Disclaimer: A copy of Perch was provided by Inside Up Games for review
Hey, do you want to play that bird game? No, not Wingspan, the other one! The area control game! No, not Root, the one with just birds!
Right off the bat, the cover art of Perch sets a tone. At first glance, it looks like it will be a peaceful game. A twilight scene featuring a menagerie of birds milling about on branches amongst the green shrubs. But looking closer, you’ll notice that all these birds have angry eyebrows. There are more birds than branches, and control of those branches is the only thing that really matters to them. They’re willing to claw and peck their way to control here.
Perch is an area control game for 2 to 5 players, designed by Douglas Hettrick, with art by Ari Oliver, and published by Inside Up games in 2025. Perch casts players as a colour of bird and tasks them with earning the most points possible over 5 rounds. Each round players will take two birds of their colour, and pull two more birds out from a bag as their options for the round. Then, turn by turn, players will place one of the birds they control onto the various tiles on the table. Once everyone is done placing their birds, each tile is evaluated for majority. Whoever has the most birds on a tile will earn the top billing of points, but there’s a small catch. Players who have tied amounts of birds will cancel each other out, denying each other from scoring any points at all.
In addition to placing your birds, if you happen to have control of an animal, you can activate an animal you control once per round. The timing of animal activation can be critical, as a late activation gives players precious little time to react to your moves. But you can only do one free action per turn, meaning if you control multiple animals you’ll need to figure out which one you want to use and when. The animal element adds layers to the territory control aspect, as most of them will allow you to move, remove, or even swap anyone’s birds between tiles, something that is impossible to do without the aid of an animal companion. That being said, the animals themselves aren’t worth very many points, so you need to ensure you use their powers effectively if you want to claim dominance.
That’s the core of Perch, slowly spreading out your flock to capture points and manipulate the table state to deny your opponents points. Beyond points, most of the tiles in the game also offer some benefit or twist. Some will give you control of an animal, which you can use as a free action in the next round to cause just a little bit of chaos by moving some birds, while other tiles will allow you to put extra birds into the migration bag, or will modify the first player position. Things of that nature.
There’s a lot of variability in the tiles themselves, with 24 tiles included in the game and only 8 to 13 being used per game (depending on player count), each game of Perch will feel different. Whether it’s because of the specific mix of animals available, or even just the fact that having specific tiles next to each other may influence some of the decisions you make on a game to game basis (like how the animals move). Further influencing your decisions is a secret end of game objective card that may tip the scales one way or another when you’re placing your birds.
On the subject of player count, I was initially dismayed when I saw the two player mode of the game included a neutral third player, which the rulebook deems a “Bird-brained player”. What this actually amounts to is a third colour going into the bag, which may work its way into both players hands, to be used by both to deny each other the sweet, sweet majorites.
Perch is not a strategic game, not really. So much of Perch is reacting to what the other players have done, because the other players presence in each of the tiles is so wildly important. Each round you’re only guaranteed two of your own birds to place, but just because draw other players birds out of the bag, doesn’t mean you have less control. Absolutely not, as I said before, the real dynamism of Perch’s system is the fact that ties are so punishingly cruel. If two players are just one bird off from each other on a juicy 6 point tile, you could be holding the difference between their victory and defeat. Sometimes, you plopping an extra bird onto your opponents stack gives them a majority on a tile where being 2nd is the most points, or perhaps you bump them up into a tied position, denying two opponents points.
Perhaps it should go without saying, that they could be holding your fate in their hands, also. While I do think it’s generally more advantageous to have more birds out on the field, a clever player will be able to gerrymander their way to victory. While I enjoyed the freedom of having control over other players birds and using their own tokens against them, or having the ability to use my birdhouse on my opponents to lock down one of their sacks, I couldn’t help but feel frustrated when I pulled two of my opponents birds, and my opponent pulled two of their own birds too. 6 of their birds to 2 of mine in one rounds felt like a violent swing. That’s only really present in the 2 player game though, at higher player counts there’s usually the same number of birds going into the bag than are coming out.
The system of tied players cancelling each other out reminds me a lot of Las Vegas by Rüdiger Dorn. But what Perch lacks in comparison to Las Vegas is the levity introduced by the push-your-luck randomness of rolling a fistful of dice. Perch instead revels in its deterministic cruelty. There is no randomness in Perch, everything you can do right in the open. This means there won’t be any surprise backstab moments. You’ll watch as your opponents push their knife into your plans, and you’re powerless to stop it.
The first two rounds in Perch feel inconsequential. You’ll plop out the 4 birds that have been allocated to you, not really being able to control or effect the game state too drastically. But by the time the 3rd round hits, suddenly everything is contested. Strongholds have been established, and dramatic upsets are starting to take place. The animals have been deployed, shaking up the stability of the flock. Every tile at the end of the game balances on a knifes edge, as you have many options to affect everything, but so do your opponents. It’s deterministic, making it hard to really surprise people. Instead, it’s more of a game of forking your opponents. Putting everyone into a disadvantageous position, no matter what they choose. It’s gratifying watching someone give up one battlefield to concentrate their energies somewhere else.
I think my favourite rule in Perch is that the player with the least amount of points each round is the last player in the next round. In curling terms, this is called ‘having the hammer’. The last player to make a move means no one will be able to undercut or thwart their plans. This is a pleasant bit of power that allows the player in last place catch up, even if just a little bit. But if someone had a commanding lead over the highest scoring tile, it can be nearly impossible to catch them, considering you’re only guaranteed 2 of your own birds each round. But when you do manage to orchestrate an upset, oh boy is it ever satisfying.
If you’re already a fan of area majority games like El Grande, there’s a lot to love in Perch. It offers new twists and some exciting variability to the gameplay. I appreciate that it only takes 10 minutes to teach, and plays about an hour. Also, the production is pretty great too. The insert has a removable well for the birds to live in, the birds themselves stack so you can easily see who is winning on each tile, and the non-bird animals are acrylic standees, each one featuring their own lovely artwork.
Perch is a game of sharp elbows hidden by soft feathers. It’s artwork and presentation creates a deceptively calm table presence, but its gameplay reveals constant, low-grade tension as every placement threatens every other player at the table. It thrives not on long-term planning, but on reading the table, seizing small opportunities, and knowing exactly when to ruin someone else’s perfect setup. It won’t scratch the itch for players looking for deep strategic arcs or satisfy players who delight in executing carefully laid plans, but for those who enjoy reactive, tactical games, Perch is a compelling game. By the end, the branches are crowded, the margins are razor-thin, and every point feels contested and well-earned.
That’s probably how the seagulls feel when they steal my french fries, now that I think about it.
The expansion to Perch, Perch: Birds of Play is on Kickstarter now
Once upon a time, I was learning about the difference between lived experiences and observed experiences. The teacher split the class in half. One group sat back and recorded what they saw, while the other group had to run up a staircase, breathing only through a straw. Then the class switched roles.
Unsurprisingly, the observers didn’t quite grasp how difficult the task really was until they experienced it themselves. And that lesson came back to me when I sat down to play Tearable Quest, designed by Shintaro Ono, with art by Sai Beppu, and published by Allplay in 2025.
Because on the surface, Tearable Quest looks like nothing. You get a sheet of paper absolutely littered with icons like swords, spells, slimes, goblins, bows, and so on. Your job is to rip out only the icons you need to score points. Each round introduces a different monster with specific scoring requirements, alongside a boss card that’s always available to be tackled, tied to its own icons. Over three two minute rounds, you’re trying to earn the most points by carefully tearing out exactly what you need to match those recipes.
And I do mean exactly.
You can’t have extra icons present in your piece. You can’t have half an icon. It has to be a clean, precise tear of only what’s required. Which sounds easy until you actually try it. The timer starts, you identify what the recipe is, then look down at the sheet. The paper is cluttered, the icons you want are never conveniently grouped together, so you end up carving these awkward zig-zag paths through the paper, trying to isolate just the right pieces without ruining everything around them. To make matters worse, if you flip the sheet over you’ll find treasures that boost your score and curses that bring it back down, adding another layer of consideration to every rip.
Now, Tearable Quest is not just about precision, it’s about speed. You’ll be halfway through a tear, trying to grab one more icon for maximum points, and suddenly you realize there are only a few seconds left. Do you commit to your rip and risk everything, or do you play it safe and just lock in what you have? That tension, that split-second decision-making, is where my heart started to flutter and a smile crossed my face.
And all of this ripping and tearing is happening on a single sheet of paper that has to last you all three rounds. If you go too hard too early, you’ll massacre your page, and you might not have anything usable left in the later rounds. But if you’re too cautious, you fall behind. It creates this surprisingly compelling push and pull between greed and restraint that I wasn’t expecting at all.
That’s where the lived experience hits. From the outside, Tearable Quest looks like a throwaway gimmick. Ripping paper as a game mechanic sounds more like a novelty than something you’d actually want to play. But once you’re in it and the clock is ticking and your hands fumble as you try to make clean, efficient tears, you start to notice how awkwardly fun the game is. You’ll curse how big your thumbs feel. How unpredictable ripping paper can be. How badly you want just one more icon before that timer runs out. You’ll feel jubilant that you managed to complete your rip before the timer runs out, but you’ll flip the paper over and find 2 curses, rendering your score nil. Oh, the hubris…
The art plays a big role in selling the experience. Sai Beppu’s illustrations are bright, cartoonish, and disarming in a way that makes the whole thing feel playful rather than ridiculous. You’re still an adult sitting there gleefully ripping up paper, but the game leans into that energy instead of fighting it, and it works wonderfully.
There isn’t a huge amount of variety here. There are two different sheets to play with, four different monsters (you’ll use 3 during each game), and half a dozen bosses. There are some bonus cards to mix things up, but the core experience doesn’t really change. You’re always doing the same thing, ripping, optimizing, and hoping you’ve left yourself enough icons to work with for the next round. It’s always a bit frantic, certainly a bit messy, and very consistent in the experience that it offers.
That consistency is part of its charm. It’s light, it’s quick, and it never feels like too much. You’re not going to build a whole game night around Tearable Quest, but it’s really easy to fit into the beginning or end of one. Because it’s so light and fast, It’s the kind of game you’re almost never going to refuse, even if you’ve already played it a few times.
Tearable quest is charming and genuinely unique. I can’t think of anything else that turns ripping up a piece of paper into the main event and actually makes it fun. And honestly, it doesn’t really need to be anything more than that.
Disclaimer – A copy of 3 Witches was provided by the designer
One of the things I love about trick-taking games is how effortlessly they get to the table. You generally get a deck of cards and deal most if not all the cards out. The teach is usually something along the lines of “It’s a trick-taking game, but here’s the twist…” and you’re off. The bones of trick-taking games are familiar: follow suit, win tricks, claim victory. Sure, each game brings its own little wrinkles that make each one unique and interesting, but the foundations of the games are usually comforting and intuitive.
3 Witches is not that game.
Or rather, it eventually is. But before you can enjoy the clever little mind games, you need to wrap your head around a teach that feels less like “here’s the twist” and more like “Let me read to you this complex spell from a potion making textbook”
To begin a round of 3 Witches, shuffle the 18-card deck and deal all the cards evenly to three players. Everyone checks their hand and whomever is holding the Elixir card declares that fact. That player doesn’t automatically control the round, though. In fact, they’re now the last player to bid.
Starting with the player to the left of the Elixir holder, they have the option to bid or pass. When it comes to bidding, a player can bid to win either 3 or 4 tricks. If they bid 3 tricks, the subsequent players have an opportunity to bid 4 and take control of the lead position, or pass. Any player who bids 4 tricks automatically ends the bidding round.
Whoever wins the bid becomes the Lead Witch for the round. The other two players form a temporary alliance as the Lesser Witches. The Lead Witch places the bid card in front of them to signify their role. And then the wyrdness begins.
Each trick in 3 Witches is played in a very particular order:
The Lead Witch plays two cards:
One face up (this establishes the lead suit)
One face down (kept secret for now)
The first Lesser Witch must follow suit if able.
If they cannot follow suit, they pass for the moment.
The second Lesser Witch plays a card (following suit if possible).
If the first Lesser Witch had to pass earlier, they now play a card.
The Lead Witch reveals their face-down card.
Now the trick is resolved, but not quite in the usual way. Winning the trick isn’t simply about playing the highest card of the lead suit. 3 Witches uses a small value formula involving the combination of cards played. For example, if two cards of the same suit are involved, they combine their values. The same happens if the two cards played are the same value. If the two cards played are different suits and different numbers, then only the highest value of those cards counts toward determining the winner. Compare the final values, and whoever is higher wins the trick. Also the Lead Witch always wins ties.
It’s clever. It’s quite unintuitive. And the first time you play, everyone will be absolutely glued to their player aids.
After a trick is resolved, the winner gets a bit of control over the tempo of the round.
If the Lesser Witches win the trick, they return one of the Lead Witch’s cards to the Lead Witch’s hand.
If the Lead Witch wins, they secretly choose one of the two cards they played and return it to their hand face down.
That’s right, the Lead Witches cards cycle back. This mechanism gives 3 Witches its delicious tension. Every trick is not only about winning or losing; it’s about which card you want to reclaim and how that will influence the remaining tricks.
Each round lasts for exactly five tricks, then scoring happens. If the Lead Witch makes their bid exactly (the three or four tricks they called, absolutely no more and no less), then they score 2 points. If the Lead Witch misses their bid, each of the lesser witches score 1 point each.
Then, shuffle, redeal, and start the bidding phase again. The game continues until one player hits 5 points, at which point the coven crowns its leader.
3 Witches is a game of temporary alliances and working together to control the narrative. Because each round is only 5 tricks, and the Lead Witch needs to win 3 or 4 of those tricks, the lesser witches need to work together to force the Lead Witch into losing, or, winning too hard.
I know some people find the phrase “knife fight in a phone booth” to be a cliché and overused way to describe close quarters conflict. So instead, I’ll say that 3 Witches is a fistfight in an elevator. At 18 cards, it’s much easier to count cards and deduce information based on what the other two players have already played. More than once during my plays I was able to path out exactly how I could win a round as a Lead Witch, if, and only if, two specific cards were in the same hand.
There’s a ton of smart design in 3 Witches. From the minute 18 card deck that really encourages players to count cards, to having 5 suits with 3 to 4 cards each, to the player with the elixir being the last one to bid, so much of the game design and rules shows that there has been a lot of thought put into every aspect of this small card game. Everything is so finite, so considered, it’s really an impressive showcase of design work by Corey Young.
Contributing to that “wrestling match in a broom closet” feeling is the fact that each round is only five tricks long. The moment the first trick hits the table and cards start revealing themselves, you can feel the decision space tighten. Your options constrict. Unsettling certainty creeps in. As the Lead Witch, you might struggle to lose even a single trick. At the start of a round you might feel chuffed holding two 5s, but the moment you accidentally scoop a trick you were trying to duck, the panic sets in. Suddenly you’re not trying to win, you’re trying to win precisely.
And that’s where 3 Witches feels most exciting.
The 18-card deck means information moves fast. With so few cards in circulation, you can count, deduce, and sometimes even map out the exact path to victory. More than once I’ve sat there as the Lead Witch thinking, This works… but only if those two specific cards are in the same hand. It becomes much less about hoping and more about calculating.
There’s a ton of smart design packed into this tiny box. Five suits with only three or four cards each. The Elixir holder bidding last. The cycling card mechanism that prevents clean attrition. Everything feels deliberate. Considered. Tight. It’s an impressive showcase of design work by Corey Young. The production by AllPlay is svelte too. A tiny box of cards and 12 cardboard chits makes 3 Witches a game that feels far bigger than its footprint.
I also love how dynamic the table politics feel. The Lead Witch changes every round, which keeps the semi-cooperative tension fresh. Winning as a Lesser Witch feels easier, but in doing so you’re handing a point to a rival. Taking the Lead Witch role is thrilling because you can leap ahead with two points. But if you fail, both of your opponents inch closer to their victory. Every bid feels loaded. Every trick feels consequential.
I really appreciate 3 Witches. I love how sharp it feels, how finite and intentional every decision is. It’s not an effortless teach, and I suspect that the strict three-player count will keep it from ever becoming a universal classic. But in the right setting, with those who enjoy kickboxing in a cardboard box, that is to say, counting cards, weaving in and out of tight margins, and that delicious feeling of trying to thread a needle under pressure, 3 Witches absolutely sings.
Disclaimer: This review is based on plays of 7 Wonders Dice on Board Game Arena.
Ah, the roll and write. First comes a successful board game. Then comes the card game version. Then comes the roll and write cash in. 7 Wonders is no different, albeit it’s taken quite a bit longer to get here than some of the other examples I’m referencing, *cough CastlesofBurgundycough*.
In 7 Wonders Dice, you’re competing with your neighbours to earn the most points by managing your resources and utilizing the whims of the dice most effectively. If you’ve played a roll and write before, you’ll recognize the scorepad fairly well. Half a dozen coloured sections for you to scratch off, half a dozen different ways to score, and dozens of tiny symbols that promise synergy and cascading combos, which is my favourite part of a roll and write, if I’m being honest.
The player boards, much like in the full game of 7 Wonders, are slightly asymmetric. Each one is themed around a different wonder, and will offer players different rewards when they progress their wonder. Some of the symbols on the main mat are slightly different too, making different coloured dice more valuable to some players than others.
The dice part of 7 Wonders Dice is the more interesting system. At the top of each round, 7 dice are put into a box, and the box gets shaken, Boggle style. The box is slammed down, the lid lifted, and inside will be the dice sitting in one of the four quadrants. Each player gets to select one die, pay the cost based on which quadrant it’s sitting in, and do the action depicted on the die, paying any resource costs listed on the space they want to action on. Following similar themes from its big brother, the blue are straight points, the yellow focuses on economy, the reds have you competing against your opponents, and the greens give you special abilities.
7 Wonders Dice comes to an end when someone has completed 3 sections of their board, and that may happen sooner than you think. The wonder itself only has 3 stages and can be taken at any time by any dice. The yellow and white sections only have 6 spaces, and that white dice can let you take 2 actions in a specific colour, potentially ending the game faster than you’d think was possible (although you do need to unlock the white, black, and purple dice before you can do any of their actions).
Image Credit: W. Eric Martin @W Eric Martin via BGG
At the core of your decision process is going to be money. Every space costs resources, but you can always buy a resource for 1 dollar. You can spend a turn to earn a resource, giving you a permanent discount of 1 for the rest of the game, but how many turns do you want to burn taking resources? Inevitably, you’ll find yourself a coin short at the most inopportune times. I’m not a big fan of this system, as all 6 of the resources are completely arbitrary. Every resource offers a discount of 1 to every other space, and because this is so powerful, pretty much everyone’s first 3 rounds are going to be just taking resources, which is less than interesting.
Speaking of inopportune timing, you’ll probably also curse the dice a lot. Once you exhaust all the options of a particular dice face, that die face is now useless to you. The yellow die offers 3 spaces for both camels and treasure boxes. If you take that camel 3 times in a row and exhaust that half of the pavilion, any future camels that get rolled are functionally a dead die for you. Conversely, you might be waiting round after round for a specific symbol, only for it to finally show up, but in the 3 coin quadrant and your purse only has 2 coins remaining. Bad luck.
7 Wonders Dice lacks the universal appeal and strategic depth that launched the original to its stardom. It also doesn’t have the endless replayability that makes 7 Wonders Duel a top 10 game for me. I would never say there’s anything wrong with 7 Wonders Dice, it’s a perfectly serviceable roll and write game, but it’s not very interesting on repeat plays. The first time, you’ll be tickled in seeing the familiar icons and systems with a fresh coat of paint and some novel reworkings. But after a couple plays, I never felt like any game was particularly different from the others. I don’t think there is a particularly high skill ceiling, as in most games, you’ll be able to achieve most of each section in each game. It lacks the trade-offs and branching paths of bigger roll and writes, such as Hadrian’s Wall.
I will say that I enjoy 7 Wonders Dice a lot more as an “easier 7 Wonders” than the completely arbitrary 7 Wonders Architects, but that was a very low bar to clear. The simultaneous action selection does make this game flow quickly, letting you knock out a 4 player game in under 20 minutes. Sometimes you’ll earn a bonus that lets you do a bit more on your turn, but those are a far cry from the bombastic cascading turns of something like That’s So Clever or Draft & Write Records.
7 Wonders Dice is an enjoyable, but pretty unremarkable roll and write game at the end of the day. You aren’t building a civilization, drafting cards and watching your empire slowly grow. You’re ticking off boxes, watching your decision space shrink over time. I wouldn’t ever say no to playing it, but I’d be hard-pressed to choose it over either of the first two 7 Wonders games, let alone any other roll and write that I already have sitting in my closet. If you’re new to roll and writes or want a lightweight 7 Wonders appetizer, this game might land for you. But If you already own a few entries in the genre, there’s very little here you haven’t seen before.
Growing up, I was a console gamer. I didn’t really have a game-worthy PC until after 2010, meaning I skipped over a lot of the old PC favourites, one important one being the Civilization franchise. That is to say, tech trees are not a part of my gaming background. I’m not ignorant to tech trees, but it’s not a mechanic that I’ve spent a significant number of hours with.
For the uninitiated, a tech tree is a hierarchical visual representation of the possible sequences of upgrades a player can unlock. Think, you have to invent Mining before you can invent Masonry. You need to discover both mathematics and construction before you can discover engineering. You need to learn how to walk before you can run type of thing. In Beyond the Sun, designed by Dennis K. Chan and published by Rio Grande Games in 2020, the entire main game board is taken over by this 4 tier tech tree, that players will crawl up, unlocking new actions and special abilities to give them an edge in their quest for dominance over the stars.
One of the first things that grabbed me was how Beyond the Sun uses dice. At the start of the game, your player board is packed full of inert crates. As the game progresses, those crates are unlocked into crew members, and later upgraded again into spaceships with power values ranging from one to four. All six resources in the game are represented by different faces of the same die. Instead of rummaging through a supply looking for the right ship, you simply rotate a die to the face you need. It’s elegant, intuitive, and I absolutely love it. It’s the kind of design choice that once you see it, you’ll wonder why any other game bothers with piles of chits when they could be using dice instead.
As I mentioned above, most of the real estate on the table is taken up by the tech tree board. Starting with the first four techs laid out face up, the rest of the tech slots are covered with blue advancement cards. Along the far left side of the board are the basic actions that everyone has access to, and on each player’s turn, they’ll take their little action pawn and place it into an available action slot, blocking it from other players. Simple worker placement stuff, really. Most of the actions revolve around researching other techs, deploying and moving ships around the planet board, or colonizing planets.
I really appreciate is how production works. At the end of every turn, you choose to produce either crew or ore. Production starts modestly, but can be improved by removing discs from the bottom of your player board. In many games, production is an action in its own right. An action that eats a full turn and often feels obligatory. in Beyond the Sun, it’s folded neatly into the rhythm of play. The result is a game that keeps moving, where turns feel productful and players are rarely left feeling like they’ve ‘wasted’ a turn while other players are zooming on ahead.
Each of the techs belongs to at least one of four categories, commerce, military, science, and economics. Each of those categories will generally feature abilites that cater to something specific, like military techs will generally revolve around ships and movement, while scientific techs will generally assist you in researching more techs. Many techs are a blend of two, perhaps offering the military heavy line of techs a much needed science boost. What’s most interesting is that the person who takes the action to research any new step of the tech tree, gets a choice of 2 cards to lay on the board, a tactical advantage for sure! Everyone who comes after them are just following in their footsteps. This makes the big tech tree dynamic and different in every game.
Running alongside the tech tree is the system map, made up of eight planets, four of which are represented by cards that grant special bonuses and can be colonized for even more bonuses. Gaining majority strength on a planet lets you place a production marker, increasing your income and sometimes triggering an immediate benefit. Of course, that control is fragile. If another player seizes the majority, your marker is kicked back to your board, and the sting of losing income is very real. Interaction here is indirect but sharp, and it’s often where the game feels most openly competitive.
If you manage to have the prerequisite number of ships on a planet, you can take a colonize action, which removes that planet from the board, and the ships you used to pay for it. That planet goes into your personal supply, with an additional income disc, and your ships get slotted back onto your player board. That might sound like a negative, but in reality it’s a boon. You see, when you take your crew income, you take one crew from every column that you’ve revealed along the bottom of your row, and if crew make their way back onto your board, you’ll probably be able to get all those spent ships back as crew with a single action or two. Yay for efficiencies!
By now, it’s probably clear that Beyond the Sun is a game of two halves: the tech tree and the colonization map. Neither is clearly more important than the other, and ignoring either is a fast track to falling behind. That said, the relationship between them isn’t always as seamless as I’d like. Advancing technology doesn’t always meaningfully enhance your spatial presence, and strong planetary play doesn’t necessarily open new research avenues. The systems coexist, but they sometimes feel like parallel paths rather than deeply intertwined gears.
In the end, Beyond the Sun is a game I adore. I love how clean the systems are, how the dice do so much heavy lifting, and how every turn feels purposeful without feeling bloated. At the same time, that split focus between research and planetary expansion can leave the game feeling a little disjointed, like two excellent ideas politely sharing the same table rather than fully embracing each other. Still, every time I play, I find myself thinking about the different paths I could have taken, different technologies I wanted to see come out, different planetary gambits might try next time. And that lingering feeling, that urge to come back and do it all again, perhaps just a bit better, puts Beyond the Sun in a rare position. A game that requested again and again, which is the best achievement a game could aspire to.
I adore Lost Cities. It’s the perfect 2 player game for my wife and I. Competitive without being directly mean, random enough to make your risks feel like you’ve hit the lottery if you win, but also don’t really feel too bad if they don’t pan out, and I end up with a bucket of negative points. In my opinion, it’s my favourite game designed by Renier Kenizia. What I didn’t know until somewhat recently was that in the same year that Lost Cities came out, Schotten Totten was also released. Schotten Totten has players manage a hand of cards, playing them to your side of a line, trying to claim control of either the majority of the spaces, or three consecutive spaces. From an abstract view, it’s pretty comparable to Lost Cities, but when it comes to how the games feel, they couldn’t be more different.
A deck of Schotten Totten consists of 54 cards, numbered 1 to 9 in six different colours, and 9 stone tokens. The stone tokens are laid out in a line between the players, the deck is shuffled, and each player is dealt 6 cards. On your turn, you play a card to any of the 9 stones, and then draw a card to replace the one you just played. Any card can go on your side of any stone, but each stone has a capacity of 3 cards per side. Once a stone is full, it’s evaluated, and whoever has the stronger showing on their side of the stone claims it for themselves.
The strength of your side is determined by which cards you put on your half of the stone. A colour run is the strongest, 3 consecutive cards of the same colour. Then, three of a kind is the next strongest, 3 cards of the same value. Then any flush, three cards of the same colour, then a run, 3 consecutive cards of any colour, and finally, a sum. 3 non-consecutive cards of different colours.
Schotten Totten is a masterclass in tension in a 2 player game. It’s incredibly tactical, as you only have access to 6 cards at a time, the likelihood of you drawing a run or flush is fairly low. This forces the player to place cards and hedge their bets that the next card they need is going to show itself eventually. At the start of the game, you’ll place a card here and there, but before you know it, suddenly every card you play is starting to remove options from the future. You have to play a card, but doing so might mean closing off the opportunity for a run on a particular stone. Using a red 5 for three of a kind on one stone means the red 3 that was waiting for the red 4 to show up might end up being a weaker plain red flush instead of the powerful flush run you were hoping for. Before when the 9 stones looked like a wide open field, suddenly the battle line has become clogged and claustrophobic.
One way you can put the screws to your opponent even harder, is if you can prove that there is no way for your opponent to win a stone from you. Say you have three of a kind on your side, and your opponent has a yellow 9 and grey 8. All 3 of a kinds beat all runs, so you can just claim that spot as your own. Not only does that add to your victory conditions, but it also removes a potential schluff spot from your opponent, as once a stone has been called, you can’t play any more cards to that stone. Now, if they need to burn a card from their hand as they search the deck for cards they actually want, they’re going to have to make further sacrifices on their other stones.
For all its tactical brilliance and excitement, Schotten Totten feels quite a bit more confrontational than Lost Cities. In Lost Cities, it’s possible for both players to come out positively on a single colour, should they both choose to chase that suit. Schotten Totten is a zero-sum game. In order for you to win territory, your opponent has to lose it. And honestly, that just feels bad. It’s the kind of bad feelings that makes me not want to play a game with certain players, such as my spouse. I realize that the reasons I prefer Lost Cities will be the same reasons that someone else with slightly different proclivities will prefer Schotten Totten.
Schotten Totten is a great game, but it’s a great game that demands a certain temperament. It thrives on denial, pressure, and the quiet cruelty of watching your opponent’s options evaporate one card at a time. For players who relish that kind of direct confrontation, it’s a masterclass in tight, tactical design that has aged remarkably well and that perfect package of endlessly replayable in a real small box.
For me, though, I’ll always reach for Lost Cities first. I value the tension of risking points without the discomfort of taking something away from the person across the table, especially when that person is my wife. That preference doesn’t diminish what Schotten Totten accomplishes; if anything, it highlights just how precisely it delivers its intended experience. Nearly three decades on, few two-player card games generate as much sustained drama from such a small deck. Schotten Totten knows exactly what it is, and for the right pair of players, it’s pure tactical perfection.
