|
St0rmD posted:Session Report: That is awesome, congrats!
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
My Santa Grogs on BGG sent me 1989: Dawn of Freedom    Who wants to try it on VASSAL? Trash Ops fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Nov 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
As requested by people in the October Design Contest thread, I've started a Board Game Design Workshop thread. Anyone here who's interested in making games rather than just playing them should join us!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Sherrard posted:My Santa Grogs on BGG sent me 1989: Dawn of Freedom
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
I really don't like Descent. Scenarios seem to go really hard one way or the other for heroes or the overlord. We started a campaign but we played one scenario (Death on the Wing) where due to what overlord cards had been chosen we just lost in one turn as the heroes and we couldn't do anything to prevent it. It was so underwhelming that all of us (including the overlord player) haven't felt any need to return. It's on my "sell at the first occasion" list along with 7 Wonders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
VulpesInculta posted:"sell at the first occasion"...7 Wonders. What e: so there's some actual content in this post, just played Seasons on BGA for the first time the other day. Really dug it, playing around and getting combos together felt really cool. Definitely looking forward to playing it again Fungah! fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:What It is a pretty boring filler without a lot of depth. v  v
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
VulpesInculta posted:my "sell at the first occasion" list along with 7 Wonders. How much do you want for 7 Wonders? PM me if you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Sherrard posted:It is a pretty boring filler without a lot of depth. v Which is why everybody voted it 5th best game in the last thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Which is why everybody voted it 5th best game in the last thread. People don't really like or dislike things by committee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
I finally got around to playing Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001-? solo. It's different. I managed to pull out a win by keeping half of the terrorists in Afghanistan the entire game. Yay honeypot. I guess. Maybe I was just playing it wrong? Anyway, the game can be frustrating those times you can only play cards that help the enemy. I overcame that by abusing the hell out of the AI since I knew what kind of moves it would make. But while that ended the frustration, it made the victory seem hollow. Playing with a human opponent might make this game fun, I'm not sure. It feels like too much depends on dice. I'm not sure they trump strategy so much as they have a tendency to slow down whatever plans you have and that also leads to frustration. I think cards alone would be better. Or perhaps dice alone. The combination of the two didn't work well. For example you can play an action card to improve the governance of a country. Well, sort of. The action just gives you a chance to roll the dice to see if you improve the governance of a country. But if you roll poorly that move is wasted. The game definitely has some good ideas about asymmetry and I can see the basic concepts being used to better effect in a different game. I'd rate it overall as worth studying if you're into game design but not worth playing solo. I haven't played with a real opponent yet so I'll reserve judgement for how well it plays with 2 people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:People don't really like or dislike things by committee. "Like or dislike" is different from emperical claims of certain qualities of the game. The majority of this thread prefers games that have a certain degree of depth, so it's illogical for it to not be very deep while also being very popular. edit: Worst case scenario, I can just pull up all the individual reviews by voters from the last thread, all of whom praised the game for its fun and depth. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
nelson posted:The game definitely has some good ideas about asymmetry and I can see the basic concepts being used to better effect in a different game. I'd rate it overall as worth studying if you're into game design but not worth playing solo. I haven't played with a real opponent yet so I'll reserve judgement for how well it plays with 2 people. I don't really remember if I wrote up my impressions for the thread, but a few years back I tried this out on VASSAL with another goon, and then picked up my own copy of it last year around this time. It has a lot of similarities with Twilight Struggle, but unlike that game where it constantly feels down to the wire, in none of the dozen or so plays that I've had (only 2 player, never solo), the terrorists never came close to winning. You're right, it does have an interesting take on asymmetry, but the fundamental difference is that the US had guaranteed actions, and the terrorists have to roll dice to do literally anything. While its possible my friend and I who played it were simply terrible (a real possibility), none of the strategies we tried pursuing as Terrorists were able to gain any traction. I ended up selling it off a couple months ago, since it just wasn't something we wanted to spend more time trying to crack into. Also, cheers for all the solo game recommendations. I'll see if I can hunt down a copy of one of them around new years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:"Like or dislike" is different from emperical claims of certain qualities of the game. The majority of this thread prefers games that have a certain degree of depth, so it's illogical for it to not be very deep while also being very popular. You aren't under any obligation to defend the games honor, nor to represent "the majority", nor is posting a lot of reviews of other people finding something fun going to convince anyone they like it. Nor is anyone disliking a game you like going to convince anyone else it is bad, empirically or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
nelson posted:I finally got around to playing Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001-? solo. It's different. I managed to pull out a win by keeping half of the terrorists in Afghanistan the entire game. Yay honeypot. I guess. Maybe I was just playing it wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:You aren't under any obligation to defend the games honor, nor to represent "the majority", nor is posting a lot of reviews of other people finding something fun going to convince anyone they like it. Nor is anyone disliking a game you like going to convince anyone else it is bad, empirically or otherwise. Sherrard posted something misleading. I posted a factual rebuttal. If Sherrard feels that my rebuttal is inadequate, he will post a response and we will engage in discussion, because this is a discussion thread on a discussion forum. It's happened before and it will happen in the future. I'm not necessarily expecting to change his opinion in particular, but there are other people whose opinion may be affected by getting the whole story. Not only that, but I've conceded similar discussions time and again in the past, so there is a precedent for an expected conclusion. I think that your claim that I'm trying to defend a game's "honor" or something equally silly is overly antagonistic and an attempt to egg me into lashing out at you. I let good games speak for and defend themselves, and a lot of people have personally thanked me for how much thought I put into what defines "good" at times. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Claims about a game's quality are subjective. Depth is, at least in theory, a measurable quantity, though we'd have to agree on a definition first. 7 Wonders has quite a large position space after the first few cards have been drafted, and a decent amount of qualitative variety between those positions, but your available moves at any given position are not that large and can be pruned pretty heavily, which I think I would say gives it "medium" depth. It also suffers from a step in its learning curve. Until you've learned to maximize decisions for your own scoring potential, you're better off working on that, as trying to think too much about thwarting other people is going to hold you back even more. What this means is that if you're the best in your group at playing positively, you don't even need to start screwing with the others, or defending yourself from being screwed, until they've almost caught up with you in terms of their ability to assess the relative value of cards to them. If they take long enough to do that, you're likely to overlook the whole "what can I afford to pass to X? What is Y likely to pass me?" stratum of the game's strategy and decide the game is just about picking whatever card is worth the most to you... and thus see the game as lacking in depth. xopods fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
FebrezeNinja posted:Have you looked into GMT's Andean Abyss yet? It's by the designer of Lab, based of the lessons learned from it, 1-4 players, and removes almost all die rolls. Will also be expanded into a general counter-insurgency series with two similar games next year. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
xopods posted:Depth is, at least in theory, a measurable quantity, though we'd have to agree on a definition first. 7 Wonders has quite a large position space after the first few cards have been drafted, but your available moves at any given position are not that large and can be pruned pretty heavily, which I think I would say gives it "medium" depth. I will agree that 7W has only a medium amount of depth, but medium != no depth. It can be argued that Dominion has only a medium amount of depth, since each kingdom is effectively solvable even if you include counter-strategies, but nobody would stretch to say that Dominion lacks depth. A notable bit is that the game is expandable and more options become available with each expansion, so any perceived depth problem can certainly be alleviated somewhat. Also, changing the number of players, while not always possible, certainly shakes things up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I will agree that 7W has only a medium amount of depth, but medium != no depth. It can be argued that Dominion has only a medium amount of depth, since each kingdom is effectively solvable even if you include counter-strategies, but nobody would stretch to say that Dominion lacks depth. I wasn't disagreeing with you, trying to settle the argument. Some people might say Dominion lacks depth, though, especially if they'd only played the base set. And for the same reason: limited decisions at each node, heavy pruning in most situations, and sharp steps in the learning curve which trick you into thinking you've now "mastered" the game because the next strategic leap is much less obvious than the previous one. It also depends on whether you look at Dominion as a single game or as a system for creating games. From an analysis perspective, you're better off looking at any given kingdom as a game in its own right, and each individual setup varies between low and medium depth. xopods fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
How is the Horus Heresy board game? FFG appears to have it on sale for 25 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
As someone 4 games into the base set, what's a typical 'pruning' strategy of Dominions? Would you just take all 10 of a certain card set? Or vary amongst a bunch? I tend to favor "stuff that gets money" first, then go for "multiply action/cards". Not sure if I'm just playing like an idiot though. I love 7 Wonders. I'd give it 6/10 in depth. You can vary your strategy every game, and once you factor leaders/cities in it can be a very interesting choice of "roll with leaders or roll with handed cards/position". It's heavily tactical in 2-player too, far moreso than many-playered, and the team variant gives it an entirely different feel. I personally couldn't see finding it lacking in depth, short of playing like a few games and just not digging it. My gaming group, fairly diverse in style preference, pretty much all liked it after a game. Still, I'd not call it an objectively sure thing. Mleh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
I think I need a small clarification about the rules for Ca$h n Gun$. When players select their bullet cards, they know which ones they're picking right? The rulebook wasn't clear on if what you play is random or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:I think I need a small clarification about the rules for Ca$h n Gun$. When players select their bullet cards, they know which ones they're picking right? The rulebook wasn't clear on if what you play is random or not. Absolutely. That's part of the tension of the game: did he or did he not play a bullet? In my mind, it's less "Reservoir Dogs: The Game" and more "Dirty Harry: The Game".  Also, lollin' at BL white-knighting 7 Wonders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Ledhed posted:Absolutely. That's part of the tension of the game: did he or did he not play a bullet? In my mind, it's less "Reservoir Dogs: The Game" and more "Dirty Harry: The Game". Excellent. Thanks a lot!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Nooo BL  I miss him already [EDIT] Since we're talking Cash n Guns, there's a clarification I'd like. Are you supposed to reveal what card you played even if you don't fire? (for example, your target withdrew or you withdrew) We have been playing that you don't, or else the final round is essentially "solvable" to anyone with a good enough memory. bobvonunheil fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Nooo BL I will play 30 games of Fluxx in his honor. I will be back within twenty minutes to fifty weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
Pander posted:As someone 4 games into the base set, what's a typical 'pruning' strategy of Dominions? Would you just take all 10 of a certain card set? Or vary amongst a bunch? I tend to favor "stuff that gets money" first, then go for "multiply action/cards". Not sure if I'm just playing like an idiot though. Pruning strategy is something you're doing without knowing the nerdy term for it. Think of each decision as a tree of all available options, and common sense pruning out the obviously terrible decisions. Some games have depth by having huge decision trees (Le Havre), others give players a bitch of a time figuring out what a bad decision might be (Imperial). Most deep games have both. There are two places this happens in Dominion. The most important is when you look at the set and decide which cards are good and bad before the game even starts. This is the major source of Dominion's depth, and experienced players will take into account combos, expected game length, availability of attacks, yada yada. Woodcutter and Workshop are typically pruned as poo poo cards, but can be very valuable in some sets. If in doubt, keep a strategy simple with fewer actions. Pruning also happens to a lesser extent every turn when you decide what to buy with money or what actions to play, but this decision is more limited and obvious. For instance, if you have 6 money you'd probably rule out a silver or copper in favor of gold, a powerful action, or a duchy. The draw pile and the depletion of cards available might also influence the choice of an experienced player, but it's usually straight forward. Edit: Welp, you only have the base set, removed useless expansion examples. King Chicken fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
Seasons is still too goddamn long after another play. This might be only for 2-player, or possibly 3 experienced players. After another play of Copycat I ended up kinda disappointed by it overall. The trashing strategy that ruled base Dominion is weighted pretty heavily here, and the doubler spots are insanely powerful to the point of dictating the restricted endgame. You basically need the 10-VP cards or double money cards + Ph.D to even have a shot at winning the game, but with only 11 turns, you can easily get screwed by a deck shuffle and miss out on a key card you need for your engine to go off. It looks like it has room for an expansion, which would hopefully polish up some of the gameplay because I'd been waiting for a deck-building worker placement for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
Soma Soma Soma posted:Friday is a pretty fun solo game in which you are helping Robinson Crusoe escape the island he is stranded on. It's quick (30 minutes) and has multiple difficulties for plenty of re-playability. It's also very portable (6"x6" box) and doesn't require much space to play, and very few pieces that could get lost. I keep putting Friday into my cart for the various online boardgame stores that have free shipping at a certain level. I think it looks fun so I'm glad to hear you enjoy it. Kiranamos posted:Escape got a ton of hype at BGG.CON because it was quick and readily accessible due to a sponsored event where copies were being given out, but I think the game is really short-lived. I've played with 3 different groups and won the base game in 2 tries each time. After that, you're forced to add expansions in to keep it fresh; the problem is that you're still rolling the same 5 dice with the same simple rules, so there's not actually anything new to do after the first few plays. With a 10 minute game, that's pretty awful. Space Alert is way better than Escape. Bummer about Escape! The video playthrough/review up on BGG made it look really fun. Was going grab it for my wife and I because we dig dice games, but if it's gonna get stale that quick I might reconsider.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
Anyone know a good board game for a coupla cousins about to turn ten? the JJ fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
Labyrinth is pretty much a failure of a game in my opinion. I almost like it for the interesting way in which it deals with Operations, in that they interact in an interesting way with the stability of the countries, but as people said before, it relies too much on the dice and that actively drags the game back. It would be like if you had to roll a dice in order to place influence on the board in Twilight Struggle. If you are wondering about the Jihadist strategy it's either to get into Pakistan/Central Asia and hope you get nukes, then hope you get both clean operatives and martyrdom operation (the way I won), or just place loads and loads of plots pretty much every round, because plots pretty much do everything you want and you only need to collect up troops for major jihads. In other words, play Andean Abyss/Cuba Libre/A Distant Plain instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Anyone know a good board game for a coupla cousins about to turn ten? Pitch Car, Crokinole, Survive!, a football, Forbidden Island, or Blokus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 09:50
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Anyone know a good board game for a coupla cousins about to turn ten? If they are boys, Summoner Wars Master Set. Won't break the bank and will give them a lot of replay value and cheap expansion potential.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:You aren't under any obligation to defend the games honor, nor to represent "the majority", nor is posting a lot of reviews of other people finding something fun going to convince anyone they like it. Nor is anyone disliking a game you like going to convince anyone else it is bad, empirically or otherwise. Broken Loose posted:Sherrard posted something misleading. I posted a factual rebuttal. If Sherrard feels that my rebuttal is inadequate, he will post a response and we will engage in discussion, because this is a discussion thread on a discussion forum. It's happened before and it will happen in the future. I'm not necessarily expecting to change his opinion in particular, but there are other people whose opinion may be affected by getting the whole story. Not only that, but I've conceded similar discussions time and again in the past, so there is a precedent for an expected conclusion. Winson, I'm honestly not sure what BL got probated for here. He was just engaging in typical conversation, and nothing particularly untoward got said. I personally think that BL is an excellent contributor to this thread and I don't like the precedent being set when people can get probated for wanting to discuss value judgements that others have posted, which is a natural part of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Winson, I'm honestly not sure what BL got probated for here. It's pretty clear he got probated for mod sass, not discussing a value judgement. Xopods posted a rebuttal and did it in a manner that wasn't antagonistic. BL would be fine if he could post a counter argument with being condescending or arrogant about his point. Sometimes his rants are fine, like his Race for the Galaxy rant, but I think it's pretty bad for discussions in general when your argument slaps the other guy in the face, regardless of how "right" your argument is. edit: Not to mention he just got back from being banned for the same bullshit two pages ago. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
gently caress yeah, 30 days without BL!  So, anyone played the second Innovation expansion (Figures in the Sand) already? Is it worth it? Do I have to combine the two or do they work separately? VVV: How do you buy a probation? Pierzak fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Sherrard posted something misleading. I posted a factual rebuttal. If Sherrard feels that my rebuttal is inadequate, he will post a response and we will engage in discussion, because this is a discussion thread on a discussion forum. It's happened before and it will happen in the future. I'm not necessarily expecting to change his opinion in particular, but there are other people whose opinion may be affected by getting the whole story. Not only that, but I've conceded similar discussions time and again in the past, so there is a precedent for an expected conclusion. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
CSI's got 10% off everything this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Ledhed posted:Absolutely. That's part of the tension of the game: did he or did he not play a bullet? In my mind, it's less "Reservoir Dogs: The Game" and more "Dirty Harry: The Game".
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 13:37
|
|