It's been a while since I've played both, but I remember having more problems with the first turn of the rail era in Lancashire.
I think Birmingham has easier rules to start your network in the rail era. I think you're allowed to place rails anywhere if you don't already have a network. I get bitten by this sometimes when I play on the iOS app (Lancashire).
There's also a bit of a "feel" thing. It \*feels\* like you have fewer options in Lancashire, but it might be the group I'm playing with. In Birmingham, it's \*feels\* more like I'm deciding between my options (and weighing my opponents) instead of trying to cut them off or outright deny them. I don't know why it feels that way - maybe we're fighting over the map, fewer resources, or the remote markets dry up too quickly.
You're right that Lancashire doesn't let you build rails before you build industries. That said, if you're starting the rail era in *either* version of Brass with no industries on the board, you have already lost. Develop more often! :) Those tier-2+ industries are effectively worth double their printed VP if you can get them built and flipped in the canal era.
You're right about the difference between the Brasses too; I don't think it's just your group. Lancashire does have fewer options, which leads to more direct competition and makes the game less forgiving of mistakes. Lancashire partisans (like me) will tell you that this is a feature and not a bug, but to each their own!
Theorycrafting also had Birmingham as "illusion of choice" where Crates/Cotton/Pottery was usually worse than Beer/Link/Iron/Coal. I haven't played enough to say whether that's true or not but yeah.
I don't have enough Birmingham plays to really be able to tell the difference, and a lot of Brass (Lancashire) games have been been against the app or online.
I've only noticed from logging plays that a 4p game of Lancashire is roughly an hour shorter than a 4p game of Birmingham. We play Lancashire in just over 2 hrs (2:15-ish), but Birmingham plays have been longer (3+ with 4p, **4 hrs** at 4p with new players).
I only have played Birmingham 10 times, while I've only logged 7 for Lancashire - though I've played the iOS app AI a lot more than that.
I'm not sure with the details, but I think I still had industries on the board, but they were already flipped or didn't have access to coal.
It was more a mistake when I was planning ahead during the last turn of the canal era. I'd try to take advantage of the player order, or my coal was used up, and then I wouldn't be able to build a rail in tye first turn of the era.
Since all my plays on the app are Lancashire - it's possible that I've been inadvertently cheating with in-person games of Birmingham and no one's caught it. I *think* I've been playing right and have just been better prepared.
It's also possible that my friends playing Lancashire with me are more experienced (and really mean 😊) while the Birmingham plays have been with newer players.
If I end up getting the Steam app and it chides me when I try to build rails, I'll report back. 😊
It’s so true lmao. I’ve been really trying to learn it and I’m loving it. Played 3 times in the past week.
But every time, I fuck up at least two moves because I forgot some absurdly simple rule.
It’s really weird! The game feels surprisingly complicated despite having straightforward rules. (Connection & network are very easy to understand, consuming resources are very simple even though each has slightly different rules.)
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Brass: Birmingham. The strategy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of 19th century economics most of the game's transport rules will go over a typical player's head. There's also the entrepreneurs' liberal outlook, which is deftly woven into their characterisation- Richard Arkwright's personal philosophy draws heavily from The Wealth of Nations, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these game mechanics, to realise that they're not just fun- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Brass: Birmingham truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the significance of the top hat icon, which itself is a cryptic reference to Isambard Kingdom Brunel's preferred style of dress. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Martin Wallace's genius wit unfolds itself on their gaming tables. What fools.. how I pity them.
[Take this no-prize for not spending too much time on the internet](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/to-be-fair-you-have-to-have-a-very-high-iq-to-understand-rick-and-morty).
One member of our playgroup, who had never played the game, told us it was too complicated for everyone but them. They also made sure to add that if I did buy it they would win every game.
He may have meant it as a preference, not a cognitive limitations.
Or maybe he is just very poor at expressing him self in a non offensive manner.
I did make similar statement to some players, knowing when a game is too complicated for them to **enjoy**. Often because it involves mechanic they are not familiar with, or not willing to put the brain bandwidth to.
Personally, I wouldn't like being around somebody who said things like that unironically. Based on the votes, it seems like most people agree with me. I could see some people being OK with it for whatever reason. However, I wouldn't call it normally acceptable behavior, even and especially with friends.
srsly think it depends on the friend group. I don't have to play with him, so it's not my call.
I see it all the time in chess, and also in pick-up other sports.
If it doesn't break their magic circle, I don't care. But wouldn't allow it in mine.
Eh, we don't know anything about them other than that they express an inflated sense of how good they are at games. They may well be a ton of fun to hang out with overall.
Brass: Birmingham is a top five game for me; it's just so smooth and elegant, and I love economic games (and Martin Wallace is an absolute game design LEGEND).
I fucking love Brass, but it really is a pretty complex game. It's very common for players who prefer lighter games to quickly get frustrated with all of the fiddly little requirements. For example:
I wanna build this building, but I need coal, so I have this card to make a coal mine, but it's not in my network, so I need to build a link to it, but I need coal for the link. Can I use beer to make these rails? Well yeah but only if it's ours, but you can use a beer that isn't yours, unless it's a market beer, or unless the beer isn't directly connected to your link...
Etc etc. it can feel pretty overwhelming until you've played it several times.
The restrictions around requiring things in your network and connected are a bit hard at first. I found my first play with 4 new players was particularly rough, but every game after with new players is fine if one player at the table can reinforce the rules well.
I would say it's not hard to understand, it's just fiddly. There aren't that many rules really but the few that there are are very precise and easy to overlook. It also doesn't help that the rulebook is abysmal.
I was pleasantly surprised when my group tried it. Sourcing coal to build out railroads during the second phase is interesting. I’m curious if there are recommended/balanced market distributions, some setups can feel somewhat awkward.
I picked it up in December of last year, and it sits unplayed. The box is thin and unintimidating. I love economic games. I think I just question if it will live up to the hype of #1 on BGG, and it sitting unplayed means it hasn't disappointed in regards to the lofty rating. Unplayed, it could be great! Another factor is the canal/rail linking that I can't get my head totally around from watching playthroughs and reading the rules. Like the concept I get, but how do I not botch it horribly for whatever strategy I'm going for. Probably one of those things to figure out while doing it.. Maybe I'll break the game open during this long weekend!
You will botch it, and I think that's the fun of it. You make elaborated plan like an evil mastermind in your head while the others play.
And then bam! Another player ruin your plan. So you make a new one, because it opened new possibilities, and then BAM! Another player thought of these possibilities too, ruining your plan, but opening new possibilities, and so on...
It's quite fun, I like it a lot.
The easiest way to think about it is to establish links where you need to expand (keeping in mind that named location cards let you build in those locations regardless of links), when you need to get to a market for coal or to sell goods, or (in the rail era) for big link points if that's the best option. Otherwise, you can usually rely on others' links for transporting coal/others' beer or completing links to markets.
If you have a specific market strategy (say, you're going cotton and the cotton merchants are in Oxford and the north of the board), then you'll probably have to link Kidderminster/Worcester and later Worcester/Birmingham (and possibly Worcester/Gloucester for coal early for your level two cotton if no one builds Birmingham/Oxford soon enough -- or you can build W/B and B/O yourself; links to Birmingham tend to score lots of points). In canal, these may be the only links you build because you've got better things to do (developing away level 1 cotton and breweries, placing breweries, loans for buying cotton mills, possibly scouting cards to place cotton, etc.).
In canal, you don't want to necessarily place a bunch of links, because your focus should be on placing level 2+ tiles for presence in the rail era (and because if flipped they'll score twice) and preparing your economy/finances for the rail era. In the rail era, the map becomes denser (though tiles generally have fewer link points) and you can lay more link tiles for the same action with a double link action, so you can be scoring 12+ points with a reasonable double-rail action.
Hope this makes sense; let me know if you have questions.
There was a thing where BrassB fans were voting 1 on Gloomhaven and 10 to BB, that’s one of the reason it reached #1. I don’t know if BGG did something about it, please correct me if they did.
Anyways, I own it (I also played BrassL) and love it, great game. Easy to teach, hard to master.
Just wanted to comment on the #1 thing; I always take rankings with a grain of salt.
i have rated Brass a 10, it’s subjectively my favorite boardgame, i have not rated gloomhaven a 1 but by the bgg guidelines i could see doing so, i didn’t find it to be fun, it’s a beast setup and pack up and it’s one of the few games that i own that i seriously doubt i would ever pull off the shelf to play(i received it as a gift and thus feel bad getting rid of it, i have it packed in multiple boxes and so even lending it to a friend (though none of them want it) isn’t that feasible) So for me a game that i don’t think is fun, none of my friends want to play, is way too involved to ever just ‘play’, takes up a ton of shelf space could be a 1
I agree, I’ve only played and own JOTL (I did play GH on PC). I don’t rate games, but this thing I mention it was something subjective just to get brass to #1. You can check dates on votes. Something similar happened this week with a new game, but worse, new accounts voting 10 to push the game to a good rating. Since that’s an easy to catch from an IT perspective, they deleted the votes and blocked the accounts.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be #1. But it’s good to have all the info. Eg: these games are 1y aparte and GH has 16k more votes. And at #2 there’s pandemic L01 with 53k votes.
When in doubt, build rails and canals in high traffic areas of the board. This will usually help points wise at the end game even if your other strategies aren’t going to plan.
That’s how it works with everything, isn’t it?
In video games, if I tell you “let’s play some CoD” I’m probably talking about the latest one, not the first one released a few decades ago.
If I talk about an avengers movie when it’s in cinemas, I probably mean the newest one.
If I talk about “the kid in my basement” I mean the latest one I kidnapped, not the first.
Yeah, I Kickstarted it when they were doing both, as my big 'gripe' was I wanted a mat or something for the tokens...and wanted an upgraded version from my Eagle Games copy. Once they came in, I got rid of my old copy, played both new games, got rid of Birmingham (I really prefer the original)...and then realized I really missed my old copy.
But agreed, when folks mention Brass, I just assume they mean 'Lancaster'.
I wouldn't say "afraid" but certainly "wary" of playing a game incorrectly for the first time due to misunderstanding the rules, possibly having a bad time with something I may have otherwise enjoyed.
You can find a game intimidating, like you are not in the mood to go over the x pages of manual and are somehow afraid you won't get it.
I do feel this way with Robinson. The game look like something I would enjoy, but I am unable to play it without the manual open, and that prevent me to really play smoothly. Plus I get my ass kicked in a shameful manner very early in the game every time I tried. So it is taking dust on my shelf.
If you like interplay between the players, you will love Lancashire. Birmingham pushes players apart and more solitary, Lancashire forces them to be closer and compete more.
Are people scared of Brass?
I’ve only played it once. It was fine, but not fun enough for me to get past the theme and how dark and drab it was. I’ll play it if it’s on offer, but its charms are lost on me.
Sometimes you just hate a certain kind of theme. I'll probably never play anything themed around cowboys, for example. No rational reason why, just don't like 'em.
I also played it the first time Saturday evening and very much agree. I think the game is rank 1 just because it’s the least disliked game in the world. It’s okay.
Unfortunately I am one of the people scared of it. I have tried to understand the rulebook three or four times but just can't get my head around it. Normally I like heavier games too though, my favourite game I own is probably war of the ring and that monstrous rulebook with all expansions somehow makes sense to me. I kind of wish I just knew someone who knew how to play so I could be taught it by someone but unfortunately that's normally my role to do the teach.
>I just knew someone who knew how to play so I could be taught it by someone but unfortunately that's normally my role to do the teach.
There's an amazing video tutorial on the Watch It Played YouTube channel that I highly recommend.
>But here's the best part - when you need to pay coal for something, you can use ANYONE'S coal!
Anyone's closest coal you mean.
There is in general no restriction on whose coal you're allowed to use, but you do have to take it from the closest source, whoever that is.
Yes, dude. You don’t need to explain all the rules in detail when you’re just sharing your opinion and feelings about a game, like OP was doing. It was not a “let me teach you to play Brass” post. You don’t need to do an “actually” comment.
Well actually, I appreciated the comment regarding the correction as it reinforced in my mind the understanding that it was to only be applied to the closest source of coal rather than any source of coal.
> You don’t need to explain all the rules in detail when you’re just sharing your opinion and feelings about a game, like OP was doing.
No, but you also don't need to misrepresent them either.
>It was not a “let me teach you to play Brass” post. You don’t need to do an “actually” comment.
I was correcting what looked like an actual misconception from OP, not something I took to be a tutorial attempt.
Wait you mean this wasn't a full rules breakdown? I was just about to go play the whole game based on this one post alone! Thank you for saving my game night!
> But here's the best part - when you need to pay coal for something, you can use ANYONE'S coal! The same with iron and barrels.
You might know this, but you can't use just *anyone's* coal. You have to take it from the nearest mine (fewest links away from the place you're using it).
Iron, on the other hand you *can* use whatever mine you like, and you don't have to be connected. Need 2 iron? Feel free to take one from Player A's mine, and one from Player B's.
Beer you have to be connected to, but you aren't compelled to use the closest.
My easy-peasy system for explaining and remembering the finicky rules of connections and networks:
1. Your network is anywhere you have a building, or anywhere touched by one of your links. Connection just means two places are connected by links, they don't have to all be yours.
2. The cards that show an industry represent you already employing a person who knows that industry. You can send them anywhere in your network and they'll set up a mine/factory/brewery for you.
3. The cards that show a town represent you "knowing a guy" in that town. They know what industries will work well in that town and they know how to build them up.
4. Coal is used by the literal ton on a daily basis. The only way to get that much coal that quickly is by boat/train, so to use or sell coal, it needs to be connected. It has to be the closest, because efficiency counts at that scale.
5. Iron is used in much smaller amounts. Small enough that a few horses can pull a wagon of the stuff in reasonable time. Therefore you don't need the infrastructure of canals/rail - it can just come by road.
6. Beer is the lubricant of commerce. Want to sell some goods? Everyone knows the best deals are made over a pint. You can just use the beer the pub has on hand (barrel on export hub), but that's in limited supply. You could arrange to have beer from a nearby brewery to be shipped to you, but it'll have to come by boat/train if you want it in time (Other players' beer). Best of all is if you own your own brewery - in that case, you always travel with a barrel or two, just in case. If you use it, you can just arrange the brewery to send you more when it's convenient (your own beer).
I know that it has to be the closest source, but I figured it was more important to portray the community supply mechanic in general, so non-players understand.
Your review makes Brass: Birmingham sound both accessible and incredibly engaging! It's great to hear that despite its intimidating reputation, the game mechanics are intuitive and foster a lot of player interaction. The idea of using other players' resources and the shift from canals to railways halfway through adds a dynamic layer of strategy. I'm definitely more interested in giving it a try now. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Interesting. I was told Birmingham was refined and therefore better though there also comments that Wyrmspan was just wingspan with dragons. This is inaccurate also.
I feel like there is less constraints on available choices. The action selection is vastly superior in terms of fun as well as strategy as to keep it for habitual use or deploy it as a railroad. There is more hand shaking in this game. Flipping buildings is also more rewarding.
My favorite mechanic in brass is the money vs turn order. Everything else I prefer in nucleum
I see. I prefer Lancashire because it feels like the streamlined version of the two.
Not sure if the added stuff in Nucleum would be a plus or a minus (esp w/group of Brass players) but would be willing to give it a shot.
Thanks!
I felt the beer in Birmingham made the game more restrictive and less enjoyable. Nucleum only has a bit of that restrictiveness but you can easily foresee where you might be lacking and react accordingly.
What about OP’s message makes you think they were addressing it to people who are uninterested in the game? Seems pretty obviously targeted at people who are intimidated by the game.
Or he's saying that if you are interested in it, but are a bit intimidated, then don't be, as it's not as heavy as you might fear.
But yeah, go ahead and make up some rubbish.
the ending...Are you still hiding behind your dice tray? What a clown shoes elitist question. "my games are so sophisticated and elegant, your games must be luck based and purely stupid. You can't learn my game because you are not as smart as me. For I am a genius and can handle this juggernaut of an undertaking".....spare me.
I must be from a different planet or something, because Brass:Brum is one of my favorite games. The graphics/design are beautiful and evocative, I think. (Play the light side of the map; it's better.) The constantly shifting puzzle of "What do I do on my turn, considering how these other one/two/three bastards have been screwing up my optimal board state?" is challenging and engaging. And pulling off a great turn (like ending the canal era with a loan/sell so I can go first in rail era with a big chunk of money to double rail; pulling off a quad rail; engineering things so I bring up the rear of the turn order then lead off the order next turn; doing a triple sell; etc.) is a high unlike most others in boardgaming.
I could refute the criticisms point by point, but that feels crabby. I just have to accept that some people have tried it and not enjoyed it. It's a tight (but not overly tight), competitive (but strangely symbiotic), semi-harsh (you want harsh? Play Wallace's London where each loan costs 50% interest to pay back and hits you with negative points regularly), economic euro where there's just the right amount of interplayer interaction without it being knife-fighty.
Do I love it as much as Concordia or On Mars? No. Will I play it any time it hits the table? Yes.
B:B is a great game. There a couple or three mechanics that might be counterintuitive or difficult to grasp at first but with the good rules explanation it becomes a very simple rule space for a medium-heavy game. Also, play with different people at different counts. The meta changes drastically and it feel a new game.
I played it for the first time two weeks ago, it was nice, but as the highest rated game of them all I... Expected more? It was fine, just not the best game of all time fine.
Yeah people need to learn that the highest rated board game on bgg just means it's the game that people on that website like the most. When you realise this fact the rating makes sense, because I'm sure you've encountered the situation where everyone in a room likes something which you don't.
It doesn't mean it's the best, because the whole concept of a best board game is absurd.
There are actually three versions with a 4th on the way 😄 The 3 that are out are Brass (old), Brass Lancashire (updated art), Brass Birmingham (updated art and modified rules, probably the most popular)
Four versions! Age of Industry is aesthetically basically the same as the original Brass but without the canal phase and with slightly looser building location rules (cards correspond to regions rather than being locked to individual cities)
Interesting. I’ll take a closer look next time I see it.
I typically only get the opportunity to play games at 2 players so I avoid multiplayer games unless I’m confident they play well at 2.
I've played almost every game on the BGG top 30, and I honestly think that Brass Birmingham is one of the simpler games. It's also a pretty quick game, even with 4 players. Of the top games on BGG, I think only 7 Wonders Duel is faster to play, mostly because it's a 2-player game.
Since I personally like much longer games like Terraforming Mars and Ark Nova, I wouldn't rate Brass at number 1, but it's definitely in the top 20 or so.
It's a fantastic game with some really interesting interaction. There are plusses and minuses for sharing the resources produced by your buildings, which is really neat. Sometimes you really don't want people getting your beer. That makes for some great tension and prevents anyone from doing too much all at once since you got to get to that beer before others do.
Also try **Age of Steam**. Easier rules, but wonderfully deep gameplay.
i've always read many posts and seen youtube reviewers saying it's actually not that complicated and that Lancashire is the heavier one comparatively. The actual learning of how to play and score is pretty intuitive
Yes, I am scared of it. 90% of time I will be the one who explain rules so I'm scared of anything that heavier than 3.0 on BGG weight, too many rules to remember, missing one may mess up the whole experience. But last week we played Dune Imperium Uprising and it was not that bad, I will try Brass someday.
It's one of my fav games, and definitely one of the most played in the mid-heavy range by me and my partner. I think it's elegant and strategic enough to not being too obnoxious... we like euros and economic games, but I noticed a trend of bloating mechanics in games lately and for me Brass just hits spot.
That said, I only played in 2p, so I don't know how it fares with more people
I did not enjoy Brass: Birmingham. I was in a gaming group where a friend had hyped it up and after playing through it twice, I just came to terms it's not for me. It falls into the same camp of Race/Roll for the Galaxy - games that I just cannot wrap my head around.
We played the first few times at one card per turn which means more money but not as much as you think. We then played it properly and are inclined to go back to a house rule of one per turn.
I was first introduced at a meetup group to the Birmingham variety. I couldn't finish the game as my husband called and our toddler was inconsolable, but I did get to the second round. I was winning, but I was not quite sure why. I finally got the game. Set it up for four players so I could play against myself (my favorite way to learn a game). It took me 30 minutes to set-up, and I realized I made a huge mistake on my second turn. I was too demoralized to reset up the game. I didn't like the feeling of constrained options and how easily it was to set up an impossible start.
I'm not afraid of Brass. It just feels like a waste of time to learn the game when it will never be played again. The local game groups never play the same game twice.
I actually love the vibe despite typically hating that kind of theme. It's just such a cozy little board. Look at all the cute houses with their cherry-red windows from the roaring fireplaces.
>But what do you think of Brass? Does it live up to the hype, or are you still hiding behind your dice tray? Let me know :)
I had an eye on original Brass (Brass Lancashire) since I came to the hobby in 2009, so given its reputation and the vibe of games of the time, I expected something in the line of Power Grid.
Eventually played B:L few years aho - the Roxley edition with the black side and the blacker side of the board because legibility became the enemy of gaming of sumthink. Immediatelly after the game it was clear to me why both Brass games are at top of BGG ratings - because they're basically MPS euros - the genre that the hobby, the BGG and this sub love and aren't willing to play much else. Only crucial difference is that in Brass everybody builds the share engine and one would think this changes things and adds interaction, but fun fact: no. The unwieldy deck of cards limits your option to few and thus as each player is juggling with their hand of cards, available board space, it's not too hard to pretty much figure out what somebody can do without ever needing to deal with such un-euro-ey stuff as psychology or group dynamics. Basically I came. I optimised. I won. - Against players who played before. Whee.
Few weeks later enter Brass Birmingham. That's one of the weirdest games I ever played. Because it has the unfinished feel and rough edges I would expect of a beta version of Brass Lancashire, but somehow it came out 11 years later. Huhwut.
Basically an unfinished game that should be further streamlined.
* there's one or two industries too many (not sufficiently different)
* there are some quirks in progression of building tracks - some buildings are cheaper than previous level or have this or that oddity - all this should be simplified as seems superficial
* breweries needlessly more complicated than ports
* because there are more building types the map is more cluttered
* because there are more building types the deck is more cluttered - the luck of the draw plays a bigger role. Which is why, I guess, the new explore action was added.
* also the money is less tight than in original game, but doesn't seem like significant difference, it's just something to appease the whining eurogamers. The change which probably took significant balancing just means players take one or two loans less per game, and thus whine a bit less. Oh boy.
* it felt to me even more than in original that I was playing my own game, basically just trying to make things work and optimise actions. Ho-hum.
* And yes. I came. I optimised. I won. Against players who played before. Whee.
So, before me lay a puzzle - how come eurogamez shifted in direction where the devolution of design is seen as improvement?
The realisation I eventually came to: In essence B:B is not meant to be played in terms of players throws themselves into the game. This game is meant to be looked from afar then dissected to bits and optimise to produce optimal VPs. Basically the process of playing this game is the same as is the process of streamlining the game. Modern eurogaming sensibilities thus want a half finished design as they imagine gameplay to be basically roleplaying a designer and finishing their job. If you point out to them that B:L is (a tiny bit) more about how players dance around the board and that from their timing and steps a new pattern emerges every game, modern eurogamers will not understand what you are saying. They want something tangible to fiddle with. And a board they can sink their faces in, so they never look anybody else in the eye.
Meaning - I still like Power Grid much more than B:L. And don't ask me of B:B.
Also played Wildlands, looked at the deck of cards and sai*d "oh you run away from B:B and are now hiding in a skirmish game? Don't worry I won't tell anybody. But I won't play this game either..."*
Hey, I expected interaction, but then.
* I came.
* I optimised.
* I won.
* TWICE!
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
>The positive and negative interactions between players are basically the defining features of this game.
Nah, I'm pretty sure one defining feature are individual player boards being literal spreadsheet nicely conveying that the game is one of optimisation though layers of rules, mechanisms and synergies between pieces and location.
Positive and negative interactions between players are basically the defining features of Catan, but hobbyists on this sub cannot take it, it's too much for them, it's too vile and oh noes dice, hence everybody knows you cannot really make an interactive game and make hobbyist buy it. Unless you're Vlaada, the guy who made some nice MPS gizmos and thus he is allowed to also make Codenames.
If you want positive and negative interactions, why don't you play - Modern Art, Lifeboats (1993), Diplomacy, Cosmic Encounter, Codenames, Time's up, Catan, Citadels, The Estates/Neue Heimat, Dune (1979), Small World, Bohnanza, Genoa, Pit, Cockroach poker, Coup, any social deduction game (but maybe skip Blood on the Watchtower as those fans be crazy), For Sale, Genoa, Chinatown,. Condotierre, Intrigue, Konig von Siam, any cube-rail game and so on. Heck even Carcassone does it better than Brass.
I agree that Birm added bloat to a game that didn't need it; and only served to make said game harder to learn and longer to play without actually improving it in any way. I know this won't be a popular opinion. Regardless, I highly recommend any players that want to try Brass to start with Lancashire due to these factors.
However, I think it is extremely incorrect to call either Brass a multiplayer solitaire game. There is always intense competition for turn order and the timing of critical actions so that you can swoop in and take what everyone wants at exactly the right moment.
>However, I think it is extremely incorrect to call either Brass a multiplayer solitaire game. There is always intense competition for turn order and the timing of critical actions so that you can swoop in and take what everyone wants at exactly the right moment.
I played it like MPS. Won.
Basically I wouldn't call any of things you describe as inter-action. They're inter-ference. Namely there's nothing happening between players themselves (inter-action), there's no group dynamics, there's no psychology, there's no need for me to figure out what other people are up to. Because I can scan the game-puzzle and see what the game allows them to do at all - a much narrower area of possibilities. When I say "inter-ferance" it means plans tripping over plans and this is so called "indirect interaction" that MPS euros have, if one fancies that. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
And there's the indirect "evidence" - brasses wouldn't be so high on BGG rankings if they wouldn't appeal to MPS euro sensibilities, because that's the mainstream of its userbase (also this sub's userbase). Compare this to Catan and the vile attack it gets and it's clear - Catan has more interaction which is why it's disliked.
I mean, I don't find Power Grid interactive enough for my tastes, but has more of it than B:L (which has more than B:B). Auctions at least allow a tiny bit of psychology to enter.
I still highly disgree.
First off, indirect interaction is still interaction. MPS games generally have minimal to no interaction, indirect or otherwise. An example being Wingspan, for instance.
Second off, the interaction in Brass is far beyond "plans tripping over each other". That may be how it feels with new, inexperienced players, but the game offers much more than that.
Brass is a very definitive "I drink your milkshake" game, in addition to offering plenty of opportunities for negotiation if players see fit to do so.
Additionally, Brass even offers some very direct interaction in the form of Overbuilding, which is an absolutely brutal move that one can orchestrate if paying attention.
>First off, indirect interaction is still interaction.
Nope.
Interferance.
I have no clue why insist on naming something that feels totally different to interaction, is engaged differently and handled differently by same word.
I have no clue why hobbyists are so attached to the word that has nothing to do with games they play, so they need to add "indirect" to it, which basically means "not really".
>Second off, the interaction in Brass is far beyond "plans tripping over each other". That may be how it feels with new, inexperienced players, but the game offers much more than that.
If I want an interactive game, I'd pick something like Bohnanza. Or kakerlakenpoker or whathaveyou.
I'd pick Brass if I'd want to optimise doodads in historical industrial setting which happens to me once every 531 years. And probably most I could get out of such an experience is to win. Which I have. So, I'm good for next 526 years.
>Brass is a very definitive "I drink your milkshake" game
As I said - that's interference. You can drink milkshake without looking me in my face. Please have the dignity to look me in the face.
>Additionally, Brass even offers some very direct interaction in the form of Overbuilding, which is an absolutely brutal move that one can orchestrate if paying attention.
Shocking! 😱 Let me guess, it gives POINTS! WOW! 😮
It's only brutal, if one gives a crap about winning (or milkshake). I don't. About either. Hence it's not interaction. Interaction brings intensity and engagement by itself without needing to care about winning or milkshake. 🙄
Plus it's easy to plan for contingencies by have 2-3 backup plans, which shouldn't be that hard. And if you can replace a plan by plan and all still works, where is interaction then?
No, I don't find your spreadsheet challenging. I don't find it interesting. I don't find it intellectual. I find it stale, boring, tedious, trivial, unengaging. I won it by using 15% of my mental faculties for juggling gizmos and 3-4 parallel plans, another 30% was used to decipher names of towns on dark black background while the remaining 55% of mind was scanning the surroundings for a nice concrete wall to bang head against and end the misery.
*Is this the real life? Is this reductionism? Caught in spreadsheet. No release from consumerism. Open my eyes look down to the board and see. I'm just a poor boy won't somebody look at me. They pushing cubes, converging stuff, some give points and some give more. Anyway the score goes doesn't really matter to me, to meeee.*
*Mama, just solved the game, juggled the equations, executed plans and won. Mama, there are more games like this. And now they wanna make ten thousand more. Mama, ooh, they make me bored to tears, If I'm not still sane this time tommorrow, carry on, carry on as points don't really matter.*
Yeah, I don't know what wise idea led you to engaging me here. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Thinking about these "games" gets me down.
*Oh, mamma mia, mamma mia, mamma mia, no more points! Beelzebub has a spreadsheet put aside for me, for me, for me
!*
"Players talking to each other" is not the *one true form of interaction*, no matter how badly you want that to be the definition.
All you should be saying here is "I prefer negotiation, bluffing, and social deduction games". Trying to sell the notion that Brass isn't interactive is just a ridiculous stretch in an attempt to self-validate.
Interaction within the context of gaming is a range. It isn't a 0 or 1.
At the lowest end, you have roll-and-write games where they can be played exactly the same solo as with other players. Something like Railroad Ink, where players can *not* make moves that affect each other in any way. Still a *competitive game* because everyone receives the same inputs and at the end can compare their performance against one another, but zero interaction.
At the high end, you have very directly interactive games. Chess, Inis, T&E. Games where players are directly sharing space and resources that they need in order to win. Players make move that not only help their own position but that also hurt the position of other players, for instance by capturing or destroying pieces as in those mentioned games. The state of the game changes move by move.
In the middle, you have the indirectly interactive games like Agricola and Terra Mystica. These are games that some people maintain aren't interactive at all, but that is silly and wrong. Rather, the interaction in these games simply tends to be less apparent until players develop suitable skill. Since players aren't destroying the pieces of their opponents, players are limited to "blocking". Basically, the games become more about the competition over shared resources. But this is *still interaction*. If you do not account for the other players at the table in these games, *you will lose*. And this isn't because of some cynical view that these players are "better optimizers". It is because you made mistakes that these players took advantage of, just like they might in Chess or other more directly interactive games. Personally, for me, there is actually not much difference between capturing someone's Queen and preventing someone from scoring points for an entire round by blocking them out of everything they need. But people separate these because of how these "feel" in a game, and I understand that.
Often, the games that you mentioned are also what I would consider to be on the high end of this scale. These are sort of the opposite of a roll-and-write game. There could not exist a solo version of these games. They *rely on* there being other players at the table. These games utilize a social component, but that social component is still beholden to the other, concrete mechanisms of the game itself. People can say and do whatever they want in Bohnanza, but there will still be a 1st place and last place at the end of the game. If players neglect this fact and don't try to make rational "moves" that increase their position or hurt their opponent's position, they will lose. And if players *don't care* about win or loss, then they have violated the contract necessary for a game to *function as a game*.
It doesn't matter if the moves of a game are saying the correct combination of words out loud or sliding one's Queen across the Chess board. These are just different ways to interact within the confines of a game. One is not *better* or *more correct* than the other, even if one prefers one over the other.
That all being said, Brass is something along the lines of medium-heavy interaction. Certainly more than enough to keep me interested.
Edit: Wow. Triggered an avalanche of pseudo-intellectual nonsense and ad-hominem, followed by getting blocked. All over being called out at trying to say that Brass is a multiplayer solitaire game. I expected more/better from Samo, especially given how often we have agreed in the past.
You know, I don't always agree with you, but thanks for writing all this out, that guy is insufferable.
Did you catch where he said that the only reason people don't like Catan is because it's interactive? "I have brick, does anyone have sheep?" So riveting.
Why are you still here? I have thought sufficient amount of signs in my last comment signalised seeing no point in further communication. 🙂
I have framed interaction as engagement between players as opposed to engagement between player and game - talking isn't necessary for this, so please no red herrings. My framing is basically how nongamer people understand interaction. If they stand in line at grocery talking to person behind them and then somebody else cuts the line - you would count both as "interaction", but people wouldn't count only first person's engagement as interaction. As said - it's of different quality, therefore has different name. You can't just throw generic anglophone "oh it's a spectrum", no, there's a deep structural difference. Are you mostly engaging other people in the game or are you mostly juggling mechanisms - and what's their priority within the game's organism and its shaping of gaming experience.
Reason why I see no possibility for further discussion is that you bring nothing to the table. I have read such generic lowest common denominator stuff 11254 times before in all my time in the hobby and it still has zero insight. I'm ignoring because there's nothing there. You don't have any skill in interpretation of art, literature, film or any cultural artefacts. You lack any methodology which would bring insights. So, given you seem to have time and money, please, go read stuff *(from continental europe, cca 1960s onward - Eco, Ranciere, Gadamer, Badiou, Deleuze, etc. Basic semiotics (early 20th c.) won't hurt either - Saussure, Pierce, Jakobson).*
Cheers.
Seems like a projection dear Sir or Madam.
I assure you my argument is logically structured and conveys analysis and evaluation. But if this was hard to digest, maybe I could offer some Omeprazole? 😊
It contained an outright lie too, saying Brass is multiplayer solitaire is disingenuous at best. But mostly, I didn't understand your condescension towards euro gamers or the ranking on the bgg list when the #1 game of all time has almost never been a MPS euro.
>It contained an outright lie too,
Are you new to the concept of interpretation? 😃
>when the #1 game of all time has almost never been a MPS euro.
Games that enter top 50 must appeal to MPS euro fanbase or they can get there, I'd say at least since 2017 *(TI 4 has older fans, so a bit of exception. Jury's out on Nemesis and Too Many Bones which are above my budget, but signs aren't that strongly opposed to my speculation).* Which means - complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed.
"Are you new to the concept of interpretation? 😃"
If that's how you want to put lying, go for it.
"Games that enter top 50 must appeal to MPS euro fanbase or they can get there, I'd say at least since 2017 *(TI 4 has older fans, so a bit of exception. Jury's out on Nemesis and Too Many Bones which are above my budget, but signs aren't that strongly opposed to my speculation).* Which means - complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed."
I agree that more complex games rank higher on the list generally speaking, but I was responding to your condescension of euro gamers.
Just looking at the top 10 games I have no idea how Gloomhaven, Pandemic Legacy, Star Wars Rebellion, or War of the Ring would appeal to your vision of a typical MPS euro player. If your only definition is going to be "complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed" then you should probably just reference heavy weight preferences since that also applies to war games.
Oh, you ARE new to the concept of interpretation. 😃
Here you go 👉 [A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics Paper - David Jasper : Westminster John Knox Press (wjkbooks.com)](https://www.wjkbooks.com/Products/0664227511/a-short-introduction-to-hermeneutics.aspx)
>I was responding to your condescension of euro gamers.
To quote from our discussion above: *"Who hurt you?"*
So it WAS a projection all along! 😄
>complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed"
MPS game = game where interacting with the game matters more than interacting with other players. And above quote nicely describes how such games look.
>then you should probably just reference heavy weight preferences since that also applies to war games.
So, not only interpretation, also contextualisation and analysis aren't your strong suits.
Rules in wargames are there to create theme (and all possible details regarding it), those rules aren't meant to be optimised in order to achieve victory. Totally different ballpark.
Say, are you maybe also new to the hobby? 🙂
I've been in hobby boardgames for something like 15 years.
The players in Brass do interact with each other, and if you don't believe me I can tell you I've played with some of the most cut throat Brass players across the US for over a decade, and have won an event for it at Origins. You absolutely have to respond to what the players are doing, cut them off, and just generally understand their presence.
I understand that games with direct conflict are somewhat more interactive, and the idea you're trying to espouse that the players are simply bonding with the board.
War games are not simply there to create theme. The theme is important to the experience in most cases, but you betray your own ignorance here. Have you ever played Twilight Struggle? COiN games? Those are games with labyrinthine rule sets that require optimal play from all those involved.
You aren't half as clever as you think you are nor the authority you claim to be.
See, I don't mind the old map style. Something about mostly dark boards just doesn't do it for me. Every once in a while I look at my collection and go "why don't I have more space games?" And then after looking at them, I remember it's because I don't like most of their boards.
So, I’ve had **Paths of Glory** sitting on my shelf for two years and I finally JUST got around to really reading the rules and watching the rules videos multiple times over the last week and have played two introductory (3 turn) games of it. I have probably spent about 12 or so hours working through the rules via everything mentioned above and just now feel confident in my rules grasp of how the first phase of the war goes. I’m still WAY foggy on how other nations enter the war or how you officially knock countries out (or if you really can even).
“How does this relate to this brass post?” You might be asking. Well, after getting to my point in game understanding I thought, “Surely this is the most complex game I own and have played per BGG’s complexity rating!”
Well, I looked it up and paths of glory is rated 3.85. Okay! Seems about right to me, I mean the core stuff of the game isn’t too crazy, but there are so many edgecase rules and rules particular to minuscule details of the game that I thought it would be in the 4.~ range. Anywho, that lead me to wonder about other games complexity ratings in my collection and I was shocked with the results. To circle back to the topic at hand, BGG gives Brass: Birmingham’s current complexity rating a 3.88! BB is rated .03 points higher than Paths of Glory!
“Hogwash!” I say! BB’s rulebook is like 5 pages and a breeze to punch through and digest. I read the rules and understood them in about 15~30 minutes!! If I had played PoG before Brass and compared the complexity rating, there is a pretty big chance I’d be dragging my feet to pick it up.
Anywho, I’ve completely lost focus and just want to say that I think the BGG complexity/weight rating system is busted.
"You can't do that."
Lmao this is the start of every Rail Era
More Lancashire than Birmingham imo
What are things you "can't do" in Lancashire that are allowed in Birmingham?
It's been a while since I've played both, but I remember having more problems with the first turn of the rail era in Lancashire. I think Birmingham has easier rules to start your network in the rail era. I think you're allowed to place rails anywhere if you don't already have a network. I get bitten by this sometimes when I play on the iOS app (Lancashire). There's also a bit of a "feel" thing. It \*feels\* like you have fewer options in Lancashire, but it might be the group I'm playing with. In Birmingham, it's \*feels\* more like I'm deciding between my options (and weighing my opponents) instead of trying to cut them off or outright deny them. I don't know why it feels that way - maybe we're fighting over the map, fewer resources, or the remote markets dry up too quickly.
You're right that Lancashire doesn't let you build rails before you build industries. That said, if you're starting the rail era in *either* version of Brass with no industries on the board, you have already lost. Develop more often! :) Those tier-2+ industries are effectively worth double their printed VP if you can get them built and flipped in the canal era. You're right about the difference between the Brasses too; I don't think it's just your group. Lancashire does have fewer options, which leads to more direct competition and makes the game less forgiving of mistakes. Lancashire partisans (like me) will tell you that this is a feature and not a bug, but to each their own!
Theorycrafting also had Birmingham as "illusion of choice" where Crates/Cotton/Pottery was usually worse than Beer/Link/Iron/Coal. I haven't played enough to say whether that's true or not but yeah.
I don't have enough Birmingham plays to really be able to tell the difference, and a lot of Brass (Lancashire) games have been been against the app or online. I've only noticed from logging plays that a 4p game of Lancashire is roughly an hour shorter than a 4p game of Birmingham. We play Lancashire in just over 2 hrs (2:15-ish), but Birmingham plays have been longer (3+ with 4p, **4 hrs** at 4p with new players). I only have played Birmingham 10 times, while I've only logged 7 for Lancashire - though I've played the iOS app AI a lot more than that.
I'm not sure with the details, but I think I still had industries on the board, but they were already flipped or didn't have access to coal. It was more a mistake when I was planning ahead during the last turn of the canal era. I'd try to take advantage of the player order, or my coal was used up, and then I wouldn't be able to build a rail in tye first turn of the era. Since all my plays on the app are Lancashire - it's possible that I've been inadvertently cheating with in-person games of Birmingham and no one's caught it. I *think* I've been playing right and have just been better prepared. It's also possible that my friends playing Lancashire with me are more experienced (and really mean 😊) while the Birmingham plays have been with newer players. If I end up getting the Steam app and it chides me when I try to build rails, I'll report back. 😊
It’s so true lmao. I’ve been really trying to learn it and I’m loving it. Played 3 times in the past week. But every time, I fuck up at least two moves because I forgot some absurdly simple rule. It’s really weird! The game feels surprisingly complicated despite having straightforward rules. (Connection & network are very easy to understand, consuming resources are very simple even though each has slightly different rules.)
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Brass: Birmingham. The strategy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of 19th century economics most of the game's transport rules will go over a typical player's head. There's also the entrepreneurs' liberal outlook, which is deftly woven into their characterisation- Richard Arkwright's personal philosophy draws heavily from The Wealth of Nations, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these game mechanics, to realise that they're not just fun- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Brass: Birmingham truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the significance of the top hat icon, which itself is a cryptic reference to Isambard Kingdom Brunel's preferred style of dress. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Martin Wallace's genius wit unfolds itself on their gaming tables. What fools.. how I pity them.
I want to play it because I know I’m slow and wouldn’t get it.
Are you being sarcastic? This is like the most pretentious shit I’ve ever read
[Take this no-prize for not spending too much time on the internet](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/to-be-fair-you-have-to-have-a-very-high-iq-to-understand-rick-and-morty).
SHIT this is really embarrassing for me okay 😭
Because, historically, coal needed to be moved in larger quantities, compared to iron.
One member of our playgroup, who had never played the game, told us it was too complicated for everyone but them. They also made sure to add that if I did buy it they would win every game.
And why do you play with this person?
To beat their ass
:D
He may have meant it as a preference, not a cognitive limitations. Or maybe he is just very poor at expressing him self in a non offensive manner. I did make similar statement to some players, knowing when a game is too complicated for them to **enjoy**. Often because it involves mechanic they are not familiar with, or not willing to put the brain bandwidth to.
Not every friend has to be modest and humble.
That guy is more than just self-confident, he's actively degrading the people he's with.
This is G rated smack talk. You should spend time with competitive athletes.
It would be different if it was a joke, and I have no idea if it was.
I kinda agree with u/workinslave on this one - friend dynamics can be weird. Hopefully that person doesn't act like that at meetups with strangers
Personally, I wouldn't like being around somebody who said things like that unironically. Based on the votes, it seems like most people agree with me. I could see some people being OK with it for whatever reason. However, I wouldn't call it normally acceptable behavior, even and especially with friends.
srsly think it depends on the friend group. I don't have to play with him, so it's not my call. I see it all the time in chess, and also in pick-up other sports. If it doesn't break their magic circle, I don't care. But wouldn't allow it in mine.
And that person keeps getting invited back to game night why?
For reals, this person sounds miserable.
Eh, we don't know anything about them other than that they express an inflated sense of how good they are at games. They may well be a ton of fun to hang out with overall.
Brass: Birmingham is a top five game for me; it's just so smooth and elegant, and I love economic games (and Martin Wallace is an absolute game design LEGEND).
I fucking love Brass, but it really is a pretty complex game. It's very common for players who prefer lighter games to quickly get frustrated with all of the fiddly little requirements. For example: I wanna build this building, but I need coal, so I have this card to make a coal mine, but it's not in my network, so I need to build a link to it, but I need coal for the link. Can I use beer to make these rails? Well yeah but only if it's ours, but you can use a beer that isn't yours, unless it's a market beer, or unless the beer isn't directly connected to your link... Etc etc. it can feel pretty overwhelming until you've played it several times.
The restrictions around requiring things in your network and connected are a bit hard at first. I found my first play with 4 new players was particularly rough, but every game after with new players is fine if one player at the table can reinforce the rules well.
I would say it's not hard to understand, it's just fiddly. There aren't that many rules really but the few that there are are very precise and easy to overlook. It also doesn't help that the rulebook is abysmal.
I was pleasantly surprised when my group tried it. Sourcing coal to build out railroads during the second phase is interesting. I’m curious if there are recommended/balanced market distributions, some setups can feel somewhat awkward.
I picked it up in December of last year, and it sits unplayed. The box is thin and unintimidating. I love economic games. I think I just question if it will live up to the hype of #1 on BGG, and it sitting unplayed means it hasn't disappointed in regards to the lofty rating. Unplayed, it could be great! Another factor is the canal/rail linking that I can't get my head totally around from watching playthroughs and reading the rules. Like the concept I get, but how do I not botch it horribly for whatever strategy I'm going for. Probably one of those things to figure out while doing it.. Maybe I'll break the game open during this long weekend!
You will botch it, and I think that's the fun of it. You make elaborated plan like an evil mastermind in your head while the others play. And then bam! Another player ruin your plan. So you make a new one, because it opened new possibilities, and then BAM! Another player thought of these possibilities too, ruining your plan, but opening new possibilities, and so on... It's quite fun, I like it a lot.
None of your planning ever pays off and other plays screw you all the time "Fun game, 10/10 no notes" - every board gamer ever
Schrödinger’s board game
The easiest way to think about it is to establish links where you need to expand (keeping in mind that named location cards let you build in those locations regardless of links), when you need to get to a market for coal or to sell goods, or (in the rail era) for big link points if that's the best option. Otherwise, you can usually rely on others' links for transporting coal/others' beer or completing links to markets. If you have a specific market strategy (say, you're going cotton and the cotton merchants are in Oxford and the north of the board), then you'll probably have to link Kidderminster/Worcester and later Worcester/Birmingham (and possibly Worcester/Gloucester for coal early for your level two cotton if no one builds Birmingham/Oxford soon enough -- or you can build W/B and B/O yourself; links to Birmingham tend to score lots of points). In canal, these may be the only links you build because you've got better things to do (developing away level 1 cotton and breweries, placing breweries, loans for buying cotton mills, possibly scouting cards to place cotton, etc.). In canal, you don't want to necessarily place a bunch of links, because your focus should be on placing level 2+ tiles for presence in the rail era (and because if flipped they'll score twice) and preparing your economy/finances for the rail era. In the rail era, the map becomes denser (though tiles generally have fewer link points) and you can lay more link tiles for the same action with a double link action, so you can be scoring 12+ points with a reasonable double-rail action. Hope this makes sense; let me know if you have questions.
There was a thing where BrassB fans were voting 1 on Gloomhaven and 10 to BB, that’s one of the reason it reached #1. I don’t know if BGG did something about it, please correct me if they did. Anyways, I own it (I also played BrassL) and love it, great game. Easy to teach, hard to master. Just wanted to comment on the #1 thing; I always take rankings with a grain of salt.
i have rated Brass a 10, it’s subjectively my favorite boardgame, i have not rated gloomhaven a 1 but by the bgg guidelines i could see doing so, i didn’t find it to be fun, it’s a beast setup and pack up and it’s one of the few games that i own that i seriously doubt i would ever pull off the shelf to play(i received it as a gift and thus feel bad getting rid of it, i have it packed in multiple boxes and so even lending it to a friend (though none of them want it) isn’t that feasible) So for me a game that i don’t think is fun, none of my friends want to play, is way too involved to ever just ‘play’, takes up a ton of shelf space could be a 1
I agree, I’ve only played and own JOTL (I did play GH on PC). I don’t rate games, but this thing I mention it was something subjective just to get brass to #1. You can check dates on votes. Something similar happened this week with a new game, but worse, new accounts voting 10 to push the game to a good rating. Since that’s an easy to catch from an IT perspective, they deleted the votes and blocked the accounts. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be #1. But it’s good to have all the info. Eg: these games are 1y aparte and GH has 16k more votes. And at #2 there’s pandemic L01 with 53k votes.
Aha. Found the wisest man in the whole subreddit. I tip my hat to you sir.
When in doubt, build rails and canals in high traffic areas of the board. This will usually help points wise at the end game even if your other strategies aren’t going to plan.
I don't like that Brass is now being used to refer primarily to Birmingham and not the original.
That’s how it works with everything, isn’t it? In video games, if I tell you “let’s play some CoD” I’m probably talking about the latest one, not the first one released a few decades ago. If I talk about an avengers movie when it’s in cinemas, I probably mean the newest one. If I talk about “the kid in my basement” I mean the latest one I kidnapped, not the first.
Truth! It should be like highlander and there can be only one. On the plus side, I love Brass Original getting more love because of its young brother.
Same thing is happening with Dune: Imperium
Couldn't care less about Brass usurping the name but this one does actually annoy me!
The OG is so, so good
Yep, I agree ! ☝️
Yeah, I Kickstarted it when they were doing both, as my big 'gripe' was I wanted a mat or something for the tokens...and wanted an upgraded version from my Eagle Games copy. Once they came in, I got rid of my old copy, played both new games, got rid of Birmingham (I really prefer the original)...and then realized I really missed my old copy. But agreed, when folks mention Brass, I just assume they mean 'Lancaster'.
That's fair................ *But it is earned*
Are people really afraid to play a boardgame? Is this r/boardgamecirclejerk?
Every night when I’m going to sleep, I have to check to make sure Brass Birmingham isn’t hiding under my bed.
I have recurring nightmares where Brass Birmingham is chasing me and I keep falling over because the floor is covered in meeples.
I wouldn't say "afraid" but certainly "wary" of playing a game incorrectly for the first time due to misunderstanding the rules, possibly having a bad time with something I may have otherwise enjoyed.
Every subreddit is a r/boardgamecirclejerk if you are brave enough
You can find a game intimidating, like you are not in the mood to go over the x pages of manual and are somehow afraid you won't get it. I do feel this way with Robinson. The game look like something I would enjoy, but I am unable to play it without the manual open, and that prevent me to really play smoothly. Plus I get my ass kicked in a shameful manner very early in the game every time I tried. So it is taking dust on my shelf.
If you like interplay between the players, you will love Lancashire. Birmingham pushes players apart and more solitary, Lancashire forces them to be closer and compete more.
Are people scared of Brass? I’ve only played it once. It was fine, but not fun enough for me to get past the theme and how dark and drab it was. I’ll play it if it’s on offer, but its charms are lost on me.
What's wrong with the theme? It's just historical - seems pretty basic to put you off a good game.
Sometimes you just hate a certain kind of theme. I'll probably never play anything themed around cowboys, for example. No rational reason why, just don't like 'em.
The theme doesn’t interest me in the slightest. They had me at beer…then lost me with everything else. LOL
I also played it the first time Saturday evening and very much agree. I think the game is rank 1 just because it’s the least disliked game in the world. It’s okay.
I think so too. It's okay, it's absolutely not the best game ever
Unfortunately I am one of the people scared of it. I have tried to understand the rulebook three or four times but just can't get my head around it. Normally I like heavier games too though, my favourite game I own is probably war of the ring and that monstrous rulebook with all expansions somehow makes sense to me. I kind of wish I just knew someone who knew how to play so I could be taught it by someone but unfortunately that's normally my role to do the teach.
>I just knew someone who knew how to play so I could be taught it by someone but unfortunately that's normally my role to do the teach. There's an amazing video tutorial on the Watch It Played YouTube channel that I highly recommend.
The rulebook sucks, as mentioned I recommend the Watch It Played video on it.
“pressed into the side of a fabric bag” Can you help me understand this line you wrote? Confused by its meaning
People in board game groups all seem to haul around big carrier bags of game boxes.
>But here's the best part - when you need to pay coal for something, you can use ANYONE'S coal! Anyone's closest coal you mean. There is in general no restriction on whose coal you're allowed to use, but you do have to take it from the closest source, whoever that is.
Yes, dude. You don’t need to explain all the rules in detail when you’re just sharing your opinion and feelings about a game, like OP was doing. It was not a “let me teach you to play Brass” post. You don’t need to do an “actually” comment.
Well actually, I appreciated the comment regarding the correction as it reinforced in my mind the understanding that it was to only be applied to the closest source of coal rather than any source of coal.
> You don’t need to explain all the rules in detail when you’re just sharing your opinion and feelings about a game, like OP was doing. No, but you also don't need to misrepresent them either. >It was not a “let me teach you to play Brass” post. You don’t need to do an “actually” comment. I was correcting what looked like an actual misconception from OP, not something I took to be a tutorial attempt.
I thought your comment was good! Not hurting the poster in anyways and just providing information for free out here xD
Wait you mean this wasn't a full rules breakdown? I was just about to go play the whole game based on this one post alone! Thank you for saving my game night!
> But here's the best part - when you need to pay coal for something, you can use ANYONE'S coal! The same with iron and barrels. You might know this, but you can't use just *anyone's* coal. You have to take it from the nearest mine (fewest links away from the place you're using it). Iron, on the other hand you *can* use whatever mine you like, and you don't have to be connected. Need 2 iron? Feel free to take one from Player A's mine, and one from Player B's. Beer you have to be connected to, but you aren't compelled to use the closest. My easy-peasy system for explaining and remembering the finicky rules of connections and networks: 1. Your network is anywhere you have a building, or anywhere touched by one of your links. Connection just means two places are connected by links, they don't have to all be yours. 2. The cards that show an industry represent you already employing a person who knows that industry. You can send them anywhere in your network and they'll set up a mine/factory/brewery for you. 3. The cards that show a town represent you "knowing a guy" in that town. They know what industries will work well in that town and they know how to build them up. 4. Coal is used by the literal ton on a daily basis. The only way to get that much coal that quickly is by boat/train, so to use or sell coal, it needs to be connected. It has to be the closest, because efficiency counts at that scale. 5. Iron is used in much smaller amounts. Small enough that a few horses can pull a wagon of the stuff in reasonable time. Therefore you don't need the infrastructure of canals/rail - it can just come by road. 6. Beer is the lubricant of commerce. Want to sell some goods? Everyone knows the best deals are made over a pint. You can just use the beer the pub has on hand (barrel on export hub), but that's in limited supply. You could arrange to have beer from a nearby brewery to be shipped to you, but it'll have to come by boat/train if you want it in time (Other players' beer). Best of all is if you own your own brewery - in that case, you always travel with a barrel or two, just in case. If you use it, you can just arrange the brewery to send you more when it's convenient (your own beer).
I know that it has to be the closest source, but I figured it was more important to portray the community supply mechanic in general, so non-players understand.
Your review makes Brass: Birmingham sound both accessible and incredibly engaging! It's great to hear that despite its intimidating reputation, the game mechanics are intuitive and foster a lot of player interaction. The idea of using other players' resources and the shift from canals to railways halfway through adds a dynamic layer of strategy. I'm definitely more interested in giving it a try now. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Wait till you actually play Brass. Birmingham is fine, Lancashire is the simpler and real game.
As far as I've been told, Lancashire is the same, except you can't get wild cards. How accurate is that?
That's pretty inaccurate, the map is tighter, there's no beer, etc.
Interesting. I was told Birmingham was refined and therefore better though there also comments that Wyrmspan was just wingspan with dragons. This is inaccurate also.
I prefer Lancashire and prefer still Nucleum over the two combined
I like Lancashire over Birmingham too, but haven't played Nucleum. What does it do that makes you like it more?
I feel like there is less constraints on available choices. The action selection is vastly superior in terms of fun as well as strategy as to keep it for habitual use or deploy it as a railroad. There is more hand shaking in this game. Flipping buildings is also more rewarding. My favorite mechanic in brass is the money vs turn order. Everything else I prefer in nucleum
I see. I prefer Lancashire because it feels like the streamlined version of the two. Not sure if the added stuff in Nucleum would be a plus or a minus (esp w/group of Brass players) but would be willing to give it a shot. Thanks!
I felt the beer in Birmingham made the game more restrictive and less enjoyable. Nucleum only has a bit of that restrictiveness but you can easily foresee where you might be lacking and react accordingly.
I am not scared of it, I just find it dull to play vs my other games and am selling my copy. I find the theme especially dreary.
You are selling it? Oh boi tell me how much do you want it for. I need something to feed my fireplace. The rain yeaterday made my logs wet.
"Anyone who isn't interested in a popular game must be scared of it." This sub sometimes.....
What about OP’s message makes you think they were addressing it to people who are uninterested in the game? Seems pretty obviously targeted at people who are intimidated by the game.
Or he's saying that if you are interested in it, but are a bit intimidated, then don't be, as it's not as heavy as you might fear. But yeah, go ahead and make up some rubbish.
Don't be scared to just keep scrolling if you disagree!
Edgy.
But why would I do that instead of telling you. Where do you think you are. This is the pedantry and disagreement website lmao
"Anyone who shares their experience must think that's the only way anyone thinks." This sub sometimes.....
the ending...Are you still hiding behind your dice tray? What a clown shoes elitist question. "my games are so sophisticated and elegant, your games must be luck based and purely stupid. You can't learn my game because you are not as smart as me. For I am a genius and can handle this juggernaut of an undertaking".....spare me.
Brass is so smooth, love it. i have only played on steam though
Oh man! You need to play it in real life! Feel the fiddliness!
Had both kickstarted. Read the reviews and watched some how to play videos. Instant give away.
I must be from a different planet or something, because Brass:Brum is one of my favorite games. The graphics/design are beautiful and evocative, I think. (Play the light side of the map; it's better.) The constantly shifting puzzle of "What do I do on my turn, considering how these other one/two/three bastards have been screwing up my optimal board state?" is challenging and engaging. And pulling off a great turn (like ending the canal era with a loan/sell so I can go first in rail era with a big chunk of money to double rail; pulling off a quad rail; engineering things so I bring up the rear of the turn order then lead off the order next turn; doing a triple sell; etc.) is a high unlike most others in boardgaming. I could refute the criticisms point by point, but that feels crabby. I just have to accept that some people have tried it and not enjoyed it. It's a tight (but not overly tight), competitive (but strangely symbiotic), semi-harsh (you want harsh? Play Wallace's London where each loan costs 50% interest to pay back and hits you with negative points regularly), economic euro where there's just the right amount of interplayer interaction without it being knife-fighty. Do I love it as much as Concordia or On Mars? No. Will I play it any time it hits the table? Yes.
No no you are not on a different planet, in fact, your taste is the same like popular majority of the community.
B:B is a great game. There a couple or three mechanics that might be counterintuitive or difficult to grasp at first but with the good rules explanation it becomes a very simple rule space for a medium-heavy game. Also, play with different people at different counts. The meta changes drastically and it feel a new game.
I played it for the first time two weeks ago, it was nice, but as the highest rated game of them all I... Expected more? It was fine, just not the best game of all time fine.
“Highest rated game among people who take the time to rate games on BGG”
Which is still the highest rated game
Yeah people need to learn that the highest rated board game on bgg just means it's the game that people on that website like the most. When you realise this fact the rating makes sense, because I'm sure you've encountered the situation where everyone in a room likes something which you don't. It doesn't mean it's the best, because the whole concept of a best board game is absurd.
Only reason why I haven’t played it is because it’s not my kind of game.
Very good. You miss nothing. Dont waste your time on something that you know that is not your type.
This game looks ugly but I’m still intrigued. Does it play well at 2 players?
It does. Are you looking at Brass Birmingham, or at the original Brass from 2007?
To be honest I didn’t know there were two versions. It in stock at the local game store so I imagine it’s the latest one.
There are actually three versions with a 4th on the way 😄 The 3 that are out are Brass (old), Brass Lancashire (updated art), Brass Birmingham (updated art and modified rules, probably the most popular)
Four versions! Age of Industry is aesthetically basically the same as the original Brass but without the canal phase and with slightly looser building location rules (cards correspond to regions rather than being locked to individual cities)
Interesting. I’ll take a closer look next time I see it. I typically only get the opportunity to play games at 2 players so I avoid multiplayer games unless I’m confident they play well at 2.
I love brass birmingham at 2 for what it's worth
When is the new game releasing ?
It's pretty far away. 1 year+
Thank you.
The publisher mentioned in a thread on BGG they’re aiming to do a crowdfunding campaign in Q4 this year or something
Great game!! Haven’t played it in awhile, maybe should get it out again.
Can learn to play it on Steam, too.
Great game! Number one for a reason. Not my number one, but way up there.
Can anyone explain why the symbol for iron is an oil pump? It makes no sense to me.
It's not an oil pump. It's equipment for an ironworks, maybe a bellows for a furnace?
I couldn't make out what it is
I've played almost every game on the BGG top 30, and I honestly think that Brass Birmingham is one of the simpler games. It's also a pretty quick game, even with 4 players. Of the top games on BGG, I think only 7 Wonders Duel is faster to play, mostly because it's a 2-player game. Since I personally like much longer games like Terraforming Mars and Ark Nova, I wouldn't rate Brass at number 1, but it's definitely in the top 20 or so.
It's a fantastic game with some really interesting interaction. There are plusses and minuses for sharing the resources produced by your buildings, which is really neat. Sometimes you really don't want people getting your beer. That makes for some great tension and prevents anyone from doing too much all at once since you got to get to that beer before others do. Also try **Age of Steam**. Easier rules, but wonderfully deep gameplay.
I love Brass Birmingham.
Did you win?
i've always read many posts and seen youtube reviewers saying it's actually not that complicated and that Lancashire is the heavier one comparatively. The actual learning of how to play and score is pretty intuitive
It’s my favorite game on earth besides TI4
I didn't realize people saw Brass this way? Wife got Lancashire for me for Christmas. It was very fun and very straightforward. Good game all around 👍
Luf it
Yes, I am scared of it. 90% of time I will be the one who explain rules so I'm scared of anything that heavier than 3.0 on BGG weight, too many rules to remember, missing one may mess up the whole experience. But last week we played Dune Imperium Uprising and it was not that bad, I will try Brass someday.
It's one of my fav games, and definitely one of the most played in the mid-heavy range by me and my partner. I think it's elegant and strategic enough to not being too obnoxious... we like euros and economic games, but I noticed a trend of bloating mechanics in games lately and for me Brass just hits spot. That said, I only played in 2p, so I don't know how it fares with more people
I did not enjoy Brass: Birmingham. I was in a gaming group where a friend had hyped it up and after playing through it twice, I just came to terms it's not for me. It falls into the same camp of Race/Roll for the Galaxy - games that I just cannot wrap my head around.
If someone doesn't know how to read English, can he/she play this game if explained?
Yes. The only writing is town names.
We played the first few times at one card per turn which means more money but not as much as you think. We then played it properly and are inclined to go back to a house rule of one per turn.
Is this a personal attack because I bought it 2nd hand months ago and haven't opened it since...
I was first introduced at a meetup group to the Birmingham variety. I couldn't finish the game as my husband called and our toddler was inconsolable, but I did get to the second round. I was winning, but I was not quite sure why. I finally got the game. Set it up for four players so I could play against myself (my favorite way to learn a game). It took me 30 minutes to set-up, and I realized I made a huge mistake on my second turn. I was too demoralized to reset up the game. I didn't like the feeling of constrained options and how easily it was to set up an impossible start.
Gameplay is decent, but the aesthetics is just not something that will make me want to go for it again.
Wha? But it's gorgeous!
I'm not afraid of Brass. It just feels like a waste of time to learn the game when it will never be played again. The local game groups never play the same game twice.
[удалено]
I actually love the vibe despite typically hating that kind of theme. It's just such a cozy little board. Look at all the cute houses with their cherry-red windows from the roaring fireplaces.
>But what do you think of Brass? Does it live up to the hype, or are you still hiding behind your dice tray? Let me know :) I had an eye on original Brass (Brass Lancashire) since I came to the hobby in 2009, so given its reputation and the vibe of games of the time, I expected something in the line of Power Grid. Eventually played B:L few years aho - the Roxley edition with the black side and the blacker side of the board because legibility became the enemy of gaming of sumthink. Immediatelly after the game it was clear to me why both Brass games are at top of BGG ratings - because they're basically MPS euros - the genre that the hobby, the BGG and this sub love and aren't willing to play much else. Only crucial difference is that in Brass everybody builds the share engine and one would think this changes things and adds interaction, but fun fact: no. The unwieldy deck of cards limits your option to few and thus as each player is juggling with their hand of cards, available board space, it's not too hard to pretty much figure out what somebody can do without ever needing to deal with such un-euro-ey stuff as psychology or group dynamics. Basically I came. I optimised. I won. - Against players who played before. Whee. Few weeks later enter Brass Birmingham. That's one of the weirdest games I ever played. Because it has the unfinished feel and rough edges I would expect of a beta version of Brass Lancashire, but somehow it came out 11 years later. Huhwut. Basically an unfinished game that should be further streamlined. * there's one or two industries too many (not sufficiently different) * there are some quirks in progression of building tracks - some buildings are cheaper than previous level or have this or that oddity - all this should be simplified as seems superficial * breweries needlessly more complicated than ports * because there are more building types the map is more cluttered * because there are more building types the deck is more cluttered - the luck of the draw plays a bigger role. Which is why, I guess, the new explore action was added. * also the money is less tight than in original game, but doesn't seem like significant difference, it's just something to appease the whining eurogamers. The change which probably took significant balancing just means players take one or two loans less per game, and thus whine a bit less. Oh boy. * it felt to me even more than in original that I was playing my own game, basically just trying to make things work and optimise actions. Ho-hum. * And yes. I came. I optimised. I won. Against players who played before. Whee. So, before me lay a puzzle - how come eurogamez shifted in direction where the devolution of design is seen as improvement? The realisation I eventually came to: In essence B:B is not meant to be played in terms of players throws themselves into the game. This game is meant to be looked from afar then dissected to bits and optimise to produce optimal VPs. Basically the process of playing this game is the same as is the process of streamlining the game. Modern eurogaming sensibilities thus want a half finished design as they imagine gameplay to be basically roleplaying a designer and finishing their job. If you point out to them that B:L is (a tiny bit) more about how players dance around the board and that from their timing and steps a new pattern emerges every game, modern eurogamers will not understand what you are saying. They want something tangible to fiddle with. And a board they can sink their faces in, so they never look anybody else in the eye. Meaning - I still like Power Grid much more than B:L. And don't ask me of B:B. Also played Wildlands, looked at the deck of cards and sai*d "oh you run away from B:B and are now hiding in a skirmish game? Don't worry I won't tell anybody. But I won't play this game either..."*
Neither Brass game is multiplayer solitaire. The positive and negative interactions between players are basically the defining features of this game.
Hey, I expected interaction, but then. * I came. * I optimised. * I won. * TWICE! ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ >The positive and negative interactions between players are basically the defining features of this game. Nah, I'm pretty sure one defining feature are individual player boards being literal spreadsheet nicely conveying that the game is one of optimisation though layers of rules, mechanisms and synergies between pieces and location. Positive and negative interactions between players are basically the defining features of Catan, but hobbyists on this sub cannot take it, it's too much for them, it's too vile and oh noes dice, hence everybody knows you cannot really make an interactive game and make hobbyist buy it. Unless you're Vlaada, the guy who made some nice MPS gizmos and thus he is allowed to also make Codenames. If you want positive and negative interactions, why don't you play - Modern Art, Lifeboats (1993), Diplomacy, Cosmic Encounter, Codenames, Time's up, Catan, Citadels, The Estates/Neue Heimat, Dune (1979), Small World, Bohnanza, Genoa, Pit, Cockroach poker, Coup, any social deduction game (but maybe skip Blood on the Watchtower as those fans be crazy), For Sale, Genoa, Chinatown,. Condotierre, Intrigue, Konig von Siam, any cube-rail game and so on. Heck even Carcassone does it better than Brass.
I agree that Birm added bloat to a game that didn't need it; and only served to make said game harder to learn and longer to play without actually improving it in any way. I know this won't be a popular opinion. Regardless, I highly recommend any players that want to try Brass to start with Lancashire due to these factors. However, I think it is extremely incorrect to call either Brass a multiplayer solitaire game. There is always intense competition for turn order and the timing of critical actions so that you can swoop in and take what everyone wants at exactly the right moment.
>However, I think it is extremely incorrect to call either Brass a multiplayer solitaire game. There is always intense competition for turn order and the timing of critical actions so that you can swoop in and take what everyone wants at exactly the right moment. I played it like MPS. Won. Basically I wouldn't call any of things you describe as inter-action. They're inter-ference. Namely there's nothing happening between players themselves (inter-action), there's no group dynamics, there's no psychology, there's no need for me to figure out what other people are up to. Because I can scan the game-puzzle and see what the game allows them to do at all - a much narrower area of possibilities. When I say "inter-ferance" it means plans tripping over plans and this is so called "indirect interaction" that MPS euros have, if one fancies that. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ And there's the indirect "evidence" - brasses wouldn't be so high on BGG rankings if they wouldn't appeal to MPS euro sensibilities, because that's the mainstream of its userbase (also this sub's userbase). Compare this to Catan and the vile attack it gets and it's clear - Catan has more interaction which is why it's disliked. I mean, I don't find Power Grid interactive enough for my tastes, but has more of it than B:L (which has more than B:B). Auctions at least allow a tiny bit of psychology to enter.
I still highly disgree. First off, indirect interaction is still interaction. MPS games generally have minimal to no interaction, indirect or otherwise. An example being Wingspan, for instance. Second off, the interaction in Brass is far beyond "plans tripping over each other". That may be how it feels with new, inexperienced players, but the game offers much more than that. Brass is a very definitive "I drink your milkshake" game, in addition to offering plenty of opportunities for negotiation if players see fit to do so. Additionally, Brass even offers some very direct interaction in the form of Overbuilding, which is an absolutely brutal move that one can orchestrate if paying attention.
>First off, indirect interaction is still interaction. Nope. Interferance. I have no clue why insist on naming something that feels totally different to interaction, is engaged differently and handled differently by same word. I have no clue why hobbyists are so attached to the word that has nothing to do with games they play, so they need to add "indirect" to it, which basically means "not really". >Second off, the interaction in Brass is far beyond "plans tripping over each other". That may be how it feels with new, inexperienced players, but the game offers much more than that. If I want an interactive game, I'd pick something like Bohnanza. Or kakerlakenpoker or whathaveyou. I'd pick Brass if I'd want to optimise doodads in historical industrial setting which happens to me once every 531 years. And probably most I could get out of such an experience is to win. Which I have. So, I'm good for next 526 years. >Brass is a very definitive "I drink your milkshake" game As I said - that's interference. You can drink milkshake without looking me in my face. Please have the dignity to look me in the face. >Additionally, Brass even offers some very direct interaction in the form of Overbuilding, which is an absolutely brutal move that one can orchestrate if paying attention. Shocking! 😱 Let me guess, it gives POINTS! WOW! 😮 It's only brutal, if one gives a crap about winning (or milkshake). I don't. About either. Hence it's not interaction. Interaction brings intensity and engagement by itself without needing to care about winning or milkshake. 🙄 Plus it's easy to plan for contingencies by have 2-3 backup plans, which shouldn't be that hard. And if you can replace a plan by plan and all still works, where is interaction then? No, I don't find your spreadsheet challenging. I don't find it interesting. I don't find it intellectual. I find it stale, boring, tedious, trivial, unengaging. I won it by using 15% of my mental faculties for juggling gizmos and 3-4 parallel plans, another 30% was used to decipher names of towns on dark black background while the remaining 55% of mind was scanning the surroundings for a nice concrete wall to bang head against and end the misery. *Is this the real life? Is this reductionism? Caught in spreadsheet. No release from consumerism. Open my eyes look down to the board and see. I'm just a poor boy won't somebody look at me. They pushing cubes, converging stuff, some give points and some give more. Anyway the score goes doesn't really matter to me, to meeee.* *Mama, just solved the game, juggled the equations, executed plans and won. Mama, there are more games like this. And now they wanna make ten thousand more. Mama, ooh, they make me bored to tears, If I'm not still sane this time tommorrow, carry on, carry on as points don't really matter.* Yeah, I don't know what wise idea led you to engaging me here. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Thinking about these "games" gets me down. *Oh, mamma mia, mamma mia, mamma mia, no more points! Beelzebub has a spreadsheet put aside for me, for me, for me !*
"Players talking to each other" is not the *one true form of interaction*, no matter how badly you want that to be the definition. All you should be saying here is "I prefer negotiation, bluffing, and social deduction games". Trying to sell the notion that Brass isn't interactive is just a ridiculous stretch in an attempt to self-validate. Interaction within the context of gaming is a range. It isn't a 0 or 1. At the lowest end, you have roll-and-write games where they can be played exactly the same solo as with other players. Something like Railroad Ink, where players can *not* make moves that affect each other in any way. Still a *competitive game* because everyone receives the same inputs and at the end can compare their performance against one another, but zero interaction. At the high end, you have very directly interactive games. Chess, Inis, T&E. Games where players are directly sharing space and resources that they need in order to win. Players make move that not only help their own position but that also hurt the position of other players, for instance by capturing or destroying pieces as in those mentioned games. The state of the game changes move by move. In the middle, you have the indirectly interactive games like Agricola and Terra Mystica. These are games that some people maintain aren't interactive at all, but that is silly and wrong. Rather, the interaction in these games simply tends to be less apparent until players develop suitable skill. Since players aren't destroying the pieces of their opponents, players are limited to "blocking". Basically, the games become more about the competition over shared resources. But this is *still interaction*. If you do not account for the other players at the table in these games, *you will lose*. And this isn't because of some cynical view that these players are "better optimizers". It is because you made mistakes that these players took advantage of, just like they might in Chess or other more directly interactive games. Personally, for me, there is actually not much difference between capturing someone's Queen and preventing someone from scoring points for an entire round by blocking them out of everything they need. But people separate these because of how these "feel" in a game, and I understand that. Often, the games that you mentioned are also what I would consider to be on the high end of this scale. These are sort of the opposite of a roll-and-write game. There could not exist a solo version of these games. They *rely on* there being other players at the table. These games utilize a social component, but that social component is still beholden to the other, concrete mechanisms of the game itself. People can say and do whatever they want in Bohnanza, but there will still be a 1st place and last place at the end of the game. If players neglect this fact and don't try to make rational "moves" that increase their position or hurt their opponent's position, they will lose. And if players *don't care* about win or loss, then they have violated the contract necessary for a game to *function as a game*. It doesn't matter if the moves of a game are saying the correct combination of words out loud or sliding one's Queen across the Chess board. These are just different ways to interact within the confines of a game. One is not *better* or *more correct* than the other, even if one prefers one over the other. That all being said, Brass is something along the lines of medium-heavy interaction. Certainly more than enough to keep me interested. Edit: Wow. Triggered an avalanche of pseudo-intellectual nonsense and ad-hominem, followed by getting blocked. All over being called out at trying to say that Brass is a multiplayer solitaire game. I expected more/better from Samo, especially given how often we have agreed in the past.
You know, I don't always agree with you, but thanks for writing all this out, that guy is insufferable. Did you catch where he said that the only reason people don't like Catan is because it's interactive? "I have brick, does anyone have sheep?" So riveting.
Why are you still here? I have thought sufficient amount of signs in my last comment signalised seeing no point in further communication. 🙂 I have framed interaction as engagement between players as opposed to engagement between player and game - talking isn't necessary for this, so please no red herrings. My framing is basically how nongamer people understand interaction. If they stand in line at grocery talking to person behind them and then somebody else cuts the line - you would count both as "interaction", but people wouldn't count only first person's engagement as interaction. As said - it's of different quality, therefore has different name. You can't just throw generic anglophone "oh it's a spectrum", no, there's a deep structural difference. Are you mostly engaging other people in the game or are you mostly juggling mechanisms - and what's their priority within the game's organism and its shaping of gaming experience. Reason why I see no possibility for further discussion is that you bring nothing to the table. I have read such generic lowest common denominator stuff 11254 times before in all my time in the hobby and it still has zero insight. I'm ignoring because there's nothing there. You don't have any skill in interpretation of art, literature, film or any cultural artefacts. You lack any methodology which would bring insights. So, given you seem to have time and money, please, go read stuff *(from continental europe, cca 1960s onward - Eco, Ranciere, Gadamer, Badiou, Deleuze, etc. Basic semiotics (early 20th c.) won't hurt either - Saussure, Pierce, Jakobson).* Cheers.
Who hurt you?
Seems like a projection dear Sir or Madam. I assure you my argument is logically structured and conveys analysis and evaluation. But if this was hard to digest, maybe I could offer some Omeprazole? 😊
It contained an outright lie too, saying Brass is multiplayer solitaire is disingenuous at best. But mostly, I didn't understand your condescension towards euro gamers or the ranking on the bgg list when the #1 game of all time has almost never been a MPS euro.
>It contained an outright lie too, Are you new to the concept of interpretation? 😃 >when the #1 game of all time has almost never been a MPS euro. Games that enter top 50 must appeal to MPS euro fanbase or they can get there, I'd say at least since 2017 *(TI 4 has older fans, so a bit of exception. Jury's out on Nemesis and Too Many Bones which are above my budget, but signs aren't that strongly opposed to my speculation).* Which means - complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed.
"Are you new to the concept of interpretation? 😃" If that's how you want to put lying, go for it. "Games that enter top 50 must appeal to MPS euro fanbase or they can get there, I'd say at least since 2017 *(TI 4 has older fans, so a bit of exception. Jury's out on Nemesis and Too Many Bones which are above my budget, but signs aren't that strongly opposed to my speculation).* Which means - complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed." I agree that more complex games rank higher on the list generally speaking, but I was responding to your condescension of euro gamers. Just looking at the top 10 games I have no idea how Gloomhaven, Pandemic Legacy, Star Wars Rebellion, or War of the Ring would appeal to your vision of a typical MPS euro player. If your only definition is going to be "complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed" then you should probably just reference heavy weight preferences since that also applies to war games.
Oh, you ARE new to the concept of interpretation. 😃 Here you go 👉 [A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics Paper - David Jasper : Westminster John Knox Press (wjkbooks.com)](https://www.wjkbooks.com/Products/0664227511/a-short-introduction-to-hermeneutics.aspx) >I was responding to your condescension of euro gamers. To quote from our discussion above: *"Who hurt you?"* So it WAS a projection all along! 😄 >complicated games where internalisation of rules, mechanisms, bits and optimisation thereof is needed" MPS game = game where interacting with the game matters more than interacting with other players. And above quote nicely describes how such games look. >then you should probably just reference heavy weight preferences since that also applies to war games. So, not only interpretation, also contextualisation and analysis aren't your strong suits. Rules in wargames are there to create theme (and all possible details regarding it), those rules aren't meant to be optimised in order to achieve victory. Totally different ballpark. Say, are you maybe also new to the hobby? 🙂
I've been in hobby boardgames for something like 15 years. The players in Brass do interact with each other, and if you don't believe me I can tell you I've played with some of the most cut throat Brass players across the US for over a decade, and have won an event for it at Origins. You absolutely have to respond to what the players are doing, cut them off, and just generally understand their presence. I understand that games with direct conflict are somewhat more interactive, and the idea you're trying to espouse that the players are simply bonding with the board. War games are not simply there to create theme. The theme is important to the experience in most cases, but you betray your own ignorance here. Have you ever played Twilight Struggle? COiN games? Those are games with labyrinthine rule sets that require optimal play from all those involved. You aren't half as clever as you think you are nor the authority you claim to be.
Looked at it when it was getting all the hype. Box is unappealing, board is unappealing, theme is unappealing. Haven't looked at it since.
If you think Brass Birmingham looks unappealing, I shudder at what you would think of the original Brass from 2007 😄
See, I don't mind the old map style. Something about mostly dark boards just doesn't do it for me. Every once in a while I look at my collection and go "why don't I have more space games?" And then after looking at them, I remember it's because I don't like most of their boards.
>Such prestige must surely be unaccessible for a layman such as me. Lexicographical solipsism. Edit more.
This is such a Reddit comment
So, I’ve had **Paths of Glory** sitting on my shelf for two years and I finally JUST got around to really reading the rules and watching the rules videos multiple times over the last week and have played two introductory (3 turn) games of it. I have probably spent about 12 or so hours working through the rules via everything mentioned above and just now feel confident in my rules grasp of how the first phase of the war goes. I’m still WAY foggy on how other nations enter the war or how you officially knock countries out (or if you really can even). “How does this relate to this brass post?” You might be asking. Well, after getting to my point in game understanding I thought, “Surely this is the most complex game I own and have played per BGG’s complexity rating!” Well, I looked it up and paths of glory is rated 3.85. Okay! Seems about right to me, I mean the core stuff of the game isn’t too crazy, but there are so many edgecase rules and rules particular to minuscule details of the game that I thought it would be in the 4.~ range. Anywho, that lead me to wonder about other games complexity ratings in my collection and I was shocked with the results. To circle back to the topic at hand, BGG gives Brass: Birmingham’s current complexity rating a 3.88! BB is rated .03 points higher than Paths of Glory! “Hogwash!” I say! BB’s rulebook is like 5 pages and a breeze to punch through and digest. I read the rules and understood them in about 15~30 minutes!! If I had played PoG before Brass and compared the complexity rating, there is a pretty big chance I’d be dragging my feet to pick it up. Anywho, I’ve completely lost focus and just want to say that I think the BGG complexity/weight rating system is busted.