Pax Renaissance

Initial game thoughts: twice the size of Porf and almost twice as hard to accomplish anything... It seems much more sandboxy in that there are 6 prestige categories and sort of divergent ways of winning. The map play is really interesting and he used the card spatial aspects that Pamir had. The rules burden is stiff though and seems to be the toughest of the three Pax games. Lots of different levers to pull and it's going to take a bunch of games to figure it out (not sure if I'll ever get there or not with my game group). It will be interesting to see if this clicks faster than Porf did in terms of what's required for good play.

After 5+ plays: Porfiriana wants players to play a game that can end at any time, and end with a "gotcha" sort of flash bang. You play something from your hand, change the regime and presto you buy the topple to win. Pamir shifted away from the hand of 5 cards to a focus on board position to determine primacy and generally reduced the realistic handsize (in my experience). Ren goes one step further and drops the handsize, and then requires an action to declare victory, and you have to activate the condition first which wont show up until late game. So we have a different focus in each game. I think Ren is sort of overwrought at times, and at 4p, Pamir shines, but Ren drags terribly. Conversely, a 2p game of Ren is delightfully fast due to the reduced deck size (the downside being that you almost have to commit to a strategy too early). if you can get 3 people who know what they are doing, it would shine (where as Pamir is fine with 3, it's solidly better at 4 due to how allegiances work). This is the most complex of the three, and I found the hardest to teach people. There is a ton of game here for those willing to get a group together and explore it fwiw.

Very eccentric game, hard to compare to anything else I have played. It is very thematic, and strategic in its own unique way. I have played it 5 times for now and my desire to play it more grows each time. Very fun and exciting to explore since it has different card setup every time. On the negative side, it being incomparable to other games hinders the ability to teach it efficiently. People say it is very opaque and I agree. There are a lot of little rules to remember, but once it clicks, it is there.

Rating based on plays with no expansion. Currently it is pretty impossible to hunt down the expansion deck, but hopefully there will be a reprint soon.

Review after 30 plays: A very tense and cut-throat card game where the players take on the roles of Jewish bankers in the 15th and 16th centuries funding all sorts of historical shenanigans in Europe and the Near East during the Italian Renaissance era. All players are manipulating a central game area that effects all other players, so it is very interactive, direct and conflict-oriented. Claiming victory is a two step process: first flipping a victory condition to its active side, which is open to all players from that point on, then declaring yourself the winner. There are no victory points, victory is a binary condition, and the end of the game can come suddenly and unexpectedly, in theory it could end in as few as four turns in, more likely 5 turns is the minimum for the earliest conceivable victory paths, and at most it can go to about 18 turns, but the average game length is about 9 to 10 turns.

Interesting tactical opportunities emerge from a quasi-sandbox environment that features an unparalleled level of streamlined, historical thematic integration for narrative. For example, as you continually repress the pawns/concessions in an empire, they don't die but stack up as serfs, making peasant revolts more powerful and likely to overthrow the governments later down the road, resulting in republics: the oppressed masses yearning to be free. I'm not offended by the provocative libertarian undertones in the game's premise and the rule book is pretty funny to read, I like that it quotes Fernand Braudel, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell. The first edition is a small box format that is highly portable, and combined with it's short playing time it's a great choice for game nights during the working week.

The major downside is that it is quite difficult to teach and really you need to play it about ten times to appreciate it. It is thoroughly a card game, so there is the standard luck of the draw you have to mitigate, for example, if you go first and have a 2-agent conspiracy/jihad/peasant revolt for 1 florin, and there are no other 'vote' prestige cards in the lineup, you'll probably win a Renaissance victory by T4 and no one can stop you - you didn't really merit the win, you just simply had luck of the draw and turn order advantage. Another quick path to victory is having a 2-knight jihad in the Ottoman empire, for 1 florin, and a green bishop for 2-florins: t1 buy them both, t2 play them both, there's probably an 80+% chance you win with Islamic victory by T5. Also it rewards repeated play since knowledge of the deck, particularly the skill in reading one-shots at any current game state is very important. This is likely a major turnoff for casual players as to play well you need to devote repeated table time to it in order to be decent at it, and will likely get your clock cleaned by the more experienced players. Finally the only complaint I have is that it is a pretty nasty and brutal game and if 2 players collude against a 3rd it will be a rough, joyless experience for that guy.

3 games with 2 players so far and soon to play 3 players. Well worth the effort to learn specific wordings and rules. Very interesting and satisfying game experience.

Hands down, the worst rulebook I have ever read. It is laid out in a way that requires constant jumping back and forth between different pages to understand a single action. Explanations are not explicit enough and do not answer questions that will immediately be raised during your first playthrough. It fails as a reference too, and it is easier to find your answers on the BGG forums. Surely the space in the rulebook should have been spent on actual rules instead of opinionated rants on history.

That said, the actual game is fascinating and like nothing else I have played. Any one action has hidden consequences that can change the board state in a major way, in turn affecting what victory conditions are achievable. At the same time it does not feel random and chaotic, because the market cards and their potential effects are openly available information. There are so many different available options at any given moment, but rarely any obvious moves. The game makes you feel like a master manipulator, subtly influencing the different variables to provide and outcome that only becomes evident a few turns later.

Having gotten passed the initial hurdles, I am keen to continue exploring Pax Renaissance. There is so much more to discover and it feels like every game will play out completely differently. But honestly, I am not sure the learning curve is worth the effort, and hesitate to recommend Pax to anyone else.

Me faltan muchas partidas a este juego para poder disfrutarlo como toca.

Regalo de Javitu la edición que tengo.

Edición coleccionista n° 482 Castellano todo enfundado y con Monedas Metálicas premium tipo oro. Nunca jugado. Incluye libreto impreso por mi a color con preparación, resumen de juego y resumen de iconos y condiciones de victoria. 80€