|
How much wording is printed on the actual components of Dungeon Lords? I have an option of buying the German wooden box edition but it's not worth it if I have to make note sheets of all the pieces. I am hoping some American wooden box backers will start listing theirs for sale soon
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:The dice aren't the final arbiters of success, however. There are tons of ways to modify it afterwards which is what I enjoy about the game. Now if there was a way to incorporate a deck of cards you draw from and can manipulate like the old Star Wars CCG... Yeah, to be clear I'm a big fan of X-Wing, too. I was just trying to dispel the notion of the thread die hards being unanimously opposed to dice based combat resolution. Probably safe to use as a general rule of thumb. Simple dice calculations for combat are nice when you don't want whole sequences of possible events to fit into someone's head, I think. I imagine many more games would become solved if they didn't have at least random combat and/or randomized starting hands. Without thinking about it too hard, X-Wing the chess game does not feel good.. e: if this is the board game hipster thread, then playing x-wing is like blasting taylor swift in your car when no one is around 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:How much wording is printed on the actual components of Dungeon Lords? I have an option of buying the German wooden box edition but it's not worth it if I have to make note sheets of all the pieces. I am hoping some American wooden box backers will start listing theirs for sale soon Like no words. I'm not sitting in front of my copy, and I only have the regular edition, but I don't remember anything but symbols.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:How much wording is printed on the actual components of Dungeon Lords? I have an option of buying the German wooden box edition but it's not worth it if I have to make note sheets of all the pieces. I am hoping some American wooden box backers will start listing theirs for sale soon Lord Frisk posted:Like no words. I'm not sitting in front of my copy, and I only have the regular edition, but I don't remember anything but symbols. Everything on the boards and on chits has symbols, but the event, combat and trap cards are all really text heavy, and would be unusable without a translation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
I know it was 2 pages ago, but I like 4 for Tales of the Arabian Nights. With three you're always too busy with a book or table to really pay attention to madness in everyone else's stories. At least with 4 you can pay attention to one player's a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Scyther posted:Unless I'm missing something obvious on the kickstarter page, Dungeon Saga also has the map built before the scenario starts. And y'know it looks like yet another forgettable kickstarter game that relies on spectacle and miniatures to sell. I want the spectacle and miniatures.  From watching the demonstration, it looked like the board was revealed during play, but I skipped around because it was a really slow video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Most combat in non-wargames is either: I loving love Eclipse but I absolutely hate the combat in it. Ridiculous amounts of money and materials can be poured into a small fleet that then gets taken apart randomly by a double-ancient tile. It's not even something that can be replaced without also ripping out a third of the game. This may be made worse by the way my group plays, which is a slow economic expansion coming to a brawl between the top two players in the final two rounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
parasyte posted:I loving love Eclipse but I absolutely hate the combat in it. Ridiculous amounts of money and materials can be poured into a small fleet that then gets taken apart randomly by a double-ancient tile. It's not even something that can be replaced without also ripping out a third of the game. Oh hey this sounds like my summary of Eclipse I wish Eclipse did have better combat than a dice-off. You've got this awesome Euro-style empire simulation side, cool ship building, then they couldn't go the final yard and make the entire combat system (including the reward VPs) anything but a crap shoot. And don't get me started on frigging Plasma Missiles. Zero power my rear end. bobvonunheil fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
I love eclipse but the combat is a massive loving drag. I also don't like the potential for player elimination, not to mention the actual player death spiral. It's so close to being a great game but the combat sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
CRTs and odds calculations are God's own method of combat resolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Just a quick bit of rules clarification for Argent. One of the hidden Consortium members gives their vote to the player with the second most influence. So if two players are tied for the most influence, does the person who lost the tiebreaker get that consortium member's vote or does the person who has the actual second most influence get the vote? So for example if Player A and B both have 22 influence. and Player C has 21 influence. Player A reached 22 influence first, meaning he would win the tiebreaker. Would Player B or C receive the vote for the Second most Influence?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Just a quick bit of rules clarification for Argent. One of the hidden Consortium members gives their vote to the player with the second most influence. So if two players are tied for the most influence, does the person who lost the tiebreaker get that consortium member's vote or does the person who has the actual second most influence get the vote? Player B would. I think the rulebook may even have that example, but I forget. I swear I've seen clarification for it before, though. The general point of it is that if you use your mark for the second most, you can ease up a bit on influence (although it is still incredibly useful as a tiebreaker, as I found out). Edit: Per the FAQ thread on BGG here: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1314204/official-erratatypofaq-list -If determining the Most Influence or Supporter voter was determined by a tie, how would you evaluate the "Second-most" Influence or Supporter voter? Remove the player who won the "Most" voter from consideration, then evaluate as normal. GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Player B would. I think the rulebook may even have that example, but I forget. I swear I've seen clarification for it before, though. The general point of it is that if you use your mark for the second most, you can ease up a bit on influence (although it is still incredibly useful as a tiebreaker, as I found out). Ok good to know, I'll be getting my first session in with the game, and knowing my playgroup, I can almost guarantee that exact scenario is going to happen, so I wanted an answer for how that will resolve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I just won at dungeon lords for the first time ever online. What this makes me realise is what I've been told all along but not wanted to believe - that the all-evil highly aggressive strategy is a really good way to get your head kicked in. Playing conservatively is way more likely to lead to actually winning. It's a little disappointing D:
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I just won at dungeon lords for the first time ever online. What this makes me realise is what I've been told all along but not wanted to believe - that the all-evil highly aggressive strategy is a really good way to get your head kicked in. Playing conservatively is way more likely to lead to actually winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:You can play very evil, but if you do, you have to play smart. You tend to waste a lot of actions just preventing yourself from being evil if you play too conservatively. Skirting the edge of too evil is usually the easiest strategy, get easier adventurers and no paladin while getting useful ghosts, vampires, demons. But getting the propaganda room can get you super easy adventurers so you can focus on more imps and rooms, getting super evil means you can get all the best monsters and extra from the paladin. It's all what you can do while getting lots of points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Ideally if you are going for super-evil you need to aim to get 6 monsters. It's difficult but getting two big monsters in the 2nd year (dragon + demon, demon + golem etc) should allow you to plow through the paladins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I think the super-evil strat will be great when I finally pull it off, but it requires everything to just turn out perfectly, including about 8 elements of the game over which the player has no control - like the order of when the events happen, the order of the adventurers, the order of the monsters, what traps you happen to get, etc etc etc. I suspect it's possibly to kill both paladins and still win, and it will be suuuuuper satisfying when I eventually manage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I just won at dungeon lords for the first time ever online. What this makes me realise is what I've been told all along but not wanted to believe - that the all-evil highly aggressive strategy is a really good way to get your head kicked in. Playing conservatively is way more likely to lead to actually winning. Where or what did you use to play it online?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
https://www.dungeonlords.ukfun.com I must get round to posting that online boardgaming thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:https://www.dungeonlords.ukfun.com Yeah, do that thing. The OP will grow as people bring in more links, so don't worry about covering all the bases. Though I would consider posting something about vassal and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Planning do. But a busy weekend ahead. I'll see how I go this evening but unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I love eclipse but the combat is a massive loving drag. I also don't like the potential for player elimination, not to mention the actual player death spiral. It's so close to being a great game but the combat sucks. If you're eliminating a player in Eclipse, you're usually doing it wrong. Once you've crippled someone there's no point in attacking them even more while letting a stronger target get stronger still. That's a good way to find an enemy fleet stealing your best sectors while your own ships are too far away to stop them because they're mopping up and you don't have enough actions because you're holding too much turf. It's also pretty hard in my experience to wind up in a genuine death spiral. It takes deliberate effort from another player to make you collapse beyond rebuilding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's also pretty hard in my experience to wind up in a genuine death spiral. It takes deliberate effort from another player to make you collapse beyond rebuilding. It depends on how the galaxy's geometry ends up looking. The first time I played, I was the race that could coexist with the ancient ships, and made a beeline for the center of the galaxy and the hexes in the first ring with ancients. When the other players beefed up and took the center, I was trapped - my only way out of my remaining two hexes was through the center of the galaxy, where one of the other players had parked their entire 14-ship fleet. There wasn't much I could do at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Jedit posted:If you're eliminating a player in Eclipse, you're usually doing it wrong. Once you've crippled someone there's no point in attacking them even more while letting a stronger target get stronger still. That's a good way to find an enemy fleet stealing your best sectors while your own ships are too far away to stop them because they're mopping up and you don't have enough actions because you're holding too much turf. I don't know about that. Sometimes easier to crush them if you have the chance rather then face a whole heap of cheap ships with neutron bombs taking sectors off you in the last turn of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:It depends on how the galaxy's geometry ends up looking. The first time I played, I was the race that could coexist with the ancient ships, and made a beeline for the center of the galaxy and the hexes in the first ring with ancients. When the other players beefed up and took the center, I was trapped - my only way out of my remaining two hexes was through the center of the galaxy, where one of the other players had parked their entire 14-ship fleet. There wasn't much I could do at that point. If it was the first time you played you should really have taken the default humans. Descendants are not an easy faction to play, and it gets worse the more players there are. Still, you didn't do that to yourself; for you to be blocked in like that the other players had to be ignoring the guy who had left his turf totally undefended in favour of exploring around your ring 3 and blocking you off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Jedit posted:If you're eliminating a player in Eclipse, you're usually doing it wrong. Once you've crippled someone there's no point in attacking them even more while letting a stronger target get stronger still. That's a good way to find an enemy fleet stealing your best sectors while your own ships are too far away to stop them because they're mopping up and you don't have enough actions because you're holding too much turf. I managed to eliminate myself in turn 1 after an unlucky defeat to double ancients at about 95% odds in my favour, once, playing Orion. All my ships died and I went serially bankrupt until I came right off the map. We abandoned that game. I always hate how political it gets in the endgame, too. I get really tired of the cyclical discussions around 'well if you attack me I'll attack you like THIS and you'll lose, but then he'll capitalise on the changes you have to make to avoid that and so on for half a loving hour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
I have played tons of Eclipse and the worst part about the battles is if there is a fight where both sides need a 6 or something to hit and no one wants to back down so you just roll-miss-roll-miss-roll-miss for a while. As a side note the iOS version of Eclipse is really really well done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I managed to eliminate myself in turn 1 after an unlucky defeat to double ancients at about 95% odds in my favour, once, playing Orion. All my ships died and I went serially bankrupt until I came right off the map. My group loves the fiendish reveal, so there's little politicking done in the late game. Someone going bankrupt sounds like a failed gamble on exploration or something. After losing your ships you could just do nothing the next turn and collect 2 income.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
I explored to actually find some cash, and had to beat the ancient to be fiscally viable. I lost all my ships trying to do so, and none of my planets had money on, so I lost all my planets. I massively overstretched, and I think it can only happen with the Orions because they start out without money on their home planet. but yeah, it is possible to completely wipe yourself off the board in turn 1 in Eclipse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
My brother chose to put an ancient hive next to his stating tile turn 1 and rolled poorly to get his homeworld wiped off the map turn 1. Twas amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I explored to actually find some cash, and had to beat the ancient to be fiscally viable. I lost all my ships trying to do so, and none of my planets had money on, so I lost all my planets. I massively overstretched, and I think it can only happen with the Orions because they start out without money on their home planet. but yeah, it is possible to completely wipe yourself off the board in turn 1 in Eclipse. Your starting strategy as Orion should be charging straight into Ring I. If you don't get a Money planet discard the tile; 75% of Ring I worlds have a Money planet, so you're all but guaranteed to get it on the second attempt. If you get Ancients you need to build a second Cruiser before you attack, but all Ring I worlds with Ancients have at least one Money or Advanced planet. Beyond that, it sounds like you got unlucky in combat. Orion starts with +1 to hit and -1 to be hit and you shoot first, so to beat an Ancient with two Cruisers requires half as many hits with twice the chance of hitting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Skirting the edge of too evil is usually the easiest strategy, get easier adventurers and no paladin while getting useful ghosts, vampires, demons. But getting the propaganda room can get you super easy adventurers so you can focus on more imps and rooms, getting super evil means you can get all the best monsters and extra from the paladin. It's all what you can do while getting lots of points. What you actually want to do (at least in the second year) is be approximately as evil as everyone else, that way you can flip up or down the evilometer to get the adventurer that's easiest for your particular dungeon setup to beat (for example, getting the high-level warrior instead of the high-level thief when you have the trap room). But in terms of actually winning the game, adventurers are kind of a sideshow - as a baseline you can expect that everyone's going to get 12 points from beating adventurers, lose 0 points for not paying taxes, and be within a couple of points of each other after counting up raw number of monsters, number of unconquered rooms, and number of conquered dungeon tiles. The points to actually win the game come from paladins, point-scoring rooms, and titles, and the strategy of the game is how to get as many of those as possible while still defeating your adventurers. Or at the very least, getting more points from that than you lose by fighting off adventurers less efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Your starting strategy as Orion should be charging straight into Ring I. If you don't get a Money planet discard the tile; 75% of Ring I worlds have a Money planet, so you're all but guaranteed to get it on the second attempt. If you get Ancients you need to build a second Cruiser before you attack, but all Ring I worlds with Ancients have at least one Money or Advanced planet. I did both those things (I think, it was a long time ago) I wound up on either an ancient or a double ancient with two cruisers and improved hull, I HAD to win the fight in order to stay in the game, the odds were ludicrously far in my favour, and the dice shat all over me. It's one of the reasons why the combat bugs me. Even if you do everything right, probability can just outright laugh in your face, and given the sheer amount of dice being rolled in a 6-player game, there's quite a high chance that in one of those fights a really surprising upset is going to happen. I seem to recall a case where I was the lucky one, and I killed a dreadnought with a single backline screening interceptor which I'd thrown in just for the pin. I far prefer games where you set the probability first, THEN deal with it, over games where you decide what you're doing, then roll the dice. It's why I like the tech system in Eclipse, but dislike the combat and (to an extent) the exploration, especially the exploration tiles. I've lost count of the times where I've explored and found fairly lovely worlds with no money, and someone else has picked up the single exploration tile which has the silly tech on it and just been set up from that point on. Or the 3-world system. Or, for that matter, the pis-easy ancient in their back line in turn 5 that I really needed in mine in turn 2. The rock-paper-scissors-y nature of the combat also invites massive AP and bitching in my group. The more I think about it the more I realise that whilst I really want to like Eclipse, I actually really don't. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
I think Cyclades is a good example of how post-decision dice can be used well. Between the extremely low variance of the combat dice (0-1-1-2-2-3) and each side only being able to lose one unit per roll, even a two-unit advantage is enough to all but guarantee a win. You commit more troops to mitigate your risk of losing some units in the process of winning the island, not to mitigate your risk of getting randomly blown out.Jedit posted:If it was the first time you played you should really have taken the default humans. Descendants are not an easy faction to play, and it gets worse the more players there are. Still, you didn't do that to yourself; for you to be blocked in like that the other players had to be ignoring the guy who had left his turf totally undefended in favour of exploring around your ring 3 and blocking you off. The guy who owned the game didn't mention it was best to start with humans, most players were playing aliens. The player who took the center was between their ally the plant alien (who eventually won by sitting in the corner building a zillion monoliths) and someone else whose system only connected to theirs through the center. They eventually lost the center to someone else, but then that player had a huge army of their own sitting in the center, so I wasn't any less trapped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
The combat is easily the worst part about it, but for now it's the best 4x I've played.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:This is a completely false distinction. Both types of games are asking you to do the exact thing: look at a series of options and choice the optimal one. In the case of the 'gamble', you're still going to be calculating and selecting the best option based on probability and risk vs. reward assessments. The only distinction between the two is that the gamble presents you with a chance of the optimal choice failing, and the sub-optimal choices succeeding. The element of Uncertainty in decisions was, in fact, the exact distinction which I was pointing out, and is also the 'only distinction' which you pointed out, so I don't understand how you can call it false. However, the difference is that, when gambling, there is no Correct choice as there is with assured outcomes, and these games can never be Solved. Making a risky move with a large payoff is as valid a choice as taking the safe option with a lower payoff, and the anticipation of outcome generates a feeling of excitement until that outcome is resolved, especially if you're taking that big risk. When taking assured actions however, you know exactly what's going to happen in advance, and I don't usually struggle with solving puzzles, so these sort of games just feel like they're on rails to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Texmo posted:However, the difference is that, when gambling, there is no Correct choice as there is with assured outcomes, and these games can never be Solved. Yes there is? Blackjack is a solved game, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
I just got my Dungeon Lords Anniversary Edition, and apologize if this question has been asked recently by someone else in my position. I am pretty solid on the rules and am apparently my groups Designated Vlaada Game Teacher. I'll be teaching the game to 3 medium-to-advanced board gamer people tomorrow...how bad an idea is it to use Festival Season at the same time? I still plan on following the advice of teaching combat first, random unavailable actions, no special events, and may or may not use the actual tutorial dungeons based on how people react to the idea. It doesn't seem like the 5th season or pets really make it harder to TEACH, though I can see how it would make it harder to play well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Texmo posted:The element of Uncertainty in decisions was, in fact, the exact distinction which I was pointing out, and is also the 'only distinction' which you pointed out, so I don't understand how you can call it false. In that sort of situation in Mage Knight it's usually still interesting since you may not be able to block, or dealing with the dragon woundlessly may just use too many of your cards and you need them to attack the city soon after. So do you take the wounds, wound your units (which ones?), use more cards/skills, or even just block and not attack, sneaking by? That's quite a few interesting options on a combat that has no uncertainty itself. Earlier in the game you'll still have the same sort of macro decisions about winnable combats related to how fast to burn through the deck - you can save turns, wounds, or cards and what to do depends on what your opponents are doing and what future options you have. It's also trivially false to say that post-decision randomness makes a game unsolvable or removes correct choices. Let's play hold'em poker, where every hand I go all-in for $35 vs your $1 or $2 blind bet, and tell you I'm doing it. This game is very solvable despite randomness in both what I have and what cards appear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:25
|
|
