I want to pick up Dead of Winter, but what's going on with that? Amazon has it for $95 plus shipping!
It got peared. SU&SD had a glowing review of the game, calling it the best storygame they've ever played. When they do that games tend to disappear quickly. Plaid Hat, while they'll do multiple print runs of successful games, can only really afford limited print runs as a smaller publisher. The game must have sold out and, in the board game market, that means to some unscurpulous sellers that they can jack the price way up for any remaining copies they have. Supply & demand.
I would wait for the next print run of the game. It was extremely successful so it will be coming. You might check Cool Stuff Inc or Miniature Market.
Actually, it was selling out before SU&SD ever got involved. They sold out of like 400 copies of the game in less than 2 hours at GenCon. SU&SD obviously didn't help, of course, but this game has been selling like crazy since the start.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
I watched all of tabletop deathmatch last night with my fiancee. It was pretty alright. It made me wish I had seen the Penny Press Kickstarter when it was running, because that have looks really cool.
That's true. The game had already been in hype mode already for like... a year before release? Maybe longer.
I rarely do pre-order. I pre-ordered Dead of Winter a long time ago cause I knew this would happen.
Geez. Totally willing to be that guy, here: It's a pretty good game, but I'm not sure it merits that kind of attention.
Of course, this hobby is currently in a phase weirdly like the video game market used to be around the 16-bit era, where if it's a good game everyone buys it and there are enough people playing that it's reached a sort of critical mass, but still.
I think part of the phenomenon may be that older, perfectly-good games of that sort (see: Battlestar) could really benefit from an edition including all the slam-dunk rules / extras from their expansions, but probably won't ever get one because there are still copies of those expansions unsold?
That's true. The game had already been in hype mode already for like... a year before release? Maybe longer.
I rarely do pre-order. I pre-ordered Dead of Winter a long time ago cause I knew this would happen.
Geez. Totally willing to be that guy, here: It's a pretty good game, but I'm not sure it merits that kind of attention.
Of course, this hobby is currently in a phase weirdly like the video game market used to be around the 16-bit era, where if it's a good game everyone buys it and there are enough people playing that it's reached a sort of critical mass, but still.
Truth is board gaming, despite its continual growth, is still a niche market. Plaid Hat maybe printed 40,000 copies of the Dead of Winter for worldwide distribution? Probably a lot less. And that's about the average print run for most games. 100,000 copies sold is considered a smash hit.
You're right - we are starting to see odd growing pains occur. Larger publishers are starting to buy up other perfectly healthy companies, like Asmodee purchasing Days of Wonder. We're seeing other companies publishers dip their feet into the waters, like Upper Deck publishing Legendary and WotC's Lords of Waterdeep. Book retailers keeping copies of the hottest new releases and modern classics on their shelves.
I think part of the phenomenon may be that older, perfectly-good games of that sort (see: Battlestar) could really benefit from an edition including all the slam-dunk rules / extras from their expansions, but probably won't ever get one because there are still copies of those expansions unsold?
I don't think I'd put much stock in that. Games that catch on tend to stick around cause they continue to sell. If a game doesn't sell, they don't publish anymore for it. They just can't afford it. Meanwhile, classics Settlers of Catan and Ticket to Ride continually sell well into tens of millions of copies.
Dead of Winter is fun because it takes an almost Arabian Nights method and puts it into a totally different sort of game. The added fact that they have a card editor available is awesome as well.
Both games (DoW & Arabian Nights) would both be improved by an app of course, but XCOM shows the freakout that happens when a company tries to do that.
Could you imagine Arabian Nights if you were using an app instead of a book, and the app actually remembered key events/had flags for conditions so your story was semi-consistent? Would be so good.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Arabian Nights would certainly be streamlined, to be sure - but a big part of the fun for us is going through that big book of tales. Being easier to play and more efficient I'm not sure would make it more fun all the time.
Arabian Nights would certainly be streamlined, to be sure - but a big part of the fun for us is going through that big book of tales. Being easier to play and more efficient I'm not sure would make it more fun all the time.
I mean, I enjoy the reading/acting, but the searching and flipping is in no way enjoyable, and you can see the rest of the table lose focus almost every time, at least in my experience.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
My group has an unofficial rule of thumb that if multiple spies are on the same team that only the spy closest to the current leader is the one who decides to play the pass/fail, the spies further down in turn order always play pass just to avoid the dreaded "double fail" play on a mission that only needs one fail.
I feel like this only really helps the Resistance as it adds another level of deduction to help root out spies.
...How?
yeah i feel like this only helps the spies
which is a shame, because the spies already seem to have the advantage, and the "put two spies on the team" strategy is kind of eliminated by metagame agreements, inevitable though they may be
I feel like that's a kind of disappointing meta your group has implemented into the game. It takes away a fun gambit for Merlin of throwing multiple evils onto a team together and seeing if they can not blow it.
But even absent of Merlin, it gives the spies a best practices that just improves their odds of winning and takes meaningful decision making and debate out of the game. It's fun trying to subtly communicate with the other evil player(s) to signal which card you're going to throw out.
Edit: I realize now you were talking about base Resistance and not Avalon, but my second point still holds.
We're seeing other companies publishers dip their feet into the waters, like Upper Deck publishing Legendary and WotC's Lords of Waterdeep.
To be fair, WotC is owned by Hasbro, which has been putting out board games in one form or another for a while now. WotC itself used to do so under the Avalon Hill brand (which I believe was its own entity before WotC bought it?). Waterdeep and the D&D board games (and the upcoming Magic board game) are just them continuing the process under their own ID.
Upper Deck also had a hand in the old Vs CCG (soon to be reborn) so them publishing a game based around comic IPs isn't entirely new either.
Dead of Winter is fun because it takes an almost Arabian Nights method and puts it into a totally different sort of game. The added fact that they have a card editor available is awesome as well.
Both games (DoW & Arabian Nights) would both be improved by an app of course, but XCOM shows the freakout that happens when a company tries to do that.
Could you imagine Arabian Nights if you were using an app instead of a book, and the app actually remembered key events/had flags for conditions so your story was semi-consistent? Would be so good.
Arabian Nights doesn't have a full app, but you can take out half of the flipping with this mobile site, which takes you from encounter # to paragraph # much faster than the normal method. You still have to flip through the book to find the paragraph, but is that really so hard?
My group's copy of Xia arrived a week ago, and we've played a quick round to get a feel of things, and two longer games to actually put it through its paces.
The first was to 10 points with 5 players. Little player antagonism, mostly exploring, merchanting and mission running for VP. One player got screwed hitting a bad Asteroid roll and being heavily damaged without any money on hand. He limped to pick up passengers, limped over to drop them off and finally put out the fire that had been raging in his ship. Took about 3.5 hours including one player that's a little AP/Slow Play prone. I won in the end with a combination of 3 ships that had mobility powers, because I like zooming around. The winning VP? By gaining a Title for giving the last place player 2 grand. The rules benefiting players that help out others are pretty neat.
Second was to 13 points, 4 players, took about 3 hours. More exploring/missions/merchant work, with the Enforcer and Scoundrel coming into play earlier. Led to a few tense moments ducking obnoxious NPCs, including 2 players taking on and defeating (separately) both the Scoundrel and the Merchant in the same turn. Violence level escalating, but still aimed at NPCs. Mostly. Won this one too, same first two ships, though both abilities failed me more often. Also, took 2 games for us to see our first "VP for getting a natural 20".
Overall, a very fun game for my crew. It'll be interesting to see how the game / players react to a more... aggressive player on the board. Starting with a Tier 1 Shield and a T2 Engine is pretty common, and the player who took an early lead in the second game skipped shields entirely while running some merchant action. Was tempted to grab a blaster or two and take a shot, or a missile just for the hell of it.
Starting off with a T3 missile launcher and rolling a d20 worth of damage at people would be good for a laugh, but I doubt it's a winning option, and would require being pretty far behind otherwise.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
My group has an unofficial rule of thumb that if multiple spies are on the same team that only the spy closest to the current leader is the one who decides to play the pass/fail, the spies further down in turn order always play pass just to avoid the dreaded "double fail" play on a mission that only needs one fail.
I feel like this only really helps the Resistance as it adds another level of deduction to help root out spies.
...How?
yeah i feel like this only helps the spies
which is a shame, because the spies already seem to have the advantage, and the "put two spies on the team" strategy is kind of eliminated by metagame agreements, inevitable though they may be
I feel like that's a kind of disappointing meta your group has implemented into the game. It takes away a fun gambit for Merlin of throwing multiple evils onto a team together and seeing if they can not blow it.
But even absent of Merlin, it gives the spies a best practices that just improves their odds of winning and takes meaningful decision making and debate out of the game. It's fun trying to subtly communicate with the other evil player(s) to signal which card you're going to throw out.
Edit: I realize now you were talking about base Resistance and not Avalon, but my second point still holds.
All true points, but it is basically an inevitable meta.
Both games (DoW & Arabian Nights) would both be improved by an app of course, but XCOM shows the freakout that happens when a company tries to do that.
Could you imagine Arabian Nights if you were using an app instead of a book, and the app actually remembered key events/had flags for conditions so your story was semi-consistent? Would be so good.
B-b-b-but... vidya!
The way people react to silicon computing being brought into a game is so dumb. Like, nobody will bat an eye when a game of 18XX is run with a spread sheet, because fuck manipulating the more complicated stock market engines by hand - but when you have a nice GUI on top to make it look pretty instead of having it just looking like accounting software, suddenly it's like you've betrayed the cause.
There are so many games that would benefit from optional apps to handle book keeping and/or sorting through information. Imagine Phantom Leader with an app that lets you handle load-outs, stripping-out 90% of the book keeping so you could focus on shooting stuff.
Both games (DoW & Arabian Nights) would both be improved by an app of course, but XCOM shows the freakout that happens when a company tries to do that.
Could you imagine Arabian Nights if you were using an app instead of a book, and the app actually remembered key events/had flags for conditions so your story was semi-consistent? Would be so good.
B-b-b-but... vidya!
The way people react to silicon computing being brought into a game is so dumb. Like, nobody will bat an eye when a game of 18XX is run with a spread sheet, because fuck manipulating the more complicated stock market engines by hand - but when you have a nice GUI on top to make it look pretty instead of having it just looking like accounting software, suddenly it's like you've betrayed the cause.
There are so many games that would benefit from optional apps to handle book keeping and/or sorting through information. Imagine Phantom Leader with an app that lets you handle load-outs, stripping-out 90% of the book keeping so you could focus on shooting stuff.
I feel like you're being disingenuous to the very reasonable problems of app integration for board games. For one thing, you need to keep in mind that people of all economic levels enjoy playing games, and that while many people can afford to buy a board game, fewer people can afford the kind of devices these apps often require. Required apps effectively reduce the number of people that can enjoy a game.
Secondly, analog games have always had the benefit of posterity. I feel pretty confident I can keep my copy of Love Letter in good condition for the next five decades and bring it out of the closet to play with grand-kids. That becomes trickier with apps. Do I need to find my old iPad and hope it still works? Or will devices be that much backwards-compatible in the future? Video games already struggle with preservation and it's a very young medium, I'd hate to toss out a game I used to love because it requires a digital component that doesn't exist anymore.
I don't think it's really an issue of "purity". Digital components like apps in board games can provide a lot of neat features that I'm looking forward to seeing explored, but I wouldn't want it to become the standard for the industry.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Most boardgames run at about $40-60 a pop. This is not a hobby for people struggling to make their rent every month. They are called designer boardgames for a reason - they are a luxury item. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for FFG to think people who already own tablets might be interested in a boardgame that incorporates their device.
As to your second point, I totally agree. Yes, the digital medium has had difficulty preversing its artifacts. It is a legitimate concern. How can you be sure that app will still be available in twenty-years time?
I see it the same way that I see my old copy of the Star Trek VCR game. You put more devices into the mix and you're just turning your game into a gimmick that won't get any play in 10 years. I don't have a VCR hooked up in my dining room (where board games tend to be played), and I already don't want people dicking around with their phones while we play.
The only exception I've ever found to this is that auto-moderator for One Night Ultimate Werewolf and that's just because it lets everybody play instead of somebody playing moderator while everybody else argues. It isn't necessary, but it does make things easier.
Yeah, I don't mind games involving technology, but I'd like an alternate method to perform the functions as well for when that technology isn't available, or fails. You don't want to be 2 hours into a board game and have an app crash losing everything you just did. Similarly, I think it'd make more sense for games to develop on PC where generally speaking you can run programs released 20+ years ago without too much trouble, or someone, somewhere, has hacked together support for it. Though laptops aren't as simple or "elegant" as a tablet, so I can understand the appeal.
Yeah, those are big factors. And they're the big factors that drove me away from heavy video gaming towards board gaming.
I was sick of my old games - especially multiplayer games - fading away. I used to play CoD, then Battlefield, and I was getting tired of having to jump ship every year or two because the playerbase was dying, the support dried up, and so on.
I was tired of the cult of the new - it's a joke in board games, but it's a farging plague in videogames. It says something that we still talk about and play Cosmic Encounter, but when Gamespy shut down my copy of BF:BC2 became useless plastic.
Also houserules. Motherflipping house rules. My friends and I discovered an infinite money combo in City of Remnants. An infinite combo. If that existed in some videogames I'd stop playing until (if) it was patched because you can't trust random internet dudes to not abuse that. With board games it's no problem. You just house rule out the bad stuff. Today, you need to be playing on PC, playing a game with mod tools, and be a capable programmer, and have the time on your hands to do the same thing.
Also, vague, hidden mathsiness. Analogue board games have to lay out all their rules so that you know how the game works. To reverse that sentence, you know how the game works because all the rules are laid out for you. I love that. Half of the skill gap between players online is that some players haven't done the (frankly boring) research to understand what the numbers behind the game's code-curtain are doing. You lost that gunfight because this gun ADSes 0.15 seconds slower than mine does. I beat your researched build order with my better-researched build order because someone crunched the numbers and found it was 21 seconds faster to reach T2. For players who like to research to improve their game, that's cool - play videogames. But I don't want to. I just want to read the rulebook and then understand the game.
A corollary of that, is that with great computing power comes great temptation to use it. With board games, because you, the players, have to physically run the game the rules can never hit a certain critical mass of complexity and number crunching. People joke about how they'd never play TI3 or ASL or insert-wargame-here because they're so goshdarn big and complicated. That's the point: board games have to remain simple because computers can't run them; there's a diminishing return to your sales numbers the more rules you add. I've said it before (I think in regards to this exact debate) but TI3 is actually a really simple, pared down 4X compared to your average PC 4X. The Civ series, the Endless series, etc. And again, if that's what you want, that's cool. Play those games. I still do. But I don't want TI4 to reach Civ 5 levels of complexity because "lol, just have the app do the math". And it very well could. When the computer's doing the numbers anyway, what's the harm in adding more numbers? You can't say designers will fight this temptation because they already haven't - with videogames.
It's easy to see all this Apposition* as some kind of Luddite fear of technology. But we're not. Personally, I already own Space Alert. I really wanna buy X-Com. It looks cool. I love timed games and I get that sometimes computers do that best. Also, the opacity of an app is a great way to keep the alien invaders looking smart and Unknowable. No app game is by itself an Appomination**. We're worried about a sea change.
Also houserules. Motherflipping house rules. My friends and I discovered an infinite money combo in City of Remnants. An infinite combo. If that existed in some videogames I'd stop playing until (if) it was patched because you can't trust random internet dudes to not abuse that. With board games it's no problem. You just house rule out the bad stuff. Especially in a videogaming environment where mod tools are harder and harder to come by - or on consoles just don't exist - that's just not viable. Half of online MP design, balance, rep systems and so on are to balance out the jerk factor.
House rules don't work because board games are physical; they work because you're playing with people you know will come to an agreement on them. If you were playing board games with random strangers all the time, you'd have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing. (On the other hand, video game communities do sometimes agree to social restrictions--for example, there are fighting games where certain characters are considered broken and therefore off-limits, especially in tournament play.)
Also, vague, hidden mathsiness. Analogue board games have to lay out all their rules so that you know how the game works. To reverse that sentence, you know how the game works because all the rules are laid out for you. I love that. Half of the skill gap between players online is that some players haven't done the (frankly boring) research to understand what the numbers behind the game's code-curtain are doing. You lost that gunfight because this gun ADSes 0.15 seconds slower than mine does. I beat your researched build order with my better-researched build order because someone crunched the numbers and found it was 21 seconds faster to reach T2. For players who like to research to improve their game, that's cool - play videogames. But I don't want to. I just want to read the rulebook and then understand the game.
This is less of a problem in board games but it still exists; the equivalent is the person who knows, for instance, every card that could potentially come up in a particular deck, and who has the odds of drawing them memorized.
A corollary of that, is that with great computing power comes great temptation to use it. With board games, because you, the players, have to physically run the game the rules can never hit a certain critical mass of complexity and number crunching. People joke about how they'd never play TI3 or ASL or insert-wargame-here because they're so goshdarn big and complicated. That's the point: board games have to remain simple because computers can't run them; there's a diminishing return to your sales numbers the more rules you add. I've said it before (I think in regards to this exact debate) but TI3 is actually a really simple, pared down 4X compared to your average PC 4X. The Civ series, the Endless series, etc. And again, if that's what you want, that's cool. Play those games. I still do. But I don't want TI4 to reach Civ 5 levels of complexity because "lol, just have the app do the math". And it very well could. When the computer's doing the numbers anyway, what's the harm in adding more numbers? You can't say designers will fight this temptation because they already haven't - with videogames.
This is a circular argument. "Apps are bad because they allow for greater complexity, thereby encouraging the use of apps, which are bad." Complexity in a board game is not an inherently negative attribute; it's a typically negative attribute because of the difficulties in modeling and executing complex systems with physical objects. Apps remove those difficulties. This is a good thing! It opens up the board game space to allow for a wider range of possibilities and the possibility of deeper and more interesting games.
As for the availability argument- I think everyone who can afford a FFG boardgame probably has access to the Internet, these days. And while I don't trust FFG to open-source a webapp if they're going broke in 20 years, I'm not worried about it at all for somethign like CGE's Alchemists; in the worst case, a fan could rewrite the necessary app himself pretty easily.
Also, vague, hidden mathsiness. Analogue board games have to lay out all their rules so that you know how the game works. To reverse that sentence, you know how the game works because all the rules are laid out for you. I love that. Half of the skill gap between players online is that some players haven't done the (frankly boring) research to understand what the numbers behind the game's code-curtain are doing. You lost that gunfight because this gun ADSes 0.15 seconds slower than mine does. I beat your researched build order with my better-researched build order because someone crunched the numbers and found it was 21 seconds faster to reach T2. For players who like to research to improve their game, that's cool - play videogames. But I don't want to. I just want to read the rulebook and then understand the game.
I agree with some of your points, but this is deeply silly, because in one case you're forced to understand the rules, and in one case it is optional, and you're saying you dislike where it is optional more because you don't want to think about rules. What?!?!?
Moreover, in both cases, someone has already done all the analysis for you and posted it online, and depending on the video game, weapon balance is tight enough to make player skill more important anyways.
I enjoy doing the work to make boardgames go. I've played Arkham Horror with the app. I prefer the cards. I sometimes play heavy euros. I enjoy the maths.
I hate deducing rules, so if an App or CD makes that hard, I'm not going to like it. Escape is a timer, that's fine. I don't know much about that alchemy game or x-com - will they be equally transparent?
That is one of the reasons I changed from playing PC strategy games to boardgaming, so I wouldn't want that to change.
I think Ender's post was a little over-aggressive/strawmanning. There are a LOT of reasons to like/dislike apps merging with boardgames. Some are valid, some are not. Ragethrowering everyone as a Luddite doesn't lead to good conversation.
I enjoy doing the work to make boardgames go. I've played Arkham Horror with the app. I prefer the cards. I sometimes play heavy euros. I enjoy the maths.
I hate deducing rules, so if an App or CD makes that hard, I'm not going to like it. Escape is a timer, that's fine. I don't know much about that alchemy game or x-com - will they be equally transparent?
That is one of the reasons I changed from playing PC strategy games to boardgaming, so I wouldn't want that to change.
I think Ender's post was a little over-aggressive/strawmanning. There are a LOT of reasons to like/dislike apps merging with boardgames. Some are valid, some are not. Ragethrowering everyone as a Luddite doesn't lead to good conversation.
The alchemists can be played full analog, but it requires a game master/moderator to do so. The rules are fully transparent, the app just handles randomizing the reagents every game and spitting out results from potions.
XCOM could not be played with a GM as far as I can tell, as it requires the app flashing info at the Communications Officer while they're trying to do other things. On top of it randomizing enemy strategies and such.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
0
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
My opinion on boardgame apps is I have no problem with incorporating apps into boardgame play to take away drudgery, but I think there needs to be some sort of alternative to having a phone: a deck of cards, a timer, some other kind of randomiser.
It should be an enhancer, not a strict requirement, if for no other reason than by and large one of the reasons I collect and play boardgames is to have a cultural artefact of play with an identical experience that spans many years (with a few specific exceptions - I'm looking at you, Risk:Legacy).
I don't buy boardgames because I want to play them this year. I buy games I want to be playing years from now. I don't want to be anchored to requiring a technology or platform where I can't predict what will happen to it even 3 years down the line, let alone 10. In that vein, if I'm buying a game, I want it to function for me for as long as I'm interested in playing.
I am no more interested in a game requiring apps than I was games requiring VHS tapes back in the 90's. And while I concede that an app can do a better job than a timer, a deck of cards, and/or a fistful of dice, I have yet to be convinced that an app is doing anything that cannot be simulated any other way.
The thing with the X-com thing is, while I kinda think it's neat, I then have to ask why not just make it a straight up digital game instead of a board game?
I'm also one of the people who happily enjoys digital versions of board games, especially if they can cut down a multi-hour game into something that's less than an hour.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Most boardgames run at about $40-60 a pop. This is not a hobby for people struggling to make their rent every month. They are called designer boardgames for a reason - they are a luxury item. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for FFG to think people who already own tablets might be interested in a boardgame that incorporates their device.
As to your second point, I totally agree. Yes, the digital medium has had difficulty preversing its artifacts. It is a legitimate concern. How can you be sure that app will still be available in twenty-years time?
That's a fair point, they certainly are luxury items. I apologize if you think the point is a stretch. I almost said something about Japanese/Card games getting very small and affordable but I doubt those are the kinds of games getting apps anytime soon. Your average FFG customer, buying multiple designer board games a year, would probably already have or be able to get something that could play these apps. I'm sure FFG is counting on that.
That said, the family and friends I know with financial issues still like games. Some of them buy games rarely, many never at all. They still play them, however, because I give some to them. A board games gives them hours of entertainment with the family at home, at a very low cost to them. I can give them something I don't play anymore and know it will go to great use, but I can't do that if it requires an app (yes, some of them do not own a computer). Similarly, I can't give that hypothetical game to religious institutions, children/womens shelters, or my library (they're still looking in to the whole e-reader thing).
XCOM's thing is also going to be on a web-page, so if you can post here, you have access to it! It certainly doesn't affect us. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect someone though. I just don't like the idea of bigger, complicated board games slowly moving behind an extra economic barrier, when they would otherwise be open to anyone who can get access to them.
I wonder, as I'm not too familiar with it, but couldn't they include a table and two d10 to allow for 100 different combination results? Or d20s for more?
Clunky, but possible. No more clunky than Arabian Nights?
I am all for get expanding in as many directions as possible. I don't like certain genres of game, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. (except for Talisman. Fuck Talisman.) I don't see why app -based games can't be their own thing.
And I don't understand the suggestion that the whole game should just be digital. Playing a game with 5 players around an ipad with no hands of cards of their own? Ew.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
I wonder, as I'm not too familiar with it, but couldn't they include a table and two d10 to allow for 100 different combination results? Or d20s for more?
Clunky, but possible. No more clunky than Arabian Nights?
No, because the players aren't supposed to know the overall strategy of the AI, while at the same time its semi-consistent. At the same time, while the communications officer is giving out info from the app, radar pings flash temporarily on the screen and he had to split his attention.
They designed it specifically to not be playable via cards or tables.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
Posts
It got peared. SU&SD had a glowing review of the game, calling it the best storygame they've ever played. When they do that games tend to disappear quickly. Plaid Hat, while they'll do multiple print runs of successful games, can only really afford limited print runs as a smaller publisher. The game must have sold out and, in the board game market, that means to some unscurpulous sellers that they can jack the price way up for any remaining copies they have. Supply & demand.
I would wait for the next print run of the game. It was extremely successful so it will be coming. You might check Cool Stuff Inc or Miniature Market.
I rarely do pre-order. I pre-ordered Dead of Winter a long time ago cause I knew this would happen.
Geez. Totally willing to be that guy, here: It's a pretty good game, but I'm not sure it merits that kind of attention.
Of course, this hobby is currently in a phase weirdly like the video game market used to be around the 16-bit era, where if it's a good game everyone buys it and there are enough people playing that it's reached a sort of critical mass, but still.
I think part of the phenomenon may be that older, perfectly-good games of that sort (see: Battlestar) could really benefit from an edition including all the slam-dunk rules / extras from their expansions, but probably won't ever get one because there are still copies of those expansions unsold?
Truth is board gaming, despite its continual growth, is still a niche market. Plaid Hat maybe printed 40,000 copies of the Dead of Winter for worldwide distribution? Probably a lot less. And that's about the average print run for most games. 100,000 copies sold is considered a smash hit.
You're right - we are starting to see odd growing pains occur. Larger publishers are starting to buy up other perfectly healthy companies, like Asmodee purchasing Days of Wonder. We're seeing other companies publishers dip their feet into the waters, like Upper Deck publishing Legendary and WotC's Lords of Waterdeep. Book retailers keeping copies of the hottest new releases and modern classics on their shelves.
I don't think I'd put much stock in that. Games that catch on tend to stick around cause they continue to sell. If a game doesn't sell, they don't publish anymore for it. They just can't afford it. Meanwhile, classics Settlers of Catan and Ticket to Ride continually sell well into tens of millions of copies.
Both games (DoW & Arabian Nights) would both be improved by an app of course, but XCOM shows the freakout that happens when a company tries to do that.
Could you imagine Arabian Nights if you were using an app instead of a book, and the app actually remembered key events/had flags for conditions so your story was semi-consistent? Would be so good.
I mean, I enjoy the reading/acting, but the searching and flipping is in no way enjoyable, and you can see the rest of the table lose focus almost every time, at least in my experience.
I feel like that's a kind of disappointing meta your group has implemented into the game. It takes away a fun gambit for Merlin of throwing multiple evils onto a team together and seeing if they can not blow it.
But even absent of Merlin, it gives the spies a best practices that just improves their odds of winning and takes meaningful decision making and debate out of the game. It's fun trying to subtly communicate with the other evil player(s) to signal which card you're going to throw out.
Edit: I realize now you were talking about base Resistance and not Avalon, but my second point still holds.
To be fair, WotC is owned by Hasbro, which has been putting out board games in one form or another for a while now. WotC itself used to do so under the Avalon Hill brand (which I believe was its own entity before WotC bought it?). Waterdeep and the D&D board games (and the upcoming Magic board game) are just them continuing the process under their own ID.
Upper Deck also had a hand in the old Vs CCG (soon to be reborn) so them publishing a game based around comic IPs isn't entirely new either.
It was hardly a stretch for either company to rejoin the market but the timing was opportune.
Thoroughly vicious.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Arabian Nights doesn't have a full app, but you can take out half of the flipping with this mobile site, which takes you from encounter # to paragraph # much faster than the normal method. You still have to flip through the book to find the paragraph, but is that really so hard?
The first was to 10 points with 5 players. Little player antagonism, mostly exploring, merchanting and mission running for VP. One player got screwed hitting a bad Asteroid roll and being heavily damaged without any money on hand. He limped to pick up passengers, limped over to drop them off and finally put out the fire that had been raging in his ship. Took about 3.5 hours including one player that's a little AP/Slow Play prone. I won in the end with a combination of 3 ships that had mobility powers, because I like zooming around. The winning VP? By gaining a Title for giving the last place player 2 grand. The rules benefiting players that help out others are pretty neat.
Second was to 13 points, 4 players, took about 3 hours. More exploring/missions/merchant work, with the Enforcer and Scoundrel coming into play earlier. Led to a few tense moments ducking obnoxious NPCs, including 2 players taking on and defeating (separately) both the Scoundrel and the Merchant in the same turn. Violence level escalating, but still aimed at NPCs. Mostly. Won this one too, same first two ships, though both abilities failed me more often. Also, took 2 games for us to see our first "VP for getting a natural 20".
Overall, a very fun game for my crew. It'll be interesting to see how the game / players react to a more... aggressive player on the board. Starting with a Tier 1 Shield and a T2 Engine is pretty common, and the player who took an early lead in the second game skipped shields entirely while running some merchant action. Was tempted to grab a blaster or two and take a shot, or a missile just for the hell of it.
Starting off with a T3 missile launcher and rolling a d20 worth of damage at people would be good for a laugh, but I doubt it's a winning option, and would require being pretty far behind otherwise.
All true points, but it is basically an inevitable meta.
That's why Oberon is a fun card.
B-b-b-but... vidya!
The way people react to silicon computing being brought into a game is so dumb. Like, nobody will bat an eye when a game of 18XX is run with a spread sheet, because fuck manipulating the more complicated stock market engines by hand - but when you have a nice GUI on top to make it look pretty instead of having it just looking like accounting software, suddenly it's like you've betrayed the cause.
There are so many games that would benefit from optional apps to handle book keeping and/or sorting through information. Imagine Phantom Leader with an app that lets you handle load-outs, stripping-out 90% of the book keeping so you could focus on shooting stuff.
I feel like you're being disingenuous to the very reasonable problems of app integration for board games. For one thing, you need to keep in mind that people of all economic levels enjoy playing games, and that while many people can afford to buy a board game, fewer people can afford the kind of devices these apps often require. Required apps effectively reduce the number of people that can enjoy a game.
Secondly, analog games have always had the benefit of posterity. I feel pretty confident I can keep my copy of Love Letter in good condition for the next five decades and bring it out of the closet to play with grand-kids. That becomes trickier with apps. Do I need to find my old iPad and hope it still works? Or will devices be that much backwards-compatible in the future? Video games already struggle with preservation and it's a very young medium, I'd hate to toss out a game I used to love because it requires a digital component that doesn't exist anymore.
I don't think it's really an issue of "purity". Digital components like apps in board games can provide a lot of neat features that I'm looking forward to seeing explored, but I wouldn't want it to become the standard for the industry.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Most boardgames run at about $40-60 a pop. This is not a hobby for people struggling to make their rent every month. They are called designer boardgames for a reason - they are a luxury item. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for FFG to think people who already own tablets might be interested in a boardgame that incorporates their device.
As to your second point, I totally agree. Yes, the digital medium has had difficulty preversing its artifacts. It is a legitimate concern. How can you be sure that app will still be available in twenty-years time?
The only exception I've ever found to this is that auto-moderator for One Night Ultimate Werewolf and that's just because it lets everybody play instead of somebody playing moderator while everybody else argues. It isn't necessary, but it does make things easier.
I was sick of my old games - especially multiplayer games - fading away. I used to play CoD, then Battlefield, and I was getting tired of having to jump ship every year or two because the playerbase was dying, the support dried up, and so on.
I was tired of the cult of the new - it's a joke in board games, but it's a farging plague in videogames. It says something that we still talk about and play Cosmic Encounter, but when Gamespy shut down my copy of BF:BC2 became useless plastic.
Also houserules. Motherflipping house rules. My friends and I discovered an infinite money combo in City of Remnants. An infinite combo. If that existed in some videogames I'd stop playing until (if) it was patched because you can't trust random internet dudes to not abuse that. With board games it's no problem. You just house rule out the bad stuff. Today, you need to be playing on PC, playing a game with mod tools, and be a capable programmer, and have the time on your hands to do the same thing.
Also, vague, hidden mathsiness. Analogue board games have to lay out all their rules so that you know how the game works. To reverse that sentence, you know how the game works because all the rules are laid out for you. I love that. Half of the skill gap between players online is that some players haven't done the (frankly boring) research to understand what the numbers behind the game's code-curtain are doing. You lost that gunfight because this gun ADSes 0.15 seconds slower than mine does. I beat your researched build order with my better-researched build order because someone crunched the numbers and found it was 21 seconds faster to reach T2. For players who like to research to improve their game, that's cool - play videogames. But I don't want to. I just want to read the rulebook and then understand the game.
A corollary of that, is that with great computing power comes great temptation to use it. With board games, because you, the players, have to physically run the game the rules can never hit a certain critical mass of complexity and number crunching. People joke about how they'd never play TI3 or ASL or insert-wargame-here because they're so goshdarn big and complicated. That's the point: board games have to remain simple because computers can't run them; there's a diminishing return to your sales numbers the more rules you add. I've said it before (I think in regards to this exact debate) but TI3 is actually a really simple, pared down 4X compared to your average PC 4X. The Civ series, the Endless series, etc. And again, if that's what you want, that's cool. Play those games. I still do. But I don't want TI4 to reach Civ 5 levels of complexity because "lol, just have the app do the math". And it very well could. When the computer's doing the numbers anyway, what's the harm in adding more numbers? You can't say designers will fight this temptation because they already haven't - with videogames.
It's easy to see all this Apposition* as some kind of Luddite fear of technology. But we're not. Personally, I already own Space Alert. I really wanna buy X-Com. It looks cool. I love timed games and I get that sometimes computers do that best. Also, the opacity of an app is a great way to keep the alien invaders looking smart and Unknowable. No app game is by itself an Appomination**. We're worried about a sea change.
*See what I did there? I'm here till Thursday.
**Don't worry, I'll see myself out.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
House rules don't work because board games are physical; they work because you're playing with people you know will come to an agreement on them. If you were playing board games with random strangers all the time, you'd have a lot more trouble with that sort of thing. (On the other hand, video game communities do sometimes agree to social restrictions--for example, there are fighting games where certain characters are considered broken and therefore off-limits, especially in tournament play.)
This is less of a problem in board games but it still exists; the equivalent is the person who knows, for instance, every card that could potentially come up in a particular deck, and who has the odds of drawing them memorized.
This is a circular argument. "Apps are bad because they allow for greater complexity, thereby encouraging the use of apps, which are bad." Complexity in a board game is not an inherently negative attribute; it's a typically negative attribute because of the difficulties in modeling and executing complex systems with physical objects. Apps remove those difficulties. This is a good thing! It opens up the board game space to allow for a wider range of possibilities and the possibility of deeper and more interesting games.
I agree with some of your points, but this is deeply silly, because in one case you're forced to understand the rules, and in one case it is optional, and you're saying you dislike where it is optional more because you don't want to think about rules. What?!?!?
Moreover, in both cases, someone has already done all the analysis for you and posted it online, and depending on the video game, weapon balance is tight enough to make player skill more important anyways.
I hate deducing rules, so if an App or CD makes that hard, I'm not going to like it. Escape is a timer, that's fine. I don't know much about that alchemy game or x-com - will they be equally transparent?
That is one of the reasons I changed from playing PC strategy games to boardgaming, so I wouldn't want that to change.
I think Ender's post was a little over-aggressive/strawmanning. There are a LOT of reasons to like/dislike apps merging with boardgames. Some are valid, some are not. Ragethrowering everyone as a Luddite doesn't lead to good conversation.
It should be an enhancer, not a strict requirement, if for no other reason than by and large one of the reasons I collect and play boardgames is to have a cultural artefact of play with an identical experience that spans many years (with a few specific exceptions - I'm looking at you, Risk:Legacy).
I don't buy boardgames because I want to play them this year. I buy games I want to be playing years from now. I don't want to be anchored to requiring a technology or platform where I can't predict what will happen to it even 3 years down the line, let alone 10. In that vein, if I'm buying a game, I want it to function for me for as long as I'm interested in playing.
I am no more interested in a game requiring apps than I was games requiring VHS tapes back in the 90's. And while I concede that an app can do a better job than a timer, a deck of cards, and/or a fistful of dice, I have yet to be convinced that an app is doing anything that cannot be simulated any other way.
I'm also one of the people who happily enjoys digital versions of board games, especially if they can cut down a multi-hour game into something that's less than an hour.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
That's a fair point, they certainly are luxury items. I apologize if you think the point is a stretch. I almost said something about Japanese/Card games getting very small and affordable but I doubt those are the kinds of games getting apps anytime soon. Your average FFG customer, buying multiple designer board games a year, would probably already have or be able to get something that could play these apps. I'm sure FFG is counting on that.
That said, the family and friends I know with financial issues still like games. Some of them buy games rarely, many never at all. They still play them, however, because I give some to them. A board games gives them hours of entertainment with the family at home, at a very low cost to them. I can give them something I don't play anymore and know it will go to great use, but I can't do that if it requires an app (yes, some of them do not own a computer). Similarly, I can't give that hypothetical game to religious institutions, children/womens shelters, or my library (they're still looking in to the whole e-reader thing).
XCOM's thing is also going to be on a web-page, so if you can post here, you have access to it! It certainly doesn't affect us. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect someone though. I just don't like the idea of bigger, complicated board games slowly moving behind an extra economic barrier, when they would otherwise be open to anyone who can get access to them.
Clunky, but possible. No more clunky than Arabian Nights?
And I don't understand the suggestion that the whole game should just be digital. Playing a game with 5 players around an ipad with no hands of cards of their own? Ew.
No, because the players aren't supposed to know the overall strategy of the AI, while at the same time its semi-consistent. At the same time, while the communications officer is giving out info from the app, radar pings flash temporarily on the screen and he had to split his attention.
They designed it specifically to not be playable via cards or tables.
If things are going badly, you might not know your budget for the turn until after you have to commit things.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Apparently there will be some personalities. I want to say five but can't find the source.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
they fix Myth yet?