Samurai Board Game Review

Most eurogames kind of suck. Converting a blue cube into...

Read more...

100% agreement from me. Love it.
Wraps up quickly too!

It's been a very long time since I played this, so my recollections might be hazy. But the reason it's been a very long time is that I thought Samurai was awful.

My memory is of a game that lacked almost any excitement and tension. Yes, on occasion you place a tile with an instant impact. But mostly you're just putting numbers down, adding them up, maybe getting a majority.

Depth, yes. Fun, no.

Samurai doesn't reach its full potential until everyone at the table has a handle on it. Then it becomes a game of feints as you bluff shows of force in areas you can't actually win, followed by huge turns that take things you had no business taking, and shouting as a result. It's great.

Another of these very high interaction euros... it's always interesting that Knizia is still considered king of the euros even though the hobby part of the genre has zagged away from his games, though I think it's coming back.

A well written review. But I'll be frank, I have no clue how you're seeing a theme in any part of this game. It is as vanilla as it gets.

After playing twice I sat down and examined the board in detail. I discovered there isn't a single hex on the board that is more strategic than another. Perfectly homographic. There's not one lick of favored ground. I found it dry and the scoring asinine. This is one dull Knizia title.

That said, I don't seem to have anyone who agrees with me, except Thrower apparently. The only other person I've seen kick it to the curb.

I'm conflicted. I like the design. It has that Knizia hallmark that makes it seem like it's going to be more complicated than it actually is until you play it and realize that it's pretty straightforward. Then you play it again and realize that there's a fair amount of depth in it.

Howevah, unlike a lot of his designs, I think some of the simplicity here breaks down on repeated plays, such that you feel like you're forced into particular actions, rather than have options to try to take different angles in approach. One thing I've definitely found that improves it is having four players. Three is OK, but two is just poor. With four players, there's so much activity on the board that it can lead to more interesting decisions and changes in play. And, I'm sorry, Vysetron, but I find the theme here as pasted on as anything else Knizia.

In short, I want to like it more than I actually do.

Yeah, the board is a blank canvas.

That's why the bluffing/feinting element and watching the majorities is where the game is.

What gives the board life is the players seeding the resources. If you play with them randomly put out I could maybe see it getting stale, but the players effectively constructing the map each game is hugely appealing to me.