I never really played Magic, but I loved Spellfire when it was released about twenty years ago. And hey here's an interesting article about it from The Onion's AV Club game offshoot.
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
The calendar reminds me that WBC (World Boardgaming Championship) is only six weeks away, July 30 - August 5 in Lancaster, PA. One week of solid boardgaming from dawn 'til dusk and back until dawn again. Lots of tournaments but rooms full of open gaming as well. If you're a GMT fan they are always well represented there; I will be spending a lot of time at the GMT Games tables.
It is an evil, evil game that I don't get to play often enough. I own Yinsh too, but it's not as evil. There's just something about the way Zèrtz constantly reduces your options by shrinking the field that I absolutely love.
Boxes are meant to travel and protect the product.
A recurring exchange of mine when working in retail:
Customer: "I don't want this! This box is dented!"
Me: "Are you buying the box or what's inside?"
Well, the concern when buying retail is that you'll get it home and find out one of the bits inside has been smashed by whatever event occurred to dent the box before it came to you.
Le Havre did not go over well with my gaming group. The guy whose game it was, had left it with me (since we always play at my place) and we happened to be a very small group this time (3 players). Everybody agreed to try out a new game so we sat down, set up the game, explained the rules and started playing.
As far as I can tell the others found the game not particularly involving when it came to the kind of decisions you made and the effect it had on the game. There seemed too much of a focus on yourself and not much on the people around the table, which kind of chips away at the purpose of playing a game in my mind. And while I could see room for far-reaching strategies and ways to make your "whatever-it-is-you're-building" more efficient, consensus at the table seemed to be that nobody was eager to play again to improve our strategies.
Le Havre did not go over well with my gaming group. The guy whose game it was, had left it with me (since we always play at my place) and we happened to be a very small group this time (3 players). Everybody agreed to try out a new game so we sat down, set up the game, explained the rules and started playing.
As far as I can tell the others found the game not particularly involving when it came to the kind of decisions you made and the effect it had on the game. There seemed too much of a focus on yourself and not much on the people around the table, which kind of chips away at the purpose of playing a game in my mind. And while I could see room for far-reaching strategies and ways to make your "whatever-it-is-you're-building" more efficient, consensus at the table seemed to be that nobody was eager to play again to improve our strategies.
I'm not huge on LE HAVRE either. There is only one path to victory, unlike AGRICOLA, which has many, and LH tries to do everything that AGRICOLA does but with more complexity and not as well.
Le Havre did not go over well with my gaming group. The guy whose game it was, had left it with me (since we always play at my place) and we happened to be a very small group this time (3 players). Everybody agreed to try out a new game so we sat down, set up the game, explained the rules and started playing.
As far as I can tell the others found the game not particularly involving when it came to the kind of decisions you made and the effect it had on the game. There seemed too much of a focus on yourself and not much on the people around the table, which kind of chips away at the purpose of playing a game in my mind. And while I could see room for far-reaching strategies and ways to make your "whatever-it-is-you're-building" more efficient, consensus at the table seemed to be that nobody was eager to play again to improve our strategies.
I'm not huge on LE HAVRE either. There is only one path to victory, unlike AGRICOLA, which has many, and LH tries to do everything that AGRICOLA does but with more complexity and not as well.
if the "one path to victory" you mean is Ship Steel, then that can vary depending on the number of players. Though a 5 player game (where it really isn't the path to victory) is pretty horrendous.
But yeah with 3 players the game is about who can ship the most steel and how to block the other players from doing so. Get thee to the coilery!
So, I'm going to be playing War of the Rings (2nd edition) for the first time tomorrow. The guy I'll be playing it with will also be playing it for the first time. Any common pitfalls or rules that we should know about going in?
0
Options
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
Le Havre did not go over well with my gaming group. The guy whose game it was, had left it with me (since we always play at my place) and we happened to be a very small group this time (3 players). Everybody agreed to try out a new game so we sat down, set up the game, explained the rules and started playing.
As far as I can tell the others found the game not particularly involving when it came to the kind of decisions you made and the effect it had on the game. There seemed too much of a focus on yourself and not much on the people around the table, which kind of chips away at the purpose of playing a game in my mind. And while I could see room for far-reaching strategies and ways to make your "whatever-it-is-you're-building" more efficient, consensus at the table seemed to be that nobody was eager to play again to improve our strategies.
I'm not huge on LE HAVRE either. There is only one path to victory, unlike AGRICOLA, which has many, and LH tries to do everything that AGRICOLA does but with more complexity and not as well.
if the "one path to victory" you mean is Ship Steel, then that can vary depending on the number of players. Though a 5 player game (where it really isn't the path to victory) is pretty horrendous.
But yeah with 3 players the game is about who can ship the most steel and how to block the other players from doing so. Get thee to the coilery!
Yup, that's what I meant. I tried the Sandwiche Shoppe strategy once and it looked promising for a while, but the steel shippers blew past me at the end.
It doesn't feel like a game. It feels like staring at a Magic Eye painting for 5 minutes and then you either see a 3D dolphin or you don't. Sit around as other people who have solved it take their solitaire turns. Competitive jigsaw puzzle assembly would be more engaging and exciting and certainly less abstract. Feels like a nerdy version of your grandma's Bridge club.
It doesn't feel like a game. It feels like staring at a Magic Eye painting for 5 minutes and then you either see a 3D dolphin or you don't. Sit around as other people who have solved it take their solitaire turns. Competitive jigsaw puzzle assembly would be more engaging and exciting and certainly less abstract. Feels like a nerdy version of your grandma's Bridge club.
From this, I conclude that you haven't played much bridge.
(Duplicate bridge is super, super fun).
Lykouragh on
0
Options
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
Agricola was very much on the way out at the FLGS after last year. Basicially, we were sick to death of how totally the outcome was determined by the random draw of your occupations and minor improvements. We tried a couple solutions and found them less than satisfactory. Drafting took too long on top of an already long game and was extremely difficult for bringing in new players. We tried using a common pool of 8 cards of each in the middle that acts as everyones "hand". That was better than drafting but was sufficiently different from the base rules that it sometimes caused side effects.
Then we tried just playing with no cards at all. We just did not use any minor improvements or occupations and otherwise kept everything the same. (note: we were still using Farmers of the Moor of course)
It made the game so much better. Not only did it remove a game-ruining balance problem but we found the game played a hell of a lot faster as well. Removing the need to think about how 14 cards interacted with all the options on the board made turns go so much faster.
People on the whole had slightly fewer resources but it was only a matter of a few points difference at the end on the game. It is so rare anyone gets even a single Begging card that usually we just end the game when that happens. If someone is so far behind they fail to feed their people there is no point in continuing the game.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
Agricola is completely impossible for me to enjoy in my current gaming group because there are two people who have played it literally hundreds of times, and as someone who has played it all of thrice, it's basically an exercise in wasting two hours to lose by a million points.
It doesn't help that one of those guys keeps pointing out that the move I'm taking now is suboptimal, but refuses to tell me why because he "doesn't want to play the game for me".
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
It doesn't help that one of those guys keeps pointing out that the move I'm taking now is suboptimal, but refuses to tell me why because he "doesn't want to play the game for me".
Oi ...
In not-dominion or farming news, acquired a copy of Luna in that 2nd math trade, for the low-entry cost of a $65 gift card. I feel accomplished! ^_^
It doesn't help that one of those guys keeps pointing out that the move I'm taking now is suboptimal, but refuses to tell me why because he "doesn't want to play the game for me".
Oi ...
It's not so bad. Often my shitty move ends up giving a massive advantage to the other good player who goes right after me, so I get to watch the prick get frustrated that I'm "giving the game away".
I personally can't see playing without Minor Improvements and Occupations. Of course, I quite like drafting and don't mind the length it adds to the game. The game is already super long, what's an extra 10 minutes?
VH: That friend deserves a sock in the face. He should just tell you why he thinks what you are doing is suboptimal so your learning can be accelerated so everyone can play on the same level faster. What an utter tool.
I can see where the problem of 'solvable' games comes from, but I see it as divine justice for you clearly getting to play too many games!
Personally as I'm lucky if I get an average one or two plays of a specific game a month, and these will be against people who wouldn't consider that something like dominionstrategies.com could even exist, I'm fine as long as I stay away from researching online strategies myself.
It doesn't feel like a game. It feels like staring at a Magic Eye painting for 5 minutes and then you either see a 3D dolphin or you don't. Sit around as other people who have solved it take their solitaire turns. Competitive jigsaw puzzle assembly would be more engaging and exciting and certainly less abstract. Feels like a nerdy version of your grandma's Bridge club.
From this, I conclude that you haven't played much bridge.
(Duplicate bridge is super, super fun).
I haven't played duplicate bridge, but even for rubber bridge, I agree that it's way more engaging than multiplayer solitaire. I haven't actually played Dominion, but if it's like bridge then that makes me MORE interested.
Then we tried just playing with no cards at all. We just did not use any minor improvements or occupations and otherwise kept everything the same. (note: we were still using Farmers of the Moor of course)
You know Agricola comes with that version built-in, right? The "Family" game*? Flip the first action board over and use action cards that have the little blue people on them, which take into account the fact that there are no minor/occupation cards.
*Which is somewhat ironically almost completely "solvable" as the only random element is in what order the round cards turn up, but hey.
Agricola is completely impossible for me to enjoy in my current gaming group because there are two people who have played it literally hundreds of times, and as someone who has played it all of thrice, it's basically an exercise in wasting two hours to lose by a million points.
It doesn't help that one of those guys keeps pointing out that the move I'm taking now is suboptimal, but refuses to tell me why because he "doesn't want to play the game for me".
That's rough. Nothing can be more frustrating than the guy who insists on playing games he basically has solved with newbs. It's merely annoying if all they do is play out their own solved strategy. It's quite enjoyable if they offer advice, and are attentive to the needs of the less experiences players. It's almost intolerable if he heckles you for sucking. Worse if he refuses to give you advice, lest he lose his advantage.
It doesn't feel like a game. It feels like staring at a Magic Eye painting for 5 minutes and then you either see a 3D dolphin or you don't. Sit around as other people who have solved it take their solitaire turns. Competitive jigsaw puzzle assembly would be more engaging and exciting and certainly less abstract. Feels like a nerdy version of your grandma's Bridge club.
From this, I conclude that you haven't played much bridge.
(Duplicate bridge is super, super fun).
I haven't played duplicate bridge, but even for rubber bridge, I agree that it's way more engaging than multiplayer solitaire. I haven't actually played Dominion, but if it's like bridge then that makes me MORE interested.
I wouldn't say Dominion was really anything like bridge, I mean for starts it's not team play and there's no bidding mechanic of any sort. As I keep baniging on though, if you watch the videos on >Domninion Strategy< and you are not surprised even once by the strategy that WanderingWinder uses or the multitude of tactical decisions that he makes in the various games recorded then, and only then, can you say that Dominion is a solved game. I found his King's court/Monument comeback game truly gob smacking on pretty much every level.
Sure there are lots of boards with straightfoward best solutions but there are plenty of boards where play first/play second strategies have to be considered, boards where number of players completely changes, boards where computer simulation has shown that the accepted wisdom "best" strategy is sub-optimal and boards where there are proven Rock-Paper-Scissor strategies. It's particularaly irksome when people who haven't even understood the power of Chapel or play games going well past 25 turns regularaly claim that Dominion is dull and "solved".
It doesn't help that one of those guys keeps pointing out that the move I'm taking now is suboptimal, but refuses to tell me why because he "doesn't want to play the game for me".
Oi ...
It's not so bad. Often my shitty move ends up giving a massive advantage to the other good player who goes right after me, so I get to watch the prick get frustrated that I'm "giving the game away".
Some very common boardgaming personality types right there. No need to wonder where the giant weenies come from who appear so often in multiplayer videogames. Players like that who lack the basic social awareness to keep their mouths shut, all you can do is set ground rules with them in advance and if they will not follow those rules, then stop playing with them.
Nothing can be more frustrating than the guy who insists on playing games he basically has solved with newbs. It's merely annoying if all they do is play out their own solved strategy. It's quite enjoyable if they offer advice, and are attentive to the needs of the less experiences players. It's almost intolerable if he heckles you for sucking. Worse if he refuses to give you advice, lest he lose his advantage.
I love teaching games and introducing new games to people, so I have to guard against this in my own play all the time. Intentionally playing poorly is no fun, so what I often do is just play using a different strategy than normal—one that feels suboptimal, but that is "so crazy it just might work."
For example, I've played Ticket to Ride games where I never draw additional tickets, and just take the lowest-point-value ones first. Then I try claiming the longest connections I can for the most points during the games. It rarely works but often frustrates others.
I usually save "advice" for after the game is over, unless one player is clearly at a loss regarding what to do.
Same here.
Although I can think of an interesting situation last time I played CitOW where a new player kept doing pretty random things as Khorne while I was Tzeench. It was hard to point out that their moves weren't great when they kept (inadvertently) screwing me over at the same time, which is certainly an objective as Khorne ...
Then we tried just playing with no cards at all. We just did not use any minor improvements or occupations and otherwise kept everything the same. (note: we were still using Farmers of the Moor of course)
You know Agricola comes with that version built-in, right? The "Family" game*? Flip the first action board over and use action cards that have the little blue people on them, which take into account the fact that there are no minor/occupation cards.
*Which is somewhat ironically almost completely "solvable" as the only random element is in what order the round cards turn up, but hey.
Yes, we know. We use the board for the normal game but with no cards. Works great.
Also, what the fuck are you on about that a lack of random elements makes a game "solvable". That is utterly false.
Posts
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It is an evil, evil game that I don't get to play often enough. I own Yinsh too, but it's not as evil. There's just something about the way Zèrtz constantly reduces your options by shrinking the field that I absolutely love.
Well, the concern when buying retail is that you'll get it home and find out one of the bits inside has been smashed by whatever event occurred to dent the box before it came to you.
As far as I can tell the others found the game not particularly involving when it came to the kind of decisions you made and the effect it had on the game. There seemed too much of a focus on yourself and not much on the people around the table, which kind of chips away at the purpose of playing a game in my mind. And while I could see room for far-reaching strategies and ways to make your "whatever-it-is-you're-building" more efficient, consensus at the table seemed to be that nobody was eager to play again to improve our strategies.
Read through the rules and it all seems pretty simple. The one thing that is confusing me is this symbol down the side of some of the farm cards:
Doesn't seem to relate to either the sowing or harvesting rules so I am well confused. Help?
Cheers.
I'm not huge on LE HAVRE either. There is only one path to victory, unlike AGRICOLA, which has many, and LH tries to do everything that AGRICOLA does but with more complexity and not as well.
if the "one path to victory" you mean is Ship Steel, then that can vary depending on the number of players. Though a 5 player game (where it really isn't the path to victory) is pretty horrendous.
But yeah with 3 players the game is about who can ship the most steel and how to block the other players from doing so. Get thee to the coilery!
Yup, that's what I meant. I tried the Sandwiche Shoppe strategy once and it looked promising for a while, but the steel shippers blew past me at the end.
Veggies are worth more points, and (if you're not using an oven) can be turned into more food, than grain, so you get one fewer for balance.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Always remember to hang onto your final grain or vegetable so you can use it to re-sow the field.
Of course, this is agricola so "With the right professions and minor and major improvements X can blow Y clean out of the water" is a universal truth.
i cant believe ive been missing out on this for so long.
Lemme tell you about the 'family growth' action. :winky:
I just...don't get it.
It doesn't feel like a game. It feels like staring at a Magic Eye painting for 5 minutes and then you either see a 3D dolphin or you don't. Sit around as other people who have solved it take their solitaire turns. Competitive jigsaw puzzle assembly would be more engaging and exciting and certainly less abstract. Feels like a nerdy version of your grandma's Bridge club.
From this, I conclude that you haven't played much bridge.
(Duplicate bridge is super, super fun).
It's a great game; I'd rank AGRICOLA, ARKHAM HORROR, and FIELDS OF FIRE as the best boardgames of the past 10 years.
Then we tried just playing with no cards at all. We just did not use any minor improvements or occupations and otherwise kept everything the same. (note: we were still using Farmers of the Moor of course)
It made the game so much better. Not only did it remove a game-ruining balance problem but we found the game played a hell of a lot faster as well. Removing the need to think about how 14 cards interacted with all the options on the board made turns go so much faster.
People on the whole had slightly fewer resources but it was only a matter of a few points difference at the end on the game. It is so rare anyone gets even a single Begging card that usually we just end the game when that happens. If someone is so far behind they fail to feed their people there is no point in continuing the game.
It doesn't help that one of those guys keeps pointing out that the move I'm taking now is suboptimal, but refuses to tell me why because he "doesn't want to play the game for me".
Oi ...
In not-dominion or farming news, acquired a copy of Luna in that 2nd math trade, for the low-entry cost of a $65 gift card. I feel accomplished! ^_^
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
It's not so bad. Often my shitty move ends up giving a massive advantage to the other good player who goes right after me, so I get to watch the prick get frustrated that I'm "giving the game away".
VH: That friend deserves a sock in the face. He should just tell you why he thinks what you are doing is suboptimal so your learning can be accelerated so everyone can play on the same level faster. What an utter tool.
Personally as I'm lucky if I get an average one or two plays of a specific game a month, and these will be against people who wouldn't consider that something like dominionstrategies.com could even exist, I'm fine as long as I stay away from researching online strategies myself.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I haven't played duplicate bridge, but even for rubber bridge, I agree that it's way more engaging than multiplayer solitaire. I haven't actually played Dominion, but if it's like bridge then that makes me MORE interested.
You know Agricola comes with that version built-in, right? The "Family" game*? Flip the first action board over and use action cards that have the little blue people on them, which take into account the fact that there are no minor/occupation cards.
*Which is somewhat ironically almost completely "solvable" as the only random element is in what order the round cards turn up, but hey.
That's rough. Nothing can be more frustrating than the guy who insists on playing games he basically has solved with newbs. It's merely annoying if all they do is play out their own solved strategy. It's quite enjoyable if they offer advice, and are attentive to the needs of the less experiences players. It's almost intolerable if he heckles you for sucking. Worse if he refuses to give you advice, lest he lose his advantage.
I wouldn't say Dominion was really anything like bridge, I mean for starts it's not team play and there's no bidding mechanic of any sort. As I keep baniging on though, if you watch the videos on >Domninion Strategy< and you are not surprised even once by the strategy that WanderingWinder uses or the multitude of tactical decisions that he makes in the various games recorded then, and only then, can you say that Dominion is a solved game. I found his King's court/Monument comeback game truly gob smacking on pretty much every level.
Sure there are lots of boards with straightfoward best solutions but there are plenty of boards where play first/play second strategies have to be considered, boards where number of players completely changes, boards where computer simulation has shown that the accepted wisdom "best" strategy is sub-optimal and boards where there are proven Rock-Paper-Scissor strategies. It's particularaly irksome when people who haven't even understood the power of Chapel or play games going well past 25 turns regularaly claim that Dominion is dull and "solved".
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.
Some very common boardgaming personality types right there. No need to wonder where the giant weenies come from who appear so often in multiplayer videogames. Players like that who lack the basic social awareness to keep their mouths shut, all you can do is set ground rules with them in advance and if they will not follow those rules, then stop playing with them.
For example, I've played Ticket to Ride games where I never draw additional tickets, and just take the lowest-point-value ones first. Then I try claiming the longest connections I can for the most points during the games. It rarely works but often frustrates others.
I am a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and handing it to my opponent on a silver platter.
Same here.
Although I can think of an interesting situation last time I played CitOW where a new player kept doing pretty random things as Khorne while I was Tzeench. It was hard to point out that their moves weren't great when they kept (inadvertently) screwing me over at the same time, which is certainly an objective as Khorne ...
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Yes, we know. We use the board for the normal game but with no cards. Works great.
Also, what the fuck are you on about that a lack of random elements makes a game "solvable". That is utterly false.