What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Like Wadenels, I got my TMG minigames in the mail, except I got Burgoo, a game about making stew. The rules are a little unclear, and at least two of us didn't quite understand what the point of the game was, so it didn't go over too well. Afterwards it clicked for me. It seems okay and I'll give it another try, but I wasn't wowed. Coin Age, on the other hand, is a pretty neat little quick game.

Then Imperial Settlers, which went over very well. This was my first time playing with 4 and the factions seem pretty well balanced, though if you don't get your faction's "engine" cards you can suffer. I trailed most of the game until I started to get my key Rome buildings, at which point I surged ahead and barely got the win. I like this one a lot, but I'd still rather play The New Era.

And then a five-player Thunder Alley. This is the game I wanted Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix to be, and I really like it. It's probably the Formula D killer for me. (To be fair, though, Formula D is kind of its own killer.)

Disgustipater wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote: Cash N' Guns:
Never played it before. What a great time. Anyone who doesn't own this and has a larger group should own this. I'm buying it when my bank account recovers.

Be aware that they are releasing a second edition that might as well be a different game. New art by John Kovilic (Munchkin), no Bang Bang Bang cards, no coward tokens, loot drafting, special powers that aid in loot drafting, and some godfather role that lets you change someone's choice. Sounds terrible if you ask me.

This is the version I played. Now, without having played the first version, I can't say if it was different. That said, I'd have preferred the original.

There was loot drafting (each player takes turns taking a loot card), and there were special powers that helped in that (one player got 100,000 for the most art cards, another got a 10,000 bill, even if they quit, if one is on the table, and they get it first). The Godfather role sucked, but it was one of the loot cards, so it actually was OK because if you had 2 wounds, you'd be able to draft it to avoid death from at least one person...

VonTush wrote: it feels more like a structured activity than a game.

To some extent I think this is as much about the players as the game itself. I'll grant that Love Letter doesn't have much there, but it manages to be engaging for me personally and the people I've played with. But I've seen it broken down into a decision tree (didn't read it for fear of ruining the game) in order to play the best possible, and that's the kind of thing that only a certain breed of gamer will do. When that guy sits down to the table with you the fun stops.

Coup is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Something about it just repels me. The Resistance is the same way. Both are very popular so I figure it for a personal thing.

Thunder Alley . . . It's probably the Formula D killer for me.

Your opinion is valid of course, but reading this sounded like the equivalent of someone declaring that Settlers of Catan was a Rune Wars killer for them. Granted both are racing games, but their core concepts and even their spirits are so remarkably different that I don't see how either could affect the other.

S.

Sounds like they fucked up 2nd edition Cash 'n Guns. It's supposed to be Reservoir Dogs the Boardgame, and I sure as hell don't remember any loot drafting in that movie.

I haven't played with the drafting, but I'd rather have the game support 8 than have bang bang bang cards or any of the other things the old edition had. I felt everything got in the way of playability.

Shellhead wrote: Sounds like they fucked up 2nd edition Cash 'n Guns. It's supposed to be Reservoir Dogs the Boardgame, and I sure as hell don't remember any loot drafting in that movie.

I don't remember any money being split in that movie either.

Let me elaborate:

The way it works in the edition I played is as follows:
-X randomly drawn loot cards are laid on the table. Godfather card is always there.
-Each person picks a gun card. (click or bang)
-Each person aims gun at someone.
-Countdown, then you can drop your gun or continue.
-Each person resolves gunshot in order, revealing card.
-Anyone who didn't quit or who wasn't shot takes cards, in order, starting with the Godfather and moving around the table until all the cards are taken.

How did it work otherwise?

SuperflyTNT wrote: Let me elaborate:

The way it works in the edition I played is as follows:
-X randomly drawn loot cards are laid on the table. Godfather card is always there.
-Each person picks a gun card. (click or bang)
-Each person aims gun at someone.
-Countdown, then you can drop your gun or continue.
-Each person resolves gunshot in order, revealing card.
-Anyone who didn't quit or who wasn't shot takes cards, in order, starting with the Godfather and moving around the table until all the cards are taken.

How did it work otherwise?

You divided the bills up between the players still involved in the split and what couldn't be divided was left in the middle for the next round.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Thunder Alley . . . It's probably the Formula D killer for me.

Your opinion is valid of course, but reading this sounded like the equivalent of someone declaring that Settlers of Catan was a Rune Wars killer for them. Granted both are racing games, but their core concepts and even their spirits are so remarkably different that I don't see how either could affect the other.

The main difference between FD and TA is that I've had one for years and can't get it onto the table. It's too big and too long and has a lot of downtime. Too many people I know just aren't interested in it. Thunder Alley, in my opinion, gives a similar experience in a smaller package. It condenses the fun of the race into a much more palatable format, which makes it a better deal for me.

Sagrilarus wrote:

VonTush wrote: it feels more like a structured activity than a game.

To some extent I think this is as much about the players as the game itself. I'll grant that Love Letter doesn't have much there, but it manages to be engaging for me personally and the people I've played with. But I've seen it broken down into a decision tree (didn't read it for fear of ruining the game) in order to play the best possible, and that's the kind of thing that only a certain breed of gamer will do. When that guy sits down to the table with you the fun stops.

I'd agree. And I don't mind Coup, The Resistance or Love Letter, but any of those back to back to back and I think: "What the hell did I just waste my time on?"

And I don't mind these activity games, in small doses though. The same would go for Thunder Road and Magical Athlete, one is fine, two starts to push it, three or more and I'm checking out. I like to be able to learn, adapt and improve my play with a game. With what I'm call activity games though, the upper ceiling on those is very low. So after the first game of Coup, I knew the rules but I also felt like I reached the limit on what I could learn from the game, and after the third I felt the same way.

My response to many of those games though are "Eh, it is something to do".