|
Gimnbo posted:What? Now that has to be bullsh
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
Magic Talk Duels of the Planeswalkers works OK as a single player campaign game. It's fun to try to build a deck out of the crap they give you to start, the game plays smooth, and Magic is - at its best - a really interesting game. As mentioned above, I'm not a fan of the "AI is really dumb, but has way better cards" method of balance - and against some enemies you pretty much just have to restart a few times until they get a bad draw (I don't think they ever get straight-up mana-screwed, they cheated this somehow, but sometimes the computer does draw bad) or make bad plays against a good draw for you. That said, I didn't find any of the enemies too overpowering or frustrating (ie. nothing as annoying as, say, some of the Naxxramas bosses in Hearthstone). My main complaint is that the out-of game UI (particularly the deckbuilding UI) was clearly a console afterthought, and takes forever to navigate through. The card pool isn't really good enough to support interesting multiplayer play; I wouldn't buy this if that's what you're after. It's a single player campaign. That said, it would be amazing if they found a way to make online, multiplayer drafts work well, at some kind of reasonable price. Magic Online works OK and is fun, but is way too expensive to play often. Various, dubious free options don't work well because people have no incentive to finish out a draft. I understand they don't want to cannibalize their other business - but surely someone at Wizards must feel bad when they look over at Hearthstone, and see how well their drafts work and how much money they're raking in (with what I think is a much less interesting game). If Magic had a Hearthstone-esque "open draft" sort of format you could play for $1, I'd play the heck out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Actually this opens up quite an incredible level of meta-gaming to the entire game. I want this game now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:What? Now that has to be bullsh This is how all disputes in life should be handled. Him:"No, seriously, I wasn't cheating, I was just having some fun!" Her:"We'll see about that!" *rolls die* Her:"...You win this round."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
AbortRetryFail posted:I bought Dead of Winter before checking the thread, which seems to be saying it's bad. If I have a group that likes Betrayal at House on the Hill theme style stuff without worrying too much about balance as long as it's fun (I die on turn 1 of the haunt always in B@HoTH) can fun still be extracted from it? If not, are there any decent house rules that could be applied? I haven't played it yet and don't want to take it out of the plastic if it has no redeemable aspects. The problem with Dead of Winter isn't really about balance. At least not in my experience. The crossroad cards are a good idea but not well implemented (the voice isn't consistent, most are a "do nothing / take a minor risk" thing). I think the next game in the series will do them better. Take that you and you've got a poor man's BSG. It's not bad, it's just that it's clumsy and there's no tension (For whatever reason it's a game of moving bits of cardboard around, rather than a game of trying to survive). You can sell it for a shitload though, as there is so much hype around it. So sell it. Sell it now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
The rules in Xia say that if you roll a natural 20 at any time it's an instant victory point. So I guess you can roll for a dispute, get a 20, and come out of the dispute with a victory point? I don't know if that's correct but if someone says it's not I'd dispute them over it. e: derp, natural 20 not D20 Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:The rules in Xia say that if you roll a D20 at any time it's an instant victory point. So I guess you can roll for a dispute, get a 20, and come out of the dispute with a victory point? I don't know if that's correct but if someone says it's not I'd dispute them over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Errr wait, can you dispute 'dispute rolls'? Guess we'll have to roll a dice to resolve THAT dispute. Dispute the idea that you can't declare infinite fractal VPs from infinite disputes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:The rules in Xia say that if you roll a D20 at any time it's an instant victory point. So I guess you can roll for a dispute, get a 20, and come out of the dispute with a victory point? I don't know if that's correct but if someone says it's not I'd dispute them over it. I almost torpedoed the game this way the first (and only) time my group played it but I wanted to let the guy who spent a bunch of money on it actually get to try it out, so I didn't actually dispute the interpretation that you don't get a victory point for a rules dispute roll
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Orokos roll: Dispute this whole conversation: 1d20 10
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:What? Now that has to be bullsh  lmao you can create opportunities to earn victory points by rolling 20s just by arguing about every loving rule that comes up and occasionally bending the rules to your favour along the way, that's ridiculous. e; drat I'm slow you guys already posted the inevitable conclusion
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Does it count as a rules dispute to see whether or not the d20 was cocked? Can I dispute whether the d20 rolled was validated for balance and compliant within dice rolling specifications? Xia: Legends of a Rules Lawyer. Big McHuge posted:Speaking of Xia, I'm playing it at some point over the next week or two. How do I break it? There's one resource gathering point where the "bad stuff" that happens when you roll low is that you lose Energy. As far as I know or remember, there's no penalty if you don't have energy when you are supposed to lose Energy. That is, you just stay at that spot, and farm it out until your ship holds are full. This will take a good number of d20 rolls. Then you go to the nearest planet to sell the thing (or I think you may be able to jettison cargo I forget), then do it all over again. You won't have any Energy for your thrusters, so it's probably best to do this with the L1 ship that either lets you gain energy every turn (if you succeed on a die roll) or the L2 ship that has an autopilot that lets you move after every other person moves. Activate the autopilot before you start mining. You will get points for selling the cargo, then you can spend the money from the sale on more points/regain energy so you can shuffle back to the place. An L3 ship has the ability to increase profits from sales. Note that you can sell all but 2 (I think?) of the resource units, use that money on points, and then sell the last 2 to get a winning point, since you can't win the game by buying points. Also apparently dispute all the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Wait guys, wait. RAW, it just tells you to split the numbers into groups and then roll, it doesn't actually tell you what number is needed to win. It just says 'The Number Rolled Determines The Winner'. That could mean ANYTHING
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm willing to stoop so low as to argue clear rules just to try and roll more d20s (unless the rules actually are a shitfest and unclear). I was hoping to hear suggestions about specific game-breaking strategies or tips. For example, in Merchants and Marauders, don't be a Marauder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Wait guys, wait. RAW, it just tells you to split the numbers into groups and then roll, it doesn't actually tell you what number is needed to win. It just says 'The Number Rolled Determines The Winner'. That could mean ANYTHING I'm gonna dispute this reading. *rolls d20*
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Big McHuge posted:I'm not sure I'm willing to stoop so low as to argue clear rules just to try and roll more d20s (unless the rules actually are a shitfest and unclear). I was hoping to hear suggestions about specific game-breaking strategies or tips. I don't think we have any because the game is such a hyper random shitfest that the only winning strategy is "do whatever you want and get good rolls".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
If you're going to play nomic, you could start with less lovely base rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Xia is a "sandbox" in the sense that it's a load of nice components you have to design your own game from. Regarding Mage Knight I honestly can't remember the last time I felt unfairly screwed by needing cards to move, though I do use the house rule that you can mulligan your very first hand until you have at least one movement card. After that it's basically your job to work with the cards and play such that you won't end up in the middle of nowhere with zero movement. That's not to say it can't happen, but greatly minimising that risk is a key part of the game. I understand why people don't like having to do that but not sure I'd agree it's a serious problem. MK does have problems, especially in the competitive form, it's a pretty ambitious game so that's not surprising. I wonder if a baby version of the game with a faster playtime would remain interesting. As for electronic implementations, the Vassal mod is pretty good and does a lot of the automation for you but I still prefer the tabletop game. There's something nice about having the cards in front of you and physically moving poo poo around as you try to come up with the best move or most efficient combat solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
In any case, Xia and Betrayal at the Game with Too Long a Name both demonstrate to us that the key to good game design is to have a rule that says that holes in the rules aren't the designer's problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:If you're going to play nomic, you could start with less lovely base rules. That's funny, I was thinking the same thing. I'm surprised there aren't any decent games with Nomic elements to them. Maybe because it's a stupid idea. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I'm interested from the perspective of seeing what the designer chose to do and how they tried to do things (and how well it works) but at just under $100 it's well outside "impulse buy" territory. I'm curious in making up my own mind about it - I have read people say that the game takes sandbox and randomness (to create uncertainty) too far. Big sandbox but no substance. What is "sandbox" about it? I thought it was a straight pick up and delivery game. I assume it is not having a bunch of different things you can do to gain victory points. Since that would make almost every odd game a sandbox. (setting aside the excellent explanation Bubble-T mentioned just above  )
echoMateria fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
I love late capitalism
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Xia is a "sandbox" in the sense that it's a load of nice components you have to design your own game from. I would buy some kind of make-your-own game kit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
The very definition of "randumb"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
 How did they get funded that much so quickly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
The price with shipping in Australia for the full version is something like $50. Even if the game didn't seem to be monkey cheese garbage, gently caress That poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:
Oatmeal is pretty internet-famous
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I'm in awe of that kind of runaway success 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
The End posted:monkey cheese garbage I mean yeah but as a self-employed person I can honestly say that I truly admire the ability of anyone to actually make a living no matter what they're doing -- I certainly don't begrudge anyone's ability to rake it in on a popular gadget, gewgaw, knickknack, blog, or card game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
ThisIsNoZaku posted:I would buy some kind of make-your-own game kit. There was this "hilarious" "design" and "commentary" from 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Just goes to show you what a good license and advertising can do, I guess. *sob*
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I mean yeah but as a self-employed person I can honestly say that I truly admire the ability of anyone to actually make a living no matter what they're doing -- I certainly don't begrudge anyone's ability to rake it in on a popular gadget, gewgaw, knickknack, blog, or card game. We can definitely hate the backers, though. I did come to the realization that my groaning about dumb internet trends is like old people complaining about the rap and the pokeymans. That's not going to stop me from doing it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
The End posted:Yes, a group that likes lovely games will like a lovely game. Your lovely post doesn't help me due to it being highly subjective. Please make less lovely posts in the future, thanks. quote:The problem with Dead of Winter isn't really about balance. At least not in my experience. Thanks, I'll probably sell it then. I was hoping it would be like a BSG lite with a more accessible setting before I throw people into BSG proper, but if it leaves them with a bad taste it's not worth it. AbortRetryFail fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The designer says, "All the deaths happen simultaneously, then immediate effects happen simultaneously." So in the case of a Hospital Incident going off with a Key Person, Time Traveler, Friend, Lover, and a Loved One in the hospital at the time, all the characters but the Time Traveler die, the Mastermind says, "You die," the Friend is revealed off the Loop End condition, go back to Time Spiral and collect 200 Yen. Okay, that's the way we played it, good to know I didn't cheat the protagonists out of any information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
homullus posted:There was this "hilarious" "design" and "commentary" from 2013. I would love to know if anyone here actually bought this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
AbortRetryFail posted:Your lovely post doesn't help me due to it being highly subjective. Please make less lovely posts in the future, thanks. They are being brusque but their post is right and helpful to you in that if your group likes playing Betrayal at House on the Hill, they'll probably find enjoyment in Dead of Winter for similar reasons. If you explain what your group enjoys about Betrayal people who have played Dead of Winter might be able to go in more detail whether the same elements are present. But short version is that yes, if your group find enjoyment in the experience one offers you'll probably find enjoyment in the other. In Dead of Winter players each represent a "clique" of like-minded survivors. The game probably goes better if your group role plays it a little. The game warns that goals assigned secretly to players are not all equally difficult. If you're OK with this you'll probably be OK with the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:What is "sandbox" about it? I thought it was a straight pick up and delivery game. It's sandbox because you have options to get the victory points. -Trading, buying and selling at planets gives vp. -Mining stuff and selling it at planets gives vp. -Missions give vp. -Killing other players and NPCS gives vp. -Exploring gives vp. The game suggests you start the game with some plan in mind, like starting with tier2 engines and tier1 shields to be an explorer and such. I've said lots of words previously, and have like 400 posts on it in the BGG forum for it. I'm rather critical and have my own thread of houserules for it. There's a lot of good components, but the rules are janky and need some fixing. Also, his last minute shields change made combat against players very difficult unless you have the one starting ship with an attack power. Which makes this somehow balanced for defenders of it, because "Well, if you want to be a pirate, pick that ship!" "What if two people want to be pirates, or other players want some actual chance?" "BLUHBLUHBLUH" Basically, guns do 2dX based on tier, while shields block 3dX based on tier. 2dX - 3dX means you do fuckall damage for anyone with shields. And these shields are usable fully against every attack, so the bonus shots like "Deal 1d8 damage!" is blocked full usually by people with even tier1 shields. The only thing combat really does is waste the attackers turn, and drain a bit of energy from the defender, which is topped up for free at any of the planets that cover a third of the board. The one ship that's rather good at combat is so because it has a power to add another die to an attack, but -1 for that attack. So you get a missile that fires a single shot, and double it. Even then, 2d20-2 (tier3 missile + ship special) vs 3d12 (tier3 shield) is about on par. I fixed shields by just limiting their recharge to the end of each turn, not end of each shot. I wouldn't say it's polished, or playtested at all, but if you don't mind houserules and randomness, it can be playable. Also, get rid of the stupid loving vp for rolling a 20. Edit: This isn't a glowing review or defense of the game. Just saying it's playable with lots of houserules to fix the various broken things, if you don't mind dicing for literally everything. Ravendas fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Dead of Winter is probably this generation's Betrayal in that the objectives are meaningless and someone is going to win at the end just because, but it's "thematic." Whether this is your equation for fun is up to you and your group. I would probably rather use The Resistance as a stepping stone to BSG, or just go straight to The Resistance since it takes the distills my favorite part of BSG.
GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
The funniest thing about DoW is unless you're playing the co-op variant it's not actually a co-op. It's not a team game or a 1vX game either, it's a straight up free-for-all due to the secret objectives. There's a thread on the BGG forums from a guy asking whether his group should be mad at him that he finished the Main Objective off because he'd completed his Secret Objective, while the other players hadn't. Nobody was a betrayer and yet according to the rules the game ends immediately and he's the only winner. Apparently the correct response to one person helping with the Main Objective is for everyone else to be suspicious that they've finished their Secret Objective and consider tanking the game for a bit until they can complete their own Secret Objective
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
I will say that I did like how the zombies themselves and locations work in general in Dead of Winter. Adding and dealing with zombies is a mostly manageable process that can easily give you enough rope to hang yourself with if you push your luck or start feeling cocky. I liked the feeling that the players are in charge of how much risk you expose yourself to. Of course, if you play it safe you won't gather enough things to keep going. And others' actions can affect you -- but I liked the feeling that risk was something accepted by the player(s), so I rarely felt screwed by the game or dice, the screwing mainly came from "God drat it I told you to spend fuel before coming here and you didn't now you got bit on the way and if everyone here dies as a result I'm never forgiving you  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:36
|
|