Faraway Review: Scoring in Reverse

[@modemacabre]

Zee, you weren't the only one to recommend this to me at Essen, but you were the clincher. I played it and bought it as soon as it became available on the French market. Usually with these little card games I can see how they are clever, but I still don't care. This one with the backwards scoring keeps my brain engaged from start to finish, and that's all I ever want in any game.

[@Lordborg909]

As always, I love Zees teaches. Kudos to you man, you are a legend. Toms aight too haha

[@hibou7774]

Everybody's talking about the "reverse scoring", but it actually appears as convoluted as the star shaped movement in the original version of "Carpe Diem". You could make the scoring a lot simpler by leaving all the cards face-up, start by scoring the sanctuaries, then score the first (leftmost) card and remove it from your tableau (or flip it face-down), then proceed to the second card, and so on. The only reason to do it backward is because the most valuable cards will be scored last, adding to the excitement (if you find scoring exciting).

[@CamObscura88]

Thats a great and clever alternative. Can’t see a downside to it.

[@Vantagegamessg]

Yea i was thinking about this point too. At first i thought when you play the first card, it stays face down hence the reverse scoring might make sense but the memory part of it could be too much to manage

[@JohnQSpartan]

That way it is in the game seems simpler to me, your way SOUNDS more complicated.

[@JT12523]

I will happily watch any video that includes Zee.

[@JeffMcLeod]

Playing this tonight! Thanks for another well-done presentation of the gameplay by Zee.

[@Polskimg]

I love this game. Yes, it can be a bit random, leading to unlucky rounds but it's played so quickly that I don't really mind the low scoring rounds.

[@joeferreti9442]

The reverse scoring is only to make it easier to apply that a particular card "sees" only the cards played after it (plus all small cards).

[@tonycork2pa469]

I was thinking the same thing. Personally, I find describing it as "scoring in reverse" false and misleading - the scoring is "forward" - each card is scored based on what comes after it. Now come to think of it - it might be fun to truly play "score in reverse", with cards scored based on "cards before it" - that would be the brain burner that "I thought" this was.

[@user-rp6db8qy3l]

Thanks for the review, helps me to try this one out. I think it would be really good if the team can mention during reviews if a game is on BGA or tabletopia. Lots more virtual groups since the pandemic - we are always looking for new stuff.

[@SalterThe]

If its on BGA (and others) changes quite quickly tho. I guess its easiest to mark those you like from the reviews and then check if that exists on your site. Or vise versa of course :)

[@EfrainRiveraJunior]

I'm searching for this game right now. Oh! Preorder.

[@ourfamilytogether]

Surprised it took this long to review it. It was a hit at Essen where I preordered it. Nearly everyone I’ve introduced it to has enjoyed it. Also the 6p game is less luck and more “what’s best for me” and less “hate draft.”

[@jameskirk4692]

Thank you both for this review! I would love to try this game, looks very interesting and fun to me.

[@mikaeki5245]

A strong 8 from me. I really like it, just wish the cards would have been normal size instead of that square shape. They're quite annoying to handle and shuffle and they take up more space, plus I have to go buy special sleeves just for them. 😕

[@jjcc8379]

I hate sleeving square cards. If you are not aligning them based on the back you might put some inside the others and rip the sleeves. In rectangular cards they might end up some up some down. No issue, the longer are safe to shuffle into.

[@TheSludgeMan]

Or you could ( *shock horror* !) not sleeve the cards. They will be absolutely fine lol

[@mikaeki5245]

@@TheSludgeMan maybe you don't need them, but I DON'T WANT 7 CHILDREN!

[@blacksheep9950]

Yeah, I sleeved Wild Space that also has square cards, and I've torn more of those sleeves than all my other games combined. Too easy for them to get turned around and rip each other.

[@simonb9898]

@@mikaeki5245 Haha, I totally got that reference!

[@lots_of_numbers7580]

Did anyone realise? Zee taught us how to score first, ie taught us the game backwards, which is being very thematic to the actual game 😂😂😂

[@michaeldilisio557]

This is the best way to teach the game full stop.

[@tabletalkreviews]

Been really enjoying playing this on BGA. It is a super fast play.

[@oniinside123]

Reminds me of Codex Naturalis

[@DudeesBait]

That's selling it for me, was intrigued by it but seal of approval let's do it.

[@draheim90]

Seal of excellence*

[@Jonathan-ei7vp]

Waiting for retail availability 🤞🏻

[@jeffarysonnentag3497]

Cool video ! Thanks Zee. That one handed card flip had me mesmerized. (Reminder…don’t play poker with Zee)

[@therealBocaStudios]

A lot of people don’t like games with complex scoring mechanics 😅 although this looks like a great game and I’d love to own it, because the scope of audiences on this is limited, I can’t imagine this game will do well.

[@BBSnape]

It's one of the games you can always take out and play. It takes 10 minutes to explain, has great replayability. And it's also quite cheap

[@TheSludgeMan]

This is one of those games that i find more "smart" than "fun". Dont just autobuy this because its hyped. You really need to like tight/agonizing efficiency puzzles to enjoy it imo

[@deedd4401]

8 out of 10 from Tom because Hulk Smash - means 9.5 ? is my math correct ? (definitely more area of a 9 :D )

[@KingMePlease3]

Played this on BGA last month for first time and it hit my wishlist to buy immediately. Need to try it out with higher player count to see how that plays differently, but if it is as much fun as it is with 2 or 3 players and it doesn't slow the game down too much, I would also say 8.5. If there was a decent theme to relate to with great artwork, I would give it a 9. These weird, obscure fantasy settings are not appealing to me and actually I would have never tried it if it wasn't on BGA.

[@nuclearphish8051]

I think talking about "reverse scoring" is needlessly confusing. Couldn't you just as well say that with each card pick you're setting yourself up with new scoring objectives? And the point of each pick is to figure out the balance between fulfilling previous objectives or pushing your luck with setting up new objectives for even higher potential end score? Mind you, I haven't played this one yet. But the more I think about it, the more I'm getting a very vague feeling this has conceptually something in common with Point Salad. Drafting cards, trying to figure out whether to fulfill previous scoring objectives or taking new objectives, hoping for objectives that align with previous ones... I don't know. Maybe it's just me. 🤷‍♂

[@FalkFlak]

You play a card, then you start collecting ressources to unlock that card. That's the usual way tasks work in a game. And whether you score backwards or not literally makes no difference but is rather a subjective choice. It's the definition of "gimmick" that Zee asserts the game wouldn't have.

[@thedicetower]

To clarify: you score backwards because the resources of earlier cards do not count towards later cards. Resources on later cards count for cards played before it.

[@FalkFlak]

indeed, but that's the case for every, let's say quest-like tasks in games. This statement about "scoring backwards" just adds an unnecessary obstacle for newcomers to understand a very simple matter (they already know how to fulfill a task in the future!). "Look at a card, add ressources right to the card" That's the way to expain the plain normal mechanism. No need to make anything "backwards", one doesn't even need to flip the cards and it works in any order you want. disclaimer: I like the game.

[@thedicetower]

I see what you're saying. Yes, that's true, and I can grok that pretty easily but I've taught this enough times and seen people who understand it more easily the way the rulebook recommends. I personally don't flip over my cards and assumed most people would also understand it without doing that but I've seen enough people who get confused. I think your way makes perfect sense to you but would trip up other people. But your right, multiple ways of getting to the same result.

[@FalkFlak]

That's right. On bgg the designers themselves (I think) stated it was a decision almost solely based on theme and flavour. That's why there are so many variants. It's unfortunate they didn't work the way "home" into the rules (for example by flipping the card after you've played it although the game would become ultra hard, then :-D).

[@MrStereopathic]

I'm buying my copy next payday. 😂

[@joeferreti9442]

The game is cute, but there is a lot of randomness and limitations.

[@RynoKenny]

For Sale & High Society are better auction games with faster scoring for the length of all these games.

[@NexusBaum]

it's not an auction game

[@Draffut2003]

So you only ever draw like 10 cards, and play 8 of them? Seams like you lack any real agency. I figured there would be a way to cycle a second card each round, like discard to draw a random card.