|
Broken Loose posted:I got in a second game of New Angeles. MY interest has now sharply declined in the wake of a player purposely and blatantly kingmaking for the Federalist player. That's pretty bizarre play on their part, seeing as they only needed to beat their own rival. Then again, as in Archipelago, if you let one player get to far behind that is always a risk with these semi-coops.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
I must be some kind of Tash Kalar savant or something. I played it for the third time ever with my brother in law, who is usually a match for me at board games, and all my TK games have been with him and his cousins. And yet again, once things start to heat up, I'm scoring most turns, summoning legends regularly, and he is struggling to put together coherent turns. I guess it'll click for him in a few games if he doesn't get sick of being slaughtered first. For whatever reason, it just clicked for me right away. Tash Kalar is still really, really good! Also, I got Grand Prix - I know several of you recommended Thunder Alley, but it wasn't available when folks were buying me Christmas stuff. How does Grand Prix compare? Is it pretty much the same but with more diverse tracks, or is it totally different? I have never played Thunder Alley.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Man, Paperback is a really good word game and deckbuilder. My buddy got me hooked on the app and I just ordered a copy from Fower games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Electric Hobo posted:One of my main problems with Blood Bowl is Games Workshop, so for now I'll try out a makeshift version of Guild Ball and see how it goes. You'll love it. Going from Blood Bowl to Guild Ball is like going from Axis & Allies to Twilight Imperium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Alvin & Dexter, clearly. Rutibex parachute account spotted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Colonists is nothing like Feast of Odin. Much more like Roads and Boats. I don't find that the first era's are necessarily a 'set up' they are viable in their own way. You get points during those era's so they are important independently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Brain Curry posted:It looks like you can play with the original routes, the 1910 ones, the Big Cities ones, or everything at once. Do you usually play with just the 1910 cards? I'd play with all available routes. I have the anniversary edition that has the 1910 expansion included with it, so it's been a while since I played the base game. You're totally safe using all the cards though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Man, Paperback is a really good word game and deckbuilder. My buddy got me hooked on the app and I just ordered a copy from Fower games. Yup. It's probably my gf's favorite game. The only drawback is AP players can really bog the game down, otherwise a fantastic design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
I bought my gf Inis for Christmas and it is amazing . You get to explore and conquer ancient/mythic Ireland with this really fun action drafting mechanic. We've been talking about the matches we played off and on all week; I can't wait to initiate our friends on our next game day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Patchwork showed up today. The GF and I are 1-1 now. What a wonderful game! It pleases me on every level. The design is elegant, the pieces are fun, the theme is cute, the play is entirely built from meaningful decisions, it's tactile, it's puzzley, and it's not intimidating. It's now my favourite short/light game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Any good videos for Feast for Odin out there that arent shakycam awful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I got in a second game of New Angeles. MY interest has now sharply declined in the wake of a player purposely and blatantly kingmaking for the Federalist player.  New Angeles ain't the only game that falls apart when people don't try to win, but it falls apart REALLY hard. Play with people who try to win games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Played three games of Captain Sonar yesterday. First one was really good, second one fell apart when one of the subs seemed very, very, very reliable, which didn't really fit the sub's path. Whether this was caused by a good Captain-Engineer communication, the Engineer being German, honest mistakes or blatant cheating is anybody's guess, but it kinda soured the atmosphere. I like the game, but the honour system sucks balls. But the game doesn't work without it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Played three games of Captain Sonar yesterday. First one was really good, second one fell apart when one of the subs seemed very, very, very reliable, which didn't really fit the sub's path. Whether this was caused by a good Captain-Engineer communication, the Engineer being German, honest mistakes or blatant cheating is anybody's guess, but it kinda soured the atmosphere. I love Captain Sonar and it went down well with my group but this was always on the back of my mind as something that could potentially come up. I would mix the teams after a game like that. It could be a rules misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I know the guy and I'm pretty sure it was either a mistake or good play the rest of us didn't notice, but not being able to enforce rules is a huge problem in any game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
I played a game of Captain Sonar last week with the full 8 people and had an absolute blast. We lost because there was miscommunication (or a mistake on someone's part) about where the other sub was on a sonar ping right at the beginning of the game, so thereafter our entire tracking was wildly off. Such good fun though, and I want to play again. By blind luck, the very next day I walked into a comic shop I miss all the time because they usually never have anything, and they had a copy of Captain Sonar reduced to £25. Sold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:
Thanks heaps! The sample play wasn't super useful, but we muddled through it. Played the first story twice, and everyone seemed to love it! One of the players wants to be the mastermind from now on which is rad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Man, Paperback is a really good word game and deckbuilder. My buddy got me hooked on the app and I just ordered a copy from Fower games. My board game annoyance of 2016 is that I backed Fowers 2 player game on Kickstarter, and added Paperback and Burgle Bros as extras. They were supposed to come in November, but still waiting Tablet version is good but I'd like to get some table play with this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Doing a multiplayer as I have a few unrelated comments! My copy of Codename Pictures came missing one of the blue spies (the board push out thing had it missing in the gap). How likely am I to get a replacement single blue spy (the blonde lady) if I write to them by email?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I got in a second game of New Angeles. MY interest has now sharply declined in the wake of a player purposely and blatantly kingmaking for the Federalist player.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Any good videos for Feast for Odin out there that arent shakycam awful? Not that I know, but if you have the bits in front of you Michael Wissner's video is detailed enough that you can just listen to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:English issue here but what does Kingmaking mean in this context?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
That sounds super poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
This week I played two games. Cavern Tavern was a Kickstarter worker placement game about serving food in a fantasy kitchen. It looks nice, but not a fan come the end. It suffers a sin of having you roll dice as your workers, and then the value assigns what work you do, but rolling a 6 is better than rolling a 1, so a chunk of it comes down to who rolls better. It also has a mind-boggling random difficultly card system, whereby in the game you will pick up 1-3 Nasty cards that mean you have to do tasks before you continue. 2nd place had really hard ones that took him turns to complete and stopped him playing efficiently. The winner had very simple ones that didn't stop him at all. And that's what ultimately decided the game, more so than the other actions within the game. Lovely art, theme is OK, gameplay is a luckfest. Then we played Arkham Horror the card game. It's just not for me. Not a fan of the theme (I'd go as far as to say I dislike it, but didn't matter in other games), was kind of fiddly and I just think it's meant for a regular group who actively want to build decks and go on further adventures together. It just felt to me like 'Pulling Chits From A Bag: The Game'. Think id have even preferred a dice roll for that, althoigh I understand that's how they modify difficulty. Boggles my mind that Quinns would make it his game of the year, but I guess he has a group like the theme and like acting up to it, even if the gameplay seems a bit threadbare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Playing the game so that one specific other person wins, with no openly stated alliance or anything like that (especially in games without alliance mechanics). This came up in Cavern Tavern, kinda. Which does suffer from potential kingmaking, since you can see everyone's score and everyone's ingredients so you know how to mess with them. On the last turn, 2nd place had a card that could steal an ingredient from someone. 1st and 3rd (me) could not complete an order that turn, so taking an ingredient from them did nothing. Only 4th could have an ingredient removed to stop an order, so he did that. 4th complained, why attack the person in last place? We pointed out, it does nothing to anyone else. 4th said in that case just take someone else's ingredient, not fair to pick on last place. Now, while last he was only a couple of points behind 3rd, althoigh some distance from 1st. I maintain, if you can attack someone, you should, with the winner first, unless maybe going for someone who you can catch. Of the only one is last, then you go for less. Anything else is well...pawn making (deciding who is last). Turns out though, that blocking 4ths order meant 4th 'only' catapulted into joint 2nd place at end game, instead of winning. So in the end, if anything, this proved you should attack someone, since he secretly had a way of winning. I just found it odd that the guy would argue you should attack noone rather than last place. But again, I think it's a mark against the game, if you can choose who you attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Not that I know, but if you have the bits in front of you Michael Wissner's video is detailed enough that you can just listen to it. Neat! Heheheee he keeps saying 'wikings'
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:That sounds super poo poo. In some games it is not avoidable: the player in 3rd place must choose to "attack" either the player in 1st place, causing the player in 2nd to win, or to attack the player in 2nd place, allowing the player in 1st to win. Does the player in 3rd place choose what is "best" for his own position even though winning is impossible, get revenge on one of the two players for knocking them to 3rd, get revenge for some action in a previous game, or get revenge against the player who ate the last piece of pizza? Or something else? My answer is "try to avoid scoreless games that have kingmaking."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
I've never really thought about it but I always tend to go for choosing what is best for my own position even if it means I won't win at that stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Someone told me NA is like a sane Republic of Rome, is that accurate?Fat Turkey posted:Turns out though, that blocking 4ths order meant 4th 'only' catapulted into joint 2nd place at end game, instead of winning. So in the end, if anything, this proved you should attack someone, since he secretly had a way of winning. I just found it odd that the guy would argue you should attack noone rather than last place. But again, I think it's a mark against the game, if you can choose who you attack. Well he argued it because he hoped you guys might agree out of pity and then he'd have won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
A single kingmaking decision is an unfortunate circumstance in a lot of games, but a kingmaking strategy is pretty much the result of a lovely person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Hell, even Dominion can have kingmaking moments, not uncommonly either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
taser rates posted:Hell, even Dominion can have kingmaking moments, not uncommonly either. Yeah, it might be worth trying to define two separate concepts. There's "it's nearing the end of the game, I can either try to boost my position (letting one player win) or attack the person in first (letting a different player win)". It seems fairly obvious that both of those are reasonable courses of action, and both will determine the winner. Then there's "I'm going to help this one person at direct cost to my own position for reasons, such as outside relationships, spite, being a terrible person", which is pretty clearly bad. Are there any other major concepts we're talking about, or does everything more or less fall into one of those two?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
When someone does something that benefits me, it's fine, unavoidable aspect of game design, but if they benefit someone else it's out of spite and frankly illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Neat! He's adorable. The way he says flax and beans is permanently stuck in my head when I play, and I end up saying them the same way. Fat Turkey posted:My board game annoyance of 2016 is that I backed Fowers 2 player game on Kickstarter, and added Paperback and Burgle Bros as extras. They were supposed to come in November, but still waiting Same here, buddy
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Between "I can't win, I will attack whoever is in 1st place" or "I can't win, I will attack whoever will net me the most points/benefit" I really can't fault a person for going with either. Both are legitimate. Asking them to just shut down and no longer affect the game space just because they can't win is not reasonable in my opinion. And that's ignoring that fact that it is very common for players to think that another player (or themselves) can't win when they absolutely still can. There is also the moral grey option of "I can't win, I will pursue a vendetta against whoever knocked me out of the running". The only king making move that I think is illegitimate taking an (optional) action that ends the game while the person who initiated it is not in first place. An example would be someone with a low score in Twilight Imperium taking Bureaucracy and popping Imperium Rex just to end things. You should not voluntary end the game or initiate it's imminent end when you cannot be victor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
So uh, slightly weird question for anyone who's gotten their hands on a copy of The Colonists. How heavy is it? Like, physically heavy. I'm in a situation where I can either get it now for cheaper and take it with me overseas, or just pay extra and have it shipped directly overseas. If it's a big massive honker like A Feast for Odin I might just have it shipped instead of burning a decent chunk of my luggage allowance or carryon space on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Hey so there's this recent kickstarted secret-role game that looks pretty cool: http://www.analoggames.com/story/how-we-successfully-leveraged-replay-ability-through-crowdsourcing-ideas-and-social-media/ I like the art-style, and the modular board, and the idea of having secret roles on a game where you move around the map and do stuff appeals to me. Any goon experiences with actually playing it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:
Completely disagree here. If I can't win, why shouldn't I take a legitimate move to end the game so we play again or something else? Getting up and walking away from an unfinished game I can't win is bad. Playing within the rules to make this ends faster is totally legit, and players still in the running should plan for that. Fate Accomplice fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Known Lecher posted:So uh, slightly weird question for anyone who's gotten their hands on a copy of The Colonists. How heavy is it? Like, physically heavy. I'm in a situation where I can either get it now for cheaper and take it with me overseas, or just pay extra and have it shipped directly overseas. If it's a big massive honker like A Feast for Odin I might just have it shipped instead of burning a decent chunk of my luggage allowance or carryon space on it. It's very similar in size and weight to Feast, actually. I believe it weighs less than Feast after you punch it out, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:Completely disagree here. If I can't win, why shouldn't I take a legitimate move to end the game so we play again or something else? Yeah. Pushing to end is perfectly reasonable I think. It comes up all the time for us in Dominion, so much so that it's normal to plan around it a bit (eg. you have to assume B is going to empty out the last pile on his turn; he's behind by 3 Provinces so what else is he going to do?). When it comes to "very political games", it's hard for me to get worked up about what are "valid motivations". Whatever petty crap your friend does, the choice to play Risk or FFA Magic is still on you. Managing politics is the game you're playing, so either find a way to manage Bob's behavior in game, or don't play these games with him. Dragging it out of the game to "Bob, your game play is unethical because you're not choosing right who to attack the right way" just adds another layer of sadness to the overflowing bag of garbage. What grates me more is games where the politics just kind of forces its way in to poop on your floor. Like, Kemet is quite often great until the last couple turns - and then too often you'll have an interesting game end in the sad fart of: "player C is forced to choose who goes last among A and B, and thus pretty much who wins".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:59
|
|
