| Reviewer | Reviewed On | Publisher | Designer | Published In | Rating |
| January 15, 2008 | Warfrog / FRED Distribution | Martin Wallace | 2007 | 7 |
| Buy It Now | More Info |
Q: Yeah, who designed this game, and what's it about?
A: I'll try to forgive you for the first part of the question, as I can't believe you haven't heard of Martin Wallace, one of the greatest board game designers of all time (okay, at least the past decade). Martin Wallace is known for designing deep games loaded with strategy that incorporate elements from war games and the designer games. Prior games include the well-renowned Age of Steam and Perikles, and I'm excited each year to see what game he comes out with this time. Brass is a game that concentrates on Lancashire during the Industrial Revolution. Players attempt to control different industries and production, as the area builds up. I was actually quite interested in the theme – it works well with the game mechanics – although I guess not everyone will be fascinated by it.
Q: How does the game look?
A: Very thematic, and the artwork by Peter Dennis is quite well done and looks like it was pulled from a novel from this period. The tiles are thick and easy to read and see. The only major annoyance I had with the game is that the tiles have to be stacked in piles in a specific way in front of each player, and they were quite easy to knock over by clumsy fingered players. It's a neat idea – stacking them in order, but it didn't always work well in theory. It wasn't always easy to find specific cities on the board, also; although that's more of a lack of knowledge of Lancashire on my part. Everything fits inside a nicely designed box, and the game has an austere, solid look about it while set up.
Q: And the rules?
A: Well, there are eleven pages of full color rules, including a player aid sheet, lots of examples, a reference section, and more.
Q: Sounds like they were a cinch, then?
A: Certainly not! Brass has one of the most obtuse rules sets that I've come across. I played my first game with three people who are used to me dumping new games on them, and this still threw us for a complete loop. We practically crawled through the first half of the game, slowly understanding the rules but not completely understanding the concepts. Finally in the second half everything clicked, but it still was tough going through. Follow up games made more sense, but it's on the far end of the heavy scale – at least when teaching. I've seen several on the internet insist that the rules aren't that difficult, but they are for the most part seasoned gamers. I would warn new gamers to stay away from this game, unless they were taught by an excellent explainer. A few of the rules are only mentioned in the reference section, which is fairly unintuitive for me. I don't think that the toughness of the rules is a detriment to buying the game, but folks should know what they are getting themselves into.
Q: You mentioned halves of the game?
A: The game is broken up into two distinct parts: the Canal Period and the Rail Period. While most of the mechanics are used in both parts of the game, they feel completely different. Many of the industries that are built during the Canal Period are taken off the board at the end of the Canal Period, as well as the canal structure. A player who is not planning ahead may have to start over from scratch, while those who look towards the future may end up making too little money in the first phase. Players are not eliminated during the first phase if they do poorly, but more often than any other game with different phases – a player must prepare during the first phase, or they likely will fail during the second.
Q: What exactly are players doing?
A: Players are building cotton mills, canals, rail links, ports, coal mines, iron works, and shipyards. Each building has its own usefulness. Coal mines and iron works provide resources that players need to build different industries. Canals and Rail Links provide victory points and ways to transport resources to where they are needed. Cotton mills and ports work together to produce victory points, on the other hand shipyards are an expensive way to gain points. Players use cards to build buildings in different locations on the board. This presents an interesting dynamic, since players build using the locations or icons on their cards but are also restricted by the locations on the board. Further complicating the matter is that players must play their lowest tech buildings first, unless they waste an action to discard the lower buildings – allowing them to build better and longer lasting buildings.
Q: Are these choices time-consuming and does this lead to "analysis paralysis"?
A: Strangely, while people did take a bit of time to think on their turn – turns weren't awfully long, and players often were studying the board quite a bit during their opponent's turns. A player doesn't have a huge amount of choices but much thought must go into what players are exactly looking to accomplish later in the game. Choices are few enough that every single one of them impacts the game.
Q: So player interaction is low?
A: Quite the opposite, actually. While players aren't destroying or otherwise directly attacking other players or their industries, there is a feel during the game of a complicated framework, in which all the industries are dependent upon each other. In a perfect situation, a player would build their own cotton mill and port, shipping their own stuff for many victory points. In the game, there are fights for the ports, and players are often forced to work using the resources and help from the opponent's buildings. The hunt for resources is also interesting, as there seems to be plenty of them in the beginning, but they run out at a staggeringly quick rate later on in the game. Players who go last may not have the resources to win, as I have sadly discovered.
Q: What is the economic game like?
A: Brass reminds me of Phoenicia, another game that has come out this year, in that players are attempting to increase their income during the first part of the game then increase their victory points. Players must seek out that moment in the game when their concentration must switch, because a low income will hurt a player at the end; yet income does not win the game for a player. Then there are loans available in the game. Players can take loans but must move their income marker back, causing them a permanent loss of income for a short influx of money. This isn't as debilitating as loans in other games, but it does make a player think twice before borrowing the money needed. Brass is a tight economic game, and players will likely never have all the money they want. It also has an interesting effect on order of play.
Q: What's that?
A: Each turn players place the money that they spent into a box – the player who spends the least amount of money goes first the next round. Turn order is critical in the game, and players are often torn between spending all their money or saving some so that they can go first in a future, more crucial round.
Q: I see that there are rails in the game. Is it a connection game like Ticket to Ride?
A: The rails and canals in the game look like they are a connecting network similar to other games, but it feels and acts quite differently. They are less of a connection feature and more of a points addition at the end of the game. Canals are slightly important, but rails are more so; a player who ignores them is missing out on a lot of potential points. I've seen a player with a lot of rails win the game.
Q: How much randomness is in the game?
A: Not much at all. Obviously there is some in the cards that are dealt out; but since a player can always use up two actions to build a location anywhere, players are never really too stymied by their cards. Giving up an action is certainly a horrid thing – I despise it, but it's better than being locked out of a specific city. There is also some randomness in tiles that are flipped when players sell cotton to a "distant market", but players know that they are taking a chance when doing this – and I haven't seen it affect the end of the game yet.
Q: How would you rate this against Martin Wallace's other games?
A: It's certainly on the heavier end of the scale – outweighing pretty much anything else (except possibly Age of Steam – and even that makes more sense to folk, if only because of the intuitive pick-up-and-deliver mechanic). Its theme won't appeal to as many people as some of the more exciting themes (Liberte, Struggle of Empires), but the game play is extremely balanced. In fact, this may technically be the best game that Mr. Wallace has designed; I think it's exceptionally well done, although it certainly isn't my favorite. That's not to say that I don't like it – I do enjoy it, but it's a tough game to learn and play.
Q: Any final thoughts?
A: Martin Wallace proves that he is once again the king of board game designers by designing a game that makes sense thematically and has a tight yet fair economic system. It's not a game that I'll bring out on every occasion – it's only for the core gamers, the ones who are looking for a deep, engaging game. It's not too long of a game -- play seems to take 90 minutes to two hours – but it's an intense experience of deep thought and tough decisions. Wallace fans will likely be happy with the game, but beginners should beware and perhaps look at something easier before attempting Brass.
Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
Contents copyright© 2006-2012 Tom Vasel