|
The Mantis posted:I finally bought Imperial Assault because I'm a big smelly nerd. Looking forward to shelling out :tenbux: every week from now on for new figs. There's a co-op variant of the game available on Boardgamegeek. I've played the Descent 2e version of it, and it seems to resolve the two problems of "whatever side starts losing keeps losing since the winner gets rewarded" and "whoever is losing loses the will to complete the campaign long before it ends" that plague Descent 1e, Descent 2e and Imperial Assault.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
medchem posted:As far as complaints about it being completely random, I highly disagree. You do have to look at the contents of the location and the closing requirements to determine who can best handle that. Don't send your big dumb warrior to the Library and have him fail getting good spells. The later campaigns and items also provide more ways to peek at the top card of the location or whatever so you can plan ahead. There are many mechanisms to buff your rolls so there are plenty of press your luck decisions. For example, my one character can set aside a weapon and blessing from his hand until the start of his next turn to buff someone else's check by 2 per card set aside. So do I spend all 3 of my blessings/weapons for +6 or stagger it out in anticipation of what others will need later? In later campaigns, they value skills and items more evenly whereas in Rise of the Runelords, you could easily ignore items, armors, stats like Constitution, etc. Of course you'll send your fighter after the location with weapon cards and your wizard to the location with spell cards. That's such extremely basic strategy it's not even worth mentioning. However, that doesn't stop your fighter from randomly drawing crappy swords or a bunch of bows. You know there are weapons in a location, but you have no idea which weapons are actually there. Maybe it's a bunch of Dex weapons and thus your barbarian is just wasting her time there. Same with spells, maybe it's a bunch of divine spells you wizard sucks at, maybe it isn't. The lone monster card in a location could be a lovely goblin or a huge giant or some random weird thing that penalizes a class for no reason at all (such as ghosts which need to be killed with spells or magic weapons). Card types like Allies and Blessings are the worst, they are basically completely random as to which stat you can use to acquire them. Also even if you're favored on a roll you can still roll a low on your dice and fail. For 60-70 bucks (and that's for a cheap/used copy?) you can get games that are much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Ugh, I actually played Exploding Kittens for the first time. It was just as terrible as the thread stated. The worst part is the game has just enough strategy (slightly more than Go Fish) to make people believe it's a good game. Sadly, even President/Scum/Kings/Warlords and Scumbags/Scumbag/Rich Man Poor Man has more decision making and tension than Exploding Kittens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:There's a co-op variant of the game available on Boardgamegeek. I've played the Descent 2e version of it, and it seems to resolve the two problems of "whatever side starts losing keeps losing since the winner gets rewarded" and "whoever is losing loses the will to complete the campaign long before it ends" that plague Descent 1e, Descent 2e and Imperial Assault. That variant can also be played solo. Someone made a handy web app that replaces the printed cards. https://ae.couchoud.com maybe? I'm on my phone so. There's also a more pared down/streamlined variant by the same guy that does a better(?) job of just automating unit activations without anything else included. Anyway, I end up playing with it a bunch that way since my work schedule prohibits any sort of regular group meeting. Edit: I should also add that I think the way rewards are broken down in impass already goes a long way towards keeping it from being too "win-more" for either side. Hauki fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
I played Smash Up and thought it was OK despite the monkey-cheese theme. Does it hold up over time? It definitely seems like the sort of thing that wears thin on subsequent playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:I played Smash Up and thought it was OK despite the monkey-cheese theme. Does it hold up over time? It definitely seems like the sort of thing that wears thin on subsequent playthroughs. It's garbage all the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:It's garbage all the way. It seems like it's a shitload of randomness, 'gotcha!' cards, and screw the leader scenarios. Is that about right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:It seems like it's a shitload of randomness, 'gotcha!' cards, and screw the leader scenarios. Is that about right? You left out the repetitive addition every time a card gets played to see if the location pops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:You left out the repetitive addition every time a card gets played to see if the location pops. It's a shallow game that isn't great, but this takes all of 2 seconds 99% of the time, and generally you'll know if it's going to pop when you play the card, so I don't know it's that big of a deal. Some kind of counter would make it nicer though. I've only played it twice, but I thought it was fine for a light, whimsical game. I think it's good for people that don't play games a ton or for a night of drinking. There's probably better games for that, but you can say that about anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Gzuz-Kriced posted:There's probably better games for that, but you can say that about anything. There's a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one. "Sure, there's probably something better out there, but isn't there always?" I didn't resent the time I played Smash Up but it struck me as the sort of game where whether you'll even enjoy any given game of it is highly random, and god help you if you pick two themes that don't mesh well together or have fun being stuck in sucksville until someone brings things to an end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:There's a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one. "Sure, there's probably something better out there, but isn't there always?" I completely agree with your take on it and I wasn't trying to give it a ringing endorsement. It's a mediocre game but I don't regret owning it for the times it works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Hauki posted:"Well, I've got too much to comfortably fit in the box, and the insert sucks, guess I'll buy a few planos and a gun case for the figures." I have every descent monster and I was storing them in the Lair of the Wyrm box but now it's too small. I really need a recommendation for a box that will store both dragons and bandits since everything just looks too small for the former!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Went to an all-day thing yesterday (I'm just breaking into this hobby). Warmed up with exploding kittens, which was good for exactly one chuckle and I have no desire to play it again ever, and Red 7, for which I had no winning moves my first turn and so was eliminated immediately. Fortunately both games lasted only a few minutes each. Moved on to Archipelago which I heartily enjoyed despite the hours it took due to nobody at the table knowing enough to avoid having to look at the rules every 5 seconds. I could see myself really getting into it with a dedicated group full of people with enough experience to take turns quickly and move the game along. Closed out the night with Tzolk'in, which I also enjoyed, but the one experienced guy at the table slaughtered everyone mercilessly. Maybe I'll play that one with him again once I also get 20 played games and strategy research under my belt. All things considered a pretty fun day; I think I'm going to lose a lot of money to this stuff. Oh, and last week I played Munchkin with some co-workers because they had the game at work. It was loud and stupid and I won because I was the second person to try to win and everybody blew their load preventing the first guy to try to win from winning. Fun was had, I think mostly because of the alcohol and everybody just heckling each other; I'm sure there are games that encourage that kind of social interaction without the monkey-cheese humor and chaos of Munchkin. Any recommendations? Right now there's only Munchkin in the office and I'd like to maybe see about providing an alternative. Che Delilas fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Yeah, the player that came in last had 4 tax cubes and only one title I think. Barely captured any heroes. The other guy that should have come in second had 3 tax cubes also. Both of them used their imps to dig out a bunch of tunnels right before Tax Day. I was baffled by it myself. I only had one tax cube because I really needed food and thought surely someone else would get food first. I did it as my last action, but still had to pay 1 gold for 2 food. It wasn't worth it. Yeah, the winning player did pretty much everything right. She waited till after Tax Day and then dug out a bunch of tunnels with her massive army of imps to win that title. She kept plenty of gold on hand by using her army of imps again to find gold. The Magic Room is just really good! Only thing she fell short on was food. Used it all up to feed her monsters and couldn't pump up the troll during combat. Didn't matter, she didn't have a wizard to cast the shrink spell, so it was fine. I had the Mint production room and kept it safe throughout, but it sort of under performs compared to the dig for gold action. Wish I could have gotten the Mushroom farm instead, but I picked second. Mint is better than you're giving it credit for, mostly because it's a passive money source as long as you have imps to spend on it - no competing for a slot in the mining action and you don't potentially lose access to it if you use it like mining. In year 2 you can also use production rooms twice per season if you have the imps for it, so you may not even have to bother mining at all, which saves you from using an action on it, letting you do other more important things with your minions instead of trying to mine. All the production rooms are very useful in what they help you not have to spend a minion on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Can't link as I'm on my phone, but could someone please look at the Tabletopia kickstarter? There's something about it that is ringing alarm bells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
This? I hope this isn't another Hasbro discussion...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
That's the one, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Their example contract has a botched up calculation for revenue share. Their intention seems reasonable - if you put your game in the paid section, it gets a share of revenue proportional to its share of playtime vs. other paid games - but the actual calculation says ... something else. It seems like a reasonable contract though, except for the paying them a monthly fee up-front for the privilege of creating content for them. As for the product, it's basically Vassal or Tabletop Simulator or BGA or whatever with a shiny interface. If it turns out to be worth using, it'll be entirely down to the quality of games on the service (the storage space they're allotting to creators doesn't fill me with a lot of hope for high-quality art assets showing up though) and them getting publishers on board with it. I don't think their claims of an "easy to use" creator are that meaningful - odds are anything more complicated than "import picture, stick onto predefined game object" is going to be just as much of a pain in the rear end as it is on any other service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
This isn't covered in the OP, so I'm going to throw it out here: does anyone have recommendations for a good game that young kids (4-6) can play? Ideally I would like to find a decent game that is open to kids, meaning something that I can also have fun with while we're playing. For added difficulty, a game that is collaborative or at least not directly adversarial would be best. As background, someone gave me a copy of Legendary, and when my son saw the box he asked about it and then wanted to play it with me. I decided that it would probably be easier to start setting up and let him get bored of it instead of trying to tell him it was over his head (he is 4). Surprisingly he made it all the way through setup and we even 'played' several turns before we ran out of time. The game is obviously way over him in terms reading level and overall complexity, but he was really committed to trying to play it and before we quit he had gotten a grip on the turn sequence and the whole deck-hand-discard card system. With this in mind I want to find an alternative game that is better suited for his age/ability, but I have no idea what that might be. I think the fact that it is a collaborative game was a big help for both of us, which is why I want to find another collaborative option. I thought that something like Settlers or Carcassone would be possible because they don't rely on text and aren't too abstracted, they're just lacking the collaborative aspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
RE: Tabletopia It looks like a great design, and by all accounts they have a completely functional client that works. So at the very least there will be a product at the end of the kickstarter. Their problem though, is they're trying to monetize it as a service, and that's going to be very difficult. I think they'll have a hard time getting a critical mass of $10/mo users to keep it afloat and make it attractive to publishers to put content on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:This isn't covered in the OP, so I'm going to throw it out here: does anyone have recommendations for a good game that young kids (4-6) can play? Ideally I would like to find a decent game that is open to kids, meaning something that I can also have fun with while we're playing. For added difficulty, a game that is collaborative or at least not directly adversarial would be best. In my experience, at their age the goal shouldn't be following the rules as much as making it an enjoyable experience. My daughter is 6 and we started trying to play stuff when she was 5. The IELLO Tales games went over well, specifically Three Little Pigs and Hare & Tortoise. We didn't worry about the specific rules of H&T, she got the idea that putting down cards made the animals move and after a while we started explaining in more detail. Three Little Pigs she gets completely, she just prefers to try to blow down houses rather than win. Magic Labyrinth Junior worked really well, and I've butchered the rules of Rallyman and X-Wing to something she could understand and enjoy. Also, Sorry Sliders! and Loopin' Louie both rule as games for kids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Sat down yesterday to play a beta copy of Minutes to Midnight with the designer, Brandon Tibbs, at a local Chicago meetup. The game is a sort-of sequel to The Manhattan Project - instead of playing as rival nations trying to develop nuclear missiles, you play as rival nations trying to build up the most impressive nuclear arsenals. It’s a heavier euro that would probably take most groups between 2 and 4 hours to play, like Vinhos or Kanban. I haven’t played The Manhattan Project, but the game does share some traits with that game. Namely, an immense amount of direct, “take-that” style competition that isn’t common to euros. Minutes to Midnight is a heavy worker placement tableau builder with mild bluffing elements, some resource conversion, plenty of direct player interaction, and multiple paths to victory. If you’re Broken Loose and can’t stand even the slightest element of random chance in your games, don’t worry - the central market mechanic in The Manhattan Project is gone, replaced with a central board with buildings that become more expensive to purchase as they are bought (think the Major Improvements in Agricola.) Over the course of the game you’ll build factories, ICBM silos, ABM defence stations, research centers, test sites and reactors to produce nuclear warheads, subs and bombers. You can also station nukes off of specific players’ adjacent third world nations. All methods of deploying nukes increase your score, and if you threaten any player with more nukes than they have ABMs, they lose a bonus they would get (effectively giving them a penalty.) In many ways it plays like a heavier Keyflower without the auction element. One element of the strategy, for example, comes from the management of spies, which are specialized workers you can acquire through the game. Spies can’t work your own buildings, but they can work other players' buildings. I was able to get through the entire game without building a single research center, and instead sent my spies to other players’ research facilities in order to level up my ICBMs. With 5 relatively new players it was a fairly tight finish. The top 3 players all came within 2 or 3 points of each other despite taking very different victory conditions. My girlfriend wound up winning by pursuing a strategy of always having enough ABM stations to get all defence bonuses, detonating test sites for points, and stationing as many nukes as possible on other players’ third world nations. My chosen strategy, which was to go all-in on ICBM stations, was a little underpowered. (Brandon said that he would be slightly increasing the points value of having the most ICBMs.) However, it felt like I could have won had I played the early game more efficiently. I’m super excited about the game and Brandon is a real nice guy. There are a couple of little neat touches in the game design, like the fact that scoring happens in phases for each type of nuclear weapon in phases throughout the game, and then again at the end, which keeps players in direct competition for resources. The game is listed on BGG if you’re interested in reading the prototype rules or talking to the designer. Impermanent fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Mint is better than you're giving it credit for, mostly because it's a passive money source as long as you have imps to spend on it - no competing for a slot in the mining action and you don't potentially lose access to it if you use it like mining. In year 2 you can also use production rooms twice per season if you have the imps for it, so you may not even have to bother mining at all, which saves you from using an action on it, letting you do other more important things with your minions instead of trying to mine. All the production rooms are very useful in what they help you not have to spend a minion on. Well it was fine. I did get 6 imps so I could use it twice during year two. I just think having a food production room would have worked out better for me. You can mine for gold and plenty of gold with an action. With the food action I generally had to give up one gold for two food because other players weren't using it much. I guess you could say I used my 3 imps to get one gold and then used an action to trade that in for 2 food. I would have prefered to use no action and used imps to collect the food so I could have used my actions for other stuff. The Mint did come in handy one turn though. Everyone had the mining action available and taxes was next turn. I just saved my imps and used the Mint instead because I went last and would have been unable to get a spot to mine gold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Well it was fine. I did get 6 imps so I could use it twice during year two. I just think having a food production room would have worked out better for me. You can mine for gold and plenty of gold with an action. With the food action I generally had to give up one gold for two food because other players weren't using it much. I guess you could say I used my 3 imps to get one gold and then used an action to trade that in for 2 food. I would have prefered to use no action and used imps to collect the food so I could have used my actions for other stuff. The Mint did come in handy one turn though. Everyone had the mining action available and taxes was next turn. I just saved my imps and used the Mint instead because I went last and would have been unable to get a spot to mine gold. The most gold you can get with a mining action is 4 and that requires four different tunnels and 5 Imps. The most food you can get with a food action is 3 and that just requires getting the second spot. If both food rooms got bought and your fellow Dungeon Lords weren't using the food action, that would make sense, but sometimes that happens. You can't really blame your lack of food economy on the other players not using the action. As for the pre-tax turn, there's no reason to assume that all three other players are going to put Mine Gold as the first spot, especially the first player. You could have easily put Mine Gold first, gotten the second spot and kept someone else from mining. Having the gold room meant you didn't need to, but it was still possible. Going last is actually the best position. Going first sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:RE: Tabletopia It'll be some monstrous f2p system within 6 months. "You've used up all your turns for today, pay $.99 to take another turn NOW!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not really interested in paying a monthly subscription to play virtual board games. If it were a decent interface that did more of an app-store model where you pay, say $5 for access to a specific game and the designers just get royalties based on what people buy of theirs I would be more hopeful for their future. Also lol at paying $20 a month to make content for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I got to play some Arctic Scavengers, and while it is not a Dominion-killer that most people claim every new deck builder that comes out is, I definitely like it as an alternative. Dominion works best as a two player game, for people who don't mind chillaxing and playing multiplayer solitaire with a tiny splash of interaction. Scavengers definitely the opposite, especially for who seemed to dislike the former in Dominion. The game plays best with 3+ up to 5 players, and each round is tense as you see people going all-in for the final brawl per round, maybe bluffing about it, or etc. The only gripe I have about the game is that it ends suddenly, but I think that is how most deck builders are like. At least with this one there do not seem to be many worthless VP cards, as everything seems to count. I played with most of the HQ expansion enabled, just not buildings. The leader cards with their special ability to trash crap cards for a benefit definitely helped, along with the single Recon expansion card of Provocateur that helped equalize end-turn brawls out of the blue if you get stuck with non-fighty cards in a turn. I definitely like it, and I am glad I am friends who feel the same way about Dominion versus this game as I do. I also liked that it didn't have a loving market row of random chance like other deck builders use a crutch (Star Realms).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Hauki posted:Yeah, I'm not really interested in paying a monthly subscription to play virtual board games. If it were a decent interface that did more of an app-store model where you pay, say $5 for access to a specific game and the designers just get royalties based on what people buy of theirs I would be more hopeful for their future. Also lol at paying $20 a month to make content for them. Bottom Liner posted:It'll be some monstrous f2p system within 6 months. "You've used up all your turns for today, pay $.99 to take another turn NOW!" This. I'm down with the technology but gently caress the business model. Yeah I'm gonna pay a loving subscription on a table in my house. In John Madden gonna sell it to me?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:This. I'm down with the technology but gently caress the business model. Will it include live John Madden commenting? Like, during dominion he'll just say how the winner is the team with the most victory points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
I'm down with Netflix board games, but requiring people to pay money to create content for their workshop is idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:This isn't covered in the OP, so I'm going to throw it out here: does anyone have recommendations for a good game that young kids (4-6) can play? Ideally I would like to find a decent game that is open to kids, meaning something that I can also have fun with while we're playing. For added difficulty, a game that is collaborative or at least not directly adversarial would be best. There's a Wits and Wagers family edition that simplifies the questions and scoring to where a 6 year old could play and have fun. That's a fun way to learn betting strategies. Depending on the kids, you could put together a good game of Dixit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Oh, and last week I played Munchkin with some co-workers because they had the game at work. It was loud and stupid and I won because I was the second person to try to win and everybody blew their load preventing the first guy to try to win from winning. Fun was had, I think mostly because of the alcohol and everybody just heckling each other; I'm sure there are games that encourage that kind of social interaction without the monkey-cheese humor and chaos of Munchkin. Any recommendations? Right now there's only Munchkin in the office and I'd like to maybe see about providing an alternative. Well, if you're just looking for something light then Lost Legacy and Love Letter are really good. They're light and fast, but there's a good bit of strategy in there too. If you really want banter then your group might enjoy some hidden role games where they can throw accusations at each other and the Resistance is the gold standard for that. One Night Ultmiate Werewolf is more wild and random; I'm personally a big fan of it, but public opinion is a little more divided. Coup is another really good game that sits somewhere between Love Letter/Lost Legacy and The Resistance/ONUW, simple to play but you'll see it quickly transition to serious strategy and mind-games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:The most gold you can get with a mining action is 4 and that requires four different tunnels and 5 Imps. The most food you can get with a food action is 3 and that just requires getting the second spot. If both food rooms got bought and your fellow Dungeon Lords weren't using the food action, that would make sense, but sometimes that happens. You can't really blame your lack of food economy on the other players not using the action. Yeah, I'm sure I could have done things better. I might have been trying to avoid evil a bit too much. Mainly because my first year dungeon was terrible, so I wanted to avoid getting stronger heroes. I spent most of the first year looking up rules and then having people pissed if I looked at my options for more than 30 seconds since they were already done. I never did get beyond the first slot in food. We had one guy going all in on evil, so he required no food. I think I missed the part where the evil meter has a cap, so he could have lost some monsters if he had no more evil to give. Not really sure on that, since we didn't notice that you lose an evil when your tiles are conquered and he was the one that ended up with 7 conquered tiles. Another player was going all traps, he was screwed in the first year too by getting two Rogues. In the second year he should have bought the Labyrinth, but didn't even use that action since he figured we would hate draft it away from him. No one did, it went unsold. Yeah, he's the one that ended up with -5 points. Lastly the player that won had the Magic Room to make imps and one of the food rooms to make food, so she didn't bother with the food order either. The other food room was bought by the evil player, but it got conquered during the first year's combat. I made lots of mistakes I'm sure. Hopefully we can play it again next time now that everyone knows the rules. Just got to remember to lower evil when rooms are conquered and to watch out for the evil cap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Fenn the Fool! posted:Well, if you're just looking for something light then Lost Legacy and Love Letter are really good. They're light and fast, but there's a good bit of strategy in there too. If you really want banter then your group might enjoy some hidden role games where they can throw accusations at each other and the Resistance is the gold standard for that. One Night Ultmiate Werewolf is more wild and random; I'm personally a big fan of it, but public opinion is a little more divided. Coup is another really good game that sits somewhere between Love Letter/Lost Legacy and The Resistance/ONUW, simple to play but you'll see it quickly transition to serious strategy and mind-games. Play Skull. It's dirt simple, quick, and exactly the sort of game that does well with heckling, accusations, and some social drinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Yeah, I'm sure I could have done things better. I might have been trying to avoid evil a bit too much. Mainly because my first year dungeon was terrible, so I wanted to avoid getting stronger heroes. I spent most of the first year looking up rules and then having people pissed if I looked at my options for more than 30 seconds since they were already done. I never did get beyond the first slot in food. We had one guy going all in on evil, so he required no food. I think I missed the part where the evil meter has a cap, so he could have lost some monsters if he had no more evil to give. Not really sure on that, since we didn't notice that you lose an evil when your tiles are conquered and he was the one that ended up with 7 conquered tiles. Another player was going all traps, he was screwed in the first year too by getting two Rogues. In the second year he should have bought the Labyrinth, but didn't even use that action since he figured we would hate draft it away from him. No one did, it went unsold. Yeah, he's the one that ended up with -5 points. Lastly the player that won had the Magic Room to make imps and one of the food rooms to make food, so she didn't bother with the food order either. The other food room was bought by the evil player, but it got conquered during the first year's combat. I made lots of mistakes I'm sure. Hopefully we can play it again next time now that everyone knows the rules. Just got to remember to lower evil when rooms are conquered and to watch out for the evil cap. The Magic Room is really really good. Honestly every first year room is really good. Most second year rooms are really good. Basically what I'm saying is rooms are great. Until they're conquered and you lose 4 points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
I think I might be interested in a subscription if I could give 3 guest passes out or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Yeah, I'm sure I could have done things better. I might have been trying to avoid evil a bit too much. Mainly because my first year dungeon was terrible, so I wanted to avoid getting stronger heroes. I spent most of the first year looking up rules and then having people pissed if I looked at my options for more than 30 seconds since they were already done. I never did get beyond the first slot in food. We had one guy going all in on evil, so he required no food. I think I missed the part where the evil meter has a cap, so he could have lost some monsters if he had no more evil to give. Not really sure on that, since we didn't notice that you lose an evil when your tiles are conquered and he was the one that ended up with 7 conquered tiles. Another player was going all traps, he was screwed in the first year too by getting two Rogues. In the second year he should have bought the Labyrinth, but didn't even use that action since he figured we would hate draft it away from him. No one did, it went unsold. Yeah, he's the one that ended up with -5 points. Lastly the player that won had the Magic Room to make imps and one of the food rooms to make food, so she didn't bother with the food order either. The other food room was bought by the evil player, but it got conquered during the first year's combat. I made lots of mistakes I'm sure. Hopefully we can play it again next time now that everyone knows the rules. Just got to remember to lower evil when rooms are conquered and to watch out for the evil cap. That's a really common thing that people miss. Also, it sounds like some of the players stuck with losing strategies instead of adapting. A real basic strategy is to go monster-strong if you are facing rogues and trap-strong if you are facing clerics (since clerics only heal when they face a monster, not when they only face a trap). It doesn't always work, but the reason you get to see the heroes ahead of time is so that you can plan your defenses accordingly. Also, sometimes there is a really big jump in hero effectiveness, at which point it can be a good idea to lower your evil score (since beating up a really strong non-paladin hero gets you the same amount of points as a really weak one).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:This isn't covered in the OP, so I'm going to throw it out here: does anyone have recommendations for a good game that young kids (4-6) can play? Ideally I would like to find a decent game that is open to kids, meaning something that I can also have fun with while we're playing. For added difficulty, a game that is collaborative or at least not directly adversarial would be best. If you're into quick reactions, kids are crazy good at Ghost Blitz when they get the hang of it, and I'm sure that's possible. Sushi Go should also be reasonably simple to learn, and if they get comfortable with it, you could move up to 7 Wonders in a couple of years maybe. Maybe check out Travel Blog too, it's educational too, but the kids will have to study the maps a bit and I guess they need to read the cards too. Oh, and Bunny Bunny Moose Moose, possibly with you just being the narrator a lot. But having kids pull funny faces and pretend to be rabbits should be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
I just played Eminent Domain with the expansion for the first time. Seems pretty cool, but we hit an issue that I haven't been able to find an official solution to. What happens when the Colonize stack is empty, a player leads the role and wants to add colonies to a planet? You're supposed to tuck the colonize card under the planet but the stack is empty so that's not really possible. Do you just use some placeholder?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Electric Hobo posted:I just played Eminent Domain with the expansion for the first time. Seems pretty cool, but we hit an issue that I haven't been able to find an official solution to. What happens when the Colonize stack is empty, a player leads the role and wants to add colonies to a planet? You're supposed to tuck the colonize card under the planet but the stack is empty so that's not really possible. Do you just use some placeholder? You still use it the same way but no longer get the bonus colonize card from the stack. Sloober fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:33
|
|