3000 Scoundrels Review: Rootin' Tootin' Robots?

[@Straddllw]

I’ve bought this game and played it. My thoughts are as follows: 1) I believe that the futuristic theme gives the designers an excuse to create wacky cybernetic art. It also gives some meaning to victory points. You can already make so much money in this game that you’d want something more than money to represent victory points. Overall I like the futuristic art so pretty much disagree that it should just be a western theme from Tom. 2) I think everyone here misses the point. In its heart, it is much more of a deduction game than a bluffing game or an engine building game. All the mechanisms in this game is around deduction. You’re deducing what values are in the safe, you’re not randomly guessing. You’re deducing based on scouting them and seeing what others play on them. You’re deducing whether or not someone is bluffing by looking at what poker card he plays and what’s out there in the saloon. Is there a bunch of high costing scoundrels out there and your opponent somehow got a 4 to get enough money to buy one? He’s probably bluffing. Did he just use a poker card that was the same as what he used last round? He’s probably bluffing because you always shuffle your hand and put it below the deck at the end of the round meaning 3/4 of their cards should be new cards. 3) Well, what about bluffing? In my opinion, you’re not really bluffing. Marking the sites are misdirections and you’re just playing down cards in the most optimal way to find the most points. Matching the poker cards is optional. I think players in my games were misplaying because they’re hesitant to call bluffs. However since money is so plentiful, imo you should call bluffs often as there’s very little downside - especially when it seems that your opponent is getting the perfect hand to activate their abilities. 4) A lot of the criticism feels like the dice tower only played a teaching game. Tom wanted some special abilities to play off reputation. Every character comes with 2 optional special ability cards to make the players have variable asymmetric powers. One can get you an additional reputation each round for $3, another can automatically get you more money each turn, another works with henchmen, etc etc … there’s 8 cards. They are in the game, I think Dice Tower might have just not played with them. Also Zee and Roy complaining about the 2 safes being too much of a swing, I agree, it feels more balanced at 3 safes and honestly everyone should play the full game at 3 days. Final thoughts: I think this game is quite innovative and unique. There’s plenty of combos that you can explore and create around certain archetypes. It’s not just all about getting money. Example there’s stuff that plays around marking the sites wrong, sending your henchmen to jail or chaining together scoundrels. However on the other hand, I think the reason that this game is unique is because other games don’t want to mix deduction/bluffing with engine building. This is because it’s trying to appeal to 2 different segments of gamers and then disappointing both. On the one hand, deduction and bluffing are usually the favoured mechanisms of social gamers who prefer to keep mechanisms light and who likes watching what other players do. Players who likes these games are more people focused when they play the game. On the other, people who like engine building are more euro fans who want to focus on their own board state to create an engine and watch how efficiently it runs at the end game vs the beginning. They prefer a more complex game that lasts longer so that their engine can take shape. I think the reason I enjoyed it is because I like both of those types of games but I consider myself niche. Even then I feel the experience is a bit jarring in the sense that I had to switch between my focus of keeping track of what other players did the last round to deduce whether or not they’re bluffing to figuring out when to buy scoundrels vs when to take money to build my best engine. The constant switching of focus is quite taxing but imo is very rewarding to play this game well. However I think it’s far too easy to fall into the trap of saying hey I’m going to randomly guess the safe and it’s all luck. Especially true if what draws you in is the card crafting aspect of the game and you’re focused on what types of combos you are building and not focusing on what cards your opponent played in their last game day. Overall, 7.5/10 for me as well, same as Mike.

[@windsteaker]

Great commentary here, thanks!

[@benjaminjohnson8377]

These group reviews are really working for me, I feel like it gives us a much better review overall. It’s like reading the 4 most recent reviews for a restaurant instead of reading just the most recent review.

[@timjacobs5057]

Absolutely agree. I'll watch reviews of games I own just to hear them discuss it, very interesting stuff every time.

[@typerk2388]

Somehow I knew Zee was going to give it a six before he even started his final thoughts.

[@SimpleRoad]

😂

[@muhabwahby]

😆

[@nshaw1299]

he had a 'six' face expression...

[@miketaylor110]

We also got two scores from "Mike" and none from "Roy" :)

[@BananaBox89]

I also knew it, because I read your comment... (⁠˘⁠･⁠_⁠･⁠˘⁠)

[@IdlestHands]

Tom and Mike: "No Roy, you're wrong about that."..."Now we'll just say the same thing you just said."

[@msmilder25]

I'm with you Tom, I went from never hearing about it, to being super excited...this is one of the few GenCon/Essen Spiel games this year that made my must buy list.

[@seantilson8728]

Lol, I feel like immediately after they told Roy he was wrong they said almost the exact same thing... Same with Mike when he said people would be disappointed it wasn't more.

[@hollowjames1801]

That was hilarious.

[@ticotube2501]

Mike is spot on with his take at 14:22. I came here straight from the live play broadcast where I had one look at the board and thought: Oh, I better look at the review and rule explanation first, there seems to be a lot going on here. So my first impression wasn't that this is a lightweight game at all. That being said, I'd love to play it.

[@rollingwithrob6579]

Zee nailed it for me. Great mechanism/s looking for a game! ;)

[@msmilder25]

There is this TV show called "West World"...so...I really don't have a big problem with the future/western thing. I think that's the vibe they were going for...my guess.

[@suzannebrownbill9232]

I played a one day demo at GenCon and left wondering if I'd missed something in the noise of the convention. I agree the theme needed editing. And that much of the potential fun of the game isn't going to be realized in just playing two or three days.

[@ilqrd.6608]

Squandered the great art. That box looks phenomenal

[@MussoGames]

Mike’s Roy costume is excellent, that guy on the left really looks like Roy and the fact that he also did it as himself. Incredible job, Mike.

[@Sajatzsiraf]

...but is this cover better than Atlantis Rising 2nd ed.?

[@goonie79]

Great review. After hearing everyone's critique, it seems that the game mechanics of this game system would fit perfectly with the S.T.A.L.K.E.R game series and book. Instead of safes, you replace them with anomalies, instead of locations you have zones, and instead of scoundrels you have 3000 varieties of STALKERS and/or factions. This system has promise if the designer get the correct feedback. As for the bluffing, it would be utilizing the anomalies by seeing if you can hit them with metal screws if you understand the actual game play of the video game. It also answer the question on how the tech got there in the first place, it was dropped by aliens as per the readings of Roadside Picnic.

[@harrisonlynch4701]

MTG had an expansion called Unstable. It used a similar mechanism where you could put two creatures together to make a different creature.

[@mydemon]

Almost looks like the designers got attached to the "3000" in the name and tried too hard to reach that number. I wonder if drastically culling the number of boring scoundrels would've helped, leaving only 600 really interesting and fun ones.

[@jesuszockt3531]

Pretty sure the name came at the end not the other way around.

[@JamesOrr1987]

I love the Lays analogy.

[@CEO_de_Frisia_Oriental]

12:35 I strongly disagree with Zee here: It is better if every card is awesome then some are bad.

[@neosmagus]

They were going for a space western theme, like Galaxy Rangers, BraveStarr, Firefly, Cowboy Bebop, etc.

[@edwardlasso3092]

I wonder if there should have been a way to steal safes from each other directly.

[@andrewsdavidson]

A game which does this better is Doomtown which has recently been rebooted with a Weird West Edition. This has cowboy action and shootouts with poker card mechanics and steampunk science too. Tiny Epic Western is good too and has an even smaller box. And then there's the classic Bang!

[@miketaylor110]

Really puzzled by Mike's thoughts that setting false expectations isn't problematic. Would it not be problematic if you bought a box claiming to be a microwave, but found a vacuum cleaner inside? The microwave pictured on the box cover also wouldn't hinder your ability to clean your carpet, but it would be a legit thing to complain about ;)

[@IdlestHands]

Yeah that felt incredibly weird to me. If I buy a game based on the premise that it lets me do X and then it absolutely does not let me do that that's obviously a problem. Whether the lack of that theme interferes with me learning the game is entirely orthogonal to the fact that the game isnt about what it sold itself being about.

[@tomasxfranco]

Maybe there's a distinction where that's an issue with the game vs an issue with the marketing or packaging setting false expectations. So it may not be a demerit for the game if you know what to expect.

[@miketaylor110]

@@tomasxfranco That's fair. If you know what you're getting into it likely won't be a problem (ie. maybe you have a dirty carpet). Just as long as people do their research, because personally this was on my wishlist due to the theme, and now it isn't.

[@wishmeheaven]

The day Roy borrowed Mike's name without giving him his own..

[@CharlesHepburn2]

Since when did Roy change his name to Mike?

[@BobbyReichle]

Great review until Tom robbed me at the end.

[@rb4551]

Very sad about this. It was one of my most anticipated game. I loved the name, the art and the concept...I dont like bluffing in games and I was hoping this might still be good despite the bluffing. After listening to the reasons you dont like it, I know it wont work for me. Oh well.

[@JustJoeBlogs]

Tom I love and respect you... but when that intro plays (bububba bububba dadum), first thing I need to hear is "Hey Hey I'm Zee Gracia". You've got the lead introduction on every other intro theme on DT, please just let us have this one concession and respect the ZEE ZONE?

[@spunx44]

I agree, I love Zee’s intro music. It reminds me of a lumbering stegosaurus slowly walking over a hill and chewing on plants. Makes me think of it every time.

[@JasonSmithPsychedelicTherapist]

Good to see Roy back doing reviews. More Roy. More. Not less.

[@kumanight]

So far each game from this publisher has been a miss for me. The card/character crafting is a cool mechanic, I'd like to see it in more games

[@kstrohmayer88]

Well I got this coming in the mail in a couple days, hopefully I like it more than you guys

[@codydavis3100]

I have not played it, but after the overview and some other videos, it just feels too small in scope. I agree if you have a reputation track then characters should give bonuses to the reputation track, like if highest/lowest reputation look at two safes. The bluffing aspect is just so boring to the game. The consequences for bluffing are so small and it just looks tacked on. It's just a 50/50 guess if they've bluffed playing a card because you're not getting information. If there were characters that say look at a played card from another player, and maybe there are, then that would make the bluffing aspect more interesting. I thought the day system was you get one safe on day one, you can get two on day two, and three on day three for a total of 6. If it's only 3 safes the whole game then that is just boring.

[@antonj.2408]

I‘m surprised by the low scores. I feel like you mostly or maybe even only played with the 2-day introduction rules? These are not the way the game is meant to be played. 3-day is the way to go. I really love it, especially as a great or maybe even the best 2 player bluffing game.

[@thecrabbydice]

Ooof ... ive HATED every unexpected games release thus far and this one looks to along the same lines ...

[@MussoGames]

To me this game is extremely boring. Played twice. Got lucky both times and just randomly got the 7-point safe first round. With no way to stop players from doing the actions on their boards and scoundrel cards, the bluffing is just not a huge deal. Both times I’ve played without caring about the bluffing aspect at all and have won both times by just pure luck it felt like. 4/10 for me unfortunately. I was very excited going in so keep that in mind too.

[@crosscutgames]

So combo characters is a new and cool idea? Have we forgotten Small World and Heroes Wanted?

[@vexienroe]

they mention that

[@crosscutgames]

Zee mentions Small World, but I don't think they mentioned Heroes Wanted? That had a very cool combo idea.

[@vexienroe]

@@crosscutgames they mentioned another. Hence that this wasn't a new idea. Just that they really like it. And not many people do it which they dont.

[@herolounge]

Wow you raged on this so hard. never played but preordered now i want to cancel preorder. may be they can make a bigger version that uses the character cards to make a larger game.

[@backupphone8107]

Hopefully BGA will put it up to play and that will either confirm or not your opinions amongst Euro players and the masses in general.

[@jeremyfrost3127]

I’m pretty sure you can steal up to 6 safes. 1 on day 1, 2 on day 2, 3 on day 3. Seems like they only played once with the 2-day intro rules and got that rule wrong which majorly impacts gameplay and the experience of the game. If so, they need to take this review down because so many of the criticisms aren’t based on the actual game.

[@davidgicante1757]

I agree. We played the short game and trying to steal 2 safes on day 2 led to some interesting decisions I thought. Should I take the safe someone else has tokens on that may be worth 6 points if they aren’t bluffing but 3 if they are. Those 3 points could be the difference in this game.

[@michaeldilisio557]

This is not what the publisher says on BGG. This question was asked and here was the response: “The current day serves as the limit of how many safes you can hold at that time. Thus, on day 1 you are limited to holding just 1 safe (any additional safes stolen during day 1 would require 1 to be put back). To your point, if you stole no safes throughout the game, you would indeed be allowed to steal 3 on day 3!”

[@jeremyfrost3127]

@@michaeldilisio557 thanks for clarifying. Definitely majorly impacts gameplay

[@davidgicante1757]

@@michaeldilisio557 you are correct and we played it wrong. I don’t think I would have liked the game nearly as much playing by the rules as written. We are planning on playing again today and will try the regular rule to see if we like it. This one may have to be house ruled though. Keep up the good work, and thanks for clarifying the rules for me. 😊

[@ormhaxan]

How'd you think a player hoarding six safes could be balanced in a four player game, when there's only 15 of them to begin with?

[@MrNood1e]

Mike, you didn't design this game, there's no reason to get this defensive over it.