Fortress Ameritrash - Forum

Subject: Re: Video vs Board - by: SuperflyTNT

Mon, 20 May 2013 16:16:56 +0000

[quote="Erik Twice" post=152489]There's this idea that boardgames and videogames are completely different from each other and not at all related, that you don't gain anything by playing Francis Tresham's [i]Civilization[/i] or [i]D&D[/i] if your goal is to talk about games in the digital medium.[/quote] Only a fool would say so, and the proof is that so many games are being ported successfully to iOS. A great example of something going the other way is Fallout Warfare. It is the physical representation of Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, the video game.

Subject: Re: Video vs Board - by: Shellhead

Mon, 20 May 2013 15:09:04 +0000

There are certain things that each format does better, to an extreme degree. Console or computer games are obviously superior for real-time action, for exploration, for the fog of war, complex computations, and solitaire. And missing pieces aren't really a problem for console/computer games. Boardgames are better for tactile experiences, like holding a hand of cards or rolling dice or moving dudes on a map. Boardgames are also potentially better for player interaction, though some modern boardgames are effectively multiplayer solitaire. And boardgames are better for not being real-time when it comes to things like strategy and negotiation. As long as you don't lose any pieces, a boardgame can be playable for decades, but a console/computer game can eventually be left behind as technology moves on and backwards compatibility isn't supported. I've been thinking about these kinds of differences a lot lately. For the last year, I've been running a D&D 3.5 campaign for a large group of players, and then sometimes I play the old D&D 3.5 PC game on the side, Temple of Elemental Evil. ToEE is much less hassle for me. No prep time, and the game is doing all the calculations, so I can just focus on tactics. But despite the heroic efforts of modders over the last decade, there is a limited amount of content for ToEE. And the game just flat out ignores certain kinds of situations because they would have required too much extra programming, like riding horses, swimming, falling in pits, using poison, and climbing walls. And ToEE doesn't have the flexibility to address any really creative ideas by the players. My tabletop D&D campaign requires a lot of prep time, and sometimes I have a headache by the end of a six-hour session from trying to keep track of everything at once while looking up stuff on the fly. But it's a very social experience, and offers tremendous flexibility and creativity.

Subject: Re: Video vs Board - by: metalface13

Mon, 20 May 2013 15:00:41 +0000

I agree, games are games. Bowling, darts, golf, football, baseball, Call of Duty, chess, Magic, Dungeons and Dragons. They all involve people engaging in an activity following a specific rule set for competition or enjoyment. I think saying video games primarily measure speed is a bit reductionist though. Sure the most popular games due, but there are plenty of turn-based games where you can take your time and make your move.

Subject: Re: Video vs Board - by: Gary Sax

Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:46 +0000

For me, the thing about videogames that's wonderful, the real potential, is emergent situations. You can't do this in a boardgames, only through the players at the table---I'm fine with that, I like emergent player created situations too. I was going to bring up Crusader Kings as an example, as you did. I could think of others---Prison architect, which I've been playing, even Reus, which I just bought on Steam. What I love about this type of game is when the numbers drop away. If you make the simulation complex enough, it's really hard to do "calculations" about exactly what will do what. You just have to play, and as long as you have a sense of cause and effect in the game you may get what you want, you may get emergent situations. In Crusader Kings, the control freak way to do it is to math everything out. Some people do this---but it's exhausting, and more importantly not necessary. Instead I can just play LIKE I WAS A DUKE and let the systems fall where they may. If the game is good, the emergent simulation will be surprising but logical. That's what I love about strategy games, the closest analogy to boardgames.

Subject: Re: Video vs Board - by: Sevej

Mon, 20 May 2013 12:57:46 +0000

Depends on what are you looking for. Last weekend we played X-Wing. Cute little game. Then the next morning we played Hawken and had a blast. I think Video Games are stil very much an excellent platform of gaming. The most stark difference is that most mechanisms in board games are transparent, while in video games they are usually opaque. Board game also tends to compress time. I think both have their merits. With mechanisms, the current direction of video game which hides lots of complex calculation behind really make board game shines. I despise games with +3% strength etc. With board games, due to having everything operated manually, you really have to make everything meaningful. The condensed game time also means a lot more decisions in shorter time. I do like video games for visceral effect, and its ability to make a much more complex game incredibly manageable (Crusader Kings). Its digital nature also means video games can be more expansive since it's not limited by physical components. Finally the longer play time allows some build-up, highs and lows. In this regard, video game to board game is like movie to tv serials. Not always, but the games I like tend to be that way.

Subject: Re: Video vs Board - by: MattDP

Mon, 20 May 2013 10:16:59 +0000

I would sum it up like this: almost all board games will work as video games, but not all (in fact relatively few) video games will work as board games. (And FWIW I thought the games critics should play thread was very interesting) The reason is very simple: the primary skill tested by video games is reaction speed. Usually physical, sometimes mental, occasionally both (and those are often the best video games in my opinion). This is something that very, very few board games even attempt, let alone succeed in doign to any great degree. Chvatil works in this space. Galaxy Trucker and Space Alert live in the crossover gap. Very little else does.

Subject: Video vs Board - by: Erik Twice

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:43:14 +0000

Some time ago I wrote a quite terrible article where I listed some games I felt important for game critics to play. It was a writing experiment of my part and more of a rant against porn sites disguising as journalism than actually a serious list. Alas, that didn't go well with some people. Not because of the quality, but because I included boardgames and roleplaying in my list. There's this idea that boardgames and videogames are completely different from each other and not at all related, that you don't gain anything by playing Francis Tresham's [i]Civilization[/i] or [i]D&D[/i] if your goal is to talk about games in the digital medium. This is very strange to me. A game is, after all, a game, that it takes place in a screen or a piece of cardboard is secondary. Yet I unknowingly sparked a debate about what a video game really is, which leads to such absurdity as claiming [i]Archon[/i] is only a video game while Chess is only a boardgame. Hell, all this drive about games as art has only been centered in the digital side. But for all the cutscenes and plots videogames throw at my the best narratives are on the boardgame side as are the best mechanics. There's this huge divide only a fraction of boardgames is aware of that makes me uneasy and I wonder. What do you make of it?

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: trif

Mon, 20 May 2013 05:50:31 +0000

[quote="Mad Dog" post=152464]I wonder if Martin Wallace ever played any fantasy adventure board games before designing Runebound. I vaguely recall an article where he said he was never into those kinds of games.[/quote] I think Wallace only designed the terrain dice movement system - Darrell Hardy designed the rest.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: craniac

Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:40 +0000

[quote="the_jake_1973" post=152368]I'll take In and Out burgers over them all. Animal style, of course.[/quote] We have an IN n' OUT about a mile from my house, around the corner from our FLGS. If I go there when I'm hungry, and not more than once every two weeks, I'm usually pretty happy. I get grilled onions on mine. It's a perfectly satisfactory <$5.00 lunch. It's probably also a metaphor about eurogames. I don't have time, and when I do have time I often don't have the energy. When Friday rolls around I'm tired. My regular group used to drive in from 20 minutes away, but have retreated to play with themselves. We have an alpha gamer who plays a lot of 18xx, but he (wisely) doesn't invite me to those sessions. I've slowly been pruning my collection, and it feels a bit like the end of 2001, when HAL's brain cartridges are being extracted, one by one. I've actually reached the point where everything I own is too good or too crappy to trade. I joined BGG in 2005, so I guess it took eight years for that cycle to run its course. [img]http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/song-dong-waste-not-hoarding-2.JPG[/img]

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: DukeofChutney

Sun, 19 May 2013 21:44:55 +0000

the main thing that bothers me about the current golden age of board games is the volume of crap that comes with it. It just seems like such a commercialized waste to me. Because there are so many games they can feel soulless, but i think this is more due to being overwhelmed by the numbers. Its harder for games to stand out than perhaps it was in days gone by.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Michael Barnes

Sun, 19 May 2013 17:43:53 +0000

Whoa...if you're going to bemoan the modern age of game design, don't pick three of the best, most interesting, and most innovative games in recent years...and definitely don't base your position on the games by the box illustrations. I would play any of those three games three times over almost any old Avalon Hill or Games Workshop game once There's hardly anything in X-Wing that could be regarded as soulless. The #1 reason that game has blown up is because its the first SW product in years that feels like it captures the spirit of the OT. It sounds to me like you are reacting more to the loss of frontier in game design than anything else. Designs today do not come out of nowhere, there aren't folks like Hamblen and EON that are making things up and pioneering new ways of game playing and making. But a lot has been gained in settling into a refinement stage...games do just as much or even more with less. I miss the all day games too, but I also understand that there was an era for those, and that era has passed. Thank Crom.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Mad Dog

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:31:51 +0000

I wonder if Martin Wallace ever played any fantasy adventure board games before designing Runebound. I vaguely recall an article where he said he was never into those kinds of games.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Sagrilarus

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:11:40 +0000

[quote="Jeff White" post=152451](EDIT: I ignore all Kickstarter games, so don't point me there.)[/quote] You're essentially saying "I want new, innovative, against-the-grain games where the designer is coloring outside the lines, and then explicitly ruling out the primary channel those kinds of games are going to appear in. Big publishers need to keep the centerline of the market in their sights at all times. It's part of staying in business. Games that take risks and cut new ground generally come out of someone's garage. You can wait for a new game to come out, get knocked around, appreciated, accepted and be considered the state of the art (i.e., enter the golden age) or you can buy the tried and true clones of established concepts in the new market. You've ruled out option 3. That's ok; I've done the same. I look to games 5+ years old for virtually all of my purchases. But it's unfair to complain that all burgers taste the same when you only shop at MacDonalds. You need to look to Mom & Pop vendors to get Mom & Pop variety. S.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Sevej

Sun, 19 May 2013 13:45:55 +0000

From my collection I think I can point BattleLore, Okko and Legends of Andor to have "soul". For BattleLore it's may be nostalgia since it's my first game. But there's this unique vibe abou how all of it is put together. The vibrant colors, exceptionally beautiful illustrations without taking itself too seriously. I'm sure Richard Bord put a lot into this one as evident by the many races he made but unpublished. Okko is a French man's vision on fantasy feudal Japan. Of course it's weird. Legends of Andor is unique among fantasy games due to its "minimalist" design. The fighter wear minimal armor. The monsters are very standard, muscly guy with strange gead and maybe tail. But it's so well made. Not surprising since the illustrator and designer is the same person. The artwork is incredibly charming and breathes a lot of life to Andor. Menzel's boards are beautiful but this one certainly has a life of its own. The river, the spring, the market and tavern on the road. The way fog tokens are only spread on the river banks. How the graphic design fleshes the items. It's not the usual, modern over detailed fantasy, but exceptionally painted. I kind of understand what you mean though. Technically, Talisman 4th edition art is way more competent than the 2nd. But I do feel the 2nd ed is more charming. The outer region for example. In 4th it's top down view. In 2nd it's side view with the camera zooming in and out freely, among rolling hills, trees and what nots. Very beautiful. In 4th all characters look awesome. In 2nd some are ugly or creepy... not what you expect from fantasy heroes, but they sure are fun and fire up imagination.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Jeff White

Sun, 19 May 2013 03:43:53 +0000

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here, and it's likely I didn't get my point across. There are plenty of new games that are likely great. I even recognize that the FFG Talisman is better than the GW 2nd in regards to mechanics, balance, and such. I think the DDAS games are great, awesome co-ops. But mechanics alone don't make the game for me. I love dice as a source of resolution, but I don't like all dice games or all games with dice. Modern games don't get me excited. They all look alike. I guess this site use to drop that hammer on the euros looking alike in their browness, but are these three modern favorites unique looking to you? [img]http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1431241_md.jpg[/img] [img]http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1351042_md.jpg[/img] [img]http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic584779_md.jpg[/img] I just feel like games in generation's past had a bit more style to them. In the OP, I was able to drop names of illustrators from previous games and anyone here that's been in the hobby for any length of time knew the artist and their style. I can't say that about most newer games I see. Hell, people have _tattoos_ based on the work of artists I mentioned! Sure, sure, art alone doesn't make a game, but I just don't get any sense of soul to modern games. They're like watered down 'pop' versions of the types of games I got into this hobby for. Two that I think may have the potential (and I haven't played either) is Android for it's vision and CaveEvil for it's style. These are games that are outside the box. These look like the types of games where someone put their all into them, not just cobbled together modern, popular gaming mechanics and put some technically proficient illustrations on all the bits. X-wing? Kemet? Cyclades? What stands out here? The mechanics? no The aesthetics? no I've got better games to play than souless, 'me too' boardgames. I don't need all the mechanics and gameplay streamlined. But I need a car that's with modern safety features when I drive my kids around, which is why we have a Honda. I prefer a game with spunk, teeth, and that lets you get a little wet and wild. I'll take the '69 Camaro for myself...and hell, a Coors too...why not. (EDIT: I ignore all Kickstarter games, so don't point me there.)

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Sevej

Sun, 19 May 2013 03:11:44 +0000

Runebound is MR "direct descendant?"? Don't make me laugh. It's most likely someone played Talisman and deided to make a more controlled, souped up version of it. Only left and right? So RB has hex map. Roll and move? Let's make it more "tactical" with "more choice". Whatever. First turn dragon? Let's divide encounter into different difficulties. Simplistic combat? Let's make a complex one. With ranged and magic rules exactly the same of course. The best thing about MR is the world building and how one can actually gt familiar with it. The denizens. How creatures are spawned. The small things that tie each other. None of these exists in Runebound.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: SuperflyTNT

Sun, 19 May 2013 01:30:08 +0000

[quote="mikecl" post=152401][quote="SuperflyTNT" post=152380] Runebound is most assuredly a direct descendant of Magic Realm... TL;DR: Nostalgia is a pair of rose colored glasses, and yes, you're getting old.[/quote] I agree with most of your little rant Pete except for this. Runebound is NOTHING like Magic Realm which is the closest you'll ever get to role playing in a board game. Rolling mountains of dice for random pre-set encounters pulled from a deck is nothing like the fluid day to day changing landscape of Magic Realm where denizens roam, natives are for hire and sometimes go to War and characters can develop powerful magicks that let them Melt into Mist, Transform into Beasts or Fly across the board.[/quote] I know you are the King of Magic Realm Apologists, but I said DESCENDANT. Without MRealm there would be no Runebound.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Chapel

Sun, 19 May 2013 01:09:04 +0000

Jeff, you and I are like gamer brothers form another mother. And the sad part of the story is we're just a bit to far from each other. :)

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: mikecl

Fri, 17 May 2013 19:22:16 +0000

[quote="SuperflyTNT" post=152380] Runebound is most assuredly a direct descendant of Magic Realm... TL;DR: Nostalgia is a pair of rose colored glasses, and yes, you're getting old.[/quote] I agree with most of your little rant Pete except for this. Runebound is NOTHING like Magic Realm which is the closest you'll ever get to role playing in a board game. Rolling mountains of dice for random pre-set encounters pulled from a deck is nothing like the fluid day to day changing landscape of Magic Realm where denizens roam, natives are for hire and sometimes go to War and characters can develop powerful magicks that let them Melt into Mist, Transform into Beasts or Fly across the board.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: SuperflyTNT

Fri, 17 May 2013 18:55:56 +0000

They don't call them "sliders" for nothing. It's a reference to your digestive tract. Ex Lax could make billions simply marketing them as stool softeners.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: RobertB

Fri, 17 May 2013 17:19:08 +0000

[quote="SuperflyTNT" post=152361] McDonald's has pink slime burgers. Wendy's has fingers in their Chili. Humpty Hump gets busy in Burger King bathrooms. Carl from Carl's Jr. died of Parkinson's, presumably from eating the food. WHITE CASTLE FOR THE WIN. You may get projectile diarrhea but it's SO WORTH IT.[/quote] No lie. Those things are tasty, but don't plan to be too far from a bathroom for the next 12 hours or so.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: SuperflyTNT

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:21:01 +0000

I feel like opining on the original rant, so here goes: Bollocks. That's like saying that a 1969 Camaro Super Sport with Flowmaster exhaust and a Holly 4 barrel carbeurator is inherently superior to a 2013 Aston Martin Virage. The trend has most assuredly gone from epic day-long games of warfare to 2-hour wargames, and I see some fault with that, of course. But that doesn't mean that Castle Risk is any more fun or inherently better than Cyclades. Not all new games are throwaways. I think the illusion that "new games suck" is propagated by the fact that the ratio of coal to diamond is so much higher than it was. But to say that Cyclades, Claustrophobia, or others have no character is simply fallacious. These are not soulless games. There are very few "new" games that are truly amazing, but there are FEW, meaning that there are some that are worthy of the FOREVER SHELF, as Mike would put it. Looking back at games like Talisman and Cosmic and saying that they have souls and character and that the reprints have neither is simply ludicrous. Runebound is most assuredly a direct descendant of Magic Realm, it simply has a lower barrier to entry, and that means that more people will get to enjoy it. Not every game with a numbered, layered rulebook is worth playing simply because it's old. New games are descendants of old games, or rather, in many cases are improvements and refinements of the "old ways". TL;DR: Nostalgia is a pair of rose colored glasses, and yes, you're getting old.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Juniper

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:20 +0000

I always liked the old Crisis stories, where the Golden Age Games teamed up with the Silver Age Games to defeat the Secret Society of Supervillains.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Mad Dog

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:36:35 +0000

I thought the Golden Age of Board Games was considered to be around 1995-2005. So now we'd be in the Silver Age.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Columbob

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:11:04 +0000

[quote="Jeff White" post=152296] I have no desire to try Cyclades, Quarriors, Summoner Wars, Spartacus, or any or the other recent darlings and the good thing is in a few months they'll be in the rear view and some other games will be pushed under my nose to play. Some other new game I also won't have much interest in. New games appear sterile to me. I want character. I want something with a vision. New titles appear to simply be games going through the motions. I'm not interested. Are they better than Titan? Ogre? Nexus Ops? hell, Wizard's Quest? No, then what's the point? They sure as hell don't look better.[/quote] I hear you, but how old does a game have to be before you give it a chance? When did you first play Nexus Ops? It's a 2005 release, not that much older than, say Summoner Wars (2009), to go by your examples.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: the_jake_1973

Fri, 17 May 2013 02:24:31 +0000

I'll take In and Out burgers over them all. Animal style, of course.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: SuperflyTNT

Thu, 16 May 2013 21:23:04 +0000

[quote="engelstein" post=152358][quote="Shellhead" post=152317]Many people have limited ability to discern the difference between quality and crap. That's why White Castle sells so many burgers[/quote] Dem's fightin' words, sir.[/quote] McDonald's has pink slime burgers. Wendy's has fingers in their Chili. Humpty Hump gets busy in Burger King bathrooms. Carl from Carl's Jr. died of Parkinson's, presumably from eating the food. WHITE CASTLE FOR THE WIN. You may get projectile diarrhea but it's SO WORTH IT.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: engelstein

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:04:13 +0000

[quote="Shellhead" post=152317]Many people have limited ability to discern the difference between quality and crap. That's why White Castle sells so many burgers[/quote] Dem's fightin' words, sir.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: dragonstout

Thu, 16 May 2013 17:37:12 +0000

[quote="Jeff White" post=152296]The Clash of the Titans remake has technically better effects[/quote] I think this is almost provably false.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: bfkiller

Thu, 16 May 2013 16:41:49 +0000

Edit: Whoops. Already mentioned earlier.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: bfkiller

Thu, 16 May 2013 16:37:36 +0000

Spartacus is a '69 Camaro that just happened to be released in 2012.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: ubarose

Thu, 16 May 2013 16:19:30 +0000

[b]Ultra Marines[/b] is the most entertaining. You drop dice into the box lid (hand must be at least 3 feet above the lid). The inside of the box lid is marked with "HIT" and "MISS" areas. You have to get certain numbers in the HIT areas to wound or kill.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: metalface13

Thu, 16 May 2013 15:18:14 +0000

[quote="bioball" post=152297]One problem with so much public involvement is that while we love our local gaming groups its very different from the small groups of friends that would get together with the 1 or 2 games we played endlessly. For me, that was AD&D, Magic, and Castle Risk. I think the biggest problem is folks are short on time and long on internet. So they get excited about playing a lot of different games, but don't have the time to invest in one game. I think this is a theme of constant comment here on FAT. The prototypical game now needs to almost play in 45 to 75 minutes, be easy to understand almost from the get go and have a slightly bland but appealing theme and no more than 2-3 decks of cards.[/quote] This, a thousand times, this. Being in your thirties is a lot different than being in your teens. You have more money, but less time. Whereas you used to have a ton of free time but not a lot of money. I really enjoyed being able to dig into Axis and Allies, Conquest of The Empire, Blood Bowl, Magic and Star Wars TCG with a regular group of friends. But if you can only go to a game night every once in a while, do you play Chaos in the Old World for a second time or do you play Clash of Cultures for the first time? It's like playing a new game for the first time anyways. The Cult of the New mainly stems from the Eurogamers, but it's in all of us now. I think for people who like AT games, it came from the old classics (Talisman, Titan, Dungeon, Dune, etc) being out of print. So everybody was searching for that game the recreated the classic (Runebound, Prophecy, TI3, etc.) but now almost all of the classics are reprinted on top of all the new stuff. [quote] I think the biggest problem is folks are short on time and long on internet. So they get excited about playing a lot of different games, but don't have the time to invest in one game.[/quote] To reiterate this point again, this completely explains my current obsession with GW's specialist games. Too much downtime at work and I need something to occupy my brain.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Sevej

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:27:12 +0000

@Pete I actually got to the same point with miniature rules. In a way, miniature rules are even worse. You always have the basic stuff: movement, LoS, terrain... and it takes effort to separate the meat from the routine. Skipping the routine rules put you in the risk of missing the small parts. These days I just stick to Hordes of the Things for mass fantasy battle and Two Hour Wargames for anything involving bullets. @Juniper Now that you mention it, the only games I bought when they were new were Descent 2nd Ed and Android. Android is a funny tale. At first I dismissed it because of the problems now often cried by its detractors, even before playing the game. A guy defended the game, but my arguments were hard to refute. Somehow I flicked my own brain, bought it, and really love the unique experience. The guy who defended it earlier had sold the game. @Shellhead I'll give Spartacus a try if only I can get my hands on it. The only copy here is owned by a guy of strange sensibilities who got really offended when I pointed out his mistakes in Talisman and said that his Descent OL is a moron (that they are "vet D&D" players is supposed to make them expert on Descent). Spartacus seems light, and light games are lesser class of game around here. They call me filler gamer for playing Kingdom Builder. PS. In our very small community of less than 35 active players there will be 10 copies of Euphoria. There's at least 5 copies of Fallen City of Karez, 6 copies of Ground Floor and maybe 6 copies of Terra Mystica. Sadly most of these copies will be underplayed. Some guys i know are really in it. Others are used to fill up Kickstarter crowd order. The rest is just following trend, trying to gain some face in our small community. These games will be forgotten in the jext two months. Not necessarily because they are bad games, but because people are trying to keep up with the new releases.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: dysjunct

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:16:25 +0000

The last few times I've tried to teach myself a new game, I've put it away about halfway through. Sometimes quicker. Even supposed greats. I just can't get interested in the experience to put in the work. Will the experience really be that much better than just playing games I already know, to justify an investment of an hour or two? Almost certainly not.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: MattDP

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:13:54 +0000

The one and only regret I have about being a game critic is that I have to stay on top of the new material and don't get to revisit the old anywhere near as often as I'd like. But it's a pretty small complaint for all the brilliant stuff I get to do in return :) Anyway, I think it's badly distorted my perception on this issue. I'm aware that constantly shifting what I'm playing isn't usual from the average gamer's point of view, and that it must be quite annoying for my friends and opponents. They often wonder why I refuse to bring out an older game they enjoyed, and the answer is always because I've got new stuff to review. On the other hand when I'm inspired to keep on playing something in spite of the tide of new material, you know it's something special. So I wonder really, outside the BGG microcosm, how big an issue this is in the real world.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Shellhead

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:05:17 +0000

Many people have limited ability to discern the difference between quality and crap. That's why White Castle sells so many burgers, and why a shitty sitcom like Home Improvements was on the air for so many seasons. So boardgamers know that they have enjoyed playing boardgames at times in the past, but many of them fail to reflect on exactly what they enjoyed about individual games, and they keep chasing after the new, hoping to stumble into something fresh that reminds them of past fun. And then there is nostalgia, the idea that the whole world was a better place when I was 16 or 19 or 25 or whatever. I'm guilty of this, to a certain extent. Probably a third of my game collection is games of average or worse quality, but I remember having some kind of fun with them at some point in the past, or else they offer a certain novelty of playing experience. Or maybe I'm just a bit of a hoarder and can't be bothered to let go. But there are certain games that I really enjoyed, and have played the hell out of those games. And for having taken the time to go so deep into those games, I have a more nuanced enjoyment of those games. Like Sevej, I don't especially enjoy the process of learning a new game, especially when someone else is teaching it in a half-assed way. My dad was notorious for teaching games by saying "Don't worry about the rules, you will pick it up as we play." Not surprisingly, his idea of teaching me how to swim involved tossing me into the deep end of the pool, though my mom never let him go through with that and instead got me swimming lessons from a lifeguard. All that said, give Spartacus a chance. I think that it could just be the AT game of the freaking decade. Combat system is simple, intuitive and fun. The ability to spend money on nearly anything, even transactions not even defined in the rule book, makes player interaction and negotiation huge. The take-that cards are fun, but you can try to protect yourself against them with guards. And the power of the thumb is one of the most thematic mechanics ever.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Juniper

Thu, 16 May 2013 13:55:55 +0000

I think that time and hindsight is a filter. Nexus Ops wasn't widely recognized as a timeless classic when Hasbro/Avalon Hill was still selling it, but it's easy now to see that it's one of the greats. It will take 5 to 10 years to determine whether a new title deserves the status of "classic." The ones that stand the test of time won't necessarily be the ones that generate interest now. The really great games won't quite satisfy our current expectations about what a quality game should be. They'll be unususal in some way, and they will inform our understanding of what a great game is, redefining categories and changing those expectations.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: SuperflyTNT

Thu, 16 May 2013 13:00:22 +0000

I don't buy new games. I buy new RULES. I've gotten to the point that my boardgame collection is pretty much set in stone; I have what I want, and there are very few games that I'd still like to get my hands on (Cyclades). My "only keep the best in class" rule has trimmed my collection to 30 boxed games or so, and that's about where I'd like to have it remain. Now, when it comes to miniatures and scenery, that's a different story. I have a 9' x 1.5' shelf completely overflowing with scenery, then on top of that, two smaller shelves on my game bookcase that are loaded up with the smaller buildings. It's to the point that I've decided I need more shelves. The wonderful thing about miniatures is that once you have a sampling from many different genres, it's not about buying new "games", per se, it's about buying different rule sets. For instance, I bought 100$ of "scavenger/wastelander" type miniatures, complete with robots and mutants, and now I can play anything from the "post-apoc/Fallout" genre to the "modern terrorists" genre using those miniatures. I have scenery that ranges from medieval to gothic to early American to modern middle eastern to wasteland post-earth. Granted, the building and painting of miniatures and scenery is truly a hobby unto itself, but until you've really experienced how great playing a game on a beautiful, three dimensional table is, it's hard to elicit just how astoundingly different it is compared to playing something like Earth Reborn or Claustrophobia.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: San Il Defanso

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:54:19 +0000

I don't think the tendency to forget games quickly is necessarily a commentary on the quality of the game itself, more on the nature of board game consumption. One of the frustrations with this hobby is that I'm naturally someone who likes to play stuff I'm already familiar with, rather than always learning new games. This runs counter to how many people enjoy the hobby. A few games stay in circulation around here, but more often they end up out of the rotation and never make it back in. I find this is less of a problem when you have a number of friends who don't really collect a lot either. I have one friend who ALWAYS has several new games he wants to play. We joke that he is obsessed with a game for a couple months, then trades it off or never plays it again. But it does mean that it can be hard to play familiar stuff around him. So while I don't really agree with your assessment Jeff, I do think it's a good attitude for more people to take. A new game shouldn't just be in competition with the other games this year. It should be in competition with everything that's come before it. That's what makes the really good stuff from the last five years (Merchants & Marauders, BSG, Innovation, King of Tokyo, Mage Knight for me) really stand out.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: hotseatgames

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:15:15 +0000

I certainly used to acquire more games than I do now. Now when I see something enticing all I think is, I can't even get what I already have to the table! Depressing.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: mikko_r

Thu, 16 May 2013 08:02:21 +0000

I like fast, easy and throwing lots of dice. War of the Ring offers all that.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Sevej

Thu, 16 May 2013 06:04:57 +0000

For me it's less about old or new, but more about getting deeper. Granted, I entered the hobby much, much later than you guys (played MtG in highschool around '98 Fourth Edition/Mirage). I knocked 80 plays out of my first game: BattleLore. 109 plays out of Carcassonne. 87 plays out of Pandemic. 52 out of Okko. The only reason the numbers are not higher is the lack of chance to play them. It is worth considering, that part of the reason of me playing my games so much is $$. Back then I had crappy job and simply couldn't afford buying more than two or three board games per month. But here's the strange thing. Recently I moved to Jakarta and scored a decent job. There's a lot more board gaming group here (and I know the guys from the local board game forum). And I have 0 interest to play with them and all their new games. I usually learn how to play by myself, so I've come to the conclusion that being taught by others is a rather crap procedure. They usually miss a rule, explain the game in a bad way, and so on. On the times that I've been taught by others, I despise them. Waiting 5 minutes for them to browse the rulebook, scratching head, etc. Part of the problem is me. I'm a (you guys are allowed to puke) very smart guy, with 140+ IQ (don't ask which standard, it been around that number for 4 times), and I'm usually a bit impatient about these things. I have to read rules on games I'm about to play by myself, but I really don't want to do that either. So it's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I also refuse to play games without knowing all about it. At least what can be possibly known by knowing all the rules. Not knowing the rules and having things shoved at you and/or browsing the rulebook for some time (a short glance is OK) really, really break the immersion. So a week ago, we had a Wargamers meeting, in which I refused to play all of the games, except for 1 game of Band of Brothers (I taught this one) and Earth Reborn. I refused to play Here I Stand and Crown of Roses, which under a perfect condition (all players have read the rule and understands their role), would be right up my forte. Maybe this is too much to ask. But I really can't bear another moment playing a game in which no one understand how the game plays without repeatedly browsing the rulebook for a long time. However, I had a great time when the week previously we played Wallenstein because the guy knows his stuff, even if he speaks broken Indonesian language (he's a Yankee, so to speak) which during spare time we enjoy mimicking how he talks! Also, this guy's favorite game is HIS and he's got 10+ plays under his belt. I told him I won't play the game except I've got a dedicated group to have repeat play on HIS, and under current condition: impossible. I also sick having to explain why Talisman is awesome to the other guys. They seem to love pretending being clever by playing "heavy euros". I am frakkin' near-genius, and I can prove it by playing Carcassonne & Kingdom Builder. Rant over.

Subject: Re: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: bioball

Thu, 16 May 2013 05:36:41 +0000

I agree with you that I too have reached a point where I'm no longer excited about new (I'm 30+) and instead would like to drill deeper into several games that I own. I want all my games to have the marks of something well played, not the sheen of , "well...played once at least". However I do own a 2011 Civic and love it, so I think we should not get so caught up in the desire to recapture nostalgia that we overlook great designs. For instance, I love Chaos in the Old World. Its got just the right amount of everything and has a slick exterior (with a few imperfections). It was produce by FFG only a few years ago. The "Golden Age of Gaming" is less a remark about quality/timelessness and more a designation of popularity and culture awareness; its just as easily the "Golden Age of Geekdom". One problem with so much public involvement is that while we love our local gaming groups its very different from the small groups of friends that would get together with the 1 or 2 games we played endlessly. For me, that was AD&D, Magic, and Castle Risk. I think the biggest problem is folks are short on time and long on internet. So they get excited about playing a lot of different games, but don't have the time to invest in one game. I think this is a theme of constant comment here on FAT. The prototypical game now needs to almost play in 45 to 75 minutes, be easy to understand almost from the get go and have a slightly bland but appealing theme and no more than 2-3 decks of cards. So rebuild that '68 'Stang while listening to Zepplin drinkin' Coors (or however that combination works out), but don't overlook some good new stuff. And maybe just try to convince your game group to settle on a 4 game rotation for a few month.

Subject: Tapping out on the 'Golden Age of Boardgaming' - by: Jeff White

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:05:44 +0000

(WARNING: Bad writing and analogies ahead) In the 'Recommend me a DoaM' thread Sevej bemoaned this Golden Age of Boardgaming as no one in his group wants to go deep in a game but stay shallow and keep up with new releases. This isn't anything new, as we've talked about this kind of thing before, but this and the recent death of Ray Harryhausen has prompted me to step up and bemoan modern boardgames. I have no desire to try Cyclades, Quarriors, Summoner Wars, Spartacus, or any or the other recent darlings and the good thing is in a few months they'll be in the rear view and some other games will be pushed under my nose to play. Some other new game I also won't have much interest in. New games appear sterile to me. I want character. I want something with a vision. New titles appear to simply be games going through the motions. I'm not interested. Are they better than Titan? Ogre? Nexus Ops? hell, Wizard's Quest? No, then what's the point? They sure as hell don't look better. It's like this. I can ride around in a new 2013 Honda Civic and it'll have great gas mileage, some sort of iFunction, all the bells and whistles. It'll be great for the family. But if I'm going to joy ride with friends give me a '69 Camaro. That's what I'm talking about. We've talked about games really just being a vehicle for hanging out with friends. That's true. So why wouldn't I want that vehicle to be spectacular? Give me Bob Pepper's DragonMaster and Dark Tower, Dave Tampier's Titan, Brian Bolland's Judge Dredd, hell any game from Tom Wham. (Related Tangent: I've recently wondered if the last great, total package games where actually the Knizia/Howe collaborations of 10+ years ago. ) Games are all basically the same. Some sort of way to sort out conflict resolution or score the players. Like cars all having the same essentials to get you from A to B. It's the style of the ride that makes it. It's why I just traded my FFG Talisman for GW 2nd. Yes, FFG's update may be 'better' mechanically, and as great as it is, there's just that little something missing that I overlooked. There's no style, no soul. The art is good technically, but it's so bland. Give me Gary Chalk's vision of a fantasy world. It's unique, easily recognizable. Give me Robert Harris' take on making D&D a multi-player boardgame...even with all the imbalances. Forget the designs by committee. It's like the Clash of the Titans movies. The Clash of the Titans remake has technically advanced effects, but would anyone here think it's better than Harryhausen's? If I'm going to waste two hours on the couch watching the tale of Perseus give me the one with a soul behind it, not some conglomerate of faceless cgi artists. Perhaps, in the world of boardgaming, I'd be compared to a classic car aficionado, but more likely it's... [b]TL:DR[/b] I'm 38 years old, and I'm an old man.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: metalface13

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:44:08 +0000

[quote="Sevej" post=152227]Bucket o' dice with custom dice.[/quote] You should consider Dragon Dice.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Shellhead

Wed, 15 May 2013 13:36:23 +0000

Ace of Aces and Lost Worlds had the same kind of cool combat system, where you and your opponent would simultaneously choose actions and then give each other cross-reference numbers for which page to flip to for the result.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: SuperflyTNT

Wed, 15 May 2013 13:08:25 +0000

[quote="SebastianBludd" post=152210]I really like the CRT's in Battletech (new edition boxed set, FWIW). Are they elegant and streamlined? God, no! But the emergent narratives make all of the fuss worth it. My opponent didn't just hit me with his short range missiles, he hit me with a cluster of three, two of which hit my cockpit and nearly killed me. He didn't just reduce my mech's HP to zero, he scored a triple(!) crit on my torso, but it didn't matter because the first crit detonated my LRM magazine, destroying my mech. If anything the layout and design of the player-aids and tables suck, and I would never want to play with ground and air forces, but I like the CRT's just fine.[/quote] I think Battletech has the single most narrative way of dealing with area-specific damage of any game I've played. Star Wars X-Wing has a really streamlined way of doing it regarding critical hit cards, and I think the "perfect" Mech combat game would be Battletech, but using something like the X-Wing system, where it's not obtuse and tedious, but it's effective in carrying over area-specific damage and creating narrative.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: San Il Defanso

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:47:03 +0000

I tend to prefer my combat to be straightforward. I like to just determine how many dice I need and then roll them. So Nexus Ops, Summoner Wars, stuff like that. Most ENTERTAINING though, that's a more interesting question. The one that comes to mind immediately is Goblins, Inc. I like how it can fail spectacularly, and the two-headed approach to steering/firing is really fun.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Sevej

Tue, 14 May 2013 22:28:21 +0000

Bucket o' dice with custom dice.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: SebastianBludd

Tue, 14 May 2013 19:58:59 +0000

I really like the CRT's in Battletech (new edition boxed set, FWIW). Are they elegant and streamlined? God, no! But the emergent narratives make all of the fuss worth it. My opponent didn't just hit me with his short range missiles, he hit me with a cluster of three, two of which hit my cockpit and nearly killed me. He didn't just reduce my mech's HP to zero, he scored a triple(!) crit on my torso, but it didn't matter because the first crit detonated my LRM magazine, destroying my mech. If anything the layout and design of the player-aids and tables suck, and I would never want to play with ground and air forces, but I like the CRT's just fine.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Sagrilarus

Tue, 14 May 2013 12:59:35 +0000

[quote="ioticus" post=152172]Best dice less card combat ever![/quote] That's like crowing about being the thinnest kid at Fat Camp. S.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: ioticus

Tue, 14 May 2013 02:03:53 +0000

Just jumping in here, didn't read the thread, but I really liked the combat in Middle Earth Quest even though I really suck at it. Best dice less card combat ever!

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: PlayCrossbones

Tue, 14 May 2013 00:22:48 +0000

[quote="hotseatgames"; post=152106]I like dice, and lots of them.[/quote] Would you like some Rum with that...?

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Sagrilarus

Tue, 14 May 2013 00:16:28 +0000

[quote="Hatchling" post=152126]My favourite combat resolution by far is the one in [b]Maria[/b] (and, I assume, Friedrich, but I haven't played that one). It's hard to explain if you haven't played it, but trust me it's awesome. It's like a mini game unto itself because you need to choose the order of the cards you will play very carefully. There is some bluff, but there are important decisions. Playing well makes the difference between losing by a small margin or being destroyed (or winning by a negligible amount or crushing the opponent). It's really exciting. Plus how the battle plays out links up so well with the broader tactics of maneuver from the turn or two before. I love it.[/quote] The way the suits play out on the map really makes you get creative to find favored ground. That is really a remarkable mechanic that I've not seen in other games. S.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Dr. Mabuse

Mon, 13 May 2013 18:42:56 +0000

I LOVE the battle board fights in Titan. The combat system is simple and yet brilliant. Creatures have a 2 numbers, one for strength (# of dice rolled) and one for skill (ability to hit as well as movement). What this means is that that some of the stronger slower monsters hit on fewer numbers against weaker but agile creatures (Cyclops rolls 9 dice and hits on 6s versus a Ranger who rolls four dice and hits on 2+ on the Cyclops). The chart on what hits on what numbers cleans up having a CRT for each creature, you roll dice = to strength and compare each creatures skill level to see if you score any hits. Terrain can change the skill levels so even battles between the same creatures could have an entirely different outcome from one battle board to another. Brilliant!

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Hatchling

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:31:50 +0000

My favourite combat resolution by far is the one in [b]Maria[/b] (and, I assume, Friedrich, but I haven't played that one). It's hard to explain if you haven't played it, but trust me it's awesome. It's like a mini game unto itself because you need to choose the order of the cards you will play very carefully. There is some bluff, but there are important decisions. Playing well makes the difference between losing by a small margin or being destroyed (or winning by a negligible amount or crushing the opponent). It's really exciting. Plus how the battle plays out links up so well with the broader tactics of maneuver from the turn or two before. I love it.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: SuperflyTNT

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:02:47 +0000

You know, card combat has its place in the world when I think about it; Dungeon Twister would blow if it didn't have the combat system it has.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: metalface13

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:00:16 +0000

[quote="Stormcow" post=152090]Let me tell you about a specific implementation that I disliked so much, it made me sell off the game: Fury of Dracula. Fury of Dracula is a combination of card-based rock-paper-scissors with a dice roll at the end. The roll determines who wins a round, but the combination of cards determines what the reward of combat is. Well, okay, it sounds good in theory right? I like the RPS card combat in Yomi, and I like rolling dice. Except, in practice it turns out to be slow, tedious, and repetitive. Depending on what cards you and your opponent pick, it's quite likely that nothing will happen. And even if something does happen, it's likely to be just one damage out of 20. It feels like it takes forever, and what makes it even worse is that this is combat between two people in a five player game - everyone else is sitting there looking at their phones while you do this very incremental combat. It's the opposite of epic.[/quote] Yeah, Fury's combat is the weak spot of the game.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Shellhead

Mon, 13 May 2013 13:34:31 +0000

The combat system for Jyhad is complex but fun. Under normal circumstances, both opponents have a full hand of seven cards. There are certain environmental effect cards that can be played before combat. There are cards that can be played to determine whether each round of combat takes place as HTH or at range. There are a lot of different strike cards, and the person who started the combat must play first. The damage from those cards ranges from just normal damage, to extreme stuff like ripping off an arm, setting somebody on fire, or even decapitating the opponent. Other strikes can let you dodge or just end the combat before anyone gets hurt. And there are cards to press on to another round of combat or let it end with that round. And since there are a lot of non-combat cards in the game, there are defaults for each phase of combat for both opponents: close range, hand strike for one damage, no additional rounds of combat. Sending somebody into a coma is not an unusual outcome.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: hotseatgames

Mon, 13 May 2013 12:40:01 +0000

I like dice, and lots of them.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: ldsdbomber

Mon, 13 May 2013 11:51:21 +0000

I really like the action point chits in Tank on Tank, and in particular that its your opponent NOT YOU who draws the chit and thus waits to interrupt you when youve used up the points so you are not sure if you have the minimum 2 or a 3 or 4. 2 points is usually enough to move and fire but then you are in range for return fire, so do you come out of your cover to shoot and hope you can scuttle back into cover or not. I think this concept would work great in lots of things like Dudes in a corridor too

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Alex Awesome

Mon, 13 May 2013 05:46:00 +0000

[quote="Shellhead" post=152045]I really like the arena combat system for Spartacus, because taking damage really weakens a gladiator, forcing painful choices for players. [/quote] Yes, that aspect was really good about the arena combat! And it was the perfect length for the battles too, otherwise the 2 other players would be disconnected.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Bull Nakano

Mon, 13 May 2013 03:02:26 +0000

[quote="Stormcow" post=152091]Andriod: Netrunner - specifically, I will defend sticking with just the out-of-the-box preconstructed decks. Yeah, thinking about constructed is fun, but that's going to be the case with ANY card game, from CitOW to RftG to Twilight Struggle. You don't HAVE to play constructed to make a game good. Especially if the cost is going to be $100 PER PLAYER. On the other hand, ANR is the only LCG where the Core Set decks are relatively balanced and fun to play. It's a minor miracle, and I show my appreciation by just sticking to the Core. [/quote]I agree with Netrunner, plays fantastically out of the box, I have 4 expansions and I have a pretty good deck for each faction built, I'm going to stick with it through this first cycle but then might get out while the getting's good. I take a stand for just the core set because I want people to buy it so I have opponents.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Stormcow

Mon, 13 May 2013 01:39:18 +0000

Andriod: Netrunner - specifically, I will defend sticking with just the out-of-the-box preconstructed decks. Yeah, thinking about constructed is fun, but that's going to be the case with ANY card game, from CitOW to RftG to Twilight Struggle. You don't HAVE to play constructed to make a game good. Especially if the cost is going to be $100 PER PLAYER. On the other hand, ANR is the only LCG where the Core Set decks are relatively balanced and fun to play. It's a minor miracle, and I show my appreciation by just sticking to the Core. Dominion - just around here, really. Dominion is really the best pure deckbuilder around, and yes I have tried the others. I play it like five times a day on Androminion. Yeah, it doesn't have much theme, and you really need expansions to get the most out if it, but man! I love the variety, the ever changing strategies. This one is nothing but legs.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Stormcow

Mon, 13 May 2013 01:22:32 +0000

Let me tell you about a specific implementation that I disliked so much, it made me sell off the game: Fury of Dracula. Fury of Dracula is a combination of card-based rock-paper-scissors with a dice roll at the end. The roll determines who wins a round, but the combination of cards determines what the reward of combat is. Well, okay, it sounds good in theory right? I like the RPS card combat in Yomi, and I like rolling dice. Except, in practice it turns out to be slow, tedious, and repetitive. Depending on what cards you and your opponent pick, it's quite likely that nothing will happen. And even if something does happen, it's likely to be just one damage out of 20. It feels like it takes forever, and what makes it even worse is that this is combat between two people in a five player game - everyone else is sitting there looking at their phones while you do this very incremental combat. It's the opposite of epic.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: metalface13

Sun, 12 May 2013 23:09:11 +0000

Well, I'm not sure Marvel Heroes would really classify as "rock paper scissors" as one attack won't necessarily be better than another (not sure what No Go Zone's is like, just briefly glanced at the web site). If you haven't played Marvel Heroes, each character has three different attacks, and there's three stats (which is how many dice you roll) for each attack: Strength, Defense and Outwit. Each attack is color coded: Red is usually the strongest, orange defense oriented and yellow the outwittiest. Some heroes have special combat powers to triggered by certain attacks. Each player then selects in secret which of their three attacks they will use and reveal at the same time. The first player rolls to attack with a number of dice according to that attacks power, the defender rolls according to his defense rating, if neither player has been KO'd they both roll outwit dice at the same time. After that, if both players are still standing they pick powers again. It's a pretty fun system.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: SuperflyTNT

Sun, 12 May 2013 02:07:37 +0000

[quote="metalface13" post=152046]My favorite combat is in Marvel Heroes, it involves outguessing your opponent, elements of Rock Paper Scissors and chucking dice.[/quote] Check out No-Go-Zone (http://www.no-go-zone.com/)...it has one of the coolest Rock-Paper-Scissors systems that I've ever seen.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: DukeofChutney

Sat, 11 May 2013 21:06:11 +0000

i'd probably go with Dune or Hannibal RvC, i really like hidden information. But really it depends on the game, in a minis game i'd rather roll dice.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: metalface13

Sat, 11 May 2013 20:13:02 +0000

My favorite combat is in Marvel Heroes, it involves outguessing your opponent, elements of Rock Paper Scissors and chucking dice.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: Shellhead

Sat, 11 May 2013 19:53:35 +0000

I really like the arena combat system for Spartacus, because taking damage really weakens a gladiator, forcing painful choices for players. I like the battles in Dune because it's like a high-stakes game of chicken, to see who is willing to risk the most and who is going to spring a surprise.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: SuperflyTNT

Sat, 11 May 2013 19:50:56 +0000

Differentiation between attacks; ie. "special attacks" that are unit-dependant as well as having the option of "normal attacks" which follow a game's basic attack convention. Heroscape is a good example, but there's many others that do the same thing.

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: PlayCrossbones

Sat, 11 May 2013 19:01:59 +0000

Maybe a handful of cannonballs... now that sounds fun!

Subject: Re: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: faceknives

Sat, 11 May 2013 18:41:43 +0000

[quote="PlayCrossbones" post=152040]What player vs player combat mechanics do you like best in competitive games?[/quote] Chucking stuff. [quote]What mechanics make the combat a fun and engaging experience?[/quote] Chucking stuff. [quote]What game captures that fun competitive spirit of player vs player conflict?[/quote] Crossbows & Catapults.

Subject: What combat mechanics do you find most entertaining? - by: PlayCrossbones

Sat, 11 May 2013 18:18:13 +0000

What player vs player combat mechanics do you like best in competitive games? What mechanics make the combat a fun and engaging experience? What game captures that fun competitive spirit of player vs player conflict?

Subject: Re: I need Gaming Podcast recommendations - by: Msample

Thu, 09 May 2013 21:29:24 +0000

While I don't expect Pullitzer winning journalism from a podcast, the Messy Game Room's last episode degenerated into just a long random rant with little gaming content. The D6 Generation podcasts followed a similar path. It was more like you were listening in on some strangers just jawing about some inside jokes and not much else. Its been a while since he did a new one, but for more of a wargaming slant, Guns Dice and Butter is a good one. And if you're interested in the specific game of the week, The Long View ( where they reexamine a game that's been out a while ) is pretty good . And while its been over a year since a new episode, the archives of Point 2 Point had some high quality podcasts, with a good signal to noise ratio.

Subject: Re: I need Gaming Podcast recommendations - by: Ken B.

Thu, 09 May 2013 21:19:36 +0000

[quote="MattLoter" post=151681]Harsh! But don't hate on licking ass! And yeah, dudes totally had me convinced of their up and up-ness. I doubt they'll be at WBC this year but we'll certainly try to have a chat if they are![/quote] Don't feel too bad. I always gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were always very supportive of our website, running ads, providing review games, all that jazz. I guess it was pretty easy to do that stuff with other folks' money? Allegedly speaking, of course.

Subject: Re: I need Gaming Podcast recommendations - by: wadenels

Thu, 09 May 2013 21:15:16 +0000

Happy Jacks RPG podcast is pretty fantastic if you're interested in RPGs or just gaming systems in general. That and FATcast are all I'm subscribed to right now.

Subject: Re: I need Gaming Podcast recommendations - by: SuperflyTNT

Thu, 09 May 2013 21:07:44 +0000

I've only listened to perhaps 6 podcasts on any subject, ever, and F:ATCast is at least one AU beyond the scope of any of the others. Tremendously entertaining.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Mr. Bistro

Thu, 09 May 2013 20:48:06 +0000

[b]The Great Khan Game[/b] Tom Wham and Richard Hamblen's brilliant, cheap-ass civ game is one of my all time favorites. TSR printed it as a cheap "gamefolio", which breaks my heart because it deserves better. Lands wars, naval battles, political coups, magic, crazy events, and more. I love it to this day. Granted, combat runs a bit longer than need be and they forgot to print the "1 spell per turn" rule, but it doesn't matter. The game is so much fun. [b]TI3[/b] I feel bitter that I should even have to defend TI3 at all. It reminds me when Princes of Florence came out and people were turning up their noses at Settlers as if to say, "Jah, ve are much too delicate to play that nonsense." It's still highly entertaining damn it, and nothing else is this epic AND fun.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Space Ghost

Thu, 09 May 2013 20:26:36 +0000

[quote="San Il Defanso" post=151901][quote="MattDP" post=151897][quote="DukeofChutney" post=151884] Actually the GW DungeonQuest too.[/quote] Well yes. But I had no idea it was frequently criticized enough to need people to take a stand for it. Except for knuckleheads who completely miss the point of the game by complaining it's too random, of course.[/quote] Dungeonquest is kind of my barometer game. If you enjoy a game of it now and then, I think we'll get along just fine at the game table.[/quote] Dungeonquest serves as my board game version of angband -- shit is random, and you might die the first time. Rarely will you ever defeat it out right.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: San Il Defanso

Thu, 09 May 2013 20:02:39 +0000

[quote="MattDP" post=151897][quote="DukeofChutney" post=151884] Actually the GW DungeonQuest too.[/quote] Well yes. But I had no idea it was frequently criticized enough to need people to take a stand for it. Except for knuckleheads who completely miss the point of the game by complaining it's too random, of course.[/quote] Dungeonquest is kind of my barometer game. If you enjoy a game of it now and then, I think we'll get along just fine at the game table.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: MattDP

Thu, 09 May 2013 19:33:49 +0000

[quote="DukeofChutney" post=151884] Actually the GW DungeonQuest too.[/quote] Well yes. But I had no idea it was frequently criticized enough to need people to take a stand for it. Except for knuckleheads who completely miss the point of the game by complaining it's too random, of course.

Subject: Re: I need Gaming Podcast recommendations - by: MattLoter

Thu, 09 May 2013 19:02:59 +0000

[quote="DukeofChutney" post=151683]The best moment of FATCASt is probably the (can't remember whether it was you or Josh) impression of Thirsty's accent.[/quote] I'm pretty sure that's my awful attempt to act like every British person sounds like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins, Andy is a chimney sweeping motherfucker! I like that we're both terrible at most voices except Watto and Paul Stanley.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Jeff White

Thu, 09 May 2013 18:30:07 +0000

Easy list. Titan - probably the greatest boardgame ever made Minion Hunter - my favorite co-op of all time. love the late 80's/early 90's aesthetics and the game comes packed with enough variants to stay fresh some 20 years later Block Mania - my favorite of the GW boardgames. fantastic 2000ad art and theme and a very unique wargame. nothing like it. not even close. (EDIT: I would make a stand for Settlers and Hammer of the Scots as well, but they don't seem to need it. Around these parts they're recognized as greats.)

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: DukeofChutney

Thu, 09 May 2013 17:31:25 +0000

Titan also. Its the only game i like that i'm sometimes called upon to defend. Actually the GW DungeonQuest too.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Dr. Mabuse

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:34:21 +0000

[quote="MattDP" post=151871]Titan. In spite of the horrid play time. In spite of the space needed. In spite of the fact it takes a number of plays to understand why it's great. In spite of the fact that these things have caused a new generation of gamers, raised on instant-pleasure games, to reject a lovely and lavish reprint. Titan remains unique, and uniquely brilliant.[/quote] Damn, how did I miss this one! I would own an iThing to play Titan more (and read comic books).

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: jeb

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:28:30 +0000

Yeah, Dair and I talked about TITAN for about 30 minutes. It is the best game I have ever played. I need the iOS notifications to be better so I stop screwing up my games.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: MattDP

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:19:51 +0000

Titan. In spite of the horrid play time. In spite of the space needed. In spite of the fact it takes a number of plays to understand why it's great. In spite of the fact that these things have caused a new generation of gamers, raised on instant-pleasure games, to reject a lovely and lavish reprint. Titan remains unique, and uniquely brilliant.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: wkover

Thu, 09 May 2013 14:19:54 +0000

[quote="Sagrilarus" post=151837][quote="wkover" post=151759]I've played Settlers "only" 15 times, because my kids love it. It still sucks. :)[/quote] Wkover is dead to me. Though he owns the only copy of Ringo Flamingo I've gotten to play so I have to be nice to him in person.[/quote] If that's being nice I'd hate to see what surly looks like. It's probably just because you're old, so it's hard to tell the difference. Though oldness is creeping up on me as well. As far as Settlers is concerned, I despise games that have open trading as their primary mechanic. Based on my experience, it's guaranteed that there is at least one person who either: (1) doesn't understand the relative value of what's being traded, (2) trades with the leader 2-3 turns longer than they should, or (3) gives special deals to friends/spouses/neighbors/pets. And I hate the resource die roll as much as everyone else, which is why we always play with the Food Stamp variant when I'm in the mood for Settlers torture. I loved Settlers the first few times I played it, though, back in 1996 (?). It was my introduction to hobby gaming, and my first play was with my brother's homemade copy at a family get-together. Moving onto pinker topics, Ring-o Flamingo (another game that I'll happily defend) is definitely traveling to WBC in August. Prepare yourself.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Sagrilarus

Thu, 09 May 2013 13:12:42 +0000

[quote="wkover" post=151759][quote="San Il Defanso" post=151748]Sag wrote that amazing article a week or so ago about Settlers, which states far more eloquently what I could never say. Essentially, if it were to come out today, it would be hailed by a bunch of people as this amazing game. But people have played it 100-150 times now have decided that it sucks.[/quote] I've played Settlers "only" 15 times, because my kids love it. It still sucks. :)[/quote] Wkover is dead to me. Though he owns the only copy of Ringo Flamingo I've gotten to play so I have to be nice to him in person. I edited a grievous typo in that article and it went back into moderation mode, so it's no longer viewable. I depend upon the kindness of admins to fix my mistakes. Metalface does indeed have significant credibility here, and calling out Pocket Battles doesn't hurt any. I have PB:Macs & Persians in my glovebox because it's cheap, small, well-packaged and just a darn good play. I purchased the rules for Lost Battles, a $100 monster ancients game and as I read his design rationale thought to myself, [i]"the guy spent months recreating Pocket Battles."[/i] Good news though -- he's an [u]academic[/u] so he got paid to do it. Pocket Battles isn't some grand scale legendary game, but still quite a purchase for $15. S.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Legomancer

Thu, 09 May 2013 13:02:41 +0000

[b]Settlers of Catan[/b] - I agree with the above that the current hot trend of hating settlers is asinine. It's a great, fun game, and not just as an historical artifact. [b]Magic: the Gathering[/b] - I don't play it anymore, but I miss it. It's the game that, far and away above anything else, I've had the most fun with in my life. When I see some donkey going on about how it's a money sink ou have to spend hundreds of dollars on to play, I always feel inclined to point out that this is factually not true; there are dozens of easy ways to play it for a long time on the cheap. Just because you're a nerd who can't not buy something if it exists isn't the fault of the game.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Ska_baron

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:27:35 +0000

Always TI:3.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: SaMoKo

Thu, 09 May 2013 08:45:20 +0000

[quote="wadenels" post=151784][b]Risk Godstorm[/b]. I've gots me Godstorm and 2210, and I'll play either depending on me mood, but there's something charming about being able to march ancient gods around and being able to sink an entire section of the map.[/quote] Haha, I love Godstorm. I have nothing else in my collection that causes as many rage quits. Those of us with experience know that there is almost no viable strategy in the game so we just chill while the guys trying to be smart lose their shit. It's sort of like Innovation where the player who breaks the game most thoroughly wins, but far less predictable. Also, an underworld filled with colourful elephants owns. Celtic elephants. More games need these.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Space Ghost

Thu, 09 May 2013 04:05:48 +0000

Board games: Minion Hunter Twilight Struggle - only board game that reminds me closely of MtG. Dragonlance - a review of this is forthcoming as soon as I get some time. Magic Realm - people claim that it is too complex to learn. Probably the most thematic board game ever made. Just genius. Videogames: Angband - only dungeon crawler or rogue-like you will ever need.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: wadenels

Wed, 08 May 2013 21:58:25 +0000

[b]Rune Age[/b]. I really like it, especially with the expansion. I thought it was the only deckbuilder I'd ever need until Arctic Scavengers finally made it to stores. [b]Risk Godstorm[/b]. I've gots me Godstorm and 2210, and I'll play either depending on me mood, but there's something charming about being able to march ancient gods around and being able to sink an entire section of the map. I'll also happily play [b]Munchkin[/b] most of the time; we have Munchkin Booty with both expansions because my wife digs that theme.

Subject: Re: Best Ameritrash Filler games - by: faceknives

Wed, 08 May 2013 21:11:09 +0000

Snit's Revenge.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: faceknives

Wed, 08 May 2013 21:04:44 +0000

Junta. I'll accept that, maybe, the coup rules could be streamlined. But I have had fun in Junta in a way that has been matched in no other game. And I'd prefer a game that tries to do something different then one that plays it safe but efficient. Galactic Destiny. I wouldn't defend the rules. They are absolutely a badly written pile of shit and show why blind testing is so essential. But, if you can struggle through that initially, it's actually a great game. More backstabbing then you can shake a stick at and general good things. The rules thing makes me sad. I suspect it's not only destroyed the game's potential success, but the company behind it. I was looking forward to their pirate game. Down With The King. "Wah Wah Wah It takes years to play and has hundreds of tables and you can be fucked over on a single dice roll". Fuck you. I like all of those things. And I get to expose scandals on my friends and then laugh as their faction falls apart under torture. War On Terror The Boardgame. It might not be the best game produced over the past decade by any means, but it's easily one of the most important. It's a culturally significant game. Games haven't been this genuinely subversive and controversial since the AD&D satanic panic. Judging it on the gameplay is like judging Crass solely on their recorded output. It misses the point.

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: jeb

Wed, 08 May 2013 19:52:44 +0000

My defended games are all over this website. I think NIAGARA is fun. I enjoyed HECATOMB! I know! And MYTHOS! Nobody liked that 'cept me and Shellhead! I don't mind playing MONOPOLY, as long as we play by the actual rules. I would defend SETTLERS, because seriously, what the fuck, people? Hating SETTLERS? I have yet to actually meet someone that hates SETTLERS for real. I would go crazy on them though. And if they said they hated CITIES & KNIGHTS I would beat them in front of their children [i]so their children can learn right from wrong[/i].

Subject: Re: What games do you make a stand for? - by: Erik Twice

Wed, 08 May 2013 19:32:13 +0000

[quote="dragonstout" post=151746]I could maybe be swayed to a couple others as well, but I'm not as absolutely certain).[/quote] I'm curious, which games are those? :)