What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

And Lt Seelman, with his HMG, on the second floor of the library, is really causing me some grief.

If I find a flame thrower in this wreck of a city, you can guarantee things are going to warm up for Lt Seelman.

Local convention yesterday. I signed up to run both Kemet and Chaos in the Old World. Taught Kemet to four new players and included the Cyclades monsters. Game clocked in at about 2.5 hours after rules. Close scores by the end, but that always happens with Kemet. 10-9-7-7-6. I love the game but damn do the tech tiles cause AP issues, and I can't even blame the other players for not deciding fast enough. You really have to keep in mind all the tech options when you start building your bonuses. I won and was placed last on the turn order the final turn since I had 6 VP going into the last round and was tied for last. I need more plays of this but the criticism of game ending decided by turn order has some validity for sure. I used the bonus DI card tile with the discard DI cards for strength after battle cards are revealed mainly for my wins, and the +1 on defense/offense red tile.

Chaos with five was my first play with Horned Rat included. We used all the alternate upgrades and chaos cards. Rat did really well, especially as a first time player. Everyone else had about 5-10 plays of the base game. I was Khorne and had average rolls but lost my big baddie to a single Nurgle warrior who rolled a 6,6, and 4. Devastating. Slaanesh won on dial ticks with Nurgle in second at 59 points and Rat in third at 52 or something. I'd have to play this version more to know but for now I prefer the base game, although if I had 5 who wanted to play I'd say hell yes still. I know the balances more with the base game but agree that alot of the upgrade options are pre-determined in that version.

ASL feels like there's a "right" way to do things. Nothing is hidden, so you proceed with a clear understanding of who has what. Presumably increasing the number of pieces mixes it up.

Played Quartermaster General today and crushed as the Germans. Super-quick to play. Had a good time. This game is being overlooked.

And Pocket Battles: Union vs Confederates. Beautiful art and I finally know the game well enough to just roll with it. Play a game once a year often enough and you start remembering the rules. Iron Brigade kicks ass.

S.

I think there is right way to do what you want but I don't think there is a "right" thing to do. As I said, the game requires specific calculation and planning and errors are punished. It isn't something you where you can go with your gut. That's the major difference in feel between it and other squad games.

As for "god knowledge" of the battlefield, that's hard to get away with in anything less than a double blind war game.

The reason the rulebook is so large is to allow you to take a variety of approaches.

There are ways to do things which minimise your chances of dying but they certainly aren't the only way to do things. AS always, familiarity with the rules allows you to form effective tactical strategy. Nothing to do with god mode. There is quite enough randomness in ASL to go round without worrying about who knows what.

Concealment is also a big part of ASL but it adds complexity so it is not included in ASLSK.

I am currently teaching Combat Commander to someone and the difference is huge. CC is a railroaded story, ASL is far more sandbox. Jesus, what is the CC bs about routing. No one seems to panic much when they get shot. It's just an inconvenience until you get a Recover card. Nice game but absolutely shitty simulation (although, to be fair, it doesn't claim it is a simulation of battlefield tactics). No overwatch, no panic routing, no real ability to plan a tactical approach because you have to play a hand of cards not try to implement a pre conceived plan. In fact, you have to make up plans on the fly. Fine, but it isn't tactical planning that's for sure. Don't give me the schtick about "Well in war nothing goes to plan" actually yes, it does, that's why tactical planners and staff colleges are actually important.

Elder Sign with the new expansion was the first game on Saturday. It took a bit of time, as there were five of us, and with the usual time-wasting BS that goes on in the tavern setting. What was nice was that we'd played one round, and someone showed up. No problem, just take a seat and a character card. Once we got in our stride the game really did begin to build. We spend a long time with 0 elder signs, lost two to mythos/midnight effects and were adding a lot of doom. Then we started doing better, we pulled more and more Other World cards to get more signs. The game came down to one adventure- success meant the last elder sign we needed, failure meant doom would reach the end, and we would lose (Azathoth has no boss battle). Sometimes it's just fine when 2.5 hours of game come down to a 1/3 chance on a die roll. We won, and it was glorious.

Sons of Anarchy with five players (I was playing Old Ladies and Boy Scouts proxies). Still a lot of laughs playing the game, but I'm feeling more strongly now that it's a game that needs everyone to know how it plays, so that nobody gets fooled by the obvious BS in negotiations.

Monopoly Deal at the request of one of the less gamery people. Light fun, but one of us did get dicked over with no good cards the whole game.

Three of us also played Spaceteam on our phones, which was six minutes of silliness, not a bad time filler at all.

It seems to me that concealment of some sort needs to be present in this level of game to present any sort of reality. I don't know what level of that is available in full ASL and four kids this time of year means I'll have a devil of a time reading up on it.

This came up in my tutorial with Andy where I have one demolition charge to use, and I asked if its location is apparent to my opponent. The answer was yes (at least with Starter Kit rules) which turns the demolition charge into more of a scarlet letter than anything else. Something that fits into a small backpack becomes half the game. Whichever unit carries it becomes the primary focus of all defensive efforts for good reason. It becomes the queen on the board.

Three inverted chits, two blank and one demolition charge, each placed on different units would seem to be a better reflection of reality (which appears to be a primary goal of the game) and would result in a need to treat all units as equal threats. It's cardboard so you can't expect it to be perfect (and even "good" is likely an impossible goal) but that would seem to be a remarkably simple solution to the problem. This is a small piece of equipment, not a unit.

Are there any tactical games where the two sides receive their scenario information from two different sheets, in order to maintain some level of unknown regarding the enemy strength and configuration? Granted the map setup would give away a lot, but that would fit a little better to the concept of ConSim. Something as simple as not knowing how many or when would seem to really add a layer of uh-oh to the game.

By the way I haven't played Combat Commander so I'm a spectator on that part of the conversation.

I spent several years playing Star Fleet Battles which is similar in concept and arguably as complex as full ASL. A lot of rules and permutations, but the real challenge was the black-box nature of your opponents. You could see there was a Federation Cruiser coming at you and read his direction and speed, but his options on internal configuration meant that he was a potential threat from 20 hexes out even though he might be set up to hit you twice as hard but only from four. You had to be really cagey coming in, especially if there were three of them in a line. Any attempt at procedural solution went away because it was about the read as much as about the rules. That really softened the ground under your feet.

ASL SK1 just isn't grabbing me, and I'm beginning to suspect it's because the lack of that unknown aspect. I feel like everything is apparent to me, and I should spend the hour it takes to make the technically most correct move. (I.e., it takes me an hour because my head is in the rule book each move trying to find the four places that apply to each situation.) The rules are much more the game than they are a framework.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote: Played Quartermaster General today and crushed as the Germans. Super-quick to play. Had a good time. This game is being overlooked.

It's on sale today at Miniature Market for $25.
Since it is one team vs one team how well does the scaling work? BGG lists 2 and 6 as ideal.
Since you aren't supposed to share details of your hand does it get odd with say three players where there's a team of two with one controlling one country, another controlling two countries and then the third player controlling all three on the other side?

And the big question - Is the game too striped down? It looks to be as minimalist as possible.

Yesterday played History of the World, the 2001 Avalon Hill edition with ugly plastic. My own copy that it turned out I hadn't even punched yet. Always a good time, and The very first unit I placed on the board lived through the entire game.

The Ciub, a dice game with a dumb name that is actually not bad, partly because it's not ashamed of being a dice game. My hot take:

I think I like dice games, but too often I don't like dice games. That is, I definitely like dice, but I often don't like what's done with them in games. I've tried a bunch and there's usually just something missing, and often it's the notion that having other people at the table makes a difference. Ciub, with its dumb name, is a good effort.

It's by Tom Lehmann, who also made the execrable To Court the King, a game as fun as watching someone else watch paint dry. Ciub is definitely better in that the dice manipulation doesn't get stupidly out of hand, and has a more interesting goal. Unlike TCTK, even though someone else's turn doesn't affect me too much, it's still fun to watch them pushing their luck and egging them on. Luck and the dice still play a big part in the game, even to the end; it's not a game about making dice less random. I also like the constant dice management that happening, and the fact that no single color of die is objectively better; moving back to the starting white dice is not necessarily a downgrade (though the blue dice seem objectively bad compared to others).

I like that Ciub is a dice game that doesn't seem to be embarrassed about having dice or seem like it wants to reassure people who don't like dice that they'll like it too. If you can't deal with randomness, don't play it; it's not going to coddle you.

I wondered as a joke and then for real, if this game started its life as "Power Grid: The Dice Game". Other than the way the card "market" works there isn't much similarity there, and yet I kept feeling like there was a connection.

Then Deus, a new euro hotness. I liked it just fine, but it was just kind of there. There was no heart or spark to it, and it was all the more disappointing because it didn't seem like it would take much to get that. My blurb:

Deus is a dudes-on-a-map game where most of the dudes will never move or leave. It's also a tableau game in a way. It's kind of a mish-mash. It reminds me of Terra Mystica, only without that game's fussiness and inability to know when to stop adding elements. Similarly, it's a game that looks like it's going to be more interactive than it ultimately is, with the map not really adding much beyond tracking different resource spots. It's pretty hard to describe, but my general impressions of it were positive. I liked the combos that were possible, and I liked the multiple ways cards could be used. I'm used to tableau games in which you try to make the best of what you're dealt and didn't catch on quickly enough to the tactic of just whipping through your cards quickly to get better cards or other goodies. Deus is fine, and a solid title, but there's just something missing for me, something that would give it that little extra push. And I don't know what that is.

Finally, San Juan, the new edition. My first time playing with more than 2, and it's nice to have San Juan back on the table again.

Had a game day with a few guys on Saturday.

First up was Agricola. My friend, who is a review/rankings whore, bought this game when it went onsale around Xmas. Three of us set up the game and went on our way to become King Shit of the farming realm. Listen, I don't actively hate this game...I'll play it. I even enjoy myself while playing. However, I don't actually believe it's a good design. The whole thing is just too tight. Since the game penalizes you harshly for not being diverse it means everyone is trying to do the exact same thing. If I'm playing a farming game maybe I want to be Emperor sheep fucker and score massive points that way. You can't though. You all gotta plant grain, veggies...make sure you have pastures, fields, expanded houses, new babies etc... The only thing that makes a slight bit a difference is the improvement and occupation cards. If you focus too much on getting those into play you'll fuck up elsewhere. I enjoy games where each turn you want to be able to do 5 things and you can only do 3...but again Agricola is just too tight to be enjoyable (feel free to insert some sort of vagina joke, or a reference to the scene in Barbarian Queen where Lana Clarkson kills some fucker with her super kegel Barbarian Queen strength). The game comes across as very scripted and you feel so constrained. All those choices to place your workers don't mean shit. As the game progresses you feel more pressure to accomplish a little bit of everything...it's just frustrating. However, the game has this odd appeal that you tend to think back at what you did...how you could have been more efficient or what you could have done better. I can see why gamers like it. However, I still think it's a highly flawed designed. Me and another guy tied for victory. I asked what the tie breaker was and he said, "there isn't any". So we had to share the victory. Then the game manual cheekily says to play another game of Agricola to break the tie. Fuck that.

After Agricola we played Smash Up. My two friends had never played before and the game I think works best with 3. We had a great time and lots of laughs with this simple card game. I ended up winning with a Dinosaur/Werewolves deck...but it was a close game. We played it again and this other guy won fairly handedly with Mad Scientist/Zombies. The thing I like about the game is that every time I play I see something new or discover something I'd never seen before.

A fourth player showed up so we broke out Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards: DaMSF. I tend to forget how awesome this take card game is. I love that it lets you roll lots of dice and it's so much fun putting the spells together. Plus, it deftly creeps around the pick on the leader issue that most of these games have. So much silly fun. The new guy asked me several times throughout the night what the name of the game was because he wanted to buy it.

Finished with a couple four player games of Dominion mixed with the Prosperity expansion. I've grown to appreciate Dominion more and more over the years. It's themeless as all hell, but it plays very quickly. Finding the best combo of cards among all that are available has an exciting appeal...and each game has a nice arc. There always comes a point where you've built up what you want and you need to start gettings VPs/end the game. So the beginning is sussing out the combos...then it becomes a race to finish it when you think you've got the victory wrapped up. I think this game and Ascension are my favorite deckbuilders. Both are simple to play, but offer plenty of depth.

Had a great time with great friends...the games are always secondary to catching up and bullshitting about life. I wish we all lived closer so we could do this more than once every 2-4 months.

VonTush wrote:

Quartermaster General

It's on sale today at Miniature Market for $25.
Since it is one team vs one team how well does the scaling work? BGG lists 2 and 6 as ideal.
Since you aren't supposed to share details of your hand does it get odd with say three players where there's a team of two with one controlling one country, another controlling two countries and then the third player controlling all three on the other side?

And the big question - Is the game too striped down? It looks to be as minimalist as possible.

This is a game that plays all of World War II in 90 minutes or less. "Stipped Down" is a solid observation, but not necessarily a knock. It plays very quickly and each country plays differently. With six each player is playing a single country and that's ideal. With 2 each player is playing three countries and that works well too. The numbers in the middle are fine, but the game actually plays slower with less people instead of the other way around.

It's similar in Magic in that you're trying to work your deck to its advantages, and each has its own personality. You don't get the build aspect in Magic and there is a board that you're bumping up against each other on. But I'd put it more in the Magic category than the Axis & Allies category. Multi-player is a nice difference, and there are more decks coming out to allow you to customize.

S.

Egg Shen wrote: Had a game day with a few guys on Saturday.

First up was Agricola. My friend, who is a review/rankings whore, bought this game when it went onsale around Xmas. Three of us set up the game and went on our way to become King Shit of the farming realm. Listen, I don't actively hate this game...I'll play it. I even enjoy myself while playing. However, I don't actually believe it's a good design. The whole thing is just too tight. Since the game penalizes you harshly for not being diverse it means everyone is trying to do the exact same thing. If I'm playing a farming game maybe I want to be Emperor sheep fucker and score massive points that way. You can't though. You all gotta plant grain, veggies...make sure you have pastures, fields, expanded houses, new babies etc... The only thing that makes a slight bit a difference is the improvement and occupation cards. If you focus too much on getting those into play you'll fuck up elsewhere. I enjoy games where each turn you want to be able to do 5 things and you can only do 3...but again Agricola is just too tight to be enjoyable (feel free to insert some sort of vagina joke, or a reference to the scene in Barbarian Queen where Lana Clarkson kills some fucker with her super kegel Barbarian Queen strength). The game comes across as very scripted and you feel so constrained. All those choices to place your workers don't mean shit. As the game progresses you feel more pressure to accomplish a little bit of everything...it's just frustrating. However, the game has this odd appeal that you tend to think back at what you did...how you could have been more efficient or what you could have done better. I can why gamers like it. However, I still think it's a highly flawed designed. Me and another guy tied for victory. I asked what the tie breaker was and he said, "there isn't any". So we had to share the victory. Then the game manual cheekily says to play another game of Agricola to break the tie. Fuck that.

Exactly. This is why my wife and I play Fields of Arle instead. Not funneling you towards a conflict over spaces and certain resources. On the other hand, not much of an interactive game either. Depends what you want from the genre, I suppose.

It looks pretty solid, and a quick(er) playing 6 player game that isn't Coup or The Resistance is very, very appealing.
I think I'm sold. Was going to put together an order for some other stuff, so might as well toss this in. Thanks!

Gave New York 1776 a couple of quick tries with my wife on Sunday, neither of which went particularly well. I think it might go better had we had some additional thinking through on strategy, but this one is not looking too hot for us. Endless d6-for-a-6 die rolling, no stacking limits, and very passive VP conditions for the Americans (simply prevent the British from succeeding over 20 turns) helped lead to this one falling flat so far, whereas we have enjoyed several Columbia games that aren't that much different than this.

Egg Shen wrote: Since the game penalizes you harshly for not being diverse it means everyone is trying to do the exact same thing. If I'm playing a farming game maybe I want to be Emperor sheep fucker and score massive points that way. You can't though. You all gotta plant grain, veggies...make sure you have pastures, fields, expanded houses, new babies etc... The only thing that makes a slight bit a difference is the improvement and occupation cards.

This is my number one problem with Agricola. The game for some reason wants everyone to do the same thing. There's no way to specialize. Not only does it penalize you for not growing vegetables or raising pigs, but the benefits for those top out. It drives me crazy. Why take something that should be open ended, even stress the open nature of it with the occupation/improvement cards, but then put such a weird constraint on it?