|
Tekopo posted:No problem, I should have made it clearer, so my apologies. We didn't play with the Abberline optional rule because it was our very first game as well, so we wanted to try base. How does Abberline improve the game? The issue was that after the first and second night I managed to lead the policemen astray pretty well, so they didn't have a clear idea of where my hideout was, and the quick-fire nature of the third and fourth round didn't allow the policemen to really do anything to prevent his loss. Abberline probably wouldn't have helped in that situation, as his benefit is to prevent Jack going for the quick sprint win; if Jack narrows his hideout location down too much, it doesn't matter where the police are because Abberline can come straight to his door. Really, though, you're seeing fault in the game because you played it correctly. You didn't win on Nights 3 and 4, you won on Night 2 when you pulled the police out of position and left them with minimal information. If they'd had more of a clue they could have started moving towards your home on Night 3 even if they couldn't catch you, and been in prime position to block you on Night 4.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
 In this example that advance order will allow the Eldar Wraithguard to move to any of those three worlds. There's no enemies on them so they can go to any of the three they want. It will NOT allow the Wraithguard to move to the world next to Iyanden. The ship can move to the void space on that square with the same advance order. The ship cannot move to the void space next to it on the same square.  In this example the Wraithguard can move only to the ice world. That is unless the ship moves to either of the void spaces. This doesn't require another advance order and essentially creates another planet in that space that you can move through, just like in the first example. Does that make sense? Taear fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
That's incorrect, since ground units may only move through friendly areas to get to their destination, starting world and destination world excepted. In your example, given the placement of the Advance Order that Wraithguard only has one possible destination (right next to Iyanden). Arranging tiles like this can make for a surprisingly effective defensive perimeter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
lordsummerisle posted:My big game purchase should come soon, and I plan on Viceroy being the first one I want to test. I see some people calling 2 of the law cards (barter policy and referendum) unbalanced and suggest removing them. Should I do this, at least for the first few games? I didn't see these in my own test play through, but yeah they do seem too strong. Referendum is massively rewarding for zero effort/cost - You'd be doing exactly what you'd already be doing over the course of the game and get ~12 vps for just having this card. Barter Policy is very strong, because you can selectively take a token that would cost an opponent 12 VP, but only "broken" if it's interpreted as something you can do repeatedly. Since it doesn't list a phase/time to use it, it seems to be an effect you can only do when you place it. I'd still remove it in a 2P game because of the potential for a 24 VP swing. Edit: Actually a possible 32 point (I think) swing if you steal a Defense token. Situational but brutal. Diosamblet fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
There is a thread about this on bgg, I believe. It was mentioned that they were promo cards that the designer created as a kickstarter bonus or something and the publisher included in the basic set, I think. So yeah, chuck em E: one example https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1406786/i-thought-kickstarter-was-clear-about-bonus-law-ca From the kickstarter: quote:$250 K Goal = +4 More Super Powerful Promo Cards Published sort of  'd this oneAlso, the f word, smdh fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Referendum is potentially good but requires you to have a decent resource base so you can keep churning out cheap cards on low levels. It's easy enough to block by taking card draw and infinity gems for yourself. Barter Policy I don't see as too bad, you only get to use it once when played and you have to pay your opponent 3 gems and one of your own tokens. Possibly can be swingy depending on what's in play but I don't think it's too bad. Then again I've only played twice so I could be missing something  EDIT: All the above assume I am remembering the cards right. Referendum is 1 point per card in your Pyramid, and Barter is swapping a token with your opponent by paying them 3 gems, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Referendum costs you nothing compared to most other sources of VP - you need the card in hand (which you may have gotten for free at the start of the game) and an available Development phase, which you weren't going to be using all of those. The rulebook even suggests that by the end game a 10vp gain on one turn is a "good turn" - but those are turns where you're using your engine/resources to pull that off. So 10+ vp right out of the gate when your opponents might get a law that gives them ~4 vp is too much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
My biggest problem with Viceroy is the law cards as a whole. I lost a game just because another player drew better ones than I did, despite me managing my pyramid and bidding much better. They seem to vary way too much in power across the board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
It really sucks when your three starting law cards are worth minor points at best, while everyone else gets economic-boosting ones and higher-scoring ones than you do. Looking at that "make the game a turn longer, which is basically a net 0 points for you" one in particular. That's really sucky when everyone else's starting cards are giving them free gems and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah there does seem to be a large variance with the law cards, they could have done with being closer in power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:That's incorrect, since ground units may only move through friendly areas to get to their destination, starting world and destination world excepted. In your example, given the placement of the Advance Order that Wraithguard only has one possible destination (right next to Iyanden). Arranging tiles like this can make for a surprisingly effective defensive perimeter. If this is the case, I've been getting it wrong in every game
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:That's incorrect, since ground units may only move through friendly areas to get to their destination, starting world and destination world excepted. In your example, given the placement of the Advance Order that Wraithguard only has one possible destination (right next to Iyanden). Arranging tiles like this can make for a surprisingly effective defensive perimeter. It can move to "any world connected by a path". It doesn't specify friendly, just so long as there's no enemy units there. It even shows that in the example. You're not right. Edit: Actually...no you are right. It says it later on. Man, why doesn't it specify that as part of the path bit of the explanation? Jesus Christ. If there were Eldar units on the other two worlds though it'd be fine to move there. Which makes it pretty mental, I don't see why uncontrolled worlds don't count as a friendly space for the purposes of moving. Actually though... surely you can move the wraithguard to one planet. Then the next. Then the next. All as part of the same advance. The rules don't say that's impossible. Therefore the move is definitely still legal. Taear fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Jabor posted:It really sucks when your three starting law cards are worth minor points at best, while everyone else gets economic-boosting ones and higher-scoring ones than you do. According to that thread, this is another one of the 4 Kickstarter cards that was acknowledged as too OP to include with the base game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
That particular facet is sort of like setting up a bulwark in Risk (and its variants) by beating up but not destroying a frontier enemy force. (Though in the latter case they can redeploy, but only once per turn.) Anyway, the relevant bits are from Moving Ground Units:quote:When one or more ground units move during an Advance Order, they are removed from their current world and placed on the destination world. There must be a legal path between the starting world and the destination world. quote:A legal path is a series of contiguous friendly areas leading to the destination world. This can include worlds and/or voids. quote:Ground units on a world adjacent to the destination world always have a legal movement path. quote:During an Advance Order, all ground units move simultaneously. This means that all legal paths are determined before moving any ground units. Edit: Taear posted:Actually though... surely you can move the wraithguard to one planet. Then the next. Then the next. All as part of the same advance. quote:During an Advance Order, all ground units move simultaneously. This means that all legal paths are determined before moving any ground units. NGDBSS fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:
You can use the advance order to move your units in the system though. So the Guard could go from world to world with no issue, at least that I can find in the rules. You'd only get stopped if there were enemies, which there are not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
That's perfectly fine so long as you use more than one Advance Order to push through, or if you have units in the system already to push further. (And you likely got them there with a previous Advance Order.  ) So in your example it would require that Wraithguard two Advance Orders to reach either world in the lower corners. One to move it into the upper right corner of the system, and then a second to either move it to the lower right or to move the voidship into the upper left corner and then move the Wraithguard through that friendly area to the lower left corner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:It should come as no surprise that I (and a few other regulars here) come from a fighting game background, where if a game doesn't hold up under rigorous deconstruction and stress, then it isn't worth playing. No other genre of gaming sports transparency of mechanics so clearly, and no other genre requires nearly as much playtesting. The worst thing in this topic area are the people who try to defend the game (or designer) by blaming people who use the broken strategies or techniques. You know, the whole "If you know about something overpowered, just don't do it," thing. I hate having to play a game where I'm supposed to guess at what is too "cheesy" and somehow limit myself from doing what the rules allow. It is not the job of the player to guess what is too strong or not. It is the job of the player to try to win within the scope permitted by the rules. It is the job of the game/designer to balance things so that a given player attempting to maximize his play does not somehow have an unfair advantage doing one particular thing, such that the game becomes mono in terms of optimal victory paths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:The worst thing in this topic area are the people who try to defend the game (or designer) by blaming people who use the broken strategies or techniques. You know, the whole "If you know about something overpowered, just don't do it," thing. I hate having to play a game where I'm supposed to guess at what is too "cheesy" and somehow limit myself from doing what the rules allow. Yeah, it's odd that this thought is so prevalent. We're supposed to be paying these people for a product and it is their job to actually make that product good. Most of that job is on game design and balance. I can see why someone would want to fix up their bad game and continue playing it though. They might not have known, fixed it instead of throwing it out, and continue using their product. But, to defend that and continue recommending it for others is weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Sirlin scrub essay seems relevant here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Sirlin scrub essay seems relevant here. It's always relevant. Every single competitive game will a very vocal faction that insists on some arbitrary honor code. Edit: There's a twitter account that does nothing but post quotes from Scrubs. It started off with fighting game focus but has since branched off into other genres. It's pretty amazing. Free Gratis fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
I'm a little late on getting onto the Argent train, but I want to parrot that this is a very good game. Everyone said it was a table hog and they were absolutely right. Even with 3 players on my big dining room table it was a tight squeeze. Honestly I was skeptical about the size since I could fit a 6 player game of TI on there with some finagling, and boy was I wrong. The other con is the AP. Oh the AP. The first round is okayish with your options limited but starting as early as round two there were some of my players who grind the game to a halt as they process the information. I blame this on being new at the game only partially, and I think it could get worse(!) as they realize what they have to consider when making their choices. But besides that, this game is gold and I should have bought this sooner. How does everyone feel about the expansion, Mancers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Its good, I've heard it described as a 'buffet style' expansion, where it just adds more things and you can pick and choose if you want to add them. Orange wizards are cool, I like the more bell tower cards despite it adding randomness. It's just more 'stuff' I feel, orange wizards are the main draw, and you're not going to be hurting for more vault cards, spells, supporters and so on. But it's not a must buy like say Eminent Domain, Escalation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
So a game that was discussed for a long time in one of the last threads was Panic Station, which is peak 'you have to have honour code in order to play this properly'. The main problem with the game was that the easiest way to win was for everyone to just become infected (the game is basically trying to model The Thing). I heard they had remade the rules and found this in one of version of them:quote:- All team members are infected (as proven by a heat scan of the base). This results in a victory for the Which I guess changes the game from 'get infected to win' to 'get infected AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE to win' 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Stegmaier did a rules overview of his new game that will get KS'ed in a few weeks called Scythe. I cannot help but be so hyped for this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Pk0Tvy64A
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
SettingSun posted:But besides that, this game is gold and I should have bought this sooner. How does everyone feel about the expansion, Mancers? It's an expansion made up of modules that either make big changes to the gameplay (like the variant scenarios) or just adds more stuff. I'm a fan of the Technomancers and new Bell cards, personally (although I always keep the "Goes first" Bell card in the rotation).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So a game that was discussed for a long time in one of the last threads was Panic Station, which is peak 'you have to have honour code in order to play this properly'. The main problem with the game was that the easiest way to win was for everyone to just become infected (the game is basically trying to model The Thing). I heard they had remade the rules and found this in one of version of them: The discussion about Panic Station led me to watch The Thing, so the game has indirectly made me slightly happier. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Further notes on Terra Mystica: Now that I've played it again, I think I'm less excited about it than I was a year ago. In a certain way, it is just like a more complicated version of Splendor. What I mean by that is that the general strategy, or route to victory, is clearly laid out to you. You must maximize your points by building in alignment with the round-based scoring tiles. The different factions mean that every player has a different optimal strategy to do this, but that does not mean that there is a lot of high level decision making. Instead, you will be focusing every round on planning out the most efficient possible method of achieving a pre-set goal. When you compare this kind of decision making to Agricola, it doesn't quite hold up. In Agricola you have to struggle to figure out a comprehensive strategy involving your cards, other players' strategies (based off of your read of them from the draft and their actions as the game goes on) and jockey for position with the start player space. In Agricola, you may have to wildly change your strategy depending on how spaces are utilized, especially in the early game. In Terra Mystica, you will possibly be racing to a space, but will more likely build in such a way that you don't have to worry about being hemmed in by other players. Now, some players will find that the resource optimization puzzle of Terra Mystica suits them well. I was personally drawn in by the appeal of the tableau-building and empire-expanding. However, I prefer games taht have multiple routes to victory and that involve more high-level strategy. "How do I want to win" instead of just "How can I most efficiently use resources in a prescribed way." Impermanent fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Um you're totally missing it on Terra Mystica if you think it's anything like Splendor. It's not. At all. And the point is to be hemmed in, depending on your faction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
What I mean to say by comparing it to Splendor is that, like Splendor, it is chiefly about the most efficient use of given resources. There's no real strategic depth to Splendor. The best players will always gain many low-point gem cards and then use those to accumulate many nobels and high point cards in the end game. Like Splendor, Terra Mystica's decision making process runs on "how do I effectively carry out a strategy" rather than "How do I come up with a strategy to win." In fact, the use of different assymetrical factions means that the game comes with a variety of prescribed strategies for you to choose from. That not all of these are very well balanced speaks to the fact that you can't really "jump the rails" and find a novel or interesting way to use a given race in TM. Impermanent fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Played some board games the other day at a cafe with five other people: Betrayal at House etc: Continues to be dull, unfun, and unbalanced. It'd be better if the game didn't take so drat long to play. Rules were misread and as a consequence the traitor had a lovely time. I had a lovely time because it's just boring. Escape: The Curse of the Hidden Temple: drat this game is fun. My only regret is not getting the big box when it was eighty bucks (in Canada). A cacophony of rolling dice and "I'm blocked!" and such. We've played it maybe eight or nine times, and have yet to bust out the Quests expansion, and only played Illusions once. I would've preferred playing something else though - if you've paid money to play games at a cafe, why not play some of their games, something new? Codenames: Thanks to Betrayal taking up so much time, we only got to play this once. Predictably, everyone loved it. I had a brilliant clue near the end of the game that should've won it for us ('March:3' for 'Penguin', 'Bugle', and 'Square') but they didn't associated Penguins with it, which made me so sad. Wanted to show Flashpoint to the people there, I think they would've enjoyed it quite a bit. It's got a bunch of flaws, but it's good for fans of Pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
The more interesting games of Terra Mystica I've played have involved highly contested cultist tracks and the network bonus. If there is no contention there, it does become pretty scripted, yep. I've become a bit jaded though to those sorts of strategies in euros. A lot of popular euros seem to feature baked in strategies that are population dependent, meaning they are an effective means to win the game but they only have room for 1 player. It's sort of a passive form of king making. For example, say a game has a corn strategy and worker strategy, where if someone prioritizes one of those strategies, picking up all the key multipliers for it uncontested, they will surely win. If you have 3 players, and 2 of them go for the corn strategy and one goes for the worker strategy, the 2 that go for the corn strategy will likely lose. This can be problematic because you can't always actively force people out of your "corn strategy." Similar to the situation in a multiplayer war game where 2 people fight and both lose position to a third person who doesn't participate in the conflict at all. This seems to be something that pops up in drafting games (including worker placement). It's like in Magic booster drafts, where veterans signaling will end up cooperating to some extent to get create better decks relative to the rest of the drafters while a more naive player might just draft all the support for the archetype you were signaling you were drafting into.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:Edit: There's a twitter account that does nothing but post quotes from Scrubs. It started off with fighting game focus but has since branched off into other genres. It's pretty amazing. Give link plz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
The Grizzled
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Codenames: Thanks to Betrayal taking up so much time, we only got to play this once. Predictably, everyone loved it. I had a brilliant clue near the end of the game that should've won it for us ('March:3' for 'Penguin', 'Bugle', and 'Square') but they didn't associated Penguins with it, which made me so sad. The toughest part of the only time I've played this so far was when I had to give a clue for "disease" that would not also apply to "doctor" or "needle". The other team won on the final round by giving "double 3" because their final 3 cards were the only ones left with double letters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:The toughest part of the only time I've played this so far was when I had to give a clue for "disease" that would not also apply to "doctor" or "needle". The other team won on the final round by giving "double 3" because their final 3 cards were the only ones left with double letters. quote:Your clue must be about the meaning of the
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:That's actually not allowed and the rule book explicitly forbids it (it is one of the firm rules): Oh no! Sorry, Captain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
The is also due to the fact that it was illustrated by someone who died in the Hebdo attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
That's good to know. It was the first time any of us had played it and we rushed through the rules. I'll put an asterisk next to it in my secret list of every defeat I have ever suffered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Stegmaier did a rules overview of his new game that will get KS'ed in a few weeks called Scythe. This overview is really interesting but boy oh boy does the single deck of combat cards seem like it might take the wind right on out of my sails.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:58
|
|