|
Fat Samurai posted:I have the opportunity of grabbing the base Dungeon Lords for 10€ or so. How does the game work with 2 players? Are the expansions necessary? Two players can be pretty cutthroat, since in addition to your own actions you also control a dummy player with the primary purpose of loving with your opponent. Overall its not quite as good as it is with 4 players though. Expansions aren't really necessary, the base game is plenty fun (especially at that price).
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Tell me how this game is not Rock Paper Scissors: lovely Anime Edition. Asymmetric rock/paper/scissors is basically the foundation, yes. The asymmetry is what makes it interesting - making some "wins" inherently more desirable than others makes it more of a prediction game than just random chance. It rather directly mimics how fighting games play once both players have the technical skills to execute their moves correctly. You're also right about the art being lovely anime. That's also mimicking fighting games.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:So I may be in a 7 player game of Caverna soon. Is this a bad idea? It will take forever (especially if some of the players are new). The game isn't like, horrendously unbalanced or anything, but there's gonna be lots of boring downtime.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
It would very thematically demonstrate how horrible it would be trying to wrangle that many imps.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I guess it's my turn to step up and defend something based on the dreaded "theme," but given the history of CCGs is rife with degenerate infinite combos (I quite clearly remember going up against several decks designed to do exactly that back in the days when I regularly went to Magic tournaments) I'm going to suggest that infinite combos in Millennium Blades aren't a bug being bandaged over but an actual intentional feature, so the reason why they're being "left in" seems obvious to me. An "infinite combo" in a CCG isn't usually much different from a finite combo though. Like, in Magic you might have the combo of Pestermite and Splinter Twin, or you might have the combo of Glistener Elf plus three copies of Giant Growth. One of those combos is "infinite", the other is not, but that's not particularly relevant to anything - the most important feature is that they both win the game on the spot if your opponent can't interact with what you're trying to do. Whether or not a particular card (or combination of cards) is "degenerate" has basically nothing to do with whether it's an "infinite" combo.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Well that's why I used both adjectives together instead of just one, nobody cares about the guy who can bounce an Ornithopter in and out of his hand a million times whenever he pleases. The process in Magic is pretty straightforward and clear as well - you get to jack off your infinite combo as much as you want, and you shortcut the whole process by saying how many times you're going to repeat a particular sequence of actions. Then you have to stop and do something different (which, if your combo is anything sensible, usually involves winning the game). Making any repeatable series of actions mean "oh you win this round" (regardless of whether it's a loop that actually achieves anything) seems totally backwards.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
The game itself is a point-salad sort of thing where each player is trying to amass as many (temporary) points as they can, and then at the end of it players get permanent VPs based on their ranking. There just doesn't seem to be a point to an infinite-loop rule that just basically says "you win the round", because if your infinite loop does anything productive then you can just let it happen and that player will end up winning the round anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Hey, there's a reason they don't call him the Sane King Ludwig.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
It sounds like the mistake was going for a check you had little chance to succeed on, throwing your resources away failing to achieve it, and then having nothing left afterwards to defend against what the cylons tried.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted: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? The best way to play Munchkin is to treat as a bunch of D&D jokes for everyone to laugh at. The best way to achieve that is forget about the win condition written in the rules, instead just play for a particular amount of time. Maybe say highest level at the end is the winner if you think people need an actual "win condition" instead of being able to figure out some motivation themselves. It'll never be a good game, but you can make it at least tolerable until the jokes get old.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Slightly Lions posted:So my birthday was a few days ago and my folks asked me what I wanted for it. I was thinking about the Firefly boardgame, being a huge fan of the show and of questing type games. BGG reviews were largely positive, but I want to know what the goon consensus was. Is it a good game? Which expansions, if any, are worth picking up? It's basically what you'd call an "experience generator" more than, say, a game of skill. Typically experience generators can be quite enjoyable if you really engage with it, but are lacking in terms of actual gameplay and can be pretty boring for people who aren't so keen on the theme. If you really like the show and have friends to play with who also really like the show then it's probably okay? I wouldn't expect it to be a winner if you're having to rope in people who aren't so keen on the theme. As is usual with hit-or-miss board games, definitely don't bother with expansions until you know for sure your group likes the base game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's OK. I feel there are some balance issues with the starting tiles, and building seems much stronger than producing and consuming, but it's reasonably inoffensive. Is this for a two-player duel? I've only played Roll with largish groups, and Produce/Consume seemed really strong when there were multiple people using it as their main strategy (and hence had both actions firing every turn fairly consistently).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Mage Knight is like, the best game that uses a deckbuilding mechanic that isn't Dominion. And the reason it's that is because it uses deckbuilding as one mechanic in a larger game, rather than trying to be "a deckbuilder" and then being worse at it than Dominion like everything else does.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
You could just as easily "learn" Mage Knight with a full scenario instead of the learning one if you wanted to jump straight in to the full game. Just go over combat and movement before you begin, and learn how each tile feature works when you first encounter it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
The one concern I'd have with perfect fits is having the one exposed edge getting worn because the sleeve isn't quite long enough. I think that's the main concern with them being designed to be used with other sleeves - they're certainly well-made and I wouldn't really be worried about them splitting. Honestly for a board game like Dominion where you're more worried about not letting cards get marked than you are about preserving ~~resale value~~ or whatever they're probably totally fine, I'd definitely use them over penny sleeves if I felt like sleeving up that many cards.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Radioactive Toy posted:Played Dung Lords tonight with the expansion for the first time (plus dungeon setup cards). Bards are great fun, they really emphasise the importance of being in position to manipulate the evilometer rather than always trying to be lower than everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
quote:With respect to any characters, music, scripts, screenplays, storylines, and/or plot outlines (referenced herein collectively or separately as “Entertainment Materials”), you hereby waive any claim, action, and/or suit (collectively, “Claims”) against Hasbro, and/or Hasbro’s affiliates, distributors, customers, vendors, promotional partners, and/or licensees, and/or their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or assigns, relating to any alleged use or misappropriation by Hasbro of any Submission. With respect to any aspects of any Submission other than Entertainment Materials, including but not limited to any toy, game, puzzle, or other product concepts, ideas, innovations, modifications, or improvements disclosed to Hasbro as part of the Submission, you hereby waive and forever discharge and release Hasbro, its affiliates, vendors, promotional partners, distributors, customers, and licensees, and their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, and assigns, from and against, any and all Claims relating to any alleged use or misappropriation by Hasbro of such aspects of any Submission.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Their example contract has a botched up calculation for revenue share. Their intention seems reasonable - if you put your game in the paid section, it gets a share of revenue proportional to its share of playtime vs. other paid games - but the actual calculation says ... something else. It seems like a reasonable contract though, except for the paying them a monthly fee up-front for the privilege of creating content for them. As for the product, it's basically Vassal or Tabletop Simulator or BGA or whatever with a shiny interface. If it turns out to be worth using, it'll be entirely down to the quality of games on the service (the storage space they're allotting to creators doesn't fill me with a lot of hope for high-quality art assets showing up though) and them getting publishers on board with it. I don't think their claims of an "easy to use" creator are that meaningful - odds are anything more complicated than "import picture, stick onto predefined game object" is going to be just as much of a pain in the rear end as it is on any other service.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Cosmic isn't the auto-recommend it was 20 years ago, but there's a reason so many of the best designers cite it as an inspiration. Nobody who dismisses Cosmic out-of-hand can be considered a serious student of game design. Cosmic is definitely interesting and notable for its place in history, and in its time it was a thing that got a lot of people into serious board gaming in the first place. I don't think there's anything wrong with instantly dismissing it as a game to play for the sake of enjoyment in TYOOL 2015, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Bluffing games are always a coin flip, where you're trying to identify the odds of the flip. Some longer games give you more opportunity for skill to identify the odds (like poker), but it's always a coin flip. Ah yes, Resistance, the game that always comes down to coin flip and has nothing at all to do with lying and deduction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:Technically that's not entirely true. In Spyfall both the location and the identity of the spy is hidden information. It's true that most of the pressure is on the spy to create his puzzle as it were, but the other player need to create traps for the spy that are capable of blowing his cover, but won't give too much information away if you ask it to a non-spy player. Even then, the sort of vague "I know what the location is but don't want to give away too much" answers the non-spies are all giving are actually pretty close to the "something waffly because I have no idea what's going on" answer that the spy can come up with - people might be a bit suspicious if your first answer is a bit off, but there's still plenty of opportunity to divert suspicion, get a better idea of the location so you can give a less suspicious answer next time, or just focus on narrowing down what the location is for your final guess. And sometimes what you thought was a vague non-answer turns out to be oddly specific in the other player's minds, and then no-one has any suspicion of you for the entire round. Which is also really funny.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
It really sucks when your three starting law cards are worth minor points at best, while everyone else gets economic-boosting ones and higher-scoring ones than you do. Looking at that "make the game a turn longer, which is basically a net 0 points for you" one in particular. That's really sucky when everyone else's starting cards are giving them free gems and poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Introduced Codenames to some friends, one of whom literally works for the Oxford English Dictionary, and he gave the clue "Intransitive" to refer to intransitive verbs. After the game we debated whether that was a permissible clue for a while (his argument was that whether they were intransitive is part of the definition of the word), but it was kind of moot because the clue went straight over his teammate's head anyway. I think you have to classify it in the same bucket as something like "Verb" (which I would expect most high school students to understand).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Why wouldn't you want to emulate them? If your goal is selling games, you have to give the people what they want. Farmville is popular for a reason, clearly this is the desirable future of video games. e: ^ Alternatively, anime titty miniatures for all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
If you have 5 apples, you just ship 5 apples and tell the truth about it. The "game" is really about what you do when you don't have 5-of-a-kind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Honestly I think there's a pretty clear line between "cheating" and "not cheating" in Hanabi. Imagine you wrote down every game action taken by a player in the game on a piece of paper. Any information that's on that bit of paper, or could be deduced from what's on that bit of paper - e.g. "what's the oldest card I have no information about?" - is fair game. If it's not something you could deduce from that bit of paper, it's cheating. As an example, discarding the oldest card you have no information about is not cheating. It's also not cheating for the other players to assume you'll discard the oldest card you have no information about, and using that to decide whether to give you a hint. But it is cheating if, say, there are multiple such cards and you tell everyone which of those cards you'll discard first. Ultimately it's like Bridge - you can only use legal game actions to convey information, but you don't have to just take that information at face value.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Well yeah, you want to get the bad cards out of your deck as efficiently as possible. I think the point that people are making is when to stop engine-building by clearing out the chaff, in favour of entombing the high-scoring (yet powerful) cards that are making your deck work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
EndOfTheWorld posted:When you play a card with your opponent's event on it, it gives you the option to put it into (activate opponent's event first) instead of just the usual slots (place influence, realignment etc.) Not sure why the game has this, when it can just resolve the event as soon as it detects a US card being played during a USSR action round, but whatever. When you play a card that has an opponent's event on it, you get to choose whether the event happens before or after your action. The order things happen can be very important.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
You can solve some of the random swinginess by revealing the next few cards that are going to be available to purchase. The downside is you get stagnant boards where neither player wants to buy anything because the card that will be available next is way more powerful than anything currently on offer. Alternatively, you could make your cards sufficiently balanced that the swinginess isn't a big deal. But if you could pull that off you wouldn't be making a market row deckbuilder in the first place...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I haven't yet seen someone publish anything worse than a 50/50 shot, so I have no idea yet if bluffing is viable or not in Alchemists. So far nobody is taking many risks. I've published things that I know for a fact are wrong (so I know I'll be able to debunk them later with no rep loss) just to meet the target number of published theorems for a conference. Publishing something where you know two of the components but hedge against the unknown one is a fool's game, because 50% of the time you've put the correct information out there for everyone else but you'll get zero points for it in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
The chief complaint amongst ascension players, which actually seems more plausible than complaints about the game design.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
How does it compare with Glory to Rome?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Also it's hard to quarterback when you're not allowed to talk to your teammates during the round.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Games that have long turns, and actual downtime during other player's turns (no decisions potentially required from you, for example), are really good for correspondence formats. They can be a bit of a pain in over-the-board play, since either you have players goofing off (which makes the downtime even worse when they're catching up on what happened since their last turn) or you have players bored out of their minds watching what the active player is doing. Games that have lots of "fake downtime" where you don't have any real choices to make but still get called on to make decisions that are of not much importance or have an obvious choice are quite sucky in both cases.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
There's an interesting conundrum about what to do if it's clear you can't "win" the game any more, especially if the game has elements of targeted chip-taking. One school of thought is to aim for the best ranking possible for yourself (thus really cementing the current leader's victory), while the other is to try to get the smallest difference (by some absolute metric) between yourself and the winner, regardless of where the other players ended up (which is more likely to be overtly kingmaking by loving the leader and letting second place overtake them). The real solution is to not play games with strong chip-taking elements.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
It's a computer screen, you can zoom in instead of having to squint.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
The one time I played ricochet robots, I dumpstered everyone else, but it wasn't a complete shutout. I got the impression that people didn't find it too bad, but it'd get way worse if there was also a big experience gap between players. I probably wouldn't play it again. Set isn't terrible as light filler. You deal out your grid of cards and then keep playing until everyone's shown up and you can play your real game. Lol if you care about it enough to argue that some sets "don't count" or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
homullus posted:I don't see how having fewer things to consider initially could possibly make the game harder to teach. Please tell me how that could be the case. Please explain how "and these powerful tiles also exist, but you're not allowed to buy them until you meet these other conditions" is somehow less complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:There is a logical disconnect in that reasoning. Rutibex posted:I don't think we should be regulating the quota of what sort of art is allowed to be produced in our society. That is really totalitarian. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
My parents loved (3+ player) Dominion, because it's a very constructive game - even when you lose (as long as it wasn't a huge blowout) you still built something and you can look at what you built, and what everyone else built, and see how they stacked up against each other. It sounds like your folks would be similar, if they enjoy open 4-player Ticket to Ride but not knife-fight-blocking-each-other 3-player Ticket to Ride. So Dominion I think would be super-good. Other "constructive" games would be 7 Wonders and Caverna, which all share the theme of secretly being quite competitive (instead of just being down to luck), but even when you lose you still accomplished something productive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 01:28
|
|