Games
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Wade and Jack talk the dark Disney card game.
Wade: My daughter’s boyfriend, Quinten, asked if we wanted to play Villainous. I was like “Sure, which one?” and he proceeded to pull out this three foot long tote filled with every Villainous that has ever been released: Star Wars, Marvel, Disney…the whole shebang. We opted for Disney because, while I wouldn’t say we are crazy “Disney Parents,” my kids did grow up in the DVD age and picking up all kinds of Disney movies for your kids was way more reasonable than a yearly trip to Disneyland. (Actually, I personally have never been to any Disney theme park.) And the Disney Villainous releases seemed to be on the easier side of the spectrum, so we figured we might as well ease everyone into it.
Marc: I’m with you there. I am not a Disney person. At all. I have been to Disneyland once when I was 8, but I’m not especially fond of their films other than acknowledging the foundation for modern animation that things like Fantasia created. Their films aren’t bad. They’re just not really my thing and weren’t as a kid, either, until they got into much darker (and not as animated) moments like The Black Hole. My first introduction to Villainous was actually right here on TWBG, when people were talking about the game on the forum in really positive terms. I kept shrugging it off, but then more and more people were doing it, so I took a look at the game and decided to spring for the original set and… really liked it (which, latterly, makes me wonder why my original series of articles got almost zero feedback…)
Wade: Those articles are great and timeless. I used them to decide which of the Disney titles I wanted to look into. We should definitely link to them here. So,after a few games I decided to pick up the Introduction to Evil which has Maleficent, Captain Hook, Ursula, and Prince John. Ursula, Prince John and Captain Hook all have revised rules for playing with them.
Marc: Which, in the case of Ursula and Prince John was likely needed, since the former was the hardest villain to win with (borderline broken compared to the others and not in the “OP” way), while the latter was far too able to just sit in his own corner, not talk to anyone, and win with. Captain Hook I would argue a bit, since his winning method is a bit contorted (need to find the Neverland Map, pay 4 Power to play it, then not only move Peter Pan three times, but also defeat an 8 Strength Hero), but I always felt there were enough tools in the deck to make it work. Having a location locked to start doesn’t help, of course.
Wade: The only thing I really don’t like about the Introduction to Evil box is that if I want the remaining two characters from The Worst Takes it All (The Queen of Hearts and Jafar) (which of course I do!),the only recourse I have is to, well, buy The Worst Takes It All.
Marc: Yeah, the problems of reprints. The issue I think they were getting around was increased production costs which might’ve put a higher price point on a six-deck set than before (the original was released in 2018, so now 7 years old.) They left out one of the other difficulty 3 villains (using my simple scale) in Jafar and one of the other often disliked-but-which-I-only-had-at-difficulty 2 villains in The Queen, so I’m betting those will be re-released with updated rules, like the other three.
Wade: So the obvious question: Who is your favorite villain to play with? I know it used to be the Evil Queen. Has that changed? I really like playing as Captain Hook. Confession time: I vividly remember watching Mary Martin’s Peter Pan when I was like 4 years old. And further confession time: I really love Spielberg’s Hook.
Marc: It has not changed. The Evil Queen is probably still my favorite, although she is joined by Mother Gothel, Hades, Ratigan, and old standby Maleficent. I think that most of them have become favorites because of a combination of both theme and mechanisms. I like cards that do something in addition to their primary focus. For example, the reason EQ works so well for me is that I love the Ingredients mechanism, in which you have to collect the set, but those cards still have great use even after they’re in the potion. Similarly, I love the Titans in Hades because they do different things even while they’re being used as simple elements of his win condition (which very rarely actually happens…) I like Ratigan not only because he has two different win conditions but also because he has the coolest mover in the game. And I'm not quite sure what the appeal of Mother Gothel is. My games with her have just always been good ones, I guess.
Wade: Well, getting Fates or is it called ‘Fated’? Whichever it is, it rhymes with getting fucked at my house. In a three-player game, one of the players realized I was close to winning with Hook and I was hit with Fates from both of the other players for multiple rounds in a row which felt bad…until I won. That really felt like the Munchkin effect. Someone is going to win-! Let's pile onto them!
Marc: Yeah, they included the Fate token from the very beginning to prevent that kind of scenario, since it is frustrating and kind of lame for the other two to be able to use one of their four actions every turn to simply stall the leading player. Just finish up and play another game. But Fating is supposed to be a way to impede other players, so the action should be there, not least because it’s the primary way for people to actually play with each other and not do the multiplayer solitaire thing. In the original rules, the Fate token was meant to be used in 5- and 6-player games. In the new rules I guess it’s 4 players, as well? We use it even when we play with 3, just to avoid that “feel bad” moment that you had. And, yes, it is "getting Fated", even in the rules.
Wade: I love how King Candy’s player board is a race track!
Marc: I would love it if King Candy’s win condition wasn’t so complicated, such that it makes half of his deck less useful until he gets to the next stage of his game. It’s the Captain Hook problem but much, much worse.
Wade: You think that's because, from what I can gather, Prospero Hall is no longer doing the Villainous releases?
Marc: That's a tough question. I do think the last couple releases (Sugar and Spite; Treacherous Tides) have been a step down from what we've seen before, not only because King Candy’s design is badly flawed, but also because the latest two (Tamatoa and Davy Jones) are far more opaque on a story level than the other characters. The primary appeal of the game to me originally was that all of them felt like you were actually acting out their role in the film while you were playing and I've watched some of the films that I hadn't seen just to confirm that. I don't get that from some of the more recent releases. The counterpoint to all of that is that Shere Khan's design from a gameplay perspective is among the best in the game. So, I dunno.
Wade: I think watching my daughter, Piper, play Tomatoa is the only time I've seen her visibly pissed about a board game. Essentially, all of her progress was erased ¾ of the way through the game. Honestly, my biggest "problem" with Villainous is my eyesight (and not knowing all the characters' winning conditions well.) I can't tell how close someone is to winning by glancing across the table. And, of course, I'm wrapped up in my own schemes.
Marc: Three issues there. The eyesight thing I sympathize with, as I’m having the same trouble as the years advance, but can’t help with. The second (not knowing all the decks) isn’t really “solvable”, either, since it’s The Root Problem™, where the game is best served by everyone having a good knowledge of their deck and everyone else’s. That only comes with time and practice. When I sit down with it, regardless of whether I’m sitting with new or old players (not eyesight “old”), I always point out everyone’s win condition, mostly because I do know all of the decks and how they work. The third thing you mention (being so absorbed by what you’re doing) is a figment of the game’s tendency toward multiplayer solitaire, which is a valid criticism and is also “solved” by the same method as The Root Problem™: experience. Fating someone at the right moment is an action to be considered and shouldn’t be done randomly, but you kinda have to know when said moment(s) is.
Wade: Yeah, the Root problem is real. Factor in that, in plenty of cases, I'm looking at the other players' boards upside down. I'm not going to stand up, walk behind them and examine their boards to decide where I should place a hero. It's not that type of game, so I just need to play more. Meanwhile, as we've been talking about doing this article for a few weeks, I found a couple of too-good-to-pass-up Villianous deals on Facebook Marketplace. So, now I'm the owner of Perfectly Wretched and Evil Comes Prepared. Any highlights that I should be looking for in those?
Marc: In ECP, Ratigan, for sure, as noted above. He's a bit on the easy side (difficulty 1), but still entertaining. Also, Scar seems more challenging than he is because of the amount of Strength you need to fulfill his goal, but it's readily accomplishable, especially if you like characters that have to do a lot of Vanquishing. As for PW, Mother, of course, but also the fact that Pete and Cruella play in radically different ways from the rest of the characters. Pete's goals will be different each game and Cruella has to learn the pacing and the often-overlooked necessity of the Discard action, but I've always had a great time playing all three. That's a really good set and probably subconsciously why it's the only box I've retained in order to store the player boards (which don't actually fit in it anymore…) On that note, storage has become a bit of an issue. Like you said, Quinten is hauling around a tote full of stuff. I had everything in the original main box (The Worst Takes It All) and two more of the expansion boxes, but when Tides came out, I just couldn't fit everything, so I bought a card organizer on Amazon and that leaves me a little space for a couple more decks (when/if they're released) but not much and, as noted, I still can't properly store the boards, since there's serious lid lift on the box I have them in.
Wade: Overall, I've really enjoyed all my plays. I look forward to completely exploring the three versions I currently have but it's great to know I have so many other choices if I do choose to expand further.
Marc: I think it's worth it in the same way as something like Summoner Wars, in that it's not a collectible card game, with a constantly shifting meta and most of the decks play differently enough that you can get a lot of mileage out of owning just a few because it takes a while to learn them all, both for and against, and the interaction of the different decks will make for different experiences. So there's not as much compulsion to “keep up” and you can just add decks when you feel like changing things a bit.
Wade: Re: Davy Jones, they didn't use screen shots, I assume? How's the art?
Marc: You are correct. No screenshots The art is fine. It’s a little stylized, especially in the case of the various heroes, as Will Turner still kinda resembles Orlando Bloom and Elizabeth Swann is within spitting distance of Keira Knightley, but they’re not as zeroed in as all of the other animated characters.
Wade: Ok, so who's missing? What iconic Disney villain do they need to add? My votes would be for The Headless Horseman (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow), Judge Doom (Who Framed Roger Rabbit?), Master Control Program (Tron), and someone from The Black Hole.
Marc: Those are all good picks. I think the Horseman and Judge Doom would be ideal, although I’m not sure about the licensing on the latter. Would they need an OK from Warner Bros? It was a Disney film, in the end. My edit on Tron would be to make the villain Sark (David Warner’s role), rather than MCP, since the latter didn’t really have a “face” to put to the boards, mover, and so on. Black Hole would be tough, since the most memorable villain is Maximilian, but he’s really a stooge for the actual villainous(!) mastermind, which is Dr. Hans Reinhardt, who’s less visually interesting than any of the rest of them.
Wade: Introduction to Evil shows they are willing to rework some of the villains. So, who needs a rework? I'm trying to manifest the two missing characters I don't have into one with two reworked characters.
Marc: You can definitely make an argument that Jafar is among those who could be refitted in the same manner as Hook and Ursula, since he’s one of those who completely depends on getting not just one specific card from his deck to win (Magic Lamp) but two, since he needs the Scarab Pendant to unlock the fourth location in your realm to be on the same level as everyone else. As for the Queen… eh. I think there were as many complaints on BGG that she was too easy to win with as there were that she was impossible. I’ve never found her to be a particular challenge in terms of playing as or against (which is why I had her listed as a 2.) If you asked me, my #1 character that needs a rework is one of the most recent and that’s King Candy, but I’ve already complained about that enough.
Anyway, that’s Disney Villainous. It’s still a great game and it’s still in print and readily available. Sit down with a couple decks and give it a try. If you’re still radically opposed to straight Disney, there are still other shades of the Mouse in Star Wars and Marvel, too.
