|
Terraforming Mars for the new hotness? And Scythe of course.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
CommonShore posted:Speaking of which - have you guys opened Decks B and C yet? What kinds of cards do they contain? Light or dark brown or both? Yup, I opened deck B up after my "4" player game(only in quotes because two players left in the 5th round  ). I probably have ~80% of the cards I still have never actually used in a game. I gave pretty much all the cards a glance and phreow there are some doozies! I also partially opened them so I could continue with the weekly solo challenges through BGG, but it's up to you when you want to open them. Once you get the feel for the game, which it sounds like you definitely have, I'd recommend opening up at least deck B. Looking at the starting occupation cards can give you a lot more ideas on play strategies, and start you thinking about a lot more variability, imo.canyoneer posted:Yeah I played 2 or 3 games with my wife and then told her that I have zero chance of ever winning this game against her, which makes it somewhat less fun for me. Yuuuuuuuuuuup. My old roommate and I played it for a few laundromat dates and I would get sub-5 sets literally every game.  Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I feel very ambivalent toward Terraforming Mars. I don't think it doesn't do anything innovative apart from the theme, but I'm biased towards drafting games because drafting games really aren't my jam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Alright champs someone give me a sentence or two about AFFO and I'll add it to the OP. Build boats, kill Englishmen, play Tetris with their stuff. What's not to like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:You were thinking about the good times to be had when you get 8 people together and you're all yelling at each other and your ship is slowly breaking into pieces around you and oh god the enemy has the scent go silent go silent poo poo the engineer broke that two turns back how do we get out of this This is all true, but there are also the times where the captain is mousy and the enemy radio op has to pause to ask for the last 4 orders every 45 seconds. Please speak up if you're the captain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
^^^ But not too loud, or you'll run into the situation I was in where I couldn't hear the enemy captain for my own. Also gently caress anyone who games it by issuing movement orders with a hidden hand signal for one of his first mate and engineer not to check them. Johnny Truant posted:Usually I'm pretty quick to pick up games and such, but with Set I literally am just left in the dust, even with mediocre players. My brain doesn't work like that, apparently! I don't like real time games either, but the only person who is as good as me at Set is the guy who owns it and loves it. As a result we never play each other, because we don't think it's fair for the dealer to play and so we have the previous winner sit out. Not speaking to my credit here, I know, but Set is basically Autism: the Game. If you don't have that pattern recognition ability you'll never get anywhere against anyone who does. Jedit fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Sokani posted:Build boats, kill Englishmen, play Tetris with their stuff. What's not to like? And eat beans. Uwe has a paragraph in the rulebook and an entirely different paragraph in the almanac about how vikings loving loved beans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
On the same note, Factory Fun absolutely breaks people that find it difficult to think quickly, especially in the spacial sense. It just doesn't work for many people which is why the game is so polarizing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Real-time boardgames are a pox on the hobby. I've only played one, Damage Report, and found it amazingly fun and a great testing of group dynamics. Works best when everyone knows how to both follow directions and lead themselves in the absence of directions. Thoughts on Twilight Imperium? My thoughts are too long, terribly disappointing ending every single time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:Yup, I opened deck B up after my "4" player game(only in quotes because two players left in the 5th round You should have blocked the emigration action space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
OgreNoah posted:Thoughts on Twilight Imperium? My thoughts are too long, terribly disappointing ending every single time. Real time games are a pox on the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I don't like real time games either, but the only person who is as good as me at Set is the guy who owns it and loves it. As a result we never play each other, because we don't think it's fair for the dealer to play and so we have the previous winner sit out. I played Set as a kid and did well for my age but i loving hated it. its so ugly and boring. it should have a bell, buzzer or a totem to grab at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
It's proving to be hilariously difficult to obtain a copy of Scythe out here in Finland, I placed a preorder before the 1st reprinting and I don't think we saw a single one from that, and now the street date for the 2nd reprint has come and gone and keeps slipping back further.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Real time games are a pox on the hobby. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
OgreNoah posted:Thoughts on Twilight Imperium? My thoughts are too long, terribly disappointing ending every single time. With you on the too long, not sure about the ending part. Games can come to a close abruptly as success tends to snowball. What did you find disappointing? I probably have more rad stories about TI games than I do for any other strategy board game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
OgreNoah posted:Thoughts on Twilight Imperium? My thoughts are too long, terribly disappointing ending every single time. Twilight Imperium rocks as long as you enjoy lengthy, in-depth experiences. Also in my experience it actually gets much more intense and gripping near the end as people jockey to make their winning plays. What kind of endings have you had that you thought were disappointing? *BIG NOTE* This assumes some expansions stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Not speaking to my credit here, I know, but Set is basically Autism: the Game. Jesus christ this is so apt it's almost painful! Rutibex posted:You should have blocked the emigration action space.  They would've been able to finish but one guy(we were all stoned af but still...) literally could not grasp the rules about occupation cards. Literally any time any player drew or played a single card we had to explain their entire mechanic to him. Every. Time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Real time games are a pox on the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:Jesus christ this is so apt it's almost painful! Some of my friends had trouble with the occupation cards at first, so we played a game with open hands. This allowed me to explain all of the cards (including my own) to everyone, to explain how I figured they might help strategically, and to actually make a show of picking up the appendix and reading the prose versions of each card's text. One weakness I've found to the game overall, which I'd say is more of a bug than a feature, is that some of the cards' value is quite opaque. Bosporus Traveler, for example (if +cow then 4s->spice/3x->silk) really frustrated one of my friends. It's a useful card if you're getting really crunchy about the benefits - a free opportunity to get a 3:2 or 4:3 yield improvement without having to spend guys while you're doing something that otherwise benefits you. Likewise The Sober Man. But those cards don't really feel fun and useful on a visceral level the way that Catapulter (rock = +2 pillage/raid - obvious clear benefit) or some other starting profession cards do. e. we've also started playing draw two pick one with starting profession cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
The Arkham Horror LCG should probably be considered a new hotness. It's been well received and co-op/solitaire games are niche enough to be given some consideration. And there's a bit of buzz here about The Colonists, but we'll see how that pans out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Anyone played Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle? It's a cooperative deckbuilder, where players are building decks to fight against an encounter deck. I'm thinking my wife will enjoy it. Nope. I got it for my wife for Christmas though because she's a huge fan of the theme, and deckbuilders in general and she just really really wants it. I expect it's going to be nothing special. It looks like card effects are painfully simplistic and dull (no trashing, no real combo potential whatseover) and the game overall looks highly luck driven and overly long in the later games when you've added in everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
There are too many drat coop deckbuilders with some IP pasted on
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Fabled Fruit may be considered hot for its "fable" mechanic between games. It's a pretty simple set collection game otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
While you're updating the OP you should put down The Colonists as a 4X game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Scyther posted:Nope. I got it for my wife for Christmas though because she's a huge fan of the theme, and deckbuilders in general and she just really really wants it. My girlfriend says its really good but i know her to have Bad Opinions about board games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Hogwarts Battle is a perfectly serviceable coop deckbuilder. It won't light your world on fire, and is missing the cool combo play and in-turn decision making of Dominion, but it's decent and is worth playing with someone who would love the theme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Some of my friends had trouble with the occupation cards at first, so we played a game with open hands. This allowed me to explain all of the cards (including my own) to everyone, to explain how I figured they might help strategically, and to actually make a show of picking up the appendix and reading the prose versions of each card's text. Yeah the occupation cards are certainly the trickier game mechanic, I agree. A lot are situational and with the sheer number of cards to choose from will really appear quite rarely, couple that with the fact that I've played a different strategy, essentially, every game, makes them a bit obtuse. I actually haven't really played a game where we've played with hidden occupation cards. Every game save for my solo games has been with at least one newbie though, so I'm sure we'll switch that up once I have a group of friends who're familiar with the game. Simultaneously I've usually ran through my thought processes in regards to the newbie's strategies to try to help them internalize and better know how to formulate their own strategies. But because there is no such thing as altruism, teaching is actually helping me become a better player!  I also like the "draw X pick one" mechanic for occupation cards. My last solo game, first attempt at that, I did draw 5 startings and draw 3 standards. Worked out alright(I did get my highest solo score), I might try the "draw two pick one" for all of the cards though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
I played my first game of New Angeles last night. My initial impressions are that the rules do a good job of encouraging player negotiation, you can't do much of anything solo so you have to play the table, but the game also seems pretty drat random. The game is semi-cooperative, so the players are working together to avoid an "everyone loses" state, but otherwise are competitive. The bulk of the game is about negotiating deals, two players will have action cards down as competing offers for an asset. Action cards do stuff to the game state, generally fixing something to avoid the mutual-loss, but sometimes just handing out victory points or more action cards to some or all of the players. Assets give you special abilities and may be traded. Each player can support one of the two offers by discarding action cards. I actually like this as a means of reducing randomness, most of the cards you draw are discarded face down, so you can get rid of the cards that aren't pertinent to the situation and keep the ones that are. Now, you only draw 3 cards at a time, and you have to make those last across 4-6 deals, based on the number of players. This means that you have to be really selective about how you spend those cards, they're valuable because they're rare and you have to provide something substantive in negotiations for people to use them to support you. There are a couple of other small quirks to how offers are placed, when players draw cards, etc. that create uneven power dynamics from turn to turn, and the players have a lot to gain from holding the whole process hostage unless they're paid a couple victory points or somesuch. Overall, I like all of this, it means lots of negotiation, politics, and backstabbing which is exactly what I was hoping to get out of the game. Now, for the randomness. There are many cases where a player could make money, at the cost of pushing the game closer to mutual-loss, from a particular bad thing being on the board, but you only have a tiny sliver of agency in what bad things are on the board and where they are placed. If a bunch of organized crime happens to spawn in spaces that produce resources the city needs, well that's a nice little windfall for the guy playing the private security corp, and there's basically no way to mitigate that. Then you have the assets, which seem hilariously unbalanced. You still have to win the deal to get an asset, but remember you're not always on equal footing because of stuff like who the first player is and how many cards people have left, so when those good and bad assets come up can swing the game significantly. One of the asset cards we saw let you prohibit one player from trading anything for that deal, which is a neat little trick to tip negotiations for you, but once you used it you couldn't use it again until you drew cards, overall a pretty weak asset. Another asset let you immediately draw TEN CARDS as a one-time effect. Like I said, I've only played once, so maybe these things are more controllable/predictable than it seemed at first glance. I legitimately enjoyed the gameplay despite the randomness and the components are gorgeous, so, yeah, game is probably decent, but probably not amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Real-time boardgames are a pox on the hobby. My family's favorite game when I was growing up was Dutch Blitz. My ex watched us play at Xmas one year and said it looked like the most stressful experience ever. My parents would also play Pit with us sometimes. I can't wait until the nieces are old enough for us to have enough players for Captain Sonar!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:My parents would also play Pit with us sometimes. I am awful at this game and have accepted that I will never win, but it's fun as gently caress, I still have to say. Lots of beer always helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:While you're updating the OP you should put down The Colonists as a 4X game. Uh where's the exploration in The Colonists??? I don't think it's a 4x.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Uh where's the exploration in The Colonists??? I don't think it's a 4x. You can exterminate in it??
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Scyther posted:It looks like card effects are painfully simplistic and dull (no trashing, no real combo potential whatseover) and the game overall looks highly luck driven and overly long in the later games when you've added in everything. Exactly how I felt after playing it. Granted, I only played 3 rounds, but there was no way to trash the starter cards and it made me sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
OgreNoah posted:Thoughts on Twilight Imperium? My thoughts are too long, terribly disappointing ending every single time. TI is probably my favorite game and somehow the one I've played the most. There legit problems with it (too long, useless political cards, poor catch-up mechanics, etc) but I've had some very engaging experiences. You learn some lessons, like don't sit next to your wife if you both value your marriage and want to win. Or just like dating, everyone involved can smell desperation when you try a little too hard to strike a deal. Basically, if you have the time and the right people, TI is a blast to play. CaptainRightful posted:My parents would also play Pit with us sometimes. Pit is fun as hell but super easy to troll and stall the game at higher player counts by deliberately withholding the right goods.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Uh where's the exploration in The Colonists??? I don't think it's a 4x. There is also the unwritten 5th X, Space. 4X games can only take place in space! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:The XCOM Board Game is not at all like that and is probably closer to Space Alert insofar as it has a timed simultaneous action element with alien killing being more a footnot/minigame than any significant part in its own right. It's actually a shame because I'd be into considering a tactical miniatures game based off of XCOM. It'd probably look a bit like Imperial Assault, but with a stronger non-combat phase and more generic PCs. If they'd gone with Tactical Combat, they would have constantly been compared to the computer game, and perhaps not favorably. I enjoy X-Com, though the push-your-luck dice mechanic can be rough. The main issue I have with it is that if someone doesn't quite "get" their role, they'll bring the team down hard, and the timer doesn't provide a lot of opportunity to help them out. Xelkelvos posted:Gloomhaven wont be out for a while (waiting on it myself) but it might be. I forget all of the Legacy and equipment stuff, but it runs a bit more like Descent Legacy, I think. I kind of feel like Dungeon Crawler games and Legacy games are distinct categories, and that it's weird to call Gloomhaven a Legacy game (I know it's being marketed as such). Dungeon Crawlers have always had progression and changes to the characters and stuff. I'm not quite familiar enough with the mechanics of Gloomhaven to know how it will actually change the board (or what the board looks like), or other things that are common in Legacy. I'm interested in it. I like a good dungeon crawl board game (provided it doesn't have a 1-v-many mechanic, for that, I'll just play an RPG), but they feel like distinct things from Legacy that might overlap a little, but not quite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Fenn the Fool! posted:Then you have the assets, which seem hilariously unbalanced. You still have to win the deal to get an asset, but remember you're not always on equal footing because of stuff like who the first player is and how many cards people have left, so when those good and bad assets come up can swing the game significantly. One of the asset cards we saw let you prohibit one player from trading anything for that deal, which is a neat little trick to tip negotiations for you, but once you used it you couldn't use it again until you drew cards, overall a pretty weak asset. Another asset let you immediately draw TEN CARDS as a one-time effect. Is it weird that I see the widely different strengths of the asset cards as a positive? A weaker asset card coming up gives breathing room for you to slip in a beneficial action card into the offer/counteroffer, and people won't raise too much of a fuss. The variance in asset strength creates a wider dynamic range in how the players react, add offers and counteroffers, and throw in votes. They create different foundations on which to negotiate. It's also another way of feeling out the players; if player X is going really hard for this weak asset card that's only good in situations Y and Z, then what's their motive? Who could they hurt with it? Perhaps those two players are rivals? Caedar fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Uh where's the exploration in The Colonists??? I don't think it's a 4x. I would count the laying out of action tiles as a heavily abstracted Xploration mechanic. It fits about as well as TTA's colonization mechanic, imho. FulsomFrank posted:You can exterminate in it?? You will want to after someone puts clay on the other side of the fuckin' map. The Colonists feels like a spiritual 4x to me because it satisfies the same urge to build up an engine that ticks along with a lot of complex moving parts like TTA does, or any video game civ clone where the emphasis is on building.. It's definitely not nearly as aggressive as TTA, but the passive aggression is strong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Caedar posted:Is it weird that I see the widely different strengths of the asset cards as a positive? A weaker asset card coming up gives breathing room for you to slip in a beneficial action card into the offer/counteroffer, and people won't raise too much of a fuss. The variance in asset strength creates a wider dynamic range in how the players react, add offers and counteroffers, and throw in votes. They create different foundations on which to negotiate. It's also another way of feeling out the players; if player X is going really hard for this weak asset card that's only good in situations Y and Z, then what's their motive? Who could they hurt with it? Perhaps those two players are rivals? No, on paper I agree with you. Maybe, after everyone at the table has a good deal of experience with the game, it's all very calculated and controlled but, then again, maybe it's not. I definitely want to play it more before I make any kind of final judgement, but my first impression is that it seems pretty random.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
foxxtrot posted:If they'd gone with Tactical Combat, they would have constantly been compared to the computer game, and perhaps not favorably. I enjoy X-Com, though the push-your-luck dice mechanic can be rough. The main issue I have with it is that if someone doesn't quite "get" their role, they'll bring the team down hard, and the timer doesn't provide a lot of opportunity to help them out. It's all about the implementation. Making a 1:1 adaptation would probably a fairly solid game since, besides a few things, can translate seamlessly into a physical game. Things like Fog of War, elevations, cover and the destruction of said cover, and how enemies spawn would require adjustment, but given that XCOM has a solid tactical combat system on its own, I don't see that much of a problem with comparisons since they'll have to be different entities and operate in different ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 20:38
|
|
