|
PerniciousKnid posted:I'm still hoping for an enemy called The Provost. ...holy poo poo. Broken Loose, you have to do this if you can.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
I just want to chime in and say blood bowl is hella boring because it's way too easy to protect the ball carrier while also being too easy to defend against scoring so you get tons and tons of stalling. Imagine if a team in American football could quite literally hold onto the ball for a whole half and wait to score until the last minute. It's like pre-shot clock basketball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
So is Sheriff of Nottingham any good? I see that Vassel recommended it highly and was involved in the development, and I'm not sure how to feel about this.
Jarvisi fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
If you're talking about Sheriff of Nottingham, it's a bluffing game that manages to still be enjoyable for people who can't bluff. I believe that I've read that people in this thread don't like Matt on SU&SD but I actually do agree with his assessment that the scoring system kind of gets in the way of the main enjoyment of the game, which is being an abusive rear end in a top hat when you're the sheriff. I don't know how I would fix it since you kind of need a scoring system for any of the smuggling to be meaningful. It plays in about 30-45 minutes. I enjoy it and I hate games like Coup since I suck at bluffing. I don't know how enjoyable it is if you're really trying to win. I feel like the designer had a super great concept and kind of struggled to find a good way to build a game around it. It definitely falls in the category of lighter social games. Gimnbo fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:If you're talking about Sheriff of Nottingham, it's a bluffing game that manages to still be enjoyable for people who can't bluff. I believe that I've read that people in this thread don't like Matt on SU&SD but I actually do agree with his assessment that the scoring system kind of gets in the way of the main enjoyment of the game, which is being an abusive rear end in a top hat when you're the sheriff. I don't know how I would fix it since you kind of need a scoring system for any of the smuggling to be meaningful. I don't know know if you're talking about the same scoring problem, but I agree it's not so good. I love the artwork, concept, and almost everything, but hot drat it really needs some work with how things are scored and its kind of a fundamental problem that isn't so easy to fix. From what I can tell and most people seem to have gleaned from our rounds, the best strategy is to be honest and nearly always say you have 5 and come as drat close as you can to putting in 4/5 of a good. At best the Sheriff will get burned for 10g a pop and at worst you have to stuff another legal good in there so you're out 2 pts at the most. Maybe if you've burned him enough you can try to sneak 5 contraband across though it's usually far safer/better to try to grab those King/Queen bonuses more than getting a few contrabands across. Which makes the game honestly pretty boring as long as everyone is mostly telling the truth with 4-5 of a kind. I usually dislike house rules, but since it's really such a cool game idea that it's a shame that it will probably wither on my shelf except for the occasional time were we're getting old relatives or new people into the game. So has anyone had any success with some sort of house rule to improve it? Xaris fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
I wasn't really thinking about the balance, but I agree with you on it. It feels like there's generally not enough reward to smuggling contraband across. In my group it was all packing the bag with legit stuff like you said. Sometimes someone might stuff a contraband card in there but if it was checked then the other 3/4 legit cards still make it to market as per the rules. We had the sword promo, so it was actually fun to have everyone constantly question the guy who picked it out. Nobody wanted to be the sheriff who let him get away with a 12 gold card.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
I'm kinda interested to try out Final Attack! solo play, but like half the fun seems to be the shouting between other people. What balances out not having to do most of that? Just the extra brainspace taken up by playing the whole game solo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Xaris posted:I don't know know if you're talking about the same scoring problem, but I agree it's not so good. I love the artwork, concept, and almost everything, but hot drat it really needs some work with how things are scored and its kind of a fundamental problem that isn't so easy to fix. I had a great time with Sheriff of Nottingham generally being a sneaky bastard and offering money to the Sheriff to open my bag, goading him into opening clean bags or outright admitting there was contraband in my bag and that the Sheriff was allowed to have one of the cards if he let me through, and so on. It really does feel like it needs less of a penalty on the Sheriff for inspecting clean bags though, especially when they get big. In a hypothetical situation where 4 players put out bags of 4 goods, 2 of which are clean and 2 of which contain a single contraband (but are otherwise clean), the Sheriff will lose out on inspecting all bags while even the smuggling players who are caught will come out ahead. I think in that sort of situation the Sheriff should break even or come out ahead, otherwise the main 'game' of negotiating with the sheriff over a bag of unknown (to him) stuff just doesn't happen My proposed fix: The sheriff can only be penalised for a maximum of 5 coins per player. bobvonunheil fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Tried out some new games yesterday, so I may as well give them a writeup. Epic Spellswars Of Too many Words And Look, a skull : It never ended, it's one of the few games I've just left midway through because I was so done and it just wouldn't, ever, end. I mean, looking at it you'd think it could be a cute way to spend 30 minutes, the art's nice and the mechanics are simple but it just never ends. I don't know how long we were there, but I left after my 4th round and when I came back to that table they were still playing even with someone deliberately trying to just end the game. Good lord. Also dicerolling and player elimination. Dripping with theme. In all fairness, the guy who brought it said he was looking forwards to Exploding Cats so that should've been a pretty big warning sign. Shadow Hunters Also I think they had the expansion? : Probably worse than Epic Spellwars? You just roll dice, there's about as many decisions to be made as Monopoly and amazingly the gameboards uglier than monopoly too. I was a hunter and just randomly hit someone who immediately kicked up such a fuss that I knew they were the shadow. They were. Roll to move, roll to attack, roll dice and get some cards and apparently 4 people out of the 6 playing won. Yawn. Also, player elimination and dices. Goddamn. I also played good games but I don't think Tash Kalar needs any more praise. Tash is good. e: also how's eclipse someone brought it but it didn't get played and I wanted to try it. AMooseDoesStuff fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:e: also how's eclipse someone brought it but it didn't get played and I wanted to try it. Brilliant game. Combat is a bit dicey, but everything else is genius, especially with the expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
I didn't really like Sheriff of Nottingham. Of course, maybe it would just that I played with terrible people or had terrible luck. The person to my right wouldn't let me through with any contraband. I tried bribing and it was a no go. If I have contraband worth 9 coins and you demand 12 to let it through or like all of my chickens, it's just a non starter. The person to my left would let pretty much everyone through even if it was obvious that you had all contraband. At most he'd ask for a single card. I really tried to be honest and just put in legit goods, but unless you draw a bunch of the same item, you're screwed on that front as well. I know one guys put in 5 apples, 4 times in a row. I even tried to call him on it, but he had 5 loving apples every time. That part seems really luck based. I mostly drew contraband, so after about 3 bags everyone started checking mine regardless of what I said. Even the guy that was letting everyone else through. I ended up in last place with the least of every good and not even the most contraband. Apple guy bribed the guy to my left twice in a row and threw in 5 contraband each time. He'd mostly been drawing legit goods the whole game so he also was number 1 on 2 different things. Honestly the game felt like I was playing Coup with 2 Contessas. Sure you can lie all you want, but if someone calls you on it on the first turn, you're done. It could be that we were playing wrong? Only legit goods of the same type are allowed correct? If you have 3 chickens and 2 apples you can only declare one type and you lose anything you didn't declare, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
You don't have to put in five cards every time. Are they still going to call you when you put in three cards? If so, just rake in the money off the penalties, and if not, smuggle your contraband in three at a time. You can draw contraband from the discard pile to encourage the sheriff to inspect your bag, which goes even better if you pick up one legal good while doing so (that happens to match what you already have in hand). Also, if lots of weird coincidences happen (like, for example, drawing lots of the same card in a row), especially if it's the first time you've played a game, I tend to think that the deck wasn't shuffled sufficiently before starting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:I didn't really like Sheriff of Nottingham. Of course, maybe it would just that I played with terrible people or had terrible luck. The person to my right wouldn't let me through with any contraband. I tried bribing and it was a no go. If I have contraband worth 9 coins and you demand 12 to let it through or like all of my chickens, it's just a non starter. The person to my left would let pretty much everyone through even if it was obvious that you had all contraband. At most he'd ask for a single card. I really tried to be honest and just put in legit goods, but unless you draw a bunch of the same item, you're screwed on that front as well. I know one guys put in 5 apples, 4 times in a row. I even tried to call him on it, but he had 5 loving apples every time. That part seems really luck based. I mostly drew contraband, so after about 3 bags everyone started checking mine regardless of what I said. Even the guy that was letting everyone else through. I ended up in last place with the least of every good and not even the most contraband. Apple guy bribed the guy to my left twice in a row and threw in 5 contraband each time. He'd mostly been drawing legit goods the whole game so he also was number 1 on 2 different things. Honestly the game felt like I was playing Coup with 2 Contessas. Sure you can lie all you want, but if someone calls you on it on the first turn, you're done. The game I played had a player try to get heaps of apples through, turn after turn. She got called out every time and routinely had all apples. She'd tried smuggling through some contraband now and then but if she hadn't tried that she would have won the game easily. So luck (and particularly apples, as they're so common in the deck) is a significant factor. Also yes, you can declare one legal good, if you bring in different legal goods you lose them and get fined for them. That said, if people aren't going to engage in the social aspect of a social game, then it's never going to work or be fulfilling. It's like not having any discussion in The Resistance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
As a person that plays games in public places, I have a solution to the Final Attack issues: One person who's familiar with the sounds on the track is the communications guy who makes sure everyone knows the things that happen. When asked to shout, instead, just talk normally, maybe with a bit of urgency. Is this perfect? Not at all. But so far it's let us play Space Alert a lot, which is fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Yeah, the deck probably wasn't shuffled that well. It was brand new, we had to take the plastic off to open it. I also had terrible luck I guess. Other than the first hand when I had like 4 chickens, most of the time I had 2 of the same good. I guess I could have put in two at a time and got them through, but everyone else was putting in 4-5, so I don't think I could have won with 2 per turn. Actually I know I'd have lost against Mr. 5 Apples every turn. I didn't do 5 much because I knew I'd be called on it, but even just trying to add 1 illegal good didn't work most of the time. If you don't draw a bunch of legal goods, you're basically screwed. But yeah, the player to my right is basically Ms. No Fun. Always picks me if she needs a target because I usually win if she doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
 Why a space man?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
It's pretty obvious you're not on the same planet as the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's pretty obvious you're not on the same planet as the rest of us. I don't even think it's the same dimension.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Sloober posted:I don't even think it's the same dimension. Na he's certainly at least in the same Dimension as Jedit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:Tried out some new games yesterday, so I may as well give them a writeup. I played Epic Spell Wars last night as well. It is an enjoyable light game provided you play with 3-5 players maximum because it will often take one more round of play than players in the game and six rounds is the absolute longest that game can be played and not turn into a huge grind. I'd say four is ideal, but yeah, player elimination is a bit crappy if someone is blown out early.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Sloober posted:I don't even think it's the same dimension. Those who enter the Timescape rarely leave....unchanged 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:3-5 players maximum I think we were playing with 6 which might be the maximum cap? And I'm pretty sure everyone got to be last wizard once so the game really did run on to its match point. I still liked it more than Shadow Hunters at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Those who enter the Timescape rarely leave....unchanged I draw the Omnipotent Being. Oh hey, I rolled a 6! I will go to the Crown of Command please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:It could be that we were playing wrong? Only legit goods of the same type are allowed correct? If you have 3 chickens and 2 apples you can only declare one type and you lose anything you didn't declare, right? Nah, I've played it a few times already and I think it sucks. I found I did better not speaking to anyone at all and just trying to predict whether they were smuggling in anything or not. I do agree that there is a little too much randomness though because you can be stuck with a hand of nothing but contraband and that can kind of gently caress up your plans. Trying to generalize products so you can try to grab bonuses doesn't work, and usually just ends with someone happened to get 20 apples during the game so they just get the bonus by default, so you can really build towards any specific bonus. Contraband values are random, just too much of the game is up to the draw. 2 rounds also seems too long for me, at least with my playgroup of 4-5 people. I'm usually done with the game after the first round.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Those who enter the Timescape rarely leave....unchanged It is the best expansion to anything ever. bobvonunheil posted:I draw the Omnipotent Being. Oh hey, I rolled a 6! I will go to the Crown of Command please. See?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:I draw the Omnipotent Being. Oh hey, I rolled a 6! I will go to the Crown of Command please. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
So, you have been playing this thing for three hours? Think that you're going to win? Think that your decisions in the face of completely random events were the best and that's why you've reached this point? gently caress you. You lose. Now you get to sit quietly until your friends finish playing the game.* *I have never played Talisman, let alone whatever that card comes from. I'm just guessing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:I think we were playing with 6 which might be the maximum cap? And I'm pretty sure everyone got to be last wizard once so the game really did run on to its match point. I still liked it more than Shadow Hunters at least. Yes it's first to 2 victories and if everybody gets 1 victory (which seems to happen quite often) the game is [number of players] +1 rounds long, which why 4 is optimal. 4 players gives the "player on the left", "player on the right" mechanics room to breathe while only obligating you to play 5 rounds at most. The game is OK, but not terribly fun at 2 players since every single attack hits your one and only foe. Part of the charm of the game is when a spell hits an unintended target because someone you weren't aiming for became strongest or weakest during the round of play. All in all not a great game but an A- or B+ light game that can be enjoyable with a table of players that aren't wet blankets, especially if you require players to dramatically read their spells aloud in their wizard's voice.  This guy tends to invite laughter when you bellow out a spell using a voice that befits him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Does 'lose the game' mean you are out of the game and can't play any more? I think when you die you are supposed to start with a new character but 'lose the game' is different wording. This might actually be a better outcome than getting to the Crown of Command!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:So, you have been playing this thing for three hours? Think that you're going to win? Think that your decisions in the face of completely random events were the best and that's why you've reached this point? I'm going to put that into our Kemet game as a DI card
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Does 'lose the game' mean you are out of the game and can't play any more? I think when you die you are supposed to start with a new character but 'lose the game' is different wording. Judging by the wording, I think you see that when you get to the Crown of Command. So it's worse because you had the opportunity to end it but failed. In fact, you can even see him grabbing the Crown in the picture. I cannot even imagine how mad I'd be at a board game if I saw that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Judging by the wording, I think you see that when you get to the Crown of Command. So it's worse because you had the opportunity to end it but failed. In fact, you can even see him grabbing the Crown in the picture. No, but see, Talisman has a big runaway leader problem, so having a % chance that the runaway leader is utterly destroyed is balance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:I'm going to put that into our Kemet game as a DI card Karma demands that you lose your Elephant to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
King of Dragon Pass is the cool version of Talisman
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I just want to chime in and say blood bowl is hella boring because it's way too easy to protect the ball carrier while also being too easy to defend against scoring so you get tons and tons of stalling. Try stalling as/defending against wood elves or pro elves. As a squishy team, the best defense against having your whole team horribly maimed, is constantly moving the ball and either threatening to score or actually scoring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Yes it's first to 2 victories and if everybody gets 1 victory (which seems to happen quite often) the game is [number of players] +1 rounds long, which why 4 is optimal. 4 players gives the "player on the left", "player on the right" mechanics room to breathe while only obligating you to play 5 rounds at most. The game is OK, but not terribly fun at 2 players since every single attack hits your one and only foe. Part of the charm of the game is when a spell hits an unintended target because someone you weren't aiming for became strongest or weakest during the round of play. I find with any game that's first to X victories, you should really just play until you're tired of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Judging by the wording, I think you see that when you get to the Crown of Command. So it's worse because you had the opportunity to end it but failed. In fact, you can even see him grabbing the Crown in the picture. Standard Talisman 'death' conditions require you to start again with a completely new character, whereas this just says 'You lose the game'. As I recall, getting to the Crown of Command gives the player a chance (50%) to cause 1 damage to another player of their choosing each turn, and removes the ability for dead players to restart as new characters. Even after getting to the Crown, the game still has roughly half an hour to go as you zap your opponents down turn by turn and hope there isn't a healer nearby. So if you want the game to be 'over', at least for you, drawing this card can actually be an improvement over continuing to play because it says that you lose instead of just dying and starting over. Though some may want to houserule it (hah!) that you do get to keep playing as a new character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
When Caverna is brought up most places I read about games (here, reddit, bgg, susd, etc), it seems to be met with a lot of arguments about how Agricola is superior due to tension, such that Caverna isn't worth playing over it or perhaps even owning if you have the O.G. farmer game. However, it has insane ratings just about everywhere, including our own BGG guild. It has a higher rating on our guild, reddit, and BGG (but very slightly lower rank due to their Bayesian algorithm). It's curious. There seems to be a quiet majority that loves the hell out of Caverna. Edit: I also want to do another run at our guild rankings soon since we have 130 members now, have been procrastinating because I wanted to play around with a Bayesian average. I also want to report which games have received rankings less than 3 or so just because I think it's funny to see some games goons have ranked 1 fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Though some may want to houserule it (hah!) that you do get to keep playing as a new character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:48
|
|