|
Rutibex posted:The starvation mechanic is what makes Agricola actually playable. It narrows down your options to one or two possibilities, which you can path out in your head. Caverna gives you 10,000,000 "viable" games paths, there is no way to compare them all in your head and make a reasoned move. In Caverna you are just guessing that you have found a good strategy, there is no way to actually figure out. I 100% agree with you, although the fault you describe is part of the charm to me. Agricola is tight to an extreme and moves are very calculated. I can almost always see a clear right move for every player's turn. Caverna gives you the exact same mechanics and just lets you run wild. You're right that it's much, much harder to spot the right move at any given time (if there even is a single one) and I like having to gestalt my way through the game because it requires a very different type of approach.
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
TheHoosier posted:If anyone is on the fence, Warhammer Quest ACG is a huge hit in my area. It's an awesome game that doesn't take long to learn, that's pleasantly challenging, and that's a decent solo game. I'd second this now. They put out a FAQ that fixed the delve quest (the random quest generator) and that was one of my major complaints. Now it just needs an expansion or two. It's also a great solo game. I've played things solo to learn rules before but WHQ is the first game I played solo that I ended up playing through because I was enjoying myself. It's got a great pace and a low fiddlyness factor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:I'm really tempted to buy it cause it looks like the playtime won't be that long and I like the kinda card based combat. They're very different games and the combat systems have nothing at all in common. WHQ's combat isn't even card based. It's dice based, although they're some of the best designed dice I've ever seen and tend to give the illusion of chance more than anything. I wouldn't pick up WHQ hoping for anything like Mage Knight and I say that as someone who plays and likes both. They just take entirely different approaches. It is much shorter and faster though. And far less fiddly. If you played Heroquest or Warhammer Quest or Descent or whatever and wanted to like them more than you actually did, the new Warhammer Quest is probably a good choice for you. It captures the fun parts of those games, abstracts away the chaff and is short enough that nothing outstays its welcome. If you're looking for a dungeon crawler with a Eurogame vibe to it though, it's definitely not the game you're looking for. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Azran posted:Gloomhaven! (Once it's out) Ha, I actually had a post typed up about it but it's going to be English only and it looked the dude was waiting for a German translation of WHQ. But yes, if Gloomhaven is as good as it looks like it might be, it will as close as I can think of to a lighter, faster, dungeon crawler Mage Knight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
EvilChameleon posted:I also played San Juan and having played Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy already this seemed... not very good? I just kept calling it a shittier Race the whole way through. Am I missing anything here? You aren't. Its only virtue is that it's very easy to explain and get people playing. After that, you can teach them Race.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Some loving dick just outbid me on a copy of Glory to Rome with 2 seconds left. Are there any print and play options since this game is in limbo? I have a copy sitting around that we never play. It's from the old edition with the really goofy artwork. You can email me at my user name at yahoo if you're interested. I'm not looking to sell at Ebay scalper prices because I picked it up years ago for basically nothing. Maybe $20 + shipping? Buyer beware though. I know it's got a really dedicated following but it's just not that great of a game. We played it a handful of times and then went back to Race for the Galaxy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
EDIT: Removed my post. Had what looked to be a trading issue that turned out okay.
Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Just wanted to post and say Bottom Liner came through. It sounds like there was a credit card issue and he wasn't trying to do anything shady. Thanks to the folks who vouched for him and my apologies to him for assuming he wasn't being honest. I'll edit out my last post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
I was wondering about Co-op Descent 2. They released a few modules and now they're coming out with an app that looks to turn Descent 2 into more of a Warhammer Quest style game where the app plays the bad guy. They also look to be adding a little more RPG stuff managed by the app so every room isn't just "and now kill all the bad guys." It looks to be heavily based on the co-op print on demand modules they released, but the few reviews I've found on them are very mediocre at best which makes me wonder if the app would be any better. Anyone have any experience with them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Beffer posted:I've played both the solo expansions of Descent and more recently WHQACG. The Descent games were ok but they had very little replayability and the gameplay felt even more random than the base game. The games work on a built in timer, and your success depends on good dice rolls, as well as good strategy. That's what I was really hoping not to hear. I've played the new WHQ too but I agree there isn't a ton of replay value. If you say Descent had less and is more random.... Yikes. Gloomhaven can't come out soon enough. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
House Louse posted:That's not just about AH though is it? That's odd. The bonus for Apollo is actually great. We learned early on not to knock anyone down to one island because they would chain Apollo for a few turns and outproduce everyone. Sitting on one island became a preferred strategy pretty quickly - get rich, drop a metropolis your entire army is sitting on top of (and that no one can attack unless it's their victory move) and then hop over and take someone else's to win. The next became obsessively taking Zeus every fricking turn (your game will take forever but you will win on turn 20 or so and then everyone will agree to never do it again). And don't think of Apollo as sitting out a turn - think of it as not wasting a ton of resources for extremely marginal gains. A lot of the stuff you see people doing with Poseidon and Ares are complete wastes of turns and resources. Were you playing with two players? I've never played at that number but I guess I can imagine that might end up skewed. If you were playing with more players though, I wonder if you guys might have had some rules wrong. I really can't see how anyone could be crushed without a chance to get back up in Cyclades. Its a game with a strong rubber-banding effect. If anything I thought it was a bit too strong because you never get a snowball effect to push someone over the edge into victory. By the end, usually everyone is one good turn away from victory and it's a game of I block him, he blocks you, you block me over and over and over until someone slips up. Archenteron posted:My first, last, and only game of Cyclades, my two opponents perpetually shut me out of anything useful for the entire game, so I spent most turns on budget Poseidon activations to spite kill their Navy and block movement. On the last turn of the game, they were focused on upgrading their last cities to win and let me grab Aries, marching my until now unusable doomstack across multiple islands to take enough of their cities for a win. I had only figured out that opening the turn prior and legitimately felt useless the entire time prior. I refuse to play it again. This is pretty much my experience. Even someone who thinks they're locked out is usually one good action from victory once there's even a single metropolis on the field. Which leads to the reason I don't really play Cyclades any more - it costs a lot less and is far easier to steal someone else's metropolis than it is to build your own. Our games devolved into everyone actively avoiding the victory condition and started taking forever. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Guys, how accessible is Warhammer Quest: The Adventure Card Game? How long do you think it'll take to read and explain the rules, and set up the game? It looks interesting, but not if it'll be an hour before we can even start playing. It's very approachable provided one player knows what they're doing. If you're going to teach it, run through the first scenario on your own though because the "Learn to Play" manual is garbage that skips over a ton and will leave you scratching your head two turns into a real scenario. Rutibex posted:If you have no standards (and you clearly don't), then Talisman Digital Edition is much more fun, and cheaper too. I actually own this and it's awful. Even for what it is, it's awful. Why Talisman needed a bad UI and slow paced gameplay is beyond me. The 40k one is actually worse. And yes, I own both. I think my excuse is that I want to encourage developers to port board games to apps? Yeah, I think I'll stick with that one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:Some people like warhammer quest, and it is a pretty good game with some progression elements. It is getting a new release for further play this summer too, which is good since it starts with gently caress all. Where did you hear that? I've been watching for expansion news for awhile and I was starting to think they abandoned the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Sounds like a bit of wasted potential. They have the entire back end worked out, with some graphics that would be a good digital version of the game. Thing is though, I don't think I'd play a digital version of Descent. There are far better tactics games and RPGs if you have a computer or tablet. They made a Battlelore app for instance which is pretty forgettable. It might be a cool board game but in their need to stay faithful to the board game they left in stuff like dice rolls that apps really don't need or do well. I think it's actually kind of clever to do it this way. You keep the tactile board game bits and get what looks to be a relatively unobtrusive app that takes over what is one of the most problematic aspects of the original game.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Nevets posted:I'm looking at getting Agricola. Never having played it, should I get the original base game or the updated base game that comes out tomorrow? From what I've read people agree that the updated version is mostly better than the original because it incorporates some expansion cards, otherwise it's pretty much the same. Would I be better off getting the original and a 'must-have' expansion pack instead? You probably can't go wrong either way, although there are no must have expansions if you pick up the old version. It's an amazingly well designed and complete game out of the box. Edit: poo poo, thought you were talking about the new super edition. Yeah, go with what Rubitex said. Stick to the old edition for now. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 14:31 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Is there any point in getting Caverna if I already have Agricola? Looking at the BGG top games to fill out my collection but it seems these 2 are particularly redundant. From the sounds of it Caverna is more of a point salad and doesn't have the same stress of feeding your family as Agricola? I held off on Caverna for a long time because I had the same concerns you did but I was incredibly impressed when someone else in my group finally picked it up. The pieces and mechanics are nigh identical but the games play out very differently. Agricola is punishing and hyper competitive and Caverna takes the same mechanics but opens things up into much more of a sandbox. It depends on your group and tastes as to which might work better. Both games are excellent in their own right and the people I know love them both. As to the points salad thing, not sure where that came from. The scoring systems are also very similar.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
^^^ Boo this man. Although honestly he's not wrong about the gygax style.Sailor Viy posted:Yeah, both of those games sound good, but what I was really looking for was something that gives you the Basic D&D/OSR experience. Scrabbling for loot in a filthy dungeon, running away from goblins and throwing treasure on the ground to distract them, that sort of thing. Mage Knight is definitely on my list though. I spent a while looking for this and came to the conclusion that it doesn't exist, which is sad. The D&D adventure game series come closest. They're light, monsters are done very simply and well and the components are fantastic but the games don't have a lot to keep you coming back. Their light nature means it's very easy to quickly see all that you're going to see and the quests are very repetitive. I don't regret picking one up but playing it I get the nagging sense that it could have been so much more. The card game version of Warhammer Quest comes close but it abstracts a lot and it's increasingly looking like it's never going to get the expansion it desperately needs to have much replay value. It's a far better game then the D&D series though, even if it isn't quite a perfect match. There are a lot of games coming out soon that want to be this - Gloomhaven, Swords and Sorcery, Massive Darkness and a bunch more but they're all kickstarter games so kiss $100 goodbye and good luck picking the one that doesn't end up a disappointment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
lordsummerisle posted:I am getting my Gloomhaven hype back now that the release date is squintily visible in the horizon. I made the PnP version before I backed it. It plays pretty quickly with low randomness and clever use of its mechanics. It's also very clearly inspired by Mage Knight. I thought it was fantastic. Played through the scenario 3-4 times and then stopped because I didn't want to get too familiar with things. The things that are a little odd include the AI and the table talk restrictions. The first didn't bother me - monsters are basically given a goal and act intelligently to carry out that goal. They aren't brain-dead monsters like in the D&D games which is cool, but it makes them more involved and means everyone playing needs a pretty solid understanding of how the AI works or they're gonna get shanked. The table talk is a bigger issue. In theory your cards and battle goals need to be kept secret which limits coordination and possible quarterbacking, but it's awkwardly done. I can't say "dude I gotta bag two elite monsters to meet my goal" but if I insist that I'm going after every elite that pops up even when there are better options, you can probably guess why I'm so keen on that. After a game or two you're also going to know what each guy can do too, and while the engineer can never say "guys I'm going to use my flamethrower" he or she can tell you they're going damage a group and boost fire essence. Gee, what could that mean? I think in practice people are going to have to house rule how much or how little discussion is allowed because the rules as written don't quite achieve what the designer was going for. All in all though, it looks to be great. It's one of the few upcoming dungeon crawlers that is all about the gameplay instead of all about the miniatures. And most of the table talk issues can be disposed of if people just don't let quarterbacking be a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
radlum posted:I'm introducing my friends to Descent today; since I've played only once and they haven't played anything similar, I'll be the Overlord. Any suggestions on making the game easier/more understandable? Let them win while providing a steady challenge. Be smart if they're crushing you, be dumb if they're dumb. I'm all seriousness it isn't hard for an overlord to absolutely crush the heroes in either edition and you have the advantage of secret information in your cards that can wildly swing the difficulty level. I've had the most fun in Descent when it was treated as if it were D&D. KPC_Mammon posted:Is Hero Quest a good game? My only memories of actually playing it involved my dad playing the overlord and kicking my rear end every time we tried the first level. I was 9, and not very good at the game. Holy poo poo no. It was straight up terrible. Roll to move, terrible, slow combat and lovely mechanics like secret doors with little to no clues that you needed to search for them. Beautiful miniatures and dungeon furniture though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
the panacea posted:I whaled out on the Descent app and now got all but 1 monster&heroes and 2 lieutenant packs (one big box expansion is still in the mail). That's a metric poo poo ton of figures now and they all look nice, except for one batch that seems to be made from a different plastic/resin. I haven't whaled yet, but only because FFG isn't dropping any clues about how the new campaigns will work. Judging by the print on demand stuff they're going to be using the app to drive sales of the big box expansions so that would be the logical place to start picking things up but who knows? What amazes me most about how well the system works is that I really, really didn't like Descent 2nd edition. It was fun to look at and fun to think about but the actual game play felt kind of tedious to me regardless of which side I was on, largely because both sides were heavily encouraged to engage in gamey bullshit. With the overlord role removed and the quests pretty tightly tuned, that isn't really a thing anymore. This feels like what Descent always should have been. You quest, loot, develop your characters and then do it over and over again. The difficulty is there but barring gross negligence you'll probably be fine missing a few attacks on Normal mode. Maps are usually juuuust big enough that you don't see everything. The writing is pants-shittingly terrible though. And you might ask, "Manatee, why the gently caress are you complaining about the writing in a board game?" Because it's that loving bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Zurui posted:What is Star Trek Frontiers? It says Vlaada on the cover so I almost bought it just for that. Mage knight with Star Trek pasted on. Literally. I hear the combat is a little easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Azran posted:What's this thread take on Assault on Doomrock No! NONONONO. Assault on Doomrock is awful. It's essentially a game split into two parts in three cycles. In each cycle you first go on an adventuring spree, balancing out time, money and health to get as much loot and experience as you can get. It's really fun and takes ten minutes tops. A++ game design. I'm a big fan. Then you go to combat with one of the big baddies. Jesus gently caress, the combat. It's a very abstract system that could have worked in the hands of a better designer, but they essentially took their neat little abstract disc game and then decided to stretch it out for much, much longer than it deserves. The enemies start with a ton of health and protection, and those that don't regenerate spawn new enemies, and those that don't spawn new enemies have damage blocking effects. Combat is a mind numbing see-saw where you start with 20 moles and whack 5 moles only to have 4 pop back up. You know you're going to win on turn 19 but man are you gonna wish you'd lost a long time ago. There are, from what I remember, 2 fights that don't do this. There are something like 10 that do. Budget about half an hour for the first fight. The 2nd cycle will take 40 minutes. That last one? Oh about an hour. Expect to move a lot of tokens around and roll a lot of dice. Expect to spend a lot of time reading instructions for the AI and watching them slowly nibble through your health. Ever played Descent? Imagine if the designers multiplied everyone's health by four and changed nothing else about the game. Because if hitting a beastman once is fun, holy poo poo you are gonna love hit #12. If you haven't played Descent, just think of lovely MMO combat where you cycle skills five times in a row over the course of two minutes to take down an enemy that was obviously toast five seconds into the fight. That's the philosophy of combat in Doomrock: Wouldn't it be fun if this took longer? The worse part is that the adventuring phase is super fun. You play through the first fight because you want to adventure again, and you play through the second for the same reason and the third fight you look at the bullet sponge bullshit in front of you and go "hey guys, want to just call this a win and play something else?" Seriously, it's hands down the worst thing I played this year. Watch some of the video reviews - there's a Marco guy who is really hard to listen to but who nails it (watch the last five minutes of his review). It's a bad, bad game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Yes! Sentinels will no longer be the go to game whenever people talk about horrible art. Can someone convince me not to get Mare Nostrum? Someone did a pretty compelling write up and the more I look into it, it looks like a fast, interactive miniature advanced civ.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Shadin posted:Looks like that leaked Arkham Horror LCG image from a few months back was legit: Wow, that's the first thing they've announced recently that doesn't look terrible. I hope they veer more towards WHQ than LOTR but from their description I kind of doubt it. It looks very much like LOTR v2.0. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
EvilChameleon posted:I honestly haven't played Roll two players, but I've played Race 2 players a lot and it's great; I don't see why Roll wouldn't be but I haven't tried it so maybe others could weigh in. Isle of Skye is a good suggestion someone else made, and I think someone mentioned Glass Road which feels kinda mechanical to some but will play quickly and is good at 2, 3 or 4. What about something like 7 Wonders? That is pretty quick and decently in depth. 2 player Race for the Galaxy has a recommended variant in the rulebook that makes the game even better than the base game. Picking two phases each turn opens up a ton of cool strategies. Roll doesn't have have that, unfortunately. 2 player is just a very slightly modified 3 player game. It works, but it isn't amazing or anything. People could go back and forth on which game is better overall but for two players, Race wins hands down.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:I impale the stacks of tokens on safety pins, and stick the wooden pieces together with chewing gum. Then in bundle it all together with rubber bands. My friend did this with our Game of Thrones LCG poo poo and I had to take the box away from him and make cardstock tuck boxes for each faction. One of us has a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Looking for a 2p thematic game that's not too intense (and doesn't cost $80, Caverna). Is one of those D&D minis games any better or worse than the other? Which games do you mean? The Dungeon Command ones? The one that's basically X-wing with dragons? The dungeon crawler ones? If you're looking at the latter, they're all basically the same. You get lots of cool figures and bits and a very simple co-op game that takes ~45 minutes and makes Diablo look thought-provoking. I've played two of them now and both just feel like they deserve a bit more creativity and a better system to go with all the cool bits. I've played Drizzt and Temple, and Drizzt was probably the more entertaining one because it was a hair more complex and the campaign system which was the big selling point for Temple doesn't really work. I've heard that Ravenloft is punishingly difficult which might not be so bad. I've heard that Ashardalon is incredibly repetitive, and if fans of the series call it that I'd avoid it like the plague. They look cool, but they don't have a lot of staying power because there just isn't much to the system. If it's a dungeon crawler your'e looking for, I'd really recommend Descent 2ed with the app instead. It takes maybe an hour per session and while it certainly isn't a very complicated game, there's a lot more you can mess with and a pretty compelling progression system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
dropkickpikachu posted:Just take that token out of the bag. Problem solved. No one has to know. It's your secret. Or wait to see how many tokens are included and how predictable or diluted the risk is. Or wait to see how many (if any) you use depending on the difficulty. Or wait to see how the game actually plays before deciding if losing a single challenge actually means anything in the grand scheme of things. Caedar posted:Yeah, that's pretty much the only way this level of "gently caress you" could be a reasonable mechanic. Judging a game you have never played by a single isolated token is ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Unless you have a dick DM, I've never played an RPG where I made a roll then assigned an arbitrary modifier after getting the reuslts. When I take a skill and pick up my 1d20 I've already factored there's a base 5% chance of auto-failure. Wait what? There are no dice in this game. Even FFG isn't dumb enough to make you roll a die and then draw a token to modify it. Don't give them ideas though. Caedar posted:I'm not judging the whole game. What's ridiculous about saying that a "lol you fail" token sounds like a bad idea unless the game also has a reasonable way to mitigate that luck (in this case, by modifying the bag)? Sorry, I somehow thought you were the dude who said he wouldn't buy it now. Sorry about that. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Nique posted:Picked up TashKalar after having played a bunch of online games of it (1v1). Wondering if it's ever bringing out for 4 player, and if so, what type of game? 4 player high form is basically bridge: fantasy edition. The dynamic between partners is fantastic, in that you will always want to strangle yours and they will always want to strangle you. It's great.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Never really been into 'designer board games' as the OP puts it, but recently my eldest son has showed plenty of interest in card games and board games and things, and I'd like to try and help avoid throwing away money on garbage games that don't really have a lot of longevity. How old is the kid? There's a card game based on the old warhammer quest game that's a decent, fast moving co-op (warhammer the adventure card game). You fight monsters, get loot and go through a series of quests. The company that makes it is Fantasy Flight Games. They have a website up that outlines the game - you could see if it looks like a good fit for his age and interests. Do not let anyone convince you to buy Mage Knight. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
radlum posted:I panicked after reading the FFG/GW split rumors and bought Space Hulk (the card game). Should I also get the expansions? Which should I get? I saw some of them for cheap in my FLGS. I don't have any of them but I've heard that the only one that really adds a lot is the enemies one. Tyranids, I think. Everything else is supposed to be pretty meh. EDIT: You're not alone though. I was panicking and going to pick up Chaos in the Old World + Rat for my five player group but apparently Rat is impossible to get anywhere so whatever. On that note, any one have recommendations for 5? We're basically running a rotation of Eclipse, Caverna, Agricola and Terra Mystica if that gives you an idea of what my group likes. Puerto Rico has been played to death so that's out. Kemet hit the table like a wet turd so it's out too. Scythe seems to have some mixed reviews here, although everyone else seems to love it. Blood Rage + Expansion looks interesting but expensive and I'm always leery of games that tack on a fifth player via expansions because it makes me suspect the game wasn't really designed for that number. I've also thought about Keyflower and Mare Nostrum: Empires. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the five player game suggestions. I'd forgotten about a lot of the stuff that came out because I hadn't really been paying attention for a bit and that leaves me with quite the list. I did actually already have BSG which is great, if an ungainly and kinda fugly great. I ended up picking up Dogs of War for now, mostly because while it looks very uninspiring, the reviews are outstanding and it's a bit unlike anything else we regularly play.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The GW license is poo poo and not worth paying for. It is, but keep in mind that FFG's alternative is Terrinoth which has all the charm of a decomposing potato. There's a reason people buy Warhammer role playing games and even FFG won't pretend anyone wants to explore the magical realm of tedium incarnate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Huh, well a friend of mine was talking about some game he played that his wife amazingly enjoyed, and then went on amazon to check it out. There's a review that a lot of people found helpful but there's something a little... off about it. Good god, that reviewer. 3 board games, a shitload of trek memorabilia, two sex dolls and a silicone rear end for when he's in a rush because the dolls take a while to clean up. Now I can't stop imagining someone playing Samurai with his collection of realdolls.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
burger time posted:So I have a chance to buy forbidden stars for MSRP (100$). Is it worth it? Is it that good? Will I ever get it to the table? Amazon is still selling it for $80 with shipping.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Eclipse is a game of minimising luck. My advice to beginners is to expand out before you expand sideways or in, and to try and develop choke points that restrict access to your territory. If you choose Planta as your race, double down on this - never expand inwards and block yourself off from the rest of the game. My advice is actually the opposite. Inner hexes are generally more valuable and their orientation is key for keeping you safe. You really want to know what's there too. Ancients (barbarians from civ) means you need combat upgrades whereas undefended planets give you options. Expanding out gives you generally resource-poor hexes and drains your economy. There is a time and place for it (green and yellow aliens especially) but usually less than folks do. You never want another player placing your tier 1 hex because you can literally be blocked out of the game until near the end if they're a dick. Also, get computers. You'll enjoy combat a lot more and so will everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
dishwasherlove posted:I would probably recommend you all play as humans for your first Eclipse game until you get the iconography down pat. For sure. Humans are both the most forgiving race and and surprisingly strong. Oh, and regarding the original guy's question, I'm pretty sure you're safe from anyone but the Planta (green alien dudes). They can expand twice with each action so unless I'm misremembering, I think they can chain expand and take two inner hexes if they're lucky. They're also stupidly easy to genocide (xenocide?) though, so you'll usually see them booking it away from everyone else. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:I've been on the fence about picking up a copy of Agricola. I haven't played it for like 4 years, and even then only maybe twice, and I'm not sure that the person who was teaching it knew the rules properly. If you like Terra Mystica and Puerto Rico, you're probably going to love Agricola. It's an amazing game that I've never seen fall flat with anyone. I have seen grown men scream about how they'll cut anyone who takes that sheep but honestly I consider that the mark of solid game design.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Arkham horror lcg has some cards where you lose sanity base off of how much you lose a check by which is often unable to be mitigated much at all and come out of nowhere on a random card every turn. So the game will often instant kill characters out of nowhere if you draw a poo poo token from the bag which is player elimination and slimy as gently caress. There's a card that hits you for 3 sanity max and your draw and skill level mitigate that. If you draw a negative six, you don't lose 9 sanity or whatever. You still lose three. As to the comment about the character specific weaknesses being game breakers, I do wonder about that. They do make me leery of drawing extra cards at specific times which is kinda neat, but over time I'm not sure how it will hold up. My suspicion so far is that they punish characters at what they're already worst at which is probably okay in 2 player games since your partner can pick up the slack but potentially devastating in single player. It's an odd duck of a game though. I like it more than LoTR the LCG but it isn't nearly as tightly designed as warhammer quest. The narrative structure is also very interesting in that winning and losing just continue the story in different ways which makes me a little less bothered by swingy stuff. Once I get a chance to inflict it on others I'll try to do a proper write up. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 16:07
|
|