|
The End posted:The game runs for ten weeks. Each day, you send your scout around town to recruit players, staff, negotiate sponsors and run press conferences. Come Sunday, you pick your squad in a similar setup to Fifa ultimate team (match up skills, look for synergies) and play your scheduled match (abstracted to dice rolls, modified by your squad strength and formation). You have to balance finances and fatigue. It's super elegant, and I'm very impressed after two plays. Any idea where I can find this in Europe? I can see an Age of Soccer and similar names but hard to tell if its this one. I was asked about any good football board games to which I said I'd never heard of any, but I know someone who would love to give one a go.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:I was asked about any good football board games to which I said I'd never heard of any Subbuteo?!?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
homullus posted:Mage Knight Mage Knight, burning bright Vlaada, Vlaada, burning bright As should all copies of Mage Knight His games make me give zero fucks Because they have such bad rulebooks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Vlaada, Vlaada, burning bright In some circles it would be considered a crime, I wish you would stop, Or I'll get in a strop, This is one wound that won't heal with time. Edit: eye/symmetry don't rhyme and neither do fucks/rulebooks (unless that was the intention) 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I have never seen such a bad loving rhyme, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyger Jedit has no excuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I have never seen such a bad loving rhyme, we'll be sure to let william blake know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Okay, fair enough, but rulebook/fucks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Maybe it's supposed to be read in a thick Ork accent? "Hand me tha rools ya fookin idgit."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
/ʊ/ and /u/ are close enough in most English dialects to work fine as a satisfactory rhyme, especially with the use of a /k/ slant rhyme, tho it probably wouldn't have satisfied blake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
jedit has problems with rulebooks we've established this
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Sold my old 'One With Everything' copy of Illuminati: New World Order on eBay last week. It's sat on my shelf unplayed for ten years because every time I looked at the rulebook to think about playing it I'd go crosseyed. Got $150, which I was happy with since it was opened and the box had some cosmetic damage. Used the money to go board game shopping, of course! Bought Wiz-War and Star Wars: Imperial Assault, so Fantasy Flight got all my money. Haven't even opened SW:IA yet, but played 4 games of Wiz-War over the weekend. Re-implementing most of the original old-school rules (maintained spells don't count toward hand size, one giant deck, permanent creations, deadly treasures), and tweaking the deck a bit (removing the healing items and counterspells that don't do anything but cancel/negate a spell) and it was really, really fun. The kind of game you get stories about, like my wife killing me in the last game by forcing my wizard to walk back and forth through a Wall of Fire until dead. Also for a FF game the rulebook was pretty good and even though there's usual poo poo ton of tokens, you usually use only a small percentage of them in any one game. Looking forward to Imperial Assault because I also run a Star Wars RPG campaign, and it seems like these will be nice props, and I like Descent, so Descent with Star Wars theme seems cool to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
How is the new Doomtown LCG? For perspective, I've never really gotten into an LCG or played the old Doomtown, but I was crazy about Netrunner Classic for a long time, and have played my fair share of TCGs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Doomtown is great. I've had about 20 games of it now and am hooked. It might just be a peer for netrunner but I will need a lot more games to figure that out. Its certainly a solid second best so far for me. If you can find a group locally that is playing I would buy it. Otherwise netrunner might be the better buy since there is a bigger player base. Office Sheep fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:How is the new Doomtown LCG? For perspective, I've never really gotten into an LCG or played the old Doomtown, but I was crazy about Netrunner Classic for a long time, and have played my fair share of TCGs. Heavily tactical, you'll lose if you overextend yourself. Sometimes the right action is to do nothing and see what your opponent does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:How is the new Doomtown LCG? For perspective, I've never really gotten into an LCG or played the old Doomtown, but I was crazy about Netrunner Classic for a long time, and have played my fair share of TCGs. I don't like how swingy it is. Fights tend to be all or nothing affairs, instead of slow bleeds. They also tend to be super long and tedious since each one involves a mini game of poker. I find Warhammer 40k: Conquest to be the better "area control" LCG. It's better tactically since everything is deterministic and the flow is infinitely better. Games rarely last more than 15-20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I don't like how swingy it is. Fights tend to be all or nothing affairs, instead of slow bleeds. They also tend to be super long and tedious since each one involves a mini game of poker. I find Warhammer 40k: Conquest to be the better "area control" LCG. It's better tactically since everything is deterministic and the flow is infinitely better. Games rarely last more than 15-20 minutes. Gonna disagree with this. If your games are swingy, you're engaging in unnecessary combats. One of the biggest complaints amongst new players is "I started combat and now all my guys are dead and I lost.", and the response is "Why did you start combat? You didn't need to take that deed, and you weren't in danger of losing the game."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I don't like how swingy it is. Fights tend to be all or nothing affairs, instead of slow bleeds. They also tend to be super long and tedious since each one involves a mini game of poker. I find Warhammer 40k: Conquest to be the better "area control" LCG. It's better tactically since everything is deterministic and the flow is infinitely better. Games rarely last more than 15-20 minutes. You mean combat is doesn't have random chance resolutions. Warhammer still has variance in your hands. After the first couple games I found doomtown has way less random chance than I thought because players rarely want to get in even odds fights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Office Sheep posted:You mean combat is doesn't have random chance resolutions. Warhammer still has variance in your hands. After the first couple games I found doomtown has way less random chance than I thought because players rarely want to get in even odds fights. Also, a constructed deck will be built to trend towards the type of hand a player wants. Very strong decks will feature lots of identical value/suits to get at least four of a kind regularly in combat. http://www.alderac.com/doomtown/2014/09/05/structure-deck/
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Deviant posted:Gonna disagree with this. If your games are swingy, you're engaging in unnecessary combats. One of the biggest complaints amongst new players is "I started combat and now all my guys are dead and I lost.", and the response is "Why did you start combat? You didn't need to take that deed, and you weren't in danger of losing the game." This could very well be true, but then it brings to mind that the only time you should be fighting is if it's game point? I was intruding on deeds because I was playing a game of resource denial so that when the actual important deeds came up, I'd have an overwhelming advantage. Not that an overwhelming advantage actually means anything, since you could still end up being assed out. I think one of the fights ended with one of my not-really-important guys (I think it was even the guy who lets you mulligan, which is still a stupid design choice) wiping out a combat posse because I somehow drew a 4 of a kind against a pair. It didn't make me feel good about winning at all since it might as well have ended up as a dice roll (I realize your deck composition makes it not really a dice roll, since you can control your odds somewhat), but it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Compare it to Conquest where if you lose a planet/victory objective, you generally know exactly where you hosed up (aka an Eldar player left 4 credits open, a Space Marine player left 2 credits open, etc.). Note also that you don't have to dig through your decks for these objectives, which also somehow tended to happen, which results in a slow game. It's about the equivalent of mana screw/flood, in that it's not something that should happen that often, but the possibility of it even happening brings the game down. Give it a try if you'd like, but I'd definitely play Netrunner or Conquest over it. Hell I might even play Smash Up over it, and I don't even like Smash Up. Edit: Office Sheep posted:After the first couple games I found doomtown has way less random chance than I thought because players rarely want to get in even odds fights. I think this is the part of the game that I have issue with. If there's no incentive for people to actually get in conflict, it gets into this turtle state where both people are just posturing without doing anything. Conquest gets through it by forcing a fight at the first planet, but imagine if something like Kemet didn't give you a VP for winning attacks. How dull and tedious would that game be? It's brilliant precisely because it FORCES conflict, rather than allow people to twiddle their thumbs building armies or whatnot. But again, I'd like to state that I tried it a few times, didn't like it, and now have no desire to pursue it, so I could very well be missing the game's depths. GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:This could very well be true, but then it brings to mind that the only time you should be fighting is if it's game point? I was intruding on deeds because I was playing a game of resource denial so that when the actual important deeds came up, I'd have an overwhelming advantage. It's all about managing risk/reward. "What do I gain by winning? What does my opponent lose access to? Do I need to hold it or just take it briefly." I've gotten good results out of sending single dudes to briefly take control of opposing deeds to either a) provoke a response or b) use an ability on one of my opponent's deeds and boot it. GrandpaPants posted:I think it was even the guy who lets you mulligan, which is still a stupid design choice It's not a stupid design choice, no one's forcing you to include him or even choose him in your starting Dudes. If your deck is consistent enough that you don't need a mulligan, replace him with someone better. If you have high variance, maybe toss him in. He's still a low cost opening dude. Later they'll be adding other grifters that have different effects, so you could trade your mulligan, for say, +2 starting ghost rock or something similar. http://www.alderac.com/doomtown/2014/04/14/grifting-consistency/ Deviant fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:But again, I'd like to state that I tried it a few times, didn't like it, and now have no desire to pursue it, so I could very well be missing the game's depths. You keep using combat as an example, let me counter with this example deck: http://dtdb.co/en/decklist/600/4th-ring-control The deck wins ideally without ever starting combat. By using Blood Curse, I can lower your dudes' influence to the point where my Control exceeds your influence and win without ever firing a shot. It's ultimately a chess game, it's about knowing when, where, and why to be aggressive. And often those aggressions are subtle. Moving a single dude to force a reaction, posturing with a guy in the town square, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Played some 2-player "Expert Mode" 7 Wonders with Leaders and Cities expansions for the first time last night. I've played it a bunch of times with 6-ish people but never with 2. The cognitive load combined with the lack of almost any downtime makes it end up feeling pretty strenuous. On Free City turns, you have 9 cards to potentially construct, contribute to a wonder, or sell, both for yourself and for the Free City. Going back to the conversation earlier, as opposed to a handful of very meaningful options, you are trying to carve the optimal path out of a sea of less significant choices. Then, with the simultaneous actions + only 2 players, the resolution of each turn goes really quick and so it's nearly constant furrowed brow mode, with nearly 90% of the playtime spent analyzing decisions, I'd estimate. It's neat but it feels like taking a proctored exam. Might get better if I had memorized a tiering of the cards for particular strategies and was able to make decisions instinctually. Sort of like the difference between trying to do poker expected value calculations in your head as you play vs rules of thumb based on some studying prior to playing. We ended up with scores of 71 and 66, IIRC I think RftG scratches a similar itch for two players but ends up feeling a bit more relaxing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Doomtown is really good and also not published by FFG so already it is inherently better than all other LCGs.Deviant posted:It's ultimately a chess game, it's about knowing when, where, and why to be aggressive. And often those aggressions are subtle. Moving a single dude to force a reaction, posturing with a guy in the town square, and so on. Yeah, this is very true. Doomtown is very much like the Westerns it is trying to emulate: a series of posturing, small jabs, encroachments, and ambushes that ultimately tend to lead to a last ditch Hail Mary effort from the losing side to win. If you manage to pull a legal five of a kind or a Dead Man's Hand straight up on your last shootout against an opponent who only pulls 5 pairs on his 5 stud draw, then one of you built a deck with a better draw structure. Choosing to take the risk on draws or keeping a tight draw structure to limit variance is one more strategic choice you can make (which can be manipulated tactically via which cards you choose to buy or ace over the course of the game). If that's not for you, that's fine, but it is much more nuanced and well-considered than you're giving it credit for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Is the Doomtown Core Set enough to make a few good balanced decks to play against each other?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Is the Doomtown Core Set enough to make a few good balanced decks to play against each other? The Core Set comes with a premade deck for each faction. I haven't played with them, but word on the internet says that they are essentially in two sets of two that are decently balanced against each other (Sloane vs. Law Dogs, Morgan vs. Fourth Ring), but not well balanced against the other set. If you aren't planning on getting competitive, and you built wildly different deck types, you could probably get three decks that are roughly balanced against each other from one Core. Like all LCGs, you really want two Cores.  (Unlike Netrunner, though, two cores will get you a full play set.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
There is also a doomtown thread if you want to have more detailed conversation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
The first time we played Lords of Waterdeep I thought it was really fun if a bit light. The second time I played it, over this past weekend, I started to see all the criticisms of it. It really is multiplayer solitaire. You could theoretically screw the other players, but it would just cost you time you could be spending getting VPs for yourself, and in practice it's really nearly impossible to keep track of what other people need for all their quests. Mandatory Quests are just unfun. The flavor is meaningless. No one thinks of the cubes as fighters / clerics / wizards / rogues, they're just "purple, white, black, orange". I didn't even read the name of the quests or even more than glance at the pictures, because all you care about is the cost, reward, and type. The buildings don't even seem that useful because of the hard limit on number of rounds. Why would you buy a building after round 5 or 6? I dunno, I'll still play it when my group wants because it's quick and easy, but it made me glad I didn't buy it myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
I have a mystery UPS package from Georgia incoming... Is this Pictomania??
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Imagined posted:The first time we played Lords of Waterdeep I thought it was really fun if a bit light. The second time I played it, over this past weekend, I started to see all the criticisms of it. It really is multiplayer solitaire. You could theoretically screw the other players, but it would just cost you time you could be spending getting VPs for yourself, and in practice it's really nearly impossible to keep track of what other people need for all their quests. Mandatory Quests are just unfun. The flavor is meaningless. No one thinks of the cubes as fighters / clerics / wizards / rogues, they're just "purple, white, black, orange". I didn't even read the name of the quests or even more than glance at the pictures, because all you care about is the cost, reward, and type. The buildings don't even seem that useful because of the hard limit on number of rounds. Why would you buy a building after round 5 or 6? I dunno, I'll still play it when my group wants because it's quick and easy, but it made me glad I didn't buy it myself. The game is indeed very light and babys first worker placement, buildings are worth putting down sometimes just for the free VPs stationed on them, or if the building itself has a good payoff per agent placed on it, or if you are the one lord that gets points from owning buildings, sometimes you don't need any of the other slots or w/e so placing them late can still be worthwhile. The theme is very much pasted on, I think if they used meeples instead of cubes it would be more thematic but still, its a very light and very quick game. I'd rather play Dungeon Petz if I had 3-4 players though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Finally got to play my copy of Roll for the Galaxy on Saturday and holy poo poo is it good. It's essentially a stream lined and easier to learn/play version of Race with dice rolling. Very highly recommended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Had some game days this past weekend. Played Kingsport Festival first. If you've ever played Kingsburg you've played most of Kingsport Festival and vice versa. The core gameplay is identical, you roll dice and place them together or separate on areas that give you resources and you spend those to gain bonuses and victory points, every few rounds an obstacle shows up and you use combat ability to defeat it for bonuses or not and lose VP or resources. Here is how it differs from Kingsburg:  In order to get resources from an area you place dice you lose sanity points. You start at 10 and on the average resource space you lose 1-3 sanity. You can gain sanity by placing on certain resource areas or getting bonuses that cancel it out. If you go below 0 sanity you lose VP instead of sanity points. If you are above or below 6 sanity cards do different things. To me this was the most interesting thing KF did that KB didn't do.Cards. Two of the resources are spells and magic points. Magic points are gained like any of the others on a scale on the board. Each time you get a spell resource you choose between three decks of cards with different spells, you can carry 3 unless something changes that. Spells can have effects in different phases and range from combat bonuses to die roll increases (some parts of the board you need 19 on three dice so they're only accessible with magic).Instead of Kingsburgs independent player build charts there is a shared board. You spend resources to enter locations and place claim markers to get the bonuses. It is pretty much the same just shown in a different way.It has a Cthulhu theme. It has as much to do with the game as Abyss did with underwater kingdoms really. It is nice art and not very intrusive.Overall if you want a different Kingsburg it is for you. Kingsburg looks more organized and has less hidden and random abilities. If you're wanting a "more Euro" kind of experience with a dice resource game then go with Kingsburg but if the random variables seem like the game will be more interesting or last longer with you go for Kingsport Festival. Next we played Merchants and Marauders for the first time. We had some rules errors in the early game but overall we enjoyed it. The game takes shape as people carve out their play styles. I was a pirate named Frederico who could carry an extra rumor and I ran away with the game by fullfilling rumors and running around the map to do them so much no one wanted to go out of their way to sink me. The asymmetry keeps it interesting but can lead to issues if you have a certain something you'd rather do but lack the skills in it. If the issues became too great then I'd propose we make a skill buy system for captains and skip the special abilities to avoid imbalance. One of the guys at the shop demoed me two games of Marvel Dicemasters. It was neat but to me it feels like: Marvel Dicemasters is to TCGs like Star Realms is to deckbuilders. It is fast, random, swingy, and a low cost of entry. Also my copy of Pictomania showed up today. ThaShaneTrain fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Kaddish posted:Finally got to play my copy of Roll for the Galaxy on Saturday and holy poo poo is it good. It's essentially a stream lined and easier to learn/play version of Race with dice rolling. Very highly recommended. Counterpoint: some of the starting tiles are not well balanced. Doomed World may as well read "The game continues with one less player". You lose one coloured die for the entire game, 1-2 VPs and a trade world in exchange for a whole $5, $1-2 of which you would have got anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Any tips for eight- or nine-player Eclipse? Gonna be playing tonight (not sure if the ninth will show), and I'm wondering if there's any strategies particular to the inflated game size. Probably gonna be playing Mechanema or Planta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Lugubrious posted:Any tips for eight- or nine-player Eclipse? Gonna be playing tonight (not sure if the ninth will show), and I'm wondering if there's any strategies particular to the inflated game size. Probably gonna be playing Mechanema or Planta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
We're pretty dead-set on one game, mostly because we only have one copy, and also because we wanna give it a go at least once. We're planning on using the simultaneous play rule, and we are completely ready to waste as many hours of our life as needed to get through this. I'd imagine the inner sectors are a lot more contested, so is a more aggressive play style effective? It's one of the reasons I'm thinking of going Mechanema.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Lugubrious posted:Any tips for eight- or nine-player Eclipse? Gonna be playing tonight (not sure if the ninth will show), and I'm wondering if there's any strategies particular to the inflated game size. Probably gonna be playing Mechanema or Planta. Pack a lunch, because you'll be clocking about an hour per person 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Any idea where I can find this in Europe? I can see an Age of Soccer and similar names but hard to tell if its this one. I was asked about any good football board games to which I said I'd never heard of any, but I know someone who would love to give one a go. I got mine by getting directly in contact with the publisher https://www.facebook.com/elitegamessc?fref=ts EDIT: Here's their email address elitegamessc@gmail.com The End fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Just been ambushed with the news that I am to go into town tomorrow to pick up a fun, two-player boardgame. Outside of osmosis, I'm all-but-new to the tabletop boardgames scene (through circumstance moreso than choice -- never did find/seek a social group to get started in the hobby). I see there're a couple of 2-player recs in the OP, both seem quite specific in their thing though (one wears its abstract qualities on its chest, one seems very 'serious' for all its plaudits). I'll certainly keep both the OP recommendations in mind, but I was wondering if anyone might fancy dropping further names. To narrow things down as for myself and the other player, I'd be looking for something which has at least some immediacy, quick-ish to pick up and play. Don't mind complexity, as long as that complexity isn't right there on the surface. Thematically, I tend to skew away from stuff that feels cheesy or wacky or zany or, poo poo I dunno, if the game loudly exclaims "pirates versus ninjas versus zombies, awesome!" or uses 'epic' to describe itself in the internet usage sense, I'm gonna be put off. I'm not at all sure how well super serious wargames would go down with the other player, but I'm keeping it as an open possibility. Other than that, I guess not crazy expensive. Not crazy long playtime. Any ideas? Or, crap, I could just ask "what are your personal 2-player game preferences?", and take any suggestions as the recommendations they are. Noaloha fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
quote:I'd imagine the inner sectors are a lot more contested, so is a more aggressive play style effective? It's one of the reasons I'm thinking of going Mechanema. Planta/Plasma Missiles is pretty bonkers. Mechanema/Missiles is crazy too (you spam out little plasma ships that are resource efficient against anything). The expansion has some plasma missile counters, but they're all in the form of specific techs - and buying them is going to make less sense (for your opponents) when they're only good against you - and, from your perspective, only one of your opponents will likely have a counter. This is one of those "there are no wrong threats, only wrong answers" asymmetries that's more effective in a bigger game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Noaloha posted:Or, crap, I could just ask "what are your personal 2-player game preferences?", and take any suggestions as the recommendations they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:43
|
|