I really disliked both T&E and Kemet. I'm much more on board with FCM so far.
I'm surprised by both of those dislikes
Your board game preferences seem randomized
Or do you just hate antiquity as a concept
man when I tried Kemet it was new! I'm just more concerned with managing fun across the time of a board game night than mercilessly proving my intellect superior to those of the poor souls i duped into spending time with me. I assume your favorite game is Go, you draft-hating, theme-ignoring automaton?!?
I really disliked both T&E and Kemet. I'm much more on board with FCM so far.
I'm surprised by both of those dislikes
Your board game preferences seem randomized
Or do you just hate antiquity as a concept
man when I tried Kemet it was new! I'm just more concerned with managing fun across the time of a board game night than mercilessly proving my intellect superior to those of the poor souls i duped into spending time with me. I assume your favorite game is Go, you draft-hating, theme-ignoring automaton?!?
I think EM meant like... thematic antiquity.
then i counter with blood rage and concordia and chaos in the old world
Hmm I think TnE is particularly good as an example of a Eurolike that connects to its theme in an interesting, abstract way, and Kemet is dripping with absurd fantastical theme
They're also both fun because aggression is promoted and rewarded when done intelligently
Hmm I think TnE is particularly good as an example of a Eurolike that connects to its theme in an interesting, abstract way, and Kemet is dripping with absurd fantastical theme
They're also both fun because aggression is promoted and rewarded when done intelligently
Over the last couple years I've gotten more picky about games, and if you've looked at my signature, it probably won't surprise you that "intelligent aggression promoted and rewarded" is a central pursuit of mine, heh.
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I am completely in the tank for Inis and Arboretum. Played them both absolutely to death and would play either right now. I don't think I've played Azul or Blue Moon, and I can't read the other two besides FCM. So I guess at the moment I'm batting 1000 with your sig?
+1
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
I am completely in the tank for Inis and Arboretum. Played them both absolutely to death and would play either right now. I don't think I've played Azul or Blue Moon, and I can't read the other two besides FCM. So I guess at the moment I'm batting 1000 with your sig?
Blue Moon needs to be moved out (Keyforge should be in that spot), but the others are Arcadia Quest (mostly to play with my 7-year-old, though I quite like it), and Archipelago, which is essentially built around the idea of "exploration through cooperative aggression".
The art is similar across editions. I find the prominent sky and grass colors a little distracting in the Renegade edition, but it's not offensive or anything. The icons for the different suits are far more distinguishable in the Renegade edition than in Z-Man.
Overall I don't find it much better or worse. I like that my Z-Man edition fits nicely on my shelf with their other deluxe card games.
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I am completely in the tank for Inis and Arboretum. Played them both absolutely to death and would play either right now. I don't think I've played Azul or Blue Moon, and I can't read the other two besides FCM. So I guess at the moment I'm batting 1000 with your sig?
Blue Moon needs to be moved out (Keyforge should be in that spot), but the others are Arcadia Quest (mostly to play with my 7-year-old, though I quite like it), and Archipelago, which is essentially built around the idea of "exploration through cooperative aggression".
*clicks tongue*
and we're back to eternal war
Archipelago's "loss, but not as bad as the other loss" totally doesn't work for my group and we routinely plunge the island into the sea rather than cooperate, as the person in 4th refuses to contribute equally and the person in 1st refuses to contribute extra
i love spirit island partly because it's made that the goal, thematically speaking
That one guy at work trying to get the nerds to try Malifaux finally tasted a little game called Scythe, his first euro-anything. Now he has seen the light. He still loves combat so he is going to check out Kemet soon.
I love Kemet but somehow getting it to the table is impossible. Every time I finally convince some rubes good friends to play it with me, the typical response is "hey that was a lot of fun! I forgot how much I liked this game" and then the next game day everyone is like mehhhhhhhh
I think its just the dudes on a map thing. It's such an ingrained prejudice. Everyone played Risk as kids and it ruined even the idea of the genre. Once they see the board and the bag of little plastic dudes and the idea that they're going to move dudes from one spot to another spot to fight more dudes their eyes gloss over.
It's funny because Chaos in the Old World was a much easier sell. I think it's the card play and the almost euro-like stuff going around the dudes on a map that lubricates the concept.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Got to finally, FINALLY play Scythe.
Man, that was good. Took an hour going over the rules, then another 2-3 hours to play, 4 players. I got my teeth kicked in as one player learned how to be super aggressive using combat cards and picking me off. I had Rusivet and Industrial and decided to try being a pacifist, which was not a great idea when the other objective was easier.
I am completely in the tank for Inis and Arboretum. Played them both absolutely to death and would play either right now. I don't think I've played Azul or Blue Moon, and I can't read the other two besides FCM. So I guess at the moment I'm batting 1000 with your sig?
Blue Moon needs to be moved out (Keyforge should be in that spot), but the others are Arcadia Quest (mostly to play with my 7-year-old, though I quite like it), and Archipelago, which is essentially built around the idea of "exploration through cooperative aggression".
*clicks tongue*
and we're back to eternal war
Archipelago's "loss, but not as bad as the other loss" totally doesn't work for my group and we routinely plunge the island into the sea rather than cooperate, as the person in 4th refuses to contribute equally and the person in 1st refuses to contribute extra
i love spirit island partly because it's made that the goal, thematically speaking
This sounds like the person in fourth being sensible and the person in first being a self destructive idiot.
We removed $300 partway through, so we had $900 for five players. It was still long enough that turn 2 train seemed mandatory, but I'm not sure that's a problem if you either don't play with 5 and new people or you just tell everyone to take that first turn and why.
Holy cow! So $1200 originally, is that right? You said you had put in $100, which means the ONLY possibility is that the others put in 3 $300 and 1 $200 reserve cards.
Welcome to Food Chain Magnate, noob!
2 of them were new! They decided randomly to put in $200 and $300 and then tried to compete with me for early dosh!
I thought about it and was like hmmm a fast game seems good for my first time and then WHOOPS EVERYBODY DISAGREED
:mad:
Usually when I'm teaching FCM, I explain what the reserve cards are, then suggest we just put in 100 apiece, or even just play to the first bank breaking. The first bank break is a good place to take stock of how the game is going and reflect on your actions, and people can start to see if what they are doing is working or not. Going for a full length game with 2 new players is pretty intense.
As someone who hasn't played FCM and so is very lost in this conversation, what is a reserve card?
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
FCM is largely a game of perfect information - there's no "randomized setup" for players, and what everyone has is open information at all times (except when everyone is planning their turn, but that rather makes sense :P ). The one exception is that at the very beginning of the game, everyone has a set of 3 "reserve" cards ($100, 200, 300), and they play one secretly. When the bank is emptied for the first time (it starts with a fixed amount of money), the reserves are revealed, that much money is added to the new bank, and the game will end when it is emptied the second time.
There's a touch more to it than that, but effectively, the reserve cards are players blind-bidding how long they want the game to last, as you can build a second bank with anywhere between $500 and $1500 in it. (I don't remember exactly, but I believe the first bank is $200, but generally you'll have some sort of engine by the time it empties, and players should expect to make money much faster afterwards)
I am completely in the tank for Inis and Arboretum. Played them both absolutely to death and would play either right now. I don't think I've played Azul or Blue Moon, and I can't read the other two besides FCM. So I guess at the moment I'm batting 1000 with your sig?
Blue Moon needs to be moved out (Keyforge should be in that spot), but the others are Arcadia Quest (mostly to play with my 7-year-old, though I quite like it), and Archipelago, which is essentially built around the idea of "exploration through cooperative aggression".
*clicks tongue*
and we're back to eternal war
Archipelago's "loss, but not as bad as the other loss" totally doesn't work for my group and we routinely plunge the island into the sea rather than cooperate, as the person in 4th refuses to contribute equally and the person in 1st refuses to contribute extra
i love spirit island partly because it's made that the goal, thematically speaking
This sounds like the person in fourth being sensible and the person in first being a self destructive idiot.
I don't challenge this interpretation, but I think I remember that the rulebook kind of does? The person in fourth should be incentivized to partially succeed because everybody loses is a "worse loss" than losing normally. I guess if the 4th place person is acting last, then they're turning a nonzero small chance of victory into an instant loss out of pique. I don't begrudge either player's decisions, quite.
FCM is largely a game of perfect information - there's no "randomized setup" for players, and what everyone has is open information at all times (except when everyone is planning their turn, but that rather makes sense :P ). The one exception is that at the very beginning of the game, everyone has a set of 3 "reserve" cards ($100, 200, 300), and they play one secretly. When the bank is emptied for the first time (it starts with a fixed amount of money), the reserves are revealed, that much money is added to the new bank, and the game will end when it is emptied the second time.
There's a touch more to it than that, but effectively, the reserve cards are players blind-bidding how long they want the game to last, as you can build a second bank with anywhere between $500 and $1500 in it. (I don't remember exactly, but I believe the first bank is $200, but generally you'll have some sort of engine by the time it empties, and players should expect to make money much faster afterwards)
Also you can play super fast or medium or super slow, so you can make the bank break earlier or later, and when the bank breaks it can slightly loosen or tighten the restrictions on your organization size. I was playing super fast and going for a quick bank break until some fast-strategy jerk found a mailbox spot that hit half the board with direct mail leaflets and stopped me from making money for 2 turns. Way to hand the game to the slow players, guy :mad:
On some level, it takes the “right” people to play Archipelago. But, unless you have people that don’t understand the rules or are just willfully obnoxious (so, ya know, don’t play games with them) the incentive structure of the game should mitigate the contribution issues. If you are winning, you should be incentivized to protect your ability to win and contribute more to the collective pot. If you are losing, you have less incentive to contribute. This also works as a pretty straight forward catch-up mechanic. Further, if you are winning, you are likely in a better position to win the bids to determine turn order, so why are you going to make the weaker players go last and potentially screw over the game.
This all assumes you are playing Archipelago competitivey. I don’t understand why anyone would bother with Archipelago played as a mostly-cooperative experience. Play an actual co-op game if that’s what you’re interested in - this isn’t it. I believe this is a game that you, solely, are trying to win and there just happens to be a fail state where everyone loses.
On some level, it takes the “right” people to play Archipelago. But, unless you have people that don’t understand the rules or are just willfully obnoxious (so, ya know, don’t play games with them) the incentive structure of the game should mitigate the contribution issues. If you are winning, you should be incentivized to protect your ability to win and contribute more to the collective pot. If you are losing, you have less incentive to contribute. This also works as a pretty straight forward catch-up mechanic. Further, if you are winning, you are likely in a better position to win the bids to determine turn order, so why are you going to make the weaker players go last and potentially screw over the game.
This all assumes you are playing Archipelago competitivey. I don’t understand why anyone would bother with Archipelago played as a mostly-cooperative experience. Play an actual co-op game if that’s what you’re interested in - this isn’t it. I believe this is a game that you, solely, are trying to win and there just happens to be a fail state where everyone loses.
Yeah, the issues are definitely mitigated at our table, in terms of people playing competitively. Everybody's definitely trying to do better than each other and the people doing well are trying to keep the game going.
We're consistently a little more willing to let the weaker players go last and not contribute quite enough extra than we should be, I guess. It's so easy to put someone in a state where they know they 100% lose if they don't chip in, and hard to decide not to do so at your own expense because they're unwilling and threaten you with mutual destruction.
Edit: You guys are almost convincing me to play again. It has a memory mechanic and rewards obsessive computation of possible enemy secret point scoring conditions, right?
Maybe I need to finish the coding on those DIY turn timers...
New Angeles has some good ideas and on paper replicates a lot of things from Archipelago, so I get why people always draw comparisons. Ultimately, yeah, it’s a pretty mediocre game on its own.
But, I think the biggest thing for me that makes it an unsuitable replacement for Archipelago is that it’s missing the exploration element. The building and expansion of the map and the quasi-area control mechanic is just so satisfying and that part is just completely absent from New Angeles.
+2
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
New Angeles has some good ideas and on paper replicates a lot of things from Archipelago, so I get why people always draw comparisons. Ultimately, yeah, it’s a pretty mediocre game on its own.
But, I think the biggest thing for me that makes it an unsuitable replacement for Archipelago is that it’s missing the exploration element. The building and expansion of the map and the quasi-area control mechanic is just so satisfying and that part is just completely absent from New Angeles.
Have you been inducted into the cult of Inis, as of yet?
I love Kemet but somehow getting it to the table is impossible. Every time I finally convince some rubes good friends to play it with me, the typical response is "hey that was a lot of fun! I forgot how much I liked this game" and then the next game day everyone is like mehhhhhhhh
I think its just the dudes on a map thing. It's such an ingrained prejudice. Everyone played Risk as kids and it ruined even the idea of the genre. Once they see the board and the bag of little plastic dudes and the idea that they're going to move dudes from one spot to another spot to fight more dudes their eyes gloss over.
It's funny because Chaos in the Old World was a much easier sell. I think it's the card play and the almost euro-like stuff going around the dudes on a map that lubricates the concept.
Kemet is even harder to break into than most asymmetrical games. Usually someone gets slaughtered their first game, but has a good idea going forward after that. In Kemet, you can still be in the dark about certain stuff even after 3-5 games. It's asking a lot for people to stick with it after their 3rd loss that ended in an eyeroll because they couldn't see some ridiculous combo coming.
Now that time has passed, has anyone still stuck with Root? I don't know a single person in any of my groups who didn't cool off it after a month.
MrBody on
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Wait what? Kemet is hard to Break into because every turn counts so a bad move turn one is often you out of the game. It seems pretty symmetrical to me though. At least at the start.
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Aw yeah Root is still rad as hell. You need a specific type of group that is happy to engage in the politics and the metagame but if you've got that it's a completely different experience from the other top dudes-on-a-map games.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Played Root for the first time and enjoyed it (even if we screwed up the rules for half the game). The expansion factions seem pretty neat, too. Is there a list out there of recommended "scenario" faction combinations with all the expansions, like there is for the base four?
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Played Root for the first time and enjoyed it (even if we screwed up the rules for half the game). The expansion factions seem pretty neat, too. Is there a list out there of recommended "scenario" faction combinations with all the expansions, like there is for the base four?
The expansion rules have a similar list in the back!
Posts
I think EM meant like... thematic antiquity.
then i counter with blood rage and concordia and chaos in the old world
anyway he meant whatever would hurt me more
They're also both fun because aggression is promoted and rewarded when done intelligently
I do like Go though!
Ummmmmmm.....
<raises hand sheepishly>
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Concordia is literally classical Roman antiquity, isn't it?
Oh I thought it was some 19th century ship game
I've never played it
you're thinking navegador, I think. It's by the same guy and has similar mechanics and the same pieces.
I actually own that one! It's fun.
Over the last couple years I've gotten more picky about games, and if you've looked at my signature, it probably won't surprise you that "intelligent aggression promoted and rewarded" is a central pursuit of mine, heh.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Blue Moon needs to be moved out (Keyforge should be in that spot), but the others are Arcadia Quest (mostly to play with my 7-year-old, though I quite like it), and Archipelago, which is essentially built around the idea of "exploration through cooperative aggression".
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Overall I don't find it much better or worse. I like that my Z-Man edition fits nicely on my shelf with their other deluxe card games.
*clicks tongue*
and we're back to eternal war
Archipelago's "loss, but not as bad as the other loss" totally doesn't work for my group and we routinely plunge the island into the sea rather than cooperate, as the person in 4th refuses to contribute equally and the person in 1st refuses to contribute extra
i love spirit island partly because it's made that the goal, thematically speaking
I think its just the dudes on a map thing. It's such an ingrained prejudice. Everyone played Risk as kids and it ruined even the idea of the genre. Once they see the board and the bag of little plastic dudes and the idea that they're going to move dudes from one spot to another spot to fight more dudes their eyes gloss over.
It's funny because Chaos in the Old World was a much easier sell. I think it's the card play and the almost euro-like stuff going around the dudes on a map that lubricates the concept.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Oh I most certainly told him that!
Man, that was good. Took an hour going over the rules, then another 2-3 hours to play, 4 players. I got my teeth kicked in as one player learned how to be super aggressive using combat cards and picking me off. I had Rusivet and Industrial and decided to try being a pacifist, which was not a great idea when the other objective was easier.
This sounds like the person in fourth being sensible and the person in first being a self destructive idiot.
Usually when I'm teaching FCM, I explain what the reserve cards are, then suggest we just put in 100 apiece, or even just play to the first bank breaking. The first bank break is a good place to take stock of how the game is going and reflect on your actions, and people can start to see if what they are doing is working or not. Going for a full length game with 2 new players is pretty intense.
There's a touch more to it than that, but effectively, the reserve cards are players blind-bidding how long they want the game to last, as you can build a second bank with anywhere between $500 and $1500 in it. (I don't remember exactly, but I believe the first bank is $200, but generally you'll have some sort of engine by the time it empties, and players should expect to make money much faster afterwards)
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I don't challenge this interpretation, but I think I remember that the rulebook kind of does? The person in fourth should be incentivized to partially succeed because everybody loses is a "worse loss" than losing normally. I guess if the 4th place person is acting last, then they're turning a nonzero small chance of victory into an instant loss out of pique. I don't begrudge either player's decisions, quite.
Also you can play super fast or medium or super slow, so you can make the bank break earlier or later, and when the bank breaks it can slightly loosen or tighten the restrictions on your organization size. I was playing super fast and going for a quick bank break until some fast-strategy jerk found a mailbox spot that hit half the board with direct mail leaflets and stopped me from making money for 2 turns. Way to hand the game to the slow players, guy :mad:
This all assumes you are playing Archipelago competitivey. I don’t understand why anyone would bother with Archipelago played as a mostly-cooperative experience. Play an actual co-op game if that’s what you’re interested in - this isn’t it. I believe this is a game that you, solely, are trying to win and there just happens to be a fail state where everyone loses.
Yeah, the issues are definitely mitigated at our table, in terms of people playing competitively. Everybody's definitely trying to do better than each other and the people doing well are trying to keep the game going.
We're consistently a little more willing to let the weaker players go last and not contribute quite enough extra than we should be, I guess. It's so easy to put someone in a state where they know they 100% lose if they don't chip in, and hard to decide not to do so at your own expense because they're unwilling and threaten you with mutual destruction.
Edit: You guys are almost convincing me to play again. It has a memory mechanic and rewards obsessive computation of possible enemy secret point scoring conditions, right?
Maybe I need to finish the coding on those DIY turn timers...
New Angeles is also a semi-co op negotiation hellscape.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
But, I think the biggest thing for me that makes it an unsuitable replacement for Archipelago is that it’s missing the exploration element. The building and expansion of the map and the quasi-area control mechanic is just so satisfying and that part is just completely absent from New Angeles.
Have you been inducted into the cult of Inis, as of yet?
Kemet is even harder to break into than most asymmetrical games. Usually someone gets slaughtered their first game, but has a good idea going forward after that. In Kemet, you can still be in the dark about certain stuff even after 3-5 games. It's asking a lot for people to stick with it after their 3rd loss that ended in an eyeroll because they couldn't see some ridiculous combo coming.
Now that time has passed, has anyone still stuck with Root? I don't know a single person in any of my groups who didn't cool off it after a month.
The expansion rules have a similar list in the back!