|
Just came back from game night. Thoughts are raw and likely unrefined. Both games are first plays. Great Western Trail: The person explaining the game got a lot of rules very wrong, including how last round worked, how building buildings worked (he didn't tell us we could "upgrade" our buildings) and how objectives worked (I explicitly asked if I had to play the objective from hand before I could score them, and he said yes), so I think I'd have to replay it to give it a fair shake. It was pretty eh, but I appreciated the mixing of genres. I just didn't think it amounted to something greater than the sum of its parts, is all. I'd be curious to see if the game to game variability would do anything about what I perceive to be the strongest strategy of getting fat cows and trashing cards from your hand. By the end of the game, I had like, 4 of my original cows, and my last three sales easily hit 15+. The downside is that I never left the station, so I wasn't actually getting a lot of money from going to, say, San Francisco or Sacramento or something. Who knows what other rules we messed up, though. The Colonists (era 1-2 game): I liked the mechanics of the game a lot, and it was surprisingly mean with all the blocking, especially on the small, initial map. Less so throughout the game, though. But one thing I did notice was that if you didn't get a resource tile early in an era, noticeably Brick refinement, that makes the rest of your game feel stalled. I think brick game in last round both eras, and I think by the end of Era 2, one person had one civilian working one theater as a result. I don't think anyone made a Hunter's Lodge and we were all baffled by its inclusion in the Year 0 set of tiles since there wasn't a reason to build it until like, late Era 2. Ditto for the Iron Mines in Era 2, although I expect that playing a longer game would force us to think a bit more proactively about the future. Still, I wish there were ways to get more immediate benefits. I can see how the game can be very easily expanded though, and I kinda anticipate it growing to be something monstrous to replace Twilight Imperium. The game to game variability also seems really good, too, although I imagine time begins to become an issue at some point. I also kinda wish the hexes were just a bit bigger, and unless I missed something, the Lord Colony seems super good and the Labor Colony seems super bad. The others we had, Alchemist and Storekeeper, were just good.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:Steve bannon read this and now we're invading splotter hq. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Next Donald Trump tweet: "All 'European' board games are now banned from the United States for taking away good American jobs. MAGA!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:heyo, list keeper here
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Durendal posted:Next Donald Trump tweet: I unironically want a Trump twitter commenting solely on board games. "Playing FCM. Lost to waitress strategy so so bad. Sad!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DungeonsDonald/status/829931582509101057
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Anyone have opinions on The Grizzled? I bought it on a whim to fill out a CSI order, and now I want to torture myself by wondering if it was a bad decision. Also I'm seeing a lot of talk of Carcassonne and Isle of Skye, but what about Glen More? It's like a better Carcassonne, except that people who like Carcassonne usually hate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
terebikun posted:Anyone have opinions on The Grizzled? I bought it on a whim to fill out a CSI order, and now I want to torture myself by wondering if it was a bad decision. My group found the difficulty of The Grizzled completely dependent on player number. They can now win regularly at 3 people, but at 4 the game crushes them. I don't really like co-ops, so I haven't played it much; but until they discovered the player number issue the rest of my group was really enjoying it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Yesterday was a good day for games for me. Reserved a copy of Gloomhaven from the local game store (didn't think I was going to be able to get a copy), and started Pandemic: Legacy with three friends. Missed drawing a legacy card but it wasn't a huge deal, will be more careful in the future. We ended up winning our first game, barely. One person wasn't much of a gamer and hadn't played Pandemic before but happily, everyone had a good time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:The Colonists (era 1-2 game): I liked the mechanics of the game a lot, and it was surprisingly mean with all the blocking, especially on the small, initial map. Less so throughout the game, though. But one thing I did notice was that if you didn't get a resource tile early in an era, noticeably Brick refinement, that makes the rest of your game feel stalled. I think brick game in last round both eras, and I think by the end of Era 2, one person had one civilian working one theater as a result. I don't think anyone made a Hunter's Lodge and we were all baffled by its inclusion in the Year 0 set of tiles since there wasn't a reason to build it until like, late Era 2. Ditto for the Iron Mines in Era 2, although I expect that playing a longer game would force us to think a bit more proactively about the future. Still, I wish there were ways to get more immediate benefits. Depending on the order of buildings it's possible to start employing Citizens late in Era I, and you probably should. The more of Era II you can spend creating your engine so you can immediately start generating Merchants in Era III, the better. There's one very good reason to build Lodges in Era I that you may have missed: Food can be used to pay the first half of the Fee. There usually isn't a problem with getting enough Tools to do what you want, but Tools don't take up space in your Storage. You can keep a Food in the buffer and move it into Storage before going to pay the Fee, giving the other player a useless item that he may not even be able to store in place of the always-useful Tool. I'm quite surprised by your ordering of the Colonies, because I'd put them in almost reverse order - especially in a two-Era game. Waiving the Fee is handy, and downright broken if Envoy or Storekeeper are in the mix, but IMO Lords are only really good once you get to Era III and you can start relocating everything you need to a space directly next to you. Labourers, on the other hand, are insanely good in a two-Era game because you can upgrade all of your Farmers to Citizens and sidegrade your Estates into Apartments. This immediately triples your score for Workers and adds $2 to the value of every Residence you have. On top of that, you can usually arrange to get a few free goods from the Ambassador and the Labourers is the only way to upgrade an employed Worker. Storekeepers are also very good, although it's less obvious in a two-Era game where you don't get the big increases to Storage. They still give you six basic Storage spaces in Era II, but the key ability they have in a two-Era game is to replace Storage Sheds with Farmer Buildings by paying the Fee. Right at the end of the game when you're almost out of resources, you can pay the Fee three times to replace all three Sheds with Institutes for a gain of $12 - which becomes free if you also have the level 2 Lords, hence my earlier comment. Alchemists are great for versatility. You're rarely restricted by someone occupying the Groves because you can visit the Delve instead, and you get Brick far more cheaply than anyone else by using the Joiner. In Era II the Ambassador is very strong, giving you a fourth action more than half the time if you've planned right. They're weaker in Era IV, though. I may as well go through the other five Colonies while I'm at it. Altruists are probably the strongest of all the Colonies and you should get that Embassy built as fast as you can - by the end of Year 1 if possible. They start good and they just keep getting better, giving you massive amounts of free stuff and discounts. Envoy is solid in all lengths of game. Early on it gives you a second Steward without a Boardinghouse and range 2 without Stables, providing a big mobility advantage. In the late game you can get crazy range - in a game with Lords you can have range 4 for free - and you can use the mostly-redundant Diplomat as a Market. Industrialists are one of the weakest Colonies. Extra Warehouse space isn't amazing, and you don't really get enough out of the free refining. The only plus point is that the Embassy itself is a bad Factory, but for 2 Tools and 1 Clay you can get a real Factory that boosts Sustenance buildings and is worth $2 more. Scholars are specialised and very draw-dependent, but I like them. If you take them, though, you're committing to go to at least level 2 and to buy an Institute. Played right you can end up with 8-10 Improvements in play at the end of a two-Era game. In a longer game you can also get Merchants without having to build Houses, which can be a thing. Traders are the flip side of Alchemist. They're massively better for exchanging resources, and you have to get the stuff in advance, but it costs you an extra action to do it. On the other hand, they get stronger and stronger as you progress. In Era III your unused Robes turn into large quantities of Planks or Bricks and in Era IV you can do it with Tools as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Industrialists' Level 3 ability to turn 3 wood into coal without costing an action is game changing especially if players are getting antagonistic in tile placement. It makes getting 2 or more refined iron at a time much, much easier. Also, you can only have one institute, Jedit, just a minor rules clarification 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Industrialists' Level 3 ability to turn 3 wood into coal without costing an action is game changing especially if players are getting antagonistic in tile placement. It makes getting 2 or more refined iron at a time much, much easier. Also, you can only have one institute, Jedit, just a minor rules clarification Agreed, Industrialists Embassy is actually really good. I used every single refine ability every round, and it was essential. Saved me tones of actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Industrialists' Level 3 ability to turn 3 wood into coal without costing an action is game changing especially if players are getting antagonistic in tile placement. It makes getting 2 or more refined iron at a time much, much easier. Also, you can only have one institute, Jedit, just a minor rules clarification Oh yeah, I forgot - didn't have it to hand. You can still make a free $8 from upgrading to Factories though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
I remember there being some hype built up around Clank! and was wondering if anyone had a chance to try it here? Is it any good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:I remember there being some hype built up around Clank! and was wondering if anyone had a chance to try it here? Is it any good? I thought it was good, the people who played with me disagreed. Just don't assume "deckbuilder" means "heavy" or "serious". It's fun. You push your luck, you gather treasure, you get scared of the dragon, and it all takes 25 minutes max. I think it's best played multiple times in succession, with adding up of scores afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
In arctic scavengers what is the benefit of discarding cards to the junkyard pile and re-shuffling it? I'm watching a playthrough, and I didn't catch that rule in the rule book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
It's been long since I played that game, but isn't the junkyard pile the one with the nice rewards? You make the rewards potentially worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:In arctic scavengers what is the benefit of discarding cards to the junkyard pile and re-shuffling it? I'm watching a playthrough, and I didn't catch that rule in the rule book. Getting rid of rubbish and making harder for everyone to get medicines and other cards
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Gooncensus on Cry Havoc? What is it? Is it good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Not really. Very limited choices throughout the game. Try Inis instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Gooncensus on Cry Havoc? What is it? Is it good? I found it a bit dull. There's some interesting systems and assymetry, but you just don't do a great deal of stuff during the game, and despite its length, there isn't really adequate time for any kind of back and forth. One player gets in the lead and it ends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
That is the impression I got to. I haven't had the chance to playing either of these games but they both got hyped to heck so I watched playthroughs and stuff. It makes me think: Cry Havoc and Dead of Winter (not that the two are remotely comparable in levels of badness) both seem to have a hidden problem that is not clear simply by understanding the rules. With Dead of Winter, it's that your choices don't matter because you have so little control it's basically impossible to affect whether you win or lose. With Cry Havoc, it's the opposite problem: the game is so short that you only get like nine choices to make. If any of them go wrong from luck or tactical error, that's huge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
edit; gently caress, double post
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Got to play five-player New Angeles today. Skipping rules, sorry if I get certain terms wrong. Strengths: - The asymmetrical win conditions are quite clever and are a great way to encourage wheeling and dealing while avoiding some kingmaking. - Assets (bonus cards with various powers) are a great way to make you want to submit and win deals even if you're not a big fan of your own deal. - Trading system is pretty solid, there's a lot of room to maneuver despite being limited to only trading capital (victory points) and assets. Weaknesses: - Length was around 4.5 to 5 hours. Learning game but still, this one is definitely an all-afternoon game. - As a Federalist (the traitor), I didn't really feel I had much control in the direction of the game. Once you reveal, people aren't going to want to vote for your deals or negotiate with you, so you're pretty much stuck playing mostly pro-human until you can make a decisive move. I didn't even get to do that because when we hit the third section, once another player got an asset that let them see the unviewed win objective, everyone else quickly figured out I was the traitor. I still won since everyone else was kinda new and thus didn't manage all the characters/uprisings/illnesses that well, but it didn't really feel like I earned or worked towards it compared to something like BSG's Cylons or the Spies in The Resistance. - The cards that give you income for meeting certain criteria don't seem well-balanced. Some reward you for negative things happening, like having X bad guys or X illnesses on the board, in an attempt to give the Federalist some cover. Others are much weaker, like "Get 2 credits if resource X has reached its target, plus 2 more for each extra for a max of 6" since generally people won't go out of their way to go more than what you need since everything resets anyway. Overall, there's definitely some potential, but execution is kind of a miss. It could be good with some tweaking, and I think an expansion could fix its flaws, but considering how long it is I can't really recommend it. If it was an hour or two shorter, then I think it'd be decent for a group that loves negotiation (and I'm lucky to have such a group, the negotiations were definitely the highlight of this game), but I think the flaws are big enough for such a long playing time to avoid the game. Don't know if I'd play again, depends on the situation I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:I remember there being some hype built up around Clank! and was wondering if anyone had a chance to try it here? Is it any good? I enjoy it. It's a fun simple deck-building game with a board and treasure hunting adventure. If you want something like Dominion but more boardgamey with using cards to produce movement powers moving around a board, buying new wands of teleportion and elven boots, killing monster cards for gold chits, and picking up treasure then fleeing to get out asap, then go for it. I picture my character being Bilbo and trying to smuggle gold out from Smaug before other the evil humans come to steal it. Now it's not going to have the near infinite replay ability of Dominion and probably something you'd more want to play occasionally since it is a little more static but that shouldn't be an issue unless you like get together and play board games 10x in a row every day of the week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Played six or so rounds of Hanamikoji today, if you're in the market for a two player card game, you should really consider this one. Agonizing decisions, beautiful art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Had some fun at game night tonight. Played a little Mystic Vale with the expansion. It continues to be an interesting twist on the deck-building mechanic with a little push-your-luck thrown in, though it can accelerate ridiculously. Lost I believe 38 to 45 but my opponent got about 30 points out of his final turn. Played some Glass Road next, Uwe Rosenberg's game of simultaneous action selection and production rondels. It's got kind of a neat Broom Service twist to the action selection where you're trying to pick a hand of 5 out of 15 cards and ideally wind up playing 3 unique actions for full effect and 2 cards someone else picks to go halfsies with them through sharing. There are three kinds of buildings to build - VP conditionals, and any time/once buildings with fixed VP. I managed to hack out some forest and dump out a bunch of sandpits with a loess island, then share pitworkers all game for a ton of clay to build a bunch of any time buildings with. Had enough building points and conversions going to fill up on spare glass and bricks at the end for the victory. Finished with a few rounds of Sushi Go Party, which adds a bunch of variable setups to the original Sushi Go following the mix of nigiri, one kind of rolls, three appetizers, two special cards, and dessert that sticks around all game. It's a light drafting game that got us cracking up at the increasingly terrible hands we were passing around and played super-quick. The actual score track is a blessing and also kind of a necessity given how there's a kind of rolls where you "race to 10" and can score in the middle of a round.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:Got to play five-player New Angeles today. Skipping rules, sorry if I get certain terms wrong. Not quite true. As the Federalist, you definitely have allies in the last two rounds - whoever isn't beating their rival(s). There is no incentive for players to cooperate if they have no chance at all of winning the game, so the Federalist should be inciting the losing players to spike the game. This is not a cooperative game, so you want to remind people that simply surviving the game is not a 'group win'. They only win if they beat their rival. That's how the game is balanced. If the leading players are smart, they won't let a huge lead open up, and they'll make sure the Federalist stays isolated, but if they get greedy and selfish, use that as a wedge to extort and blackmail to victory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:I remember there being some hype built up around Clank! and was wondering if anyone had a chance to try it here? Is it any good? I didn't care for it. It's like Ascension where you have attack and buy as separate resources in your deck and a single market row that has cards costing either resource, so you can get screwed out of a decent buy. You also have movemnt cards in your deck, and while everyone has the same amount, if your opponents draw theirs before you on the first two shuffles, there's a very real chance you'll be lagging behind them the whole game. It's got that common deckbuilder problem of the dominant strategy being "just buy the most expensive card you can afford". There is some push your luck aspect to exploring deeper, but we ran into a weird problem where everyone made for the exit at the same time, but then for several turns people just hovered around the exit playing their point scoring cards, so there was no incentive to be the first one to leave. I guess eventually the dragon would kill you, but we were so far off from that happening that eventually I just gave up and made the first move to force the game to end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
My GF enjoys the HELL out of Villages of Valeria and Sushi Go Party (I do, too) because she loves building a little town/collection of stuff. So far, she has only tried light stuff. What should I get, based on what she has tried? We normally play in groups of 3-5 players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Azran posted:My GF enjoys the HELL out of Villages of Valeria and Sushi Go Party (I do, too) because she loves building a little town/collection of stuff. So far, she has only tried light stuff. What should I get, based on what she has tried? We normally play in groups of 3-5 players. Progress: Evolution of Technology, maybe? It's quite light, takes five and is about building a tableau as fast and efficiently as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Azran posted:My GF enjoys the HELL out of Villages of Valeria and Sushi Go Party (I do, too) because she loves building a little town/collection of stuff. So far, she has only tried light stuff. What should I get, based on what she has tried? We normally play in groups of 3-5 players. Maybe Castles of Mad King Ludwig or Suburbia? The former is basically an improved version of the latter but I find people really take to the theme of Suburbia quicker. Splender also fits that description but that game is pretty bleh aside from having some really nice components.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Didn't they reduce the quality of the components in the most recent reprint of Splendor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Didn't they reduce the quality of the components in the most recent reprint of Splendor?  They better have reduced the price as well because "it has really nice components" was the only thing that made that game stand out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
I was looking at getting it and saw a bunch of posts on BGG about how the 2016 version has lighter chips.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Azran posted:My GF enjoys the HELL out of Villages of Valeria and Sushi Go Party (I do, too) because she loves building a little town/collection of stuff. So far, she has only tried light stuff. What should I get, based on what she has tried? We normally play in groups of 3-5 players. Seems like the obvious choice here is 7 Wonders. Not super great at 3 but otherwise should be good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
I've been told Sushi Go fulfills the same niche but with like a third of the explanation needed for scoring?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
The End posted:Not quite true. Fair enough, though in my case three players were already winning their conditions, and the fourth was both a bit too far back to really catch up, plus he's kinda new to board games in general and thus was treating it more as a co-op. But of course I didn't know that at the time and should have taken advantage of that, though with how big an issue threat was I don't think I would've gotten any favor if I tried. Something to keep in mind though if I ever play again!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Azran posted:I've been told Sushi Go fulfills the same niche but with like a third of the explanation needed for scoring? Yeah, if you already own Sushi Go Party, you'd be better off diversifying. Castles of Mad King Ludwig is a good next step up in complexity and has an even more satisfying sense of building something regardless of whether you win. Just dive in and start trying out strategies, don't try to memorize all bonus possibilities and combos up front.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
Countblanc posted:It absolutely should for those reasons and others (environmental concerns, storing for owners, etc.), but games with smaller boxes sell less. Capitalism is a blight. Everyone wins when a box is smaller and lighter, but games are tactile and visual activities and there is only so much you can shrink down components and the art and text and symbols on them before it's a detriment. Plus there is only so small and tight you can go before fitting that poo poo BACK into the box becomes a problem puzzle in itself. Really I think most games get it about right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:01
|
|
