|
Sometimes it just comes down to people liking different things for different reasons. The Mathematical Elegance tribe and Storytelling tribe will differ in their favorite "Storytelling Game" and some outsider won't find either particularly fun no matter what, but that's life  And regarding Zombie game chat from a little while ago, a game that is sort of halfway between an old-school wargame and a zombie game (ok, more old-school wargame but still) is the board game version of Dawn of the Dead. It's worth a look if you're interested in zombie board games, it does some interesting things and can even be played solo. You have to print it out yourself though because it's been out of print since like 
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Falling is actually from 1998. Thanks for the tip about Falling 2014. I bought Falling way back from the original printing and while I liked it we really only wound up playing a few times. I always liked the idea though and am very interested to hear about the new release.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Played a couple of rounds of Mysterium, one as a ghost and one as the investigators! I quite enjoyed it myself: as the ghost you really have to think of ways to use the cards in conjunction with each other in order to make the investigators understand what you mean. The first game with me as the ghost went really well and the investigators cracked the case on day 6, while when my SO played the ghost we were late by one day! Overall I thought it was quite fun and unusual and has a real dixit-like vibe to it. My SO also really liked it, especially the theme and the art so she couldn't wait to try out being the ghost again. I'll have to see what kind of replayability it has, although there are a few different difficulty settings (which decide how many cards are present to choose from as well as how many times the ghost can redraw his hand). Is this only available in Polish at the moment, or am I blind/missing something/caught the stupid? It sounds like fun and right up my wife's alley.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll pull the trigger next time I see it available at any of my usual haunts. I have more games than I can play lately, it's great 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
I just read the rules PDF this morning and I'm looking forward to trying it out. I like the last-days-of-earth setting (it's what happens after the apocalyptic wars) and I like the gameplay ideas so far. I like the idea that the different powers seem powerful and immediately useful - no "+1% to your attack values" style upgrades so to speak. The guy seems to actually have put serious thought and development into it, I'm anxious to try it out and see what I think. The large miniatures could be seen as a gimmick but I'm a really visual and tactile person so I'm probably favorably biased until I give it a try to see for myself (I'm not actually just a sucker for miniatures though, miniatures-based games don't actually appeal to me much.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
I recently grabbed The Witcher, which hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet. Really enjoyed the first few games and am looking forward to playing more. My only complaint (and it isn't a big one) is that there isn't really any feeling of grand goal or anything - you collect Victory Points and the highest at the end of the game wins, so it's mainly about making choices that get you VPs as efficiently as possible. I like the idea that the players all know each other and aren't actually enemies, but still are in competition. You don't hurt other players directly and might even co-operate in a limited way, but there are still ways to - for example - take advantage of obstacles they clear, or leave your messes for them to slog through. The OP of this new thread reminds us that it's important to talk more about why you liked something and explain what you found fun. I liked the theme and the way the gameplay reflected the "we're not actually enemies" angle. I liked how elegantly the turns work and how quickly and efficiently combat happens - it's not a brain burner like Mage Knight - yet still left me feeling like I had effective decisions to make. I liked how it was quick and easy to plan my next action and read the board state. I felt like I had a wide variety of ways to spend my time and turns, and the decisions were more about picking effective paths to VPs and what to do to best get there. Improvements to my character (development of skills, etc is just an action) were more of a "knowing when to stop" than how to get them. (The best level of improvement is the minimum amount that helps you get the VPs you are aiming for - any more is wasting actions you could be spending more profitably on something else.) When it comes down to it, I supposed I never felt backed into a corner or left without choices and I never felt screwed by dice or circumstances. When I finished playing I had ideas of what I could have done differently or better to squeeze out a few more VPs. But the game was interesting as well because here is an article where someone reflects on how badly the game is broken and how they'd fix it. (Short meaty version: add more "Screw Your Neighbor" / "Take That!" stuff, and get some "Whack The Leader" gameplay options going.) I liked the article in the sense that the author explained what he liked and didn't like and went a bit into why he did or didn't like those things. Naturally when I read it I was thinking "  is this guy on?" because of course I saw things entirely differently, but it is a good reminder that people like different things for different reasons. But you can't just throw up your hands saying everything is subjective, because games are (nominally anyway) crafted engines to deliver some particular experience. Tweaking is one thing but at some point what you probably really want is just a different game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
My wife doesn't like Space Alert because she doesn't like being under time pressure in games. Perfectly reasonable. She also loves Pandemic because it's basically a puzzle game and that is right up her alley and oh poo poo now I've done it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:once you've seen the best option, there's no reason not to say it. We're the kind of players where once someone sees/says the best option, there's no reason NOT to DO it (unless you in turn see a better one.) Someone once described Pandemic as a co-op puzzle which isn't far off the mark. We can enjoy it because it's fun to work it together and wring every possible advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
 Some time ago I picked up Theseus: The Dark Orbit and holy poo poo did this game impress me. Not only was it fun (more on why later), but also elegant and the rules are really nicely written. It's a slightly odd mix of thematic yet abstract. for example, there are multiple boards and they represent ship modules / areas and have "rooms" separated by walls and doorways through which some rooms may or may not have line of sight to other rooms. Your units (each player has four) represent your faction. So far so sounding like a miniatures sci-fi game, but then the abstract comes in. Units don't literally represent actual individuals or squads. They just represent you having a "presence" in some higher level way. Units take damage but never "die". When a unit takes damage you lose life points from a common pool. Also movement is a little abstract - on your turn you can move any of your units but you move a number of spaces/modules (always clockwise) equal to the total number of units on the module that you started on. This opens all kinds of possibilities because you can influence / block / paint into a corner / crowd / funnel other players (and they you) by deciding which units to move or not move. If you don't know the game this probably sounds really  but it works and in practice isn't nearly as complicated as it sounds. But if you can accept the abstract/high-level bits there's a really rewarding game in there.The game comes with multiple factions (Marines, Aliens, Greys, Scientists, Pandora) and each play very differently despite having entirely common and straightforward rules. The Marines are best at straight up dealing damage and are good at it right away. The Alien faction are initially not very powerful but can grow far and wide and are good at ambush type attacks. Greys and Scientists have the goal of collecting Data Points (rather than strictly reducing enemies' Life Points) - for example the Scientists can set up video recorders in areas that gather data points each time an enemy unit passes through. There are definite strategic as well as tactical decisions to make, turns don't take forever because there are only so many units, and what other players do on their turn can affect you so it's still engaging even when it's not actually your turn. I liked playing a game and immediately thinking of what I was going to do differently next time. Your moves can have a bit of a chess-like feel to them since every move alters your possibilities as well as others'. It's a game where it's your turn and you go to make the play you were planning and suddenly tell the other player "oh, you  I just figured out what you did to me..."The slightly abstract parts can give new players a bit of a learning curve since not everything is intuitive, but happily the rules are very well written. It's always a good sign when there is a specific turn structure with distinct phases, and a clear indication of what happens in what phase (and when it is resolved.) It's surprising how many apparently ambiguous rule questions are quickly and clearly sorted out by referring to well-written rules. The Witcher and Earth Reborn both come to mind for this as well. The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:I was interested in this game when it was just released. Rahdo praised it as a two player game at Rahdo Runs Through►►► Theseus: The Dark Orbit. Shut Up & Sit bashed it to the ground as a four player game at Shut Up & Sit Down Reviews: THESEUS. I don't think I have ever played four player actually, mostly two player but one of the very best I ever played was a three-player. I sometimes wonder if the abstract/high-level elements mixed in with the more thematic elements make the game more susceptible to that thing where people go in with a strong sense of what a (for example) derelict spaceship game should be like, and are disappointed or upset when it isn't that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
BonHair posted: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'm with you on this post but right at the end there I'm getting a little "yeah, BUT..." I like Hanabi very much, had lots of fun with it and it's clever. But it never gets played anymore because it is no longer Hanabi. It eventually changed into a game of "When I say THIS I mean THAT"  which I don't find fun.e: My regular game partner is an Optimizer though, so what they like and enjoy isn't always the same as what I like and enjoy. We did totally get our money's worth out of Hanabi however.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Pascallion posted:Turns out Hanabi is way easier when everyone consistently discards from the same side of their hand...once we started doing that we got consistently high scores. To the point where it almost feels like cheating. First time I had to decide what to discard without knowing anything else, I discarded my "oldest" card reasoning that it had the most chance to have been identified if it had been useful. Turns out I remembered incorrectly so I ended up discarding the wrong one, but it did lead to being consistent about card placement / age / discard side like you said. I don't think discarding based on "age" of card is even borderline cheating (not that you said it was) since card placement in your hand is up to the player to manage and they're free to screw it up since they can only see card backs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I think it's against the spirit of the rules, because you're telling the other players "this is what I'm going to discard unless some of you give me a really good reason not to", but also think that it's very difficult not to establish some kind of common language after repeated plays. Giving information about a single card in my group means "don't discard this or I'll loving kill you.", for example. I can see that. I also completely agree that - just like you said - it's hard not to develop some kind of common language after repeated plays. Hanabi remains a super clever game that is easily worth the money.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I was thinking of setting aside my card-based-game prejudice to try Pathfinder since I've heard vague good things and I like trying new games. I'm always up for trying games that can be played solo as well. I was unprepared for the price tag though. Too high for an impulse buy, and I thought cards were supposed to be the cheap component right along with six-sided dice. Well, I have plenty of games waiting to have their plastic cracked already anyway, sour grapes 4 lyfe 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Well, I have learned something in the past few pages. I originally said Hanabi has turned into "when I say THIS I mean THAT" for us, I guess I really meant that it has become "ritualized" for lack of a better term and lost its shine. Based on the stuff I have read here I have realized that hell, we may have played it until it feels like we know what each other are thinking but at least we're not even wink-wink cheating like in some of the stories and examples.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:Alright folks, it's New Year's Eve and I have been tasked with picking up games for 8-10 people. e: beaten, oops didn't see it was already mentioned Telestrations is a great party game, and not shouty. As long as people are OK with a pictionary-style draw/guess game (some people can be "I can't (won't) draw  ")Scales very well to larger numbers of players, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
BL mentioned Click Clack Lumberjack and I played it for the first time the other night and found it charming as hell. Super simple and easy to play (very important for groups). 8-10 people though I'd want two separate games at least, if only to avoid the issue of having to move the tree to remain within reach of players.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
BonHair posted: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. 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." I don't think the new information reveal part is a significant part of that, not sure why I phrased it the way I did. It's been a while since the last game (which was 8 hours but flew by) I think I was just misremembering exactly what about the fights made them the #1 brain-burny time consuming part.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
BonHair posted: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? I don't really remember, it's been a while since we played  However what Gutter Owl said sounds like what we'd do. If you screwed up but the play you made is legal, it stands.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
I tried some new stuff and am ready to share Dominion I recently learned to play Dominion. It was never in any of my circles or anything so I didn't actually know anything about it besides the chatter in this thread. After a bunch of games I feel like I know it reasonably well. It's very sharply designed and I love several things about it:
The Minority Report: Hands down the #1 best game I will never buy. There are problems with how I'm going to describe this, but the game feels like a toolbox more than anything. A set of tools for playing your opponent(s) with as little game in the way as possible. It does this fantastically, of course. It's hard to articulate but Dominion feels less like I'm playing a game and more like I'm competitively spreadsheeting via memory. Personally I need some other handle in there somewhere for my brain to hang on to before I can really engage fully. Side note: the tutorial on playdominion.com is really well-suited to introducing people to the deckbuilding concept. It begins by playing a limited game with only some of the kingdom and victory cards, which introduces concepts separately and helps the wheels start to turn in the correct ways in the player's head. Space Alert Like Galaxy Trucker, it's like a board game from a parallel universe where board games evolved completely differently and are therefore unlike anything else. Well-documented. Vibrantly and cheerfully designed. A treasure trove if you're interested in how different games like to try to make different things work. The Minority Report: It's fun to lose in chaos - unless you don't like chaos. The game feels like playing two simultaneous games of Scrabble with 10-second turns while people shout the dictionary at you. In a group that includes a chaos-loather, a perfectionist who isn't AP-prone but hates time pressure, and the Hearing Impaired, this game is admired from afar. Dead of Winter I really wanted to like this game more than I did. It was only OK. It's too easy for a traitor to glide under the radar and just torpedo things at the end. We realized we coudn't even go "Okay Ricky, we know you are probably not a traitor but we can't be sure and you'll act last so git rid of all your cards before the last round or we vote to expel you - it'll be too easy for you to torpedo us otherwise". You can't do that because everyone has legit secret objectives and no one will accept voluntarily losing just so the rest can win. But taking the traitor out of the game completely would muck up some other things. I liked the crossroads cards concept, but the execution is rocky - partly because the cards aren't all written in a consistent voice which is really clunky (some cards are written from the perspective of the active player, other cards are written as a 3rd person Narrator, others are written in first person for some specific character. It gets to the point when a card starts "You suddenly feel a tightness in your chest and..." and you have no idea until you read the rest who it's talking about and who you should be addressing when it says "You" because none are consistent.) The Minority Report: The game does warn you that - for example - some hidden goals will be harder than others and other possibly "unfair" things if you're not cool with that, don't play. Honest disclosure of a different approach, or hand-waving away of flaws? You decide. I liked several things about the game, such as the feeling of ramping pressure but even I'll admit that while some bits are interesting to me, it's a game that as it exists is really only fun once or twice. Alien Uprising I really wanted to like this game. But I got progressively more irritated, beginning with the poorly-written and poorly-organized rulebook. I did like some things about it: the theme, and the increasing difficulty. But too much just got in the way of trying to enjoy the game. It's hard to see what's going on. Also there is an "Event Deck" that does something I find annoying when the rest of the game is already too fiddly: lots of "For this next round, <special rule> applies". One-off special rules and exceptions to keep track of (and forget) while trying to slog through poorly-documented rules on a board where it's hard to see what's going on... in the end I just got tired of it all. The Minority Report: It might make a decent tablet game; have the computer handle all the bookkeeping, give good visual cues for other game state stuff so you can take in the board state at a glance, and take care of applying all the "bungee rules" from the Events deck.  Ancient Terrible Things This game has hit the table quite a lot. It's not too long, it's easy to play and explain, and it has a rock solid art design that is consistent with the theme (pulpy horror). The underlying game isn't too complex and is sort of Yahtzee-ish. It's about pushing your luck and making some positioning/placement choices. The game describes a doomed river expedition for 2-4 players. Each round a player visits a different Fateful Location where they have an Ominous Encounter. If they overcome the encounter they obtain Ancient Secrets (victory points) but if they fail, they unleash a Terrible Thing. The winner goes to the insane asylum, the rest are Never Heard From Again. I also discovered there is an expansion for Theseus: The Dark Orbit which adds a faction: Bots  I am going to be all over that poo poo. I really like Theseus 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:I don't suppose anyone has played a majority of the following and could compare them to games like Mage Knight (good but long and fiddly) and Arkham Horror (less good and even more long and fiddly: Eldritch Horror plays quite differently from Arkham Horror and you need to be careful in the rules because some things look and sound the same as in AH but are actually very different in EH (e.g. clues - they are too precious to waste on mitigating die roll randomness; mitigate that in EH by buffing your character.) EH has some really good ideas with the mysteries, etc. The campaign against e.g. The Black Goat plays extremely differently than the one against e.g. Azathoth, and does it all within the scope of the existing ruleset - i.e. no huge swaths of special rules, etc. Comparing EH to Mage Knight is weird but EH will suit multiple players better and has far less brain burn. It'll play in a shorter time. It will probably tell a better story but but won't have the same depth nor does it have an exploration angle. MK has multiple scenarios but they are all kind of the same in a way if you want a co-op. Robinson Crusoe - I am in the minority here I guess but I love the game to bits. The rulebook is terrible but there is an illustrated guide online that does an excellent job of explaining. I agree that it plays best either solo or with a small number of like-minded players. In a way, it's all meta for a survival situation because if you're not ready or able to objectively co-operate, you'll die hard. The whole game plays super tightly in the way that everything is connected. Many things have one thing happen immediately, and have something else set up to happen later. It's possible to be unlucky at times but the game always gives you at least a chance to do something about the major stuff before it actually hits. You know that the weather will get snowy soon, it's up to you to get proper shelter before then. You injured your hand, it sooner or later it will get infected and if you don't have a salve by then well that's tough. The hungry predator is poking around, if you don't kill it or set up a palisade before it works up its courage well that's tough. And so on. It's hard but I never felt actually unfairly treated. Failing a game left me immediately seeing where I could have optimized or where I wasted effort and wanting to try again. Enough  from me, if you're OK with punishing difficulty that tells a story in the process and have a small number of like-minded players who want to basically role-play a survival situation, give it a shot.e: I think that ^^^ is going to be my go-to summary of Robinson Crusoe. GrandpaPants posted:I think you were the only person I've seen who said words about Theseus, so thanks for the recommendation. I really enjoyed the couple games I've played. I'd be totally cool if they added more cards for the various factions though so that they don't overlap so much (I still don't know why Greys get landmines) and had some more cool, unique cards though. If you also like Earth Reborn but have no one to play with we're probably long-lost siblings or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
taser rates posted:I'm pretty sure this is actually everyone that owns Earth Reborn. Lottery of Babylon posted:The hearing-impaired player has a legitimate excuse, but the others are dumb and lame and hate fun. Eh, different strokes for different folks. Some people enjoy putting things in order and their brain makes a happy sigh once the "puzzle" is completed. Not being able to do that (like being under time pressure and not being able to "finish") robs them of their payoff. They don't hate the game, it just doesn't work for them. I'm the hearing impaired one and I think the game is brilliant. It is very hard for me to effectively play, though. I have hearing aids that do a marvelous job of letting me pass for almost-normal most of the time but in any kind of edge cases or when more than one thing is happening or more than one person is talking that all nosedives. An all ASL Space Alert game would probably be  + 
The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:I played my first game of Eldrich Horror last week, and only just found out the focus action was added in an expansion. When we played, it seemed necessary to keep the game going through terrible rolls. I'm on the fence about picking up my own copy, but if I do, I'll be adding focus tokens. In EH our first game or two had what you described: limp through terrible rolls hoping to get lucky before losing because you didn't roll those successes you were sitting there waiting to get. I decided that in EH we needed to mitigate dice rolling luck by buffing skills and getting allies - literally giving yourself more dice instead of using the (too few) clue tokens to give rerolls. Once we did that it went much better. Diving into many of the later challenges rolling only "standard" number of dice for skill checks I realized was really just hoping to get lucky. Part of our problem was that we tried to play EH the same way we played Arkham Horror and it didn't work. In AH clue tokens (allowing rerolls) can be used to mitigate dice rolling luck and that's how we played. For example if I know I'm going to need one success (5 or 6, or 1/3) to close that gate but I know I will only have only 3 dice then I'm really just hoping I'll be lucky. If I can have up to six chances to roll a 5 or 6 (like by having at least three clues on hand to apply to the three dice I know I'll have) then I can feel pretty confident I'll manage to do it. The thing is that clues are far too precious in EH (and not as numerous as in AH) but buffing your character is much easier to do in EH.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Spergy question: Anyone have a high quality thingy to put a universal head rules sheet in? I'm imagining something like those hard plastic toploaders that you buy magic cards in, but letter sized. Or brochure sized maybe for the half sized references. I have sent the PDF as a color print job to my local Staples, and elected to have them Laminate the sheet. Works great. Specifically, color printing on the lighter cardstock (heavier can't be laminated) then cutting the laminated sheet down to size at home (or into two for the half sized references) has not let me down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Catan was one of the first board games I played that didn't have direct conflict between players as its whole point. Like, you put down a building and someone else can't take it from you or blow it up or whatever. Some people I know liked it for precisely that reason, it was... I don't know, friendly competition? Not like games which were basically the cardboard version of slugging your brother in the arm and laughing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Viticulture isn't really an aggressive or "head just above water" type of game. It's more relaxed and how to maximize your turns. Some people will like that, others won't. This is a super useful description that helped me understand what Viticulture is and isn't (beyond the genre) more than anything else. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
On teaching: some people learn differently than others. My wife has no patience for being lectured or reading rulebooks. Know the game beforehand and let her dive right in with What Is The Point, followed by What Can I Do Right Now. The downside is that she'll need things explained more than once for a while because she isn't always learning in a straight line. That's rough on me because I really hate having to repeat myself (sometimes something I explained like 10 seconds ago), but but that's life. I'm the rules learner so it works out at least. Personally I learn best by reading. I read fast and absorb fast. For me, watching videos is like watching poo poo in slow motion. It's agonizing. I get tired of being in the driver's seat all the time though. It's a rare joy to be able to just focus on a game as a player. No explaining rules, no reminding people it's their turn, etc. But at least I'm appreciated. I was sick recently and didn't make it out to a game night. My wife came back and told me that without me there it was a confused mess even though they played games they had all played before. Got rules wrong, etc. Oh, but on the other hand we played a few times with one of my wife's co-workers. Never needs reminding of anything, sharp player, and only needs something explained once.  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Most people at the meetups I got to actually like the way I teach games. I approach it like some of the proposals I have to do at work and school. This (and you) sound really well thought out and well executed. Morpheus posted:Crucial in this is stuff like a brightly marked SET UP and TURN PHASE thing, so we can step through each bit of the game. Don't know if we'd be able to get through a terrible rulebook like Robinson Crusoe's, though - there'd probably be some serious issues. One of Robinson Crusoe's sins is that is is poorly written (maybe bad translation work?) for what is really a technical document. It is loaded with phrases like "take the matching marker and place it in the appropriate spot"  Some other rules I have read make similar goofs when they talk about "Place the event cards here and the resource cards there..." when there has been zero mention or explanation of which cards are which (no picture reference, no labelling, no "EVENT" on the card anywhere, etc.) It's easy to forget people are reading this for the first time and it's all new to them, and you wind up writing a rules book that makes perfect sense ... but only to people who have grasped and are familiar with everything beforehand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
The rules don't say I caaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn't t 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Durendal posted:There's something I have been pondering lately - why is it that no one has been able to improve upon Dominion? So many games have come and gone over the last six years yet not one has been able to improve upon its formula. Did Donald sell his soul or something? Or did he just some how make a game that is mechanically flawless? My impression of Dominion was that it was a game that it almost minimalistic - allowing you to play your opponents with as little "game" in the way as possible while still having the game there. I think that when someone tries to make "Dominion, but better" it tends to be by taking what is basically Dominion but adding some extra knobs onto it - which is sort of sideways/backwards to what makes it what it is. If you want to make Dominion but better, one way would be to figure out how to have the same good elements of the gameplay but, oh, without the constant shuffling and re-shuffling. So much shuffling is just a chore (a chore solved by computer versions, I suppose.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:That's one of the things I dig about Puzzle Strike. The chip bag thing is a really loving clever idea. I didn't really know anything about Puzzle Strike but I know more now! That does sound clever. I think I'll add it to my list to check out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
I'm always interested in not just how different games work and how different designers approach different problems, but particularly in co-op. Co-op games can't take advantage of "intelligent opposition" (i.e. an actual person playing against you) so they have some interesting problems to solve. I have been playing some Legends of Andor lately, and let me tell you I'm quite pleased so far. It's a 2-4 player co-op and I'm going to say nice things about it I was expecting something maybe Defenders of the Realm-ish but it's impressing me much more so far. Rules are straightforward and not grognardy. Nice artwork and piece design. And it has something going for it besides semirandom monster flood & random events which helps to make it more coherent. The "thing" about Legends of Andor is that you play scenarios (Legends) which are pre-baked adventures, which are revealed via cards that get turned over via various triggers. I had heard that there is limited replay once you know what the legends are and how they progress. This is somewhat true based on the fact that you play the Legends "blind" for the first time so it has a DM-less RPG session feel to it. But I was pleased to see that they aren't completely pre-baked and have some variable elements to them that would make some replay possible. You'd know what happens at a high level the next time around, but not exactly how or where or necessarily in what order. Broad strategy is re-usable but not more than that, because so far as we've played there is no time to do any butt-scratching. You feel the time and resource pressure. It's not like, for example, Eldritch Horror where I can frequently remember having some breathing room. Legends of Andor feels (so far) - like you're outmatched and have not quite enough time -- but there is still a fighting chance. I like that. The feeling that you have a fighting chance. Anyway, a bit more about the feel of the game. In a legend there are normally hordes of monsters encroaching on some important location and you lose the game if you allow it to be overrun -- but clobbering monsters and stacking them like cordwood is (so far) almost incidental to the actual jobs you have to do as the heroes and if you do it more than you need to it's actually counterproductive. While you're winning the battles, you're losing the war. In a way, it's (so far) not your job to wipe out the monster armies - it's your job to complete your tasks despite the monster armies. The other thing I'll say about the game is that learning it was a snap. The first Legend is basically a tutorial that explains concepts and play. This continues somewhat in some later legends. I don't think I've ever seen a playable tutorial for a board game done to this extent. Just read the bare minimum How To Play quickstart, do exactly what it says to set up, and you're off to the races to learn as you go. We're enjoying it so far, and I'm much more impressed with it than I guess I expected. Dude put a lot of work and effort into things. The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:It has a bunch of expansions to help with running out of story campaigns. But for some reason none are available in English. Every review I heard about it were positive so I wonder why. I noticed that the english version of the web site (not the FFG site) has a couple english downloadable ones. http://legenden-von-andor.de/en/ The German version of the site is much more featured however, even has a "Developer Guide" of some kind. bobvonunheil posted:I quite liked how combat fit into the wider strategy of this game, and it hit us a completely unexpectedly the first time we played it. We were all 'man, these monsters are easy! Let's smash them all down!' and then we realised we needed to get to the tree on the other side of the map in 2 turns without so much as touching another monster if we were to have any chance of winning. Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Rexides posted:How does fighting the monsters work in that game? I found that most of these games belong in the DnD school of "Select your action and then roll your dice to see if you lost your turn or not" which I really hate. Also, is combat a lonely affair like in Mage Knight, or can two or more players gang up on the same threat? Combat is fairly quick to resolve. It has some limited uncertainty which comes from dice, and heroes & monsters get weaker as they get hurt. It would lack depth if someone wanted a tactical knife-fight in board game form. e: Briefly (if you want to know): 1. Hero (or heroes) roll their dice (# depends on willpower aka hit points), take the highest roll and add their Strength = attack total 2. Monster does same, but if they roll doubles they count both results, add their Strength = attack total 3. Compare totals. Lower result loses willpower equal to the difference. 4. Repeat another round (1 hour of daylight per round) or abandon the fight There isn't a whole lot of calculating and re-calculating (no endless streams of items with +1 against but not if and +2 when used with but not against and etc etc). The balance is such that generally a fresh hero can take a "grunt" (Gors) but needs to buff up or team up for the next level monster (Skrals). There are more monsters beyond that but you probably get the idea. Combat is usually solitary unless you're teaming up on something tougher, or a boss monster. Teaming up on a monster is initiated a lot like in Mage Knight (someone initiates the fight and invites anyone else who is there). All the participants total their rolls and strength together. But if they lose, they each take equal damage (they do not split the damage amongst them, they each take the full amount.) Fights don't take particularly long partly because there is no appreciable "setup" for a fight, and no real upkeep between rounds apart from a little arithmetic and deducting willpower (hit points) which may affect the number of attack dice rolled. There are also no special cards or tons of special items and various +1s to stack, and no sick combos to be made. Items exist but their bonuses and uses are all straightforward -- no "use this card to reroll up to two dice but only if using but doubled against  "
The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
What a pleasant surprise today     I've purchased games out of curiosity before. I'm not above that. I'm not a real strategy gamer / wargamer so I'll probably be easier to impress / dazzle / bamboozle but it does seem that Petersen put some real effort into it. I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays. I read the rules PDF some time ago and it looked OK, I liked that there are clear rules with distinct phases. So far so good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
As usual, I'll share my thoughts on the game once I get around to trying it. Neither I nor other people I game with are big wargamers though so my perspective is going to lack depth and I won't be able to compare to e.g. CitoW or Kemet (neither of which I have played) but maybe it'll still be useful. Last wargames I played were the likes of Warrior Knights and Samurai Swords
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Sgt. Anime Pederast posted:I just played my first game of Eclipse And I was really loving impressed with it. The setup was a massive pain in the rear end, but it was a really easy game to learn. I was also really impressed with it. The iOS version is super well done as well, and the AI players are at least decent. They sure gave my dumb rear end a challenge, anyway. I particularly like how elements on the player cards do and track multiple things. It makes upkeep and planning much simpler. I think the humans are meant to look severe but every single one of them just looks like they discovered a nasty fart instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Oh, and if you want to dumpster the Eclipse app AI, you can use the same strategy you use against humans in base Eclipse - rush Plasma Missiles, then turtle with complete immunity or push people off whatever you want. For whatever people say, they were totally a problem in the base game, and bullying the AI with them is a fun way to prove this to yourself. The AI has done this to me, it's where I first saw it happen. In a later game I tried more smaller ships with top-of-the-line avoidance, so when the AI fired their one swarm of missiles and it wasn't enough to kill me, the AI had nothing left to do except retreat from whatever I wanted. Then it was time to convert the alien unbelievers.... into base particles with my fusion bombs Maybe only the aggressive AIs try it? It's been a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Magic Realm is unironically #1 in my 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:27
|
|