|
And because the designer is right in some cases. Some people are way better at tracking stuff, which makes games more about who is better at tracking stuff than who is better at strategy. Which can be fun I guess, but some of us don't enjoy that too much.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Any thoughts on Sheriff of Nottingham? I like what I see, but I wonder how it holds up over repeated plays? The scoring mechanism is a bit wonky and perhaps needs to be rebalanced, but the gameplay is 100% dependent on your group of players. I can totally see where it would "click" with the right people (ie- people who are willing to get into the theme and wheel and deal), but sadly my plays with it were with some strangers who didn't seem interested in that part at all. I really want to get it, but I'm not sure I can justify it when there are other games out there that I could get that I know would go over better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Any thoughts on Sheriff of Nottingham? I like what I see, but I wonder how it holds up over repeated plays? It works best as a gateway or icebreaker game, I don't think you'd get much out of repeated play with the same group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Any thoughts on Sheriff of Nottingham? I like what I see, but I wonder how it holds up over repeated plays? I'd also like to hear from goons about this game. This was recommended to me because I like bluffing/deduction games, but it looks like there's next to zero in-game information for the sheriff to work out who might be lying. It's mostly just on a hunch, or on who is acting suspicious. It also seems like the best way to score points is to ignore contraband completely and just go for sets of legal goods. I would worry that those two things would drive the bluffing/deduction out of the game after several plays. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:I'd also like to hear from goons about this game. This was recommended to be because I like bluffing/deduction games, but it looks to me like there's next to zero in-game information for the sheriff to work out who might be lying. It's mostly just on a hunch, or on who is acting suspicious. It also seems like the best way to score points is to ignore contraband completely and just go for sets of legal goods. I would worry that those two things would drive the bluffing/deduction out of the game after several plays. My worry exactly. Even on the Tabletop episode the winner took 1st place with only one piece of contraband and instead they focused on being the "King" of various legal goods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:I'd also like to hear from goons about this game. This was recommended to be because I like bluffing/deduction games, but it looks to me like there's next to zero in-game information for the sheriff to work out who might be lying. It's mostly just on a hunch, or on who is acting suspicious. It also seems like the best way to score points is to ignore contraband completely and just go for sets of legal goods. I would worry that those two things would drive the bluffing/deduction out of the game after several plays. Going for sets of legal goods is a lot harder than you'd think, or else I had miserable luck. I don't think I had more than 3 of for most of the game, but all of my hands contained 1-2 pieces of Contraband that I just bribed or bluffed my way through with. Don't forget that it's not just a bluffing/deduction game, which it's not really all that good at honestly, it's a negotiation game. You can very well have a hand full of contraband, but if you have a Bread or two or something that lets the Sheriff take the lead on the most [thing] prize, it makes for a really good bribe. But like any game that involves social skills vs. analytical skills, it appeals to different people differently. I'd sorta agree to it not being that good on super repeat plays, but very few games are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:I'd also like to hear from goons about this game. This was recommended to be because I like bluffing/deduction games, but it looks to me like there's next to zero in-game information for the sheriff to use to work out who might be lying. It's mostly just on a hunch, or on who is acting suspicious. It also seems like the best way to score points is to ignore contraband completely and just go for sets of legal goods. I would worry that those two things would drive the bluffing/deduction out of the game after several plays. There is no real in-game information about what a player is smuggling, apart from watching what your opponents discard and seeing how much contraband they have already smuggled through. You mostly guess on a hunch, or try to extract cash from players to make you open other players' bags. A player who brings in legal goods of the same type over and over again will probably beat a player who tries to smuggle contraband and gets caught now and then, but if you shuffle the deck well players are much less likely to draw 6 chickens in a row and this is less of a problem. Shuffling well is super important in this game - after each game, all the goods will be bunched together. I recommend a pile shuffle with at least 10 piles. I feel that the penalty on the Sheriff needs to be reduced (either capped to 4 coins or halved) for the game to work properly, as the Sheriff takes on way too much risk. The power needs to be in the sheriff's hands for the game to work, and it just kind of... isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Why does the Sheriff have to pay a penalty if he searches a legal bag? In fact, why are there penalties at all? Why can't it just be something like "The Sheriff must search exactly one bag each round. If the player whose bag gets searched is caught lying, then the Sheriff gets to keep and score ALL of the contents of that bag."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Schizoguy posted:Why does the Sheriff have to pay a penalty if he searches a legal bag? In fact, why are there penalties at all? Why can't it just be something like "The Sheriff must search exactly one bag each round. If the player whose bag gets searched is caught lying, then the Sheriff gets to keep and score ALL of the contents of that bag." I guess it's to stop the Sheriff from just opening every single bag every round, that would be just as boring as if he didn't. The more I think about your other suggestion, the more I like it. It doesn't balance for 3-5 players though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
lockdar posted:I have only played Battlestar Galactica twice, but last night we may have had the best game we will ever play. It was a 3 player game where the only Cylon player recieved his Loyalty card during the Sleeper Agent phase BSG is my favorite game ever, despite its uneven length and lovely expansions. Happily I can say that probably won't be the best game you'll ever play, since you only had 3 people! Try hard to get 5, it is the best number. Six is playable with a Cylon Leader. At its best BSG is a mechanically solid game, a tense social experience (play that BSG soundtrack!), and the kind of ~experience generator~ that Arkham Horror wants to be. The problem with BSG is that you're spinning the roulette wheel each time you play: it's pretty easy for the game to tip over from tension into misery, or slump into a dull cruise on the Pleasure Barge Galactica. When it's good it's unsurpassed, but the trick is making it reliably good. The most important thing to do in order to consistently have fun is to play with 5 people. Here are some other dials you can adjust to try to tighten up your experience (assuming you can reliably get 5 people): Buy Pegasus if you want more places to go and more options for the humans to shoot spaceships. Pegasus will tilt balance a little towards the humans, and it patches a few broken elements of the base game, like the Investigative Committee card. The Cylon Leaders in Pegasus are playable with 6 people, but not incredibly well-designed. Toss out New Caprica and don't bother playing it. You'll also get some great Crises that invoke some of the best parts of the show, like the civil war with Pegasus. If you want to avoid games in which both Cylons activate before Sleeper, try this house rule. At the beginning of the game, pull one 'You Are A Cylon' card out of the Loyalty deck before dealing Loyalty cards. Add this card back in for Sleeper. This guarantees that there will be no more than one Cylon in the fleet before the Sleeper phase. My group always plays with this rule, although we also play with the Cylon Fleet from Exodus, which tilts the game pro-Cylon. Get the goon-made custom characters! They're a ton of fun and almost uniformly better designed than the official Fantasy Flight characters. BSG is a hell of a game. Last time I took a trip up to Boston to play a couple games of BSG, we had one game in which a mastermind Cylon admiral conned all the humans into burying the distance 2 destinations, then nuked the civilian fleet for a single-turn loss of 8 population, another game in which the humans pulled out a clutch win under the ruthless leadership of President Zarek and his people-become-morale program, and a mad spiritual war in which Cylon Helo won the Cylon Civil War and then consulted with the mysterious Hybrid in order to feed the undercover Cylon president a string of 'president chooses' crises, leading to the total starvation of the human race. There's a lot of random poo poo in BSG, and it's by no means a tight design. We play with all the expansions and a set of house rules designed to buff lovely skill cards, nerf some degenerate strategies, and keep the game moving. But we go to the trouble of all that tinkering because a good game of BSG isn't really like anything else in board games. e: and I forgot, if you dare buy Exodus, never use the Exodus loyalty rules!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I'd love to see a BSG 2e where the game was of a set length and they had some way of keeping the game balanced while not letting players know if there were cylons active yet or not. I'd also like to see variant rules for short games and long games. You could do the first part by making these changes: 1. The game ends after five jumps 2. Destination cards vary in destructiveness, so an admiral might get to choose between a 2 fuel loss card and a 1 fuel loss and damage Galactica twice card 3. All crisis cards have jump prep on them 4. Crisis cards vary in destructiveness, same as destination cards I've no idea how you would keep the game balanced while keeping the addition of cylons random though. Early cylons are less good than late cylons, somehow, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
BonHair posted:And because the designer is right in some cases. Some people are way better at tracking stuff, which makes games more about who is better at tracking stuff than who is better at strategy. Which can be fun I guess, but some of us don't enjoy that too much. I can't think of any way that testing for memorization adds anything at all to the game unless it's a key part. Like the card game where you match two. Even magic which has hidden information and allows you to peek from time to time lets you write down information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I can't think of any way that testing for memorization adds anything at all to the game unless it's a key part. Like the card game where you match two. Even magic which has hidden information and allows you to peek from time to time lets you write down information. Dominion would slow down a whole lot if people looked through their own discards, or their opponents discards, to see what has been played. Or to make a VP count. Better to leave it "hidden".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Boardgoons posted:Sheriff of Nottingham chat So not a bad game if I can get it for around $20. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, hidden VP in games is not there to actually hide who's winning so much as it's to reduce playtime (which it does demonstrably so). AP-prone players take longer turns when given more information that seems relevant to their decisions, especially in games like Small World where there's a political element.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Dominion would slow down a whole lot if people looked through their own discards, or their opponents discards, to see what has been played. Or to make a VP count. Better to leave it "hidden". That's more of a rule aimed at reining in AP, not hidden information per se. The same purpose could be accomplished by putting you on a timer (which wouldn' work in Dominion for a variety of reasons but you get my point)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:That's more of a rule aimed at reining in AP, not hidden information per se. The same purpose could be accomplished by putting you on a timer (which wouldn' work in Dominion for a variety of reasons but you get my point) Right. And I must be lucky since I've never played small world or puerto rico with anyone prone to AP so the revealed information hasn't slowed the game at all. I will take the point for Dominion though that too is just dumb and aimed at people who have AP. Normally I don't like the argument of "play with better people" and instead prefer a game better itself with its own design merits. The oft-used "munchkin/monopoly is FUN when you play with FUN people!" poo poo. However, AP is just one of those things where I don't think there's any elegantly reasonable responses. One that doesn't interfere with other aspects of the game like hidden VP. Though I would probably love to play dominion with a timer since that would both cut out AP and those lovely engines that just keep adding actions without doing anything. If you're in the middle of such an engine when the 15 second timer goes off you're SOL and can't buy anything. Next person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:I guess it's to stop the Sheriff from just opening every single bag every round, that would be just as boring as if he didn't. The more I think about your other suggestion, the more I like it. It doesn't balance for 3-5 players though. What if the Sheriff may pay to open additional bags? Risk/reward/bribing opportunities abound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Right. And I must be lucky since I've never played small world or puerto rico with anyone prone to AP so the revealed information hasn't slowed the game at all. I will take the point for Dominion though that too is just dumb and aimed at people who have AP. Mage Knight has a really elegant time-saving rule: As long as you haven't revealed any hidden information, you can redo your turn in full. It turns out that letting people try a thing and take it back is much faster than giving somebody a ton of options and making them commit to their choices. It reduces AP by reducing pressure on players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Mage Knight has a really elegant time-saving rule: Especially in a game like Mage Knight where combat against multiple opponents is essentially an optimisation problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
It's an interesting dilemma. Hiding information reduces the cognitive load on players. Which can lead to shorter turns for AP people and less stress due to being mentally encumbered with less interesting variables and decisions to make than what the designer would like you to focus on. However, you now give people who can memorize all these details an advantage. Additionally, whether they can memorize it or not, you might put some stress on players who feel like they do need to memorize these variables in order to play at their best. You could neutralize that advantage by using a pen and paper, but each player recording the game state on a pen and paper is about the most fiddly thing I can imagine. I can't think of many games that I play that wouldn't at least impart some advantage to a player if they used a pen and paper. Writing down all the draft cards in 7 Wonders, every event in Coup, the discards and counting cards in Dominion to track VPs and predict the probability of an attack on your turn, any card counting or tile counting in a game where you have decks, etc. In fact, if you go as far to writing down details, why not write an algorithm down on your pad of paper! Maybe even go so far as to craft up a simple application and keep it on your phone! I think I could come up with some pretty sweet simple programs on a lazy Sunday that would give me advantages in a bunch of games. I guess I should be grateful that we don't have that kind of competitiveness in our gamer group (poker on the other hand..) Regarding writing down details in magic during play, is that a thing? I've observed a good deal of competitive magic and played a bit myself and have never seen anyone keep track of more than the score. Finally, regarding Hanabi, as someone who often has a broken down working memory after a mentally straining week of work, I want to love this game but I find it kind of aggravating trying to remember the tells I've received. Last time I played I started thinking about how a memory palace might be effective and .. I don't think I want to go that far. I think I would like to try writing stuff down in this game potentially, or at least using the little card holder trays that I've seen some people use that have different rows which can be used as a short hand for known details.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Finally, regarding Hanabi, as someone who often has a broken down working memory after a mentally straining week of work, I want to love this game but I find it kind of aggravating trying to remember the tells I've received. Last time I played I started thinking about how a memory palace might be effective and .. I don't think I want to go that far. I think I would like to try writing stuff down in this game potentially, or at least using the little card holder trays that I've seen some people use that have different rows which can be used as a short hand for known details. Well you are allowed and I believe encouraged to rotate and rearrange the cards in your hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Finally, regarding Hanabi, as someone who often has a broken down working memory after a mentally straining week of work, I want to love this game but I find it kind of aggravating trying to remember the tells I've received. Last time I played I started thinking about how a memory palace might be effective and .. I don't think I want to go that far. I think I would like to try writing stuff down in this game potentially, or at least using the little card holder trays that I've seen some people use that have different rows which can be used as a short hand for known details. I generally put playable cards to the right, cards I'm not sure about to the left, danger cards (like 5's) to the bottom, and everything else to the top. Also, if you know a lot about your hand, your group is probably wasting clues. Give people just enough to give them plays. If they can play a card, they shouldn't be giving clues or discarding, unless there's an urgent situation (ie. the next player knows nothing and their oldest card is a 5 or something).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:Well you are allowed and I believe encouraged to rotate and rearrange the cards in your hand. That get's a little exhausting eventually, though. I was keeping cards sideways and separate in my hand but I still ended up forgetting one of the details and that didn't feel good. quote:Also, if you know a lot about your hand, your group is probably wasting clues. Give people just enough to give them plays. If they can play a card, they shouldn't be giving clues or discarding, unless there's an urgent situation (ie. the next player knows nothing and their oldest card is a 5 or something). Yeah, maybe we just need to get gud. But there were times when someone would give me a clue that would both give me an obvious play, but also would give me a not yet piece of useful information about other cards in my hand. Like, all of these other cards are not 1, or not green, etc. Trying to keep track of those details over the course of several turns was sort of aggravating. fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:That get's a little exhausting eventually, though. I was keeping cards sideways and separate in my hand but I still ended up forgetting one of the details and that didn't feel good. That's part of the game. If you need an extra tool or assistants to compensate for a lapse in working memory then maybe try to make the most out of a bad situation. I'll sometimes forget something and through clues and discarding just try to not make a huge gently caress up. Writing things down and such will just give you scores of 24-25 all the time and the challenge has been lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Dominion would slow down a whole lot if people looked through their own discards, or their opponents discards, to see what has been played. Or to make a VP count. Better to leave it "hidden". On the other hand, playing Dominion online with the score tracker add-on is much better imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
lockdar posted:Normally I'd hate to have to end the game with a roll of a die but somehow it felt so good after surviving several rounds of brutal attacks and crisis cards. So there's this alchemy deck-building game called Magnum Opus that uses a d8 to determine if you met the synthesis difficulty, including for the final synthesis that'll win you the game, the Magnum Opus. I manage to get the cards out for it, and as I'm shaking up the die it slips out of my hands, bounces across the table, and lands in the middle of a card on the fusion matrix. Like, right in the middle, not cocked or anything. And I groan, which leaves everybody else looking to see where the die wound up. It's an 8. Automatic success. But it's not how I wanted to ROLL an 8, you know? fozzy fosbourne posted:Yeah, maybe we just need to get gud. But there were times when someone would give me a clue that would both give me an obvious play, but also would give me a not yet piece of useful information about other cards in my hand. Like, all of these other cards are not 1, or not green, etc. Trying to keep track of those details over the course of several turns was sort of aggravating. Well, you can flip cards over since the art on the back has a pagoda under a sky full of fireworks. And I generally play that you can ask to be reminded about any card you've got flipped over. Of course, this requires that someone else in the group remembers what they told you about your hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
quote:Also, if you know a lot about your hand, your group is probably wasting clues. Give people just enough to give them plays. If you don't know a lot about your hand, you're not playing very seriously. That's fine, and many clues you give should certainly be directed toward "what to play/discard right now", but there is deeper stuff in the game if you want there to be. When you get a clue, you usually get with it a ton of information about your other cards. Sometimes this is direct: "he pointed out that this card is red (because he clearly wanted me to play it) but that also means these other cards (which I might end up holding for the rest of the game) aren't red". If you remember this stuff, it's often very valuable, but it can be burdensome to remember that "card 1 is not blue or green and is either a 2 or a 4". More difficult is to remember what other people know about their hand to that same level. I need him to play one of his two 5s, and green is the only open 5. If I tell him he has two 5s, does he know (and will he remember) that his first 5 can't be green? And lots of times the stuff you know comes less direct, based on your knowledge of how people prioritize clues. Often you can see "he just told the person past me X; if this 2 had been red he would have told me that". But it means knowing the people you're playing with, remembering exactly what you have, and often remembering what they know about their own hands. Anyway, all I'm saying is that you should expect remembering information to be a challenge if you're playing seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Gort posted:I've no idea how you would keep the game balanced while keeping the addition of cylons random though. Early cylons are less good than late cylons, somehow, perhaps? Something I've considered in traitor games in general, is having extra role cards, and unused evil cards at the end of the game reduce all resources by 1-2 or something. With BSG you could have two decks, initial and sleeper, one or both having one cylon and one extra card.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Try hard to get 5, it is the best number. Six is playable with a Cylon Leader. Six is still really good even if you're just using the official No Sympathizer rules, and it's much better than playing with 6 under the Pegasus Cylon Leader rules. PerniciousKnid posted:Something I've considered in traitor games in general, is having extra role cards, and unused evil cards at the end of the game reduce all resources by 1-2 or something. With BSG you could have two decks, initial and sleeper, one or both having one cylon and one extra card. 4v1 is incredibly lopsided in BSG, the game feels like pure Pleasure Cruise Galactica unless the penalty were something crazy like -4 to all non-fuel resources. (This is speaking from experience playing with 5-players including a Cylon Leader under the Pegasus rules who drew a pro-human agenda - I'm not sure any of the resources other than fuel even hit red.) It might work in something like Shadows over Camelot where the traitors don't really matter, but then you're stuck playing Shadows over Camelot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I may be a little late to the Sheriff of Nottingham chat. My group really enjoyed it with the explicit rule of telling the Sheriff explicitly what you just drew (from the public discard) and discarded. Having some hidden information in terms of cards left over from previous hands would benefit those with a notepad or good memory, although some players exclusively drew from the random deck every round. I think the "only focus on legal goods" strategy might come from players leaving out the double/triple worth contraband cards. For some reason the base rules suggest not using them for the first play through, but they are very valuable pieces of contraband. Likewise, getting a 9 point contraband card through is huge. Get a player that declares 4 apples and sneaks through 4 contraband, and that person is going to have a huge advantage (king or queen aside). It is somewhat group dependent, but it fits nicely in a collection of bluffing/deduction games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
I found a sweet spot for Alien Frontiers. We play on the iPad and while watching TV or something my wife and I pass it back and forth and we have an AI player or two in the mix. Downtime isn't an issue for two sweet-spot reasons:
My wife's an Optimizer so playing a worker placement against her feels like drowning, and she has no compunctions whatsoever about making your life hell 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
The downside: My FLGS has The Dungeon Lords Anniversary edition while I'm still waiting on mine. The upside: They also had Bunny Bunny Moose Moose in stock and so now I own that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Big McHuge posted:The downside: My FLGS has The Dungeon Lords Anniversary edition while I'm still waiting on mine. ... Are you in America? Fungah! fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Anyone else want to chime in on X-Com? I'm right on the edge as it sounds like people have generally had fun, but it also doesn't sound like anyone has spent much time with it... my group loves X-Com (the tactical video game) but is also immediately suspicious of FFG. Just need one more opinion to push me one way or another. Also, any thoughts on Concept? The premise sounds clear enough, but I can't really picture how it actually plays and whether that makes for a fun game. Thoughts? VVV: Hey thanks guys, super helpful opinions! jmzero fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:... Yup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Spike was...decent. It puts an inordinate amount of importance on your early game strategy -- as you have three supplies which you can only deliver once (with higher values depending on the city you deliver to), and you can only pick up certain supplies in certain cities (only Coal in Boston, only Cows in Atlanta -- for example) -- and at the beginning of the game you get a card that gives an end game bonus for connecting your rails to a specific set of cities..so well you can see why your initial train placement is absolutely crucial. The gameplay is also slow (one move per term, one of which can be simply setting your train in motion in order to move on your next turn), although there are some interesting midgame decisions (specifically when to forge ahead to your high value targets, and when to make side routes and pick up quick cash). I wouldn't want to play this again if there other options, but I wouldn't push it away either if people really wanted to play it. That's pretty much how I felt after I played it last week, though it looks like when I played we messed up the "you can only deliver a specific good once" rule (I think I prefer the broken rule in this case since you don't get screwed over if you get contracts/goods far apart). It ends up being a mediocre amalgamation of various other train games, except more fiddly and without as much strategy. Also, does anyone even bother with drawing discards in Sheriff of Nottingham? Whenever I play, both discards quickly become thick with contraband since everyone's smart enough to put their discarded contraband on top of their other stuff. Thus no one bothers unless they decide to grab five contraband in hopes of striking a deal with the sheriff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Also, any thoughts on Concept? The premise sounds clear enough, but I can't really picture how it actually plays and whether that makes for a fun game. Thoughts? It's great, especially if you don't keep score.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Also, any thoughts on Concept? The premise sounds clear enough, but I can't really picture how it actually plays and whether that makes for a fun game. Thoughts? Concept is enjoyable, but the scoring system should be thrown out. To be honest, it feels like a more limited Pictionary. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since I find this more enjoyable since artistic skill is irrelevant, but you have to be even more creative to get a concept (haha) across. Of course, if the likes of Pictionary or Charades doesn't appeal to you, stay the hell away. The more creative you're willing to be, the more fun you'll have. I once used one of the players as a sub-concept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
jmzero posted:Anyone else want to chime in on X-Com? I'm right on the edge as it sounds like people have generally had fun, but it also doesn't sound like anyone has spent much time with it... my group loves X-Com (the tactical video game) but is also immediately suspicious of FFG. Just need one more opinion to push me one way or another. The biggest thing for you and your group to understand is that there is no tactical combat involved with XCOM the board game. It's all at Geoscape scale, having each of you make strategic decisions within time constraints such as "Which of these six techs do I want to try researching this turn and how much of our budget can we spare towards those efforts and oh God five seconds left to place my first tech of three ahhhhhhhhh" Speaking of the budget, I think it's a nice touch. You can get everything you want in the early rounds by burning your emergency cash and then as the game progresses you get more and more pressed for what you can spare budget towards. And if you gently caress up on your budget? Most panicked nation gets more panicked as a punishment. Maybe this turn since there's only 1 alien at base you can skip base defense? It'd save 2-3 credits that could go toward stopping all those UFOs you weren't able to clear last turn. And do we REALLY need all those scientists working right now? I'm sure you could use some salvage instead and maybe we don't get all the techs this turn. Just for gently caress's sake don't let any UFOs hang out in orbit again, having to place a base team before seeing aliens was brutal. All in all, a very pleasing experience and I'm looking forward to my next games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:31
|
|
