|
SoftNum posted:JoCo kinda illustrates my point well since you are intended to make deals and alliances for other players. But if you, say, promise me solders in round 2 if I give you some money round 1 or something, base my turn after that around getting those soldiers and then you don't follow through, am I a bad person if later I choose other people over you, even to a slight detriment in my own play? If you think that I think you just want to screw over others without repercussions and that's as bad as being the guy who lazer focuses on ruining someone's game cause you killed a sheep round 1 or something. This is what is legally known as a "dick move" and why good diplomacy games try to prevent it by making deals binding or creating a system of leverage. In John Company we would exchange cubes on making this deal with the understanding they'll be traded back upon completion of the deal. If you screw me because you think the advantage is worth more than the penalty that's an okay play because John Company allows me to recover by selling your asset to someone else who could sell it back to you at a higher price. Whenever I read a board game manual and it says "deals are nonbinding" I know right there diplomacy isn't something that should ever be pursued in this game and I question why it was ever mentioned. As an aside I was watching a TV show that I won't name for spoilers. This one character Fatman tells another character Scar how to rob Fatman's supposed enemy King. King nearly murders Scar and Scar eventually learns Fatman and King are actually allies. Scar threatens Fatman he'll tell King about the betrayal unless he gets the location of Fatman's shipment of foreign goods. Scar steals the goods and sells them back to Fatman for 20, Fatman then sells his recovered goods to King for 30. My friend and I are just laughing at this because we've had games of PaxPor, JoCo, and TI4 like this where everything is business, where the characters are treated like players in a game, and in the end there's no hurt feelings even if I'm standing on your smoldering corpse because we're all playing to the best of our ability. But like the TV show we were watching "the game" is very fragile and falls apart when people aren't really in it. I don't believe in stripping out all of the social aspects, but I do believe you're doing the game a disservice when you consider personal relationships a factor in your decisions and I've seen it happen a frustrating amount.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Alright I'm gonna make a small post on the games I played on my bi-yearly boardgaming weekend. Was pretty good weekend even though I got con flu and couldn't sleep. Decrypto: I think I cemented this game as superior to base Codenames in my eyes. The reasons for this are multiple: first of all, everyone is able to play all the roles in a single turn which doesn't put the onus on the spymaster to make up clues all the time. As well as that, it's far easier to come up with clues because you don't really need to create links between several words that potentially might not actually have any link between them. Since you are making simple 1 to 1 word associations, beginner gameplay is easy because it is possible to play the game even though you aren't doing so optimally. This allows the game to have a nice progression arc in which the base gameplay is easy to understand, while allowing for really elaborate strategies as people gain more experience. After I played the game a few times with the same people, the meta shifted to giving red-herring clues in attempts to lead the opposing team to draw incorrect conclusions about the item that you are talking about. This type of gameplay, however, is self-balancing since sometimes you will lead your own team down the wrong path. I think this is the fundamental difference between Decrypto and Codenames: while Codenames is a very tactical game, Decrypto is both a tactical and strategic game, and I think that alone lends itself to much more longevity and interesting plays. Spirit Island: I played a couple of games of this, I'm still enjoying it, although I felt that I was somewhat carried by other players. I played the thunder bird in the first game and mostly made a support deck, which was quite funny when one of the spirits managed to do a monster turn after I allowed him to use cards multiple times, gave him elements, made him fast and gave him power. I still really like the game but I think some of the gameplay is starting to coalesce after I've played most of the spirits/enemies on offer. Hopefully the expansion will mix it up (although I'm unlikely to actually buy the base game/expansion and just play on other people's copies). Flamme Rouge:I like this for the simplicity it fosters and the basic deckbuilding elements that are present in the game. I managed to finally win a game of it and we tried some of the peloton expansion stuff like the cobble streets that didn't really change the shape of the game all that much to be honest. Still, it's a pretty chill game that is pretty relaxing to play. Century Spice Road: I can't say that Spice Road was bad, but it wasn't good. It's just...there. It doesn't do anything spectacularly, it has a bare-thread theme, it has pretty boring but functional mechanisms, it's as simple as a euro can be since you are turning cubes into cubes into points. I think I feel more animosity over it because of just how bland, joyless and by the book it is. I'm gonna probably write more words on this game but it just felt so mechanical and boring to me when I played it. Pax Porfiriana: This was still enjoyable to some extent, but I generally prefer playing Pax Pamir with 5 rather than playing this. I still feel that the game is basically a good version of Munchkin, and I almost got the win but missed a rule (which isn't surprising) that meant I was missing a single loyalty for the win. The Estates: I like the new version, and I especially liked the change to the roofs that mean you can't just lose a turn because you got unlucky. I understand that the rule was introduced to put an element of chance in terms of being able to finish a building, but I still think that the pure random element of it detracts from what is what is otherwise a pretty deterministic game. I managed to win my first game of this by making a death row with the major in which everyone had buildings but I didn't have a single building, so my end score was just 11 points from a building and 4 saved money for a total of 15 points. This game is just so nasty and cut-throat that I can't help myself but love it, it manages to do so much with just a few simple rules and I think the fact that I like it even though I'm bad at bidding games and usually don't play them is a testament to how good this game actually is. Rebel Nox: This is a trick-taker with two distinct sides, and where you can change sides easily. It seemed overly random to me at the start but after a couple of hands I was able to see some of the strategy involved in the game. I won my first game of it but still felt that my win was more due to randomness than me playing well. In the end, the most important thing in the game is winning hands, since your own personal score means that you are more likely to win no matter which side you are in, which I think detracts slightly from the team aspect of the game. Root: I think throughout the weekend I taught Root more times than I actually played it, for a total of 5 times teaching the game vs 3 times actually playing it. This kind of helped me because I've now got the rules for the game pretty well internalised. My assessment of the game is that the game feel and balance feels way better once you have a handle of the sides and the players know what they are doing, and overall I'm respecting the gameplay more, even though I do think that first player advantage needs to be dealt with in some way. All of the games I played were pretty close. I played Otters for the first time and they seem both kind of OP and not at the same time. At the start no one was buying my things even with low prices, which meant I was slow off the gate, but later on there were situations where my services just allow people to win outright and even setting the price at 4 isn't an obstacle. As well as that, the military capabilities of the Otters are incredible if they have a lot of funds that they don't need to spend. I enjoyed playing them but I can see why Wehrle wants to change them slightly. I wasn't able to play the cultists with the tournament rule changes but I really can't wait to give this another go. I also played the Vagabond for the first time and let me tell you, a Ranger with two swords and two crossbows is scary stuff: you basically turn into a woodland creatures version of Rambo. Brass Birmingham: I think I'm coming round to thinking that Brass Birmingham is the better version of Brass. As well as the different types of goods you can sell, the fact that the map is not always the same (due to the position of the demand tiles) and the introduction of beer really adds something to the formula and makes Brum a fresher, more replayable game. The randomness in Lancashire is due to what cards are present or not, and this isn't information present to the player or anything that he can really keep track of successfully. Beer also prevents the explosion of railways that usually happens in Lancashire since double build require beer, and make the resource as a whole that much more important to the flow of the game. Overall I think if I had to choose to keep one, Brum would be the one of choice, since Lancashire just feels repetitive compared to the open-ended nature of Brum. 1st and Roll: This is kind of a silly dice game where the strategy just comes from being able to suss out what kind of play your opponent is doing from a choice of 3. The game itself is both incredibly simple and also full of by-rules in order to try to simulate some of the dumber rules of Football. Overall I enjoyed it, although it was silly as hell. Formosa Flowers: A card-matching game that descends down to "draw a card, play that card". Avoid. Wir Sind Das Volk: What happens when you are tired, sick, don't remember half of the games and have played 2+2 so much that you forget base game rules? Well, what happens is that you get your rear end kicked by a newbie. I still really like the game, although honestly if I wanted to play it, I'd just play 2+2 over base. Also sorry for the PBP game that died  Sidereal Confluence: I actually really enjoyed this, for some strange reason, even though I hated Spice Road for having some of the same mechanisms present in SC. I think the negotiating and asymmetrical sides really adds something to the game and makes it interesting because it means that you aren't just in your own little bubble and you have to make deals in order to go ahead. I played the insect race with a lot of planets and the double card engines, they were pretty fun overall. 1846: I don't think I played this in years and it showed, I couldn't remember half of the rules. It was kind of fun at 3P but I still think the game is too much route building and not enough market fuckery to make it interesting. 18Lilliput: I don't really see what this game has to offer to anyone: 18XX players will find it too weird and potentially too mild, people interested in getting into 18XX won't like it because it only really teaches the bare fundamentals of 18XX games, while to people that don't like 18XX it's still an 18XX game. The game is all about route-running, and actively discourages market fuckery in a variety of ways, including making director shares unsalable, limited buys and limited share price jumps. It's an interesting experiment but not a successful one. Railroad Ink: I kind of liked this as a roll and write but it felt too solitaire to keep me interested in the long run, but maybe that's a problem with all roll and write games. Tigris & Euphrates: Still kind of love this game. I went aggressive and lost because of it, but I still enjoyed it. Being aggressive and taking risks makes for better games than being passive. Pantone: In this game you have coloured cards and are trying to make people guess which person (which can either be historical or from TV/Cartoons/etc) you are drawing using the limited palette of colours available. It was kind of fun but some of the people that you were meant to draw seem pretty difficult to do, and I wish that the game wasn't limited to just people, but also other concepts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
al-azad posted:As an aside I was watching a TV show that I won't name for spoilers. This one character Fatman tells another character Scar how to rob Fatman's supposed enemy King. King nearly murders Scar and Scar eventually learns Fatman and King are actually allies. Scar threatens Fatman he'll tell King about the betrayal unless he gets the location of Fatman's shipment of foreign goods. Scar steals the goods and sells them back to Fatman for 20, Fatman then sells his recovered goods to King for 30. You been so busy being devious, you done messed around and got yourself caught up in a web. Interestingly wehrle explicitly said that the reason joco has promise cubes as opposed to pax pamir and ait (and presumably root) is to represent that the other games are a chaotic mess with no centralized authority while the players' "avatars" in joco are bound by the English legal system
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:You been so busy being devious, you done messed around and got yourself caught up in a web. Yeah, it's why I said tort in my response. It's really good and after playing things like Sidereal Confluence and JoCo with a penalty of not going through with your promise, I will never go back to pure bluffing diplomacy games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Another question about the Sirlin Games sale, does anyone have experience with Pandante? The description makes it sound interesting, but I probably wouldn't consider it outside of a big sale like this. Also, how does Codex feel to play? I like the idea of an RPS card game, but is it a good one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Very late BGG.Con game recap: I was there working, but still played a pretty respectable number of games I think. BGG is definitely my favorite show to work of the each (4th time). There were a lot of heavier games I wanted to try, but with my limited time outside of work, and how tired we generally were, some of those got skipped. Chronicles of Crime - We got lucky and found this and the next one in the library night one. They were in high demand all con. I enjoyed this quite a bit, although like a lot of these games, they'd be just fine, and maybe even better solo. The app worked well and provided some cool moments. Dice Hospital - Liked it. Simple enough but worked well and we all had a good time. We didn't use any of the optional rules but there are several so looks to be good ways to mix it up for future plays. Monolith Arena - Meh. I hadn't played Neuroshima Hex actually, but did try it on my iPad afterwards. It is partly probably due to how tired we were, and the fact that my opponent isn't a really cutthroat head to head gamer. Keyforge - Played half a dozen games of it over the weekend. I quite like it! Narabi - New Zman game in the vein of Hanabi and that sort of thing. Good for casual gamers and can be surprisingly tricky. Majolica - Felt very Azul. Very pretty, we all really liked it. Planet - Has a cool magnetic dodecahedron that you attach tiles to to make a planet. Neat gimmick, and I'd definitely play it again. Had an excellent spatial element. Visitor in Blackwood Grove - played twice, got a resounding meh from me. Things felt SUPER subjective, just too loose. Keyper - I love Keyflower, but the late hour probably hurt this one. Was disappointed the nifty folding board didn't play a bigger part. Not really a fan. Passing Through Petra - Loved the spatial elements of this one. Ended up getting a copy myself. Fleet: The Dice Game - Roll & write. I enjoy the original Fleet, and the dice version had some cool dice drafting and tons of interesting combos. I will be picking this up. Carpe Diem - Really liked this one, buddy bought a copy. Again, neat spatial stuff, with interesting decisions but easy to pick up. Forum Trajanum - I didn't dislike it, but holy crap between setup and all the moving parts it just felt worse than Carpe Diem, especially with us playing them in a row. Rising 5: Runes of Asteros - Ok. App worked fine, but the game wasn't very exciting. Noch Mal! - Roll & write. OK, but we played better roll & writes. I'd prefer Ganz Schon Clever or Brikks, or 2 I played later. Criss Cross - Roll & write. Played twice, has a sort of gambling aspect where you leave a spot hoping for the right dice roll for it. Quick and fun. Tag City - Roll & write - Much prefer this to Noch Mal. Prettier, has a fun graffiti theme, and felt very flexible and fun. Knapp Daneben! - Roll& write. Very simple but liked this one a lot. Shards of Infinity - Didn't feel like the one addition to Star Realms gave me any reason to play this instead. The Table is Lava - Silly dexterity game. Probably even more fun with alcohol. Tower of Madness - Not what I initially expected. Basically Elder Sign but if you fail a roll you have to pull from a Kerplunk-like tower. The different colors of marbles mean different things, both good and bad. Just One - Neat party game. If you give the same clue as someone else they are both erased, which can lead to some hilarity. Cockroach Poker - Another good party game. Bluff away and then see the look of disappointment on your friend's face. Arraial - Another polyomino game, but had a few interesting things you had to watch out for that kept the game interesting. Not sure I'd buy it but I'd definitely play again. Too Many Bones - Just demo'd this one at their booth. Combat felt a little Gloomhaveny, in a good way. I did pick up some of this to play at home. The components are just BONKERS. I also picked up: The 4 newest Exits Trapwords (have since played it, I prefer Banned Words to this) Pictomania (this is great) Rise of Queensdale Passing Through Petra (see above) Lost Cities Rivals Too Many Bones Undertow pbpancho fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Sidereal Confluence: I actually really enjoyed this, for some strange reason, even though I hated Spice Road for having some of the same mechanisms present in SC. I think the negotiating and asymmetrical sides really adds something to the game and makes it interesting because it means that you aren't just in your own little bubble and you have to make deals in order to go ahead. I played the insect race with a lot of planets and the double card engines, they were pretty fun overall. Chill la Chill posted:Yeah, it's why I said tort in my response. It's really good and after playing things like Sidereal Confluence and JoCo with a penalty of not going through with your promise, I will never go back to pure bluffing diplomacy games. I soured on Game of Thrones (the board game, not the LCG) because of the very aspect that seemed so fun at first--that you are encouraged to make and break promises with no built-in penalties. If that's how the game is won or lost, why bother with all the other fiddly bits? Sidereal Confluence didn't really catch my eye, but now I want to try it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
SoftNum posted:It depends? Are you going to refuse to play games with me forever if on the first turn you screw my choice by invalidating it, then 2 turns later I choose between my best action, and an action slightly less good, but hurts you more when you're in the lead (or help second place a bit more)? I mean, yeah kinda? "repercussions" aren't a rational thing. If at some point in the game you gain more from allying with me (i.e. "the person who betrayed you") than another player, then I expect you to act in your self-interest and do it. "Person X hurt me in the past" has no relevance to the board state, and your optimal move to alter that board state. Going to Diplomacy, because that's a simple rule-set everyone knows: France had snuck a unit into my Berlin, but Russia was threatening to take Berlin, then roll all over me. They had 2 units adjacent to force it. Of course I used my single adjacent unit and helped defend (the French presence in) Berlin, because it was in my best interest. Doing otherwise would've been astrategic, and the French player should rightfully have been annoyed at me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
GoT fav example: X and Y are nominally allied. X supports Z's invasion of Y; Y feels betrayed. The very next moment, X turns around "Hey Y, you have an adjacent march token, if you march back in I'll support you". Y might have reason to not commit to the attack, not believing that X will genuinely support when the moment comes, but saying "I refuse to work with you because you betrayed me" is astrategic and silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:I soured on Game of Thrones (the board game, not the LCG) because of the very aspect that seemed so fun at first--that you are encouraged to make and break promises with no built-in penalties. If that's how the game is won or lost, why bother with all the other fiddly bits? Because it fits thematically. But I agree, it makes all of the actual mechanics a bit arbitrary and for the length and complexity of the game it’s way too long and involved for non-binding agreements to obsolete most of it. Also I’m frankly shocked they released another expansion instead of a third edition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Because it fits thematically. But I agree, it makes all of the actual mechanics a bit arbitrary and for the length and complexity of the game it’s way too long and involved for non-binding agreements to obsolete most of it. Is it really thematic, though? Entire ruin comes to characters for breaking promises and in-universe you have marriages and political prisoners which could be represented in game as binding deals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Dancer posted:GoT fav example: X and Y are nominally allied. X supports Z's invasion of Y; Y feels betrayed. The very next moment, X turns around "Hey Y, you have an adjacent march token, if you march back in I'll support you". Y might have reason to not commit to the attack, not believing that X will genuinely support when the moment comes, but saying "I refuse to work with you because you betrayed me" is astrategic and silly. I don't think it is astrategic at all to think that a player that literally just betrayed you might do it again, in fact I think that's an absurd thing to suggest on the face of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
My point is that that simply isn't sufficient. You need to actually look at the situation and assess "is it not obviously in the person's best interest to not betray me again?" In the specific example I mentioned, the betrayer has already weakened one of their neighbours, they now actually kinda want to also weaken the other one, so you can almost rely on their support being there Of course there can be any number of other factors. I never claimed that it's universally a good idea. But you need to actually consider them instead of stopping at "they betrayed me so I refuse to work together".
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
There is a reasonable arguement that the first time someone betrays you in a diplomacy game you should throw the rest of the game and just 100% focus on taking them out so in the future people are less likely to betray you. Works best if you play with the same people. Unrelated: anyone got any more takes on if Barenpark or Gingerbread house is better?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Now own my first Splotter, Antiquity. Was at an even bigger discount than previously reported, so I couldn't pass it up. I wonder if I can teach my kid how to play it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Remember when John Nash invented gently caress You, Buddy and the secretaries at the RAND Corporation wouldn't eliminate each other from the game because they didn't want to betray each other? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Dancer posted:My point is that that simply isn't sufficient. You need to actually look at the situation and assess "is it not obviously in the person's best interest to not betray me again?" In the specific example I mentioned, the betrayer has already weakened one of their neighbours, they now actually kinda want to also weaken the other one, so you can almost rely on their support being there You're arguing with a strawman. The post you were replying to specifically said that people that take it to extremes and go into forever war mode in response to betrayal are trash. Part of the issue is what precisely defines "best interest." In a game like Diplomacy, shared victory mechanics give you a clear cut incentive to turn around and cooperate with the guy that just backstabbed you if it means you might survive to participate in a negotiated draw, so refusing to do so is definitely against the spirit of the game (and you'd probably have more fun playing something else anyhow.) In a winner-take-all game, if the guy that knocked you out of the running offers you a deal that will marginally improve your position without realistically giving you any route to victory, it's very debatable if cooperating is actually in your best interest at all. If you're potentially pushing him closer to a victory condition--thereby cutting short your chances to stage a comeback--I would argue that it is absolutely in your best interest to refuse to work together (although this has more to do with them being in the lead than specifically being about their betrayal--but getting backstabbed is a common way for this situation to come about in the first place.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
in the long view, your rational best interest is to play the game within the spirit of it as much as possible - without taking grudges in from outside the game, playing ruthlessly, and overall doing your best to play at the top of your game. This is the best thing to do because I'll stop playing games with you if you do otherwise. I would rather lose than win because someone else pursued a vendetta.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
All (multiplayer) games are a social activity and follow the same general rules as anything else you do when you leave your house; the "right way" to play a game is whatever works best for the group of people you're with, and could just as easily be the wrong way to conduct yourself in a different circle. There's no Platonic ideal of Correct Gaming Conduct, it's contextual just like all etiquette is contextual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
It's nice that the games that have a lot of tit for tat and vengeful game theory include (require) a lot of repeated rounds to get an appropriate result. Problem with those long games is that there usually isn't enough responses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:There is a reasonable arguement that the first time someone betrays you in a diplomacy game you should throw the rest of the game and just 100% focus on taking them out so in the future people are less likely to betray you. Mark Zuckerberg is known for doing exactly this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:There is a reasonable arguement that the first time someone betrays you in a diplomacy game you should throw the rest of the game and just 100% focus on taking them out so in the future people are less likely to betray you. This is meta-gaming and not reasonable, because at least with my group, you would not be invited back to play again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Agent Rush posted:Another question about the Sirlin Games sale, does anyone have experience with Pandante? The description makes it sound interesting, but I probably wouldn't consider it outside of a big sale like this. My group all agreed it was the worst published game we'd ever played. I've heard the new edition fixes some of the more obvious crushing problems, but I can't imagine it's enough to make it good. Tedious dreck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Poker? Pffft, Pendante is superior in every way. Chess? What about CHESS 2?! Please like, subscribe, and send me money on my patreon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:All (multiplayer) games are a social activity and follow the same general rules as anything else you do when you leave your house; the "right way" to play a game is whatever works best for the group of people you're with, and could just as easily be the wrong way to conduct yourself in a different circle. There's no Platonic ideal of Correct Gaming Conduct, it's contextual just like all etiquette is contextual. Again, games are social. What's right or wrong is less important than having someone to play with, and if you insist on meta gaming instead of playing to win, you won't have a lot of groups to play in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
You guys are all talking about the iterated prisoner's dilemma, with the most evolutionary-stable strategy being "tit for tat" right? I guess the fly in the ointment is the "iterated" part being variable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Does anyone have opinions on the expansion Great Western Trail: Rails to the North? I love GWT but I play mostly 2P and I'm thinking that the extra options in the expansion might dilute the competition in other areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
!Klams posted:You guys are all talking about the iterated prisoner's dilemma, with the most evolutionary-stable strategy being "tit for tat" right? Not precisely , because the prisoner's dilemma is a 2p game whereas this is incentive management in 3+ players.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
When people (correctly) say that outside dynamics shouldn't have an effect on the closed system of the game they are participating in, I usually interpret that to mean that you should avoid making moves based on outside held grudges or avoiding attacking your partner because they will be sour at you when you go home together. Games are the one place where rational actors actually exist and they are designed with that in mind. If you aren't attempting to make the best move for your own self interest the system collapses and the game fails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Poker? Pffft, Pendante is superior in every way. Chess? What about CHESS 2?! Okay but Chess 2 is actually good Agent Rush posted:Also, how does Codex feel to play? I like the idea of an RPS card game, but is it a good one? Do you mean Yomi? Codex is Sirlin's pseudo-LCG, Yomi is the RPS game (and some people here like a lot, myself included).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:Does anyone have opinions on the expansion Great Western Trail: Rails to the North? I love GWT but I play mostly 2P and I'm thinking that the extra options in the expansion might dilute the competition in other areas. Is it out yet? Still on preorder for me at MM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Agent Rush posted:Another question about the Sirlin Games sale, does anyone have experience with Pandante? The description makes it sound interesting, but I probably wouldn't consider it outside of a big sale like this. Pandante is bad. It’s premise is to fix Poker, but it’s done with a bunch of special rules that basically kill the simplicity of poker. Several people here will go to bat for Codex, but for me it’s a big sprawling mess of bad art, too many special rules, and it’s far too dependent on in depth knowledge of what each faction has to really shine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Unrelated: anyone got any more takes on if Barenpark or Gingerbread house is better? I like both, but Barenpark is a much better gateway and Hexenhaus has a minor issue where you can get unlucky with the tiles you're assigned. I'd be a bit happier if you picked your new tile from a market row.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Is it really thematic, though? Entire ruin comes to characters for breaking promises and in-universe you have marriages and political prisoners which could be represented in game as binding deals. Oh I agree, I think it’s lazily implemented but I get why they made negotiating a big part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Any games similar to One Deck Dungeon? Big fan of how portable it is, as well as having a reasonably solid/involved coop game to play in shorter sessions and would love anything else similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
tildes posted:Any games similar to One Deck Dungeon? Big fan of how portable it is, as well as having a reasonably solid/involved coop game to play in shorter sessions and would love anything else similar. talisman
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Suppose it's a three player game, and early in it's looking pretty equal. I have the opportunity to screw over exactly one of my opponents in order to benefit my position. Should I: - Screw over the stronger player, because setting them back is more likely to lead to me winning - Screw over the weaker player, because they're less likely to be able to effectively retaliate - Screw over Chris, because he screwed me over last time we played - Decide randomly, because anything else would be unacceptable metagaming - Forgo the opportunity, because even if I pick randomly, whoever I end up picking will think that I was metagaming and be upset about it for the rest of the night You have about a minute to make your decision before the other players start getting annoyed at how long your turn is taking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
One of the first two, obviously, and they're both fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Is it out yet? Still on preorder for me at MM. It's been out in Canada for some time. We enjoy the expansion quite a bit but I can't speak to how it works with only 2, as we usually have at least 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
"Jim, I'm going to use this to take those from you, and I'm choosing you because I think it'll be the most benefit overall, and no other reason." takes way less than a minute 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:08
|
|
