|
Major Isoor posted:Either way, I'm still kinda tempted for BSG - especially if it's still almost as good with four people. It's not, because having only one traitor significantly weakens the game. It's playable, but worse.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Is Clank! any fun to play at all? I remember hearing mixed things about it, mostly that it was too random. A friend wants it and is thinking about buying it after having played through a game of it and if she's going to get it, she's going to want people to play with and I don't remember much about the game other than the aforementioned mixed things and the premise of deckbuilding and pushing your luck to get better treasures before the dragon wakes up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
BSG is possibly one of my favorite board games of all time, and probably the one I've gotten to table most often over the years (and participated in dozens upon dozens of PbPs)- and I can pretty definitely say you should either play it with 5 players or not at all. Also I'm way behind the times by like a decade but I finally picked up Dominion (and Seaside) and it's pretty great. I'm pretty sure I avoided that game for years just due to how evangelical people were about it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bear posted:Also I'm way behind the times by like a decade but I finally picked up Dominion (and Seaside) and it's pretty great. I'm pretty sure I avoided that game for years just due to how evangelical people were about it at the time. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Major Isoor posted:Hmm well, BSG sounds good, but the five-player recommendation is a turn-off - I could easily do three player games and also four player games reasonably often, but five player game nights only come up now and again, these days. Is Homeland good with around four people, or does that play best with five, like BSG? (I wasn't aware of it before, but Mojo Jojo's post piqued my interest - especially as it was mentioned that there isn't necessarily a terrorist/traitor) My group loves homeland. Works with 4 just fine
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:What do evangelicals care about Dominion?  
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
I love BSG and have played a shitload of games of it. In my opinion its biggest flaws are related to the game length. The game is kinda dull without a traitor to root out or be, and depending on how things go you might discover the traitors very early on. Once the intrigue of the game is removed, it just becomes a mechanical exercise of playing the game out. I don't like the design decision of the game length being dictated by the jump cards the admiral gets, either. Bad jump cards (whether intentional or unlucky) can add many turns to an already long game - a Cylon admiral doesn't kill Galactica with a big dramatic reveal, he kills Galactica through grinding attrition. I think I'd much prefer it if the Admiral was just picking between more or less destructive jump cards, and the game had a fixed number of jumps before it ended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Gort posted:I love BSG and have played a shitload of games of it. In my opinion its biggest flaws are related to the game length. The game is kinda dull without a traitor to root out or be, and depending on how things go you might discover the traitors very early on. Once the intrigue of the game is removed, it just becomes a mechanical exercise of playing the game out. A common house rule is either to add 1 to the value of all destinations (so they are now 2, 3 or 4) and playing to the jump after 12 destination (instead of 8), or simply playing that the humans have to jump to at least 4 destinations (so stopping the game ending after 3 destinations which is almost always a human victory).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
FirstAidKite posted:Is Clank! any fun to play at all? I remember hearing mixed things about it, mostly that it was too random. A friend wants it and is thinking about buying it after having played through a game of it and if she's going to get it, she's going to want people to play with and I don't remember much about the game other than the aforementioned mixed things and the premise of deckbuilding and pushing your luck to get better treasures before the dragon wakes up. I guess it's 'fun' in the sense that it's doing something sociable with people you (presumably) like to spend time with, but it'd be better to play a proper deckbuilder like Dominion. It's easiest to think of Clank as Ascension (it has a fight currency to hit monsters which appear in the market) with an additional third currency which is used to move around the game board to pick up treasure, and a health mechanic which allows for occasional player elimination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
I've played BSG once and I liked the traitor mechanics, but the Cylon war stuff - particularly the harassing bad guy ships - are clunky and fiddly in the most agonizing possible FFG way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:What do evangelicals care about Dominion? They're preaching Prosperity gospel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
I know people here have some justifiably mixed opinions about The Secret Cabal (I tend to enjoy listening, though them reviewing a game positively means nothing to me), but one of the things I like that I first heard there was when Jaime talked about the concept of "fragile" games. He mentioned BSG (which I've never played, so maybe this has no basis but it gels with what I've heard about it) as an example. Basically fragile games are those that are, for various reasons, have the potential to be very fun games or 3+ hour long slogs depending on circumstances that aren't necessarily under the game's control. It's not just that certain player types don't work well with certain game types, but certain random chances that can basically ruin the experience. Like if a Cylon in BSG gets conclusively found out and is just forced into the brig extremely early (again, I've not played it so maybe that's a bad example), or if Dracula in FoD gets run into a corner really early on and never really gets going, etc. It's particularly unfortunate if you run one of those games for people that don't game that often and it doesn't go as well as it might usually, which is something I definitely have to consider personally. Japanese Dating Sim fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
FirstAidKite posted:Is Clank! any fun to play at all? It's not truly terrible in a way something like Talisman is, but it fails to leverage any of its ideas to become something more than a mediocre market row deckbuilder. Similarly to games like Star Realms or Ascension, they may seem quite fun if it's one's introduction to the genre, but if you've played one of the really good deckbuilders (for as long it takes to click for you why they're lauded so much), the experience turns really dull real quick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:A common house rule is either to add 1 to the value of all destinations (so they are now 2, 3 or 4) and playing to the jump after 12 destination (instead of 8), or simply playing that the humans have to jump to at least 4 destinations (so stopping the game ending after 3 destinations which is almost always a human victory). That's actually a house rule my group came up with and it's amazing how well it works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
FirstAidKite posted:Is Clank! any fun to play at all? I remember hearing mixed things about it, mostly that it was too random. A friend wants it and is thinking about buying it after having played through a game of it and if she's going to get it, she's going to want people to play with and I don't remember much about the game other than the aforementioned mixed things and the premise of deckbuilding and pushing your luck to get better treasures before the dragon wakes up. Clank is terrible. It's boring, the only well designed mechanic is the damage one (none of them are executed well), the map is stupid and poorly designed, the cards are even more "strictly better, strictly worse," and it has the most potential to have a run away first player of any deck builder I've played
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
The thread and discord saved me from Clank and I am very thankful
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
What is the discord? Is there still an IRC?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:What is the discord? Is there still an IRC?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:It's not truly terrible in a way something like Talisman is, but it fails to leverage any of its ideas to become something more than a mediocre market row deckbuilder. Similarly to games like Star Realms or Ascension, they may seem quite fun if it's one's introduction to the genre, but if you've played one of the really good deckbuilders (for as long it takes to click for you why they're lauded so much), the experience turns really dull real quick. What are the good deck building games anyway? I've really only heard universal praise of dominion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Dominion, Puzzle Strike, Valley of the Kings. I think paperback was a fun use of the mechanic? Then there's a bunch of games that have a sort of spin-off mechanics, like Concordia, which don't really count but provide a very similar kind of pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
adebisi lives posted:What are the good deck building games anyway? I've really only heard universal praise of dominion. From the audience here, you'll pretty much only hear good things about Dominion, and perhaps Eminent Domain or Paperback in terms of strict deck-builders, because the vocal crew here lives staunchly by a code of randomness being objectively bad (thus the above comments on Clank, Ascension, basically any single-deck market deck-builder). There are other games which implement deck-building as a part of their whole experience (Great Western Trail comes to mind), but it's hardly the core mechanism of the game. It's definitely a matter of taste though. I greatly prefer the single-deck take on deck-building to the Dominion-style fixed market, but recognize it's a minority opinion here (though certainly not across the industry at large). e: ^Oh yeah, forgot about VoK. That one is really good. e2: And there's certainly other reasons to fault the single-deck games besides their randomness, like runaway leaders and stuff which I agree could be designed better. Merauder fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Dominion, Puzzle Strike, Valley of the Kings. I think paperback was a fun use of the mechanic? Paperback is less fun than it appears to be at first, due to the pace of the game and at which new consonants enter your deck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Merauder posted:From the audience here, you'll pretty much only hear good things about Dominion, and perhaps Eminent Domain or Paperback in terms of strict deck-builders, because the vocal crew here lives staunchly by a code of randomness being objectively bad (thus the above comments on Clank, Ascension, basically any single-deck market deck-builder). There are other games which implement deck-building as a part of their whole experience (Great Western Trail comes to mind), but it's hardly the core mechanism of the game. Single-deck market deck-builders can be really good, the problem is that a lot of games that use the mechanic are trash garbage because it's a very simple to employ mechanic. Games like Clank! for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Merauder posted:the vocal crew here lives staunchly by a code of randomness being objectively bad (thus the above comments on Clank, Ascension, basically any single-deck market deck-builder adebisi lives posted:What are the good deck building games anyway? I've really only heard universal praise of dominion. Kashuno posted:Single-deck market deck-builders can be really good, the problem is that a lot of games that use the mechanic are trash garbage because it's a very simple to employ mechanic. Games like Clank! for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Merauder posted:From the audience here, you'll pretty much only hear good things about Dominion, and perhaps Eminent Domain or Paperback in terms of strict deck-builders, because the vocal crew here lives staunchly by a code of randomness being objectively bad (thus the above comments on Clank, Ascension, basically any single-deck market deck-builder). There are other games which implement deck-building as a part of their whole experience (Great Western Trail comes to mind), but it's hardly the core mechanism of the game. Also try not saying "people here think randomness is objectively bad" because that's untrue and stupid. Randomness when used badly is bad, but that's kind of tautological?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Well yeah. I don't think I've ever seen a defense for them aside from "fun."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Another vote for Time of Crisis and VotK and... maybe Mage Knight? And I haven't played either yet but El Dorado seems to be doing everything Clank does too, minus the obviously dumb ones. It's funny that Clank and Deck Builders are being discussed again because my good friend and gaming buddy just recently played Clank and seemed to loving love it. And I do want to try it myself before saying too much but the dude also has a giant hard on for DC Deckbuilder, a game that I have almost nothing nice to say about it and is also a single deck market row.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Another vote for Time of Crisis and VotK and... maybe Mage Knight? And I haven't played either yet but El Dorado seems to be doing everything Clank does too, minus the obviously dumb ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Also try not saying "people here think randomness is objectively bad" because that's untrue and stupid. Randomness when used badly is bad, but that's kind of tautological? I think everyone here would agree that Dominion would be a much worse game if you stacked your deck instead of shuffling it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the VOTK (valley of the kings?) suggestions. I'll run it through my group laterFulsomFrank posted:It's funny that Clank and Deck Builders are being discussed again because my good friend and gaming buddy just recently played Clank and seemed to loving love it. And I do want to try it myself before saying too much but the dude also has a giant hard on for DC Deckbuilder, a game that I have almost nothing nice to say about it and is also a single deck market row.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Valley of the Kings is proof that you can control the randomness in a market-row deckbuilder without removing all the chance. Sadly, I have yet to see a game that expands upon that. On that note, Valley of the Kings:Afterlife is my favorite version of the game. The original game is a bit too pro-thining, and Valley of the Kings:Last Rites is a bit to combo heavy for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Also try not saying "people here think randomness is objectively bad" because that's untrue and stupid. Randomness when used badly is bad, but that's kind of tautological? Sorry, was a bit unclear. I meant in the context of deck-building games, and having to build your deck from a randomly changing market; not that randomness is 100% bad all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:I think everyone here would agree that Dominion would be a much worse game if you stacked your deck instead of shuffling it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:You say that, but the deckbuilding mechanism within Time of Crisis does allow you to stack the deck and it is pretty interesting (although I've sold the game because the dice mechanism in it doesn't agree with me). Although, in time of crisis, all cards are more or less useful, unlike Dominion that relies on expressly useless cards to balance the game. That's actually the reason why the card mechanism in ToC works, though, even though it not only has dual resources, but a TRIPLE resource system. if you had to randomly draw, you would probably always get dogshit hands, or get something that's not immediately useful, which is what happens even in dual resource games. The genius of ToC's system is that you also build your hand at the end of your turn, which means you have to take into account what your opponents might do. I really like the card system in ToC, shame about the rest of the package. golden bubble posted:Valley of the Kings is proof that you can control the randomness in a market-row deckbuilder without removing all the chance. Sadly, I have yet to see a game that expands upon that. On that note, Valley of the Kings:Afterlife is my favorite version of the game. The original game is a bit too pro-thining, and Valley of the Kings:Last Rites is a bit to combo heavy for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Well yeah. I don't think I've ever seen a defense for them aside from "fun." Valley of the Kings, as has already been stated, is great. I tried it on the recommendation of this thread and it has done really well with my group. Definitely that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I've always felt it would be really really easy to fix market row deckbuilders by adding a quick micro-auction phase. Instead of buying the best card for what it costs you have the option to bid on it, then everyone else gets a chance to buy it out from under you. Probably gives big money strategies an even bigger advantage but that seems fixable by just changing how money cycles through the deck? I kind of want to mess with this idea, now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Yeah, TOC needed sculpted hands because of the wargame-lite/area control aspect of it. If it was random like dominion it would just be a lovely market row deckbuilder (the analogy to wargames without total control of actions here) on top of dice. I still like the dice myself because I understand it's a way to use otherwise useless senate points and I do like the possible math from it, but I can see how exploding dice are really polarizing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Truth be told, I liked Clank! a lot better on my second playthrough. Not in the sense of having more fun with it, but seeing some glimpses of promise that could be fulfilled by a better executed game. Or, to be more precise, I was happy for there to be any alternative to Tyrants of the Underdark, which for some reason is a huge hit at my meetup. It's completely baffling to me, as the game is milquetoast deckbuilder incarnate: interactions with the board are so bland and uninteresting that the secondary resource (a lovely mechanic in and of itself) might as well be straight converted to bidding on VPs, the variable deck setup somehow offers the worst of both worlds - market row fuckery combined with Dominion's locking into a clear strategy after a few buys - and the spies are a mechanic that seems simultaneosly near pointless and annoying - like basically all of this game's kingmaking avenues. It also took the worst possible approach to trashing cards, where you're both incentivized to trash whatever you're able to (for reasons beyond the general strength of deck-thinning) and the ability to do so is very limited, meaning there's no room neither for thinking what and when to trash stuff nor to have a chance to see some meaningful deck transition. Compared to this, Clank! offered a comforting illusion of there being some semblance of playstyle choices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I kind of wonder if exploding dice games would 'feel' better if you just figured out the probability of a win and rolled a d100
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:I mean, ToC is explicitly not a market row game, since it has an open market where mostly you can buy any card, if you have the right resources, just like in Dominion, but I do agree with you there. I was using the market row analogy to a wargame that had locked actions based on what you drew out of your hand of cards. Now, there's been games that have been really liked that do it, like C&C, but I personally have a love-hate relationship with that variable chance to do your own actions. I feel like C&C is fine because you get to move with somebody, but with TOC it'd be a lot worse since there's wildly different actions and you're pretty hosed if you don't get to build limes or camps in time. Kashuno posted:Valley of the Kings, as has already been stated, is great. I tried it on the recommendation of this thread and it has done really well with my group. Definitely that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:15
|
|