Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Zombie Dice in Tabletop Games
Aug 5, 2020
The Strategy (2 more)
The Theme
5-15 minute rounds
Press Your Luck
Zombie Dice- is a excellent press your luck game. Its created by Steve Jackson Games. Which their made Munchkin, Chez Geek, Illuminati, and more. Zombie Dice is a excellent dice game, so let me explain more.
Gameplay: The gameplay of Zombie Dice is simple. The player has to shake a cup containing 13 dice and randomly select 3 of them without looking into the cup and then roll them. The faces of each die represent brains, shotgun blasts or "runners" with different colours containing a different distribution of faces (the 6 green dice have 3 brains, 1 shotgun and 2 runners, the 4 yellow dice have 2 of each and the 3 red dice have 1 brain, 3 shotguns and 2 runners). The object of the game is to roll 13 brains. If a player rolls 3 shotgun blasts their turn ends and they lose the brains they have accumulated so far that turn. It is possible for a player to roll 3 blasts in a single roll, but if only one or two blasts have been rolled the player will have to decide whether it is worth it to risk rolling again or "bank" the brains acquired so far and pass play to the next player. A "runner" is represented by feet and rolling a runner means that the player can roll that same dice if they choose to press their luck. A winner is determined if a player rolls 13 brains and all other players have taken at least one more turn without reaching 13 brains.
Its a excellent game and a must play if you havent already. Its fun, its easy and i love the theme of it. Thank you Steve Jackson Games.
Gameplay: The gameplay of Zombie Dice is simple. The player has to shake a cup containing 13 dice and randomly select 3 of them without looking into the cup and then roll them. The faces of each die represent brains, shotgun blasts or "runners" with different colours containing a different distribution of faces (the 6 green dice have 3 brains, 1 shotgun and 2 runners, the 4 yellow dice have 2 of each and the 3 red dice have 1 brain, 3 shotguns and 2 runners). The object of the game is to roll 13 brains. If a player rolls 3 shotgun blasts their turn ends and they lose the brains they have accumulated so far that turn. It is possible for a player to roll 3 blasts in a single roll, but if only one or two blasts have been rolled the player will have to decide whether it is worth it to risk rolling again or "bank" the brains acquired so far and pass play to the next player. A "runner" is represented by feet and rolling a runner means that the player can roll that same dice if they choose to press their luck. A winner is determined if a player rolls 13 brains and all other players have taken at least one more turn without reaching 13 brains.
Its a excellent game and a must play if you havent already. Its fun, its easy and i love the theme of it. Thank you Steve Jackson Games.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Other Guys (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The Other Guys is a stupid charmer of a movie that surprisingly works despite it’s penchant for odd humor and occasional missed targets. The story was slightly meandering and a few times boring, but made its way back to form before the third act. The laughs came in plentiful heaps, and although there were a few misses, overall The Other Guys was one of the funnier of this summer’s comedic ventures.
The Other Guys is a play on words against the stereotypical Good Guys: P.K. Highsmith and Christopher Danson are the big boy cops with big boy swagger, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson with bravado and just enough over-the-top asshole to make them lovable. Allen Gamble, a new type of character for a Will Ferrell comedy that finally isn’t a Ron Burgundy rerun, could perhaps be called eccentric because of the way he acts so conventional. Terry Hoitz, played by Mark Wahlberg, shines as a perfect complement to Ferrell. He plays every line perfectly straight, and this unexpectedly makes him even more hilarious. After seeing him in his last performance in Date Night, where he almost stole the show, I’ve no doubt this man can excel in comedic roles. Michael Keaton, as their boss, put forward a humorously feeble character as Captain Gene. The villain, billionaire David Ershon, was played by the always wonderful Steve Coogan to great effect. As a side note, whoever chose the narrator for the film had serious comedic inspiration of the genius type.
One might wonder how and when the Other Guys will get their shot at fame, and without spoiling it, I’ll say it’s one of the funniest moments in the movie. Scratch that, the funniest moment in the movie is… well, you’ll just have to see it, but when you do, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about, and it’s gold.
The Other Guys is a play on words against the stereotypical Good Guys: P.K. Highsmith and Christopher Danson are the big boy cops with big boy swagger, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson with bravado and just enough over-the-top asshole to make them lovable. Allen Gamble, a new type of character for a Will Ferrell comedy that finally isn’t a Ron Burgundy rerun, could perhaps be called eccentric because of the way he acts so conventional. Terry Hoitz, played by Mark Wahlberg, shines as a perfect complement to Ferrell. He plays every line perfectly straight, and this unexpectedly makes him even more hilarious. After seeing him in his last performance in Date Night, where he almost stole the show, I’ve no doubt this man can excel in comedic roles. Michael Keaton, as their boss, put forward a humorously feeble character as Captain Gene. The villain, billionaire David Ershon, was played by the always wonderful Steve Coogan to great effect. As a side note, whoever chose the narrator for the film had serious comedic inspiration of the genius type.
One might wonder how and when the Other Guys will get their shot at fame, and without spoiling it, I’ll say it’s one of the funniest moments in the movie. Scratch that, the funniest moment in the movie is… well, you’ll just have to see it, but when you do, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about, and it’s gold.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
This first sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger is everything a sequel should be. It has bigger and better set pieces, it has a bigger emotional centre, it brings in already established MCU characters and introduces new ones, and is arguably one of the best entries into the MCU to date.
Chris Evans does nothing more than tighten his grip around his most famous role. He joins Robert Downey Jr. in the category of irreplaceable actors for these characters.
Scarlett Johansson is once again great as Black Widow, and newcomer Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/Falcon provides Cap with a likeable new ally. The three of them as a sort of mini Avengers in this movie are fantastic.
Sebastian Stan plays The Winter Soldier with aplomb, and gives us a truly dangerous antagonist. The dude is fucking terrifying, yet his relationship with Steve Rogers gives us the heart of this movie. It's a tragic story which of course will be further explored in Civil War further down the line.
The cast is rounded off with Samuel L. Jackson returning as Nick Fury, Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce, Emily VanCamp as Agent 13, Frank Grillo as Brock Rumlow, and some smaller roles for Cobie Smulders and Hayley Atwell.
It's a really solid cast all in all, an area that Marvel Studios rarely missteps.
The set pieces are hugely high octane and thrilling. The opening scene on the barge is a highlight, as well as the teams fight with the Winter Soldier midway through. Even Nick Fury gets a banger of an action sequence. Also, this film boasts probably the biggest plot twist gut punch in the whole MCU with the SHIELD/Hydra reveal. It's an extremely well crafted, ballsy narrative that impacts the shape of the MCU going forward.
There's honestly nothing bad to say about this one. It's top tier comic book cinema.
Chris Evans does nothing more than tighten his grip around his most famous role. He joins Robert Downey Jr. in the category of irreplaceable actors for these characters.
Scarlett Johansson is once again great as Black Widow, and newcomer Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/Falcon provides Cap with a likeable new ally. The three of them as a sort of mini Avengers in this movie are fantastic.
Sebastian Stan plays The Winter Soldier with aplomb, and gives us a truly dangerous antagonist. The dude is fucking terrifying, yet his relationship with Steve Rogers gives us the heart of this movie. It's a tragic story which of course will be further explored in Civil War further down the line.
The cast is rounded off with Samuel L. Jackson returning as Nick Fury, Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce, Emily VanCamp as Agent 13, Frank Grillo as Brock Rumlow, and some smaller roles for Cobie Smulders and Hayley Atwell.
It's a really solid cast all in all, an area that Marvel Studios rarely missteps.
The set pieces are hugely high octane and thrilling. The opening scene on the barge is a highlight, as well as the teams fight with the Winter Soldier midway through. Even Nick Fury gets a banger of an action sequence. Also, this film boasts probably the biggest plot twist gut punch in the whole MCU with the SHIELD/Hydra reveal. It's an extremely well crafted, ballsy narrative that impacts the shape of the MCU going forward.
There's honestly nothing bad to say about this one. It's top tier comic book cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 3, 2019
Director: Jon Watts
Writer: Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers (Screenplay) Steve Ditko, Stan Lee (Comic Book)
Starring: Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal, Zendaya, Samuel L Jackson, Jon Favreau, Angourie Rice, Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori
Plot: Following the events of Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man must step up to take on new threats in a world that has changed forever.
Runtime: 2 Hours 9 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: An Entertaining Jumble
Story: Spider-Man Far from Home starts when Peter Parker (Holland) and his classmates MJ (Zendaya), Ned (Batalon), Flash (Revolori) and others head off to Europe for a scientific school trip, Peter’s plan is to finally tell MJ how he feels, but things don’t go to plan.
Peter finds himself recruited by Nick Fury (Jackson) to help new superhero Quentin Beck known as Mysterio (Gyllenhaal) fight a new threat that is attacking cities in Europe, trying to decide if he is ready to tackle the added responsibility of being a superhero.
Thoughts on Spider-Man Far from Home
Characters – Peter Parker has two main storylines going on in this film, one side of him is the high school student that wants to tell the girl he likes his feeling, nervous and social awkward. The second one sees him facing the reality that he was hand picked to step up and help save the world, a decision which sees him wanting to just take a break from. Watching Peter balance the two is interesting because the high school one was the weaker side, the superhero side is very interesting to follow. Nick Fury is also adapting to life after the snap, where he isn’t in the same level of control on everything going on in the world, he wants Peter to come and work for him and doesn’t like being told no. They did try to recapture certain elements of the chemistry he had with Captain Marvel too. Quentin Beck is the new superhero dubbed Mysterio because of his powers and ability to defeat the elementals that have started attacking the major cities, he offers Peter a chance to discuss his position with having powers like nobody else has since Tony’s death. MJ is the girl of Peter’s dreams, she is very different to both versions of MJ we have seen before, being very distant to the rest of the class, but always manages to capture Peter watching her.
Performances – Tom Holland does do a very good job in the leading role, if it was just the high school side of the film, he does struggle at times, but it is the human effect of being a superhero that completely makes you believe what he is going through. Samuel L Jackson does what we expect from him in a supporting role, as does Zendaya who does everything without standing out. Jake Gyllenhaal though, he was a joy to watch especially in the second half of the film, he just takes his role and runs with it.
Story – The story here follows Peter Parker on his high school trip that gets interrupted to help try and save the world from a new threat, testing him to see if he is ready to replace Iron-Man. This like the character of Peter Parker can be broken down into two simple positives and negatives, the high school trip stuff, is there, most of it gets pretty boring quickly, it is here to help show a human life that he could have though. The superhero side of the story is the highlight because it does get to show how the once confident Peter is starting to question if he is ready to step up after seeing the consequences to what has happened to people in their lives. The villain is a surprise and while I won’t get into details, it is very entertaining to watch and could be one of the best they have bought to a stand alone film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film is brilliant to watch, it blends with the special effects and doesn’t turn into anything as ridiculous as it could be when you see the fights. The sci-fi element of the film does address the dangers of technology being in the wrong hands once again, but it all works for the story being shown here.
Settings – The film gives us the basic European settings, we have Venice, Prague, Berlin and London, you know well know locations that have large populations which could get destroyed.
Special Effects – The effects in the film did seem flawless, we do have large scale, dust, water and fire monsters used for battles which all look like they could be real along with certain twists in the story which only add to the effects.
Scene of the Movie – What is real?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of the high school stuff.
Final Thoughts – This is a real mixed bag of a superhero movie, it could have been fantastic, only it gets too carried away dealing with the high school world which does drag things down.
Overall: Entertaining enough.
Rating
Writer: Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers (Screenplay) Steve Ditko, Stan Lee (Comic Book)
Starring: Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal, Zendaya, Samuel L Jackson, Jon Favreau, Angourie Rice, Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori
Plot: Following the events of Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man must step up to take on new threats in a world that has changed forever.
Runtime: 2 Hours 9 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: An Entertaining Jumble
Story: Spider-Man Far from Home starts when Peter Parker (Holland) and his classmates MJ (Zendaya), Ned (Batalon), Flash (Revolori) and others head off to Europe for a scientific school trip, Peter’s plan is to finally tell MJ how he feels, but things don’t go to plan.
Peter finds himself recruited by Nick Fury (Jackson) to help new superhero Quentin Beck known as Mysterio (Gyllenhaal) fight a new threat that is attacking cities in Europe, trying to decide if he is ready to tackle the added responsibility of being a superhero.
Thoughts on Spider-Man Far from Home
Characters – Peter Parker has two main storylines going on in this film, one side of him is the high school student that wants to tell the girl he likes his feeling, nervous and social awkward. The second one sees him facing the reality that he was hand picked to step up and help save the world, a decision which sees him wanting to just take a break from. Watching Peter balance the two is interesting because the high school one was the weaker side, the superhero side is very interesting to follow. Nick Fury is also adapting to life after the snap, where he isn’t in the same level of control on everything going on in the world, he wants Peter to come and work for him and doesn’t like being told no. They did try to recapture certain elements of the chemistry he had with Captain Marvel too. Quentin Beck is the new superhero dubbed Mysterio because of his powers and ability to defeat the elementals that have started attacking the major cities, he offers Peter a chance to discuss his position with having powers like nobody else has since Tony’s death. MJ is the girl of Peter’s dreams, she is very different to both versions of MJ we have seen before, being very distant to the rest of the class, but always manages to capture Peter watching her.
Performances – Tom Holland does do a very good job in the leading role, if it was just the high school side of the film, he does struggle at times, but it is the human effect of being a superhero that completely makes you believe what he is going through. Samuel L Jackson does what we expect from him in a supporting role, as does Zendaya who does everything without standing out. Jake Gyllenhaal though, he was a joy to watch especially in the second half of the film, he just takes his role and runs with it.
Story – The story here follows Peter Parker on his high school trip that gets interrupted to help try and save the world from a new threat, testing him to see if he is ready to replace Iron-Man. This like the character of Peter Parker can be broken down into two simple positives and negatives, the high school trip stuff, is there, most of it gets pretty boring quickly, it is here to help show a human life that he could have though. The superhero side of the story is the highlight because it does get to show how the once confident Peter is starting to question if he is ready to step up after seeing the consequences to what has happened to people in their lives. The villain is a surprise and while I won’t get into details, it is very entertaining to watch and could be one of the best they have bought to a stand alone film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film is brilliant to watch, it blends with the special effects and doesn’t turn into anything as ridiculous as it could be when you see the fights. The sci-fi element of the film does address the dangers of technology being in the wrong hands once again, but it all works for the story being shown here.
Settings – The film gives us the basic European settings, we have Venice, Prague, Berlin and London, you know well know locations that have large populations which could get destroyed.
Special Effects – The effects in the film did seem flawless, we do have large scale, dust, water and fire monsters used for battles which all look like they could be real along with certain twists in the story which only add to the effects.
Scene of the Movie – What is real?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of the high school stuff.
Final Thoughts – This is a real mixed bag of a superhero movie, it could have been fantastic, only it gets too carried away dealing with the high school world which does drag things down.
Overall: Entertaining enough.
Rating
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Revolution! in Tabletop Games
Oct 31, 2019
My wife is not able to play games with me as much as either of us would like. We have kids, dogs, and other life responsibilities that limit our gaming time together. However, if there ever was a game that she loves to play and absolutely has figured out, it’s Revolution! by Steve Jackson Games (yes, the Munchkin Man). So that’s why I am including her guest score on this review. She seems to like it an awful lot.
Revolution! is an area control bidding game of influencing kingdom inhabitants to jockey for a superior position of power to win the game. The key is influencing the right people at the right time to gain resources, influence in the kingdom, and support (VPs).
DISCLAIMER – We are using the expansion “The Palace” along with our review as it add components to play with up to 6 people, and our game nights tend toward 6 players more than 4. The base game alone plays up to 4 players and uses 4 fewer characters to influence. Should we add in the “Anarchy” expansion we will either add that information here or link to the review from here. -T
To setup, place the main kingdom board on the table that outlines the different districts in which the players will be vying for majority influence. Each player chooses a color and receives all color-matched components: player reference screen, cubes, disc, and one bid board (which are all identical). Each player will also receive one Force token (red fist), Blackmail token (black envelope), and three Gold tokens (gold coins). You are now ready to begin.
Turns are taken simultaneously. Players will place tokens on their bid boards to denote which type of influence they plan to exert on an inhabitant and how many of each. For instance, you may place all your coins on the General and hope you win. Or maybe you want to place a coin and a blackmail on the Printer. Once all players have placed their influence on their boards, the privacy screens are lifted and each kingdom character is compared individually, one by one. Did your three Coins on the General fly, or did someone add a Blackmail token and prevail? Wait, one Blackmail wins? Yes, in Revolution! the gold Coins are the lowest value influence. So one Blackmail alone is enough to win against ANY NUMBER of Coins. Now, one Blackmail alone is defeated by one Blackmail and one Coin, but simply one Force would beat both of those attempts, as Force is the most powerful token type, but not all inhabitants are affected by Force. Take your General for example. Their color on the bid board is red, meaning that a red token will have no effect here. Once the winners of each kingdom person have been determined, the winners receive the benefits offered by each character. I will not go into detail the benefits each character gives you, but for an example (shown below on the play pic), the General awards the winner with one Support (VP), one Force (fist token), and you may place an influence cube in the Fortress. Before the next turn, each player will check their token collection and anyone who has less than five tokens will receive a number of Coins to bring their collection to five tokens.
As the bidding phase gains you resources for future rounds, or instant Support, etc, the second half of a round is influencing the different districts within the kingdom. You do this placing your won cubes on any space within a specific district to attempt majority control of it. At the end of the game, the players with majority control of each district will receive Support for the districts that correspond with what is printed on the board. These are VERY important as you can amass tons of Support from district majorities. The game continues in this fashion for a number of rounds until all influence spaces on the main kingdom board are full. Players then check for majority in each district and apply Support on the VP track. The player with the most Support at the end of the game is the winner! (It will be Kristin.)
Components. This is a heavy game, not in complexity, but in component weight. The boards are all of great quality, the cardboard tokens are nice, the wooden cubes are typical quality. The art on the game is good, if dated, but good. I have no complaints about the components.
As you can see from our scores at the top, we REALLY like this game. As one of the highest ranking games on BGG from Steve Jackson Games, this one delivers a great time of double thinking, bluffing your neighbors, and certainly rewards players for their great strategy. We used to play this game ALL THE TIME until it became futile playing against my wife. She is that good. At one point I thought I had her strategy figured out, but I have since lost it. However, I am always eager to play this and try again. One of these days I will claim victory. Revolution! could definitely stand an update, or re-theme, or something along with a reprint to bring it into more homes, but I am glad I have a copy (with all the expansions *shoulder brush*) and it will not be leaving my collection any time soon. That’s a mark of a great game, and that’s partly why Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a close-to-a-Golden-Feather-Award-recipient 23 / 24. If you see one in the wild, pick it up!
Revolution! is an area control bidding game of influencing kingdom inhabitants to jockey for a superior position of power to win the game. The key is influencing the right people at the right time to gain resources, influence in the kingdom, and support (VPs).
DISCLAIMER – We are using the expansion “The Palace” along with our review as it add components to play with up to 6 people, and our game nights tend toward 6 players more than 4. The base game alone plays up to 4 players and uses 4 fewer characters to influence. Should we add in the “Anarchy” expansion we will either add that information here or link to the review from here. -T
To setup, place the main kingdom board on the table that outlines the different districts in which the players will be vying for majority influence. Each player chooses a color and receives all color-matched components: player reference screen, cubes, disc, and one bid board (which are all identical). Each player will also receive one Force token (red fist), Blackmail token (black envelope), and three Gold tokens (gold coins). You are now ready to begin.
Turns are taken simultaneously. Players will place tokens on their bid boards to denote which type of influence they plan to exert on an inhabitant and how many of each. For instance, you may place all your coins on the General and hope you win. Or maybe you want to place a coin and a blackmail on the Printer. Once all players have placed their influence on their boards, the privacy screens are lifted and each kingdom character is compared individually, one by one. Did your three Coins on the General fly, or did someone add a Blackmail token and prevail? Wait, one Blackmail wins? Yes, in Revolution! the gold Coins are the lowest value influence. So one Blackmail alone is enough to win against ANY NUMBER of Coins. Now, one Blackmail alone is defeated by one Blackmail and one Coin, but simply one Force would beat both of those attempts, as Force is the most powerful token type, but not all inhabitants are affected by Force. Take your General for example. Their color on the bid board is red, meaning that a red token will have no effect here. Once the winners of each kingdom person have been determined, the winners receive the benefits offered by each character. I will not go into detail the benefits each character gives you, but for an example (shown below on the play pic), the General awards the winner with one Support (VP), one Force (fist token), and you may place an influence cube in the Fortress. Before the next turn, each player will check their token collection and anyone who has less than five tokens will receive a number of Coins to bring their collection to five tokens.
As the bidding phase gains you resources for future rounds, or instant Support, etc, the second half of a round is influencing the different districts within the kingdom. You do this placing your won cubes on any space within a specific district to attempt majority control of it. At the end of the game, the players with majority control of each district will receive Support for the districts that correspond with what is printed on the board. These are VERY important as you can amass tons of Support from district majorities. The game continues in this fashion for a number of rounds until all influence spaces on the main kingdom board are full. Players then check for majority in each district and apply Support on the VP track. The player with the most Support at the end of the game is the winner! (It will be Kristin.)
Components. This is a heavy game, not in complexity, but in component weight. The boards are all of great quality, the cardboard tokens are nice, the wooden cubes are typical quality. The art on the game is good, if dated, but good. I have no complaints about the components.
As you can see from our scores at the top, we REALLY like this game. As one of the highest ranking games on BGG from Steve Jackson Games, this one delivers a great time of double thinking, bluffing your neighbors, and certainly rewards players for their great strategy. We used to play this game ALL THE TIME until it became futile playing against my wife. She is that good. At one point I thought I had her strategy figured out, but I have since lost it. However, I am always eager to play this and try again. One of these days I will claim victory. Revolution! could definitely stand an update, or re-theme, or something along with a reprint to bring it into more homes, but I am glad I have a copy (with all the expansions *shoulder brush*) and it will not be leaving my collection any time soon. That’s a mark of a great game, and that’s partly why Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a close-to-a-Golden-Feather-Award-recipient 23 / 24. If you see one in the wild, pick it up!
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Captain Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), the two years following his exploits in “The Avengers” has not been easy. He is still coming to grips with being a man out of time, as the world around him is a much more dangerous and complicated place than the one he grew up in.
He runs missions for S.H.I.E.L.D. under the command of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), and is often accompanies by a team of agents as well as his fellow Avenger Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson).
A recent mission has lead the Captain to question some of the tactics used by S.H.I.E.L.D. and Fury decides it is time to be more open with Rogers about the pending plans of the agency which involve launching three Super Carriers that will eliminate threats before they happen.
Naturally this sort of “Gunboat Diplomacy” does not sit well with the highly ethical Rogers but Fury tells him he needs to get out of the past and become aware of just how different and dangerous the world they live in has become.
Fury believes that the Captain does have some valid concerns and uncovers that things may not be as they appear. When a vicious and well coordinated attack happen, Captain America is called into action and soon finds himself facing a deadly assassin known as The Winter Soldier.
The heat soon rises making Rogers soon question whom he can trust as a deadly conspiracy that holds the fate of the world in the balance erupts, and only Rogers and his team can save the day.
The film is an intense thrill ride that mixes the best elements of the Marvel films with solid action and a dramatic thriller. There are strong performances all around and the addition of Anthony Mackie and Robert Redford to the already strong ensemble was a masterful plan.
Directors Anthony and Joe Russo (Who are said to already be signed for the next Captain America film), clearly have a grasp on the material and they deftly combine action with a human story full of ethical dilemmas and personal motivations to deliver a film that is so much more than the usual FX laden films that are common with comic book related films.
Marvel Studios has once again upped the ante and have continued their amazing run of film success and keep getting better and better. There are several hints dropped about other characters and events in the upcoming Marvel cinematic universe as well as plenty of treats for fans. You will want to stay for the two additional scenes that take place during the credits as they give fans a hint of what is to come next year with “The Avengers: Age of Ultron”.
Until then, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is a spectacular summer event film, as an it is a non-stop thrill ride and a textbook example of how to bring the best elements of a comic book to life.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/04/captain-america-the-winter-soldier/
He runs missions for S.H.I.E.L.D. under the command of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), and is often accompanies by a team of agents as well as his fellow Avenger Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson).
A recent mission has lead the Captain to question some of the tactics used by S.H.I.E.L.D. and Fury decides it is time to be more open with Rogers about the pending plans of the agency which involve launching three Super Carriers that will eliminate threats before they happen.
Naturally this sort of “Gunboat Diplomacy” does not sit well with the highly ethical Rogers but Fury tells him he needs to get out of the past and become aware of just how different and dangerous the world they live in has become.
Fury believes that the Captain does have some valid concerns and uncovers that things may not be as they appear. When a vicious and well coordinated attack happen, Captain America is called into action and soon finds himself facing a deadly assassin known as The Winter Soldier.
The heat soon rises making Rogers soon question whom he can trust as a deadly conspiracy that holds the fate of the world in the balance erupts, and only Rogers and his team can save the day.
The film is an intense thrill ride that mixes the best elements of the Marvel films with solid action and a dramatic thriller. There are strong performances all around and the addition of Anthony Mackie and Robert Redford to the already strong ensemble was a masterful plan.
Directors Anthony and Joe Russo (Who are said to already be signed for the next Captain America film), clearly have a grasp on the material and they deftly combine action with a human story full of ethical dilemmas and personal motivations to deliver a film that is so much more than the usual FX laden films that are common with comic book related films.
Marvel Studios has once again upped the ante and have continued their amazing run of film success and keep getting better and better. There are several hints dropped about other characters and events in the upcoming Marvel cinematic universe as well as plenty of treats for fans. You will want to stay for the two additional scenes that take place during the credits as they give fans a hint of what is to come next year with “The Avengers: Age of Ultron”.
Until then, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is a spectacular summer event film, as an it is a non-stop thrill ride and a textbook example of how to bring the best elements of a comic book to life.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/04/captain-america-the-winter-soldier/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Nanuk in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Oh, Nanuk. Why are you so disliked? Is it because some gamers can’t separate Steve Jackson Games from Munchkin? Are you then destined to just be “okay” because your cousin is so polarizing? No. I will stand up for you AND your other cousin Revolution! (review coming)! You are a good game. Repeat after me, “I am a good game.” Good. ?
Nanuk, technically, is a polar bear. The same found on the cover of the game box. He is attempting to nom on an Inuit hunter. But worry not, in this game Nanuk does not eat people. Just the animals that have been hunted by the people to be brought back to the village as a result of your pig-headed boasting. Oh, you say you can bring back 17 fish in three days? I say you’re doomed.
I do not want to get in a habit of explaining games in my reviews, but I feel like Nanuk could benefit from it, so I will be quickly paraphrasing.
In Nanuk play goes around the table where each player must increase either the number of animals (and you can change the animal type) or the number of days of “the Hunt.” Example, I increase the current boast from three deer in one day to four birds in one day. Once a player no longer thinks the combination of animals and days will a successful hunt make, they must flip over their voting token to the doomed side. The last player to have upped the ante is the Hunt Leader and the naysayer is the, idk, Doom Leader I think. Then everyone evaluates the animal and Inuksuk (the awesome humanoid stone statue) cards to determine if they should join the Hunt or Doom team, flipping their voting token thusly. Every player then must contribute at least one card from their hand that will be shuffled together as the results of the Hunt. Should the boast parameters be met between the cards contributed and cards drawn from the deck (equal to the number of days boasted) the Hunt team wins and spoils are split among the team members. If not, the Doom team wins the spoils. At the end of the game you are hoping to have amassed sets and pairs of animals to score the most VP. There are a couple other rules that I will leave you to discover, but that is the… meat… of them.
I received my copy of Nanuk cheaply from a BGG auction many years ago. I was not sure exactly what to expect of it, but I was diggin the cover art. Once we played it, and played it again, and more, I began to love it more and more. It’s not a long game, the rules are relatively simple, and it is very much a social game. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “party game” because that term just has different connotations to me, but it will play 5-8 players quite comfortably. Many times I have a group of 6 or more and this always delivers. Please give this one a try and I know you will enjoy it.
Someday we will start making lists and such, and this will go on my list of favorite games that support a larger play count. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 12 / 18 (because Laura has not yet played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/16/nanuk-review/
Nanuk, technically, is a polar bear. The same found on the cover of the game box. He is attempting to nom on an Inuit hunter. But worry not, in this game Nanuk does not eat people. Just the animals that have been hunted by the people to be brought back to the village as a result of your pig-headed boasting. Oh, you say you can bring back 17 fish in three days? I say you’re doomed.
I do not want to get in a habit of explaining games in my reviews, but I feel like Nanuk could benefit from it, so I will be quickly paraphrasing.
In Nanuk play goes around the table where each player must increase either the number of animals (and you can change the animal type) or the number of days of “the Hunt.” Example, I increase the current boast from three deer in one day to four birds in one day. Once a player no longer thinks the combination of animals and days will a successful hunt make, they must flip over their voting token to the doomed side. The last player to have upped the ante is the Hunt Leader and the naysayer is the, idk, Doom Leader I think. Then everyone evaluates the animal and Inuksuk (the awesome humanoid stone statue) cards to determine if they should join the Hunt or Doom team, flipping their voting token thusly. Every player then must contribute at least one card from their hand that will be shuffled together as the results of the Hunt. Should the boast parameters be met between the cards contributed and cards drawn from the deck (equal to the number of days boasted) the Hunt team wins and spoils are split among the team members. If not, the Doom team wins the spoils. At the end of the game you are hoping to have amassed sets and pairs of animals to score the most VP. There are a couple other rules that I will leave you to discover, but that is the… meat… of them.
I received my copy of Nanuk cheaply from a BGG auction many years ago. I was not sure exactly what to expect of it, but I was diggin the cover art. Once we played it, and played it again, and more, I began to love it more and more. It’s not a long game, the rules are relatively simple, and it is very much a social game. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “party game” because that term just has different connotations to me, but it will play 5-8 players quite comfortably. Many times I have a group of 6 or more and this always delivers. Please give this one a try and I know you will enjoy it.
Someday we will start making lists and such, and this will go on my list of favorite games that support a larger play count. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 12 / 18 (because Laura has not yet played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/16/nanuk-review/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.