We got King of Tokyo for Christmas and I just found out about King of New York. What's the difference between these two games? Is King of New York just King of Tokyo done "right"?
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
King of New York is essentially King of Tokyo with some modifications:
- Victory points on the dice are less dominant, having a single VP result. The other 2 faces are replaced with buildings and skulls.
- There are regions and things to do for people not in the middle.
- Buildings are able to be destroyed, adding a risk/reward mechanic as destroying buildings adds military units. This also adds a potential way to heal in the middle.
- The skull results allow you to target people you couldn't attack if they're in a region with lots of military units.
- Staying in Manhattan is more rewarding than staying in Tokyo, and the rewards grow with time.
For me, the biggest difference is how the game encourages getting in and smashing things up. In King of Tokyo, being in Tokyo was very risky and offered little reward. In my experience, the dominant strategy was staying outside and rolling for points. In King of New York, with the improved rewards for being in Manhattan, the possibility of healing or taking other rewards, and the decreased value of rolling VPs, staying in is much more viable.
-
From your answer, could a house rule for King of Tokyo be that in Tokyo, the player only needs two dice to match to get the VP's? Jun 26, 2016 at 8:11
-
@Beerhunter It could be, but that brings up the value of rolling for points rather than being a crazy monster and doing crazy monster things. Until I got KoNY (which knocked KoT out of play), I played with a variant where you get 1 energy at the start of each other player's turn if you're in Tokyo (on your own turn you just get the Tokyo bonus). That got you to hold on just that one more turn to get that one more energy, and resulted in a more dynamic game as people struggle to buy and swipe out powers.– SamthereJun 27, 2016 at 9:24