Ames' syllabi

I found King of Tokyo pretty fun to play. The art was flashy and creative, and the game play was very unique.

Players had to trade damage and play “King of the Hill” for Tokyo City to gain points and win either by score or attrition.

King of Tokyo was simple to learn. The dice rolling, health, score, and battle mechanics made sense.

I believe that the energy system was nearly useless. There were not enough opportunities to gain enough energy to buy the cards necessary for a leg-up. You are mostly focusing on healing, fighting, collecting score, or a mixture of the three. Energy felt like an unpolished mechanic beside the other systems.

What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played?

I enjoyed the dice-rolling aspect of the game. Determining your next action based on how lucky you are is always slightly annoying, but the re-rolling allowed players to recover from bad luck.

I wanted more energy to buy items. However, I felt too preoccupied with keeping enough health and damaging my opponents enough to force them out of the center.

I would make the energy economy less demanding, allowing players to come across energy more often. Less than 5 cards were bought during our game.

No. Even though I enjoyed the art and concept of the game. I did not believe that the mechanics were fully used or tuned to make the game enjoyable to play.

In the first act, players develop their initial strategy. A few players rushed to the center and tried to hold on to it as much as possible. Other players held back and were able to out heal the damage and collect energy. In the second act, exchanges of control over the center happened more often, and players may start using items to get ahead. In the final act, players gather enough points, either by fighting or using cards, to win.

There was little collaboration in the game. Due to the fighting mechanics, players cannot choose who they strike and the damage is divided into “In Tokyo” and “Outside of Tokyo”. The game is a free-for-all with very little ways or reasons to work together.

I believe that the overall metaphor is “King of the Hill”. Players must work against each other to hold a piece of territory for the longest time, all while preventing others from reaching it. This “there can only be one” style of game is unlike other games played in this class.

I found Citadels to be a uniquely fun game that relies on player interaction in a way unlike any other cardboard game I have played so far. The game play loop encourages hiding your strategy while constantly changing it to remain elusive from other player’s.

After players understood the game. IT became clear that, to win, offensive attacks were required to prevent others from gaining a lead. Before, players would seek the character cards that allowed them to build more, or gain more wealth. Later on in the game, players picked cards that harmed others more often.

Citadels was one of the harder games to technically understand. Learning its flow, and the intricate set of steps needed was slightly frustrating, especially because the game often failed to justify why we needed to perform these actions initially.

To me, the most frustrating aspect of the game was learning it. I believe that the game did not fully explain its mechanics well to new players. We spent a significant amount of time trying to understand what cards meant, and how the round was supposed to start. We also complained, as mentioned before, that the game did not explain the reason as to why things happened the way they did. The sense of discovery finding out what the game’s intentions were was satisfying, but it took us a while to get there.

My favorite aspect about playing the game was trying to fool other players into assassinating cards they believed I had. I drew a different character card, because I knew that I would be targeted if I picked a king. I was able to fool the assassin into targeting the wrong person, allowing me to stay ahead.

I wanted a purple character card in the original deck of characters. Since there are no purple cards in the standard character deck, and the cost of purple cards are high, it did not feel worth the effort sometimes. I would also add more cards that benefit players regardless of their character.

I would add more fun characteristics to many of the character cards. It did feel as though players only picked 4 of the 8 cards we had.

Yes. Citadels offers a unique pseudo-role based experience unlike many other games that I have played. The strategies that people develop in the endgame pit them against each other nicely.

The first act is centered around the initial setup and the first round. Players understand the basics and pick whichever card they think is best, usually a Merchant, Bishop, or King. In the mid game, players have around half the cards needed to win, so players must choose to play defensively or offensively (depending on the character cards they get). In the end game, players attack and sabotage more often in the race to the end.

There was little collaboration in our game. We did not feel as though players could successfully collaborate much beyond choosing to attack one player over another. There were many competitive aspects, however. The role-based system allows players to use their own means to succeed, and players are called in a specific order to prioritize players who take offensive actions first.

In my opinion, the highlight of this game is the dynamic turn order. Players do not proceed in any set fashion, but are called to act by the “king” of the round. The character you chose determines your sequence. This means that players can study the cards drawn and deduce who they think their opponents are, and act accordingly. I used this method to discover a hidden Warlord and steal their resources. The game rewards players who take risks and play offensively. The game’s metaphor describes the unique roles everyone plays to build an empire.