Barnes on Games- Scythe Roundtable, Mansions of Madness in Review

Barnes on Games- Scythe Roundtable, Mansions of Madness in Review

http://fortressat.com/media/reviews/photos/thumbnail/300x300s/db/10/5e/barnes-on-games-scythe-roundtable-mansions-of-madness-in-review-86-1472858093.jpg
Michael BarnesMichael Barnes   August 26, 2016  
818  
Comments (0)

Three stars separate this game from the other one...

Scythe is freaking great, but if you expect to be the Next Great 4x game...you're not going to like it. Not only that, but I think you are misinterpreting what this game is trying to accomplish. It is a hybridized design that skews MUCH more Euro than things like the Matagot games do, and it sort of challenges the expectations that we tend to have for 4x designs. This is one of few 4x games where it's not really a DoaM game with some upgrades on a sprawling tech tree. It's an economic game that also has a little combat and extremely focused development. Some will undoubtedly find it too restrictive and controlled, others will discover that you can approach this game in a number of ways to get those stars on the board.

So we did a roundtable review of it at the Review Corner- I gave it full marks because I think it is a bold, beautiful design that may not necessarily do anything "new", but it remixes some seasoned concepts and comes out with something very fresh. Pete played the role of the detractor, and there's a little "controversy" because he turned in a 3 star rating and I bumped it down to 2.5. I felt his opinion was more toward "it's not that great" than "it's pretty good" and I adjusted it to match up better with our review key. So he's right in the middle. The roundtable review is here.

Now, on my own I reviewed Mansions of Madness 2nd Edition. It is...pretty bad. I always felt like the game had potential, but it turns out that when you take away the "overlord" player, you wind up adventuring by reading repetitive prompts and putting out tokens where the app tells you. And then it tells you what happened when you touch one of the tokens on the screen. After, of course, you make a ton of boring skill checks. The puzzles are cute at first, but just like in the old game they are a time-wasting novelty that doesn't actually add much to the game. The stories are decent, but really you are just futzing around, picking things up, getting modifiers, and then rolling skill checks. I think apps are much better for games that aren't about human-to-human storytelling. Here's the two star takedown.

Posted: 26 Aug 2016 14:30 by Msample #232869
Msample's Avatar
I'd say after reading Pete's comments, 2.5 stars is still generous. A lot of what he says resonates with me, and confirms my decision to skip this game.
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 14:34 by Gary Sax #232870
Gary Sax's Avatar
Perfect opportunity for a head to head, real disagreement over major issues.
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 15:22 by SuperflyTNT #232874
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
I still think this is Jamey Stonemeier trying to redefine 4x as something completely different, which serves no one but Stonemeier games and dilutes the lexicon.

It's like someone saying "well, I made a baseball game" but the game is actually a game about bowling.

He's not stupid. He knows that standing out in the crowd for a Euro isn't easy. He also knows that ...some... folks are OK with stretching the lexicon to include shit it most assuredly should not. So, he used that to his advantage to sell the game.

Good on him for quality PR and salesmanship.

I still think it's a spreadsheet game that, while well designed, isn't terribly compelling.
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 15:51 by Msample #232877
Msample's Avatar
But he certainly nailed the presentation . This was one of the more frequently played games in open gaming at WBC last month and it was certainly eye catching. These days, like it or not that can make up some bland game play .

Speaking of which, the other one that saw a lot of table time was the new MARE NOSTRUM. Any opinions on that one ?
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 16:24 by SuperflyTNT #232879
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
Yeah, from a beauty standpoint, the CE version of the game is astounding. The version that has wooden resources is mehtastic though.

Mare Nostrum is only really awesome with the expansion, IMO. Good game but I'd always play Cyclades instead.
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 16:37 by charlest #232885
charlest's Avatar
New Mare Nostrum is great. Haven't used the expansion yet and 4 plays deep.
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 17:08 by Space Ghost #232887
Space Ghost's Avatar
I got the New Version of Mare Nostrum with Expansion, but it appears that the old mythology expansion wasn't completely ported over. Is that correct?

If so, I might be getting rid of the new version and hang onto my old version.
Posted: 27 Aug 2016 06:38 by Southernman #232902
Southernman's Avatar
Msample wrote:
I'd say after reading Pete's comments, 2.5 stars is still generous. A lot of what he says resonates with me, and confirms my decision to skip this game.

Yeah, same here, reading everyone's highpoints (and lowpoints) of the game I'm happy that my decision not to get into this game was right - in fact as soon as I heard it compared with Eclipse (I hate that 'elegant' spreadsheet game) the rest of the discussion was pretty meaningless.
Posted: 27 Aug 2016 07:38 by wadenels #232903
wadenels's Avatar
Space Ghost wrote:
I got the New Version of Mare Nostrum with Expansion, but it appears that the old mythology expansion wasn't completely ported over. Is that correct?

If so, I might be getting rid of the new version and hang onto my old version.

I haven't had a chance to play Mare Nostrum: Empires (new version) but my understanding is that the original + expansion is a bigger and longer game, while Empires has been steamlined a bit while still including some Mythology parts. The same spirit and core concepts but differences in implementation. Maybe similar to Descent 1st vs 2nd edition?
Posted: 27 Aug 2016 08:12 by Chaz #232904
Chaz's Avatar
So the main knock against Mansions of Madness is "you should go play an RPG instead"? Cool, except that doesn't work for everyone. My wife likes the storytelling, investigative, co-op aspect of MoM. We usually only get to play games with the two of us. Any game that requires a game master/bad guy player means that we're playing against each other, which she doesn't always love. Playing an actual RPG is right the hell out for all the reasons that I play board games instead. Hell, even the "you'll start to see the same effects multiple times" thing is pretty standard. How many times do you pull the same location card in Arkham or Eldritch Horror, or as the game master in Descent, send a bunch of beastmen at the squishy wizard turn after turn?

I'll grant you that all things being equal, there are definitely better ways to get the kind of thing that MoM is trying to go for. But for those of us without a regular game group that can just go play an RPG or something, MoM has a fair amount to recommend it.
Posted: 27 Aug 2016 10:23 by Varys #232908
Varys's Avatar
Southernman wrote:
Msample wrote:
I'd say after reading Pete's comments, 2.5 stars is still generous. A lot of what he says resonates with me, and confirms my decision to skip this game.

Yeah, same here, reading everyone's highpoints (and lowpoints) of the game I'm happy that my decision not to get into this game was right - in fact as soon as I heard it compared with Eclipse (I hate that 'elegant' spreadsheet game) the rest of the discussion was pretty meaningless.

I've tried to play Eclipse and I can never get into it. Even the app puts me to sleep. Scythe, on the other hand, is quite enjoyable and easy for me to get into. I've also had no trouble teaching the game to others even people who seemed lukewarm about playing it beforehand. Everyone I've played with enjoyed it. They weren't always good at it, but they wanted to try it again. For me, that's a win.

I think you just have to try Scythe out once and see if it's for you. If you can find someone who has it, that would be best, but at the least, go watch a video play through. There are a few out already. I like the one by Jon Gets Games.
Posted: 27 Aug 2016 10:29 by SuperflyTNT #232909
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
You nailed it.

Either it's for you or not, but until you play it you won't know.
Posted: 27 Aug 2016 17:10 by DukeofChutney #232918
DukeofChutney's Avatar
Played the new Mansions of Madness today and I quite enjoyed it but I agree that there is really nothing under the hood. It think it ends up being slightly less ambitious that the original game which I sort of always wanted to love but found slow and a little dull in practice. This requires very little effort on my part and following the narrative is nice but it is essentially just exploring rooms followed by periodically throwing dice. To me it also feels like a game where the App really is the game rather than the physical components. X-com felt like a good marrage between the two, here FFG could have easily just put the pieces onto the APP map and scrapped all the minis and the board and just provided a card deck and character card at a quarter the price. Hot damn is this game expensive for what you get in the box. RRP on the 1st ed was like a full £30 quid cheaper. Despite all this I'd happily play it again and i guess there is a market for people who are allergic to playing actual rpgs.
Posted: 28 Aug 2016 08:38 by Legomancer #232926
Legomancer's Avatar
SuperflyTNT wrote:
You nailed it.

Either it's for you or not, but until you play it you won't know.

I'm thinking it's not. If someone around me wants to play, I will, but I'm not seeking it out. If it turns out I would have liked it, that's ok. I'll survive.
Posted: 28 Aug 2016 13:07 by R.P.Kraul #232935
R.P.Kraul's Avatar
On Scythe, puzzly Euros are not my thing, but I've got to give them credit for nailing the presentation. Beautiful components that fit an unusual theme.

On Mansions 2ed, I was quite surprised by the game's simplicity. In fact, I would call it by far the simplest of the AHF games. So I do agree with Michael from that perspective. If you're familiar with AHF games, you may say, "This is it--move, search explore, roll some skill checks?" I do also agree that some of the mythos events are a little repetitive (and silly). There are scenario-specific events, and these are pretty cool, but the generic ones, I wish they'd snuffed them (given the way the app is designed, they could have). That said, I do love Mansions 2ed. Reason being, it tells a more cohesive story than the other AHF games (and the app is pretty innovative). But the simplicity does come with a cost, and for that reason, I still prefer AH. The two games don't really scratch the same each, but AH is just more satisfying. But Mansions will appeal more to casual gamers, and it should act a gateway to heavier games like AH & EH. I've only played Mansions solo, and it's a blast. I sense, however, that it won't work quite as well as a co-op game, and the reason is that, when you control only a single character, you just don't have a hell of a lot to do. I would rather play solo and coordinate the actions of three or four characters.
Posted: 28 Aug 2016 16:13 by Southernman #232941
Southernman's Avatar
Varys wrote:
Southernman wrote:
Msample wrote:
I'd say after reading Pete's comments, 2.5 stars is still generous. A lot of what he says resonates with me, and confirms my decision to skip this game.

Yeah, same here, reading everyone's highpoints (and lowpoints) of the game I'm happy that my decision not to get into this game was right - in fact as soon as I heard it compared with Eclipse (I hate that 'elegant' spreadsheet game) the rest of the discussion was pretty meaningless.

I've tried to play Eclipse and I can never get into it. Even the app puts me to sleep. Scythe, on the other hand, is quite enjoyable and easy for me to get into. I've also had no trouble teaching the game to others even people who seemed lukewarm about playing it beforehand. Everyone I've played with enjoyed it. They weren't always good at it, but they wanted to try it again. For me, that's a win.

I think you just have to try Scythe out once and see if it's for you. If you can find someone who has it, that would be best, but at the least, go watch a video play through. There are a few out already. I like the one by Jon Gets Games.

Too many great games in my collection and so few people and opportunities to play them means I do not waste those valuable occasions on games I'm pretty sure I will not enjoy. I can understand the opinions and descriptions of Mike, Pete & Charie and from what I read it is not for me, just as reading Mike's review on Star Trek: Ascendancy convinced me it is probably my type of game and I should splash out of it.
Posted: 28 Aug 2016 16:17 by Southernman #232942
Southernman's Avatar
SuperflyTNT wrote:
You nailed it.

Either it's for you or not, but until you play it you won't know.

Some of us (unfortunately) consider having opponents and opportunities to play games a luxury and therefore are extremely selective (and protective) of them.
Posted: 28 Aug 2016 20:42 by Egg Shen #232944
Egg Shen's Avatar
Chaz wrote:
So the main knock against Mansions of Madness is "you should go play an RPG instead"? Cool, except that doesn't work for everyone. My wife likes the storytelling, investigative, co-op aspect of MoM. We usually only get to play games with the two of us. Any game that requires a game master/bad guy player means that we're playing against each other, which she doesn't always love. Playing an actual RPG is right the hell out for all the reasons that I play board games instead. Hell, even the "you'll start to see the same effects multiple times" thing is pretty standard. How many times do you pull the same location card in Arkham or Eldritch Horror, or as the game master in Descent, send a bunch of beastmen at the squishy wizard turn after turn?

I'll grant you that all things being equal, there are definitely better ways to get the kind of thing that MoM is trying to go for. But for those of us without a regular game group that can just go play an RPG or something, MoM has a fair amount to recommend it.

I've tried out MoM 2.0 with my wife and the next day she said, "I kept thinking about Mansions of Madness all day. I loved it." Over the years I've come to trust her opinion when it comes to Ameritrash as she has a nose for simple and fun games without any superfluous bullshit. To put it in perspective some of her favorites are DungeonQuest, Wiz-War, Betrayal at House on Hill, Fury of Dracula, Nexus Ops, and Buffy. She was ready to immediately add MoM 2.0 into her list of favorites.

While I'm not quite ready to heap that much praise on it, I've been pleasantly surprised and happy with the game. Though I will say that I'm in the opposite camp of R.P. Kraul...I think lots of fun and interaction is lost when soloing the game. Where I have no problem soloing Descent...Mansions gets better with more people at the table.


As for Scythe...that game more than anything else seems like the boardgame facsimile of pretentious Oscar bait bullshit. It seems tailor made for the type of people that think the only good movies to come out each year are the few movies deemed acceptable by the Academy. If you think boring garbage like The King's Speech and The Artist are life changing, wonderful movies...you'll probably adore Scythe. To me it looks about as exciting as boiled Tofu. The most beautifully presented Tofu you'll likely come across...but still boiled Tofu.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 15:13 by MattDP #232992
MattDP's Avatar
I'm going to review MoM myself at some point, but here's the short version: it's unusual and great fun, but there are big question marks over replay value. Far bigger that there should be at that price point.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 15:18 by Gary Sax #232993
Gary Sax's Avatar
Looking forward to reading your review.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 16:23 by Chaz #232994
Chaz's Avatar
The replay value is a question I have too. On the one hand, FFG does like to sell you expansions. On the other, the app could make it easier (possible?) for them to release new content or additional variation at pretty low cost. It wouldn't be crazy for them to start selling new scenarios within the app for a few bucks a piece. Whether they'll do this or not, I dunno. And you're right, for the price, I'd like to see more variety in the box. But I guess we'll see.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 16:36 by Unicron #232995
Unicron's Avatar
Scythe is duller than dogshit. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this isn't 4x at all. This game doesn't allow for player elimination or satisfying gains for being particularly combative. The costs, however, are staggering. Even Eclipse allows for extermination. I call bullshit. It's boiled tofu indeed.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 19:31 by Michael Barnes #233005
Michael Barnes's Avatar
I _like_ how controversial Scythe has become. Much more interesting when opinions are sharply divided.

On this whole RPG issue that is emerging from the MoM discussion...here is where it fails as an RPG-like experience. It has none of that greasy, malleable, fleshy stuff that goes on between a living game master and the players. You get a prompt, you do what it says, and it gives you a result. And most of those times the result is - inexplicably - not even specific to the scenario. So it's like pulling from this RNG table like from an old Iron Crown RPG, but reading it straight out of the book. There is no embellishment, there is no customization on behalf of the GM to make the prompts or outcomes specific to the situation, party or character. It's so bland and soulless. Even with the "live" GM in the old MoM, there was more of that human stuff going on.

I don't know, I just feel like the app is giving you an RPG experience but without any of the actual stuff that makes RPGs great. It's like...well, I don't usually work blue but it's like a blow-up doll version of an RPG.

But I am with the counter-argument about RPGs- they take a lot of time, a lot of commitment, and a lot of effort not only on the behalf of the GM, but also the player group. It's doubtful I'll ever play an RPG seriously or regularly again, so I get the appeal of a game that offers at least some semblance of an RPG experience. But when I am able to step back from the game and see that all I am really doing is rolling skill checks and occasionally choosing between two to three different possible actions...and there isn't any of that human stuff in there...well, then what am I actually doing there?

Matt's comment about the price point is a whole different issue I didn't even touch. Considering a huge part of the game is on your phone, $100 is ridiculous for what is in the box. The miniatures are terrible, they have those HUGE bases that you- for whatever reason- stick an Arkham Horror-style chit in. And then that base covers the entire room. Why not just lop $50 off MSRP and do away with these god awful figures? Keep the player figures, but lose the rest.

On balance, Ghostbusters: Protect the Barrier is a vastly superior game.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 20:20 by DukeofChutney #233014
DukeofChutney's Avatar
I concur on the price point, it's roughly £30 higher RRP than the 1st edition and it feels like there is a lot less (haven't done a side by side so I cannot be sure). THe very limited number of scenarios is rather inexcusable given the digital nature of the content.
Posted: 29 Aug 2016 21:35 by Jarvis #233020
Jarvis's Avatar
I agree about the price point. This game should have come with one or two more scenarios (say a short 1 star one and another med-long one). I'm not going to mind it if additional scenarios are provided at a free or hopefully cheap rate. If they expect people to pay $15-20 for a scenario like the print on demand ones, then I will be passing.

I do like the game as a simple RPG light game. Sometimes the effects are out of left field and I wish those were cut down slightly. But it's not really anything different than any of the Arkham games.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 02:38 by Grudunza #233033
Grudunza's Avatar
Two 4p, one 5p and several solo plays of Scythe, and for me it is the shit. Sits in a cul-de-sac with Kemet and Eclipse, where it is about building up your empire and seizing opportunities, but with enough of its own style and feel.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 08:28 by charlest #233039
charlest's Avatar
Has anyone else here played Cry Havoc and Scythe? I'd love to get into a discussion comparing those two. I think both are very good games that adopt different approaches while both still being hybrids with area control. I think Scythe is the better game but it's not by a huge margin.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 08:30 by SuperflyTNT #233040
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
I'm still trying to figure out how Scythe is "hybrid", not "FEPSB".
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 08:56 by R.P.Kraul #233047
R.P.Kraul's Avatar
Michael Barnes wrote:
Matt's comment about the price point is a whole different issue I didn't even touch. Considering a huge part of the game is on your phone, $100 is ridiculous for what is in the box. The miniatures are terrible, they have those HUGE bases that you- for whatever reason- stick an Arkham Horror-style chit in. And then that base covers the entire room. Why not just lop $50 off MSRP and do away with these god awful figures? Keep the player figures, but lose the rest.

The miniatures are ... eh, but the bases are awful. I recommend dropping those in the recycle bin and ordering some Litko clear acrylic bases. Shame it's necessary for a $100 game, but whatever.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 09:24 by charlest #233052
charlest's Avatar
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how Scythe is "hybrid", not "FEPSB".

It feels like a hybrid for me, mostly because combat has occurred often enough in my games that conflict is a present part of Scythe's identity in my perception. It can be dramatic too (I've seen players spend way too many resources and get burned, as well as surprising victories when fighting).

I've seen people swoop in and fight unexpectedly. I've seen spaces with 5+ resources get taken and the victor laugh while the loser cursed him.

It feels like a (heavily Euro swinging) hybrid to me. It doesn't feel like a Feld game at all in my opinion.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 11:36 by SuperflyTNT #233061
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
I remain unconvinced; fighting in Euros exists in abstract ways and per the "theme" it's not combat. It's bidding.

Its spending one resource (power) to bid on a space.

It's not unlike El Grande where you're bidding (power card) to gain a action choice position, in my estimation. In El Grande, many power cards allow you to move opponents' workers to another space, or *gasp* off of the board.

El Grande has never been called a hybrid or Ameritrash game.

Just sayin'
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 11:52 by charlest #233062
charlest's Avatar
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I remain unconvinced; fighting in Euros exists in abstract ways and per the "theme" it's not combat. It's bidding.

Its spending one resource (power) to bid on a space.

Are you saying you can't have combat without dice? You bid Power, yes, but you also play a card.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 11:55 by Michael Barnes #233063
Michael Barnes's Avatar
Nothing is more abstract than rolling dice to simulate conflict or a non-numerical outcome.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 12:37 by Chapel #233064
Chapel's Avatar
Funny, what you state about Scythe, I used to say a similar thing about Tempus in 2006.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 12:42 by Space Ghost #233065
Space Ghost's Avatar
Michael Barnes wrote:
Nothing is more abstract than rolling dice to simulate conflict or a non-numerical outcome.

That's actually an interesting statement because it could imply that combat via die rolling is abstract but with fairly accurate outcomes. If you consider historical wargames where the circumstances and outcomes of numerous battles are already known, it would be possible to construct tables that would accurately reflect the probability of winning/losing a battle (I envision something more complex than seen in most wargames).

Die rolls via combat seem to be concerned with strategic level combat; whereas, card play seems to be more tactical level (although, I think of this in terms of "back and forth" card play).
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 12:45 by SuperflyTNT #233066
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
charlest wrote:
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I remain unconvinced; fighting in Euros exists in abstract ways and per the "theme" it's not combat. It's bidding.

Its spending one resource (power) to bid on a space.

Are you saying you can't have combat without dice? You bid Power, yes, but you also play a card.

Obviously, no. What I'm saying is that it's not combat - you're bidding on a space. You're using persistent resources (power) and a temporary resource (card) in order to bid on ownership of the space. There are no casualties, really. You're just sending them home.

We can go around and around on this, but it's very hard to call what Scythe does "combat" the more I think about it.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 13:04 by charlest #233067
charlest's Avatar
I don't see the outcome of where the losing pieces going as that relevant to defining whether what happened was combat or not. For instance, a few games feature respawning and Kemet has them go back to your pool to be deployed, not lost permanently.

In Descent, if the overlord attacks a hero and knocks them down, did combat not occur? What about Gears of War the board game? Rum and Bones has units respawning too. Probably countless other examples we could come up with.

But I don't get the distinction on bidding, really and why that's not combat. A resolution system is a resolution system. You can certainly prefer one more than the other but combat to me is two different units clashing over a space and conflict occurring. The military background of the game makes it combat as opposed to just conflict.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 16:47 by SuperflyTNT #233069
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
So, if I go to an auction, and I bid X on a '59 Gibson Les Paul, and two other guys bid on it as well, then it could be said that there was combat? I'm saying that you could say "they battled it out over the guitar" or "they fought over the guitar" as an analogy or colloquialism, but at the end of the day, no combat occurred. It was an auction. Same thing applies here.

In Dune, the combat is the same. You're bidding a resource, soldiers. One might be able to say that it mirrors Dune (play cards and a secret number of soldiers up to your total soldiers) but in the case of Scythe, it's simply trading commodities. The winner is the one who has the casualties (WTF?) if "Power" is an abstraction of troops, and the spoils don't exist after you've won two battles (the spoils are stars). So, really, you're bidding on a star and a space.

It just doesn't feel like combat. I get that it's very Dune-like, but fuck me, if someone compares it to Dune in my presence they're going to get an earful. It's a great mechanic that was absolutely dumbed down and pussified to cater to the Boiled Tofu crowd that need to get trophies when they finish dead last.
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 17:52 by Shellhead #233071
Shellhead's Avatar
Michael Barnes wrote:
Nothing is more abstract than rolling dice to simulate conflict or a non-numerical outcome.

Your statement is logical. But I know that the lack of dice-rolling is the specific reason why I find Dungeon Twister somewhat unsatisfactory. Maybe the act of rolling dice makes the combat feel more exciting and therefore a bit more thematic because of the uncertainty. By comparison, playing a card from a very limited set of cards for a set value feels less dramatic and therefore less like combat.
Posted: 31 Aug 2016 00:33 by kookoobah #233087
kookoobah's Avatar
charlest wrote:
Has anyone else here played Cry Havoc and Scythe? I'd love to get into a discussion comparing those two. I think both are very good games that adopt different approaches while both still being hybrids with area control. I think Scythe is the better game but it's not by a huge margin.

I like Cry Havoc a little better. It's like Nexus Ops on steroids, with a little deckbuilding. Whereas Scythe is Agricola, with combat twice per game.

Mansions 2.0 felt dry. I was having fun for the first 15-20 minutes, but it quickly became repetitive, I'm glad I still have my 1.0 stuff
Posted: 31 Aug 2016 03:12 by Sevej #233091
Sevej's Avatar
I absolutely detest bidding combat. Pete's right, it doesn't feel like combat. Part of it is because it's usually detached from the actual troop movement. You move figures, then you choose what value to add. The process of choosing what value to add is usually unrelated to the amount of troops, just random arbitrary number. I'd rather have Nexus Ops style, where card effects at least interesting (the time reverse thingy rocks), but no... just numbers. Even when you add text to these numbers (such as in -Blood Rage), it still feels sterile. Put cards face down, reveal... really? That's not exciting.

The act of choosing random number is usually depends on your 'strategy'. That is, you want to expend now or not? But really, this kind of choice is already made when you devote an x number of unit into an area.

It's almost like fucking without a dick. You play orgasm card or impotent card...
Posted: 01 Sep 2016 20:41 by SuperflyTNT #233199
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
Not to kick a dead horse, but for those uninitiated, allow me to demonstrate an example of the fantastic narrative and exploration that the amazing Scythe delivers by the motherfucking truckload:


image-36.jpeg
Posted: 01 Sep 2016 21:36 by Michael Barnes #233203
Michael Barnes's Avatar
That's a great example, Pete, of how much more sophisticated the narrative is in this game than many others that rely on descriptive text.

You get an evocative image and what amounts to three possible interpretations of it, which are essentially how your character responds. You might have a choice to be "good", but get tempted by the reward for being "bad".

These little stories add a lot to the game - I think most groups will have fun cracking jokes about what happens along the way.

I love that the "adventure" aspect of the game is more up to the imagination than flavor text...and I think it's pretty brilliant that the mechanic is, essentially interpretation of an image.

Thanks for pointing it out!
Posted: 01 Sep 2016 22:03 by Sevej #233204
Sevej's Avatar
That should be in more games. I really like the idea for a flip encounter card game.
Posted: 01 Sep 2016 23:44 by SuperflyTNT #233207
SuperflyTNT's Avatar
The "encounters" sound like they were written by a man so boring his balls fall asleep while he's rubbing one out.

There is no context given at all as to what happened, why the reindeer is important, etc.
Posted: 01 Sep 2016 23:58 by Shellhead #233210
Shellhead's Avatar
"Pet the reindeer" is probably some kind of Canadian euphemism.
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 08:40 by charlest #233220
charlest's Avatar
I believe that Reindeer card may be a KS promo, I don't think I have it in my retail copy. Those are a bit sillier than the standard.

Most of them are things like finding a couple of brothers chopping wood near their farm. Do you help them out (gain popularity), buy some their wood (gain wood for money), or conscript them (gain an Enlist action but lose popularity).

Discussion