What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Workmanlike = Nothing wrong with it for me to bitch about but I got to say something.

Forbidden Stars is great fun. Tense and smooth. I like the factions which each have a distinct feel. I like the tech tree in the form of deck upgrades. The combat system is fun. As there can only be one combat per order execution and at least half the table is involved in every combat, those that bitch that it is too long are whiners. If you can't take a chill for 2 or three minutes, go play Relationship Tightrope or something.

The constant comparison to Starcraft is flawed. It's like comparing Warrior Knights to Game of Thrones. Is one heavily influenced by the other? Yes? Are they the same game? Nope.

No, "workmanlike" is a way to state that something is absolutely competent, well made and without any particularly exceptional or inspired features.

There's no "whining" about the combat- it is sluggish in games with more than two. The resolution drags the game down with three or four over the course of three, four, five hours. with two, it's not an issue because both players are involve every time. With three or four, it's a draggy subsystem that hinders the game. Especially when there are other, better games in this genre that play in similar (or shorter) timeframes but exchange that downtime with more action. And with five to six players.

But then again, I only like obscure hipster games like Settlers of Catan, X-Wing and Risk.

You mention Risk. I am not entirely convinced the combat resolution in FS takes significantly more time than it does in Risk. In FS you roll once and then play three rounds of cards. Risk many battles involve multiple rolls of dice, often five or more. Isit really that much longer? What about Shogun? You love Shogun, FS is not longer than Shogun. What other games are you recommending that we should be playing to scratch the itch that Forbidden Stars scratches?

What is workmanlike about the fantastic mechanic to place hidden orders in each sector? It's awesome!

And it was also in Starcraft (and Game of Thrones for that matter) so it's hardly unique to FS. But yes, it's good- I agree!

Il just not convinced by the combat- fussing around with temporary/lasting symbols, the morale victory, etc...it takes the time-honored "swords and shields" resolution and drags it out. Does it add depth? Some. But is it worthwhile? I dunno. Again, with two it's not really an issue- it's a major part of an aggressive, combat focused game and when you are involved in every instance, the problem is mitigated.

It's the worst kind of FFG design though- bolted-on subsystems...like the card combat in the bad DQ reprint.

Shogun- if you are taking about Wallenstein, yes, I love that game. I most certainly do not love the old MB one (Samurai Swords/Ikusa). And Wallenstein is an example of a game I'd rather play (with secret, territory-based orders at that). Also Hyperborea, Cyclades, Kemet, Nexus Ops, Star Wars OT Risk, CitOW...but with two, FS is probably the best option for this kind of game out of its closest peers.

It's absolutely not a bad game. It's very well made and has some great qualities. But it is also not particularly exceptional. That's my point. The doe-eyed fawning and weird defensiveness people have about the game are unwarranted. It's a decent FFG design, and that's it. Don't be blinded by GW fanboyism or some kind of bizarre macho "gamer cred" fealty to long games or DoaMs.

If liking DoAMs makes me "gamer Fred", then please, call me Frederick.

I see what you and Weeks are up to with your DoAMs/complex combat = bad. Knizia = good. I know a contrarian when I see one. Game recognizes game. But you do know that F:AT stands for fortress AMERITRASH?

Ha! Autocorrect! Was supposed to be "cred"...now we have Gamer Fred.

"Ameritrash" has about as much meaning to me at this point as the chicken poop I just scooped out of our hen house. But at least I can use that as fertilizer to help something grow.

Good games are good games, full stop.

You ruined it by going back and editing it. Change back to gamer Fred please, funnier.

Most of the games you have listed as favored over FS are hybrids I noticed. I never played Star Wars OT Risk. Hyperborea is pretty good cousin of Nexus Ops. Cyclades and Kemet come nowhere close to scratching the itch as far as I am concerned. I listed the Achilles' to CiTOW a few posts ago, you didn't bite.

I have not had the fortune to play half, or even half of that half as many games as you have I am not as jaded on various game mechanics as you may have become. Never tried Wallenstein, Starcraft, Game of Thrones for instance. I would find it an interesting read for you to contrast it with Starcraft so I can learn what makes Starcraft such a superior design.

But for me. Forbidden Stars is a good game, full stop.

some kind of bizarre macho "gamer cred" fealty to long games or DoaMs.

I may be losing what little gamer Fred I have, but I've always liked Knizia's classics and longer DoaM games. I've never understood the implication that I have to choose one game style exclusively. Even going back to the mostly defunct Euro vs Ameritrash arguments. There are games I like and don't like in all categories.

Where in this thread is implied you need to choose one stye exclusively? I know I am not implying that. I am implying that a site founded (or so I thought) on the notion that it would celebrate and discuss Ameritrash culture and games is recently spending more time lauding Euros and wondering whether it's Ok to have player elimination and whatnot. If I am completely mistaken about that, please tell me where I have it wrong. Seems like false advertising to attract people to a site called Fortress Ameritrash when they could just as easily read the same stuff on BGG. I am I saying there is no place to talk Euros here? Nooooooooo. But they certainly are in favor at the moment.

I edited my post to make it clearer what I was replying to.

I played a game of Battlelore 2ed with the Hernfar Guardians and Warband of Scorn expansions on the weekend against my nine year-old daughter. We both mustered a heap of the new units and had a good time giving them a road-test. My daughter chose Uthuk and left me with Daqan. Most of the action took place on the Uthuk side of the battlefield because I quickly fell behind on VP early in the game and decided to get more aggressive to push the Uthuk off the banner markers and/or wipe them out. Because the action was happening on the other side of the battlefield, the Siege Golem didn't see much action due to it's slow movement. The Citadel Lancers and Ironbound were the most effective for me. The Automaton ability of the Ironbound increases flexibility and I used it a lot due to drawing crappy command cards. My daughter struggled a little trying to deal with the onslaught but did manage to wreak a bit of havoc with the Doombringer, which I nicknamed the Dungbeetle to mess with her head. I lost a lot of troops bringing that beast to the ground. Once the DB was out of the way, the rest of her army quickly succumbed. But my daughter was happy with her earlier strong lead and thinks she can take me next time. The Razorwings should show up this week, so I plan to break out BL2 again this weekend.

We also tried playing Splendor on Android, but I prefer playing it on the table. I like to plan my moves while waiting for others to take theirs and I couldn't do that with the pass-and-play as I couldn't see what cards I had between turns. My nine year-old daughter is starting to regularly kick my ass at this game now. To help her improve her game, I shared a couple of my Splendor strategies with her and now she is employing them better than I.

Oh, and we also played a game of Bohnanza which my nine year-old and seven year-old daughters absolutely adore. My nine year-old won that game too because she was better at manipulating the seven year-old than I was. I tried calling her out on it during the game and she just grinned and said she had no idea what I was talking about.

Alastair MacDirk wrote: Never tried Wallenstein, Starcraft, Game of Thrones for instance.

You are doing yourself a disservice, my friend. All three are quality games. Seek them out, give them a spin, then truly compare. We're still talking about them years later for a reason.

I saw Forbidden Stars played quite a bit at Dice Tower Con. I listened to a rules explanation, it gave me a solid Starcraft "redesigned" vibe. It is really pretty. I had it in my hands at the Coolstuff booth but realized I own Starcraft and its expansion, and it already doesn't come out often enough. A 2-player Starcraft that works does seem appealing, but I only got so many gamer bucks.

I _LOVE_ Forbidden Stars. And I love the combat. Then again, I'm primarily playing it as a 2 player game and I have no interest in even trying the 4 player.

You know what else I love? ARENA OF THE PLANESWALKERS. Played it twice today. It's Heroscape plus some really fun card play. Nothing not to like, really, except that there isn't more of it right this instant (though I don't really need it yet). I know it was likely pointless, but I actually emailed Hasbro to show my support for the game and express that I'd like to see more of it in the future. Again, pointless most likely, but I at least made an effort.

Josh Look wrote: I _LOVE_ Forbidden Stars. And I love the combat. Then again, I'm primarily playing it as a 2 player game and I have no interest in even trying the 4 player.

You know what else I love? ARENA OF THE PLANESWALKERS. Played it twice today. It's Heroscape plus some really fun card play. Nothing not to like, really, except that there isn't more of it right this instant (though I don't really need it yet). I know it was likely pointless, but I actually emailed Hasbro to show my support for the game and express that I'd like to see more of it in the future. Again, pointless most likely, but I at least made an effort.

Dear Sirs,

Listen, as a world famous pod caster, I have what may be called "considerable clout" amongst the unwashed throngs of the gamer community and thus heed my words closely. Stop making crap and start making more Magi-scape. Also fire the dumbass in charge of the focus group that thought the name you gave this great game was in anyway acceptable.

Tapping my foot in impatience,
Joshua Q. Look

Had a couple notable game days. First at a semi random meetup I played two filler games, something called (I think) Welcome to the Dungeon. Push your luck mini game where you draw a card and either add it to the monster pile or take it out and take out one of the hero's items. At the end one person is the hero and has to run it. Not much to say, its over in maybe 15 minutes and we played it with 3. I don't like short games is all. Next up was Nations the dice game. Again a pretty short game, maybe 45 minutes with 3 all new players. I haven't played normal Nations. The game is only 4 rounds and reminded me of Roll for the Galaxy. Not my thing either, the dice rolling limiting your actions and the limited tile selection wasn't fun for me. Maybe its just me but I'm seriously irritated when people suggest multiple filler games in a row. Fucking decide on something serious or I'd rather leave. Granted 45 minutes is maybe a bit long for a filler but still. Thats one hour on shit that doesn't leave an impression on me one way or the other or in other words its half a game of Chaos in the Old World or something good.

I tried and failed to recruit enough people for either Cave Evil or Thunder Alley. One of the guys claimed he thought the production values on Cave Evil were poor and that turned him off. I called bullshit on that, if you don't like direct conflict or the theme fair enough. But you can't fault the game for having poor quality, at least not the second edition that I have - the cards are awesome. Somehow I agreed to play Concordia since my prior game of it I won and I do love a good map. Played this time with 5, two new players. Finally I figured out my opinion on this game - I dislike it. Previously I was still trying to figure it out and it seemed pretty with alot of choices every turn. My third time playing the game and I actively tried for specific scoring strategies, and failed big time. At the end of the game I still couldn't figure out how the winner did significantly better than the other players. And the game played like a normal euro where I only give a shit on your turn if you block a spot for me. The scoring on this game just fucking sucks. Something like six different ways to score, you only score at the end, and the scoring part itself is a pain to go through based on multipliers for every type of card. Maybe I'd have to play it more to get the scoring down well enough for it to impact my choices, but in the end I'd rather play something I thought was fun.

Which brings me to the following day. Got a third game of Twilight Struggle in against my dad. He always needs rules reminders and still doesn't always grasp the definition of control even with the cheat sheet next to him. But he likes playing and I love the game. Spent 2 hours and made it through round 3, yikes. But still it was an awesome 2 hours. Then played my third game of Cave Evil against dad and sister. It was pretty amazing. We ran out of time around 2.5 hours in since dad plays slow but the last turn I teleported next to sister with my necro, destroyed her necro, and her monsters blocked my dad's route out of his tunnels to attack me in the open. Great game except the cards really do require close reading and involve some ambiguity at times, which non-gamers struggle with.