Designer: Reiner Knizia
Artist: Vincent Dutrait
Publisher: Grail Games
From all accounts, Yellow and Yangtze is a design by Reiner Knizia for wannabe fans of Tigris and Euphrates that for one reason or another, find it hard to embrace the more glamorous sibling. Tigris really needs no introduction if you are a Knizia fanboy/girl and is the defining masterpiece of his entire gaming portfolio. Yet for all its greatness, the game has a steep learning curve with lots of conflict and is fairly brutal for a beginner. All of this means that Tigris has a more narrow audience in some game groups – such as the case for my situation. So when Yellow was published as a modern revamp of the classic, I felt my enthusiasm for the game rekindled. Maybe, just maybe the new version can finally hit home.
While I’d like to comment on the difference between both games, there are plenty of articles that already do just that and a much better job at it. My few plays of Tigris disqualifies me from talking about the predecessor in depth. With Yellow, I have tabled the game a few times at different player counts and have a good sense of the arc of game which as others have noted, is really similar with Tigris, but also not at the same time. From the small sampling of reviews and write ups, it feels that while fans of Tigris admire Yellow, most still favor the original.
An ingenious way to collect cubes and score points
In Yellow, like Tigris, players add tiles of different colors to the board to earn cubes of the corresponding color. Cubes are good as they are points and there are 4 colors to collect plus a wild (yellow) color that can substitute for any cube. The ultimate goal of the game is to collect all the cubes at equal pace because your final score will be the cube count for your lowest scoring color. This is the same scoring matrix for Knizia’s Ingenious. In other words, collecting 40 red, green and black cubes is useless if you have only 2 blue cubes to go with it. Once players know this scoring criteria, what to prioritize for cube collection during the game becomes clear.
To gain cubes, players place matching colored hexagonal tiles on the board, forming clusters known as city states. These tile clusters are usually anchored by leaders of the respective colors and each player has a set of matching leaders (5 colors) differentiated by a different player icons. Importantly, each cluster can only have one leader of each color and when tiles are placed, the player whose leader is in the cluster will score a cube. Normally, this means that if my red leader is in a cluster, I will earn a red cube for placing a red tile. To accelerate cube collection, players can also build pagodas of a specific color if a triad of matching colored tiles are placed in a triangular layout. Leaders linked to the pagoda can earn a cube of that color at the end of the turn in perpetuity so long as the pagoda is under control by the leader. There are two pagodas in each color except for the yellow pagoda which has one. Since the yellow pagoda produces a wild cube each turn for the controlling player, control of the yellow pagoda is always hotly contested.
Conflicts drives interaction between players and creates a dynamic game board
At some point conflict will arise between leaders of the same color when they seek to control the same space. A revolt occurs when a player intentionally places a leader in a city state that already has a leader that shares the same color. The contest between the aggressor and the defender is resolved by using black Governor tiles where the winner is the one that can show the most black tiles adjacent to the leader in addition to tile contributed from behind the screen. I guess this is thematic in a way that you need a governor’s support to hold sway in a city. The loser’s leader is ejected form the city and the winner wins cubes of the contested color. Another way to cause conflict on a grander scale is to trigger a war by fusing two city states. Here again, if the leader color clashes, the city states must duke it out by sending “armies”. In this case, the red Soldier tiles come in to play. Like a revolt, the red tiles in each city state is counted in addition to those behind the screen. Since a war can affect multiple parties, every player can contribute red soldier tiles to the outcome. Think of it as allies coming to the aid of warring nations. The consequences of a war can be far reaching as losing leaders are ejected along with red soldier tiles from the warring nations. The aftermath of each war is board-altering in a way that city states are merged after the conflict to create a larger city state, but one that is potentially weakened due to loss of the red soldier tiles. The power dynamic is shifted and even with an enlarged state, it may be vulnerable for further attacks.
As relative newbies to the Tigris and Yellow scene, what is breathtakingly clear is how much everything is altered after each war and to a lesser extent, each revolt. Early in the game, each player is focused on building up individual power bases in one or two cities, perhaps accumulating red and black tiles both on the board and behind the screen to shore up defenses. At the same time, establishing pagodas early also means several rounds of uninterrupted collection of cubes before calamity descends. In most of our plays, city states are exclusively owned by a single player and I am quite sure if play devolves into shared states, the game would have a distinctly different feel. However as soon as the first war breaks out, everything is thrown out the window. Immediately, leaders are ejected from the board and in our case, because all players have their own little fiefdom, there is a total annihilation of one player’s leaders from the losing city. Perhaps that is an indication of what not to do in future games.
As the game progresses, the revolts and wars will cause the initially well-organized city states to splinter beyond recognition. There were wild swings of control between players during repositioning of new leaders. In some cases, control might be uncontested as some of the splintered city states are leaderless. In other instances, fighting back and forth for ownership of specific pagodas – especially the yellow pagoda can be incredibly intense. The ideal scenario would be to place a leader, any leader, in a recently vacated spot surrounded by black governor tiles. These sites are highly coveted as a strong leader surrounded by black tiles is hard to overthrow internally through revolt. While the first half of the game revolves around tile placement, the second half of the game is usually a struggle to seize control of pagodas. In some instances, control of pagodas can last for less than a full turn as players find creative ways to place leaders on the board for control. Besides a revolt to displace a leader, players can break apart city states by using two blue tiles to incite a riot. This allows a player to remove a single tile from the board. In the case of city states with a choke point, timely removal of a single tile can split the state in half, thus severing control of a pagoda or isolating a leader from its base. The blue tiles can also be used to split up red soldier tiles that are clustered in one area. By severing the tile connection, parts of a heavily armed city state can become immediately vulnerable if they are isolated from the main army. This is a good move to perform prior to initiating a war. Alternatively, blue tiles can also be used to remove a base tile under a pagoda which is then dismantled and set aside. This is particularly potent to limit the yellow cubes collected via the yellow pagoda by a single player. The variations in Yellow to secure control of the board is endless in its permutations and is a challenge to conceive even for an experienced gamer. In a way, an earlier strategic half of the game devolves into a more tactical duel in the second part of the game once conflict becomes commonplace. Addition or removal of a single tile can completely shift the landscape or the dynamic of an alliance.
The game is better for three or more players and is not for everyone
My first few plays with Yellow was with two players and I was unimpressed. The back and forth was rather boring and the large open board meant that we could both co-exist sans conflict. There was really no reason to fight as we could be collecting cubes by grabbing pagodas every turn through tile placement. We were too entrenched to initiate conflict. In our subsequent three player games, the board came alive. I was amazed to see how the game morphed into this ever evolving fight for control across a shifting landscape. As is often the case, I could spot opportunities for placement but those spots are likely taken by an opponent by the time my turn came around. Yet this barely mattered as new opportunities would be created in the interim that would require a new approach. The use of the blue tile to create riots is instrumental in producing this uncertainty. I found Yellow to be a thrilling exercise of tactical possibilities at each turn based on the tiles at hand.
Yet, as much as I enjoyed the shifting landscape in Yellow, this is not true for all players in my group. The uncertainty generated from conflicts can be too unsettling, and the inability to plan way ahead, or expect some fixed return each round, can be labeled as “too chaotic” for some folks. Chaotic is perhaps a bit exaggerated, but I can appreciate the sentiment in the context of all the solitary engine-building, non-interactive board games that dominate the modern board gaming scene these days. There is comfort for a lot of people to just “leave me alone” to “build my own stuff” and to just count up the points at the end. Yellow feels like the exact opposite experience. There is nothing but player interaction and no pagoda or leader feels secure after the first conflict is initiated. It was a rude awakening for some players who worked to establish their mini-state early on only to see it vanish after a flurry of red tiles. It is clear that more plays are needed to develop counter strategies to prevent a blow out from happening.
I also find it fascinating that some tiles can be played to the board not only to gain cubes, but also trigger special powers. As mentioned, blue tiles when discarded can trigger a riot while playing green tiles allows a player to immediately pick up a tile from an open display. This is potent if a valuable tile such as a yellow tile is revealed. I have frequently played a green tile just to pick up another tile from the marketplace even though I am ahead on green cubes. Moreover, discarding two green tiles allows a player to build a pagoda of a specific color on a pre-exsiting set of triangular tiles. I wonder if perhaps the incorporation of these new tile powers is an effort by Mr. Knizia to attract new comers to the game. Certainly, many new games often have variant abilities or special powers that can bend the rules of a game.
In summary
Ironically, I wonder if Tigris would end up being less dynamic compared to Yellow and in the process, reintroduce some of the balance and stability that some of the players crave. Unfortunately, I no longer recall much of my plays of Tigris from long ago. I was always under the impression that Tigris is much less forgiving than Yellow which prompted my decision to introduce Yellow in the first place. However, I also do not recall the board state in Tigris being so fluid with multiple Ziggurats changing ownership every round. Since Ziggurats are permanent, the fights is always going to be in a fixed location. In Yellow, pagodas are constantly changing hands and they are quite easily constructed late in the game when there are plenty of areas to form a triangle of tiles of a similar color.
Despite the mixed opinions around the table, I still greatly enjoy multi player Yellow, and find it refreshing. The depth in game play for Yellow is unparalleled and likely one of the most wide open game I have played for a Knizia design. While the game rules are simple, the possibilities each turn can be quite tantalizing in different directions. Time and opportunity permitting, I would love to revisit Tigris and see myself how the game plays compared to Yellow. As an aside, I also find that many of Knizia’s earliest hits feel very different from his more recent outputs – perhaps a sign that he is constantly adapting to modern tastes. Luckily, publishers are constantly reprinting his classics even though more material are added to the box. Mostly though, I get the sense that publishers have a deep respect for the original design and have found ways to include new expansions while allowing players to sample the original publication.
The Dao of Board Gaming 