Er... I personally wouldn't have used the word "hotter", so not to get my words mixed with loticus ones I'll just add that in my opinion BtD.tv girls reviewers look pretty

broken is right, in the rules it states if 2 factions are placed within 3 spaces of each other you need to go back and design the board differently. But thanks for posting the video it made teaching the game easier for me. Thanks

Was I the only one who noticed that the video uses the wrong (ie, misprinted) Latari Elves faction sheet at the beginning? In this case, it means the elves started with the wrong units (they should have ONE warrior and TWO archers)

sigmazero13 said:

There were a bunch of little things like that. Overall it wasn't terribly by any means.

Well except for the Canadianism of it all. Damned Canadians.

There were a lot of little things that got to me, including using the misprinted pieces after complaining about them, setting up the board wrong, calling the order cards "action cards" and the fate deck the "destiny deck".

I admit, harping on the "gimmicky" bit was a bit of a turn-off for me. Yeah, I can see how the mountains are more fluff than substance, but they look cool enough to be worth it; I don't find them any more gimmicky than, say, plastic figures in general.

And I really doubt using dials instead of a "track" for the resources contributed to to the cost; the same amount of cardboard would be used in both, I would think.

And I don't like the dismissal of the "don't give me this about paying for the mechanics" - using "these aren't new mechanics" as the excuse. Sure, most of the mechanics are similar to those from other games. But anymore, it's hard to find a game that has something that has never been done before. Usually, it's something that has been done before but in different ways. I think of the success of a game similar to a recipe - you may be using the same ingredients as something else (flour, water, eggs, etc), but what makes the difference between a top-notch expensive cake and a cheapo one is the mix, the way they were put together, and the overall meshing of one ingredient to the next. I think in this case, you aren't really paying for the ingredients - you are paying for the unique blend of ingredients that contributed to the final cake.

That's just me. Although they rated the game fairly well, I think I agree with broken - it was a lot of little things that nagged at me, too. A little more effort in getting the terminology right would have gone a long way for making it a more "credible" review in my opinion. But then again, I can be just as harsh at "reviewing a review" than I am at reviewing the game itself.

Hem said:

If so they did a really good job of combining that many games in one

-----------------------------------------------------

List of mistakes in video;

All home loactions were 3 places apart, rules allow 1 pair to be 3 apart, but the others must be atleast 4 or you have to rebuild the map.

Used the misprinted elf setup (only 1 aracher) instead of the correction (2 archers)

Described order-8 (fortify) as pick one of 3 options. You get to do all 3 options with this card (if they are each legal).

While the video was correct that defensive players might avoid combat until turn-4+. It should perhaps have mentioned that an aggressive player could recruit in summer (to get a 2nd cavelry) & attack in year-1 to eliminate their opponents offensive units. Following up with an assualt into that opponents home area in year-2. Don't assume your neibours will be defensive, just because you want them to be Indeed with home locations only 3 apart (as shown in the video) it's possible to invade in year-1. Though you'd need good tactics cards for a year-1 invasion to be desicive.

defensive players usually cant win since they cant cover enough area to get the runes needed. And defensive players are at the disadvantage of being able to be attacked by any number of units while they can only have 8 to defend with in each area.