Never played battlelore before, bot sure I have even heard of it but that trailer makes it seem fun. The press release indicates it is only local wireless multiplayer. No mention of cross platform, but I certainly hope that is the case.
@jergarmar wizkids had a blog entry back in June about product availability. Haven't seen anything since though
Never played battlelore before, bot sure I have even heard of it but that trailer makes it seem fun. The press release indicates it is only local wireless multiplayer. No mention of cross platform, but I certainly hope that is the case.
@jergarmar wizkids had a blog entry back in June about product availability. Haven't seen anything since though
Starters are coming back into stock at gaming stores all over the DFW area.
EDIT: My unspoken assumption here is that they are getting back in stock all over. Also, my LGS claims that the boosters might show up as early as this week.
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
0
Custom SpecialI know I am, I'm sure I am,I'm Sounders 'til I die!Registered Userregular
Yes! Just traded locally with another redditor and now have a 3rd printing of Alien Frontiers! Excited to try this one tonight with my wife and see how we like it.
In unrelated news, I think I'm going to do a BGG geeklist auction soon to pare down my collection since there are a lot of games that sadly don't get played.
In game questions, has anyone played Russian Railroads and have thoughts/opinions on it? Think I'll dive into it on BGG and see what it is.
In game questions, has anyone played Russian Railroads and have thoughts/opinions on it? Think I'll dive into it on BGG and see what it is.
Yes, Russian Railroads is a fantastic game. The mechanics are nothing really new, but they're implemented in such a sleek and streamlined way that is makes the game super smooth to play. That said, if you're looking for theme in your games, then this is not for you. Some people have described this game as being really mathy, but I think its not as bad as Power Grid in that way, maybe similar to Castles of Burgundy. We've only played it with two, and it works well with that number. I love this game, and it is tied with CoB for my second favorite game I've bought this year (Eclipse is my first).
Wooo got myself all signed up for my first ever boardgaming convention.
Friday will be learning how to play 18xx games followed by a 4 hour game of 18xx. Saturday will be a King of Tokyo, Love Letter and Infinity tournament. Should be a super fun and silly day, I've never even played Infinity but they said new players welcomed and that they will give you an army. Sunday is an Ascension and Puerto Rico tournament. Probably going to get stomped in Puerto Rico as it has been ages. And then Monday I will be playing in my friends L5R pnp game.
Also I will do a bunch of shopping. I am super excited.
I also recently traded in a bunch of old videogame stuff for $300 in credit st my FLGs this week.
Finally breaking out Descent 2nd Edition at games night tonight months after buying it. The first quest in the campaign looks pretty simple, how long do the early 2 encounter quests tend to take?
Finally breaking out Descent 2nd Edition at games night tonight months after buying it. The first quest in the campaign looks pretty simple, how long do the early 2 encounter quests tend to take?
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
0
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Biggest mistake we made when starting out was forgetting that one successful encounter means you get to optionally take a second (this made games take way longer than necessary). Use the turn sequence guides at the bottom of the powers as a reference constantly when starting out.
If you have relatively experiences gamers, don't bother with only using green aliens and omitting flares. I wouldn't bother with tech, though as I don't think it makes the game interesting enough for the little bit of complexity it adds.
With the flares, don't forget that you only add the ones for the aliens in play as well as the aliens everyone didn't pick (so 2x the number of players). I've heard of groups using them all, which is madness.
Also, we didn't try to push people for or away from shared victories at first. Your group may end up having strong opinions one way or the other, but I wouldn't worry too much about it from the get go.
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
0
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
Can't we all just get along?
can you feel the struggle within?
0
Custom SpecialI know I am, I'm sure I am,I'm Sounders 'til I die!Registered Userregular
My wife and I played our first game of Alien Frontiers last night and enjoyed it. All of it is really well put together (board, box, bits) and the game play is pretty enjoyable with just two, but I feel like 3 or 4 will be better. I kind of blitzed her for the finish placing a couple colonies to remove her control and getting my final one down to end the game all in one turn.
We played our first round of King of Tokyo last night. We really liked it, although some of the cards took a few readings to really get, and there was one where you bank energy and gain it back each round that we actually avoided because the game hadn't really clicked yet. Probably if we play again though it would make more sense.
Overall though we found it really fun. My son ended up winning after killing my monster when I was two points away from victory. Perfect length of game too.
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
I know you're being hyperbolic for comic effect, but some people seem to really feel like this, to the point where they will get angry at other players at the table for not feeling the same way and taking what the rules clearly state is a valid option.
I guess it just says something about some people's approaches to games that their victory must be defined by all other player's loss. Me, if the game says I win then why would I argue?
Jam Warrior on
+2
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Well, if you're playing Dixit to win, I'd say you're taking Dixit far too seriously.
It depends on the game before it depends on the player. Nobody in our group plays Galaxy Trucker to win either. Sure, the person with the most money is supposed to, but the enjoyment of watching everything go to hell tends to greatly outweigh the supposed satisfaction of coming in first.
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
I know you're being hyperbolic for comic effect, but some people seem to really feel like this, to the point where they will get angry at other players at the table for not feeling the same way and taking what the rules clearly state is a valid option.
I guess it just says something about some people's approaches to games that their victory mut be defined by all other player's loss. Me, if the game says I win then why would I argue?
I think that's because Cosmic Encounter rapidly stops being fun when everyone - 1 person races for a shared victory. That is what happened in my group. Everyone took the shared victory condition to be the most likely and easiest win condition. Every game went the same. Everyone helped everyone conquer the first 3 or 4 battles. Then whoever was tied for being closer to winning, often the majority of the table, just kept allying for an eventual shared win. Every single game played out that way, every time, regardless of the player powers in effect. It killed the game dead.
So I can understand why someone would very aggressively try to stop that in it's tracks by strongly discouraging any of that shared victory nonsense. Because given how Cosmic Encounter played out in my group, it really should be a victory condition of last resort.
Well, if you're playing Dixit to win, I'd say you're taking Dixit far too seriously.
It depends on the game before it depends on the player. Nobody in our group plays Galaxy Trucker to win either. Sure, the person with the most money is supposed to, but the enjoyment of watching everything go to hell tends to greatly outweigh the supposed satisfaction of coming in first.
We played Zombie Fluxx a few nights ago (I know people hate it, but we still enjoy a round every once and awhile). It went about 20 minutes with tons of close calls to winning, plenty of screwing over other players and was just getting to the point where it felt it would never end. My son (9 years old) plays a card that makes everybody lose with a huge shit eating grin on his face. The end. My niece and wife are super competitive and were soooo pissed off. I thought it was hysterical.
+6
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
edited August 2014
Exactly. Fluxx is a game people care about winning, but if they understood how little of the game is actually in their control, they should understand that they shouldn't care about winning it.
Fluxx does have the upshot of occasionally being hilarious though, yes. (Great play by your son)
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
I know you're being hyperbolic for comic effect, but some people seem to really feel like this, to the point where they will get angry at other players at the table for not feeling the same way and taking what the rules clearly state is a valid option.
I guess it just says something about some people's approaches to games that their victory mut be defined by all other player's loss. Me, if the game says I win then why would I argue?
I think that's because Cosmic Encounter rapidly stops being fun when everyone - 1 person races for a shared victory. That is what happened in my group. Everyone took the shared victory condition to be the most likely and easiest win condition. Every game went the same. Everyone helped everyone conquer the first 3 or 4 battles. Then whoever was tied for being closer to winning, often the majority of the table, just kept allying for an eventual shared win. Every single game played out that way, every time, regardless of the player powers in effect. It killed the game dead.
So I can understand why someone would very aggressively try to stop that in it's tracks by strongly discouraging any of that shared victory nonsense. Because given how Cosmic Encounter played out in my group, it really should be a victory condition of last resort.
Yeah I'm a big fan of the concept of shared victory in political/negotiation games, but there needs to be a metagame understanding - or a rules limitation - that makes shared victory less ideal than individual glory. It keeps the competition up.
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
I know you're being hyperbolic for comic effect, but some people seem to really feel like this, to the point where they will get angry at other players at the table for not feeling the same way and taking what the rules clearly state is a valid option.
I guess it just says something about some people's approaches to games that their victory mut be defined by all other player's loss. Me, if the game says I win then why would I argue?
I think that's because Cosmic Encounter rapidly stops being fun when everyone - 1 person races for a shared victory. That is what happened in my group. Everyone took the shared victory condition to be the most likely and easiest win condition. Every game went the same. Everyone helped everyone conquer the first 3 or 4 battles. Then whoever was tied for being closer to winning, often the majority of the table, just kept allying for an eventual shared win. Every single game played out that way, every time, regardless of the player powers in effect. It killed the game dead.
So I can understand why someone would very aggressively try to stop that in it's tracks by strongly discouraging any of that shared victory nonsense. Because given how Cosmic Encounter played out in my group, it really should be a victory condition of last resort.
Yeah I'm a big fan of the concept of shared victory in political/negotiation games, but there needs to be a metagame understanding - or a rules limitation - that makes shared victory less ideal than individual glory. It keeps the competition up.
A shared victory by more than two players is more of a concession to ending the game than anything else.
AC:NH Chris from Glosta SW-5173-3598-2899 DA-4749-1014-4697 @vyolynce@mastodon.social
+3
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Got Cosmic Encounter for my Birthday and hope to give it a spin 4 player this weekend. Swung by the BGG forums to look for obvious first time rules errors.
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
I know you're being hyperbolic for comic effect, but some people seem to really feel like this, to the point where they will get angry at other players at the table for not feeling the same way and taking what the rules clearly state is a valid option.
I guess it just says something about some people's approaches to games that their victory mut be defined by all other player's loss. Me, if the game says I win then why would I argue?
There was a massive, drama-filled thread in the Dead of Winter forum on BGG about this before it launched. Some board gamers seem to take the notion of "winning more" than others really seriously.
I forget who it was, but someone here shit all over Rex hard enough to discourage me from getting it. But I do really want to play it, because it has a far more formalized approach to alliances that (in theory) turns them into just as much a liability as an asset. I fucking love that idea. It reminds me of how actual alliances worked.
Think of World War 1 where once the alliances were formed over the first year or two of the war, most of the nations were forbidden from making a separate peace. Then Austria kept being a gigantic fuckup, which forced Germany to bail them out. Every time an offensive failed for anyone, someone else was pressured into launching a new assault to take pressure off.
It's how I wish alliances worked in games. But they come and go too easily, and always end in betrayal. Hell, the only point to ally in a game is for the eventual betrayal 90% of the time. I want them to be more like a dysfunctional marriage.
That's partially why I'm looking forward to Fief. You can form alliances officially through marriage, but it ups the requirement to win, making it harder for the team compared to the individual, and you can part it officially in two ways, but they don't make it sound easy.
Fief: France 1429 is the full title. It's an old game that's been remade a few times but most recently through Kickstarter into english as well as many other languages and with a very large redesign for better play and better understanding of the rules.
I forget who it was, but someone here shit all over Rex hard enough to discourage me from getting it. But I do really want to play it, because it has a far more formalized approach to alliances that (in theory) turns them into just as much a liability as an asset. I fucking love that idea. It reminds me of how actual alliances worked.
Think of World War 1 where once the alliances were formed over the first year or two of the war, most of the nations were forbidden from making a separate peace. Then Austria kept being a gigantic fuckup, which forced Germany to bail them out. Every time an offensive failed for anyone, someone else was pressured into launching a new assault to take pressure off.
It's how I wish alliances worked in games. But they come and go too easily, and always end in betrayal. Hell, the only point to ally in a game is for the eventual betrayal 90% of the time. I want them to be more like a dysfunctional marriage.
It was probably me. I hate that game and the way alliances work with quite a lot of passion.
Here is the liability of alliances in REX: if you play the full version with betrayal objectives you are guaranteed that your alliance members are working against you and if you didn't get a high ranking betrayal objective then why even bother because they are likely to trump you. Why play for 3 hours to get a win when it will only be turned into a loss because of a random card assigned at the start. So paranoid do you become that you make slightly sub-optimal plays that only increase the difficulty of getting a win that likely won't count for anything anyway. And then even if you do have a good guess about how you will be betrayed or even see a more optimal alliance composition to get a win some asshole is going to play a card that prevents you from altering the alliance even though it guarantees he'll lose too and it turns into the worst case of king-making because there is fuck all you can do about it and aren't you glad you wasted a whole fucking evening on that shit.
If you're going to play a strategy games, alliances should be something that happened fluidly because of a mutual interest and not because phase 2 of turn 2 you decided to trade some cards that are more likely than not to wrap a chain around your neck and dump you in a lake and there's no backsies because the whole process is formalized.
Rex really, really pisses me off.
0
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Not to steal your thunder, but I'm 99% sure it would have been Mr_Body. His dissatisfaction with Rex was unparalleled.
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I've only played Rex once and quite enjoyed it. Endless space turtles and all that jazz.
Alliances raising the victory requirements is a nice feature. I do dimly remember something about a prisoner's dilemma thing at the end which sort of invalidates the game, but I don't recall the specifics.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Played the first Descent 2nd Ed. quest last night. Everyone's first comment was awwwww look it's so tiny! Super neat game though, even if as the overlord I did forget the rule that surge conditions only trigger on a successful attack. My giant smashy ettin spent the whole game stunned but it played really fast and everyone enjoyed it.
Probably start running the campaign with a quest a week, seems way more involved when you get the XP and gold stuff involved.
Posts
@jergarmar wizkids had a blog entry back in June about product availability. Haven't seen anything since though
WoWtcg and general gaming podcast
WoWtcg and gaming website
Starters are coming back into stock at gaming stores all over the DFW area.
EDIT: My unspoken assumption here is that they are getting back in stock all over. Also, my LGS claims that the boosters might show up as early as this week.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
In unrelated news, I think I'm going to do a BGG geeklist auction soon to pare down my collection since there are a lot of games that sadly don't get played.
In game questions, has anyone played Russian Railroads and have thoughts/opinions on it? Think I'll dive into it on BGG and see what it is.
Yes, Russian Railroads is a fantastic game. The mechanics are nothing really new, but they're implemented in such a sleek and streamlined way that is makes the game super smooth to play. That said, if you're looking for theme in your games, then this is not for you. Some people have described this game as being really mathy, but I think its not as bad as Power Grid in that way, maybe similar to Castles of Burgundy. We've only played it with two, and it works well with that number. I love this game, and it is tied with CoB for my second favorite game I've bought this year (Eclipse is my first).
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
Friday will be learning how to play 18xx games followed by a 4 hour game of 18xx. Saturday will be a King of Tokyo, Love Letter and Infinity tournament. Should be a super fun and silly day, I've never even played Infinity but they said new players welcomed and that they will give you an army. Sunday is an Ascension and Puerto Rico tournament. Probably going to get stomped in Puerto Rico as it has been ages. And then Monday I will be playing in my friends L5R pnp game.
Also I will do a bunch of shopping. I am super excited.
I also recently traded in a bunch of old videogame stuff for $300 in credit st my FLGs this week.
All the boardgames.
30 minutes for the first, 45 for the second?
Some people have really oddly vehement opinions on the validity of a shared win.
Biggest mistake we made when starting out was forgetting that one successful encounter means you get to optionally take a second (this made games take way longer than necessary). Use the turn sequence guides at the bottom of the powers as a reference constantly when starting out.
If you have relatively experiences gamers, don't bother with only using green aliens and omitting flares. I wouldn't bother with tech, though as I don't think it makes the game interesting enough for the little bit of complexity it adds.
With the flares, don't forget that you only add the ones for the aliens in play as well as the aliens everyone didn't pick (so 2x the number of players). I've heard of groups using them all, which is madness.
Also, we didn't try to push people for or away from shared victories at first. Your group may end up having strong opinions one way or the other, but I wouldn't worry too much about it from the get go.
There were a lot of unnecessary words in that post, Jam.
Negotiating a win is for dirty, no-good, communist slags.
Can't we all just get along?
Overall though we found it really fun. My son ended up winning after killing my monster when I was two points away from victory. Perfect length of game too.
I know you're being hyperbolic for comic effect, but some people seem to really feel like this, to the point where they will get angry at other players at the table for not feeling the same way and taking what the rules clearly state is a valid option.
I guess it just says something about some people's approaches to games that their victory must be defined by all other player's loss. Me, if the game says I win then why would I argue?
It depends on the game before it depends on the player. Nobody in our group plays Galaxy Trucker to win either. Sure, the person with the most money is supposed to, but the enjoyment of watching everything go to hell tends to greatly outweigh the supposed satisfaction of coming in first.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I think that's because Cosmic Encounter rapidly stops being fun when everyone - 1 person races for a shared victory. That is what happened in my group. Everyone took the shared victory condition to be the most likely and easiest win condition. Every game went the same. Everyone helped everyone conquer the first 3 or 4 battles. Then whoever was tied for being closer to winning, often the majority of the table, just kept allying for an eventual shared win. Every single game played out that way, every time, regardless of the player powers in effect. It killed the game dead.
So I can understand why someone would very aggressively try to stop that in it's tracks by strongly discouraging any of that shared victory nonsense. Because given how Cosmic Encounter played out in my group, it really should be a victory condition of last resort.
We played Zombie Fluxx a few nights ago (I know people hate it, but we still enjoy a round every once and awhile). It went about 20 minutes with tons of close calls to winning, plenty of screwing over other players and was just getting to the point where it felt it would never end. My son (9 years old) plays a card that makes everybody lose with a huge shit eating grin on his face. The end. My niece and wife are super competitive and were soooo pissed off. I thought it was hysterical.
Fluxx does have the upshot of occasionally being hilarious though, yes.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Yeah I'm a big fan of the concept of shared victory in political/negotiation games, but there needs to be a metagame understanding - or a rules limitation - that makes shared victory less ideal than individual glory. It keeps the competition up.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
A shared victory by more than two players is more of a concession to ending the game than anything else.
There was a massive, drama-filled thread in the Dead of Winter forum on BGG about this before it launched. Some board gamers seem to take the notion of "winning more" than others really seriously.
Think of World War 1 where once the alliances were formed over the first year or two of the war, most of the nations were forbidden from making a separate peace. Then Austria kept being a gigantic fuckup, which forced Germany to bail them out. Every time an offensive failed for anyone, someone else was pressured into launching a new assault to take pressure off.
It's how I wish alliances worked in games. But they come and go too easily, and always end in betrayal. Hell, the only point to ally in a game is for the eventual betrayal 90% of the time. I want them to be more like a dysfunctional marriage.
I'm sure the husband/wife combination of Lawyer/Psychologist is going to destroy me, though.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
is there a longer title or a subtitle for this? Quick google search showed 3 different versions, but all already released.
WoWtcg and general gaming podcast
WoWtcg and gaming website
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Also a slight re-working of the rules/cards to update them for modern sensibilities, as far as I'm aware.
WoWtcg and general gaming podcast
WoWtcg and gaming website
It was probably me. I hate that game and the way alliances work with quite a lot of passion.
Here is the liability of alliances in REX: if you play the full version with betrayal objectives you are guaranteed that your alliance members are working against you and if you didn't get a high ranking betrayal objective then why even bother because they are likely to trump you. Why play for 3 hours to get a win when it will only be turned into a loss because of a random card assigned at the start. So paranoid do you become that you make slightly sub-optimal plays that only increase the difficulty of getting a win that likely won't count for anything anyway. And then even if you do have a good guess about how you will be betrayed or even see a more optimal alliance composition to get a win some asshole is going to play a card that prevents you from altering the alliance even though it guarantees he'll lose too and it turns into the worst case of king-making because there is fuck all you can do about it and aren't you glad you wasted a whole fucking evening on that shit.
If you're going to play a strategy games, alliances should be something that happened fluidly because of a mutual interest and not because phase 2 of turn 2 you decided to trade some cards that are more likely than not to wrap a chain around your neck and dump you in a lake and there's no backsies because the whole process is formalized.
Rex really, really pisses me off.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
It was nice once knowing what the sun looked like.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Alliances raising the victory requirements is a nice feature. I do dimly remember something about a prisoner's dilemma thing at the end which sort of invalidates the game, but I don't recall the specifics.
Probably start running the campaign with a quest a week, seems way more involved when you get the XP and gold stuff involved.