Coimbra introduces an innovative new dice mechanism in which the dice players draft each round are used in multiple different ways and have an impact on many aspects of their decision making. While there are many paths to victory, players should always seek to optimize their opportunities with every roll of the dice. Combined with ever-changing synergies of the citizens, expeditions, and monasteries, no two games of Coimbra will ever be the same!
Andy Parsons
Re-reading my comments on Lorenzo il Magnifico, Brasini and Gigli's earlier design, I find that I could repeat them almost word for word for Coimbra. This time the workers of three colours that have variable values are replaced by dice of four colours that are drafted and then used as workers of variable values. In Lorenzo your workers are obtaining cards of four different types (territories, characters, buildings and ventures), while in Coimbra your dice are obtaining only character cards, but they are of four different types that grant money, soldiers (a second currency), victory points or the movement of a pilgrim. Lorenzo has four columns of four cards to choose from, while Coimbra has three rows of four cards and a fourth row of less powerful tiles. Just as in Lorenzo, there is engine building, with progression up four tracks granting increasing rewards and some characters offering lasting benefits. Don't believe Coimbra's claim to be playable in 60 minutes. Like Lorenzo it will take about two hours to play once you are no longer referring to the rules for explanations of some unintuitve iconography. The main thing that differentiates Coimbra is the pilgrims. Each player has one, who wanders along paths between monasteries. Each monastery offers a different benefit (instant points, instant money, end game bonuses...). Various characters and the pilgrim track allow movement. On brief acquaintance, those benefits seem important, as does plotting the best route around them. In summary, I find Coimbra and Lorenzo decent though very similar games. If I owned one of them I'm not at all sure that I'd need the other. Production quality is good and the artwork is appealing.
aneleftheros
Nice and sympathetic but the problem with this game is,that it has a limited number of cards and lose his replayability,because you play with the same cards everytime. It will be the game more better,if it had more cards,choose from these the same number of cards and don't learn which cards are you waiting to see in marketplace and get them. In few games you can learn the most cards.
anovoa
Not bad, but not particularly good. Point salad in the style of Stefan Feld. Beware of AP players. Too busy and too fiddly for what you get.