I haven't really played much of it so when I was introducing it to people I had no answer to them asking "why would you ever have more than 3 workers, because you can only ever produce three things at a time and having more workers just makes it more expensive to produce so it's a lose-lose game" and I had no answer beyond "uhhhhhh I guess options?"
So, in I think @MrBody 's forum go of this, I stacked workers to get the star (and facilitate the production/action loops my cards had) and then used mechs to spread out the stack in the last turn or two to get territory to boost the final score.
Like, yeah, you don't need the 8 until you need the star, but once you have the star then just don't plan on producing much and triggering the cost anymore.
Trade instead.
You get an odd number of workers that doesn't trigger the higher cost, and produce what you think is necessary. Usually that's only the stuff for the bottom actions that your mat gives you the most coins for.
I don't play enough to try it, but I've always wanted to try a "heck to stars" strategy. We're conditioned to look at them as victory points, but they're really not. You don't get any bonus for being the first to get six, just the power to end the game. The stars themselves are worth points, but not THAT much more than other stuff. And you sacrifice so much jumping through hoops to get those stars. The heck to stars strategy grabs stars when you can, but doesn't go out of your way to do so. Instead concentrate on max coin production and spreading out to as many territories as possible in the final turns.
Tried a TTS game of Game of Thrones 2nd edition: Dance of Dragons expansion.
SU&SD were completely wrong about it, to the point that I don't think they even played it and just stopped at unboxing and glancing over the rules.
Their big complaint was that the base game was too long (yes), and since the new Dragon Lady faction benefits from a long game, they alone would force the game to last a long time. That's an opinion you could only form by glancing at the rules and never playing a single game. In reality, the game is actually faster now. The new board setup starts everyone as developed factions who are already at each other's doorsteps, so no more spending several turns recruiting and consolidating empty land. Game is wrapped up in around 6-7 turns as opposed to 8-10 for the base game. Of course Dragon Lady doesn't want anyone else to win before them, but neither does anyone else.
The new setup also starts a lot of houses off as fragmented in multiple areas as opposed to a solid blob (Baratheon especially). This allows for a much more dynamic early game as you decide where to focus on (the far north while abandoning Dragonstone? Vice versa? Trying to hold both?). There is no longer a scripted opening with little interacting (no more Greyjoy bulldozing Lannister while Stark and Baratheon do nothing because it was far more advantageous for them to expand their hold on neutral lands). Neutrals are no longer speed bumps to boost your economy since you can now control their units by being high enough on the Throne track.
There's more politicking. Players can now trade power tokens freely at any time, really helps cement deals. Dragon Lady faction is always last on every track and never bids for herself, but does bid amounts for OTHER players, so everyone is always trying to win that player's favor for bidding. Her faction is also capable of reaching anyone at any time with her dragons. Dragons can "march" to any space on the board by flying. They start off at 1 strength and grow up to five each later on, but cannot be replaced once killed. It's not directly in her interest to act before all her hidden supporter regions are uncovered, but usually happens as either part of favors or to prevent a win.
Overall I'd say it's a big improvement over the base. It's shorter, more dynamic starting position, and more deal making instead of Greyjoy/Stark/Baratheon doing their own thing and ignoring everyone. The one thing I'm not sure about are the new house leader cards. There might be too many with tricky special text. It's pretty much mandatory for everyone to have a printed out sheet of everyone's cards so no nasty surprises come up.
Tried a TTS game of Game of Thrones 2nd edition: Dance of Dragons expansion.
SU&SD were completely wrong about it, to the point that I don't think they even played it and just stopped at unboxing and glancing over the rules.
Their big complaint was that the base game was too long (yes), and since the new Dragon Lady faction benefits from a long game, they alone would force the game to last a long time. That's an opinion you could only form by glancing at the rules and never playing a single game. In reality, the game is actually faster now. The new board setup starts everyone as developed factions who are already at each other's doorsteps, so no more spending several turns recruiting and consolidating empty land. Game is wrapped up in around 6-7 turns as opposed to 8-10 for the base game. Of course Dragon Lady doesn't want anyone else to win before them, but neither does anyone else.
The new setup also starts a lot of houses off as fragmented in multiple areas as opposed to a solid blob (Baratheon especially). This allows for a much more dynamic early game as you decide where to focus on (the far north while abandoning Dragonstone? Vice versa? Trying to hold both?). There is no longer a scripted opening with little interacting (no more Greyjoy bulldozing Lannister while Stark and Baratheon do nothing because it was far more advantageous for them to expand their hold on neutral lands). Neutrals are no longer speed bumps to boost your economy since you can now control their units by being high enough on the Throne track.
There's more politicking. Players can now trade power tokens freely at any time, really helps cement deals. Dragon Lady faction is always last on every track and never bids for herself, but does bid amounts for OTHER players, so everyone is always trying to win that player's favor for bidding. Her faction is also capable of reaching anyone at any time with her dragons. Dragons can "march" to any space on the board by flying. They start off at 1 strength and grow up to five each later on, but cannot be replaced once killed. It's not directly in her interest to act before all her hidden supporter regions are uncovered, but usually happens as either part of favors or to prevent a win.
Overall I'd say it's a big improvement over the base. It's shorter, more dynamic starting position, and more deal making instead of Greyjoy/Stark/Baratheon doing their own thing and ignoring everyone. The one thing I'm not sure about are the new house leader cards. There might be too many with tricky special text. It's pretty much mandatory for everyone to have a printed out sheet of everyone's cards so no nasty surprises come up.
Did you get to play it at lower player counts? We played a 4 player game without the expansion, and I really wanted to like this game, but it was not an enjoyable experience at all. If felt that no matter how much Starks/Greyjoys attacked the Baratheons and Lannisters they could avoid conflict and just expand south with Siege engines.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Tried a TTS game of Game of Thrones 2nd edition: Dance of Dragons expansion.
SU&SD were completely wrong about it, to the point that I don't think they even played it and just stopped at unboxing and glancing over the rules.
Their big complaint was that the base game was too long (yes), and since the new Dragon Lady faction benefits from a long game, they alone would force the game to last a long time. That's an opinion you could only form by glancing at the rules and never playing a single game. In reality, the game is actually faster now. The new board setup starts everyone as developed factions who are already at each other's doorsteps, so no more spending several turns recruiting and consolidating empty land. Game is wrapped up in around 6-7 turns as opposed to 8-10 for the base game. Of course Dragon Lady doesn't want anyone else to win before them, but neither does anyone else.
The new setup also starts a lot of houses off as fragmented in multiple areas as opposed to a solid blob (Baratheon especially). This allows for a much more dynamic early game as you decide where to focus on (the far north while abandoning Dragonstone? Vice versa? Trying to hold both?). There is no longer a scripted opening with little interacting (no more Greyjoy bulldozing Lannister while Stark and Baratheon do nothing because it was far more advantageous for them to expand their hold on neutral lands). Neutrals are no longer speed bumps to boost your economy since you can now control their units by being high enough on the Throne track.
There's more politicking. Players can now trade power tokens freely at any time, really helps cement deals. Dragon Lady faction is always last on every track and never bids for herself, but does bid amounts for OTHER players, so everyone is always trying to win that player's favor for bidding. Her faction is also capable of reaching anyone at any time with her dragons. Dragons can "march" to any space on the board by flying. They start off at 1 strength and grow up to five each later on, but cannot be replaced once killed. It's not directly in her interest to act before all her hidden supporter regions are uncovered, but usually happens as either part of favors or to prevent a win.
Overall I'd say it's a big improvement over the base. It's shorter, more dynamic starting position, and more deal making instead of Greyjoy/Stark/Baratheon doing their own thing and ignoring everyone. The one thing I'm not sure about are the new house leader cards. There might be too many with tricky special text. It's pretty much mandatory for everyone to have a printed out sheet of everyone's cards so no nasty surprises come up.
Did you get to play it at lower player counts? We played a 4 player game without the expansion, and I really wanted to like this game, but it was not an enjoyable experience at all. If felt that no matter how much Starks/Greyjoys attacked the Baratheons and Lannisters they could avoid conflict and just expand south with Siege engines.
The base game only works at 6.
The other expansion let's you play at 4
It's sort of bullshit that the game claims it can support other players counts
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
WearingglassesOf the friendly neighborhood varietyRegistered Userregular
Question on the power token trading:
Is it a literal trading eg you will be holding a different faction's power token, or is it a "faction A spends a power token, faction B gains a power token" kinda thing?
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited May 2019
Got a chance to play Fallout: The Board Game.
I'm not sure what I think of it? I mean, it feels solid, but it also feels like a competitive version of Arkham Horror. Instead of being a team of players, we were all loners trying to make our way in the wasteland, and often at competing goals. The latecomer got stuck with either the Super Mutant or the Brotherhood dude, picked the Brotherhood, and was stuck not really being able to do much because they were constantly trying to get a weapon. We cycled through encounter cards extremely quickly. There was also a lot of vagueness when it came to the Far Harbor scenario we played.
I dunno. I thought I'd enjoy it more, especially given my love of Arkham Horror (3rd obviously took lessons) and Outer Rim. But the agenda system just really soured it, because some people were able to get tons of agendas that got more powerful as they pushed a faction, and everyone else... didn't stand a chance.
Edit: Oooh, there is a limit to how many agenda cards you can have. That... might be where we slipped up.
Is it a literal trading eg you will be holding a different faction's power token, or is it a "faction A spends a power token, faction B gains a power token" kinda thing?
The latter? You can give your tokens to other people at any time. Sets up situations that never happened before, like a 3rd faction adjacent to a battle has a support order, and the other 2 bid to receive that support for the battle.
I still can't imagine SU&SD even bothered playing this. The expansion making the game faster is apparent after only 2/3rds of a single play. I guess they were too busy playing Blood on the Clocktower every week for months to bother squeezing in one play of another game they were producing an infomercial for reviewing.
MrBody on
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Possibly really basic but I'm new to the game and was introducing it to a friend last night and I played skids and on midnight masks I drew On the Lam and I wasn't sure if I played it right. I had an idea that we could use it, I'd run through the location that had a cultist and basically drag them to where our Roland was waiting to beat them up because they wouldn't get attack of opportunities while I was under the effect and it was worded that they couldn't attack instead of couldn't engage so it seemed to me like they still would engage and stick with me?
This is the latest "Fable" game from Friedemann Friese, though the fable aspect is quite underplayed. More on that in a bit.
Fine Sand is a reverse deckbuilding game. Players all start with identical decks, and try to shed cards as quickly as possible. When a player needs to draw cards but can't, this triggers the end of the game, and the player with the fewest cards left wins. To get rid of these cards, players can build them into their tableaus (offering new and better actions to take), build some cheap but useless cards just to get rid of them, use some special card powers, and offload cards onto their neighbor.
This "offload" mechanism is key. In a game that would otherwise have a very solitaire feel, the fact that you are constantly being fed cards by your neighbor adds a ton of interaction from just one little rule. Deciding when and what to offload is not an easy decision at higher levels of play; you can ditch expensive cards, potentially giving your opponent a useful ability and denying it of yourself, or you can ditch useless cards, but give them an easy thing to build and get rid of. Making the right choice requires analyzing what will be least helpful for them.
The game also just flies by, since all play is simultaneous but not real-time. Everyone takes a turn together, and then once everyone has signaled completion with a handy wooden token, the next turn begins.
Back to the Fable thing now. In these games, rules are introduced gradually, but not in the destructive fashion of Legacy games so the game can be completely reset. Unlike the other Fable games to date, there are no changes introduced mid-game. Instead, as part of cleanup all players remove a randomly-chosen but identical set of three cards from their decks, and introduce the next three cards in the sequence. This lets the rules be introduced gradually. However, I find that the introductory set of cards really doesn't flex the game mechanics that well, and I think is harming the game in reviews because it starts to really shine once the more interesting cards come in. It's only 15-20 minutes per play for those first couple, but I think a lot of reviewers just play that much and don't explore deeply enough.
My wife requests that we play this most every night. So far I've logged 38 plays after owning it for a month. A+.
The heat they caught over being incredibly enthusiastic over Blood on the Clocktower is baffling.
I mean, there's a bunch of reasons. I gather a glib "*eyeroll*" reply doesn't want to hear any, but their reviews have really been slipping lately. There was Clocktower, and here's Dance of Dragons where it's quickly apparent they didn't even play the game they were reviewing.
I'll sum that up with: *eyebrow raise*
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
You keep saying that as though board game experience can't vary and aren't subjective.
You get an eyeroll because you're complaining they played a game a lot that they really liked, and didn't like a game you are really enjoying. Except you're treating it all as though it's objective fact. You're right that I kinda don't care what your reasons are. It's entirely bizarre that you're dragging other reviews into your criticism of the one that matters here.
This is the latest "Fable" game from Friedemann Friese, though the fable aspect is quite underplayed. More on that in a bit.
Fine Sand is a reverse deckbuilding game. Players all start with identical decks, and try to shed cards as quickly as possible. When a player needs to draw cards but can't, this triggers the end of the game, and the player with the fewest cards left wins. To get rid of these cards, players can build them into their tableaus (offering new and better actions to take), build some cheap but useless cards just to get rid of them, use some special card powers, and offload cards onto their neighbor.
This "offload" mechanism is key. In a game that would otherwise have a very solitaire feel, the fact that you are constantly being fed cards by your neighbor adds a ton of interaction from just one little rule. Deciding when and what to offload is not an easy decision at higher levels of play; you can ditch expensive cards, potentially giving your opponent a useful ability and denying it of yourself, or you can ditch useless cards, but give them an easy thing to build and get rid of. Making the right choice requires analyzing what will be least helpful for them.
The game also just flies by, since all play is simultaneous but not real-time. Everyone takes a turn together, and then once everyone has signaled completion with a handy wooden token, the next turn begins.
Back to the Fable thing now. In these games, rules are introduced gradually, but not in the destructive fashion of Legacy games so the game can be completely reset. Unlike the other Fable games to date, there are no changes introduced mid-game. Instead, as part of cleanup all players remove a randomly-chosen but identical set of three cards from their decks, and introduce the next three cards in the sequence. This lets the rules be introduced gradually. However, I find that the introductory set of cards really doesn't flex the game mechanics that well, and I think is harming the game in reviews because it starts to really shine once the more interesting cards come in. It's only 15-20 minutes per play for those first couple, but I think a lot of reviewers just play that much and don't explore deeply enough.
My wife requests that we play this most every night. So far I've logged 38 plays after owning it for a month. A+.
Man, I read your whole blurb before clicking the link, and while I wasn't exactly sure what to expect out of the game's actual theme/aesthetics, that was one heck of a surprise. XD
A giant sandcastle building competition sounds delightful~
Possibly really basic but I'm new to the game and was introducing it to a friend last night and I played skids and on midnight masks I drew On the Lam and I wasn't sure if I played it right. I had an idea that we could use it, I'd run through the location that had a cultist and basically drag them to where our Roland was waiting to beat them up because they wouldn't get attack of opportunities while I was under the effect and it was worded that they couldn't attack instead of couldn't engage so it seemed to me like they still would engage and stick with me?
It might help to know there's an ArkhamDB that compiles rulings and the such much like netrunnerdb and fiveringsdb.
I'd be careful with that plan. I think "Attack" and "Attack of opportunity" are different things per the rules reference, and if you perform certain actions such as moving while an enemy is engaged, they will get a free AoO on you.
Possibly really basic but I'm new to the game and was introducing it to a friend last night and I played skids and on midnight masks I drew On the Lam and I wasn't sure if I played it right. I had an idea that we could use it, I'd run through the location that had a cultist and basically drag them to where our Roland was waiting to beat them up because they wouldn't get attack of opportunities while I was under the effect and it was worded that they couldn't attack instead of couldn't engage so it seemed to me like they still would engage and stick with me?
It might help to know there's an ArkhamDB that compiles rulings and the such much like netrunnerdb and fiveringsdb.
I'd be careful with that plan. I think "Attack" and "Attack of opportunity" are different things per the rules reference, and if you perform certain actions such as moving while an enemy is engaged, they will get a free AoO on you.
Nope! The described use of “On the Lam” is 100% correct. The rules reference says: “Attacks of opportunity count as enemy attacks for the purpose of card abilities.” A monster that can engage, will engage with Skid, who can move without taking an AoO and thereby safely collect and drag a whole bunch of monsters over to, say, another player waiting with Dynamite or what have you.
+3
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
You keep saying that as though board game experience can't vary and aren't subjective.
You get an eyeroll because you're complaining they played a game a lot that they really liked, and didn't like a game you are really enjoying. Except you're treating it all as though it's objective fact. You're right that I kinda don't care what your reasons are. It's entirely bizarre that you're dragging other reviews into your criticism of the one that matters here.
Drive by snark + "I don't care what you have to say" is pretty jerky, to be (objectively) honest.
It's objective fact that Dance of Dragons is shorter than the base game. Someone stating the opposite can only be explained by just glancing at the rules ("there is an extra faction who gets stronger the longer the game goes on!") and never actually playing the game. It's like someone announcing that the Prelude expansion for Terraforming Mars drags out the playtime just because there's extra cards; it's just flat out wrong and you can only conclude they never even played the game.
SU&SD's is the most prominent video review of DoD right now and they gave it a thumbs down without even playing it. There's so much more wrong to that than them simply not liking a game I did.
I'm not allowed a one sentence mention of another questionable recent review they've made? Can you please provide me with the contact information for the department of outside reviews I'm supposed to apply for permission ahead of time with?
MrBody on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Has anyone, like, asked them if they played the game?
You keep saying that as though board game experience can't vary and aren't subjective.
You get an eyeroll because you're complaining they played a game a lot that they really liked, and didn't like a game you are really enjoying. Except you're treating it all as though it's objective fact. You're right that I kinda don't care what your reasons are. It's entirely bizarre that you're dragging other reviews into your criticism of the one that matters here.
Drive by snark + "I don't care what you have to say" is pretty jerky, to be (objectively) honest.
It's objective fact that Dance of Dragons is shorter than the base game. Someone stating the opposite can only be explained by just glancing at the rules ("there is an extra faction who gets stronger the longer the game goes on!") and never actually playing the game. It's like someone announcing that the Prelude expansion for Terraforming Mars drags out the playtime just because there's extra cards; it's just flat out wrong and you can only conclude they never even played the game.
SU&SD's is the most prominent video review of DoD right now and they gave it a thumbs down without even playing it. There's so much more wrong to that than them simply not liking a game I did.
I'm not allowed a one sentence mention of another questionable recent review they've made? Can you please provide me with the contact information for the department of outside reviews I'm supposed to apply for permission ahead of time with?
A giant sandcastle building competition sounds delightful~
Totally agree that it is a nice theme, but temper your expectations a bit. The sandcastle art is nice enough, but I wouldn't say the theme comes through in the gameplay. I do try to ham it up when I am teaching, talking about throwing sand in your neighbor's face instead of the sterile "offload a card to your neighbor" from the rules. But this is one that fits the "pasted on" accusation leveled at many a Euro.
I'd much rather this pasted-on theme than another generic fantasy/space/Renaissance trading one, though!
I've been tempted to get the GOT board game lately
it probably doesn't hold a candle to Root or Inis or even Scythe as far as wargames go for my group, but goddamnit it's neat to play on a map of Westeros
The length and the complexity and the fact that the game is apparently not even worth it with less than 6 players held me off, and now learning that the Feast for Crows expansion cuts the game down to 4-player and shortens it significantly might have tipped me over the edge
I've been tempted to get the GOT board game lately
it probably doesn't hold a candle to Root or Inis or even Scythe as far as wargames go for my group, but goddamnit it's neat to play on a map of Westeros
The length and the complexity and the fact that the game is apparently not even worth it with less than 6 players held me off, and now learning that the Feast for Crows expansion cuts the game down to 4-player and shortens it significantly might have tipped me over the edge
Just make sure that you have the right group. Its a game about scheming for hours in order for one person to betray all the others for victory. The majority of players will need to be happy with being backstabbed and losing all day.
I've played the base game of Game of Thrones a few times, and hated it every time. Definitely feels like one of those games where everyone needs to have already played it a bunch (or read up on strategy) for it to work, and that's a big ask in the groups I hang around.
+1
Options
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
I've played the base game of Game of Thrones a few times, and hated it every time. Definitely feels like one of those games where everyone needs to have already played it a bunch (or read up on strategy) for it to work, and that's a big ask in the groups I hang around.
Holy Cow do I agree with you. The base GAME OF THRONES game has been around forever and hit our local gaming group more times than I care to remember. I loathe that thing. Just about everything that could be done wrong with a multi-player "wargame" it did wrong. Gaah I shudder just remembering how much I hated playing it.
It’s a clunky collection of boring rules that focus on things you can’t do instead of interesting things you can do.
It’s a long game with no interesting narrative arc.
It’s a game based on a property that focuses on alliances with no alliance or shared win mechanics.
It’s based on a property with unique factions but has no asymmetrical elements other than starting positions, iirc.
Simply put, it does nothing interesting. There are games better than it in specific and general ways. There is always a game I would rather play.
It is utterly forgettable.
+2
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
If I remember correctly the different factions have unique cards to play during battle.
GoT is perhaps more interesting than diplomacy at worst? I think diplomacy is a cool concept and I like to explain it to people, but I wouldn't want to play it anymore. If I'm going to spend all day playing a game I'd rather do Twilight Imperium.
I like the GoT board game a lot, but needing six players in order to get it to the table is an impossible ask for my group.
this is why the Feast for Crows expansion sounds like exactly what I need
my group is usually 4 at best which is the player limit, and instead of a 4 hour monstrosity it sounds like that expansion pares it down to MAYBE 2 hours, which is significantly more enticing
Whats an example of a similar but better game to the GOT board game? I've only played it twice. The IRL game was ok but we only had 5 players and not everyone was super on board at the time. Game went ok, fairly clunky.
The PbP game i played was absolutely awesome and I would do another PbP of it again anytime. I really dug the whole "everyone places secret orders at the same time then they resolve one by one in turn order" part, the battle cards augmenting combats, the bidding on the tracks for various benefits and such. As a PbP the whole "game is long and clunky" doesn't really play into it because all PbP games are long and clunky.
With a full compliment of committed players i find the game to be totally worthwhile and fun, but I realize that A) that won't always be a possibility and that fun is somewhat hidden behind some imbalance and clunkiness issues. If there is a better version/alternative out there I'm definitely interested.
Whats an example of a similar but better game to the GOT board game? I've only played it twice. The IRL game was ok but we only had 5 players and not everyone was super on board at the time. Game went ok, fairly clunky.
The PbP game i played was absolutely awesome and I would do another PbP of it again anytime. I really dug the whole "everyone places secret orders at the same time then they resolve one by one in turn order" part, the battle cards augmenting combats, the bidding on the tracks for various benefits and such. As a PbP the whole "game is long and clunky" doesn't really play into it because all PbP games are long and clunky.
With a full compliment of committed players i find the game to be totally worthwhile and fun, but I realize that A) that won't always be a possibility and that fun is somewhat hidden behind some imbalance and clunkiness issues. If there is a better version/alternative out there I'm definitely interested.
I know the "place secret orders, resolve in turn order" mechanic is reutilized in Battle for Rokugan, which is a really neat sleeper hit of a game
Whats an example of a similar but better game to the GOT board game? I've only played it twice. The IRL game was ok but we only had 5 players and not everyone was super on board at the time. Game went ok, fairly clunky.
The PbP game i played was absolutely awesome and I would do another PbP of it again anytime. I really dug the whole "everyone places secret orders at the same time then they resolve one by one in turn order" part, the battle cards augmenting combats, the bidding on the tracks for various benefits and such. As a PbP the whole "game is long and clunky" doesn't really play into it because all PbP games are long and clunky.
With a full compliment of committed players i find the game to be totally worthwhile and fun, but I realize that A) that won't always be a possibility and that fun is somewhat hidden behind some imbalance and clunkiness issues. If there is a better version/alternative out there I'm definitely interested.
Battle for Rokugan as mentioned above has a similar feel and MUCH shorter.
I've been tempted to get the GOT board game lately
it probably doesn't hold a candle to Root or Inis or even Scythe as far as wargames go for my group, but goddamnit it's neat to play on a map of Westeros
The length and the complexity and the fact that the game is apparently not even worth it with less than 6 players held me off, and now learning that the Feast for Crows expansion cuts the game down to 4-player and shortens it significantly might have tipped me over the edge
I played it with the group I play Root and Scythe. 4 player but it might not come back anytime soon. I'm still mulling how to introduce COIN games to this group.
Catacombs of Horror
The House of Riddles
The Haunted Rollercoaster (NOT "Ghost Train" like the earlier preview said, drat)
Riddles and Rollercoaster are both level 2 difficulty, which are a too easy in my opinion. Good for younger kids and casual riddle relatives though.
Catacombs of Horror is their first 4.5 level difficulty game, with the special addition of being a double length feature. Broken into two acts, with each act being a typical 60-120 minute Exit game. Retail will be $25 as opposed to the usual $15.
Whats an example of a similar but better game to the GOT board game? I've only played it twice. The IRL game was ok but we only had 5 players and not everyone was super on board at the time. Game went ok, fairly clunky.
The PbP game i played was absolutely awesome and I would do another PbP of it again anytime. I really dug the whole "everyone places secret orders at the same time then they resolve one by one in turn order" part, the battle cards augmenting combats, the bidding on the tracks for various benefits and such. As a PbP the whole "game is long and clunky" doesn't really play into it because all PbP games are long and clunky.
With a full compliment of committed players i find the game to be totally worthwhile and fun, but I realize that A) that won't always be a possibility and that fun is somewhat hidden behind some imbalance and clunkiness issues. If there is a better version/alternative out there I'm definitely interested.
Battle for Rokugan as mentioned above has a similar feel and MUCH shorter.
I've been tempted to get the GOT board game lately
it probably doesn't hold a candle to Root or Inis or even Scythe as far as wargames go for my group, but goddamnit it's neat to play on a map of Westeros
The length and the complexity and the fact that the game is apparently not even worth it with less than 6 players held me off, and now learning that the Feast for Crows expansion cuts the game down to 4-player and shortens it significantly might have tipped me over the edge
I played it with the group I play Root and Scythe. 4 player but it might not come back anytime soon. I'm still mulling how to introduce COIN games to this group.
Dance of Dragons expansion also solves the "6 or nothing" problem. All unplayed houses have neutral pieces that are inactive "vassals" until a human player gives them an order. The higher you are on the throne track, the more priority you're given to control a neutral faction for that turn, issuing it orders like they were your own pieces.
Possibly really basic but I'm new to the game and was introducing it to a friend last night and I played skids and on midnight masks I drew On the Lam and I wasn't sure if I played it right. I had an idea that we could use it, I'd run through the location that had a cultist and basically drag them to where our Roland was waiting to beat them up because they wouldn't get attack of opportunities while I was under the effect and it was worded that they couldn't attack instead of couldn't engage so it seemed to me like they still would engage and stick with me?
It might help to know there's an ArkhamDB that compiles rulings and the such much like netrunnerdb and fiveringsdb.
I'd be careful with that plan. I think "Attack" and "Attack of opportunity" are different things per the rules reference, and if you perform certain actions such as moving while an enemy is engaged, they will get a free AoO on you.
Nope! The described use of “On the Lam” is 100% correct. The rules reference says: “Attacks of opportunity count as enemy attacks for the purpose of card abilities.” A monster that can engage, will engage with Skid, who can move without taking an AoO and thereby safely collect and drag a whole bunch of monsters over to, say, another player waiting with Dynamite or what have you.
Awesome! I couldn't tell if we had figured out a clever strat or had been "too clever" and broke all the rules. Skidds played really interesting though. Extra actions are obviously very powerful but I didn't really understand how much more I could do until the first time I had a Leo de luca in play and also used my extra action ability and basically cruised the entire town.
Agatha is now the only core investigator I haven't played with. The next step is getting to know the cards to build more interesting decks.
Posts
So, in I think @MrBody 's forum go of this, I stacked workers to get the star (and facilitate the production/action loops my cards had) and then used mechs to spread out the stack in the last turn or two to get territory to boost the final score.
Like, yeah, you don't need the 8 until you need the star, but once you have the star then just don't plan on producing much and triggering the cost anymore.
Trade instead.
I don't play enough to try it, but I've always wanted to try a "heck to stars" strategy. We're conditioned to look at them as victory points, but they're really not. You don't get any bonus for being the first to get six, just the power to end the game. The stars themselves are worth points, but not THAT much more than other stuff. And you sacrifice so much jumping through hoops to get those stars. The heck to stars strategy grabs stars when you can, but doesn't go out of your way to do so. Instead concentrate on max coin production and spreading out to as many territories as possible in the final turns.
SU&SD were completely wrong about it, to the point that I don't think they even played it and just stopped at unboxing and glancing over the rules.
Their big complaint was that the base game was too long (yes), and since the new Dragon Lady faction benefits from a long game, they alone would force the game to last a long time. That's an opinion you could only form by glancing at the rules and never playing a single game. In reality, the game is actually faster now. The new board setup starts everyone as developed factions who are already at each other's doorsteps, so no more spending several turns recruiting and consolidating empty land. Game is wrapped up in around 6-7 turns as opposed to 8-10 for the base game. Of course Dragon Lady doesn't want anyone else to win before them, but neither does anyone else.
The new setup also starts a lot of houses off as fragmented in multiple areas as opposed to a solid blob (Baratheon especially). This allows for a much more dynamic early game as you decide where to focus on (the far north while abandoning Dragonstone? Vice versa? Trying to hold both?). There is no longer a scripted opening with little interacting (no more Greyjoy bulldozing Lannister while Stark and Baratheon do nothing because it was far more advantageous for them to expand their hold on neutral lands). Neutrals are no longer speed bumps to boost your economy since you can now control their units by being high enough on the Throne track.
There's more politicking. Players can now trade power tokens freely at any time, really helps cement deals. Dragon Lady faction is always last on every track and never bids for herself, but does bid amounts for OTHER players, so everyone is always trying to win that player's favor for bidding. Her faction is also capable of reaching anyone at any time with her dragons. Dragons can "march" to any space on the board by flying. They start off at 1 strength and grow up to five each later on, but cannot be replaced once killed. It's not directly in her interest to act before all her hidden supporter regions are uncovered, but usually happens as either part of favors or to prevent a win.
Overall I'd say it's a big improvement over the base. It's shorter, more dynamic starting position, and more deal making instead of Greyjoy/Stark/Baratheon doing their own thing and ignoring everyone. The one thing I'm not sure about are the new house leader cards. There might be too many with tricky special text. It's pretty much mandatory for everyone to have a printed out sheet of everyone's cards so no nasty surprises come up.
Did you get to play it at lower player counts? We played a 4 player game without the expansion, and I really wanted to like this game, but it was not an enjoyable experience at all. If felt that no matter how much Starks/Greyjoys attacked the Baratheons and Lannisters they could avoid conflict and just expand south with Siege engines.
The base game only works at 6.
The other expansion let's you play at 4
It's sort of bullshit that the game claims it can support other players counts
Is it a literal trading eg you will be holding a different faction's power token, or is it a "faction A spends a power token, faction B gains a power token" kinda thing?
I'm not sure what I think of it? I mean, it feels solid, but it also feels like a competitive version of Arkham Horror. Instead of being a team of players, we were all loners trying to make our way in the wasteland, and often at competing goals. The latecomer got stuck with either the Super Mutant or the Brotherhood dude, picked the Brotherhood, and was stuck not really being able to do much because they were constantly trying to get a weapon. We cycled through encounter cards extremely quickly. There was also a lot of vagueness when it came to the Far Harbor scenario we played.
I dunno. I thought I'd enjoy it more, especially given my love of Arkham Horror (3rd obviously took lessons) and Outer Rim. But the agenda system just really soured it, because some people were able to get tons of agendas that got more powerful as they pushed a faction, and everyone else... didn't stand a chance.
Edit: Oooh, there is a limit to how many agenda cards you can have. That... might be where we slipped up.
The latter? You can give your tokens to other people at any time. Sets up situations that never happened before, like a 3rd faction adjacent to a battle has a support order, and the other 2 bid to receive that support for the battle.
I still can't imagine SU&SD even bothered playing this. The expansion making the game faster is apparent after only 2/3rds of a single play. I guess they were too busy playing Blood on the Clocktower every week for months to bother squeezing in one play of another game they were producing an infomercial for reviewing.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Midnight masks playing skidds for the first time
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This is the latest "Fable" game from Friedemann Friese, though the fable aspect is quite underplayed. More on that in a bit.
Fine Sand is a reverse deckbuilding game. Players all start with identical decks, and try to shed cards as quickly as possible. When a player needs to draw cards but can't, this triggers the end of the game, and the player with the fewest cards left wins. To get rid of these cards, players can build them into their tableaus (offering new and better actions to take), build some cheap but useless cards just to get rid of them, use some special card powers, and offload cards onto their neighbor.
This "offload" mechanism is key. In a game that would otherwise have a very solitaire feel, the fact that you are constantly being fed cards by your neighbor adds a ton of interaction from just one little rule. Deciding when and what to offload is not an easy decision at higher levels of play; you can ditch expensive cards, potentially giving your opponent a useful ability and denying it of yourself, or you can ditch useless cards, but give them an easy thing to build and get rid of. Making the right choice requires analyzing what will be least helpful for them.
The game also just flies by, since all play is simultaneous but not real-time. Everyone takes a turn together, and then once everyone has signaled completion with a handy wooden token, the next turn begins.
Back to the Fable thing now. In these games, rules are introduced gradually, but not in the destructive fashion of Legacy games so the game can be completely reset. Unlike the other Fable games to date, there are no changes introduced mid-game. Instead, as part of cleanup all players remove a randomly-chosen but identical set of three cards from their decks, and introduce the next three cards in the sequence. This lets the rules be introduced gradually. However, I find that the introductory set of cards really doesn't flex the game mechanics that well, and I think is harming the game in reviews because it starts to really shine once the more interesting cards come in. It's only 15-20 minutes per play for those first couple, but I think a lot of reviewers just play that much and don't explore deeply enough.
My wife requests that we play this most every night. So far I've logged 38 plays after owning it for a month. A+.
I mean, there's a bunch of reasons. I gather a glib "*eyeroll*" reply doesn't want to hear any, but their reviews have really been slipping lately. There was Clocktower, and here's Dance of Dragons where it's quickly apparent they didn't even play the game they were reviewing.
I'll sum that up with: *eyebrow raise*
You get an eyeroll because you're complaining they played a game a lot that they really liked, and didn't like a game you are really enjoying. Except you're treating it all as though it's objective fact. You're right that I kinda don't care what your reasons are. It's entirely bizarre that you're dragging other reviews into your criticism of the one that matters here.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
A giant sandcastle building competition sounds delightful~
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
It might help to know there's an ArkhamDB that compiles rulings and the such much like netrunnerdb and fiveringsdb.
https://arkhamdb.com/card/01010
I'd be careful with that plan. I think "Attack" and "Attack of opportunity" are different things per the rules reference, and if you perform certain actions such as moving while an enemy is engaged, they will get a free AoO on you.
Nope! The described use of “On the Lam” is 100% correct. The rules reference says: “Attacks of opportunity count as enemy attacks for the purpose of card abilities.” A monster that can engage, will engage with Skid, who can move without taking an AoO and thereby safely collect and drag a whole bunch of monsters over to, say, another player waiting with Dynamite or what have you.
Drive by snark + "I don't care what you have to say" is pretty jerky, to be (objectively) honest.
It's objective fact that Dance of Dragons is shorter than the base game. Someone stating the opposite can only be explained by just glancing at the rules ("there is an extra faction who gets stronger the longer the game goes on!") and never actually playing the game. It's like someone announcing that the Prelude expansion for Terraforming Mars drags out the playtime just because there's extra cards; it's just flat out wrong and you can only conclude they never even played the game.
SU&SD's is the most prominent video review of DoD right now and they gave it a thumbs down without even playing it. There's so much more wrong to that than them simply not liking a game I did.
I'm not allowed a one sentence mention of another questionable recent review they've made? Can you please provide me with the contact information for the department of outside reviews I'm supposed to apply for permission ahead of time with?
Or they played the game and it lasted longer.
Wow, you took me from zero to 100 in that description, good job. Definitely will look that up.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
I'd much rather this pasted-on theme than another generic fantasy/space/Renaissance trading one, though!
it probably doesn't hold a candle to Root or Inis or even Scythe as far as wargames go for my group, but goddamnit it's neat to play on a map of Westeros
The length and the complexity and the fact that the game is apparently not even worth it with less than 6 players held me off, and now learning that the Feast for Crows expansion cuts the game down to 4-player and shortens it significantly might have tipped me over the edge
Just make sure that you have the right group. Its a game about scheming for hours in order for one person to betray all the others for victory. The majority of players will need to be happy with being backstabbed and losing all day.
Holy Cow do I agree with you. The base GAME OF THRONES game has been around forever and hit our local gaming group more times than I care to remember. I loathe that thing. Just about everything that could be done wrong with a multi-player "wargame" it did wrong. Gaah I shudder just remembering how much I hated playing it.
I can still be talked out of getting it, but I played Battle for Rokugan and liked it, and this seems to be "what if that but it had 70 extra rules"
It’s a clunky collection of boring rules that focus on things you can’t do instead of interesting things you can do.
It’s a long game with no interesting narrative arc.
It’s a game based on a property that focuses on alliances with no alliance or shared win mechanics.
It’s based on a property with unique factions but has no asymmetrical elements other than starting positions, iirc.
Simply put, it does nothing interesting. There are games better than it in specific and general ways. There is always a game I would rather play.
It is utterly forgettable.
GoT is perhaps more interesting than diplomacy at worst? I think diplomacy is a cool concept and I like to explain it to people, but I wouldn't want to play it anymore. If I'm going to spend all day playing a game I'd rather do Twilight Imperium.
this is why the Feast for Crows expansion sounds like exactly what I need
my group is usually 4 at best which is the player limit, and instead of a 4 hour monstrosity it sounds like that expansion pares it down to MAYBE 2 hours, which is significantly more enticing
The PbP game i played was absolutely awesome and I would do another PbP of it again anytime. I really dug the whole "everyone places secret orders at the same time then they resolve one by one in turn order" part, the battle cards augmenting combats, the bidding on the tracks for various benefits and such. As a PbP the whole "game is long and clunky" doesn't really play into it because all PbP games are long and clunky.
With a full compliment of committed players i find the game to be totally worthwhile and fun, but I realize that A) that won't always be a possibility and
I know the "place secret orders, resolve in turn order" mechanic is reutilized in Battle for Rokugan, which is a really neat sleeper hit of a game
Battle for Rokugan as mentioned above has a similar feel and MUCH shorter.
I played it with the group I play Root and Scythe. 4 player but it might not come back anytime soon. I'm still mulling how to introduce COIN games to this group.
Catacombs of Horror
The House of Riddles
The Haunted Rollercoaster (NOT "Ghost Train" like the earlier preview said, drat)
Riddles and Rollercoaster are both level 2 difficulty, which are a too easy in my opinion. Good for younger kids and casual riddle relatives though.
Catacombs of Horror is their first 4.5 level difficulty game, with the special addition of being a double length feature. Broken into two acts, with each act being a typical 60-120 minute Exit game. Retail will be $25 as opposed to the usual $15.
If I want a bit epic strategy game I will play Twilight Imperium over GoT.
If I want a six player game with interesting mechanics that embody the theme of a book I will play Dune over GoT.
If I want the mechanics in a reasonable time frame I will play Battle for Rokugan over GoT.
If I want an interesting area control game I will play any one of like a dozen different games including any COIN game or Inis over GoT.
It just had no place or role in my collection so I sold it.
Dance of Dragons expansion also solves the "6 or nothing" problem. All unplayed houses have neutral pieces that are inactive "vassals" until a human player gives them an order. The higher you are on the throne track, the more priority you're given to control a neutral faction for that turn, issuing it orders like they were your own pieces.
Awesome! I couldn't tell if we had figured out a clever strat or had been "too clever" and broke all the rules. Skidds played really interesting though. Extra actions are obviously very powerful but I didn't really understand how much more I could do until the first time I had a Leo de luca in play and also used my extra action ability and basically cruised the entire town.
Agatha is now the only core investigator I haven't played with. The next step is getting to know the cards to build more interesting decks.