Watched Tom Vasel's Mage Wars review. That does not look good to me at all - just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together. Summoner Wars is great, but that looks rubbish.
Watched Tom Vasel's Mage Wars review. That does not look good to me at all - just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together. Summoner Wars is great, but that looks rubbish.
I'm going to have to say that, if Tom Vasel calls it one of his favorite games ever, that there is no way it is "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together". You may not like it, but you have to admit that that sort of praise from the guy has to mean something as to the quality of the game, if not how well it fits your preferences.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
Watched Tom Vasel's Mage Wars review. That does not look good to me at all - just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together. Summoner Wars is great, but that looks rubbish.
I'm going to have to say that, if Tom Vasel calls it one of his favorite games ever, that there is no way it is "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together". You may not like it, but you have to admit that that sort of praise from the guy has to mean something as to the quality of the game, if not how well it fits your preferences.
I like Tom Vasel a lot, but there are several games he's reviewed that I didn't like at all, and some that he has raved about and never mentioned after a few weeks.
I have similar tastes to him, but I now know that he can get extremely over-enthusiastic.
Watched Tom Vasel's Mage Wars review. That does not look good to me at all - just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together. Summoner Wars is great, but that looks rubbish.
I'm going to have to say that, if Tom Vasel calls it one of his favorite games ever, that there is no way it is "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together". You may not like it, but you have to admit that that sort of praise from the guy has to mean something as to the quality of the game, if not how well it fits your preferences.
I like Tom Vasel a lot, but there are several games he's reviewed that I didn't like at all, and some that he has raved about and never mentioned after a few weeks.
I have similar tastes to him, but I now know that he can get extremely over-enthusiastic.
But games can still be well designed and constructed even if you don't like them. I just think there's a difference between saying it doesn't appeal to you, and calling it crap from a design standpoint.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
Watched Tom Vasel's Mage Wars review. That does not look good to me at all - just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together. Summoner Wars is great, but that looks rubbish.
I'm going to have to say that, if Tom Vasel calls it one of his favorite games ever, that there is no way it is "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together". You may not like it, but you have to admit that that sort of praise from the guy has to mean something as to the quality of the game, if not how well it fits your preferences.
I like Tom Vasel a lot, but there are several games he's reviewed that I didn't like at all, and some that he has raved about and never mentioned after a few weeks.
I have similar tastes to him, but I now know that he can get extremely over-enthusiastic.
But games can still be well designed and constructed even if you don't like them. I just think there's a difference between saying it doesn't appeal to you, and calling it crap from a design standpoint.
It doesn't look good from a design standpoint. I didnt call it crap, but you are saying it doesn't appeal to me and I am saying it doesn't look well-designed.
For example, Summoner Wars has a lovely little mana system where you have to choose which cards to sacrifice ahead of time in order to summon others (that you may not even draw). You have to summon walls on the turn before you can use them to summon from, making tactical placement of them very tricky. Elegant and rewarding.
What is wrong with me watching a review and explaining why I thought 'ooh no thanks'?
I've seen Tom Vasel get super excited about games with weak mechanics but a great theme. He seems to be a theme guy first and foremost. A game with great mechanics will help him get over a weak theme although you'll still hear how shit the theme is. A game with a great theme with completely eclipses sub par mechanics for him, if the mechanics are even remotely acceptable (IE not blatantly broken).
At least that is the read I've gotten off his taste.
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
I saw that Tom Vasel review! The potential decision tree, and ensuing AP, due to having access to ALL your spells ALL the time has turned me off to that game pretty hardcore. The people in my group are not fast players.
Timers?
They think timers are rude because they single them out.
Wait.. what? How are timers singling them out if everyone has to use them?
As someone prone to AP, this sounds odd and inconsiderate. Well, one scenario makes sense: if there are multiple people with AP on the team, and they are accustomed to playing a particular way (especially with/against each other), they might feel like a timer would favor the quicker players at their expense. Plus, if these guys get to the end of, say, a 2-hour Carcassonne game and do NOT say "Boy, that went on too long", then you're kind of stuck; if they are happy to spend all night on a single game of Carcassonne, and that's what makes them happy, what can you say in reply? It still sounds kind of rude, though
So, half the group can make the game less fun for the other half, but it's not okay for said other half to request a compromise? That sounds rude and inconsiderate to me. If one half takes 30 seconds and the other half takes 5 minutes, I think it's totally fair to request a 2-3minute timer.
I think he meant the AP players are the ones being inconsiderate.
The post is a bit ambiguous, though.
Holey moley, you're right, ambiguous. I was agreeing that the actions of the AP players was inconsiderate. There is another side of the coin, where they might just be accustomed to playing that way with other AP players, and don't mind spending all night on a single game, and are resistant to change. But if you bug new players or other kinds of players, isn't that kind of counter-productive?
Ta daa! Clarified. Like, a day later, but whatever. We can't all be great communicators.
I've seen Tom Vasel get super excited about games with weak mechanics but a great theme. He seems to be a theme guy first and foremost. A game with great mechanics will help him get over a weak theme although you'll still hear how shit the theme is. A game with a great theme with completely eclipses sub par mechanics for him, if the mechanics are even remotely acceptable (IE not blatantly broken).
At least that is the read I've gotten off his taste.
I like watching Tom Vasel because his enthusiasm is somewhat contagious, so I can take part in his excitement over a big new game. I certainly would NOT call him a super-rigorous reviewer, and he is definitely weighted towards the "ameritrash" side of the spectrum. So Mage Wars got him really excited, but he has, for example, never even reviewed Troyes. I also think he would AGREE that he likes games that are a mish-mash pile of crazy stuff. Think of his eternal love of Duel of Ages and Heroscape. So instead of calling him a "theme guy", maybe we should call him a "themes guy" -- the more crazy disparate themes, the better!
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Pretty much this. The worst part is it's been spreading. Because the people who take a reasonably good turn in 30 seconds feel like they need to spend more time thinking to beat the guy who spends 5 minutes coming up with THE PERFECT TURN. The worst part is, every though our games keep taking longer and longer, nobody is playing any better or winning more often than they did before!
I've noticed this too. The AP people never play better. In fact, ones that take the most time almost never win. The guy who wins most games (even ones he hasn't played before) does all his thinking between turns and takes his instantly.
Hauling out a timer is by no means rude. There's a list of games in our group I'll only ever agree to play if it's a "speed" version with one minute turn time limit.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
What is wrong with me watching a review and explaining why I thought 'ooh no thanks'?
The only explaining I saw was the line he originally quoted, "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together."
I totally agree Tom can be over the top, and even beyond this I know that I tend to enjoy games he is far less into (although, hey, he liked Hornet Leader alright, and I frigging love it). I'm happy to let the game come out and give it a little time before looking to nab it myself. But your suggestion that the game is a hodge-podge confuses me, and the further suggestion (as I gather anyway) that it has inferior tactics is strange. In my eyes, sacrificing cards and then failing to get what you want from a deck is a bad thing. You apparently like that. We can agree to disagree (as it seems we so often do, heh ...), because I'm presently at a loss for seeing how a system that is pretty much "We figure, you're a powerful spellcaster, so why shouldn't you know all your spells and be able to do what you want to do?" is a bad design choice.
What is wrong with me watching a review and explaining why I thought 'ooh no thanks'?
The only explaining I saw was the line he originally quoted, "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together."
I totally agree Tom can be over the top, and even beyond this I know that I tend to enjoy games he is far less into (although, hey, he liked Hornet Leader alright, and I frigging love it). I'm happy to let the game come out and give it a little time before looking to nab it myself. But your suggestion that the game is a hodge-podge confuses me, and the further suggestion (as I gather anyway) that it has inferior tactics is strange. In my eyes, sacrificing cards and then failing to get what you want from a deck is a bad thing. You apparently like that. We can agree to disagree (as it seems we so often do, heh ...), because I'm presently at a loss for seeing how a system that is pretty much "We figure, you're a powerful spellcaster, so why shouldn't you know all your spells and be able to do what you want to do?" is a bad design choice.
I didn't say that was a bad system. I just gave an example of a good system or two from summoner wars. There are all kinds of good systems around. You're assuming a lot about my opinions, as was Inksplat.
When I watched the Mage Wars review, I saw assorted dice modifiers, assorted systems that didn't seem to have any connection to each other, multiple keywords on monsters, no design core that seemed to be the same across all the subsystems. For example, Going to their website and clicking on a random monster card, I see 20 different icons, keywords and numbers on the card. 20! I downloaded one half of the rules and that was 27 pages. I don't mind complex games, but I much prefer it when that complexity feels managed and designed in a way that coheres. I don't like games which just add new rules for each thing the game designer wants you to be able to do. If a Mage game allowed me to summon creatures, power them and set them on each other in a way where each of my actions feels vaguely similar, that's elegant and I like it. Not everyone likes games like that, and I like some games that don't do that, such as Arkham Horror. But Mage Wars, from watching the review and now checking it out more, looks inelegant and to have multiple subsystems that have no connection to each other. A hodge-podge. I think I've explained myself enough now, let's move on to something else, yeah?
What is wrong with me watching a review and explaining why I thought 'ooh no thanks'?
The only explaining I saw was the line he originally quoted, "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together."
I totally agree Tom can be over the top, and even beyond this I know that I tend to enjoy games he is far less into (although, hey, he liked Hornet Leader alright, and I frigging love it). I'm happy to let the game come out and give it a little time before looking to nab it myself. But your suggestion that the game is a hodge-podge confuses me, and the further suggestion (as I gather anyway) that it has inferior tactics is strange. In my eyes, sacrificing cards and then failing to get what you want from a deck is a bad thing. You apparently like that. We can agree to disagree (as it seems we so often do, heh ...), because I'm presently at a loss for seeing how a system that is pretty much "We figure, you're a powerful spellcaster, so why shouldn't you know all your spells and be able to do what you want to do?" is a bad design choice.
I didn't say that was a bad system. I just gave an example of a good system or two from summoner wars. There are all kinds of good systems around. You're assuming a lot about my opinions, as was Inksplat.
When I watched the Mage Wars review, I saw assorted dice modifiers, assorted systems that didn't seem to have any connection to each other, multiple keywords on monsters, no design core that seemed to be the same across all the subsystems. For example, Going to their website and clicking on a random monster card, I see 20 different icons, keywords and numbers on the card. 20! I downloaded one half of the rules and that was 27 pages. I don't mind complex games, but I much prefer it when that complexity feels managed and designed in a way that coheres. I don't like games which just add new rules for each thing the game designer wants you to be able to do. If a Mage game allowed me to summon creatures, power them and set them on each other in a way where each of my actions feels vaguely similar, that's elegant and I like it. Not everyone likes games like that, and I like some games that don't do that, such as Arkham Horror. But Mage Wars, from watching the review and now checking it out more, looks inelegant and to have multiple subsystems that have no connection to each other. A hodge-podge. I think I've explained myself enough now, let's move on to something else, yeah?
Ha ha, see, that's the kind of 'explaining' I wanted to hear to begin with. Thanks. ^_^
I tuned out of Mage Wars when it took 20 minutes for Vasel to explain how to play. Not to say it's an inherently bad game, but I can already get what I want out of that kind of gameplay in games I already know; there's nothing there to warrant the time investment in the new system. It doesn't do anything particularly unique.
Got to try out Rolling Freight last night.
It's a combo train-game (of the Steam family as opposed to 18xx or Crayon Rails) + dice game. It's basicially Troyes with trains.
We were in general impressed. It's super-light and easy to learn. The mechanics were reasonably interesting.
However, the game is just straight up bad with 5 players. No-one at the table had any AP and there was still waaaay too much downtime. But everyone also agreed that we would play it again with 3 people no question.
The biggest AP player in our group probably also has the worst win rate. I think its because he ends up over thinking things. He tries to keep too many plans in his head at once and things unravel terribly. I know I have definitely done it when I start thinking about a plan so hard and so long that I accidentally start implementing step 2 of the plan before step 1 (because I have thought about step 1 for so long) and everything goes straight to pot.
I tend to just shoot from the hip, win or lose I'd rather get more games in so I can learn faster.
It really feels like many games that say "5 players" really mean 4, but they are essentially serviceable with 5. Not ideal, but in a pinch it works. I dont like it, and I would rather have solid mechanics for 4 or 6 players instead
The AP thing reminds me of some research I did on exams. I used to teach some English exams that gave 1.75 minutes per multiple choice question. Which is not much, and many people don't finish the exam. So I gave students 10 minutes per question, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 1.75 and 1. I didn't have a rigorous enough design to publish it, but all the students were surprised to find they got the best score at 1 minute per question.
That ignores their stress levels and so on, which matters for their stamina in a 4 hour exam, and of course matters to their enjoyment of a board game.
But it is interesting when you think about, 'does AP help you win or not?'
It really feels like many games that say "5 players" really mean 4, but they are essentially serviceable with 5. Not ideal, but in a pinch it works. I dont like it, and I would rather have solid mechanics for 4 or 6 players instead
It's surprising how different 5 players can be to 4. Not just in terms of length and downtime, but also group dynamics and interaction. I read research once about how many people we can keep track of and how much we can pay attention to a particular group size. I can't remember the numbers, but the theory was that it was connected to median family sizes - there were big drops in ability to relate between, e.g. 4 people in the group and 5, but the drop-off between 2 and 3 or 8 and 9 people was small.
Please note I am pulling those particular numbers out of my ass, but the scale being non-linear and having very obvious drop-off points was very clear.
It really feels like many games that say "5 players" really mean 4, but they are essentially serviceable with 5. Not ideal, but in a pinch it works. I dont like it, and I would rather have solid mechanics for 4 or 6 players instead
Well yeah, a lot of games have problems with player number. Even some good ones (Chaos in the Old World etc...). We found 1870 suprisingly fun even with the max players of 6.
But there is just no reason to play Rolling Freight with 5. Just play something else if you have that many at the table.
haven't been in this therad for a while and totally forgot. what's AP?
"analysis paralysis". It means "takes too fucking long on their turn during games".
With the implication that they are taking too fucking long because they are thinking over options and plans as opposed to because they don't know the game yet.
It really feels like many games that say "5 players" really mean 4, but they are essentially serviceable with 5. Not ideal, but in a pinch it works. I dont like it, and I would rather have solid mechanics for 4 or 6 players instead
Well yeah, a lot of games have problems with player number. Even some good ones (Chaos in the Old World etc...). We found 1870 suprisingly fun even with the max players of 6.
But there is just no reason to play Rolling Freight with 5. Just play something else if you have that many at the table.
Games that kind of fall apart without a precise number of players:
BSG (5)
Guerilla (5)
Chaos in the Old World (4/5)
REX (6)
0
Options
blahmcblahYou pick your side and you stick - you don't cut and run when things get ugly.Registered Userregular
See, that's the opposite of sensible. Sensible is that some games are better or worse with certain numbers. But to say that some games 'fall apart' without a precise number of players is the kind of silliness that you see on BGG, along with immediate 'broken' judgements and competing imbalance threads.
I've played BSG several times without ever having 5, I think. If it 'fell apart' how were we having so much fun?
Ironically enough, despite not much caring for dice games due to their high luck factor... this video actually warmed me up to the idea of at least trying Elder Sign once, instead of dimissing it outright.
Wow, Elder Sign is really Arkham Horror: The Dice Game.
But it does look better than I thought from the mixed reviews.
The iPad app is pretty good, and really socks home the message that as much as you can try and strategise about which events to tackle, it all ends up as a crapshoot.
Wow, Elder Sign is really Arkham Horror: The Dice Game.
But it does look better than I thought from the mixed reviews.
The iPad app is pretty good, and really socks home the message that as much as you can try and strategise about which events to tackle, it all ends up as a crapshoot.
I don't mind crapshoots if they're shared. But you have this and Quarriors don't you? It sounds like you are going off dice in a big way. I hope they haven't soured you on Alien Frontiers.
You can actually do a lot of planning around Elder Sign to give the group a really good chance of winning, if you think about the odds properly. I actually found it enhanced the game for me, as it saved me from getting frustrated trying to complete tasks that required perfect dice rolls (at least, without backup), or tasks that were impossible to beat (usually because of monsters causing the task to need 7-8 dice in total).
And yeah, it really is Arkham Horror: The Dice Game. I love it.
I'm not sure I'd want a physical set but it's a good time filler on iThing. Felt pretty damn good when I finally took down Cthulu himself but that was with a handpicked dream team of investigators.
My group keeps wanting to try Arkham Horror, but these are the same people that can't sit through a 30 second rules explanation of Seven Dragons and beg for the game to end when their constant AP has dragged Waterdeep past the 90 minute mark. I keep trying to sell them on Elder Sign instead, but they like how big and shiny Arkham Horror is.
Don't explain everything, just show and tell as you go. Take it one phase at a time, explain what you do during that phase, and move on. Keep it in chunks and it should be manageable.
If I had any motivation personally to play Arkham Horror I might put in that sort of effort. But I don't. And as much as it pains me, if they ever purchase that and plan to have it hit the table, I may just plan on being "busy" that night. I know a clusterfuck when I see one.
Posts
I'm going to have to say that, if Tom Vasel calls it one of his favorite games ever, that there is no way it is "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together". You may not like it, but you have to admit that that sort of praise from the guy has to mean something as to the quality of the game, if not how well it fits your preferences.
I like Tom Vasel a lot, but there are several games he's reviewed that I didn't like at all, and some that he has raved about and never mentioned after a few weeks.
I have similar tastes to him, but I now know that he can get extremely over-enthusiastic.
But games can still be well designed and constructed even if you don't like them. I just think there's a difference between saying it doesn't appeal to you, and calling it crap from a design standpoint.
It doesn't look good from a design standpoint. I didnt call it crap, but you are saying it doesn't appeal to me and I am saying it doesn't look well-designed.
For example, Summoner Wars has a lovely little mana system where you have to choose which cards to sacrifice ahead of time in order to summon others (that you may not even draw). You have to summon walls on the turn before you can use them to summon from, making tactical placement of them very tricky. Elegant and rewarding.
What is wrong with me watching a review and explaining why I thought 'ooh no thanks'?
At least that is the read I've gotten off his taste.
Holey moley, you're right, ambiguous. I was agreeing that the actions of the AP players was inconsiderate. There is another side of the coin, where they might just be accustomed to playing that way with other AP players, and don't mind spending all night on a single game, and are resistant to change. But if you bug new players or other kinds of players, isn't that kind of counter-productive?
Ta daa! Clarified. Like, a day later, but whatever. We can't all be great communicators.
I like watching Tom Vasel because his enthusiasm is somewhat contagious, so I can take part in his excitement over a big new game. I certainly would NOT call him a super-rigorous reviewer, and he is definitely weighted towards the "ameritrash" side of the spectrum. So Mage Wars got him really excited, but he has, for example, never even reviewed Troyes. I also think he would AGREE that he likes games that are a mish-mash pile of crazy stuff. Think of his eternal love of Duel of Ages and Heroscape. So instead of calling him a "theme guy", maybe we should call him a "themes guy" -- the more crazy disparate themes, the better!
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
I've noticed this too. The AP people never play better. In fact, ones that take the most time almost never win. The guy who wins most games (even ones he hasn't played before) does all his thinking between turns and takes his instantly.
Hauling out a timer is by no means rude. There's a list of games in our group I'll only ever agree to play if it's a "speed" version with one minute turn time limit.
The only explaining I saw was the line he originally quoted, "just a hodge-podge of rules all thrown together."
I totally agree Tom can be over the top, and even beyond this I know that I tend to enjoy games he is far less into (although, hey, he liked Hornet Leader alright, and I frigging love it). I'm happy to let the game come out and give it a little time before looking to nab it myself. But your suggestion that the game is a hodge-podge confuses me, and the further suggestion (as I gather anyway) that it has inferior tactics is strange. In my eyes, sacrificing cards and then failing to get what you want from a deck is a bad thing. You apparently like that. We can agree to disagree (as it seems we so often do, heh ...), because I'm presently at a loss for seeing how a system that is pretty much "We figure, you're a powerful spellcaster, so why shouldn't you know all your spells and be able to do what you want to do?" is a bad design choice.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I didn't say that was a bad system. I just gave an example of a good system or two from summoner wars. There are all kinds of good systems around. You're assuming a lot about my opinions, as was Inksplat.
When I watched the Mage Wars review, I saw assorted dice modifiers, assorted systems that didn't seem to have any connection to each other, multiple keywords on monsters, no design core that seemed to be the same across all the subsystems. For example, Going to their website and clicking on a random monster card, I see 20 different icons, keywords and numbers on the card. 20! I downloaded one half of the rules and that was 27 pages. I don't mind complex games, but I much prefer it when that complexity feels managed and designed in a way that coheres. I don't like games which just add new rules for each thing the game designer wants you to be able to do. If a Mage game allowed me to summon creatures, power them and set them on each other in a way where each of my actions feels vaguely similar, that's elegant and I like it. Not everyone likes games like that, and I like some games that don't do that, such as Arkham Horror. But Mage Wars, from watching the review and now checking it out more, looks inelegant and to have multiple subsystems that have no connection to each other. A hodge-podge. I think I've explained myself enough now, let's move on to something else, yeah?
Although personally I'm with 100% poshniallo.
Ha ha, see, that's the kind of 'explaining' I wanted to hear to begin with. Thanks. ^_^
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
It's a combo train-game (of the Steam family as opposed to 18xx or Crayon Rails) + dice game. It's basicially Troyes with trains.
We were in general impressed. It's super-light and easy to learn. The mechanics were reasonably interesting.
However, the game is just straight up bad with 5 players. No-one at the table had any AP and there was still waaaay too much downtime. But everyone also agreed that we would play it again with 3 people no question.
I tend to just shoot from the hip, win or lose I'd rather get more games in so I can learn faster.
That ignores their stress levels and so on, which matters for their stamina in a 4 hour exam, and of course matters to their enjoyment of a board game.
But it is interesting when you think about, 'does AP help you win or not?'
It's surprising how different 5 players can be to 4. Not just in terms of length and downtime, but also group dynamics and interaction. I read research once about how many people we can keep track of and how much we can pay attention to a particular group size. I can't remember the numbers, but the theory was that it was connected to median family sizes - there were big drops in ability to relate between, e.g. 4 people in the group and 5, but the drop-off between 2 and 3 or 8 and 9 people was small.
Please note I am pulling those particular numbers out of my ass, but the scale being non-linear and having very obvious drop-off points was very clear.
Well yeah, a lot of games have problems with player number. Even some good ones (Chaos in the Old World etc...). We found 1870 suprisingly fun even with the max players of 6.
But there is just no reason to play Rolling Freight with 5. Just play something else if you have that many at the table.
The thread is much funnier if you read it as "Anal Penetration."
"analysis paralysis". It means "takes too fucking long on their turn during games".
With the implication that they are taking too fucking long because they are thinking over options and plans as opposed to because they don't know the game yet.
Games that kind of fall apart without a precise number of players:
BSG (5)
Guerilla (5)
Chaos in the Old World (4/5)
REX (6)
I've played BSG several times without ever having 5, I think. If it 'fell apart' how were we having so much fun?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
But it does look better than I thought from the mixed reviews.
The iPad app is pretty good, and really socks home the message that as much as you can try and strategise about which events to tackle, it all ends up as a crapshoot.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I don't mind crapshoots if they're shared. But you have this and Quarriors don't you? It sounds like you are going off dice in a big way. I hope they haven't soured you on Alien Frontiers.
And yeah, it really is Arkham Horror: The Dice Game. I love it.
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
This may be the death of me.
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion