|
I think the thread verdict on Splendor should be: Absolutely find a way to play it for free before you consider buying it. There is a lot of hate for the game but at the same point there's a lot of people who like it too. Because it's divisive and the MSRP is pretty high, 'try before you buy' is the best and safest way to find out which side you fall on. Personally, I tried it at PAX East 2014 before it was cool (hipster glasses), and I had a great time. Hopefully, any potential buyers will have a similar opportunity.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
I hadn't heard about the "Puzzle Strike being wholesale stolen" thing. At least now I know to not buy Sirlin games because gently caress that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Thread ally Watch It Played put up a video for a new game called Harbour from Tasty Minstrel Games. I bring it up because my friend got his kickstarter copy, which I played last week. For once I don't feel like belaboring this. This game reeks. Don't buy it without playing it first. And, well, if it turns out you like it, then v  v
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
EBag posted:I've heard a lot of mixed things about it, though mostly bad/mediocre. Rahdo's runthrough didn't make it seem that bad, though not that exciting either, sorta like a condensed Le Havre(which I guess is what it was going for). What's so terrible about it? I am not familiar with Le Havre. Here's the elevator pitch version of my compaints: The economy is too granular and swingy and random considering that there is no hard currency to hold onto. For instance, in Power Grid, if someone buys a resource before you, it costs you a few more dollars and might cost you more money in the long run because you had to buy less. And that's only if they bought a whole lot of it or its a rare resource. But you still are allowed to participate in the game. In Harbour, if someone spends their stone before you do, suddenly you can't buy something because your 6 stone is now worth 2 instead of 5 and the building you wanted cost 9 and you aren't allowed to sell some things if you have too little of it. Sure, it might seem like the same difference of a few dollars, but you can't make up the difference with reserve cash and you can't get any money back for extras. And it's not just when someone sells high, every single sale craters the value to nothing, so if someone can sell what you have a lot of, then you are going to be waiting for it to be worth selling it. Now, it might sound like a good "Take That" game, but you have to get lucky to have that opportunity, since it's not like you can unload 3 stone for 3 bucks just to screw your opponent. Also, if you have six and it's selling for 2, you must sell it all for no additional gain unless you have cards that allow you to keep extra, which you can't buy unless you manage to sell some valuables at the right time. You look at the buildings, and none of the buildings offer you anything worthwhile, or are actively detrimental to you. And the resources are completely fungible except for some building abilities, so it's not like you can corner the market on something. If you see someone is high on stone, well, hopefully you can get something that isn't stone at one of the buildings so you don't lose your shirt when he spends it all next turn. You may be thinking "Did you just get bad buildings?" Well, we started with what they recommend for starting players plus two more, so unless they wanted to showcase their game grinding to a complete halt as players cannot take any action that is not detrimental to them, then no, we didn't just get bad buildings. Also, consider the whole "don't have players draw at the start of their turn" discussion as a means to reduce downtime. Since the market changes so chaotically, there is no sense in considering what to do until it is your plan. "Oh, good, Stone sells for 5, I can buy the- no, wait, now it's selling for 2. Well, then I will go to the-no, that guy went there so I can't. Well, maybe I can-oh wait, Stone sells for 4 now, is that enough to buy the-no, wait, I have died of boredom." You'd be better off rolling a die that determines if you can sell your resources and for how much. You just have to hope to sell high and if not, spend your turns doing nothing. Now, keep in mind, we played for maybe 30 minutes before we both decided to give up. Maybe we were doing something wrong, but I don't think so. I wrote this instead of studying for an exam 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Merauder posted:Yeah, gotta make sure you build up that cred with the internet forum board game posse before sharing things that are ftfy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Just in case you guys want to cut to the chase and find out why Boss Monster is terrible, here is my previous post on it. E: VVVVV If I recall correctly, the rules allow you to mulligan if you draw only advanced rooms, but honestly, it should let you do it if you draw more than two, maybe three of the things. Not even in a "This is why Boss Monster sucks" way, but a "Even a bad game should have a mechanic like this, it is clear no human beings playtested this thing" way. Magnetic North fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Fuckin Yomi on Steam hell yeah I haven't played Yomi and it doesn't look all that great to me... but cross-platform play is always a plus to me, so I'm always happy to see it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I'm afraid this might not be Rubitex's final form.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Black Card: Stuff Goons do. Also, this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
I know this thread loves Tash-Kalar, so maybe someone can explain to me why you guys love it so much. I have not played it, but I looked into it. For the outside, it seems like it'd be very difficult to control anything if you don't memorize the cards/patterns of your opponent's deck.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
nimby posted:Next time I'm playing with our massive AP-guy and it looks like it's going to be another game where we get to see him stare at the board for 2 minutes at a time, I'm going to time his rounds. Then if he comments that someone else is taking too long (he does this), I'll just show the timer. If someone is AP & says other people take too long, just don't play with that person. There is no game where you absolutely need to have that last player for that is worth that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:out of curiousity, what would be "a much better theme" than what dominion has? This is probably what they are thinking. Also, 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Enjoy! I like where it goes: "How about a deckbuilder?" -> "Deckbuilder?" -> Dominion
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
I am irrationally offended by the implication that CAH is like Lego. *clicks two Lego bricks together* I have successfully Lego'd. Also, wow, they barely touch on the problems from a gameplay perspective, and instead focus on the social contract problems that the game is willingly and consciously breaking. What sense does that make? "Hey, this piece of transgressional fiction is bad because it deals with inappropriate topics." "How about the fact that its themes make no sense and it reads like it was written by a fourth grader?" "I don't see how that's relevant."
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Jaipur or Splendor? Mostly going to be playing 2 player. As a person who likes both games, I think Jaipur is probably the better choice if it will usually be two player. Two player Jaipur (which is the only option for that game) is better than two person Splendor. You have a bit more control of what will happen, your choices will be less obvious, and you can choose to either take greater risks or opt to mitigate risk much more than you can in Splendor. The only advantage that Splendor has over Jaipur is that brainburner aspect of trying to discern what two or three opponents are going to do at the same time, which will not be present in a 2 person game.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:yeah, you can just throw the game in the garbage Well, I was going to throw your game in the garbage, but there is no physical copy because it didn't get printed. Macdeo Lurjtux posted:1. Is there a way to remove starvation tokens? Doesn't seem so. The Plaid Hat Forums has this thread on it, but it's not 100% official or certain there. The rulebook only references starvation tokens in four places, none of which deal with removing them.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I'm amazed at how badly I can hurt a manbaby's feelings by talking poo poo about a game they like. Just for the record: I actually have not played DoW and I agree with the thread hivemind's objections to it, so I probably never will. I'm just familiar with the rules thanks to Table Top and Watch It Played. My objection is more questioning if we really need to sass a rando who is just asking a question about a very popular game. Also the burn came to me so I had to use it, even though I was honestly hopeful that your KS would be successful.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Yeah, heh. Reposting my favorite Table Top awful rules error: Magnetic North posted:My favorite Table Top error that I've seen so far is in the Gloom episode. The first move of the game was to play a modifier on one of their family. It's a modifier that says it can only be played on a character with a 'Marriage' icon... which is impossible on the first turn, as no character starts with any icon. This isn't mixing up a relatively elaborate game, this is a failure to read the card in a very simple game. It's even better because the big graphical flourish they have makes if obvious even to people who never played before.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Innovation plays like a version of Fluxx that was never playtested. Don't play it.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Wow, for a bit I thought this was the designer getting salty, but it's just some rando. Holy poo poo, go outside, man. Related to this and Eminent Domain: Played Eminent Domain: Microcosm a week or two ago, but because it's a Tasty Minstrel Games game, the rules are printed on a postcard (just like that piece of poo poo Harbour), and it's not terribly clear. The game is simple, but the rule swatch is just not well laid out. Cue going to BGG to decipher how to play the game, where I see this thread where the designer is answering questions, and getting just a tiny bit salty. Seth Jaffee on BGG posted:I guess you need to read the Colonize card to know that a planet card in front of you is called a colony, but I expect people should read the text on all of the cards, they apply as rules as well as the rules sheet! Keep in mind, this game involves a mechanic of revealing cards, but some of those cards are hidden in your hand while others are already face up, but you can reveal them... and there's a separate pile of face up cards which cannot be revealed. That's totally intuitive, right? Really, this game would have been better served by greater 'keywording' like you see in CCGs. Like, if a card said: "Reveal (warfare) icons equal to the defense value of the planet to put it into your Spoils." It implies that Reveal is not simply an English word, but a game term. Same goes for the difference between Planets and Colonies. And don't get me wrong, it's nice that you're clearing things up, but maybe if you had an actual rule book or maybe if TMG posted a FAQ or rules or anything besides a storefront on their 'under construction' website, then gamers wouldn't have to be trying to divine how you play your game with what's written on that napkin that accidentally got left in the box.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:elastics forever! You know how sometimes celebrities cry over animal cruelty? That's me when it comes to using elastics to store board games. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:People who pick up a game for the first time, play poorly, and then condemn a game for being badly balanced are my number one GamerBane. I hate that poo poo and I hear it all the time. I agree for the most part, but sometimes it is just clear that a game is too random/unbalanced after the first playthrough, especially when the randomness is not from an unevenly distributed resource like a deck of cards, and instead comes from something else. For instance, that loving pile of poo poo Harbour.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Doug posted:Anyone have any opinions on Harbour? My wife and I picked it up last night and it was certainly...an experience. It is an experience. A bad experience. I'm with you on the rules napkin: after this and Eminent Domain: Microcosm not to buy any TMG that doesn't have an alternative method for me to learn the rules beforehand. Anyway, I had some words about it when I first played it in March. Since then, I have come to believe we were playing wrong regarding the default power of the home building, but I am convinced the mistake only made the game less awful because it gave us more resources and more control, so I have not changed my tune. Instead of having those little squares to indicate everyone's resources, just glue them all together, draw dots on them, turn them into dice. The game could not be any more random. What's worse, it is far too fiddly to be breezy stupid fun like King of Tokyo, and far too chaotic to be a very casual puzzler like Splendor. You can't predict what your opponents will do because they don't know what they will do because everything changes too quickly. There is no loose cash resource to spackle over the gaps, so you had better hope the market slot machine comes up in your favor. It sucks. Don't play it. Throw it away. Don't subject your friends to it. I wonder if the six thousand backers knew they were kickstarting a revamped LCR. The makers of the game claim that 'un-tested game content will be added to our games' and if that's true they need to hire new testers, because whoever tested this game are either idiots or precognitive supergeniuses. It sucks. Don't play it. Almost anything would be a better use of your time. I would literally rather play Talisman than play Harbour.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Fake Artist Goes To New York sounds like a riot. I was thinking of picking up Skyfall later this year, but now I am conflicted. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:You're better off rebuying the expansion for $50. For Dominion, this is fine, because that game is so popular, it is going to be a long time before that game is out of print. For most other games, there is no guarentee of that, and personally I don't want to rely on the general populace and its terrible taste in games continually buying a game I like so that I can rebuy it when my copy is damaged or destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:THIS. Everyone is going gaga over this mess of a game and I can't figure out why. It's like Dice Masters + Magic but everything about it looks terrible. v v I think it looks okay. Admittedly, I've only seen Rodney's videos, so maybe I am getting ahead of myself here.Played Good Cop, Bad Cop yesterday. That is some quick fun. Kind of like Coup, but a bit less bluffing and a bit more deduction, and no fiddling with money. The only problem is the game can eventually become a "Agent/Kingpin is being pointed at, don't bother picking up guns off the floor because if we don't draw an equip to save him instead, that's the end of the game" I also like how that first edition fits in a tiny card box. I know microgames are becoming a bit trendy, but if the game is still good then it is quite practical too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Bought myself two games recently: Specter Ops and Sheriff of Nottingham. Not exactly breaking mysterious hipster ground, but I wanted things that my friends didn't own that I knew enough about to be confident in. Both have Watch it Played tutorials, and both have either been talked about on Dice Tower or Tabletop, so I have as much info as is reasonable to have without playing it. Also, Specter Ops was designed by the criminally underrated wacky programming game VOLT: Robot Battle Arena, so I am looking forward to see what he can do with a bit more support. Both went over very well. I faceplanted so many times in Sheriff trying to bust my friends only to find out they actually had five apples or something. I am the worst liar in the world, but we had a good time. In Specter Ops, we played with 4 players. I was a hunter and we found the agent early and lit her up, but we must have made a wrong move somewhere, because she was suddenly gone and we were always two steps behind after that. Those two extra HP and gadgets she gets are no joke. It feels like it is stacked against the agent, but the hunters have so little information, it really feels like it balances out. Yeah, these games are both luck-dependent bluffing/deduction games and hardly anything special, but the current response from my group is positive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Sidenote: If I can play as a Pakled, that's a guaranteed day 1 purchase. I'm holding out for Lobot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:twitch.tv/theislandgames Oh, TI3. Hours spent so far: 6. Number of viewers: 1, soon to be 0.  Dre2Dee2 posted:I always use someone's video on the internet, it's just the best way. The two games I bought recently had Watch It Played instructionals, but I don't think they had the tech setup to show it even if I wanted to try and introduce my group to Rodney. Also, I had never actually played either before, despite being familiar with the rules. So, I read through the rulebooks of both, because I had to refresh myself as well as others. I think that reading the rulebook aloud has something of a bad wrap. I mean, I know a lot of people do not have great diction or reading comprehension, so it can be dull. However, for moderately complicated and/or long games, I would rather be bored for an extra 30-45 minutes once than play through a chunk of a game or two and then have someone go "Oh no, I forgot about XYZ, that's actually really important welp welp" One thing I will say: the Sheriff of Nottingham rulebook is quite excellent for clear and readable rules, providing examples and introducing some strategies. The Specter Ops rules, not so much.. which I suppose is to be expected considering it is way more complicated and the rulebook is probably half the size. We had a problem as to whether someone could drive the car 10 spaces and then get out. I'm sure the answer is out there, but we just agreed to go 9 and step out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:The Valley of The Kings I've only gotten to play this one once, but I was really struck by it at the time. It's certainly worth checking out for anyone who likes center-market deckbuilders.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Dont be foolish, Talisman can easily accommodate over 50 players, with no class crossovers. Board game thread goonmeet activity found.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Had to play Boss Monster tonight. Trip report: still sucks, continue to gently caress that game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:If you check my posts, I actually tried my hand at making Boss Monster bearable by stapling a crude drafting mechanic to it. Found that here if anyone else is curious. It seems fine, but I honestly wonder if choosing your rooms by drafting can alleviate the 'one singular move is best' problem of the game. Honestly, thinking about it now, I wonder if the game would be improved if there were less cards that gave specific arbitrary bonuses and instead offered control in loot symbols to let you attract heroes more easily, thereby bringing more synergy with rooms that have an 'when a hero dies in this room" ability. Obviously, that would require a whole re-do, which isn't what you were up to here, of course. AMooseDoesStuff posted:Why is bossmonster bad again? This post has my thoughts on the matter. In short, players have very few meaningful choices or control of the game state. The exception is particular expendable resource (spells) that some players will be positively lousy with if they get the right cards while everyone else simply cannot get more of without drawing a card to afford them that privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Most BGG users are actually pretty loving dickish. They seem like the type of people who are inviting at first, until someone disagrees with them and then they write essays about how they are and always will be in the right. It's a really lovely and toxic community, and I was glad to see people here cancel their orders. BGG may be one of the better examples out there that a 'real name policy' does not make people act less lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:It's true, no fan ever defends their local club team's performance by saying they had fun talking to their friends in the next seat, and the weather was nice at the games they attended, and praising all the time they had to drink beer during the lulls in action. Pinkhat Red Sox fans do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Maybe it's because Hasbro is local to me, but... Hasbro is kinda evil? I mean, slightly more than is expected from it being a corporation. Also, ever seen a company say "We don't want your ideas. If you insist, you have to basically give up the rights to the idea for free." Kinda the same thing. I don't read contest rules much, since lots of them are ineligible here (and Quebec) for whatever reason, but are we certain it's that far out of line? i mean if they get dragged to court, if they don't squash it quickly, they might lose more money than the terrible boardgame made. Also, they probably figure that any game that is truly excellent would already be on kickstarter or courted by publishers. This is basically a publicity stunt / vanity press. At worst they have to get something tangible from it, and since you can't copyright rules per se, that means intellectual properties. Also, if you are in board game design for money, like I mean have a dream. I daydream about that sometimes too, we all probably do. But, you know, maybe also become a carpenter? Yes, it is certainly lovely, but I am not surprised by it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So I finally played Falling and even though it took my friends a while to get the hang of it, the game is really good. Would recommend it. It's basically exploding kittens but it works Has anyone tried Brawl? It looks kinda like two player Falling.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
20 awesome board games you may never have heard of. They are right that I hadn't heard of two of them. Also, great quote about you-know-what: quote:“Also has zombies which some people think are pretty cool.” e: fixed url Magnetic North fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Rumda posted:god loving drat it why the hell is heroes wanted on that list it is literally the worst game I've played these last few months. That was another one that had me go  . It has to be the least notable one on the list.Rutibex posted:Marvel vs Capcom 2 is my favourate fighting game I knew he wasn't a troll.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Is Sheriff of Notingham good? The elevator pitch: Does your playgroup like Liar's Dice? If so, they will probably like this. I recently picked it up. We've had a good time with it. It is lightweight and silly, but not entirely empty calories. It's all about messing with your friends and trying to get away with lying, while trying to pay enough attention to what people have and are building towards to see if their actions make sense or if their claims are probable. It is very social as you have an excuse to do voices and tell stories as a means to cover your lies. Twilight Struggle, this game is not. At the same point, there are some weird things about the mechanics. The two discard thing where you can draw from the discard has lead to those piles being choked with contraband that no one wants, so after a few turns, people universally draw from the deck. The game does quickly become 'draw off the top and try to get sets' but there are rules in the game that mitigate the luck factor: you can keep what you like and discard before drawing, and you can keep whatever goods you want so long as you don't get inspected. Also, there is very little risk to the Sheriff to not check bags with only two goods in them, which is slightly limiting to merchants who draw poorly and want to try and be honest. But you don't have to take my word for it. If you want to know if you'll like it, watch Rodney's excellent Watch It Played video to learn the rules in detail. If you still think you might like it, you can check out either the Tabletop playthrough or the Dice Tower live stream playthrough. (Full disclosure: the Dice Tower guys were responsible for getting the game reprinted.) Neither is as good as one of Rodney's playthroughs, but they should give you the general idea of how it plays. And so far my group has not made a cock joke, so maybe we are just lame and/or cool depending? QnoisX posted:Do your friends hold grudges? That person sounds like a peach to play with in any game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 03:49
|
|