|
Any chance of explaining a couple of common acronyms in the OP? I dislike reading introductions with in-group references, and I assume I'm not alone. Specifically, FLGS (Friendly Local Game Store I believe?) is in the OP. Another example I remember is 4E (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) which took me ages to get.
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Jedit posted:That would be 4X, not 4E. 4E usually refers to Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. God damnit. Anyway, that's just more reason to stick it in there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Need a gift recommendation for a coworker: ideas for games he can play with his 6 and 10 year old sons. He already has Ticket to Ride and Small World, but complains that TtR is too slow. They started playing a variant where first to complete three tickets wins. I was thinking maybe Forbidden Desert, but maybe there's too much QBing (he's complained about that before). Tsuro is always awesome, and doesn't drag out, and it's easily simple enough for the kids to understand. I dunno, maybe if they can understand Monopoly they can understand Power Grid? It requires doing high-level arithmetic (for kids and adults), but I guess they'd would just play suboptimally, and not be completely shut out when they make mistakes. Edit: Space Alert in a public setting? Are you sure that would actually be a good idea? No Kemet/Dominion/7 Wonders would be a crime, but Space Alert gets a pass. BonHair fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
xopods posted:Well, you never have no options in chess, Go or Agricola. You may not have the options you want, but with the exception of very particular positions in chess, there is always something at least somewhat beneficial for you to do on your turn. Not saying you're not right or that this was even your point, but in Chess and Go (I guess, I've never actually played Go), the better player will always win. So you have options for the move, but no real agency, since you're basically getting your rear end handed to you no matter what you do. Which means you can only teach those in two ways: A predetermined outcome (you win), or by playing badly on purpose, both of which will throw most people off. It's a lot easier to feel that you'e actually accomplished something in Agricola, because you've still made a farm, lovely as it may be, whereas in chess, you might have captured some inconsequential pieces, but you din't actually make any progress towards victory. And this throws some people off of chess Also, Poker is only a luck-based game on the surface, bluffing is the meat of it. The skill is just more nebulous than in Chess, but it's still high-skill and relatively low luck. As far as I've seen, you only reveal your hand in half the rounds you win, so obviously, it's not just about getting the right cards. BonHair fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Basically, Mage Knight scratches the itch that used to be scratched by video games for me. I really dislike any sort of real-time element in video games, and most of them have this to some extend. HoMM is a notable exception, but even Diablo has real-time elements. And other than that I really want to play Diablo. So, I got Mage Knight (from the recommendations in the previous thread), and I enjoy it a lot. It has thinking and interesting decisions, not time pressure and it can be played with friends too! And you don't get the randomness that most video games (including HoMM) have in damagedealing: Each a attack does a fixed amount of damage, not "67-76" or whatever. This is a huge plus for me. Also, to me, it being a tactile experience is nice. I enjoy flipping cards, moving minis and pushing cardboard. I enjoy moving the tokens on the tracks to see how awesome my dude is. Basically, touching stuff makes me happy. Strangely, I enjoy time-pressure in board games, like Galaxy Trucker, Escape and Space Alert. Maybe because it's more social when stuff goes wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Nerds can't shut up about it being bad. Also, lots of people have enjoyed munchkin as a step up from monopoly, and it can indeed be fun if mechanics and fairness and ending are not important.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:I'd be really interested to see a redesign, or perhaps design contest, using the components of Munchkin but not the rules to make a new game. Get five coloured markers and draw numbers on one of the decks, then play hanabi. Seriously, it's just two decks of cards, there aren't really any components.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:On the other hand I would rather play hours of Munchkin with the average Munchkin fan than 15 minutes of Yugioh with the average Yugioh fan. I believe the answer here is obvious: Yugioh Munchkin. Also, I managed to get zero board games for Christmas. Seriously family, get with it! At least I got to give Love Letter, Hanabi and Forbidden Island (Desert was sold out) to people who seemed happy. But I have no Tash-Kalar still 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Thread favourites for co-ops are Hanabi, which is awesome and simple and you should get it no matter what, and Space Alert which has a lot of frontloaded rules and real-time stress and frustration/joy over everything going wrong, but is also awesome. It may not be suitable for beginners. Otherwise Forbidden Island/Forbidden Desert and Flash Point seem to be recommended as good beginner co-ops, and are generally seen as actually better than Pandemic. I can't remember which Forbidden place is best, but they're pretty similar. And Finally, there Escape: The Curse of the Temple, which is Indiana Jones with fast dicerolling (seriously, roll all the dice as quickly as possible) and a ticking clock soundtrack. It's great fun, but only as a filler between more thinky games.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
I just got Boss Monster as a delayed present, but I seem to remember some hate for it. What's the word on it from you guys?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:HANABI. Board Game Thread 4e: Just get Hanabi.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:Don't get Hanabi, it is overrated. I respect your right to this opinion, but could you please elaborate on this? I am honestly curious how you could not enjoy this game. I have played it with people ranging from spergy engineering students who knew statistics too well to liberal arts chicks with no boardgaming experience, and after getting used to the honour system of avoiding to cheat as much as possible and the lack of a clear cut victory/loss everyone enjoyed it immensely. I think it has a great depth and challenge in it, mostly in how to deal with and give limited information in the best possible way, despite it being very simple to teach. Also, evolving a group meta is great and it makes you feel that you are progressing you skill at the game in a very tangible way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The thing about Hanabi is that the act of playing is a series of very negative restrictions on what should be the least restricted parts of a game. There's a difference between "no talking" and "only say X specific things" because the former doesn't restrict one's creativity. Ugg-Tect gets away with it because you have a giant silly inflatable club and cavespeak itself is enjoyable. In Hanabi's case, players more often find themselves frustrated by the communication restrictions than enjoying them. I don't get why table talk should be the least restricted part a game. It should not be restricted in political and traitor games as a rule, sure, but otherwise there is no reason for saying it should not be restricted. In most cases, there is no reason to restrict it either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be restricted when it serves the game. I will absolutely agree that not being able to tell someone what you want them to know is frustrating. But that to me is a good frustrating, because you can usually see how it could have been avoided and thus you can correct it the next time around. It's the same kind of frustration that you get in the resolution phase in Space Alert, where you missed out on shooting that one ship dead and it kills you. You know that you could have saved it, but you didn't, and now it will mess up everything. And you will definitely kill it next time, for sure. The restriction might hamper obvious creativity (like "play that drat card in the middle"), but it requires you to be more creative to figure out other ways of saying something. When playing with my girlfriend for instance, it will be her turn and she will be out of hints but know that she can play a specific card, but doing so will force me to discard a card we actually need. So, instead of playing the obvious card, she will discard something. This will let me know not to discard the card I would otherwise discard, and I might instead discard the next one. This kind of subtle hinting is only possible because you can't talk, and it is very rewarding to me. The game restricts talking as indirect hints (that is, hints not requiring flipping a token), but actions within the game work as well for providing indirect hints. The game forces you to think quite a lot about what someone else knows and thinks, and figuring out how the other person is thinking and how you can get them to think what you are thinking is hugely rewarding to me. And it requires nonverbal creativity. I do disagree with it boiling down to luck. Sure, you will need luck to get the perfect 25 (or 30) score, but in most games, the difference between 18 and 23 is the interesting bit anyway, and you will be able to get 23ish with most hands in a skilled group. Able to being the key, because someone will gently caress it up half the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:It eventually changed into a game of "When I say THIS I mean THAT" I have not really experienced this yet, and I have played like a hundred games of this, mostly with roughly the same group, but also branching out to everyone I could get to play it. I think it has to do with the same hint being able to mean completely different things depending on the game state, which in itself may be perceived differently by different players. Basically, unlike raunchy polish Concept, you can't really get a away with "when I say this, you should do this" on more than a basic level, because to optimize play you have to adapt to the game state. This is also a major source of little succeses, because it feels really awesome when you correctly decipher whatever the other players are thinking based on vague hints. Also, we threw in the rainbow cards when things started to get too easy, and so far, that has kept the ceiling high enough, because now you can't even trust colour hints. I can see how the honour system, lack of a clear win condition and the very big and unusual restriction on table talk might make the game less fun for hardcore play-to-win gamers, since you basically have to "play badly" to follow the spirit of the rules, and you are never really sure if you did well. Paying attention to not cheating has not been a big thing after the first couple of (learning) games, because you pretty much know what constitutes cheating, even though you can make it sound legit with rules-lawyering. As long as everyone agrees that not cheating is fun, the problem in my experience goes away, mostly. There will be some light accidental cheating, but that's usually just shrugged off and remembered for the next game. The rule of thumb is simply that if you are unsure if it's cheating, it probably is. Just like scams on the internet, which I do hope you guys manage to avoid. But I guess I do see the social experiment aspect of the game, though I like to think there's a lot of actual game in there too. I may be slightly defensive of the game, sorry about that. I just really like it and I want you to like it like I do. TL;DR of this and my previous couple of posts: Hanabi is probably my favourite game and I think it offers amazing possibilities forever. YMMV
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 18:39
|
|
which I don't find fun.
|
It's pretty simple though: As a group, you have to agree that cheating makes the game less fun, and so you will avoid it. In my experience, this works, though I can understand that you apparently can't handle that. The policing is done by everyone because it makes the game enjoyable. If you can't be mature enough to do so, fine, play your Kemet instead, but it doesn't make Hanabi a badly designed game, it just makes you incapable of playing it. Just like how some people can't play Ghost Blitz because they're slow as all gently caress. I agree that an opponent would make the policing more effective, but then you'd remove the co-op element that is actually fun. You can also pause the soundtrack in Space Alert to gain more time, since there's no opponent to stop it, but then why are you playing Space Alert? Would Space Alert be improved by an opponent since it would prevent you from pausing the soundtrack? Or should you just all agree to play the game as intended? I don't even think the rules are particularly nebulous: Don't communicate anything except by game actions. Hand management and rearranging cards is the closest to nebulous, but those can be houseruled into conformity based on player abilities pretty easily. I majorly disagree that the pro-Hanabi players are getting around the rules by cheating. The game is basically about deduction. Deducing the point of a particular hint is the meat of the game. The rule is not "you cannot communicate anything", but instead "you cannot communicate except by your actions". The actions, whether they're the hint-action or not are clues to the other players, and this is what the game is about. You will develop a meta, but it will not consist of proper one-to-one signs that one should do this, but rather of knowledge of how players go about their deductions. And again, I strongly disagree that it's about luck. Good plays will improve your score, always, even though you may not get to 25. Very rarely will the stack completely gently caress you. It's about as likely as getting majorly hosed by bad luck in Dominion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:That's what makes the game frustrating. What specifically you say has to be loaded information, but during the course of the game it's against the rules to ask or clarify what said loaded information actually means. This is the core of our little argument. This frustrates you and thrills me. I know that the hint I got was loaded with information of some sort, but I don't know what the information was. I have to deduce that, not based on anything other than previous hints and board state, from the perspective of the guy who hinted me. The makes for an interesting deduction in my opinion. Any play will be guesswork to some extend though, since you can't know for sure what the other guy intended. The lack of certainty is probably a flaw to you, but it's a feature in my book. I like having to guess, because guessing right feels awesome. And consistently doing so is even better. Broken Loose posted:You can use basic clues to complete a game of Hanabi fine. In order to get a high score, you either have to be lucky or cheating. There are simply not enough actions available to give players the information they need to determine what to discard without gambling or or metagame solutions. Yes, there is gambling in playing, but cheating can be mostly avoided pretty easily. I agree that there are not enough actions, which is why you have to gamble, but this can be done randomly or in a calculated way. And you can minimize the risk pretty well. Much like you can gamble with a small risk by not getting getting food on your first turn in Agricola, knowing that you can get it later. Broken Loose posted:In the end, as Scyther said, it's filler that takes too much work and it's not deep enough to be a main course, in addition to the frustrating-feeling communication problem. It does fill a weird niche timewise, but no more than Seven Wonders or Space Alert in my opinion. And, as I have stated, I believe there is a lot more depth in the passing of information than you do, so it works as a short main event for me. But I am beginning to see why it doesn't work for everyone, despite my disagreements with your (plural) reasonings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I think this is really the key point but people are so entrenched in their meta and groupthink that they can't recognize the subtle ways in which they're subconsciously cheating. I agree that this is the key point, but I disagree that it is subconscious cheating. Take an opening hand scenario with three player, A, B and C. A starts, and tells C about her two ones. B at this point knows that she has no ones or only one at most, presumably in the same colour as one of C's. This information was conveyed without direct hints. B then hints A about his two ones, both of different colours than C's. C plays a one because that's safe at this point. A then also plays a one, because he knows that B would have been stupid to tell about a card that possibly couldn't be played. B then hints A about a five in A's hand because those are worth keeping. C then plays her second one, because she knows it to be playable, because otherwise, someone, most likely B would have stopped her, instead of hinting about the five. In this short example, only three hints were given, but a lot more information could be deduced. It was, in my opinion, not conveyed by cheating, but by deduction and indirect clue-giving within the confines of the mechanics. The fact that C did not start with two blue ones could only be deduced from the absence of a hint, which is not really equivalent to verbal communication. You have to distinguish between pseudo-verbal communication, which is cheating, and communication through mechanics and deduction, which is the fun game. And to me, this is a pretty clear-cut difference. Wondering why someone gave a clue and figuring it out is not the same as wondering, asking and getting an answer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:You used half your clues in this process, though, and players currently have no indication of either what cards to play next or what cards are safe to discard, short of "don't discard that 5." A had no indicator that his second 1 was playable, and in fact if A's 1s were identical there would be a risk of a bad play on A's turn even though the information given up to this point wouldn't have changed. I disagree. A can, by the very same reasoning as C play his second one. From there, it gets a lot more muddy, but not without information. B can be fairly certain that none of her cards are fives, and she can thus discard with relatively little risk. This is not 100% certain, no, but it's not completely random gambling either, by a long shot. And yes, hints are extremely limited, so that you have to use these contextual clues instead of just hinting Broken Loose posted:Is a metagame solution to Hanabi against the rules? No. Are the communication rules not a satisfactory solution to whatever problem they were trying to solve? I believe the answer is yes, because it's trivial to come up with metagame solutions, innuendo, or other means by which to bypass the communication rules. I don't believe the solutions are trivial, if you work honestly within the confines of the restriction. See my above post for the distinction between pseudo-verbal communication and deductive/mechanic communication. But I can see how the restriction is not satisfactory to you, just like real time pressure is not satisfactory to some people. Broken Loose posted:The answer to the question of whether or not tons of people are cheating at Hanabi is not nearly as significant as the existence of the question itself. The only other games I can think of with similar problems are Arkham Horror and Warhammer 40,000, both of which are hugely derided for the existence of said question (in addition to other problems, yes, but this is a major problem for both). The rule may be clearly written, but it's a bad concept around which to base an entire game. I really don't see the problem in real life with Hanabi. People in my experience can recognize what counts as cheating and what doesn't pretty easily after a few games. It's just a rule that takes some getting used to, like using fire block against ice attacks in Mage Knight. Actually, Mage Knight is a great example of cheating going on all the time, because no one can remember all the rules. The fact (it's not even really a question) that there is cheating doesn't really cahnge that the game is good, as long as you try to minimize cheating when you discover it, and don't cheat on purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Schizoguy posted:In the time that it would take someone to read all of this discussion about Hanabi, they could just head over to BGA and play several hands of Hanabi. But we're trying to be right about how the game works damnit! (I agree, this is getting stupid, and I don't think we're getting anywhere anymore. It's a good game for some, and not a good game for others. Fun is still subjective) Broken Loose posted:different topic: Just don't play it in a well-lit room! The game works perfectly fine if you're half-blind, just go stare into the sun until it works. The game is fine, it's just your world that isn't quite down to specs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I'm convinced the only good two player board games are two player board games. Everything else is merely adequate at best. Mage Knight, Hanabi (if that's your thing), Carcassonne, Tash-Kalar and possibly Agricola, just off the top of my head, are good with two or more people. I would also possibly include Pandemic, although it requires a non-quarterbacking group. Direct aggression is a lot different in two player games than multiplayer games, so that gameplay may change a lot depending on the game, which in some cases works and other doesn't. Hidden agendas work if they're a way to settle tight races in my opinion, but not if they're "gain a million points and also you win". Suburbia works in this regard as far as I've played it: You aren't going to pull a victory just from hidden agendas if you were roleplaying trying to build Finland by laking everything, but they do add that element of "I can still win if I snatch that last office building" if you're slightly behind and the board state is not otherwise favourable. Also, it gives you a direction in the beginning, which is nice to newbies and forces more experienced players to try something different. Oh, and hidden agendas are aMAZEing in The aMAZEing Maze 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Captain Magic posted:I am brand new to this thread/sub-forum and only just started looking around, so I apologize if this has been asked a thousand times (though I did read the OP): Space Alert is a four to five player game, unless you're experienced at it possibly. Tash-Kalar is great, but it's mostly just coloured disks on a grid, so not very connectable. The cards do have dudes (and boobtrees) on them, but they kind of feel tacked on, and they don't really stay on the board. Agricola might work with the family rules to keep it simple, you have a family that you have to keep fed and also you have to build a farm for them and keep them fed. Also they will starve. You should get invested in making your family happy and not starving, and also their awesome crib with the oven and the clay house and the cattle. Also, the little wooden animals are awesome. For three to four players, I'd definitely recommend Primordial Soup. You're building amoebas that swim around and live off each other in different ways, with various genes for sale that give you various advantages, like eating the other guys, multiplying faster, eating less or moving better. You basically build personalities for your little dudes, and it's awesome. I think it's a light version of Dominant Species in terms of theme, without having ever played that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Small World is not a great game, but is a great gateway game. When you know of good games, it feel simple and random and it has too little choice and too much downtime. But when I first got into board games, those thing did not matter so much, so I loved it. The rules are fairly straightforward, and the game does force you to attack, so there's some political stuff, but moderated heavily by the best placement option.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:My only problem with Mage Knight is that the combat is so brain-burny for anything past small fights. It makes sense to plan the combat out in your head before committing (since once you start there are no re-do's so it benefits you to have it all planned before you go in) but that translates to a huge time sink and a lot of brain burn. Anyone else feel the same way? Maybe it's just us and how we play. You missed the "do-overs and take-backs are totally okay unless you revealed something new" rule. It's actually pretty explicit that you should avoid having to think everything through in your head because that's impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:(although one bitched that the theme wasn't "fantasy", which was weird because every other person who saw the game loved the theme). To be fair, most worker placement games have very non-nerd themes, and some nerds are way too into themes, to the point that they will not venture outside of them. This has nothing to do with whether the theme they're exposed to is good or not, it's enough that it has no dragons or aliens.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:We play correctly, we just find the combats (later-game ones) to be extremely thinky and time-consuming. Stuff like a lot of "Oh wait I see now that if I wounded HIM instead of HER in an earlier stage of the fight then I can avoid having to X let me go through that again." Oh good! And yeah, it is still pretty complicated and brain-burny to do all the calculations. I love going through different scenarios to figure out the best way of dealing with enemies. Speaking of, how do you guys deal with summoners in complex combats? Technically, their attacks are not revealed before the block phase, and so you have to decide on what you want to range attack before revealing. But what if I made an unrelated mistake somewhere?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Timett posted:That would have been the easy way to do it but I decided to search all over town for restaurants with drink coasters and drew on them. I think it turned it pretty good considering my lack of artistic talent. This is a great idea! I normally support designers by actually buying their games, but this feels so much more personal and fun, and also in the spirit of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:7 Wonders: With Babel, are the little bag-shaped tokens for "Hey I participated in the Great Project" little cardboard chits or wooden meeple things? I've seen what looks like pictures of both online, and I'm not sure if I'm just seeing playtest/prototype vs final production versions or what. I think regular 7 Wonders has a regional or printing number difference between having wooden or cardboard coins. I am also looking for good foreign currency to use for 7 Wonders coins. So far, I guess I'll be getting Euro-cents, but that's just because getting foreign coins is a pain in the rear end, and I live in Denmark, so I can get Euros in Germany.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
You should absolutely start any rules explanation with a thematic explanation of what you're doing in the game. So Mage Knight starts out with "we are 'heroes' [winking] sent out to discover a city for 'very noble purposes' [winking]. We are going to explore the land until we find the city, and along the way we will kill orcs, dragons, keeps, monks and probably everyone we meet. Right, so you have your player deck..." Vlaada actually does this in all his walkthroughs, and for a good reason. It's just so much easier to understand everything when you understand the narrative. More dry games like Power Grid also benefit from it: "So, you want to be the leading power company in Germany, which means you want to have a lot of power plants producing a lot of power, and you want them to be connected to a lot of cities." I am unsure about Dominion and highly abstract games like Mahjong or Ingenious, but in 95% cases, it is possible and very helpful. Also, I played Quantum recently, and for some reason, we got really into the backstory before even getting to the rules, and it really did work. I was yellow, so basically 'Murica, and I was going to really hate on the guy playing red, who we decided was basically furries. It didn't quite work out that way (I ended up picking on blue, AKA the Russians), but it provided a good narrative to get into what I should be doing with my dice-ships.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
The trouble with kickstarters is that you have no way of knowing if you like the actual gameplay. Remember when Dead of Winter first came out? Y'all nerds were pretty stocked for it, and then it turned out to be mediocre to bad. With kickstarter as the only option, that would be the only way to get games, which would suck massively. Imagine trying a cool game at a meetup and not being able to buy it in any way. That would suck. Or you guys talking about this cool new thing you got, and oh you missed it. Having stores to store games while you wait for reviews to come in is good. But maybe they don't always need to be brick-and-mortar. Also, board game cafes are awesome and hopefully they will take over a lot of the meetup stuff from stores, allowing the actual stores to go full MTG, which is where the actual money are for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Wait why in this weird world where b&m stores are extinct would all publishing go extinct too? This weird world is all stores go out of business, not just B&M ones. Which is hyperbole probably. Basically, the reason is storage, as outlined in the post above by Gutter Owl who knows way more than me. Big publishers could probably stock stuff, but again, you need a distribution network, and sometimes it's just smarter to outsource that. Especially since we still have shipping costs and borders and crap.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
The End posted:Sushi Go - I know I'll cop flak for this, but this is basically 7 Wonders, but with an appropriate play time. I'd play again. It's basically 7 Wonders ultra-light. 7 Wonders takes half an hour, which is not long, while Sushi Go takes like ten minutes top. I love both games, but they fill different niches to me, with Sushi Go as a filler that speeds up everything afterwards (you really want to stress everyone the hell out for maximal enjoyment.), and 7 Wonders as an actual thinky game that is more of a main event (and you should not stress players unless they are way too slow.).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I like Sushi Go! but its the definition of filler, can't play it constantly. Bonhair is right that its best played at breakneck pace. Fun fact: Uno is funny if played at a breakneck pace too. You just need one guy to be the dealer and deal out inappropriate amounts of punishment cards for any delay longer than one millisecond, and even more cards for mistakes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
The End posted:It mystifies me that Waterdeep is such a frequently recommended gateway game. It's so boring. There are so many better worker placement games. The keyword here is gateway. It is a worse game than Agricola, but it's simple enough to grasp, and it doesn't feel like you're on the brink of losing all the time because your family is dying. The decisions may not be meaningful to someone experienced, but inexperienced players can't figure out what the best option is as easy as you can. But yeah, other than that, get a co-op if you're playing with the same people every time. I am going to risk recommending Pandemic for newbies: The theme is accesible and it's fairly simple to understand, but challenging to master. And if everyone is equally good, quarterbacking will not be a real problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Mage knight rules question: What is the timing of the Magical Glade pseudohealing and card draw? Say you end your turn with no wounds on a glade and draw a wound. Do you get to throw it out? Or if you end your turn with a wound, do you draw before throwing the wound away or after?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
rchandra posted:You deal with the wound before drawing. thespaceinvader posted:Page 9 of the main rulebook under ending you turn: use glade occurs in step 4, draw cards in step 7. So no, you can't use the glade to heal a wound you draw when you draw cards. I knew there would be an answer somewhere, I just couldn't find it. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:I played MTG for years before exposure to more board games made me realize how much I hated being hosed over by random chance. It's not hard to imagine people being locked into their traditions and being all "this is what we do, and dammit we enjoy it!" This, but also unbalanced matches. I was always super casual, but I played with a guy who took it seriously, and spent real money on his decks, which were obviously way better than mine. Not surprisingly, he won a lot of the games, not because he was that much better than me, but because his cards were not random crap but good stuff. Asymmetric is good, but only if one person is not totally gimped by it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:Reminder that some countries probably have not gone thought a civil rights movement. There is a reason FIFA has to tell fans to not be racist. USA is one of the few countries that had a civil right movement. A lot of other developed countries managed to realize that segregation was bad without a massive uproar first.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
So, Dungeon Lords with only two people: Does it actually work? I might get more people occasionally, but mostly I guess it would just be the girlfriend and me..
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:Nothing is "hated around here". We are not a hive mind that share the same opinions. Dominion feels like a mechanic that someone forgot to put in a game. (I honestly feel like this, but I should probably try it again some day)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Broken Loose posted:This is a really fair assessment and I'd agree with you, except that literally every time somebody tried to add the rest of a game to it, it always turns out way way worse. It's like a bunch of dudes trying to figure out how to add doors, air conditioning, and a seatbelt to a motorcycle. Guy A. Person posted:The problem is that it is such a robust and time consuming "mechanic" that incredibly few games have been able to successfully integrate it as part of another game. Mage Knight is one of the few that has, and it was made by one of the best game designers on the planet, and it still doesn't explore the full depths of the mechanic to the extent that Dominion has. What man? Lorini is a woman, isn't she? Trains was way more enjoyable to me than Dominion, so I don't actually agree with this. I agree that it's a great mechanic, but in Dominion it just feels like (to go along with the metaphors) a steam engine that someone forgot to but wheels on and put on tracks. That thing is solid, but it just sits there and does nothing and then someone wins. Obviously This is just my opinion, but it's shared with the only other person in my group who does her research on games, so it's not likely to change due to no opportunities to play. I'm picking Trains because it is as close to a straight dominion clone with and actual game (board) attached, unlike the changing market stuff like Ascension. It may be less polished and the strategies are probably fewer and less varied, but it actually feels like you're doing something. So I guess it's mechanically strictly worse than Dominion, but the gameplay, to me, is strictly better. If only there was an Android app that had a minimum of polish (I tried Androminion, it was way to bare-bones) I would be able to give it a shot again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:27
|
|