|
Bottom Liner posted:Hmm, that's interesting. I'll probably stick to the iPad version until I see more about this. Thanks. They are planning on taking all of the expansion decks and including them in the base game, effectively doubling the amount of cards in the game. Last time they re-released Agricola they replaced the animal disks with the animeeples from the "goodies" expansion. I hope with this expansion they replace the wheat/vegetable tokens with the ones from Caverna. Presumably now that they have a wheat/pumpkin shaped lathe it costs them the same amount to make those tokens as it would disks.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Have I missed something here when did Rubitex become Tom Vasel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Zveroboy posted:Have I missed something here when did Rubitex become Tom Vasel. Well, he does like Talisman, so we shouldn't be surprised if he finds dumping everything out of the box to be the best bit of the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
I had a bad experience with my fist time playing Caverna, but then again I've never played Agricola. My honest opinion of Caverna was the game lasted at least 2-3 turns too long (this was with a 6 player game and the game has a set number of turns). All of the fun and building aspect of the game was pretty much gone in favor of just an all-out victory point grab, and by then it was pretty obviously down to two different players competing for first place while the rest of us just watched (for like 2 hours). I haven't played Agricola, but I like the idea of the game actually being a struggle. In our Caverna game, nobody even came close to running out of food. The early part of the game I felt a little bit of connection with my little dwarf village building meadows and digging out caverns and such, but about halfway through everyone was just in accountant 'if I get three of those and this room I'll get 5 instead of 3 victory points' mode. Also, the 'soldier' mechanic seemed to make certain peoples turns last way longer than they should. To me, it was the equivalent of a card game where somebody plays a 'look through the discard pile and take whatever you want' card. Fun for that person, but everyone else has to sit around forever waiting for them to make their choice. Of course this opinion all comes from one bad (horribly long) play session, so obviously I am very biased. I'll ask my friend today which he prefers (he is an Agricola addict and was the winner of that Caverna session).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:I had a bad experience with my fist time playing Caverna, but then again I've never played Agricola. My honest opinion of Caverna was the game lasted at least 2-3 turns too long (this was with a 6 player game and the game has a set number of turns). All of the fun and building aspect of the game was pretty much gone in favor of just an all-out victory point grab, and by then it was pretty obviously down to two different players competing for first place while the rest of us just watched (for like 2 hours). How many did you play it with? I found a similar thing with the adventuring, when you have 10 or so options to choose from it may as well say 'Stop the game for five minutes while one player thinks about stuff' Also, Agricola definitely turns into point accountancy in the last few turns as well, even though it's 'harder' to feed everyone than in Caverna.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
This is probably a really dumb question, but I'm a board/card game newbie, having only really peeked into this world in the last few weeks. After playing a few deckbuilding games that require you to shuffle your (relatively) small deck multiple times, what's the best way you guys like to shuffle that doesn't destroy unsleeved cards? I figure that riffle shuffling is pretty hard on the cards and almost impossible to do to a small deck. I looked up something called Mongean Shuffling, which seems to be a possible way to break up large pockets of resource cards that end up getting stuck together in a deck (if you do the full shuffle a couple of times). Pile shuffling sounds like a possibility too, but seems like it'd get annoying doing over and over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
I think the overhand shuffle is the most prevalent shuffling technique. However, I suppose a table (Corgi) shuffle would be best, but it will take slightly longer and requires more room to do.
Texibus fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:This is probably a really dumb question, but I'm a board/card game newbie, having only really peeked into this world in the last few weeks. After playing a few deckbuilding games that require you to shuffle your (relatively) small deck multiple times, what's the best way you guys like to shuffle that doesn't destroy unsleeved cards? Shuffling questions are always valid! I like to do overhand shuffles and I cringe when I see anyone doing a riffle shuffle. In a game where there's a single draw deck, I do a pile shuffle, pick apart any large groups of identical cards and finish with a few overhand shuffles. In a deckbuilder where there's lots of shuffling, I don't bother with the pile shuffle - I just pick apart groups of identical cards and do 3 or 4 overhand shuffle passes. I might start doing Mongean shuffling instead now because it looks less like rigging your deck, even though the intent is the opposite. Alternatively, play a bag-of-objects based deckbuilder like Puzzle Strike so you don't need to shuffle at all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:How many did you play it with? He played with six people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:This is probably a really dumb question, but I'm a board/card game newbie, having only really peeked into this world in the last few weeks. After playing a few deckbuilding games that require you to shuffle your (relatively) small deck multiple times, what's the best way you guys like to shuffle that doesn't destroy unsleeved cards? My mother and my girlfriend's best friend like to shuffle cards by taking their deck, dealing the cards out into 5 or 6 piles then just stacking the piles back up. Personally I'll block shuffle, riffle, block then riffle again. Which small decks (like a starting Dominion deck) I'll just do a few block shuffles. Alternatively, buy a card shuffling machine. I've never quite understood why people have such a huge aversion to riffle shuffling. I do realise that it's possible for people to get a bit zealous and bend the cards too much, but you really don't have to bend the cards all that much to do it. If you're worried about the edges of the cards getting worn then just get over it. It's a game, it's supposed to be played and wear-and-tear will happen. If all your Dominion cards get a little bit of wear around the edge does it really give anyone any kind of advantage? The only card in all my games that has any kind of identifying mark is the Milan player card in Pandemic. I dropped it from my hand and on reflex caught it between my knees a bit too firmly, bending the card neatly in half and leaving a crease. Big whoop, I know when Milan is coming up in the deck. Some people at my board gaming club are really anal about it. I've always asked how the game owner would like thier cards shuffled before shuffling, but when playing my own games I have had, on occasion, fellow gamers tell me I shouldn't riffle shuffle because it damages the cards. What annoys me more is when people seem to just loving fail at picking a card up off a table and have to pick at the edges, rather than simply sliding it to the edge or sliding another card underneath to lift it up. Now that does damage the cards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Texibus posted:He played with six people. Man, I read that post like 3 times and didn't see that. 6 is a pretty terrible number to play Caverna with. 4 is probably ideal, with more it takes way too long. Zveroboy posted:I've never quite understood why people have such a huge aversion to riffle shuffling. I do realise that it's possible for people to get a bit zealous and bend the cards too much, but you really don't have to bend the cards all that much to do it. If you're worried about the edges of the cards getting worn then just get over it. It's a game, it's supposed to be played and wear-and-tear will happen. If all your Dominion cards get a little bit of wear around the edge does it really give anyone any kind of advantage? The only card in all my games that has any kind of identifying mark is the Milan player card in Pandemic. I dropped it from my hand and on reflex caught it between my knees a bit too firmly, bending the card neatly in half and leaving a crease. Big whoop, I know when Milan is coming up in the deck. bobvonunheil fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:This can happen with every deckbuilder, even Dominion. When I teach it to total newbies I usually let them explore for a bit and buy equally random stuff so I don't just crush them, then start pushing the pace before the game actually turns in to a dreadful "we all have 2 copies of each card and no purchasing power" quagmire. The first game I played solo to teach myself the rules ended up having something like 3 50 card decks on the starter board.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:This is probably a really dumb question, but I'm a board/card game newbie, having only really peeked into this world in the last few weeks. After playing a few deckbuilding games that require you to shuffle your (relatively) small deck multiple times, what's the best way you guys like to shuffle that doesn't destroy unsleeved cards? Just sleeve your cards, I know its annoying but for deck builders it is pretty much essential with all the shuffling you do  Zveroboy posted:Have I missed something here when did Rubitex become Tom Vasel. I have always been Tom Vasel. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:I had a bad experience with my fist time playing Caverna, but then again I've never played Agricola. My honest opinion of Caverna was the game lasted at least 2-3 turns too long (this was with a 6 player game and the game has a set number of turns). All of the fun and building aspect of the game was pretty much gone in favor of just an all-out victory point grab, and by then it was pretty obviously down to two different players competing for first place while the rest of us just watched (for like 2 hours). 6 is an awful number to play those games with, 4 maximum IMO. Having said that your general complaints mirror my issues with the game and I mostly played it 3 player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
I mean, that's pretty much what my Twilight Struggle deck looks like and that only gets shuffled three times a game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:How many did you play it with? It was a 6 player game. I mean, I know that most of these style games end up in a victory point grab, but it seemed like with Caverna we were in that mode for a few more turns (and hours) longer than other similar kinds of games. It's like everyone already had everything they wanted with 4 turns left to go, and people were just getting whatever they could scrape together until the end, but since the leaders were already ahead they could always scrape together more than everyone else (and with no direct conflict, there wasn't much of anything we could do about it). I guess I'm somewhat comparing it to a game like Dungeon Lords, where the entire game is an uphill struggle and then at the end you count up the points and see who won. In Caverna it seemed like we raced to the top of the 'hill' halfway through the game, and everyone sort of coasted on the plateau in the same order that we crested the hill the rest of the game. I'd certainly play it again, but I'd want to bring a timer or something because one of the leaders in the game I played was the same guy who would often take 10-20 minute turns. Damn Dirty Ape fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
be nice if they could get more games with plastic card stock like Copag playing cards... man do those bastards hold up and feel great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:In a game where there's a single draw deck, I do a pile shuffle, pick apart any large groups of identical cards and finish with a few overhand shuffles. In a deckbuilder where there's lots of shuffling, I don't bother with the pile shuffle - I just pick apart groups of identical cards and do 3 or 4 overhand shuffle passes. I might start doing Mongean shuffling instead now because it looks less like rigging your deck, even though the intent is the opposite. I'm not sure I really understand this - either you're separating out the identical cards and then not shuffling enough to properly distribute them, which is pretty much cheating, or you are shuffling enough in which case separating them out in the first place was a waste of time. Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Aston posted:I'm not sure I really understand this - either you're separating out the identical cards and then not shuffling enough to properly distribute them, which is pretty much cheating, or you are shuffling enough in which case separating them out in the first place was a waste of time. Am I missing something? Just let him have it, it's not hurting anything. Like those people that makes sure to evenly distribute land cards in their Magic deck before they shuffle
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
They also make me mad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Just let him have it, it's not hurting anything. Like those people that makes sure to evenly distribute land cards in their Magic deck before they shuffle Don't even loving start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Kem should just get into the hobby games business. Sure, Dominion will be like $120 but those riffle shuffles will be silky smooth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
even distribution is not randomness *lights a bus on fire*
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Question related to shuffling, as this came up at work just yesterday: how would you feel if your next card-based game (be it a DBG or whatever) was printed on quality playing card style card stock (like nice Bicycle cards and above, not the cheap gas station brand playing cards you may have lying around)? Those cards are meant to be shuffled and not show wear nearly as bad as the more traditional hobby game equivalents. Would it feel too cheap by comparison to today's standards? Also, I've just heard about these "mana weaving" people that apparently exist in MtG and can't believe it's a real thing people do. Man we nerds are dumb sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:Kem should just get into the hobby games business. Sure, Dominion will be like $120 but those riffle shuffles will be silky smooth. Honestly, I bet a fella who could get the licence agreements and card stock could make a good deal of money on "premium" CCG card decks and deck builders like Dominion. Edit: Did some quick math 3 bucks for 50 sleeves comes out to about .06 per sleeve and a Copag poker card comes out to about .12 a card, maybe regular card stock cost something like .01 or .02. So you figure .08 to .12 might not be that hard of a sale to tell a guy he doesn't need to sleeve these suckers. Texibus fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Merauder posted:Also, I've just heard about these "mana weaving" people that apparently exist in MtG and can't believe it's a real thing people do. Man we nerds are dumb sometimes. I remember when someone first told me about that, I tried it for like a week just because I was a dumb teenager. Really it's the same thing as rolling your dice to find the 'good' ones before an RPG, it's bullshit and the only cases where it would ever impact anything you'd be pretty blatantly cheating. It is sorta funny to think of it as a click bait article for Magic players though. One weird trick that randomization hates!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
For other people's games I let them do whatever they want. For my own I riffle shuffle big piles, overhand shuffle small piles. If they get worn enough to be a legitimate gameplay issue, well I guess that game gets played enough to earn the right to opaque sleeves. My Marvel Legendary looks like it went through World War III.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
So, as a Dominion fan, I have come to see that the most common complaint is that the draw of each hand is very luck drive, so most players say the game is not fully a test of strategically recognizing powerful combos. Well, I disagree, as long as this method I have been using is in fact legitimate. Here it is: be intentional about the order in which you clean up your cards. If you are buying a new Treasure Map, and you have one in your hand, make it a point to discard those on top of each other. If you have a couple Provinces that you'd rather not draw at the same time, place a few of the card you are cleaning up between them. Of course, this is only legitimate if players follow the standard gaming rule which is that a deck should be shuffled at least three times before being drawn from. The fact still remains though that if two cards start a shuffle close to each other, they will probably end up close to each other. I find this effective enough that I recommend it to all opponents, because I want them playing at their best, so we can legitimately see whose combos and number of cards in each combo are the most potent. Additionally, this tactic gives players something to do during the downtime of other players' turns. Now, is there anything in the rules against this maneuver? To be cleaar, this isn't stacking the deck, it is simply increasing the probability that some cards will or will not show up in the same hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
you, right now posted:source your quotes It was the OP to a BGG thread. He argued for nine pages, even after DXV showed up to say "Uh, no, shuffle better and stop cheating."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Now, is there anything in the rules against this maneuver? To be cleaar, this isn't stacking the deck, it is simply increasing the probability that some cards will or will not show up in the same hand. Aside from gained cards that go straight into the discard pile, when my turn is over I just scoop everything up and discard it. Job done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
I have that problem with my BSG cards. I've played the base game to death, so when I got Daybreak the cards are so clean and shiny in comparison you can tell which cards are which by looking at the side of the deck. I'm not ponying up for tiny FFG card sleeves though, they have enough of my money already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Merauder posted:Question related to shuffling, as this came up at work just yesterday: how would you feel if your next card-based game (be it a DBG or whatever) was printed on quality playing card style card stock (like nice Bicycle cards and above, not the cheap gas station brand playing cards you may have lying around)? Those cards are meant to be shuffled and not show wear nearly as bad as the more traditional hobby game equivalents. Would it feel too cheap by comparison to today's standards? I would rebuy my card games if they were printed on EPCC or LPCC stock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Heard it here first goons, I'm going into the card business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Aston posted:I'm not sure I really understand this - either you're separating out the identical cards and then not shuffling enough to properly distribute them, which is pretty much cheating, or you are shuffling enough in which case separating them out in the first place was a waste of time. Am I missing something? Shuffling is a flawed practice and I'm doing what I can to smooth out the game experience. If we take Magic: The Gathering as an example, you're basically screwed if there's a chunk of 5 or 6 land cards together, and something like that occuring in a game with a properly randomised deck is statistically highly unlikely to actually occur, so I go through and separate out any chunks of 5 or 6 land, then overhand shuffle it until I'm happy it's mostly randomised again. I only bother doing this with games where having a deck that isn't shuffled properly will cause the play experience to be poor (MtG, Sheriff of Nottingham, Star Realms, etc)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Actually, it's just as likely to happen as if you got one every other card, two cards, three cards...etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Misandu posted:I remember when someone first told me about that, I tried it for like a week just because I was a dumb teenager. Really it's the same thing as rolling your dice to find the 'good' ones before an RPG, it's bullshit and the only cases where it would ever impact anything you'd be pretty blatantly cheating. I always make sure that my d20 are sitting on the table with the "20" face side up. This makes the gravity of the Earth pull down on the plastic and gives a slight bias to rolling 20's over time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
No one touch my dice, okay? I've spent a long time training them to roll high and I don't want anyone messing them up with their fingers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
My dice are evaluated monthly. The ones that make the cut get to watch while I take a hammer to the bad ones, just as a warning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Has anyone Kickstarted a dice calibration system yet? I don't ask for exploitative and shady reasons at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Rutibex posted:I always make sure that my d20 are sitting on the table with the "20" face side up. This makes the gravity of the Earth pull down on the plastic and gives a slight bias to rolling 20's over time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:20
|
|
