|
The Mantis posted:I won $110 in poker tonight and like multiplayer wargames (>2p) but already have Forbidden Stars. Well, assuming you want lighter games similar to Axis & Allies and Forbidden Stars, rather than the real "wargames" that people have been mentioning, have you tried things like Nexus Ops, Twilight Imperium, Eclipse, or Conquest of Nerath?
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Magnetic North posted:20 awesome board games you may never have heard of. Heard of 18, played 12. Not bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
BeefyTaco posted:So in the newest episode of the SUSD podcast they were really talking up the Game of Thrones LCC, to the point where I got excited enough to consider investing in the second edition that's about to come out (even though I hadn't really heard anything about it before now). It sounded especially cool how different the play styles apparently are for the various factions. Does anyone have any experience with the game (with the 1st edition, I guess)? Do you have any thoughts on what it it works well and what doesn't? Well, while the various factions do support different playstyles, it certainly isn't as asymmetrical as Netrunner is. Each faction is still fundamentally doing the same things, albeit with more of an emphasis on one aspect or another depending on which House you're playing. On the other hand, Game of Thrones supports more than two players at a time, which Netrunner does not. Finally, Game of Thrones is new and doesn' require nearly as much buy-in as Netrunner does. So if you're picking between the two, the questions I'd ask myself are: 1) Do I prefer asymmetrical two player gameplay, or a more group style game? 2) Do I have a bunch of gamer friends who aren't currently playing Netrunner and who could be convinced pick up GoT? Or am I more in a position to be looking to join an existing community? Because Netrunner already has a large and well-supported community, but the buy-in to join it is fairly expensive at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Played Monty Python Fluxx yesterday. Can you point to the doll where the bad game touched you?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
frajaq posted:Speaking of Forbidden Stars I played a match of it yesterday, it was fun even if we messed up pretty much all the rules because reading is hard. E: Mis-read AS1, here's the correct version: AS1: You couldn't do it on one Move Action, because your Strike Cruiser wouldn't be eligible to move within its own system, only to the system you played the Move Action in. You'd have to take two Move Actions, one in the leftmost system to move the Strike Cruiser to the lower right Void, then a second Move to get them from the left most tile to the right tile. AS2: You would have to send the Strike Cruiser to attack the enemy ship. The ground units wouldn't be able to make the move at all, because the void zone with your ship and the enemy ship would be Contested, not Friendly. Presuming your Strike Cruiser won the battle, on a subsequent Move Action, you could then move your ground units across the now Friendly void. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Here's a topic we haven't yet touched on in this thread: Honestly, Shut up & Sit Down and here are about the only places I peruse. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
So we had a gaming weekend this weekend and I got to try a few new games. Mysterium - "Clue with all the boring bits carved out" was our table's overall impression. It's decent, but we had some quarterbacking issues. Particularly annoying because the player being quarterbacked the most kept getting bullied off of the correct answers by the loudmouths around him.  We lost the first time we played, with everyone getting through to the end but our voting wrong on the final problem 2-3, then our second game the next day we reached the same point and won 4-2. Bang! The Dice Game - It's Bang. With dice. It probably is better than regular Bang because in the original version if you lucked into a good gun early on you could get onto a victory spiral, where-as the dice version is pretty much just a Press Your Luck game. But those can be fun, if that's your bag. I died both times, early the first game as a Renegade, late the second time as a Deputy whose Sheriff went on to win Pandemic: Legacy - Which is great even though we only got to play two rounds. I like basic Pandemic but it can get kind of samey from game to game. In Legacy the game's changing from round to round, and sometimes WITHIN the round. Oddly enough, we had less quarterbacking than when we played Mysterium, probably because the four players were all of relatively similar experience levels and/or had strong enough personalities to tell everyone else to stick it. We lost the first game, though it was close, and won the second game because of the increased funding you get when you lose and the upgrades we managed to secure between rounds. Last Night on Earth - Not technically a new game to me, but it'd been years since I'd seen it on the table. Not terrible, I guess, but not really good compared to better games of the sort that have come out since. I would rather have played Dead of Winter, but that got vetoed as being "too grim for the last game of the weekend".  Humans, of whom I was one, beat the Zombies but there'd been a mis-interpretation of the combat rules that wasn't discovered until half way through that meant the Zombies probably should have won. All in all, though, it was a fun weekend of gaming (including a few hours of Amber Diceless Roleplaying), with good friends, and good food. I could use more weekends like that. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Speaking of which, what are the basic strategies for the game? I'm new and the other people who are going to play are old hands, but also very non-quarterbaky, so if Atlanta ends up with Ebola it's probably going to be my fault The biggest danger to you at any given moment is a city with three of the same color cubes whose card is available to be drawn. In other words, if London has three blue cubes, but is that way because you just drew the London card, it isn't in too much danger until the next Epidemic card forces you to shuffle London back onto the top of the deck. What that means is situational awareness is critical, both for where you go to clear cubes and when and where to play event cards. A city with three cubes and its card still available to be drawn is a city that is about to Outbreak, and more than any other mechanic, Outbreaks are how you lose the game. Seven Outbreaks is an instant loss, but an Outbreak also puts disease cubes on the board quicker, especially if you get a chain of Outbreaks, which leads quickly to the "all cubes of one color on the board" loss condition. In Legacy, it's even worse (minor spoilers, as this is info in the rulebook not discovered) because every Outbreak permanently increases unrest in a given city. Get to 2 unrest and the city is rioting, any Research Center you have there burns down and you can't fly into or out of the city. Get to 4 unrest and the city is lost and anyone in the city when it falls is killed and out if the game. What's more, being in a city when it Outbreaks scars your character and makes him or her less effective! In short, you need to be able to keep track of which cities are due to explode and get there to fix 'em fast. While also accumulating cards to cure diseases, naturally.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:I told someone not to buy Betrayal at the House of the Hill. You are history's greatest monster.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I will take whatever games I can get my family to play with me. Munchkin is stupidly simple and plays in like 15 or 20 minutes. It's a nice opener or filler in between heavier stuff. I don't think I've ever played a game of Munchkin that took that little amount of time to play. If you can, and it works for you, more power to you, but I'm personally pretty tired of Munchkin. For a game that's been around so long and has so many versions, it's remarkably the same every time I play it, pretty much regardless of which one or which combination of ones you play. At our table, either Coup or Love Letter is the quick 15-20 minute game between games or setup game. I actually prefer Batman Love Letter, because the "Hunt the Supervillain for Points" is a nice mechanic that lets anyone at anytime have a chance to pick up a VP, but really any version of Love Letter is a good choice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Coup the original game works for this as well, given the small box. Dunno about the new version that just came out, I haven't played that one yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Are there any gm-less dungeon crawl boardgames that take it a bit further than the d&d adventure systems and descent do? My partner and I enjoy making characters and d&d 4e style combat but our gaming group are very non-combat role-playing game focused and we wish we could get our fix somewhere else. I rather like Shadows of Brimstone. Its got a bit more depth than Descent, and you can have some interesting times just hanging out in town between dungeon crawls. That said it's "cowboys menaced by Cthulhu" rather than standard fantasy themed, so if that's not your bag, you might need to go elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
You know, it occurs to me that I love the fact that we live in an age where there can be such things as spoilers for board games!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
Re: Eldritch Horror vs Betrayal at House on the Hill Personally, I'd go Betrayal. It's not mechanically perfect or anything, but when you're playing with a couple of reluctant gamers you want simple and easy to get, and that's what Betrayal gives you. More so than Eldritch Horror anyway. With Betrayal you move around the board, draw cards, roll some dice to resolve those cards, grow stronger, then (after another dice roll) something wacky happens and now there's a werewolf and you've got to try and kill it before it eats you. Sure, sometimes it's too easy or too hard, but a lot of times it'll be interesting and memorable. Plus it generally plays faster than Eldritch Horror which is a good thing for reluctant gamer types. That said, if you think you can get away with Pandemic Legacy, do that instead.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:You said yourself that it's often touted as a good 2 player game, so I would say that it does stand up. I enjoy it just as much or more with 2 than with 4. There is less downtime and you have more control over the game. With more than 2, that extra player might set up some careless pricing and hand a bunch of points to another opponent. Castles of Mad King Ludwig changes very much in feel depending on the number of players. With two players it's almost chess. There's a smidgen of randomness in what rooms show up or what bonus objectives you draw, but otherwise it's all about going for your own goals while hamstringing your opponent's. And with only two players you're as clued into what your opponent is doing as you are your own goals...and your opponent is equally clued into your setup. However, the more players you add the harder it is for everyone to keep track of who needs what. What's more, it becomes nearly impossible in a three player game to deny both your opponents at the same time. You'll have to make something affordable to one of them, after all. And with two players feeding you cash, its a lot easier to build up cash so that even the most expensive of rooms gets into reach. With only one opponent, cash management...yours and your opponent's...is a critical part of the game. You end up being forced to skip turns just to get cash in a way that just isn't a concern in bigger games. And when you get to four players? Forget about it. Now you're pretty much always grabbing what's best for you out of the various options, because denying three players? That poo poo ain't happening. Castles is ironically a game that takes more concentration as a two player game than as a four player game. With two, it's this death duel where every purchase is analyzed and every decision agonized over, because every single move matters. By the time you get to four players? Forget it, there are just too many players to be able to block, and each player makes so much money as the Master Builder that you can just power through if you have to. At which point you might as well just sit back and put together the most interesting building you can, and then see how it all scores in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Oddly enough, I actually prefer Star Trek Catan to the base game. The adition of the Crew Cards lets each player have some sort of unique ability, and some of them can get you past the all-too frequent "Anyone want to trade? No? gently caress, guess I'll roll and hope for a 9 then." that seems to happen in my gaming group.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It is pro-tier strategy to never trade in Catan, of course once everyone figures this out the game is ruined forever. Which is where our group is at, and why we never play Catan anymore. Except that my brother sometimes plays with his daughters because if you refuse to trade with the five year old and the eight year old, you're just being a dick. Which means that to get an enjoyable version of Catan on the table anymore means you have to play at a grade school level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Played a couple rounds of Forbidden Stars. It wasn't supposed to be a couple of rounds, but I managed to sneak a quick win on turn 3 of the first game, so our host (my brother) who doesn't get to game very much (two daughters of ages 8 and 5 will do that to a guy) insisted on a mulligan. Which worked out for him, because he won the second game on turn 7. We played three players both times, and despite the way the objective system encourages you to attack everyone eventually, the basic imbalance of three player strategy games was still noticeable. In the first game, Chaos and the Orks got into it early, which let me, as the Marines, grab an easy objective on turn 2, and then the next two to win on turn 3 because the Orks had only left one unit of Boyz on one of them and Chaos only a single Cultist on the other. In the second game, using the same races with the same players, they both stuck one of my objectives in their home systems and fortified the hell out of them, and my own attempts to size the easier objectives failed due to some bad luck and poor play on my part. (I should have used all of my reinforcements one time, I forgot to use a useful Scheme card which cost me another battle, etc. etc. In my defense, it was past midnight at that point, and I ain't as young as I used to be.) By the time the game ended both Chaos and the Orks had mulched my armies and even though I was able to use my fleet to Exterminatus Chaos' invasion force and keep him from getting objective three, the Orks overwhelmed my defensive force to win the game. Which brings me to my question for the goons....are there any good three player strategic games? I mean, sure, games that don't involve much in the way of direct action against your opponents can work fine with any number of players. Most deckbuilders, for instance, don't change much if at all with three players. But are there any war/strategy games that support three players well? If so, how do they avoid the usually inevitable end results of 1) One player is ignored while the other two fight, and that one player almost certainly wins, or 2) Two players team up against the third, and that player almost certainly loses? jng2058 fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Shadows of Brimstone is somewhat more tactical in that it's more or less a Descent/HeroQuest style tactical game with some mini-adventures in town between dungeon crawls. In that respect, Shadows isn't really all that different from Descent or Myth or Rebel Assault. Really, it's just a matter of what theme works for you. Like traditional fantasy? Play Descent. Like Star Wars? Rebel Assault is right there for you. Horror Western float your boat? That's when you want Shadows of Brimstone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Well, I own Descent (and even tried to play it solo with those organized play kits), and I know that Shadows is in that style with the campaign and stuff. I was mostly wondering if it had the over-design or whatever you'd call it of the other games. Eh, I didn't find it any more fiddly than Descent. Maybe the between dungeons town bit is a bit more complicated than it needs to be, but that's like 10% of the game, tops.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:To expand on Churchill, what Trynant said isn't actually correct and a little bit more complex. The way the game works is that it has 3 victory conditions: drat, that does sound interesting. I was looking at that game in a FLGS just last Friday but walked away because I wasn't sure when I would play it...then ended up playing Forbidden Stars three player the next day.  Selecta84 posted:My question is: Huge Multi-player All-day Space 4X Game. Personally, I recommend Twilight Imperium, but some people prefer Eclipse or Space Empires. These people are wrong, mind you, but I mention them for the sake of completion. Shadows Over Camelot is the classic Traitor Game, but perhaps Dead of Winter as a more recent example is more what you're looking for? As mentioned, Letters from Whitechapel is an excellent Hidden Movement game, but I've heard good things about Fury of Dracula. I also note that you haven't got any of the newest "genre", the Legacy Game. That's the type of game where the board and other game elements change between (and sometimes during) games. There are only two Legacy Games extant that I'm aware of, Risk Legacy and Pandemic Legacy. Of the two, I recommend Pandemic Legacy as it's foundation is a much better base game than Risk. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
So I've played through the Christmas haul of games, some that I received, some that friends and family got, and here's what I learned: Race for the Galaxy - Okay, I know a lot of the various modern card games (and euro games in general) can feel like you're playing by yourself, but man, this game really felt like I was playing solitaire. Practically the only time my opponent did anything that wasn't assisting me was the couple of times he played "III - Develop" when I either didn't have a development card in hand or wasn't willing to discard what I had to pay for one. Oh, and once he played "IV - Trade" and I didn't have any goods. What's worse, though, is that nothing I did was at all influenced by the fact that I had an opponent. I simply looked at my cards, figured out what I needed to do next, and did that. Since I had no idea what my opponent had in his hand, there didn't seem to be much point in trying to guess what I could choose that would inconvenience him. I see that there are like four expansions, do these increase the interactivity between the players at all? Because as it stands, I'm not sure I like the base game enough to bother investing in expansions unless they make the game more competitive or something. Dead of Winter - I'd played another friend's copy before and we'd lost fairly miserably. With a different friend's copy we just barely eked a victory with one fragile morale point left. And even that required us to not draw any zombies on three noise markers, which we did on a freakishly lucky roll of 4, 5, and 6. This remains a very difficult game even straight up, and I can't imagine how tough it gets once you actually use the traitor mechanics. (The first time we played, as the rules suggests, we went without a traitor to learn the game, the second time it was only two players, and you leave the traitor out that way.) It does seem you're kind of at the mercy of your starting characters, though. Our having the fireman from the word go let us vacuum up a bunch of helpful characters, without whom we'd have been in serious trouble. And even with him, we only barely survived. DC Deckbuilder - Watchmen Crossover Pack - Speaking of traitors, the newest DC Deckbuilder crossover pack came out, and my buddy who has all the DC picked it up. While I recognize that DC's theming sucks and is nonsensical, and that there are better market row card games out there, and even that from a pure game mechanics standpoint the randomness of the market row can be problematic compared to a Dominions style game. All true. However, I've long maintained that the DC Deckbuilder has value on your shelf as a the light game that everyone will agree to play as a wind-down game after something heavy like Dead of Winter. It's pretty stress-free in that there's little to worry about besides what five cards are in the row and what you can afford. It doesn't require deep concentration and is something you can be chatting over and generally not taking too seriously as you play. Which is the problem with the Watchmen Crossover. Because the Watchmen Crossover requires you to pay attention to what everyone else is doing as you look out for who the traitor is. Which in turns requires stress inducing concentration and destroys the game's value as a light conversation game that no one needs to take seriously. And if you're playing that kind of game, why aren't you playing the much better Dead of Winter? Or BSG? Or some flavor of Resistance? Or Mafia de Cuba? In short, using the Watchmen pack neutralizes the only value to DC Deckbuilder...it's ease of use and mindlessness...and instead turns it into an inferior traitor game. Star Wars Armada - My brother and I are splitting this game. I've got all the Rebel ships, he's got all the Imperial. We haven't had much time to play it as yet, he's got kids and it is the holiday season, but the half of a test game we played seemed promising. Ships blow up a lot faster than I'd expected, but once you adjust your expectations it's all good. I'm a little concerned that FFG hasn't announced a Wave III yet, but other than that, the game is what I was hoping for so far. Firefly the Board Game = I've got mixed feeling about this game. On one hand, as a Firefly/Serenity fan, I enjoy the theme. Flying around pickling up crew and working jobs is entertaining enough. On the other hand, I can't help but feel that I'd rather be playing Xia: Legends of a Drift System instead. But Firefly is the game I got for my birthday, the Kalidasa expansion the one I got for Christmas, so Firefly it is. It's alright, I guess. Anyone else get anything new and interesting over the holidays? jng2058 fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Or you can, I dunno, not throw away a $50 game you enjoy and just keep playing Lords of Waterdeep? Heck, if you really enjoy the game, maybe invest in the expansion to get even more? Obviously the goofballs who post in this forum are made of money if they think the correct response to "I like this game!" should be "Throw it out!" If you're enjoying the game you have, don't let the hivemind bully you into not playing it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
theroachman posted:Hahaha brilliant. People poo poo on jng2058 for not getting the obvious hyperbole, then Rutibex steps back in to say it wasn't. Never change, 'bex, never change. I knew of what I spoke.  One bit of advice I'll give a Lords player in regards to the expansion. Don't play with both expansions at the same time. That gives you too many board options and breaks the action economy. Play with one or the other and you'll have more satisfying games.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:Cats hate board games. And all non-feline life. And they're really only barely on speaking terms with other felines.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Someone inform me on this Xia: Legends of the Drift System. It came out at the tail end of the space 4X craze and I know absolutely nothing about it. How does it stack against comparable games like Merchant of Venus or Star Trek Fleet Captains? I can't believe it's still full price. It's a roll and move game similar to Firefly. You control one ship, fly around doing missions, hauling cargo, exploring, or blowing poo poo up in search of victory points. First to (select a number to determine length of game) in VPs wins. Doing almost anything, including dropping off cargo, blowing someone up, exploring a new system, completing a job, or rolling a natural 20(!) gets you VP. Along the way you can earn little bonus titles that give you minor abilities. You get cash, and use it to buy components to your ship or to replace your ship with a bigger, better one. This is important because they use the Galaxy Trucker style tetris mode ship construction system. While you do roll for movement, what dice you roll is determined by your engines so you can mitigate that if you emphasize speed over weapons/shields/cargo space/etc. Like Firefly, it suffers from a certain lack of interactivity. You're not usually enthralled by what everyone else is doing since it rarely matters to your own move, and further, the downtime sucks even more because you can't really plan your move until you've rolled to see how far you can go. Unless, of course, you decide to gun up and go player hunting in which case there's a lot of interactivity....which is almost entirely you hunting down your likely unarmed opponents because they decided to be the best explorer or cargo hauler they could be and don't have any guns at all. There's a bounty system where every time you shoot another player you become more attractive to other players to hunt down, but that means that they've got to start dumping things off their ships to gun up instead. In short, either you're ignoring the other players entirely or you're trolling them or they're trolling you. Mind you, turns are pretty quick so there's not that much downtime to suffer through. Roll for movement, move, roll if you run into a space hazard or otherwise interact with something, complete an action if you're someplace interesting. Go on to the next player's turn. For what it is, a roll and move space game, it's not bad I guess. But if what it is doesn't appeal to you, there's nothing in this that will win you over if roll and move ain't you thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Thanks for the detailed write up, there's only one room in my heart for trashy roll-and-move space game and her name is Venus Merchant. No problem. I don't mind Xia, but it's not a game I like enough to buy (particularly at full price). And since neither of the guys in my gaming groups who own the game like it enough to break it out in favor of other, better, games I'll likely never play it again. Which doesn't really bother me, which, in turn, should tell you everything you need to know about Xia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:They also took a shot at the people who might like Brass and an implied shot at Power Grid. In that they recommended Power Grid as, in their view, a better game than Brass? Odd definition of "taking a shot" you've got there, pal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Big McHuge posted:So after years of being one of *those* people, I finally caved in and installed Steam so I could play some Twilight Struggle. I'm ready and willing to get my rear end kicked, because my only in-person experiences with the game are playing against people who were just as new to it as I was. I *think* my steam name is Big McHuge, but honestly I'm not entirely sure how to properly figure that out. I know I have a little tiki-dude as an avatar. Hit "Play Online" then create a PlayDek login. That's the information people need to know to play TS online.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Played my first game of TS yesterday, the AI plays Duck and Cover at DEFCON 2. So I got this game expressly to play online with a buddy who's half a country away. We played our first multiplayer game and he won as USSR. Cool. And then he started a new match flipping the sides while I hit Rematch and the pain started. You see playing two simultaneous games of Twilight Struggle with the sides flipped leads to some hilarious shenanigans. I played the Marshall Plan....as the Soviets.  Then I played Suez Crisis as the USA in a game where I'd already de-emphasized Europe and he ran me flat off the continent. (Both of those cards should have been shot into space or held until they'd hurt me less.)But the piece de resistance was when my buddy lost as the USA by doing exactly what your AI did, he Ducked and Covered at DEFCON 2 because he forgot which game was at DEFCON 2 and which at DEFCON 4.  So yeah, it can be fun to play a couple of simultaneous games at midnight when you're both already tired but I don't recommend it for quality gameplay.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
homullus posted:I am on a team that's designing an Apples to Apples-style game for game-based learning in a university setting. A coworker at a meeting just now commented that he had seen the prototype and loved the cards, because he considers himself a game design aficionado, and a fan of excellent design in general. He really appreciated it, coming from his deep background in games. Great! Somebody else who actually knows about games. "Oh, really? What's the best game for you, right now?" I asked. Something else you should consider, as a nominal designer, is that people like this vastly outnumber people like you who have a detailed view of game design. Those people therefore represent your customer base. Dismiss their opinions at your peril. By all means, introduce him to better games. Educate. See WHY he likes the games he does. All of these things will help you design better games yourself. Just waving your hand and saying "Oh, his opinions don't matter because he's never been exposed to the games I prefer" is the definition of hubris and will hurt your designs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
So, spurred by the news that they're doing a pictures version of Codenames my intrepid band of gamers decided to give it a try with Dixit cards. The challenging part is that there's more than one image per card, and if you the Codemaster don't notice that there's an alligator on that one card you could end up sending your team down the wrong road entirely. It's definitely Hard Mode for Codenames, but if you've played a lot of the game already I recommend this variation as a change of pace. This could also work with Mysterium cards or any other card based weird image game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Forbidden Stars with two players feels like chess. I can generally tell what you're doing, you can tell what I am. Move-countermove. Going to three or four players complicates hings so much that it really feels like a different game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
So Hasbro has to be getting a cut from Rebellion, right? Because that's clearly a board game, with a board and everything!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:Well, I finally caved and bought two core sets of Warhammer Diskwars. Which is probably why they're pulling the license. Because now they realize they can auction it off on a game by game basis rather than letting FF do whatever they want. Like how pretty much anyone can make a Warhammer video game because GW will let anyone do one if they're willing to pay GW for the privilege. Which is how you get Warhammer Chess coming out the same year as Total War: Warhammer. One is shovelware by a company no one's ever heard of, the other a continuation of a (more or less) respected wargame series set in the WFB universe. All it takes is enough cash in GW's pockets and they'll let you make a game with Warhammer on it.. I'm guessing we'll see much the same thing done in the board and RPG space. Want to make Warhammer Checkers? Just head over to Nottingham with enough cash in a duffel bag, and you can get it published by next year!
jng2058 fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Is there a good podcast/review resource for board games? I've played a bunch but it has been over the course of years now and pretty well spread out. The only games I actually own now are Boss Monster, Viticulture, Roll for the Galaxy, and Seasons. I'd like to hear from people with way more detailed opinions than mine about what I should look at. I enjoy Shut Up and Sit Down, even if I don't always agree with their analysis. It's a more fun show to watch than the usual sit down and talk about a game that most review shows have.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
w00tmonger posted:How's fury of Dracula with 2 people? Pretty much like any other game that's intended to be many vs. one. By turning the many into a hive mind, the hunters get an edge compared to a full game where disagreements between the hunters is something that Dracula can sometimes exploit. It isn't game breaking or anything, and the game's still fun, but just be aware that it'll be a bit easier for the hunters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
So I got a chance to play Codename: Pictures over the weekend. While some of the players said they thought it was harder, personally, I found it somewhat easier since you could go with visual cues as well as contextual ones. That said, I'm not sure I like it better than the original Codenames because it seems Codemasters take longer to devise clues. Though the Assassin 8-ball variant rule is nice, so I think we'll be applying that retroactively to regular Codenames.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Do we have a thread for Armada? I played it once but would like to get a better overall idea of how it plays. We share the "Fantasy Flight and Star Wars" thread with the Imperial Assault and Star Wars Destiny guys. You'll find your Armada discussion there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
ShaneB posted:SW:IA is basically the mechanics of Descent reskinned, right? I don't really have any hardcore affection for Star Wars but if the game is great I'm cool with it. There are some subtle but important differences between Descent and Imperial Assault. In particular, "kill 'em all" is often a viable strategy for the players in Descent but almost never works in Imperial Assault. In the latter, it's much more a race against time as the players have to hurry through to complete their objectives before getting overwhelmed by Stormtroopers. Also the fact that almost everyone on both sides in IA has a blaster changes the combat dynamics quite a bit. In Descent, blocking a door with your team's best melee fighter means he gets to fight the incoming monsters one at a time unless there's a comparatively rare archer or spellslinger in the back of the pack. In IA it means all the Stormtroopers blow him away firing squad style. That sort of thing. But yes, broadly they are very similar games and if you've a strong preference for Generic Fantasy or Star Wars, pick that one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 18:29
|
|