|
Indolent Bastard posted:Any thoughts on Sheriff of Nottingham? I like what I see, but I wonder how it holds up over repeated plays? I'd also like to hear from goons about this game. This was recommended to me because I like bluffing/deduction games, but it looks like there's next to zero in-game information for the sheriff to work out who might be lying. It's mostly just on a hunch, or on who is acting suspicious. It also seems like the best way to score points is to ignore contraband completely and just go for sets of legal goods. I would worry that those two things would drive the bluffing/deduction out of the game after several plays. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Feb 6, 2015 |
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Tiny Chalupa posted:So what does the hive mind think of Star Wars imperial assault Are there goons that don't like imperial assault? I don't have much to compare it to, but it seems well balanced, plays fairly smoothly, and has good components. I've done a handful of missions as rebels and they have all been very narrow victories. It also seems like the imperial player has a lot of choices and upgrades just like the other players.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Is Castles of Mad King Ludwig even any good for 2? The auction mechanic seems like something that works better with more players. I picked up Castles of Mad King Ludwig expecting to play it primarily as a two player game and I have been enjoying it very much. I like how the auction/master builder mechanic works with only one opponent to consider. You have to think about which rooms your opponent might want, which rooms you are okay with them having, how much money they might be willing to give you, if they might deny you the room you want, etc. It's a little bluffing showdown thing. It gets deep.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Tiny Chalupa posted:Can I get some more opinions on castle of mad Ludwig, or whatever the name is, please? I mentioned Castles of Mad King Ludwig earlier when talking about two player games. It's a good game. I have not actually played Carcassonne but I can see similarities. You place tiles, arranging them in certain ways to score points. In Castles, players are choosing those tiles (rooms for your castle) from a row of five or six possible purchases. It's not really "bidding", but one player is the "master builder" for the round and gets to set the prices for those room tiles. The other players give their money to the master builder when purchasing a tile. The master builder gets last pick and buys from the bank. The master builder role rotates each round. It's a really easy game to learn and to set up but you can put a lot of thought and time into each of your turns. The master builder has to balance between not giving good room tiles (and therefore points) to his/her opponents too easily, not making the room tiles too expensive for him/herself, and making money from the other players. Everyone else has to weigh how many points they can score with how much money they are giving the builder. It does have some problems. The game is expensive for what you get. The box is mostly thin cardboard and empty space. The rooms are colorful but not especially detailed, and the neutral scoreboard / resource area is a big grey slab that manages to be huge and cluttered at the same time. There game also has an element of luck if you are playing with fewer players and not using all of the rooms. The rooms you need to score your objective cards might not even be in the stack. A game doesn't take long but it can drag out if players are indecisive about how to price rooms, which rooms to buy, and how to arrange them in their castle. Despite all of that, I think it's a game that most people would enjoy. It's light but still has depth. It's fair but still has interaction. It's Euro but still has fun. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
I played my first game of Kemet yesterday and I really enjoyed it from the very first turn. How does it hold up after many plays? Without any randomness to the board or the available powers, do you end up seeing the same few strategies and moves every time? Does it stay interesting?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
I'd like to pick up a good gateway game to play with some non-gamer friends and I was thinking about good old Ticket to Ride. Am I better off going with one of the newer versions over the original? Do they improve on the game at all or just add clutter? I've only played the original a couple of times. Or if anyone has any other suggestions, that would be welcome. I'm looking for something longer than Love Letter that doesn't involve bluffing or traitors.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
I played the tutorial scenarios for both Star Wars: Armada and Heroes of Normandie recently. Surprisingly I enjoyed Heroes more and I'm interested in playing again, while Armada not so much. Heroes seemed smooth while Armada seemed clumsy. There's hardly any discussion out there for Heroes though, and not much praise. It's rated relatively poorly on BGG. What's the critique? Is there a mess of problems waiting for me beyond the tutorial? Do I have bad taste in wargames?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I've never played it, but poorly rated? That puts it just a few places above Talisman and Cards Against Humanity but I guess it's not that bad, just surprising to me. Not that it should matter much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:BGG ranking is heavily weighted by number of ratings and therefore not that useful for games with < 1000 ratings. I was not aware of this, thank you. Makes more sense now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:gently caress you, I hate you. What about Love Letter? If you don't dig the "courting a princess" thing you can go play the Batman version. I'm sure there are plenty of games out there with successful alternate themes if you count the usual zombie/cthulu/whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Anyone played Dungeon of Mandom/Welcome to the Dungeon? Seems like the latest hyped Japanese microgame. I'm interested in that and Flip City/Design Town (to be clear that's a Taiwanese microgame iirc). Anyways su&sd has a review hyping it here: http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/v/review-welcome-dungeon/ Replying to a post from last week, but this thread alerted me to Welcome to the Dungeon and I thought it looked like my kind of game. My copy arrived yesterday and I played a few two-player games with the warrior and one with the barbarian. I definitely enjoyed it. The first few trips into the dungeon were dull, but they got more interesting as we figured out what we were doing. The last few developed into poker-style showdowns, baiting each other to make the wrong move, with the adventurer succeeding or failing by a hair. Some of the positive comments that I've read about WttD say that it takes some time to "click" with all players before it becomes fun. I can completely understand what they mean. Once all players get a better grasp on how to bluff or deduce the risk put into the dungeon deck, I think most people would have a good time with it. Comparing WttD to other small games I enjoy, I think this could beat Love Letter. There's more to the deduction for me and considerably more tension. I don't think it's ever going to top my favorite small box, Coup. Successfully bluffing or calling didn't hit those same highs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Foehammer posted:I just got my copy yesterday, and am playing it with a group of four tomorrow. Any teaching tips? I was thinking of running through it with the Warrior for the first few rounds, before running rounds with the other heroes, and maybe playing with all cards face up for the very first round. The rules and mechanics are actually really simple (though may not explained clearly enough for some people), but I think the only way of really "getting" the strategy might be to just play a few and understand that those first few trips into the dungeon might be completely uninteresting. Definitely start with the warrior, like the manual suggests. His equipment set should be the easiest to understand. If it were a two-player game, I would explain that you don't win by making the dungeon too hard or too easy. You win by making the dungeon hard when it appears easy to other players, baiting them into trying and failing, or by making the dungeon easy while it appears hard, baiting them into passing and then succeeding in the dungeon yourself. It's probably quite different with four. Also something really basic to note: the warrior can defeat the entire deck of monsters unless you eliminate at least one piece of equipment. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
ETB posted:I've found that the game is much more interesting with the designer variant where everyone's first card is always in the dungeon pile. How did this affect the gameplay?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ETB posted:I think it encourages people to actually consider going into the dungeon instead of taking equipment right off the bat. I had a player last night that won mostly by just taking equipment away instead of placing monsters, and passing at the first opportunity. Interesting. I think I actually encountered the opposite. For a while I even thought that placing monsters in the dungeon was an outright safer choice than removing equipment. Placing a monster gives you knowledge of what's in the dungeon and tells your opponent nothing. Removing equipment triggers your opponent to consider what they have put into the dungeon and they can simply pass next if they know it just became impossible. Of course, that's garbage. There's more to it than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I was looking into buying Agricola (played it, was great) but I've read here that there will be a new edition coming out soon. Does anyone have more info on what that is and when that might be? I'm guessing I should wait for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone cares, but if you're in the US and looking for a copy of Keyflower (which is out of stock everywhere except Amazon), I found a few available at boardgamebliss.com in Canada. Even with shipping, it came out to $54 USD for me compared to Amazon's $72 USD total.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Stelas posted:The Imperial player is tougher than the Overlord in Descent, it's true - but at the same time the levels are much less about purely winning or losing, they're much more kind towards partial successes and they will tend to reward the players on a much more 'fair' scale in terms of credits and advancement than Descent ever did. You're not expected to clear out every mission, you're expected to meet a partial goal and if you get more than that, great. Can you please explain or give examples of Imperial Assault's rewards for "partial success"? I'm most of the way into a campaign and I don't believe we have seen any missions with partial victory conditions; the rebels either succeed and get a bigger reward, or fail and get a reduced reward. Your post makes me worry we have been missing something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Got Dark Moon to the table. It was mostly a flop because one of the infected had no idea what to do, but at least it was a 45 minute flop and not a 3 hour one. If anyone is familiar with the game, I had some questions... - When you resolve a Complication task (where you are not rolling dice), do you still move the dice from the "spent" area to the "available" area? - The recon character Luba can reroll dice on her turn. Can she reroll a Lone Wolf attempt?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Spiggy posted:For the first one, do you mean dice from a previous action in the turn? If so, those move from spent to available as soon as they're completed. Also, Luba can reroll lone wolf attempts as well. Ah, I went back and found the part where it says that dice become available after actions and tasks are resolved.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Heisenberg1276 posted:What's the consensus on Suburbia vs Castles of Mad King Ludwig? I don't know about a consensus but I have played both and I prefer Castles. Castles' way of handling objectives and scoring feels more "fair" than Suburbia's. Both games have public objectives and secret objectives. Suburbia draws both from the same deck. They are all-or-nothing and worth a significant portion of your score. If you have bad luck with the tiles you need (maybe those tiles came out at inopportune times, or weren't in the deck at all) you can end up way behind. If you are behind on the points track and you know you've blown your one hidden objective, there's not much hope that you can come back and win. Suburbia also has weird counter-intuitive objectives to have the least of something, which seem awkward to compete for and balance around. Castles, on the other hand, has separate decks for public and hidden objectives. Points from public objectives are split in case of a tie and you can still get a lesser award for second or third place. New hidden objectives can be drawn during the game, so if yours aren't panning out you can work to draw new ones. This also means that you can also earn a lot of points from hidden objectives at the end of the game, so being behind on the points track doesn't feel so discouraging. Suburbia also allows you to deny tiles to your opponents by scrapping them on your turn, sometimes even by paying money to do so. Castles has you deny tiles by making them too expensive for your opponent. I feel like Castles is a bit less "gently caress you" in that regard. On the other hand, Suburbia's mechanic of balancing income against population growth adds a layer of strategy that Castles doesn't have. I think the way you arrange your tiles in Suburbia also has more impact than with Castles. Placement requires you to plan out your suburb and think ahead, where as Castles usually has an obvious choice to score points. Much of the meat in Castles comes instead from the "master builder" mechanic, which I quite like. Suburbia might also feel like it plays faster, though, because the master builder can bog down players with decisions on their turn. I've also seen people discuss how Suburbia has too much to keep track of, and how Castles is worse about screwing players over with bad tile distribution. I don't think either one is true. Keeping track of numbers in Suburbia isn't that bad, and both Suburbia and Castles can screw you with tiles in different ways. They are both similar and both good. Disclaimer: I have only played Suburbia with 3 or 4 players. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Does anyone have any thoughts on Operation F.A.U.S.T.? A friend bought it claiming it was Coup but with more choices and no player elimination, and I love Coup. We played twice this weekend; it was exactly as described but it felt sloppy and dull. It wasn't too long, it wasn't difficult to learn, it has an interesting theme, and on paper it makes some big improvements to Coup, but F.A.U.S.T. just wasn't much fun. I can't pinpoint any specific part that I didn't like, so maybe I just wasn't getting it. Also Codenames arrives today, thank you boardgoons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I think it's drafting all the cards before revealing. So you end each age with a hand of 6 or maybe 7 cards... then what? Everyone just throws them all down at once? What did they think happened?  Reminds me of so many people on BGG trying to figure out Welcome to the Dungeon while thinking each player picks a different adventurer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Presumably the manual, and would like to know which game, red november or some other game all about dwarves or something? Wiz War?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Could anyone please recommend a new two-player game for me and my wife? Our current favorite is Keyflower but we have been playing the hell out of it and I'd like a new option. -Keyflower, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, and 7 Wonders (with more people) are big hits. -Castles of Burgundy and Roll for the Galaxy are both just "okay". -Tash Kalar was too frustrating for her. I don't know what that says except I'm probably looking for a Euro-y game where you build something and make long term plans. It's also very important to my wife that there is some sort of hidden or end-game bonus scoring so that it's not obvious when one player has fallen way behind. Any ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Some great suggestions, thanks everyone. Concordia and Scoville both look like good options that weren't on my radar at all. How long does a two-player game of Archipelago take? It wasn't mentioned, but would Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small be a good fit?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
I just did some research and ordered Concordia, then threw in both Jaipur and Biblios too because I like small games. Thanks again. I never would have looked at Concordia or Biblios if not for this thread, the boxes for both are unappealing but the games inside look great. I'm especially excited about Biblios.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Huxley posted:ACBaS is one of my and my wife's favorites. She likes it a ton but hates full Agricola. If you like King Ludwig you might like Suburbia. Same guy, same basic idea, but I picked it over Ludwig because people said it works better with two. We've played it 2-3 times and it's always been a good time (if a bit longer, at least an hour for us each time). My wife loves King Ludwig but didn't like Suburbia nearly as much. It's because of the hidden scoring thing I mentioned. If you are way behind on the score track in Ludwig, you can still come from behind with a handful of secret objective cards and some 2nd place wins on the public objectives. It happens all the time. The objectives in Suburbia are easier to calculate at a glance, they are all-or-nothing, and there are fewer of them, so it's easier to tell if you have no chance of winning. I ranted about it in this thread a few weeks ago. Scoring doesn't have to be completely hidden, just "obscured". For example, 7 Wonders is a winner; even though there's no hidden scoring, there's also no track saying "you're only half way through the game and look how far behind you are". There's enough going on that it's not clear who is winning until you stop and add everything up at the end. Agricola was like that, I imagine ACBaS is the same.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
I would gladly read about why Firefly is bad. Firefly is one of only a small handful of modern games that I would not play again. No fun at all, not even in a beer-and-pretzels kind of way. In good game news, my last order came in yesterday and my wife and I had time for two games of Biblios. It was super easy to learn and play but had a lot of moderately tough decisions to make. I also love the components. My wife just texted me five minutes ago saying she has been thinking about strategies and wants to play again. Definitely a winner. Haven't tried Concordia yet, but the box contents look way better than the box cover would imply. There are a lot of parts for such a small rulebook.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Played Concordia this evening. Bought it after goons suggested it earlier in the week. It's good. Real good. Agricola-tier good. Thanks board game goons. I never would have gotten past the box cover without you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:e: also Concordia talk is makin' me remember I bought the new map a month ago. Need to get that to the table. Actually they're coming out with a proper expansion soon too: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/181084/concordia-salsa That box is even worse! Is this game about salsa? Grapes? Two-dimensional people shoveling snow in their bathing suits?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Kingdom Death backers paid $400 and waited multiple years for it, you're not going to get an unbiased review out of any of them for a long time. A buddy of mine played it recently. I asked him to post a review of it in our board game group. He wrote a few paragraphs about how his character lady tore the testicles off of a lion (apparently as determined by an entry in a table), had a dream about perpetual farting (another specific entry on another table), and some other garbage. Didn't have a word to say about how the game is actually played, but it's his new favorite best game ever now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
EBag posted:
Nope. The game's owner and his buddy both think it's amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Help me improve my board game vocabulary, please. I'm trying find a more concise way of saying "this game doesn't do much to discourage me from directing all of my attacks at Jeff instead of Carol even though they would both give me the same advantage, but Jeff made fun of my haircut yesterday so gently caress Jeff". I would say that such a game is "political" but I'm not sure I'm using that term correctly or that others would understand it that way, especially when games can have a "political" theme about Roman senators or Cold War era diplomats or whatever. Is there a different way of saying it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Any Concordia strategy tips? All I've learned so far is "buy cards" and "do everything".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
I am super interested in how the new victory condition from Ta-Seti works out if anyone has any experience. The final round is the only part of Kemet that feels off to me. I was excited about the expansion making a change but it looks like I don't need to buy it to play with that change. I don't really feel the base game needs more powers and I don't mind the turn order selection.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Ta-Seti Okay, I'm sold. Maybe Kemet doesn't need more powers, but playing a game with different powers would add variety to the usual strategies. Thanks for the info. I want to play Kemet now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
QnoisX posted:Blood Rage Was Blood Rage still enjoyable when you were losing? Did you feel like you were completely wrecked or like you could still catch up? How easy it it to screw other players over and how easy is it to recover?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
I'm still grateful that this thread recommended Concordia for me. This past weekend, my wife and I played it 4P with another couple that doesn't play a lot of strategy games. The husband is the kind of player that wants to figure out a winning strategy and score points, but the wife tends to lose focus on the objective of whatever game we are playing and develop her own meta-goals, things like "get all the purple ones" or "get enough pieces to arrange in a fun shape" or whatever. That usually means she lags behind, but it turns out that her meta-goals for Concordia were things like "buy all of the Jupiter cards" and "build in all of the food/wheat cities (she had the Farmer card)". She ended up doing really well and said she really enjoyed it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
I played Fury of Dracula 3rd Edition tonight as a hunter and it was really disappointing. It was long, slow, and frustrating. It felt like Eldritch Horror but with the enemy constantly throwing Munchkin cards at me to wipe away all of my progress. It's a shame, because I actually liked Specter Ops and Whitechapel.Gort posted:One of the issues I had with the last edition of Fury of Dracula is that the entire hunter side can be quarterbacked, so it can lead to a one-on-one between Dracula and the quarterbacking hunter with the other players pretty much just along for the ride. Is there anything in place to prevent that in the new edition? No, not that I saw. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Nov 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Zveroboy posted:I've been wondering about buying a new game soon (one more before Christmas) and I keep seeing Castles of Mad King Ludwig touted as being a good 2-player game. I played it a couple of times, months ago, and I did quite enjoy it, and I suppose I don't have anything similar in my collection. Does it stand up well with 2 players? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 20:44
|
|