INTRODUCTION

These days few publishers within the board game industry are able to match Stonemaier Games in terms of ability to generate a massive market interest for their product line. Having published Wingspan which became a world-wide sensation, the publisher turned its eyes to the thematic trappings of creating a civilization. When it was announced that Jamey Stegmaier had designed a civilization themed board game that featured a four-page rule book, heavily asymmetric player powers and could be played in under two hours it is fair to say the news generated a lot of excitement amongst enthusiasts with the community. However, much like the aforementioned game about collecting birds into your aviary Tapestry has proven to be something of a watershed and a game that people has still discussing several months after its retail release. Naturally, I was curious to find out for myself whether or not this civilization themed board game could deliver on its rather lofty promises from a solitary point of view.

Full disclosure: a review copy of Tapestry was kindly provided by publisher Stonemaier Games.

COMPONENTS

For a board game that features a rule book mere four pages long there sure is plenty to discuss and dissect about Tapestry as a whole, starting with the components. If you enjoy the tactile aspect of board games, the feeling of joy that one derives from moving physical objects across a playing area or gazing upon components that exudes visual flair then this civilization game will undoubtedly be right up your alley. It is definitely the case, that this board game production from publisher Stonemaier Games lives up to the proverb “all good things come with a price” and Tapestry certainly has a hefty price tag to boot. But it does not take long for one to realize where the money was poured, as you find yourself staring at a custom plastic insert that neatly stores and organises the landmark miniatures and additional components such as the cards and the hexagon shaped map tiles (and yes, the insert does accommodate for sleeved cards). Nearly every single component looks and feels like a luxury item; the rule book is printed on a linen-finish, the cardstock is so thick I initially thought several cards were stuck together when unpacking the game, the individual player boards have a structured feel to them in order to prevent tokens and cards from sliding around.

But out of all these things I have listed, in terms of lavish production quality the Landmark miniatures are undoubtedly the stars of the show. These beautifully sculpted, pre-painted buildings of various sizes symbolise the advancements of each civilization in terms of achievements on one of the four main tracks of the game design. The fact that the game contains no less than 18 of these impressive miniatures is enough to warrant the rather substantial cost that is associated with Tapestry and that is not taking into account that each player has 20 income buildings that may be smaller in size but are nevertheless equally impressive in terms of tactility and visual flair. And yet, despite looking absolutely stunning once positioned on your personal city board whilst instilling a sense of your capital city growing and expanding both in a literal and figurative sense, these impressive pieces of design and sculpt are nothing more than eye candy. I would have loved if the landmark miniatures had any impact on actual gameplay as a way to inject some thematic coherence for advancing on the various tracks. Whether you reach certain milestones on the Military or Explore track the reward is always the same: beautifully sculpted albeit shallow pieces that take up real estate. Also, I cannot help to find it somewhat ironic that a game which displays such high attention to detail and provides the player with a veritable treasure trove of riches, the one component you interact with the most are rather generic plastic cubes but in terms of criticism that is definitely a nit-pick when compared to the overall quality that is on display.

OVERVIEW

“The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.” – Sigmund Freud

In Tapestry, players are tasked with the mission to bring their civilization to fruition; from the dawn of time when mankind first discovers how to make fire all the way into the distant future, possible reaching far beyond the stars. Each civilization is unique, as is the path you will carve out over the course of the game with the goal of being crowned the most prosperous empire. This lofty ambition of yours is achieved by advancing on the various tracks which represent the four pillars of the evolution for your civilization: Exploration, Science, Technology and Military. Will you try to aim for an even spread as far as knowledge goes, or focus on a specific category in order to achieve dominance?

When it was first announced that Stonemaier Games would publish a civilization themed board game that not only featured a slim four-page rule book but also a playing time just shy of two hours, people crawled out of the woodwork armed to the teeth with thoughts as to what constitutes a “proper” civilization game. As one might suspect given the passion of its fan base there were no shortage of opinions regarding the subject matter, even now several months after the game has been released to the public Tapestry continues to spark debate and disagreement. There is no denying the fact that Jamey Stegmaier has designed some of the most divisive board games the industry has ever seen. So why is Tapestry to a certain extent fraught with controversy? Let us find out by peeking under the hood of this highly polished production.

At its core, Tapestry is a deceptively simple game. On your turn you will do one of two things: collect income or advance on one of the four tracks, represented on the main board as scrolls where the majority of the time players are moving from left to right gradually performing more and more powerful actions the further they advance. These choices may sound simple enough but as we all know, looks can be deceiving and Tapestry has much more meat to its bones then one would suspect given a cursory glance. Over the course of the game, each player will perform a total of five income turns which represents the evolvement of your civilization throughout the ages. The amount of resources you collect during these transitions into a new era is in direct proportion to your individual player board which in Tapestry is known as the income mat. Much like Stonemaier Games’ previous publication Scythe, your player board has several tracks which at the start of the game are covered by these adorable, beautifully sculpted houses called income buildings. As the game progresses, by advancing on the four tracks players will have the option of relocating these buildings from their income mat onto their capital city area symbolizing the growth of their civilization’s population. In doing so, new icons will become exposed on the income mat which will generate greater inflow of resources during future era transitions. The city mat also serves as a mini-game of sorts, if you are able to fill an entire row or column you will score additional victory points during the income phase, also if you manage to fill an entire 3 x 3 district you will instantly be rewarded with an additional resource of choice. This incentive might sound trivial but nothing could be further from the truth, seeing how resources are a vital part of your strategy as they dictate the number of actions you will be able to perform during the current era i.e. round.

Although each player will perform the same amount of era transitions, Tapestry does not encompass a static round structure. Apart from the very first turn of the game when all players must perform an income action in order to obtain the starting resources needed to usher their civilizations into a new dawn, the decision of when to advance into the next round is, almost, entirely up to you. For your empire to grow and expand, players will progress on the four tracks whilst simultaneously performing the associated actions of each location. Advancing on the tracks requires paying resources, a cost which increases for each new tier players are moving into and correlates to the uncovered icons on your individual income mat: coin, worker, food and culture. The thing I really find fascinating about the advancement tracks is their linear design in terms of interlocking game mechanisms. Standard praxis when taking the advance action is paying the necessary amount of resources and then progressing on the track. However, there are certain locations and cards that grant you the opportunity to advance on a track free of charge, with the exception that you do not gain the associated benefit or bonus of the location which you land on. This is a tricky factor one needs take into consideration when planning their next move, a tension that would have been non-existent if Tapestry instead had implemented a more traditional worker placement mechanism.

As long as players have resources at their disposal, they can freely take actions and remain on the current era i.e. round independently of the actions performed by other competing players. Much like Everdell with its dynamic round structure represented by the changing of seasons, in Tapestry depending on your resource income and the actions of each track you may find yourself in Era II whereas your opponent has galloped ahead and has already transitioned into Era IV with their civilization. Now, depending on your point-of-view this part of the game design might be a huge pro or an abysmal con especially when one considers the later stages of the game. Because players are progressing through the rounds independently of one another, it is not an unlikely scenario that some players might find themselves waiting for the “slower” players to finish their game especially if the person in question is prone to analysis paralysis. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration during the final stages of Tapestry, as players are trying to eek out the maximal amount of victory points during the final income phase.

For some people this will not be a problem, as they are able to enjoy watching other players tinker with their own game engine. For others, I can imagine that the idea of having to wait for the other players at the table to finish their round in order for the actual game to come to an end will sound like as much fun as detention. This potentially negative aspect of the game design is actually reduced in the solo mode for two reasons; it has been my experience that the automated opponent and myself are usually pretty synced regarding which era we find ourselves in respectively, there is also the case that when you are playing solo there is no one else at the table to take into consideration. That is one of the beautiful things about solo board gaming; analysis paralysis is a non-existent problem.

We are well over 1500 words into this review and despite having referenced them a number of times I have yet to actually explain the wildly asymmetric Civilization cards, so allow me to shift my focus towards one of the key selling points of Tapestry. The game includes 16 civilizations, each having some form of game-breaking special ability varying from gaining additional resources during each income phase to completely circumventing core aspects of the game design. At the start of the game, each player is going to be dealt two civilization cards of which they will select one to keep whereas the unchosen ones will be combined into a deck. During the later stages of the game, it is possible to acquire additional civilizations by progressing to the very end of certain advancement tracks like for the example Military. For me, the process of selecting a new civilization and trying to tailor my strategy towards the inherent special ability of my empire is one of the most interesting aspects of Tapestry. In a sense the game presents the player with the classic scenario of “making lemonade out of lemons”, as a Euro board game enthusiast I enjoy this challenge that is presented before me.

However, it is also the case that the civilizations have been one of several sources causing very heated discussions amongst enthusiasts of the hobby. Regardless of your level of expertise I think it is safe to say that few would dispute the statement that some of the empires in Tapestry might appear to be more “powerful” than others given a cursory glance. For me, if I fare poorly in any given game I tend think that the problem probably originates from me not having a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental mechanisms rather than labelling the game as unbalanced. Part of my reasoning has to with the simple fact that I do not consider myself as particularly skilled or good at playing board games and therefore seldom feel the need to address these types of issues as holes in the design. That being said, if enough people start to voice their opinion in a unison manner then I tend to listen in order to get a new perspective on the subject matter whether or not I actually agree with the presented statement. Having played Tapestry seven times solitary, I have yet to even begin scratching the surface of what each civilization brings to the table in terms of unique special abilities and the way they influence my strategical considerations.

But perhaps the biggest cause of grief amongst board game enthusiasts and civilization connoisseurs has to do with the way Tapestry models inventing and technological breakthroughs. Games like Sid Meier’s Civilization tend to model the technological advancements made by mankind in a manner that makes thematic sense and has its roots in actual human history. Tapestry on the other hand decides to take this notion of historical accuracy and throws it out the window within the first paragraph of the rule book. Technologies are not invented and developed in a linear fashion. Instead, the game presents a market which always contains three face-up technology cards to choose from. These cards are shuffled together in a deck as part of setup and then randomly distributed over the course of the game. What this means, is depending on the luck of the draw your civilization might invent and develop zeppelins before discovering the nail. On one occasion, my extremely aggressive empire had advanced all the way to the later tiers of the Military track which allowed me to deploy attacks with pinpoint precession from my Drone Assassins. At the same time, my society has just invented the printing press which was cause for great celebration amongst my loyal subjects.

It is this notion of an alternate interpretation of the progression of mankind that for some people is the board game equivalent of fingernails scratching on a chalkboard, a game that is devoid of anything resembling causality. Circling back to the beginning of this review, the thematic trappings of civilization games are often viewed and judged based on very particular sets of criteria. A game which allows players to invent time travel before having mastered the art of the printing press is a bitter pill that is simply too hard to swallow for some people and from an intellectual point-of-view I am fully sympathetic with these arguments against the thematic representation. Personally, I have no issues with the way Jamey Stegmaier has designed Tapestry in terms of its non-existent historical accuracy and the reason for that is because the game does not set out to be a simulator. In the very first paragraph of the first page of the rule book it says “Create the civilization with the most storied history, starting at the beginning of humankind and reaching into the future. The paths you choose will vary greatly from real-world history – your civilization is unique!”. For me, it is obvious that one should not approach this game as an accurate representation of human progress when it is spelled out in black and white right from the outset. Is the hypothetical scenario where my empire has managed to achieve interstellar travel whilst simultaneously not having learned mathematics rather ridiculous? Unquestionably. Does it bother me? Not at all.

THE SOLO MODE

For the solo mode in Tapestry, publisher Stonemaier Games has once again partnered with the creative team at the Automa Factory, specifically Morten Monrad Pedersen in collaboration with Lieve Teugels and Nick Shaw. Allow me to get my one negative point out of the way before proceeding to the more positive aspects of this solitary experience. Much like the multiplayer equivalent the solo rule book is also comprised of a mere four pages, which is not necessarily a selling point. It has been my experience that the Automa Factory aims to provide rules documents that can be described as “efficient”, with a layout that on occasion borders on minimalism. However, this is the second instance where I experienced issues in adopting the rules because of the way the information is presented, the first being my recent review of the Ignorance Is Bliss expansion for Euphoria: Build a Better Dystopia. Whilst reading the solo rules for Tapestry, I found myself on multiple occasions desperately wishing for just a sentence or two of “flavour text” in order to bring more clarity to how the automated opponents are supposed to execute their actions.

Tapestry features not one but two artificial adversaries for the solitary player to compete against: the Automa and the illusive Shadow Empire. The latter can also be added to a two-player game for more interaction and competition over the landmark buildings and achievements. When playing Tapestry solo, both the Automa and the Shadow Empire perform their actions based on a dual-card system which I think is a really clever way of balancing unpredictability versus forward planning on part of the human player. During set up, eight cards form the starting deck from which you will draw two and place them side by side then perform the actions indicated in the joint area of the two solo cards. In addition to indicating what type of action the two automated opponents will perform, the cards also provide you with a really clear iconography for resolving tiebreakers both on which track to advance on and also where on the centre map the Automa will add tiles when exploring or which hex to target when performing a conquer action. Out of the two solo opponents, only the Automa will directly interact with you on the map and earning victory points. The Shadow Empire on the other hand lives up to its name as an ominous benefactor, a puppet-master that operates in the shadows whose main purpose is to race up the advancement tracks in order to acquire the landmark buildings ahead of you.

Rather than collecting resources as part of an income phase, the Automa will score victory points for being the first to transition into a new era. This forces the human player to make tactical considerations as to whether or not to cut the current round short in order to circumvent the automated opponent earning precious points. As the game progresses, additional tapestry cards will be added to the Automa income mat. However, unlike the solo player the cards do not provide the automated opponent with any form of game changing effects. Instead, the tapestry cards act as a way to increase the multipliers the Automa uses to gain victory points during each of its income phases, for example by the end of the game the solo adversary will score triple for each landmark building and hex tile it controls on the main map. If left unchecked, these factors will generate large sums of points for the Automa during final scoring.

In many ways I believe that Tapestry as a board game design is exceptionally well suited for solitary play. Apart from trying to conquer territories occupied by another player, there is little direct player to player interaction to speak of. Sure, someone might beat you to acquiring a particular technology card, but then again I do not think your entire long-term strategy could nor should falter based on a single card. There is never any real competition to be had over the locations of each track as there is no limit to the number of player tokens that can share a space at any given time. And although one could make an argument for the competition of the landmark buildings as a way for player to interact, in practice it is probably more advantageous for you to focus on an advancement track that is not contested by other players rather than butting heads with the competition.

FINAL THOUGHTS

At the end of the day, I find Tapestry to be something of a strange beast. It is a board game that has a four-page rule book, and yet at the time of writing this review there are over 450 rules related discussion threads on Board Game Geek for the game in question. It gives the appearance of being a light game in terms of rules complexity, yet I would not dream of labelling Tapestry as easy to grok on your first or even second play. Even though there are technically only one of two actions to choose from on any given turn, I still find myself spending a solid two plus hours when playing this game solo as a result of the interlocking tracks versus my Tapestry and Civilization cards. The production value is absolutely top notch but also have very little function and also a significantly hefty price-tag to boot. To me, Tapestry is the board game equivalent of Vanilla Coke: in theory it sounds borderline distasteful and yet is tastes oh so good.