King of Gokart - use power ups to be the first who finisht 3 laps (nope its not Mario Kart)

I like the foot idea

I was hoping for the same exact thing to be honest.

You can, but you just use the standee and health/fame tracker.

All the King of... games are cross compatible, power up cards are not yet implemented for this one and I think that may be the only none compatibility part, but we shall see. The uniqueness of your monsters comes from the sidekicks that you get which are A5 cards in the game which unlock different abilities as your fame increases (this also applies to the boss monster) and it is these that I see getting added through expansions rather than power up cards to vary the characters abilities.

The monsters are just standee and dial, just like King of Tokyo (sans Power Up). You can definitely use your favorite monster from the previous game, since it's only decorative.

You can. The monsters and counters are cosmetics only. The powers you get are from this game.

I think Rahdo commented on a similar question on his KOMI video. The general thought was The LOOP was a bit more gamery/thinky with your setting up of loop combos if I remember correctly. He enjoyed them both though. I'm still deciding between them too..

Good news is we did a playthrough in the Autumn Spectacular kzfaq.info/get/bejne/abGYgKt337zOe3k.html

@@DTChrisYi Cool, thanks Chris.

It's not comparable, this game is also more complex than King of New York. KoT and KoNY are closer to each other complexity-wise than they are to this game.

I actually prefer King of New York the added complexity only adds ~5 minutes and it's well worth it!

@@BoardGamesBricksHobbies King of New York is pretty easy to break if you really understand the mechanics. I've never lost a game because I figured out how to exploit the mechanics playtesting it before I got it. One thing I figured out was that destroying buildings is usually really bad and that's really the whole point to play it over Tokyo.

@@HarryBuddhaPalm Interesting that you've had the experience. I haven't noticed that imbalance at all in my nearly 40 plays.

Problem with me for King of Tokyo is that it is not suitable at all for 2 players. Its more of a party game (3 players or more needed). And the tokyo tile doesnt offer much (in tourneys and casual play, we found that killing each other asap has a higher chance of winning instead of collecting VPs within Tokyo). I think King of Monster Island is a fresh approach to KoT, and we can play solo or 2 players properly this time. Looks good on table (yet still not needing a huge space), more depth, rules are still simple too with steps already provided on reference cards. I would get this soon and play more than KoT.

@@BoardGamesBricksHobbies Yeah, I found that it's very difficult to knock someone out of Manhattan because they can heal inside with cards they bought with the energy they amassed or by destroying hospitals or eating soldiers. You can sit inside Manhattan and either roll claws and go for triple skulls to kill everyone or get three stars and then just keep rolling stars and rack up a ton of points. If players are destroying a lot of buildings then they're generating a lot of military units so you get triple skulls and wreck them and not take any if you avoid destroying buildings yourself or just destroy them to heal up when you have to. Someone did a good video about why King of New York was poorly designed. It's on youtube but I couldn't find it to link to it. If I find it later, I will. He makes a lot of good points. It's not a bad game but a lot of what makes it different than King of Tokyo doesn't really hold up.

LOL, I just looked at the board and immediately saw it.

And none of the play testers realized this?! Zee - "these tiles shaped like....ships" lol 😂

This was my first thought too. But after playing King of Monster Island, I much prefer it to The Loop. It is what I wanted the Loop to be in terms of a quirky chaotic co-op.

tts

That is the case with every 5 player game. 3 is the sweet spot.

Who cares about player elimination in a 10-15 minute game?

@@aarondowning5791 The box says 30 minutes, but if you’re playing with 4-5 players I find this typically runs 45 minutes minimum. If one player is eliminated after 15 minutes, that’s 30 minutes of wait time. Player elimination is something people accept from older games because they had no choice, but just like “roll and move”, it’s outdated. I would love to see a redesign of the original game that changes this without messing too much with the simplicity.

@@benjaminspears8488 Have to agree with you.. I think player elimination can have it's place in certain games, but for a party game experience, it sucks to be "out" while everyone else is still playing. And in some ways, it sucks when the final part of the game where someone wins, happens when everyone but two people are already bored and not watching you play anymore. In a 2 player game, obviously it's not a problem, and in 3 players, it tends to only be a couple minutes... but 4+ player games really struggle if they have player elimination.

@@joelface Yup. If there was a way they could tweak the game slightly to do away with player elimination with 3+ players, it would be an even bigger hit today. We already have a way to win with points (stars). Maybe when a monster is defeated, the attacking monster gets a victory token? If a monster gets a certain number of victory tokens (based on player count) they win. The defeated monster has their health restored to 3 or 4 and loses all of their abilities (cards, powerups), but can gain them back again. Of course, this might have to be tweaked and playtested for game length, but something like that could be doable.

@@benjaminspears8488 I can think of a few ways they could do it. Your suggestion sounds good, though it may be the case that simply going for stars is the best route if you have to actively kill multiple players to get victory tokens. Playtesting definitely required! Haha, but good thoughts! Would love to see an official variant of the game that removed player elimination for sure.

So was King of Tokyo.

@@GlennDeBlock King of Tokyo was not co op.

I was thinking the same thing. One major diffference is that in KoT, your hero is just a piece of cardboard.. there are no unique dice or deck of cards, or special abilities or status tokens. You do end up with an ally board unique to you, in this one... so at least there is some unique aspect for each player, but there are only about 5 things on the board, and only about 5 boards... so it's pretty limited in that way. I think one advantage to Monster Island is the dice volcano is a fun game centerpiece.. and maybe the circular board creates a sort of cohesive game space around it. In DTA, you can end up filling the entire table up with the player boards, the minions and the dungeon tiles and all the extra bits you might need. Not necessarily a bad thing, unless you have a small table. I think generally, KoT is better at higher player counts as well, but this review is suggesting higher player count isn't great in this game either. I do think Dice Throne Adventures is by far the better game, based on all the extra depth it brings. It's a legacy-style game where you get loot that carries from session to session (cards that go into your player deck and make you more powerful, so it's like you're leveling up). In Monster Island, there are multiple bosses, but they're a stand-alone experience. I guess the advantage to that is playing with a group you don't usually play with, you won't feel like you're starting a campaign you'll never finish. But the experience is less rich as a result, as well.

Could also add in more tactics to a game. I like the adjusting of strategies in coops when the unexpected comes up

It's not cynical, it's informative and nuanced. Reviewers that are easily excitable are not very useful.