|
Can somewhat write up why Zombicide is bad and shouldn't be played? It seems like a Zombie RPG kind of thing that would be fun for some tabletop people.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Can somewhat write up why Zombicide is bad and shouldn't be played? It seems like a Zombie RPG kind of thing that would be fun for some tabletop people. It's a generic dice-and-cards fest. You find random items to help you fight randomly spawned zombies by rolling lots of dice. I think the map and objectives you get are supposed to be random as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Can somewhat write up why Zombicide is bad and shouldn't be played? It seems like a Zombie RPG kind of thing that would be fun for some tabletop people. Zombicide's largest crime is that it promises a balls-to-the-wall action shooting fest but has a tendency to be so random (between the random spawns and random items and weapons and die rolling die rolling die rolling) that the game ends in a sudden, anticlimactic loss that feels like you had no chance to win, or a super-easy wet-fart victory that never feels interesting or compelling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
It's Flash Point but you have to roll dice to put out fires, and pull cards off a deck to get equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Can somewhat write up why Zombicide is bad and shouldn't be played? It seems like a Zombie RPG kind of thing that would be fun for some tabletop people. Okay guys the game has just begun. Time to spawn zombies: Nada, 1 walker, 1 walker, no bad we're going to be oka....Abomination. No sweat guys, we'll just kill it as soon as someone finds a weapon that does 3 damage. Yep, I'm certain there are some in the deck. Maybe like 3 or 4 even. Yep. For sure. Oh you can't even search because you have to run from the Abomination? K. Always play with the guy that does +1 melee damage. Always. Why is there a card that spawns an Abomination in the blue? No idea. Foehammer posted:It's Flash Point but you have to roll dice to put out fires, and pull cards off a deck to get equipment. I've only played that once, but I swear there is dice rolling to put out fires. Maybe it's just the guy manning the truck? Cause that was me. We lost badly either way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Always play with the guy that does +1 melee damage. Always. I'm not defending it because I haven't played it, but it seems like a lot of people feel like coop games have to always be winnable, when even Pandemic can royally gently caress you with bad draws in the early rounds. I like the idea of pressure being constant and the threat of doom at any time kind of mechanics in coops. Keeps them fresh. Again, not saying this mechanic is ok in Zombicide, just a tangent thought this made me think about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I'm not defending it because I haven't played it, but it seems like a lot of people feel like coop games have to always be winnable Okay, I'll bite...shouldn't they be? Should all games essentially be winnable every time you play them? It seems weird to suggest that maybe what's wrong is peoples' assumptions when it comes to expecting a game to always be winnable, because to me that's sort of one of the fundamental principles of a game, that it can be won. Not that it always will be...I just got my rear end stomped in a bad way when I played some BGA Tash-Kalar earlier today, I'm talking "lost 2 to 9 with him having all three legendary tokens out and just wrecking my poo poo," but I didn't lose because due to randomness the game arbitrarily decided that there was literally no way I could win. I admit things are kind of different when you have a co-op game where, essentially, the game itself is competing against you and so it should be an expectation that the game does have a chance of "winning" to provide challenge and keep things competitive as it were, but if the way the game wins often boils down to "well sometimes the RNG just arbitrarily fucks you and puts you into an unwinnable corner where even your best efforts won't accomplish anything" then it doesn't sound like a very interesting challenge imo. At that point I'm not going to be going into that game thinking "okay, how are we gonna work together to beat this thing" so much as "I wonder if we're going to draw what we need to win or if it's just going to be another shitshow."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
You make good points, but on the other end of the spectrum I don't like coop games that turn into a long and mathy but solvable problem at any given time. I guess I can indulge in games that can really screw you with rng when it's a coop because everyone's along for the ride and the story/theme. I hate those mechanics in anything competitive, but I like them in coops because it makes the tension and desire to overcome the situation sky rocket, which I think makes for a better coop experience. Of course, I'm not talking about things like the Dead of Winter exposure die that has a 1/12 chance of just immediately killing your character, that's boring and a lovely implementation of the theme. But the Abomination sounds like an always looming threat that you always have to be afraid of, and potentially have a plan for, which sounds fun. It might be a total crap fest, but again I'm talking bigger concepts of coops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Okay, I'll bite...shouldn't they be? Should all games essentially be winnable every time you play them? It seems weird to suggest that maybe what's wrong is peoples' assumptions when it comes to expecting a game to always be winnable, because to me that's sort of one of the fundamental principles of a game, that it can be won. Not that it always will be...I just got my rear end stomped in a bad way when I played some BGA Tash-Kalar earlier today, I'm talking "lost 2 to 9 with him having all three legendary tokens out and just wrecking my poo poo," but I didn't lose because due to randomness the game arbitrarily decided that there was literally no way I could win. The thing about a game that will hold the average person's attention is that you have to feel like you can win. It might not actually be possible but as long as you have that hope to keep you puttering along it will probably keep you engaged. I suspect that some of the benefit of hidden VPs and the like stem from this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Okay guys the game has just begun. Time to spawn zombies: Nada, 1 walker, 1 walker, no bad we're going to be oka....Abomination. No sweat guys, we'll just kill it as soon as someone finds a weapon that does 3 damage. Yep, I'm certain there are some in the deck. Maybe like 3 or 4 even. Yep. For sure. Oh you can't even search because you have to run from the Abomination? K. Always play with the guy that does +1 melee damage. Always. IIRC there's die rolling for how the fires spread, but putting them out is automatic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You make good points, but on the other end of the spectrum I don't like coop games that turn into a long and mathy but solvable problem at any given time. I guess I can indulge in games that can really screw you with rng when it's a coop because everyone's along for the ride and the story/theme. I hate those mechanics in anything competitive, but I like them in coops because it makes the tension and desire to overcome the situation sky rocket, which I think makes for a better coop experience. Of course, I'm not talking about things like the Dead of Winter exposure die that has a 1/12 chance of just immediately killing your character, that's boring and a lovely implementation of the theme. But the Abomination sounds like an always looming threat that you always have to be afraid of, and potentially have a plan for, which sounds fun. It might be a total crap fest, but again I'm talking bigger concepts of coops. Well this is sort of a bad example because A). it's not, despite critics' assertions, a board game and B). it's not AI controlled but 4E D&D allows for randomness in its combat encounters (all attacks run off a 1d20 roll, which means everybody has a 5% chance of crit-failing and a 5% chance of crit-succeeding and "baseline" rate to hit at all is measured around 55% before modifiers, etc) so it's entirely possible and not uncommon for fights to take a turn for the PCs' poo poo getting pushed in. Where the challenge in winning then comes from is the players making good use of limited resources to rally and pull off a decent win despite that while not tapping themselves out for the rest of the day to come. The game gives players enough of these resources and is designed just so that it's unlikely that everything will be hopelessly hosed on the turn of a die or two, but if you don't play well and just blithely stumblefuck around then yeah, it won't be surprising if you manage to brute-force a win through the first fight only to get pounded in the next because you burned all your safety nets early. This comes back to the whole "is randomness good/bad?" debate. Randomness is fine, but if your game is fundamentally built upon a large degree of randomness then it helps if you give players tools and resources to mitigate that randomness and employ some kind of strategy that goes beyond "spend lots of time rolling/drawing cards and hoping to get lucky." You don't need to make the game a cakewalk for them, nor do you need to swing hard in the direction of NO RANDOMNESS EVER, you just need to give people a fighting chance that relies on more than holding desperate ground while hoping the RNG starts cooperating. And regarding the average gamer, while "feel" is undoubtedly an important part of a lot of designers' processes, I think that even Joe Average Gamer can recognize it when he and his friends lose a game because they simply never drew the cards they needed/rolled the results they needed to roll. edit; I fully admit that this may be a big reason why I've never found a co-op board game that's ever really satisfied me the way a good competitive board game does. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Welcome to the Dungeon is an A+ game TY gutter owl for the recommendation from a while ago 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Welcome to the Dungeon is an A+ game TY gutter owl for the recommendation from a while ago I thought it a worse version of skull, taking a super lightweight filler and bloating it in uninteresting ways. Played Forbidden Stars for the first time today. Game is pretty bloody great. The factions are well balanced, combat resolution is interesting (good balance of randomness and tactical tweaking via the combat cards) and production quality is top shelf. Only drawback is the estimated playing time of 3 hours is delusional with 4 players. Maybe, with a huge amount of repeat play, it might approach that, but including a rules explanation, we hit 5 hours. It's a big game, with a wargame play time. Still, it's extremely impressive and I can't wait to play it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
The End posted:I thought it a worse version of skull, taking a super lightweight filler and bloating it in uninteresting ways. I feel the exact same ways, I would rather play Skull, or Love Letter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Even if we submit to Bottom Liner's hypothesis that games being unwinnable can still be good, there are plenty of other reasons why Zombicide is bad. - It's a zombie killing team game where the rules actually punishes the team for killing zombies. You get XP for kills, and the difficulty increases based on XP. Sounds fine, right? Except that XP is gained individually, while difficulty is increased collectively, which means going on a killing spree and power leveling yourself just makes the game harder for your teammates (and in turn, yourself, because this is a cooperative game). Alright then, so everyone just has to pace themselves, right? Isn't that just part of the strategy? Problem is that some characters start as zombie killing machines at level 1, while others have to spend turn after turn milling through the item decks to find the equipment they need in order to keep up, so the Zombie Killer Supreme character now has to sit on his hands while the Scavenger Extraordinaire character spends the first quarter to third of the game sifting through trash, which isn't very much fun for either player. If ZKS just says 'gently caress it, I'm killing zombies anyways,' then the SE soon finds himself unable to meaningfully contribute. And even in a more balanced character spread, where the other characters can better contribute from the beginning, the ZKS has to make the decision to play less effectively, electing NOT to take advantage of his character's abilities, or else he will soon ramp up the game to the point where he's getting the other players killed with higher spawns (which will inevitably lead to his own death with no one to help him on crowd control). It's such a flawed mechanic, which actually run contrary to the game's theme, that I can't see how it made it through the alpha design stages unless the designers simply didn't give a poo poo about anything except selling minis. - It isn't just that the game is so dependent on randomness, it's that the randomness is so incredibly swingy. Having some blue cards that can randomly spawn more difficult zombies than just walkers can create tension; having the chance for the most powerful enemy in the game showing up on the first turn in a game designed around leveling up is bullshit. Having the random chance for walkers to get an extra move can actually be good design, since it keeps players from simply standing one space away with impunity. Having the random chance for a pack of walkers to chase down the fastest character in the game when she was half the board away from them is loving Bullshit (first and only time playing; yes, I'm still mad about it). - Which leads me to the biggest red flag: Player elimination in a game that takes more than 5 minutes to play. That's really all I need to say on that point. Zombicide could be the best loving game in all creation on every other count, crafted out of pure Fun-tonium; having a rule that kick some players out and forces them to spend potentially the next hour watching everyone else have fun is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:Even if we submit to Bottom Liner's hypothesis that games being unwinnable can still be good, there are plenty of other reasons why Zombicide is bad. Basically, the notion that it could be good in spite of being unwinnable collapses in on itself completely once you realise how poorly Zombicide implements that state. There's a distinct difference between a game that can end up in an unwinnable state due to a series of unfortunate events and decisions, and one that randomly becomes unwinnable on turn 1 without any input or interaction from the players. If you can look at the board at the end of turn one and determine that the best thing to do is to restart the game because it's already a foregone conclusion that you will have to do so in half an hour anyway, the game is fundamentally broken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
What do I need to know in order to crush my friends at our first game of Argent: The Consortium?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:Even if we submit to Bottom Liner's hypothesis that games being unwinnable can still be good, there are plenty of other reasons why Zombicide is bad. I think the biggest problem with games like Zombiecide and Arkham Horror is that they try to create bleak, dangerous situations, in which losing is just around the corner, and yet don't use the first few turns to create this tension. To put it this way, the easiest way to finish a game of Zombiecide or Arkham Horror? Do nothing. Sure you'll lose, but we don't care about outcome, just when it ends. This means that every action the players take is designed to prolong the game. You want to level up and get skills, because that makes you more powerful, and better able to deal with the problems around you.You're playing the long game, trying to weather the worst of it while completing objectives. The first few turns are a scramble, trying to find key items and abilities to stave off the oncoming danger, while later turns are simply tedious dice rolls to see if you succeeded. To use a Magic: The Gathering analogy, it's like playing a control deck against aggro, but aggro doesn't do anything for the first three turns. Either you draw answers to what he plays on turn four, at which point the game is already won, and becomes a slow, grindy, boring yawnfest (since a boardgame is incapable of understanding when it can't win, and thus relies on you to win against it), or you draw nothing and it starts hitting perfectly, at which point, you feel like you lost without a chance of winning, Can Zombiecide become unwinnable on the first turn? Sure. Is that a normal occurrence? Hell no. Zombiecide's first turns are generally weak, small numbers of shambling walkers that are barely a threat. Arkham Horror takes at least 5 turns to reach actual game loss state, and that's assuming nothing ever happens on the players side. On the other hand, even if you have the board beaten and defeated, you still have to do all of the objectives, of which both Arkham Horror and Zombiecide have multiples in a single scenario. Having played Zombiecide once, the best part of the game was once we'd completed all but the final objective. Suddenly, we had to get through the zombies, and they actually became an obstacle to victory rather than simply something we had to kill to advance. Somebody mentioned D&D above, and outlined exactly why D&D works better in that regard. You have limited resources and have to effectively and efficiently use them to defeat the game. Zombiecide and Arkham should work like that, in which you have resources and have to hopefully use them to complete the objective before being overwhelmed. Instead, they spend time ramping up the players while ramping up the challenge, and the result is tedium or simple death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Tippis posted:There's a distinct difference between a game that can end up in an unwinnable state due to a series of unfortunate events and decisions, and one that randomly becomes unwinnable on turn 1 without any input or interaction from the players. I agree completely with that. I just meant I like when those big threats can appear at anytime. I didn't mean I like when games turn unwinnable all of a sudden, but I also don't like when they can always be won from any state if you play perfectly. Zombicide sounds like a bad example to bring up this discussion with, because it seems to do all of the worst things. And yeah, player elimination is a big red flag for any longer game. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:What do I need to know in order to crush my friends at our first game of Argent: The Consortium? My thoughts after a few games, take them with a grain of salt: Marks are valuable early to get a good idea which Consortium members you should be competing for, worth less the later you get them since you won't have as many meaningful actions you can take with the information gained. I found Supporter cards to be very good, make a point to try for at least one every turn. Even the Secret Supporters which are completely random and won't give you a power are worth it for end-game scoring purposes. Chances are you will luck into at least 1 Consortium member's vote by doing this. Lots of actions gained via Spells, Supporters, and Vault Cards are useful, but keep in mind rounds can be ended earlier than you wish by people who don't have the breadth of options you do. And there will be at least 1 person at the table who hasn't been picking up a bunch of extra actions. Merit Badges are really good to have, but I wouldn't count on having more than 2 of them for most of the game. Everyone else will want room on Influence spaces to get their own Merit Badges and/or progress toward the Influence Consortium member. To my mind, I would prioritize getting the first Merit Badge ASAP, Turn 1 if possible. Get the 2nd one as opportunities to pick up Influence present themselves. Biggest thing though is to have a plan when it comes to the Consortium voters. You need to be able to commit enough to make sure of a few votes and then hopefully compete in other categories to pick up the extra you need. Influence is important here, since it's the tiebreaker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Got bad from Saturday gaming, won't go through everything but just what was new to me. First up, played 7 Wonders using just the base game and both halves of the the Babel expansion, the Great Projects and the Tower. I'm glad I held off on Babel when it first appeared because to me 7 Wonders with Leaders is about as complex as I want the game to be. The Tower was quite interesting, because it gave a way of interacting with everyone around the table and not just your neighbours all the time, but I wasn't that fussed by the Great Projects. If I could get the Tower on it's own I'd consider it though. Also played Last Will for the first time, which included the Getting Sacked expansion. Quite enjoyed this even if I did come last, and I'd happily play it again knowing now how the game flows and what to look out for. Probably a bit too complex for me to buy for regular play with friends & family, but a solid game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:Influence is important here, since it's the tiebreaker. I feel like this is a really important point. In the games I've played so far winning tiebreakers was huge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
What if xp was shared and dying means losing levels but not difficuikty? Would that help at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:What if xp was shared and dying means losing levels but not difficuikty? Would that help at all? Have you played Runebound? The second half of your suggestion is one of the major problems in Runebound.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
DonnyTrump posted:I feel like this is a really important point. In the games I've played so far winning tiebreakers was huge. Yeah, I can echo this sentiment since both games I've played of Argent have been made or broken on the winning tiebreaker. That said, having now played Argent twice, I really like its presentation but I can't for the life of me figure out any actual strategy to the game beyond the very very general, if there is any at all because it's hard to tell beneath the seven layers of mechanics. It's kinda killing my fun with the game because the game absolutely does not move fast enough to be played as like strategy-lite like 7 Wonders but seems too random and bloated to really warrant the longer playtime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:What do I need to know in order to crush my friends at our first game of Argent: The Consortium? Every map has something in short supply. Try to get whatever is in short supply. As mentioned before, supporters/secret supporters are fantastic to grab, as you are guaranteed one vote if you have the most and can get more votes from school dominance. To that end, I also like pursuing research since there are tons of votes linked with int/wis/schools/research, so you're almost guaranteed to hit something. Get marks early and often, and also try to do well on IP. Winning it is obviously best, but it can be worth forgoing IP to ensure that you get a couple of other votes instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Played Welcome to the Dungeon for one round, which isn't really enough to make a decisive judgement on the game. Also played Le Havre, which I really enjoyed and I'm actually starting to like more than Agricola (although I wish we had played 3 player) and also played a game of Through the Ages, which I won by 3 points. It was a very aggressive game with lots of wars going around as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
snuff posted:I feel the exact same ways, I would rather play Skull, or Love Letter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Well I just ordered Fields of Arle and KeyFlower from GamingBliss for under $100 US shipped. Not to bad! My wife couldn't have groaned louder or rolled her eyes harder when I showed her Fields of Arle..
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
So I played Archipelago today and I was pretty underwhelmed. The rules for all the systems (different markets, changing prices, exploration, action discs, etc.) are all interesting and cool... but after the first few rounds, when I had a lead on the public card (most workers) and a lead on my private card (most ports and markets), I didn't know what I was supposed to be doing. You can't get points during the game, so I felt like I just was churning cubes and cash for no real reason. My end condition was enough workers on the board, but I bought all of mine, so I couldn't do anything else about that. And I didn't know what other end conditions might be either. So, I just kinda... churned cubes. The separatist ended up winning our 3-player, medium length game, but I don't know if it could have gone any other way - our end conditions were 27 workers (the separatist didn't buy many so we couldn't achieve that without his help) and all the explore tiles being gone (seems nearly impossible in a 3 player game). Losing to the separatist didn't really bother me though - we kinda let it sneak up on us - but feeling like I had no direction definitely did. The competition for turn order, spaces, towns, ports, etc. all seems really cool and interesting... but I never felt like I really had a motivation behind it all or an end goal. The rules are cool, and maybe it would have worked better with more players? Anyway the good that came out of it is I feel like I can take the game off my want list! burger time fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
burger time posted:So I played Archipelago today and I was pretty underwhelmed. The rules for all the systems (different markets, changing prices, exploration, action discs, etc.) are all interesting and cool... but after the first few rounds, when I had a lead on the public card (most workers) and a lead on my private card (most ports and markets), I didn't know what I was supposed to be doing. You can't get points during the game, so I felt like I just was churning cubes and cash for no real reason. My end condition was enough workers on the board, but I bought all of mine, so I couldn't do anything else about that. And I didn't know what other end conditions might be either. So, I just kinda... churned cubes. At that point you need to be a service to your group by ensuring the game doesn't end to rebellion balanced with still keeping your lead. As well as eyeballing the other secret objectives and attempting to get second or even first by diversifying. It can be hard in your first game as you sent quite sure what those goals could be as well as inexperienced players may not be doing anything that could give you a clue due to being too new. If you are playing with a bunch of experienced players you might even be able to trigger someone else's end game with some guesswork and prodding of the game board.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Mage Knight chat, is Krang's Regeneration as super good as it seems? I managed a narrow victory on points largely because of how many wounds that single skill let me shed over the course of a game. Also this was probably the first game where I've ever felt confident about taking a city and managed to take it in one turn with the only wounds going to one of my units. All in all I feel like this game was a huge learning experience for me, properly valuing movement / combo cards and managing to use them at just the right times to make things work. In the past it always felt like I was kinda faffing about the map trying to get the most cool cards, whereas now I finally got a chance to assemble some very practical cards together into a cogent whole. It'll likely be a good while before I get to play it again, but any tips for someone just starting to break into understanding the game?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Jesus, Zombicide: Black Plague raised 4 million dollars I bought it  ...to flip for a profit
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
The other day I managed to beat Mage Knight solo for the first time! And I only cheated a little bit! look it's hard okay
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Robust Laser posted:The other day I managed to beat Mage Knight solo for the first time! And I only cheated a little bit! My cheat is to not pick the level of the cities until I encounter them 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Hey fellas, got a question for ya. So I played Lords of Waterdeep today for the first time and while I enjoyed it I can already see some of the cracks. Like the leaders being kind of boring and the small, random pool of quests makes drawing them a little too luck based and really not that indicative of what leader someone has in the end. Someone we played with mentioned that there is another game that is supposedly modeled after or a lot like Lords of Waterdeep but they couldn't remember the name. Does anyone know what game they might have been thinking of, and is it an improvement? I liked the game but it just didn't seem quite sound enough on the design to really make me want to buy it myself. But if there is a game that could be described as "Lords of Waterdeep Plus" I would be very interested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Hey fellas, got a question for ya. I think most people in this thread are going to say Caylus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Hey fellas, got a question for ya. The game they are referring to is Caylus. I would suggest you instead get Agricola, it is the most superior worker placement game, and my gaming group transitioned from Lords of Waterdeep and found it to be quite smooth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Thank you, I'll look into both of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Anniversary posted:Mage Knight chat, is Krang's Regeneration as super good as it seems? I managed a narrow victory on points largely because of how many wounds that single skill let me shed over the course of a game. Any form of regeneration or healing skill is strong, because it effectively allows you to take on fights without caring about amassing Ranged or Block and will scale as you level and can take more damage. You're pretty much hitting the point where you want to start learning your own preferred 'builds'. The only thing to bear in mind is to look towards city-breaking: if you're building Attack/Block, look for cards that prevent enemies from attacking or build up both Attack and Block together. If you're building Ranged/Siege, look for cards that destroy fortifications. From that, start looking for fun combos or anything that'll flesh out one of those two categories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:32
|
|
