|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:I've played it at least half a dozen times without feeling like it's repeating itself. Worst-case, deciding to start in the dusk or night phase instead of day will give you a different variety of encounters. Going to bookmark this for easy reference, thank you!
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:Another question, unrelated to my previous one; players who have logged many plays with Tales of the Arabian Nights: how's the replayability of the game? I know it has like 2600 paragraphs, but I read a review on Board Game Geek claiming that the reviewer encountered the same scenarios multiple times. I want to know if this is a common experience for those who own the game. There are certain encounters that you're more likely to run into (although the Z-Man edition helps with this by changing some of the status rules and expanding the encounter book dramatically), but you're still going to encounter a huge variety of craziness even so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Folderol posted:Just screened the Dice Tower run through, and it looks really excellent. The only thing I'm going to have to think about is the number of players. We can usually get four; I'm a little less certain about five. If you can't guarantee five, don't get BSG. BSG is garbage with less than five.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:If you can't guarantee five, don't get BSG. BSG is garbage with less than five. This can't be emphasized enough. BSG is counterintuitive in that it's not slightly worse with 4 than with 5; it is my favorite board game with 5 players, and a steaming pile of poo poo you couldn't pay me to play with 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Ignore what is written on the box. BSG requires 5+.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
The only reason I wouldn't play BSG with 5 players is if I were playing with 6 just to try out the new Daybreak Cylon Leader Motives. I paid extra to have Saul Tigh autograph my copy of BSG and I still refuse to play it with less than 5 players.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The only reason I wouldn't play BSG with 5 players is if I were playing with 6 just to try out the new Daybreak Cylon Leader Motives. The Daybreak loyalty deck chart actually suggests 5 players with 1 Cylon, 1 Cylon Leader, and the Mutineer card as a balanced setup. If you go six players, then going by the chart you can have a Cylon Leader or a Mutineer, not both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:Going to bookmark this for easy reference, thank you! It's phone-friendly, so that's the easiest way to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
My wife and I just wrapped up our first game of castles of burgundy which i won! i have to say it was an excellent choice for two people who are just putting their toes into the Euro gaming water. I am watching the run through on YouTube to figure out where we screwed up and we agreed to play again tomorrow 
Ropes4u fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Looking for the goon opinion on Cosmic Encounter: Firstly, the overall game looks pretty simple in concept, but gains complexity in the negotiation aspects, is this a correct assumption? I somehow got the idea the game was more "complex" so avoided it, but have lately learned that maybe my first impression was completely off. Secondly, it it worth getting if I'll only be able to play most 3 or 4 player games. Honestly wasn't too interested in the game until just now, but after checking out some info I'm really interested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:Secondly, it it worth getting if I'll only be able to play most 3 or 4 player games. No. It's not as extreme a "5 is the only number worth playing" case as BSG, but if you're never going to go above 4 then I wouldn't bother. 3 is particularly bad because you're always encountering the same people and the alliance aspect is too weak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:Looking for the goon opinion on Cosmic Encounter: My opinion is probably wrong, but CE is randomly flipping a card to see who you get to randomly attack. At which point you can offer for people to help (And they randomly will depending on the phases of the moon and if they care to help), then you might aswell play a random card from your hand and hope for the best. Oh, and there's a good chance that you'll (randomly) get a lovely power and be screwed the entire game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
The General's assessment is pretty spot-on. I have played Cosmic Encounter twice and I really didn't like it. What power you get is random, who you attack is random, whether you win or not is random. I feel like there's very little strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:Looking for the goon opinion on Cosmic Encounter: Good news: So the game actually has some strategy to it. It's not entirely random. Bad news: There is only a single strategy and it is literally the Munchkin strategy. Everybody gets 1 point from winning and then the game goes forever until either somebody gets lucky or all the players gang up on a single other player and it ends in an x-1 way tie where x is the number of players. Each group I have tried this game with has discovered this strategy within a maximum of 3 plays. Also, some powers are amazing and others are loving terrible. The designer suggestion is that it's "balanced" because of player politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
My comment was actually replying to Broken Loose about Resistance: Avalon, which outright requires five players, but thanks to everyone for the replies, which are very helpful in my case since they mean I'm in pretty much the same situation with either Resistance: Avalon or BSG, as potential games with a traitor dynamic. That being the case, I'll probably take Broken Loose's suggestion and get Resistance: Avalon first. In the meantime, we really enjoyed Pandemic (2d ed.). The board and pieces were well constructed (the larger pieces are wood, the smaller ones clear plastic disease cubes), the board artwork was minimalist but nice (and effective for the game context), the rules were very straightforward, with good clarifications, and the game was relatively quick (we didn't mark the time, but it was certainly under two hours, probably well under that). It was a family setting with players who like cooperative games and don't do a lot of gaming, and everyone was able to get up to speed quickly and have fun. Looking forward to 7 Wonders tomorrow. Thanks again to everyone for the feedback!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
The General posted:My opinion is probably wrong, but CE is randomly flipping a card to see who you get to randomly attack. At which point you can offer for people to help (And they randomly will depending on the phases of the moon and if they care to help), then you might aswell play a random card from your hand and hope for the best. I think most of the strategy of Cosmic Encounters is metagaming political stuff -- who trusts who, who thinks x race is overpowered, who has a weird sense of honor, who can convince friends to gang up on another friend etc. This is only a half-formed thought, but it is most about finding out how to present whatever power you get to your friends and profit on that perception -- as well as laughing about the potential uses and interactions of all the zany powers in any particular game (it is a shame then that actual games tend to last a fairly long time, since most of that aspect is exhausted early in the game). Which is to say that the 'fun' doesn't really come from the game itself as it is, without expansions, pretty simple. Also, it tends to encourage ganging up on the leader, so, oddly enough, one of the best ways to win is to spend as long as you can not seeming like a threat (which is not very fun). With a few changes, what I have said above about the fun of the game ('it is all about the politicking at the table) could be said for any game design, even those like Risk and Monopoly, regardless of the merits of their actual rules and design. If you, the playing group, are bringing all the fun to a game then, in my opinion, the game should either get out of the way and present a short streamlined experience (see The Resistance) or embrace the complexity and make solid systems that support mechanically the politicking that your group is doing (Twilight Imperium or BSG). With that being said, almost every time that I have played CE, I have had fun (mostly when I was a teenager), but it is worth stressing that one of the benefits of modern board game design is that you don't have to settle for games that don't support their fun mechanically and provide a solid, deep rules-- which I don't think Cosmic Encounters does. DirkGently fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Thanks guys, most definitely not going to buy before I try after seeing some of the comments, but am still interested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Did those actually happen? I hadn't heard anything in the year since the Kickstarter ended. It happened, and it's not a terrible game at all (I was a backer. Cognitive Bias, anyone?  ) I only played it twice, because it turns out that the little slidey-card-things that are the basis of combat just don't seem to work well with some people's skin oils. My dad could not physically make the tabs slide, no matter what he tried. If manipulating the components is a pain in the rear end, the game doesn't hit the table much (at all.)The mini's are sweet though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:My wife and I just wrapped up our first game of castles of burgundy which i won! You really can't go wrong with Castles of Burgundy, especially at two players with a significant other. You can get it down to an hour and if you buy some organizing boxes or whatever, the set up and clean up take no time at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Trynant posted:Man, City of Remnants was a huge letdown. The game is full of seemingly-clever ideas, but the rulebook is ambiguous to the point of burden. Worse, the I worry about how playtested the game was, because in our playthrough we easily came across a literally game-breaking card combination (infinite card play), which because the game doesn't specify how card play is timed stopped the game to a halt as we tried to impromptu rule the drat mess. Wait, how did you get an infinite card play? Also, there was an errata/faq. There was one card that was changed but are you sure you weren't shuffling your cards unless you take a reset action? https://www.plaidhatgames.com/images/games/city-of-remnants/cor_faq.pdf‎
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
A Bioshock game, whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Edit: That link 404s for me, here where I found the FAQ. ThisIsNoZaku fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
j8910 posted:Wait, how did you get an infinite card play? The errata'ed card that broke the game was the exact card that broke ours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
For what it's worth, City Of Remnants supposedly drags on with 2 players, and there were some suggestions thrown around to the tone of playing to a lower point limit, but if you were playing with more than 2, I got nothing. As mentioned by others, the broken card was errata'd. As for the Yugai spawning adding a lot of luck, you have to realize that most of the spots on the board only have their coordinate appear once in the entire deck, which means after the Yugai appear in a spot, that spot is safe, something to consider when developing and moving around. The exception is (as far as I recall) the victory point spots, and the "corner" spots of each of the colored zones, which can spawn twice before the deck runs out.
Scyther fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
I'd like to buy Race for the Galaxy, but I worry that if I do, they'll release a new edition (within a month of my purchase just because) and my game will be as valuable and useful as the regular Thunderstone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:I'd like to buy Race for the Galaxy, but I worry that if I do, they'll release a new edition (within a month of my purchase just because) and my game will be as valuable and useful as the regular Thunderstone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:Race for the Galaxy [...] release[...] We'll be lucky to see the next (incompatible with the previous ones) expansion this year. I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:I'd like to buy Race for the Galaxy, but I worry that if I do, they'll release a new edition (within a month of my purchase just because) and my game will be as valuable and useful as the regular Thunderstone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Scyther posted:For what it's worth, City Of Remnants supposedly drags on with 2 players, and there were some suggestions thrown around to the tone of playing to a lower point limit, but if you were playing with more than 2, I got nothing. As mentioned by others, the broken card was errata'd. As for the Yugai spawning adding a lot of luck, you have to realize that most of the spots on the board only have their coordinate appear once in the entire deck, which means after the Yugai appear in a spot, that spot is safe, something to consider when developing and moving around. The exception is (as far as I recall) the victory point spots, and the "corner" spots of each of the colored zones, which can spawn twice before the deck runs out. Even with the errata and FAQ (which does clear up a good deal), we were playing with three and the game still felt like a slog. Looking at Yugai patrol again, I don't really see what it actually adds to the game besides a luck factor and another bookkeeping phase of the game to work through the occasional battles. And battles! Battles are cool you'd think, but they inherently keep players who aren't involved in the battle out of play for a longer time, and go on for so long thanks to the "continue battle until only one side is left" structure of fights. The game just feels sloppily executed when I played it. The lack of time specification in the initial rulebook (something Dominion learned to emphasize 5 years ago), the decision to make battles resolution a lengthy procedure (something wargames found out were not great to do and how to avoid their pitfalls decades ago), and just the general spread of mechanics all over the place adding an extra layer of fiddly bookkeeping (something euros picked up on fixing for quite some time as well); all come together to make an experience that is slow and overstays its welcome. I'll give it another try with errata and a clear ruleset, now that that's available. But I'll do it with a new set of players, and after a long enough time to recover from a spoiled session.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
What in god's name happened to the Cardboard Children column on RockPaperShotgun? It looks like the same author but he's had some kind of psychotic table-oriented break.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Is Archipelago good with two players?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
I've been looking for a solitare scifi game and I'm thinking about getting the Artifact and Last Frontier from print play games. I haven't seen anyone post about these games, any opinions? Should I grab Hidden Intruder as well? I'm also checking around for Napoleon's Triumph. Tough to find!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
A few months back, I purchased Settlers of Catan after playing the free online version for awhile. Now tonight, I ordered Love Letter and Resistance: Avalon. Not only that, but I can't stop watching Shut Up & Sit Down videos. I think I've been converted. A friend wants to introduce me to Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear, but I think Memoir '44 looks more my wargame type, or 1812 Invasion of Canada. Is Conflict a tall order to deal with if I've never played anything beyond Risk? Also thanks for the amazing OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:Is Archipelago good with two players? My girlfriend and I play Archipelago by ourselves occasionally - I think it's still pretty good with just the two of us. You won't be playing with the traitor card, you'll never bump into each other, and the negotiations over the crises are much different. Because there's only two players, the final scores tend to switch between incredibly close and complete blowouts,depending on whether one of us has managed to guess one of the others objectives. That being said, I love the game for its system, which helps to convey the game's theme even more. And I probably don't have to tell you about the art in the game, but we still stop the game sometimes just to look at the hexes - there's so many little details. When we play by ourselves, it's still one of the games I'm most excited to take off the shelf. Hope this helps. Prairie Bus fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
DarkSun6890 posted:I've been looking for a solitare scifi game and I'm thinking about getting the Artifact and Last Frontier from print play games. I haven't seen anyone post about these games, any opinions? Should I grab Hidden Intruder as well? I'm also checking around for Napoleon's Triumph. Tough to find! Napoleon's Triumph has become nearly impossible to locate without getting fleeced, as it's very much out of print. However, the follow up Guns of Gettysburg is currently in print and not rarer than rocking horse poo poo, and by many accounts lives up to the pedigree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
DarkSun6890 posted:I've been looking for a solitare scifi game and I'm thinking about getting the Artifact and Last Frontier from print play games. I haven't seen anyone post about these games, any opinions? Should I grab Hidden Intruder as well? I'm also checking around for Napoleon's Triumph. Tough to find! I loved Last Frontier. As your squad keeps getting killed by aliens you try to account for all the crewmembers (dead or alive) and evacuate the ship before it explodes. You can be ambushed on any unoccupied room or passage, this forces you to decide between leaving soldiers guarding your escape route or using them to explore the ship. Add some rules for berserker robots, jammed guns, panicked soldiers or decompression, and you have a truly Alien movie experience. I haven't played Intruder very much, I find it boring and random. I am able to win almost always unless I have very bad luck with the alien mutations. If you are interested on this kind of games, you should check Space Infantry too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Trynant posted:Even with the errata and FAQ (which does clear up a good deal), we were playing with three and the game still felt like a slog. Looking at Yugai patrol again, I don't really see what it actually adds to the game besides a luck factor and another bookkeeping phase of the game to work through the occasional battles. And battles! Battles are cool you'd think, but they inherently keep players who aren't involved in the battle out of play for a longer time, and go on for so long thanks to the "continue battle until only one side is left" structure of fights. It's not worth it. I tried to love this game because it has so many good ideas but when it came down to it it just isn't very good. I played it about five times, each time hoping it would live up to my hopes but it never did. City of Remnants is why I don't trust Shut up and Sit Down reviews anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Does anybody own BattleCon? I kickstarted the new game, and shortly they are doing a reprint of the first one with updated art. How bad is the art in the first game, and is it worth waiting 4 months for a revised art edition?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Just as a kind of warning, there are many differences between Napoleon's Triumph and Guns of Gettysburg: I think they both manage to simulate their respective battles well but it's important to note that the two games function in very different ways. The most notable difference is that they are both a-historical, but in different ways: - Napoleon's Triumph approaches it by making deployment hidden: as the French, you don't know where the real attack is coming from. The Allied player can follow the original plan (attack the French right wing), or follow another plan. The arrival of the reinforcements is largely dictated by the overall success of the Allied attack. -Guns of Gettysburg approaches it through double blind reinforcement schedules: you don't know what exactly you are getting or your opponent is getting at any set time. The difference between the two is that the first one is under the control of the player while the second one isn't. There are balancing mechanisms, however, that means that the random factor in GoG does not actually affect the game (objectives can move depending on the number of reinforcements on either side). Apart from that, GoG overall is a more random game: artillery token draw creates more randomness (although this is also used as a finite resource/ammunition system to good effect), the way that divisions/corps are reduced is more random as well. The latter is done in order to make the confederates qualitatively better, which I guess fits the battle. NT is definitely more about sweeping cavalry charges/manuevers than GoG. The mechanism of success is similar in both places: you fix your enemy into position and then flank them. Frontal attacks in GoG tend to be more successful (although if you attack a ridge and the enemy has artillery tokens and a broad front from which to fire from, you will likely suffer hideous casualties). In terms of complexity, I actually find GoG easier to play (after you get through some of the more fiddly parts like multi-hour turns). One memorable game yesterday found my union line buckled again and again (I hadn't managed to get one of the objectives behind the fish-hook in time) and I almost managed to hold on until a last hour charge by McLaw managed to knock me away and capture the objective. I honestly don't know which game I like more, although I would say that NT is more elegant of the two games. Then again, I'm more interested in ACW than napoleonics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
The General posted:Does anybody own BattleCon? I kickstarted the new game, and shortly they are doing a reprint of the first one with updated art. It's bad and inconsistent because several artists were used. Some characters are merely "well, it could be worse" and others are "Holy crap this is deviant art bad." People complain about art in Sentinels of the Multiverse but I'm willing to give it a pass for consistency of style, variety of artwork (every unique card has different artwork) and the fact that it works in lock step with the theme. It's amateur, but workable and doesn't distract from the experience for me. I'm not willing to give the art in War of Indines the same pass. Edit: examples Bad: http://www.battleconnection.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33:sagas-seities&catid=1:war-of-indines&Itemid=13 http://www.battleconnection.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2:kallistar-flarechild&catid=1:war-of-indines&Itemid=13 Could be Worse: http://www.battleconnection.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:khadath-ahemusei&catid=1:war-of-indines&Itemid=13 http://www.battleconnection.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:cadenza&catid=1:war-of-indines&Itemid=13 Free Gratis fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
The General posted:Does anybody own BattleCon? I kickstarted the new game, and shortly they are doing a reprint of the first one with updated art. I didn't realize the reprint was going to have new art on the cards. I assumed it was just the box. Looking at BGG, it seems that the art is really inconsistent http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1175730/battlecon-war-of-indines?size=original
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:31
|
|
