Genotype Review - with Tom Vasel

[@aliplaysalotro]

You get the coin both when you change the parent gene AND when you take first shift.

[@nathanholte7573]

Your work output is truly impressive, Tom. Thanks for educating us for years now.

[@johncoveyou8207]

Rules Clarification - You DO GET THE COIN when you go to the first shift spot and that's why it's above the first shift spot. Also, all of those coins refresh every round, otherwise why say "if there is one available" :-)

[@paulsalomon27]

Each coin goes to the first player to play in one of those two spaces in that color. Common mistake for some reason.

[@aliplaysalotro]

The rules were clear enough (if I recall correctly, the text was even bolded so I paid extra attention) but my friend made the same mistake.

[@fightingkitchen7960]

I have no idea why it’s common.

[@boardgamebonkers]

That’s makes more sense for that type of mechanisms to prevent last player just having the main advantage.

[@chokobirdwatsmyname]

7:10 in the rules it says the first player to place an action marker at EITHER the “setting parent genes”(top left corner spot) OR the “1st shift spot” for the punnet square will get the corresponding coin. Just a small rule oversight Tom had there

[@Matimeo2]

Don't know much about Biology...Don't know much trigonometry... :)

[@fnord3125]

"worker action placement marker game," my favorite genre of boardgame.

[@paolothehoo]

My wife is a genetics professor and it drove her bonkers every time he pronounced it wrong. 😂

[@KickstarterRadio1024]

Great to see they updated the dice as the kickstarter project had dice which were too small as they were my biggest complaint. Props to the devs.

[@nickrichards5792]

Still waiting for this to arrive thanks to blooming Brexit. When it does, it'll be interesting to see if the last-player advantage with the assistants is something that sticks. I've found with a few games that a strategy that initially seems dominant becomes less so as you play more and start to discover alternatives. Wingspan was a case in point: a lot of people seemed to think that turning your poor birds into egg-machines was the one and only way to win but for me that quickly stopped being the case and the fun came when you tried a riskier approach.

[@amansparekh]

Been looking forward to this

[@ThreeDogsTraining]

Surprised to see an expansion for Stardew Valley so soon.

[@EfrainRiveraJunior]

Thanks for the review.

[@williamsimkulet7832]

This is a great idea for a game... executed rather oddly? Presumably the idea here should be to breed your own pea plants (or fictional animals), weeding out undesirable dominant and recessive genes, and dealing with mutations, which might be represented by random card draws. I see a Yahtzee-style game where you're trying to achieve certain genetic goals, with certain traits being desirable or undesirable independently of your goals. Expansions might even introduce things like CRISPR-genetic engineering, etc.

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

😂 i would play a game about CRISPR

[@paulsalomon27]

I tell you, we tried SO MANY versions of this game. This is the one that really sang. Please make that game though. I will play it.

[@williamsimkulet7832]

@@paulsalomon27 Different sensibilities and all that.

[@12345678abracadabra]

I think it's meant to be a very introductory explanation of punnet squares. Gotta nails down the basics before adding more abstracted science concepts as game mechanics which muddies the message.

[@williamsimkulet7832]

​@@12345678abracadabra Sure; my concern is over the "worker placement" and monetary exchange parts. These are staples of eurogames for good reasons; but they're unrelated to the theme. It'd be like a game about Jekyll and Hyde.... with worker placement and monetary exchange mechanics, or a game about butterfly migration... with worker placement and monetary exchange. These might be good games, but they waste the premise by focusing on unrelated eurogame staples. Would you like to watch Calculon get into a fantastic laser battle, or do his taxes?

[@ktotheramer]

I’ve always heard it pronounced gene-o-type, not Jen-o-type, because it’s about genetics....

[@Chereebers]

But how do you say genetics? 😂

[@LeeStoneman]

It is gene-o-type.

[@thedicetower]

Aha! I looked it up this time to make sure I was saying it correctly!

[@SciencewithMrsLau]

It is definitely gene-o-type. :) But that's ok, Tom!

[@thedicetower]

@@SciencewithMrsLau I'm going to argue that it's fine both ways, and that the way I said it is the preferred way. Look up "how to pronounce geneotype" on Google and see what it shows....

[@BoardInTheHouseBGAplayer]

May replace Soville as the best genetics game

[@XHuntinatorX]

No component drop?

[@Daoshifu]

Tom! For the love of all that is holy! Please, pleeeeeeeease ifnyou have to stand, stand on the other side of the camera. When you explained the dice placement you covered everything up with your hand.

[@ashram12]

I'm a bit iffy on this game because I feel the science doesn't make sense with the game mechanics. I haven't read the book that explains the science, butfrom what I gather, each round, we're breeding two plants together, and the dice are the different gene combinations of the offspring. So why can I continue validating a pea plant's genes through two rounds, when it's two different generations/set of parents? I really like the theme, but I feel the game mechanics really detracts from the science. Not to mention that the odds the dice come up a certain way doesn't necessarily match up with what the punic squares tell you the odds of getting certain combinatiosn are. Like if the punic squares tells you there's only 2 possible gene outcomes, and then all 5 dices end up land on just one gene outcome, that's just the dice f-ing with you.