Boardgames - Page 14

Silvanel

Poland4692 Posts

November 09 2012 20:58 GMT

#261

I tottaly agree with Rimstalker, Twilight Imperium is both more challenging and more fun to play than Stacraft Boardgame. The latter has some serious design flaws, while Twilight Imperium is among the best if not the best boardgame ever made. TI is complex yet easy to learn it demands a lot of thought and is super fun to play.

Syle

United States2 Posts

November 09 2012 21:06 GMT

#262

Cards against humanity! well, no board, but same as apples to apples (much crazier though)

DuncanIdaho

United States465 Posts

November 25 2012 19:50 GMT

#263

On November 10 2012 03:37 DuncanIdaho wrote:
I'm a huge board game geek, and I especially love the various Risk variants, Catan games, and Axis&Allies series. However, I've been curious if any Risk afficionados out there have had a chance to try out the new StarCraft Risk, and could talk about how it's unique, what version of risk it's most similar to, would you reccommend it or is it worth buying, etc.?

I own Risk 2210AD (5 rounds, earth, moon, and underwater continents, commanders and cards, d6 and d8 dice), LOTR Risk (leaders granting +1, cards, towers that give defenders edge, ring to mordor depth of strategy for game time limit and win scenarios of capture vs delivery to mount mordor), Risk GodStorm (mythology theme, god commanders such as Loki, Zues, Ares, etc with different abilities, dead units go to underworld and actions there affect the land of the living), SW orig trilogy Risk (3 factions: empire rebels and hutts, each with different win-objectives, death star, light vs dark force meter, cards, ships ((d8 and d6, +1, rerolls)), d6 and d8), SW Clone wars Risk (2 factions: separatists vs republic, basic risk but with ships ((d8 and d6, +1, rerolls)) and cards, with the addition of an interesting element: "Intiate order 66", where the longer the game goes on, the more likely seperatists win, as when the initiate 66, you roll a d8 for every territory, and those places that roll high enough, odds increase as game goes on, the reps units switch to separatist units, but the emperor is placed down and the republic must kill emperor to win, separatists must annihilate rebels) and Classic Risk, to name a few that I'm familiar with.

Okay, so I'm going to answer my own question, in case any of you were wondering the same thing, hehe

My best friend bought Risk: Starcraft Collector's Edition as a present for me, and then he, my brother, and I played a game. He was protoss, my brother terran, and I zerg (I main as Zerg in SC2 and SC2:HotS, so wtf not... :p ). Now, first thing we noticed, is the board layout, although starcraft flavored, is freaking basic Risk, just flipped horizontally. Char, at top left, worth 7 armies, is essentially Asia, and Korhal top middle worth 5, Europe. Aiur worth 5 at top right, N.A. (and by the way, there is an Alaska-Kamatchka off-the-board-edges link) and Aiur has 3 entrances, to the top middle with Korhal (Europe) a la greenland, the aforementioned off-the-board link to Char (Asia), and a southern entrance to, you guessed it, something quite similar to S.A., a 4 territory zone called "Shakuras" worth 2 armies, at the bottom right corner of the board. Also, Shakuras, at bottom right, is linked to a zone at the middle bottom, worth 3 armies, called Mar Sara (africa) which has a link also to the northern edges of the zone to southern Korhal (Europe) and to the top left, a satellite zone of Char (Asia) called "Ate" (essentially, the Middle East territory of classic Risk. Furthermore, there's also a small, 4 territory zone at the bottom left, "Zerus" (australia) that is only linked to the southern border of Char (Asia). So, yay, no changes to the map, gistually speaking, from Classic risk, perhaps a boring feature of this game, though arguably pseudo balanced in that regard, or at least, no less imbalanced than Classic Risk.

Now, on to what this game adds to the Risk genre: Mineral patches- of the 42 territories, 15 are randomly drawn from the deck to start with a mineral patch. These make such territories worth "2" when counting up territories and dividing by 3 for the reinforcement phase of your turn. So yeah, kinda neat, I like this addition of randomly reconfiguring strategic positions for each game to consider taking/defending. Also, you start with a base, it gets no extra defense (something we tried later in a house rule to augment, was to pull out some d8s from another Risk game to consider using as defense when bases are attacked), and all it does is give you an extra army during reinforcement phase, to place wherever, assuming you control it (and you get 1 for any other bases you've taken from opponents and still hold at the start of your turn).

Furthermore, the win-scenario requires that in addition to 3 achievements (i'll explain shortly), you must also control your starting base in order to win. So, the achievements are also interesting. They're similar to the achievements of the updated Classic Risk, except that the 8 possible acheivements you can choose from are essentially public domain until a player acheives it. (e.g., control char, take over an entire continent you didnt own a single territory at the start of the turn, all in one turn, control 11 of the 15 mineral territories, take 4 mineral territories in the same turn, control 18 territories, etc.) So this is kinda neat, in that anyone can aspire for 3 of the acheivements of their choosing, and it's a race to get it before someone else does. I have no complaints there, and also like this addition to the Risk genre.

Also, each race has its own deck of 14 cards, which you get one from your deck at the end of your turn if you ate your vegetables and were a good boy/girl that turn, as in most Risk variants. The cards have special abilities, and also star values of 1-2 stars. You can either use the ability (e.g., Before attacking on your turn- Roll a d6- add that many units to a territory of your choosing, Play after an opponent declares an invasion on one of your territories, remove d6 units from his attacking territory, AND for the most part, all 3 decks have similar acting cards with a few race-specific abilities, like psi-storm (kills a bunch of stuff), burrow ((defensive "you can't attack this" and tunneling claws "i'll scuttle under this territory and hit the territory behind it)), and lift-off ((move your cc base to another territory even if it's under enemy control)), that aren't replicated in other decks). As for the stars, there's a scale for turning in those for extra armies instead of using the ability, giving you the option of turning in cards worth 2-10 stars total, giving you 2-30 extra armies, which is a slightly new way to do bonus reinforcements. I've looked around, and some people are starting to claim that imbalances may exist between racial decks, but I don't have too much of an issue with this part of the game, it seems balanced enough, and after all, the cards in question are very few and the odds of getting them are low, ultimately).

Also, you get a hero, that doesnt count as an army, but augments your forces by letting them add +1 to the highest die roll on either attack or defense, for that territory they're participating in. Typical addition to most modern Risk variants, no surprises/gripes there.

The issue I do have with this game, however, is the reward system for the achievements. It feels broken. The achievements are separated into "silver" and "gold" acheivements, and the 4 silver achievements have 1 of 4 random perks: gauranteed card (regardless of if you met the requirements to earn one this turn), extra reinforcement move each turn, free sneaky reinforcement move ON YOUR TURN BEFORE ATTACKING (possibly broken, but not the end of the world, necessarily) and Xel'Naga Tower (makes your units in that territory and all adjacent territories get +1 to highest die roll for attacking into such a territory or defending in such a territory, AND stacks with other such abilities ((i.e., +1 for this turn cards, +1 for the hero, etc.). Now, for the 4 Gold Achievements Rewards: +2 units during reinforcement (no complaints here, kind neat though, and hell, gold acheivements are supposedly hard to complete, so hell you earned it, right?), Xel'Naga Tower (same as the silver one, essentially there are 2 in the game you can get), but these last two gold achievement rewards, that I have HUGE issues with, are potentially the rule additions to the variant of Risk that I feel are broken: Additional Attack Die, and Additional Defense Die. The game comes with 3 red dice, 2 black dice, and a red transparent die and also a black transparent die. The transparent dies are for these two achievements. Essentially, if you get either of these achievements, you win, unless you're completely underwhelmed by the opponents, and if that's the case you probably wouldn't meet the requirements for such gold achievements in the first place. The way it works: Roll the extra attack die IN ADDITION to your usual dice (or the transparent black defense die, if you got the defense die reward), and replace the lowest die roll with your transparent die roll.

Essentially, you're rolling 4 dice vs 2 dice if you're the attacker, or you're getting 3 dice to defend vs 3 attack dice, if you've gotten the defense version, and remember, defenders win ties.

So... Back to that game we played. My friend who bought the game, goes first. Keep in mind, in 3player version, we divide the 42 territories amongst us evenly, 14 a player. He goes first, and has a rather decent first turn, taking over the Mar Sara (africa) and Shakuras (s.a.) continents. This qualifies for the achievement "control two planets" (planets=continents) and he gets a xel naga tower reward perk. Okay, no biggie, but he places it in the middle of africa and goes on to hold it for the first round, yet loses the sharkuras (southamerican) continent, while my brother and I duke it out over the rest of the asia/europe/north-america/australia parts of the map, and nothing too noteworthy occurs for either of us on the first round. Round 2, my friend takes back south america and has every border territory (the north of africa and the mexico-southamerica border quite heavily fortified. This is great on his part, a typical, not-too greedy, but tactically sound strategy. However, he now qualified for the gold perk, "control 18 territories", and gets the extra defense die perk. So... essentially we then can't attack the guy, because africa has +1 from the xelnaga tower, the mexico border has +1 due to his hero's presence there, AND he rolls 3 defense die, to our 3 attack dice, AND as per usual, defenders win ties. He then proceeds to be the unstoppable force and goes on to win the game in round 3 by capturing a few more mineral fields, qualifying for the silver achievement of "control 8 mineral fields" and with 3 acheivements, and still controlling his base (which was tucked away nicely in madagascar), he met the win requirement and thus this was the shortest ever game of risk I've ever played, which was over in 1 hour... lmao

So, yeah... Needs houserules to balance, but overall, it's fun, despite the broken-ness.

Any suggestions for house-rule balances?

EDIT: Some ideas I had:
The "control 18 territories" gold acheivement seems too easy to get in a 3player game, where everyone starts with 14 territories, although in a 4+player game, where people start with 10 to 11 or fewer territories, perhaps this is fine, but maybe in a 3 player game we need either some neutral armies eating up some of our starting territory count, or to increase the number of territories requirement for that achievement, to, say, 21 territories, but just leave it at 18 for 4+ player games. IDK. And maybe some of the other achievements need to also be scaled up for the 3player game, to make it a tad more difficult to get any uber-perks early on, such as the additional die roll perk.

Or, perhaps rethinking the additional die-roll perk, such that it still gives the perk-recipient an advantage, but not quite so game-breaking... Maybe let opponents in battles versus such a player, say, re-roll any and all 1's, and if they get some card that grants that very ability, let it "stack" to include rerolling any and all 1's and 2's? :/ I will say the achievements feel balanced in 4+ player games, which were likely what the game developers had in mind, though it should scale as the number of players changes. Perhaps, even, in a 6-player game, the achievement requirements are too high, and may need to be scaled down, though I've yet to be able to get 6 players to play with, yet... What do you guys think?

achristes

Norway653 Posts

November 25 2012 19:53 GMT

#264

No D&D or chess in OP?
I am disappoint.

DarQraven

Netherlands553 Posts

January 13 2013 17:19 GMT

#265

On November 26 2012 04:53 achristes wrote:
No D&D or chess in OP?
I am disappoint.

D&D is not a board game. There are ten million other threads about Chess on TL.

I'd like to recommend everyone to try two games:
2. Descent: Second Edition

Out of the box campaign mode, a playtime per quest closer to 2 hours than the usual 6 (in 1st edition), and objective-based gameplay for both the Heroes and the Overlord. (Objectives other than "get to this room, kill this big monster and don't die along the way.") You'd think a lot of depth had to be sacrificed to cut playtime by that much, but it turns out that the removal of monster spawning and the introduction of quest objectives were already enough and not much (if anything) was lost in the transition. Spawning mostly functioned as a way for the Overlord to delay the Heroes, not kill them, and having to keep line of sight to all the corners of the map to prevent spawns just slowed the Hero turn down SO much. Definitely don't miss that. The quest objectives make sure that if too many turns go by, the Overlord just wins.
Most appreciated feature: Quests are divided into two Encounters: parts of the dungeon that have their own objective. The outcome of Encounter 1 decides the starting conditions for Encounter 2. The upshot of this is that you need less space, it keeps things exciting and offers some strategic considerations, AND you can just stop playing mid-quest and continue on Encounter 2 some other time.
Highly recommend for those that want to scratch that dungeon crawling itch but can't always sit down for 6 hours to do it!

2. Nexus Ops

This is as close to a Starcraft boardgame as I've played. Modular, variable hex game board, 6 unit types, resource gathering, area/map control, etc. The best thing is that it's surprisingly short for a game with considerable tactical depth, and because it is VP-based (instead of elimination-based) the game stays exciting until the end and only very rarely will a player be eliminated from the game before it ends.

Chaosu

Poland404 Posts

January 13 2013 18:32 GMT

#266

From what I understand this thread isn't for logical/abstract games with rather simple/generic boards (like chess grid, hex grid)? I used to call them board games too but judging by this thread I was wrong.

DarQraven

Netherlands553 Posts

January 14 2013 01:49 GMT

#267

On January 14 2013 03:32 Chaosu wrote:
From what I understand this thread isn't for logical/abstract games with rather simple/generic boards (like chess grid, hex grid)? I used to call them board games too but judging by this thread I was wrong.

They're board games alright, typically falling under the category of abstract boardgames. Games like Hive would also apply.
I'm just guessing that this thread was most probably created to shed light on the lesser known and more modern board games - everyone already knows chess, checkers, chutes'n'ladders and monopoly exist so there's really no point in discussing them (if there is something about chess specifically, like strategy, a chess-only thread might be more suitable.)

I guess if you had to categorize, "modern board games" would mostly fall into three categories:
1. Euro games. Simple mechanics leading to difficult decisions. Focus on simplicity, elegance, typically no direct player confrontation. "Mathy and dry" if you ask some - Theme follows Mechanics.. Examples: Caylus, Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, Stone Age, etc.
2. American-style games. High on theme and plastic bits. Mechanics are often designed to fit a theme (simulate, represent, symbolize, etc..)
Lots of dice, more room for chance-driven events/outcomes. Games tend to be (over)complicated for pure Eurogamer's tastes. If it involves zombies, fantasy settings, little plastic miniature tanks or cthulhu, chances are it's an American style game. Jokingly referred to as "Ameritrash" (alluding to the amount of shit that comes in the box and/or the unelegant, unwieldy nature of the bloated rulesets that tend to accompany these games. Abstracts. Close to Eurogames, but no theme whatsoever. Examples: Heroscape, Descent, Axis&Allies, Wiz-War, Last Night on Earth, Arkham Horror, etc...

3. Abstracts + Unclassified. This is a relatively small segment of the market. Mostly because there seems to be an unwritten rule that games either need Zombies in them (American), or it needs to be a "trading in the mediterranean" game. (Euro).

Chaosu

Poland404 Posts

January 14 2013 05:13 GMT

#268

Thanks for a detailed reply. I think abstract is the key word here. I know that everyone knows chess or checkers but there are also modern abstract board games and some of the older are still played cometitively: Hex, Reversi(Othello), Four in a row(Line4), Gomoku(Five in a Row), Connect6, Twixt PP, Lines of Action, Oware just to name a few. I'll keep an eye on this topic, maybe I'll find someone like-minded one day as I understand your focus is on non-abstract games.

lepape

Canada557 Posts

January 15 2013 03:12 GMT

#269

I love reading about all those board games, they all seem so much fun and very creative.

It's a shame I'm a pityful friendless loser becaume not only these games are expensive, in my case at least I usually have a hard time convincing my relatives to play board games, especially when there's a thousand rules to learn.

That makes me wonder why in 2013 there's still no online gaming platform specialized in licensed board games. I guess the big companies don't wanna push their products to be online too much, so they can keep selling physical games. But on the other hand, people like me will never buy most of their 50$ products anyway and I'd certainly be willing to pay 5$ to play them online. Hell, even Steam could make a ton of money with those. I don't think the 500.000 variations of video game Monopoly decreased MB's sales in any way.

So if anyone wanna start a million dollar business, here was one free idea :D

Maxd11

United States680 Posts

January 15 2013 03:19 GMT

#270

On January 15 2013 12:12 lepape wrote:
I love reading about all those board games, they all seem so much fun and very creative.

It's a shame I'm a pityful friendless loser becaume not only these games are usually expensive, in my case at least I usually have a hard time convincing my relatives to play board games, especially when there's a thousand rules.

That makes me wonder why in 2013 there's still no online gaming platform specialized in licensed board games. I guess the big companies don't wanna push their products to be online too much, so they can keep selling physical games. But on the other hand, people like me will never buy most of their 50$ products anyway, but I'd certainly be willing to pay 5$ to play them online. Hell, even Steam could make a ton of money with those. I don't think the 500.000 variations of video game Monopoly decreased MB's sales in any way.

So if anyone wanna start a million dollar business, here was one free idea :D

Well I think the biggest part of playing a board game isn't the game or the rules; it's sitting around a table with friends. To be honest most board games I've played (not that many) are pretty lame as far as actually being a good game. They rely almost entirely on luck and decisions that you couldn't know are going to screw you over when you make them. The fun part is laughing when bad stuff happens to other people for no reason and that's just no fun online.

lepape

Canada557 Posts

January 15 2013 03:31 GMT

#271

On January 15 2013 12:19 Maxd11 wrote:

Show nested quote +

I agree, playing with people you like will enhance any game experience, it doesnt matter if it's a video game played in LAN or a board game. Hell, the social aspect can even make some horrible, flawed games suddenly seem like fun (Monopoly, Risk).

Still, at the end of the day, I believe good gameplay can be fun in any context. Mafia is an amazing game that truly shines in the real world, but it also has a fair amount of success online. It's just that well conceived.

antilyon

Brazil2546 Posts

January 15 2013 11:08 GMT

#272

I am deciding on my first board game and I'm between Battles of Westeros and Carcassone.
I want carcassone because I live with my brother and we're pretty competitive on what we play, so I rhink a game like BoW would fit well and be played more often than carcassone.

On the other hand, carcassonne is half the price, but I don't think I'd play as much as BoW because I'd have to gather friends to play and such. I tried to search on reddit and BGG but I still can't decide.

How good is carcassonne as a gateway Board Game? Would Battles of Westeros be too complicated to invite friends to play? replay value?

Kukaracha

France1954 Posts

January 15 2013 16:00 GMT

#273

I got Settlers of Catan for Christmas. I never realized boardgames could be so simple, and yet so complex and so fun.

sc4k

United Kingdom5454 Posts

January 15 2013 16:04 GMT

#274

This is a great thread. I forget how great it is. I really need a pack of carcassonne, box of settlers of Catan, box of Twilight Imperium and some friends who like that stuff ASAP lol.

On January 15 2013 20:08 antilyon wrote:
How good is carcassonne as a gateway Board Game? Would Battles of Westeros be too complicated to invite friends to play? replay value?

It's SUCH a great gateway, it's so easy to play, such a casual, 'coffee table' game. It's awesome.

LaSt)ChAnCe

United States2179 Posts

January 15 2013 16:11 GMT

#275

On June 29 2011 12:18 Empyrean wrote:
Does anyone else like that one train game Ticket to Ride?

Holy shit I could play that for hours.

EDIT: Apparently imbc is the only other person in this thread who has had the great fortune to play that game. There's a reason why it won Germany's Game of the Year award. And Germans love their boardgames!

was coming here to post about this game... our german exchange student got it for christmas (north america version) and we played a couple games... i thought it was really fun, but they all called me a cutthroat asshole and won't play anymore now

Diminisherqc

Canada220 Posts

January 15 2013 16:28 GMT

#276

hum i scrolled around the whole thread .. and is aw no mentions of

blood bowl
[image loading]

Very complicated football game but can be very fun 1 game takes like 1 hours if you knwo what our doing.... not conting the hours you can pass painting your toons
[image loading]

warning ... very rage inducing as players in your team can die from a block or injury or crowd surf.And if its your star player .. you will be pissed

,you have to manage money cheerleaders and a lto fo things .. really well made pretty balanced too,if your not playing halflings .... and maybe goblins lol

soon.Cloak

United States983 Posts

January 15 2013 16:31 GMT

#277

I wonder if these games are too niche. Either way, all were incredible

Acquire:
[image loading]

Trade, buy, get much money, lie about how many shares you own :D, get lucky with tile pickups. Much rage.

The Boss:
[image loading]

"YOU'RE FIRED!" O, good times, good times. But this game is very old.

Keys to the Kingdom:
[image loading]

This game was so much fun, especially in the earlier days, when you didn't memorize what all the traps did.

Silvanel

Poland4692 Posts

January 15 2013 16:38 GMT

#278

On January 15 2013 20:08 antilyon wrote:
I am deciding on my first board game and I'm between Battles of Westeros and Carcassone.
I want carcassone because I live with my brother and we're pretty competitive on what we play, so I rhink a game like BoW would fit well and be played more often than carcassone.

On the other hand, carcassonne is half the price, but I don't think I'd play as much as BoW because I'd have to gather friends to play and such. I tried to search on reddit and BGG but I still can't decide.

How good is carcassonne as a gateway Board Game? Would Battles of Westeros be too complicated to invite friends to play? replay value?

Generaly speaking party games and cooperative games are much better for casuals. Especially for girls. Hardcore strategic games which are most compettive are TERRIBLE for casuals and girls. So if Your goal is to play some hardcore strategic games go for BoW (which isnt really that good or hardcore IMHo but its a start), if You would rather play with a lot of friends new to board/card gaming-then go for carcassone.

For newbies: Bang, Munchikin,Ticket to ride, Settlers of Catan etc.
For hardcore strategic players:Twilight Imperium, Game of Thrones, Power Grid etc.
Middle ground (strategic and fun for casuals and girls):Battlestar galactica, Shadows over Camelot, and to some lesser degree Arkham Horror.

I bolded the games i would recommend.