Push-your-luck par excellence
BGG · boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/244521
Quacks of Quedlinburg is a light game (weight 3/10). Strategic depth is moderate (5/10) — pleasant to learn, but not infinitely deep. Decisions come at a steady pace (5/10) — engaged without being exhausting. There's meaningful but indirect interaction (interaction 5/10) — shared resources, catch-up effects, or watch-and-react moments. Direct attacks are minimal (2/10) — the friction comes from contention, not aggression.
Of every game in our catalog, Quacks of Quedlinburg is closest to Cubitos (87% profile match) but scores higher on theme (7 vs. 4).
Every score is on a 0–10 scale. The rubric and methodology behind these numbers is documented in the README.
Quacks of Quedlinburg is a light game (weight 3/10). Strategic depth is moderate (5/10) — pleasant to learn, but not infinitely deep. Decisions come at a steady pace (5/10) — engaged without being exhausting.
There's meaningful but indirect interaction (interaction 5/10) — shared resources, catch-up effects, or watch-and-react moments. Direct attacks are minimal (2/10) — the friction comes from contention, not aggression.
Output randomness is significant (8/10) — dice, reveals, or end-of-turn surprises can upend plans. Catch-up effects are strong (7/10) — runaway leaders are rare.
The theme is well-integrated (7/10). There's a clear engine-building feel (engine 7/10).
Output randomness is significant (8/10) — dice, reveals, or end-of-turn surprises can upend plans. Catch-up effects are strong (7/10) — runaway leaders are rare.
The theme is well-integrated (7/10). There's a clear engine-building feel (engine 7/10).
Ranked by weighted Euclidean distance across the 12-axis profile, using the default research-weighted lens. Click any game to see its full profile.
Answers derived directly from Quacks of Quedlinburg's 12-axis profile.
Want to overlay Quacks of Quedlinburg against a candidate game and see exactly where they diverge? Open it in the lens →