|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Yeah but then sometimes you get the ones where you're invincible or invisible or somtimes you just get luck your 3 Might little girl just happened to get lucky enough before the haunt that she is now a Might 6 Speed 5 little menace with a gun that goes around executing everybody because the house has poison gas or aliens or some poo poo that makes it impossible to win. A well balanced game would mean what exactly, that the players always have a chance to win? I think that would ruin the horror theme. Horror movies are a rare variety; often the hero will escape and win the day, but just as often everyone will die and be destroyed by their own hubris. You never know in a horror movie if the protagonists will "win", so there is a tension you don't get with a typical movie (where the "good" ending is a forgone conclusion). The fact that HoHH isn't balanced like a normal co-op game gives it that same "horror movie" tension and is an integral part of it's story engine.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Rutibex posted:A well balanced game would mean what exactly, that the players always have a chance to win? I think that would ruin the horror theme. Horror movies are a rare variety; often the hero will escape and win the day, but just as often everyone will die and be destroyed by their own hubris. You never know in a horror movie if the protagonists will "win", so there is a tension you don't get with a typical movie (where the "good" ending is a forgone conclusion). The fact that HoHH isn't balanced like a normal co-op game gives it that same "horror movie" tension and is an integral part of it's story engine. By that argument it seems really poorly designed if you know straight away that the protagonists don't have a chance. In fact your entire argument seems to be in favour of a "balanced" game where it's unclear what the end result is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Jabor posted:By that argument it seems really poorly designed if you know straight away that the protagonists don't have a chance. In fact your entire argument seems to be in favour of a "balanced" game where it's unclear what the end result is going to be. But that's what I'm saying? The protagonists can win at HoHH just as often as they lose, if they draw the right cards/haunt. A normally balanced co-op game the players expect to win most of the time, if they earned it. In HoHH you can lose even if you play perfectly, just like a horror movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
It's that time again to ask about Dominion storage ideas. I'm currently using the Hobby Lobby case, which works fine in storing all my current expansions and has room for Adventures, but I busted the bottom a bit last week while driving with it and now I'm nervous taking it anywhere else. So I'm wondering if there's any other options out there, since I remember there being a hundred different storage options on Kickstarter at some point. Looking to spend $50ish, able to hold all expansions with room for future ones, and very sturdy while portable. All my cards are unsleeved and currently stored vertically (though I've no issue printing new dividers if the storage is horizontal). Prefer something ready-made since I'm bad at making stuff, and if nothing exists (which I'm assuming) I'll just buy another Hobby Lobby case and deck it out again. Figure I'd ask to see if anything like that exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:But that's what I'm saying? The protagonists can win at HoHH just as often as they lose, if they draw the right cards/haunt. A normally balanced co-op game the players expect to win most of the time, if they earned it. In HoHH you can lose even if you play perfectly, just like a horror movie. If the game ended once you flipped the haunt then sure, that argument would make sense. But in a horror movie, you have the big antagonist reveal, then the movie escalates towards the climax where you find out whether the protagonists actually get away or not. In Betrayal, you get the reveal, then you spend the whole second half tediously going through the motions while already knowing what's going to happen. The thematic argument you present doesn't actually line up with the reality of the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:In HoHH you can lose even if you play perfectly, just like a horror movie. Very thematic perhaps but also makes it a poo poo game for twats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:It's that time again to ask about Dominion storage ideas. I'm currently using the Hobby Lobby case, which works fine in storing all my current expansions and has room for Adventures, but I busted the bottom a bit last week while driving with it and now I'm nervous taking it anywhere else. So I'm wondering if there's any other options out there, since I remember there being a hundred different storage options on Kickstarter at some point. Looking to spend $50ish, able to hold all expansions with room for future ones, and very sturdy while portable. All my cards are unsleeved and currently stored vertically (though I've no issue printing new dividers if the storage is horizontal). Prefer something ready-made since I'm bad at making stuff, and if nothing exists (which I'm assuming) I'll just buy another Hobby Lobby case and deck it out again. Not sure what the nature of the damage on yours is, but I feel much better about my hobby lobby case after I tossed some of those felt furniture casters on the bottom. It doesn't thud against whatever I'm setting it down on quite so heavily now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:A well balanced game would mean what exactly, that the players always have a chance to win? I think that would ruin the horror theme. Horror movies are a rare variety; often the hero will escape and win the day, but just as often everyone will die and be destroyed by their own hubris. You never know in a horror movie if the protagonists will "win", so there is a tension you don't get with a typical movie (where the "good" ending is a forgone conclusion). The fact that HoHH isn't balanced like a normal co-op game gives it that same "horror movie" tension and is an integral part of it's story engine. We played BaHotH yesterday, as it happens. In the group we had a lover of dry Euros who hates both Ameritrash and co-op games with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. Guess what? He liked it. He felt it was a nice change of pace, and enjoyed that you could have fun losing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
I played House with betrayal on the hill friday and it was really good. There was a lot of randomness in the initial setup where you get boned or blessed with no input but the game makes up for it with a modular board. We laughed really hard when Steve walked into three separate rooms and took damage each time because he's poo poo at rolling dice and hey gently caress Steve he's stupid as poo poo, god dammit gently caress you Steve. During the haunt phase we got a spooky FrogsxWitches setup, where the high-quality cat token came into play (wooden, abstract). it requires the good guys to find one item in the random item deck and one room from a selection of random rooms, with distribution of that room/item mathematically proven and tested using focus groups to be the most fun. In the end though it turned out that, like in most post-apocolytic house based haunting games, the good guys were doomed to fail. The witch was invulnerable to all but one person, had a blast w/infinite range, and could teleport anywhere on a map where going from one edge to the other would take at least three turns. With smiles on our faces for teaching us lessons on futility (while having FUNtility), we packed away BotHatHH until we will again inevitably crave distractions from our pointless lives Final rating:  cats out of 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Lorini's awesome. Grass is green. Lorini never stops being awesome. Yah a few of the BGG reviews did I think, and some said it was too much of a gamers game to be considered a party game (lol). Either way like you and I said you can clearly see how it works after one round and it works very well. Also it has the best insert I've ever seen, super well designed. I just wish it came with a few more cards at the higher difficulties so hopefully there will be some card packs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Played Five Tribes for the first time last night. There are things I like about it -- multiple paths to victory, the Mancala mechanism, starting out with a large amount of VP and wagering it on turn order every turn -- and overall it is a game I would play again. But: * the board state can change a lot in ways relevant to your plan, in ways that are time-consuming to estimate. If you really wanted to win, each turn would consist of evaluating how well each of the five tribes could possibly score in every direction, what spaces are vulnerable to takeover, and how much those affect what others are going for. And you wouldn't have complete information until your actual turn started. This means that turns can take a long time, even just when deciding what to bid for turn order. * the Djinn really look like wasted design depth at first glance. There are not going to be enough Elder mans on the board for there to ever be both many Djinn and much use of them in a game; all that art and all those special abilities, and you might see just a handful in a game, half of them purchased at the end for last-minute points. * I'm no math whiz, but the paths to victory --- the titular five tribes -- are not at all equivalent, in a 7 Wonders sort of way. You're just never going to get THAT many points from military in 7W or Assassins in 5T. Yet they are nearly equal in distribution. * The more I think about it, the more I suspect that one would be quite competitive in many plays by bidding 0 for turn order the majority of the game, and simply opportunistically making the most of whatever is on the board on your turn. You begin the game with 60 VP, and the only player who finished with double-digit coin/VP had gained a bunch via Builders. Maybe bidding high was total rookie territory, I don't know. * "Hidden" VP and trade cards that you could track if you took the time and paper/brain space. To me, that's a sign that the designers suspect their game is more shallow than they'd like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
What I like a lot about Five Tribes is how the game state changes. Early in the game you want to go first, and then later in the game you want to go last. I can't think of any other game that does that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:I played House with betrayal on the hill friday and it was really good. There was a lot of randomness in the initial setup where you get boned or blessed with no input but the game makes up for it with a modular board. We laughed really hard when Steve walked into three separate rooms and took damage each time because he's poo poo at rolling dice and hey gently caress Steve he's stupid as poo poo, god dammit gently caress you Steve. During the haunt phase we got a spooky FrogsxWitches setup, where the high-quality cat token came into play (wooden, abstract). it requires the good guys to find one item in the random item deck and one room from a selection of random rooms, with distribution of that room/item mathematically proven and tested using focus groups to be the most fun. In the end though it turned out that, like in most post-apocolytic house based haunting games, the good guys were doomed to fail. The witch was invulnerable to all but one person, had a blast w/infinite range, and could teleport anywhere on a map where going from one edge to the other would take at least three turns. With smiles on our faces for teaching us lessons on futility (while having FUNtility), we packed away BotHatHH until we will again inevitably crave distractions from our pointless lives We always called it Crazy Murder House, to the point where another friend who'd only played it with us went to the local game store asking for it by that name. Lorini posted:What I like a lot about Five Tribes is how the game state changes. Early in the game you want to go first, and then later in the game you want to go last. I can't think of any other game that does that. Scoville does this, sort of! If you go last you get to harvest first, giving you the best options for gaining peppers, and if you go first you get to cash in your peppers first, which might be crucial if other people are gunning for the same things as you. Depending on your own personal state (whether you have lots of peppers or few) you'll want to be going first or last, respectively. I've been enjoying Scoville the more I play it, I thought it would be kind of goofy at first but it keeps growing on me. bobvonunheil fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:This is a pretty common experience for me with terrible games. It makes sense, too - if nobody you play with is competent enough at games to get even close to breaking them it probably makes a lot of games more palatable. Dominion has the reverse case where terrible players find Big Money and decide the game is poo poo. Yeah, that's what I figure must be happening. Kind of blows my mind though, the "combo" was just play cards that let you play more cards, when you run out of those drop an action that replenishes your hand. Anyway, Smash Up stinks
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Scoville does this, sort of! If you go last you get to harvest first, giving you the best options for gaining peppers, and if you go first you get to cash in your peppers first, which might be crucial if other people are gunning for the same things as you. Depending on your own personal state (whether you have lots of peppers or few) you'll want to be going first or last, respectively. I actually played Scoville for the first time yesterday, just two players, and it seemed really dull. I'm willing to give it another shot but after the first few turns we were both like "wait you mean we just keep doing this forever?" I can imagine with more players it might be interesting trying to block people and whatnot, but I feel like I had high expectations and they were mostly dashed. Anyone else have words to say about this game? Edit: While I'm asking about games, has anyone tried Arboretum yet? It's called Arboretum and the art is awesome which is making me want it for no real reason. EvilChameleon fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:But that's what I'm saying? The protagonists can win at HoHH just as often as they lose, if they draw the right cards/haunt. A normally balanced co-op game the players expect to win most of the time, if they earned it. In HoHH you can lose even if you play perfectly, just like a horror movie. I'd say it doesn't matter tons that the game isn't particularly balanced since it's a pretty short game. Balance is more important when you're deciding a game that's gone on for three hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
EvilChameleon posted:I actually played Scoville for the first time yesterday, just two players, and it seemed really dull. I'm willing to give it another shot but after the first few turns we were both like "wait you mean we just keep doing this forever?" I can imagine with more players it might be interesting trying to block people and whatnot, but I feel like I had high expectations and they were mostly dashed. Anyone else have words to say about this game? I've played it three times, with 2, 3 and 6 players. 6 felt like too many, because we finished morning super quick and there was a very real chance of ending the game before any recipes got taken. The 3 player game was solid; there was enough room for everyone to expand but still interact. The two player game was also really good, because despite there only being two of us, we dicked with each other enough that we actually tied (he won on tiebreakers)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd say it doesn't matter tons that the game isn't particularly balanced since it's a pretty short game. Balance is more important when you're deciding a game that's gone on for three hours. Betrayal takes about an hour to play. It's far outside the who-cares-it's-a-ten-minute-filler zone. Plus, the first half of the game is basically a glorified Game Setup phase. That's a lot of investment considering that the winner is usually determined the instant the haunt is revealed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Betrayal takes about an hour to play. It's far outside the who-cares-it's-a-ten-minute-filler zone. OK, but it's not like it's in the three-hours-it's-late-everyone-is-cranky-let's-finish-the-game-so-we-can-go-to-sleep-oh-what-you-won-how-that's-bullshit zone either. The longer a game is, the more important it is that it be highly balanced. quote:Plus, the first half of the game is basically a glorified Game Setup phase. That's a lot of investment considering that the winner is usually determined the instant the haunt is revealed. I don't think either of these sentences are actually true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Gort posted:OK, but it's not like it's in the three-hours-it's-late-everyone-is-cranky-let's-finish-the-game-so-we-can-go-to-sleep-oh-what-you-won-how-that's-bullshit zone either. The longer a game is, the more important it is that it be highly balanced. So in my experience, Betrayal takes an hour and 45 minutes (I do not play with AP people usually; my experiences with this game do not involve such people); and 60% of the time the winner is pretty obvious from the word go. As for the "glorified setup phase" comment, I agree with that. There is no goal for the first half of the game but "explore". Frankly, I enjoy that, but the criticism is valid. I'm not sure what your experience with the game is, but it doesn't line up with mine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
More than almost any other game, I think Betrayal could benefit from letting an app be responsible for choosing what map tiles come out/when the betrayer comes out/etc. The good things about the game are super loving good, and making the end-part even a little less arbitrary would go a very long way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd say it doesn't matter tons that the game isn't particularly balanced since it's a pretty short game. Balance is more important when you're deciding a game that's gone on for three hours. It is absolutely not short enough for how unbalanced and random it is. There are lots of games that are either shorter or longer and better balanced than BoHoTT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:As for the "glorified setup phase" comment, I agree with that. There is no goal for the first half of the game but "explore". Frankly, I enjoy that, but the criticism is valid. Well, "explore" and "get your character as many good items and stat boosts as you can to give yourself a better chance of winning the haunt". It's true that there are elements of game setup in the pre-haunt part of the game, but the flipside of that is that the time spent doing actual pre-game setup is near zero. Whack down the center pieces, pick a character, go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Lorini posted:What I like a lot about Five Tribes is how the game state changes. Early in the game you want to go first, and then later in the game you want to go last. I can't think of any other game that does that. Five Tribes doesn't do it either. if you can make the same profit going first as you can last, it is always better to go first. In fact it can be better to go last in the early game if you think you might be able to create a longer chain or loop that is worth more points, and first in the late game when there are fewer good moves remaining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Five Tribes doesn't do it either. if you can make the same profit going first as you can last, it is always better to go first. In fact it can be better to go last in the early game if you think you might be able to create a longer chain or loop that is worth more points, and first in the late game when there are fewer good moves remaining. As usual we play the same game in a different way I guess. When there aren't a lot of pieces on the board, it's very difficult not to leave easy points on the board, so you want to go last. If you are playing against competent people in the early game, they will not be leaving easy points on the table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Lorini posted:As usual we play the same game in a different way I guess. When there aren't a lot of pieces on the board, it's very difficult not to leave easy points on the board, so you want to go last. If you are playing against competent people in the early game, they will not be leaving easy points on the table. Depends how you define "easy points", really. My consideration when bidding for turn order in Five Tribes is always to make the maximum profit. I'm not going to bid 15 for a 17-point move if I can bid zero for a 3-point move, for example. However, all other things being equal I'd rather go first because it ensures the move I've seen will still be there. If my move passes through the origin of the move you planned to make, you have to find a new plan and hope it's worth as much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
SuccinctAndPunchy posted:It is absolutely not short enough for how unbalanced and random it is. There are lots of games that are either shorter or longer and better balanced than BoHoTT. No one is saying the game is a masterpiece of mechanics; but it's really thematic and only takes 1.5 hours at most. That makes it better than other thematic alternatives. Betrayal is up against the likes of Arkham Horror not Mage Knight. When you compare it to one of the Horror games it provides a much more compact experience, with just as much theme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Had a couple of friends over for Tabletop Day (We considered going to Card Kingdom/Mox, but it's hard enough to find a table on a random Tuesday night there). These were the two who were the "novices" in our group without much experience in games, so I've been trying to introduce them to new concepts with each game. We played Smash Up first, which I intended to just be a short filler game to get things rolling. It was a lot slower than I expected, as there was a lot to process in the card interactions. Too much complexity to make it a filler game for newer gamers, but it was a close match and we had a lot of "clever plays", overall everyone had fun. But it won't be used as a filler. We picked random decks: Mad Scientist/Mythic Horses, Werewolf/Kittens, and Geek/Aliens. Geek/Aliens won by cancelling out some plays that would have scored a base before they got to it and having a slight points edge from Invader + the geek card that piles on one more VP. Some of the card combos got a lot of laughs, such as Igor being forced to chop up a rainbow unicorn for body parts and graft them on himself, or Whiskers the kitten (under the Full Moon) using Wil Wheaton as a Chew Toy. Then we played Arcadia Quest. Apart from just desperately wanting to get it to the table and introducing them to RPG-Lite/miniature skirmish games, my friends were drawn to the cute miniatures and I knew it was very light to play once people understood the monster reactions/line of sight. Once the (long) setup was done this game played surprisingly fast - We only went through about 5-6 rounds before somebody won. To make sure we understood why the coins were important, we went ahead with the draft/upgrade process even though were weren't planning to play another scenario yet. This was a great decision, everybody got really into the tough choices of which upgrades to take and felt like their characters were going to be much more powerful next time. Another good choice was reading aloud the character description for the first one they showed interest in - They grabbed the book to read the rest of their guild's stories, and one friend sketched the other's guild while we were playing. They'll be RPG fans soon enough. This game was tense and fun once we started playing - but the setup/teardown was a lot of work. For the next time we play, it will definitely be best to do 2-3 scenarios in quick succession, to get the most out of it. Finally we played a couple of rounds of Dominion. I don't need to explain the qualities of this game. They definitely want to play it again, and started to understand the value of deck thinning/trashing (the second kingdom I introduced them to had Chapel/Soothsayer/Swindler/Masquerade, so by god they had better). My work here is done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:Well, "explore" and "get your character as many good items and stat boosts as you can to give yourself a better chance of winning the haunt". It's true that there are elements of game setup in the pre-haunt part of the game, but the flipside of that is that the time spent doing actual pre-game setup is near zero. Whack down the center pieces, pick a character, go. But there's nothing you can voluntarily do to get good items and stat boosts. You just explore randomly and hope to draw good cards and roll good dice. The thing that really kills me is there's no tension. You're never afraid to open that door, because you have to open it, and for all intents and purposes it's the same thing behind every door, so why worry about it? The only thing you're worried about is that you'll run out of movement speed before you hit a useful room. Literally the only source of tension is "what if I can't run through the haunted house fast enough?" You can (and should) work to put yourself in the right mood to enjoy it more, but the mechanics ought to reinforce the mood, not work against it. I think a nice try would at least have been to make this a push-your-luck minigame: the more rooms you go through in one turn the more you accumulate bonuses, but if you hit a bad thing you might lose them all. Then you're actually worried, do I dare open this door? Literally every push-your-luck game I know has been more tense than the Betrayal setup phase, and that includes some profoundly stupid dice games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Rutibex, I miss your old avatar  Anyway, I have just played a textbook game of Cosmic Encounter. We had a lot of Aha! moments, changing hands, and stealing cards, and one dude with the worst luck on the universe, and it was fun and fast and dramatic. Then everyone was at 4 points and it became a 5 turn slog where all of us defended until a player pulled off a Shields (prevent alliances) and Mutation (play the same card than your opponent in an encounter) combo, so she won. My group doesn't believe in shared victories, so the x-1 win is out, dragging the game even longer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
EvilChameleon posted:I actually played Scoville for the first time yesterday, just two players, and it seemed really dull. I'm willing to give it another shot but after the first few turns we were both like "wait you mean we just keep doing this forever?" I can imagine with more players it might be interesting trying to block people and whatnot, but I feel like I had high expectations and they were mostly dashed. Anyone else have words to say about this game? I never thought about Scoville as a two player game, but I'm not surprised if it was tremendously dull. I've played with 4, 5 and 6 - 6 was too many, but 4 and 5 both worked pretty well. If you aren't placing a bunch of new peppers a turn I feel it would really bog down the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah, my one game of Cosmic Encounter, I had literally all the highest cards. Nobody else had anything above a 20 because I had them all. So I figured I didn't need to ask for allies, I'd just win. Nope. When everyone teamed up to defend and added in their extra bonus poo poo, it was enough. Next time around (obviously nobody else can win either), I've managed to redraw the card I played from the shuffle, so I still have all the top cards. Rather than try the same thing again, I decide to say gently caress it and invite the two others who had been at four points the longest to join me in a shared (3 out of 6) victory just to put us out of our misery. Afterwards, I asked people what they had to see if I could have done it solo, and the answer was no. No, they would have defended AGAIN. If having literally all the best cards isn't enough to get you a solo victory, and you need to wait for a MORE ridiculous combo, then... then I guess the endgame is just hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I mean like if you want a rather long dice-driven highly thematic experience generator with lots of friends Virgin Queen is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Lorini posted:What I like a lot about Five Tribes is how the game state changes. Early in the game you want to go first, and then later in the game you want to go last. I can't think of any other game that does that. City of Iron does this. Early in the game you want to go first as you build your engine and capture locations, later in the game you want to go last as you begin to use military to capture other players locations so that they won't have a chance to take it back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
McNerd posted:But there's nothing you can voluntarily do to get good items and stat boosts. You just explore randomly and hope to draw good cards and roll good dice. Another way to put it is that Betrayal is bad as a game, because its hugely swingy and arbitrary as hell, but its also a bad experience generator in large part for the same reasons. Rutibex going "oh but its so like a horror movie because sometimes evil wins!" totally glosses over the point that horror movies aren't random and arbitrary like that, they don't build tension for 45 minutes and then end in a 5 minute anticlimax, roll credits. Someone who's in it because they're a horror buff is just as likely to be unsatisfied by how things play out even if they aren't as concerned by the game side of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Triple-Kan posted:City of Iron does this. Early in the game you want to go first as you build your engine and capture locations, later in the game you want to go last as you begin to use military to capture other players locations so that they won't have a chance to take it back. Depending on how you play Kemet can do the same. I usually run with the plan of upgrading to White 4 and buying Priest of Amon or Priest of Ra on turn 1; this strategy means I don't move to a temple on turn 1, so I don't have to worry about being attacked. In the late game, though, you always want to be last so you get the last move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:No one is saying the game is a masterpiece of mechanics; but it's really thematic and only takes 1.5 hours at most. That makes it better than other thematic alternatives. Betrayal is up against the likes of Arkham Horror not Mage Knight. When you compare it to one of the Horror games it provides a much more compact experience, with just as much theme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Playing a political game and not allowing joint victories is pointless. It's like playing acquire and not allowing trading for positioning or stock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Anyone play Brew Crafters and can share some thoughts on it? I'm thinking about getting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Keyflower is basically euro-as-wargame, with the right crowd
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 02:13
|
|
