|
Bubble-T posted:I love Castles of Burgundy too though two things about it bother me ever so slightly: I keep the tiles in the separate bins of the box. Just grab a color and you are good to go. I have knowledge in one bin, buildings in another, black market gets their own, and mines+ships+castles are lumped together as they don't need to be randomized. Everything else is bagged up on top of the goods tiles in the big bin.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Admin Understudy posted:Feld handles it in a consistently compelling way though. A lot of mediocre games where there are a dozen different aspects to scoring end up feeling random at the end. In Feld games though there's this great balance where you can't do everything but can't ignore anything either. Even the 3 games he put out last year that ended up pretty underwhelming handle this feeling well. I agree! Burgundy is awesome, and Russian Railroads (not by Feld, but very 'do a bunch of stuff to get VPs) is one of the best games released in the last 12 months (that I've played). "Point salad" is a neutral term for identifying the types of games he makes. Some people don't like them, but anything with multiple avenues to victory is on to a good thing in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:What is the thread's opinion on the following games: The End posted:"Point Salad" is the term you're after. Pretty much anything ever made by Stefan Feld qualifies. Ah yeah that slipped my mind. I'm ok with it but I do find these sorts of games a little frustrating to teach because they usually have so many (relatively) equally important things going on, and you generally can't explain why people should care beyond "it gives you points". Durendal posted:I keep the tiles in the separate bins of the box. Just grab a color and you are good to go. I have knowledge in one bin, buildings in another, black market gets their own, and mines+ships+castles are lumped together as they don't need to be randomized. Everything else is bagged up on top of the goods tiles in the big bin. I need to get a Plano box or equivalent for it, I didn't find the container that game with the game suitable.. though I should try dumping all the non-random tiles on a single bin, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:What is the thread's opinion on the following games: In interest of actually answering this question: - Pretty bad - One of the first modern board games, probably not something you need to play. - Solid starter game - Holy loving poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:What is the thread's opinion on the following games: What an interesting list. It's like sequential and evenly spaced out on a spectrum from horseshit to ambrosia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Remember kids! Random games aren't poo poo! Badly made random games are poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:We were discussing this in the chat previously, but why is it alright to say 'this film is terrible but I enjoy watching it' but people struggle to say 'this game is bad but I enjoy playing it'? I'm not making references to any particular game or genre, I'm actually curious as why it was the case and would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. I think part of the issue is that film criticism has had over a century of development and study. Even though art is ultimately subjective, there are a bunch of rules that are generally known to be good practice and have been accepted by the general public i.e. proper framing of a shot, show not tell, 180 degree rule, NO loving JUMP CUTS etc. There's also the fact that there are multiple awards shows for film that point giant golden fingers at certain movies and say "THIS IS A GOOD MOVIE", which provides a frame of reference that boardgames just don't have. Board games need to get some hardcore criticism that can penetrate the community and form a loose consensus, then maybe everyone will point and a game that has "roll to move" and pretentiously call it amateurish, until some brilliant game designer is able to do for "roll to move" what Jean Luc Godard did for the jump cut. Maybe then we'll all be able throw parties to watch Vlaada Chvatl host the Spiel de Jahres on ABC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
Being a purposely antagonizing prick isn't doing anything for your case. Bosushi! posted:I think part of the issue is that film criticism has had over a century of development and study. Even though art is ultimately subjective, there are a bunch of rules that are generally known to be good practice and have been accepted by the general public i.e. proper framing of a shot, show not tell, 180 degree rule, NO loving JUMP CUTS etc. There's also the fact that there are multiple awards shows for film that point giant golden fingers at certain movies and say "THIS IS A GOOD MOVIE", which provides a frame of reference that boardgames just don't have. I imagine that when film was a new medium they dealt with this poo poo all the time. Lampsacus posted:What is the thread's opinion on the following games: Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:48
|
|
I didn't know MLG was an actual real thing I just assumed it was what pretentious video gamers called themselves.
|
Tekopo posted:Remember kids! Random games aren't poo poo! Badly made random games are poo poo! Randomness is in fact one of the most important mechanics in games. It's just really really easy to misuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I love Castles of Burgundy too though two things about it bother me ever so slightly: The thing that gets me about Castles of Burgundy is that you are absolutely correct about point 2, and I typically hate dry mechanical games. But somehow CoB manages to be satisfying despite the near total absence of theme and bald focus on pointmongering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I imagine that when film was a new medium they dealt with this poo poo all the time. They still do. We live in a world where Adam Sandler is still allowed to poo poo out movies the way SJ Games shits out Munchkin variants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:I think part of the issue is that film criticism has had over a century of development and study. Even though art is ultimately subjective, there are a bunch of rules that are generally known to be good practice and have been accepted by the general public i.e. proper framing of a shot, show not tell, 180 degree rule, NO loving JUMP CUTS etc. There's also the fact that there are multiple awards shows for film that point giant golden fingers at certain movies and say "THIS IS A GOOD MOVIE", which provides a frame of reference that boardgames just don't have. Board games are a lot older than movies. Heck they are older then the Roman Empire; if they where going to take off they would have done it by now. Broken Loose posted:Being a purposely antagonizing prick isn't doing anything for your case.  Sorry some times I get wrapped up in it. I started my posting career in D&D and your supposed to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
malkav11 posted:The thing that gets me about Castles of Burgundy is that you are absolutely correct about point 2, and I typically hate dry mechanical games. But somehow CoB manages to be satisfying despite the near total absence of theme and bald focus on pointmongering. I wonder if simply changing "points" to "prestige" would help with this issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:We were discussing this in the chat previously, but why is it alright to say 'this film is terrible but I enjoy watching it' but people struggle to say 'this game is bad but I enjoy playing it'? I'm not making references to any particular game or genre, I'm actually curious as why it was the case and would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. I think this is a poignant observation. My take is that there isn't a lot of dialogue in board games about player expectations. This is the stuff that's one step removed from strategy, or randomness, or player skill, and I feel like it's the conversation that is most often stunted or dismissed within the hobby. Basically, whenever someone says "this game is fun" and then BL tears them a new rear end in a top hat for it? This is where the criticism needs evolution, on both sides. This exchange should be richer, but it often isn't. Like, I love the movie 'Taken.' I also love the movie 'There Will Be Blood.' 'Taken' is a piece-of-trash action thriller featuring a ridiculous protagonist engaging in sequentially more ridiculous mayhem. 'There Will Be Blood' is a thick, brooding, semi-unapproachable character study about the American psyche. I talk about both of these movies with the same passion. These two films are pretty incongruous - and further, people are going to disagree with me about either or both of them. But I think movie criticism has matured to appreciate (and even demand) the incongruity. These films are divergent, and the critical dialogue has assimilated the perspective to approach them differently. I have played Betrayal probably ten times. After a single play, I knew that I hated the game mechanically. I would never buy it. Buuut, I still like playing it. The reason I like it is that the randomness of its parts, the unpredictability of its choices, generates a palpable anxiety for me that reflects its theme. What else would you expect from a haunted house? Yes, I'm worried that the guy who found the revolver is going to turn and murder me. Yes, I'm practically insane before the haunt even begins. Yes, I will avoid the single staircase to the basement that might be my salvation. Yes, I die on the second turn of the haunt. It's loving fun. This is the story that the game tells - and board gaming is a medium where I get to engage the story directly and repeatedly, without knowing the outcome. I knew that when I started, and that's why I agreed to play. As an example, I don't think Betrayal is transacting some sort of medium-disparaging exchange: after half a game, the average hobby-interested player is going to recognize that Betrayal isn't a skill/strategy revelation. I don't dismiss that criticism, because the game clearly fails there. But Betrayal trades in a different experience. To me, what's more important is that a game establishes its parameters, and then it succeeds or fails therein. The first time I played Betrayal, my mad scientist hatched a mad plan to collapse the entire house into the pit of Hell. Immediately thereafter, he turned through an unassuming doorway and he plummeted to his death down a coal chute. This is the best and worst of Betrayal in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Three games of Twilight Struggle Sat night with my brother... we are both amateurs with a half dozen games played. I had the advantage at the start of the night (5 for 6), then went 1 for 3, with my one win coming in round 7 after a bit of tug and war. I got majorly lucky with 2 scoring cards (SE Asia, Middle East)which tipped me over the edge early in the round. Even after two losses where I blamed the cards (not my amateurish strategy), I am still impressed with how winnable a game of TS is even when dealt a god awful hand... a true mark of a great game. I would have stopped and switched over to Net Runner, but I have problems ending on a loss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Durendal posted:I wonder if simply changing "points" to "prestige" would help with this issue. Doubt it. We already call the Silverlings "gold" because that's what they are, don't try to give us some word with too many letters. I know that kind of thing works for some people (anyone that believes Lords of Waterdeep is thematic?) but it's still mechanically pretty obvious what's going on. edit: some other group may use the term "money" or "cash" or whatever instead of gold but the point is if you want your game to have thematic elements that people will actually engage with and use in preference to anything else, they probably need to be either mechanically relevant (if your game has both "silverlings" and "bronzelings" that do different things I'm more likely to use both terms or at least something close!) or heavily borrowing from something I'm already invested in (see: games based on D&D, marvel properties etc.). Bubble-T fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:I'm looking for fun short games along the time lines of Flea Circus or Cheeky Monkey. So, like 10 to 20 minute playtime, simple rules that allow for strategy, and light hearted themes. Saboteur is played over rounds so it can be about as short as you like, but it's not that good. It's a hidden roles game where what you do makes it pretty obvious what your role probably is. That being said there's still a bit of tricky business you can get into, and the very flexible play time is a pretty big plus. I'd definitely say try before buying unless it's only costing you a couple of bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Gerbil_Pen posted:Three games of Twilight Struggle Sat night with my brother... we are both amateurs with a half dozen games played. I'm not sure what you'd call a 'god awful hand' in TS. The only thing that would really begin to qualify is never getting anything with a value of 3 or 4. Even a handful of the other player's events isn't the worst thing, because you're able to pull the teeth of all your opponent's best events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Speaking of Twilight Struggle, I played my first real game last weekend and really enjoyed it. I played USSR and my wife was the US. After battling it out in Europe and the Middle East a bunch we ended the early war with me having control of most of Asia and the Mid East. We were pretty split in EU and I managed to get some good scoring cards played early and by around the end of turn 4 I was up to 19 points. I was positive I could close it out because I had a card in hand that would give me points for having a certain area controlled. My wife played a card that required me to play a random card from my hand on my turn and peform the event if it was for the US, meanwhile I'm holding a card that would drop the defcon by 1 and it's sitting at 2. That card didn't come up but a different one of hers did so it was played and I continued on thinking I would still be able to close it out. At one point she made me discard and then she took over an area that I needed so suddenly I can't get the last point I need. It gets down to the last action round of the turn, and it dawns on me, because we always forget to move the action round marker, that I have to play the final card in my hand. The card that drops the defcon by 1. So I initiated nuclear war and lost the game. Such an anticlimactic ending but we both laughed about it and really enjoyed playing. Without knowing the cards I had in hand, was that probably just poor planning on my part or do you sometimes just get a run of bad luck like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
MissSheGrrl posted:Speaking of Twilight Struggle, I played my first real game last weekend and really enjoyed it. I played USSR and my wife was the US. After battling it out in Europe and the Middle East a bunch we ended the early war with me having control of most of Asia and the Mid East. We were pretty split in EU and I managed to get some good scoring cards played early and by around the end of turn 4 I was up to 19 points. I was positive I could close it out because I had a card in hand that would give me points for having a certain area controlled. My wife played a card that required me to play a random card from my hand on my turn and peform the event if it was for the US, meanwhile I'm holding a card that would drop the defcon by 1 and it's sitting at 2. That card didn't come up but a different one of hers did so it was played and I continued on thinking I would still be able to close it out. At one point she made me discard and then she took over an area that I needed so suddenly I can't get the last point I need. It gets down to the last action round of the turn, and it dawns on me, because we always forget to move the action round marker, that I have to play the final card in my hand. The card that drops the defcon by 1. So I initiated nuclear war and lost the game. Such an anticlimactic ending but we both laughed about it and really enjoyed playing. Without knowing the cards I had in hand, was that probably just poor planning on my part or do you sometimes just get a run of bad luck like that? Did you use your space race turn yet, or was it some card that could not be space-raced? The End posted:I'm not sure what you'd call a 'god awful hand' in TS. I find that a hand full of opponent's cards is playable, but difficult as it seems more like you spend 6 or 7 rounds on damage mitigation while trying to appear clever, haha.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
MissSheGrrl posted:Speaking of Twilight Struggle, I played my first real game last weekend and really enjoyed it. I played USSR and my wife was the US. After battling it out in Europe and the Middle East a bunch we ended the early war with me having control of most of Asia and the Mid East. We were pretty split in EU and I managed to get some good scoring cards played early and by around the end of turn 4 I was up to 19 points. I was positive I could close it out because I had a card in hand that would give me points for having a certain area controlled. My wife played a card that required me to play a random card from my hand on my turn and peform the event if it was for the US, meanwhile I'm holding a card that would drop the defcon by 1 and it's sitting at 2. That card didn't come up but a different one of hers did so it was played and I continued on thinking I would still be able to close it out. At one point she made me discard and then she took over an area that I needed so suddenly I can't get the last point I need. It gets down to the last action round of the turn, and it dawns on me, because we always forget to move the action round marker, that I have to play the final card in my hand. The card that drops the defcon by 1. So I initiated nuclear war and lost the game. Such an anticlimactic ending but we both laughed about it and really enjoyed playing. Without knowing the cards I had in hand, was that probably just poor planning on my part or do you sometimes just get a run of bad luck like that? I've gotten caught out by both the Olympic games tactic and the 'poo poo all I've got is this card that will cause Nuclear war' a couple times. My advice: Get rid of those fuckers asap! That Defcon marker can swing like a sumbitch and it's easy to get caught out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Played Istanbul today! Great little Light-Medium weight Euro. I can definitely see why it is Kennerspiel nominated. After Russian Railroads it is probably my favorite Euro of the year, and after RR and Splendor it is definitely one of my top games. It is a pickup and deliver game essentially where you are moving your merchant one to two spaces from one randomly placed square to another, and taking the action of the square by leaving your assistant there. If you cannot leave an assistant, then you cannot take the action, however, you can also go to a square with one of your assistants on it already and take the action while also picking him up, or you can go to the Fountain space that you start in and summon all of your assistants back. What is really interesting about the game is that it is fairly interactive for the type of game it is. If you go to a square where a player currently has his merchant, you have to pay him, and money is relatively tight most times so I found myself really not wanting to do that. Similarly, one of the spaces is your jail and if you go there you get to send your nefarious nephew out to any square on the board and take that action. However, only other players can send him back to jail to be used again, and if they encounter the nephew they get either three money or a bonus card which can do all kinds of neat things. Tons of interesting decision making, lots of diverse strategy, and due to the gambling nature of the Tea House and Black Market, just the right amount of randomness. I expect this game to do very well this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
So uh this is more of a noob miniatures question but do you need super glue or somthing to keep the figures of Dreadball together? Some of the parts of the figures didn't quite stick in like they were suppose to do. Other kinda fit snugly in perfectly but using any more force than necessary to move them means parts come right off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Played Smash-Up for the first time this weekend and thought it was a really fun light game to play with my girlfriend/non-gamers. I had 2 questions, figured someone here might have insight. 1) How replayable is it? After only a couple of games it still seems like all the different deck combinations are new/interesting. Does this run out quickly? 2) There are 3 expansions. Any opinion on how good each one is? Which to get first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:So uh this is more of a noob miniatures question but do you need super glue or somthing to keep the figures of Dreadball together? Some of the parts of the figures didn't quite stick in like they were suppose to do. Other kinda fit snugly in perfectly but using any more force than necessary to move them means parts come right off. Yeah, they're not snap-fit, you're supposed to glue them together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I love Castles of Burgundy too though two things about it bother me ever so slightly: 3) It's a game in which you randomly determine which random action you can take. What Tekopo said about random elements only being bad if they are misapplied is true. Castles of Burgundy is an excellent example of a game where they are misapplied. The one time I played it I trounced the owner, who had played it a dozen times and considered it a favourite, because he didn't get the rolls he needed. It no longer gets brought to game nights, and not because this guy is a bad loser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:I'm looking for fun short games along the time lines of Flea Circus or Cheeky Monkey. So, like 10 to 20 minute playtime, simple rules that allow for strategy, and light hearted themes. Saboteur is absolutely amazing. It is cheap, small enough to fit in your pocket, easy to learn, but allows for a lot of strategy. I bring this or the Great Dalmuthi with me when the people I meet aren't gamers, but Saboteur is also a great filler, or warm-up game when you have a more experienced group. It got people who normally don't care about games scream they will get their revenge for being dumped in a mineshaft without a lantern. However, be aware that it is not entirely balanced for any number of players, putting the already challenged Saboteur(s) in an impossible-to-win situation sometimes. Also, it is possible to severely limit a player's options during their round, which can last for quite a while and isn't much fun. A single game might be 10 to 20 minutes, but you have to play 3 to get a final winner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
EDIT: Missed a page of discussion; this post is not really relevant anymore  Instead, I'll voice that I'm going to a local weekend convention tomorrow; hopefully will have some good game reports in tow. I still need to play through the War and Peace expansion of Archipelago. Oh, and a local brewery has contacted a gaming group I frequent inviting people to play games and have some of their beer. Life is good. Trynant fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:Yeah, they're not snap-fit, you're supposed to glue them together. Yeaaaaaah that's what i thought, the pieces put so well for everything like they were suppose to but my little brain just though it was suppose to just kinda sit in there and not move. Do you use like super glue or somthing? Can't imagine trying to let so many of those minatures drying out overnight at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Jedit posted:3) It's a game in which you randomly determine which random action you can take. That seems very difficult to do in Castles of Burgundy, half the things in that game are ways to mitigate the randomness of the dice. Could you give a bit more detail as to what happened?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Meow posted:I think this is a poignant observation. My take is that there isn't a lot of dialogue in board games about player expectations. This is the stuff that's one step removed from strategy, or randomness, or player skill, and I feel like it's the conversation that is most often stunted or dismissed within the hobby. Basically, whenever someone says "this game is fun" and then BL tears them a new rear end in a top hat for it? This is where the criticism needs evolution, on both sides. This exchange should be richer, but it often isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
gingerberger posted:Played Smash-Up for the first time this weekend and thought it was a really fun light game to play with my girlfriend/non-gamers. I had 2 questions, figured someone here might have insight. 1) For a light "Take That" card game it is pretty replayable. It is not, however, balanced in the least bit. There are combos and individual factions that are just plain better than each other. 2) The Cthulhu expansion is broken and is the worst one. The third one and first one aren't really any more broken than the base game so I'd stick to those. Plus, the first expansion has Bear Cavalry, which are the funnest faction in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Board games are a lot older than movies. Heck they are older then the Roman Empire; if they where going to take off they would have done it by now. Boardgames are old, but there is very little out there in the way of criticism. Games like Chess and Go have books dedicated to playing them, but very little discussion about their quality compared to other games. Chess is just so old and well known that people kind of accept Chess as the pinnacle of strategy gaming, but many people in this thread will tell you that it is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:That seems very difficult to do in Castles of Burgundy, half the things in that game are ways to mitigate the randomness of the dice. Could you give a bit more detail as to what happened? Ya, I don't get it either. There are so different many ways to get around the dice: workers, several yellow tiles, and just planning your expansion so you always have a high and a low to build next to helps in the long run. You have to be very, very unlucky--like so unlucky that a meteor is liable to land on your head--for the dice to gently caress you over for the duration of a game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Board games are a lot older than movies. Heck they are older then the Roman Empire; if they where going to take off they would have done it by now. This is only true in a certain sense. Chess, chekcers, Catan, Monopoly and a few others are part of our collective cultural history in some way, but new games as such is not a thing in the general public. Board games to most people is a closed set consisting of a few bad to low-average games. What we need is an awareness of the continuing development of games, and criticism of the actual new games instead of the genre as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
BonHair posted:What we need is an awareness of the continuing development of games, and criticism of the actual new games instead of the genre as such. I mean, there's two separate thoughts there, but legitimizing a medium has to be possible. Is it as simple as writing some reasonably scholarly articles on the subject or do you think something more drastic is necessary? I think every board game maker would want to see a further expansion of interest, and it would be an interesting project, but where do you start?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Managed to get another Kaosball match in last night. This time was a 4 player game and felt a lot more balanced, possibly like Chaos in the Old World it's really a 4 player game and shouldn't be played with other numbers. Will need to play some more. Teams were Daemons with Hate, Speed Training and Panther, Amazons with Last Stand, Relay Training, Spectre and Macho Libre, Ogres with Gojira and Lucky (and some other upgrade I can't remember), and myself playing Vampires with Brick, Celerity and Pandamonium. I was kinda hoping the Brick ability (when one of your bruisers gets knocked down they can take 1 damage to stand back up) would play well with the Vampire's team ability (whenever you win a tackle or fight challenge, heal one of your players) but no-one ever bothered tackling me. The Daemons got off to an early lead, dealing a lot of damage, getting a bunch of free points from hatred and a decent kill count. Scoring with the ball gradually got most of the other players nearer to them. At the end of the first period I still had no points, and by half time I only just had enough to avoid being eliminated (if at any point you have 20 points less than the lead player you're out). Unfortunately the Ogre player got nobbled by the penalty for most fouls and got eliminated. The second half went much better - I was able to use Celerity (get a free moves with a player at the start of each period) to dump Pandamonium on the ball and the other players were generally unwilling to take it off him (you lose a point whenever you challenge the Panda) and I managed to drop him on my major scoring point and keep him there most of the 3rd period. The lack of Ogres meant that the Amazons could drop Macho on their major score space relatively uncontested (the Ogre guy was across from him) so he hung out till the end of the period and seriously boosted their score (Macho scores double points at the end of the period), while the Daemon guy continued dinking and killing for points. Got to the last period and all three of us were in roughly the same range of points, it became obvious the game would be settled by the end of game scores. I tried dumping another runner on the ball with celerity but he was ganked by an Amazon bruiser on the way. Fortunately I was holding onto a Hail Mary card and was able to teleport another runner off my bench on to the ball in the next turn (In the 4th period I was the first player). At this point the Amazon's luck ran out and he was left with a hand of dead cards (mostly irrelevant tactics and duplicate numbers). Daemon guy dis some manouvering and got all three of his runners on scoring mounds (including his major one). My next turn I was able to get the ball to Panda (still on my major scoring mound) and seal him in with walls, almost guaranteeing me 5 points per turn til the end of the game. Daemon player continued trying to plink guys in the middle of the pitch but to no real effect, and unfortunately the Amazon guy gave up and started sulking a bit at this point instead of attempting anything (he could easily have done some fights with a decent chance of winning). I managed to turf the Daemon's runner off their major scoring mound, and the period ended shortly after. Adding up the final points and bonuses, I ended up drawing with the Daemon guy on 49, with the Amazons a bit behind in the late 30s (I forget exactly how much, but they avoided picking up any fouls and being stung by the cheat penalty). We didn't have enough time for sudden death so called it a draw (weirdly enough I also scored joint 1st with the same player in the game of Tsuro we played earlier). Overall it felt like a much tighter and closer game with the full 4 players than playing with 2 or 3, but there were still some frustrations over the dead card mechanic (essentially if you play a number into a contest, if you play the same number again in a later contest it's a 'dead' card and auto loses to a live card) and the -10 penalty for most fouls felt a bit high. The team elimination thing was unpopular so we may try coming up with some houserules. We need to play the game some more though, maybe try out some of the other team packs from outside the main box. Goblins in particular look really challenging to play (no stats and crap health but their team ability is really powerful). Anyone else had chance to play it yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:I'm looking for fun short games along the time lines of Flea Circus or Cheeky Monkey. So, like 10 to 20 minute playtime, simple rules that allow for strategy, and light hearted themes. Bohnanza is great but it's hard for me to imagine it playing in less than 20 minutes. More like 45-60.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Sorry that was a terrible joke post. Although the genuine opinions on the games were interesting. Tonight at a casual social hang we played The Resistance with ten. Merlin and four spies. There wasn't enough for the average player to do before tuning out so we thought the plot cards would be necessary next time with that many players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Bosushi! posted:Boardgames are old, but there is very little out there in the way of criticism. Games like Chess and Go have books dedicated to playing them, but very little discussion about their quality compared to other games. Chess is just so old and well known that people kind of accept Chess as the pinnacle of strategy gaming, but many people in this thread will tell you that it is flawed. Sure Caylus may be technically deeper/better than Chess but what do I do once I master it? There's no international league of Caylus grandmasters. Chess isn't perfect by today's haughty standards but I could play a game with anyone in any country; it's main strength is how universal it is. It's not exactly deeply flawed ether. It's literally been play tested by billions of people over hundreds of years; the major bugs have been worked out. BonHair posted:This is only true in a certain sense. Chess, chekcers, Catan, Monopoly and a few others are part of our collective cultural history in some way, but new games as such is not a thing in the general public. Board games to most people is a closed set consisting of a few bad to low-average games. What we need is an awareness of the continuing development of games, and criticism of the actual new games instead of the genre as such. Chess and checkers are babies in the history of board games. This Senet set was found in the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamun who reigned over Egypt from 1341 BCE: 
Rutibex fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:31
|
|