Thanks! It definitely felt a little strange not to start on a joke, but I felt it was important to treat the subject matter with the respect these people deserve.

Thank you so much!

You’re a cult member aren’t you

Thanks, happy to help!

Happy to help!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

thanks!

Thanks! Happy to help!

I'm sort of a history buff, so I very much enjoy the thought and attention to detail that was put in to this game. I of course also like when people become more educated, history in particular is essential for understanding why the world we live in today is as it is. However, there's not really a problem with just making entertainment based on history. Like, Raider of the North Sea is perfectly fine with just being loosely based on a general (mis)understanding of the vikings and who they were. Blitzkreig! is a fast and entertaining game of WW2, which I think is fine. It doesn't need a long thesis on the horrors of the Holocaust etc. Tbh, Pax Pamir would be easier to play with bigger symbols and region names on the cards and smaller background text, since the only thing the background text does from a play-ability perspective is overload the players. You want to be able to read the name on cards around the table, some which are upside down. At the end of the game, less focus on history and more on the game would probably have been a net positive.

Haha, we will agree to disagree then.

Sure, it's at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r6hlfLF9udXeqIE.htmlsi=2RAONh7wWqzEYb0s

I absolutely love Strange New Worlds. Best of the new series by far. I'm a little concerned that they're going to just keep killing off cast members until they have the original Enterprise crew. And that's fine but it makes me a little less invested in who we have now, which is a shame, because these characters are great.

Oh yeah, hey. Not a rounding issue, just a mistake. They should both by 8/2, so 4. I'll add a note.

It's a mistake. There's a note about it in the description.

Yep, my Patreon backers have been able to watch it for a while, but for everyone else it'll go live on Saturday.

@@RTFM Ok! :D

Sorry for the late response. Yes, if you need to discard a card at the end of your turn, you can choose a card with spies on it.

@@RTFM no problem, thanks for taking the time to respond!

i think wakhan can be played with up to 2 players but it is not necessary although it would definitely change the game dynamic having just 2

As the other commenter said, yes you can play 2 without, but it's a different experience, and I think it's recommended to play with wakhan at 2 players. Of course your mileage may vary.

@@RTFM thanks a lot!

"YOU WILL NOT ALLOW" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZZ4fLShktDOlpc.html Absolutely magnificent.

You aren't doing anything wrong. The 20 minutes part of the title is referring to how long it takes to learn the game when watching the video, not how long it will take to play the game.

@@RTFM Ah, sorry. Sarcasm doesn't transmit very well over the internet.

I actually let my Patreon backers decide what I vote on, so if you want to suggest a game, joining is the way to do that.

@@RTFM haha I'm seriously thinking about it. Just got excited with this tutorial I guess...

I'll always have a soft spot for Voyager. That's the first series I remember watching the premiere and finale of when they aired. But after rewatching them all, my heart lies with DS9.

@@RTFM I'm not surprised, Voyager is a Euro and DS9 Ameritrash.

Because then the corners roll down and make it even less of a flat surface. Better to just put something a little heavy on the corners in either case.

Ah, good point. I'll add a note.

I mean I like it, but this video isn't a review. If you want a more critical approach, I'd recommend watching No Pun Included's review. That might give you a better sense of whether you'll like it or not.

I probably should've labeled it as such, but what those numbers are referring to is the amount of influence each player has, not the points they gain. The point trackers go to the correct spots.

@@RTFM ah okay that was unclear to me but makes sense.

Buying cards allows you to support your chosen factions and gives you actions beyond just purchasing and playing cards (the only actions you have at the start). Truthfully the cards dictate what factions you would want to support if there were for example a bunch of cards in the market that supported the British it would be to your advantage to support them. However, even if multiple players are trying to support the same faction on the map they are still competing and vying for influence with the faction through gifts (control of the patriots) and killing enemies of their faction (acquiring prizes). The objective is getting VPs through either militarily supporting one of the 3 coalitions until they have a plurality of 4 blocks more than their opponents in which you score points based on your allegiance during the dominance checks (4 scoring cards in the market deck) The alternative (and more common outcome when scoring occurs) is that there is no clear victor between the coalitions and thus the tribes (the players) compare how much influence they have by how many cylinders (spies and tribes) they have in play (which is achieved mostly by playing cards and killing other peoples cylinders). Its like a 1/2 area control game where you want a faction to win but if you waste too much time building up the coalition and you don't actually achieve victory you may lose to a dude that just has a bunch of spies and influence. So it's a bit of a balancing act.

I'm not sure which parts of the video you're talking about. If you give timestamps or describe the issue a little more I'm sure I can clear it up.

@@RTFM Sure at 2:51 you are saying to build the "draw deck" starting with the "court cards"; 3:03 you say to leave the extra court cards in the box; 3:18 you then say pull out the "market board" and start drawing "court cards". What court cards are you using if you just threw the remaining court card pile in the box?

@@ethidian3444 Ah, I see. You're drawing the cards onto the market from the draw deck you just constructed, most of which will be court cards. I probably should've just said draw out cards from the draw pile, as those are now a mixture of court, event, and dominance cards.

Totally understandable. My partner felt similarly when we first played. Not because of a personal connection, but more because of the callousness of the setting. It's not going to be for everyone, even if we would otherwise want to play.

Complexity is relative. The actual mechanics of the rules are actually quite intuitive and quickly learned. Where the game gets complex is in the large number of choices and interactions that develop between cards and the board position. The clever part of the game is in the scoring. Since if someone manages to get two wins in first place in a row they’ll usually have the +4 points necessary to auto win, anyone that score second or third place points is immediately incentivized to switch factions or try to overthrow the first place person’s position. The result is a highly fluid game where switching allegiances occurs often. Cooperation between players changes turn to turn, or even card to card. It’s an excessively clever game design.

@@fumanchu7 great to hear you're happy with the game.

@@kosterix123is that passive..? Haha

@@fumanchu7well written.

@@Spandau-Filet not passive-aggressive at all, I know a gamer who built this as a pnp and sometimes she brings it to a con, I wouldn't say no when she were to explain it.