add a great deal of luck mitigation and a LOT more choices. Module 3 dramatically changes your choices. I’m not saying your review was incorrect (how could it be, really?), but my experience with the game had never been with anyone unable to do anything that often. A bad turn? Sure. But that’s true of Quacks, as well. Competitive drafting, engine-building and deck building all work together. I’m surprised you didn’t call out the most unusual aspect of the deck building: that you put three card directly on top of the deck, making it an immediate part of your engine. IMHO that’s a major luck mitigation and an important mechanic.

@drbasseri

4 жыл бұрын

wow, that's very professional!

@gaillardlionel

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks Tom!

A lot of backlash in the comments here. Makes me think that going with modules was a bad idea by the publisher. If the game is only good with all the modules, then they shouldn't be published as 'modules'... they should just be the base game. If the base game isn't good on its own, it is going to lead to bad reviews/experiences. I played the base game a couple times and it fell flat for us as well. Overall it was okay but I have no desire to play again. There are too many games out there to keep trying the same one over and over with new modules in an attempt to make it good.

@StevenPaulDesign

4 жыл бұрын

100% this

@drbasseri

4 жыл бұрын

agree

@benlauson555

4 жыл бұрын

You are correct

@markusschmidt9260

4 жыл бұрын

The issue is: Schmidt Spiele (to whom I'm not related) is well known for feather weight family games. They don't want to overstrain their regular customers, and having a "tutorial system" is a good idea in that regard. They even tell in the rules, that experienced players should skip the first levels! So I really don't see, why they are to blame? If the base game wozld be "fixed" with an extra boxed expansion, sure. But here everything is inside the base game! I see this comparable to Magic Maze. Would ANYBODY think it be a good idea to include all the rules in the "base game"? Or would you think, Tom made a review to the point after playing the first level?

If a game is ONLY good with modules, should they be modules? I review many, many games with the optional stuff. I'm only getting negative feedback here because a.) it's a slightly negative review and b.) it's ONLY good with modules. I'll give it a try at some point with the modules, but a game should be good from the get go, not with the extra stuff included in an extra rulebook.

@luckbear87

4 жыл бұрын

The Dice Tower I think they were trying to appeal to more audiences by being flexible. It’s a lot easier to add more complexity to something if it’s wanted than to strip it down and make it easier for less experienced gamers. Maybe it wasn’t the best design choice to do it in this way but I appreciate having the different difficulties since I play with light and heavy gamers. Just like I appreciate that the first few books of the Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle game is drastically easier. Makes it cake to teach

@k4rl1L40l4

4 жыл бұрын

I think it was intended to learn the game by adding modules after your first game(s) to get a better feeling of the mechanics and after adding them all you got the full game. It's like you play the tutorial before the real game. It's not your fault, the naming and how it is described is very unfortunate.

@Medsas

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe module is just a poor choice of words? It's like saying ages 3 and 4 of TTA are modules, or that the occupation deck is a module to agricola, with family version being the "base game". Plenty of games offer a gimped version for the first play, but they don't make the mistake of calling the additional rules "modules"

@jeremyoverton7047

4 жыл бұрын

You can play with all the modules from the get go (and I would recommend that for gamers with any degree of experience) but I agree that it’s not clear the way the rule book was laid out. If they had called in the basic and advanced game (like say Quadropolis) then it would have been clearer and less likely that any player would think the modules were just optional add ons. The add ons aren’t optional, the publishers just stripped out some of the more complex parts from the first play to appeal to a wider audience, in exactly the same way that the ‘family’ mode of the original Agricola did.

@shanerion

4 жыл бұрын

The Dice Tower The game with only the base stuff is itself a module, a tutorial module. The rule book specifically states that the “base” game is a tutorial for new players, and that if you are an experienced gamer to consider the “base” game to include modules 1 through 3. You shouldn’t look at these as traditional modules, but as a system to ease light gamers who are buying a W.W. Game on name recognition into a slightly meatier game than is normal for him. When you reviewed Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle, I don’t think you reviewed it only taking the first (and introductory) module into consideration.

Bottom line is: Thanks for all of your reviews Tom! Not everyone likes the same games, and your assessments of the elements of this game are accurate. Other people enjoyed the game much more, and that's OK. I haven't even played the "extra" modules, but I enjoyed the game. I'm looking forward to trying the more complete game, and I hope you enjoy it more with the "extras" as well. Thanks again!

We've played this with many people in our group without any modules and everyone's enjoyed it to the point where a couple people have purchased their own copy. (We wished we had played this again rather than wasting the afternoon on Tapestry!)

@sebastianyanez2039

4 жыл бұрын

agree with you on about this games is very good, disagree about you sayed of tapestry, both are amazing games

Under F rulebook "you can combine dice to pay for an action" whats that mean?

I feel like I'm the only person who loves the base game as it is. I mean, we've started adding the modules - they're easier to work with than your typical "expansion." But I love this game. It can be tense, its "push your luck," but there are a lot of ways to improve your luck. Shut Up & Sit Down and now Dice Tower disliking my favorite game of 2019... :-)

@MsGinahidesout

4 жыл бұрын

I'm really interested in this game! It looks like a lot of fun to me. I'm glad to see someone else likes it

@p.henrique9088

4 жыл бұрын

I also love the base game, so you are not alone on this one :-)

I have to say that I never play with modules as i see :"modules" as extra optional ways to spice up a game when you get bored by the main set of rules as the main set of rules is how a game is intended to be played. Seems ridiculous to knock a review because the reviewer did not spend countless time playing all the "modules" and why not also complain that the reviewer did not play all the variants on BGG while at it? If the designer intended modules to be integral, wouldnt they have made them integral? Something doesnt jive.

@webs1

4 жыл бұрын

Or maybe Tom and you should start actually reading what the rulebook says?

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

You can't play the game without playing a module.

A couple of things that need to be pointed out - I'm sorry if someone has already mentioned these. 1. In the base game, you get a counter guest at the beginning of turns 1, 4, and 6 (if you go beyond the base game, you get one before turn 7 instead of turn 6). This means you can potentially re-draw up to 3 times during the game. 2. If you do re-draw, you only discard the cards that you already drew, meaning that when you restart the draw phase, you are going to start drawing where you left off. In theory, this means you have a good chance at a much better hand. 3. When you do get new cards to add to your deck, they always go face down on top of your draw deck, which means you will get to use them on your next turn! Most other deck builders (at least of the ones I've played) new cards go straight to your discard pile, so you might not get to see them for at least a turn or two. I feel like this adds some freshness to the deck building aspect of the game.

The base game is more of a major gateway or a tutorial. The game gets way more gamey with all the modules turned on. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@Moxbox99

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly what I’ve heard. Modules sound like they make this game, because otherwise it’s like playing any of the Shadi Torbey games without using the expansion stuff. This one is still pretty high on my list

@luckbear87

4 жыл бұрын

It’s a lot of fun. I agree having a “dead turn” sucks but overall it’s pretty good

@rb4551

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe thats the designer mistake since I also se modules as optional ways to change gameplay as it was originally intended and usually dont play modules in games but play the default way.

@luckbear87

4 жыл бұрын

Or maybe he was just using modules in a different way. It’s a lot easier to add more in to beef up a game to a medium weight game than it is to handicap a medium weight game to make it accessible to newbies

@rb4551

4 жыл бұрын

@@luckbear87 Funkoverse has a "first game" setup and ruleset and they explicitly tell you that following games will do more but to start with this. basically gradual learning of the rules. There was no confusion as to what the intended gameplay was to be. Sounds like a design faillure to me.

Haven’t played it but someone at our meetup had it a few weeks ago. They tried it with some modules and felt overwhelmed so they restarted with just the base game. His feedback was it was pretty meh but he’s going to try again adding back the modules

Loving the Tabasco tie. One of my favorite sauces

@oneANGRYelf

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t live too far from Avery Island where I Tabasco sauce is made. :)

Nailed it 100% on the base game. I haven't played with modules yet and will only ever play again if we toss in modules and make a final decision then.

I played the 'base' and the entertainers module (2 games, both 2 players) and enjoyed both. I very rarely play the same game twice in a row... but we did with this.

On the fence about this game, and really scratching my head at Tom’s decision to go live with review after only playing one module. Seems more like first impressions. Pretty much every review I’ve heard says that playing with all the modules is more of the full game, whereas the “basic game” is more of a tutorial (and is itself labeled a module). Might disregard this review and go with other channels.

@TheMrE

4 жыл бұрын

Brian Bettonville I think Tom has an obligation to review the base game actually. That’s THE game. As he himself said it, the base game IS expected to be fun, modules by definition are “extra” stuff. Tom has in the past reviewed modules separate for other games for which he enjoys the base game.

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMrE The basic game is "module 1." I mean, it's kind of begging to add the rest of the modules.

@12345678abracadabra

4 жыл бұрын

Lol what a baby. unsubscribing from one bad review? What? Reviewers aren't allowed to make negative reviews anymore?

This reminds me so much of Grand Austria Hotel.

@joshjenson8111

3 ай бұрын

Why would you compare a great game to a bad game? Lol Taverns is terrible

It looks so cool! I really like the idea and all the fun pieces but I haven't played it and now I'm not sure...

I think Tom got an important rule wrong. The guest with an X through it is a "Service Denied" icon, and lets you thin out your deck. I'm really happy he is going to give this game another try with all the modules though, as I love this game and was very disappointed when I saw he gave it a 6. I'm in agreement that the main game should include all modules, and the base game and build up to all modules is just "tutorial" mode. Entertainers/Schnapps really help boost your income in rounds that you choose, and can push you towards a specific strategy. Reputation encourages and rewards players who can evenly build for money and beer. Guestbook encourages and rewards players for buying guests, making the "deck bloat" worthwhile. Game feels incomplete for sure without this. Randomized start gives you some crunchy decisions and a direction to head from the beginning. This game is one of my favorites, and I hope Tom likes it better after he plays the non-tutorial mode :)

I've played the game with every module. It's....OK. I feel like mechanically it's just not quite as smooth I would hope, and I feel like it suffers because some strategies are just drastically superior to others. It just doesn't quite pay off for the amount of fiddliness, rules dump, and setup required.

Surprised by the review. I’ve played Taverns three times, once with all of the modules and twice with just the base game ( to teach new players...experienced gamers)....and I loved every play! All the players that I’ve played with also loved the game (base game and the game with all of the modules). Based on my plays of this game it should be up for consideration of a “game of the year category”...it’s really that good!

I really like this game, even with just the base game. Now, it's not super deep, so I wouldn't want to play it ten times in a row or anything, but I am happy to play it once in a while. However, I think Tom vastly undersells the choices you make in the game. The dice drafting phase can be quite strategic, and the choices of what cards you buy when is very important, especially since they go on the top of your deck, which immediately boosts your next turn. I think this just didn't appeal to Tom for whatever reason and it didn't click. He complains about bad turns, but usually that means that your next turn will be good, since you always cycle through your deck before reshuffling it. Also note that Tom also got a few rules wrong. I don't think it would drastically change his perception of the game, but I still thought it was noteworthy. One mistake is that the card that shows a red X over a guest allows you to trash a guest card (just once, when you buy the card) which you should use to rid your deck of the less valuable starting cards. Another minor mistake the free upgrade that you get in the base version of the game specifically excludes the noble benefit. Tom also got a couple things wrong in the follow-up video about the modules, so it makes me wonder if there's other things he didn't play correctly. Still, I don't think it would totally change his opinion.

Played this game couple of times with different modules and there is a lot of control and decisions which suprised me.. I thought going in that this would be a random luck fest... Great thing is that everything you buy goes on top of your deck and by this you can actually have a great combo set up if you also purchased cards earlier with some tought... Tables are not that great if you can only activate 4 things on your tableu.. Sure they can help but they are not the most crutial by any means.. Upgrading your chair section helps you a lot also so tables become less important... I have purchused maybe 2-3 tables max in all games i played and trashed them to upgrade my chair section... Focused more on beer and waitreses and gotta say imho these two things are better than tables.. I would even say that waitres is the most important upgrade... But its hard to say... I think that there are many ways to play this game and win and thats great...

I don't disagree with some of the points, it is a lot to set up. (That's why I made 3D printed organizers.) But the luck factor...while there certainly is luck, it's funny that you mentioned wasted turns here, but also how much you like Quacks. I find it easier to have more wasted turns in Quacks. All the chips go back in your bag. In this, you cycle through all your cards, and you have 3 chances to take a Mulligan. In Quacks, I could pull white chips for several turns. (I like both games, by the way).

I'm surprised that he said this game is mostly "luck" Quacks is also luck based too. I love quacks but there are times that when I pull out is white chits and not much else it definitely luck dependent regardless if rat tails help mitigate it a bit.. This is on my wishlist. Not a must buy for me but if I have the opportunity, I will venture forth in either a trade or a decent discount.

@Skarpo89

4 жыл бұрын

I'm surprised too, it's almost the same mechanic as Quacks, maybe he just had different expectations this using a deck instead of a bag, even though it's the same in the end

Very rarely do I disagree with Tom's assessments of games, but I have to differ on his opinion this time. Taverns is a great game, and I encourage anyone interested to check out further reviews. For example, there is mention here that a turn can have little result … which is true. But because you have a limited number of cards, if you have one turn in which all 'bad' cards appears, it means your next turn will have all the good cards. The more you play this game, the more strategic it becomes.

@RulebooksForYou

4 жыл бұрын

Spudkitty no sorry, there is one strategy, buy tables.

@Spudkitty513

4 жыл бұрын

@@RulebooksForYou Tables are good, but you still have to roll the right dice to make use of them. I'm more interested in focusing on elements of the game that have high probability they will pay off every turn. :)

@joshjenson8111

3 ай бұрын

I usually disagree with Tom, this game he's absolutely right So lucky so boring and only 8 rounds Terrible game

I have an experience in playing all the modules and somehow found that, the "customer table" build, with the modules abilities to remove some of the initial customers, allow me to completely reveal every single card in my deck. And afterwards, i spent every singe coin to purchase the nobles for points and that is, similar but even stronger than the "Chapel combo in dominion", simply unstoppable and somehow ruin the other winning paths of the game.

@J-Wheeler-G

4 жыл бұрын

You don't buy the nobles with money, you buy them with beer.

@kqyan1990

4 жыл бұрын

@@J-Wheeler-G oh yes, my bad sorry. It is beer, but the same story goes.

I agree the game is a little too short. In my house we play 10-12 rounds. Other than that I think it’s a really fun game and there is a little luck but way more strategy. I agree with other people commenting, you gotta play this game with the modules.

I find this a good enough game for a medium light Euro that can be played in under 60 minutes.I will keep it on hand to fill that 60 minute time slot along with the likes of Clank!, Quacks, Sierra West and Quadropolis. It's a game that is practically solitaire so it goods down smooth in the same way that Wingspan does. It's true that the big drawback is the huge luck factor for both card draw and dice throw that leads to dead turns. That doesn't kill the game for me now, but may lead to less play once the cult of the new wears off. FYI: When I put it away I preset the game boards.

I don't know - the mechanisms of this game really appeal to me so I'm going to give this a shot anyway

I can’t wait for their next game: The Peddlers of Moarkventhal

@goyasolidar

4 жыл бұрын

Lacks alliteration.

Surprised he called this a review when he hasn’t played the full game as it is intended (others on here already stated it as well, but it’s meant to use all the modules which then makes it the fully fleshed out game). With Tom not playing it as designers intended, this feels like just a one play first impression

@Crs9072

4 жыл бұрын

If all modules are the full game it's supposed to be, then don't make those as modules. This is on the designer, not on Tom.

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

@@Crs9072 Or the publisher, but the "base game" is called "Module 1." And the module rule book tells you that each module requires the previous one because they build on each other. I went straight from Module 1 to Module 1-5 because all of them are easy to implement. The game is twice as fun with all the modules.

This review is really hurt by the fact that you didn't played with all the modules. It's possible that even still you wouldn't have liked it, but for this game the modules are essential for a definitive opinion.

@thedicetower

4 жыл бұрын

If that's the case, it needs to say so on the box.

@LinaTK

4 жыл бұрын

@@thedicetower I agree. It was a huge publisher mistake to call them modules instead of essential add ons

@PandaOfElastic

4 жыл бұрын

@@thedicetower Well, to be fair, the module section of the Schmidt version rulebook does say that experienced players should play with modules 1, 2, and 3 for their first game.

@TheMrE

4 жыл бұрын

So.. there’s no such thing as a “base game”? A publisher, and more importantly, a developer has an obligation to keep the “base” game as fun/good as possible. You are blaming the wrong person here.

@markusschmidt9260

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMrE These "expansion modules" come in the base game box! Original publisher Schmidt Spiele is generally known for very light family games. So it made sense for them to keep the "base game/ module 1/ tutorial as simple as possible. But they even told, that experienced players should right away start on a higher level.

The negatives that Tom gives for Taverns seem to apply for Quacks of Quedlinburg too. Bad draws, too few rounds to make up for a couple of bad draws, on the first few rounds the purchases aren't exciting. One's drawing chits from a bag and one is shuffling a deck. Can't see why one is loved and one is not. Haven't played Taverns, but still want to give it a try.

@sebastianyanez2039

4 жыл бұрын

its exactly what i thought, both games have exactly the main mechanic and the same level of luck, and tom didnt like this one meanwhile likes the other one, that has no sense!

I've never played this game without using all the modules as is recommended by all the reviewers who have played with all the modules (and thus thoroughly reviewed it...). Taverns is great fun and if you like deck building and a bit of (mitigated) luck isn't a turn off then I would recommend you give it a go.

Theme and designer would normally get me to grab this one. But Tom is not alone in saying it's really sub par. What I here is the modules make it more fun and complex but also more fidly and long. You can't have hits every time.

@MichaelDart

4 жыл бұрын

In my experience the extra modules have not added to the length of the game.

@johna6108

4 жыл бұрын

Tom is far from alone in saying this game is bad to mediocre dependent on the modules.

I would say Wolfgang Warsch is my favorite game designer, but I was quite disappointed with my first play through of Taverns. I think there should be at least 12 rounds in the game, because the beginning rounds were quite boring & it takes way too long to build up your situation to be able to purchase decent upgrades/cards. Due to it being quite obvious that it's important to play with the modules, I will give it another try using all the modules to see if I like the game more.

Its weird u like quacks and this one not, because both of them have exactly the same amount of luck based, the only difference is that in one u pick cards from a deck and in the other u pick chips from a bag, but as i said both have the same level of luck in picking.

@thedicetower

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. There's a huge difference. In Quacks, you CHOOSE when to stop. That makes all the difference in the world. Also, the chips are different every game and really fun.

@sebastianyanez2039

4 жыл бұрын

@@thedicetower Yeah you choose when to stop but if u have a bad pick is the same issue that u mentioned in taverns, at least in taverns u can redraw using the guy token in your tavern in quacks no; but ok ill respect your opinion, is a matter of tastes, normally agree with you in the reviews, but clearly not in this one, that said thx for the review and keep up the good work, greetings!

I just cannot decide if this game is either right up my alley or too fidely. Lovely production though.

@ingus118

4 жыл бұрын

Same problem! :/

@davekoehnlein4575

4 жыл бұрын

I’ll throw in my two cents. I enjoy the game but it is fiddly...I much prefer quacks of quedlinburg (especially with the expansion) to this.

@marfin4325

4 жыл бұрын

@@davekoehnlein4575 That's a shame. Flipping the puzzle pieces to upgrade your player board looked fun.

@PandaOfElastic

4 жыл бұрын

@@davekoehnlein4575 I'll throw in my two cents as well. The only part of the game I found fiddly was playing with the reputation module since it's a piece of upkeep that's very easy to forget. Other than that, flipping the boards isn't really a big deal and doesn't happen all that often until the end of the game. The passing of the coasters I guess could be depending on how you're seated, but it's never really bothered me personally.

@davekoehnlein4575

4 жыл бұрын

I guess I should have been more descriptive. Flipping the pieces isn’t the fiddly part. I think the game is best with all of the modules thrown in and when you add them all in it becomes fiddly (for me). The small schnapps tokens, the reputation track, the smaller boards that you’re putting the little signature tokens on...I kind of wish they would have put all of the modules on an app and managed everything from that. The game IS fun though...but quacks is more tidy for my taste

Clearly a divisive game and review. I've played this game a couple of times now, and I will say that I enjoyed it more than I expected to the first time. I enjoyed it the second time as well, but where I agree with Tom is that only eight rounds makes it hard to actually build your deck and build your engine. Like Wingspan, I enjoy a game that makes you wish you had "just one or two more turns." However, Taverns feels like it needs to be quite a bit longer. If you spend time really building your deck, you can't upgrade your board much if at all. If you build toward enough money for upgrades, you clearly aren't really building much of a deck. I think this game would have been SO much better and satisfying for everyone if it had more rounds (let's say 12), and a mechanism where maybe starting in round 6, you lose one of the white dice every other round. The "clock" on this game just moves a little too fast.

The game MUST be played with all modules, any review that only reviews the game without the modules has to be taken with a huge grain of salt... This game is very interesting, and Tom has only scratched its surface unfortunately since he skipped the modules... feels like a "first impression" than a full review to me. There are many paths to victory (again, if you play with the modules), and the card draw can be mitigated (buy more tables, redraw, etc). Last game we played, the player who won redrew his cards twice in a row (using two tokens)... For the setup, you can put lots of player boards in large provided plastic bags, so it's really not a big deal. This is a fun game!

@daleygamer

4 жыл бұрын

I thought the rules specifically state you can only use one redraw token per round. Unless that is changed by a later module I am not aware of.

@gaillardlionel

4 жыл бұрын

@@daleygamer you might be right, I'll have to check the rules, thanks!

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

@@daleygamer No, you can use as may as you want each phase. What you might be thinking of is the rule book clarifying that each token can only be used once and is discarded after use.

This game is really fun

Came to say what others already have, you often said about games that you should always play the "advanced" game. Well here too. I also do not get one of your points that you could have a bad turn if you draw three customers as your three first cards, I mean it's the same as in Quacks drawing only white chips, only that here you at least get to do something, this game is the same as Quacks in that regard, the only difference is that you don't return the pieces to your bag until you run out of them, but it's exactly the same mechanic just with cards.

I love that game. Prost from Frankfurt Germany 🍻🖖

Gonna have to agree with the other comments here. This review seems really unfair. First, I have never played with anything less than the full game and I don't think I ever will. They add a lot of decisions to the game, which seems like it would address some of Tom's issues. The Schmidt edition rules state that experienced gamers (which Tom is) should start with modules 1, 2, and 3 (this was apparently changed in the most recent North Star edition). I, personally, would say to just play with them all (the full game). Even at its most complex, this game still isn't very complex. Second, you can't like Quacks and dislike this for being lucky. Quacks has a similar amount of turns and you can get shafted by luck far more than you can in this game. Third, as you said, the setup becomes a non-issue if you just bag the components. It's not hard to put the components together once you're given yours. Takes like a minute. Fourth, I think you're playing at least one customer wrong. During your explanation, you showed a customer with the Service Denied ability and said that it can be placed over existing customers, which isn't true. That ability removes a customer at one of your tables from your deck on purchase.

@TheMrE

4 жыл бұрын

Corey Batten Is there a base game then if you are expected to play with a bunch of modules? Is Tom expected to review every game that has modules through ALL the different modular combinations until he finds the good ones? I don’t think so.

@PandaOfElastic

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMrE I agree. He shouldn't be expected to do that. Luckily, no one has said he should. At a bare minimum, I would expect him to play with the modules that the rulebook suggests. Do you not believe that's a fair expectation?

@TheMrE

4 жыл бұрын

Corey Batten No, it isn’t. There is A game, the base game. The rulebook recommend expert players to play with modules 1,2 and 3. That is NOT the base game, it’s the “expert” version of the game.

@PandaOfElastic

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMrE There is no one "base game". It defines the "base game" differently based on the level of the player. I fail to see how that's an unreasonable way to do things. If modules 1, 2, and 3 were the base game, inexperienced players wouldn't enjoy it and they would be unable to make it less complex. If you play with less than the rules suggest, it should be obvious that you will find the game simplistic.

@TheMrE

4 жыл бұрын

Corey Batten He’s going to review all the modules, so I guess we are all happy now.

Agreed with Tom on all counts, except for being repeatedly apologetic for the (oh horror) game-is-not-so-great review. I could not trade my copy fast enough after playing the game.

Great review completely agree!

Wow people, not everyone likes the same things , doesn't mean their wrong.

If the game ‘needs’ to be played with all modules to be good then the modules were unnecessary.

@marccote8544

4 жыл бұрын

Shaz Yong agree but in a way they help to teach the game to casual gamers, like a can bring it to family dinner

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

It can't be played without a module.

So I generally always disagree with Tom but I super disagree with Tom about Taverns this game is amazing! You can start with an intro gateway game with Module one after you add in all 5 modules this game is thick and rich with tons of descions sorry Tom dice Tower Judgment you Wrong!

A rare disagree with Tom here. This game is one of the best of 2019.

@RulebooksForYou

4 жыл бұрын

Andy McGuire eh no sorry lol

@sebastianyanez2039

4 жыл бұрын

agree, i liked it more than quacks

I feel like the negative comments about the review here are based on a cop-out. "He does not like the game that much... but... oh you have not played all the modules? Whew, you gave me a reason to say your review is not good." Modules in games are essentially mini-expansions. Tired of the base game? Try this little extra... then pick and choose how you want to play later on. However, if the base game itself is "meh", there is no incentive to even play more to even try the expansions. Tom's criticism of the base game are fully valid imo. I can make a reverse parallel with Vindication. The base game is fantastic. Some of the included extra modules are really bad. My review of it would disregard the bad modules and focus on the base game... the modules are just extensions. With Taverns, it's the same thing, judge the game on it's own merits... without required expansions.

@webs1

4 жыл бұрын

Modules in this game are a lot more than just mini-modules. They are an Essential part of the game to make it more complex/interesting, if you wish. This is all explained in the rule book, which Tom didn't seem to read that carefully?

Tom you need to do another review with the modules added . This isn’t a review 👎🏿

@cthulwho8197

4 жыл бұрын

Sounded like a review to me. 🧐

I have not played it with less than 3 modules, and with all due respect, I think you have this game all wrong. Interesting that you say it is too lucky and that you like Quacks better (I also like it) when Quacks has way more luck than this.

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

People keep saying that here, but in Quacks, if you bust early, just don't take the points, and if you bust late, just don't take the money. It's not as punishing as a bad draw in Taverns. Quacks has a catch up mechanism with the rats, too. That said, there are many ways to mitigate luck, and you just plain get more stuff with the modules.

@J-Wheeler-G

4 жыл бұрын

@@windbane69 I actually like when I have a "bad luck" or two in a round because a can discard bar guest and grantee to have a good round. The one thing I wished they would have done diferent is have the dishwasher be plus or minus.

@windbane69

4 жыл бұрын

@@J-Wheeler-G I agree on the dishwasher.

Well if Toms review wasn’t enough to put me off the game the attitude of its fans certainly would. Wow that’s a lot of moaning. And as for “a reviewer MUST...”. “Must”? Ha ha.