|
Fire in the Lake 
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Dixit, Hanabi and Love Letter/Lost Legacy are pretty solid choices. Ladies and Gentlemen might be something to consider. Alright, thanks! I'll give it another hour and send in the list of games. If nobody says that Thurn & Taxis actually sucks for reasons A, B and C I'll suggest that too as a bit of a heavier game if they're so inclined. StashAugustine posted:Fire in the Lake Hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but people die in war. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
quote:To be more precise, he's looking for games for couples. Not just couples by themselves, but couples with other couples I end up playing a lot in this kind of situation. Hanabi and Love Letter are indeed good to have around; you just have to mentally prepare yourself to ignore a lot of cheating when a non-gamer plays Hanabi. Another good "very light" pick is Dixit (it's better with 3+ couples than 2). If people are up for a slightly heavier game, Ticket to Ride works well. Or Paperback. 8 Minute Empires if there's a player intent on having a map. The "heaviest" games I'd try would be something like 7 Wonders or Castles of Burgundy - but in general, games tend to go a lot slower in this sort of scenario so you want to aim really low on time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Alright, thanks! I'll give it another hour and send in the list of games. If nobody says that Thurn & Taxis actually sucks for reasons A, B and C I'll suggest that too as a bit of a heavier game if they're so inclined. 7 Wonders, Roll for the Galaxy, and Argent: the Consortium would be my suggestions. I'd hold off on Argent for later, but 7 Wonders and Roll for the Galaxy are great starters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Dixit, Hanabi and Love Letter/Lost Legacy are pretty solid choices. Ladies and Gentlemen might be something to consider. Ladies and Gentlemen is a good gateway, and good for couples, but its pretty bad with 4. Really needs at least 6 to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
So what's wrong with Hearthstone (especially compared to MtG). One of the reasons I like it is because I'm really confident Blizzard will be in business in five years, not so much with unknown startups. Also while the IPad has historically been the platform of choice for board game conversions, Android tablets are making some inroads, specifically because Google only takes a 10% cut vs Apple's 30% cut. I could do a lot of things with $500, that doesn't mean I can't also buy an IPad with it. I love my tablet, which is an IPad but I play fewer and fewer board games on it, and my next tablet is going to be an Android one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
A lot of the Hearthstone hate is an overreaction to its use of RNG mechanics. The game is solid enough to have very high levels of competitive play, and degenerate strategies have been addressed by the dev team as they release patches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I end up playing a lot in this kind of situation. Hanabi and Love Letter are indeed good to have around; you just have to mentally prepare yourself to ignore a lot of cheating when a non-gamer plays Hanabi. Another good "very light" pick is Dixit (it's better with 3+ couples than 2). I love 7 wonders! Why didn't I think of that? I'll add it as a maybe if they're up to studying the game's effect icons and such. Dirk the Average posted:7 Wonders, Roll for the Galaxy, and Argent: the Consortium would be my suggestions. I'd hold off on Argent for later, but 7 Wonders and Roll for the Galaxy are great starters. I don't know if he'll ever get to the level of buying Argent. I'll add RotG as a maybe in case he's up for a dicefest! burger time posted:Ladies and Gentlemen is a good gateway, and good for couples, but its pretty bad with 4. Really needs at least 6 to be interesting. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
^^^^ Tash-Kalar is a really good 2v2 game. It's really easy to learn and quick to play, while still being amazingly deep.Impermanent posted:A lot of the Hearthstone hate is an overreaction to its use of RNG mechanics. The game is solid enough to have very high levels of competitive play, and degenerate strategies have been addressed by the dev team as they release patches. I'm not sure you should call it overreaction, the RNG on some Hearthstone cards can be gamebreaking. Does that creature that draws you an extra card 50% of the time still exist? That is the most egregious one I remember. I don't hate Hearthstone or anything but I think Magic is much better game. My main problem with Hearthstone is that a lot of the time there are no significant decisions to make. Games feel scripted, the optimal play is often extremely obvious and the next best play is not even close. I think a lot of it has to do with the absence of lands, which makes the game flow too predictable. Disclaimer: I haven't played Hearthstone in almost a year, but I doubt it has changed that much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
I do like comparing 4 player High Form in Tash Kalar to bridge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
I could show him Tash-Kalar when I show him Lagoon, see if he'll think they'll like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:I do like comparing 4 player High Form in Tash Kalar to bridge. Especially with the "Why did you signal THAT, I thought we were building the dragon over here, not the leviathan over there!" yeah it does sound kinda similar to "Why did you bid 2S, that's 4th suit forcing but you obviously don't have 12 points"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:^^^^ Tash-Kalar is a really good 2v2 game. It's really easy to learn and quick to play, while still being amazingly deep. They nerfed that card (Nat Pagle) into oblivion. There are still a few RNG-dependent cards, but the overall design philosophy has shifted from RNG being used to create effects on cards that can win a game, and more that can shift the battlefield in interesting ways. You should watch some high level Hearthstone play - the past couple of expansions have really been good to the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
quote:So what's wrong with Hearthstone (especially compared to MtG). One of the reasons I like it is because I'm really confident Blizzard will be in business in five years, not so much with unknown startups. I don't think there's enough design space for Hearthstone to work well over the long term; at the core, it's the same problem Sentinels of the Multiverse has. There's only so many layers of +1s and -1s you can sensibly add to a game. The places you go next are usually terrible: random crap, and trying to construct mechanics out of types and keywords ("Outlaws" get +1 defense for each "Cover" card in play). Neither of those leads to good places in terms of gameplay. Even MtG has had problems with this, but it started out with much more to work with - instant effects and the accompanying resolution rules, direct interactions with modifier cards, a richer setup for resources, and a richer more expansible setup for "deck type" differentiation (through colors). Anyway, Hearthstone works, but it's really just a very polished mediocre game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:I love 7 wonders! Why didn't I think of that? I'll add it as a maybe if they're up to studying the game's effect icons and such. Istanbul is very good with 4 and takes about an hour. I really like Red7 and No Thanks as filler. Maybe Carcassonne or an intro worker placement like Stone Age or Waterdeep?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Thanks for all the help! I didn't put everything though, I didn't want to swamp him with options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Thanks for all the help! I didn't put everything though, I didn't want to swamp him with options. AP is real, bro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Also while the IPad has historically been the platform of choice for board game conversions, Android tablets are making some inroads, specifically because Google only takes a 10% cut vs Apple's 30% cut. I could do a lot of things with $500, that doesn't mean I can't also buy an IPad with it. I guarantee in the next few years we are going to be seeing more html 5/js libraries that allow games on both devices. It sucks losing a large percentage of your audience even if you do like the features when programming natively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I guarantee in the next few years we are going to be seeing more html 5/js libraries that allow games on both devices. It sucks losing a large percentage of your audience even if you do like the features when programming natively. It's my understanding that one of the main reasons many devs don't bother with Android is just because piracy is so insanely high on the device a lot of people think it's not worth it. It's bad on iOS too, but nowhere near the levels of Android. Whether Android piracy fears are reasonable, rational, or good business sense is another debate entirely, but this is a pretty common sentiment among app developers. Additionally, the huge number of Android devices means infinitely more bug/compatibility testing, often to the point of being prohibitive, especially for complex apps like games. http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer-only-5-of-android-installs-were-paid-for/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/11/this-is-what-developing-for-android-looks-like/
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
there is someone on reddit or bgg somewhere who has been hinting about playtesting an Android:Netrunner app. I'm REALLY EXCITED about that potentially existing some day A LotR app would also be awesome
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I would definitely play the hell out of 40k Conquest if it was as portable app
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
The problem with MtG for me are: I'm basically too old to hang out with the Friday night crowd and so are my male friends (parents tend to freak out with senior men around) I hate hate hate the storage of a zillion cards I'll never use -Creating decks with physical cards is just an awful experience compared to Hearthstone's online client. The online client is HORRIBLE and Hasborg has not indicated that it will ever get better. Is it a more complex game? Yes but the price is too high for me. And that's the other thing, you can play Hearthstone with a lot less investment than Magic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Today's bonus card: Also, Temporum's getting a reprint soon complete with bigger arrows, and apparently they'll also be available to people who already own the first edition, though no further details on that yet .
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:Today's bonus card: holy poo poo that card
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
quote:Is it a more complex game? Yes but the price is too high for me. And that's the other thing, you can play Hearthstone with a lot less investment than Magic. It's not really a direct game design problem - but I'd agree the moons really have to align before playing Magic is actually a practically good experience. For a couple years, we had a group at work that would buy a box of each new set to draft and play at lunch - and it was some of the best gaming ever (we still talk about the Modern Masters draft). But that relied on having 8 people who wanted to play that format, all of whom were of reasonably close skill level, all of whom were consistently available. It also required one guy who played outside the group who would subsidize the purchase (because he wanted the cards at the end), and it required good Magic sets for drafting (most are fine, but there's some stinkers). We lost, like, 2 of those guys and now I'm back to never playing Magic. It really is a solid game, but the easy/likely ways to play it - wandering into a store, going to a tournament, playing some multiplayer hell-game, playing online, pulling out a deck to play with a stranger - all have some real serious drawbacks. For similar reasons, I've never been able to give Netrunner (or BattleCON or the LoTR LCG) a fair shake (despite buying them); you need the right player scenario for them to really work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:
Guide is one of the fastest cycling cards I've ever seen for $3? Every time you use it you basically skip a turn of the game, so there's your problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
I really, really hate that comma after "call this" in the Reserve templating. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
jmzero posted:It's not really a direct game design problem - but I'd agree the moons really have to align before playing Magic is actually a practically good experience. I built a drafting cube for Innistrad cycle and Rise of the Eldrazi. It was something like 1 of each rare, 2 of each uncommon, and 4 of each common, and then I'd build boosters with 1 rare, 3 uncommons, and 11 commons or whatever it is, randomly. Then we would do various booster draft formats or sealed. Also made a traditional cube out of proxies. Anyways, it felt like the grownup way to play Magic while still getting into all of that limited strategy goodness. But my coworkers who played it moved on and it's not fun enough to take the time to draft with my wife or other 2p friends so I play different games now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:Adventures is "only" 30 kingdom cards. The 400 cards need to leave room for the travelers not in the supply, the extra cards in the 2 12 card stacks, randomizers, and whatever the mysterious Event Cards are. Spoiler: Each Event is a different card that resolves when purchased and does not go into your deck. The 20 Events refer to 20 different cards, all of which are potential Kingdom cards, but only 1 copy of each need to exist for them to be in a game. Re: Hearthstone I haven't played it in about a year, either, but I really hate the card economy in HS. Magic got away with "draw 1 card per turn" because it was 1995 and it wasn't that much of a pain in the rear end to find cards with draw power. In 2015, I don't give a poo poo if the deck is only 30 cards, drawing 1 per turn and the insane rarity of draw abilities (all of which max out at +1 card) contribute heavily to why Pagle was mandatory. lovely card economy also results in a much more topdeck-heavy game, as it's trivial to draw entirely unplayable hands during the first few turns. Call me spoiled by Dominion (hey, this is happening again!) where I get to regularly cycle through my deck to the point where topdecking is only frustrating when dealing with a single card (Saboteur). Also the grind sucks, it's absolutely pay-to-win, the interface was awful (no confirms and no undo made playing it a nightmare on a touch-enabled laptop), and it really is just a mediocre version of Magic in Warcraft clothes. In fact, the only reason why it has any legitimacy at all is because Blizzard made it-- it would be likely overlooked for the random bore it is if a company with a less fanatical fanbase made it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:there is someone on reddit or bgg somewhere who has been hinting about playtesting an Android:Netrunner app. I'm REALLY EXCITED about that potentially existing some day Speaking of which, how is the LotR LCG? I've been close to pulling the trigger on Netrunner lately but my wife would really prefer LotR if the differences are mostly cosmetic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Sokrateez posted:Speaking of which, how is the LotR LCG? I've been close to pulling the trigger on Netrunner lately but my wife would really prefer LotR if the differences are mostly cosmetic. They are completely different games in every way, with the most notable difference being that LotR is a 1-4 player co-op game and Netrunner is a 1v1 competitive game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Well I don't know what to say, as I need to play online. MtG online, even if I can get past the ugly UI, is simply too expensive. It will cost $25 for a single Sealed event that will probably last me less than two hours. drat $25 would last longer at a dollar crap table. Maybe I'll try playdominion.com again.....I do own all the cards there but it's so slow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Well I don't know what to say, as I need to play online. MtG online, even if I can get past the ugly UI, is simply too expensive. It will cost $25 for a single Sealed event that will probably last me less than two hours. drat $25 would last longer at a dollar crap table. Maybe I'll try playdominion.com again.....I do own all the cards there but it's so slow. Nothing to say, Hearthstone fills a niche, cheap online tcg, that MTG does not. Making MTGO cheap requires paying very close attention to format rotation and constantly trading out for block constructed decks, its not worth it, and is only going to get more difficult to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
The essential difference between Magic and Hearthstone is that Magic is a good game with a draconian business model while Hearthstone is a bad game but free to play. Both are best avoided.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
jmzero posted:We lost, like, 2 of those guys and now I'm back to never playing Magic. It really is a solid game, but the easy/likely ways to play it - wandering into a store, going to a tournament, playing some multiplayer hell-game, playing online, pulling out a deck to play with a stranger - all have some real serious drawbacks. For similar reasons, I've never been able to give Netrunner (or BattleCON or the LoTR LCG) a fair shake (despite buying them); you need the right player scenario for them to really work. You think that's bad try getting a game of Mage Wars going 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Well I don't know what to say, as I need to play online. MtG online, even if I can get past the ugly UI, is simply too expensive. It will cost $25 for a single Sealed event that will probably last me less than two hours. drat $25 would last longer at a dollar crap table. Maybe I'll try playdominion.com again.....I do own all the cards there but it's so slow. If you really want to play MTG online but don't want to pay, there are a bunch of free clients like Apprentice, Cockatrice, OCTGN, etc. Bit more effort required to set them up and get the cards, but when done you have access to everything and can build whatever decks you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
The problem with Hearthstone is that isn't not the WoW TCG.  (because it's gone, and it still hurts me)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:If you really want to play MTG online but don't want to pay, there are a bunch of free clients like Apprentice, Cockatrice, OCTGN, etc. Bit more effort required to set them up and get the cards, but when done you have access to everything and can build whatever decks you want. There is also MtG: Forge for playing against bots and hotseat. It is basically the best Magic single player experience that can exist, every card, every variant, up to 20 bots at once, drafting mode, random deck generators, auto downloads all the card art, quest mode that simulates Microprose Shandalar game, etc: http://www.slightlymagic.net/wiki/Forge
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Played my first game of Elysium tonight. It's very tight, failure to plan alternate strategies will pain you greatly, but you can make clever combos to alleviate that. I recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Sokrateez posted:Speaking of which, how is the LotR LCG? I've been close to pulling the trigger on Netrunner lately but my wife would really prefer LotR if the differences are mostly cosmetic. Really different games. LotR LCG is a co-op deck construction game where you play against different scenarios. Netrunner is a dueling game with asymmetric sides that has some bluffing and deception in it. I really like both! My wife likes LotR LCG. It's a nice balance for us because it's a co-op so we can play it if we don't feel like being competitive, but it has enough depth for me to sperg out on deck construction and the Nightmare versions of scenarios are super hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:55
|
|