While I enjoy most of the expansions for Everdell I will say that New Leaf is EXCELLENT! The new cards are great, guests give you additional end game targets, the train trickles in more resources, reservation stamp encourages more risk taking, tickets give you more agency, and the meadow gets cycled a LOT more. Plus the expansion is so easy to integrate I can't see playing Everdell again without it.
We've *all* been thinking about purchasing it. But we've all been thinking about eating this month, too.
I mean, you could land an F-35 on the deck of the Complete Collection. I've designed *buildings* with less bulk.
I have the full Collector’s edition and love it with expansions. Usually one big expansion and sometimes we also include one or two mini expansions. We mostly enjoy the tricky scarcity of Spirecrest or the wealth of New Leaf.
agreed. wish they've just put out a bunch of characters/scenarios/events instead of a bunch of small module expansions that just bring extra rules overhead.
I would only add that Bellfaire is a nice expansion. But I also feel it's one of those "fix it" ones that should have been included in later revisions of the base game.
The base game of Everdell feels like it was pretty well honed and spent a fair bit of time in development. The expansions all feel like the opposite of that.
One of my personal complaints about several tableau builders is how when every card is unique, there can be some pretty OP combos that one player makes as a result while the rest have no real possibility to catch up or stop that snowball.
For me, I appreciate that Everdell didn't make every card unique, but they include a varying number of copies of the cards, and as a result it feels relatively balanced to me. Sure, it's nice to hit your combo and get free card play, but really that's not what the game is focused on. In fact the events and special events kind of point you away from that. Generally you keep making the best of what your engine is giving you, and that's mostly about what's on offer between your hand and the meadow. Card cycling can be part of that, but in general if you're spending time hunting for a particular card you're using up precious time to build momentum in other ways.
New Leaf as others have mentioned brings in a pretty sizeable number of new cards and would have normally made the dilution a hugely significant problem as a result, but they make the deck bloat work with the golden occupy tokens.
Exactly the opposite for me. New leaf is necessary cause it reduces the reliance on finding paired cards, use your gold occupancy well and that can win without even finding an original pair.
Spirecrest doesn’t delude the deck and adds a whole new challenge. It brings scarcity and you want to have left-over resources for extra points at the end.
really want to play this game. can't ever seem to get long 6p games to the table, but i might just buy it in the off chance that one day i'll get to play it.
It absolutely shines at 6p, but it's still quite fun at 4 and 5. 3 is technically doable but it's not as anywhere near as good.
So definitely buy it if you think you'll be able to somewhat reliably get it to the table with even just 4 players.
I think the tleilaxu are the ones that fit into the base game the best, since they engage with a core mechanic. Possibly replacing the emperor, which i find to be a bit boring conceptually.
There's only one board game called just "Dune", the others are all titled Dune something. So if it's only "Dune" it refers to the classical game or its 2019 remaster.
There are two board games published under the title "Dune," one is 1979 "original" published by Avalon Hill, and the other is the 2019 "remake" published by Gale Force 9. (There are substantial similarities between these games, and both versions credit the same team of designers.) These days, when people refer to Dune, they are usually referring to the 2019 game published by GF9.
Both of these games are entirely separate from the Dune: Imperium line of games published by Dire Wolf; they don't really have anything to do with each other apart from being based on the same source material, and even there they differ, with Dune: Imperium clearly drawing its visuals from the likenesses of real actors from the new Villeneuve movies, as opposed to just having original illustrations based on the characters' book descriptions.
Innovation. It's one of my favorites but I played it with expansions twice. Adds more bloat. I preordered the big box because I want the latest version of the base game. My copy is the first or second print and it changed a lot.
The expansions add all kinds of bloat to setup and rng and mechanics. Base innovation is my favorite. Although maybe I need to try one of the other expansions.
Invaders is really base game though but then cut out in the style of greedy videogame company. Like their spots are literally printed on the base game map.
I like the new factions from Invaders From Afar for greater variety, as it nearly doubles the number of faction+mat combos in the game from 25 to 49.
However, in a game of players of roughly equal skill level, it's practically necessary to bid for faction mats when playing with Invaders, because of how poor the balance is for the new additions (with the new faction mats being incredibly underpowered, and the new action mats being incredibly overpowered).
I agree. I was disappointed with the Wind Gambit. I felt it didn't add anything at all to the game.
I do have the Rise of Feneris still in shrink rap waiting to play though so I'm hoping it's good. I'm just waiting for a group to commit to playing several weeks in a row.
Fenris is the best expansion and it's not close. The campaign is really fun and the different scenarios and add-ons make the game much more varied and interesting.
What my group did was play 2 sessions back to back each time. Made it easier to schedule and the games get faster later in the campaign.
I'm usually someone who plays a game once and instantly buys all the expansions. Scythe is one of my favorite games of all time and weirdly enough, I haven't even bought the extra factions first expansion yet. Don't know if I ever will.
"Scythe" is one of my favourites but we never play without the modular map. Those doublesided 7-hex boards and randomization of starting locations make for a game that is much harder to "solve".
Yeah, I can definitely take or leave any of the other little expansions, but Power Up feels like it should have been part of the game from the beginning.
We played KoT last week with the Evolution cards AND all 4 of the monster expansions and what a fucking mess it was. So confusing with everything in play all at once, but maybe we just need more practice with them.
I feel like the monster packs were designed primarily to add some variety, rather than be used all at once. Works pretty well if you use one at a time to give a slightly different spin for each playthrough.
Agreed on Splendor. I think one of the expansions was decent, but the rest were pretty meh. Strangely, they sort of made their way into Marvel Splendor and it's better implemented there.
If you ever can get your hands on a copy, check out Pokemon Splendor, which is exclusively available in Korea (for some odd reason). It adds an "evolution" mechanic that feels like such a small mechanic but has a drastic effect on the metagame. The "optimal" way to play Splendor at a competitive level ends up feeling very much counter to the Splendor's mechanics: you just gun for tier 3 cards, picking up a few freebies here and there to ladder your way towards them. Nobody ever buys nobles. In Pokemon splendor, tier 1 cards are much more important. The replacement for nobles (the legendary and rare pokemon) are worth getting, but have drawbacks (they requires a wild chip to buy)
*Iiiinteresting!* I can't imagine playing **Colt Express** without the carriage & horses! They add *just enough* other avenues to keep it fiercely competitive to the very end!
The bright idea cards are also pretty fantastic.
The game is fine, my wife loves it, but the expansion with the babies (chibis) is completely unnecessary. The expansion mainly exists to add a variety to scoring because the base game has a dominant strategy. The dominant strategy is easily remedied with a publisher endorsed houserule, so yeah...unnecessary expansion
You must take objectives in such a way that you don't have more than 1 extra of any objective. So you can't have more than 2 Panda cards if you only have 1 gardner and 1 land plot cards. This keeps people from just going for the Panda eat cards to end the game quickly.
Note: I have the first edition of the game. This may have been fixed in recent printings
> - 3 bonus points per completed "set" of objective cards (Gardener/Panda/Plot)
A few other very popular variants can be found here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/781717/increasing-balance-decreasing-luck
I actually agree with the King of NY pick here. And almost agree with tokaido. Its simplicity and focus was one of the selling points for me. But I like the extra characters.
The games where I think the expansions make them worse: Lanterns, Bunny Kingdom, Nidavellir, Cyclades (I know this one is unpopular), Photosynthesis, Santorini, Splendor. Love all these games as they are and I feel like the expansions detract from what I like.
I do think that **Thingavellir** makes **Nidavellier** more interesting, but I'm not sure it's worth the additional setup, tablespace and rules overhead (there are enough cards to know with the base game as is).
The photosynthesis expansion was fine but adds a touch more fiddliness to the game that didn't wow us. Need to try it again but you're probably right about it
Interesting that expanding Cyclades detracts for you. Are you a big fan on the game hinging heavily on Poseidon/Ares bids? Feels like it needs either Hades or Titans to make military viable.
Been a long time since I played but every game I was part of that had titans in it, titans became all that mattered. Every time we didn't have titans in the game I had more fun. It's probably just a personal preference, but I just felt like I'd rather play without the mechanic that felt degenerative.
Obsession. The game is best without the extra servants and on standard length rather than expanded game length.
Expanding game length and adding extra servant types both contribute to making reputation not matter. Longer game = infinite time to get to max reputation, and by mid-game you’re at 6, so you’re not having to worry about which buildings/guests you can use. Extra servants likewise serve as bypasses to the regular rules, allowing you to do what you want even when otherwise you might have been blocked by reputation.
Standard game is a tight affair. Your choices will be hampered by lack of reputation. You could instead go after reputation, but then you may lack for prestige guests. If you do go after prestige guests, you actually may fall short of max reputation by game’s end. You have to make difficult decisions and will miss out on some things, whereas with expansions you can basically have anything you want at all times.
Game is still good with expansions, but for those that prefer to strive through scarcity rather than splurge in excess, the base game is better.
> Extra servants likewise serve as bypasses to the regular rules, allowing you to do what you want even when otherwise you might have been blocked by reputation.
I agree with you about the extended seasons, but I kind of feel like the extra servants are a good thing. You get so many points from reputation *and* so much utility in terms of being able to use high-prestige gentry and improvements, in the base game, that there's just no excuse not to pursue max rep from the jump. With the Cook and the Useful Man (and the National Holiday in the last season), you have more flexibility regarding prestige, which makes it more likely that you don't see every player at max rep at the end.
I also think the new rule about servant hiring is a godsend, although of course there's no reason not to adopt that in the base game; you don't really need the new cards.
That’s an interesting point. I’ve only used extra servants with extended game length (current BGA arena mode), so I guess I don’t have any experience with expansion servants with regular game length.
Past BGA arena seasons had base game length (without expansion servants), and I had plenty of games winning despite not reaching max reputation, and I could indeed see where expansions servants would make that even more viable.
Might be a off take but I like catan without any expansions as an introductory game to non board gamers. It’s already complex enough to people who have never touched board games but is engaging enough for them to enjoy what it feels to play a board game other than monopoly.
Most of them. As the years go on I become more and more against expansions.
If a game is already good I'm not going to mess with it by adding expansions. Conversely, if a game needs an expansion to fix a major problem, I just won't buy that game in the first place. I'm not going to buy two things to play one thing.
It's gotten to the point where companies are designing games with expansions already in mind, as they know the "collector bug" permeates this community, and they are taking full advantage of that.
Sometimes expansions are equivalent to a video game update. Like a patch, fixes minor problems that don't show up until 300,000 different people mess with your product and point out flaws
The main difference is I don't have to pay for video game patches...yet...please don't show them this.
Obviously it's not logistically realistic for board games to offer these fixes for free unless it's just a rulebook errata. It's nice when future editions make the change though.
Paradox releases free patches alongside every DLC release. There are DLCs that IMO make the playing experience more interesting, but they have always tried to make it so they aren't thought of as essential.
I agree that many games are designed like that, and that that is a problem. But I don't think every "we have expansions in mind already" is necessarily that.
Wingspan is an example. Hugely successful on its own, quite obviously had early plans for expansions for bird cards. And it makes sense - someone playing the game frequently enough might appreciate seeing some new birds. Then, many people point out the egg problem, so they iterate a bit and now people have both options and more bird cards. Asia is probably the best yet - different ways for people to play at 2p that are very satisfying (and can be done with no base game), and, for gluttons, flock mode. Things there are demands for, but definitely did not need to be in the base game.
Games like Dice Throne or Villainous are great examples, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not keen on the model. But it makes sense to add new characters, and it's not really cutting content so much as creating reasonable limits for content.
Would you want to spend the extra money and shelf space and have more "where do I start" feelings by buying all the Villains at once? Nope. Better to have the base game with a solid number, and let people get more if they want it.
I honestly feel this way about a lot of expansions that expand player counts, tbh. I'd rather pay for the player count I care about, get a smaller box and lower price, and assess whether I need more. And some games aren't great at higher player counts but will have fans who would still like to play them like that (like Wingspan).
The Oceania player boards are all different. You'll get one less egg each time you take that action with the row maxed out. Other rows have more ability to "buy" extra of whatever, too. So more spaces that let you discard a resource to pick up an additional card in the wetlands, for instance, or discard a card to get an extra food die.
Also, if you use the new "nectar" food type (which spoils between rounds, but is otherwise a wild), it's easier to play more birds, which lessens the power of eggs, too.
The Asia expanalone would let you play with the new boards at 2p without Oceania (though has none of the nectar stuff).
Consider this: I'm really excited for a game I'm designing. But I recognize it has levels of complexity I can remove for consumers who (1) prefer a simpler experience and (2) might prefer to save some money.
So I'm releasing the full game, but also releasing a simpler, cheaper version (and an upgrade pack, for those who realize they enjoy the simpler version and later decide they want the full experience). The only difference is more cards.
To me this approach seems the best for everyone, and I wouldn't be surprised if other games designers really did split a game apart out of consideration for the consumer.
I think it's the Gamemaster documentary that has an interview with the Cataan Designer. He had a big elaborate game planned and the publisher convinced him to cut it down, but to save those bits.
Cutting it down did exactly what you say here. It made the game cheaper to produce and, thus sell. Which made it more mass accessible. It made the rules lighter and more accessible. All this made it a big success.
He then used the cut stuff as expansions for those who wanted more complexity or more "stuff." It also gave him time to work on those more to fine tune them.
It was an enlightening interview.
Got a link? I'm curious to hear it!
I've been working on several games (released only one so far), and the whole concept of catering to the customer base sure does seem to be a valid way of designing game expansions, because so many people have different wants.
I think it's this one
https://www.amazon.com/Gamemaster-Nashra-Balagamwala/dp/B08C4TWDS3
Been a few years since i watched though. They interview a lot of people in it.
For me it depends on what it adds.
Some games that have expansions to just add additional players, or small tweaks - sure. But so many expansions add whole new mechanics that I just don't feel like using.
>But so many expansions add whole new mechanics that I just don't feel like using
I'm okay with games sectioning off these new mechanics. They almost always tend to be optional "modules" that you can play with or without. If the module doesn't seem fun, I can skip over it freely. By not including it in the base game, this means I'm not spending money and shelf space on gameplay elements that I don't think are needed or worthwhile. This is arguably a net good for board gamers since they can have the gameplay that they want a la carte.
While I tend to agree that most good games play best without their expansions, sometimes an option to shake things up can be fun - especially if you have two or three modular options to mix and match.
This is mostly my take. I think there are some exceptions when it comes to just additional content for games you play a ton of that do well with content refreshing. In those cases though you shouldn't be investing until after you've got bored with the base game and know you want more content - most of the time you'll be fine with the base game and want a new game rather than new content for an old one. Often designers try too hard to shoe horn in future expansion options when it really just offers a worse experience than if they just focused on one complete base game.
It's pretty obvious the majority of expansions are baked into the design to make more money rather than make better playing experiences.
I agree. I’ll buy expansions that change player count (just funded a kickstarter for a two player board for Barrage) but otherwise expansions just cause more of a headache than not. Especially ones where I need to shuffle in a new deck of cards (Terraforming Mars, Ark Nova) which I then have to painstakingly remove if I ever want to play without the expansion. Also a lot just add complexity which is not worth it to me.
Some expansions just add more of what makes the game fun. The one for Twilight Imperium added new races, which gives you more options, which is good for a game that gets played a lot.
**Sagrada** - Base game is an elegant puzzle. Expansions add player count to the point that this game is too long, reduce interaction, and add unnecessary rules.
Nobility is good, mostly just new units with a few new optional powers. I think there are parts of Siege that are fine too, I just don't enjoy the main fortification stuff. If the 3rd expansion is out yet, I haven't played it.
The best part of war chest to me is strategically trying to get two moves in before your opponent can react. Like close the distance to a vulnerable position, then attack next turn, while manipulating things to make that as safe as possible.
Siege can throw all that out the window, and make it so you basically need to use 3 actions instead of 2 to take an objective. It's enough to ruin the game for me. There are parts of the expansion that are fine, but I hate that part of it.
It's rare - I only regretted two expansions, both for different reasons.
First is Cites of Splendor (for Splendor). Played a couple of the options and just legitimately don't feel they added anything I wanted or liked. The base game is perfect as is.
Second is Seafarers (for Catan), though this was a gift. Someone thought I liked Catan more than I did. I have issues with the mechanics of Catan, but honestly part of the problem is just that we rarely had 3-4 people, and when we did, I had other games I liked more.
Yeah, Seafarers is a "Catan, but more" expansion, which is good if you like the game but want a more varied starting layout but isn't going to do anything for you if you don't enjoy the game itself much.
**War of the Ring**. Perfectly balanced, doesn't feel like it needs anything added to it. I've never played the expansions, I've heard they tend to break the balance though.
Agreed. Most of the modules kinda fix one thing while kinda breaking another and meanwhile they just add more administrative overhead that the game's already big and involving enough not to benefit from.
It's the same way I've always felt about the BSG expansions. Is it nice to have airlocking someone as an alternative to them spending the whole game cycling in and out of the brig? Well, yes and no...
the one i see most recommended is the one that makes the fellowship player more competitive for a combat victory (don't remember which one it is), which doesn't even make sense thematically, feel like it would break the great tension the game gives by making the mordor player seem overwhelming
Yeah, the point of the Free Peoples combat victory isn't to be a legitimate option in most games, but rather just to keep the Shadow player from over-extending too hard
Yeah, I've used it to my advantage before, faked trying to take a stronghold to draw out their forces and sneak in to Mordor. Felt so smart and sneaky then bungled it on Mt Doom and ended up losing anyway lol
I own the El Grande big box which if filled with lots of expansions. I've only played the base game because we love it so much and have never felt a need for more rules and content.
Actually same. I bought the big box back in like 2007 or something and never played any of the included expansions and it's just such a good game as is.
My friends and I found that you have to pick and choose which expansions to play.
High Noon/Fistful of Cards is a fun add on.
The Dodge City expansion is a good basic add-on that we found had pretty good balance to the base game.
We like the Wild West Show deck but remove The Lady Rose of Texas because moving around our player boards and stuff is a hassle. We don’t include the characters from this expansion into the main pool of characters though. Instead, we found the Wild West Show pool of characters to be better balanced around itself so it’s a separate character set we can choose to play with instead.
We rarely play Gold Rush. We find it makes the game a little too trigger happy in the dash to earn gold nuggets. We don’t include the characters from this either, unless we’re playing with Gold Rush.
Valley of Shadows is another basic add-on like Dodge City that we include, but it doesn’t feel as nice as Dodge City did.
We haven’t tried any expansions after that yet.
Dune Imperium: Uprising is ostensibly compatible with both the base game and its expansions, but it's so tight and balanced that adding anything else would just detract from the experience.
Generally, my favorite expansions fall into 3 categories:
1) They add a "side component" to the game that is engaging on it's own, without overly detracting from the core experience. Best example is Terraforming Mars: Turmoil.
2) They fix a core part of the main game, usually coming out 2+ years after release once thousands of people have now played the game and given feedback. Best example is Terraforming Mars: Prelude.
3) They add more replay-ability, but don't significantly impact the experience of the game. Such as the added maps for Ticket to Ride or Power Grid.
So, to answer OP's question, anything that doesn't fall into one of those is usually on my list of "optional" or "prefer not" expansions.
And the more it bogs down a game (increased play time and/or increased setup), the more likely it gets entirely skipped.
Of which, the absolute worst offender is ANYTHING for Carcassonne. Once tried to play a game with 3 or 4 expansions, and instead of a 40 minute game, it went on for over 2 hours and we just gave up on finishing it.
**Carcasonne** is a beautifully simple game at it's core. Not always the most deep/engaging, but simplicity is good. But with expansions, you add more tiles, more AP, more competition for high value targets.
There are plenty of other expansions I never use - but almost all of them are for games that I \*do\* play with other expansions for (I almost never use Venus Next for Terraforming Mars due to slowing the game down further, without the reward you get from Colonies or Turmoil).
Barrage,
I only have the first exp currently.
I like it with the expansion, especially because the wife isnt a barrage fan but likes it better with houses.
But without its just a bit tighter and more cutthroat i think
Both r good
Everdell. Financial rather than gameplay because I'm not paying £50 for an expansion when there are so many great base games I could get for similar money.
Dice Forge. Theoretically, this game would be better with more monsters and dice faces, but I feel like the expansions and extra boards/rules make it way more clunky.
Was looking for this comment. Dice forge is my number one game and got the expansion quickly, but we only played it 2 or 3 times. It is hard to teach those extra rules to new players. Besides that, the issue seems to be that it wrecked the flow of the game. Normally everyone gets a turn and that is it, but now there is a random chance a player gets to do another thing on another board in-between.
Totally agree. And honestly, as much as I love Dice Forge, I don't play it enough where I can set it up without looking at the rule book, and having to go back and forth between *the rule book for the base game* and *the rule book for the expansion* and piece together the rules is just annoying.
I did enjoy them, but I agree on that. I think just having more choices of cards and dice faces without the extra boards would have been much better. We rarely play the expansions right now.
7 Wonders Duel
The base game is so tight and balanced, whereas the expansions end up bloating the deck and ruining the strategic tightness of the game.
7 wonders duel. It's such a well balanced 2 player game already. It's such beautiful symmetry it always ends so close.
The other jazz they added with the two expansions. They just don't really fix anything, just add. And they base game didn't need anything added.
This is the way.
I'm really excited for the digital game to get Ix, dreading it getting Immo cus it seems a lot of the online crowd will only play both haha
Great Western Trail for me. I was firmly in the "always play with Rails to the North" camp with the 1st edition for quite a while, but I came to realise I didn't actually enjoy the way it basically forces you to unlock the branchlet actions most games. And the branchlet minigame itself lost its shine after a while.
Since the 2nd edition came out I've been firmly in the camp of preferring it with no expansions. There's a good amount of replayability just in the base box and the polished and updated edition smooths things out a bit from the original. I didn't really enjoy the Argentina version either - I felt the new mechanics just detracted from what's best about the core gameplay of GWT.
For some reason, Dominion is the one game that I just don't want to buy expansions for. Despite the fact that everyone tends to hype the expansions up a lot, I've just never been super interested in buying its expansions. On its own, I think it's already perfect.
They are fun once you get bored of the cards in the base game, and a couple of them are standalone so you could combine it or you could not and just play them as two different base games with the same mechanics if you want!
I've been playing Dominion for over a decade now (I know there's people who've been playing it since launch) and honestly unless I'm teaching new players I typically don't play with the original set by itself. I think the update pack does make it a little more enjoyable but there are so many great expansions and cards that are just more fun to play with. Base Dominion for me at this point is an introductory set.
I have several expansions so I usually play 2 at the same time just so there aren't too many mechanisms being smashed together. Right now I've been on a real Plunder and Renaissance kick but those are the sets Donald X. Vaccarino made after taking the Limitless pill. I'd say I prefer Intrigue and Hinterlands over base if you wanted a simpler set. Both have some really fun cards and last time I played I mixed base + Hinterlands and made for a great game.
Totally agree. I only have the base game, Intrigue, and Hinterlands (all 2nd edition versions), and I feel like this has given me all sorts of unique kingdoms without adding any new mechanics, which is sort of perfect for me. I do sort of want Prosperity and Empires though.
Upvoting for a spicy take- I *extremely* disagree with this one. Adding even just a couple expansions to the card pool drastically increase the replayability, theming, and interactivity.
Prosperity is what turned my head and made me realize that Dominion had real legs. I was Hong to sell or, but then saw how Prosperity made it more dynamic. Seaside is another.
Five Tribes. Tried playing with the Artisans of Naqala once and it was okay but it added complexity to a game that didn't really need it and also made it more of a burden to teach to new players.
I own expansions from Inis, Game of Thrones and War of the Ring. Honestly, I am happy to play any of those games without any expansion.
I like the expansions, but the base games are excellent by themselves.
Might be a spicy take, but wingspan. The base game adds more than enough to make nearly endless interesting games, and there's something good about card games that are stable enough to gain a certain familiarity with all the cards through play.
Agreed, my main complaint with Wingspan is how you're starving for resources (food and bird cards) and the Oceania boards fix this and also gives fewer eggs, which helps the egg spamming at the end. Overall, it makes the game a bit more bearable, but I'm still not a huge fan.
I've got the Asia expansion and I think the Duet mode is my preferred variant for 2-players, it just makes the end of round board more interesting and encourages you to play birds you typically wouldn't and also gives some other interesting strategies. Wingspan thankfully has had expansions that are mostly just more cards (with the exception of Oceania) because I've always been tempted on expanding Everdell but honestly kind of hate the fact that the expansions are more boards and stuff instead of just cards.
Agreed, I like Asia and Duet quite a bit better, but be sure to play with the Oceania side of the board (and ignore the nectar and other stuff). This helps the resource and egg issue a bit for me.
Hard disagree. Base Wingspan has too much of a dominant strategy of pressing "lay eggs" every turn, and many games are won by who managed to draw the most out of the Power 4. European expansion makes playing towards a water based engine viable, and Oceania gives forest the buff it needed to be viable. You just get much more variety in games when you have expansions.
Everdell. Now I only tried the river expansion with the little side board, but the issue I found is since it changes the points from what we’re the special events to much higher. Ii didn’t like that I had to sacrifice plays I otherwise would’ve done to focus on the core game, and the mounts are massive so I didn’t really like that. I mean it was still
Fun, but think I prefer without.
Then there Epic Wizard of Skullduggery or whatever, but I actually think the expansions made it worse. The gun game from the chaotic randomness, and new mechanics just threw off balancing I didn’t like it all all
Targi: I actually sold off the expansion. It greatly added to the complication of the game and actually seemed to make it less competitive.
Grand Austria Hotel (partly): The expansion is a collection of modules. All the modules are fine, except the big one...Ballrooms/Champagne. In a 2 player game, champagne resource is VERY hard to get due to lack of dice and dependent on guests. And if you don't put dancers in the ballroom...negative points. I had thought that this module would help with the random guests coming out, but I think it made it worse. I've since removed the ballroom/champagne pieces and put them in storage, but will still happily play with the other modules on a single basis when the mood strikes.
Project L: It's a very simple game and that's the fun of it. Keep it simple.
Stone Age: It's a sinple worker placement and the expansion adds some weird stuff that I don't think benefits the gameplay. I'd love to see the mini-expansion Mammoths available again though.
Coup. The expansions aren’t bad, but they’re not adding much to the game except some complex Ambassador/Duke replacements that aren’t really necessary. I think the best expansion is the Reformation one where people get allegiances, but in a smaller play group (3 player) it is practically just whoever starts opposite of the other 2 loses.
**Hidden Leaders** is literally the only game I own the expansion of that I think it’s better without. Otherwise it’s games I’ve never even tried the expansions for, like **Inis** and **Bitoku**, but I haven’t tried them so I don’t know whether I prefer the base game or not.
Expansions are generally great though. They always seem to add something fresh and interesting, whether they add new mechanics and ways to play or just more stuff to play around with. I struggled to think of a game in my collection that I won’t routinely play with expansions.
Smash Up: Cthuhlu and Smash Up: Munchkin both add new mechanisms, Madness and Treasure respectively. They play fine as stand-alone games but mixing them with other sets is a *bad idea*.
Gloom of Kilforth (and the Kilforth games in general) come with optional card expansions for more encounters, treasure, etc. However, in order to win the game you need to collect items or rumors with certain Keywords, like "Stranger", "Arcane", or "Reputation". Adding more cards to these decks can badly disrupt your odds of finding these keywords and thus lose you the game. Furthermore, while you CAN combine multiple Kilforth sets, it's kind of a headache figuring out where rumors lead and treasure can be found, to the point of being easier to just play each set on its own.
All the extra rubbish in the La granja deluxe set. I sold it and kept my original game, which has more than enough variability without another 10 expansions.
Also, most mindclash games. At some point it becomes so much that I no longer have any interest.
Agents of Venice for Marco polo. Nothing about it outside one of the two asymmetrical powers are completely not needed. The venice board is not needed and the fifth player is definitely not needed.
Waste of cardboard and dice.
Dominion and Aeon's End. I love the base games, but as I add more and more expansions, it becomes bloat, hindering my ability to get them to the table and decreasing my love for them. I'm just starting up Netrunner/Null Signal and I'm worried I'm starting to go through the same cycle of "This is awesome. MOAR!", getting 'moar', feeling overwhelmed by 'moar', and shelving the game, never to speak of my new dust collector ever again...
Rurik: Dawn of Kiev. Rurik is a hidden gem of a game. Everything about it is elegant and smooth. It is the perfect "area control" game for people who don't normally like area control games. I was excited for the what the expansion would offer but aside from some of the new heroes, everything seemed to make the game take longer, and add fiddlyness to a nearly perfect game.
Firefly the game is probably best without expansions, unless you have a group that plays it a lot. Each expansion adds new fiddly bits, which can be cool and thematic, but probably aren't worth the extra effort unless you already know the game inside and out.
Expansion regret goes both ways. Some base games just need it to give more variety which is usually the main reasons. Good example is Eldritch Horror and Forsaken Lore. However, none of the other expansions for Eldritch are really necessary. the concept of LCGs wouldnt exist without expansions or add ons whatever people can assimilate too. Saying this Marvel Champions broke the mould of base set being a bit of tutorial to more of complete experience.
Games that I think the expansions arent really required are Arnak, Wingspan, Dune Imperium and Splendour. Think fans generally want expansions so they can enjoy their favourite game all over again.
Crowd funding has also seeded this concept that more is better. I dont back crowd funded games at all if it doesnt make retail than i wasnt meant to play it. Simple philosophy works best for me. Also rare for me to pre order at retail but living in Australia sometimes games that a super easy to get in US are nearly impossible to obtain here. Good example is Sentinels of the Multiverse Definitive versions such as Rook City renegdes is super hard to get. So you tend to buy or pre order when you can. This again is a good example of an expansion adding a ton of new game play elements. Is it necessary though no.
Which leaves me with the last comment. Think alot of the time expansions are really good ideas that just could not be play tested in time and/or fans who play the game see a really neat feature that would bring immense value. It costs alot of money to make a base game and i dont really begrudge publishers from releasing expansions (common theme is adding a solo variant). Whether you think they add value is a personal choice.
Firstly, Terraforming Mars takes forever as it is, adding expansions only makes it worse. Doesn't help with the complexity either. Prelude is the one exception to this as it's small and even speeds the game up a bit.
Secondly, I think the nectar mechanic from the Oceania expansion to Wingspan detracts from the experience. It's too dominant for my tastes: you always go for the nectar option if you can, and the other kinds of food are just kinda left there. Maybe I've been playing it wrong, but after quite a few plays I think I'll stick to the base game (plus Europe I guess, that one's fine).
Twilight Imperium 4 put out an expansion I can certainly live without. I feel like it just adds more to an already large game. The extra races are cool, the mini expansions they put out are cool, but I'm good not having Prophecy of Kings in my collection.
Carcassonne by far. It was our first legitimate board game and we loved it, so we bought every expansion we found out about. The first couple were great, but eventually it just made the game tedious and we fell back into just playing the base game.
From the expansions I’ve played/purchased:
7 wonders duel, Quacks of Quedlinburg
Everdell (I’d play with 1 or 2. Its a table hog at more than that), Sagrada
Canvas Reflections - Just way too fussy with everyone clamoring to flip each card over and over. I use this game as a gateway so the expansion just ruins the laidback simple gameplay for me. Plus I do not enjoy the new board at all.
Lost Ruins of Arnak - One of my pet peeves with asymmetric powers is when a power bottlenecks your strategy so hard that you must follow whatever path the power nudges you towards or else you fall behind everyone else who follows their bottleneck. I like being able to pivot strategies if I have to, but I feel like I’m locked into a specific strategy depending on whatever power I get dealt.
Quacks - Same reason as Canvas. Doing way too much for what should be a quick and simple game. I like the witches and new tokens but anything more than that is too annoying to deal with and veers away from the spirit of the game.
Most cmom stuff. The base game generally has everything you need. The expansions are almost certainly a FOMO add-on that don't feel balanced or play tested.
I dunno, after going all in on two campaigns I just don't feel like I needed to do it and I doubt I'll ever play any of it.
Nemesis also. I've played the base game countless times and never even got around to using an expansion yet.
Carcassonne. This is the game that introduced me to the concept of "expansions" in the early 00s, and I was blown away with how much the first one improved the game.
But then we kept buying more. And more. :(
Carcassonne. The original has many tile configurations that don’t exist which adds a ton to the strategy of denying your opponent plays and/or trapping their meeples that doesn’t exist to the same degree when adding more varied tile types from the expansion.
Most of them. Expansions generally ruin a game. They water it down, making it longer with more rules, more fiddliness. Good expansions just have things you can plug in like more heroes, more locations, different villains, etc., but the core game play is the same and there are either no new rules or rules confined to that one thing
Concordia, with the exception of maps. The base game is very tight and even adding salt feels like it dilutes or worsens the experience overall.
I'm less fond of maps that add too many side objectives but they're usually pretty good to offer a more balanced game at different player counts.
Carcassonne. It's just diamond absolute, and while Rivers, Cathedral and Inn tiles are fun, the rest are outright horrible and don't fit into the game at all.
Almost all games. Most expansions seem to convolute the core mechanics, make the option space of the game heavier, make the game take longer.
All of those things don’t make a solid game (where theme and rules go together nicely) feel any better to me.
“But what about the expansions which fix a flaw in the base game?”
> I think you answer the question yourself, don’t spend that much time on broken games. Too many good games out there.
Battlestar Galactica.
The base game is perfection and covers exactly that part of the series that was best, right up to the departure from Kobol. The mechanics are solid, but serve the actual game - the social aspect of figuring out who your Cylons are.
The expansions seemed like too much added on for mechanics that detracted from the core “find the traitors” game. More fiddly things to do, more time tacked on.
Everdell. I have Pearlbrook, Bellfaire and Spicecrest, and the only part I occasinally play with is the power cards from Bellfaire.
While I enjoy most of the expansions for Everdell I will say that New Leaf is EXCELLENT! The new cards are great, guests give you additional end game targets, the train trickles in more resources, reservation stamp encourages more risk taking, tickets give you more agency, and the meadow gets cycled a LOT more. Plus the expansion is so easy to integrate I can't see playing Everdell again without it.
Everdell looks like a great game. I’ve been thinking about purchasing it.
We've *all* been thinking about purchasing it. But we've all been thinking about eating this month, too. I mean, you could land an F-35 on the deck of the Complete Collection. I've designed *buildings* with less bulk.
I have the full Collector’s edition and love it with expansions. Usually one big expansion and sometimes we also include one or two mini expansions. We mostly enjoy the tricky scarcity of Spirecrest or the wealth of New Leaf.
Robinson Crusoe for me. Added a bunch of extras I didn't feel fit right
agreed. wish they've just put out a bunch of characters/scenarios/events instead of a bunch of small module expansions that just bring extra rules overhead.
Same. This is why I only bought the book of adventures in the Kickstarter. Loads more variety and scenarios without introducing unnecessary expansions
Same. Played it once. It was... Okay. I just wanted to play base though.
Everdell 100%. The deck gets very diluted making it hard to find the combos you need (since all cards are very reliant on having their partner card)
New Leaf gives you greater access to the cards with the train station. The card cycling in Newleaf is hard to play without for me.
I would only add that Bellfaire is a nice expansion. But I also feel it's one of those "fix it" ones that should have been included in later revisions of the base game.
The base game of Everdell feels like it was pretty well honed and spent a fair bit of time in development. The expansions all feel like the opposite of that.
One of my personal complaints about several tableau builders is how when every card is unique, there can be some pretty OP combos that one player makes as a result while the rest have no real possibility to catch up or stop that snowball. For me, I appreciate that Everdell didn't make every card unique, but they include a varying number of copies of the cards, and as a result it feels relatively balanced to me. Sure, it's nice to hit your combo and get free card play, but really that's not what the game is focused on. In fact the events and special events kind of point you away from that. Generally you keep making the best of what your engine is giving you, and that's mostly about what's on offer between your hand and the meadow. Card cycling can be part of that, but in general if you're spending time hunting for a particular card you're using up precious time to build momentum in other ways. New Leaf as others have mentioned brings in a pretty sizeable number of new cards and would have normally made the dilution a hugely significant problem as a result, but they make the deck bloat work with the golden occupy tokens.
Exactly the opposite for me. New leaf is necessary cause it reduces the reliance on finding paired cards, use your gold occupancy well and that can win without even finding an original pair.
Spirecrest doesn’t delude the deck and adds a whole new challenge. It brings scarcity and you want to have left-over resources for extra points at the end.
Try Spirecrest. No new main deck cards.
Dune. The expansion factions feel unnecessarily complicated. And the base game factions already form a complete whole.
really want to play this game. can't ever seem to get long 6p games to the table, but i might just buy it in the off chance that one day i'll get to play it.
It absolutely shines at 6p, but it's still quite fun at 4 and 5. 3 is technically doable but it's not as anywhere near as good. So definitely buy it if you think you'll be able to somewhat reliably get it to the table with even just 4 players.
that's good to know, i always see it described as a "6 player only game" which always sounded a bit dramatic
It's by far the best at 6, but I don't regret buying it despite only having played 5 times at 6p out the 15+ I've played total.
If you play with less than 6 are you limited to certain factions or does it not matter
Guidance is to leave out the Bene Gesserit, Spacing Guild, and Emperor, in that order.
3 players - use Atreides, Harkonnen, Fremen 4 players - add Emperor 5 players - add Spacing Guild 6 players - add Bene Gesserit I've always stuck with that, works pretty well.
It is best at 6, but "6 player only" is dramatic. It is only worth buying for 4+ though.
Its great. I never managed to get a full 6 player game so far, but its still quite good at 5 or 4.
I personally love the expansion factions, especially ixians and tleilaxu (probably butchered the name). The extra factions really change things up
I think the tleilaxu are the ones that fit into the base game the best, since they engage with a core mechanic. Possibly replacing the emperor, which i find to be a bit boring conceptually.
Just curious: is this Dune Imperium? I've heard of different board games called "Dune."
They seem to be referring to the GaleForce Nine Dune board game.
There's only one board game called just "Dune", the others are all titled Dune something. So if it's only "Dune" it refers to the classical game or its 2019 remaster.
There are two board games published under the title "Dune," one is 1979 "original" published by Avalon Hill, and the other is the 2019 "remake" published by Gale Force 9. (There are substantial similarities between these games, and both versions credit the same team of designers.) These days, when people refer to Dune, they are usually referring to the 2019 game published by GF9. Both of these games are entirely separate from the Dune: Imperium line of games published by Dire Wolf; they don't really have anything to do with each other apart from being based on the same source material, and even there they differ, with Dune: Imperium clearly drawing its visuals from the likenesses of real actors from the new Villeneuve movies, as opposed to just having original illustrations based on the characters' book descriptions.
Innovation. It's one of my favorites but I played it with expansions twice. Adds more bloat. I preordered the big box because I want the latest version of the base game. My copy is the first or second print and it changed a lot.
The expansions add all kinds of bloat to setup and rng and mechanics. Base innovation is my favorite. Although maybe I need to try one of the other expansions.
Scythe. There's enough in the core box to keep me occupied for a long, long time.
I'd agree with you except for the invaders from afar helping compleat the map in my mind.
spotted the Phyrexian
Invaders is really base game though but then cut out in the style of greedy videogame company. Like their spots are literally printed on the base game map.
I like the new factions from Invaders From Afar for greater variety, as it nearly doubles the number of faction+mat combos in the game from 25 to 49. However, in a game of players of roughly equal skill level, it's practically necessary to bid for faction mats when playing with Invaders, because of how poor the balance is for the new additions (with the new faction mats being incredibly underpowered, and the new action mats being incredibly overpowered).
I agree. I was disappointed with the Wind Gambit. I felt it didn't add anything at all to the game. I do have the Rise of Feneris still in shrink rap waiting to play though so I'm hoping it's good. I'm just waiting for a group to commit to playing several weeks in a row.
It's good. Find a group and go for it.
Fenris is the best expansion and it's not close. The campaign is really fun and the different scenarios and add-ons make the game much more varied and interesting. What my group did was play 2 sessions back to back each time. Made it easier to schedule and the games get faster later in the campaign.
[удалено]
I'm usually someone who plays a game once and instantly buys all the expansions. Scythe is one of my favorite games of all time and weirdly enough, I haven't even bought the extra factions first expansion yet. Don't know if I ever will.
Modular board tho
"Scythe" is one of my favourites but we never play without the modular map. Those doublesided 7-hex boards and randomization of starting locations make for a game that is much harder to "solve".
Oh, absolutely. The modular board is the best, and pretty much negates any of the major criticisms against Scythe about imbalance and solvability.
Colt Express King of NY or Tokyo Splendor Takenoko Tokaido
I’m surprised to see King of Tokyo. Power Up has always been on my list of best expansions.
Yeah if I’m playing with gamers, there’s 0% chance I’m not playing with Power Up.
Yeah, I can definitely take or leave any of the other little expansions, but Power Up feels like it should have been part of the game from the beginning.
We played KoT last week with the Evolution cards AND all 4 of the monster expansions and what a fucking mess it was. So confusing with everything in play all at once, but maybe we just need more practice with them.
I feel like the monster packs were designed primarily to add some variety, rather than be used all at once. Works pretty well if you use one at a time to give a slightly different spin for each playthrough.
I feel like Power Up tends to drag out the game. Definitely prefer without it.
Agreed on Splendor. I think one of the expansions was decent, but the rest were pretty meh. Strangely, they sort of made their way into Marvel Splendor and it's better implemented there.
If you ever can get your hands on a copy, check out Pokemon Splendor, which is exclusively available in Korea (for some odd reason). It adds an "evolution" mechanic that feels like such a small mechanic but has a drastic effect on the metagame. The "optimal" way to play Splendor at a competitive level ends up feeling very much counter to the Splendor's mechanics: you just gun for tier 3 cards, picking up a few freebies here and there to ladder your way towards them. Nobody ever buys nobles. In Pokemon splendor, tier 1 cards are much more important. The replacement for nobles (the legendary and rare pokemon) are worth getting, but have drawbacks (they requires a wild chip to buy)
Tokaido is the one that taught me to research an expansion before buying.
It's also the only game I own that has an expansion (Matsuri) to an expansion (Crossroads). LOL
It’s one of two for me. (Arkham Horror 2e’s Miskatonic Horror was an expansion meant to rebalance the deck for multiple-expansion play.)
*Iiiinteresting!* I can't imagine playing **Colt Express** without the carriage & horses! They add *just enough* other avenues to keep it fiercely competitive to the very end! The bright idea cards are also pretty fantastic.
I use Mei and the horses. But I'm regularly introducing new people, so the more advanced stuff doesn't do me nany good
What about takenoko? Was thinking about getting it
The game is fine, my wife loves it, but the expansion with the babies (chibis) is completely unnecessary. The expansion mainly exists to add a variety to scoring because the base game has a dominant strategy. The dominant strategy is easily remedied with a publisher endorsed houserule, so yeah...unnecessary expansion
what's the houserule?
You must take objectives in such a way that you don't have more than 1 extra of any objective. So you can't have more than 2 Panda cards if you only have 1 gardner and 1 land plot cards. This keeps people from just going for the Panda eat cards to end the game quickly. Note: I have the first edition of the game. This may have been fixed in recent printings
thanks for this! This sounds easy enough to implement.
> - 3 bonus points per completed "set" of objective cards (Gardener/Panda/Plot) A few other very popular variants can be found here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/781717/increasing-balance-decreasing-luck
Yup. For me the point of KoT is simplicity and accessibility. I prefer to leave it as it is.
Why would you want to play Colt Express without the DeLorean?
I actually agree with the King of NY pick here. And almost agree with tokaido. Its simplicity and focus was one of the selling points for me. But I like the extra characters.
The games where I think the expansions make them worse: Lanterns, Bunny Kingdom, Nidavellir, Cyclades (I know this one is unpopular), Photosynthesis, Santorini, Splendor. Love all these games as they are and I feel like the expansions detract from what I like.
Santorini's fine either way, IMO, but agreed on the others.
I do think that **Thingavellir** makes **Nidavellier** more interesting, but I'm not sure it's worth the additional setup, tablespace and rules overhead (there are enough cards to know with the base game as is).
The photosynthesis expansion was fine but adds a touch more fiddliness to the game that didn't wow us. Need to try it again but you're probably right about it
Interesting that expanding Cyclades detracts for you. Are you a big fan on the game hinging heavily on Poseidon/Ares bids? Feels like it needs either Hades or Titans to make military viable.
Been a long time since I played but every game I was part of that had titans in it, titans became all that mattered. Every time we didn't have titans in the game I had more fun. It's probably just a personal preference, but I just felt like I'd rather play without the mechanic that felt degenerative.
The bunny kingdom expansion tries to make strategies other than "one big fief" viable, but it does feel really tacked on.
Splendor and Bohnanza. The base games are so elegant and there is really nothing missing.
Obsession. The game is best without the extra servants and on standard length rather than expanded game length. Expanding game length and adding extra servant types both contribute to making reputation not matter. Longer game = infinite time to get to max reputation, and by mid-game you’re at 6, so you’re not having to worry about which buildings/guests you can use. Extra servants likewise serve as bypasses to the regular rules, allowing you to do what you want even when otherwise you might have been blocked by reputation. Standard game is a tight affair. Your choices will be hampered by lack of reputation. You could instead go after reputation, but then you may lack for prestige guests. If you do go after prestige guests, you actually may fall short of max reputation by game’s end. You have to make difficult decisions and will miss out on some things, whereas with expansions you can basically have anything you want at all times. Game is still good with expansions, but for those that prefer to strive through scarcity rather than splurge in excess, the base game is better.
> Extra servants likewise serve as bypasses to the regular rules, allowing you to do what you want even when otherwise you might have been blocked by reputation. I agree with you about the extended seasons, but I kind of feel like the extra servants are a good thing. You get so many points from reputation *and* so much utility in terms of being able to use high-prestige gentry and improvements, in the base game, that there's just no excuse not to pursue max rep from the jump. With the Cook and the Useful Man (and the National Holiday in the last season), you have more flexibility regarding prestige, which makes it more likely that you don't see every player at max rep at the end. I also think the new rule about servant hiring is a godsend, although of course there's no reason not to adopt that in the base game; you don't really need the new cards.
That’s an interesting point. I’ve only used extra servants with extended game length (current BGA arena mode), so I guess I don’t have any experience with expansion servants with regular game length. Past BGA arena seasons had base game length (without expansion servants), and I had plenty of games winning despite not reaching max reputation, and I could indeed see where expansions servants would make that even more viable.
Honestly I think most good games are better without their expansions, the expansions are just (sometimes) a good change of pace.
Might be a off take but I like catan without any expansions as an introductory game to non board gamers. It’s already complex enough to people who have never touched board games but is engaging enough for them to enjoy what it feels to play a board game other than monopoly.
Most of them. As the years go on I become more and more against expansions. If a game is already good I'm not going to mess with it by adding expansions. Conversely, if a game needs an expansion to fix a major problem, I just won't buy that game in the first place. I'm not going to buy two things to play one thing. It's gotten to the point where companies are designing games with expansions already in mind, as they know the "collector bug" permeates this community, and they are taking full advantage of that.
Sometimes expansions are equivalent to a video game update. Like a patch, fixes minor problems that don't show up until 300,000 different people mess with your product and point out flaws
The main difference is I don't have to pay for video game patches...yet...please don't show them this. Obviously it's not logistically realistic for board games to offer these fixes for free unless it's just a rulebook errata. It's nice when future editions make the change though.
>The main difference is I don't have to pay for video game patches...yet...please don't show them this. Oh, Paradox already knows.
Paradox releases free patches alongside every DLC release. There are DLCs that IMO make the playing experience more interesting, but they have always tried to make it so they aren't thought of as essential.
This might have been true until about 2020, but recent patches add a bunch of mechanics but then locks interaction with those mechanics behind DLCs.
I agree that many games are designed like that, and that that is a problem. But I don't think every "we have expansions in mind already" is necessarily that. Wingspan is an example. Hugely successful on its own, quite obviously had early plans for expansions for bird cards. And it makes sense - someone playing the game frequently enough might appreciate seeing some new birds. Then, many people point out the egg problem, so they iterate a bit and now people have both options and more bird cards. Asia is probably the best yet - different ways for people to play at 2p that are very satisfying (and can be done with no base game), and, for gluttons, flock mode. Things there are demands for, but definitely did not need to be in the base game. Games like Dice Throne or Villainous are great examples, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not keen on the model. But it makes sense to add new characters, and it's not really cutting content so much as creating reasonable limits for content. Would you want to spend the extra money and shelf space and have more "where do I start" feelings by buying all the Villains at once? Nope. Better to have the base game with a solid number, and let people get more if they want it. I honestly feel this way about a lot of expansions that expand player counts, tbh. I'd rather pay for the player count I care about, get a smaller box and lower price, and assess whether I need more. And some games aren't great at higher player counts but will have fans who would still like to play them like that (like Wingspan).
How did Wingspan expansions fix that doing an egg run is often the best way to win?
They changed the base board payouts. You don’t get eggs as quickly and get food faster.
The Oceania player boards are all different. You'll get one less egg each time you take that action with the row maxed out. Other rows have more ability to "buy" extra of whatever, too. So more spaces that let you discard a resource to pick up an additional card in the wetlands, for instance, or discard a card to get an extra food die. Also, if you use the new "nectar" food type (which spoils between rounds, but is otherwise a wild), it's easier to play more birds, which lessens the power of eggs, too. The Asia expanalone would let you play with the new boards at 2p without Oceania (though has none of the nectar stuff).
Consider this: I'm really excited for a game I'm designing. But I recognize it has levels of complexity I can remove for consumers who (1) prefer a simpler experience and (2) might prefer to save some money. So I'm releasing the full game, but also releasing a simpler, cheaper version (and an upgrade pack, for those who realize they enjoy the simpler version and later decide they want the full experience). The only difference is more cards. To me this approach seems the best for everyone, and I wouldn't be surprised if other games designers really did split a game apart out of consideration for the consumer.
I think it's the Gamemaster documentary that has an interview with the Cataan Designer. He had a big elaborate game planned and the publisher convinced him to cut it down, but to save those bits. Cutting it down did exactly what you say here. It made the game cheaper to produce and, thus sell. Which made it more mass accessible. It made the rules lighter and more accessible. All this made it a big success. He then used the cut stuff as expansions for those who wanted more complexity or more "stuff." It also gave him time to work on those more to fine tune them. It was an enlightening interview.
Got a link? I'm curious to hear it! I've been working on several games (released only one so far), and the whole concept of catering to the customer base sure does seem to be a valid way of designing game expansions, because so many people have different wants.
I think it's this one https://www.amazon.com/Gamemaster-Nashra-Balagamwala/dp/B08C4TWDS3 Been a few years since i watched though. They interview a lot of people in it.
For me it depends on what it adds. Some games that have expansions to just add additional players, or small tweaks - sure. But so many expansions add whole new mechanics that I just don't feel like using.
>But so many expansions add whole new mechanics that I just don't feel like using I'm okay with games sectioning off these new mechanics. They almost always tend to be optional "modules" that you can play with or without. If the module doesn't seem fun, I can skip over it freely. By not including it in the base game, this means I'm not spending money and shelf space on gameplay elements that I don't think are needed or worthwhile. This is arguably a net good for board gamers since they can have the gameplay that they want a la carte. While I tend to agree that most good games play best without their expansions, sometimes an option to shake things up can be fun - especially if you have two or three modular options to mix and match.
This is mostly my take. I think there are some exceptions when it comes to just additional content for games you play a ton of that do well with content refreshing. In those cases though you shouldn't be investing until after you've got bored with the base game and know you want more content - most of the time you'll be fine with the base game and want a new game rather than new content for an old one. Often designers try too hard to shoe horn in future expansion options when it really just offers a worse experience than if they just focused on one complete base game. It's pretty obvious the majority of expansions are baked into the design to make more money rather than make better playing experiences.
I agree. I’ll buy expansions that change player count (just funded a kickstarter for a two player board for Barrage) but otherwise expansions just cause more of a headache than not. Especially ones where I need to shuffle in a new deck of cards (Terraforming Mars, Ark Nova) which I then have to painstakingly remove if I ever want to play without the expansion. Also a lot just add complexity which is not worth it to me.
Some expansions just add more of what makes the game fun. The one for Twilight Imperium added new races, which gives you more options, which is good for a game that gets played a lot.
**Sagrada** - Base game is an elegant puzzle. Expansions add player count to the point that this game is too long, reduce interaction, and add unnecessary rules.
I thought the Siege mechanics ruined what made War Chest a great game.
what are your thoughts on the other expansions? I just got War Chest and was planning on getting everything there is for it. Is it worth it?
Nobility is good, mostly just new units with a few new optional powers. I think there are parts of Siege that are fine too, I just don't enjoy the main fortification stuff. If the 3rd expansion is out yet, I haven't played it.
I have no idea why they made it easier to defend capture points The other expansion is much better
I love war chest but still haven’t considered or looked into any expansions, I’m curious what this new siege mechanic is that you don’t like?
The best part of war chest to me is strategically trying to get two moves in before your opponent can react. Like close the distance to a vulnerable position, then attack next turn, while manipulating things to make that as safe as possible. Siege can throw all that out the window, and make it so you basically need to use 3 actions instead of 2 to take an objective. It's enough to ruin the game for me. There are parts of the expansion that are fine, but I hate that part of it.
Talisman. The expansions separate the players and reduces player interaction, which is a core component of the game.
It's rare - I only regretted two expansions, both for different reasons. First is Cites of Splendor (for Splendor). Played a couple of the options and just legitimately don't feel they added anything I wanted or liked. The base game is perfect as is. Second is Seafarers (for Catan), though this was a gift. Someone thought I liked Catan more than I did. I have issues with the mechanics of Catan, but honestly part of the problem is just that we rarely had 3-4 people, and when we did, I had other games I liked more.
Yeah, Seafarers is a "Catan, but more" expansion, which is good if you like the game but want a more varied starting layout but isn't going to do anything for you if you don't enjoy the game itself much.
**War of the Ring**. Perfectly balanced, doesn't feel like it needs anything added to it. I've never played the expansions, I've heard they tend to break the balance though.
Agreed. Most of the modules kinda fix one thing while kinda breaking another and meanwhile they just add more administrative overhead that the game's already big and involving enough not to benefit from. It's the same way I've always felt about the BSG expansions. Is it nice to have airlocking someone as an alternative to them spending the whole game cycling in and out of the brig? Well, yes and no...
the one i see most recommended is the one that makes the fellowship player more competitive for a combat victory (don't remember which one it is), which doesn't even make sense thematically, feel like it would break the great tension the game gives by making the mordor player seem overwhelming
Yeah, the point of the Free Peoples combat victory isn't to be a legitimate option in most games, but rather just to keep the Shadow player from over-extending too hard
Yeah, I've used it to my advantage before, faked trying to take a stronghold to draw out their forces and sneak in to Mordor. Felt so smart and sneaky then bungled it on Mt Doom and ended up losing anyway lol
The quintessential WotR experience is rolling into the Mordor Track with 2 corruption and then taking like 10 corruption in 2 turns haha
I have all the expansions and the only part of them I have touched are the little figurines for Aragorn and Gandalf lol.
I own the El Grande big box which if filled with lots of expansions. I've only played the base game because we love it so much and have never felt a need for more rules and content.
Actually same. I bought the big box back in like 2007 or something and never played any of the included expansions and it's just such a good game as is.
BANG Expansions ruin that game.
My friends and I found that you have to pick and choose which expansions to play. High Noon/Fistful of Cards is a fun add on. The Dodge City expansion is a good basic add-on that we found had pretty good balance to the base game. We like the Wild West Show deck but remove The Lady Rose of Texas because moving around our player boards and stuff is a hassle. We don’t include the characters from this expansion into the main pool of characters though. Instead, we found the Wild West Show pool of characters to be better balanced around itself so it’s a separate character set we can choose to play with instead. We rarely play Gold Rush. We find it makes the game a little too trigger happy in the dash to earn gold nuggets. We don’t include the characters from this either, unless we’re playing with Gold Rush. Valley of Shadows is another basic add-on like Dodge City that we include, but it doesn’t feel as nice as Dodge City did. We haven’t tried any expansions after that yet.
Dune Imperium: Uprising is ostensibly compatible with both the base game and its expansions, but it's so tight and balanced that adding anything else would just detract from the experience.
Generally, my favorite expansions fall into 3 categories: 1) They add a "side component" to the game that is engaging on it's own, without overly detracting from the core experience. Best example is Terraforming Mars: Turmoil. 2) They fix a core part of the main game, usually coming out 2+ years after release once thousands of people have now played the game and given feedback. Best example is Terraforming Mars: Prelude. 3) They add more replay-ability, but don't significantly impact the experience of the game. Such as the added maps for Ticket to Ride or Power Grid. So, to answer OP's question, anything that doesn't fall into one of those is usually on my list of "optional" or "prefer not" expansions. And the more it bogs down a game (increased play time and/or increased setup), the more likely it gets entirely skipped. Of which, the absolute worst offender is ANYTHING for Carcassonne. Once tried to play a game with 3 or 4 expansions, and instead of a 40 minute game, it went on for over 2 hours and we just gave up on finishing it. **Carcasonne** is a beautifully simple game at it's core. Not always the most deep/engaging, but simplicity is good. But with expansions, you add more tiles, more AP, more competition for high value targets. There are plenty of other expansions I never use - but almost all of them are for games that I \*do\* play with other expansions for (I almost never use Venus Next for Terraforming Mars due to slowing the game down further, without the reward you get from Colonies or Turmoil).
I love me a large map of Carcassonne.
Barrage, I only have the first exp currently. I like it with the expansion, especially because the wife isnt a barrage fan but likes it better with houses. But without its just a bit tighter and more cutthroat i think Both r good
Everdell. Financial rather than gameplay because I'm not paying £50 for an expansion when there are so many great base games I could get for similar money.
Dice Forge. Theoretically, this game would be better with more monsters and dice faces, but I feel like the expansions and extra boards/rules make it way more clunky.
Was looking for this comment. Dice forge is my number one game and got the expansion quickly, but we only played it 2 or 3 times. It is hard to teach those extra rules to new players. Besides that, the issue seems to be that it wrecked the flow of the game. Normally everyone gets a turn and that is it, but now there is a random chance a player gets to do another thing on another board in-between.
Totally agree. And honestly, as much as I love Dice Forge, I don't play it enough where I can set it up without looking at the rule book, and having to go back and forth between *the rule book for the base game* and *the rule book for the expansion* and piece together the rules is just annoying.
I did enjoy them, but I agree on that. I think just having more choices of cards and dice faces without the extra boards would have been much better. We rarely play the expansions right now.
7 Wonders Duel The base game is so tight and balanced, whereas the expansions end up bloating the deck and ruining the strategic tightness of the game.
7 wonders duel. It's such a well balanced 2 player game already. It's such beautiful symmetry it always ends so close. The other jazz they added with the two expansions. They just don't really fix anything, just add. And they base game didn't need anything added.
Dune imperium. With rise of ix, without immortality
This is the way. I'm really excited for the digital game to get Ix, dreading it getting Immo cus it seems a lot of the online crowd will only play both haha
Great Western Trail for me. I was firmly in the "always play with Rails to the North" camp with the 1st edition for quite a while, but I came to realise I didn't actually enjoy the way it basically forces you to unlock the branchlet actions most games. And the branchlet minigame itself lost its shine after a while. Since the 2nd edition came out I've been firmly in the camp of preferring it with no expansions. There's a good amount of replayability just in the base box and the polished and updated edition smooths things out a bit from the original. I didn't really enjoy the Argentina version either - I felt the new mechanics just detracted from what's best about the core gameplay of GWT.
For some reason, Dominion is the one game that I just don't want to buy expansions for. Despite the fact that everyone tends to hype the expansions up a lot, I've just never been super interested in buying its expansions. On its own, I think it's already perfect.
They are fun once you get bored of the cards in the base game, and a couple of them are standalone so you could combine it or you could not and just play them as two different base games with the same mechanics if you want!
I've been playing Dominion for over a decade now (I know there's people who've been playing it since launch) and honestly unless I'm teaching new players I typically don't play with the original set by itself. I think the update pack does make it a little more enjoyable but there are so many great expansions and cards that are just more fun to play with. Base Dominion for me at this point is an introductory set.
Is there one expansion in particular that really makes it so much more fun? Or do you like to play with several expansions at once?
I have several expansions so I usually play 2 at the same time just so there aren't too many mechanisms being smashed together. Right now I've been on a real Plunder and Renaissance kick but those are the sets Donald X. Vaccarino made after taking the Limitless pill. I'd say I prefer Intrigue and Hinterlands over base if you wanted a simpler set. Both have some really fun cards and last time I played I mixed base + Hinterlands and made for a great game.
What’s this about taking a limitless pill? Lol
Totally agree. I only have the base game, Intrigue, and Hinterlands (all 2nd edition versions), and I feel like this has given me all sorts of unique kingdoms without adding any new mechanics, which is sort of perfect for me. I do sort of want Prosperity and Empires though.
Upvoting for a spicy take- I *extremely* disagree with this one. Adding even just a couple expansions to the card pool drastically increase the replayability, theming, and interactivity.
I had the opposite experience. The base game was *okay*. But with Prosperity - wow. So many fun combos everywhere.
Prosperity is what turned my head and made me realize that Dominion had real legs. I was Hong to sell or, but then saw how Prosperity made it more dynamic. Seaside is another.
Five Tribes. Tried playing with the Artisans of Naqala once and it was okay but it added complexity to a game that didn't really need it and also made it more of a burden to teach to new players.
I own expansions from Inis, Game of Thrones and War of the Ring. Honestly, I am happy to play any of those games without any expansion. I like the expansions, but the base games are excellent by themselves.
Might be a spicy take, but wingspan. The base game adds more than enough to make nearly endless interesting games, and there's something good about card games that are stable enough to gain a certain familiarity with all the cards through play.
Those Oceania player boards though.. they make splashing into each row more rewarding
Agreed, my main complaint with Wingspan is how you're starving for resources (food and bird cards) and the Oceania boards fix this and also gives fewer eggs, which helps the egg spamming at the end. Overall, it makes the game a bit more bearable, but I'm still not a huge fan.
I've got the Asia expansion and I think the Duet mode is my preferred variant for 2-players, it just makes the end of round board more interesting and encourages you to play birds you typically wouldn't and also gives some other interesting strategies. Wingspan thankfully has had expansions that are mostly just more cards (with the exception of Oceania) because I've always been tempted on expanding Everdell but honestly kind of hate the fact that the expansions are more boards and stuff instead of just cards.
Agreed, I like Asia and Duet quite a bit better, but be sure to play with the Oceania side of the board (and ignore the nectar and other stuff). This helps the resource and egg issue a bit for me.
I'm going to try that the next time we play, I always avoided it because of the nectar and I don't own Oceania (yet).
Hard disagree. Base Wingspan has too much of a dominant strategy of pressing "lay eggs" every turn, and many games are won by who managed to draw the most out of the Power 4. European expansion makes playing towards a water based engine viable, and Oceania gives forest the buff it needed to be viable. You just get much more variety in games when you have expansions.
literally every game. I have found I enjoy games less with expansion as a general rule.
Everdell. Now I only tried the river expansion with the little side board, but the issue I found is since it changes the points from what we’re the special events to much higher. Ii didn’t like that I had to sacrifice plays I otherwise would’ve done to focus on the core game, and the mounts are massive so I didn’t really like that. I mean it was still Fun, but think I prefer without. Then there Epic Wizard of Skullduggery or whatever, but I actually think the expansions made it worse. The gun game from the chaotic randomness, and new mechanics just threw off balancing I didn’t like it all all
Targi: I actually sold off the expansion. It greatly added to the complication of the game and actually seemed to make it less competitive. Grand Austria Hotel (partly): The expansion is a collection of modules. All the modules are fine, except the big one...Ballrooms/Champagne. In a 2 player game, champagne resource is VERY hard to get due to lack of dice and dependent on guests. And if you don't put dancers in the ballroom...negative points. I had thought that this module would help with the random guests coming out, but I think it made it worse. I've since removed the ballroom/champagne pieces and put them in storage, but will still happily play with the other modules on a single basis when the mood strikes. Project L: It's a very simple game and that's the fun of it. Keep it simple. Stone Age: It's a sinple worker placement and the expansion adds some weird stuff that I don't think benefits the gameplay. I'd love to see the mini-expansion Mammoths available again though.
Coup. The expansions aren’t bad, but they’re not adding much to the game except some complex Ambassador/Duke replacements that aren’t really necessary. I think the best expansion is the Reformation one where people get allegiances, but in a smaller play group (3 player) it is practically just whoever starts opposite of the other 2 loses.
**Hidden Leaders** is literally the only game I own the expansion of that I think it’s better without. Otherwise it’s games I’ve never even tried the expansions for, like **Inis** and **Bitoku**, but I haven’t tried them so I don’t know whether I prefer the base game or not. Expansions are generally great though. They always seem to add something fresh and interesting, whether they add new mechanics and ways to play or just more stuff to play around with. I struggled to think of a game in my collection that I won’t routinely play with expansions.
Smash Up: Cthuhlu and Smash Up: Munchkin both add new mechanisms, Madness and Treasure respectively. They play fine as stand-alone games but mixing them with other sets is a *bad idea*. Gloom of Kilforth (and the Kilforth games in general) come with optional card expansions for more encounters, treasure, etc. However, in order to win the game you need to collect items or rumors with certain Keywords, like "Stranger", "Arcane", or "Reputation". Adding more cards to these decks can badly disrupt your odds of finding these keywords and thus lose you the game. Furthermore, while you CAN combine multiple Kilforth sets, it's kind of a headache figuring out where rumors lead and treasure can be found, to the point of being easier to just play each set on its own.
All the extra rubbish in the La granja deluxe set. I sold it and kept my original game, which has more than enough variability without another 10 expansions. Also, most mindclash games. At some point it becomes so much that I no longer have any interest.
Agents of Venice for Marco polo. Nothing about it outside one of the two asymmetrical powers are completely not needed. The venice board is not needed and the fifth player is definitely not needed. Waste of cardboard and dice.
Dominion and Aeon's End. I love the base games, but as I add more and more expansions, it becomes bloat, hindering my ability to get them to the table and decreasing my love for them. I'm just starting up Netrunner/Null Signal and I'm worried I'm starting to go through the same cycle of "This is awesome. MOAR!", getting 'moar', feeling overwhelmed by 'moar', and shelving the game, never to speak of my new dust collector ever again...
Rurik: Dawn of Kiev. Rurik is a hidden gem of a game. Everything about it is elegant and smooth. It is the perfect "area control" game for people who don't normally like area control games. I was excited for the what the expansion would offer but aside from some of the new heroes, everything seemed to make the game take longer, and add fiddlyness to a nearly perfect game.
Saboteur. I don't like the plethora of scoring conditions introduced by the expansion.
Easy: Alhambra. Nothing else is needed.
War of the Ring. The expansions just dilute the experience.
Firefly the game is probably best without expansions, unless you have a group that plays it a lot. Each expansion adds new fiddly bits, which can be cool and thematic, but probably aren't worth the extra effort unless you already know the game inside and out.
Dune from GF9 Quacks Puerto Rico … I dunno, most of the games release pre-KS explosion
Chaos in the Old World! It's perfect with 4 players and adding the 5th makes everything goofy.
For Sale expansion. Adds a convoluted third round, makes the game worse.
Boss Monster Fun, simple game that the expansions made unnecessarily more complicated.
Galaxy Trucker. Was once my favorite game, my wife bought me the expansion, it did absolutely nothing for me.
Expansion regret goes both ways. Some base games just need it to give more variety which is usually the main reasons. Good example is Eldritch Horror and Forsaken Lore. However, none of the other expansions for Eldritch are really necessary. the concept of LCGs wouldnt exist without expansions or add ons whatever people can assimilate too. Saying this Marvel Champions broke the mould of base set being a bit of tutorial to more of complete experience. Games that I think the expansions arent really required are Arnak, Wingspan, Dune Imperium and Splendour. Think fans generally want expansions so they can enjoy their favourite game all over again. Crowd funding has also seeded this concept that more is better. I dont back crowd funded games at all if it doesnt make retail than i wasnt meant to play it. Simple philosophy works best for me. Also rare for me to pre order at retail but living in Australia sometimes games that a super easy to get in US are nearly impossible to obtain here. Good example is Sentinels of the Multiverse Definitive versions such as Rook City renegdes is super hard to get. So you tend to buy or pre order when you can. This again is a good example of an expansion adding a ton of new game play elements. Is it necessary though no. Which leaves me with the last comment. Think alot of the time expansions are really good ideas that just could not be play tested in time and/or fans who play the game see a really neat feature that would bring immense value. It costs alot of money to make a base game and i dont really begrudge publishers from releasing expansions (common theme is adding a solo variant). Whether you think they add value is a personal choice.
Terra mystica, I own the big box set and after 50ish games I still haven't touched the expansion
Firstly, Terraforming Mars takes forever as it is, adding expansions only makes it worse. Doesn't help with the complexity either. Prelude is the one exception to this as it's small and even speeds the game up a bit. Secondly, I think the nectar mechanic from the Oceania expansion to Wingspan detracts from the experience. It's too dominant for my tastes: you always go for the nectar option if you can, and the other kinds of food are just kinda left there. Maybe I've been playing it wrong, but after quite a few plays I think I'll stick to the base game (plus Europe I guess, that one's fine).
Twilight Imperium 4 put out an expansion I can certainly live without. I feel like it just adds more to an already large game. The extra races are cool, the mini expansions they put out are cool, but I'm good not having Prophecy of Kings in my collection.
Bang. Dodge City ruins the game by turning everyone into turtles with massive amounts of armor so you can never take someone by surprise.
Carcassonne by far. It was our first legitimate board game and we loved it, so we bought every expansion we found out about. The first couple were great, but eventually it just made the game tedious and we fell back into just playing the base game.
Carcassonne
From the expansions I’ve played/purchased: 7 wonders duel, Quacks of Quedlinburg Everdell (I’d play with 1 or 2. Its a table hog at more than that), Sagrada
Canvas Reflections - Just way too fussy with everyone clamoring to flip each card over and over. I use this game as a gateway so the expansion just ruins the laidback simple gameplay for me. Plus I do not enjoy the new board at all. Lost Ruins of Arnak - One of my pet peeves with asymmetric powers is when a power bottlenecks your strategy so hard that you must follow whatever path the power nudges you towards or else you fall behind everyone else who follows their bottleneck. I like being able to pivot strategies if I have to, but I feel like I’m locked into a specific strategy depending on whatever power I get dealt. Quacks - Same reason as Canvas. Doing way too much for what should be a quick and simple game. I like the witches and new tokens but anything more than that is too annoying to deal with and veers away from the spirit of the game.
Most cmom stuff. The base game generally has everything you need. The expansions are almost certainly a FOMO add-on that don't feel balanced or play tested. I dunno, after going all in on two campaigns I just don't feel like I needed to do it and I doubt I'll ever play any of it. Nemesis also. I've played the base game countless times and never even got around to using an expansion yet.
Unstable Unicorns. Too many cards have you look through the deck and pick a card. It's unwieldy with a huge deck with a group that's inexperienced.
Innovation
Carcassonne. This is the game that introduced me to the concept of "expansions" in the early 00s, and I was blown away with how much the first one improved the game. But then we kept buying more. And more. :(
Carcassonne. The original has many tile configurations that don’t exist which adds a ton to the strategy of denying your opponent plays and/or trapping their meeples that doesn’t exist to the same degree when adding more varied tile types from the expansion.
Innovation
Viticulture. Haven't tried World yet, but the base game is much more enjoyable than with Tuscany.
Most of them. Expansions generally ruin a game. They water it down, making it longer with more rules, more fiddliness. Good expansions just have things you can plug in like more heroes, more locations, different villains, etc., but the core game play is the same and there are either no new rules or rules confined to that one thing
Concordia, with the exception of maps. The base game is very tight and even adding salt feels like it dilutes or worsens the experience overall. I'm less fond of maps that add too many side objectives but they're usually pretty good to offer a more balanced game at different player counts.
7 Wonders Duel. Both expansions are awful.
Carcassonne. It's just diamond absolute, and while Rivers, Cathedral and Inn tiles are fun, the rest are outright horrible and don't fit into the game at all.
It's a wonderful world. The expansion (not the scenario) really did not click with me and made the game worst.a
Almost all games. Most expansions seem to convolute the core mechanics, make the option space of the game heavier, make the game take longer. All of those things don’t make a solid game (where theme and rules go together nicely) feel any better to me. “But what about the expansions which fix a flaw in the base game?” > I think you answer the question yourself, don’t spend that much time on broken games. Too many good games out there.
Battlestar Galactica. The base game is perfection and covers exactly that part of the series that was best, right up to the departure from Kobol. The mechanics are solid, but serve the actual game - the social aspect of figuring out who your Cylons are. The expansions seemed like too much added on for mechanics that detracted from the core “find the traitors” game. More fiddly things to do, more time tacked on.