|
bored games
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:Cash n Guns: what's the First Edition like? I played the second recently and while it was brilliant drunken fun, it felt like it was mechanically missing something. I'd love a round of negotiation, for example, where you could promise anything, but only have to follow through on immediate promises. Things like bullets, blanks, treasure, pointing your gun at someone else etc. First edition was awesome. Second edition is horrible in comparison. First edition had only money in the loot, and no Godfather. All players standing at the end of the round had to evenly split the loot in the pot. If it couldn't be done, all the loot STAYED in the pot and more was added. No stupid turn order drafting bullshit, and not targeting certain players to heighten the odds of a gigantic pot in the next round was a legitimate gambit. Also, each player had a single Bang! Bang! Bang! card. B!B!B! cards all fired simultaneously before Bang! cards were fired. Finally, all the powers were way, way more balanced.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Elysium posted:So I'm picking up Coup, Through the Ages, and Temporum and I need one more game to get free shipping. Here are all the games I own: http://boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/ElysiumSA Dominion: Guilds Dominion: Dark Ages Dominion: Hinterlands Steam Park (I haven't played this so I cannot confirm if it sucks) Small World Falling (2014 edition) Dixit: Daydreams Dixit: Journey Dixit Origins Lifeboats Puerto Rico Splendor
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:I have a small but growing board game collection. So far, my fiancee and I have accrued Carcassonne, Love Letter and Pandemic, which we've enjoyed immensely. However, we also picked up Tales of the Arabian Nights and Ladies and Gentlemen and the really strong themes in both these games has really won us over. Space Alert, Tragedy Looper, Dungeon Lords, Galaxy Trucker, Dungeon Petz, Click Clack Lumberjack, Falling, Lifeboats, Netrunner, the previously mentioned Battlestar Galactica, and The Resistance+. edit: deets Space Alert used to be Thread Game #1. It's a dark comedy realtime spaceship panic simulator. Tragedy Looper is an asymmetric 3v1 time travel deduction torture puzzle strategy game. It's phenomenal. Dungeon Lords is about building dungeons, hiring monsters, dealing with bureaucracy and red tape, and fending off D&D adventuring parties. Galaxy Trucker is about racing to build ships that race to earn profit while also watching them get violently deconstructed by explosions and debris. Dungeon Petz is the sequel to Dungeon Lords where you raise tiny monsters that have a habit of opening magical portals, making GBS threads all over everything, and being generally belligerent. Click Clack Lumberjack is a 1:1 Korean Lumberjack Simulator. Falling (and Falling 2014, the new edition that just came out) is a real-time game where you're falling and you're doing whatever you can to outlive your opponents. Lifeboats is Survivor but with fewer physical challenges and more backstabbing. Netrunner (specifically Android: Netrunner) is a 1v1 card game from Richard Garfield about a hacker trying to take down a corporation. Has its own thread. Battlestar Galactica also has its own thread. The Resistance+ (The Resistance, Resistance: Avalon which replaces Resistance, Resistance: Hostile Intent which adds onto Resistance and replaces Avalon, and Resistance: Hidden Agenda which adds onto Resistance) is about being in an underground freedom fighters group that has been infiltrated by spies working for the state. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Aston posted:This sounds interesting and I haven't heard of it before, can you let me know a little bit more about it? Why is it good? Falling is actually from 1998. It was one of the forerunners of real-time game design, and was made by James Ernest, one of my personal heroes (he and Vlaada Chvatil are my biggest inspirations). Here's a brief rundown of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hmxVTvA8Rc It's highly interactive, the deck is really well-composed (I normally hate single-deck card games due to the luck element involved, but Falling has only a few basic card types with a huge amount of duplicates of each), fast (60-180 seconds per game depending on dealer speed), and surprisingly deep. The game has a tight balance of increasing your option base, manipulating the speed of the deck, dexterity, and trying to powerbomb your opponents into the ground. Falling has gone through many versions. I have 2 copies of the 1998 edition (because I used to regularly play with 8-man groups when I was in high school last century), there's the goblin edition in that UFBRT video, a PnP edition that uses the 98 art, the Polish Cow version, and Falling 2014 which is the only edition that had rule changes. Falling 2014 cleans up the Action cards (Push and Grab have been consolidated into a single Move action, which is much less of a hassle to teach) and adds 3 semi-permanent Riders which are hilarious in both concept and execution. There's an Anvil which provides a semi-permanent Hit, a Chute which provides a semi-permanent Skip, and Goggles which do nothing (although they take up your Rider slot which itself is notable). It just came out not a month ago and is only like 7 bucks at Coolstuff. If you're interested but $6.79 breaks your bank, the original version is available on the Cheapass Games website for free. I think the 2014 edition additions are really cool and well-implemented, however. My love of Falling dates back to when Kill Doctor Lucky was my favorite game. While KDL has real problems that make it a bit of a drag to play nowadays, Falling's sharp, efficient, and visceral design still carries it even against modern games. It even has scaling difficulty based simply off how fast the dealer deals. I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
PlaneGuy posted:Holy poo poo how did I miss this: https://twitter.com/BoardGameGeek/status/542764042520391681/photo/1 what the gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Yeah Temporum. Like, yeah. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Recently, I finally got to play One Night Ultimate Werewolf with most of my regular crew. I've had the game for a while and even played it a bunch, but I hadn't yet played it with my regular Avalon gang. I like it even less, now. I didn't like the game much, before. The night round is too long and too messy, the day round can be easily solved if the players have more than 2 minutes to discuss it, and it's trivial to stumble upon bad character combinations. The real issue I just discovered, though, is that the game has The Werewolf Problem where the lynch target can sometimes be arbitrary and it makes deduction pointless. Obviously, it's not like Werewolf where you get shot on Day 1 because you have a beard or you're not in the right clique, but the concept of "we're going to kill [Broken Loose] because he's too good of a liar in these games" is a very real thing that exists. I can't argue that logic, and we'd have to get into a deterministic action chain where the game revolved around a single player to assure the group's trust in a game. Even the concept that I'd have teammates covering for me is overridden by the informed in any given situation being outnumbered (whether it's a Seer vouching for my humanity or a fellow wolf saving my bacon). Compound this with the "sometimes everybody has to live" deal with all the wolves in the center row, and the game can be easily thrown by one jittery person with trust issues who votes something other than their neighbor. The game's primary competition gets around this by not revolving around a lynching mechanism and by providing a multitude of emergent ways for players to obtain information and trust over the course of a game. Yes, Resistance+ takes 2-3 times as long as ONUW, but I'd rather play 1 game of R+ than 3 games of ONUW.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
ARE YOU loving KIDDING ME?! http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/210379 http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/210378 MY KS COPY HASN'T EVEN SHIPPED YET
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Hey, that is awful. i'm literally about to go out the door to CSI for board game night. i could physically purchase a copy tonight and play it. if it wasn't for the loving rogue i'd do it. i'm never supporting an IB&C KS again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:Will these changes come to Avalon eventually? Other than the inquisitor which is just Merlin Nope. Avalon is a one-shot deal and won't get any upgrades ever. If you want Trapper, Hunter, Reverser, or Defector, you gotta get HI&HA (unless you got the KS Avalon which has the Defector). If you want Rogue or Sergeant, you had to Kickstart HI&HA (unless you got the KS Avalon which has the Sergeant).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:I just read on BGG that an Avalon expansion is in the works and the kickstarter will go live this year. i swear to god you had best be lying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Millions posted:I just bought Avalon an hour ago, still shrinkwrapped. Did I make a mistake considering the new Resistance expacs? Yes. The new expansions are literally Avalon + more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Something weird happens. Tragedy Looper gains a scenario generator spreadsheet. The Mastermind wins. Begin Time Spiral.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
The official word is that 1 Temporum expansion is complete and whether or not it gets released depends on sales. No further expansions for Temporum have even started development. (Keep in mind that the expansion-heavy DXV games often had the expansions planned long in advance, such as Dominion's initial "500 different cards" dev cycle)WhiteHowler posted:I accidentally spoiled myself on one of my Christmas presents, and it looks like I'm getting Tragedy Looper. For your first game of Tragedy Looper:
I'm beginning to let my players take notes during the game. If things get too easy for the protagonists, we can always lower the number of loops. People are less stressed out and have a more positive experience overall when they're not freaking out about forgetting things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Elysium posted:So like I was saying, this is the inside of the Temporum box: Wow, really? Mine came with resealable bags. I know DXV was actually off-put by some of the components. The clock hands should have been way bigger, for example (see the back of the box). The board is just the right size for the cards and crowns, though. echoMateria posted:As I was reading the rest of the posts, I was planning to comment on this as well. Almost all the comments I read about Tragedy Looper is on how CRUSH the players, how to DESTROY them, how to NOT let them know ANYTHING at all. Which Masterminds handbook expressly advises against. I tells that the fun of the game is letting players to enjoy discovering things, figuring out parts of the story and then competing against them. This. The training scripts (1 and 2) are designed to let you beeline victory conditions as Mastermind while still having backups. If you do this, you leave a trail for the protagonists to follow, and everybody feels involved. If you make too much of a mess, they don't get any information, and then the whole thing feels frustrating and arbitrary. poo poo, script 2 especially is hard enough for the protagonists already. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Dual resource systems within a deckbuilder are always bad.It doesn't matter if you balance your deck or not and actually balancing your deck is detrimental because it just leads to situations in which you end up with an even number of resources, which is always bad in a single hand. And if you specialise, you can potentially get screwed as per the examples given by other players. If there was a single resource system, the random central market would not be as bad. Dominion is still the best first deckbuilder for the same reason it's by far the best deckbuilder. The First Game setup is still the best way to teach deckbuilders to anybody. The only true multi-resource system I've seen not be complete rear end is that of Eminent Domain. The reason it works is because in any multi-resource DB you're completely hosed if your hand is split between resources, but in EmiDo a split hand usually leads to multiple actions between turns. If a half fight/half cash hand meant taking 2 potential turns in a row in Thunderstone/Ascension/Resident Evil/Goblin Stacker/whatever the gently caress, then you'd have way less of a poo poo time due to the luck of the draw. Puzzle Strike comes kind of close, but that game manages to segregate the two halves of its economy in an almost, but not quite, elegant manner. It's not so much multiple resources as it is multiple axes. Parade markets are still universally terrible, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Myrmidongs posted:I got the Resistance expansion stuff from the kickstarter yesterday. I can't tell if these rules are just badly written / have errors, or if I'm stupid and not understanding something. Nobody touched on this. So yeah, the Hostile Intent and Hidden Agenda manuals are pretty loving terrible. If you haven't played Avalon, there's no indicator what half the Hidden Agenda role cards even do. To answer your question, the Spy Chief portion is an error, and you are correct. In 5-6 player games, you use the Chief investigation card, and you instead use the faction-specific cards in 7+ player games. Also, Dummy gets to choose their card, I think, but I'll have to look it up to make sure. Indie Boards and Cards is such a terrible company. I'm going to write up a rulebook and post it online because they won't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Sistergodiva posted:Why has dead of winter been getting a bad rep? Saw previews of it a while ago, but forgot about it until the christmas gaming got going, seems like a fun co-op? Any reason I should reconsider? Because the game is incredibly unbalanced, uncomfortably gruesome, wildly random, too long, and done way better by many games that came out before it (but the designers didn't play because they thought they knew better). There are many ways to end up with unwinnable victory conditions. The game is absolutely not equipped to handle a midgame transition from 5v0 to 4v1. There is only a single worthwhile strategy the traitor player can execute, it's incredibly obvious, and it's ridiculously effective. There are also way too many trivial victory conditions in the same deck with the difficult ones. It has the bad kind of randomness, the kind where you make decisions with a certain plan in mind and then might get completely hosed over at random. The tone is all over the place-- between people loving on event cards and graphic descriptions of them blowing their own brains out, player characters include a dog in a cape and Bill Murray as a mall Santa. The art is not bad except for the parts where the characters don't have any physical anatomy. It's Zombie Game as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:There's also a dice you roll often which has a 1/16 chance of immediately killing you. Nah, man. Every time you move you roll a die that has a 1/8 chance of immediately killing you and starting a chain reaction of die rolls for everybody in the location you intended to end up at (which can be stopped by automatically killing somebody instead of taking a roll). This is independent of the other sides of the die, half of which have "nothing happens" results.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:Did they really not bother to come up with a sci-fi name for Merlin? Not in the early promos, but in HI+HA, they did. Overview: Merlin = Commander Assassin = Assassin Percival = Bodyguard Morgana = False Commander Mordred = Deep Cover Oberon = Blind Spy Lancelot = Defector Lady of the Lake = Inquisitor Excalibur = Sergeant New stuff: Hunter = Used in Hunter Module. Must accurately identify an enemy Chief for their team to win. Chief = Used in Hunter Module. Coordinator = Used in Hunter Module. Not a chief but still a valid Red Hunter target. Dummy Agent = Used in Hunter Module. Not a chief but can lie about being one. Deep Agent = Used in Hunter Module. Red (Spy) who does not know teammates, but can attempt to ID Pretender and swap teams as a result. Pretender = Used in Hunter Module. Blue (Resistance); if IDed by Deep Agent switches teams with them publicly. Reverser = May play Reverse card when on missions that reverse the results. Red Reverser optionally may function like Blind Spy. Rogue = Lone player who has separate victory conditions from the rest of the game. Blue Rogue comes with unique mission cards and a new component. Red Rogue functions like Blind Spy but even the Commander does not see them. And then there are some other variant rules. I've gotten in a few games so far and it's pretty good all around. Gonna have to work the new stuff in slowly over many games a tiny bit at a time (only 1 Rogue and no other characters, only Hunter Module and no other stuff, etc) but there's a great deal of potential and everything seems really good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
IB&C has done the unthinkable and posted the rules for the Hidden Agenda Assassin module roles online because they failed to include them in the actual loving rulebook. Now people are gonna start pirating the game!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
The only reason Eldritch even gets so much as the time of day is because Arkham is that much worse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
ellbent posted:It would be really cool for people in this thread declaring a game as garbage to have actually paid attention when they played it, 'cause the exposure die is a big honking twelve-sided die and I don't see how people with so many complaints could confuse a caltrop with a baseball. Also, there's these handy cards all over the place that eliminate the risk entirely, because -- fancy that -- one of the core mechanics of the game is risk management. That's why cards like medicine and fuel are there; to force you to choose between protecting your characters and protecting your assets rather than hoarding them the whole game and being mad when a die you roll comes up bust when you have a fist full of "don't roll the die." You're right; I got the number of sides on the die wrong. You, however, neglected to address any of the points I actually stated about the game, which were not included in the bit you quoted. Hostile Intent & Hidden Agenda ongoing trip report the fourth: The new success/fail/rogue/chief/reverse cards have different colored backs. Within the same loving box. Misprint of the century. So, if you plan on getting this, buy opaque sleeves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Holy poo poo. How bad is it? Like light blue vs. slightly lighter blue, or just like straight up completely different colors? Here's a terrible photo of mine with terrible lighting. The Rogue Success cards match the old Resistance cards, while the other new mission cards match the replacement Success/Fail cards they included. One set is tinted red. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Trynant posted:You absolutely can tank Dead of Winter with one turn as a traitor. Everybody completes their turn in sequence, including putting down any 'secret' thing to resolve a crisis, before a check crisis step happens. Traitor can just wait until he's last in turn order for a full round (something that just swings clockwise at the end of each crisis) and bomb the game after everyone has had their turn. Yes you can do this. Yes it has happened to me. No this isn't a good game. Worse, the way this works is that the traitor gets 2 turns in a row when it happens. They spend the first turn bombing a crisis and the second turn making noise and otherwise sabotaging everything. Even worse, this is the only reliable way for a traitor to win. With the already-mentioned problems, traitors simply don't have any other options that will actually be effective. It's either "kill everybody by abusing turn order" or bust.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:This is a few pages old, but it makes me think: Has anyone started maintaining a list of great Dominion boards? http://www.dominiondeck.com/ You can filter by card, set, top rated, or even thumb through DominionStrategy's Kingdom Design Challenge Finalists and winners.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
The thing about Hanabi is that the act of playing is a series of very negative restrictions on what should be the least restricted parts of a game. There's a difference between "no talking" and "only say X specific things" because the former doesn't restrict one's creativity. Ugg-Tect gets away with it because you have a giant silly inflatable club and cavespeak itself is enjoyable. In Hanabi's case, players more often find themselves frustrated by the communication restrictions than enjoying them. Also, the game boils down to luck slightly more than Solitaire. I know people who love Hanabi, but it's not for me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Let's talk psychology in rules. Chess, which is a terrible strawman for the argument but an amazing example for this post, has permissive rules. As players, your interactions outside the game are unrestricted, and each rule is a clear instruction of how you can interact with the game's components. "You are permitted to move 1 piece on your turn" is a very clear distinction that allows for no arguments and no grey area where you constantly wonder if you are cheating or not. Hanabi is a game with restrictive rules. As players, the game's state is irregular and contains you, and the rules dictate things that you cannot do as people independent of the components. "You cannot give away useful information" with a guide on how to appropriate adjust that for your group's tolerance level is not at all a clear distinction, and most of the tension comes from players being unsure whether or not they are accidentally cheating. Restrictive rules are more frustrating than permissive rules off the bat, but Hanabi takes it further. That last bit, "most of the tension comes from players being unsure whether or not they are accidentally cheating" describes half the Fantasy Flight catalogue that gets derided for having a poo poo rulebook. "We won at Arkham Horror but it turns out we were moving through monsters," etc. In other games, rules so unclear that their badness dominates any given play usually qualifies them as bad games, no questions asked. Hanabi is a gimmick revolving around this horrible mechanism, so people give it a pass as some sort of weird social experiment just because it tried. Ultimately, if Hanabi had more to it as a game, I'd forgive it. If you play by the letter of the rules, no winky-wink poo poo or stretching what counts as no communication, the game revolves entirely around luck. You might have to make a blind discard, or you simply won't draw the cards in an order that lets you complete a 5-point stack. Dixit is a game that uses restricted communication in a permissive, flexible, and positive-feeling way that allows players to be creative and also has incredibly clear indicators as to what counts as an appropriately obscured level of information (send a message to exactly 1 player at the table at a time, that player should be the one with the lowest score, and the message contents should not be easily intercepted by another card). It's less luck-based, less frustrating, and spawns fewer arguments. Even better, if you gently caress up at Dixit, you simply don't gain points for the round, whereas loving up at Hanabi wins games and nobody feels okay about it. The closest games I can compare to Hanabi, with intentionally designed restrictive rules, are Tragedy Looper and Pandemic. Tragedy Looper is incredibly clear on what is allowed, and thus the concept of accidental cheating is never considered. Pandemic is not, and thus it's considered one of the worst co-ops due to rampant Quarterbacking problems when people ignore or bypass the communication rules and a huge luck overhead when played as intended.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Feverishly trying to figure out play order -- we're already in love with Space Alert obviously so that will get a round or two. I'd love to try Game of Thrones tomorrow because we'll have a big group together -- but they all look like a blast. gently caress theme. Play Dominion. You're welcome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:Pandemic isn't an example. The communication rules are gone in the newest edition. Matt Leacock realized they were a crap patch over the quarterbacking problem. But that's very related to the issue at hand. There have been many points where people asked, "Can I just tell you what I have?" and many groups eventually dropped the no show rule because you were allowed to communicate your cards to other players with 100% clarity anyway so why restrict it arbitrarily?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Merauder posted:It seems to me that this is the issue from people who have had bad experiences/don't enjoy Hanabi; they're playing with people who are inclined to bring out the faults in the rules, which I would agree, really would sap the enjoyment out of the game and make one not want to play it... with those people. I've played the game dozens of times with a variety of people I game with regularly and have never encountered any of this wink-wink-nudge-nudge behavior that some seem to think is common place when playing the game. Basically, while what people are saying about the rules requiring some discipline to adhere to (and a willingness to accept that accidental tells are going to happen) certainly has merit, it sounds like the bigger issue is the attitude of the people they're playing with, rather than issues with the game its self. Here's a hint: I don't consider a game great if the game isn't good in a wide variety of group mentalities. Parts of it can still be good, but it's the year 2014 and I don't have to settle for "partially good" anymore. It's just like the old quarterbacking argument. I have multiple bookshelves full of games that I don't have to worry about the wrong personality accidentally being caught in a game with me. Some games are better for certain situations, sure, but I'm a grown-rear end man who doesn't always have the time or luxury to risk on more volatile game experiences. It's much simpler to say "Hanabi doesn't meet these reasonable standards for being well-designed" and never have to deal with confronting people over whether or not they're cheating in a game that should be cooperative.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:I know people who will keep talking in Space Alert during a Communications Down and then get annoyed at me when I shoosh them. Going straight to Cheating rear end in a top hat is kind of an extreme example. There's no game that would not be ruined by somebody who blatantly tries to break very clear rules. That would be like playing a video game against somebody who unplugs your controller during a match. Bobfly posted:On Dominion: I really love the game, but I'm so terribly bad at it. I feel like I kind of just do whatever, and so does my one regular opponent. The stories that come out of its thin theme are very funny in their absurdity, but I'd very much like to get to the chess part of the game as well. Step 1: Buy Silver. No, really. There's a lot for me to say (and I'm going to say it, so buckle the gently caress up), but the first big takeaway is that you're not grasping the economy of the game with respect to how you actually win. You WIN at Dominion by having the most points when the game ends (3-pile or emptied Provinces), and the best way to accomplish this 80% of the time is by buying more Provinces than your opponent. Make sense so far? A lot of beginners (I'm assuming you do this) don't buy enough money. The reaction to playing Dominion is that there are Action cards, they look interesting, I wanna try them all now while they're available because they might not be there next game. Well, that's actually quite harmful. Any action card that does not provide +Action is what we call a Terminal Action, which means that it will terminate your Action Phase upon being played (outside of gigantic action engines, which aren't nearly as good as they sound). A hand of Smithy + Smithy + Silver + Copper + Estate is actually worse than Smith + Curse + Silver + Copper + Estate, the reason being that one of those Smithies has been wasted the moment you drew it next to the other. Not only is that card wasted, but since buying that Smithy took you an entire turn to do so (most of the time), you wasted the turn buying that Smithy. Imagine if you had bought a Silver instead-- that turn would be AMAZING, because you could purchase a cost 5 outright or play the Smithy to practically guarantee buying a Gold. Eventually, you will buy more actions. When you choose to do so is up to you-- there's no "solution" for how much money:actions you need to make a perfect deck, which is part of what makes Dominion still such a good game. The point of actions is to get you enough money in hand to buy a Province whenever you have the chance. I can only give you a ballpark like "Buy an action for each 3 or 4 treasure you buy," but that doesn't account for the individual actions and what their abilities are. Once you get used to how helpful Silver is, you'll realize that Copper is one of the worst cards in the game. You'll understand why Provinces are preferred over the other victory cards. You'll start a game by focusing on a couple actions that you think work well together instead of splattering the whole Kingdom into a single deck. There's a bunch of other stuff like Chapel (which I won't spoil) and alternate victory conditions, but you can learn that later on. Step 2: Don't buy Village. Village is a really bad card. On the surface, it looks okay; it's not a Terminal and it gives some cool stuff. But buying Village costs you something more-- turns are a resource. Village, at its base nature, is +1 Card +1 Action (in Magic terms, a Cantrip). It's actually +2 Actions, but we'll get into that in a minute. Village, when played, draws a new card and replenishes the action used to play it. If you never bought that Village, you would have drawn that new card in your hand anyway a turn ago, and you wouldn't have spent that action in the first place. In other words, it does absolutely nothing. Cards that do nothing aren't inherently bad, but what it really implies is that you wasted a turn buying nothing. Silver costs as much as Village, and the benefits of Silver are immediate, obvious, and almost never disappoint. What about the +2 Actions? In order for Village to actually serve its purpose, you need to have a bad deck. Your deck should be flooded with Terminal actions to the point where it's mathematically likely that you'll draw a Village and 2 Terminal Actions in the same hand at once (or Village, Terminal, and have the second Terminal immediately within drawing distance). If this sounds kind of advanced, it is! Village tricks new players into thinking poo poo is happening (so many cards are being moved!) but it's only useful in high-end engine decks. Not to say that Village isn't useful, but for now it's a good practice to just imagine that it's useless until one day you come up with this really cool idea that absolutely needs Villages to work. Wow, I've said a lot. I'm gonna stop here. I hope this was helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Why is tabletalk during communications down any more of an extreme example than tabletalk during Hanabi? Hanabi has very clear rules for how you can communicate: as your turn, you can spend a clue to point to all cards of one color/rank in another player's hand and say "These are your [color/rank] cards". When people start going "So you told me this was blue so you want me to...discard it? Right? Play it? Discard it? Discard it." every turn, they're in full cheating rear end in a top hat mode. I mean, you're right. It's extreme and a poor transition, but the concept of the Hanabi argument is that the talking rules are clear but the communication rules are nebulous at best to the point where many posters in this thread admit to "improving" at the game by finding ways to communicate with the rest of the players in ways that don't immediately violate the talking rules. Whoever said, "Hanabi needs an enemy player to keep the good players straight," was spot-on. The reason why perfectly planning card plays during the Time Spiral in Tragedy Looper doesn't work is because the Mastermind is listening to the plan and can gently caress with it all the way. It's another tick in the Hanabi Is Half a Game column.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:If you just mean getting more information than you might initially expect out of a single in-game clue, then yeah, that's kind of the point of the game. Even at the most basic level of play, when someone points to a single card in your hand and says "This is your 2", they're not really just telling you "This card in your hand is of rank 2 and the other cards in your hand are not of rank 2", they're telling you "Hey this 2 here is important you should probably play it" (unless in context it obviously means something else), and you'll play it even without a second hint telling you its color. That's what makes the game frustrating. What specifically you say has to be loaded information, but during the course of the game it's against the rules to ask or clarify what said loaded information actually means. For those situations, things like discarding from a specific direction or encoding a secret language to more generic clues does not outright violate the word of the rules but begins endless arguments over whether or not it violates the spirit of the rules. Further, and this is going to get a little sociopathic so please bear with, if subtext is allowed Rules As Written, then it opens the door to other non-verbal forms of communication. The rest of the time, you're struggling with trying to get clues to people without cheating, and games shouldn't be about trying your best not to cheat. You can use basic clues to complete a game of Hanabi fine. In order to get a high score, you either have to be lucky or cheating. There are simply not enough actions available to give players the information they need to determine what to discard without gambling or or metagame solutions. In the end, as Scyther said, it's filler that takes too much work and it's not deep enough to be a main course, in addition to the frustrating-feeling communication problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
BonHair posted:In this short example, only three hints were given, but a lot more information could be deduced. It was, in my opinion, not conveyed by cheating, but by deduction and indirect clue-giving within the confines of the mechanics. The fact that C did not start with two blue ones could only be deduced from the absence of a hint, which is not really equivalent to verbal communication. You have to distinguish between pseudo-verbal communication, which is cheating, and communication through mechanics and deduction, which is the fun game. And to me, this is a pretty clear-cut difference. You used half your clues in this process, though, and players currently have no indication of either what cards to play next or what cards are safe to discard, short of "don't discard that 5." A had no indicator that his second 1 was playable, and in fact if A's 1s were identical there would be a risk of a bad play on A's turn even though the information given up to this point wouldn't have changed. Hanabi, conceptually, is interesting. Players use verbal negative space to convey information. The bounds of the negative space aren't clearly defined, however, which is the core of the argument. The closest analogue is old Pandemic. You couldn't show your cards, but you could certainly say what they were, which defeats the entire purpose of the "no show" rule. Games would then be solved without teamwork, a problem which the initial rule was attempting to prevent. Is saying what you have against the rules? No. Is the initial rule not a satisfactory solution? According to the designer, yes. Does the game degenerate without communication barriers? Yes. These things mean that it's a bad game. Is a metagame solution to Hanabi against the rules? No. Are the communication rules not a satisfactory solution to whatever problem they were trying to solve? I believe the answer is yes, because it's trivial to come up with metagame solutions, innuendo, or other means by which to bypass the communication rules. Does the game degenerate without communication barriers? Yes, because the game is designed around players only being able to specifically claim certain facts. Hanabi is a concept of a rule that is a solution looking for a problem which was reverse-engineered into a mixed bag of an experience. The answer to the question of whether or not tons of people are cheating at Hanabi is not nearly as significant as the existence of the question itself. The only other games I can think of with similar problems are Arkham Horror and Warhammer 40,000, both of which are hugely derided for the existence of said question (in addition to other problems, yes, but this is a major problem for both). The rule may be clearly written, but it's a bad concept around which to base an entire game. Lottery of Babylon posted:It depends on how many players you have. 2-player games fall heavily to luck because ten total cards in hand just isn't enough room to work with, but larger games you can win consistently. Most of my games are four-player, where being screwed by luck is rare. This is absolutely true, and it should be noted that my Hanabi experience is largely (but not entirely) limited to 2- and 3-player games.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
different topic:Indie Boards and Cards posted:While my hope is to avoid all minor issues, I tried to make it perfectly clear in the risks and challenges section of the project that such errors may occur: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
NuclearPotato posted:While we're on the subject of Dominion, I got the Alchemy expansion for Christmas, which I'm jazzed about, since it means I never have to pony up any money to buy Alchemy. 1. All Potion-cost cards are balanced around the concept that they may be the only Potion-cost card in the game, so they're all degenerate and self-comboing. Once you get more than 1 of them in the same game, poo poo gets really out of hand and people are doing 10-minute action chains that vomit everywhere. 1 is okay, although there are instances where even just 1 is almost gamebreaking (Familiar in particular comes to mind). And then some of the cards are just terrible, like University and Transmute. 2. Herbalist and Apprentice, the 2 non-Potion-cost cards, are good and usable in normal games. Apprentice in particular is almost worth the cost of the set; the main reason I don't recommend just avoiding Alchemy is so you can pick up Apprentice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 20:10
|
|
). So, two questions:
|
Click Clack Lumberjack/Toc Toc Woodman/Bling Bling Gemstone Say Anything Panic on Wall Street! One Night Ultimate Werewolf 7 Wonders (only 7 players, unless you add Cities, then it's 8) edit: i took way too long to type this list
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:BL mentioned Click Clack Lumberjack and I played it for the first time the other night and found it charming as hell. Super simple and easy to play (very important for groups). Just put the tree on a round table in the middle of the party and have people remember who goes before them in turn order. No chairs necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 22:28
|
|