What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Sagrilarus wrote: This is part of the turn-off I have with a lot of these kinds of games. I don't like the equal-points kinds of play because invariably someone at the table has read something on the Internet that tells them the exact set of pieces to get the most oomph out of the total, and I just don't care.

Huh. I haven't played Attack Wing but I play X-Wing every week and I don't get that impression. I mean, sure, as with any list/deck-constructed game, there's netdecking/listing and people play with the optimal construction (the latest being dual YT-1300 (Millennium Falcon) builds, one of them with Chewbacca and one with C3PO (from one of the very expensive ($) Epic ships) to minimize damage on an already durable ship that can fire in any direction.) But there are ways to beat that list and the designers are already aware of it and other balance problems in the game, so I don't think it's completely swamped by min/maxing. That said, I do play with a pretty reasonable group that likes trying out all kinds of lists and, to address what VT was saying, like playing the scenarios, too.

I get what you're saying about picking a faction and going with it. When I played M:TG, I was a black and blue mage. I very rarely deviated into the other colors, but I had the opportunity to do so and I think that's what games like Attack Wing are trying to present, in addition to giving avenues for innovation between combos of the various races. For many people, the list/deck construction is what they enjoy and is part of the game in terms of defeating your opponent.

Jackwraith wrote: (the latest being dual YT-1300 (Millennium Falcon) builds, one of them with Chewbacca and one with C3PO (from one of the very expensive ($) Epic ships) to minimize damage on an already durable ship that can fire in any direction.) But there are ways to beat that list and the designers are already aware of it and other balance problems in the game, so I don't think it's completely swamped by min/maxing.

No offense to you personally, but that part right there made my eyes glaze over. When this kind of conversation hits the table I tune out and pick a ship because it's red, and another because it has a cool looking big-ass gun sticking out the front of it and I play them. It's just my nature. To some extent I feel like it's cheating to work the angles. I don't want to play moneyball. It takes away from the experience for me. I work in big-data all day, so to some extent this may be a little too close to work.

This is part of the reason I hate playing at public venues. There's always some guy there that just takes joy from working the seams, and I don't want to sit at the table with him. It's anti-social as hell. I appreciate that it's "part of the game" for collectors, but it just feels like I'm being manipulated and taken advantage of. I don't think that's the publisher's intention (in fact I'd wager they're busting their ass to avoid it) but it's going to slip through, and in the age of the Internet it's going to dependably slip through.

The good news is that the "some guy" I referred to above usually makes himself very apparent very quickly, so I can avoid him.

S.

I played part of a game of Kemble's Cascade this weekend, but left halfway through as I wasn't feeling well. It's hard to say what was the game and what was me being ill or whatever but I just don't think this one's a keeper. The game is all over the place, and not in a particularly good way. Scoring glory requires doing weird shit that is at odds with the supposed theme of the game (my "mission" was to end four turns at 1 energy.) I feel like it's some kind of Feldian point salad thing that just happens to be set in a sort of video game like world but not really.

metalface13 wrote:

VonTush wrote: Today I met up with one of my Attack Wing Buds to play some casual games...You know, make use of the dozens of scenarios we've accumulated from the ship packs. We both picked a scenario to play a few days ago and came with prepared fleets for both sides.

These games had such a different vibe. We both came with thematic builds semi-appropriate to the scenario. And the asymmetric goals that weren't "Kill your opponent" was such a nice change. We've decided to make it a point to try to meet up every few weeks for some more of these. The more I play the more I'm realizing that these scenarios in a casual environment is how the game should be played.

Fly casual, you don't always have to fly so tight.

Sagrilarus wrote: No offense to you personally, but that part right there made my eyes glaze over. When this kind of conversation hits the table I tune out and pick a ship because it's red, and another because it has a cool looking big-ass gun sticking out the front of it and I play them. It's just my nature. To some extent I feel like it's cheating to work the angles. I don't want to play moneyball. It takes away from the experience for me. I work in big-data all day, so to some extent this may be a little too close to work.

No, I get it. Some people just want to put ships on the table and go at it. What I was trying to get across (obviously poorly) was that X-Wing, at least (since VT's original point was about Attack Wing), seems to be flexible enough to play either way, whether dogfighting or scenario, or a mix of both. I put a list together for yesterday that was 3 A-Wings, 2 Z-95s, and a HWK. Six Rebel ship lists are strange because they're more expensive than Imperial ships, in general, but my opponent was playing a traditional TIE swarm and I wanted to try to match him, ship for ship, and just have tons of ships and dice and decisions on the table. By the same token, I played the HWK because the offensive power of the other 5 isn't great. My opponent had two unique TIEs (Backstabber and Dark Curse) and had given Predator (an upgrade that lets you re-roll one attack die or two if your pilot skill is more than twice the target's) to his other 4. I had no upgrades so I put in the HWK to try to boost one ship per turn and see if my shields could hold me through it. It was a tight game, but I got outflown and lost. Even so, neither of those were "maxed out" list that would be taken to a tournament. They're just lists built on a basic concept to see if they worked. I don't think list-building is really that onerous in a game based on points, especially if it's done to try to exercise an idea, rather than just max out what the rules let you get away with.

Sagrilarus wrote: No offense to you personally, but that part right there made my eyes glaze over. When this kind of conversation hits the table I tune out and pick a ship because it's red, and another because it has a cool looking big-ass gun sticking out the front of it and I play them. It's just my nature. To some extent I feel like it's cheating to work the angles. I don't want to play moneyball. It takes away from the experience for me. I work in big-data all day, so to some extent this may be a little too close to work.

You just summed up my big issue with every "customizable" game in history. CCGs, minis, anything like that, I don't want to have to think about it at all while I'm not playing the game. Any game that requires me to worry about how I'll play when I'm not actually playing? Not for me.

I got to try a new game over the weekend and played Pandemic a couple of times. I love how fast it plays and how it forces the team to maximize efficiency. You certainly can't waste precious actions or outbreaks will overrun your poor little CDC team. Looking forward to playing this one some more.

P.S. - is anyone else seeing this weird layout when browsing the forums? Everything is all scrunched into a newspaper column on the right side of the threads.

Sagrilarus wrote: This is part of the reason I hate playing at public venues. There's always some guy there that just takes joy from working the seams, and I don't want to sit at the table with him. It's anti-social as hell.
S.

That gave me a flash-back to Games Workshop in Leeds somewhere in the 90's. Playing Warhammer 40,000 with a larger group (everyone bring X points kind of thing), and this one cheeser had managed to make some terminator champion or whatever that had both a teleporter and psychic teleporting abilities, so he could pop up, kill a bunch of stuff and pop back out of range every turn. To this day I don't know if it was rules-legal BS or cheating BS, I just know it was BS. This was 1st edition, I think, so there always was scope for creasing those seams in the rules.

I always picked whichever army had either the fluff or look that I enjoyed.

San Il Defanso wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: No offense to you personally, but that part right there made my eyes glaze over. When this kind of conversation hits the table I tune out and pick a ship because it's red, and another because it has a cool looking big-ass gun sticking out the front of it and I play them. It's just my nature. To some extent I feel like it's cheating to work the angles. I don't want to play moneyball. It takes away from the experience for me. I work in big-data all day, so to some extent this may be a little too close to work.

You just summed up my big issue with every "customizable" game in history. CCGs, minis, anything like that, I don't want to have to think about it at all while I'm not playing the game. Any game that requires me to worry about how I'll play when I'm not actually playing? Not for me.

That is the precise reason I love miniature gaming! It allows me to continue the game beyond the table. A way to interact and play with my toys without someone being there to play with me. But yeah, I fully realize that isn't for everyone. And I'll admit, laying in bed, my wife sleeping and me flipping through a binder of cards...Not a situation most people want in their life.

For me, there's nothing really more enjoyable than being presented with a scenario and then putting together the team that I want to accomplish the objective. And perhaps that's why I like the Leader Series of games from DVG so much.

Green Latern wrote:

P.S. - is anyone else seeing this weird layout when browsing the forums? Everything is all scrunched into a newspaper column on the right side of the threads.

Yes, I see it. I think it has something to do with Google Chrome, AdBlocker, or an interaction between both. This is just a guess, though.

When I was into Magic in the early 90s I lived and breathed Magic. I always had a copy of InQuest on me so I could build decks in-between classes. I loved thinking about different Magic decks and working on strategies, reading about new cards, and so forth.

But that was 20 years ago and I'm done with that now. Netrunner is a great game, it's a lot of fun, but I will never, never, ever sit down and construct a deck. It won't happen. I won't even just grab one off a forum and put it together. That isn't what I want out of a game anymore. Even stuff like Hearthstone, where it's all right there in front of me, I'm just not going to do it. That's time I just don't want to spend anymore.

Green Lantern wrote: P.S. - is anyone else seeing this weird layout when browsing the forums? Everything is all scrunched into a newspaper column on the right side of the threads.

I have that same issue but I don't know why :/

Also, my Adblocker is turned off so it cannot be the cause.

Lego, I used to write for Inquest!

Erik Twice wrote:

Green Lantern wrote: P.S. - is anyone else seeing this weird layout when browsing the forums? Everything is all scrunched into a newspaper column on the right side of the threads.

I have that same issue but I don't know why :/

Also, my Adblocker is turned off so it cannot be the cause.

I get this too, but only in certain threads. Not sure why.

For me, Chrome does that, Firefox doesn't.
I think it is a browser issue.