Quarriors with the advanced rules is so much more of a thoughtful game.
Oh man, isn't it though? What I love most about it is that you suddenly have a reason to buy and use all the different dice, and not just wizards & dragons.
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
Probably closer to 2 than 5. I don't know what my group is going to look like once the semester ends, so we should stick to the low end of that timescale I think.
You mentioned the whole "building something" thing as a mechanic that would be appreciated. Thing being, this is not just something that shows up in Civ games (although that is where it's definitely apparent). Many, many euro's will have that element, fit the timeslots you're looking at, and are good games. Puerto Rico, Agricola and Power Grid all have you building some sort of thing to show off at the end of the game (imho Agricola does this the best); and all of these games will most likely extend farther than an hour.
That being said, Eclipse is a very solid purchase, plays 30 minutes per player, and has been noted to be surprisingly accessible as well as fairly deep. Clash of Cultures is good but I'm fairly certain it's the longer game between it and Eclipse.
I disagree with diving head first into Through the Ages because if Terra Mystica scares you, TtA will make you run for the hills. Not to mention TtA can take a bit to play....
My girlfriend and I have had a lot of fun playing 2-player Agricola. It's totally different than when you're playing with 5 people.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Oh, Olympos (Not Olympus) also has some cool, simple civ building. You don't actually build towns as contol territories, but you can use your resources to purchase development tiles that give you new abilities. That game is one I wish I played more, but for some reason a few of my friends are opposed to it.
I am really falling in love with San Juan. It's lighter than Race for the Galaxy, which means I can actually play it more often. But it retains RftG's elegance and flow. Specifically the simultaneous turns. San Juan and RftG just highlight how badly Puerto Rico suffers for having turns proceed in lock step. It's a nonstop waiting game, to take very parts of a turn, followed by more waiting. Blah. I think Mayor is my favorite phase not just because more people are always welcome, but because I don't have to fucking wait on anyone to do something with them!
Preach it!
I just don't know why Race and Puerto Rico get so much more love than San Juan. It's just so elegant.
San Juan loses me with its weird system for selling goods.
I found a bunch of 3M bookshelf games the other day
Sadly getting the parts for them is a quest in itself but the Rule of Law with someone who did go to law school is not fun
It's the explanation/learning curve that concerns me.
I don't have a group of people who will sit down and spend a whole night learning the rules to something that isn't an actual RPG. If I throw down something that complex I'm afraid I'm going to scare off converts.
Supposedly the next FFG LCG is going to be co-op, so, if you're looking to get in on a co-op one from the ground floor, wait a few months.
I was sad when my wife didn't really enjoy LotR, but part of her problem stemmed from the fact that, at least at that point, you were forced to use at least one non-star character due to the points they cost. She wanted Legolas and Gimli, or Aragorn and Boromir, not Aragorn and Jeff. So, as a result, I've got just the base set and nothing else.
I just hope the next co-op LCG uses pods, because that mechanic is perfect for my wife.
InkSplat on
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
It's the explanation/learning curve that concerns me.
I don't have a group of people who will sit down and spend a whole night learning the rules to something that isn't an actual RPG. If I throw down something that complex I'm afraid I'm going to scare off converts.
It's sounding more and more like Agricola is the way to go. More complex than the games you've described, but great for teaching; you start with the "family game," which is good in its own right, but has zero hidden information. That way you can explain as you go, and just explain that in your first play, the goal is not to starve. Once you have a game of that under your belt, you can introduce the advanced game with the E deck, and since they have played once, the motivation for playing the various cards will be clear.
+1
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
Terra Mystica is nowhere near as scary as it looks. It is a bear and a half to explain the rules, but once the game's rolling, it's really good.
FFG's Civilizations is absolutely awful. Don't go anywhere near it.
Absolutely awful seems like a pretty ridiculous level of hyperbole. Fair enough if you don't like the game, but can we maybe reserve 'absolutely awful' for Monopoly etc.?
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
It doesn't have to be hyperbole, so much as taste. I think Agricola is 'absolutely awful', although I know it's simply my own feelings towards it. The game itself isn't horrendously flawed or anything. I can't speak to Civilization though (and aren't there two versions of that game or something?), so whatever, maybe more people do think it's awful.
@ArcticLancer I usually love you so, but you're just so, so wrong. Agricola might be slightly flawed in a fixable way because of the imbalance of hidden information, but it's still a great game.
How fiddly is it? Is there a lot of restocking between turns?
How does it play with two? Does it scale very well?
Edit: Bonus question! How bad is AP in this game?
Fiddliness factor is super low. The most restocking you'll do is replacing buildings at the end of a turn if they happen to get built, or swapping them all out for the Age II versions halfway through the game, and since there's only ever six at once this is not exactly the hardest thing in the world. It scales pretty well from what I've seen, though I've only personally played with the full four. You just block up actions with some of the unused pieces.
As far as AP go, it is unfortunately quite prone to it, since you'll be needing to figure out what you'll be doing for the next half-dozen turns in some cases. I still enjoy it, though.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
@ArcticLancer I usually love you so, but you're just so, so wrong. Agricola might be slightly flawed in a fixable way because of the imbalance of hidden information, but it's still a great game.
That's just it. I don't think the game itself is totally awful so much as I have literally no enjoyment playing it. Hence, to me, it's pretty awful, but I can respect what it does for the board game world.
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
Thanks everyone for your help so far. I realize I'm being kind of a brat about this, so I appreciate the patience.
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
To me, Agricola isn't a game that I do engage with at all. Rather, I engage with other players as they take the space I needed and I damn them to hell for eternity.
I absolutely hated Agricola the first time I played it. I'm glad I tried it again, as it is now one of my favorites. It turns out that it was the particular guy I was playing with that ruined it for me.
I am of the opinion that your first game must be the family version. It is just so much easier to grasp what's going on without the hidden info.
As I said, I will play online with anyone who wants to learn.
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
To me, Agricola isn't a game that I do engage with at all. Rather, I engage with other players as they take the space I needed and I damn them to hell for eternity.
I absolutely hated Agricola the first time I played it. I'm glad I tried it again, as it is now one of my favorites. It turns out that it was the particular guy I was playing with that ruined it for me.
I am of the opinion that your first game must be the family version. It is just so much easier to grasp what's going on without the hidden info.
As I said, I will play online with anyone who wants to learn.
I dunno, we started with the full version and never looked back. The family game is almost physically painful to play; it's the driest thing in the world, with everyone building these near-identical farms. Cards make things far more interesting.
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
It doesn't have to be hyperbole, so much as taste. I think Agricola is 'absolutely awful', although I know it's simply my own feelings towards it. The game itself isn't horrendously flawed or anything. I can't speak to Civilization though (and aren't there two versions of that game or something?), so whatever, maybe more people do think it's awful.
(We're talking about the 2010 version by Fantasy Flight, which I specified in the post that started this.)
In that case Magic Pink could have said something like 'I feel it is absolutely awful', 'in my opinion' etc. To me his post read like he was saying the game is, objectively, absolutely awful, which given how many people like it seems unlikely (high ranking on BGG). I and my group like it, and from this thread I remember @RiemannLives also being fairly positive.
Arguing about taste is futile, but I just get a bit irritated when people express their personal preference as absolute fact.
It doesn't have to be hyperbole, so much as taste. I think Agricola is 'absolutely awful', although I know it's simply my own feelings towards it. The game itself isn't horrendously flawed or anything. I can't speak to Civilization though (and aren't there two versions of that game or something?), so whatever, maybe more people do think it's awful.
(We're talking about the 2010 version by Fantasy Flight, which I specified in the post that started this.)
In that case Magic Pink could have said something like 'I feel it is absolutely awful', 'in my opinion' etc. To me his post read like he was saying the game is, objectively, absolutely awful, which given how many people like it seems unlikely (high ranking on BGG). I and my group like it, and from this thread I remember @RiemannLives also being fairly positive.
Arguing about taste is futile, but I just get a bit irritated when people express their personal preference as absolute fact.
Jakob, Jakob, calm down. Look at it this way:
It's 0240. Either go to sleep or finally start a new game of AFAoS and fight me.
+1
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
It doesn't have to be hyperbole, so much as taste. I think Agricola is 'absolutely awful', although I know it's simply my own feelings towards it. The game itself isn't horrendously flawed or anything. I can't speak to Civilization though (and aren't there two versions of that game or something?), so whatever, maybe more people do think it's awful.
(We're talking about the 2010 version by Fantasy Flight, which I specified in the post that started this.)
In that case Magic Pink could have said something like 'I feel it is absolutely awful', 'in my opinion' etc. To me his post read like he was saying the game is, objectively, absolutely awful, which given how many people like it seems unlikely (high ranking on BGG). I and my group like it, and from this thread I remember @RiemannLives also being fairly positive.
Arguing about taste is futile, but I just get a bit irritated when people express their personal preference as absolute fact.
Jakob, Jakob, calm down. Look at it this way:
It's 0240. Either go to sleep or finally start a new game of AFAoS and fight me.
I started it 35 minutes ago.
edit: also, I love how 'a bit irritated' prompted a calm down.
It doesn't have to be hyperbole, so much as taste. I think Agricola is 'absolutely awful', although I know it's simply my own feelings towards it. The game itself isn't horrendously flawed or anything. I can't speak to Civilization though (and aren't there two versions of that game or something?), so whatever, maybe more people do think it's awful.
(We're talking about the 2010 version by Fantasy Flight, which I specified in the post that started this.)
In that case Magic Pink could have said something like 'I feel it is absolutely awful', 'in my opinion' etc. To me his post read like he was saying the game is, objectively, absolutely awful, which given how many people like it seems unlikely (high ranking on BGG). I and my group like it, and from this thread I remember @RiemannLives also being fairly positive.
Arguing about taste is futile, but I just get a bit irritated when people express their personal preference as absolute fact.
Jakob, Jakob, calm down. Look at it this way:
It's 0240. Either go to sleep or finally start a new game of AFAoS and fight me.
I started it 35 minutes ago.
edit: also, I love how 'a bit irritated' prompted a calm down.
Also also:
Bud, I was just teasing you.
You know it's always love.
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I know. It was just funny because by my standards 'a bit irritated' is probably actually on the high end of the anger-meter. I'm a pretty phlegmatic dude.
Anyway, board games! Has anyone tried the expansions for 7 wonders and/or Civilization (2010)? The couple in my group who own both games are considering getting one or more - Fame and Fortune as I understand it makes culture stronger and the other one I think changes combat to make it a bit more intuitive?. Those are two areas where I feel the game could definitely use some improvement.
With Agricola I feel like the more bits you get in there the better it is, for the most part.
Depending on how many games your group has under their belt I would just skip over the family version, and personally I'd try to get people to start including the Farmers of the Moor expansion as soon as people are comfortable enough with the base game. People having variable starting farms is a nice touch. I like the increased emphasis on major improvements as that is a shared play area so I feel like it ups player interaction some. I also like the special actions because the choice between going after a spot you want but maybe having to pay 2 food for a special action later makes for some more interesting decisions between the players and less "obvious" turns.
On a different note:
So, I am noticing for LCGs that the general advice seems to always be to buy two copies of the core sets so you can make consistent decks out of the starting cards. I guess a plus side would also be getting a his and hers copy of the rules, and that we could each have our own box to keep whatever deck we are currently fiddling with at our respective apartments. Anyway, do you guys agree with this idea of getting two starters? Should I pretty much just buy two out of the gate? Is this true for all of the LCGs?
I think all of FFG's LCGs benefit from getting 2 core sets right off.
Some might benefit from getting a 3rd later down the road for a full playset but that's iffy. (others, like SW, give a full playset with just 2 copies. I think a couple give a near-full playset with 2 copies).
I take the greatest thrill from shouting, "I WILL BE TAKING THE FUCKING ACTION"
or
"I'M TAKING ALL THE WOOD AND YOU WILL STAAAAARVE"
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I liked Agricola the first 3 times I played it.
Then something just snapped in the 4th game, and I got nothing out of it at all.
Then again in the 5th.
Then I tried one more time a year later with Farmers of the Moor, and found it even worse.
So now I just refuse to play it, because what's the point if it's giving me about the same level of enjoyment as Munchkin?
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
To me, Agricola isn't a game that I do engage with at all. Rather, I engage with other players as they take the space I needed and I damn them to hell for eternity.
I absolutely hated Agricola the first time I played it. I'm glad I tried it again, as it is now one of my favorites. It turns out that it was the particular guy I was playing with that ruined it for me.
I am of the opinion that your first game must be the family version. It is just so much easier to grasp what's going on without the hidden info.
As I said, I will play online with anyone who wants to learn.
I dunno, we started with the full version and never looked back. The family game is almost physically painful to play; it's the driest thing in the world, with everyone building these near-identical farms. Cards make things far more interesting.
Just one thing to contribute here. Since Agricola is a bit of a longer game, one big reason to play the family version is that it is significantly shorter without the hemming and hawing over the cards. When you have 4+ players it can make a difference. Also, in a strange way, a 4+ player family version often feels MORE difficult (in the sense of feeding your family), because the lack of cards makes the resources tighter. I'm pretty sure that family version games tend to have lower average scores, meaning that the farms were less "optimized".
Also, I'm incredibly engaged with Agricola, as a general rule. Building a farm is a very tangible and understandable goal. If I'm anxious over feeding my family, I call that engaged.
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
I liked Agricola the first 3 times I played it.
Then something just snapped in the 4th game, and I got nothing out of it at all.
Then again in the 5th.
Then I tried one more time a year later with Farmers of the Moor, and found it even worse.
So now I just refuse to play it, because what's the point if it's giving me about the same level of enjoyment as Munchkin?
Yeah, at the end of the day boardgames are about having fun, and if a game isn't giving you that than why bother. Of course, sometimes you have to take one for the team. But at least I can play an iPhone game under the table whenever my group decides they really want to play Arkham Horror.
I wonder what happened that made you go from liking to not liking the game though.
The people I play with refuse to play with the cards. We tried it once, and they pretty much all thought that it added too much unneeded complexity. I don't exactly agree with that, but I can understand how it can seem unneccesary.
I decided to ask for Tzolk'in and Morels for my b-day next month. I was about to go with Star Wars minis, but I already have a money-hole right now (Netrunner). I figure in six months or a year, I can pick up the minis for a discounted price or at least get a pack with more variation (they have combo packs here, I don't know about elsewhere).
Playing Agricola without the cards can be fucking brutal. The minor improvements help you shore up point deficits or generate extra resources for yourself, and without them to help you out, everything becomes much more cutthroat. That's my opinion, anyway.
+2
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
Thanks everyone for your help so far. I realize I'm being kind of a brat about this, so I appreciate the patience.
IF you're feeling bold, you could try Dungeon Lords or Dungeon Petz. They fit in the time range you're looking for, imho are just as good as the games I've mentioned before if not better, but are slightly on the "games for gamers" side. Dungeon Lords is probably the better 2P game as well since it's 2P game isn't just "these other player pieces are dummies, how creative!"
Playing Agricola without the cards can be fucking brutal. The minor improvements help you shore up point deficits or generate extra resources for yourself, and without them to help you out, everything becomes much more cutthroat. That's my opinion, anyway.
Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. In my previous post I hedged my bets saying that it "often" felt like a "tighter resource" game, but what I really wanted to say was that this version often produced thoughts like, "Oh man oh man brutal starving children eating raw grain eating family pets no wood no wood NO WOOD WHY CAN'T I EVER BUY WOOD".
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
Thanks everyone for your help so far. I realize I'm being kind of a brat about this, so I appreciate the patience.
IF you're feeling bold, you could try Dungeon Lords or Dungeon Petz. They fit in the time range you're looking for, imho are just as good as the games I've mentioned before if not better, but are slightly on the "games for gamers" side. Dungeon Lords is probably the better 2P game as well since it's 2P game isn't just "these other player pieces are dummies, how creative!"
From what I've read on BGG, Dungeon Lords is actually supposed to be a pretty horrid 2-player game. Dungeon Petz, on the other hand, is great for 2 players. I don't know why you're knocking dummy players, they make blocking possible (which is basically the only interaction in most worker placement games) and move around every turn so they're not constantly blocking the same stuff. Also, Dungeon Petz is dripping with theme, though there are also a lot of small theme-related rules(pure euro enthusiasts hate these, but I don't mind them).
About that. I've watched several walkthroughs of Terra Mystica, and while I could put this off on my wife not being a gamer, the honest truth is that that game scares the hell out of me.
You're definitely entitled to feel how you feel, but it's honestly incredibly easy to play. The strategy is deep, and I couldn't claim to have a handle on much of it yet, but it's really no worse for complexity than some of the other civ-building suggestions.
Did you happen to play with the Giants in Terra Mystica? We can't get a handle on them. Their racial ability seems like nothing but a handicap. The most common tactic I've seen with them is the fortress rush but they still seem to lag behind other races.
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
My concern with Agricola (and I understand that I'm being completely unreasonably picky here) is that it seems crazy dry. I'm not sure I could properly engage with a game like that.
Thanks everyone for your help so far. I realize I'm being kind of a brat about this, so I appreciate the patience.
IF you're feeling bold, you could try Dungeon Lords or Dungeon Petz. They fit in the time range you're looking for, imho are just as good as the games I've mentioned before if not better, but are slightly on the "games for gamers" side. Dungeon Lords is probably the better 2P game as well since it's 2P game isn't just "these other player pieces are dummies, how creative!"
From what I've read on BGG, Dungeon Lords is actually supposed to be a pretty horrid 2-player game. Dungeon Petz, on the other hand, is great for 2 players. I don't know why you're knocking dummy players, they make blocking possible (which is basically the only interaction in most worker placement games) and move around every turn so they're not constantly blocking the same stuff. Also, Dungeon Petz is dripping with theme, though there are also a lot of small theme-related rules(pure euro enthusiasts hate these, but I don't mind them).
If BGG said that, they're being pretty stupid! Dungeon Lords' 2-player game is pretty much the equivalent of Dungeon Petz except in 2-player (not three player) Dungeon Lords each player loosely controls where the dummies go. Other than that both implementations are as similar as mechanics can get.
I definitely don't think you need two sets for LOTR LCG. Each player can only use 1 to 3 types, or 'spheres' of cards, usually 2. So there is very little overlap, and the base set is enough for 2 players. This is also helped by its co-op nature.
I do have 5 or so of the small expansions, each about 50 cards. They were a good addition: a scenario, a hero, some cards for your deck.
Playing Agricola without the cards can be fucking brutal. The minor improvements help you shore up point deficits or generate extra resources for yourself, and without them to help you out, everything becomes much more cutthroat. That's my opinion, anyway.
Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. In my previous post I hedged my bets saying that it "often" felt like a "tighter resource" game, but what I really wanted to say was that this version often produced thoughts like, "Oh man oh man brutal starving children eating raw grain eating family pets no wood no wood NO WOOD WHY CAN'T I EVER BUY WOOD".
I got some of my family to play the family version of Agricola, and they seemed to like it (they at least could grasp the mechanics) so I hope to play with the cards some time with them. But that's probably a pipe dream - the times I can have just enough family members together to play a ("real") game where there isn't either too many people to play or too many people who pooh-pooh the idea around is few and far between.
Agricola is a funny game. I absolutely love it. Plus I can really appreciate all the different ways you can play it, right out of the box. You think the minor improvements and occupations add too much randomness? Play without them! You like them too much to do that? Do a drafting round! Drafting takes too long? Draw 10 and keep 7!
In some ways I feel like having so many different ways to play your game is lazy design, and people might have a hard time finding the "right" way to play for themselves. On the other hand, what else can ya do?
With respect to the LCGs, don't bother buying two copies. Seriously. Everyone I know who complains about needing two copies are hyper competitive tournament wannabe players. No offense to anyone here. I mean, if you are the sort to obsess over deck consistency, and you can't be happy if you don't have the maximum allowed number of copies of every card, then I guess buy however many core sets you want. But if you don't even know what those things mean, seriously, who cares. I've never bought 2 core sets, and I've had a blast with every LCG I've played. Plus, if you stay on top of the booster cycles, they do include max copies of everything. So by the time you are a complete cycle through the game, you'll be set. I'd much rather buy a core set and then a complete cycle than 2 core sets.
Posts
Oh man, isn't it though? What I love most about it is that you suddenly have a reason to buy and use all the different dice, and not just wizards & dragons.
You mentioned the whole "building something" thing as a mechanic that would be appreciated. Thing being, this is not just something that shows up in Civ games (although that is where it's definitely apparent). Many, many euro's will have that element, fit the timeslots you're looking at, and are good games. Puerto Rico, Agricola and Power Grid all have you building some sort of thing to show off at the end of the game (imho Agricola does this the best); and all of these games will most likely extend farther than an hour.
That being said, Eclipse is a very solid purchase, plays 30 minutes per player, and has been noted to be surprisingly accessible as well as fairly deep. Clash of Cultures is good but I'm fairly certain it's the longer game between it and Eclipse.
I disagree with diving head first into Through the Ages because if Terra Mystica scares you, TtA will make you run for the hills. Not to mention TtA can take a bit to play....
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
San Juan loses me with its weird system for selling goods.
How fiddly is it? Is there a lot of restocking between turns?
How does it play with two? Does it scale very well?
Edit: Bonus question! How bad is AP in this game?
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
FFG's Civilizations is absolutely awful. Don't go anywhere near it.
Sadly getting the parts for them is a quest in itself but the Rule of Law with someone who did go to law school is not fun
I don't have a group of people who will sit down and spend a whole night learning the rules to something that isn't an actual RPG. If I throw down something that complex I'm afraid I'm going to scare off converts.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I was sad when my wife didn't really enjoy LotR, but part of her problem stemmed from the fact that, at least at that point, you were forced to use at least one non-star character due to the points they cost. She wanted Legolas and Gimli, or Aragorn and Boromir, not Aragorn and Jeff. So, as a result, I've got just the base set and nothing else.
I just hope the next co-op LCG uses pods, because that mechanic is perfect for my wife.
Absolutely awful seems like a pretty ridiculous level of hyperbole. Fair enough if you don't like the game, but can we maybe reserve 'absolutely awful' for Monopoly etc.?
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Fiddliness factor is super low. The most restocking you'll do is replacing buildings at the end of a turn if they happen to get built, or swapping them all out for the Age II versions halfway through the game, and since there's only ever six at once this is not exactly the hardest thing in the world. It scales pretty well from what I've seen, though I've only personally played with the full four. You just block up actions with some of the unused pieces.
As far as AP go, it is unfortunately quite prone to it, since you'll be needing to figure out what you'll be doing for the next half-dozen turns in some cases. I still enjoy it, though.
That's just it. I don't think the game itself is totally awful so much as I have literally no enjoyment playing it. Hence, to me, it's pretty awful, but I can respect what it does for the board game world.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Thanks everyone for your help so far. I realize I'm being kind of a brat about this, so I appreciate the patience.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I absolutely hated Agricola the first time I played it. I'm glad I tried it again, as it is now one of my favorites. It turns out that it was the particular guy I was playing with that ruined it for me.
I am of the opinion that your first game must be the family version. It is just so much easier to grasp what's going on without the hidden info.
As I said, I will play online with anyone who wants to learn.
I dunno, we started with the full version and never looked back. The family game is almost physically painful to play; it's the driest thing in the world, with everyone building these near-identical farms. Cards make things far more interesting.
(We're talking about the 2010 version by Fantasy Flight, which I specified in the post that started this.)
In that case Magic Pink could have said something like 'I feel it is absolutely awful', 'in my opinion' etc. To me his post read like he was saying the game is, objectively, absolutely awful, which given how many people like it seems unlikely (high ranking on BGG). I and my group like it, and from this thread I remember @RiemannLives also being fairly positive.
Arguing about taste is futile, but I just get a bit irritated when people express their personal preference as absolute fact.
Jakob, Jakob, calm down. Look at it this way:
It's 0240. Either go to sleep or finally start a new game of AFAoS and fight me.
I started it 35 minutes ago.
edit: also, I love how 'a bit irritated' prompted a calm down.
Also also:
Bud, I was just teasing you.
You know it's always love.
Anyway, board games! Has anyone tried the expansions for 7 wonders and/or Civilization (2010)? The couple in my group who own both games are considering getting one or more - Fame and Fortune as I understand it makes culture stronger and the other one I think changes combat to make it a bit more intuitive?. Those are two areas where I feel the game could definitely use some improvement.
Depending on how many games your group has under their belt I would just skip over the family version, and personally I'd try to get people to start including the Farmers of the Moor expansion as soon as people are comfortable enough with the base game. People having variable starting farms is a nice touch. I like the increased emphasis on major improvements as that is a shared play area so I feel like it ups player interaction some. I also like the special actions because the choice between going after a spot you want but maybe having to pay 2 food for a special action later makes for some more interesting decisions between the players and less "obvious" turns.
On a different note:
So, I am noticing for LCGs that the general advice seems to always be to buy two copies of the core sets so you can make consistent decks out of the starting cards. I guess a plus side would also be getting a his and hers copy of the rules, and that we could each have our own box to keep whatever deck we are currently fiddling with at our respective apartments. Anyway, do you guys agree with this idea of getting two starters? Should I pretty much just buy two out of the gate? Is this true for all of the LCGs?
Some might benefit from getting a 3rd later down the road for a full playset but that's iffy. (others, like SW, give a full playset with just 2 copies. I think a couple give a near-full playset with 2 copies).
I take the greatest thrill from shouting, "I WILL BE TAKING THE FUCKING ACTION"
or
"I'M TAKING ALL THE WOOD AND YOU WILL STAAAAARVE"
Then something just snapped in the 4th game, and I got nothing out of it at all.
Then again in the 5th.
Then I tried one more time a year later with Farmers of the Moor, and found it even worse.
So now I just refuse to play it, because what's the point if it's giving me about the same level of enjoyment as Munchkin?
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Just one thing to contribute here. Since Agricola is a bit of a longer game, one big reason to play the family version is that it is significantly shorter without the hemming and hawing over the cards. When you have 4+ players it can make a difference. Also, in a strange way, a 4+ player family version often feels MORE difficult (in the sense of feeding your family), because the lack of cards makes the resources tighter. I'm pretty sure that family version games tend to have lower average scores, meaning that the farms were less "optimized".
Also, I'm incredibly engaged with Agricola, as a general rule. Building a farm is a very tangible and understandable goal. If I'm anxious over feeding my family, I call that engaged.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Yeah, at the end of the day boardgames are about having fun, and if a game isn't giving you that than why bother. Of course, sometimes you have to take one for the team. But at least I can play an iPhone game under the table whenever my group decides they really want to play Arkham Horror.
I wonder what happened that made you go from liking to not liking the game though.
I decided to ask for Tzolk'in and Morels for my b-day next month. I was about to go with Star Wars minis, but I already have a money-hole right now (Netrunner). I figure in six months or a year, I can pick up the minis for a discounted price or at least get a pack with more variation (they have combo packs here, I don't know about elsewhere).
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
IF you're feeling bold, you could try Dungeon Lords or Dungeon Petz. They fit in the time range you're looking for, imho are just as good as the games I've mentioned before if not better, but are slightly on the "games for gamers" side. Dungeon Lords is probably the better 2P game as well since it's 2P game isn't just "these other player pieces are dummies, how creative!"
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. In my previous post I hedged my bets saying that it "often" felt like a "tighter resource" game, but what I really wanted to say was that this version often produced thoughts like, "Oh man oh man brutal starving children eating raw grain eating family pets no wood no wood NO WOOD WHY CAN'T I EVER BUY WOOD".
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
From what I've read on BGG, Dungeon Lords is actually supposed to be a pretty horrid 2-player game. Dungeon Petz, on the other hand, is great for 2 players. I don't know why you're knocking dummy players, they make blocking possible (which is basically the only interaction in most worker placement games) and move around every turn so they're not constantly blocking the same stuff. Also, Dungeon Petz is dripping with theme, though there are also a lot of small theme-related rules(pure euro enthusiasts hate these, but I don't mind them).
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
Did you happen to play with the Giants in Terra Mystica? We can't get a handle on them. Their racial ability seems like nothing but a handicap. The most common tactic I've seen with them is the fortress rush but they still seem to lag behind other races.
If BGG said that, they're being pretty stupid! Dungeon Lords' 2-player game is pretty much the equivalent of Dungeon Petz except in 2-player (not three player) Dungeon Lords each player loosely controls where the dummies go. Other than that both implementations are as similar as mechanics can get.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
I definitely don't think you need two sets for LOTR LCG. Each player can only use 1 to 3 types, or 'spheres' of cards, usually 2. So there is very little overlap, and the base set is enough for 2 players. This is also helped by its co-op nature.
I do have 5 or so of the small expansions, each about 50 cards. They were a good addition: a scenario, a hero, some cards for your deck.
I got some of my family to play the family version of Agricola, and they seemed to like it (they at least could grasp the mechanics) so I hope to play with the cards some time with them. But that's probably a pipe dream - the times I can have just enough family members together to play a ("real") game where there isn't either too many people to play or too many people who pooh-pooh the idea around is few and far between.
In some ways I feel like having so many different ways to play your game is lazy design, and people might have a hard time finding the "right" way to play for themselves. On the other hand, what else can ya do?
With respect to the LCGs, don't bother buying two copies. Seriously. Everyone I know who complains about needing two copies are hyper competitive tournament wannabe players. No offense to anyone here. I mean, if you are the sort to obsess over deck consistency, and you can't be happy if you don't have the maximum allowed number of copies of every card, then I guess buy however many core sets you want. But if you don't even know what those things mean, seriously, who cares. I've never bought 2 core sets, and I've had a blast with every LCG I've played. Plus, if you stay on top of the booster cycles, they do include max copies of everything. So by the time you are a complete cycle through the game, you'll be set. I'd much rather buy a core set and then a complete cycle than 2 core sets.