|
Redacted
Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Apr 19, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
The Bene Gesserit turtle bros are left out in a six player game, which isn't too bad. Not sure I would bother with four and if you can get six it is much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I have Galaxy Trucker if you want to try it out, so if the invite stands I can bring it along to any games night your group is holding. (Or you can stop in at on of the Saturday games nights at U of I). You guys still doing that? English Blding, what room, time? I might head there myself if we don't get game night going. Tonight was a full house. We should have game night one of the weeknights probably. I'll text next time we have it. Galaxy Trucker is 2-4 right? Best with 4? Did 7 Wonders again tonight, with 7. Worked well. Then with 4. Worked well. What a fantastic loving game. Resistance happened again too...with 7 it seemed stupidly pro-town biased. The town won in a near-sweep every single game (4 straight I think?). It was always a logic puzzle that was solved quickly. Were we doing something wrong? The 2-3-3-4(who need 2 fails) seemed impossible for the spies to overcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
Are you playing Resistance with the plot cards? 7 players should be the most balanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
In my experience, spies are somewhat favored to win (but not overwhelmingly). I'm not sure what your spies are doing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
Are any of you enjoying Agricola Big & Small? I haven't tried it yet, but already having regular Agricola, I'm wondering if it's worth picking up. We don't play a ton of 'gric, but we enjoy it enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 10:00
|
|
|
Rudy Riot posted:Are any of you enjoying Agricola Big & Small? I haven't tried it yet, but already having regular Agricola, I'm wondering if it's worth picking up. We don't play a ton of 'gric, but we enjoy it enough. It doesn't answer your question, but I got introduced to Agricola standard a couple of weeks back and for my first game I didn't have a goddamn clue what I was doing in terms of strategy. I ended up scoring well simply by having a huge family and walling off almost all my field, but I can't for the life of me see how you're supposed to score consistently well across the board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
I saw a post on the Seen On Tabletop Tumblr about Elder Sign. It looks like a dice & card variation on Arkham Horror, and I'm curious what others' experiences have been. I've thoroughly enjoyed the times my wife & I have participated in Arkham Horror games, but the play time can be a bit long; how does Elder Sign compare?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
BlueInkAlchemist posted:I saw a post on the Seen On Tabletop Tumblr about Elder Sign. It looks like a dice & card variation on Arkham Horror, and I'm curious what others' experiences have been. I've thoroughly enjoyed the times my wife & I have participated in Arkham Horror games, but the play time can be a bit long; how does Elder Sign compare? I played Elder Sign once and talked about it in this thread somewhere, but the end of it was that the game was not fun at all. It strips Arkham Horror down to its dice fest elements, which are not the elements anybody would ever enjoy in Arkham Horror. Gone are the thematic location, gate and Mythos events, replaced by a title and some things you have to roll. I mean that's what AH more or less boils down to, but at least it hides it behind flavor text and whatnot. There's also less of that RPG "character building" element, since new equipment just boils down to one shot dice to use, and about 95% of them are the same. This also means that it is not that exciting to get new items since you know they are just weapons. In summary, it is just a really dry experience that consists of just rolling dice over and over again until you either win or lose and feel nothing for it at the end. As one of the few people in this thread to actually enjoy playing Arkham Horror, Elder Sign takes its worst elements and ditches its best. It does, however, play faster, but at the same time, it feels like a longer game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
It's available on ios if you want to check it out before you buy. Glad all these games are coming out on the tablets, I love sampling/learning games before I buy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
BlueInkAlchemist posted:I saw a post on the Seen On Tabletop Tumblr about Elder Sign. It looks like a dice & card variation on Arkham Horror, and I'm curious what others' experiences have been. I've thoroughly enjoyed the times my wife & I have participated in Arkham Horror games, but the play time can be a bit long; how does Elder Sign compare? Elder Sign is basically Arkham Yahtzee. It's available on ipad/iphone, and I have that version (they're not identical, but close enough). As an electronic game, I like it, but as a board game I would hate it. Basically, it's a fun and light game, but the amount of FFG fiddly bits would make it not worth setting up in a physical format.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Philthy posted:It's available on ios if you want to check it out before you buy. When I saw that Small World is available on iPad, I very nearly dropped everything and ran out to the Apple store. I'd tolerate a lower resolution if I could get it on iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Redacted
Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
BlueInkAlchemist posted:When I saw that Small World is available on iPad, I very nearly dropped everything and ran out to the Apple store. I'd tolerate a lower resolution if I could get it on iPhone. It didn't have online multiplayer last time I checked, so I never bothered to grab it. Hear it's a really nice app otherwise. And I totally agree with Crackbone re: Elder Sign. Pretty cool time waster on ios/android, but the real game is kind of a drag with a bunch of little counters and chits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Rudy Riot posted:Are any of you enjoying Agricola Big & Small? I haven't tried it yet, but already having regular Agricola, I'm wondering if it's worth picking up. We don't play a ton of 'gric, but we enjoy it enough. It's a good design but there's no random factors. This isn't necessarily a problem overall, but when it's a two player game, with few moving parts, there's just not much re-playability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:So has anyone reviewed Zombicide yet? It shipped a week ago and I wonder what the initial reaction to it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Bobby The Rookie posted:Travel Blog, you jackasses, this shouldn't take three guesses. I saw that this weekend and wasn't sure. On the one hand, VLAADA, and it looked like something I could play with my kids. On the other hand, it looked crazy shallow. My GenCon stack is...bad... http://chattypics.com/viewer.php?file=droidUpload_6s1l036wev.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
BlueInkAlchemist posted:I saw a post on the Seen On Tabletop Tumblr about Elder Sign. It looks like a dice & card variation on Arkham Horror, and I'm curious what others' experiences have been. I've thoroughly enjoyed the times my wife & I have participated in Arkham Horror games, but the play time can be a bit long; how does Elder Sign compare? My play group likes it, but I'm not super enthusiastic about it. If you really like rolling dice, I prefer quarriors, as that seems a bit more interesting. The game seems like Arkham for a small table and limited time budget. It when you win it rarely feels dramatic, and when you lose it feels like you never had a chance / had bad luck on the cards. I find that you rarely get enough cards/token to spend them meaningfully on purchasing things. The level of strategy is pretty limited. Indolent Bastard posted:So has anyone reviewed Zombicide yet? It shipped a week ago and I wonder what the initial reaction to it is. I felt like the rules/mechanics are evocative of a zombie movie (slow build of manageable zombies at the beginning of a mission, which feels manageable, but at the end, you're really trying to escape by the skin of your teeth.) There are a couple rules that feel bad (the way packs of zombies split), but they're pretty good overall. The scenarios aren't quite as good. I think that you're better off writing your own once you have a grip of how the game plays out. The miniatures, while plentiful, aren't quite as high quality as I expected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Stelas posted:It doesn't answer your question, but I got introduced to Agricola standard a couple of weeks back and for my first game I didn't have a goddamn clue what I was doing in terms of strategy. I ended up scoring well simply by having a huge family and walling off almost all my field, but I can't for the life of me see how you're supposed to score consistently well across the board. I'm not really sure what your question is. I mean of course you're not intended to max out your score in every category if that's what you mean by "scoring well across the board." But the game does reward you for generalizing, to the extent that you get 2 points for your first sheep (going from -1 to 1) and only one point for the next three sheep. Those -1 penalties are designed to hurt, so avoid them. Family members are worth good points but (and I could be wrong here) I doubt those 3 points are typically worth much more than the point value of the food they wind up eating. It's the extra workers you're getting for your trouble. McNerd fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Galaxy Trucker: if you end a round with a negative balance (due to component loss) do you have to take a deduction from your accrued credits?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
saint gerald posted:Galaxy Trucker: if you end a round with a negative balance (due to component loss) do you have to take a deduction from your accrued credits? I believe yes but you can't go into negative credits (without the expansion).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Elder Sign is basically Arkham Yahtzee. How does Arkham Horror play with 2 players? My wife tends to dismiss board games as boring, and won't even try games like Smallworld or Ticket to Ride with me, but Arkham Horror is one she likes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
BlueInkAlchemist posted:How does Arkham Horror play with 2 players? My wife tends to dismiss board games as boring, and won't even try games like Smallworld or Ticket to Ride with me, but Arkham Horror is one she likes. It works fine if you both play 2 investigators and play it as if it were a 4 player game (affecting things like The Sky, gate limits, etc.). I do this a lot with the one friend who has the patience for AH. I have no idea how it plays, but you may want to look into Tales of the Arabian Night and its upcoming Cthulhu retheme. It is like CYOA the game from what I have heard, and the only reason I haven't taken the plunge is because I don't know who else would want to play it with me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Bobby The Rookie posted:Are you playing Resistance with the plot cards? 7 players should be the most balanced. Yeah, using the plot cards. Correctly, so far as we could tell. It might've been dumb luck? Or maybe BSG has taught the spies to 'tell the truth' when it comes to other players' alignments. It seemed like every mission went Pass, Pass, Maybe fail, Town Wins for sure if it didn't win round 3. One of the plot cards would almost always either confirm someone as town or else confirm someone as spy. At some point it turns into a logic game where we either KNOW the leader is spy or town based on the roster choices. And then it becomes a "let's vote him out" if he's a spy, or a town win if he's town. The plot cards would sometimes let the spies delay the victory, but never change the outcome. Should spies sabotage mission 1 if possible? With 7 players and 3 scum there SHOULD be a better-than-50% chance of a spy being on the first mission, maybe we were unlucky that (1) when there WAS a spy they'd pass and (2) there wasn't a spy more often than not. We're about 10 games in, so maybe we haven't hit on a sweet spot, but so far it was 50/50 town/spy win in 6 player, and 100% town victory in 7 player. The major change that I can tell is the # of players per mission. 2-3-4-3-4 is a lot harder in 6 players for the town than the 2-3-3-4*-4 for 7. Pander fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
quote:We're about 10 games in, so maybe we haven't hit on a sweet spot, but so far it was 50/50 town/spy win in 6 player, and 100% town victory in 7 player. The major change that I can tell is the # of players per mission. 2-3-4-3-4 is a lot harder in 6 players for the town than the 2-3-3-4*-4 for 7. You must be better readers or strategists as Resistance (or perhaps we're better liars, but that's not likely because we're horrible liars); for us, spies win ~75% at 6, and have done well at 7 (though we haven't played enough 7 for me to say much). quote:At some point it turns into a logic game where we either KNOW the leader is spy or town based on the roster choices. This comes up very rarely for us that "we" know anything. It seems like there's almost always a team a person can suggest that meets their needs and doesn't give them away publicly to anyone (let alone to "we"). I do think this is something that varies a lot with players. I'm a logical guy (perhaps too logical), but suck at Clue because I insist on real deduction. Other people win on more inductive reasoning - stuff like "I think when you said this you meant that.." and "why would you have asked for this if you hadn't seen that..". We may similarly be overthinking Resistance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
The second mission should pretty much always be a failure, unless there's two or more spies on it, in which case it's a gamble. Third mission, however, unless there's an extremely lucky all-Resistance team that gets chosen, this one should always, always fail, especially if there's been two successful missions beforehand. First mission down-voting is extremely risky, I've only seen that happen twice in a 7 player or less game, but it's also effective because while one of the spies does effectively get thrown under the bus, one of the Resistance members also gets quarantined for practically the duration of the game until the last round when the others have to inevitably parse out who was good on that first mission- I've had it happen on the first mission where I was the unlucky Resistance, but I was so outraged, after a certain point it became clear to everybody that I couldn't possibly be bluffing. I'm not sure what else your spies could be doing wrong, other than playing like total chumps or just not taking any risks with the plot cards. You're only ten games in so this stuff is still fresh, but team votes are extremely important for the spies and should typically be as ambiguous as possible- if they're doing their jobs right and planting doubt while also claiming to vote up the missions that are successful, then it's much harder to tell. It's not just the logistics of the cards, it's about 70% bluffing & playing off the plot cards in subtle ways, and 30% logically piecing out what the gently caress just happened for the past four rounds and where the common threads are. Likewise, as a resistance member I'll sometimes choose a team that people seem to like and deliberately vote down the team myself in order to establish myself as resistance, since I'd be one of either one or two people to vote down the mission that I know will almost inevitably fail. You lose the mission but it almost always works to let people know I was good- and it provides intrigue. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Our group is completely different: we have pretty much a 95% win rate as spies. This is because it's a public group in which a lot of new people always pop up while still retaining a core of experienced players. You only really need to convince a couple of resistance members as a spy in order to win and the less experienced people seem to get fooled more often since they aren't aware of the common spy ploys. We once had the three most experienced spies in a single team (me and two other guys) and we managed to win a 7 player by failing the first three missions and nearly getting all the spies in the third (we managed to get two in).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Deathlove posted:My GenCon stack is...bad... http://chattypics.com/viewer.php?file=droidUpload_6s1l036wev.jpg Is Mage Wars any good? I watched the Vasel video on it and it piqued my interest but he is always very enthused about a majority of the things he plays. Another thing would be, does it fill the same niche as Summoner Wars if I already have that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Our favored tactic is deliberately betraying the spies, helping the humans as much as possible. And then sabotaging a mission, so the traitor gets immediately pinpointed as a spy. Of course, now no one's gonna believe he was telling the truth and it's often easy to win by not voting, especially if the other "humans" get some plot cards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Bobby The Rookie posted:The second mission should pretty much always be a failure, unless there's two or more spies on it, in which case it's a gamble. Third mission, however, unless there's an extremely lucky all-Resistance team that gets chosen, this one should always, always fail, especially if there's been two successful missions beforehand. I dunno. We have a lot of consensus building, more than most groups I guess. I also tend to play the role of Town Leader whenever I'm actually town, where I plot out the best logical outcomes and any town leader who doesn't agree is proven to be a spy. (seriously, that happened) Almost no teams get down-voted unless it's a situation where the town are kicking out a spy leader, or the spies are registering their frustration openly over an upcoming loss. Maybe we just got lucky picking resistance members in the 2nd and 3rd rounds a lot? Did I hear you right that you pick a team people like, then downvote it? That just sounds like a waste of time. What's the difference between down-voting and up-voting while saying "this is going to fail"? And why not just pick the team you think can win, and convince others of the fact? Thinking on it now, I think consensus building and strong leaders in my particular gaming group have led to a match that makes 7 players with plot cards favor the resistance heavily...
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Pander posted:Did I hear you right that you pick a team people like, then downvote it? That just sounds like a waste of time. What's the difference between down-voting and up-voting while saying "this is going to fail"? And why not just pick the team you think can win, and convince others of the fact? It sounds like you guys are much heavier on the analytical side rather than the bluffing and subterfuge end of things. Spies need to be playing things really close to their chest until they buy themselves enough leeway in others' doubts to cinch the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
I guess. We have a couple pretty good bluffers/spies in our group, but I think it might be too honest a group. The attempts to build town cred result in two passed missions every time, then it's dumb luck whether there's a spy that can get in on mission 3, 2 spies in on mission 4, then a spy on mission 5 (which we never actually reached last night). It'd just happen that everyone could piece together an all-resistance team on round three or only one spy on round 4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
quote:Almost no teams get down-voted unless it's a situation where the town are kicking out a spy leader, or the spies are registering their frustration openly over an upcoming loss... The attempts to build town cred result in two passed missions every time... Your games are happening in complete opposite land to ours (not saying you're wrong or something - I just find this very interesting). You seem to have much less aggressive spies (it's very rare that we have both the first missions pass) but simultaneously more information on who's a spy (it's very rare for us to have any "known" spies before the last round, and often not even then). For us, those things usually travel in opposite directions; we don't know anything until the end unless the spies are being aggressive (ie. they take 2 of the first 3). The other thing that's interesting is that you're not having downvotes. We have downvotes all the time, and very few votes get through without at least a couple Xs: from people who don't like a team, Resistance members with private information from plots, people who think a team is haunted, and spies pretending not to like a team to obscure information (if spies only down-vote teams without spies, it's pretty easy to pick them out). In our group it's kind of part of the routine for the leader to ask "anyone want to own up to these downvotes?" after each vote. Anyways, fun game - and cool that people have such different experiences with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
jmzero posted:The other thing that's interesting is that you're not having downvotes. We have downvotes all the time, and very few votes get through without at least a couple Xs: from people who don't like a team, Resistance members with private information from plots, people who think a team is haunted, and spies pretending not to like a team to obscure information (if spies only down-vote teams without spies, it's pretty easy to pick them out). In our group it's kind of part of the routine for the leader to ask "anyone want to own up to these downvotes?" after each vote. Wait I thought who voted up and down was supposed to be public knowledge
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Augure posted:Wait I thought who voted up and down was supposed to be public knowledge It is; vote cards are supposed to be a simultaneous reveal by each player directly in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Augure posted:Wait I thought who voted up and down was supposed to be public knowledge
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Bobby The Rookie posted:In the rules it's supposed to be a hidden vote, however, like with mission votes. Alright, no, this is not true. I checked. You are playing the game wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Nope, got the rules in front of me and it explicitly shows in an example that it's not hidden. Also, if it was hidden and BSG-like, then one of the plot cards either wouldn't make sense or would create too much of an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Wow, crazy, we started playing like that because it seemed to make the most sense- Opinion Maker is pretty pointless if you don't play like that. Edit: Oh, I see, everybody DOES vote secretly, only you show what your vote was in sequence, unless you have Opinion Maker. Bobby The Rookie fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Well yes, it is the weaker plot card, but it can be pretty powerful simply due to the extra information it can give you, although it's very situational.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:01
|
|