So, I have an itch to purchase a new game that I probably won't play and nothing is really popping out at me as something I want (but it itches so bad!!) so I need some recommendations.
Of the games I own, I love: Agricola, Power Grid, Puerto Rico, Steam, TtA, 1960: Making of the President
Games my friends love, so probably worth noting something in this vein too: Bohnanza, Catan, 7 Wonders
Thoughts?
Goa is a fantastic game along those lines as well. A very good Euro with a strong auction mechanic, and a economic/engine building mechanic as well.
I still prefer my games to be one tidy, finished, package though, when possible.
The definition of "tidy package" might be a bit fuzzy these days. What about Summoner Wars, with tons of extra factions and expansions and even limited deck construction? The consensus seems to be that they have held "power creep" to a minimum. And speaking of that game, even a small company like Plaid Hat really playtested everything pretty exhaustively (especially after the base sets were released). I certainly think it's possible for a bigger company to have a really polished set of expansions, even if they release them every couple of months.
I know I've drifted more and more into desiring my games to be either whole and complete at the outset, or expandable through scenarios. Which is probably a capricious and contradictory set of tastes. I think I've just been burnt out on expansions by and large. There are expansions I've bought for games that I've never had the opportunity to actually play because I can never get a group of people together familiar enough with the base game to warrant expanding it. But I have that completionist mentality. If I buy one expansion I buy them all.
The one place where I don't feel bad about this is my scenario based war games. I have all the expansions for Commands & Colors: Ancients and Napoleonics. I've also bought most of the expansions and battlepacks for Combat Commander: Europe. But I can justify this to myself by saying I will get to all those scenarios one day. And who knows, maybe I will. Those are pretty much the war games I've settled on. Managed to play through the base game and the first expansion pack for Ancients in its entirety. And I just recently started on Napoleonics, which only has 15 missions.
I've also found my taste more drawn to scenario based games anyhow. Every time you sit down you can try something completely new, but you don't have to learn any new rules! It's fantastic.
I certainly understand the desire to get C&C:A expansions. Can't wait for those to come out next year. But on the topic of "scenarios", that's a grey area too. Is getting another map for Steam a "scenario"? It's pretty close. And where does the Summoner Wars model fit in there, where you buy a complete faction that fits into the existing rules (unless you count the abilities on the cards new rules)?
Shoot, you could argue that Netrunner is the same way, because you can create a unique deck and try it out every time. It should be noted, though, that I don't know whether I would really enjoy that aspect of Netrunner. But it does give even the base game a lot of variety.
But perhaps you are thinking of something a bit more "story-oriented" when you describe a scenario. And I totally get that. I love just the idea of bringing elephants across the Alps into the Italian plains, for example. The buzz over Mice and Mystics shows that the idea has legs, so to speak.
For me the dividing line is the effort on my part. For games like Commands & Colors, new scenarios involve very little effort on my part. The decision about which one to play is effortless as well. We just play the next one in the series! Done! Games with random setups have a good aspect of this too. We don't agonize over which kingdom cards to use in Dominion. The setup is random.
But you play a game with a shit ton of modular expansions, like Alhambra, or Carcassonne, and you've gotta sit there and argue and discuss which expansions do you want to play with today. You have a game like Summoner Wars or Yomi or whatever where you have 20 different factions, and you have to figure out which one you want to play that day. You spent all this money on all these factions? Are you really getting your money's worth out of all of them?
And any deck building game is the worst in this regard. I simply do not get to play those games often enough to justify the time investment of having to create my own deck, and often my opponents deck as well, and then explaining to them how to play it. Just no good.
But like I said, my criteria is likely contradictory or capricious. I like expansions that don't make figuring out what you want to play with this time overly complicated. The set scenarios in tactical level wargames are good for that. And the random setup in most of Donald X's games are also good at that, although to a lesser extent when you have a lot of expansions and you want to narrow it down to two or three sets of kingdom cards to randomize this time. But by the time you get down to LCG/CCG or miniature games, the time spent preparing to time spent playing ratio goes all sorts of inverted to where I like it.
I just want to point out that a "Deck Building Game" isn't as you described. Games where you build decks before you play are different than a "Deck Building Game." You're thinking of Living Card Games like Netrunner and Lord of the Rings, or Trading Card Games like Magic:tG or Yugioh. A "Deck Building Game" is something like Dominion where the gameplay itself is starting with a small deck and building it up as you play.
I don't think anyone was confused about what he meant, and I'm sure he is well aware that 'deck building' has two different meanings.
Small World and Lords of Waterdeep both have inserts which look perfect, everything fits, and don't work very well in actual setup and tear-down.
I just put both of them in baggies and set the insert aside.
Other than the coins, Small World stores everything pretty well without extra baggies. The container for the mini-expansions they released with one of the mini-expansions holds all the mini-expansions just fine, too. Mini-expansion.
The definition of "tidy package" might be a bit fuzzy these days. What about Summoner Wars, with tons of extra factions and expansions and even limited deck construction? The consensus seems to be that they have held "power creep" to a minimum. And speaking of that game, even a small company like Plaid Hat really playtested everything pretty exhaustively (especially after the base sets were released). I certainly think it's possible for a bigger company to have a really polished set of expansions, even if they release them every couple of months.
I like summoner wars over all as a game. And I feel like you get a good amount of content in the bigger starter box (the one that comes with the playing board). And I don't mind them adding other factions to the game, because they just add variety and they seem mostly balanced.
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
But yeah, tl;dr, fine with more factions, not fine with deck customization.
Inquisitor on
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
<snip>
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
Hm. I can certainly respect your distaste for the deck altering rules (though I like them), but I'm puzzled at what you mean by "good amount of purchases", and "1 base set plus 1 expansion pack max". By deck construction standards, Summoner Wars is quite strict: champions can only be swapped out one for one, there's a max number of each common unit, there's a max number of mercs allowed, etc. Perhaps I just haven't really tried to optimize things, but that's the first time I've heard that complaint. Do you have an example of a viable deck composition that requires multiple base or expansion sets?
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
<snip>
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
Hm. I can certainly respect your distaste for the deck altering rules (though I like them), but I'm puzzled at what you mean by "good amount of purchases", and "1 base set plus 1 expansion pack max". By deck construction standards, Summoner Wars is quite strict: champions can only be swapped out one for one, there's a max number of each common unit, there's a max number of mercs allowed, etc. Perhaps I just haven't really tried to optimize things, but that's the first time I've heard that complaint. Do you have an example of a viable deck composition that requires multiple base or expansion sets?
You are allowed 10 copies of a specific common in a single deck. I think the start comes with six of each common? The only way to get more of the basic commons (at least when I was looking at the game) for Swamp Orcs would be to buy another Master set. That's a lot of money to be able to fully play with the deck customization rules.
Would you ever want 10 of the same common in your deck? Not sure, possibly. I think the blue faction (control style) that comes in the master deck had ranged units for all of its commons. So taking 10 of those goblin sand skirmishers could be pretty strong!
I think setting the limit at 10 copies of a single card is way too high.
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
<snip>
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
Hm. I can certainly respect your distaste for the deck altering rules (though I like them), but I'm puzzled at what you mean by "good amount of purchases", and "1 base set plus 1 expansion pack max". By deck construction standards, Summoner Wars is quite strict: champions can only be swapped out one for one, there's a max number of each common unit, there's a max number of mercs allowed, etc. Perhaps I just haven't really tried to optimize things, but that's the first time I've heard that complaint. Do you have an example of a viable deck composition that requires multiple base or expansion sets?
You are allowed 10 copies of a specific common in a single deck. I think the start comes with six of each common? The only way to get more of the basic commons (at least when I was looking at the game) for Swamp Orcs would be to buy another Master set. That's a lot of money to be able to fully play with the deck customization rules.
Would you ever want 10 of the same common in your deck? Not sure, possibly. I think the blue faction (control style) that comes in the master deck had ranged units for all of its commons. So taking 10 of those goblin sand skirmishers could be pretty strong!
I think setting the limit at 10 copies of a single card is way too high.
Well, I suppose you might be correct. Two factors to consider, though: first, in my experience, a mixed team tends to simply work better than a single "spammed" common unit (a notable exception is the Fallen Kingdom's Zombies); second, even if you put 10 units into a deck, you'll probably have to burn some of them as magic anyway. I mean, you can still only have 18 commons in any deck. I'm not going to deny that there might be an advantage to having unlimited building options, but usually you can only summon a fraction of your deck anyway.
Spoilered for detail:
For your example, the Benders (the blue guys) can focus more on Deceivers (the units that can stun commons) to lock down Javelineers (the ones who can only be hit while you're adjacent). If the Sand Goblins were fielding a ton of Javelineers, the Benders would probably end up stunning and killing a ton of them. If the Sand Goblins decide to summon a champion to keep from getting stunned, they'll almost certainly have to build magic with a few more Javelineers.
EDIT: fixed because I misread the post
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
<snip>
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
Hm. I can certainly respect your distaste for the deck altering rules (though I like them), but I'm puzzled at what you mean by "good amount of purchases", and "1 base set plus 1 expansion pack max". By deck construction standards, Summoner Wars is quite strict: champions can only be swapped out one for one, there's a max number of each common unit, there's a max number of mercs allowed, etc. Perhaps I just haven't really tried to optimize things, but that's the first time I've heard that complaint. Do you have an example of a viable deck composition that requires multiple base or expansion sets?
You are allowed 10 copies of a specific common in a single deck. I think the start comes with six of each common? The only way to get more of the basic commons (at least when I was looking at the game) for Swamp Orcs would be to buy another Master set. That's a lot of money to be able to fully play with the deck customization rules.
Would you ever want 10 of the same common in your deck? Not sure, possibly. I think the blue faction (control style) that comes in the master deck had ranged units for all of its commons. So taking 10 of those goblin sand skirmishers could be pretty strong!
I think setting the limit at 10 copies of a single card is way too high.
Ahhh... perhaps I see the problem. You aren't allowed (normally) to combine ANY units from one faction with another. Mercenaries are the exception, and they are usually a bit weak for the price. Also, you're not allowed to change any of the faction event cards. Is it possible you were not adhering to these rules?
I think he's talking about doubling up on the same faction.
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
<snip>
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
Hm. I can certainly respect your distaste for the deck altering rules (though I like them), but I'm puzzled at what you mean by "good amount of purchases", and "1 base set plus 1 expansion pack max". By deck construction standards, Summoner Wars is quite strict: champions can only be swapped out one for one, there's a max number of each common unit, there's a max number of mercs allowed, etc. Perhaps I just haven't really tried to optimize things, but that's the first time I've heard that complaint. Do you have an example of a viable deck composition that requires multiple base or expansion sets?
You are allowed 10 copies of a specific common in a single deck. I think the start comes with six of each common? The only way to get more of the basic commons (at least when I was looking at the game) for Swamp Orcs would be to buy another Master set. That's a lot of money to be able to fully play with the deck customization rules.
Would you ever want 10 of the same common in your deck? Not sure, possibly. I think the blue faction (control style) that comes in the master deck had ranged units for all of its commons. So taking 10 of those goblin sand skirmishers could be pretty strong!
I think setting the limit at 10 copies of a single card is way too high.
Ahhh... perhaps I see the problem. You aren't allowed (normally) to combine ANY units from one faction with another. Mercenaries are the exception, and they are usually a bit weak for the price. Also, you're not allowed to change any of the faction event cards. Is it possible you were not adhering to these rules?
I think he's talking about doubling up on the same faction.
Ayup, I totally misunderstood at first. I fixed it.
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Yeah, I am not sure if having 10 of one common would ever be optimal. To be honest, I did not get to play enough Summoner Wars to feel comfortable talking about optimal play at all. I just think it is very clunky to have to buy two master sets and two reinforcement packs to get all of the build options for the Swamp Orcs. It's just clunky.
I feel that base set plus one reinforcement pack as the maximum amount of allowed tweaking is a better set up.
Though, personally I would rather them focus on putting out new factions or new decks then reinforcement packs for existing ones. I would even be quite down with multiple takes on the same force. Say, another swamp orc deck with a different summoner, different spells, different champions and mostly or entirely different commons, but a similar theme or mechanic (vine walls or whatever). And have the rules not allow mixing and matching those decks.
But summoner wars is a good enough game that I can overlook these issues with it. But really, they settled on an awfully clunky combination of the number of cards you get in sets and the number of cards you are allowed in a deck.
I really would like to play Netrunner
But since Yu Gi Oh is still the rage around here I highly doubt I will find someone to play with me
But then I also remember the huge ammount of money and time I wasted on magic and the lesser extent of pokemon
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
I could never actually get the damn Small World pieces out properly. Pretty sure I've just lost all of them by now.
Cheap Solution: Pop into a Michael's or Jo Ann's (or a fabric/craft store) and seek out a bead organizer. Make sure that sumbitch has rounded bottoms. I roll with 2 with 20 sections that I got for 4 bucks a pop.
Cheaper Solution: a Nerf suction dart does wonders with the original tile holders.
Actually the X-wing strategy talk is reminding me of CCG talk. Too much seems decided by the money you put in and the skill at squad (=deck) building. So I'm feeling less of an urge to buy Y-wings, because it may not be my kind of game.
Are you avoiding Netrunner for the same reason? I can't remember what you had to say about it.
Well I think Netrunner, as an LCG, is much more my thing, but some people are still talking about buying multiple cores, which worries me.
I'm mostly avoiding Netrunner because I'm poor.
LCG means "Spend just about as much as you would on a CCG, but instead of randomly rebuying product you don't care as much about to get a few rares, you can rebuy FIXED sets of product you don't care much about to get rares."
Uh ...
I'm in Canada, where you don't get things like Netrunner for $20, but even at full price, 2 core sets (as much as one person would reasonably buy) would come to roughly $80. Each data pack, of which there might be 6 a year, will cost $12-15. So ... I guess getting everything in this first year will cost something like $150?
In contrast, most Magic decks I know of these days cost several hundred dollars to put together, and those only remain tournament-legal for a set period of time before needing to be replaced.
LCGs *could* be cheaper, yes. But I must strongly disagree with them being comparable to CCGs. Especially if you have the capacity to split with friends over cards wanted. >_>
Especially with NetRunner where you can split the cards between Runner and Corp with no overlap
Also, I used to love Dominion (base) but I've gotten too good at it, relative to my friends, to really enjoy it anymore. Will any of the expansions breathe some new life into it and force some strategy diversification?
Prosperity, by adding Colonies and Platinum really opens the game up.I think it is the single biggest shot in the arm that you can give the game. Dark Ages. With it's alternate start condition, interaction with the trash pile and Ruisn/Spoils mechanic is also a big change but I haven't played that extensively so can't tell you what it would do long term.
Managed to get my hands on a copy of Article 27: The UN Security Council Game. A friend of mine called it "Diplomacy in 20 minutes". So far I am very impressed with the quality of the components and cannot wait to give it a whirl on Monday. I remember reading the rules on BGG a while back, and feeling a little confused. Will have to try again with the actual rulebook in hand.
Managed to get my hands on a copy of Article 27: The UN Security Council Game. A friend of mine called it "Diplomacy in 20 minutes". So far I am very impressed with the quality of the components and cannot wait to give it a whirl on Monday. I remember reading the rules on BGG a while back, and feeling a little confused. Will have to try again with the actual rulebook in hand.
Absolutely report back on this. I'm intrigued. Takes me back to old Model UN days.
I'm intimidated by it. I feel like if I ever managed to get a group of people together committed enough to a. learning the rules and b. playing a full game, it'll be because I started a charismatic suicide cult for that particular purpose.
I mean good god.
And my board game OCD means I'll probably pick up the expansions...
I got Puerto Rico a year or so back, and while I really like it, the people I tend to want to play with glaze over a bit at the complexity when I start explaining the rules, not helped by it being so long between plays that they can never remember any of it.
Waterdeep is along the same lines right? Is it a bit more intuitively casually accessible?
I'm intimidated by it. I feel like if I ever managed to get a group of people together committed enough to a. learning the rules and b. playing a full game, it'll be because I started a charismatic suicide cult for that particular purpose.
Hmm... maybe I should approach it like that as well. I mean getting a gaming group together for this game or even Game of Thrones through regular means has proven to be impossible.
I got Puerto Rico a year or so back, and while I really like it, the people I tend to want to play with glaze over a bit at the complexity when I start explaining the rules, not helped by it being so long between plays that they can never remember any of it.
Waterdeep is along the same lines right? Is it a bit more intuitively casually accessible?
Not really along the same lines at all, but it is much more accessible.
I'm intimidated by it. I feel like if I ever managed to get a group of people together committed enough to a. learning the rules and b. playing a full game, it'll be because I started a charismatic suicide cult for that particular purpose.
Hmm... maybe I should approach it like that as well. I mean getting a gaming group together for this game or even Game of Thrones through regular means has proven to be impossible.
I have similar thoughts about Android. Love the game. Have maybe finished playing it twice.
I got Puerto Rico a year or so back, and while I really like it, the people I tend to want to play with glaze over a bit at the complexity when I start explaining the rules, not helped by it being so long between plays that they can never remember any of it.
Waterdeep is along the same lines right? Is it a bit more intuitively casually accessible?
Waterdeep is MAD casualer. And it's fluffy. It's probably easier for most folks to grasp, "Oh, my agents are here recruiting wizards, now I have 3 purlpe blocks and so I can use this card because it needs 3 purple blocks," or ,"Yeah, obviously it took 3 wizards, 2 fighters and 4 gold to do that quest. Cool, now I have 8 gold and a victory point." And it's all laid out very well. I, too, have Puerto Rico and it can look and sound intimidating. Waterdeep would probably take less than 5 minutes to explain. It's definitely not as deep, strategy wise, but by hanging similar mechanics on a fantasy intrigue skeleton, it makes the medicine go down a lot easier. How's that for mixed metaphors?
Played Lords of Waterdeep tonight and am very happy with my no-insert box. Much quicker and easier.
The insert looks nice but it just takes so long to get everything in and out of it.
I thought it was great at first - it looks great and is so nicely designed - but actually it isn't.
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
Yesterday I won a 3-player game of Civilization (2010) against the player who owns the game and who's always won when I've played with him before (which has meant I've only wanted to play the game with other people.). This was pretty nice, but also seemed to be further proof of the economic victory being over-powered compared to the scientific and military ones (to say nothing of culture).
So I'm wondering: does the expansion fix/adjust these balance issues and make culture viable? Alternatively, are the different victory conditions already balanced, but our group just needs to learn to play?
Played Lords of Waterdeep tonight and am very happy with my no-insert box. Much quicker and easier.
The insert looks nice but it just takes so long to get everything in and out of it.
I thought it was great at first - it looks great and is so nicely designed - but actually it isn't.
I only have problems with the agent pawns (that's a very narrow groove) and VP tokens (which are awkwardly shaped for no real reason). Everything else just pops right out or, more importantly, stays in until needed (at which point it pops right out).
To be fair, this is partially because a guy in our group had the brilliant idea of using a (blunted) nail to thread the 1GP coins on, which makes getting those bastards in and out worlds easier.
Played Lords of Waterdeep tonight and am very happy with my no-insert box. Much quicker and easier.
The insert looks nice but it just takes so long to get everything in and out of it.
I thought it was great at first - it looks great and is so nicely designed - but actually it isn't.
I only have problems with the agent pawns (that's a very narrow groove) and VP tokens (which are awkwardly shaped for no real reason). Everything else just pops right out or, more importantly, stays in until needed (at which point it pops right out).
To be fair, this is partially because a guy in our group had the brilliant idea of using a (blunted) nail to thread the 1GP coins on, which makes getting those bastards in and out worlds easier.
I have probs with the building ownership markers too. So, agents, building markers, money and vp tokens are a problem. Which is quite a lot of the stuff.
I just think it's interesting - how something can look like a clever piece of design, all snug and pretty and that, and then one day my brain goes, 'Hold on! This is actually a pain in the ass!'
I'm intimidated by it. I feel like if I ever managed to get a group of people together committed enough to a. learning the rules and b. playing a full game, it'll be because I started a charismatic suicide cult for that particular purpose.
Hmm... maybe I should approach it like that as well. I mean getting a gaming group together for this game or even Game of Thrones through regular means has proven to be impossible.
Go Ocean's Eleven on that problem. I can report great success just saying that, by God, you're going to play TI and you need some assholes to come join you.
The recruiting goes faster if you do it as a montage.
Played Lords of Waterdeep tonight and am very happy with my no-insert box. Much quicker and easier.
The insert looks nice but it just takes so long to get everything in and out of it.
I thought it was great at first - it looks great and is so nicely designed - but actually it isn't.
I only have problems with the agent pawns (that's a very narrow groove) and VP tokens (which are awkwardly shaped for no real reason). Everything else just pops right out or, more importantly, stays in until needed (at which point it pops right out).
To be fair, this is partially because a guy in our group had the brilliant idea of using a (blunted) nail to thread the 1GP coins on, which makes getting those bastards in and out worlds easier.
I have probs with the building ownership markers too. So, agents, building markers, money and vp tokens are a problem. Which is quite a lot of the stuff.
I just think it's interesting - how something can look like a clever piece of design, all snug and pretty and that, and then one day my brain goes, 'Hold on! This is actually a pain in the ass!'
See, the ownership markers are one of the things I just leave in their holes until needed.
I love the Thunderstone Advance packaging; plenty of extra room for expansions and dividers that help you quickly find individual card sets.
That reminds me (as many things do) that I've got Root of Corruption arriving tomorrow along with King of Tokyo expansion and Race for the Galaxy which I traded away about a year ago and am once again craving with the Alien Artifacts expansion coming. Early Christmas gifts to myself.
Yesterday I won a 3-player game of Civilization (2010) against the player who owns the game and who's always won when I've played with him before (which has meant I've only wanted to play the game with other people.). This was pretty nice, but also seemed to be further proof of the economic victory being over-powered compared to the scientific and military ones (to say nothing of culture).
So I'm wondering: does the expansion fix/adjust these balance issues and make culture viable? Alternatively, are the different victory conditions already balanced, but our group just needs to learn to play?
there's extensive stuff written about this on Boardgamegeek. Without the expansion culture is harder to win with than the others yes. It's still useful to grab some culture when you can because those cards can be pretty awesome though.
But among science, military and econ I don't think you can say one is better than the others overall. For a given civ, there is probably one that is easier yes (and actually Rome can win with Culture competetively) but not overall.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
Yesterday I won a 3-player game of Civilization (2010) against the player who owns the game and who's always won when I've played with him before (which has meant I've only wanted to play the game with other people.). This was pretty nice, but also seemed to be further proof of the economic victory being over-powered compared to the scientific and military ones (to say nothing of culture).
So I'm wondering: does the expansion fix/adjust these balance issues and make culture viable? Alternatively, are the different victory conditions already balanced, but our group just needs to learn to play?
there's extensive stuff written about this on Boardgamegeek. Without the expansion culture is harder to win with than the others yes. It's still useful to grab some culture when you can because those cards can be pretty awesome though.
But among science, military and econ I don't think you can say one is better than the others overall. For a given civ, there is probably one that is easier yes (and actually Rome can win with Culture competetively) but not overall.
I like getting this thread's opinion since I trust you guys more than Boardgamegeek.
Good to hear that about the expansion. I like culture so I've been bummed it didn't seem viable as a victory path (except as a help in getting one of the others). And then I guess I'm going to read up on counters to economic strategy. Right now it just seems so much faster than the others, and harder to stop.
I got Puerto Rico a year or so back, and while I really like it, the people I tend to want to play with glaze over a bit at the complexity when I start explaining the rules, not helped by it being so long between plays that they can never remember any of it.
Waterdeep is along the same lines right? Is it a bit more intuitively casually accessible?
Waterdeep is MAD casualer. And it's fluffy. It's probably easier for most folks to grasp, "Oh, my agents are here recruiting wizards, now I have 3 purlpe blocks and so I can use this card because it needs 3 purple blocks," or ,"Yeah, obviously it took 3 wizards, 2 fighters and 4 gold to do that quest. Cool, now I have 8 gold and a victory point." And it's all laid out very well. I, too, have Puerto Rico and it can look and sound intimidating. Waterdeep would probably take less than 5 minutes to explain. It's definitely not as deep, strategy wise, but by hanging similar mechanics on a fantasy intrigue skeleton, it makes the medicine go down a lot easier. How's that for mixed metaphors?
Waterdeep hits the right middle ground for me; it scratches some of the same itches as the ascetic Euro games with their abstract wooden cubes, but is theme-y enough that I can actually get to play it on the regular. And, I mean, that applies to me as well; I would rather be pushing wizards and rogues around than barrels of cyan dye or whatever.
Man, I keep wanting to get Paths of Glory. Then I try to get through another section of the rules, and it's just...no. Just no. Today were the combat rules. And the 2 pages spent explaining the excepts for the priorities that the british have to take losses in amongst their allies. And the excepts for various specific locations on the board with respect to retreats. And the list of specific armies which do not get to be replaced by a reserve corp. And the list of specific circumstances where specific armies can't retreat. And the two specific circumstances where armies are killed outright. And on and on and on and my eyes glazed over and I simply couldn't keep reading by the time I got to withdrawls.
Is it too much to ask for a game like Twilight Struggle, that's not about the cold war?
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
In other news, Netrunner has been obtainenated.
First thought: dang, that's a lot of rules.
I mean, I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with it, because the individual design elements do interest me and the cyberpunk theme is like mother's milk, but I need to wait to tackle it till I'm in the right mindset to try and grok all the different processes going on.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Man, I keep wanting to get Paths of Glory. Then I try to get through another section of the rules, and it's just...no. Just no. Today were the combat rules. And the 2 pages spent explaining the excepts for the priorities that the british have to take losses in amongst their allies. And the excepts for various specific locations on the board with respect to retreats. And the list of specific armies which do not get to be replaced by a reserve corp. And the list of specific circumstances where specific armies can't retreat. And the two specific circumstances where armies are killed outright. And on and on and on and my eyes glazed over and I simply couldn't keep reading by the time I got to withdrawls.
Is it too much to ask for a game like Twilight Struggle, that's not about the cold war?
You know I saw Labyrinth. But the theme is just such a huge turnoff. Just too close to home right now.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Sure.
Technically 1989 isn't about the Cold War so much as the internal strife in Russia that took place because of it. <_<
But other than that ... There's that Z-Man published one ... *some year relevant to Americans*: Making of the President.
Posts
I don't think anyone was confused about what he meant, and I'm sure he is well aware that 'deck building' has two different meanings.
I just put both of them in baggies and set the insert aside.
Other than the coins, Small World stores everything pretty well without extra baggies. The container for the mini-expansions they released with one of the mini-expansions holds all the mini-expansions just fine, too. Mini-expansion.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I like summoner wars over all as a game. And I feel like you get a good amount of content in the bigger starter box (the one that comes with the playing board). And I don't mind them adding other factions to the game, because they just add variety and they seem mostly balanced.
I don't like that they allow you to alter the decks though. I don't like it at all. I remember the deck altering rules being really lax, and that it would take a pretty good amount of purchases to be able to fully utilize the deck altering rules. And while there may not be straight power creep, I remember feeling pretty strongly that I could make my swamp orcs a good amount better with the pack that was going to come up for them, especially against the factions my friends would like to play. It may not be straight power creep (this card is better in everywhere) but there is definitely "this card is better in these situations, and these situations come up commonly against this faction." And then it comes down to spending money to get an advantage, which means either everyone spends the money to be on even customization footing (which not everyone wants to do) or only some players do so and get the advantage and the other player's generally get salty about it.
I moved countries so we never got to finalize the plan, but, the group I played with were figuring out more restrictive rules to limit how much you could modify the decks. I think we were ultimately going to agree on 1 base set for your faction plus 1 expansion pack max. This was a compromise between the different desires of our group.
But yeah, tl;dr, fine with more factions, not fine with deck customization.
Hm. I can certainly respect your distaste for the deck altering rules (though I like them), but I'm puzzled at what you mean by "good amount of purchases", and "1 base set plus 1 expansion pack max". By deck construction standards, Summoner Wars is quite strict: champions can only be swapped out one for one, there's a max number of each common unit, there's a max number of mercs allowed, etc. Perhaps I just haven't really tried to optimize things, but that's the first time I've heard that complaint. Do you have an example of a viable deck composition that requires multiple base or expansion sets?
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
You are allowed 10 copies of a specific common in a single deck. I think the start comes with six of each common? The only way to get more of the basic commons (at least when I was looking at the game) for Swamp Orcs would be to buy another Master set. That's a lot of money to be able to fully play with the deck customization rules.
Would you ever want 10 of the same common in your deck? Not sure, possibly. I think the blue faction (control style) that comes in the master deck had ranged units for all of its commons. So taking 10 of those goblin sand skirmishers could be pretty strong!
I think setting the limit at 10 copies of a single card is way too high.
Well, I suppose you might be correct. Two factors to consider, though: first, in my experience, a mixed team tends to simply work better than a single "spammed" common unit (a notable exception is the Fallen Kingdom's Zombies); second, even if you put 10 units into a deck, you'll probably have to burn some of them as magic anyway. I mean, you can still only have 18 commons in any deck. I'm not going to deny that there might be an advantage to having unlimited building options, but usually you can only summon a fraction of your deck anyway.
Spoilered for detail:
EDIT: fixed because I misread the post
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
I think he's talking about doubling up on the same faction.
Ayup, I totally misunderstood at first. I fixed it.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
I feel that base set plus one reinforcement pack as the maximum amount of allowed tweaking is a better set up.
Though, personally I would rather them focus on putting out new factions or new decks then reinforcement packs for existing ones. I would even be quite down with multiple takes on the same force. Say, another swamp orc deck with a different summoner, different spells, different champions and mostly or entirely different commons, but a similar theme or mechanic (vine walls or whatever). And have the rules not allow mixing and matching those decks.
But summoner wars is a good enough game that I can overlook these issues with it. But really, they settled on an awfully clunky combination of the number of cards you get in sets and the number of cards you are allowed in a deck.
Sort of a hotdog, hotdog bun shopping scenario.
Are there any creams or ointment that come with the X-Wing base sets? Or should I just piece it together from expansions and individual components?
Can I cook a proper saffron rice pilaf with under $200 in Netrunner decks?
But since Yu Gi Oh is still the rage around here I highly doubt I will find someone to play with me
But then I also remember the huge ammount of money and time I wasted on magic and the lesser extent of pokemon
Waterdeep's insert is perfect. Everything fits in a place, and is easily accessible. However...
Cheap Solution: Pop into a Michael's or Jo Ann's (or a fabric/craft store) and seek out a bead organizer. Make sure that sumbitch has rounded bottoms. I roll with 2 with 20 sections that I got for 4 bucks a pop.
Cheaper Solution: a Nerf suction dart does wonders with the original tile holders.
Especially with NetRunner where you can split the cards between Runner and Corp with no overlap
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.
Prosperity, by adding Colonies and Platinum really opens the game up.I think it is the single biggest shot in the arm that you can give the game. Dark Ages. With it's alternate start condition, interaction with the trash pile and Ruisn/Spoils mechanic is also a big change but I haven't played that extensively so can't tell you what it would do long term.
Get Prosperity.
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.
Absolutely report back on this. I'm intrigued. Takes me back to old Model UN days.
I'm intimidated by it. I feel like if I ever managed to get a group of people together committed enough to a. learning the rules and b. playing a full game, it'll be because I started a charismatic suicide cult for that particular purpose.
I mean good god.
And my board game OCD means I'll probably pick up the expansions...
Waterdeep is along the same lines right? Is it a bit more intuitively casually accessible?
Hmm... maybe I should approach it like that as well. I mean getting a gaming group together for this game or even Game of Thrones through regular means has proven to be impossible.
Not really along the same lines at all, but it is much more accessible.
I have similar thoughts about Android. Love the game. Have maybe finished playing it twice.
Waterdeep is MAD casualer. And it's fluffy. It's probably easier for most folks to grasp, "Oh, my agents are here recruiting wizards, now I have 3 purlpe blocks and so I can use this card because it needs 3 purple blocks," or ,"Yeah, obviously it took 3 wizards, 2 fighters and 4 gold to do that quest. Cool, now I have 8 gold and a victory point." And it's all laid out very well. I, too, have Puerto Rico and it can look and sound intimidating. Waterdeep would probably take less than 5 minutes to explain. It's definitely not as deep, strategy wise, but by hanging similar mechanics on a fantasy intrigue skeleton, it makes the medicine go down a lot easier. How's that for mixed metaphors?
The insert looks nice but it just takes so long to get everything in and out of it.
I thought it was great at first - it looks great and is so nicely designed - but actually it isn't.
So I'm wondering: does the expansion fix/adjust these balance issues and make culture viable? Alternatively, are the different victory conditions already balanced, but our group just needs to learn to play?
I only have problems with the agent pawns (that's a very narrow groove) and VP tokens (which are awkwardly shaped for no real reason). Everything else just pops right out or, more importantly, stays in until needed (at which point it pops right out).
To be fair, this is partially because a guy in our group had the brilliant idea of using a (blunted) nail to thread the 1GP coins on, which makes getting those bastards in and out worlds easier.
I have probs with the building ownership markers too. So, agents, building markers, money and vp tokens are a problem. Which is quite a lot of the stuff.
I just think it's interesting - how something can look like a clever piece of design, all snug and pretty and that, and then one day my brain goes, 'Hold on! This is actually a pain in the ass!'
Go Ocean's Eleven on that problem. I can report great success just saying that, by God, you're going to play TI and you need some assholes to come join you.
The recruiting goes faster if you do it as a montage.
See, the ownership markers are one of the things I just leave in their holes until needed.
:winky:
That reminds me (as many things do) that I've got Root of Corruption arriving tomorrow along with King of Tokyo expansion and Race for the Galaxy which I traded away about a year ago and am once again craving with the Alien Artifacts expansion coming. Early Christmas gifts to myself.
there's extensive stuff written about this on Boardgamegeek. Without the expansion culture is harder to win with than the others yes. It's still useful to grab some culture when you can because those cards can be pretty awesome though.
But among science, military and econ I don't think you can say one is better than the others overall. For a given civ, there is probably one that is easier yes (and actually Rome can win with Culture competetively) but not overall.
I like getting this thread's opinion since I trust you guys more than Boardgamegeek.
Good to hear that about the expansion. I like culture so I've been bummed it didn't seem viable as a victory path (except as a help in getting one of the others). And then I guess I'm going to read up on counters to economic strategy. Right now it just seems so much faster than the others, and harder to stop.
Waterdeep hits the right middle ground for me; it scratches some of the same itches as the ascetic Euro games with their abstract wooden cubes, but is theme-y enough that I can actually get to play it on the regular. And, I mean, that applies to me as well; I would rather be pushing wizards and rogues around than barrels of cyan dye or whatever.
Is it too much to ask for a game like Twilight Struggle, that's not about the cold war?
First thought: dang, that's a lot of rules.
I mean, I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with it, because the individual design elements do interest me and the cyberpunk theme is like mother's milk, but I need to wait to tackle it till I'm in the right mindset to try and grok all the different processes going on.
Uhhhhhhh ...
*HUGE fan of Labyrinth here*
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Technically 1989 isn't about the Cold War so much as the internal strife in Russia that took place because of it. <_<
But other than that ... There's that Z-Man published one ... *some year relevant to Americans*: Making of the President.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?