Thank you for the kind words! There’s a lot to love in the box. I hope the outing with the family goes well. If the quirky art and colorful bits hold them long enough, there’s a decent amount of gratification that comes from pulling off a solid arrangement.

Thank you for reading, Hal, and for your comment. I agree that this review doesn’t work. It is too long for how little there is to say on its subject. I tried something—Hey, this game is too long for what it’s doing, what if the review were equally stagnant—and it didn’t work.

Believe it or not, I generally stay away from in-depth rules explanations in my reviews! I’m usually the one leaving comments on other MM reviewers’ drafts saying “This can be shortened down.” I don’t believe that’s what reviews are for. If someone wants to know how a game is played to that level of granularity, they can look up the manual. In the case of Lacrimosa, because I found the burden of the teach so out of proportion to the quality/depth of the game, I made a sardonic exception. That’s why I encouraged skimming in the opening title. Even I don’t want to read all of it.

As for the Pax Pamir remark, there was nothing disingenuous about it. As I sat down to teach a table of four Lacrimosa, my friend Nathan sat down with three people who’d never played Pax Pamir. Pax took maybe five more minutes to teach, and both games finished around the same time. In fact, I think Pax Pamir finished a bit earlier. With games like Pax Pamir, the rules overhead and playtime are often cited as the reasons for not playing. “It’s kind of late,” “I don’t want to learn a complicated game right now,” etc. Lacrimosa will appeal to many of the same people, but it doesn’t present as that sort of endeavor. Given that it is, I find it salient to note that Pax Pamir, even with its rules questions and exceptions, could be managed in the same amount of time. You are entirely correct to note that Lacrimosa is a smoother initial playing experience, but that wasn’t the point of the comparison.

If I were to review Lacrimosa today, I would write a different review, but that’s true of nearly everything I’ve ever written. Off the top of my head, this is the only review I’ve written that I felt I was writing *at* the game, which is not the best approach. At least I’ve tried it now, and gotten it out of my system. Thanks again for reading!

The typical Theme/Components/Gameplay/Final Thoughts structure doesn’t help in this regard, either, but it would be unfair to burden this author with that criticism. Everyone seems to cling to it for dear life despite how tedious it is (and how perfunctory it can feel).

Also (and this is a pet peeve of mine), the Pax Pamir remark smacks of SU&SD’s irritating “Why not play Concordia instead?” and even seems a bit disingenuous. Wehrle games provide lots of handholds to get going, but they also provoke tons of rules questions and exceptions during play (which is not inherently a weakness!). Surprisingly, Lacrimosa does not.

Best of luck to you in your future work.

So glad you found it helpful Melanie! 🙂 I agree, that image of the tile types and number opened my eyes to the depths of Carcassonne!

Hi Russ, you make an interesting point. Really the pointers here are just for the base game (although I’ll admit at least one of the photos has a bunch of expansions thrown in!), once you add in expansions the luck of the draw factor becomes much greater. With just the base game you know (roughly or by heart) the tile probabilities and your turns become based on both outsmarting your opponent and playing the probabilities. Yes you can still get stymied by the occasional luck of the draw but you’re aware of the chance of that happening and choose to take that risk. With the expansions, the tile pool becomes larger so its harder to know what might come out when, and the big scorers like the cathedrals or castles can be a lot more swingy. It’s why the major Carcassonne tournaments are just the base game, not even including the river expansion (which is my preferred way to start).

What I will say though, as someone who’s played hundreds of games, is that whilst the base game by itself is a purer and deeper experience, I personally add in an expansion or two most of the time for the tweaks and changes they add and I enjoy the slight added chaos of not knowing what’s going to come out next and reacting to it.

Aw, thanks Joshua, so pleased you enjoyed the article! 🙂

Illumination is definitely a gem, and the artwork is so very endearing. You should be proud! I do hope folks are willing to give it a try.

Thank you for the kind words!

Since we are discussing about rules, I noticed the player aids mention chain damage can be used on top of chain attacks cards. However, the rulebook states that chain cards can only be used per action spend (e.g. so either damage or attack chains)

Which one is it?

As far as minion behavior goes, once activated by any means, they remain so and take turns every round until defeated, they should never be standing around doing nothing unless they are literally in the center of the board and still cannot see any targets at any range.

Perhaps rightly so, the Trial Guardians have turned out to be a mixed bag for reviewers so far, and you hit the nail on the head in regards to some of the “why’s” behind it all. I’ll add this: The Guardian is meant to represent a new and final phase of the game, forcing a marked shift in playstyle. They are meant to be “overpowered” if their mechanics aren’t exploited or handled effectively, more so in a game of 2v2, but each are meant to have weaknesses or triggers that can be manipulated and used against them or to make them act in suboptimal ways. Hence why they are drawn at the start of the game, and can be “planned” against from the Hero Deck building stage. Kiting and CC work wonders!

That said, scaling them as you suggest is an effective way to shorten games a bit and make the endgame less scary for teams with a slim lead.

Again, a heartfelt thank you for the time you’ve put into this, and for your kind and reasoned words.

-Thor