Do a lot of you use VASSAL to play board games? I am moving to NC soon and my game group and I were discussion options for playing Eclipse online and just curious what you all think about it.
It's powerful but it's got a really bad case of the open source where the UI is a nightmare of eight separate windows for everything. Even if you're familiar with a game, there's almost no way to figure out how to use it in Vassal short of someone who does know sitting down and walking you through it. I haven't been able to find any online guides either.
I'm hosting a Twilight Imperium game right now using Vassal because you can show the actual board and pieces, but I process about two-thirds of it in Photoshop. It's actually easier to constantly switch back and forth between Vassal and photoshop, importing pictures from one into the other, than it is to purely use Vassal for everything. That should give you an idea on the user friendliness.
Am I an awful person for not liking Power Grid? I bought it a while ago because of all the praise I'd been hearing, but after playing three games of it, I don't really have any desire to play again. Too mathy, I guess, and too many opportunities for serious AP. I can appreciate the elegance of the design, but the game just isn't that much fun to me.
Not at all!
The theme is bone dry even by euro standards. Success just seemed a matter of who was willing to stare at the board the longest to track the best connections. Super AP prone for such little fun. The last time I was talked into playing people were taking 20 minutes each for the last turn.
Any game where you get the urge to wander off is not a good game. Period.
The great thing about Power Grid is the resource market mechanism. It's well integrated into the rest of the game, and works beautifully because of it. The rest is very average and - as others have mentioned - too mathy to be fun for too long.
I used to play Survive with school kids all the time. They loved it.
Sometimes two girls would team up because they were friends, but that just made them kill everyone else.
Maybe kids aren't as touchy as I think. But I just feel like there are so many opportunities for situations where the only reason for killing a players meeples are: "Because I feel like it" or "because I hate you the most" :P
meh, your objective is to have the highest score. If the kids your playing with take things too personally then maybe it isn't right for them, but many can recognize it's just a game.
Like any boardgames, if someone is not having fun (after giving it a fair shot) they should probably not play and do something else they enjoy.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I have bought Archipelago but have to pick it up this weekend, and hopefully play it the weekend after. I am very interested in seeing people's reactions to it, whether they think it's racist (I don't, obviously), or interestingly political, or just a game with meeples.
I've finally managed to get to play it (two games in two days with separate groups), and the reaction in both cases has been "just a game with meeples." The Slavery card came up both times, and nobody seemed to care. I guess we could all be horrible racists or something, though.
But either way, the reaction to the actual game has been... vaguely positive? "Would probably play again" seems to be the common sentiment. I personally was left feeling not much at all. It was a game that I played, that filled some time, but it's not something I'm super-eager to get back to again. Which is actually good, since I thought it was a bit shit after a short 15-min test game.
Did you play very co-operatively or what? And what kind of things does your group like? I am anticipating strong tensions in my group. We keep losing our games of Marvel Legendary because people try brinksmanship too much.
Man I am so slow at thread. Anyway.
Of the two groups, one is the university gaming club (mostly of uni-going age, obviously), and will mostly play anything. Co-op is less common there. but not unheard of, and we bust out the heavier euros with some frequency. I don't think anybody bothered trading the entire game; we mostly just explored and tried to get cattle (since that was our trend card). The rebellion level stayed way down the entire game, so we had very little need to co-operate, until the last turn when it zoomed up most of the track and doomed us. Except for the guy playing Separatist. :rotate:
The other group is mostly in their 30s; I notice co-op stuff is a bit more common there (Shadows over Camelot, BSG, etc). The rebellion rose fairly evenly, so we kept a close eye on which crises we were leaving exposed at the end of the evolution phase, and it never really became an issue. Game ended after four turns, due to population meeting a card requirement, and final scores were something like 11/10/10/7/4.
I have bought Archipelago but have to pick it up this weekend, and hopefully play it the weekend after. I am very interested in seeing people's reactions to it, whether they think it's racist (I don't, obviously), or interestingly political, or just a game with meeples.
I've finally managed to get to play it (two games in two days with separate groups), and the reaction in both cases has been "just a game with meeples." The Slavery card came up both times, and nobody seemed to care. I guess we could all be horrible racists or something, though.
But either way, the reaction to the actual game has been... vaguely positive? "Would probably play again" seems to be the common sentiment. I personally was left feeling not much at all. It was a game that I played, that filled some time, but it's not something I'm super-eager to get back to again. Which is actually good, since I thought it was a bit shit after a short 15-min test game.
Did you play very co-operatively or what? And what kind of things does your group like? I am anticipating strong tensions in my group. We keep losing our games of Marvel Legendary because people try brinksmanship too much.
Man I am so slow at thread. Anyway.
Of the two groups, one is the university gaming club (mostly of uni-going age, obviously), and will mostly play anything. Co-op is less common there. but not unheard of, and we bust out the heavier euros with some frequency. I don't think anybody bothered trading the entire game; we mostly just explored and tried to get cattle (since that was our trend card). The rebellion level stayed way down the entire game, so we had very little need to co-operate, until the last turn when it zoomed up most of the track and doomed us. Except for the guy playing Separatist. :rotate:
The other group is mostly in their 30s; I notice co-op stuff is a bit more common there (Shadows over Camelot, BSG, etc). The rebellion rose fairly evenly, so we kept a close eye on which crises we were leaving exposed at the end of the evolution phase, and it never really became an issue. Game ended after four turns, due to population meeting a card requirement, and final scores were something like 11/10/10/7/4.
I read that the short game is a bit lacking. The review said that he played short out of fear of it sprawling, but found it a bit meh, and then it took off when he played Medium or Long.
I hope my group enjoy it. They are very competitive, like I said, and we like negotiating and bluffing and deduction a lot. So there will be a lot of thought about other people's goals, and a lot of interaction. I hope that your meh was comes from your groups fairly uninteractive.
I used to play Survive with school kids all the time. They loved it.
Sometimes two girls would team up because they were friends, but that just made them kill everyone else.
Maybe kids aren't as touchy as I think. But I just feel like there are so many opportunities for situations where the only reason for killing a players meeples are: "Because I feel like it" or "because I hate you the most" :P
Kids aren't really dicks, they just attack because it's fun or funny, or good for their score. It's only a game. They compete but don't usually take it very seriously.
It is now my goal to prevent all these Monopoly goals from being completed, for these dreams require play of Monopoly and I don't support such sadomasochism.
With all the Monopoly talk it reminded me I just picked up a copy of Solorquest (original game) in very good condition for exactly $0. I played this so much as a kid. I still have my board and all the components from when I was a kid but the box was destroyed long ago. Now that I have two of all the game bits and an extra board I am VERY tempted to modify the game and modernize it somehow. A design challenge for the summer. My first thought is to make it a quicker lighter Merchant of Venus.
I do like Boite a Jeux. Yucata has a much wider selection of games, but the UI of BAJ is much prettier, and the quality of the games is higher on average. Although I do love a game of Thunderstone, El Grande, or Finca or two on Yucata.
I am trying to broaden and reduce my online gaming. More different games, just one of each game at a time. So one game of Ascension instead of 10.
Played Mage Knight, thought it was fiddly as hell and the rules unintuitive. I would much rather play Eclipse, where every action makes me squee with pleasure at the design skill. Or Descent if I wanted fantasy adventure.
Haven't played Feld much. But he is the king of dryish euros, I hear.
The Boîte à Jeux interface is workable, but still leaves a bit to be desired. I somehow joined the wrong Dixit game, and I can't find any option to leave it. So I'm going to stumble through a game with strangers, in German, using whatever German I remember from high school, because I don't want to be a dick and ruin their game. Huh.
So Small World for iOS is on sale this weekend. Except I know they are doing Small World 2. I keep trying to figure out if Small World 2 is a free upgrade for Small World, or a different app entirely. The kickstarter campaign had this blurb about it...
I already own Small World iPad, how can I get Small World 2?
You're in luck. Not only did you only play $ 6.99 for the base game (the price on the app store will increase to $ 9.99 once Small World 2 ships), you will also automatically receive a free upgrade to Small World 2 for iPad, when it ships later this summer. Yes - you will be getting the 3-5 player maps, online gaming, retina support and much more all for free.
Our newest digital expansion, Be Not Afraid, will be available as an in-app purchase. But you will not have to repurchase Cursed! and Grand Dames if you already own those; they will automatically transfer. And if you wish to receive our Kickstarter Backers digital Bonus Pack, pledge $ 8 at the Tritons level.
Which sounds pretty conclusive, but on further examination seems vague somehow. Does anybody know anything at all about this?
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
The Boîte à Jeux interface is workable, but still leaves a bit to be desired. I somehow joined the wrong Dixit game, and I can't find any option to leave it. So I'm going to stumble through a game with strangers, in German, using whatever German I remember from high school, because I don't want to be a dick and ruin their game. Huh.
Forgive me for restating this. You're in a game of Dixit that is online, with strangers, in a language that you're barely conversant in. That is terrifying to me. I'm uncomfortable talking to people I know on the phone.
EDIT: Oh, thanks to you guys I just played my first game of Castles of Burgundy on BaJ with my wife. We liked it. She seems to especially enjoy that kind of puzzlish euro. She also likes the organization and optimizing of your player board. It felt a bit long, though. Maybe it was just getting used to the interface, though.
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
A Study in Emerald ends in like 3 and a half hours for anyone who wanted to jump on.
Staring at it, trying to decide.
On the one hand, I'd love it if it's pulled off right. On the other, MW's terrible rulebook, his lack of sufficient playtesting with AFAoS. On the first hand, if I miss the first printing the second won't be until 2015 ..., gah.
A Study in Emerald ends in like 3 and a half hours for anyone who wanted to jump on.
Staring at it, trying to decide.
On the one hand, I'd love it if it's pulled off right. On the other, MW's terrible rulebook, his lack of sufficient playtesting with AFAoS. On the first hand, if I miss the first printing the second won't be until 2015 ..., gah.
Given the 2nd printing is so far off, you should be able to recoup your costs if you don't like it.
Edit: Especially if you can get yourself to a Neil Gaiman event and get him to sign it. :P
InkSplat on
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
A Study in Emerald ends in like 3 and a half hours for anyone who wanted to jump on.
Staring at it, trying to decide.
On the one hand, I'd love it if it's pulled off right. On the other, MW's terrible rulebook, his lack of sufficient playtesting with AFAoS. On the first hand, if I miss the first printing the second won't be until 2015 ..., gah.
Given the 2nd printing is so far off, you should be able to recoup your costs if you don't like it.
Edit: Especially if you can get yourself to a Neil Gaiman event and get him to sign it. :P
But I'm trying so hard to curb the spending, gahhhh.
Actually, it'd totally be awesome to get Neil Gaiman to sign the Sherlock card, and Amanda Palmer to sign the Irene Adler card. I might have to try and make that happen.
Also, I'm torn. Do I increase my pledge for HEX, or do I plan a new CSI order with Legends of Andor & Letters from Whitechapel?
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
0
Options
blahmcblahYou pick your side and you stick - you don't cut and run when things get ugly.Registered Userregular
Played Mage Knight, thought it was fiddly as hell and the rules unintuitive. I would much rather play Eclipse, where every action makes me squee with pleasure at the design skill. Or Descent if I wanted fantasy adventure.
Haven't played Feld much. But he is the king of dryish euros, I hear.
It actually ends up VERY intuitive but it takes a good bit of familiarity before it reaches that state.
Trying to read the rules for Mage Knight taught me this. I don't think I like games that are mashups. I don't like games that are "Deck building plus dungeon crawling and worker placement!" or "Role selection with area control and card battles!" or other nonsense. I like games that do role selection, and do it better than any other game. I like games that do deck building, and have polished it, and only it, to a blinding shine.
I have a few games that combine two mechanics that I enjoy. But mostly because they have a primary mechanic, and an auxiliary mechanic. Core Worlds has deck building, but it plays second fiddle to the tableau building. After all, you only cycle your deck 3 or 4 times tops. But I don't have a single game that attempts to combine three. It just seems too much like throwing shit together for the sake of it, and frequently the multiple systems buck against each other like a poorly maintained machine. I swear sometimes I even hear gears grinding in my head when I try to play those games.
Then again, I also own and enjoy Runewars so maybe I'm a huge hypocrite.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Since it's been probably a year since I said it last, "Runewars is the only board game I've played that I disliked so much that I actively tried to lose the game to another player so we could stop."
Since it's been probably a year since I said it last, "Runewars is the only board game I've played that I disliked so much that I actively tried to lose the game to another player so we could stop."
Trying to read the rules for Mage Knight taught me this. I don't think I like games that are mashups. I don't like games that are "Deck building plus dungeon crawling and worker placement!" or "Role selection with area control and card battles!" or other nonsense. I like games that do role selection, and do it better than any other game. I like games that do deck building, and have polished it, and only it, to a blinding shine.
I have a few games that combine two mechanics that I enjoy. But mostly because they have a primary mechanic, and an auxiliary mechanic. Core Worlds has deck building, but it plays second fiddle to the tableau building. After all, you only cycle your deck 3 or 4 times tops. But I don't have a single game that attempts to combine three. It just seems too much like throwing shit together for the sake of it, and frequently the multiple systems buck against each other like a poorly maintained machine. I swear sometimes I even hear gears grinding in my head when I try to play those games.
Then again, I also own and enjoy Runewars so maybe I'm a huge hypocrite.
I read this, and at first I really resonated with it. I prefer games that are more "stripped down" like El Grande and Dominion. But then, even C&C:A has a huge amount of hand management AND unit placement AND dice rolling. And what about games like Steam? Even if you play by the basic rules (i.e. no auctions), you have an economic system for income, plus tile placement in the the buying and building of tracks, and goods delivery. Maybe you don't like Eclipse, but it does a whole bunch of things; it certainly seems to be a stretch to say that it's primarily a worker placement game.
So what IS a "mashup" game, anyway? There are some games that more-or-less deliberately have a whole RANGE of unrelated mechanics. One good example is Tribune, where you have a pile of mini-mechanics to get cards, like worker placement and blind bidding and drafting, that don't necessarily interrelate in any meaningful way. Is that the idea?
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Since it's been probably a year since I said it last, "Runewars is the only board game I've played that I disliked so much that I actively tried to lose the game to another player so we could stop."
I'm extremely curious why you hated it so much.
We're talking no expansions, and it's been a long time since I played so forgive me, but there's a few things I completely hated about that game ...
First off, heroes. They're sort of this underpinned minigame that does some stuff sometimes, but maybe not, and you have to cross the board, but maybe not, and you might get dead because someone else decides you should, but maybe not. They felt clunky, and what, sometimes they found stones, maybe? Which was kind of the point of having them? Because otherwise all they tended to do was mess up other heroes?
Secondly, combat (and diplomacy, and probably any other system that used the cards) was terrible. "Hey, lets have this system with a finite number of successes, and it's SUPER EASY TO KEEP TRACK OF." Seriously? God, why couldn't they have just used dice like reasonable people?
Thirdly, sooooooo slooooooow ... Build shit, crawl. Also, make sure you can feed stuff. I already don't like Agricola much, but hey, sure, lets put starvation mechanics in a fantasy wargame.
The order selection stuff was alright. I didn't think it made the game stand out in any way, and it worked as far as forcing staging for movement and such.
I don't even remember what you did the blind bidding for - some sort of council powers? I was okay with that - I enjoy blind bidding. That was, however, literally the only part of the game I enjoyed.
Trying to read the rules for Mage Knight taught me this. I don't think I like games that are mashups. I don't like games that are "Deck building plus dungeon crawling and worker placement!" or "Role selection with area control and card battles!" or other nonsense. I like games that do role selection, and do it better than any other game. I like games that do deck building, and have polished it, and only it, to a blinding shine.
I have a few games that combine two mechanics that I enjoy. But mostly because they have a primary mechanic, and an auxiliary mechanic. Core Worlds has deck building, but it plays second fiddle to the tableau building. After all, you only cycle your deck 3 or 4 times tops. But I don't have a single game that attempts to combine three. It just seems too much like throwing shit together for the sake of it, and frequently the multiple systems buck against each other like a poorly maintained machine. I swear sometimes I even hear gears grinding in my head when I try to play those games.
Then again, I also own and enjoy Runewars so maybe I'm a huge hypocrite.
I read this, and at first I really resonated with it. I prefer games that are more "stripped down" like El Grande and Dominion. But then, even C&C:A has a huge amount of hand management AND unit placement AND dice rolling. And what about games like Steam? Even if you play by the basic rules (i.e. no auctions), you have an economic system for income, plus tile placement in the the buying and building of tracks, and goods delivery. Maybe you don't like Eclipse, but it does a whole bunch of things; it certainly seems to be a stretch to say that it's primarily a worker placement game.
So what IS a "mashup" game, anyway? There are some games that more-or-less deliberately have a whole RANGE of unrelated mechanics. One good example is Tribune, where you have a pile of mini-mechanics to get cards, like worker placement and blind bidding and drafting, that don't necessarily interrelate in any meaningful way. Is that the idea?
All good points. I guess what rubs me the wrong way is games that feel too much like separate games wrapped together in duct tape. Obviously a lot of games have to combine multiple mechanics. But some games do that better than others, usually be placing certain mechanics subordinate to others. For example, I would say Tribune is primarily a worker placement game. All the other mechanics are subordinate to that, and facilitate it. But that could just be my read on the game.
Posts
It's powerful but it's got a really bad case of the open source where the UI is a nightmare of eight separate windows for everything. Even if you're familiar with a game, there's almost no way to figure out how to use it in Vassal short of someone who does know sitting down and walking you through it. I haven't been able to find any online guides either.
I'm hosting a Twilight Imperium game right now using Vassal because you can show the actual board and pieces, but I process about two-thirds of it in Photoshop. It's actually easier to constantly switch back and forth between Vassal and photoshop, importing pictures from one into the other, than it is to purely use Vassal for everything. That should give you an idea on the user friendliness.
Not at all!
The theme is bone dry even by euro standards. Success just seemed a matter of who was willing to stare at the board the longest to track the best connections. Super AP prone for such little fun. The last time I was talked into playing people were taking 20 minutes each for the last turn.
Any game where you get the urge to wander off is not a good game. Period.
Maybe kids aren't as touchy as I think. But I just feel like there are so many opportunities for situations where the only reason for killing a players meeples are: "Because I feel like it" or "because I hate you the most" :P
Like any boardgames, if someone is not having fun (after giving it a fair shot) they should probably not play and do something else they enjoy.
Man I am so slow at thread. Anyway.
Of the two groups, one is the university gaming club (mostly of uni-going age, obviously), and will mostly play anything. Co-op is less common there. but not unheard of, and we bust out the heavier euros with some frequency. I don't think anybody bothered trading the entire game; we mostly just explored and tried to get cattle (since that was our trend card). The rebellion level stayed way down the entire game, so we had very little need to co-operate, until the last turn when it zoomed up most of the track and doomed us. Except for the guy playing Separatist. :rotate:
The other group is mostly in their 30s; I notice co-op stuff is a bit more common there (Shadows over Camelot, BSG, etc). The rebellion rose fairly evenly, so we kept a close eye on which crises we were leaving exposed at the end of the evolution phase, and it never really became an issue. Game ended after four turns, due to population meeting a card requirement, and final scores were something like 11/10/10/7/4.
I read that the short game is a bit lacking. The review said that he played short out of fear of it sprawling, but found it a bit meh, and then it took off when he played Medium or Long.
I hope my group enjoy it. They are very competitive, like I said, and we like negotiating and bluffing and deduction a lot. So there will be a lot of thought about other people's goals, and a lot of interaction. I hope that your meh was comes from your groups fairly uninteractive.
Kids aren't really dicks, they just attack because it's fun or funny, or good for their score. It's only a game. They compete but don't usually take it very seriously.
There's no rule that says we can't have more than one game going...
Setting one up now. Who else wants in?
With all the Monopoly talk it reminded me I just picked up a copy of Solorquest (original game) in very good condition for exactly $0. I played this so much as a kid. I still have my board and all the components from when I was a kid but the box was destroyed long ago. Now that I have two of all the game bits and an extra board I am VERY tempted to modify the game and modernize it somehow. A design challenge for the summer. My first thought is to make it a quicker lighter Merchant of Venus.
Hey, where'd you get those shelves?
I am loving the clever names.
The unwashed masses must never learn our location!
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
One slot left. Where are you, @blahmcblah?!
I am trying to broaden and reduce my online gaming. More different games, just one of each game at a time. So one game of Ascension instead of 10.
In that case there's no rush for Blah, since you were the only other one invited who hasn't accepted yet. Good to know.
Played Mage Knight, thought it was fiddly as hell and the rules unintuitive. I would much rather play Eclipse, where every action makes me squee with pleasure at the design skill. Or Descent if I wanted fantasy adventure.
Haven't played Feld much. But he is the king of dryish euros, I hear.
Yeah, I will let him join. Cheers though.
Which sounds pretty conclusive, but on further examination seems vague somehow. Does anybody know anything at all about this?
Forgive me for restating this. You're in a game of Dixit that is online, with strangers, in a language that you're barely conversant in. That is terrifying to me. I'm uncomfortable talking to people I know on the phone.
EDIT: Oh, thanks to you guys I just played my first game of Castles of Burgundy on BaJ with my wife. We liked it. She seems to especially enjoy that kind of puzzlish euro. She also likes the organization and optimizing of your player board. It felt a bit long, though. Maybe it was just getting used to the interface, though.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Mage Knight is good but complicated. Castles of Burgundy is good, but setup between rounds can be fiddly (then again Mage Knight is fiddly too).
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
Staring at it, trying to decide.
On the one hand, I'd love it if it's pulled off right. On the other, MW's terrible rulebook, his lack of sufficient playtesting with AFAoS. On the first hand, if I miss the first printing the second won't be until 2015 ..., gah.
Given the 2nd printing is so far off, you should be able to recoup your costs if you don't like it.
Edit: Especially if you can get yourself to a Neil Gaiman event and get him to sign it. :P
But I'm trying so hard to curb the spending, gahhhh.
Also, I'm torn. Do I increase my pledge for HEX, or do I plan a new CSI order with Legends of Andor & Letters from Whitechapel?
I was sleeping! I have to do that, on occasion. The game title is great. Thanks for the invite, I'm in now.
Aha. Your indicator said you were online, so I was confused.
It actually ends up VERY intuitive but it takes a good bit of familiarity before it reaches that state.
I have a few games that combine two mechanics that I enjoy. But mostly because they have a primary mechanic, and an auxiliary mechanic. Core Worlds has deck building, but it plays second fiddle to the tableau building. After all, you only cycle your deck 3 or 4 times tops. But I don't have a single game that attempts to combine three. It just seems too much like throwing shit together for the sake of it, and frequently the multiple systems buck against each other like a poorly maintained machine. I swear sometimes I even hear gears grinding in my head when I try to play those games.
Then again, I also own and enjoy Runewars so maybe I'm a huge hypocrite.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I'm extremely curious why you hated it so much.
I read this, and at first I really resonated with it. I prefer games that are more "stripped down" like El Grande and Dominion. But then, even C&C:A has a huge amount of hand management AND unit placement AND dice rolling. And what about games like Steam? Even if you play by the basic rules (i.e. no auctions), you have an economic system for income, plus tile placement in the the buying and building of tracks, and goods delivery. Maybe you don't like Eclipse, but it does a whole bunch of things; it certainly seems to be a stretch to say that it's primarily a worker placement game.
So what IS a "mashup" game, anyway? There are some games that more-or-less deliberately have a whole RANGE of unrelated mechanics. One good example is Tribune, where you have a pile of mini-mechanics to get cards, like worker placement and blind bidding and drafting, that don't necessarily interrelate in any meaningful way. Is that the idea?
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
We're talking no expansions, and it's been a long time since I played so forgive me, but there's a few things I completely hated about that game ...
First off, heroes. They're sort of this underpinned minigame that does some stuff sometimes, but maybe not, and you have to cross the board, but maybe not, and you might get dead because someone else decides you should, but maybe not. They felt clunky, and what, sometimes they found stones, maybe? Which was kind of the point of having them? Because otherwise all they tended to do was mess up other heroes?
Secondly, combat (and diplomacy, and probably any other system that used the cards) was terrible. "Hey, lets have this system with a finite number of successes, and it's SUPER EASY TO KEEP TRACK OF." Seriously? God, why couldn't they have just used dice like reasonable people?
Thirdly, sooooooo slooooooow ... Build shit, crawl. Also, make sure you can feed stuff. I already don't like Agricola much, but hey, sure, lets put starvation mechanics in a fantasy wargame.
The order selection stuff was alright. I didn't think it made the game stand out in any way, and it worked as far as forcing staging for movement and such.
I don't even remember what you did the blind bidding for - some sort of council powers? I was okay with that - I enjoy blind bidding. That was, however, literally the only part of the game I enjoyed.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
You're welcome. ;-)
(BTW there's a link to the story on Treefrog's website. A good read.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
All good points. I guess what rubs me the wrong way is games that feel too much like separate games wrapped together in duct tape. Obviously a lot of games have to combine multiple mechanics. But some games do that better than others, usually be placing certain mechanics subordinate to others. For example, I would say Tribune is primarily a worker placement game. All the other mechanics are subordinate to that, and facilitate it. But that could just be my read on the game.