|
Single Tight Female posted:I know Cuba Libre is usually the recommended first COIN game, but are there any suggestions on how to play it for a group of first timers (to it and COIN in general)? One problem is that you will have four people trying to read the events on cards, and the AP person will often need to read the card himself or herself, even if they are read aloud (the AP-prone people I know are often thinking about other parts of the game while the cards are being read aloud or just process it better while looking at the card). This is a problem when more than one person might need to act on the event/capability on that card. With five, you could sit out and be a game-runner. homullus fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jun 20, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
foxxtrot posted:Hasbro has licensed Monopoly for use in a now-being-written Broadway Musical: https://variety.com/2016/legit/news/monopoly-musical-hasbro-broadway-1201798690/ I would much rather watch a musical based on the original Landlords Game 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:"The expansion into live theater seems a natural extension for Hasbro." I liked this bit: “What turns us on is creating something that explores the world of Monopoly, kind of like the Lego movies have done with Legos.” The world of Monopoly? So they're going to make Trump: The Musical?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I would much rather watch a musical based on the original Landlords Game Well, you're in luck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
MORE??????
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
foxxtrot posted:The world of Monopoly? So they're going to make Trump: The Musical? More like the Wolf of Wall Street. But, you know, shortchanging the bank instead of drugs and prostitutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Tracklist: I Want To Be The Racecar Passing Go Dad's Bought The Yellow Ones (I Wanted The Yellow Ones) Family Argument This Is All Random Family Argument (reprise) gently caress This poo poo Table Flippin'
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:More like the Wolf of Wall Street. But, you know, shortchanging the bank instead of drugs and prostitutes. I thought about that reference, but Monopoly is about Real Estate, not stocks, so Trump seemed more apropos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
The thing that people complaining about  conventions in Hanabi usually overlook is that there are two kinds of conventions: "natural" conventions, and "artificial" conventions.Let's use Bridge as an example. One of the most common conventions is advice on when to open; for example, "Don't open with a bid of 1 Heart unless you have at least 13 points and a good hand of hearts." This is a natural convention because it follows from common sense. In order to make a contract, your team needs to take the majority of the tricks, which means you can't make a contract if you don't have an above-average hand, so you shouldn't open bidding unless your hand is at least a bit above-average. ("Points" being common beginner advice for what qualifies as above-average, but it basically amounts to "Face cards are good because they're high so they win tricks, aces are better than jacks because they're higher so they're more likely to win tricks.") And you shouldn't bid hearts as a trump suit unless you're good in hearts because then what's the point? A bid of 1 Hearts means "I think we can win the majority of tricks if hearts is trump," so it follows naturally that a bid of 1 Hearts means "my hand is above-average, and would be served well by hearts being trump." Even without knowing any conventions, the meaning is clear and logically deducible. Another Bridge convention is the Stayman. The Stayman convention says that under certain circumstances you can bid 2 Clubs without actually having any interest in clubs. Your partner is expected to interpret this as a question: "Do you have at least four cards in a major suit?" A response of 2 Hearts or 2 Spades means yes, in the corresponding suit; a response of 2 Diamonds means no. This is a completely artificial convention because its meaning can't be developed or deduced during normal play; it must be constructed from whole cloth outside of the game and agreed upon in advance. There's no reason inherent in the game rules why the 2 Clubs / 2 Diamonds call and response should have that meaning. In Hanabi, every convention I've seen is natural, not artificial. If you tell me "this is your two", and the Green 2 is playable, I'll play the 2 you told me about despite not knowing its color because why would you spend a clue telling me about it unless it were now important? You don't agree in advance to "always discard your leftmost card", which would be artificial; instead, during play you naturally discard your oldest card, because the other players have had the most time to give you information about your oldest card, so it's the one least likely to be important if they haven't done so. I've seen new players discard a card, often a playable card or a 5, that they just drew the previous turn. This is a misplay not because it violates some artificial convention but because the other players just haven't had a chance to say "This is a 5, hold onto it" yet because there were other things they needed to do that round. Hanabi's "conventions" are simple logic repeated so often that they become automatic. As for not saying things you shouldn't say outside of the game clues: somehow, my grandparents can play Bridge just fine without cheating. Maybe the problem is you. Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Lorini posted:So what was the ultimate decision on Imperial Settlers? Balanced (enough), not balanced (enough), balanced but with expansion(s)? The game still intrigues me.... I gave Imperial Settlers the old 3 game try because I liked the idea behind the game and liked 51st State, which this sorta reimplements, but don't really like the game at all. It's just way too random in the building distribution, which might be okay if there wasn't a progression in buildings. If Japan doesn't get anything that produces food on turn 1, which happened in my first game as Japan, they are pretty loving hosed since their entire strategy is based around trade routes, which require food. You can do some conversion with the common resource (citizens), but it's way less efficient. Similarly, if Egypt gets their building on Turn 1 that gives you said common resource when other people use it, they are playing on easy mode and will coast to victory through sheer economic mastery. Of course, this is "balanced" by the fact that there is only one copy of this card in the entire Egypt deck, but that just makes the games super swingy. This is the same designer as Robinson Crusoe, so combined with my experiences on that game, it's pretty clear to me that this designer really kinda sucks at realizing the connection and difference between randomness and variability. Oddly enough, I think the main problem with the game is also its most appealing characteristic: the unique faction decks. For reasons that I can't quite articulate, it just doesn't work right here, as opposed to something like Chaos in the Old World or Cthulhu Wars or Netrunner or whatever else. I think the problem is that the asymmetry is comprised entirely of random elements (i.e., the faction deck), and unlike a CCG/LCG, you don't really draw enough of this random element to smooth out the probability curves. IIRC, you start the game with like, 2 faction cards out of a 30 card deck that wasn't focused on a given strategy, so you just don't get enough to create a consistent strategy (and I don't think you can mulligan). I don't know if the expansions somehow smooth out the balance issues, but I don't think anyone in my group cared enough to give it another chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:As for not saying things you shouldn't say outside of the game clues: somehow, my grandparents can play Bridge just fine without cheating. Maybe the problem is you. Turns out, Grammie and PopPop are cheating like gently caress. You just are too young to understand the subtleties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I've given some thought to running a Wooden Ships & Iron Men PbF where all communication must be done in flags Would. I'm hoping to try out Agricola in the next few days. What should I know going in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I gave Imperial Settlers the old 3 game try because I liked the idea behind the game and liked 51st State, which this sorta reimplements, but don't really like the game at all. It's just way too random in the building distribution, which might be okay if there wasn't a progression in buildings. If Japan doesn't get anything that produces food on turn 1, which happened in my first game as Japan, they are pretty loving hosed since their entire strategy is based around trade routes, which require food. You can do some conversion with the common resource (citizens), but it's way less efficient. Similarly, if Egypt gets their building on Turn 1 that gives you said common resource when other people use it, they are playing on easy mode and will coast to victory through sheer economic mastery. Of course, this is "balanced" by the fact that there is only one copy of this card in the entire Egypt deck, but that just makes the games super swingy. This is the same designer as Robinson Crusoe, so combined with my experiences on that game, it's pretty clear to me that this designer really kinda sucks at realizing the connection and difference between randomness and variability. Isn't this the same designer who Vlaada sat down and explained, "If half the cards are bad and the game is balanced on you drawing 2 good cards and 2 bad cards, then sometimes you draw 4 bad cards and the game is unplayable or 4 good cards and the game is trivial"? Good to know he learned absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
The cards are way less varying in quality in Imperial Settlers than in Robinson Crusoe, and turning 2 workers into a food for Deals is generally only a tiny bit less efficient than randoming a food production building on turn 1 because you can chain your deals really well as the Japanese. It's got some issues, but balancing card quality isn't quite one of them - the problems lie more in the important 2-ofs (Egypt-Sphinx, Japan-Dojo) than in the 1-ofs (of which post-nerf Egypt-Oasis, Rome-Engineers, and Japan-Diplomacy School are the most important).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:You don't agree in advance to "always discard your leftmost card" Lottery of Babylon posted:instead, during play you naturally discard your oldest card I happen to be right handed. New cards go to the right, old cards make their way to the left as I play. Lottery of Babylon posted:somehow, my grandparents can play Bridge just fine without cheating. Do they use the Stayman? Lottery of Babylon posted:Maybe the problem is you. Nice patronising there. My point isn't whether I cheat or not in a cooperative game. Is that focusing a game in forbidding communication is usually an invitation to quarrel about what you're allowed to say. Hanabi is an extreme case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
I played imperial settlers once. We stopped on turn 4 because half the cards I'd drawn let me draw more cards, while the rest got very little card draw. I think I had 25 things built at the end of turn 4, turning every structure the others destroyed into a good Egyptian building.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Zurui posted:I'm hoping to try out Agricola in the next few days. What should I know going in? The most important part of Agricola is to grow you family as quickly as possible. Ideally you want to be the first person to take the "Family Growth" space when it flips over. Your entire first few turns are building to this goal. Also don't build fences until the end game, they are a trap space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
One of the problems of teaching games is finding the balance between teaching things ahead of time that are obvious "traps," but also not trying to teach so much that you are trying to shortcut all of the exploration that has to occur in a large number of plays. This can be a difficult balance, especially with respect to games where a lot of the interaction and functionality comes from the game itself. I'm thinking of games like Twilight Struggle and Agricola, where simply knowing the ruleset comes nowhere near to preparing you to play the game well. It is a balance between giving some generalized explanation of things that you will only see as your playthrough develops (e.g. DEFCON traps, exactly what the later round actions will be when you flip them over in Agricola) versus trying to explain every possibility. Because if you really wanted to teach something like Agricola in order to put a new player on an even playing field, you'd have to sit them down and have them go through all of the round actions, and have them read through them, and understand what they will allow them to do in later turns. In Twilight Struggle, the would have to go through all of the cards, and understand the possible interactions, etc. I definitely fall into the "let's discover this stuff together" camp. I have no desire to teach a game where I have to explain for hours all of the event cards that could come up, for example. Some things, you just learn by experience and playing, and I don't mind losing because I did not know about a certain possible interaction ahead of time. The first people to play the game discovered that through painful experience; there's no reason why I can't as well. (Again, it is a judgment call as to which really common, but game ending events you might want to try to forecast. I remember with Paths of Glory, there was a lot of discussion about whether you should warn newer players about moves that would have them out of supply, which Paths of Glory had very severe penalties for that would essentially be game ending because of a small positioning mistake.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Zurui posted:Would. Important strategy tips: - Make sure to plan ahead so that you have enough food for your family when harvest occurs. - Growing your family is very important. More family members means more actions. - Pay attention to what quantities of animals/food award more points. Three sheep gives you the same score as one sheep. More is not always better. Rules that my group has gotten wrong: - All players start with some food (two for the start player and three for everyone else). - You can eat raw grain and vegetables as food but you can't eat raw animals (you need a fireplace or something to cook them with). - When you take animals from the board and you don't have enough room for them all, the extra animals are either returned to the general supply or can be immediately cooked (with fireplace, etc.). - During harvest, if you have two or more of a type of animal, you get one and only one new animal of that type (assuming you have room for it). Two sheep make one sheep. Ten sheep still make one sheep. - When counting pastures for points at the end, count the number of fenced in areas themselves and not the number of individual squares that your pastures contain. A big pasture is still one pasture. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Played Food Chain Magnate for the first time. I liked the novel approach to hand management with the restructuring action and how the players are creating their own demand. I just wished the presentation was a bit better. I just am not feeling the mid century card art aesthetic. Mechanics are pretty sound and would play again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
nimby posted:I played imperial settlers once. We stopped on turn 4 because half the cards I'd drawn let me draw more cards, while the rest got very little card draw. I think I had 25 things built at the end of turn 4, turning every structure the others destroyed into a good Egyptian building. That doesn't sound right. Iirc the only Egyptian card draw is Oasis, with Desert as secondary draw power. Unless you were the only one drawing Common card draw locations, but Common locations during Lookout are drafted anyways. Did you somehow draw all the copies of Castle and Watchtower from topdeck luck? I'd believe it could happen, but I've never seen it happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Sodomy Non Sapiens posted:Since we're on the topic - Is there a better/well-regarded Star Trek game out there? All I can think of is Star Fleet Battles which seems insane, Star Trek Catan which has the problem of being Catan, and the Star Trek deckbuilders which look dull as hell and besides I already own Dominion. Fleet Captains is probably the best out currently. People say it "feels Trekky." It's Wizkids, so the miniatures are crap. I wish FFG got ahold of the Trek license- their Star Wars minis look amazing compared to WizKids' Trek. Star Trek Frontiers looks good if you're interested in Mage Knight. Dice Tower is pretty complementary in their review. (But still WizKids minis) Star Trek Catan adds some interesting powers to the standard version. Star Trek Panic is coming out soon that has some Trek flavor over Castle Panic. You can turn the ship to focus more powerful attacks at bigger threats, use character powers, shoot in firing arcs, regenerate shields and fix hull damage, and accomplish missions. The Enterprise in the middle becomes damaged and comes with fun looking damage components. Looks quite fun, but less exploration and more battle. Gale Force 9 is coming out with Star Trek Ascendancy, which looks like a pretty varied game in that you can explore, battle, and win by other means. I'm hoping it's the "Trekiest" game of them all. It comes with Federation, Romulan, and Klingon with Cardassian and Ferengi out by the end of the summer. Looks really interesting and I'm excited to see reviews. And Star Trek Risk just came out which comes with a custom board. It's all five captains vs each other, but it makes sense because Q is making them do it! 
Siroc fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
There's also Star Trek: Attack Wing, which is X-Wing but with uglier miniatures and weirder cards. It's fun, but it can be a real money sink.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Wikipedia Brown posted:There's also Star Trek: Attack Wing, which is X-Wing but with uglier miniatures and weirder cards. It's fun, but it can be a real money sink. The balance is also garbage and they don't do anything to make it feel like big ships in space. The base set is pretty okay but other than that  Don't play ST:AW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Wikipedia Brown posted:There's also Star Trek: Attack Wing, which is X-Wing but with uglier miniatures and weirder cards. It's fun, but it can be a real money sink. And much worse rules from what I hear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Andarel posted:That doesn't sound right. Iirc the only Egyptian card draw is Oasis, with Desert as secondary draw power. Unless you were the only one drawing Common card draw locations, but Common locations during Lookout are drafted anyways. Did you somehow draw all the copies of Castle and Watchtower from topdeck luck? I'd believe it could happen, but I've never seen it happen. I drafted a second watch tower in the 2nd round when I was first player, I think, then I got a castle. In turn 3 and especially 4 my card draw went crazy because I had all the Egyptian "draw cards" cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
When people say a Star Trek game feels like Trek, do they mean TOS-style "crazy aliens and lots of fighting" or TNG-style "space diplomats and trade agreements"? I want a game that does the latter really bad, but ideally one that doesn't take 3+ hours to play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
If Ascendancy is any good it will be exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:When people say a Star Trek game feels like Trek, do they mean TOS-style "crazy aliens and lots of fighting" or TNG-style "space diplomats and trade agreements"? I want a game that does the latter really bad, but ideally one that doesn't take 3+ hours to play. Yeah, hopefully the latter. The Federation/Romulan/Klingon races are based on diplomacy/stealth/battle, so it's quite easy to envision an asymmetric game where all three are possible to achieve victory. A sense of exploration and dealing with unknown situations is a plus. Attack Wing could be fun if the rules were better, as said above, but the point of Trek (since its from the Federation perspective) is to NOT engage in battle and find alternate means. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but Attack Wing feels far from "Trek" besides using their ships. It's great in the FFG X-Wing game because it's in the Star Wars spirit. I hope Ascendancy is exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:It's especially funny since Vlaada explicitly told the RC designer how dumb of an idea that was. i remember him blogging about how he went back to his hotel room and cried about it then proceed to make no changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Anybody have experience with Knizia's GMT produced Battleline? Threw it on an Amazon order because i heard it had cribbage/poker style scoring. I'd love to hear more about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:The most important part of Agricola is to grow you family as quickly as possible. Ideally you want to be the first person to take the "Family Growth" space when it flips over. Your entire first few turns are building to this goal. The family growth advice here is good, the fence advice is not. Sometimes your food engine is based on animals. In case you don't read this thread much, Rutibex is considered a troll by many. Edit: Is there a cool place to read about Vlaada or other designers telling people they are poo poo at design? Or otherwise just reading the thoughts of good designers about good board game design? EvilChameleon fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:When people say a Star Trek game feels like Trek, do they mean TOS-style "crazy aliens and lots of fighting" or TNG-style "space diplomats and trade agreements"? I want a game that does the latter really bad, but ideally one that doesn't take 3+ hours to play. The old Decipher Trek CCGs had you winning primarily by completing missions with the skills on your personnel cards. You had to overcome various dilemmas, provided by your opponent, for each mission. Second edition has multiplayer by default, if I recall correctly. Second edition is also vastly superior to first and with a smaller cardpool. That being said they're pretty mediocre as games. You definitely get the feeling of tooling around and encountering Star Trek stuff, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Anybody have experience with Knizia's GMT produced Battleline? Threw it on an Amazon order because i heard it had cribbage/poker style scoring. I'd love to hear more about it. Battle Line is great but super hard to figure out. Tactics cards are sort of meh though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Falling Sky and Cuba Libre are right around the corner at boardgamebliss 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Daily reminder not to buy Wizkids stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Anybody have experience with Knizia's GMT produced Battleline? Threw it on an Amazon order because i heard it had cribbage/poker style scoring. I'd love to hear more about it. I'm a big fan of little color/number card games (Arboretum, Parade) and Battle Line is one of the better ones. It's very simple to play (you make 3-card poker hands at different locations) but you have to think carefully and weigh risks to play well. You get to make tough choices about which cards to play now, which cards are better kept for later, and which cards to hide from your opponent. It's a challenge. There's a good amount of luck involved, but it's the kind of luck that you can plan around. Sometimes you have a sure thing, but sometimes the best you can do is to set yourself up to where you just need one more red card to win that flag. Maybe you get unlucky and never draw another red card, and that sucks, but the game is also pretty short so whatever. I haven't played with the tactics cards, they look like they are counter to what I enjoy about the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Single Tight Female posted:I know Cuba Libre is usually the recommended first COIN game, but are there any suggestions on how to play it for a group of first timers (to it and COIN in general)? Having to learn Cuba Libre and teach it to friends who had such a bad experience at a paid-event trying to learn the game that I had to bribe them to even put it on the table, I think the teacher should print out the strategy guide in the play book for each faction. Actually playing a COIN game is really simple, you're basically either taking an event or an action(s) and the crib sheets tell you literally everything you and your opponent's can do. The hard part is actually knowing what the hell you're trying to accomplish and what pitfalls to avoid that aren't immediately apparent. For the AP player I would take the game in chunks. Ask them what they hope to accomplish before the Propaganda card and then provide advice for doing that. Like the Government wants to position police and troops in a way that lets them shift support and hinder guerrilla movement, but also every player should be looking to control territory with casinos to skim those precious resources. al-azad fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Anybody have experience with Knizia's GMT produced Battleline? Threw it on an Amazon order because i heard it had cribbage/poker style scoring. I'd love to hear more about it. It's great! knizia warning the theme is light. You got 10(?) suits/ancient empires/scottish clans numbered 1-10 and a hand of 8(?) cards. Every turn you draw one and play one. There are 9 places in a long row along the table to play your card to. Your opponent may play on the opposite side. Each place can hold up to 3 cards for each player. The three cards represent a hand of 3 card poker. So like a straight flush beats a three-of-a-kind beats a flush beats a straight, etc. The only "not poker" is when you both have garbage hands, then instead of high card wins, highest total of all three cards wins. At the start of your turn, you have the option to claim a space by proving you've won the hand using visible open cards. You don't have to wait for the other guy to play 3 cards if you can show have beaten all possible hands he could play. For example you have 3-of-a-kind and he has 6-7 both in red. In theory he could beat you with a straight flush, but then you see the 5 red and 8 red are both out at other places, so you know there's no way he can make a straight flush and can claim the spot. Your goal is to win 5 of 9 places OR 3 places all next to each other. So it's fun because it gives you these great decisions. You're playing poker in slow-motion, and someone (the rng gods) might toss you the perfect card if you can just stall long enough but 9 times all at once. Some places you'll have to decide to sacrifice for the greater good. Some places you've ignored become important because of the 3-in-a-row win condition. And it just all deliciously mind-racking. edit: beaten like david sirlin by designing an original game PlaneGuy fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
yomi and codex are very original you DORK!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:45
|
|