Comments on: Famous Missions Review

By: Catching up? « Championland

Catching up? « Championland — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:44 +0000

[...] Sorry for the brief update. Just wanted to touch base. I also wanted to post this. A neat review of Famous Missions. http://www.bengarvey.com/2010/01/famous-missions-review/ [...]

By: J. Tagmire

J. Tagmire — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:27:01 +0000

I understand now. I’m definitely going to try that variation out next time I have a group together. Also, posted your review to the Famous Missions boardgamegeek page. Hope you don’t mind.

By: ben

ben — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:08:27 +0000

No problem.

The judge doesn’t see anything until the reveal, but he immediately knows that player A has played those cards once they are flipped over. In my variant, the judge just sees two teams in front of him and doesn’t know which player has played them.

I totally agree that more cards would improve the game.

By: J. Tagmire

J. Tagmire — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:14:24 +0000

Thanks for the review Ben! I like your rule variations 1 and 3. In the games I’ve played or watched, the judge rotated after going through 4-7 rounds (however many it takes a player to win). But I think that offering an immediate switch is a solid variation to keep it interesting for everyone involved.

I don’t fully understand #2 though. When you dealt out and the players were choosing their team of 3, were all players able to see the cards? The judge shouldn’t see anything until the reveal. I might have to clarify that in the rules.

I think the biggest thing the game needs in order to keep it interesting, and avoid the same jokes over and over, is more cards. I’ve been working on small expansions, but down the line I’d like to release a base set with twice as many cards to really prevent repetitiveness. It’s designed so you will not draw any repeat cards in the same game, but I’d like to make it last much longer than that.