|
Azran posted:No need for an existing verbal component - my original idea was to make double-sided cards with English words: phonemic spelling on the face, ordinary spelling on the back - both instances, separated by syllables. Then players take turns assigning tokens (which display phonemes) over syllables, one at a time: after all tokens are assigned, results are verified and each correct answer gives you one point (while every incorrect answer takes away a point). You can get crafty with some phonemes, and add them to the end of the word to indicate tense or plural form (which allows me to evaluate knowledge of basic phonemic rules). Sounds like you could do this by modifying the rules of Codenames. Instead of giving a word clue, you give a phoneme and ask the kids to find it in the words on the table. Bonus points if they find a word they can add the phoneme into and make another word.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Radioactive Toy posted:I have the option of picking up a brand new Descent 2E for $40. I originally traded it away and then got Imperial Assault which we enjoy much more. The GF and I love coops and are interested in a dungeon crawler. Does the new coop app stuff make this price point worthwhile? I would love some opinions on it. Yes. It's kind of insane how much better the app made Descent 2e.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
I get a feeling Descent 2.0 will gain second legs from people who wrote it off (like me) because it is sub-par with experienced gamers who know how to optimize everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Sounds like you could do this by modifying the rules of Codenames. Instead of giving a word clue, you give a phoneme and ask the kids to find it in the words on the table. Bonus points if they find a word they can add the phoneme into and make another word. I like this suggestion. I was also really confused by the number of solid recommendations for specific board games, because I assumed I had opened the linguistics thread, not the board game thread. If you need the kids to learn the IPA or other phonetic symbols, you can easily print your own words with phonetic spelling and play Codenames more straightforwardly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Anyone tried the Castles of Burgandy Card Game?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:So speaking of Warhammer Quest and Decent what is the best dungeon crawling board game out there? The 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
I want GMT to make a rules-deep modular dungeon crawl with thousands of chits for monsters. Nothing beats a true RPG for variance of enemies, but chits could do it affordably. I want to give Magic Realm a shot, but isn't it more overworld fighting like MageKnight? Edit: actually Academy Games or the people who made Heroes of Normandy can do it, they have better artists. djfooboo fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Chad Jensen mentioned once that he made a prototype for a dungeon crawling game but abandoned it. I'd love to see his take on the genre. I would love the GMT art because it would be like old school fantasy wargame art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Yesterday's Descent game went well. To get more variety, would it be better to get a couple of Monster/Hero packs or should I get one of the cheaper expansions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
radlum posted:Yesterday's Descent game went well. To get more variety, would it be better to get a couple of Monster/Hero packs or should I get one of the cheaper expansions? Are you using the app? If so then monster pack. Otherwise I'd get an expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
radlum posted:Yesterday's Descent game went well. To get more variety, would it be better to get a couple of Monster/Hero packs or should I get one of the cheaper expansions? If you're playing in person with other players, get an expansion. Honestly, I would even stump for a big box - rather than the monsters and heroes, what you want is a new campaign, because in my experience the main box campaign has some really bad design decisions on some of the maps and is dramatically more swingy than some of the later ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Last night I played Xenoshyft: Onslaught, the fully-coop tower defense deck builder. It was pretty good! 4 player we lost in round 7/9 after we didn't do nearly enough deck consolidation/trimming, which was totally my fault. I played a solo 1-lane run just now and survived with 4/15 health left, some neat tactical decisions there. I looked up if there were any expansions and it looks like in January they finished kickstarting a standalone/expansion...with a bunch of gameplay-affecting kickstarter exclusives. gently caress this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
djfooboo posted:I want GMT to make a rules-deep modular dungeon crawl with thousands of chits for monsters. Nothing beats a true RPG for variance of enemies, but chits could do it affordably. I want to give Magic Realm a shot, but isn't it more overworld fighting like MageKnight? Yeah, Magic Realm is overland, although at a smaller functional scale. A full tile in MR is more akin to a single hex in MK. And unfortunately, MR is one of those super ambitious games that just doesn't live up to the promise of its rules system. There is so much potential in the various ideas of the game, but you will spend 3/4 of the game hiding, moving, and rolling on the search table. Like, you will never ever use more than like a quarter of the spellbook, and the quest system is entirely worthless in a standard-size game. But man, I would pay mad ducats for a true wargame-turned-dungeon-crawl heir to the system by GMT's best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Every time I think about how much I liked Dominant Species, I also think about how much bookkeeping there was for the domination and dominance (two terms that are also problematic in and of themselves) and just kinda wish there was a digital version on Steam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:
That's CMoN!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
I tried 2-player Agricola today - liked the game a lot more than when I tried it many years ago, though I'm not sure I'd like it with 4 - too much effort to track what spaces people are likely to take, and more downtime. The variety-based scoring is annoying, especially the -1 vp for missing things. Why not just scale everything up by 1, it'd feel better. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a hybrid game with Caverna that I'd like more than either game, but rules as written I think I'd choose Agricola now. Also played Power Grid and Race for the Galaxy (first arc) - still great games, especially 2-player. Though with Race, we houseruled the prestige mechanic (from Brink of War) as we found it a bit overpowering for 2-player, and haven't tried takeovers yet (too many rules for not enough gain). House rule: remove prestige leader token, instead play with "Most Prestige" goal as a 3rd goal. That kept the prestige cards doing things, some games more than others, but the game didn't feel like it revolved around them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
I feel like Race for the Galaxy is changed a lot by adding the whole first arc of expansions. By the time you get to Brink of War you've got goals, takeovers, prestige chips and prestige powers, really powerful cards like Psi Crystal World and Imperium Planet Buster, and so on. Admittedly I've only ever played the first arc vs the AI, but I prefer the feel and accessibility of the second arc (Alien Artifacts), which I picked up a little while ago. Haven't tried the orb game yet though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
I got to play 4-player Archipelago with players who'd all played at least one game before, and it was definitely our best game yet. I ended up having a pretty spread-out population due to initially drawing an inlet as my first tile placement and placing workers on each bank. I had the Pacifist objective, so I especially wanted Temples, but I never had any easy access to stone, and nobody else seemed interested in building them early. I also felt they'd be a waste to go for when I had my guys so spread out, so I went for wide-spread early recruitment instead (I eventually got a Recruiter to help with this). About 2/3 of the way through the game we pretty much figured out that one player was a Separatist by his actions, so I and another player began cooperating closely to prevent his win as the rebellion marker had gotten equal to population. Fortunately the Separatist didn't realize he could win the game by taxing, so we got a reprieve. The yellow player was greedy and basically refused to help with the next few crises, as they pretty much required spending Explore tokens to survive and he was hording his due to his objective. I had five or six explore tokens, probably at least tied for most earned at the table, and I spent most of them on crises with two more spent on a temple. The cooperative player at least chipped in resources when I spent tokens, which I put to use building my other temple. I had a Pope, so between that and paying to use the Separatist's anti-rebellion progress card I can't remember the name of, we managed to salvage the game in spite of the Separatist triple-taxing + Dictatorship every turn. I think pineapples were our biggest crisis bugbear. I had a monopoly on pineapple tiles, but they were all one-pers, and it wasn't until late game that I was able to move workers into position to harvest more than one at a time. I am definitely starting to see how if we were better at the game, we'd be getting a little more ahead of some of the resource needs in the game crises. We are still new enough that the need to build infrastructure sneaks up on us (e.g., we built all four of our temples on the turn the rebellion marker reached the population). I never did manage to marshal the resources to build a port (stone!), and only built a market late-game that I used maybe once or twice. With hindsight, burning an explore token early to build a port (or even burning two for a temple) would've been well worth it. I did do a better job this time being proactive in trading, mainly trading away wood that I had in abundance. Even though wood was the trend card, I think this was a good early move. On the other hand, I built a couple ships with the Shipbuilder and then never used them for anything. End result: ended the game on population, just missed out on my Pacifist objective, but I broke a tie with the greedy yellow player to win, by belatedly realizing that my Pope was worth a VP. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Stelas posted:If you're playing in person with other players, get an expansion. Honestly, I would even stump for a big box - rather than the monsters and heroes, what you want is a new campaign, because in my experience the main box campaign has some really bad design decisions on some of the maps and is dramatically more swingy than some of the later ones. Depending on how recently he bought descent 2e this may no longer be the case. I could be wrong, but I understand the main campaign has been replaced by the far superior one in the standalone campaign book (heirs of blood). I'm told that's one of the two best campaigns, but I haven't got around to playing it yet. I can vouch for the Shadow of Nerekhall expansion, though, I thought that campaign was vastly better and the way it handled overload progression largely fixed snowball issues from the main game. The city environments are also a nice change from the main set. All that having been said the app might be such a game changer it could radically change the value add of all the expansions, as the most attractive stuff to date IMO is how improved the campaigns and overlord mechanics are. (Which is also why I think imperial assault was such a solid product) The app, on the other hand, probably tilts you in the direction of classes/monsters, in which case maybe the monster packs are a good way to go? I'm looking forward to trying the app. Has anyone tried it two player? (Either with two or one hero each). Does it feel too fiddly with overhead? I always end up as overlord so this might be a good thing to play after we finish pandemic legacy, as I finally will get to play a hero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
rchandra posted:I tried 2-player Agricola today - liked the game a lot more than when I tried it many years ago, though I'm not sure I'd like it with 4 - too much effort to track what spaces people are likely to take, and more downtime. The variety-based scoring is annoying, especially the -1 vp for missing things. Why not just scale everything up by 1, it'd feel better. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a hybrid game with Caverna that I'd like more than either game, but rules as written I think I'd choose Agricola now. It gives you -1 points because Agricola is a harsh mistress, and you have been a very bad farmer. You should not be playing unless you enjoy pain  That being said, the four player game isn't as bad as you think it would be. You add a lot of extra spaces in a 4 player game vs 2 player, it's actually not as cut throat a game with more people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Every time I think about how much I liked Dominant Species, I also think about how much bookkeeping there was for the domination and dominance (two terms that are also problematic in and of themselves) and just kinda wish there was a digital version on Steam. Once you understand the concept, you can look at the board and know how to play your turn. We didn't have any issues after the first hour or so, and now don't have issues at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Anyone tried the Castles of Burgandy Card Game? Yes, played it for the third time Friday night. Not being the biggest CoB fan, I like the card game much better, especially with four.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Yes, played it for the third time Friday night. Not being the biggest CoB fan, I like the card game much better, especially with four. This is quite intriguing. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I feel like Race for the Galaxy is changed a lot by adding the whole first arc of expansions. By the time you get to Brink of War you've got goals, takeovers, prestige chips and prestige powers, really powerful cards like Psi Crystal World and Imperium Planet Buster, and so on. Admittedly I've only ever played the first arc vs the AI, but I prefer the feel and accessibility of the second arc (Alien Artifacts), which I picked up a little while ago. Haven't tried the orb game yet though. Don't bother with the orb game it's not interesting enough to justify learning and setting it up. The Alien Artifact cards are good on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Yes, played it for the third time Friday night. Not being the biggest CoB fan, I like the card game much better, especially with four. Would you mind to elaborate a bit more on the gameplay and such? And how easy is it to teach to more casual gamers? I kinda want to pull the trigger on this one but I'm not really convinced yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:
I've played a few times now always two player. The app does a great job in handling the overhead. It's one of its best features. We've decided to restart the campaign and take two heroes each to try to get a more diverse group of heroes in part because the app makes the administration of the game much easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It gives you -1 points because Agricola is a harsh mistress, and you have been a very bad farmer. You should not be playing unless you enjoy pain I guess something I like about 2-player Race and Agricola both is being able to put more effort into figuring out opponents' plans and taking advantage, this isn't impossible in multiplayer but would take way too long so I don't do it. The downtime would be higher in general, as well. Certainly I'll try Agricola 3-player if it comes up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
I'm going to be on a lengthy train journey reasonably soon with my wife and two kids - what are some decent more portable games I could pick up that would help us pass the time? Kids are 9 and 5 years old, and honestly I'm assuming that the 5 year old is more likely to get bored and play on his tablet instead, so I'm more looking for three player things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:I'm going to be on a lengthy train journey reasonably soon with my wife and two kids - what are some decent more portable games I could pick up that would help us pass the time? Kids are 9 and 5 years old, and honestly I'm assuming that the 5 year old is more likely to get bored and play on his tablet instead, so I'm more looking for three player things. Best train gaming experience I have had was Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, but 9 years old is slightly too young for that I would think. How about Timeline? I play that on my app with people during trips. We just play it coop trying to discuss what was invented when.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Archipelago words Were you all building ports/markets early on? I always make a point of building one (preferably) both as soon as possible you can sell at least 2 goods a turn without spending an action, and help fill up the domestic/export market in the event of crises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:I'm going to be on a lengthy train journey reasonably soon with my wife and two kids - what are some decent more portable games I could pick up that would help us pass the time? Kids are 9 and 5 years old, and honestly I'm assuming that the 5 year old is more likely to get bored and play on his tablet instead, so I'm more looking for three player things. Bohnanza might be a good call. Packs up pretty small (unsleeved, it fits in an MTG commander deckbox); relatively easy to play and has a small table footprint. Also, the two player variant is really good (though I've only played it once, so it's not impossible that I got lucky and it's actually bad). And it takes a good 45 minutes to an hour to play, so it can occupy a decent amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
rchandra posted:I guess something I like about 2-player Race and Agricola both is being able to put more effort into figuring out opponents' plans and taking advantage, this isn't impossible in multiplayer but would take way too long so I don't do it. The downtime would be higher in general, as well. Certainly I'll try Agricola 3-player if it comes up. Yeah it is definitely a different dynamic in a three player game vs a two player. in two-play it might make sense to do a "Pyrrhic Victory" where you harm yourself a lot to harm the opponent more. It's a good strategy in two player, but in three player you are just handing the win to your second opponent. Three+ players kind of forces you to only concentrate on your own development, instead of wasting valuable actions blocking other players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Yeah it is definitely a different dynamic in a three player game vs a two player. in two-play it might make sense to do a "Pyrrhic Victory" where you harm yourself a lot to harm the opponent more. It's a good strategy in two player, but in three player you are just handing the win to your second opponent. The other thing is that scarcity depends heavily on how many players there are in the game. In 2 player clay is scarcest, 3 player it's reed and 4 player its building rooms and family growth. So depending on the number of players you really have to plan around the scarcity of that good/space and often you want to take the extra clay/reed/whatever even if you don't want it just to deny your opponent. I can't remember what is scarce in a 5 player game, maybe wood?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:Would you mind to elaborate a bit more on the gameplay and such? There are video reviews (which seem to have become the norm) here for a sense of how the game plays. It's not really a good game to start off non-gamers with, as the card interactions are somewhat complex, a step above the board game where it's more obvious what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Lorini posted:There are video reviews (which seem to have become the norm) here for a sense of how the game plays. That's interesting. I would have thought the board version to be more complex. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Were you all building ports/markets early on? I always make a point of building one (preferably) both as soon as possible you can sell at least 2 goods a turn without spending an action, and help fill up the domestic/export market in the event of crises. We didn't, and I agree that it was a problem. I can't speak for the others, but I never quite seemed to have the resources or actions available to build one, or something else seemed more urgent. I would've needed to spend two actions on pineapple harvest to get one to trade for cattle and then my cattle-having neighbor and I could've built markets. But it took me awhile to get to it and I should've just spent an explorer token to build one early. I would've made a lot of money pineapple farming, and probably gotten Pacifist points as well. Edit: We did finish a Medium game in under 3 hours (ended on population), which is better than our four-hour Short games. So I think we've made progress even if we still have room to grow. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
lordsummerisle posted:Best train gaming experience I have had was Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, but 9 years old is slightly too young for that I would think. Death of Rats posted:Bohnanza might be a good call. Packs up pretty small (unsleeved, it fits in an MTG commander deckbox); relatively easy to play and has a small table footprint. Also, the two player variant is really good (though I've only played it once, so it's not impossible that I got lucky and it's actually bad). And it takes a good 45 minutes to an hour to play, so it can occupy a decent amount of time. Cheers both. I'll look into Timeline and Bohnanza.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Picked up Descent 2ed with the app and tried it two player. It was fun, but I thought the app would be automating more of the overlord actions, especially regarding monster movement. As I'm new to Descent, I would appreciate help with these questions: -With the app, how are monsters supposed to choose who to attack? Is that up to the players? Same with monster placement, can we put them far away or are they supposed to spawn as close as possible? (The app was saying to put them next to a tile, but wasn't specific) -Are surges one time use per turn? Like if a zombie gets three surges, can he use the "+1 damage" three times, or does he only use it once and the other two surges go away? -What happens if all players are knocked out? Is it game over, or are they able to stand up on their own?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Six games coming this week! Council of Four My Village Spirits of the Rice Paddy Dice City Small City Town Center If people have questions I'll answer. If you want to know my brief thoughts, follow me on Facebook where I post in the midst of liberal chatter pics of what I'm playing. Jennifer King Schlickbernd
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Dice City is meh. Mine ended up on my for trade list after 2 plays. Sadly, it's still on there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:53
|
|
