|
cenotaph posted:It plays that fast and it's brutal and great. If you have a weak player it can throw the whole thing out of whack, though. The best review of it I've seen is from clearclaw on BGG - he's the guy who taught me 18XX. clearclaw on bgg posted:Wabash Cannonball is a sub-hour 3-4 player ultra-efficient knife-fight of an economic game. I love it. The primary patterns are emergent alliances and incentive structures. Everything you do from the moment the game starts helps someone and hurts someone else, sometimes the same person. Everything you do incentivises players to take actions that variously help and hinder you. Much of the game comes down to ensuring that those short-lived emergent alliances, built totally on individual greedy self-interest, work in sum to your advantage. Everything in the game, including how long the game will last and the rate at which the game will play, is in the player's control and driven by that mesh of incentives and self-interest that the players have communally built. I've played it a few times and it is fantastic. Note there's also a $3 iOS version with pass 'n' play multiplayer on the iOS app store under the game's original name, Wabash Cannonball.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Malloreon posted:Note there's also a $3 iOS version with pass 'n' play multiplayer on the iOS app store under the game's original name, Wabash Cannonball. Oh, sweet. I wouldn't have found that and at that price I'll happily try it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:The best review of it I've seen is from clearclaw on BGG - he's the guy who taught me 18XX. Yeah, that's one of the things that sold me on it. I just printed out the B&W map on BGG and made my own copy with some risk pieces for trains/cubes and uno cards for stocks. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:Yeah, that's one of the things that sold me on it. I just printed out the B&W map on BGG and made my own copy with some risk pieces for trains/cubes and uno cards for stocks. Rutibex alt spotted
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:This is a pretty solid way to lose. There aren't enough blue chips to be telling people what's safe to discard; not being told what you've got is a pretty good clue that nobody cares enough to tell you and it's safe to discard. Given we scored 24 on our first actually-getting-the-rules-right game, I beg to differ. Clueing a single card for discard is a more-or-less neutral move, essentially a way to pass two peoples' turns. And regardless, I could usually give clues that imply enough to suggest safe discards as well as safe plays; part of the game is in giving information-rich clues. What seems a little counter to this idea of the game is basically to say 'unless I can usefully do something else I will discard the card on my left in my hand' because that's set information before the game, rather than information arising from clues during the game. It seems against the rules to me; if someone knows you're discarding your leftmost card each discard, they and you have extra information not given by the clues. They know they only need to tell you what that card is if it's worth keeping, you know you can discard it unless they tell you something about it. Not being given information is still a clue, though; so much of the nuance of the game is in what you're not told about your cards, and what you can thereby extrapolate about them from played, discarded and in-hand cards. Also. This game is MUCH harder when you initially misread the rules as discarding COSTING you a clue, rather than refreshing one! Getting through the whole game with a maximum of 14 clues would have been basically impossible. It might be interesting to try it with discards neither costing you nor regaining you a clue; I think it's possible to deliver enough information in this fashion without cheating, but probably requires some luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Two more games of Argent tonight, and still loving the game. Finally did a setup where we chose new rooms, new tiles, and put most mages on side B along with drafting. The game was incredibly interesting, with technomancers giving more research, divinity mages giving merit badges, and an instant guild for lots of money fast to use them both. The game ended with one player casting inferno to annihilate most of the mages, which then sent the rest of us into a panic. Overall a very fun game with so much replayability and crazy shenanigans, especially towards the end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Given we scored 24 on our first actually-getting-the-rules-right game, I beg to differ. Clueing a single card for discard is a more-or-less neutral move, essentially a way to pass two peoples' turns. And regardless, I could usually give clues that imply enough to suggest safe discards as well as safe plays; part of the game is in giving information-rich clues. What seems a little counter to this idea of the game is basically to say 'unless I can usefully do something else I will discard the card on my left in my hand' because that's set information before the game, rather than information arising from clues during the game. It seems against the rules to me; if someone knows you're discarding your leftmost card each discard, they and you have extra information not given by the clues. There is something you know about the cards you have beyond the positive and negative information you get from clues, so I consider that fair game. You know the card's age, discarding the card you've had the longest and has had the most chance for somebody to tell you about is likely to be the safest. Other people will also know which card that is, but I feel it's wrong to pre-assign ages to the starting cards since they could be left-first or right-first or other. Cluing a card for discard isn't neutral though, it wastes turns and turns are a very limited resource. I'm usually not even a fan of cluing multiple discards. I wonder, are you ending the game properly (after the last card is drawn, each player gets one turn only)? I say this because if you discard a single 2, 3, or 4 and its twin is the last card of the deck, that suit is dead.so scoring the highest levels is pretty difficult; certainly I can't see me or any of the groups I play with able to prevent the discard of a random 3 or 4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Given we scored 24 on our first actually-getting-the-rules-right game, I beg to differ. Clueing a single card for discard is a more-or-less neutral move, essentially a way to pass two peoples' turns. I think you must be getting some other rules wrong, if that's the case. Clueing a discard burns up the draw deck, and the endgame starts when the last card is drawn (everyone else gets one more turn). My group's high score is 21, and that's with some questionable vocal inflection. Edit: Hanabi rules enforcement brigade to action! Context fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Which is why I said 'more or less'. Not to mention, sometimes you need to burn the draw deck a bit, if you have nothing playable out. E: it may have been less than 24 now I think about it. 24 was our highest possible, but we didn't quite get there because the deck had run out. Maybe 21 or 22? I can't remember. Still, it was good fun and I'm sure we'll play it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Hey brother if you are reading this then i will only say: BUY THE BOARDGAMES IN THE OP ALREADY!!!!11 ps: i will complain to mom if u dont
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:Hey brother if you are reading this then i will only say: BUY THE BOARDGAMES IN THE OP ALREADY!!!!11 My mother got me Risk: Onyx Edition for Christmas last year. I was a good effort but  It wouldn't have been as bad if I didn't assume it was Ogre: Designers Edition from the size of the box and her hints it was a board game.If anyone talks to my mother I love Risk.
Rutibex fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
I fondue remember trying to play monopoly and card games with mom and be frustrated because she had a thousand mile stare and was daydreaming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:I fondue remember trying to play monopoly and card games with mom and be frustrated because she had a thousand mile stare and was daydreaming. Monopoly tends to do that to people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
The game of thrones board game from Fantasy Flight isn't very well balanced for fewer than 5, right? Buy I seem to remember there are things you can do to house rule things and improve balance? Would anyone mind repeating what's been said on that front? I can't seem to find out at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:I fondue remember trying to play monopoly and card games with mom and be frustrated because she had a thousand mile stare and was daydreaming. Sounds like she's not the only one whose brain got turned to cheese by Monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:The game of thrones board game from Fantasy Flight isn't very well balanced for fewer than 5, right? Buy I seem to remember there are things you can do to house rule things and improve balance? Would anyone mind repeating what's been said on that front? I can't seem to find out at the moment. There is an expansion focused on 4p but I don't think anyone here has played it yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Whoever recommended those little square binder sheets for holding Kemet power tiles is my hero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Whoever recommended those little square binder sheets for holding Kemet power tiles is my hero. My hero will be the person who can tell me where to buy them in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It might be interesting to try it with discards neither costing you nor regaining you a clue; I think it's possible to deliver enough information in this fashion without cheating, but probably requires some luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Whoever recommended those little square binder sheets for holding Kemet power tiles is my hero. Post a link, share the love.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
By 'probably requires some luck' I probably mean 'definitely isn't possible without a ridiculous amount of luck'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Post a link, share the love. love
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:The game of thrones board game from Fantasy Flight isn't very well balanced for fewer than 5, right? Buy I seem to remember there are things you can do to house rule things and improve balance? Would anyone mind repeating what's been said on that front? I can't seem to find out at the moment. For six players: Game as written. For five players: Do NOT use the neutral Martell/Dorne rules. (This gives Tyrell or Baratheon an easy victory.) Instead, remove Greyjoy. Mark Pike Island as inaccessible to all factions--there's a token from the three-player rules for this exact purpose. For four players: Use the Feast for Crows expansion, maybe? Otherwise, forsake these lands, they are barren and will provide no succor. For three players: hahahahaha no
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:The game of thrones board game from Fantasy Flight isn't very well balanced for fewer than 5, right? Buy I seem to remember there are things you can do to house rule things and improve balance? Would anyone mind repeating what's been said on that front? I can't seem to find out at the moment. Don't loving play it with 3-4 players. It doesn't matter what house rules you try. It just sucks and it's not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Whoever recommended those little square binder sheets for holding Kemet power tiles is my hero. Huh? Link? Sounds interesting. I made tuckboxes for Kemet, because I like tuckboxes. And Kemet. Might have posted the pics before, whatever.  And in the box:  110# paper printed at a Staples for like a buck a sheet. Also printed out the cheatsheets for what all the powers and divine inspiration cards for everyone to use. Made the game easy enough to understand that my 12 year old nephew actually did fairly well at it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Ravendas posted:Huh? Link? Sounds interesting. Oh yeah I actually printed the universal head cheat sheets for all players and probably would be pissed if we were playing without them. It's another one of those French designs without text on any of the cards like 7 wonders fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Uh this doesn't belong here. It's beautiful outsider art and it and it's loving rendered purple rear end are amazing
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Besides, if you want to play Game of Thrones with four players, the game you're actually looking for is Chaos in the Old World.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Don't loving play [game of thrones] with 3-4 players. It doesn't matter what house rules you try. It just sucks and it's not worth it. Heh, well, we kind of enjoyed our first learning game with three, so I'm looking forward to playing with 5-6, I guess!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Thread ally Watch It Played put up a video for a new game called Harbour from Tasty Minstrel Games. I bring it up because my friend got his kickstarter copy, which I played last week. For once I don't feel like belaboring this. This game reeks. Don't buy it without playing it first. And, well, if it turns out you like it, then v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Thread ally Watch It Played put up a video for a new game called Harbour from Tasty Minstrel Games. I bring it up because my friend got his kickstarter copy, which I played last week. I've heard a lot of mixed things about it, though mostly bad/mediocre. Rahdo's runthrough didn't make it seem that bad, though not that exciting either, sorta like a condensed Le Havre(which I guess is what it was going for). What's so terrible about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
EBag posted:I've heard a lot of mixed things about it, though mostly bad/mediocre. Rahdo's runthrough didn't make it seem that bad, though not that exciting either, sorta like a condensed Le Havre(which I guess is what it was going for). What's so terrible about it? I am not familiar with Le Havre. Here's the elevator pitch version of my compaints: The economy is too granular and swingy and random considering that there is no hard currency to hold onto. For instance, in Power Grid, if someone buys a resource before you, it costs you a few more dollars and might cost you more money in the long run because you had to buy less. And that's only if they bought a whole lot of it or its a rare resource. But you still are allowed to participate in the game. In Harbour, if someone spends their stone before you do, suddenly you can't buy something because your 6 stone is now worth 2 instead of 5 and the building you wanted cost 9 and you aren't allowed to sell some things if you have too little of it. Sure, it might seem like the same difference of a few dollars, but you can't make up the difference with reserve cash and you can't get any money back for extras. And it's not just when someone sells high, every single sale craters the value to nothing, so if someone can sell what you have a lot of, then you are going to be waiting for it to be worth selling it. Now, it might sound like a good "Take That" game, but you have to get lucky to have that opportunity, since it's not like you can unload 3 stone for 3 bucks just to screw your opponent. Also, if you have six and it's selling for 2, you must sell it all for no additional gain unless you have cards that allow you to keep extra, which you can't buy unless you manage to sell some valuables at the right time. You look at the buildings, and none of the buildings offer you anything worthwhile, or are actively detrimental to you. And the resources are completely fungible except for some building abilities, so it's not like you can corner the market on something. If you see someone is high on stone, well, hopefully you can get something that isn't stone at one of the buildings so you don't lose your shirt when he spends it all next turn. You may be thinking "Did you just get bad buildings?" Well, we started with what they recommend for starting players plus two more, so unless they wanted to showcase their game grinding to a complete halt as players cannot take any action that is not detrimental to them, then no, we didn't just get bad buildings. Also, consider the whole "don't have players draw at the start of their turn" discussion as a means to reduce downtime. Since the market changes so chaotically, there is no sense in considering what to do until it is your plan. "Oh, good, Stone sells for 5, I can buy the- no, wait, now it's selling for 2. Well, then I will go to the-no, that guy went there so I can't. Well, maybe I can-oh wait, Stone sells for 4 now, is that enough to buy the-no, wait, I have died of boredom." You'd be better off rolling a die that determines if you can sell your resources and for how much. You just have to hope to sell high and if not, spend your turns doing nothing. Now, keep in mind, we played for maybe 30 minutes before we both decided to give up. Maybe we were doing something wrong, but I don't think so. I wrote this instead of studying for an exam 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:
I have not played Harbour, but when the Kickstarter was happening, I read the rulebook and I got the impression that the game was going to be exactly what you described. I'm glad I was right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:48
|
|
about Harbour
|
I did the print and play for it and I wasn't very impressed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
I saw Bunny Bunny Moose Moose in the store yesterday. I was so tempted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I saw Bunny Bunny Moose Moose in the store yesterday. I was so tempted. Bunny Bunny Moose Moose is the only Vlaada game I've ever been disappointed by, I'm just not really sure who the target audience is. I've tried it with casuals but they can't seem to grok it (possibly due to the unusual game structure), and I've tried it with more hardcore gamers and it was fine I guess but everyone would much rather play something like Resistance or One Night Werewolf for a lighter game. At the end of the day I just don't find basically looking at a changing lineup of cards and repeatedly recalculating what would be the highest scoring pose as interesting as the game looked on paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Scyther posted:Bunny Bunny Moose Moose is the only Vlaada game I've ever been disappointed by, I'm just not really sure who the target audience is. I've tried it with casuals but they can't seem to grok it (possibly due to the unusual game structure), and I've tried it with more hardcore gamers and it was fine I guess but everyone would much rather play something like Resistance or One Night Werewolf for a lighter game. At the end of the day I just don't find basically looking at a changing lineup of cards and repeatedly recalculating what would be the highest scoring pose as interesting as the game looked on paper. That's basically why I didn't buy it. I'm not sure who would actually enjoy it and while I like the crazy ideas in it, it does look like a bunch of parts that wouldn't stick together quite right. I'll save the money for Pictomania if I ever see that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Going back to that conversation we had pages ago about slightly more luck driven card games being more tolerable if they play much quicker. Well they loving suck if you play them with a bunch of people that drag rear end and make them take 2 hours anyways. edit: just played a 2 hour long game of Glory to Rome where i felt like killing myself at the end
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
speaking of Vlaada, my copy of Tash Kalar came in today. This game is good! Here's my quick mini review. The basic rules are simple: you get two actions. You can place a token on a grid, or you can play a card to do a thing if you have tokens in the right positions. It's pretty abstract. The game is supposed to be a gladiatorial arena where you're summoning fantastic creatures to fight for you. The tokens represent your forces, which gain power as you do things. The game supports up to four players, in both free-for-all and team variations. Plus there are two rule sets: Deathmatch (points for taking out opponents' tokens) and High Form (points for accomplishing specific tasks). I played High Form twice today. First game, neither of us really knew what we were doing and didn't really focus on the objectives. The game ended when we ran out of cards, rather than by points. Second game, I went hardcore for the tasks; my opponent seemed more focused on messing with my formations than on tasks of his own. I won, in a near shutout. I've only played the two games, but it really seems that this is a game that's all about aggression. It seems pretty much pointless to protect individual pieces. It's sort of possible, kinda. But it seems that a better strategy is to set yourself up so that you'll make some sort of gain no matter what your opponent does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Going back to that conversation we had pages ago about slightly more luck driven card games being more tolerable if they play much quicker. Well they loving suck if you play them with a bunch of people that drag rear end and make them take 2 hours anyways. Was it 5 players? I know a number of GtR fans don't like the game at more than 3 partly because the playtime doesn't scale well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:39
|
|