|
I also played IRL Codenames over the weekend, and it does indeed kick arse. We did have a couple of rules questions. The first was how exactly you're supposed to judge if a translation is direct or not. I guess that's just the name of the game when playing in foreign. The other one was this: The card was "tap" and the clue was "administration personnel" (or rather the Danish slightly better sounding version of that). The thing is that "TAP" is a university acronym for "technical/administrative personnel", so it felt like using an acronym, but in a weird backwards way. But again: The game was great fun, even with four players and just one team. I look forward to trying it with 6+ though. Also: Picking starting players in a thematic way is the best  . We usually houserule something if the game doesn't have a good rule. Rules like "oldest player" and "last attended university" suck because they're static though, so we usually houserule those too, so for instance "who was last on university grounds" or something. We played Cappuccino the other day, and the obvious starting player was the last person to have had coffee. Worked great.And here's an example list of games and starting rules: Mage Knight: Whoever last burned something Dominion: Whoever last watched and episode of DS9 Colt Express: Whoever was last on a train Dungeon Lords: Whoever was a dick last Tash-Kalar: Whoever last did stuff with clay Final note: Board game cafés and cloth bags are not a great combination. We picked up Roll for the Galaxy, opened the box and immediately decided against playing it. The sweaty stench was just horrible.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
The End posted:An Advance Order permits one move for each unit, from the departure point to its destination. The move is via a legal path through friendly areas to the destination area. As all units are moved simultaneously, the neutral system only becomes friendly as all units arrive. I know we're beating this question to death, but one advance order would allow you to capture an uncontrolled planet in the active system AND initiate combat in the same system, right? I guess the basic rule is you can only move your poo poo into ONE hostile planet/void. It's obviously simultaneous so (on the same move) you could NOT move through the planet you just captured.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
I like seeing what the first player decision is in the books for every game i play, but in my experience the first player will be the same one every time you play with the same group, since they usually involve relatively uncommon or unchanging things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Played Five Tribes for the second time yesterday. Found out we read the rules wrong the first time in regards to viziers. "10 points per player you have more viziers than", not "10 points if you have the most viziers". Suddenly they seemed much better, and almost broken. But I think it balances quite well, giving all players something to try to keep up with. Still enjoy the game a lot, though knowing what to do can be quite confusing/AP-inducing. I just love the feeling of picking up colored meeples and moving them around the board, dropping them off one at a time. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
The Mantis posted:I know we're beating this question to death, but one advance order would allow you to capture an uncontrolled planet in the active system AND initiate combat in the same system, right? I guess the basic rule is you can only move your poo poo into ONE hostile planet/void. But an uncontrolled world isn't actually hostile, so it doesn't count as capturing something. It's not like walking into a place that only has an enemy building - that's specifically a hostile action and would mean you stop. I say that because each thing is treated differently in the rules. If you consider an uncontrolled world as something you're capturing then maybe but again it's not said in the rules. And I know we're beating it to death but it does significantly affect gameplay. Taear fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
I installed chwazi but then I put it to 2, put two fingers on it, and it just spun around and neither was chosen. What am I doing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I installed chwazi but then I put it to 2, put two fingers on it, and it just spun around and neither was chosen. What am I doing wrong? 2 means it will choose two. It autodetects the number of fingers. But since it can also be used for "who goes into the mating shed", choosing more than one is a good feature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I installed chwazi but then I put it to 2, put two fingers on it, and it just spun around and neither was chosen. What am I doing wrong? The interface is a bit confusing. The number represents how many you'd like the app to pic. Set it to 1!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
During an advance order, the order is resolved in order: 1. Ship moves 2. Ground moves 3. Combat in the one permitted contested area or Orbital Strike. From the Rules Reference: Page 8 quote:A player may move ground units to worlds in the active system 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. Implying that the destination(s) is selected at the point of resolving the move order, and that there is a legal path extant between starting world and destination. quote:» A legal path is a series of contiguous friendly areas leading to the destination world. This can include worlds and/or voids. Contiguous meaning unbroken and in FS, orthogonally adjacent. Note that worlds are friendly when already containing your units or structures, voids are friendly when containing your ships. quote:» The destination world must be in the active system. quote:» Ground units on a world adjacent to the destination world always have a legal movement path. quote:» Ground units cannot move through a contested, uncontrolled, or enemy void. Now, this is probably the wording you're fixated on. Whilst the rules don't explicitly say "Ground units cannot move through an uncontrolled area" in this line, the preceding rule "A legal path is a series of contiguous friendly areas leading to the destination world." applies already, and an uncontrolled world is not friendly until the advance order is finished. quote:» During an Advance Order, all ground units move simultaneously. This means that all legal paths are determined before moving any ground units. This line is the kicker. The path is determined before the units are moved. The area switches from uncontrolled to friendly at the end of the resolution of the order. quote:• A ground unit must end its movement on a world. One more time quote:From Areas, page 3 And from the Learn to Play book, page 10 quote:MOVING GROUND UNITS Page 2 of Rules Reference quote:THE GOLDEN RULES You can occupy multiple uncontrolled planet areas in a single advance, but they both have to be accessible from the pre-existing path at the start of the order. You can also occupy an uncontrolled planet and start a land combat, but once again, each world needs to be adjacent to a friendly planet area or a freshly occupied void space during that advance order. If you need a reason to understand why voids can be freshly occupied, there are two: 1. Ship movement is resolved first. (rules) 2. Warships are faster than carrier fleets. (theme) It's unambiguous if you can read. The End fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
BonHair posted:2 means it will choose two. It autodetects the number of fingers. But since it can also be used for "who goes into the mating shed", choosing more than one is a good feature. Ahh, okay. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Dungeon Lords: Whoever was a dick last It's a bit unfair that whoever suggested playing the game always goes first, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
And again, in all of what you've quoted it doesn't say that I cannot move my unit to an uncontrolled world then move it again to the next world along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Taear posted:And again, in all of what you've quoted it doesn't say that I cannot move my unit to an uncontrolled world then move it again to the next world along. It does state this, just not in the specific combination of words to penetrate your skull. There is no legal path. For it to be a legal move there must be. Note the past tense indicating a preexisting state. How do you not understand this? The End fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
The order is resolved like this: 1. Advance order selected. 2. Ship moves are resolved. 3. Ground Unit step - (imagine this resolves concurrently for all ground units moving, though you would obviously go step by step irl) Starting unit/s selected. Destination area identified. Path legality is checked based on board state at the start of this step. Move is resolved. 3. Contested area resolved 4. Ownership of areas flip to new status. The rules don't explicitly rule out melting enemy units with a high powered laser pointer either, but I'd say it's not part of the game. You need to understand that if an action isn't specifically permitted in the rules (in boardgame rules in general!), it's not up to you to go colour in the margins, unless there is ambiguity. In this instance, there clearly isn't. The End fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
The End posted:Forbidden stars As a 3rd party observer to this argument, your logic is very good and well delineated, but your instance on adding an insult to the end of each post is pretty off putting and belittling. You can debate him without speaking down to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:As a 3rd party observer to this argument, your logic is very good and well delineated, but your instance on adding an insult to the end of each post is pretty off putting and belittling. You can debate him without speaking down to him. Sure I can. I chose not to. Welcome to Something Awful. It can be combative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
It's warranted in the case anyway. Taear is being terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's a bit unfair that whoever suggested playing the game always goes first, isn't it? This may be controversial, but maybe don't play hour-long games that you don't enjoy? I mean, I get sitting in on 7 Wonders or Red7 even though you don't enjoy them, because they take very little time and if it makes someone happy, why not? But sitting through an unenjoyable two hour game seems like too much, and you'll probably drag the atmosphere down by being negative the whole time. Sloober posted:I like seeing what the first player decision is in the books for every game i play, but in my experience the first player will be the same one every time you play with the same group, since they usually involve relatively uncommon or unchanging things. This is bad first player rule design. Good design is both thematic and changing. Small World: Underground actually fixes this from the original Small World, which is the only good change in that game. Instead of "pointiest ears", which is genetic and unchanging (unless your group LARPs I guess), Underground has "whoever was last underground", which is a pretty good changing rule. Of course both of those are kind of subjective, especially what counts as underground, so they're not really that good. But neither is Small World, so... We actually houseruled Hanabi from "last to ignite fireworks" to "last to strike a match" because we are cheapskates who only get drunk on New Years Eve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
BonHair, it's another 'Jedit doesn't like Vlaada' joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
lordsummerisle posted:Played Five Tribes for the second time yesterday. Found out we read the rules wrong the first time in regards to viziers. "10 points per player you have more viziers than", not "10 points if you have the most viziers". Suddenly they seemed much better, and almost broken. But I think it balances quite well, giving all players something to try to keep up with. Still enjoy the game a lot, though knowing what to do can be quite confusing/AP-inducing. I just love the feeling of picking up colored meeples and moving them around the board, dropping them off one at a time. Good times. Whoa, are you sure about that? In the one game I played, I grabbed the djinn who makes viziers worth 3 points a piece instead of just 1. I then (obviously) grabbed more viziers than anyone else, but we scored the bonus as a straight +10. I came in third with scores something like 98, 95, 94, 88 (which impressed us as surprisingly balanced considering we were all first time players). If your reading is correct, I would have crushed that game just because I was fortunate enough to stumble on an overpowered mechanic. Of course, there are counters to this tactic--other people grabbing up viziers first or everybody using assassins against mine--but that rule still seems unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
I just use a randomiser app on my phone where people choose a colour and it spins round  If it's a game I'm teaching to new players I'll usually suggest a start player such that the new players get to see another player's turn happen first. I'll always ask first though ("Does anyone mind if I go first so the new players can see how a turn works?") and I've never had any problems with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
The End posted:It does state this, just not in the specific combination of words to penetrate your skull. There is no legal path. For it to be a legal move there must be. Note the past tense indicating a preexisting state. How do you not understand this? Look, it's entirely possible that Taear is a Time Lord, and so while the concept of performing sequential moves simultaneously is a physical impossibility for us, we must be open to the possibility that (and I really don't know why FFG didn't include rules to capture this) future or past elements of board game pieces could exist concurrently with the present ones. Furthermore, the non-linear time sequence isn't creating any paradoxes, because the capacity to perform the temporal manoeuvre is simply predicated on a future successful partial execution of it. It's like you've never played Day of the Tentacle. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:Whoa, are you sure about that? In the one game I played, I grabbed the djinn who makes viziers worth 3 points a piece instead of just 1. I then (obviously) grabbed more viziers than anyone else, but we scored the bonus as a straight +10. I came in third with scores something like 98, 95, 94, 88 (which impressed us as surprisingly balanced considering we were all first time players). If your reading is correct, I would have crushed that game just because I was fortunate enough to stumble on an overpowered mechanic. It's definitely 10 points for each player you have more yellows than. Note that this goes for all players, so unless the player on 88 was also the player with the second most Viziers you still wouldn't have won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:Whoa, are you sure about that? In the one game I played, I grabbed the djinn who makes viziers worth 3 points a piece instead of just 1. I then (obviously) grabbed more viziers than anyone else, but we scored the bonus as a straight +10. I came in third with scores something like 98, 95, 94, 88 (which impressed us as surprisingly balanced considering we were all first time players). If your reading is correct, I would have crushed that game just because I was fortunate enough to stumble on an overpowered mechanic. He's correct, it's +10 for each player who had fewer than you. So the player with an untied majority in a 4 player game will have +30, in addition to the face value of 1/ea. Next most player will have +20, then +10, and lastly no bonus. It's worth teaching new players that of all the tribes, everyone should be collecting Viziers, in addition to whatever else your strategy might be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Taear posted:And again, in all of what you've quoted it doesn't say that I cannot move my unit to an uncontrolled world then move it again to the next world along. It seems unambiguous to me, but if it still doesn't to you, why don't you email FFG and ask for a ruling? They often respond. Arguing about an interpretation of the rules here is not really going to accomplish anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Re: Cheesy meta clues in Codenames, the rules explicitly say the clue must be about the MEANING of the codename. All these cheese clues are illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:Look, it's entirely possible that Taear is a Time Lord, and so while the concept of performing sequential moves simultaneously is a physical impossibility for us, we must be open to the possibility that (and I really don't know why FFG didn't include rule to capture this) future or past elements of board game pieces could exist concurrently with the present ones. Furthermore, the non-linear time sequence isn't creating any paradoxes, because the capacity to perform the temporal manoeuvre is simply predicated on a future successful partial execution of it. Something I've learned from time spent on BoardGameGeek is that board gamers have an amazing ability to take identically worded rulebooks and yet come up with vastly different interpretations. Some that I remember include: - Building the player deck in Pandemic and simply shuffling the Epidemics through the whole deck, then complaining the game is too easy (all the epidemics went to the bottom) or too hard (all the epidemics were at the top). - Not randomising roles in Pandemic, choosing Medic and Scientist every time, and wondering why the game is too easy. - In 7 Wonders, having each player choose their card and keep it face down in front of them, and then only actually playing the cards after the draft and wondering why the game feels "weird" and "without strategy". - In Scoville, misinterpreting "$3 is worth 1VP at game end" for "players may at, at any point during the game, pay $3 for 1VP". When pointed out that it's wrong, go on some sort of rant about "double dipping". - "Starting food" in Agricola is dealt out at the start of every round, not just the game start. Similarly, if you take Starting Player in one round then you must take it in the next round. - Quantum, ships must be moved an exact number of spaces equal to their pips, no more, no less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:BonHair, it's another 'Jedit doesn't like Vlaada' joke. And my contractual obligation to this thread is fulfilled once more. (I was thinking of Dungeon Petz, though.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:Whoa, are you sure about that? In the one game I played, I grabbed the djinn who makes viziers worth 3 points a piece instead of just 1. I then (obviously) grabbed more viziers than anyone else, but we scored the bonus as a straight +10. I came in third with scores something like 98, 95, 94, 88 (which impressed us as surprisingly balanced considering we were all first time players). If your reading is correct, I would have crushed that game just because I was fortunate enough to stumble on an overpowered mechanic. The rules do a really bad job of explaining it. If ever a scoring rule needed an example accompanying it in the rules, this is it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
BonHair posted:This may be controversial, but maybe don't play hour-long games that you don't enjoy? I mean, I get sitting in on 7 Wonders or Red7 even though you don't enjoy them, because they take very little time and if it makes someone happy, why not? But sitting through an unenjoyable two hour game seems like too much, and you'll probably drag the atmosphere down by being negative the whole time. I was talking to a friend of mine about first player rules and he mentioned small world underground's, which to me is moot since we play at my place or his and both of our play areas are in basements which both of us consider underground. Since my group is routine and the same people, even rules like Terra Mystica's flower bed rule will produce the same person every time (me). Others like even Forbidden Island's 'last on an island' doesn't change since we're in wisconsin and there's not a whole lot of islands around here to go to, so it's always from his stint in the navy. Argent's last to attend a uni class will again produce the same person. That's sort of why I don't pay much attention to first player rules beyond looking at what dumb thing was picked, and will just random or volunteer it off each time. I still like seeing what it is for a given game, if for no reason other than seeing how obscure or difficult to fulfill/change it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
So, the viticulture essential edition preorder period ends in about 12 hours, and I'm thinking about jumping on board, but I have some questions for people who've played it. What's the heaviness of the game, is it a gateway game or not, and does it feel like it fills a special niche?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
burger time posted:So, the viticulture essential edition preorder period ends in about 12 hours, and I'm thinking about jumping on board, but I have some questions for people who've played it. What's the heaviness of the game, is it a gateway game or not, and does it feel like it fills a special niche? Midweight, I would use it as a gateway after a person has played a simpler worker placement game like Stone Age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Viticulture is great get Viticulture. I would say it's medium weight? I think it's a little deceptive actually, there's not a ton of choices to make at any given moment but a lot of things take multiple rounds to complete so there's a lot of thinking ahead. I'd say it's very much a gateway game. I think the theme is very accessible to non-gamers, and I think it's conveyed very well. And I think that conveyance makes it easier to learn because it fits into some pre-existing mental model that most people will have. I think it's also unique in how chill it is. Playing Caverna, there's always that moment of stress when someone takes the action you were going to take. Well Viticulture lets multiple people take the same action (depending on player count) and then also has the Grande Worker that lets you take an action no matter what, so even though there are still things you need to do it's just not as stressful. And it looks like the essential edition comes with the best of Tuscany so it's a really good game all around. Everyone I've introduced it to (including my wife, who doesn't really like games) has loved it. Except for one guy who plays a ton of advanced games but for whatever reason could not get his head around making wine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
burger time posted:So, the viticulture essential edition preorder period ends in about 12 hours, and I'm thinking about jumping on board, but I have some questions for people who've played it. What's the heaviness of the game, is it a gateway game or not, and does it feel like it fills a special niche? I guess I'd say medium weight. I used it as a total introduction to WP games for a few people and they have loved it. It is pretty easy to teach, the 'grande worker' is a great lil mechanism, but still has some depth to grow into. It does have some randomness that can screw you over in its card draw, but its not too bad. I love how the end game can cause a race (if someone reaches 20 the game ends after that year) or jockeying for position. The essential edition seems to be an awesome streamlined version of the game. It fixes the billion different versions of Visitors, includes asymmetric starts (including a minor decision), and some of the other basic expansion modules. The streamlined expansion that is supposed to come out next year seems to include just the best parts of the expansion (board, special workers...) without some of the shittier ones. If you feel like a nice, thematic, worker placement game that is easy to teach...then go for it. I can't play enough of it right now. E: double beat. But, yes. Get Viticulture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
burger time posted:So, the viticulture essential edition preorder period ends in about 12 hours, and I'm thinking about jumping on board, but I have some questions for people who've played it. What's the heaviness of the game, is it a gateway game or not, and does it feel like it fills a special niche? I've only played Viticulture once but loved it, enough that if I saw someone selling their copy I'd seriously consider getting it. It's a really accessible theme and as such most people, even non-gamers, will grasp the basic mechanics of it. The game itself looks gorgeous, and as others have said it's got a good balance of needing to plan and think ahead without the outright stress of something like Agricola.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Not only that, but just adding the main elements of Tuscany (new board, structure cards, and special workers) that are coming in the new "lighter version" that they're planning on releasing after the essential edition of Viticulture turns the game from light-medium weight to medium-heavy weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Anyone else having trouble with the Stonemaier site rejecting their CC for the Viticulture EE? Oh, why do I wait until the last minute for these things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Merauder posted:He's correct, it's +10 for each player who had fewer than you. So the player with an untied majority in a 4 player game will have +30, in addition to the face value of 1/ea. Next most player will have +20, then +10, and lastly no bonus. OK, if it applies to all players, then our final score would still have been close. That's good. Of course, we probably screwed up other rules, too. The variety of strategic options is interesting, but many of the djinn powers seem highly situational, particularly the ones that require additional resources and a separate turn to activate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Zveroboy posted:- In 7 Wonders, having each player choose their card and keep it face down in front of them, and then only actually playing the cards after the draft and wondering why the game feels "weird" and "without strategy". But that is how you play 7 Wonders unless I'm not understanding what you mean by "after the draft"? 1. Each player secretly picks a card and sets it face down. 2. They take the remaining cards and place them next to the person to their left/right, also face down. 3. All players perform their actions simultaneously. 4. After the action, take the stack of face down cards next to you and repeat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
I think it's drafting all the cards before revealing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:51
|
|