30m - 60m
1 - 4 Players
Pattern Building is a system where players place game components in specific patterns in order to gain specific or variable game results. For example: placing chips on 2, 4, 6, 8 on a board gets the player an action card they can use later in the game.
Good puzzle but based on tiles distribution, you can come up with negative points and a long long game knowing you can't make it even
[imageID=5410757small inline] Just play Nova Luna instead! [b]Pros:[/b] I like the idea of cacophony tokens, where you're rewarded with point efficiency to take big tiles, but they come with a risk of running out of tokens and having to take the punishing cacophony tokens. It's a clever, if less interesting, solution to the same issue that Nova Luna and Patchwork solve using a time-track. The issue is that big stuff is generally better than small stuff, but it would be less interesting with only similar-sized stuff, so this needs to be compensated in some way. I like that cacophony tokens are a lot cleaner than managing a time track, but unlike a time track it's completely non-interactive and doesn't present as many interesting decisions. It's quite satisfying to point different arrows from different places to a single nexus and then filling it in. [b]Cons:[/b] Uwe Rosenberg has done a lot of take-and-makes, and they each somewhat build on each other. Patchwork was first, from which followed several polyomino take-and-makes. Then Nova Luna combined the excellent drafting "Take" system from Patchwork, leaving behind the tired polyomino "Make" part, and combined it with a simplified version of the "Make" of Habitats, taking the best of both. Then comes Sagani, which uses a new, really boring and non-interactive "Take" system and iterates on the "Make" from Nova Luna to make is simpler and less interesting. The result is an anemic take-and-make with few redeeming features! I'm not a fan of take-and-makes in general, but the stand-outs of the genre for me (Azul and Nova Luna) do some very specific things. One is readability of the "Make" part, which e.g. excels at. Another is meaningful interaction in the "Take" part, which they also do well. Another is a build-up in the "Make" part, where bigger tasks or points are easier to come by later if you plan for it. The final is the ability to plan in the "Take" part, where you can either plan several turns ahead or play the odds of what will show up. Sagani fails on all these targets. A big reason why I find the "Make" aspect so much less interesting, despite thinking at first that it should be very compelling, is the final 2 targets above. There is no build-up like in Azul and Nova Luna, in fact it becomes harder to fulfill difficult targets as the game goes on because the middle fills up and you have much fewer options trying to place on the edges. You also have very limited options that can randomly fit perfectly or be useless without much agency or hedging on your part.
After 1 play: I like the variation from nova Luna with diagonal contract fulfillment, as well as the tile selection. Same level of light strategy but in a different light, so I can't say which one is better.