|
KingKapalone posted:It's so hard to pick the next game to buy. I really have no criteria to make the final decision on but I think I've narrowed it down to Chaos in the Old World, Kemet, Agricola, or 7 Wonders. I really like 7 wonders. Get that.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Sgt. Anime Pederast posted:Apparently when putting together your ship, any piece already in place is fixed and new pieces have to match all connections. I always played it as you only had to match one, but this lead to hilarious events of ships falling apart after one hit that I thought was a feature. Oh wow. You've been playing some kind of horrible mutant version of the game 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:You are not wrong! I have a lot of respect for Vlaada as a designer and I really like Dungeon Lords and Tash-Kalar, but something about "spend a bunch of time stressing and then lose all agency and watch the game destroy you" doesn't sit right with me. Eh, I don't think you lose all agency once you launch in Galaxy Trucker. You've got stuff like deciding when to spend energy on shields, double engines/guns, where you're going to put cargo, whether you're going to stop at planets or plough ahead, and loads of other stuff. Sure, the "building a ship" part is more important and you can build ships that require more or fewer decisions once launched, but it's inaccurate to say you "lose all agency" once you launch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
I was very sad to learn Dungeon Petz only does 4 players 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:You learned wrongly. It does 3 and 2 players, but needs dummy players to work with smaller numbers. My first game was with three and seemed to work fine. Four players maximum, I mean.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
ellbent posted:I managed to play five games of Dead of Winter with total strangers on Tabletop Simulator and had a really good time. One of the smallest things in it that could have gone so much worse is the dice rolling -- if I had to roll for every action as I did it I would blow my brains out just from the slowdown, but the way everyone rolls all at once lets me not only plan my turn in advance but guess (and/or be surprised by) the other players' turns. It's great. I've only done two scenarios but I'm definitely going to buy it for my shelf when I have the cash. Can't wait to see where the Crossroads games go from here because if they intend it to be a series this is a strong start. Despite the bad rep this game has on here, I've also had nothing but good times with Dead of Winter and I think someone's got me it for Christmas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Also the main issues with the game is how the traitor/personal game elements affect the game. The traitor can just play along (and it is actually advisable to do this) until he tanks the checks right at the very end, and it's impossible to work out if someone is a traitor because the only thing you can ask is 'well why are you hoarding cards?' and that doesn't help because almost everyone has to hoard cards. There's no reason for the traitor to sabotage before his reveal, since it is extremely easy to track down cards and trying to cover the fact that you are sabotaging (by following people around) is in itself suspicious. Is this actually the case, though? Just like in Battlestar Galactica, a traitor can't do infinite damage in a single turn - he might well need two or more turns in order to do sufficient damage to win the game, so waiting until the last minute to reveal might well be a losing strategy. I do think before playing the game you need to make a house rule about victory conditions, however. Either: 1. If you're in a situation where you literally cannot complete both of your victory conditions (for non-traitors these are always "make the good guys win" and "do something for yourself") before the game ends, you should do your best to complete the "make the good guys win" victory condition. Or: 2. If you're in a situation where you literally cannot complete both of your victory conditions (for non-traitors these are always "make the good guys win" and "do something for yourself") before the game ends, you should do your best to fail the "make the good guys win" victory condition. Obviously each of these rules would skew the game for or against the good guys, but it would probably help to avoid any disagreements if you make the decision on which way to go as a group before you play, as otherwise it's a role-playing thing with no actual right answer. The other thing to keep in mind is that some victory conditions synergise really well, and others do the opposite. Having to hoard fuel in a scenario that requires lots of fuel sucks, having to build barricades in a scenario that requires lots of barricades is easy. As a result, getting too worked up about winning or losing is probably not a good idea. Gort fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
One thing I'd like them to do with BSG 2e would be to standardise the game length. So, it always takes five crises to get ready to jump, and the humans always win after four jumps (or whatever game length balances well). However, the Admiral and scouting players get to pick jump destinations that are more or less destructive for the fleet to go to, and players scouting the crisis deck get to pick better or worse crises for the fleet to encounter. Rather than what we have now, where it's in the Cylons best interests to drag the game out as long as they possibly can, and sometimes it takes that long just through pure dumb luck, cylon interference or no.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I get the feeling I would've played a lot more Descent (both editions) if it hadn't been one-versus-many and had instead just been everyone playing against automated opposition. The trouble with competitive games is that any balance problems get magnified, and that goes double if there's a positive-feedback loop going on where the side that wins gets greater rewards than the side that loses. Descent is not a meticulously balanced game. Pretty much every Descent campaign I've played has ended in one side getting disheartened and not wanting to play any more. I've never seen past the half-way "interlude" adventure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Anyone got opinions on how that Imperial Assault game stacks up against Descent 2e?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:I'm going to need to know more about your opinions and thoughts on Descent 2E before I can answer you in detail. But, I have played Descent 2E quite a few times on Vassal before buying Imperial Assault as a Xmas present for my girlfriend. I've played it with a few people as only the Imperial but I enjoy it a lot. The changes from Descent seem great and make it much more actiony and stream-lined. One specific change I enjoy is the defensive player is now tasked with the dodging rather than rolling a blank blue die and screaming that Avric is a loving worthless hack. I can't speak to balance issues or anything. The game has been fun enough that I decided to paint the miniatures and give in to being an old piece of poo poo at this point. My major issue with Descent 2e was that one side of the game (heroes or overlord) always felt like they were in a "fail spiral" of losing quests, then getting bad rewards as a result so they can go on to lose more quests. As a result one side always gave up before we completed half a campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Ah, screw you guys, you're going to make me buy a third Descent game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:You know how some people are fans of stuff like Comic books and comic book movies and fantasy, but they still can interact with society and maintain relationships that don't hinge on inside jokes and catch phrases, but on the other end of the spectrum there are Firefly fans? I think he meant that. Not defending his remarks, just saying that's how it sounded to me. Yeah, that's what I reckon too. Nerdy has two sides - the "smart" side and the "antisocial" side. "Good nerdy" has more of the former than the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
I love thematic games and the Witcher, but gently caress if the first mention of it being like Talisman wasn't enough to completely scare me off.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Roborally is good provided you play with exactly 8 players, only one board, and only 2 or maybe 3 flags. Unfortunately the rulebook encourages you to play with 4 players, 2 boards, and 4 flags. Roborally does a good job of simulating my interest in Formula One racing - the potential for a cool pile-up right at the start, then hours of boredom where the winner has become clear.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What if it came with dozens of little baggies to store the bits in? Baggies are a pain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:BB does also have some bad issues with faction design Yeah, definitely this. The game falls apart when played in any kind of long-term league or tournament since some teams have tons of good ways to advance their players and others get diddly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:Ok, by 'Firefly fanboy', what I really mean is that I watched the show when it first aired, bought ONE copy of the DVD set, saw Serenity in theaters, and bought a copy of the Serenity RPG (which I later sold because it was kinda poo poo). I don't own a single piece of merch, have never referred to myself as a 'browncoat', and don't give a poo poo about spreading interest because, lets face it, it's loving over. Yeah, put me in this camp as well. A friend's picked up the Firefly boardgame so I'll probably get to have a mediocre experience with it any day now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
I'd love to see a BSG 2e where the game was of a set length and they had some way of keeping the game balanced while not letting players know if there were cylons active yet or not. I'd also like to see variant rules for short games and long games. You could do the first part by making these changes: 1. The game ends after five jumps 2. Destination cards vary in destructiveness, so an admiral might get to choose between a 2 fuel loss card and a 1 fuel loss and damage Galactica twice card 3. All crisis cards have jump prep on them 4. Crisis cards vary in destructiveness, same as destination cards I've no idea how you would keep the game balanced while keeping the addition of cylons random though. Early cylons are less good than late cylons, somehow, perhaps?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that people should try and achieve as many of their objectives as they can (even if they can't get them all). You'd feel pretty pissed if someone couldn't get their five food or whatever their personal objective was, so they decided to let the zombies kill everyone so nobody could win. As others have said as well, if the betrayer has no way of achieving their objective, they should tank checks obviously so they get exiled and get a new objective that they might have a chance at completing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
"I think this game is so good I'll buy the super-deluxe version to simultaneously support the creator and be able to show off to others that I supported the creator" perhaps? That's pretty much the exact same as spending money on cosmetics in F2P games. Most "collectors editions" aren't actually worth the money really.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
ashez2ashes posted:So is Dead of Winter a good game or have I been dazzled by Tabletop once again? lol The fact that I'm going to wait until the game is back to a reasonable price again notwithstanding. I have enjoyed every game of it I played but I also like Betrayal At House On The Hill, so maybe I just enjoy it as an Experience Generator. I've played maybe a half-dozen games and we haven't had an issue where the traitor has tanked the game too easily. Either we haven't found the degenerate strategy yet or goons who haven't played it (much?) are exaggerating its effect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Dead of Winter chat: There's definitely some jank involved with victory conditions, and some stuff you have to come up with a house rule before the game for. For example: Non-traitor players have two objectives - achieve the team objective, and also do something else. (EG: Get a bunch of guns) Well, what happens if the team's probably going to win, but you've no way of doing your "something else"? Is it better for you to lose alone, or is it better for you to tank the game for everyone so everyone loses with you? I just straight-up talked to our group before the game and said that if you reckon you've no way of doing your personal goal at all, it's better to end the game with it half-completed than to get everyone killed by zombies, and everyone agreed. It is a house-rule though, rules-as-written it's perfectly fine for someone to play that way, but you could say that about human players playing like cylons in BSG because they're holding a grudge or something. ----- Another example: Some victory conditions are really easy, some are really hard. I had a team objective to build a bunch of barricades, and a personal goal to build a bunch of barricades. It was not a difficult game for me. Maybe a house rule that you take the "too easy" personal goals out of the deck before you hand them out is in order for these? ----- I wouldn't say I've run into any problems without an obvious solution with the game yet, though, and it's been good fun each time, with some of the cool traitor-hunting of BSG with less playtime required.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:(I've heard it has AP problems)? Isn't AP a problem usually attributed to players, not games?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Whew. I played a six player game of someone else's copy of Firefly. Sheesh - more randomness than I would like, and it took forever to get around to being my turn, despite never really getting much done on my turn. Maybe it's better with fewer players, but it really does just seem like whoever gets lucky with card draws will win the game. I think by the end we were all just glad for it to end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Yeah, the movement rules are fine. Certainly better than shuffling around stats like in Arkham Horror. Arkham Horror uses the same rules for player elimination as Eldritch Horror - pick a new character if Cthulhu's asleep, you're dead if he's not - so saying that Eldritch Horror introduces player elimination to the formula is inaccurate. There's no change here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
MorphineMike posted:Is that on the back of all the GOOs? I can see it being so, but I honestly don't remember (them flipping happens so rarely for my group these days) Nah, players getting eliminated when they're defeated after the Great Old One wakes up is a standard rule in the rulebooks for both games. Arkham Horror, main rulebook, page 21: Any investigator reduced to 0 Sanity or Stamina by the Ancient One’s attack is devoured. If an investigator is devoured during the final battle with the Ancient One, that player is eliminated from the game (i.e., the player does not draw a new character). If all investigators are devoured, the Ancient One is unleashed on the world and the players lose the game. Eldritch Horror, main rulebook, page 16: After the Ancient One has awakened, when an investigator is defeated or devoured, the player controlling that investigator is eliminated. Eliminated players do not select a new investigator to control and can no longer participate in the game. If all players are eliminated, investigators lose the game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Have fun playing as Kane and spending the entire game on shopping duty. Last time I played Kane I shopped a bit, then a rumour appeared that ate all the assets before we could stop it, then a proto-shoggoth appeared and ate me. We still managed to win despite losing about four investigators since coming in with a new investigator who is exactly the person for the job at hand is really powerful. One of our mysteries was to defeat the Dunwich Horror so when Kane bit the dust I came back in with the Motorcycle Cop who has a carbine rifle and starts right on top of the Dunwich Horror.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Yeah, it's the Mysteries (victory objectives), Research Encounters (used for when you try to get clues) and Special Encounters (I've just realised I don't know what these are for - maybe for if the GOO awakens?) that are unique to each GOO.
Gort fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I don't disagree, but he's looking more for theme and experience generators than pure mechanics. Really? Elder sign isn't a good experience generator, it's just rolling buckets of dice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:v Yeah, I don't think either of the Horror games is a good fit for an eleven-year-old either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 23:44
|
|
v
|
Rutibex posted:But that's what I'm saying? The protagonists can win at HoHH just as often as they lose, if they draw the right cards/haunt. A normally balanced co-op game the players expect to win most of the time, if they earned it. In HoHH you can lose even if you play perfectly, just like a horror movie. I'd say it doesn't matter tons that the game isn't particularly balanced since it's a pretty short game. Balance is more important when you're deciding a game that's gone on for three hours.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Betrayal takes about an hour to play. It's far outside the who-cares-it's-a-ten-minute-filler zone. OK, but it's not like it's in the three-hours-it's-late-everyone-is-cranky-let's-finish-the-game-so-we-can-go-to-sleep-oh-what-you-won-how-that's-bullshit zone either. The longer a game is, the more important it is that it be highly balanced. quote:Plus, the first half of the game is basically a glorified Game Setup phase. That's a lot of investment considering that the winner is usually determined the instant the haunt is revealed. I don't think either of these sentences are actually true.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:As for the "glorified setup phase" comment, I agree with that. There is no goal for the first half of the game but "explore". Frankly, I enjoy that, but the criticism is valid. Well, "explore" and "get your character as many good items and stat boosts as you can to give yourself a better chance of winning the haunt". It's true that there are elements of game setup in the pre-haunt part of the game, but the flipside of that is that the time spent doing actual pre-game setup is near zero. Whack down the center pieces, pick a character, go.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Yeah, how many players were in the game?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't think much of Robinson Crusoe. It felt like it was incredibly quarterbackable and made no effort to solve that issue at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is dead of winter fun? Is there a game like king of tokyo but w/o players getting eliminated from the game? I know it's not what you asked, but King of New York is like King of Tokyo but just plain better.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
How heavy/long a game is Kemet compared to stuff like Eclipse or Game of Thrones?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Hmm, that sounds right up my alley. The length of those games was generally longer than I liked.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I've heard some good things and I was a fan of the show so I looked at the box, but that big hex grid arena made me think twice. I like the sound of trading gladiators and scheming against each other, but how complicated is the fighting? And how long does fighting take? It's not very complex and doesn't take very long. Mostly it's just roll initiative, someone gets stabbed and goes into a death spiral since injuries make your stats go down, then they get finished off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 13:08
|
|