|
The General posted:Houserules are almost always terrible. I guess my question is, why would I spend my cash on a game that needs houserules to make it playable? Not all houserules are necessary to make a game playable, some games are houseruled just to make the game more fun or challenging. In Forbidden Island, we houserule no talking unless you're in the same tile as another player to make the game more difficult. Also, where do you draw the line between variants and houserules? I much prefer variants of Star Trek: Fleet Captains and Nightfall to the official rules, but neither is necessary to make the game playable.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
So I played a full game of Andean Abyss today, with three newbies. It took ages (7 hours, what?!) because of some AP from everyone, but the game itself was awesome. Three people signed up to play, I asked one of the the guys who signed up to find a 4th, he gets a complete newbie that's only been to 2 boardgame sessions ever to come play it. I probably should have said that the game was too much for a newbie, but I didn't want to appear exclusionary, but this was one of the elements on why the game took so long. We gave the newbie the AUC because it's pretty easy to play it in comparison to the other factions. I was playing as the government and I did alright: I was always skirting around 58-60 support but never really managed to get over the edge. I managed to clear two areas and place bases there throughout the game, I think I really should have done more sweep-and-assaults when I had the chance. The cartel actually won it in the end and the game itself was great. I might get a chance to try it again tomorrow. I can't recommend the game enough. Can't wait for Cuba Libre!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Pander posted:In contrast, I've only played about 5 games of GoT board game, so despite the fact I think Lannisters are extremely underpowered, I have no idea how to houserule them to competence. Lannisters won a game in our group by turtling the first round, build a Siege tower, and use your early move advantages to attack Greyjoy with the Siege Tower. Try to kill a unit or two with swords/nowhere to retreat. Hope mustering doesn't come up while Greyjoy controls like 3 big castles after the first turn. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
modig posted:Lannisters won a game in our group by turtling the first round, build a Siege tower, and use your early move advantages to attack Greyjoy with the Siege Tower. Try to kill a unit or two with swords/nowhere to retreat. Hope mustering doesn't come up while Greyjoy controls like 3 big castles after the first turn. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I don't think anyone, including BL, actually thinks house rules are a bad thing. But people are often quick to demand fixes to problems that might not actually be there, even if the way to beat what appears to be a broken strategy takes a good deal of plays to figure out. Exactly. My wording of "usually" was carefully chosen. I'm pretty quick to push variants for Catan each time it's mentioned in this thread, for instance. In my experience (and I'm aware the plural of anecdote is not data), players who houserule things majorly have overlooked a strategy or rule that would negate it. A great example is Super Dungeon Explore-- my first game of it was against a guy who, after playing it once, made it so the hero side could only get treasure on a die roll of 5+. It turns out that he was playing the treasure rules incorrectly (in SDE, you draw a loot card when your marker moves 3 spaces on a track-- he was doing it every space), and even after correcting him he instead made it so the heroes got loot on a 5+ every 3 spaces. No critical thinking was ever applied. I will be the first to admit that not every game is balanced, and not even the majority of games at that. However, each game is worth the benefit of the doubt, and odds are if it's a game positively discussed in this thread heavily (including being one of the thread's voted Top loving Five), it's one of the balanced ones and not one of the Munchkins or Monopolies. I'll play the better man by not being the Fun Police, however, you may be attempting to fix something that is not likely broken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Check out this video i.e. the best video currently on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCqS4WB_Jak
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
The key to playing AGoT is to never forget it is a Diplomacy variant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Check out this video i.e. the best video currently on youtube: Watching the video, I think I saw two Pogs, some jorts, and a Trapper Keeper in the background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
I like the production values myself (and this is from a maker of the game too). Dirty bed covering for the background hanged up loosely, dirty, distorted mike, a teddy bear and a pony 'playing' the game. The whole ensamble really shines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Check out this video i.e. the best video currently on youtube: Not sure if you were joking or not, but that dudes needs to invest in a microphone. I didn't understand a word he said. Also a light and a camera at least as good as those in medium-level phones would be upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Just bought the Resistance! Yay! My copy comes with 'The Plot Thickens' expansion. If we're all brand new to the game, should we pass on it for a game or two or is it something necessary to the game to make it awesome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Vander posted:Just bought the Resistance! Yay! My copy comes with 'The Plot Thickens' expansion. If we're all brand new to the game, should we pass on it for a game or two or is it something necessary to the game to make it awesome? In that vein, I got a shipping notification for Resistance: Avalon the other day, I should be getting that shortly. It's good, because my old set is practically falling apart after so many plays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Vander posted:Just bought the Resistance! Yay! My copy comes with 'The Plot Thickens' expansion. If we're all brand new to the game, should we pass on it for a game or two or is it something necessary to the game to make it awesome? All copies come with the plot cards. It's not really an "expansion." Anyways, I personally prefer it without the plot cards. But they don't add too much (if you added much, you'd gently caress up the game), and if you're getting bored with the game without them, they're a decent way to spice it up. If you have seven or more people, I strongly recommend the variant rules that are very similar to Resistance: Avalon (hit my ? to find them somewhere in this thread).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
I've used them once, and I've probably played 30+ games. Maybe more. We usually have at least one new player, and the one time we tried them, they gummed up the works, and led to a lot of questions and looking up rules. And I've never thought that the main game needed improving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
So we played Galaxy Trucker for the first time last night. We played 2 games. We already desperately want the expansion. Also, Mundus Novus is excellent and we all loved that too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
I recently read a review of Modern Art and it sounds perfect for my group, since it seems to involve a lot of yelling at each other and persuasion I'd love to hear some opinions from anybody else who has tried it. Also does anybody know where to buy it (not the simplified version) online for a reasonable price? It's $55 used on Amazon, but the review I read suggested it was like $30 new.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Played Level 7 tonight for the first time, 2 player style. Man, the rules are all over the place. Missed some about fear and threat when attacking others. The game was ok, the lack of all the important rules being on one page was brutal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
modig posted:I recently read a review of Modern Art and it sounds perfect for my group, since it seems to involve a lot of yelling at each other and persuasion I'd love to hear some opinions from anybody else who has tried it. There's a bunch of sellers on the BGG marketplace selling it for reasonable price new and used: http://boardgamegeek.com/geekstore.php3?action=listforsale&gameid=118
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
I got to play Tigris and Euphrates for the first time yesterday and my first non-starter game of Fighting Formations: Grossdeutschland Motorized Infantry Division today. Tigris and Euphrates is good fun. It's a lot simpler than people had made it out to be. I'm sure most of the depth and weight comes from the depth of the game and not the rules complexity, but even so I find it funny people calling this one of the heavier eurogames. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed my first play and can definitely see myself bringing this one to the table often. Fighting Formations is a monster. This is the first time I played a scenario past Scenario 0. Scenario 0 took 4 hours to explain, setup and play and arguably could of taken longer. It was 4 turns long. Scenario 5, the one we picked, is 8 turns long and even though I didn't need to explain the rules again. We stopped playing after 5 straight hours of dense wargaming. We finished three turns out of eight (possibly more with sudden death extending the game). I really like Fighting Formations, but if you're liking me you may have been expecting a game about as quick and easy as Combat Commander, except with tanks. It's not. The scope of Fighting Formations is translated into weight of play and the length of the game. I got blindsided my first time playing, and now I'm only starting to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes (for instance, there's a 15 turn scenario with double the units to command that supposedly takes a long weekend to play). Nevertheless, that FF is enjoyable enough for me and a friend to sit down for 5 hours straight and then come back to it tomorrow is saying good things about it. If you're into hex-and-counter WW2 games, then you probably should look into this one. If you don't really have any experience with WW2 games and want an easy gateway game...get Combat Commander instead. EDIT: Also I got to play Space Alert yesterday but we all know about that game. Trynant fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
modig posted:I recently read a review of Modern Art and it sounds perfect for my group, since it seems to involve a lot of yelling at each other and persuasion I'd love to hear some opinions from anybody else who has tried it. There is an iOS version out if you're into trying before you buy. It has good reviews. Have not played it myself. Tigris and Euphrates is also on iOS and even after doing the tutorial which holds your hand, I have absolutely no idea what is going on. I'll need to watch some BGG videos or something. Philthy fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
One thing that seems to catch people off guard in Tigris & Euphrates is that they are stuck with the mentality that a certain kingdom is 'theirs'. I operate with the opposite mentality: everything on the board is mine. Your kingdom? It's mine. Your momuments? They are also mine. Needless to say, not many monuments seem to get built when I play, and this is something that seems to be true of any game in which there are any aggressive experienced players.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
Regarding house-rules: I think we can agree that there are people who do it right and people who do it wrong, but it sounds like the real issue is with people who judge a game after only playing it a few times. It doesn't matter whether they houserule it, or sell their copy and complain on BGG about what a bad game it is, or perpetuate the problem by teaching every new player that there is only one strategy and this is it and you must do this or you will lose. No game is perfect, and no matter how many times the designer playtests something, there's always a chance that someone who has played it twice as many times will find something broken. But you're right that it is extremely arrogant and obnoxious when someone plays a game three times and the same strategy wins each time, and they decide that means the game is broken instead of sitting down to think about possible counters. So yeah. If you're house-ruling to disallow or hard-counter something you've decided is "broken" after two plays, you're doing it wrong. The time to start inventing house rules is after you've played so much that either everyone in the group is tired of playing the game as-is and wants to freshen things up, or that you think you understand it about as well as or better than the designer and want to try to improve on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:One thing that seems to catch people off guard in Tigris & Euphrates is that they are stuck with the mentality that a certain kingdom is 'theirs'. I operate with the opposite mentality: everything on the board is mine. Your kingdom? It's mine. Your momuments? They are also mine. Reminds me of a comment by a strong amateur Go player about Cho Chikun's style (and, by contrast, Takemiya Masaki's): "Cho's style is - this is my territory, don't touch it. And this territory seems to be yours... but, in fact, it is mine too. Takemiya is much nicer. He gives people territory... at first."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Trip report from my first outing with Mage Wars. Tom Vasel was right, this game is loving awesome. I cannot wait for another set of Mages, Spells and perhaps some interesting terrain tiles. I am curious why they used a folding board instead of tiles, I guess it was just easier, I think for portability I'm going to get the thing printed onto cloth since it's so drat bulky compared to everything else you need to carry around to play the game. Man that was a fantastic game though, we said screw the setup and just jumped into the game using the default Beastmaster and Wizard decks(never really liked Warlocks) and aside from having to check the rules for term explainations every couple minutes it was pretty straight forward and elegant. I really enjoyed how smooth the game flowed and the back and forth of battle was great. One thing I really enjoyed about the dice rolling was that since you roll so many die it really doesn't matter if you get a bad roll here or there because it evens out over the course of a game. One turn I rolled a total of 1 damage on 8 dice, if this was summoner wars and I went 1 for 8 I would probably lose the game right there unless my opponent had the same run of bad luck or made some really bad move but against a good player it would probably be game over. Here it didn't really matter because the overall numbers were so large that the difference between 1-5 damage is not nearly as important. Going to try and get in another game of it tomorrow and am now building the Priestess chick instead of the BeastMaster. God this game, this and Netrunner are going to consume me for the next couple months I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I have never heard of a designer who has sold a significant number of copies of a game being against house rules. I don't have a quote but I'd bet money Reiner Knizia would strenuously object to you houseruling his games before you fully understood them over the course of dozens of plays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Trip report from my first outing with Mage Wars. I've been eyeing Mage Wars for a while since I love tactical games, but I don't have many points of comparison for it. How does it compare to something like, say, Summoner Wars? Also, how clunky is the whole "spellbook" thing? I realize that one can just (maybe?) flip through a deck of cards instead of having to deal with the tome, but I dunno how integral that is. Also, you mentioned a lot of dice for the game, but saying that it evened out. How much of a luck factor is there in the game, then, since the two statements seem a bit contradictory in my mind. I'm probably just used to games like Warmachine and Summoner Wars where loving up a roll (and not doing enough damage) will likely have terrible repercussions for you unless your opponent also rolls poorly. Basically I need someone to pick this game up so I can try it out. On another topic, I posted this in the Kickstarter thread, but this game has potential: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/924348132/purge-sins-of-science-the-1st-real-time-strategy-c I really only backed it because of the art, admittedly, so don't take this post as any sort of endorsement of the game. The rulebook they posted is a complete mess that seems to run counter to some of the stuff they talked about in the gameplay demos (apparently each player only gets 3 Actions a turn?), there's a ton of stuff that needs to be tracked and could be fiddly (energy, attacks, hit points, defense points), the cards aren't exactly user friendly, lacking information on supply costs, keyword abilities, and whatnot, even though they showcase the art magnificently. But drat, that art just triggers all sorts of nerd admiration in me. I'm curious to see what it looks like if/when they post a full game demo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Augure posted:I don't have a quote but I'd bet money Reiner Knizia would strenuously object to you houseruling his games before you fully understood them over the course of dozens of plays. Not true. Dr. Knizia attended Strategicon a few years back and he indicated that house ruling was fine as well. In the end, it's YOUR GAME. If you want to throw it in the fireplace and burn it up, you can do that too. I'm not trying to say that it's smart to change the rules before playing or after only playing a couple of times (except for accessibility issues) but it's your game and your experience. If you and your friends want an entirely random first turn order in Agricola and change the space to allow fences instead, ok, that's your choice. Seems dumb to me, but I'm not going to object as long as I'm not playing in that game. Not feeling the need to control games that I don't play in. There are people out there who house rule every game they play in, just because they think it might be more fun. You play with those people at your risk, but so what? This discussion feels totalitarian to me. "The Gaming Gods say thou shalt not use house rules until some Gaming God says you can". Really? I prefer the house rule "Once seen always seen" because I play with some anal retentive people who will take advantage of my and others' bad memory to win. TO ME, that doesn't seem fair. Other people feel memory is just as much of a skill as any other. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I just don't play in those kinds of games. Other than that, I don't generally use house rules until we've played the game a zillion times and want to change up stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Lorini posted:This discussion feels totalitarian to me. "The Gaming Gods say thou shalt not use house rules until some Gaming God says you can". Really? No, not really, you weirdo. No one has said that barring a few people offering intentionally over the top quips. A lot of people have prefaced their statements with "it's your game, do whatever," and follow it with, "but here's why we feel it can be o'er hasty to houserule early." Some people, like myself, even explained examples of other gaming communities that use patching and changing as an excuse to not learn how to beat what appear to be dominant strategies. I've had really negative experiences with houseruling, and I figure it's worth mentioning them because I feel other people might learn from my mistakes. Similarly, people in favor of houseruling are explaining their successes (presumably) so we can see some examples of when it works. I'm not really sure what you're trying to suggest; Surely it can't be "since everyone is entitled to their own opinion and all opinions are equally valid we can never discuss them unless they're positive game reviews" like you see crop up here and in other threads, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Lorini posted:This discussion feels totalitarian to me. "The Gaming Gods say thou shalt not use house rules until some Gaming God says you can". Really? It's funny that you say this when I, easily the biggest, most pedantic rear end in a top hat of the thread, just loving said, and I goddamn quote, "I'm going to play the better man by not being the Fun Police." How much clearer can it get that nobody is encroaching upon your precious right to Free Parking Money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Thus the creation of the Gaming Libertarians was complete, with them stating that gaming would only be balanced using Free
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Lorini posted:This discussion feels totalitarian to me. "The Gaming Gods say thou shalt not use house rules until some Gaming God says you can". Really? Nobody's said that. In fact, everybody seems to agree houseruling is fine, with the understanding you probably shouldn't be doing it on the first few plays. Which even you apparently agree with, so where's the totalitarian discussion here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Board gaming is tricky, because quite frankly not a lot of people do it, and even fewer are interested in the type of games that You, The Reader, like. That's why this discussion (and many other ones itt) is happening, because a lot of us live in places that aren't college towns or simply can't find enough people with exactly the same tastes in games to play with. We make sacrifices and compromises in our groups so everyone can play what they want at least some of the time, and usually it goes pretty well. House-ruling is no different; Some people in a group really want to change stuff immediately because they don't think it's fun to see people using the same strategies 3 games in a row, and other people are comfortable playing and winning the exact same way a dozen times to force people to deal with it. I think it's inherently valuable to discuss what most people find appropriate and useful regarding when and how to houserule, because it's something that comes up in my group a lot, and I still haven't figured it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:No, not really, you weirdo. No one has said that barring a few people offering intentionally over the top quips. A lot of people have prefaced their statements with "it's your game, do whatever," and follow it with, "but here's why we feel it can be o'er hasty to houserule early." Some people, like myself, even explained examples of other gaming communities that use patching and changing as an excuse to not learn how to beat what appear to be dominant strategies. I've had really negative experiences with houseruling, and I figure it's worth mentioning them because I feel other people might learn from my mistakes. Similarly, people in favor of houseruling are explaining their successes (presumably) so we can see some examples of when it works. No, I hope I conveyed that this is all my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I probably overreacted to something that Dr. Knizia wouldn't say, so I apologize for that. There are bad games. There are certainly games I would never play again without house rules such as Eclipse. Since I'm unlikely to find someone who would play Eclipse with my house rules, I probably won't be playing it. Just like I had said before, if someone house rules something that I wouldn't house rule, I'd just simply say "well here's why I think that rule is there; are you sure you can deal with the ramifications of that change" particularly if it's a long game. The other thing is impact. Some house rules don't make a lot of impact on a a game and some make more. Apparently a lot of people play Kingdom Builder with two terrain cards. I would never play it like that, but that's a lot different than deciding that France gets 3 armies in Diplomacy. In the first example it's not going to change much. To me the change in fact simply adds AP and that's why I wouldn't do it. In the second example, France becomes way too strong (it's strong enough as it is) and will totally unbalance a game that is long to begin with. So again I apologize for misunderstanding what was being said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:One thing that seems to catch people off guard in Tigris & Euphrates is that they are stuck with the mentality that a certain kingdom is 'theirs'. I operate with the opposite mentality: everything on the board is mine. Your kingdom? It's mine. Your momuments? They are also mine. oh god, yes, this. My wife nearly skinned me alive the first time we played because I kept putting my leaders in "her" kingdom. The second game was a little better, but she still got mad at me for moving my leaders into "her" space after she built like 3 monuments in the same region. I think T&E is just a little too combative for her to begin with, but that "my kingdom" mentality is something that I'll be sure to address if I have to teach it in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I've been eyeing Mage Wars for a while since I love tactical games, but I don't have many points of comparison for it. How does it compare to something like, say, Summoner Wars? Also, how clunky is the whole "spellbook" thing? I realize that one can just (maybe?) flip through a deck of cards instead of having to deal with the tome, but I dunno how integral that is. I think the Dice Tower guys were going to do a side by side comparison of Summoner Wars vs Mage Wars but as the huge fan of both I agree that neither is going to replace the other. Mage Wars feels much more like Magic the Gathering with a tactical system on top of it. Where as Summoner Wars feels like a miniatures game condensed into a card game form. The difference is that you could easily build a deck in Mage Wars that used no other creatures other than your mage. Right now this is not viable at all because there's no support and it limits how much you could do on your turn, but in time with some items or conjurations that allow additional actions I could easily see someone building a viable deck that held no creatures. Summoner Wars would never work without units on the field, the resource system, the event cards, the summoner abilities. You could never separate Summoner Wars from the units. Then there's the time aspect to the games. Summoner Wars runs about 30-60 minutes, and you generally don't need to pay attention to what your opponent does on his turn because you can't interrupt it except for certain situations. For this reason I've played multiple games at once because I didn't need to focus on either board unless it was my turn. Summoner Wars has long turns but a short total time frame. Mage Wars is the opposite. Quick back and forth action during each turn that seems to go on for a long time(2+ hours for a single game). Each round in Mage Wars is trading quick actions with a fair bit of interruption until everyone is done and the round resets. I'd say the amount of AP in each game has it's place and a person with AP could drag either game out, and I don't think either really lends itself to AP. As for the other aspects, depth and accessibility. Mage Wars wins the former and Summoner Wars wins the latter. The biggest strength to Summoner Wars to me is the pick up and play aspect. I can teach the rules in 5 minutes to someone who has never played before and they can play a whole game with only a few questions. Our first game of Mage Wars was frequent checking of the rulebook to read what various effects and keywords meant. Summoner Wars deck customization is fairly limited and you have little chance to be able to tune a deck to make it play substantially different than the core deck. Mage Wars ties no cards to specific mages so you can change them however you like but going too far from a certain scope limits your overall options. The dice issue is pretty simple. In Summoner Wars most units have 1-2 life, with 1-2 attack value. You have a 2/3s chance of dealing 1 damage on a hit. Let's say that you and your opponent each give up 10 rolls at the other's Summoner through the course of a game. If both Summoners have 6 life, missing 50% of the time will cost you the game if your opponent hits the average and hits on 66%. Now let's look at Mage Wars; in MW you'll roll a lot more dice at your opponent. A die in MW has 1/3 chance of 0 damage, 1/3 chance of 1 damage and a 1/3 chance of 2 damage(not accounting for armor), so already you can see the a single die has an average of 1 damage as opposed to the 66% from . A Mage in MW has on average 34 life. Creatures have average damages between 2-4 dice in damage. Assuming you give up the same ratio of hits against a Mage in MW you'd get 56 rolls against a Mage in MW, now let's say you miss 50% of those you still have 28 hits of which can be either 1 or 2 damage. Since a Mage in MW has an average 34 life, you would need to roll 50% misses and of the 28 remaining hits, 7 need to be for 2 damage. This is about as far as my math goes but certainly you can see that the odds for this scenario to play out are far, FAR greater than the odds of you rolling 5 misses on 10 dice with a 1/3 chance to miss. Now there's a lot of other factors in play here on both sides, but basically more dice give you a chance for those dice to even out over time, and more importantly each die is less important in MW than in SW. Hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
I came across this Kickstarter for a pretty awesome storage system for game collecting. I'm definitely intrigued by the idea of condensing a dozen game boxes into a messenger bag, but on the other hand, it's a little pricey. Still on the fence about whether I'm going to kick in, but I figured there'd be interest in this thread. In one bag, he fit 6 versions of TTR (6 different boards, but only 1 set of trains/cards), 2 copies of Settlers, Kingdom Builder, Puerto Rico, and 8 Dominion expansions, all sorted and organized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Hope that helps! It did not help my wallet, but that was really drat good. Thanks for it, and drat you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:It did not help my wallet, but that was really drat good. Thanks for it, and drat you. Know that feeling. I can't wait for the expansions already. TAKE MY MONEY drat YOU!!!! St0rmD posted:I came across this Kickstarter for a pretty awesome storage system for game collecting. I'm definitely intrigued by the idea of condensing a dozen game boxes into a messenger bag, but on the other hand, it's a little pricey. Still on the fence about whether I'm going to kick in, but I figured there'd be interest in this thread. That would be good if I was constantly carrying games around, or I had a small enough collection to want to carry it all around in one bag, but even that seems excessive. I'd mostly likely be constantly switching games in and out of the bag and the boxes on my shelves. I can understand some people might like it but honestly who wants to carry around 8 expansions for Dominion, 6 boards for Ticket to Ride, Puerto Rico, Kingdom Builder and Settlers? Oh no having to lug boxes from my trunk all the time, why I might have to make two trips! I guess there's a lot of people that would rather toss the boxes and throw everything in one but I rarely have a game night where more than 2 of my games are being played so I would really rather not carry along 4 other games. Certainly looks nice though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
St0rmD posted:I came across this Kickstarter for a pretty awesome storage system for game collecting. I'm definitely intrigued by the idea of condensing a dozen game boxes into a messenger bag, but on the other hand, it's a little pricey. Still on the fence about whether I'm going to kick in, but I figured there'd be interest in this thread. I like the look of this, but I must quibble with the amount they are trying to raise. I have been involved in manufacturing plastics in the past, admittedly a few years ago, and their costs seem a little high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Redacted
Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:39
|
|
