Rating distribution for Oatworm
Ratings
Wed 22nd Sep 20:37
It's all about luck on this one, but it plays quickly. Then again, so does flipping a coin.
4Play rated 
Fair
Fair
It's all about luck on this one, but it plays quickly. Then again, so does flipping a coin.
Wed 22nd Sep 20:36
It's a big, BIG Hordes!-style board. Graphics are a little clunky - some of the territories are too small, among other things. Gameplay is a little gimmicky with the capitol-style control centers. Since it's so big, it lends itself to 10+ player bouts, which seem to devolve into "who got booted last" contests.
But... how many boards are there on WG that are truly playable for 16 players? Not very many, I'm thinking, which makes this a rare and necessary beast.
It's a big, BIG Hordes!-style board. Graphics are a little clunky - some of the territories are too small, among other things. Gameplay is a little gimmicky with the capitol-style control centers. Since it's so big, it lends itself to 10+ player bouts, which seem to devolve into "who got booted last" contests.But... how many boards are there on WG that are truly playable for 16 players? Not very many, I'm thinking, which makes this a rare and necessary beast.
Wed 22nd Sep 20:33
I like the idea behind the hidden territories and bonuses, even if WG doesn't really support it (you can see the bonuses in the Design tab). Definitely a daring little board that also happens to be reasonably playable.
I like the idea behind the hidden territories and bonuses, even if WG doesn't really support it (you can see the bonuses in the Design tab). Definitely a daring little board that also happens to be reasonably playable.
Tue 13th Jul 02:40
On the one hand, this board is reasonably fun and enjoyable. It creatively uses Wargear's more advanced mechanics quite nicely while capturing the spirit of the game that it's based on.
On the other hand, first player does have a pretty significant advantage. That's a problem with most two-player boards in general, of course, but this one doesn't exactly help. The good news is it's not "solvable" like Five because of the dice; the bad news is, it's much easier to "solve" with the dice than Five was without it (HINT: Kill everything!).
EDIT: Increased rating from 5 to 7 after some thought. Yes, first player does have a serious advantage, but it's not "broken" in the sense that there's a move or a set of moves that first player can always use that guarantees victory or replays the same winning game over and over again. Plus, it is fun even as the disadvantaged second player, so there is that.
On the one hand, this board is reasonably fun and enjoyable. It creatively uses Wargear's more advanced mechanics quite nicely while capturing the spirit of the game that it's based on.On the other hand, first player does have a pretty significant advantage. That's a problem with most two-player boards in general, of course, but this one doesn't exactly help. The good news is it's not "solvable" like Five because of the dice; the bad news is, it's much easier to "solve" with the dice than Five was without it (HINT: Kill everything!).
EDIT: Increased rating from 5 to 7 after some thought. Yes, first player does have a serious advantage, but it's not "broken" in the sense that there's a move or a set of moves that first player can always use that guarantees victory or replays the same winning game over and over again. Plus, it is fun even as the disadvantaged second player, so there is that.
Tue 13th Jul 02:36
With the fog, this is good, clean, relatively quick fun. Definitely a good, solid board to play over and over again. Don't rush to grab a capital unless you're in a rush to lose!
Contrary to what some of the reviewers have said, this board is playable without fog and actually surprisingly intense that way; having said that, I don't really recommend it. It takes a rather serious amount of luck and a willingness to avoid the capitals unless you are dead certain you'll keep them. I suspect turn order is also important, but don't hold me to that.
My rating is strictly based on playing the game with default fog settings.
With the fog, this is good, clean, relatively quick fun. Definitely a good, solid board to play over and over again. Don't rush to grab a capital unless you're in a rush to lose!Contrary to what some of the reviewers have said, this board is playable without fog and actually surprisingly intense that way; having said that, I don't really recommend it. It takes a rather serious amount of luck and a willingness to avoid the capitals unless you are dead certain you'll keep them. I suspect turn order is also important, but don't hold me to that.
My rating is strictly based on playing the game with default fog settings.
Tue 13th Jul 02:30
This is a higher ranking than I usually give blatant Risk-clones, but this one seems to be surprisingly difficult to really master for me for whatever reason. Maybe it's because it's relatively open, maybe it's the opponents I've had on it, but it somehow seems to favor a more aggressive strategy than the usual seize-and-hold that works so well on other boards of its class.
Graphics are clean, bonuses are sane, borders are obvious.
Not bad.
This is a higher ranking than I usually give blatant Risk-clones, but this one seems to be surprisingly difficult to really master for me for whatever reason. Maybe it's because it's relatively open, maybe it's the opponents I've had on it, but it somehow seems to favor a more aggressive strategy than the usual seize-and-hold that works so well on other boards of its class.Graphics are clean, bonuses are sane, borders are obvious.
Not bad.
Tue 13th Jul 02:27
This is one of those boards that will probably grow on me over time; having said that, I did not sightread this one well. It's surprisingly complex for a 3-player board - it's important to not only secure the middle game for bonuses, there's also a considerable amount of effort that needs to be expended to seize the capitals so you can actually win before your battered and beaten opponents bash through the barrier. Very interesting!
This is one of those boards that will probably grow on me over time; having said that, I did not sightread this one well. It's surprisingly complex for a 3-player board - it's important to not only secure the middle game for bonuses, there's also a considerable amount of effort that needs to be expended to seize the capitals so you can actually win before your battered and beaten opponents bash through the barrier. Very interesting!
Tue 13th Jul 02:21
Good news! The latest iteration is, near as anyone can tell thus far, not fundamentally broken, meaning there isn't a set of moves that a player can make that guarantees victory, regardless of luck or opponent skill. That's a good thing - it means you're not playing the same set of game moves over and over again, either as the winner or the whipping boy.
I've edited my review to "Good" to acknowledge RiskyBack's efforts on that. I'm in the middle of a tournament on the latest version of this board, so, if the results hold up, I'll move my rating up to where I'd like it to be.
Good news! The latest iteration is, near as anyone can tell thus far, not fundamentally broken, meaning there isn't a set of moves that a player can make that guarantees victory, regardless of luck or opponent skill. That's a good thing - it means you're not playing the same set of game moves over and over again, either as the winner or the whipping boy.I've edited my review to "Good" to acknowledge RiskyBack's efforts on that. I'm in the middle of a tournament on the latest version of this board, so, if the results hold up, I'll move my rating up to where I'd like it to be.
Mon 28th Jun 19:34
Having tried the new "all units in the corners" version, I'm editing my review off that one.
It's not Risk. It's not like Risk. This isn't a probability-based game with odds, luck, or anything of the sort. It's skill, pure and simple, and if you're playing against someone with more experience on the board than you, you will probably lose. It's very good at that.
Whether you're into that or not is, of course, up to you.
I reserve the right to alter this review as I play more games on the new version.
Having tried the new "all units in the corners" version, I'm editing my review off that one.It's not Risk. It's not like Risk. This isn't a probability-based game with odds, luck, or anything of the sort. It's skill, pure and simple, and if you're playing against someone with more experience on the board than you, you will probably lose. It's very good at that.
Whether you're into that or not is, of course, up to you.
I reserve the right to alter this review as I play more games on the new version.
Mon 28th Jun 19:24
Since IRoll11s has apparently trademarked and copyrighted Toyota references to familiar, white bread vanilla boards, I guess I shall not name this the "Toyota Camry" of boards. Instead, it shall henceforth be reviewed as the "plain white gypsum drywall" of boards.
That is all.
Since IRoll11s has apparently trademarked and copyrighted Toyota references to familiar, white bread vanilla boards, I guess I shall not name this the "Toyota Camry" of boards. Instead, it shall henceforth be reviewed as the "plain white gypsum drywall" of boards. That is all.
Fri 25th Jun 20:43
This is one fantastic looking board. Definitely seems to lean toward a cash and grab strategy - cards and eliminations are absolutely huge on this one. It's a quick bit of fun, though, so that's not a bad thing.
This is one fantastic looking board. Definitely seems to lean toward a cash and grab strategy - cards and eliminations are absolutely huge on this one. It's a quick bit of fun, though, so that's not a bad thing.
Fri 25th Jun 20:41
It's a big Britain-shaped Risk board that tries to be too clever by half. If you strip away the silly adornments (one-way borders with odd modifiers, connected fortify, etc.), it would be a fantastic looking Britain-shaped Risk board that would play fairly straightforwardly. Unfortunately, the adornments just distract from the otherwise sound if mundane game play that would otherwise be offered here.
It's a big Britain-shaped Risk board that tries to be too clever by half. If you strip away the silly adornments (one-way borders with odd modifiers, connected fortify, etc.), it would be a fantastic looking Britain-shaped Risk board that would play fairly straightforwardly. Unfortunately, the adornments just distract from the otherwise sound if mundane game play that would otherwise be offered here.
Fri 25th Jun 20:37
It only looks like Monopoly, folks. Don't let its looks confuse you.
This is definitely a board that takes a few tries to really grasp, but, once you do, it's really rewarding. Conceptually, it does a fantastic job of mixing Monopoly's bonus structure with Monopoly's dice odds; that said, translating that into a winning Risk-style strategy takes some serious work, especially since, unlike the real Monopoly, you still get bonuses for buildings without the underlying monopoly.
It only looks like Monopoly, folks. Don't let its looks confuse you.This is definitely a board that takes a few tries to really grasp, but, once you do, it's really rewarding. Conceptually, it does a fantastic job of mixing Monopoly's bonus structure with Monopoly's dice odds; that said, translating that into a winning Risk-style strategy takes some serious work, especially since, unlike the real Monopoly, you still get bonuses for buildings without the underlying monopoly.
Fri 25th Jun 20:34
This board is to capitals what "Infection" is to Hordes! bonuses. If you've never played a capital board, start with this one.
This board is to capitals what "Infection" is to Hordes! bonuses. If you've never played a capital board, start with this one.
Fri 25th Jun 20:32
It's cleverly done, graphics are clean, and, though the games are long, they're long in a good way - it's not just a card game with dice.
It's cleverly done, graphics are clean, and, though the games are long, they're long in a good way - it's not just a card game with dice.
Fri 25th Jun 20:30
As it's currently configured, this board is basically broken. Due to the bottom player having an extra 2 units at start and needing to kill 3 less units to get the bottom continent, the bottom player not only will start off with a +5 bonus after the first turn roughly 66% of the time, it's almost mathematically impossible for the top player to secure a continent on their first turn without otherworldly luck. Given the unit counts of the players, that basically amounts to a +10 bonus for the bottom player at the start of turn 2 (+5 bonus, +5 units that the bottom player either starts with or doesn't have to kill to get a bonus), which is almost insurmountable. I've only lost as the bottom player once, and it took a mixture of me running up against asm (one of WarGear's finest) and some fantastic rolling on his side to make that happen.
With some tweaks, I think this board could be salvaged, either by reducing the starting number of units for the bottom player or by increasing the starting number of units for the top player. Until then, I'd just steer clear of it - it pretty much amounts to flipping a coin, declaring that "Heads" wins, then spending some time proving it.
As it's currently configured, this board is basically broken. Due to the bottom player having an extra 2 units at start and needing to kill 3 less units to get the bottom continent, the bottom player not only will start off with a +5 bonus after the first turn roughly 66% of the time, it's almost mathematically impossible for the top player to secure a continent on their first turn without otherworldly luck. Given the unit counts of the players, that basically amounts to a +10 bonus for the bottom player at the start of turn 2 (+5 bonus, +5 units that the bottom player either starts with or doesn't have to kill to get a bonus), which is almost insurmountable. I've only lost as the bottom player once, and it took a mixture of me running up against asm (one of WarGear's finest) and some fantastic rolling on his side to make that happen.With some tweaks, I think this board could be salvaged, either by reducing the starting number of units for the bottom player or by increasing the starting number of units for the top player. Until then, I'd just steer clear of it - it pretty much amounts to flipping a coin, declaring that "Heads" wins, then spending some time proving it.
Fri 25th Jun 20:24
I'm not going to lie, this is one of those boards I don't entirely "get". That said, though I haven't come within sniffing distance of winning a game, I have had fun playing on it, which is pretty remarkable.
I'm not going to lie, this is one of those boards I don't entirely "get". That said, though I haven't come within sniffing distance of winning a game, I have had fun playing on it, which is pretty remarkable.
Fri 25th Jun 20:23
It's different, but not mind-bendingly different. That's not a bad thing. Quite playable and quite fun.
It's different, but not mind-bendingly different. That's not a bad thing. Quite playable and quite fun.
Fri 25th Jun 20:19
The graphics are excellent. Game play is wide open enough where you're not going to get lost in stalemates; that said, as Yertle pointed out, it's big on cards and eliminations, which means you'll need a fairly consistent aggressive style to succeed. All in all, it's an enjoyable board.
The graphics are excellent. Game play is wide open enough where you're not going to get lost in stalemates; that said, as Yertle pointed out, it's big on cards and eliminations, which means you'll need a fairly consistent aggressive style to succeed. All in all, it's an enjoyable board.