|
Fat Samurai posted:I'll defer to people who actually know her, then. Happy to see that my cynicism isn't always warranted. I found Blood Rage fairly unsatisfying as a game. The Loki issues are there but just in general the game kinda washed over me. Innis is just a better game all round.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
My experience with Hollandspiele games is that Amabel knows very well to whom her games will appeal, or that they will appeal to nobody except by virtue of being the only thing like it (and thereafter by reputation). I think a lot about The Field of the Cloth of Gold, which I suspect is not actually much of a game at all behind the curtain, but it constantly feels like an intense one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
I have Dual Gauge from her and still haven't gotten it to the table. Maybe this week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
Never played a deck builder before,unless you count Spirit Island and Quest for El Dorado. I'm I insane to be interested in finding a copy of Arctic Scavengers or has the genre evolved passed it? Space Biff mentioning it in one of their articles and the theme seems to go well with the mechanics, unlike Dominion which my eyes glaze over when its mentioned. I say this even though I like a lot of Knizia's games which are sometimes more abstract than Dominion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:I found Blood Rage fairly unsatisfying as a game. The Loki issues are there but just in general the game kinda washed over me. Innis is just a better game all round. I'm in the middle of a first game of Blood Rage on BGA at the moment and it's leaving me cold. I understand the arguments in favor of Loki being balanced, but the fact does remain that I lucked into a couple of Loki cards that combine well (steal rage and gain glory by losing fights), and now I'm playing an entirely different game than the other two players, who are stuck fighting each other while I just gleefully stand between the two of them. Sure, we could have drafted to lose that randomness, but honestly I'm starting to get tired of drafting being used as a bandage for balancing. It's like how having an auction in a game smooths over imbalanced pricing (eg. 1830) but it increases the chance that you lose through decisions that you didn't know you made until much later while increasing the amount of contextless decisions players have to make while learning a game. One of the things that I really liked about Chaos in the Old World as a game for newbies is that you begin with your starting lineup fairly set, and with a cheat sheet telling you what you're good at to start and what you'll want to do to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Quixotic1 posted:Never played a deck builder before,unless you count Spirit Island and Quest for El Dorado. I'm I insane to be interested in finding a copy of Arctic Scavengers or has the genre evolved passed it? Space Biff mentioning it in one of their articles and the theme seems to go well with the mechanics, unlike Dominion which my eyes glaze over when its mentioned. I say this even though I like a lot of Knizia's games which are sometimes more abstract than Dominion. I respect Space Biff's opinions, but Arctic Scavengers left me totally cold (how's that for theme). Clunky game-flow where a lot of the gameplay decisions seemed extremely obvious. A central gameplay mechanic is sifting through a deck of cards that you can flood by trashing weak cards so it becomes an increasingly frustrating game of lucky-dip. I can see why the theme might be engaging, but it seemed both silly and trite. The soldiers theme seemed silly, and theming the bad cards "refugees" seemed trite. It might tug at someone's heart strings, but I felt no remorse about exiling refugees/thinning bad cards from your deck. For pure deckbuilders, it's got to be Dominion still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Quixotic1 posted:Arctic Scavengers or has the genre evolved passed it ... theme seems to go well with the mechanics, unlike Dominion which my eyes glaze over I've gotten a lot of play out of both those games, Dominion has a great pool for mechanical diversity, but selecting them purely randomly has occasionally lead to some really boring games where there's lots of obvious good or bad choices, and it's just a rush to see who gets the draws to get the good cards, and then watching the engines turnover til a predictable end. I like theming in my games. AS has that over dominion for sure. Played it in November most recently. Mr. Squishy posted:Clunky game-flow where a lot of the gameplay decisions seemed extremely obvious. There's a bluffing element to the game that's really important. Without it, you're correct, there's a lot of draw cards, assess, make obvious optimal play. If you don't have opponents willing to negotiate bribe bluff and backstab, there'd be less fun in the game. But my usual board game crew is a conniving group. The scavenge deck. Please tell me you weren't digging for singles? The luck element of it is highly mitigated by just bringing enough Dig actions to get something useful. And then pivoting your plans based on what you find. Also, you know the exact makeup of the pile, you stop digging after turn 4 or so because you've scavenged most of the good stuff in the game at that point. Digging is no kind of WinCon. The expansion gave the game a lot more table time for us, as well as using the base micro-expansions. Slyphic fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Mar 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
Mighty Eris posted:I'm in the middle of a first game of Blood Rage on BGA at the moment and it's leaving me cold. I understand the arguments in favor of Loki being balanced, but the fact does remain that I lucked into a couple of Loki cards that combine well (steal rage and gain glory by losing fights), and now I'm playing an entirely different game than the other two players, who are stuck fighting each other while I just gleefully stand between the two of them. I've always played Blood Rage with drafting and it does help but it doesn't fix the issue that some cards are amazing and some are not. It's also the kinda of game where the winner keeps on winning so lucking into some amazing cards early on is not balanced out by an opponent getting them late game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Quixotic1 posted:Never played a deck builder before,unless you count Spirit Island and Quest for El Dorado. I'm I insane to be interested in finding a copy of Arctic Scavengers or has the genre evolved passed it? Space Biff mentioning it in one of their articles and the theme seems to go well with the mechanics, unlike Dominion which my eyes glaze over when its mentioned. I say this even though I like a lot of Knizia's games which are sometimes more abstract than Dominion. I wouldn't call SI a deckbuilder, but QfED absolutely is - a very good one in fact. I suppose you're just looking to "expand" into a more complex experience but still have a theme?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Mighty Eris posted:One of the things that I really liked about Chaos in the Old World as a game for newbies is that you begin with your starting lineup fairly set, and with a cheat sheet telling you what you're good at to start and what you'll want to do to win. I don't understand why more games don't do this. It's not some big secret to experienced players, so why not give the newbies a shot at not feeling like they've already hosed up after turn one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:I've always played Blood Rage with drafting and it does help but it doesn't fix the issue that some cards are amazing and some are not. It's also the kinda of game where the winner keeps on winning so lucking into some amazing cards early on is not balanced out by an opponent getting them late game. I think Blood Rage holds up initially pretty well to occasional playing, but I actually think it's a game that gets worse with repeated exposure (like I've recently had on BGA). There's just not enough under the hood. The Loki cards are very, very good and, generally speaking, don't require a ton of rage to get optimum value out of. Because of how limited rage is, it's REALLY hard to build a fighting engine that scores as high as a Loki strategy and while everyone can hate-draft Loki and spread him around at least... it still doesn't change the fact that the other gameplay isn't terribly engaging.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:I wouldn't call SI a deckbuilder, but QfED absolutely is - a very good one in fact. I suppose you're just looking to "expand" into a more complex experience but still have a theme? Yea was looking for a more complex deck builder with a good theme. QfED was a hit for my group, but its pretty light and fast(not a negative!), one person called it the appetizer before the big game. Forgot I own Millennium Blades with Set Rotation exp and played it a few times, but the setup and breakdown was a killer and its been collecting dust. Haven't read the rules for the newest expansion which apparently changed the base game a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:After reading that I now want to play For-Ex. Well for you and anyone else I'm trying to start a game on BGA. It doesn't look like there are any competing games, but if you're interested you can join and check it out if we get enough people!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a war game for 3-5 players? We’ve enjoyed Root, but we’ve found that most games end in one of two ways: one player manages to avoid notice for a while (usually the Vagabond) and suddenly runs away with the win, or one player can’t possibly win but ends up as a kingmaker with absolute control over who can. Maybe that’s a symptom of all war games with more than two players but I figured I’d ask here. Something comparable in weight to Root (or lighter) is fine, and I’d prefer relatively shorter games (ie can be started and finished in the evening without having to start early in the afternoon) if possible. I’ve been eyeing Kemet and Cyclades because they both look cool but any suggestions are fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/253499/war-whispers I adore War of Whispers, and I think you would like it too. It's a DOAM, but everyone has control over the all the armies and are secretly betting on which one comes out on top. SUSD did a review of it. I love it, I always want to crack it out
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
It's a hair more complex than Root but you're looking for Pax Pamir 2e
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
As my 2 other suggestions have just gone, War of Whispers and Pax Pamir, im going to suggest Inis. It really shines at 3 not 5 though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Also if people like A War of Whispers, check out Gladius It's basically the card version of it, and it's quick and light. Probably 10-15min per game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/285232/gladius
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Inis slaps. It's probably my favorite game. Covid hit when the expansion came out, so I can't speak to 5, but 3-4 it's great. I also forgot I wanted to buy War of Whispers, so did that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Anyone play 1848? We’re playing the GMT version on Friday. If so, any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Can anyone recommend a war game for 3-5 players? We’ve enjoyed Root, but we’ve found that most games end in one of two ways: one player manages to avoid notice for a while (usually the Vagabond) and suddenly runs away with the win, or one player can’t possibly win but ends up as a kingmaker with absolute control over who can. Maybe that’s a symptom of all war games with more than two players but I figured I’d ask here. 2nd edition Eclipse is highly rated but pretty expensive on the second hand market. Ankh is also highly rated as well as Rising Sun by the same designer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Radioactive Toy posted:An unofficial digital Mage Knight did recently come out, it just has a different name. There's a demo available if you want to try it. It's legitimately just Mage Knight as far as I could tell playing the demo. Super late on this, but thanks for the heads up, I have to check this out. Also I got my hands on SCOUT and it really is a clever game, but it took me a few plays to wrap my head around it. The rules are there, but honestly feel like a disconnected bunch of translated specifics. For anyone who hasn't played: it's a set-playing game where you generally want to a) be the first to play all your cards (ending the round), or better yet, b) play a set so strong that no one can top it before play comes back around to you (therefore also ending the round). (In the first case, cards left in players' hands are worth -1 point each. In the second case, your own remaining cards are exempt from counting as -1.) One of my friends joked about how paper-thin the theme is, but after a few plays I don't think I agree. I have come to think that the theme is in fact a really good metaphor for the gameplay: cards are performers, and you're spending your turns either putting on a show (playing a set) that's better than the existing one, or poaching a performer from the existing show (i.e. taking a card from it and into your hand) which helps build your own sets, while simultaneously weakening the existing one. The different mechanics make a whole lot more cohesive sense in this light, and it's far easier to explain the gameplay rules in this way. It's a good example of how symbolism (like a game's theme) can be an effective way to communicate more than one idea at a time, and that can help communicate ideas like "how to play this".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:2nd edition Eclipse is highly rated but pretty expensive on the second hand market. 2nd edition Eclipse is fantastic. Every aspect of the game is improved, including storage and player piece management, and it shows. It's still Eclipse, of course, but the game is not only meaningfully edited from the first edition, but is also cleaner and faster to both setup and put away as a result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:Also if people like A War of Whispers, check out Gladius I'd seen this going around but kinda didn't take notice. Based on this rules video, it seems a little bit like a better version of The Princess Bride: Battle of Wits which my group likes a fair bit and I... am willing to play. It looks better primarily because the starting hands are different, there is more than one round, and with only 3 people to fight over at a time it would seemingly narrow the decision space to prevent the gentle brain-lock that I've seen the Battle of Wits game occasionally induce. I think it's quite interesting that if you bet on someone in first or third, it's locked for scoring, even if was the wrong kind of bet (victory or defeat), but if you get 2nd, it comes back, potentially letting you have more options later. Sure, there's only 3 rounds but otherwise you only have 7 tokens, 5 positive 2 negative. I wonder if it was originally themed as Quibble Races.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
I have a new "escape room in a box" arriving tomorrow called The Emerald Flame. Hoping it'll be pretty fun  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSYlz9fL3Og https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/299371/emerald-flame 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
The production values certainly look high. I dig the quasi-occult(?) art style, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Can anyone recommend a war game for 3-5 players? We’ve enjoyed Root, but we’ve found that most games end in one of two ways: one player manages to avoid notice for a while (usually the Vagabond) and suddenly runs away with the win, or one player can’t possibly win but ends up as a kingmaker with absolute control over who can. Maybe that’s a symptom of all war games with more than two players but I figured I’d ask here. I feel like that's just something that's going to happen in a lot of wargames. Small World is good and combats that issue somewhat by keeping the victory point counters face down, so unless you're really good at counting, you're never quite sure who exactly is winning or by how much. On the other hand, once you play it a lot you'll likely identify some of the stronger races and powers in the game and develop a metagame around that at your table, so it's not infinitely replayable. Buying the expansions extends this a bit but not indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
St0rmD posted:I feel like that's just something that's going to happen in a lot of wargames. Small World is good and combats that issue somewhat by keeping the victory point counters face down, so unless you're really good at counting, you're never quite sure who exactly is winning or by how much. On the other hand, once you play it a lot you'll likely identify some of the stronger races and powers in the game and develop a metagame around that at your table, so it's not infinitely replayable. Buying the expansions extends this a bit but not indefinitely. I would argue that a good wargame combats the issues in ways that doesn't involve playing memory, but I soured on Small World pretty quickly when I realized the actual board state was just a clunky stock market that measures payouts on choosing the right race/power combo. Instead, I would recommend Maria, which balances three nicely by having one player essentially be the minor partner to the other two players, where they need to tweak both sides just enough that they rise to the top of the three way stalemate. It's great because it makes everyone's role clear - two players are destined to go against each other, so the kingmaker is always clearly identified and so they can be negotiated with in good faith. *edit* I now realize I'm placing a flag in the ground of Once Seen Always Known, but I'm fully on the side of our Idiot King in this regard
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
OP said 3-5. Maria is only 3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
I mean, 3 is fine. Sometimes we have 3, sometimes we have 4 or 5. Occasionally we have more in which case we'll usually play a party game or jackbox or something, if we only have 2 we have a few games we can play (I've had Undaunted Normandy sitting unplayed for a while and I've been wanting to get Tash Kalar) so I just wanted to focus on that amount. But thank you for the suggestions, everyone; I think I'm going to start by looking into War of Whispers and Inis (and likely Cyclades and Kemet because I like their theming a lot). Pax Pamir looks fine but, I don't know, it just doesn't really leap out and make me want to play it in any particular way. Eclipse also looks really cool but it is quite expensive to the point where I'd almost rather just buy everyone a copy of Endless Space 2 or something. We've played a little bit of Smallworld and it's.. fine? It's always felt kind of shallow to me, even though I'm not actually good at it. (I am not good at any of the games we play except Love Letter; this isn't helped by the fact that we play a lot of Betrayal at House on the Hill, a game that I'm pretty sure you can't actually be good at)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
If you play War of Whispers it has two official variant rules that are well worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
The Devout variant is the best. Otherwise you end up win a situation with 2-3 players with the exact same setup - which is fine - but Devout makes it more secret king making in the 'mid' game
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
St0rmD posted:I feel like that's just something that's going to happen in a lot of wargames. Small World is good and combats that issue somewhat by keeping the victory point counters face down, so unless you're really good at counting, you're never quite sure who exactly is winning or by how much. On the other hand, once you play it a lot you'll likely identify some of the stronger races and powers in the game and develop a metagame around that at your table, so it's not infinitely replayable. Buying the expansions extends this a bit but not indefinitely. I think Small World is not a good game and I would never recommend it to anyone older than 12 if better options were available. The hidden VP directly encourages the political campaigning of "nooo, go after THAT PERSON, they're really in the lead" which makes every game about that theatrical complaining rather than the game's actual mechanics. If you can actually see who's in the lead by seeing their VP, you have to win the game by better at Small World, rather than being better at complaining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
Small World is a very flawed game that (in my opinion) is still super fun to break out once or twice a year. It's nowhere near as deep tactically as the components might suggest but I'm still having a hard time thinking of a time we've played it that hasn't been kinda a blast. In other news I played Dune: Imperium again, this time with the expansion, and I went harder for the faction icons in my deck....and then got utterly hosed by my hand draw like three full rounds in a row. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
I'd also consider the Quartermaster General series. They're a little more rigid on player count (1914 is ideally 5 players though you can play it with 3 or 4 with one player playing more than one faction) but they are some of the best accessible war games I've come across, and the fact that they are team-based and have a fixed setup gets around a lot of the issues that arise from more free for all style games. They also feel more like 'war' games to me than some of the other suggestions in that you have to consider supply lines (in an extremely simplistic way but still), you can take and hold territory (as opposed to cohabitation/area majority mechanics), and there are different factions with varying levels of power, objectives, and initial setup. If the player count variability doesn't rule them out I'd highly suggest looking into these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
homullus posted:I think Small World is not a good game and I would never recommend it to anyone older than 12 if better options were available. The hidden VP directly encourages the political campaigning of "nooo, go after THAT PERSON, they're really in the lead" which makes every game about that theatrical complaining rather than the game's actual mechanics. If you can actually see who's in the lead by seeing their VP, you have to win the game by better at Small World, rather than being better at complaining. Hah, last time I played Small World at a board game meetup, as I went into decline I counted out my points. "14 points! WOW!" The whole table agreed. I thought  but whatever. After, I realized I had been declared public enemy #1 and was attacked into irrelevance by basically everyone over the course of the rest of the game.The next two players after me and my 14-point turn by the way each quietly scored way more than 14, as the rest of the table stared at their phones. That was a real learning experience. The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Mar 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
Ankh seems to have come and gone without making a huge impact (other than SWVAG's game of the year) but I think it's really good. I also don't find it at all like Lang's other stuff, it really feels to me like as if Knizia took a whack at a DoAM game like he did with deckbuilders and Quest for El Dorado. It has very little randomness but a lot of variability due to the way the players can reconfigure the board. I think if it used tokens instead of massive minis it might be compared to a whole bunch of more abstract games rather than Blood Rage, Kemet etc. The merge mechanic is super important to make people aware of (essentially, the two players in last position merge into one faction with double turns about 3/4ths to 4/5ths through the game) because you need to plan around it, but it's a really interesting catch up mechanism that has made every game I've played tight right up until the end. It's also fairly fast to play with a bit of experience. edit: and in fact I think Ankh possibly hasn't been as big a deal as say Blood Rage and probably won't because it's a much deeper and more strategic game, but it initially LOOKs like something much more ameri-trashy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Herb Witches arrived and is now sorted into the base Quacks box  Going to a friends this weekend and will give it a burl. The coin cases are like 2 weeks away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 08:56
|
|
|
What's a good 4-6 player game? I was thinking of picking up Mysterium or Funemployed but I'm open to suggestions. While I'd prefer something relatively light, a heavier game might be fine if it's not too time consuming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Elman posted:What's a good 4-6 player game? I was thinking of picking up Mysterium or Funemployed but I'm open to suggestions. While I'd prefer something relatively light, a heavier game might be fine if it's not too time consuming. Well, the OP has many suggestions for various compexity levels and player counts, I'm going to quote myself suggesting to another goon some lighter games: Magnetic North posted:Here are some thread-approved suggestions. They're all solid gold in my opinion. I added some very brief descriptions, written in great haste. Follow the link to BGG for more, or if it piques your curiosity, you can ask here for more info.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 09:18
|
|