Nucleum Review - Brass Tacks in Sector 7G

[@SiC83]

I just want to say that i very much enjoy watching Wendy and Chris reviewing games together. Both have different view points that supplement each other in such a manner that nothing is left to add. Also together they have fantastic energy.

[@cardboard_cave]

Such a great, balanced review. Continue to be impressed by how much more helpful these multi-person reviews are compared to “the old way.” And I’m a man who likes the old ways.

[@jamiesajdak7147]

Just got this to the table last night and my play group loved it! We love brass and barrage, I don't think this replaces either but its a really fun game! Its looser than brass and no way near as mean as either (especially barrage). The cascading turns is super fun to plan out and you can do way more than it feels like at first and is so satisfying when you do. I do agree about the contracts, I'm thinking we will house rule them somehow but not sure how at the mo.

[@matt7912-j9p]

I'm with Team Wendy. Best action selection technique I've ever seen in a game. Played at every player count so far, we have not run into any contract issues. Turns for the most part, are pretty quick as well. Absolutely love this game.

[@AttilaUdvari]

- What I think you're forgetting is that Brass has city cards that give you the option to start building a new network elsewhere. Since there are no city cards in Nucleum, it was logical to allow railroads to be built more freely. I think this was a very good decision by the authors. - You know that once the silver contracts run out, the gold contracts have 4 places on the market, right? So from halfway through the game, they are not so limited, even if 1 is stuck due to ineligibility. - I agree with Joey, the game board is not pretty. The colouring of the cities could have been done much better, without sacrificing clarity.

[@DTChrisYi]

I agree. I didn't want to spend too much time on the direct comparisons, but the need for coal to build a good amount of the buildings makes for another interesting restriction in Brass. Those city cards are crucial, as you mention!

[@andreaskohlbacher5751]

For me it's my highlight of SPIEL 23. Loved every play of it so far and looking forward to bring it to the table often. I even prefer it to Brass.

[@KMReviews]

One mistake she said was that you can complete contracts when you do a route building action but that’s not quite true. You have to play an action role at the top of the board.

[@MyKonaRC]

Good thing she mention it was an overview and not going into detail how to achieve a goal. FFS

[@KMReviews]

@@MyKonaRC it’s not about a goal it’s explaining a rule incorrectly

[@gianfranco4789]

I aling with Wendy most of the time. Very excited about this one. Also, how come Wendy hasn't played Barrage! My #1 hands down, and no, it's not as mean as people make it to be. The main strat is the structures, and no one can block you there for the most part. The water? Meh, there's always a way to get water.

[@DTWendy]

It would be worth trying some day 😊

[@HardlyDOTA]

Yeah definitely not as mean as people say - that put us off for a while and when we finally played it we realised that was a complete non-issue.

[@ormstunga7878]

⁠@@HardlyDOTA It’s not a complete non-issue, but sure it’s not a huge deal. In combination with being unforgiving however, that’s gonna be a turn off for many 🤷‍♂️

[@gianfranco4789]

​@@ormstunga7878That's a good point. Most people talk about it being mean, when the real "issue" is that it's very hard to come back from an early mistake. That's a "get good" kinda thing, which most reviewers don't have the chance to do because they don't have the time to play a game multiple times.

[@revimfadli4666]

If you're the type of interactive player who thinks in minimax (i.e. anticipating the strongest counter to your plan), then it's just regular interaction To those who gravitate towards multiplayer solitaire, yeah their plans can easily be ruined

[@SkinnerDamon]

Good point on the colour blind thing. I am full spectrum colour blind and couldn't see the difference between the Orange and Green cities. fortunately a quick fix was just to stick some loose dice we had lying around only on the Green places so that I could tell them apart. That was the only colour issues I had with the game.

[@gelui13]

The Yi family is the salvation for us the eurogamers! I agree with Wendy even tho I understand Chris's's criticism, Tiles, and interaction are so much fun in the game

[@blakem648]

Seeing Bluey making appearances globally warms my Australian heart

[@Mogurt1986]

Chris!!! I LOVE your shirt. My partner and I adore Bluey 🖤 Awesome review, guys. Can't wait to try this one!

[@KMReviews]

I agree idk why they chose to have the experiments with the notches but there is someone who made a 3d printed thing to make one that slides.

[@DTWendy]

I'll look into that for the library❤

[@TheBrokenMeeple]

Yeah the game has Yi written all over it! :P More in Joey's camp!

[@Mentat1231]

I dunno, the Heavy Cardboard folks kinda hated this one.

[@TheBrokenMeeple]

@@Mentat1231 that's a surprise

[@Shoitaan]

​@@Mentat1231they sure seem like they didn't have fun at the end of that play and found problems with it. But I think the concensus was that it was as fun and as interactive as their other favourites but with way more rules volume. So in the context of an existing collection they wouldn't go for it. Although Derrick did quite like it.

[@KMReviews]

I’ve LOVED this game every play. I’ve done 2-4 players with all the techs. It’s great every time.

[@BrandonGraham]

This review was an emotional roller coaster!

[@Boardgametherapist]

Learning the game tonight! Loving the playthroughs I’ve seen so far. The art is by the original Great Western Trail artist, hence the “childish” looking icons. I think if they had given this the Ian O Toole treatment, Joey would’ve given it at least an 8, lol.

[@DicepairGames]

What are you talking about!? If anything, the GWT 2nd Edition is the one that looks "childish" =S. The original had more natural colors.

[@Boardgametherapist]

@@DicepairGames I know many like the 1st edition art. I’m just quoting what they said in the video. I don’t think childish is the right adjective…Lots of primary colors..design wise looks like it could be from a 90’s textbook

[@evandercaldwell9993]

WAAAAAAAAAYYY better than Brass!! Not even close!!

[@CresentSoul]

The table hog issue is a red flag for me. Why are so many games take so much space. Can publishers please keep that in check? It’s a reason I don’t end up getting most games 😢

[@12345678abracadabra]

How do you not take up space if you want big games? If you have to shrink it down it's no longer a big game.

[@francoisdg4495]

If the publisher reduces the size of the game, many people will complain that they can't see the icons properly. It's impossible to have everything.

[@chuckm1961]

@@12345678abracadabra I’m sorry, when did he say he wanted a big game?

[@jasonc2784]

I keep several pairs of binoculars for my gaming group.

[@Jaymay98]

Lol what a loser. Stick to uno and phase 10, stop even trying to play modern games

[@12345678abracadabra]

the contracts aren't a super big deal because it still takes a turn to pick up, and that's a turn that could have done something else, including taking a spot someone else wanted.

[@zsoltnagy3991]

I could try it out last weekend. It is OK but I still prefer Brass. The extra complexity of Nucleum compared to Brass did not added to the enjoyment of the game, it did not make it a better game, at least for me. The action tile selection mechanic (including that if you use them as rails they are permanently gone) is indeed clever, but the rest mostly seemed like just complexity for complexity's sake for me. And extra complexity does not automatically means a better game. Again, this is just a subjective opinion, your mileage might vary.

[@jorgenolsson5967]

Agreed with everything you say. I didn't like the action selection very much myself - in my head everything revolved about these tiles rather than building factories and getting them energized. In Brass, you play with the cards you get - which is 2 cards for free at the end of your turn.

[@daanrousseau7845]

I don't get it when people say Brass is easier. It is in my opinion harder to teach and harder to master. I think experienced Brass players forget that they have been playing the game for more than 5 years and regularly encounter gamers that already played it, on the app,tts or real life.

[@SurrealSam5808]

Could not care less about table sprawl. I did not realize so many people had strong feelings about this. I just won't bring this to a cafe meetup. Loved the game.

[@XShrike0]

I don't get the Barrage comparisons. This game could use figures to put on top of the building tiles. The highest tier buildings score based on similar buildings connected to it. This can be hard to see without picking up the tiles.

[@billtodd2194]

I 100% get the RNG contract annoyance, but I have that exact same issue in practically every other game, so I'm not seeing how Nucleum would be worse. So many games you take 1 and flip a perfect for your opponent or the market stalls as the whole table avoids flipping. Like Barrage, so many times I take a mediocre contract and then next one is a free build. Or like Dune Imperium the market clogs cause people don't want to buy and flip better options. Short of an unwieldly large market or massive AP digging thru the entire stack to pick 1 of your choice there's not much you can do about it.

[@mathias.m5968]

I think the problem lies in being able to fulfill the perfectly aligned contracts as free action. In barrage, you need to at least take another turn to generate enough energy to fulfill the contracts

[@revimfadli4666]

It really bugs me that the designer who managed to find how to use deckbuilding as a better substitute to feeding workers, and how to compensate worker placement turn order advantage using war/bidding, also used the outdated cloggy Ascension market years after Dale of Merchants, Copycay, and Century showed how to deal with it (with self-balancing costs as a bonus)

[@TheMrTelespectador]

Game is great, rulebook is not, specially looking at the setup section, for example, they don't specifically tell you to separate the dotted tiles from the rest and then shuffle with other tiles according to player count (KZbin tutorials and summaries found at BGG made this clear). But some other parts they give some really detailed explanations, making it inconsistent and not really organized (my opinion of course). About this Barrage/Brass comparison, I love both games, but in my opinion they have nothing to do with Nucleum. It reminds Brass board, it has a similar action from Barrage, but it doesn't feel like playing either.

[@jannefidde]

Such an amazing game! Super intuitive gameplay.

[@bryanwinston8820]

I don't think Nucleum is connected to Brass other than them having similar ideas. And basically the only crossover with Barrage is creating power. I don't say the following to disparage Chris, Joey or Wendy. I typically like their reviews and I respect their opinions but in this case I don't agree with some of them. I haven't seen contract issues in my ten plays. Those things FLY off the shelves. I also have never seen a contract thats impossible to do or seen someone get locked out of their contract because everyone is playing to their own contract. All that said I'm right there with Wendy, but at 8.5. I actually like these mechanisms better than Brass but Brass has the whole package.

[@DTeazee]

Did the brass/barrage comparison come from the designers? Or the media? It really is overblown and overshadows every single review.

[@daanrousseau7845]

It comes from the designers. But to be honest, I would compare it with those games anyway. The game feels different but some parts are clearly a tribute to the classics

[@revimfadli4666]

At least it not merely due to the theme

[@JamesOrr1987]

O'Doyle Rules! O'Doyle Rules! Haha love it.

[@trunkage]

Yay, Bluey

[@DarthPizza777]

Wendy is awesome 😎👍

[@dannyanderson4723]

I'm team Joey on this one. Fine, not great.

[@trashmyego]

I always hear the whole 'lucking' into contracts and it puzzles me as a complaint. Everyone should be 'lucking' in contracts throughout the game just by playing. It's either that or they're up against Experiment D and not aware that that's their synergy.

[@dommtu]

at the ~10 minute mark, you mention you can "build your own components anywhere provided other player's rails connect those cities"; Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying or you've made a rules mistake; You can only deploy your own pieces to a town that either already contains one of your pieces OR if said city is linked with at least one of your rail pieces. You cannot just simply teleport build one of your buildings/mines/turbines in a remote corner opposite of all your other pieces if that remote corner is solely connected thru other people's rails. I think you're mistaking this with the rule about transporting coal/uranium, which is agnostic to rail ownership

[@DTChrisYi]

We read over the rulebook a half-dozen times to clarify that point. Per the "Elements of the Map' section, page 9 of the rulebook, "A network is defined as a grouping of one or more cities adjacent to one or more links without empty spaces, and *your networks* are those where at least one Railway tile or building within the network is owned by you." Then under Urbanize action, page 12, "Take an Urban building tile... Place it on an empty urban site *within one of your networks*." Same wording for Industrialize but for turbines and mines. It doesn't seem to matter if you're adjacent or in a city, it only measures by whole networks that you are part of.

[@dommtu]

@@DTChrisYi I understand the wording seems to throw a lot of people off; Turczi clarified this himself on BGG. quote : "Connected: two cities are connected if you can trace a path between them using only complete links, regardless who owns them. This is important for transporting coal, uranium, electricity. In Network: it is always somebody's network. My network has nothing to do with your network. A city is in my network if I have a player coloured piece in it, or have a railway tile I own on an immediately connecting link that is not separated from the city in question by a gap. (Fancy way of saying that completed links you are part of put both ends into your network, while incomplete ones only the city they "touch") One player can have multiple disjointed networks. As long as a city is in one of them, you can build there. The only time it is important whether two cities are in the same network of yours if you're going for something like a "size 7 network" contract."

[@dommtu]

The example on page 10 (yellow box) is quite clear on this. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you guys are claiming? based off that example, you seem to be saying you could build, as the red player, one of your pieces (other than a rail) in Fresburg even though none of the rails connecting to it from any link contain a rail part of your color

[@DTChrisYi]

@@dommtu I appreciate you clarifying this. Reading through those Turczi quotes and re-reading that example is actually pretty frustrating because the rulebook seems to convey the opposite in the main section. Thanks for the clarification.

[@rottnpeach]

I was about to mention this mistake at 10 min mark too. I agree with Chris that the rules are messy (that's being kind) to say the least, but they def. played that rule wrong if they are just placing buildings anywhere they are connected to. Dommtu is right. I'd argue if in fact the DT team played that way that they didn't really even play Nucleum - I'd be interested in a replay to see how that changes (or not) the review

[@RulebooksForYou]

Played twice In one day! 9/10 at the very least!

[@KSweeney36]

Wow! This is so different to what Heavy cardboard said after their game. They were not a fan.

[@daveheasman3680]

Sure others will have made this point multiple times but when multiple reviewers are rating a game surely it makes more sense to based your seal of approval / excellence on the average not top score??

[@borreholic]

The DT crew has explained it like this every time the question comes up: Each game that is about to be reviewed is "assigned" to one crew member, whose rating the seal is based upon no matter how many people end up in the review video. I think it makes perfect sense - if this for example was "Wendy's game", it shouldn't matter if she reviews it herself or not. When a sole reviewer gives a game a 9 and a seal of excellence, I assume you don't ask yourself if the seal was warranted based on what the rest of the crew thinks of the game, right?

[@daveheasman3680]

@@borreholic thanks, still disagree with the idea that this makes perfect sense. I see 3 scores on a screen. What makes sense to me is to take an average

[@tymoore253]

When every single heavy Euro gets a seal of excellence, it makes the seal of excellence mean less to me.

[@thedicetower]

I guess it's good we don't do that, then.

[@torelaursen4139]

The game is for people who like multiplayer solitaire modern euro games. It is not like brass at all and fades in comparison. Even less like Barrage except the theme. A mess of mechanisms with bonuses and combos here and there (the familiar trademark of the modern euro). Overly complex rules and definitions of "your network" just to justify the overly complex end game scoring. As mentioned before in this thread, only one of the three main action types let you complete a contract. Contracts feel very abitrary and the techs just feel like some more added complexity for solo puzzling reasons. The strength of the game is the action tile mechanism, but it is sadly not enough to follow through.

[@brianblessednn]

Every game where you're not directly reaching over to your opponent's player board and ripping up their cards is "mUltIpLaYEr SolItAiRe" apparently.

[@torelaursen4139]

@@brianblessednn If you are puzzling more with the game mechanics than playing your opponents I would say yes it is multiplayer solitaire. It feels like the designer choose to start with Brass, take away the player interaction and then add a whole lot of modern euro combo/bonus/end game scoring stuff. I concede that the action tile mechanism is clever and definetly the strength of the game. The rest ...

[@laikonaut]

@@torelaursen4139 To the average galaxybrained modern euroist player there are only two types of interaction: none at all, like god intended, or take-that short of punching someone in the face, no inbetween.

[@llegaremosalasestrellas3245]

I like very much this form of videos. However, I think to give a seal of excelence should not be enough with just one person giving a 8.5+. It should be the average or something. Congrats for the channel.

[@bjornkempe9570]

But.. then it becomes harder for a game to get the seal just because more people happen to be in the review video. When a single person reviews a game and gives it a 8.5+, it has never stopped it from getting a seal because of what members B and C not in the review thought about it, has it? Exactly. 🙂 For me it's such a non-issue.

[@appleseiter15]

Becoming harder to get a seal is the point. A truly great game will score high enough across the board that even a lower review would put it into excellent territory.

[@andrewburnett6215]

@@appleseiter15 there is a super obvious solution to this… just put the reviewer’s name under the seal of excellence just like they do with the Crowdsurfing pick of the week

[@brianblessednn]

​@@appleseiter15So is it lowest? Mean? Median? The way they do it is perfect.

[@thomashaines1942]

It's pronounced bär-ij. You are building dams. Not shooting guns.

[@revimfadli4666]

Eh, feels just as brutal either way