Wingspan

Welcome to Replayable, where we go into depth on our favorite tabletop games that keep us coming back again and again. I am the start player, Todd, and today I'm joined by Megan and David. Wingspan is a much loved game, and it's also a much lauded game as it has won 16 different awards including the 2019 Kennerspiel des Jahres and the Deutscher Spielepries. What is it about this game for you that makes it stand out, Megan?

I think it's an incredibly accessible game, and I think the theme is incredibly appealing to a wide variety of people. I totally agree with that, and surprisingly on the theme. I mean, maybe if you would have said there's a game about birding, I wouldn't have been that excited about it, but actually seeing it and then playing it, that's a fantastic theme. On the front, I don't think I knew that was going to be, but I totally agree. The accessibility and the theme make this.

I'm not surprised at how popular it is, and I get excited to see good games like this being as popular as they are. One of the things that I'm really surprised by is how intuitive the mechanisms feel. It's like, okay, birds eat food, they lay eggs, and they create more birds. It really lends itself well to understanding how to play the game, just our understanding of birds. Even if you're not enthusiasts, you still understand how that works.

Then the artwork, and we'll talk about this in a bit, but the artwork is just phenomenal on this game. It's just a joy to sit there and observe it and take it in. Let's take a moment here and talk about women designers. Elizabeth Hargrave is the designer here, and amazingly, she hit a grand slam at our first at bat. This is the first game that she designed, and she started working on it back in 2013 and 2014, and it won all these prestigious awards.

That's worth noting that the last woman to win the Spiel des Yars was Susan McKinley Ross in 2011. What are some of your favorite games by women designers, or what thoughts do you have about women's roles in board gaming?

As a woman who plays board games and is active in this hobby, I will say that I'm not as knowledgeable about designers or who's designing games, but I can say that my experience as someone going to board game nights, going to board game conventions, is that there are times as a woman where it can be intimidating, where you can be the only woman at the table, certainly in the minority in the room.

I think because just participating in the hobby, you can feel a little bit like the outsider and assumptions can be made about your interests or abilities within the hobby. I know there have been times where I've sat down at a table at a convention with people I didn't know, and their assumption has been maybe that I want to play Catan or Ticket to Ride.

Then I feel the need to say the most weighty in-depth games that I've played and experienced just because I want to show, like, no, I am every bit as much of a gamer as you are. To get to the point where you're a designer, you have to be someone who loves playing games and is interested in it. I think it makes sense to me that there might not be as many women designers because I think it can be that much harder to be a part and to feel like ownership in the hobby, that it's yours.

I'm so thrilled to see her be so successful and to see this game be such a hit. I hope it encourages more women to feel like they're welcome here and have a part in this hobby. I agree with that. Being a gamer for so long, we can see the change over time is more women playing the games and then women designers. Whereas when I played D&D back in the 80s, I didn't know one woman who played the game or worked at the game store or published those games.

I was off a long time ago, but as BGG, I think is doing a good job of celebrating women in gaming. There's a lot of women content creators and just in general, we're seeing more and more women in online games. So just my circle of people that I game with is getting a little more diverse than it used to be. And it's great to see that. And then that's going to move up into the designers.

The part about getting women designers to the table or getting their games published, it reminds me of actually publishing books where a few years ago when they came out with this report that there were basically no women in executive positions at publishing houses or reviewing books or running literary journals that review those books. And it turns out it was men gatekeepers all along the way, so women books weren't being published.

So people would say, I just read the books that look good to me, not realizing it's this whole series of men who put the book in your hand, whether it's the end cap at Barnes and Noble or whatever it is. I don't want to go too much of a tangent on that, but it is something that was super important to me. But that's the same way in board gaming is when you have a woman designer, there's a lot of traditionally men gatekeepers along the way.

And to see somebody like Elizabeth Hargrave breaking through, not that she's the first, but breaking through with a big, widely accepted, fantastic game on its own right is I think exciting to see and exciting to see that sort of change in our hobby. Well, I think that's a great point. And as Megan mentioned, it's great to see more women get into the hobby and then we expect to see more representation at the designer level and at the publisher level.

That was a good point, Dave. You mentioned games designed by women as well, because I don't want to forget that I did make a quick list because some of my favorite games are designed by women. A quick list that I made, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Arkham Horror, the card game, Arkham Horror third edition, maybe not favorite game, but it's a game that I play. Turn in Taxis, Santiago, Irish Gauge and Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective. That was just me looking at my shelves to see.

I could dig a little deeper, but those right there are some of my favorite games. Yep. A lot of great games on our shelves by women designers. Let's segue over to the artist side because there were four different artists that are given credit for their contributions to Wingspan, three of whom are women, two of whom seem to be bird specialists. So that would be Ana Maria Martinez Jaramillo and Natalia Rojas.

And then the third woman worked on it is Beth Sobel, who has become an absolute force on the artistic side of board gaming with over 100 credits to her name. I think that games like these are starting to really appeal to us and make us take notice of who did the art, whereas before it was always who was the designer. And now we're starting to look at who are the people that contributed an essential part of the game. How do you feel about the artwork here? Does it draw you in? Is it evocative?

What are your thoughts? I'll say absolutely. It draws me in and is evocative. I think playing Wingspan, it really is an immersive experience and I'll give a shout out to the Steam version of the game. When you play that, number one, the soundtrack is incredible and you get the option of choosing the backgrounds you're playing on. And I know they sell some different backgrounds that you can play with, but it's really beautiful.

One thing I've noticed in buying gifts for the board gamers in my life is if you do a general search on Etsy for board game Christmas ornament or something like that, it used to be that maybe you'd find some generic meeples and then a bunch of katana stuff. But now right along with that, you see Wingspan stuff. And I think the aesthetic of the game is really connecting with people and that's down to the art, right? Yeah, it's got a fantastic table presence.

I think it's the kind of game that if you were playing in public, it's going to draw attention and it's like Megan said, immersive. And that's a part of the graphic design, the little candy eggs that you just want to eat so much but can't. They look like they should be in an Easter basket. But yeah, absolutely beautiful and fun along the way. There's any downtime between turns. You can just learn up about your birds and reading the color information that's on there is really fun.

Hands down, 10 out of 10 on design. And don't forget the Dice Tower that looks like a birdhouse. I was just thinking about that. As David mentioned, the eggs, I was thinking, oh, the design of the Dice Tower, which of course I famously failed to roll correctly and use the Dice Tower one time we played. And I've since had to prove that I know how to use the Dice Tower.

But yeah, it fits in perfectly with the theme, which again, making the Dice Tower look like a birdhouse and fit in with the theme is really incredible. Absolutely. How does this game make you feel while you're playing it? Is it reminiscent of any other experiences, whether they be board game related or not? Tell me about how you feel when you're playing Wingspan. The games we've talked about before, they have been very like steam coming out of your ears, very intense, very anxious.

But Wingspan, I mean, it's a walk in the plains, right? I mean, it's whether I'm winning or losing as intense as the competition might get. It's actually almost a meditative, relaxing game. And it is, which may be a little bit to its detriment, a very heads down game because we all have our player boards. I'm very focused on what I'm doing. It's not super interactive, which we may talk about a little bit later, but I don't necessarily pay attention to what you guys are doing all the time.

And I'm just trying to solve what I need to accomplish on my board. So it's meditative, but it feels it's not multiplayer solitaire, but it does feel like kind of a lonesome experience at times and not necessarily in a bad way. Multiplayer solitaire isn't necessarily a bad thing. If every game was that way, then yeah, I would get tired of it pretty quickly.

But I think it's OK that there are some games where I'm going to be focusing on my player mat and trying to figure out what are the next things I need to do to either generate combinations or get the resources I need. And everything that happens outside of that is fluff. You might give me a worm. You might allow me to lay an egg, but I'm not going to count on that happening because I'm focused on the things that I can control.

And sometimes it's nice to have that kind of separation between player actions. You asked how I feel when playing the game, and I totally agree with Dave. I have that meditative feeling. I also, maybe this is sharing a bit too much about my life, but when I walk my dog, I have a little app I use on my phone where you can identify the birds around you either via photo or by recording their calls or song.

And it's really fun playing Wingspan, and suddenly the birds in my neighborhood are part of the game. It just feels connected to my life. And there's something very, I don't know, appealing about that to me and something I really enjoy. Again, when you play the Steam version of the game, the first time that you play any bird, it reads out a little fact about that bird. And it's not just within that game. So it is over your time of playing the game again and again.

And especially if you are including the expansion packs, it almost feels like you're collecting the birds as you're hearing that fact about them. And it really does feel like you are learning a little something, but not in a trickly educational way. I really enjoy it. Are you saying that playing Wingspan made you more of a birder or that it just connects with that interest that you already had a little bit? I guess I'm asking what came first, the bronzed cowbird or the egg?

I would not describe myself as a birder. I do not own binoculars. Not yet. I don't go out looking very specifically, but it's just something that I find interesting. There are these animals out in my world and I see them every day and I hear their different songs and I didn't know what they were and they're here in my neighborhood. So I just had an interest to know what was going on with the wildlife right around me. And Wingspan has made a connection there, which I enjoyed.

Have you seen any of the birds that are in the game or conversely, have you seen the bird and then seen, oh, I recognize the bird on that card. Yes. So there are yellow-rumped warblers and black Phoebe in a park near my house. And I believe those, I know the yellow-rumped warbler for sure is in Wingspan. I think the black Phoebe is as well. That's awesome. What does the game do well? What are some of the aspects about it that you truly admire?

Accessibility, just in general and how the theme matches the mechanisms. Birds in the forest eat certain kinds of food and birds in the water eat certain kinds of food. The rats are going to be in the plains and so those birds eat rats.

It becomes almost intuitive in some ways and a casual gamer can sit down and play, be taught the game in a relatively short amount of time and be fully immersed in a really big fun game, which is an experience that in some games you got to play 10 times before you can get fully immersed or you have to be a little more of a seasoned gamer. But this right off the bat allows a casual gamer to get in and do it.

And I don't really know the specifics of why, whether it's just that theme integration or what it is. Yes, I agree with Dave. I think this is just a wonderful combination of theme and mechanics really making sense. The fact that eggs are what allow you to have more birds later. Again, it just makes sense. And I think that combination is what makes the game so accessible to people. Absolutely. And beyond that, there is a really good game just from a gamer's perspective.

So I noticed that my understanding of the game was greatly enhanced when I started looking at setting up the combinations. So going beyond just the mechanics of eating food, laying eggs, playing more birds, which I'm never going to get tired of saying that because it's that intuitive of a setup. But then you start having these card combinations and you're looking at the bonus objectives and having to plan ahead.

There's another layer of this game that isn't readily apparent and yet it's super satisfying once you start delving into it. So those are things that the game does well. What do you think it doesn't do so well? I think the card draw can be frustrating and maybe it's just something I haven't solved yet. But if you're not playing a bunch of birds into the water, it's tough to churn cards.

And because it's a game that's based on combos and getting the right birds together to make you excel, you have to come up with a way to be cycling cards through your hand so you can build those combos. Or you get birds that require a card being tucked or something like that. So you're just required to see a lot of cards. And I don't know if it's the game doesn't do it well or that I don't do it well, but it can be very difficult sometimes where I need everything.

And I guess that's a sign of a good game. But I was saying when we were playing earlier, I need everything, but I can only do one thing this turn. And that's the agony of decision. That's why I like games. I like making those choices. But for some reason in this game, there's just so many times where there's one resource, especially cards, or maybe I am cycling cards, but I'm not drawing birds that feel like they synergize. The more I say it, the more I think that's my shortcoming.

But maybe the game does it very well, and I just don't know how to do it yet. I think it does a lot of things well. It's hard to see how to get started playing well. You have so many actions that you can take, and then they're funneling down as the game goes on, right? So you start out being able to play, what is it, eight cubes, and then it's seven, six, five, I think, for each of the rounds. And each time that you are playing a cube, that's a tempo.

And so if I end up having to, say, draw a card before I've played a bird to the water, I feel like I'm losing out on a tempo. I'm not being very effective with it. And yet, if that's the right card to get my engine started, it's absolutely worth it. And so I think that it's opaque to start understanding what is the best sequence for this game to get where I want to go. And we can come back around and talk about how to solve the card drawing problem. I have some thoughts there.

I would say the second layer of the game is a little hard to see until you do have five or six games into it. I've had limited experience playing with the expansions. Right now, I believe there's two. There's the European birds and Oceania. And oh, there's more. There's three, you're telling me. Asia. Oh, and Asia. It's a bit of a semantic deal. And it actually hurts the visibility of Asia on Board Game Geek because it is a standalone game.

It can be played by one or two players, and so it qualifies as its own game or it's an expansion that can be added to the base game, allows you to play with six or seven. So for that reason, when you click on expansions on Wingspan, the base game, it doesn't show up. So I feel like that's actually hurting its visibility. So I have played with some of the expansions, but just to a limited extent.

And my experience was that it really impacted your ability to build those combos and you had different powers happening and then you weren't necessarily even able to build those combos within the expansion if they were all played at the same time. And it really felt like it diluted the experience. And so I would say that maybe people with more experience here would have other thoughts.

But to me, I would think if you are adding in expansions, then there needs to be some taking away from cards that were part of the original game or do something to keep it a bit more tight. Because I think the original game is a pretty tight experience. And once you are adding more to it, I don't think the game does as well.

Yeah, we'll probably talk about the expansions more later, but I find them a little confusing to integrate into the game exactly for what you're saying is that it's already a big deck of cards and then to dilute it with more, especially if the expansion has combos where birds might need to work together, you're going to see them less frequently.

And I think you can just use the expansion birds when you play, but integrating it, they leave it kind of open, like you can do this if you want, you can do that if you want. And I feel like, well, what am I supposed to do? Do I have to go learn how it's going to work best before I can play it? I don't want to try all the combos. Just tell me what to do. That's what I want from you as an expansion. Tell me how to do this. Well, and I guess that's the beautiful part about expansions, right?

Is what works for you may not work for everybody. So I don't think they can be prescriptive and what will work for David, you're going to have to put some work in to figure out how many of those cards are you going to add, which ones and do you need to pull any out? Like Megan said, to shape the experience you're looking for. The good news is you can absolutely do that, right? May I ask a question then to that point?

Yeah. I know as a group, we are not a big fan of house rules and we feel like if a game needs house rules, then there's a problem. So how do we feel about a house configuration of the game where you are saying, I'm picking these cards and these cards because I know then I'm going to get a better quality experience? I think if you want to put the effort into knowing what a good experience combination is going to be, I'm absolutely 100% for it. I don't think that's a house rule.

What do you think, Dave? I think that's the decision you have to make when you are integrating one of the expansions is are you going to use all of the cards like an overlord scenario where just all three expansions thrown in your stack of cards, you know, goes up to your nose, at least as high as the Arc Nova stack of cards, or are you just going to use the Asian birds or just the European birds or whatever you're doing?

What I would really love to see is if they had more like modules where the birds are divided into maybe stacks of 20 and then you pick five of them or whatever it is. And so like Dominion, when you're setting up a Dominion board, you're using X number of whatever they're called in Dominion, but certain types of cards that you blend together. That would be fantastic because then it would give you interplay and it's different every time.

But yeah, I think you have to as a player or as a group decide how you're going to integrate it because like I said, they don't give you a ton of direction in the instructions as to here's the best way to do it. They give you a few options and say, go have fun, which maybe I just need to explore it more. And Dominion was a good example, right? Because they have within the rules, they'll have examples of use this card set if you're beginning or use this card set for a prosperous kind of draw.

But then they also give you all of those random cards. Have you ever actually used the randomizers to select the decks you're going to be playing with? When I played Dominion now, I randomly choose which decks that I use. I don't go with the prescribed set. Now I only have base Dominion. I don't have a ton of expansions for it, but there's a deck of cards, one card for each type of card. And then you just deal out 10 of them and that's what you get. Right. Those are the randomizers I mean.

Yeah. I do that every time I play. So you saying you stick with the prescribed like werewolf set that they give you? Yes. Like they'll say, like in the rules, they have four or five different recommended sets, one for beginners and then ones with that are more aggressive have the curses in there or whatever they are. I tend to go with that. I forgot that that was in there. I thought you were just supposed to randomize and go. So interesting.

I'm sure most of the listeners are going to think I am not a good Dominion player because I don't go the route you do and they would be right. Well, let's let's play soon and I'll be the judge of that. I'll let you know if you're good or not. Okay. Sure. So with cards and mechanics, there is a lot of thought that went into the construction of these cards. Space Game has 170 cards.

The printings now include what was called the Fast Start promo pack, which was another 10 cards, as well as some recommendations on how to get started. And within those, we'll stick to 170. There are 38 cards, so 38 birds that have bowl nests, 38 that have cavity nests. So the holes in the trunks, 38 on the ground, 38 on the platform and 16 that are wild. And then you go down and you look at like food requirements. So there are three birds that don't require any food.

There are 50 that require one, 67 that require two, and 50 that require three food in order to be able to play them. And I bring this up because that also factors into the approach to the game, right? Just like any good engine builder, do I want to be investing in a bird that costs three food right out of the gate? Whereas if I can find one that only costs one, maybe not as good, but I can get it played and I can start using the second space.

Like when I go to the water, now I'm going to give up an egg to draw a second card right from the get go, but I'm drawing two cards instead of one. There's a lot of thought that has gone into the construction of this game beyond just the artwork and the mechanisms. What are some of the considerations you make when you're doing your bird selection?

So I will say at the beginning of the game, when you have that initial deal where you are choosing from a set of birds and you have all of the possible food, I tend to like to start with three birds in my hand and only take two food rather than the two bird, three food option, because I would rather start with three birds and have more options rather than have to depend on getting more birds into the water area so that I can do more drawing.

I think that for the most part is a stronger starting point and tends to be just putting myself in a better position to go. And so I think that goes to your point, Todd, that at the beginning you want birds on the board. They are what give you that boost to everything else for the rest of the game. Just in the last game we were playing, Dave was talking about the slow tempo he had in picking up birds because he only ever had that one bird down in the water area.

And so the more birds you get on the board, the faster tempo everything is going to be later. You're going to be picking up more food, more eggs, more birds when you're taking those actions. I think one of the great things about the game is that it gives you guidance from the beginning because you said there's 170 cards and then adding expansion there's even more. There's a ton of cards to parse through. So it feels like it could be this wide open thing.

But then you get your two cards objectives and you pick one. So that's going to give you a little bit of guidance. In the last game that we played, I needed a lot of birds that were worth under four points. And then you have your round objectives. So when you're choosing your birds and playing your birds, it gives you something to consider, to work on your personal secret bonus and to work on the middle of the board.

And if you neglect the round bonuses, well then you're just giving those points to somebody else. So if one of the players doesn't get in that competition, it could throw everything out of balance a little bit. So you need everybody to be fighting in that. And so considering exactly like Megan's plan, get cheaper birds out there quickly so you can boost up the strength of your actions and the birds that you choose. Work for birds that work together and fit your goals.

And also I think one of the most important things, birds that do a function outside of their column, not column, but outside of the row. So if you've got a bird that goes in the forest that can give you a card, that's fantastic. Birds that let you do multiple things other than just take eggs in the field, that really expands your game and it could just catapult your engine way far ahead. And it also lends itself to the four power cards that are out there that do exactly what you say.

They work outside of their row, but they are also really effective. So one of them, and you had it in the last game, is the common raven. So you sacrifice, I believe it's an egg and you get to draw two food from the supply even. It's not even the bird feeder. It's like, great, get rid of one egg and you get any two food you're looking for. It's amazing. One of the one would be the kill deer, I forget what the other two are, but they all do similar things, right?

You give up one thing and you get two resources in another and they make it so that you don't even have to really invest heavily in that other thing. So if I am investing in eggs and I've got the common raven out there, then great, I've solved my food problem. The other thing that is interesting is habitat.

When you're looking at the habitats and just to throw the statistics out there again, and in this case, they're not going to add up to 170 because obviously some birds can be played to multiple habitats. So 83 birds can be played to the forest, 83 to the fields, 85 to the wetlands, pretty balanced all around.

But when you're playing your birds, do you pursue a balanced strategy or do you look to get out early in one area and really leverage the bonuses and exchange those, say, eggs for food or cards? How do you approach the game there? So I think it absolutely depends on what's already on the board. If my end of round goals are saying it's for birds with an egg in the forest, then suddenly that's going to set that as a priority.

If I believe this is in the base game, but it could be misremembering, I believe there's also one of those personal bonus cards that is for having a full board. And so something like that then is going to direct me in what I'm playing. And so I don't know that I have a go-to strategy without that context. I think the birds that you're drawing start to dictate where you're going to put them.

Like you were saying, Todd, that this sort of funnels down your choices as the game goes or the choices that are good for you. And at some point, maybe it doesn't make sense to play any birds into the forest anymore because there's no end game scoring for it. You're getting enough food from other sources. So why bother? And it's very rare that I fill all three habitats, and specifically because of that, because there's opportunity costs in everything you do.

And it can be frustrating if I'm not drawing enough cards, but I really have to give up a bunch in order to play a card down into the wetlands this late into the game or something like that. So the kind of game where generally a balanced strategy probably isn't the strongest one because that means you're not extra strong in any one place. You're just chugging along in all the places.

And to have a stronger habitat, again, that gives you a little bonuses outside of its normal bonuses is generally what I look for as the strongest way to go. I agree. I try to get a little bit farther in one of them early just so that I don't have to keep going to that one. I can focus on shoring up my weaknesses.

And then there's always the unknown factor, which is, am I going to get any help from my opponents who, because of the birds they've played, are going to be giving me a bunch of worms in a game, let's say. And Megan, the objective card, I don't know what it's called. It gives you two points for each bird in your habitat with the fewest birds in it.

So it encourages you to build evenly so that you can try to get as many as 10 points if you manage to play all 15 birds, which is a feat I don't yet think I have accomplished. I think I've seen 15 birds. I may have done it. I feel like last time we played live, Greg and I both did it. The game has to be very specific about the goals that are available to make you go there. Because like I was saying, one of your rows, you're going to have satisfied in other ways.

And playing birds in there are less effective late into the game. Now that I think about it, I think the filling your board was an achievement in the Steam game, which in this podcast, we're finding out how much I've played the Steam version of Wingspan. But it's really, it's really so great. So I'm okay with that being out there. But yes, I think it was an achievement. And so that was something I was working towards there was filling the board.

The first time I played with you in person, I remember feeling like I needed to teach you the game and you were like, no, no, no, I got this. It turns out you'd played the game like 20 more times than I have online. And I thought you hadn't played it yet. Like, oh, okay. And then we just started deferring to you on the rules questions. Talking about the Steam game, it's also available on iOS. It's available on board game arena. There have been so many great digital implementations of this game.

I've used it as a connection activity for coworkers where I set up a game on board game arena and I just told them, look, all you need is a web browser and created gaming fans out of them as a result. So there are many ways that you can get access to this game. Well, let's move on over to the prompts now. And the first one is complexity. So what they call weight on board game geek, complexity on board game arena. So on a scale of one to five, no decimals. How do you feel this game rates?

I give it a two. Todd makes us choose a whole number. It's somewhere between two and three. And three is always a cowardly answer to go right up the middle. So I'm going to go one way or the other. I'm going to say it's a two. It is a little more complex than your basic gateway game. And we were chatting about this a little bit. I would still teach it to new players, but it is a little bit next level.

There's a little bit more going on here than there is in say, ticket to ride as far as the rules overhead, but it's not overwhelmingly so. And once you play through, even if you feel lost when you start, once you get through a few turns, it really starts to make sense when you march your cube back through the habitat and getting the rewards that go along and your cubes as counting your actions. And we talked about theme integration. It's so tight and it's so well done.

There is some complexity, but it's so well done, integrated so well. The experience does not feel fiddly or overly complex. And that's, and I think that's just credit to the design of the game. I will say that when I originally thought through this, I thought three, but then I listened to the other episodes of the podcast and I think about our friend Paul potentially hearing this while driving and I don't want him to drive off the side of the road. So I'm editing this back down to a two.

And again, for me, this feels like for the people in my life, I have people in my life who would consider themselves board gamers, but who are playing munchkin and phase 10 games of that ilk. And I think this would read as pretty complex and pretty difficult to them. It does feel like a step up from a ticket to ride a Kitan for me, but at the same time as someone who has played plenty of other games, is this complicated compared to those?

No, as you play this once or twice, I think you can then go back to it. There are games that as a group we've played multiple times and yet every time we play it, we have to go back to that rule book. Wingspan is not one of those games, which I think is part of what makes it great. Though I did just forget a rule on our last game. You can't spend food that's cache aid. You tried to cheat. Well, and maybe I've been cheating every game up until this point.

Y'all are face to face games have asterisks now. I guess so. I thought you could spend the cache aid food. I didn't know it was just there forever. I agree with the two of you. This is a two as far as complexity goes. The mechanisms are so clean and as I've said before, just the interrelation between them, they make sense. I think a person who is new to the game could easily sit down, get through the game, have played some birds, scored some points.

They're going to come in last place, but the rules overhead, it really isn't that hard. And when you look at it compared to some of the other games we've talked about. So I thought Dune Imperium was a three and rightfully Dune Imperium is more complex than Winged Span. And I said that 1830 was a four. So this is genuinely a two. But now let's talk about the next aspect of a game that's important. That is strategy.

So on the same scale, one to five and whole numbers, I don't think three is a cowardly answer. And I think this one qualifies legitimately as a three. And that's because in order to play it well, it goes beyond those rules that were streamlined and intuitive. You need to take the end of round goals into consideration. You need to decide which ones you're going to compete for. Maybe you don't have the cards to compete for all of them. You need to take the remaining action cubes into account.

If I'm going to compete for the number of eggs that have been laid on ground nests, I may have a bird that involves me to lay one egg on each of them, but do I want to show my hand that early and give you an opportunity to respond to it? There are a lot of decisions that go into the cards that you pick and the plays that you make that I think give this a legitimate three. I agree with that. I originally had it as a two, but then in reflecting on it more, a three isn't always cowardly.

I was just being provocative, but I'll say it's a provoked. I do think it's a three because the goals are defined, the things that you're trying to do, and it's going to take you two, three, four steps to do that. That's some front-loaded strategy. I want to get this bird into this habitat, so I'm going to need some eggs, I'm going to need some food, or I'm going to need to draw cards to get something else.

You have to start thinking a few turns ahead and then realize, I've only got three more actions this round, so now I've got to get it done before this round. It's more strategy than tactics. Of course, there are some tactics. You are kind of flying by the seat of your pants sometimes, but mostly at the beginning of each round, your goals are pretty set that you're going to try to accomplish, and then it's just dealing with what it throws at you along the way. Yes, I also agree with the three.

Sorry, we're not starting any fights here today. We need a good debate, but I think there's definitely room for strategy in the game, and I like that there is that balance of making your plans proactively for the round and then making your moves reactively once someone's generously given you worms. Thank you, Megan. Or you've benefited, or you draw a card, something a bird shows up in the display that now gives you a different, better option.

There's also that multiple paths to victory, and I think there is strategy in determining from the get-go which of those you're going for. Now an interesting one, and maybe we'll generate some debate here. Luck. How much do you think luck plays a factor in a game of wingspan? Same scale. I'm going to say a three here.

I think there are times, especially at a lower player count, where there is just luck to it and you aren't necessarily getting some of the other features in the game that balance out the luck by other players playing birds and taking actions that benefit you. And when you don't have that safety net, I don't know if that's maybe the right phrase, but when you don't have that there... That safety nest? That card draw. That was wonderful.

When you don't have that there, if you are just drawing duds, there's a time where skill can't overcome that. Yeah, the card draw can really put it on hard mode or put it on easy mode. I don't think it makes or breaks too many games, but every once in a while there is a game that just, I drew these cards and this game was very easy for me. And there's also times where late in the game you play a bird and it gives you an extra bonus card. You draw the bonus card, you already have it satisfied.

I wasn't expecting it, but great, I just made seven points. So it can hand you that. Before you draw, you work for that bonus card, you get it and there's no way I can satisfy this by the end of the game. I also put it at a three. It's not too much to where it sours the game. I think dealing with the variability that you're going to be confronted with, that's part of the fun of the game.

So there aren't too many times where your opponent top decks just the right card and you lose after two hours of gaming. So it's not destroyed by that, but I think there's enough in there to actually increase the replayability. Well, apparently we aren't going to disagree. I also had this down as a three.

At first you might think that the card draw is a source of luck and of course it is, but that can be partially mitigated by the rock, paper, scissors mechanism of discarding an egg to draw an extra card in the second and fourth spot of the wetland habitat or even discarding a card to get extra food for the same spaces in the forest. I mean, there are ways to get around the luck and if that was all there was, then I think it would be a two.

But luck goes beyond that because there's the luck of the food tray. We haven't even touched on this one yet. Can I get what I need right now or can I wait around and see if someone else makes it easier for there to be a reroll? Will someone else's bird give me a resource if they take that action before I get my turn again? And then Dave, I agree with what you say. There are the bonus cards.

I mean, in a recently played game, John had set up for uologist, the card that gives you bonus points based on the number of birds with eggs in your preserve and had he drawn that card, then he would have scored a ton of points because he was setting up for it. So he was anticipating. Now, fortunately, I didn't get it. I had it. But it's just another example of how luck creeps in there. So I think it's a legitimate three here. Theme.

How much do we think the theme has been integrated versus pace it on? And I think this is almost a rhetorical question. Yeah, we're not going to have any arguments today. This is a five. I mean, it's just hands down a five. And maybe this is going to be a tangent. But when I think about video games, a related field to board games, I really enjoy Pokemon Go, which is a video game that has you getting out in the world, walking around, doing things.

The Pokemon world is a great fit for that kind of game. And since then, plenty of other people, because Pokemon Go was such a hit, have tried to come out with competitors. There was a Harry Potter one. There's a Peekman one now. And none of them are doing like they're all just failing because the thing was that that mechanic of going out in the world and capturing things, whatever, was not the winner there. It was the pairing of mechanic and the Pokemon world.

That all made sense and worked together. And to me, I feel like that is what's happening here in Wingspan. Just a perfect fit of theme and mechanic. And that is why this gets a five. I love finding more and more theme in the game when you realize that, oh, this predator bird is eating small birds and you see the wingspan of another bird and it eats it. So I tuck it under my card. It's such a great integration.

And we talked about the different foods in the different habitats that these birds eat rats and these birds eat worms. And it's just so much careful thought was put into it to get that all integrated together and making the play experience just nice and clean. Once you get the basic mechanics down, it just flows so nicely. Oh, and I also I actually had somebody request to play the game based on theme alone. And that doesn't always happen.

But somebody had heard about this board game about birds that it was really beautiful. And do I have it and could I teach it to them? And the answer to both was, of course. Yeah. So that's I mean, that right there just makes it a five. No arguments here. It is a five. I mean, all the way from the artwork to the mechanisms all the way down to the dice tower being a birdhouse. It's completely integrated and is wonderful. So what is the best player account for a game of Wingspan, in your opinion?

I think that's kind of a tough one. So my knee jerk reaction is that it's three because there isn't a lot of downtime. And it's one of those games at higher player counts. So people on the other end of the table feel so far away and you're not really interacting with them. And then you're waiting for your turn to begin. And then at the end of the game, you realize, wait, how do you have so many of this bird? I can't even see that far over the table to see what's in front of you.

At the same time, having more than three really makes the pink cards more interesting. In the last game that we played, I had a card that reacts off of your predators. Well, there's only two other players in the game. And if you guys don't play predators, this card is kind of meaningless. That's an interesting way that that works out. But I would still say overall, three is my favorite. Four is good. Four is fine. I wouldn't turn it down, but I'd probably put it at three players.

I'll follow up on that because you hit the main reason I think three is the best player count. And it is because of those pink cards. So out of the 170 of them, only 12 of them have a power that activates once between turns. And at three players, the balance of those cards firing or triggering feels right. At four players, it's close to a certainty. And at five, it's a lock. So I think they are actually overpowered at five players and are balanced correctly at three. That sounds right.

I'll say I didn't have a strong feeling on this one. I think somewhere three to four seems right. I don't have the same concerns that David did with regards to missing out on what other people are doing because there are the higher player counts, so many interactions that can happen beyond just the pink powers of getting food from other people, getting those benefits that are happening because of plays that other people are making.

And it's not like it's seven wonders where it is just the person to your left or right that's impacting you. It's anyone at the table. So I don't think that it diminishes so much at higher player counts the way that other games might. What would be the worst player count? And by the way, the game can still be great. What would be your least favorite player count for a Game of Wings fan? Well the Asia expansion, it can now go up to seven. It has an expansion for six or seven players.

And I don't think I want to play it at six or seven because of that downtime or the game state changes. What's in the food trade now is not going to be in the food trade when it comes back around to your turn. So a little more chaos there. But I do like what Megan was saying. It is interesting. The more players are in the game, the more people are just going to be giving you stuff because of the birds that they play. So a high tide lifts all boats.

I would be curious to see if you look at the points scored based on player count at five, six player games, are people consistently scoring 100 points. Whereas in three player game, it's hard to get that. But even in a three player game, it would come back to my turn and I've got a worm and something else and an egg that I wasn't expecting. But now you go to six or seven players and you're probably getting some loot all along the way. And it makes everybody a little more dynamic on their engine.

Yeah, I agree. And for that reason, I say that five is actually my least favorite. And I'm not including the Asia expansion and going up to set. And it's still great at five. It's a fun five player game. But I feel the randomness or the removal of it, let's say the benefits of cards, again, those pink powers are going to kick in and the combos that reward you based on what other players have done. So giving you food, all that loot you're talking about, I think it makes it an easier game.

I think it makes it less strategy required. And you can make arguments. Well, less strategy is only required if you have the strategy to set up the engine in the first place. But everybody has their engines going. And I feel like, OK, it's still a fun game, but it's more of a social it becomes more of a social game than a strategic one. So I would prefer to play at three or four rather than five. So I'm going to disagree here. And I said that two was my least favorite player count here.

And now I am happy I play this game to play all the time. So this is not a I don't want to play this too. However, I have had two player playthroughs of this game where truly the birds I was playing, it just worked out that they were giving the bonuses that were exactly what my opponent needed and none of what they were playing helped me. And so it truly felt like we were both just playing for their victory and there was no getting out of it. And that was not a great feeling.

I think third and fourth player really help it not feel so much that way, because then there just has to be something that's benefiting you. But a two player, I think, can feel very one sided sometimes. I'll be super curious to play the Asia expansion or the standalone duet mode is what they call it. I wonder what changes they've made. Actual playing time. Boxes can lie. They say it's a 40 to 70 minute game, but at least in our face to face playthroughs, we've gotten nowhere near that.

So what are your thoughts on the actual playing time for a game of Wingspan? And let's let's say face to face. Do you have the stats? I do. I don't want to confess to them. OK, I'll tell you, we had one of them that clocked in over two hours. Well, you usually have teach time on there, right? You start the clock in before we start teaching. Yeah, but that wasn't our first game of Wingspan. Oh, well. And when we play in person, it does tend to be at higher player counts as well.

I don't think we've played this three player live, but yeah, 40 to 70 seems low. I want it to be 40 to 70. The experience doesn't feel drawn out. It doesn't wear out its welcome, but it's 90 plus. I think it could be faster with people more familiar with the game. I think that we have been either teaching or reminding people when I've played it with our group in person, and I think that has slowed it down. Yeah, that's true. I have a bad memory for games and their rules.

So if it's been more than three or four months since the last time we played, you might as well teach it to me again. Dave, I have the same thing. I said 90 minutes is right where I think this game realistically slots in, and I think it's a great experience at that time frame. So I think more than two hours is a little overdrawn for what it is. And if we could get it down to 90 minutes, then it would be definitely a go-to in our library. So which edition of the game is the best?

And this may also be a rhetorical question because there haven't been a lot of different editions that have been published. So I'm splitting hairs here. The only real criteria, aside from language, that has changed is starting with, I think it was the seventh printing of the game, they included that Swift Start promo pack, and any version that you buy now is going to include that. So those are the additional 10 bird cards and four player guides.

So I would say that edition is the best, but really it's the same base game as it's always been. Yeah, and this is a game that has plenty of upgradable components out there on Etsy or whatever. You can get the speckled eggs, you can get acrylic seed and food. Stonemaier Games themselves, they sell the nesting box, which is just this huge Gloomhaven style box, your size box that's going to fit all of the expansions and everything.

The box itself is $65 or something like that just for the nesting box, which looks great. I look at it all the time, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. But people go on Etsy and get little birdhouses to replace the cubes. So you're marching birdhouses down the line or things like that. So it's definitely a game that's wide open for chromed out versions of it. But the core game that you go buy, yeah, you're right. The most recent one would be the best.

It has the single player mode and it has the Quick Start. And Megan, I'll open it up to you. Which platform? If you had to pick best version and weren't limited to physical copies. The Steam version, and I know you're not surprised hearing me say that, but it includes the bird calls and that so the birds as you play the cards, they actually do their little chirp or song and the music's just excellent. The whole feel is just really great.

If you haven't listened to the music from the Steam version, you really should because it's just great. The music isn't just spring by Vivaldi. That's what I hear in my head when I play. No, but it has that same kind of feel to it for sure. So expansions, there have been three official expansions or two expansions in one standalone game that can be integrated with base game. What are your thoughts about them? Which ones stand out to you?

What are your thoughts about the expansions that are available for Wingspan? I don't know that I have anything more than what I already said is because it's a game that runs off of a large deck of cards. It's always good to have new cards to cycle in, but I wish there were a little more direction on how to best put them together.

Like we said, if they were in modules and you pick any three modules or four modules or whatever it is, I think more content is better, but just not all at the same time. And that's what most of them are doing. They're giving you more cards. They're giving you more end game scoring opportunities. They're giving you more bonus cards, things like that. And that's welcome. And only the third one, oh no, Oceania gives you a new kind of food, if I remember right. Yeah, you're correct.

It comes with Nectar. Yes. I'd say for me, I like Wingspan. So the expansions are more Wingspan and that seemed exciting, but there is that concern of are they diluting the experience? And really, I think I would like more experience with the expansions and maybe I could then with that familiarity, get a sense of really what I want from them. And then I would be able to have a better experience with them.

And I only have experience with Europe and that's because it added an automata for one-player games, which I thought was a great addition to the base game. And obviously each of the expansions is focusing on birds from a specific region. Elizabeth Hargrave has mentioned in an interview that the desire is to have an expansion from each one of the continents or each one of the regions. So they have probably at least three more that they could do.

But the ones from Europe add new interactions between players, which I think is a good thing. So I actually think Europe is, it's not a must have, but it's a good to have. I like your idea, Dave, of tell me which ones to add, which ones to take out if I'm looking for shaping an existing experience. That might be something worth doing some homework on and see if someone has already put such a list together. Now we get to the two questions I really like.

The first one is the most recognizable comparison. What is a game that reminds you of Wingspan that's very recognizable? Yeah, I have two, so I'll let you go first so you can take one of mine and I'm still okay. Okay. So I'm not sure where this fits on the ranking, but I know it's a recognizable game. It's not obscure, I don't think. I'm going to say Tokaido in that I think it gives that same meditative feeling, right?

I think Wingspan, there's more there there with regards to the game mechanics. Tokaido is just kind of an experience that you have together, but I think there can be that same meditative, I'm just here to enjoy this experience. It's not that cutthroat competitive, or throwing elbows kind of experience that maybe you're having in other games. So I think if you like the vibe of Tokaido, but you want a little more meat on the bone, then I think Wingspan could be a great choice.

I think that's an awesome choice. And Dave, you mentioned you had two, I'm going to steal one of them. So for me, it's Terraforming Mars. While Terraforming Mars doesn't have the same Rochambeau connection between its three tracks, in Terraforming Mars, you've got oxygen, you have temperature, you have water, and you don't have the same idea of sacrificing an egg to draw cards or sacrificing a card to draw food to get an extra food.

Terraforming Mars was one of the first games I remember thinking that there were a ton of individual cards that combo together to influence three tracks. And that feels very similar to Wingspan with its three habitats. So Dave, go ahead, you still have one left. Yeah, Terraforming Mars was definitely one of them because there are similarities. This doesn't feel derivative at all of Terraforming Mars. It doesn't feel like a ripoff.

I mean, it definitely is its own game, but there are some similarities there. Then my backup answer then is I'm going to say Agricola because you're building something on your tableau in front of you. In Agricola, you're building your farm, and in this one, you're building your habitat. Now Agricola definitely has the middle board where we're worker placement and stealing each other's actions.

And it can also feel, especially like the Agricola family version, feels meditative in that way where I can just lean back and kind of build my farm and go pet my pigs and just enjoy the game as it plays out. In the end, I guess somebody wins, but we all had fun building our farms. So that similar sort of experience.

So before we move on, I have to say I thought your backup was going to be Arc Nova, where you are not just doing the combos and playing animals, but you're actually building the habitats as you go. Well, Arc Nova is definitely in the lineage, obviously the newer of the games. Arc Nova, it's not as accessible, I don't think. Arc Nova, the complexity is higher. Absolutely.

Though there are similarities, the overhead is much bigger and you can't just jump in and with a relaxing game of Arc Nova, at least I can't yet, maybe after 10, 20 plays, but I don't have that many yet. But it feels like a bigger, fiddlier game, not to take anything away from it, but it would be a good answer if we had a fourth person here giving answers. Less recognizable comparison. So we're looking for a game that can still be good, but not as obvious. What do you say there, Dave?

I had a tough time with this one. In some ways, what I started thinking about is this, the action selection. And there is something a little bit familiar in Citadels. Now that one has where you're choosing roles and you're getting those actions and you're taking those roles away from other players. And this doesn't have that, but I'm still, I'm building my tableau and then the roles I choose later in the game start to get stronger based on the tableau that I've built.

So I mean, that's a game, you know, nobody really talks about very much anymore. We never play it anymore because it's such a good game that has just such an extended, boring middle. But the beginning and the end of the game are fantastic.

I agree that there is a portion that feels extended for, and for me it's the end because then you start just throwing wrenches and gears, maybe this is the same thing you mean by the middle is you're giving an opportunity for other people to catch up while you're stopping the person who's in the lead. And then you finally get to the point where you're running out of wrenches. You can't stop everybody from getting across the finish line. Yeah, it definitely has a beat up on the leader.

Somebody take the warlord and knock down some of the leaders buildings. Yep, absolutely. Megan, what do you have for a less recognizable comparison? This might seem like a surface level comparison, but I'll just say Q-birds. It's a game with birds and cards, right? I don't think there's a lot of similarity in mechanics, but if you're like, you know what, I just want to look at cuboid birds on cards after seeing more realistic drawings of birds on cards, then hey, play Q-birds. Yeah, that's fair.

I also went with a themed comparison. So I picked a game by Lookout Games called Pied Mats or Pied Mats. And it is a set collection game where birds are queuing up to eat from a feeder. And so based on the number of players, you have a different number of perches. And once the number of cards to the outside of the bird that's on the perch, the sum of their values exceeds that of the one on the perch. The one on the perch flies away, so you get to collect it.

And it's worth a number of points, which is displayed on eggs on the bottom of the card. And it also, based on the difference, so if you had, say, a bird that had a value of two at the perch and the bird to the outside had a value of five, the difference there being three, there's a stack of cards above the feeder that show seeds. And so you get to count three cards up and take that card, and it also has points on it. There's food, there's eggs, there's birds, there's great artwork.

In no way is it similar to Wingspan from a strategy standpoint or the interrelation between those, but it's a good bird game. House Rules. So here we are. We're at House Rules. How would you improve the game or which House Rules do you like playing with? And I've already intimated one, which was removing the power four cards. I'll reiterate my stance. Now this one I do stand behind that House Rules are for cowards. Trust the designer, trust the publisher.

They put, obviously, a lot of care was put into this game. I don't think there's anything broken in the game and I don't think anything needs to be House Ruled. I can see, you know, anytime you have a game that has a card-driven deck of unique cards, because we talked about this with Dune Imperium, Arc Nova, Terraforming Mars, it happens in all of them. There are some cards that are stronger than others and some combinations that are better than others.

And that's just the nature of this kind of game. And when you start nitpicking and saying, well, this card's just too strong. If you get it early in the game, we got to remove it. Then I feel like the game is balanced enough to account for that. I don't think there's any game breaking cards where you get this card opening move, game's over. Why do we bother playing? I think good play is going to win in the end. And if that's the case, then it doesn't need to be changed.

The way it comes out the box, I think it's fantastic and I don't need to change anything. Megan, any house rules that you would recommend or that you like? I am going to get really touchy feely here, you guys, and I hope you're prepared. Oh no. Go for it. So one thing that I've already said is that one of the things I enjoy about this game is the connection to it. Seeing cards come out and getting to play cards that, oh, that's a bird in my neighborhood.

And I think maybe looking at building a focus of, hey, I want to play birds that I have seen that are part of my life list. If you were going to be a birder, you have that list of the birds that you've spotted. And I think taking the time to build that connection, I think, does make the game more enjoyable. I'm sorry to our friend Paul, again, if I've caused any traffic accidents by you listening to this, hearing this, I hope you're careful while driving.

But I know there's people that that's not what they're looking for in a game at all. But I think if you are looking to have that connection, if that enhances your experience, then getting out and having a connection to birds will make this game more fun and good. If you were planning a trip to Europe and so you play with the European expansion and build that connection, right? That's fun. That's exciting.

And so I think giving yourself those little challenges, that's not necessarily a house rule, but a house perspective or focus, I think, is something that could enhance the experience. I like it. I like it a lot. All right. So there are two house rules that I like. One of them is removal of the power four. And those would be the common raven, the chihuahua raven, the kill deer and the Franklin skull. And it's just because those cards make it easy to eliminate the need to invest in a track.

So if I have the common raven, it allows me to discard an egg to draw two resources from the supply and it can be played to any habitat. Who needs to develop in the forest if you are able to play that to another habitat and draw two resources of your choice? And finally, leaving them in two, it's a little extra chaos. You got lucky. And in the game we just finished, Dave, you actually had the common raven, but you didn't draw it early enough for it to really pay out.

It didn't imbalance the game. So it's not like it's game breaking in the mid to late game. It's only if you manage to draw it early, which brings me into the second one. I think it could be fun to try incorporating drafting into the game start. So instead of just getting your five cards and deciding between, you get five cards, you pick one, you pass it to the left and then someone else does it. So we have a chance to draft our five starting cards.

And then we go through the process of, okay, I'm going to keep three birds into food or however you want to do that distribution. You can play for it that way. So you could actually plan ahead for some synergies instead of having one person that just lucked into a bunch of synergies in their starting cards. Yeah, that's not unpalatable. That's reasonable. I don't think it breaks the opening, but it gives you a little more opportunity to create some combos or to build your tableau.

I will amend my answer a little bit though, because I wasn't really thinking, I was thinking about changing the rules to the game. But as a house rule, which Megan's been talking about, I want a house rule to play music, whether it's Vivaldi's Four Seasons or something else, but to have some nature music playing in the background.

And then as a house rule, I think you should say the name of the bird that you play, because that's half of the fun, the ridiculous names of the birds, because birders are cheeky in the way they name their birds. So it's fun to slap the bird down and say its ridiculous name. So the house rule, you must say it. I like it. I think that's fair. If you like fill in the blank, then you're going to like wingspan. Who wants to go first on this one? I'll go first.

And I'll say if you like the theme, you're going to like it, right? Because that's what it's all about. But if that theme does not connect with you, doesn't appeal to you, I don't know that the mechanics are going to win you over on their own. I mean, birds, it's the easy answer, right? From the art to the intuitive relation between the resources, the food, eggs and birds, the themes just been incorporated so well. So I totally agree with that. Dave, what did you have? Yeah, I also have theme.

Although now that I think about it, if you're super into birds, that's kind of weird, right? That's a... Wait, what? If you know something like, you know, there's one thing I know about Todd, that guy is super into birds. He'll love this game. That's a little weird, right? I mean, what's the pecking order of pets? Like dog, cat, fish, bird, reptile, as far as what kind of person you are. So I've got a game called dog park. We can go there. Also a woman designer, if I remember right.

Yeah. So if you're super into birds, or if you're not into birds at all, I think both ends of that spectrum is you're a little weird. But everybody's in the middle. I mean, birds are ubiquitous of it, stop and smell the roses, stop and listen to the bird song every once in a while. So I think thematically, it's fantastic for everybody to enjoy that. And really what I put for the answer is that if you want an immersive but not overwhelming gaming experience, then this is that kind of game.

Okay, hold on. We're gonna pause here for a moment. Because there's something I have to say in response to what you just said. And we'll see if this stays in or not. Oh, it's definitely staying in. There is a pastor who is also an author who happens to live here in Orange County, who has a Lenten practice of waiting for a bird from the Lord. And so she each day during Lent goes outside and waits to see a bird.

And it's just a way of not setting a timer for herself, not saying I'm gonna spend this much time in meditation or prayer, whatever. It's just an opportunity to be still, be in the moment and be in the world around her and just wait. And through that process, she has become more of a birder. And I think she now has a podcast about it. And I think it's very Christian mystic, contemplative, cool. I don't think it's going down like a real zany path. I mean, it's a little off the norm.

But I don't think it's wearing t-shirts about birds and filling her home with birds and really, you know, all of her children are Robin and Loon or something. I don't know. You know? I just ask, though, as part of her morning routine, does she have like a bunch of bird feeders out there? Does she go on with a handful of seed? Does she have a bunch of bread crumbs? I don't believe so. No, I think she just goes outside. That kind of ruins the process, doesn't she?

She's going to be there until a bird shows up. And oh, by the way, she's throwing out bird seed. And this means she doesn't want to be there for very long if she's trying to attract the birds. Yeah, that was the joke, Dave. Sorry, I didn't mean to explain the joke. It sounds like you're saying birds are a slippery slope because they're ubiquitous. You don't notice them.

But then once you do and then you play wingspan, next thing you know, you've got a parakeet in the house and your binoculars around your neck every walk you go on. That is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying I think there can be a healthy middle ground where you enjoy them. I, you know, I have a little app on my phone. I know what's going on around me, but I'm not also driving hours out into the desert to get some rare desert bird, which not yet.

Maybe there are people are, but hey, there are there are worse hobbies, you know. Are you driving out into the desert to get a rare Pokemon, though? No, no. The way I am in my board game hobby is the I mean, that's the most into any hobby that I am. And I am less into that than any of you. So yeah, I'm not I'm not concerned.

I think bird interest is age related and probably men and women, because with men, every man gets to a certain age where they get a weather station or put a thermometer in the backyard and weather is all of a sudden super interesting. And every man goes to that stage. And then every man also goes through the your stargazing stage and get yourself a telescope for a while. I think those are stages of development as men age and maybe birding probably across the board.

You're in your 40s and you're like, you know what, birds are actually super cool. Their bones are hollow. Do you guys know this? It's just showing our age that we're that we're interested in this at all. I was at a family reunion with my wife in Illinois and they brought by a Harris Hawk on like a gauntlet and you were able to basically wear the hawk. That sounds wrong, but it was amazing how this big predatory bird was so light.

Even if you know birds are light, it was still a shock how light it was when you were wearing. I've been falconing before. I've done light falconry. What? And it's fantastic. There's a place down in San Diego you can go and then they'll take you out with their birds and they'll show you how it hunts and you'll have you put your arms in a donut and the bird will fly right through.

And it's amazing how trained they are, how freaking dangerous they are, yet how cool they are that you can get up close to them. I'm as I'm way more into birds than I thought. I want to go do that. We're going to have to arrange a gamer group trip down to San Diego. You're going to have to show us light falconry. That sounds amazing.

So if you don't like fill in the blank, then you're not going to like wingspan and leaving this one in here at least one more podcast because I had an answer for it. What do you got? What's your answer or do you want to go last? No, I'll go ahead. It's open drafting with the dice. So the bird feeder for me is like the most annoying part of the game because the timing of it can really hinder you.

If someone refreshes it and it gets picked over before it's your turn, you might find yourself down to, I can draw two things and the other three food types I don't need are in there and I just can't use it. I can't do a reroll. I'm back to having to play two is a wild card for any one, but that's not very efficient. That mechanism can really gum up the works. You know, the whole idea of the war is lost for the want of a nail or a worm in this case.

I'll say, I think if you don't like having an experience while you're playing a game, then this isn't going to be the right game for you. If you're like, I would like to push doll gray or wooden cubes across an overly complicated board and I would like, I want the board to be like a grid with no theme and then this isn't going to be the right shit for you. If you want to be doing calculus and thinking about trains, it's just not your thing. I do like those games.

I like this one too, but sometimes I do just want to be pushing little cubes around an ugly map. I know that was my way of poking fun at you. Yes. Yeah. Accepted. Did you have an answer? Yeah. Heads down play. If you don't like heads down play and sometimes I don't, that's not what I'm up for. When my friends come over to game night and it's good to see everybody and then we start the game and then I don't interact with them really at all for the next 90 minutes. The room is quiet when we play.

This isn't one of those games where there's a lot of raucous behavior and name calling and finger pointing and stuff like that. It's like we said at the beginning, it's the kind of meditative play, which has its place and I do love it. But if you don't like that sort of heads down play, then this probably is not a game for you. That's a good answer. So did Wingspan replace a previous game for you? No, it didn't.

For me, I think some people put this in the category of gateway games and so maybe this is something they would teach to their friends instead of TTR or Ketan or Karkazone. But for me, I think this is just a step up. It's like a 0.5 harder than those and so those still do have a place for me. This did not replace anything. It was an addition and I'm thrilled to have it. You all are insisting on getting decimals in here somehow.

I think that's a great point, Megan, that it may have replaced some gateway games that I maybe not necessarily go into Ketan and TTR with somebody who has never played any of these games before. That if they seem like they could handle it, then this is the way to go. So in a way, it does replace those games. I like that. For me, it's a bit of a segue of things.

So Elizabeth Hargrave said that her initial inspiration was a discussion she had with her husband and they were talking about at the time one of their favorite games, which was Race for the Galaxy. And the discussion they had was saying making Race for the Galaxy with birds and that's how she began this development process. And then she actually began with the birds instead of with a game framework. We don't play a lot of Race for the Galaxy in our group.

We do play Role for the Galaxy or rather we haven't been playing Role for the Galaxy. So if I had to think of a game that has been replaced by Wingspan, it's probably Role for the Galaxy. And thankfully so. I like it. Yeah. Has Wingspan since been replaced by anything else? And if so, by what? For me, I think Lost Ruins of Arnak is on its corner. It's a big immersive gateway level game that a seasoned gamer can enjoy as well. Super thematic.

It doesn't have really any similarities to this, but as far as what type of game I'm looking for, the experience, I mean, it's hard to say replaced. I still want to play some Wingspan, but right now I'm more apt to bring out Lost Ruins. All right. Megan? By the way, it's okay to say no. Yeah, not for me. I know that the game Dog Park exists and I've heard people explain that game as Wingspan with dogs. I haven't had the chance to play it.

So maybe I would enjoy that and experience it that way and it would be a replacement. But as of right now, no. For me, Wingspan hasn't been eclipsed. We do have more desire within our group to play Arkanova, which gave it, as you said earlier and I agree with you, it's the more complex game, but it also touches on some of the same ideas of having different tracks and combinations with beautifully illustrated animal cards. I would rather play Wingspan. So no, Wingspan hasn't been replaced.

Rating on a scale of one to 10 and leave out the decimals. How would you rate Wingspan? I'll go first at the risk of being the stinker because I feel like mine's a little lower, but it's a seven for me, which is a great game. Seven, eight and nine, those are my favorite games. It's a seven for me in that I don't want to bring it out every week, but I'm always happy when I play it.

I checked on BGG to see what I already had this rated and I had a nine and I was like, wow, that feels a little high. But then I thought about it and I was like, I think that's where I'm at. I think I feel like it's a nine and I'm not going to be ashamed. For me, I just really enjoy this. I'm happy to play it. Do I want to play it absolutely every week? No, but there's no game I want to play absolutely every week. Am I ever going to be unhappy to see it pulled out?

No, I'm always happy to play this. And I'm going to split the uprights. For me, it was an eight and that's because according to the scale, an eight is still a very good game. It has a minor flaw or two at most. And I've already talked about the challenges I have with a feed tray. Yeah, I'll play it anytime it gets suggested unless I have an opportunity to play a nine or a 10. It's a very good game and eight is a good score here. Last question, is this a replayable game?

And if so, how often would you want to revisit it? Absolutely, I think this is replayable. I don't know that there is much to be learned from game to game. I don't know that there are secrets and strategies necessarily to be discovered, but I enjoy the experience of it and I would like to have that experience over and over again. So I'm happy to do that. Now how soon would I want to revisit this game? And I guess that's asking how often would I want to play this? I don't know.

I'm not our group meets weekly, but I am not a weekly attendee. I like to keep some mystery and leave you guys wanting and it also leaves me wanting, right? I'm not getting burned out on board games. I think every two or three months, I'm happy to see this pop up for sure. It's not limited to weekly game nights with this group. How often are you playing it on Steam? Oh, or on BGA. Right. Every day. Not every day. But those count.

Yes. I think I have two or three games of this playing on BGA right now, or actually now that ours finished. Maybe I just have one, but I will say I don't keep a game of this constantly running on board game arena. So yeah, I am playing pretty frequently there though, probably once a month, I guess.

I thought Megan made a really good point about there aren't really layers to dig into because sometimes a game is replayable because my 10th play is so much deeper than my fifth play that I've learned so much more. But I feel like after one, two plays, you've really seen everything. That's not a bad thing. That talks to its accessibility. It's definitely replayable because any sort of engine builder, it's a little puzzle that you're working out and every time you play, it develops differently.

And that's what I think it makes it replayable. What am I going to get this time? What birds, how am I going to get these to interact and where am I going to be struggling? What's going to be strong? And I think that sometimes even as soon as you're done, like let's try it again, because now I want to see what I can build this time. I don't think I've played it back to back, but it's the kind of game that I certainly would. To me, it's five to 10 times a year I want to play this game.

Almost as much as once a month, but not quite. And I had it down definitely replayable. I can play this game in some form. So it could be digital. It could be the iOS version that I can play against two AIs or three AIs if I want them to sit in the other seats. I can play this game weekly. It's long enough and rich enough that I get a good experience from it. It's not so fast where I just blast through it and I'm like, okay, I'm done in 10 minutes and could take it or leave it.

I think it's on a digital platform. It's definitely replayable and face to face. I could probably play this once a month and then start looking at incorporating the expansions. And especially if we found ways to curate the cards and come up with that tight experience with additional capabilities, I think that might be a fun journey to take. Do you want to mention the Fox experiment? Sure. Let's talk about it.

Elizabeth Hargrave with this strong debut, I've got her rookie card and right now I got season tickets. So whatever she puts out, I'm going to try it. So Fox experiment was a crowdfunded last year. I don't know when we're getting our copies. I think you backed it too, Todd. I did. And really it was one I backed on name alone. I looked a little bit into what kind of game it was, but then decided just to be surprised by it. I thought know that her name's attached to it with this game alone.

She earned a look at her next game very much. So I'm excited about getting that game and getting it to the table. Yeah. There's another one that she did called Tussie Mussey. It's a button shy game. So it's one of the ones that they put out there that's 18 cards or less. And what's interesting about that one is it's a reunion between Elizabeth Hargrave and Beth Sobel. So Beth Sobel did the artwork for that one and it's a quite enjoyable game, especially for its form factor. All right.

Thank you both for walking through all the different habitats on the preserve, if you will. We'll be racing for our next episode. So looking forward to that one, which will release on June 1st. Thank you two for being available today. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks Todd. All right. Thanks for having us. Thank you for listening to Replayable. Support for our podcast comes from listeners like you. Thank you for your support.

You can find us online at replayable.fm, on Twitter as replayablefm, and on Instagram as replayablefm. We're all new to this. We're only going to get better with your help and your feedback. You can get in touch with us via email at Todd at replayable.fm.