As a massive fan of this game, yeah your point is entirely valid and fair. Although if your biggest problem is the lack of counterplay, you’ll really like the marvel ones, they play pretty differently, mainly that the decks have cards that affect others (Thanos and Loki especially, their win conditions literally revolve around interacting with the other players’ boards). And yeah getting people into it is hard, but once you do it’s pretty fun! We usually just randomize which decks people play (and I’m specifically banned from Maleficent) to keep it interesting. But it is true that often the game revolves around “ok who’s the biggest threat? Is it safe to fate them? Ok bomb rush them, if not don’t touch them.”

I played a round with a small group once. I was happy that Prince John was in the game. Because out of all Disney villain's who is expecting him to make the list? I picked him and the more I played the more the video's problems dawned on me. The owner of the game played Hook, who needs to juggle unlocking areas and getting the heroes out. It didn't take long for me to click, "oh wait, I should never touch that fate deck because that grinds Hook to a halt." Similarly, like John the other player was playing The Queen of Hearts. That too, didn't really need to touch the fate deck. They needed to do their own thing. At best I got stalled at the end a turn or two before I won with a small combo, with another one set up to go off it that one didn't work. In the end the owner of the game got mad that I didn't hit her fates, blamed me for playing a "easy character." After that I didn't play with the owner agian and it kinda left a bad taste in my mouth for the game entirely. Looking back I wonder if this game is rallying so much on table politics to provide gameplay. Its a memorable game admittingly, but did the game really expect me to get so mad over being fated (Because like the vid they figured out to toss them all at me quick.) that I'd play counter productive to the characters not only deck strategy but win condition. Generally, targeting the fate deck required you to throw power at it but Prince John needs that power to not only win but set up his combo plays. Ah, thanks for letting me rant a bit. :D

My wife and I have been able to get a lot of enjoyment out of it. This is with the caveat that I am a heavy card came player and she is not. So the gulf in experience with planning turns and making plays is immense. Giving her Prince John and allowing me to play anyone else has led to some interesting games that come super close either way. In my niche instance, the lack of any strong counterplay has given her the opportunity to actually feel like she can keep up with me. So interestingly enough, the game does have the benefit of having decks that aren't as well balanced allowing for a good little push in an inexperienced player's favor while still giving a more stratigic player a reasonable challenge that can win.

Have you ever taken a look at Unstable Unicorns?

Didn't expect to see LazyPurple referenced in this video.

The comical power disparity between different villains is ultimately what killed this game for my friend group. Compare the win condition of someone like Prince John (start your turn with 20 power) to someone like Jafar (search your deck for & play a one-of pendant card to unlock the cave of wonders, search your deck for & play *another* one-of lamp card to summon the genie, search your deck for a *third* card & gather the *MINIMUM EIGHT POWER* to play it to capture the genie, then move the lamp all the way across your board and start your turn with the lamp at the furthest left spot on your board, all the while hoping the genie doesn't get moved or the lamp doesn't get stolen by Aladdin) and you can see why the game may be a bit unfun.

In the sorts of games that have "random cards" or "factions" or "characters" that each play differently from one another, be it something as simple as variant starting resources to larger thing such as individual mechanics, one of the things I do if we are doing consecutive games is remove the choices that were used before so they can not be used again in later rounds. So say Characters A, D, and G were used in game one, they are not available for game two or game three if that many games are played. This works great for things like Dominion where you never have the same card twice so you always have to adapt to what is there. So for something like Villainous I'd just say remove the villains used in the first game to not be there in the second. Thanks for the video Kohdok.

Maybe including some of the expansions from the Disney TV series good question to see how many villains can we drop from Darkwing Duck into this game expansion again I personally think that's better as its own game and that's the biggest problem a lot of these games with Disney villains would you better as a solo game around that particular series.

On another note, I'd LOVE to get your thoughts on Restoration Game's Unmatched and how it compares to Disney Villianous. It has a similar distribution model, self-contained characters sold as (with two exceptions) boxes with multiple characters that can be played on their own or mixed with other sets. It has an even simpler ruleset than Disney Villainous, with a similar playtime, and is much more match-up driven. It also has a mix of IPs and non-IP characters. It also has a thriving competitive scene, and a bevy of new content still on the way.

I'd want to see some Pixar expansions.

Hear me out: Kingdom Hearts expansion with the various Xenmas, their goals will be based on manipulation of other villains since in the KH games they tend to use the Disney worlds to help further their goals. Maybe make it secret agendas, so which opponent you're "helping" is randomised each time?

I need a lampwick deck. With donkey enslavement

I always wondered how this game was played when I see it at target. I was not aware it is so complicated but that can always be fun.

Any chance you could do a follow up reviewing the Marvel versions? They have more counterplay and direct interaction. Thanos's entire shtick is sending his Allies into other players' realms. Additionally, there is a single shared Fate deck (shared universe and all) so a player won't face the exact same obstacles each time.

The Lazypurple plug was not expected, buts it’s a great way to bring the idea home

Interesting! I’ve always seen it in big box stores and wondered about it. I have to imagine for most people who aren’t super into board games, the theme is pretty attractive and helps get them into it. I know quite a few people who would be cold on being a German settler, but pretty excited about playing as Yzma haha

It lacking varied counterplay simply comes down to taste and expectations. Playing against a villain does not meaningfully change from game to game, but it doesn't necessarily need to. It's not that kind of game. It *is* a table-politicking game, you are meant to be, well, villainous. It's not like a tcg where you play unsure of what your opponent can do and having to be able to adjust your gameplan to match. It's a board game with character selections, like monopoly meets street fighter. Also, the conditions are a *vastly* important sources of counterplay that you are dramatically underestimating. Conditions are not meant to be counterplay you use against your opponents, they are parts of your normal repertoire that your opponents have to counterplay against. They can be incredibly powerful, the two biggest examples being Gaston (who you don't seem to have picked up) and Ratigan (who you don't seem to have played enough to get that deep into strategy with). Regarding the issue of certain characters wanting to be Fated, it only appears that way while you are fairly new to the game. The only characters who actively benefit from being Fated all have decks that will accomplish the same goal for them much more beneficially. Particularly Scar, who gets absolutely ruined by his Fate deck and is a weak character as a result. Yes, priorities of Fating vary, but no character is begging for it. More villains are coming every year and there is no shortage of good choices for further expansions. Especially considering they actively avoid having only the memorable iconic ones, with at least one obscure or unpopular pull in every box. And they haven't been exclusively using villains from the animated canon for three expansions as of this March, since Pete was added, AND are now dipping into Pixar, so there's no worry about running out of content. (Also, the point of the game is that you are a bad person. Ratcliffe wouldn't even be the most evil character on offer) I get the impression that you kind of just went into this expecting something else, more like your usual fare, and so were disappointed when it didn't match what you wanted out of it, even though it's not meant to be. Your assertion that it's hard to rope someone in for a game has been, in my experience, completely wrong in every case except when trying to introduce it to older people chronically uninterested in any kind of gaming. Your fear that the game can get stale is totally unfounded, as I and everyone I have introduced it to continue to adore it a year later and play it whenever possible. The biggest thing I think is regarding your suggestion of house rules to switch decks around. That... is the point. You shouldn't need a house rule to enforce what is the intended way to play the game. It's a casual, asymmetric Disney-themed puzzle board game, not a cut-throat competitive card game where you main the meta option, and if you are approaching the game with that mindset, or with a group who is doing so, then of course you are going to encounter problems that are not part of the game's design, and that is not the game's fault.

This. I've been a heavy board game geek for over 20 years, and when this game came out, LITERALLY EVERYONE told me I had to try it. I sat down for a 6-player game at GameStorm in 2019, and I found it boring as hell. I mean, I don't mind "multiplayer solitaire" euro-style games OR mindless take-that Ameritrash, but Villainous just felt both random and arbitrary, with no real strategy beyond "draw the right cards" and "hope you don't get Fated too much." I played Captain Hook. His win-con actually REQUIRES players to Fate him, because he has to meet and defeat Peter Pan from his Fate deck. Predictably, everyone just opted not to Fate me, and I never drew any cards that let me dig Pan out myself, so I just sat there and Durdled for two hours that would've been better spent playing ANYTHING else. Nobody seemed to have any actual method to their madness, just playing whatever they drew and hoping it was good. The game literally ended by accident when Ursula just kinda realized, "Oh, wait, if I do this... umm, did I just win? I think I won, but I'm not sure why..." I was SO glad to be done that I thanked her and left before anyone could confirm. Nope, won't go back. Not even for the Marvel reprint. This game is no better than Munchkin... which, BTW, if you didn't know, that game sucks, too.

I think it makes sense (maybe not good but makes sense) to have the fate decks be the only 'counterplay". Every villain has such a wildly different goal that making every deck be able to counter everyone else to at least a small degree would inflate the deck size. Prince John just needs to gain power, so just have every deck have a card to remove power, simple. But Maleficent needs to put a curse on every land and Cruella needs to capture a lot of puppies and Scar needs to defeat a lot of heroes. How would you put a card for each of these to counter that in EVERY deck?

that generally frowned apon line made Mr chuckle fir some reason

Hey good video like always 👍

Wonder what Darth Vader's or Count Dooku's decks would look like. And I really wanna see one of these games for Power Rangers!

I know these decks are preconstructed but it's interesting to think of them like constructed decks, a playstyle that if left alone becomes invincible since all they need is 20 mana and any time managing the board is just slowing them, vs a deck that relies on the opponent playing interference with 'losing' actions taken into account, like an Aristocrats sacrifice deck in MtG with some creatures and enchantments that encourage losing creatures the more your opponent initiates destruction the more they start to hurt while you just keep drawing more layers and chump blockers.

All hail to the mighty King John!

The Marvel version has far more interaction and more interesting gameplay. Still has some issues but I think they are getting there.

Nice description.

Godsforge might be a game you want to check out. It is a board game inspired by TCGs for sure. It is really fun, I bought it, but imo it is overly competitive which makes it difficult to break out often, where Villainous is a lot easier to break out and teach people the "complexity" (probably because of the lack of complexity lol)

I’m waiting for a Judge Doom expansion

there is LOADS of cool fanmade Villains for this game on Tabletop Simulator! Both disney and non disney related

you would probably love the marvel expansions, given your critique, as it solves every problem you brought up

This game is a Lot more interesting, in my experience, if you are very into self contained strategy games, or if you use custom characters, I've seen characters that use dice, whole decks of playing cards, ones that play cards into opponents realms, and some custom expansions add more interesting counterplay like Anime Villainous replacing conditions with schemes that you play on an opponent.

Thank you

Actually for Governor Ratcliff his win condition could be defeating Pocahontas and John Smith.

I didn't have "Kohdok references LazyPurple, thus referencing TF2 in his tabletop game channel" on my 2022 bingo card, but then again, who did?

While you touched upon the Marvel Villainous spinoff, could you review the Marvel and Star Wars ones separately please?

I've... Literally never, in all my time in the Dominion community, heard someone say that you should play Dominion with more than 2 players due to table politics. The game is about as anti-table politics as you can possibly get. O_o Unless I've forgotten something from an expansion, there's no cards that target specific other players in any meaningful way, instead attacking the whole table. Certain decisions you make might affect one player more than another, but such things are never direct. (You may tax one certain pile another players strategy needs, for instance. It does hurt them more, but you're making that pile worse for *everyone*) And attacks in Dominion affect the entire table.

I’d recommend that you check out other Villainous games for Marvel and STAR WARS!

It seems a lot of the game's problems could be solved if your own fate/hero cards were hazards to your opponents. Yes, you would lose flavor and specific interactions, but what's the point of a crossover game if you have little crossover moments?

Considering Ratcliff also likes gold, that could probably be his win condition, something similar to Prince John, but with it's own twist. Not that I care about that movie enough anyways.

Maybe do a comparison with the marvel version.

I really thought this was a review of a movie XD

Boardgames with TCG elements you say? Looking forward to the Mottainai and Agricola reviews! :)

Interesting take i can understand your point of view, as for me and my friends this is our favorite game of all time. We play different villains and its always different results on who the who the winner is, if someone picks a villain with easier win conditions we just make sure to fate them early to slow down their progress.

Villainous Is more of a board game than a TCG This review is like reviewing a motorcycle in a bicycle channel. Or comparing the two things.

Lemme guess: The United Federation of Bad Guys have united as one and are engaging in a duel of nerves to see who can excel in skullduggery. Is that the premise?

This game is pretty mid imo, 3/5 stars. I think the points about Yzma r great, adversely tho I think Yzma is one of the worst villains to pick lol. Lack of player interaction is def my biggest peeve with Villainous.

No "Honest" John Worthington Foulfellow, no buy. 2/10.

This feels like modern Disney brand integrity where they won't let you play Empire vs. Clones because it wouldn't be canon. Just make a co-op game where a bunch of villains team up to kill a bunch of princesses. Who cares how Maleficent and Ursula are in the same place?

first!

Too woke