|
Played Abyss twice tonight and was pretty pleased with the outcome. Played with a few people that haven't played more than Monopoly and it went really smooth after a turn or two. I'm eager to get it to the table. Resident Evil: The Deck Building Game was also somehow in play, I don't think I could've enjoyed myself less. It's pretty much Dominion with far less interesting card interaction and instead of buying VP, you're putting your deck together to tackle a challenge deck that can range from the smallest monster to the ultimate big bad. I've stomached some awful experiences but I had to walk away from that.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
I played 2 games of Temporum today, one 3 player game and then when some more friends got there so we played a 5 player game. Obviously both games I was teaching people and they were the first for me but I still want to put down some of my thoughts because man it is hard to parse this game just from the rule book. Like Broken Loose said the skill floor is extremely high. The turns are deceptively simple because you only really do 3 things, and even the second two things are conflated with each other: first you can change history in the timeline directly below you, then you can move to a real time zone, then you "visit" that time zone by following the instructions on its card (these second two parts are separated because there are cards were the distinction between "visiting" a time zone - i.e. actually following its rules - and just being there at some point are important). However, there is a ton of stuff to keep track of, and there were multiple times in each of my introductory games where I realized I hosed something up and boned myself because I wasn't paying attention to who was ruling where or wasted a turn doing something redundant (like scoring cards too early). In both games we played with the pre-built setups. First we did the beginners one which has a lot of zones which focus on ruling time zones (presumably because this mechanic is a little trickier to teach), and the second we did the "friendly" set up where a lot of zones gave bonuses to every other player after it lets you do your thing. The first game was won pretty handily by the guy who drew the most cards. Like McNerd said, this is actually extremely important even though it seems so rudimentary, but more cards just give you so many more options on what to do, especially when you need discard fuel or just a few extra bucks, or to quickly wreck someone's advantage by taking over rule of a time zone. The second game ended after a few mega-turns thanks to the "Information Age" zone card being in play. I actually feel like this card is an extremely good one to teach the value of long term strategic thinking. Ignoring the card is actually one of the times I realized I boned myself because I could have also had a mega-turn but I didn't manage my crowns well enough (the card allows you to visit past zones you have at least 4 crowns in, I ironically had too many in the 4th zone so I couldn't take advantage of it). The player who came in first actually came from way behind thanks to this zone and a really solid play; then one of the guys accidentally handed him the game during his own mega-turn when he gave the winner a bunch of cards and money but fell just short of closing out the game himself, like literally 4 crown moves short. I am going to play more next weekend and I can't wait. Going to echo BL and McNerd again and say I honestly can't tell if there is a way to plan a winning strategy or if it comes down to a lot of luck. The fact that I had multiple head slapping instances where I could tell where I hosed up seems like an extremely good sign; those are some of my favorite learning moments in Dominion. My biggest worry right now concerns the shared deck and the luck factor with drawing cards there, but with each card having multiple parts (coin value, score value, effect) it seems like they balance well enough to not completely swing the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:You're missing a vital piece of the puzzle here: It's not an incident, it's an ability of the plot itself, isn't it? But the first time they lose that way, or realize that's the plot, they should agree during the between-loop talk to always be "forbid intrigue"-ing the hospital, i think. Deviant fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Deviant posted:It's not an incident, it's an ability of the plot itself, isn't it? No. You're confusing Hospital Incident (an Incident) with A Place to Protect (a Main Plot), both of which are active in Script #2. A Place to Protect (Main Plot) -- [Loop End] If there are 2+ Intrigue on the School, the Protagonists lose. Hospital Incident (Incident) -- If there is 1 intrigue on the Hospital, everyone in the Hospital dies. If 2+ intrigue, the Protagonists die. As the former is a Plot, it is always true. The latter is an Incident, and thus only triggers on the day of the incident (Day 3), if and only if the connected culprit (Boy Student) has enough paranoia to panic during the Incident Phase. To sum up for people not reading spoilered text: Script #2 is completely winnable by the Protagonists. Little Mac just missed an important rule about how Incidents work. gutterdaughter fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Deviant posted:It's not an incident, it's an ability of the plot itself, isn't it? Edit: Nevermind, I misunderstood what you were confused about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Testro posted:We had a filler game of Skip Bo, which is barely worth mentioning but always rates well with people who rarely play games. Works particularly well in a big group, but it was a fun enough way to spend a bit of downtime between games with just the two of us. My family's go-to quiet evening card game is Skip-Bo, but we've found it unbearable unless you play 4-handed in teams of 2 (three pairs would work as well but I'm not sure if there's enough cards in the deck). Multiple stacks to play off of (and if one team clears a stack they're probably closer to winning but they now have fewer options and are easier to block), trying to play cards that help your partner, when we tried three people with single stacks it just turned into solitaire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
An additional thing to remember about that Tragedy Looper scenario (#2): It is entirely critical for the protagonists to move the Boy Student out of the school on turn 1, or they will lose, because he can block Forbid Intrigue just by being there, so +1 Intrigue will always go through and win you the game turn one. Doing this will probably lead to some intrigue being placed on the Hospital, but as already mentioned, there are other ways to stop that from actual being meaningful. Winning for the protagonists essentially boils down to Day 1: Move Boy Student, Forbid Intrigue on School; Day 2+: Forbid Intrigue on School, keep Boy Student out of School, keep Boy Student's paranoia as low as possible using the Doctor/Girl Student/cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Today I played some games. Coup for a bit to warm up, maybe five or six games in a row. This was the most Coup I've played yet since getting it and it was really good. First time for the other three and they liked it a lot, enough that they suggested playing it at work sometime. And then we played Kemet. Gosh I love that game. I'm still relatively new to it but it has not failed to deliver once and by the end of it we were all repeatedly saying "this is a good game" and "we need to play this gain sometime". Unfortunately we didn't get to finish it as we ran a bit long after a late start and ran out of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:Everyone wanted to play again but one of our regular players didn't think they were very good at the game and thus didn't want to play anymore (and it really seems like the game wasn't built for less than four players). I'm growing kinda tired of wasting money on games that will never be played again just because one person doesn't like playing them because they're not very good at them (see: 7 Wonders, Race for the Galaxy, probabl Space Alert if I can ever convince anyone to play it). Such fun games that just waste shelf space. If you only play with the same people all the time, there is no avoiding this. People are different enough to not like the same thing the same amounts. You need to get more people and rotate groups somehow or meet and play with two different sets of people in some alternating way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:If you only play with the same people all the time, there is no avoiding this. People are different enough to not like the same thing the same amounts. You need to get more people and rotate groups somehow or meet and play with two different sets of people in some alternating way. Yes. Playing with an identical group just makes everything stale. You need new blood to mix it up. Ideally you want people also to play games in distinct groups to you, that way you get introduced to new games and strategies and so on. Obviously, for some this is easier said than done. I'm pretty lucky right now that I have two semi-regular groups. Also, it's good to hear that there are other people out there who don't enjoy 7 Wonders. That game just completely falls flat for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:You're missing a vital piece of the puzzle here: Okay, I think I missed that you need the Boy Student with sufficient paranoia to trigger the Hospital incident. We were getting confused about Paranoia a lot. So do all incidents require sufficient paranoia on the culprit to trigger them? Like, for Murder does the culprit have to have max paranoia? We were under the assumption that it happens as long as the culprit's there at the right time. Cartridgeblowers fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:Okay, I think I missed that you need the Boy Student with sufficient paranoia to trigger the Hospital incident. We were getting confused about Paranoia a lot. So do all incidents require sufficient paranoia on the culprit to trigger them? Like, for Murder does the culprit have to have max paranoia? We were under the assumption that it happens as long as the culprit's there at the right time. Yes, that is the entire purpose of paranoia. What did you think was the purpose of paranoia? How exactly did your protagonists go about preventing losing by key person suicide every loop in script one if you made this rules blunder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Role abilities (like Serial Killer) always trigger as appropriate, incidents (like Murder) require the culprit (listed on the Mastermind's scenario card, but not on the Protagonist card) to have reached their Paranoia limit. Otherwise, the incident is averted when night comes on the day it would otherwise trigger. That's all paranoia does, really: ensures incidents trigger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Paranoia = incidents Intrigue = roles/scenario
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
ETB posted:Paranoia = incidents The relation between culprits and incidents, and the complete lack of a relation between someone's role and their possibility as a culprit seem to be the parts of this game that people have the hardest time grasping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Tragedy Looper is responsible for more "yes, actually, I did explain that, multiple times, you just forgot" moments than any other game I've ever played, and the consequences for those moments are generally much more pronounced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Tragedy Looper is responsible for more "yes, actually, I did explain that, multiple times, you just forgot" moments than any other game I've ever played, and the consequences for those moments are generally much more pronounced. I know I've had to emphasize and reiterate the "incidents / roles+plots" bits constantly during teaching playthroughs to avoid exactly this. That being said, to me the issue pales in comparison to how drat awesome I find the game. It's really that Tragedy Looper tests not just strategy but tests guessing and bluffing as well. Any game that blends skills or gameplay elements* that aren't pure strategy analysis (that seem to be the only thing most euros demand) into a strategy environment make me almost immediately love it. Archipelago's open negotiation is a great example. Netrunner's bluffing vs. guessing is another. Earth Reborn's "god drat this game lets you do everything" is a third. *randomness is by itself a gameplay mechanic and I'd hardly call its various implementations into games "gameplay elements" in the sense that they add anything valuable. Usually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I'm at a beach weekend, and I brought a bunch of games with me. Sushi Go was a huge hit, as was Love Letter and King of Tokyo. People tolerated playing Bohnanza, but the general consensus was sort of "meh", which is a shame because I love it. Towards the end a few players were starting to get it, but I don't think anyone was sold on ever playing it again. I don't know what it is, but I just can't get people excited about the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:I'm at a beach weekend, and I brought a bunch of games with me. Sushi Go was a huge hit, as was Love Letter and King of Tokyo. People tolerated playing Bohnanza, but the general consensus was sort of "meh", which is a shame because I love it. Towards the end a few players were starting to get it, but I don't think anyone was sold on ever playing it again. I don't know what it is, but I just can't get people excited about the game. Have you tried writing curse words over the beans? It worked pretty well for Cards Against Humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
The more I play Tiny Epic Kingdoms, the more I really dislike it. I can't even really articulate why precisely besides gut instinct and the general mood of the players afterwards. The main problem is that the only reason to go on the offensive is to be a complete rear end in a top hat. Like that is pretty much it, but I think it's terrible design for the SOLE reason to mess with another player is to make their experience shittier. Somehow having some sort of "Oh, I see why you did that" reasoning ameliorates a lot of the issues, since it not only makes rampant dickishness the sole reason for certain actions, but clues potential defenders that, hey, people might be coming to knock your door down. I went aggressive early on because I understand how economy works and had a surplus of the magic resources, which add 2 to War for each one spent. I waited until the other players zero'ed out their resources, which I suppose is a bad move in and of itself, then swooped into their territories and killed a guy for one Magic resource. So for all of one resource, I HALVED their economies at the cost of a slight road bump in mine. I made other players miserable for the entire rest of the (mercifully short) game, pretty much soft eliminated them, for no benefit to myself other than the opportunity to player eliminate. I could, with my economic superiority (and really why bother getting anything but magic?), basically oppress them for the entire rest of the game, since if they ever expanded out of their one territory, I would smash them like some sadistic game of Whack-A-Mole. This is the equivalent of surrounding a dude's capital with archers and artillery in a Civ game. I realize that could be a viable path in any game, but it wasn't satisfying at all to cut two other players right out of the gate (this was in the very first Quest and Patrol actions of the game) out of the game for no actual reason other than to ruin their experiences. I almost feel bad, but it wasn't my suggestion to play this game and I definitely wouldn't suggest it again. Play Love Letter or Lost Legacy or something. There's also this weird feeling that the best move for like 75% of my moves is to just get/hoard resources. Maybe the trick in the early game is to just do this until you have a "gently caress off" quantity of resources before you can actually spend them, but...eh. I'm not sure doing nothing for the first couple rounds makes for a good experience, either. I feel as if the game also really needs race specific FAQs for weird interactions that I assume the designers didn't find because I assume there wasn't a whole lot of playtesting going on. At least I was able to sell it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Have you tried writing curse words over the beans? It worked pretty well for Cards Against Humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Played a friend's new Kickstarter game, and it was a nice surprise. (Usually, the games he supports turn out bad, like Boss Monster.) It's called Stay Away, and if you've ever seen The Thing, you have some idea of the basic premise. All players start as human except for one, who is The Thing. This is secret and determined by the player who gets the Thing card in their opening hand. Hands are secret and can only be revealed when cards say so. Each turn, every player draws one card from the deck, then either plays or discards a card, then exchanges cards with the next player. The cards commonly allow you to look at cards in an opponent's hand, change the seating arrangement, or prevent them from looking at yours. Reaction cards are immediately replaced, so that each player will always have 4 cards in their hand, except on their own turn. There are certain cards which are drawn and immediately played instead, which are indicated by a different back. These 'Panic' can change the seating order or other random things, and replace the normal 'draw, then play/discard' step. Then, after the card is played or discarded, the active player secretly exchanges a card with the next player in turn order. The most important card for The Thing are the "Infected" cards. If The Thing draws an Infected card and later exchanges it with a human, the human must keep that card (or at least one Infected card if they draw another), and they are now on The Thing's team. They now must work to prevent the remaining humans from learning who The Thing is. Only The Thing may pass an infected card, except that infected humans may pass infected cards to The Thing (though not their last one). Infected humans cannot infect other humans. (That's important, I kept forgetting that.) If a human draws one from the deck, they are not infected. They may not pass the card, but the card does nothing, except that people looking at their hand may suspect them of being infected. They may discard it. Players are eliminated by using Flamethrower cards to incinerate adjacent players. Unless a particular card is used to cancel it, that player is instantly eliminated from the game. If they were The Thing, the game is over and the surviving non-infected humans have won. After a player elimination, The Thing may reveal themself and (correctly) declare that no uninfected humans left, then The Thing and the surviving infected have won. (If The Thing is wrong, they lose.) Otherwise, the eliminated player simply says "I was not The Thing", discards their hand, and play continues. It's not the most complicated game, but it's a fun mix of luck dependent and bluff dependent. It plays quick, though the set up is slightly longer than you're average card game. You have to build the deck specific to the number of players, so each card has a number on it, which is handy. Also, to make sure The Thing is in an opening hand, and no Panic or cards Infected cards are in anyone's hand, you have to pull out only the Stay Away cards, deal out (4*number of players)-1, so some might consider that to be a nuisance. Then you shuffle the remainder. Also, this game does kind of rely on players to be honest about having received infected cards, and not pass infected cards unless they are The Thing, so a troll or a dummy could ruin it. If your players are not CCG players who know how to hide their hands, people might accidentally flash important information, but there is only so much that can be helped. The art is good in places and bad in others. The physical cards are not very good quality, though they are not as bad as I have seen. You don't shuffle much, so they should be adequate. In the first game, the first person to be The Thing bent the The Thing card, but she was being especially rough with them. (Just glad it's not my copy of the game.) We played it with 6, which was a pretty good size. Since a large number of the cards only interact with adjacent players, that is enough to keep your options and information limited. Once we understood the rules, the games were pretty quick. Overall, it's a good laugh for a casual filler for a medium-sized group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Because i went through this before, what stops a human from saying 'Oh hey, I'm the last infected, can you just infect me The Thing, ta'. What stops humans from just flamethrowing other humans and hoping that they are lucky? Because I'm having an awful sense of deja vu.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Because i went through this before, what stops a human from saying 'Oh hey, I'm the last infected, can you just infect me The Thing, ta'. What stops humans from just flamethrowing other humans and hoping that they are lucky? Because I'm having an awful sense of deja vu. This, plus the addition of player elimination, makes the game sound like a lovely version of Panic Station. Given that Panic Station is already a lovely game, that's a problem. EDIT: Oh, and the fella sneakily failed to mention that it's Cthulhu mythos. The designer is a derivative hack. The End fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I know there are only like 16 reviews, but there is something extremely suspect if BGG users rank a game below a 7. Really, just watch The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Because i went through this before, what stops a human from saying 'Oh hey, I'm the last infected, can you just infect me The Thing, ta'. What stops humans from just flamethrowing other humans and hoping that they are lucky? Because I'm having an awful sense of deja vu. I don't understand the first question. Are you asking if someone would go, "Hey, I'm the last human. Whoever The Thing is, please infect me?" The problem with that is that even if you look at other's hands and see an infected card, it's impossible to know they got that from The Thing infected or just drew an infected card. Also, if you are The Thing and someone asks you to do that, and your response is to use a card to move yourself closer to that player, you are begging to get flamethowered. For the second one: nothing stops that, except for a relative lack of flamethrowers. In a 6 person game, there are only 3 in the deck, though the deck reshuffles when empty as you would imagine. I had never heard of Panic Station before now, but from the BGG listing, yes, this sounds very similar. I imagine this won't win anyone over if they didn't like that one. The End posted:This, plus the addition of player elimination, makes the game sound like a lovely version of Panic Station. Given that Panic Station is already a lovely game, that's a problem. Yeah, I did that intentionally, because you can ignore the Cthulhu stuff. I think the only explicit references are the two Kickstarter promos, but I might be misremembering. I agree that stuff is overexposed as gently caress. GrandpaPants posted:I know there are only like 16 reviews, but there is something extremely suspect if BGG users rank a game below a 7. I was Wilfred Brimley in my headcanon. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:I don't understand the first question. Are you asking if someone would go, "Hey, I'm the last human. Whoever The Thing is, please infect me?" The problem with that is that even if you look at other's hands and see an infected card, it's impossible to know they got that from The Thing infected or just drew an infected card. Also, if you are The Thing and someone asks you to do that, and your response is to use a card to move yourself closer to that player, you are begging to get flamethowered. That leads to another issue that I'm seeing in the game: it's impossible to tell if an infected is actually infected or not, because there is plausible deniability in terms of having infected cards or not. Is the only way to do it by seeing an infected card, asking the person that had it in his hand to discard it and then seeing his card again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:The most important card for The Thing are the "Infected" cards. If The Thing draws an Infected card and later exchanges it with a human, the human must keep that card (or at least one Infected card if they draw another), and they are now on The Thing's team. Congratulations, you just designed Panic Station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:There's no incentive for humans to keep fighting if the situation looks dire, although I guess that is balanced by the fact it is nearly impossible to know if you are losing or not, although saying something like 'Hey guys he's the Thing' and no one doing anything about it kind of gives it away. The main issue is that there is no real reason to AVOID getting infected and it actually improves your chances to win to get infected as soon as possible. There's no incentive for avoiding infection. Well, you could say it's more probable that The Thing will get roasted even if just by accident because there's only one of it? I honestly couldn't say which is more likely. In our 3 games, The Thing won twice and the humans once once, and only because The Thing only drew one infected card all game. It felt slanted in The Thing's favor, but maybe it was because we're all terrible. Tekopo posted:That leads to another issue that I'm seeing in the game: it's impossible to tell if an infected is actually infected or not, because there is plausible deniability in terms of having infected cards or not. Is the only way to do it by seeing an infected card, asking the person that had it in his hand to discard it and then seeing his card again? Even if you did that, they could pretend they drew another. If I recall correctly, there are ten for a 6 player game, so it could happen. There are a few different pictures on the cards, though, so you could see if it was different art, but they could say that they were both the same or they discarded the new one, and even then, they might still be infected. I think the idea is that it's really hard to tell who's infected. Maybe it's too hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Hyper Crab Tank posted:An additional thing to remember about that Tragedy Looper scenario (#2): It is entirely critical for the protagonists to move the Boy Student out of the school on turn 1, or they will lose, because he can block Forbid Intrigue just by being there, so +1 Intrigue will always go through and win you the game turn one. Doing this will probably lead to some intrigue being placed on the Hospital, but as already mentioned, there are other ways to stop that from actual being meaningful. Winning for the protagonists essentially boils down to Day 1: Move Boy Student, Forbid Intrigue on School; Day 2+: Forbid Intrigue on School, keep Boy Student out of School, keep Boy Student's paranoia as low as possible using the Doctor/Girl Student/cards. It's not impossible, but it is incredibly difficult for the protagonists because there's so many things they need to figure out, and so little opportunity to do so. If the mastermind can intrigue the school on loop one, then they can just spend the whole loop lowering paranoia and forbidding goodwill in order to give the protagonists as little information as possible. Then if the protagonists still haven't figured out the boy is the cultist, the mastermind can just do it again in loop 2. After that, there's only 1 or 2 loops left for the protagonists to deduce the key person and the culprits of the hospital incident and faraway murder, while the mastermind still has a ton of tricks up their sleeve to get either to occur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Well, you could say it's more probable that The Thing will get roasted even if just by accident because there's only one of it? I honestly couldn't say which is more likely. In our 3 games, The Thing won twice and the humans once once, and only because The Thing only drew one infected card all game. It felt slanted in The Thing's favor, but maybe it was because we're all terrible.  Although Panic Station was worse because infecteds could pass infected cards so the entire thing was a cascade of people just wanting to get infected in order to get to the winning side. I think the issue with designing a game about the Thing is that you want people to avoid infection at all costs(there's no reason to avoid it either in Panic Station of Stay Away), but immediately switch sides when they get 'infected', without making getting 'infected' a viable strategy from the start. What stops human players from trying to help the Thing from the start, even if they aren't infected in Stay Away? Like my ideal plan as a human is just to flamethrower people at random and either one of two things happen: I either catch the Thing before I get infected or I kill humans and then hope to get infected by the Thing/find him at a later stage. Is there any reason to avoid infection apart from spurious RPing reasons? Panic Station tried to errata it by saying 'oh you can never win if you are infected' but then what's the motivation to help the Thing after you get infected? EDIT: I feel like they added this rule to prevent this: quote:Special Case 1: In the exceptional situation where The Thing is able to infect all the other players and no Humans have been eliminated from the game, The Thing is the only winner and everyone else loses! Tekopo fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Panic Station tried to errata it by saying 'oh you can never win if you are infected' but then what's the motivation to help the Thing after you get infected? Well, yeah - the optimum strategy then becomes "Kill a random person on turn 1". If it's the Thing, you win. If it's not, you all join the Thing team ASAP. One way to partially fix it is to make the Thing team win when they're a majority, like the scum in Mafia. On the other hand, the Thing works like Cult Recruiters in Mafia and games with Cult Recruiter are considered to be bastard anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Basically, just watch The Thing and play Mafia
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Aside from some filler games, we wound up playing Lagoon and Kemet yesterday. We played Lagoon: Land of Druids in it's 2v2 team mode, and quite enjoyed it. The threat of AP was real, but not enough to spoil the game. I really like the combo potential that the team version opens up, since so many powers are about moving tiles or other druids around. One play is too few to judge a game but I emerged feeling positive about it. This one will see more table time. Kemet loving owns. We had a super long game because everyone was trying to prevent anyone else from sneaking a win. Our game could have ended two full days before it actually did, and everyone had at least a shot at victory going into the last turn (though not an equal shot by any means). The victor managed to stay out of most of the fighting until late, and he actually earned a ton of VP with defensive battle victories after stockpiling DI cards and buying the tile (Divine Wounds, I think) that lets you pitch DI cards for combat strength after all combat cards are revealed. The rest of us each made one or two big mistakes, without which we'd quite possibly have grabbed an earlier victory, but the mistakes were made and the slow and steady strategy won the race. This was only our second game so we're still getting really hyped about putting together different tile strategies. I suspect that we're going to eventually need expansions, and preferably rotating tile selections ala Dominion, in order to keep interest... but we've yet to reach that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Does anyone have an opinion on Article 27? I thought it looked like a promising political bargaining kind of game that might capture some of the fun of a Diplomacy or Republic of Rome without taking days to play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Has anyone tried to make one of these Thing games round-based and have victory as infected count less towards overall victory than victory as human does?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Does anyone have an opinion on Article 27? I thought it looked like a promising political bargaining kind of game that might capture some of the fun of a Diplomacy or Republic of Rome without taking days to play. I played it a couple years ago and enjoyed it. Plenty of bargaining with everyone having different incentives to pass or not pass certain motions. Plus you get to bang a gavel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
I contend that the idea of a The Thing game is stupid, because the best part of The Thing is the last shot where you don't know if Childs or MacReady is a Thing or if they are both are or neither of them is, so they decide gently caress it and drink scotch together. So the only way you could have a successful The Thing game is to set it up so that, by the end, the last two remaining players are exhausted and neither reveals their card to show if they are a thing and they just drink scotch while the camera slowly pans out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
FYI all you fans of The Thing better have also seen the original 1951 The Thing From Another World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
So, I'm apparently roped into doing the Christmas thing, despite not celebrating it myself. I need to get a gift for someone who loves board games, but isn't too used to modern boardgaming.usually a fan of stuff like uno, or life. What might y'all recommend?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:05
|
|
