|
malkav11 posted:City of Horror isn't a safe recommendation either because it's a very political and adversarial game. I'd much, much rather play Zombicide, flawed though it is, because I prefer cooperative games or at least relatively mildly competitive games. I'm probably not alone in this preference (for coop or mild competition, I mean. I may well be alone in liking Zombicide!). Easier to just recommend steering clear of them altogether, I'd say. My experience with Zombicide: on my very first turn, a combination of various bad luck meant I died on my very first turn. If we hadn't been playing with the "zombvivor" expansion, I would have been eliminated right off the bat. The game took over two hours to complete. I think any game where you can get eliminated on the very first round, and takes that long, is not worth playing. Maybe I just got absurdly unlucky, but if it happened to me it can happen to others as well.
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
So I’m playing Quantum for the first time in a while with my group tomorrow. Had a bit of a rough experience with it the last time we played (was the first time we played the game) due to some ridiculously bad luck and us not realizing how big of a threat a runaway leader could be. I remember when I mentioned it before, some people mentioned some house rules they play with to help alleviate some of the initial randomness of the opening configurations. Anyone mind reposing some of those suggestions? I vaguely recall allowing some kind of manipulation of starting dice (re-rolls?) and also starting with an ability I think. Otherwise, looking forward to getting the game on the table again after quite a while of not having played it!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:That's interesting, I presume you were playing with four players? How big of a lead did they get? It was a 3 player game, and it was a couple months ago so I don't remember all the details exactly - but basically I didn't get any configurations that allowed me to take a planet beyond my first one before someone could beat me to it for the entirety of the game. By the time I realized I should give up on planets and go for an all-out attack plan, one player had a pretty strong white card for combat and I think also the most planets? I posted in the last thread about it, and most of the advice I received was I should have worked with the third player to team up against the dude who was in the lead. We played another game on a more open map, which gave everyone opportunities to get upgrade cards and get some small cubes down and get a plan setup, and that game went much more smoothly and was way more enjoyable. However my friends kinda got a bad first impression of it, and we had other games to play, so we called it after that. Someone else got a new game right after, and Quantum just kinda fell outta everyone's heads. I've got another group I'm playing with now, and remembered Quantum - none of them have played it, so I'm bringing it along tomorrow to give it another shot. We'll probably have a full 4 players as well. CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
What's the thread consensus on King's Forge? I played a game of it over the weekend and had a pretty fun time, but we only played a single game so didn't really have a lot of time to get a solid read on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
I mean I know it goes without saying that The Oatmeal Game will be bad, but holy poo poo that game looks bad. In the video explaining the rules, they say that skipping your turn is considered to be a positive tactical choice. They are almost straight-up saying “the best way to play this game is to just not play it.” e: It's like someone sat down and said "You know what the worst part about card games is? The part where you get to play cards."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
So I picked up Kemet at my local store's sale yesterday, and quick question on the rules: the rulebook specifies that two creatures (owned by the same player) can't be within the same location - can they move through locations with a friendly creature, though? So long as they don't end movement on that space, of course. Also, any general tips for rules or playing that we should know about before we dive in?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Anyone have any opinions on Medina? I saw it today at my local shop and it looks pretty neat. Not sure if it's worth picking up, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
SandersPacheco posted:Hey guys, I'd like some help. My group and I have been playing BSG (with Pegasus Expansion), Game of Thrones and X-Com lately; we also tried Axis&Allies and while it was fun, it took too drat long. So we're basically looking for games made for 4-8 players, with a playing time of 2 hours tops. Half of the group is also very prone to AP and mostly discouraged by long downtime (that's why A&A took so long and wasn't as fun as the others!). I know I could just go and type those lines into the BGG search engine, but I'd rather have some recommendations first from experienced players. I'm gunna recommend Libertalia and Space Cadets Dice Duel. Both games support up to 6 players really well, and generally move really quick. Dice Duel specifically moves in real time, so if your group doesn't do well under pressure and/or has a few really quiet members, it may not go over well. It can technically support like 10 players though, but it's best with 6.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
What's the thread consensus on Last Will? It looks pretty neat and I like the theme, but dunno how long of a lifespan the game has.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Hmm, alright. The primary reason I’m asking is that my group has grown bored with most of the stuff we’ve been playing for a while and are looking for some new stuff. I like the kinda backwards thinking required for Last Will so figured we might give it a shot. We don’t have huge preference for games, but two of us are game designers so we generally don’t enjoy stuff the thread doesn’t enjoy with weak mechanics. Anyone have suggestions for obscureish / not as popular or well known games for 3-4(or more) players?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Well what has your group been playing recently? Kind of hard to recommend things that will feel new to you, if we don't know what you have been playing. Fair enough  We aren’t super picky, so figured I’d leave it somewhat open. Some of our favorite games recently have been Quantum, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Kemet, King’s Forge, Artificium, Lifeboat, Samurai Spirit, and Chinatown.We also play Archipelago, Twilight Imperium, and Caverna / Agricola when we have a whole day to play. Usually we play at a local cafe after work, so we don’t usually go for stuff that require massive amounts of table space. Generally we don’t prefer stuff with lots of physical / time restraints.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I would recommend Kemet. I love Kemet - it's on the list of things we play a shitton, haha. Also We've played Coup and Love Letter a fair bit, as well. Thanks for all the suggestions, definitely gives me some good stuff to think about!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
EBag posted:Haven't played this one, usually theme doesn't matter that much to me but I just can't get excited about that theme. I'd definitely try it if someone I knew had it but I'm the one in my group who buys most of the games and I didn't have any interest in buying it and the mechanics sound kinda similar to Concordia which I already had. How different is it from Concordia? We played and enjoyed Rococo with a group of 5 (i think?) - I was super excited about the mundane theme. It was fun, but definitely one of those games you gotta play a few times. By the time I realized my strategy wasn't working, it was too late to change it. Despite the fact I wasn't super happy with it because of that, I really want to play the game a second time. I wouldn't recommend it with a group of our size though, as it took a looong time to reach your turn.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Tragedy Looper is good. This. I can't sing the praises of Tragedy Looper loud enough. It's just such a great game. Has anyone played Baseball Highlights: 2045 before? I kinda like the futuristic baseball theme, but dunno how good the game actually is. I saw it at my local game shop's recommended section, which has pointed towards some great games and some really crap ones, so I'm not sure what to think of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:I have this, actually. I've played it a couple times and it's a pretty quick and fun. I'm still learning the strategies in the game. It seems to have that puzzle strike thing where knowing exactly which cards are left in your deck and your opponent's is a big advantage. Thanks for the info! All the reviews I can find online seem to be from big baseball fans, so I'm hesitant that they were a bit biased. How does the game handle 3-4 players? My usual gaming group is that size, and while the box says it plays up to 4, everything I've read makes it seem like just a 2 player game. CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Except Netrunner. And Battletech. And any other game that doesn't spike the resource system with incredibly high variance to aid deck construction. Basically this. Netrunner definitely has the best resource system I've seen in a card game - there's one primary resource, money, which is used to pay for playing cards and paying for many of their abilities. It has the deckbuilding puzzle of "how much economy vs non-econ cards do I want?", but that's supplemented by the fact that players get 3 or 4 actions on each turn. There are many different things you can do with those actions, but you can always choose to take 1$ or to draw one card. Whabam, suddenly you're never out of options. Not getting any economy cards? You can spend your turn gaining money or drawing cards to try to find them. And since the resource is how much money you have, there's no limit to how much you can play during a turn aside from the limited number of actions - if you have too many resource cards, you can usually just dump them all on the table and start getting benefits from them immediately, so getting TOO MANY resource cards isn't usually a problem either. Sure, you CAN get screwed over if ALL of your (non)resource cards are clumped at the bottom of the deck, but you always have some way of trying to get to those cards - so it doesn't feel as bad as drawing one card then passing your turn.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Can someone write some words about Argent: The Consortium? I've seen the thread praise it, but I don't actually know much about it. It's on sale and I'm considering buying it, but I don't really know much about the gameplay or what makes it special.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Welp, you guys sold me on Argent. It sounds awesome as hell, and the flaws don’t seem like they’ll apply to / bother my group(s) much. And both groups enjoy being aggressive, so they’ll eat this up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
I think a lot of people like "experience generators" and other lovely games BECAUSE they don't have many meaningful choices. It's like watching a lovely action movie - they like to turn their brains off and just have a thing happen at them. They mostly just use the game as a catalyst for interacting with friends, and don't want the game to be anything more than that. To them it's barely even a 'game' - they don't care that much about the game itself, they just want something that can do while chatting with friends, that will create a "story" for them and their friends without having to put forth a ton of effort or thought towards it. To a lot of people, having challenging choices, complex strategy, etc can actually be a NEGATIVE aspect of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Like almost all CCG there is no strategy in actually playing the game. The strategy and decision making is there, but comes before hand in deck construction. Fighting the actual duels is just an exercise in figuring out who planned better before hand. Something something something Netrunner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
So my copy of Argent: The Consortium arrived today. I looked over the rulebook and the FAQ / errata posted earlier in the thread, but I have a question: when a spell / treasure is used as a reaction, is it still tapped? Also, any general tips or such for my group's first game?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Couple more questions on specific things in Argent: for the Great Hall room, do you get the reward for each mage you place into it? If not, why would you want to put more than one mage into it? With the Astronomy Tower room, can you move the token multiple times (paying for each) and get multiple rewards, or do you just pay one lump sum to move it the appropriate number of spaces, then get the reward you end on?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Perfect, thanks! Overall the rulebook wasn't as bad as I was expecting, but it definitely does miss edge cases like that. I'm looking at the official errata, and does anyone know where the source for these are? I wanna make sure they're legit and final before I take a pen / sharpie to my cards to fix the typos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:Trey is one of the designers. His name's on the box. Well then, I feel silly for not noticing that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
taser rates posted:zombies Counterpoint: Lovecraft
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Oh god, Quelf. I played it one time, with an old girlfriend and two of her roommates and it was the most awkward loving thing ever. Think about that time you tried to play board games with a group, and how one person who didn’t want to play dragged things down even with a really good game. Not only did we have one of those, but imagine that with a game where every turn someone is required to do something stupid, like only talk in rhymes or sit on their hands or make up a song on the spot or something. I think the point of the game isn’t that it’s supposed to be a game, but rather a catalyst for acting silly with friends, like Charades. The thing is, it’s lovely even at that because half of the cards are just random trivia or “you have to follow some arbitrary law now” I never want to touch that loving thing again.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
So I'm hanging with friends tonight, and I fear we may wind up playing munchkin. Someone just bought it and is intent on playing it. I'll be bringing some actual good games and will trying my best to ensure we play as little munchkin as possible, but it'll probably happen at least once. Any suggestions for rule changes to make it less terrible?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Over the weekend, we played Space Junk. As my friend was teaching the game, I kind of got excited because some of the mechanics sounded neat on paper - BOY WAS I DISAPPOINTED. I found out halfway through that it was a kickstarter game, and it didn't surprise me whatsoever. Basically the players are space junkers that are scrapping together ships on the fly, the theme very similar to galaxy truckers. Rather than spanning across a galaxy though, you're just all in orbit around a planet. There are three "rings" of orbit you can enter around the planet - the closer to the center you are, the more quickly you can circle the planet and move around in general, but the fewer available parts you can find for your ship. Furthermore, you always have to move your maximum movement value, so in theory if you want to land on a specific area, it becomes a movement puzzle. In theory. However, you're rewarded VPs for every time you orbit the planet, so there's very little reason to not just bolt ahead as fast as you can. This also results in there being very little combat strategy - the farther away you are, the harder it is to hit someone with an attack. In theory this means you need to carefully plan your movement so you can attack a specific player you want, but in reality it doesn't hardly ever matter who you attack. See, you are rewarded based on the number of successes you earn rather than the amount of damage you actually deal - so a player very rarely cares WHO they're attacking, and will just attack whichever player they're most likely to succeed against. This can totally lead to nobody ever being willing (or able) to gang up on a runaway leader, and can also often lead to one player who's in a bad position getting ganged up on, even if they're in last place. As for the ship building, it's also completely devoid of any choices whatsoever. You have seven slots on your ship - two slots each are devoted to movement, attacking, and searching, then you have one slot for your fuselage. Each part of your ship is represented by a randomly drawn card, and each card gives boosts for each of the three stats. When you place a card into one of the two slots on a stat, it boosts only that stat - if you place a card onto your fuselage slot, it boosts all stats. When you take damage, you roll a die - this determines which of the six stat slots will tke damage (the fuselage cannot be hit by attacks). Any part hit is destroyed and removed from your ship at the end of the round. Movement and attack are self-explanatory, but Search determines how many new ship parts you draw from the deck at the end of each round to place onto your ship. I thought the idea of building your ship on the fly and then needing to patch up holes would be interesting, but all of the ship parts are just flat stat boosts, so there's almost zero decisions. You'll always just replace a part when you get a better one, or just dump it into your cargo (where it'll be worth VPs at the end of the game). There's the slight decision that you might want to dump a piece into your cargo to safely hold its VPs for the end of the game, but the stat boosts are almost always better. Basically the game was decided in the first few turns - the player order on the VP track stayed basically static for almost the entire game. One player got some lucky draws and surged ahead a bit, but it wasn't enough to catch up and make any significant impact.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
I’ve had success with Going, Going, Gone as a casual partyish game for smaller groups of casual gamers. It’s a decent game that’s way more simple and way more fun than Munchkin, and friends usually enjoy the hectic opportunities in the game. Slap .45 is a game by the CAH people, but is actually quite a bit more fun due to it being much faster and much more active. Neither game is amazing groundbreaking stuff, but they’re both fun and lightweight, and I’ve never struck out with either of them on the munchkin against humanity crowd.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:Last night I gave Tragedy Looper a shot with a group of completely new players (including myself). My friends usually play roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons, and they expected more roleplaying out of the game itself, especially since the rulebook recommended choosing an experienced RPG Game Master to play the Mastermind. I think you basically need to stress the fact that it’s a deduction game. It’s a game about deducing things. The mastermind plays cards to make it difficult to deduce things. The players play cards to try to make it easier to deduce things. If you don’t try to deduce things, you’re not even playing the game, really. This isn’t something that everyone will enjoy or be able to really “get”, so make sure you play it with the right group and prepare them for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Here's a Q for you gents, i'm looking to expand my small collection of games with some more variety in gaming type and one of my groups still tends to prefer lighter games as they (and myself) are still fairly newish to board gaming in general, I'm looking at picking up Quantum and it looks like a decent game to try to get into that style of game, anyone here in the thread recommend it? the reviews are generally really positive but I wouldn't mind some goon opinions on it. Quantum is fantastic, and pretty easy for inexperienced gamers. It has a lot of room for multiple plays as well, since there’s a lot of cool combinations of ship and card powers. It can definitely be a bit swingy though, especially if someone gets a big lead over the other players. Overall I've had a lot of fun with it and would absolutely recommend it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Has anyone played Baseball Highlights 2045?? I am a baseball fiend so the theme is incredibly appealing.....if the game isn't trash haha. To add a bit to what others have said: the game is essentially two player only. There's a weird 3/5 player variant, but the 4 player variant is literally just two 2-player games going beside each other. It seems completely designed around being two players, with all player setups beyond that being an afterthought. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but something to keep in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Has anyone played Tier Auf Tier? English name is Animal Upon Animal. I saw it in my local game shop and it looks super goofy - you basically need to stack little wooden animals into a huge pile and then rotate them around without knocking the tower over. Anyone know if it's worth picking up?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
I picked up the Argent: Mancers of the University expansion, and oh my god  there’s just so much poo poo in this box, I can’t wait to play the game with all the expansion crap. I didn’t think the game needed more variety, and yet here I am super pumped about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Yeah I have no idea why the 'everyone gets one of the same wizard' isn't the standard way, and drafting the variant in Argent. Any time we play with new players, everyone gets one of each wizard. The drafting helps ensure that there’s variety between strategies. Obviously starting with two of their starting color does this, but then players will probably double up on others as well. This will wind up effecting their strategies and priorities for the game, which will lead to more interesting interactions. While one of each is easier for new players to learn, I’ve played the game with drafting with people playing brand new, and it’s gone over well enough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I think 4 players may actually be the sweet spot for Argent as I noticed turns moving more briskly once we were down to that number. I usually play Argent with 4, and it's definitely great. I actually played Argent 2 player for the first time the other night, and it was surprisingly great. I mean obviously Argent is great, but with two players it turned into a much more intricate and strategic game of trying to predict what the other player is planning, trying to bait them into making bad moves, trying to counter their strategies while not giving them the chance to counter yours, etc. It felt even more interactive than Argent usually is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:http://go7gaming.com/product/insert-for-argent-the-consortium/ From a little bit ago, but thanks for posting this! I didn't know it existed, but I'd been wishing for it for a little bit, since Argent has so many bits and pieces. Anyone have a suggestion for one of these that would work with Tragedy Looper? There're a decent amount of cards and tokens, and while the setup isn't super arduous it'd be nice to have everything separated without needing to fiddle with a billion different ziplocks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Any word on how good / bad / meh Tail Feathers is? I love the theme, but apparently Mice and Mystics was average at best so I’m hesitant about this one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
When is the poop jacuzzi Kickstarter happening
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
I'm looking for a good coop mystery solving game. I've heard generally good things about Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, but I dunno if something better has come along since then. (or if the translation mistakes that hosed with the game have been fixed) Any advice for what to go with? Preferrably something that plays decently with 4 players.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2018 04:35
|
|