Forest Shuffle

In Forest Shuffle players collect various flora and fauna cards to create the most harmonious forest ecosystem. The game features multi-use cards and a clever "clearing" mechanic that is reminiscent of older games. We recorded this episode on little sleep and were a bit punchy by the end. Give us a listen!

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
(upbeat music)

(00:02):
Welcome to replayable,where we go into depth

(00:22):
on our favorite tabletop games thatkeep us coming back again and again.
I'm the start player Todd, andtoday I'm joined by David and Paul.
For our 31st episode, we'll be walkingamongst the trees in Forest Shuffle.
It was designed by Koch andreleased by Lookout Games
in 2023 with artwork byTony Lobe and Judith Pailla.

(00:43):
Are you two ready for a Serratinal Saunter?
- I pitched my tent andI got out my binoculars.
I'm up for some nature watching right now.
- There you go.
- I'm ready to pet the deer.
(laughing)
Forest Shuffle is a cardgame where players compete to
gather the most valuable trees,then attract species to them.

(01:04):
The goal is to create the bestecosystem for flora and fauna.
The inclusion of multi-use cards means
that when you play a card, you pay forits cost using more cards from your hand.
Discarded cards go into a clearing and areeligible to be retrieved by other players.
When the clearing reaches 10 ormore cards, they are all removed.
At the start of thegame, three winter cards

(01:25):
are placed in the bottomthird of the draw pile.
The game ends when thethird winter card has been drawn.
Let's see here.
Which one of you has taken awalk in the forest the most recently?
- Unfortunately, it's probably not me.
I really miss the woods andI've been too urban for too long.
- Yeah, I mean, I go to a urbanforest, a nature trail every Sunday.

(01:45):
Whoa, but it's surroundedby freeways and buildings.
(laughing)
- And plenty of wildlife, probably.
Sneaking in the corners.
- Oh, yeah.
- You get to start us off here.
2023, if you have looked atthe games that were released,
they're quite a few that havereceived a lot of critical acclaim.
I mean, this seemslike it was a banner year.

(02:07):
I've worked on those one amongst many.
What are some of your favoritesthat were released last year
and how do you thinkforest shuffle stacks up?
- Well, for me, myfavorite is for a shuffle.
(laughing)
It is my most played game from 2023.
- Yeah, I have to alsoshout out to Dune Imperium
Uprising, Sky Team, and GreatWestern Trail New Zealand.

(02:31):
Those are also favorites of mine.
- Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I think Great Western TrailNew Zealand, more is to be seen.
So I think that hasn't hitthe table for the last time.
I think we'll be seeingthat quite a bit more.
- Oh, I'd love to play again, yeah.
- Yeah.
Well, maybe starteda little earlier next time.
(laughing)
- Yeah, that was a painfuldecision to play it through to the end.

(02:52):
Last night.
- Yeah, maybe we shouldput some full disclosure
is we're playingthis, we're last night,
we played our gamenight, Great Western Trail
New Zealand, and wewent maybe one o'clock.
- Right.
- Right guys on the road home by one.
- Yes.
- A little after, yeah.
- Yeah, and our days of stayingup all night are kind of behind us.
So, I mean, this might be a little loopy.

(03:14):
We'll see how this one goes tonight.
- No, that's just, that's gonnabe pure quality content right there.
- Yeah, yeah.
- Well, look, of the games released in 2023,at least you put together a list for us,
which I think is just looking at it,just a banner year almost for games.
It's not letting up.
We're getting year afteryear of fantastic games.
Of these games though,I think Forest Shuffle

(03:34):
is probably the mostOG game that I can see.
So, the trend of modern games continues,
but it's really happy to seethat some of these OG elements
are kind of staying alive andcoming back at us at new fresh ways.
- Well, Dave, how does it stack upagainst, say, Earthborne Rangers?
- Or Lorkana.
- It's, well, Lorkana was also, Iwouldn't say an OG kind of game,

(03:56):
but it's definitely an oldkind of game 'cause it's
straight out of the 90scollectible card game fad.
But, I mean, stack up, EarthborneRangers is, it's not a new genre,
and we'll talk about it more ifwe ever get to it on this podcast,
but it's expanding ona relatively new genre.
So, it's hard to even compare'cause it's moving in such
a different direction withnarrative and things like that.

(04:18):
Or I'd be hard pressed tocompare them 'cause it's very much
apples and oranges orbutterflies and mushrooms, I think.
(laughing)
Nice way to keep it on topic.
Beyond that, you know, the White Castle,
and I would say we have to getto ride legacy that also came out.
I mean, a lot of greatgames, and Forest Shuffle
manages to stand outamongst such august company.

(04:41):
A lot of it, I think,has to do with that
attractiveness of multi-usecards and cards only.
I mean, there's something elegantand nostalgic about that format for me.
Yeah, I can't put my finger on it.
It's just a bit of druidmagic or something.
(laughing)
Well, I think in some ways, Toddand I are saying the same thing.
When I'm calling it OG,you're calling it elegance,

(05:01):
which is, I think, oneof the hallmarks of OG.
When we look at these list of other games,
I love doing Imperium andour little players of Uprising
look promising, but I wouldn'tcall that an elegant game.
It's fun for different reasons, butForest Shuffle has components
straight out of games wewere playing 20 years ago,
yet it doesn't feel like acopycat or a rehash, really.

(05:23):
They're almost kind of hidden in the game.
Some specific elements that Ithink I didn't see my first few plays,
and once one of youkind of illuminated it for me,
I thought, oh, I can look atthis game in a whole new way,
and I don't want to reveal that yet, butwe'll get to that as we talk about it more.
Right.
All right, how about continuing thecurrent trend of ecology-themed games?
'Cause we've seen quitea few of those recently, too.

(05:45):
You know, as we moveaway from colonial themes
and spice trading themesand some of these themes
that were starting to get alittle tired in their own right,
but also we were starting to seekind of how they're problematic.
Right.
And so now we're gettinginto anthropomorphized animals
and a little more spacethemes and things like that,
and so the rise of thenature-themed game makes sense

(06:06):
because nobody'soffended by a beautiful forest.
Yeah, you know, I gavea shout out to Forest
Shuffle back when wedid our Arknova podcast.
And I think ForestShuffle takes it a step
further in that itdoesn't have any plastic
or components orpackaging, and from personal
experience, I've played itover a dozen times by hand,

(06:26):
and it's still just as goodas the day I opened it.
Yeah, we commented on that last night.
I said, we were playing Paul's copy, and Isaid, you're eventually gonna have to get
these things sleeved because, youknow, they're gonna start to show where,
and he goes, this is likethe 12th and 15th play.
They're fine.
They still feel brand new, and Isaid, yeah, actually, that's true.
They're holding up very well.
They are, absolutely.
All right, so let's talk aboutsome of the concepts of the game.

(06:50):
Let's talk about the clearing.
That's another one ofthose features of this game
that while I haven't seen itdone in this exact method
or implementation, itcertainly feels familiar, right?
As far as I'm gonna discard some cards,
and then you have an opportunityto benefit, perhaps, 'cause the
thing I don't want may be theexact card you were looking for.

(07:10):
How do you like the mechanism of theclearing and perhaps the timing issue of it?
- Yeah, it's as old asMajang or Rummy, right?
Where part of the game ispicking up your opponent's discards.
But one of the things thatmakes the clearing special to me
is that if you know youropponent wants a card,
you can time your discardsuch that they can't get to it

(07:31):
since the clearing is wipedwhenever it reaches 10, right?
- That's exactly what Iwas gonna say, is it may feel
familiar because it's from the1800s in a game called Rummy.
- That's why we deal.
- That's what we deal with.
- We're that old, no.
(all laughing)
- Today it feels like it.
But no, that idea whereI can't use this card,

(07:53):
but I know you can,so I can't safely discard
it, it creates a nicetension in the game.
And I really like what Paulwas bringing up on that too,
that idea of timing that discardto get that wiped off of the board.
I had a few interesting decisions on thatlast night when we played because I was,
what Paul and Greg were both goingfor, what was the tree you were going for?

(08:13):
- The horse chestnuts.
- The horse chestnuts.
And Greg was closer to me in turn order.
So I knew, and I was holdingone, and I really wanted to discard it,
but if I knew Greg's gonnaget that card and put it into play.
And the same time,Todd and I were competing
on the Linden tree, as far aswho's gonna have the most.
And I had a Linden tree, I was readyto discard 'cause I felt like I had enough.

(08:33):
But I needed to timeboth of those were, I didn't
want either of those to getinto your two guys' hands.
And it made for an interesting tension asI was playing through trying to accomplish
what I wanna accomplish, but also put thekabosh on what you're trying to accomplish.
- Very true.
Yeah, it reminds me ofsome of the classic OG games
that have strong left-right bindingswhere you see someone doing something.

(08:56):
And if you're sittingimmediately preceding
them in turn order,you start copying them
because you get to scoop up on all the samethings and prevent them from getting any.
- Right, in fact I think Greghad a similar experience
to that exact thing wherehe saw what you were doing
and recognized that he should havebeen picking up those grids out of you.

(09:16):
- Yeah, so I started thegame by playing a chestnut
and then Greg's like,oh, instead of actually
discarding these, I'm justgonna play 'em instead.
- Right, right.
- Well, you did all right,but since he was sitting
to your immediateright-- - We'll get to that.
- Yeah, but yeah, since he was sitting
to your immediate right,that was gonna hinder,

(09:36):
I mean, you certainlyweren't gonna see any
of them in the discardingor in the clearing
unless something popped upfrom somebody playing a tree
or Greg specifically playinga tree or something like that.
- Right.
- But how many did you endup getting, even with Greg
actively trying to prevent youfrom getting those chestnuts?
How many did you get into play?
- The two I started the game with.
- Oh, and that was it?
- Yeah.
- Okay.

(09:56):
- Yeah, and Dave, I rememberwhen you made that play
and you got rid of the horse chestnut anddid you also get rid of the Linden tree?
- That was later.
- That was later?
Well, on one of those, you also got rid
of the last fire salamander that I waswaiting for, 'cause I already had two of them.
And I remember I told you about--- When he was in the clearing.
- Yeah.
- Yeah, well, he put it into the clearing,
but then the clearinggot to 10 and got one.

(10:18):
- I put it in the clearing,but right, Dave saw that.
- Did I?
- Well, he said hedidn't, that was the thing.
And I was like, I didn't.
I was like, Dave, that was really welltimed 'cause, you know, I had two of those
and that's the differencebetween like 10 and 25
points for the set, ifyou can pick up the third.
So it was a 15 point card for me.
And Dave wiped the clearing,unknowing that I was looking for.

(10:41):
(laughing)
- Even worse, my themeof the night last night
was to spoil you at every possibleturn, apparently unknowingly to me.
- Yeah, the mission accomplished.
Although, you know, you were playingLinden trees, I was playing Linden bees.
- Yeah.
(laughing)
- Well, but in someways, that's an element of
the game I've beengrumbling about a little bit.

(11:02):
I like keeping track ofa little bit of, you know,
what you're doing and tryingto prevent you from doing that,
but there's a lot thatother people are doing.
So I had no idea that Iwiped that salamander for you.
I mean, if I'd known, Iwould have done it with Glee.
- Right.
(laughing) - But I was probablyplaying into by giving people cards
that helped them as much as Iwas inadvertently disrupting them.

(11:25):
And it's just, there's a lot going,and this is in the multiplayer version.
We were playing five last night,
which pretty high playercount for this game, I think.
- It's max.
- So there's so many thingsgoing on in other people's forests
that it's very difficult to keeptrack of what everybody's doing.
- Yeah, and paying attention to it,also just knowing what's possible.

(11:46):
So there's definitely aknowledge component to this game
that far exceeds games that I would considerto be like it, right, like in San Juan,
you just need to knowthat you have basically
the three six buildingsthat you can play,
whether it's a cityhall, guild hall, or the
triumphal arch, and howthose are constructed.
But there are so many othercombos in Forest Chuffle

(12:07):
that if there's a playerthat knows what's out there
and what's possible, theydefinitely have a distinct advantage
that I don't think is as easilymet because they're options.
- I think it's pretty comparable to SanJuan as far as the knowledge benefit.
There's definitely more cards,
but in my opinion, a lot of thecombos are not that powerful,

(12:29):
but there are a few thatare extremely powerful.
- Yes, there are.
- Well, I think I woulddisagree a little bit on that
because a key differencebetween San Juan and Forest
Chuffle for me is, andSan Juan, it's more of a race
where I'm gonna be gettinggood value out of my cards.
And there's almost nothingyou can do that's gonna prevent
me from getting X pointsfrom this card that I play.

(12:50):
Because you don't have toworry about what you're discarding.
- Right, well, I'm thinking inthe sense of the woodpecker,
which scores based on ifnobody has more trees than you.
- Oh, the comparative cards, yes.
- Right, in San Juan,there aren't any cards
that I'm gonna play that maybe worth nothing at the end,
without me knowing, like Imight play a six value card

(13:10):
that's gonna have no value atthe end, but that's my own doing.
But this idea of playing somecards, maybe even doing well with it
and somebody sneaking up on you with someother way to outpace you in that element,
and then you get nothing forit, that I think is a little deflating.
- Yeah, I agree.
- And like the Lindentrees, it says right up front,
it's worth one point or three pointsif nobody else has more than you.

(13:32):
So that one, you can seewhere that trade off is gonna be.
- Right, and I argue withthe others, you can see it too.
And you call it deflating,I call it invigorating.
(laughing)
- I think it's invigoratingonce you know what to expect,
but as you're still getting accustomed tothe game, I agree Dave, like it's deflating
when I'm sitting over hereand I'm doing my combos,

(13:53):
and I think I've gota pretty good score
going, and then it turnsout that Paul comes up
with a combo that scored, what was it, 120points between your wolves and your deer?
- Oh yeah, I had six deer and two wolves,
and it was like 114 justfrom those eight cards.
- Right, and Megan juststarted laughing 'cause it was
like what are the rest ofus even doing in this game?

(14:14):
- That's right.
(laughing) - Well theelement where Todd and I
were competing for LindenTrees, that I thought was a fun,
I mean I wouldn't reallycall it a cat and mouse game,
but I was sitting twoplayers to your right.
So I could kind of keep pacewith you playing Linden Trees.
- You had a slight advantage, yeah.
- Yeah, and I had a few in my hand,
so at one point Todd asked mehow many Linden Trees you add,

(14:37):
and my answer was alwaysgonna be one more than you,
'cause if you play one,I'll play another one.
- Right.
- What took me bysurprise is just I don't know
what the deck well enoughis that bees count as trees,
and that's the sort of photoI've got from under you,
saying that, I mean whatwas my comment at the time?
Is this supposed to makeme like the game more?
(laughing)
- It was exactly what it was.
- It's this element,this kind of gotcha

(14:59):
surprise that familiarityis totally gonna solve.
- And that's what I'm saying, yeah.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it'sa big enough deck where it's
gonna take a few plays toget that familiarity, like that.
- It's a good demonicthough, bees count as trees.
(laughing)
- We'll never forget, will I?
- No, no you won't.
(laughing)
All right, we talked aboutthe timing and the timing of

(15:21):
the clearing as far asbeing able to get rid of cards.
How about the timing of the clearingwith respect to ending the game?
- Oh, the winter cards?
- Even at the beginning of the game,
you could play a fastergame by always top
decking instead ofdrawing from the clearing.
And that was something thatstood out to me even last night
was like every time I draw two cards fromthe clearing, I am prolonging this game.

(15:43):
- Right.
- And if those cardsreally aren't adding value
to my Tableau andI'm just picking them up
so that I can pay with them,then I should just be top decking.
- Well, it's the samedecision as Lost Cities.
- Right.
- Do you feel likeyou're in a position to win
if the game is extendedor do you feel like
that's your opponent andso you have to hurry it up?

(16:04):
It really comes to a head whenyou play this game to player.
- Right.
And I feel like one of youshould always be pushing.
It's a little bit likeSan Juan that way too,
like somebody should bepushing the game clock.
And one's in the lead.
- Right.
Whoever's winning, basically, orwhoever needs the game to be shorter.
- Right.
- The race for the galaxy is the same way.
One player wants the game togo quicker than another player.
- Right.

(16:25):
And those positions may switch and do shiftmany times during the course of the game.
So how do you like thatinclusion for a shuffle?
- I love the clearing.
I think that's a big part of whatmakes the game enjoyable for me.
- Yeah, I agree.
- It makes it totally wonderful.
I love variable game lengths.
We're player driven gamelengths where a player can put

(16:45):
their foot on the gas or put their footon the brakes or something like that.
I really enjoy that being a game,especially introduced to that,
a push your luck element where we're onborrowed time, where this game's gonna,
I don't know if I'm gonnaget another turn or not.
That's a really juicy,interesting decision space
at the end of this gamewhen you're in that position.
- Well, right.
Because like in Lost Cities, I'msure we've done the thing, right,

(17:07):
where you take the bottomfive cards and you set them and
then you take the next fiveand you set them crosswise.
So it's like a visible game timer.
You know how many cards areremaining in the deck in Lost Cities.
And then the game is going toend when you reach the bottom.
But this, you don't know when thatthird winner card's gonna show up.
You think if the game is better or worsefor that unknown ending on the timer?

(17:28):
- For me, it's absolutely better.
- Yeah.
- Because if it is known,then people are gonna start
min-maxing and makingcalculation after calculation,
after analysis paralysisto extend the game length.
The variable ending keepsit choppy and keeps it quick.
- Yeah, I agree 100% onthat, where it starts to become
calculable as to can Isqueeze out one more point?

(17:50):
Can I rob you of one more point?
And that's really gonna slow it downlike the end of an NBA basketball game.
That part of the game,it's similar to me to a game
like Alhambra that winsthat last card gonna show up.
How much more can I squeeze out?
Because you've got that cardhidden somewhere at the lower
portion of the deck that'sgonna jump at you by surprise.
- Yeah, not last night'sgame, but the one we played

(18:12):
two weeks ago, we hit thefirst two winter cards fast.
And then the last one was in the last, Idon't know, five or six cards of the deck.
So we had a long run of thinkingthe game could end at any moment.
- And being on pins and needles, yeah.
- Am I gonna be able to draw again?
Does it make sense for me to even try?
And then the game kept going.
It was great and it was alsoagonizing at the same time.

(18:34):
- Especially because Idon't know about you guys,
but I was constantly trying toget down to zero or one card.
So I didn't feel like Ihad held any points
back, but the gamejust kept going, right?
- Yeah, you put it all out there.
That happened to meactually last night as well.
I put it all out there and Ithink this game needs to end
because I need a turn to draw cardsand then a turn to play them again.

(18:56):
Like I don't know ifI'm gonna get two turns.
- Right. - So I, yeah.
Ticket to ride does thatto you sometimes too,
or right at the end,like I don't have enough
cards to play rightnow, but if I draw them,
I'm not gonna get anotherplay of putting drains out there.
- Right.Then it becomes a function of keeping track
of how many cards everybodyelse has in their hand,
which works better in thecity versions of Ticket to Ride
because you tend notto hoard cards as much

(19:18):
as you do in the fullversions of the games.
Oh, you've got 12 cardsin your hand, you know?
That doesn't happen much in thelike Ticket to Ride, New York or London.
- So I do have a question for you guys.
So in Ticket to Ride,when I get to the end,
if I'm holding a hand of 10cards or something like that,
I feel like I've very inefficientlyplayed to the end of the game here.
Do you feel that way oris that happening to you

(19:38):
sometimes in Forest Shuffle where you getto the end and you're holding six cards?
You think, well, I really kind ofovershot my finished line here.
- I mean, it happens tome a lot, but I don't feel that
way because I know that theend game was basically random.
Could have happened anytime.
- Well, when you'regetting in that borrowed
time of the third winteris gonna show up.
I mean, you can't plan three turns ahead.

(19:59):
You can maybe plan a turn and a half ahead.
So somewhere between one and two.
- So it's really interesting becauseI've played the game on BGA.
I was in a tournament andthere was a very heated game
where one of thethings I actually don't like
on BGA is it allows youto turn on live scoring.
So BGA will tell you whateverybody's score is second by second.

(20:20):
And I realized that eventhough two winter cards
were revealed, there was no way I wasgonna retake the lead in one or two turns.
So I instead had to justpray that the game continued
until the last four orfive cards in the deck
and strategically find somenew combos to overtake the lead.
And it actually workedout for me and the winter

(20:41):
card was in fact thevery last card of the deck.
- Oh wow, that game.
- That's interesting.
I like that.
So you're almost in tilt modewhere you have to go big
and if you get caught before you're ready,oh well, you were gonna lose anyways.
But if it shows up lateand you pull this off,
then you'll be ableto overtake the leader.
- That's what happened, yeah.
- Wow.
So I was holding a raccoon in myhand when the game ended last night.

(21:03):
And the plan was when Ithought it was getting ready to end,
have enough cards in myhand to make it worthwhile,
but the raccoon allowsyou to place all of the cards
in your hand, any number ofcards in your hand, into your cave.
And so it would have wiped my hand,but if you think the game's gonna end soon,
then it's not a bad way toget extra points if you're--

(21:24):
- Well, more importantly,the raccoon replaces
every card you put in yourcave with a draw from the deck.
So it's gonna make thatwinter happen too sweet.
(laughs)
- Yeah, so like my last turn as it turnedout, I should have played the raccoon
'cause I could have hastenedthe ending of the game.
- Yes.
- At least increasethe chances of it, yeah.
- Yeah, I really love thecomposition of these cards.

(21:44):
Trees are an entire card, andthen you've got the split cards, right?
Either left, right.
And then the other side is gonna be hiddenbehind the tree that you attach it to.
And same thing with theones that are split, top, bottom.
I think it's an ingenious mechanism,and I also noticed that a lot of times
there will be a wolf thatwants to eat the European
hairs or a fox that wantsthe European hairs,

(22:06):
and there's a European hairon the other half of the card.
- Yep, right.
(laughs)
- And the same thing with bats, and Ithink there's a bug that gives you a bonus
depending on the numberof unique bats you have.
But there's a bat on the same card,
and I think it's interestingthe way that they make it
agonizing that the thing you want tocollect is the thing you have to cover up.
- Yeah, I think you mean the door mouse

(22:27):
that's worth 15 points ifit's in the same tree as a bat.
It's always paired with a bat.
- Right, right.
- Well, and that just playsinto hand management.
So my first game, I think Iplayed every card with a hope
and a dream, and that isnot the way to play this game,
is to play a fox and hopeI draw some hairs later.
It's like lost cities.
If I think of every tree oreverything that goes on that tree

(22:50):
as a new expedition, I'm gonnawait until I build up in my hand.
So I see, can I support this expedition?
I'm not gonna spend all this moneyon, I'll say the fox and the hairs.
I'm not gonna spendall this money on the fox,
so I'm not gonna getany hairs or vice versa.
And that one's interesting too, becauseyou're better off playing the hairs first,
because then when you play thefox, you get to draw some cards.
So even those start tointeract with each other

(23:12):
as to which one I'mgonna get out there first.
And you can only hold10 cards max in your hand,
which is a frustratinglittle thing going on.
- Limitation. - I love that, yeah.
And I agree to me, the pairingof left, right and top, bottom,
really add even more to the overheadrequired to play this game well, yeah.
- Yeah, at least being able to see thecombinations that you're gonna try to set up.

(23:34):
Do you have a good way of organizingyour hand that you don't forget?
'Cause I mean, there havebeen times where I looked at man
and I thought, okay, I'mgonna play this a certain way.
And then it comes my turn and I forgot thatthat was the combination I was going for.
And I almost discarded a keycard for it to pay for something.
And I was like, oh, wait, no, no.
I can't get rid of that card.
I need to save that cardbecause it has whatever on it.

(23:54):
It has a hair or it has a fox or ithas a wolf, whatever the case we be.
- Yeah, personally, I putthe cards I wanna play
closest to my face and the cards Iwanna discard closest to my hand.
- Okay.
- It's gin, Rummy, you know,sets your working on cards
that you don't wanna discardbecause your neighbor wants them
or it's same kind of thing, whereyou have different places in your hand.

(24:17):
I actually, last night at one point, Ihad so many different things to consider.
Cards I wanna discard,cards I wanna discard but can't,
cards I can play, cards I mightplay, cards I definitely won't play.
And so I started justlaying them out in little pot,
just to get like fourlittle piles in front of you.
Which is how my children play Rummy.
You know, it's like, in my heart,
those are my diamonds,and I figured it works for them.

(24:38):
You know, and then Iwould pick them all back up
and put them in order, but I just hadto take a page out of my kid's playbook.
(laughing) Got it.
So is there engine building?
Absolutely.
Yeah, this game is all about combos.
Well, I don't thinkcombos in engine building
are the same thing, is whatI mean by engine building
is in the beginning of the game, areyou setting up some sort of economy?

(25:00):
Hmm.
Or do you just sometimes luck into it?
I don't think you luck into it.
So the combos I'm thinking of are not just
two or three card combos, they'relike eight or nine card combos.
Right.
And once you see threeof that larger meta combo,
I prefer to just dig in and try toget as many of those as I can.
Sure, right here.
So you're not differentiatingbetween early game

(25:23):
economy cards and midto late game VP cards.
The only differentiation Ihave is the mushrooms.
Yeah.
I will never play a mushroom late.
Right, that makes sense.
You don't have enough time to recoup.
The value of the tempothat you sacrifice to play it.
Exactly.
Going back to the clearing,have you drafted four colors

(25:43):
specifically so thatyou can invoke the
binocular ability on acard that you're holding?
When it's taken another turn, absolutely.
Hmm.
OK.
Yeah.
Is that the only one that's worthgoing after or is taking another turn?
I think it's the most important one.
But if I'm OK with extendingthe game like we talked about,
then I'll try to activate asmany binoculars as I can.
The problem, though, isthat with the 10 card limit,

(26:05):
I usually have four orfive cards I want to play.
So I've only got room inmy hand for five or six cards.
I can discard to put those out.
Well, I may be seeing part of the reasonI've been doing so poorly in this game.
But I hadn't thoughtabout that idea of drafting
because they'remulti-use cards, of drafting
cards specifically tobe used as payment.

(26:26):
Absolutely.
Usually, I'm trying to onlydraft cards that I can use
and then cards that don't quitefit get defaulted to payment.
But yeah, if there's a couple of maple tree
icons sitting out there and I'm going to beplaying the maple tree or whatever it is,
then I'm just lookingto pick up more cards.
I've got to pay somethingfor the tree, I might as well.
Because something, youknow, I have hesitation with that

(26:48):
because I'm thinkingof, say, it's an extra turn,
which like Paul was saying,would be the most strongest,
I'm spending a turn in orderto get an extra turn later.
But I think, is that reallygiving me any tempo?
It goes with the hand management.
It's allowing you to keepthe cards you want to play.
Right.
And even more, if the cardsyou're using to gain that extra turn
are ones you want toplay later, you can pick

(27:08):
them right back upagain with that extra turn.
Well, yeah, Todd pulled that off.
I'm sure you did too.
And, you know, a couple oftimes last night where we put these
juicy cards out in theclearing and, oh, I get
another turn, I'll justtake them right back.
Right.
And in one of those, I didn'teven need to discard the juicy card.
I could have picked up a blind oneoff the top of the deck and hung onto it.
And I was doing that for color, that one.

(27:29):
What about point scaling?
So as the game draws near its conclusion,
you should be either addingto your existing power combos
if you have them, orhopefully finding the last
card in a butterfly set,something like that.
Is there any rule of thumb thatwhen you think it's a last turn,
you should be gettingat least, I don't know,
three to five points fora card that you play?
Can you plan that specifically?

(27:50):
I feel like when you'regetting in that borrowed time,
each turn is what's themax I can do right now.
Because this could be my last.
Yeah, to me, it really matters whetheror not I know my opponent's score.
When we're playing face to face, I'mnot going to care what your score is.
I'm just trying to play what's best for me.
Well, you don't have to,based on your score last night.

(28:13):
When you have three times thescore of the person in second place.
Like I said, in my storyabout my online game,
if I know the opponent's score, then, yeah,sometimes it's just like, OK, I'm going
to have to have threeturns of not scoring
any points, so I canscore big with a combo.
I would think in general,though, the big combos,
like the wolf and the deers,or the fox and the hairs,

(28:36):
those kinds of things, I thinkthose should have been planned
out and executed by the timeyou're getting into the bonus time.
It can be a big game.
If you're looking to top decka wolf, you might get lucky,
but I don't think it's supposedto be that kind of game.
Yeah, I tell you what, last night's game,
I got real frustratedin that I played a card.
I forget what kind of card it was, but itallowed me to play an animal for free.

(28:59):
Probably the badger.
And the foxes are alittle expensive, right?
As are the wolves, so I put a fox out there
and I had one hair,one additional hair in my
hand, and I thought,oh, this would be great.
I'll go ahead and have lots of hairs.
I think I had five ofthem in the last game.
And we just didn't see him.
People were burying him.
People were hiding him behind trees.

(29:20):
There just were not a lotof hairs in last night's game
that got played, andso that was one of those
where I had invested inthe fox early, assuming
I would see hairs,but it didn't happen.
Well, I was too, you're right.
And so I was activelytrying to scoop up hairs
or making sure theyjust because I was also,
I started the gamewith a fox and a hair.

(29:40):
So I knew I was fishingfor as many as I could get.
Oh, okay.
Interesting.
I also had two hairs in my starting hand,
but I just figured since it's a five playergame, they're not gonna be worthwhile.
And you were right.
But I'm one of the people who hid thembehind my trees by playing the other side.
Yes, right.
(laughing)
Well, it was a goodstrategy for you to follow.

(30:01):
You know, we talkedabout the cave a little
bit, and honestly, Idon't think it's that good.
It seems very weak, exceptfor very low scoring games.
But I did notice when we were researchingfor this podcast that the expansion
does greatly increase the cave effectivenessby having animals like vultures
that give you extrapoints for your cave cards.

(30:22):
Ah!
And I think that's interesting.
Yeah.
One card for me was worth12th points in the cave, right?
I had a bear.
Bear, yeah.
I've been holding ontoit just so I could time it.
When it came aroundthe corner of Past Meghan,
if there was a juicy clearing out there,that was gonna worth a ton of points.
Now's the time to play the bear.
And that part worked out well.
It seems as it is now in the base game,the use of the cave is highly situational.

(30:45):
If you get the opportunityto jump on it, but you're
not gonna necessarilybuild your game around it.
Right.
Same with the most often forgottenrule, at least amongst our group.
(laughing)
Absolutely, right?
And that's the ability toplay a card is a sapling.
If you need a tree andyou don't have a tree.
Oh yeah.
(laughing)
So, you know, I thinkthat's especially important

(31:07):
for what we talked about earlierwith the woodpecker or the moss.
Right.
You're just like, oh,you're gonna come after
me for taking mywoodpecker points away.
I'm just gonna start playing saplings.
And those saplings will count astrees according to the woodpecker.
Absolutely, they also countas trees for the sycamore.
'Cause they have the tree symbol on them.
Woodpeckers can't pick saplings.

(31:27):
Interesting.
Okay.
They're not worth points and they don'thave-- Yeah, it seems like a weak play.
It's a weak play.
I'd rather play a birch tree,which draws me a card.
Right.
All right.
With that, let's move on to the prompts.
Wait in complexity on boardgame geeks scale of one to five.
How would you rate theweight of Forest Shuffle

(31:48):
and Paul, since youwon our game last night?
Let us know how easy it is.
Yeah, I rated it two.
I think it only took oneplay for my wife to get it.
All right.
Dave, what did you have it down as?
It's clearly a two.
I mean, it might start as a two and a half
because here's anotherbig deck of cards I gotta
learn before I can getproficient at a game.
And that's kind of theway of things these days.

(32:10):
But once you get some basic familiarity,there's no surprises under the hood.
The iconography is very good.
What you're trying to do is very simple.
The hand management isone of the more exciting parts
of the game, but it's not nothingnew in hand management.
It's kind of things wealready know how to do.
So yeah, it's absolutely a two in my book.
Yeah.
I had it down as a two as well.
I think it's close toanother favorite of mine.

(32:32):
I think they're similar in weight.
There's definitely more to think aboutthan just draw a card and play a card.
But there aren't a lot of fiddly rules.
At least you probably some cards haveexceptions, but they're not too bad, right?
Like the hair is beingable to have more than one
on a side of a tree,but that's not a big deal.
It's right on the card.
It's right on the card.
Yeah.
So I have it down as a two as well.
Well, then somethinglike bees or trees though,
and sometimes it's righton somebody else's card.

(32:54):
So, right?
No, it's just, there's the learning curve
of getting to know the deck,what the possibilities are.
And being able to identifyit from across the table.
Yes.
Right? So that's fair.
So then strategy, howmuch opportunity do you think
there is for a strategy inthe game on the same scale?
I rated it three.
I think there is a good dealof long-term planning early on,

(33:16):
but you reach a point wherethe deck gave you the cards
you're going to get and youjust got to make the best of it.
Mm-hmm.
OK.
I also had it down as a three,mostly because it feels like
the game, to me, isreally about curating your
hand while you havethe opportunity to do so.
And I love that constant anxiety of,can I draw two more cards right now?
But if I do, that might take me up to nine.

(33:38):
And when it comes back around,I'll only be able to pick up one card.
So maybe I should playsomething and get down to seven
so that I have the opportunity of takingtwo cards on the next turn if needed.
I mean, that whole idea isone of the things you're juggling
while you're planning howyou're going to play your combo.
So for me, it's also a three.
Yeah, I'm locked step with you guys there.
It's a strong three in strategy.

(34:00):
And going, as we'vetalked about in other games
that we really liked, it's trying todo what the game's telling you to do.
If you're going to try to force a strategy,
it's probably not goingto play out for you.
So being able to zag whenthe game tells you to zag
and just being light on yourtoes as you move forward.
But knowing when to dothat and how to make the best
of what's presentedfor you, it's a good three.
Yeah.
It's hard to do that sometimes, right?

(34:21):
I get pit bull locked onthis is what I want to do.
And I start trying to force the gameto do something it doesn't want.
So then Dave, what about luck?
How much do you think luck plays afactor on the same scale one to five?
I think luck scalesdirectly with player count.
So in a five player game,luck is going to be much higher.
Is it a five?
[LAUGHTER]

(34:43):
How about player count minus one?
OK.
So five player, I'mgoing to give luck of four.
Two player, it's a one.
I'll stand by that.
I think that's a mic drop.
I like that answer, right?
We've done minutesper player count in time
of games, but now we'redoing luck per player.
You gave a function as an answer.
I'm like player count minus one.

(35:04):
Shaw dropped, yeah.
But I'm not wrong, am I?
Well, so two player,the biggest butt-clinching
moment is when youplay a tree mid game.
Yeah.
Because let's say youneed that third salamander.
You're thinking to yourself,when I play this tree,
is that third salamander goingto be the card that flips out?
And when it does, your opponent'sjust going to take it right away.

(35:25):
So that is the primarysource of luck in the two
player game, is the treeaddition to the clearing.
But overall, I just ratedit a three, because luck is
definitely a factor, but I thinkyou can usually outplay it.
Yeah.
I originally had it down as a three, too,
but I'm getting on board the player countminus one butt, so I really liked that.
[LAUGHTER] It makes sense.

(35:49):
Yeah.
So then theme, how muchdo you think the theme has
been integrated with thegame on the same scale?
One to five.
Paul?
For me, it is a four.
I really adore the theme of this game.
It is just cute and adorable.
The first several times Iplayed it, I thought it was
friendly before finding outit's actually quite cutthroat.

(36:11):
And the component quality isamazing and fitting for the theme.
All right, and Dave, whatdo you have for theme?
I'm going to agree here.
The theme is really solid here.
Foxes eat hairs, fungi grow together.
There's lots of stuff thatinform the mechanics
of the game thatalso fit thematically.
I'm thinking it's a four, but I'm thinking

(36:31):
I might bump it up again becausethis being part of the lookout
spiel, what do they callit, the green line games?
So they've gone a stepfurther with the theme
by, like we mentioned in thebeginning, producing a game
without plastics andmaking a very low carbon
footprint eco-friendlybiodegradable game.
And so that in a nature themed game,I feel like that gives it a little bump.

(36:51):
So I'll give it a four plus.
You'll give it a five.
I don't know if I'm readyto go to five, but why not?
I could give it a five as well.
I mean, the theme is strong.
The theme is great.
Like Paul was saying, it'sadorable, but also there's
a lot going on here whereit makes it a solid game.
Yeah, I mean, I had itdown as a four as well.
I like the idea of ameta point being added.

(37:13):
4.1, yeah.
That's pretty cool.
All right, so favorite player count.
What is it best played at?
And I feel like we've hinted at it.
So let's go ahead and codify the answer.
Paul, what do you have downas your favorite player account?
I honestly haven't playedthree player enough,
but I think I prefertwo and three player,
because as we discussed, ithas the least amount of luck.

(37:33):
OK.
And at least in your experience, would yousay that two players, the better option?
Compared to four or five, I prefer two.
Yeah.
OK.
Yeah, 100% on that.
I wouldn't be mad if this weremarketed as a two player game.
That wouldn't be strangeat all, if it just was part
of the old Cosmos 2 playerline or something like that.
Right.
So I have this down atthree just because there

(37:56):
aren't as many games thatI think play as well at three.
And there are a lot ofgames that play well at two.
But two players also, excellent.
Jill and I have playedthis a couple of times,
but nowhere near whatyou have played, Paul.
Yeah, I like Paul.
I don't have a ton ofexperience at three players,
but at least in theory,I'm not mad at it.
I think three players.
It seems like that would be very strong.

(38:17):
Four and five, well, I guessthat hints into the next question.
Four and five, we kind of startto get into a different area here.
All right, well, just keep rolling.
So least you have aplayer count, four or five.
Five with four is a close runner up.
It's OK.
Your destiny, you start to lose control ofyour own destiny, I think, in some points.
The player binding gets very strong.

(38:38):
The player next to you, your fate issomewhat in their hands in some ways.
And it's just-- it becomes amuch more chaotic game, I think.
Yeah, I think five players, theclear winner, for least favorite.
I still enjoy four player.
OK.
Yeah, I had five done as well.
But as I was thinking aboutit, I guess it makes sense.
I wonder if Dave and I weregoing head to head on the Linden

(38:59):
trees, and Greg and Paul weregoing on the horse chestnuts.
And Megan was justplaying it for the first time,
so I don't think she really had astrategy that she was pursuing.
Well, she was doing butterflies.
She was.
She had something else.
But nobody else was doing butterflies.
So she was kind of an odd man out,which I still think she didn't quite see.

(39:21):
And that might have just been luck.
She didn't really see as many butterflies.
But none of us were reallyscooping up the butterflies.
I just think it didn't fall down for her.
Right.
But what I'm looking atis, I think maybe at five,
you get that one personwho slips through, right?
And they're left alone, ortheir swim lane is left alone,
and they're able to geta lot more points for it.
Whereas, I think, in four, the likelihood

(39:42):
that you end up colliding withsomeone is actually a little more focused.
Because there are more opportunitiesto do things like collect hairs, right?
At five, things are distributed enough thatit's harder to have a sustaining combo.
So actual playing time.
Boxes can lie.
And this one says that theplaying time is 40 to 60 minutes.

(40:02):
Do you find that to bea good approximation?
I think with experience, itmight be closer to 30 to 45.
I mean, it's got a pretty goodbang-to-buck ratio on there.
Is it-- it's almost filler territory onceeverybody's familiar with the game.
Yeah, I'll over half myplays are two-player.
But honestly, I don't think the playtime changes between player count.

(40:23):
And my average play time is 41 minutes.
Oh, wow.
So what did we clock in last night?
Was it 50, 45 minutes?
It was less than 50.
Yeah.
It was 47.
Well, I'm thinking, five players going tobe even slower because we're kind of BS
in a little bit, and there'sa lot more table talk.
And it was a teaching game for Megan.
So that's always going toget a new player at the table.

(40:43):
And we still came in under 50.
I've had our long two-player games, butthat's because we picked different swim lanes
and kept picking upwhat the other person was
putting down, which isinto the game quite a bit.
Amazing.
OK.
It seems like an actual good estimate
that 40 to 60 minutesfor a game of four shuffle.
Although I agree thatif you're both pushing
it, it could get downinto the 30-minute range.

(41:06):
So there is an expansion to this game,but I don't have any experience with it.
Do either of you know much about it?
All you had mentioned issomething about caves and vultures.
Yeah, it adds Alpine, Floraand Fauna to the game.
And the one thing I noticed that intriguesme is it makes the cave more powerful.
Yeah.
OK.
Well, so I'm goingto have to trust the

(41:27):
designers on this one,because this is the same--
I mean, we'd have the sameconversation we did about wingspan.
Arc Nova, we talked about this, too.
We're basically splashing cards in.
And so we're diluting it.
So if I'm going for fox and hairs, well,now I've got-- in fact, I wrote it down.
We're adding 36 cards to the deck.
So now I've diluted the deck.

(41:48):
There's 36-- now 36 cards in thedeck that aren't going to work for me.
We're also removing-- Well,they are adding cards that do work.
So the analogs count as deer.
They have hairs that saythey count as European hairs.
So they are weaving thesenew cards into the old ones.
Right.
And that was going to be my next point.
It was that I haven't played the expansion.

(42:09):
But in its favor, it looks like all of thecards fit in with the existing strategies.
There may be some strategies,like butterflies, might get diluted.
I don't know if there'sany butterflies in the--
Yeah, there's new butterflies as well.
OK.
So maybe if they're augmentingevery existing strategy,
then I think I trust thedesigners on this one.
And it sounds like it mightjust be good, clean, fun.

(42:31):
I don't know the-- Yeah, I expect the onlything it'll really do is extend play time.
Well, because there's more cards?
Yeah.
Well, we're adding 36 cardsand removing 15 to 25 more.
So we're-- though we're adding cards,
we're removing more cardsthan we would normally remove.
So I think it kind of balances backto the same-- we'll have to play it.

(42:52):
I'm kind of pulling it out of the air here.
But we'll have to play it and see.
But I don't think it's goingto extend it dramatically.
OK.
Most recognizable comparison.
What is the highest ranking game thatreminds you the most of Forest Shuffle?
Dave.
Well, thanks for letting me go first.
Now, we've already mentionedmy answer a couple of times.
So I first went into this gamein my first four plays, five plays.

(43:15):
I'm thinking this as a San Juancomp, or something like that.
It was when, I think, one ofyou mentioned how the clearing
is like Lost Cities, which ismy answer for this question.
It put this game in atotally different light for me.
Thinking of each treeor each strategy at least
as an expedition that I'mgoing to prep for before I start

(43:35):
playing and try toplay it in a certain order
or keep it out of theother player's hands.
And that illuminated the game for me.
And it made me like thegame quite a bit more.
And I just wasn't seeingthat for my first few plays.
But it's so obvious now thatsomebody's mentioned it to me.
Well, this is like we always used to say,this game is game X is game Y on steroids.

(43:57):
In some ways, I might saythis is a Lost Cities on steroids.
Yeah.
So Lost Cities was my answer, too.
But I did have a backup,and that was San Juan.
So congratulations.
You nailed them both.
Yeah.
And if I go with the San Juan comparison,
we're back to handmanagement and multi-use
cards, which is just awinning mechanism for me.
I absolutely adore it.

(44:18):
So I was really happy to see it here.
But of course, in San Juan, thereis no clearing mechanism there.
If you discard a card,you won't see it again
until you've run all theway through the deck and
reshuffled and brought itback into the draw deck.
Paul, what did you have?
My most recognized littlecomparison is Glory to Rome.
There you go.
This game is all about combos.
And Glory to Rome has some ofthe pickup which you put down as well.

(44:41):
But if you want to win,you get a good combo.
I mean, you get a game-breakingcombo in Glory to Rome.
Well, other players allow you to get that.
True.
Does anybody play Glory to Rome these days?
I never hear of it.
Everybody loves it when it gets played.
Honestly, I don't likeGlory to Rome at all.
Oh, OK.
But I would happily play Innovation.

(45:03):
Yes.
Yes.
If I did play Glory to Rome, ForceShuffle would have replaced it.
This is a little foreshadowing there.
A little foreshadowing.
Yeah.
We can play Glory to Rome.
If you want to get the gameout early, then I'll bring it
and we can get a game inbefore everyone all shows up.
Well, which edition do you have?

(45:24):
Because I know that's part ofthat game is the different editions.
So I've got the originala cartoony version.
Actually, I should have asked,which edition don't you have?
Just the one?
Right.
I just have the oneat the cartoony edition.
I think Greg has the blackbox edition, which is the one
that killed a company, if you arefamiliar with that particular story.

(45:46):
All right, so less recognizable comparison.
What did you guys have forthe less recognizable one?
And Paul, I'll let you go first.
OK.
For me, it is Morel's primarilybecause of the theme.
But it's also hand management, 100%.
And it's kind of combo building.
Well, it's set building, really.
But it's a forest theme in Morel's.

(46:07):
You're walking through a forest and pickingup mushrooms so you can cook them later.
And which one does your wife enjoy more?
Forest shuffle or Morel's?
Depends how much time we have.
OK.
Yeah.
If we got 30 minutes, it'sMorel's more than 30 minutes.
It's Forest shuffle.
Awesome.
Dave, what do you have?
Well, it's ridiculous to callthis a less recognizable game.

(46:28):
But our criterion for this is that ithas to be just outside the top 750.
So I reduced it for this.
You didn't even have to because my answer's
rumming, which is like inthe 2000s or 3,000 something.
Look, you're drawing cards.
You're melding cards.
You're laying cards off on yourtableau that you've melded in front of you.
And if you think of the combosas suits or trying to put together

(46:50):
runs, it's really just afancy version of that.
And it's funny as much asI complain about this game
as that the scarcity of thesecombos I'm trying to pull off
where I'll sit and try to pullit inside straight on a run.
I'm going for an Rummy,which is a 1 in 52 chance.
It's even worse than this.
But I somehow accept itbetter in a game of 500 rum

(47:12):
or contract Rummy with myfamily than in a game like this.
But it's very similar.
It's Rummy with whistles and bells.
I really like that comparison.
And you're right.
So the reason why I saidI dropped it is currently
at number 723 is a game that won theKennerspiel des Jares in 2023, I think, 2022.

(47:34):
And that is Living Forest.
This is you trying tocollect different elements
to play guardianspirits in front of you.
And then they're eachcontributing their various,
either powers or theirelements so that you can combo
and then play additionalspirits into your forest
and accomplish thosetasks using their attributes.

(47:56):
And it's a great littlegame in the forest theme.
It has some definite cartoonish artwork.
And it definitely was aready comparison for me.
But just under the 750 mark.
Well, now I see why youlowered that mark from 750 to 700
where you're just unashamedlysaying, because your game was at 723.
100%.
Yeah.
OK, yeah.
You need to do that when you're the host.

(48:16):
That's right.
So house rules, how wouldyou improve the game?
Any thoughts there?
I don't have any yet.
I've really wrapped my brain.
I can't think of any.
I wish I could play a cricket sound effect.
Yeah.
It would be very apt, too.
You know, for me, Iwould love to try playing it
with a known ending or atleast a less variable ending.

(48:38):
Oh, so you want to take outthe funnest part of the game?
I don't-- it's not the funnestpart of the game for me.
I thought about, youknow, if you shuffled it
in to the last 10 or15 cards, but really all
you're saying is youneed one winter card.
When you see the wintercard, the game is going to end,
and it's going to happensometime in the last fill
in the number ofcards versus-- Right.

(48:58):
--it could happen anytimeafter you've uncovered two,
like we did a couple weeksago when we got too off the bat.
And so we had 30cards of drawing that still--
So you're saying that the factthe game could end, let's say,
you know, 1% chance with a third of the deckundrawn is what puts ants in your pants.
What I don't like about the game.

(49:19):
Yep.
Literal ants in my pants.
Thank you.
Yes.
Red ants and their biting.
Thank you.
Yeah.
So this game is being played at game night.
What do you want to play afterwards?
What's the double featuregame that goes best along with it?
Nothing.
I want to play a game before this one.

(49:39):
Yes.
OK.
OK.
I also have that down as my answer.
But what is that game?
I would continue the themeand play Arknova, right?
Instead of playingtrees, you're playing zoo
enclosures, but they callout to me to be together.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
I had Earth down forthe same reason, right?
You're building up an ecology.
But it's another game in that styleas Arknova or terraforming Mars.

(50:01):
Well, interestingly, nowonder we are a game group.
Because my answer is terraforming Mars.
So we've said threeversions of very similar games.
[LAUGHTER]
For me, we've terraformed the planet.
Let's get a forest going.
Let's get some forest on it.
Oh, yeah, I mean, you need this.
It's terraforming Mars to a hugeforest on Mars when you terraform it.

(50:22):
So, yeah, it makes sense.
That's right.
Right.
So if I had to think of maybe one othergame lighter than this, how about arboretum?
Yes.
Yeah.
That's what my wife and I playwhen we only have 15 minutes.
[LAUGHTER]
So you have these three gamesstacked on top of each other.
Exactly.
Which one comes off the shelfis how much time you have?

(50:43):
And if they have 90 minutes, it's Arknova.
Yeah, exactly.
Right.
[LAUGHTER]
All right, so what feature ofthe game still stands out to you?
So this game is still a relative new one.
What really has aged the bestin its limited release time, Dave?
It's the clearing.
And as we said, it's arehash of Lost Cities.

(51:04):
But to me, that's just the mostinteresting part of the game
is that I can't give you cardsthat you're going to want
or time them to wipethem as we've talked about.
Just the way that discardinteracts, I think it's just fantastic.
And I think it's goingto hold up for a while.
Absolutely.
Good call.
Paul, what did you have?
I couldn't decide between twothings that I love about this game.
One, being the clearing, like Dave said.

(51:26):
And two, being the variablegame end, like you said.
Yeah, I didn't say that wasmy favorite thing, though.
[LAUGHTER]
You said you wanted a houserule, but it's one of my favorite things.
OK.
Right.
For me, I had the split cards, right?
The left, right, top, bottom.
Those are awesome, yeah.
Yeah.

(51:46):
That was a novel.
But the clearing isalso just a really strong
mechanism that standsout, so I agree there.
So what feature of the gamenow disappoints game length?
What is age the worst for you?
Anything?
My answer is nothing.
Nothing.
Game length, OK?
Well, this isn't a big knock on the game.
I mean, it shouldn't be.

(52:06):
And this is not a big deck energygame that we've talked about.
But it is another game we'vecome into yet another game
where I've got to learn awhole new deck of cards.
And it's in the zeitgeist right now.
That's what's hot right now,or these aren't unique cards.
So it's not quite the same as Arknova.
But again, in order to get proficient,I've got to learn a whole bunch of cards.
But you can't knock the game for it.

(52:27):
That's really what makes it sing.
I mean, that's what's good about the game.
It's just as a player,like, here we go again.
So I actually grumbled through a few plays
before my gaming friends starttelling me, like, no, it's a good game.
Trust us.
And then I start, all right, I'll learnthe cards and make it to the other side.
Right.
And appreciate declaring for what it is.
As you mentioned, thatwas your other aha moment.

(52:47):
Right.
OK.
And, by the way, I didn't mean game length.
I meant the game timer mechanism.
Oh, we all do.
You were talking about the winner cards.
Yeah.
I have it as one of my favorite features.
And you have it as oneof the worst features.
Understand.
Yeah.
I didn't realize that youdidn't like it so much.
It's such a great tensionat the end of the game.
Do you like it in Alhambraor other games that do this?

(53:09):
Like, this could be my last turn.
I don't know yet.
I don't just don't like that ever.
I love player-controlledendings to the game.
But I also like knowing wherethat ending is, so I can control to it.
Right.
Yeah.
St. Petersburg.
I can-- Todd wants it to be a dartboard instead of the broad side of a barn.
And for a shuffle, it'sthe broad side of a barn.

(53:29):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, or maybe this is theillusion of player-controlled.
Like, we're trying to-- Also turn to thedeck is controlling me into the game.
We're just trying to speedor slow down that deck.
So it's not as player-controlledas we want it to be.
Right.
Or I should-- I mean, you want it to be.
I like it really.
No, you like it when it's in luck.
We'll talk about it when we get to rain.
Yeah, you know, I think thereason I love the variable game

(53:52):
in so much is because Ibecame so soured on a previous
favorite game of minecalled locomotive works.
Because of the minute calculations thateverybody had to do at the end of the game,
you had to, like, workbackwards like a math
problem to three turnsbefore the end of the game
to figure out what position youwanted to be at the end of the game.

(54:13):
And so that developed a hatredof defined game endings for me.
OK.
It was such a good time wehad with locomotive works.
And that end game meta started to emerge.
And then it's starting to getto where sometimes even less
than halfway through thegame, where we start calculating.
Where do I want to be?
I'm planning for the end game from here.

(54:35):
And there's a lot of basicarithmetic involved, but a lot of it.
Take it the dope butno pad in the calculator.
Yeah.
I bought a pack of 10mini calculators off Amazon.
I just threw them in the box so everybody
gets their player color,whatever it is, and a calculator.
It's such a great game that'salso that end to totally destroy it.

(54:59):
Yeah.
But when you don't see it yet, it's agreat ride until you see that ending.
Yeah.
Exactly.
All right.
So did this game replacea previous game for you?
And I'll go ahead and answer first.
And I suspect I'mactually going to possibly--
but I'm not going tosay look about it works.
I might be getting in Paul's way here.
For me, it replaced Fox in the forest.

(55:20):
But not Fox in the forest duetsince that one is a cooperative game.
But I really can't imagine wanting
to play Fox in the forest instead, giventhe same amount of time for each game.
What did you have, Paul?
Well, I still haven't adoredFox in the forest duet.
I have never played Fox in the forest.
OK.
So for me, there is no specificgame that Forest Shuffle has replaced.

(55:40):
It has just stolen time from all the gamesI used to play to make a space for itself.
OK.
That's a great answer.
Well, often for this, we sayno, it hasn't replaced a game
because it's a new spaceor a new kind of game.
In this case, it hasn't replaced a gamebecause all of the predecessors that we've
mentioned, I wouldrather play over this game.

(56:03):
So I would rather play Race for the Galaxy.
Yeah, right.
Well, no, it hasn't been replaced.
Those games came before it.
But I would rather play Lost Cities.
I'd rather play San Juan.
And I'd rather play Race forthe Galaxy before the Galaxy.
Though this is great.
I'm not knocking the game that much.
It's just the shoulders that itstands on are better than it.

(56:26):
Right.
I would have to change thecomposition of the next question
to be more like, what are thegames that this did not displace?
Right.
They didn't try it.
They tried to stand on itscorner, but it didn't take it.
That's actually probablya better question to ask
because I think it's newenough that if I were to ask,
has this been replacedby anything, the answers?

(56:46):
No.
That Dave's answer is Rummy.
Dave's answer is three card Monty.
Yeah.
All right.
Soundtrack, what music wouldyou want to listen to while playing?
And be it Sounds of the Forest.
OK.
Yeah.
Since this theme has come up a few times,
I think we probably havethe exact same answers
as whatever last game wehad that was nature-themed.

(57:08):
And for me, it's justnature sounds or spa music.
OK.
Yes.
Absolutely, that will work.
I forced myself to find a different answer.
And I didn't go with, you know, Vivaldi.
I went this time with MysteriousForest by Frederick Chopin.
Oh.
All right, is that Chopin makinganother appearance on our podcaster?
Is that his first?

(57:28):
I don't remember.
I don't know.
I think it might be the first appearance.
Yeah.
And once we do lacrimosaor something like that,
we may not make maybe a whilebefore he gets another opportunity.
All right.
So rating on board game geeks scale of 1 to10 now, how would you rate for a shuffle?
And Dave, I'm going to have you go last.
So Paul?
For me, it's an eight.
It's an eight, all right?

(57:50):
Which is a good score coming from you.
But why an eight?
Why an eight because I would recommend it
and never say no tosomeone else asking to play it?
OK.
I had it down as a seven.
And I think it could still be climbing.
The thing about notliking the end game score,
I mean, it doesn't kill the game forme by any stretch of the imagination.

(58:10):
So one of the thingsabout finding something
that hasn't aged well or you don't likeabout the game could be improved upon.
You're going to pick something.
But this is still a really good game.
And seven is a healthy score.
And we're still playing it.
And I'm looking forwardto playing it some more.
So Dave, what did you have itdown as since you've had the most
the largest journey withthe game on that front?

(58:30):
Well, right now, it's at a six for me.
It's a good game.
I'll play if somebody else wants to play.
Generally, there's probablyanother game that I want to play.
I think it's a good gamethat my plays of the game
have not really beenable to access as well.
And probably because I haven'tplayed as much two-player.
I think if I spent some timereally exploring the two-player
game that would probablyrise, most of my plays

(58:53):
have been on BGA, four-playerin person, four and five-player.
So I'm probably doing thegame a bit of a disservice
that maybe those playercounts shouldn't even be on
the box like we weresaying, but it's a six for me.
Like I said, all the games that came beforeit, they kind of influenced this game.
I would rather play those games.
So just out of curiosity,what do you rate, Rummy?

(59:14):
Rummy, that's an interesting question becauseI haven't actually sat down to rate it.
So Rummy's a differentkind of experience, right?
I mean, it's not a game that I'm necessarilyplaying for the mechanics of the game.
It's sitting around and having snacksand visiting usually with family members.
Maybe you haven't seen for a while.
It always has a different environment.
I do quite like Jim Rummy.

(59:36):
That might actually be of the Rummies.
I might say Jim Rummy's a seven for me.
That's just a classic solid game.
Mm-hmm.
And what would you rate thestandard 52-card deck plus two jokers?
[LAUGHTER]
That might be a 10.
No, that's a great question.
That might be a 10, honestly.
I think it is.
That in a book of oil, I'm ready to go.

(59:57):
Right?
Yeah.
So back to "For Shuffle.
" Is it replayable on how soondo you want to revisit the game?
Paul, I'm going to letyou go last this time.
So Dave, I'll let you go first.
Look, I say this a lot too much,probably on every episode.
But it's a game where ifyou're going to replay it,
or don't bother, don'tplay this once or twice.

(01:00:17):
Because, again, it has thatlearning curve for the deck.
It's really not going to start to illuminate,or bloom as a game, and tell you're
familiar with thepossibilities that are out there.
So if you're not going to play itfive to 10 times, don't play at once.
So yes, it's replayable if it's playable.
Yeah.
You know, and I'm looking at my notes forthis, and I have something similar in that.

(01:00:39):
Yeah, it's absolutelyreplayable, especially
with the muscle memory about thepower combinations and what's possible.
And I think you couldget the playing time
down to 30 minutes,which would be amazing.
I mean, this game in a two-player, 30-minutegame would be an incredible experience.
All right, Paul, bring us home.
Yes, I've been playing every week or two.
And today's point, it took my wife eightplays before she was able to beat me.

(01:01:03):
Wasn't she surprised whenyou told her the exact number?
Yeah, she didn't realizeshe'd played that many times.
Some games just take it.
It's that sixth player, that seventhplay, where the light comes on.
I've had this more than you guys, Ithink, where I've grumbled about a game.
And because I trust you guys so much,I'll keep grumbling, but I'll keep trying.

(01:01:25):
And then the light comes on oneday, and Russian railroads was won.
And I didn't enjoy it, andmaybe the fourth or fifth
play, I'm like, oh mygosh, this is a great game.
And I don't know what it is.
And all of a sudden,you're better than a skimp?
I don't know, now I'm certainly not.
Maybe I won the last one weplayed, but that's probably it.
But yeah.
Well, all I can say is Ihope that the light turns
on for you, because itdoesn't always turn on.

(01:01:47):
Yeah.
Food chain magnet.
The Yunnan.
Yeah.
Oh, you guys do.
You gave it a fair shake.
I mean, you've got a lot of plays.
And if it hasn't taken by now, Idon't think it's going to happen.
I don't think it is either.
All right, and without the thirdwinner card has been drawn.
For our next episode, I thinkwe're going to have the same crew,

(01:02:08):
and we're going to go digging forancient civilizations and their artifacts.
So thanks for beingavailable tonight, guys.
And goodness, can we getto sleep at a reasonable hour?
Spring time will come.
All right, thanks.
That's a good one.
Thank you forlistening to "Replayable.
" Support for our podcastcomes from listeners like you.

(01:02:29):
You can find us online atreplayable.fm, on Twitter
as "Replayable FM," and onInstagram as "Replayable FM.
" You can also join our teamat patreon.com/replayable.
Thank you for your support.
We welcome your feedback, which is theonly way that we are going to get better.
You can get in touch with us viaemail at [e-mail].
And if you're interested in sponsoring us,

(01:02:50):
then please contact us [e-mail].
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
(gentle music)