Nova Era Review: Your Obelisk is Obsolete

Zee, Mike and Milla take a look at Nova Era!

0:00 Intro
1:06 Overview
14:14 Review
30:52 Final Thoughts

As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

#dicetower #thedicetower

[andreachiarvesio]

Being the designer of the game, I’d like to provide some additional context that might be useful (though I realize it would have been even more so if shared in advance—my apologies for that).

A few important premises:
- I share this purely to provide context, with the utmost respect for the opinions and judgments of professional reviewers, even when they may not align with my own design choices.
I have never been a fan of direct player interaction where one player can freely choose a "take that" effect’s target without consequences. I strongly dislike mechanics that allow a player to decide—without limits or repercussions—whether to attack or hinder Player A or Player B.
- Nova Era was never designed as an engine-building game, nor did it aim to be one. Its original title, "Civolution" (which we had to change after a well-known designer announced a game with that very same name), better reflected its core concept: obsolescence.

The Core Idea Behind Nova Era
Human history is a continuous process of discovery and advancement, where once-groundbreaking technologies, systems, and ways of thinking eventually become obsolete. We no longer write on papyrus, plow fields with oxen, sail in caravels, or wage war with archers and cavalry regiments. Yet, in their time, each of these was the pinnacle of human achievement.

Thus, in Nova Era, developing gunpowder will make another player’s archery obsolete, forcing them to discard that technology. Can this set a player back? Absolutely. But the game embodies the principle of "evolve or die." You can’t expect the combos you build in Era I to last until Era III. You can’t ignore impending disasters. You must adapt, anticipate, and even disrupt opponents by limiting their access to technologies that could render yours obsolete. To reinforce this idea, the game even rewards you for making your own technologies obsolete.

At its heart, Nova Era reflects the resilience of civilizations—and humanity as a whole. We endure challenges, overcome disasters, and, even in our darkest ages (sometimes of our own making), find ways to push forward. Empires rise and fall, dominant powers decline, and once-indispensable innovations can become irrelevant overnight (horse-drawn carriages vs. cars, for example). The game is built on this premise and aims to capture the reality that no greatness is permanent, and no progress is immune to disruption (and current times feel like a reminder of this).

I fully understand that some of these design choices may be controversial, and I respect that Nova Era—like any game—isn’t for every group or every taste. That’s completely natural.

I hope this explanation clarifies my approach and helps shed light on the design philosophy behind the game.

Respectfully,
Andrea

[TabletopTurtle]

I think the negativity of the game is where the fun and strategy hides. Having to navigate and adapt to constant disasters, be they caused by the game or other players, is what's exciting. So part of the strategy is not just drafting every card you can afford, but rather having a balance between production and scoring cards and instant reward cards because it doesn't hurt at all damaging those instant cards.

[Gokkus]

Hearing both positive and negative reviews is the best way to determine whether a game is for me, so this was great.
Discounting an opinion because it differs from your own is very shortsighted.

[nirszi]

The best reviews are the ones I get polarizing opinions. No better way to learn about a game and its potential audience.

[ConeDefense]

Thanks for the candor Milla!

I know it’s contrary to the channel’s philosophy (the people who like it most usually do the review). Personally I wish one was the one who liked it most, the other is the one who disliked most and then a third.

[ShadowBlah]

I always like when there's a difference of opinion. Maybe it's shallow of me, but it feels like the game has been more explored before and during the review.

[budsticky]

So take a sharpie, write the word "duel" at the end of the title, and call it a day.

[green]

I'd like to offer another perspective from someone who's played the game at two and three player (so far).

No one in our group found the game "mean." I define "mean" as doing something to intentionally harm others. When I teach the game, I explain that obsolescence is part of the thematic experience and to be expected and planned for. It’s strange in some civ games when one side has newer tech while others are still in the Stone Age. Obsolescence, along with "evolutions" (free cards), is one of the most unique mechanics I’ve seen in a civ game. I also like that making your own tech obsolete earns points, and every point matters. It’s a viable strategy.

I disagree with the idea that the last player should be forced to take bad dice to avoid disaster. All players have the same chance to prevent disaster by choosing less optimal dice. Expecting the last player to “take one for the team” is unreasonable, especially since they only have two dice sets to choose from. The decision to trigger disasters vs. take desired dice is everyone's choice.


While the game is more punishing than expected, everyone had fun because disasters affect all players. There are attack cards, but they’re not game-breaking. I agree with Mike that the game takes longer than expected, probably about 30 minutes per player. Three players may be the sweet spot—two player games would miss out on more cards and excitement. I also agree with Zee that a clearer design for obsolescence would help, though it didn’t slow the game down in our sessions. Overall, everyone enjoyed the game, and I look forward to more plays.

[IndianaGeologist]

I think the DT picked the perfect trio for this game. 3 diverse well rounded opinions

[giannisc.]

I liked the difference in opinion here, it provides various points of view on the game. It seems like I am going to like this at 2 players, so I'll pick it up. Thanks for the review !

[DreamReaver]

I was on the fence about this one, but if Zee likes it and Camilla doesn't, i'm sure I'll like it. She's sort of an inverse benchmark for me 😅

[wownow]

We are enjoying Nova era and have only played it as a 2 player game so far. The one '2 player' niggle for us was that the purple Territories cards from Era 2 and 3 very rarely came out and if they did, could be unreachable. We're possibly going to house rule putting out a column of Territory cards in the 2nd and 3rd era's.

[kruskisking]

A) this isn’t an engine building game. It’s a game based on obsolescence
B) I don’t know what came Camilla is playing, but I’ve had very positive turns

[Noel_Maymes]

Guess we’ll have to wait and see for Nova Era Duel/Duo version!

[stephenowen]

There are quite a few cards that make you immune to one of the disasters. I played this at 2 yesterday and enjoyed it although it did take 2 hours for our first game. Your rules summary was inaccurate on electing a personality. You can use a non black die but you then pay the whole cost in raising unrest.

[carla]

Think I would likely lean Camilla's way on this one. Especially considering the emphasis Zee & Mike put on 2 player when I hardly ever play 2 player. Our games are usually 3-5p.

[mrbastos]

I watched the rules a couple weeks back, and it sounds fun to me. I am still interested in giving it a shot for sure

[nezukoshop]

I wonder how fun the game is if you house rule the way dice drafting works. Instead of taking one set of dice from one tile, how about using AZUL drafting? Take one color of dice from one of the tile, player by player until your dice slot full. So left over dice still 3 and that's what trigger the danger track. That way no one player has the weigh of choice of which dice set will trigger the danger track.By drafting one or 2 dice on multiple turn, all players contribute to which dice will be left over.

[diversionArchitect]

My 3 Fav Dice Tower folks! Yeah I def feel like if this was presented more as an empire destroying game vs an empire building game it’d land better. It’s pretty neat at what it does, but I could see lots of people bouncing off of it based on what folks will expect vs what the game does. I won’t bring this to the table for most of my regular play group. I think yeah 2 player will be great but still only for the right players.

[nshaw]

Can we have more games though with similar names?
magna roma, nova roma, nova era, pola bera...