What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Received and played my 51st State Master Set. Here's what I wrote:

I've been eagerly anticipating this. I am a huge New Era fan, and don't get as much play of it as I'd like, so a more streamlined game would fit the bill. Imperial Settlers is good, but it's not 51st/New Era/Winter. When the rules were leaked (and eventually revealed) a lot of people, myself included, were worried that this was just a rethemed Imperial Settlers. Even recognizing that IS was based on 51S, a lot of fans feel that there are some things about the original game that got left behind.

So to answer that question, yeah, this new edition is pretty much IS rethemed. There are a couple of mechanical dissimilarities, but it's more in line with that game than with New Era. I don't blame them; Imperial Settlers has been something of a hit, whereas New Era, well, isn't. Also, Imperial Settlers is, in many ways, an improvement over the old system.

To that end, since more people know about IS, here are the differences:
- no faction decks. Only a common deck.
- resources are primarily used to pay for actions, not to build or deal with locations
- there are three types of "connection" tokens. blues are for making deals (instead of food), red for razing (instead of swords), and gray for building (instead of resources)
- locations have a "distance" that determine how many of the above tokens are needed
- redevelopment (replacing old locations with new ones) is important and grants VPs
- factions have faction-specific actions, but cannot store resources
- Connections cards that you can send workers to get to help with razing and deal-making

Seeing that written down, it's kind of a lot, really.

All of this works well and makes the game much easier to pick up. Fans of IS may like the new theme and differences. For fans of the old game, there's a lot there that will be familiar.

I like the new version and hope it does well. I will miss the "Rule of 3" from the old game, which made decisions trickier, but it's not a deal-breaker. What I actually miss more is that the cards in this edition don't feel particularly thematic. A lot of the setting and personality in the old game doesn't really come through here, as the cards largely blend together. It's also strange to have things like two copies of "Pete's Office" (he has franchises?) in the same deck, or "Slave Traders"/"Bus Station" which are the exact same card with different names. That may change when more cards are released. (I also miss learning French, Polish, and German from the cards. Au revoir, "Bureau de Pete".)

The Master Set comes with a deck of base cards plus two add-in decks (New Era and Winter) that can be used to change up the gameplay. We played with the New Era deck, which seemed like more of the same. I'm eager to try the Winter one and just the base deck to see if this works.

For me, New Era + Winter is still the king of the hill here. This new set won't have me getting rid of those. It may, however, send Imperial Settlers packing. That game seems to be going in a direction of constructing faction decks and such, which I'm not really interested in. I think I'll be able to transition the IS fans in my group to this new 51st State.

I'm a big fan of Chaos Marauders. I've played my old GW Marauders a bunch, enough that I picked up the FFG version a while back to have a second throw-around copy. I haven't been gaming much lately but I finally managed to actually play FFG Marauders.

It's the same game. There might be an incredibly minor card tweak here or there but it's still Chaos Marauders. GW Marauders has big player mats with slots for all three battelines, but mini cards. FFG Marauders has a single-row mat -- cards placed on, above, and below -- and full-size cards. I love the GW Marauders artwork, but the FFG artwork is pretty great too.

The two big improvements: FFG's little boxes are small and sturdy while GW Marauders box is a bit flimsy, and FFG put card effect text on -- brace for revelation -- the cards. As much as I love GW Marauders and the artwork and just about everything about it, having to explain 50% of the cards as their drawn to new players is kind of a drag.

I didn't pay much attention when FFG Marauders was released because I was already getting plenty of mileage out of GW Marauders. I'm happy to report that FFG packed the same game into a smaller package and made it more playable for newbies. I'm even coming around to the FFG Marauders art style a bit.






EDIT: I screwed up the FFG pic. That's an FFG Maruader Knocker; it definitely isn't going to be chucking anything.

Yesterday I played a solo round of Deadzone, the Enforcers vs. The Orx Marauders. In other words, Mantic's version of space marines vs. orks. I love the simplicity of the game system. It's designed to make matches quick and bloody. Most combats result in someone dying. The new command dice are a good addition. The lack of stat cards for the units is NOT a good addition; you have to constantly look units up in the rulebook. I'm sure once I have things memorized it will be easier but it's tedious. I have the cards from 1st edition for 4 factions but I have to check them because they changed some stats I think.

Anyway, it was a 100 point game, and the Enforcers only had 4 units because their leader was the big hulking guy that is in most of the Deadzone promo art. He's 48 points on his own. The Orx had 6 units. I thought the Orx would kick ass, and they led for most of the game, whittling the enforcers down to 2 units, a regular troop and the leader. The leader proceeded to murder all of them. Enforcers are tough customers.

Side note, the new terrain in 2nd edition is fantastic. Way chunkier and cooler than the terrain from the 1st set.

Mostly a listing of new games and first impressions for me here.

Star Wars Rebellion. I'll play it again but I'm not buying my own copy. The combat is really fucking irritating with the different dice colors and what hits a unit can take, and the combat cards add nothing to the decision making from what we saw. You play them if they do something or they are useless. Might as well use a wargame system of the general with a higher strategy rating gets rerolls equal to the differential. Seems a lot more like Fury of Dracula at times with less focus on combat than I would've thought. Theme came through strong though and some of the missions are nice to work on. Looks pretty and makes for an entertaining few hours.

Liberte. AKA the original and better version of Tammany Hall. TH ended on my shit list after what I saw as a broken game with 5 players, where the odd man out has to constantly hammer the weakest player and thereby drag them both down. Liberte on the other hand was excellent. Multiple victory conditions, card drafting, hand management, area control, fighting your opponents with forces you hope lose anyways. Great game on the first play.

Homeland. Will have to try this again. Had 4 players and the owner did not shuffle the deck very well, I ended up with over half of my hand of 3 cards being pro-terrorist for every turn and we failed spectacularly about 40 minutes in. Of course there was a terrorist player who won in that case. Interesting game, kinda reminds me of Study in Emerald with just the role selection and winning condition mechanic. I didn't check the ratio of cards but it seemed off that we failed so many of our missions when 3 of us were trying to win them, we just lacked positive cards in hand and were forced to play the pro-terrorist cards.

Summoner Wars. Two games, both times the losing player must've hit on below 50% of the dice rolls. Thats just awful. Still not sure how I feel about this but after getting over the dice rolls there sure were alot of things I could've done instead each game to alter my strategy. Throw out more walls seems like a good thing too. I like all the options the game gives you with units and events and the tradeoff for magic points. I think I like it but need more plays.

Clockwork Wars. One game here. Seems like a euro at times but the tech and the cards sure are swingy and mean. I like the game, but don't love it. It doesn't seem to have alot going on with it for each turn other than really aiming for a great tech or one of the generals to help define your strategy. Played in about 2 hours total and was pretty easy to teach. Too expensive for what it is for me, and its kinda telling that after my first play 3 months ago I haven't brought it out since whereas I keep bringing Cthulhu Wars/Study in Emerald/Glory to Rome to every game day.

Sons of Anarchy. One game here. Straightforward worker placement with sweet components of guns and bags of drugs. Pretty fast game too and it looks like good variety with a lot of different location tiles to use. Response was pretty meh on this one but if I have an hour to kill and don't feel like destroying noobs in Glory to Rome this will work and I'll be happy with that hour.

51st State Master Set. One game again. This one I really didn't like. No interaction, turn resources into VPs from your own little tableau. Better than Imperial Settlers since it gets rid of the goofy art and replaces it with post-apocalyptic wastelands, but thats just me. Otherwise it felt like the same game and one I'd rather not play.

Tiny Epic Galaxies. I learned here I don't like dice placement games. I guess this one was tolerable, but all I want to do is take my two fucking vital actions each round and the five dice I rolled can never be relied on. And it took kinda long too. Would rather play Sons of Anarchy in the time this took. The different planet features were nice and allowed you to work around in case your dice failed. But still very meh on this and it was surprisingly long with 3.

City of Iron. Another game I will not play again. Mercifully it was short and done in an hour. Again no theme. Limited actions each round, but this time its based on a deck of cards with symbols on them like Mythotopia, and just like that game it had no theme at all. Standard euro with resources generating VPs at the end of every other round for those with the most resources. Little interaction again.

Five Tribes. I didn't hate this one. I kinda see the appeal for people that like puzzles and playing tactically without any real big picture strategy since the board changes so much from the turn before you to your turn. Again no theme, or rather the theme was just fucking stupid. The genies gave a good amount of variety in scoring and encouraging certain actions. We had four and played it in an hour so it didn't seem long nor was AP an issue. With an hour I'd still rather play Sons of Anarchy for a simple-ish game or Glory to Rome for something complex, but I wouldn't leave the game day if this was my only option, unlike other games on this list.

hotseatgames wrote: Yesterday I played a solo round of Deadzone, the Enforcers vs. The Orx Marauders. In other words, Mantic's version of space marines vs. orks. I love the simplicity of the game system. It's designed to make matches quick and bloody. Most combats result in someone dying. The new command dice are a good addition. The lack of stat cards for the units is NOT a good addition; you have to constantly look units up in the rulebook. I'm sure once I have things memorized it will be easier but it's tedious. I have the cards from 1st edition for 4 factions but I have to check them because they changed some stats I think.

Anyway, it was a 100 point game, and the Enforcers only had 4 units because their leader was the big hulking guy that is in most of the Deadzone promo art. He's 48 points on his own. The Orx had 6 units. I thought the Orx would kick ass, and they led for most of the game, whittling the enforcers down to 2 units, a regular troop and the leader. The leader proceeded to murder all of them. Enforcers are tough customers.

Side note, the new terrain in 2nd edition is fantastic. Way chunkier and cooler than the terrain from the 1st set.

Would a quick reference card fix the stat proble? Also, what do you mean with chunkier terrain? Is each plastic tile thicker? Also, how long does it take for a 100 pt game?

Sevej wrote: Would a quick reference card fix the stat proble? Also, what do you mean with chunkier terrain? Is each plastic tile thicker? Also, how long does it take for a 100 pt game?

Quick references would help a lot. I checked the old cards today; enough stats have changed to pretty much make them useless. I may just print out the army list pages from the electronic version of the manual. Or make my own stat cards.

The plastic building pieces are definitely thicker. Some of them have a significant weight to them. They are still not fun to assemble.

A 100 point game is over very quickly. You can easily play one in 20 - 30 minutes. I played one today with Marauders vs. Plague. By the beginning of the 3rd round, the Marauders had completely wiped out the Plague. Plague only killed one unit, and it was a Chainsaw dog. That's not what they are really called, but hey they are dogs with chainsaws coming out of their mouths, and they have penises for tails.

In Homeland even the bad cards have symbols you can cash in for tokens, and use tokens to get assets with Drone Strike abilities. If the other players can contribute soldiers on their turns, drone striking removes those cards from the game, so it's a great way to clear out those red cards you had to play.

Had my first ever five player game of Blood Rage on Saturday. I enjoyed the cramped board, failed myself by pillaging too soon in Age 3 with a region I had locked down. When final pillage happened I still had most of my rage and a few things I was hoping to get done. The game was won by a half and half Loki/Questing strategy (no uber Loki combos) Which was probably my fault as I was to the right of the winner. Oh well. The game did take way too long (2.5 hours I think). For that amount of time I'd rather have played Chaos, but it was a good game.

Argent: The Consortium in which I did better than I've been doing in the F:AT online games. We had four players, and I managed to score three voters. I lost out on Most Mana after I stopped collecting it (I did not know it was a voter), but I won Most Research, Most Sorcery and Most Wisdom. I did really enjoy the randomized Bell Tower cards which is something I'm missing in the email games.

Star Realms with two on two teams. Not my favourite way to play, I think as it gets really swingy really quickly, but not too bad.

Elder Sign in Omens of Ice mode. I tuned out of this one because we had five players, one being a small child. Which is fine but her dad had chosen her this character who has to look into the adventure deck every time and spend time choosing which to discard. Gates of Arkham might still be my favourite mode, but I do like the real pressure the storms, day track, and seventh adventure card (always getting midnight effects) bring to the game.

I've also been getting in some Shadows of Brimstone at home. Two of us (lawman and preacher) getting mutated, injured and failing both missions we tried so far, glorious in our incompetence. The highlight was two darkness cards adding +1 combat to Void creatures and a Growing Dread (I think) making all monsters +2 combat. Tentacles rolling seven dice each hurt hard and fast. I'm looking forward to getting the next box of stuff this week.

Blood Rage is best with 3 in my opinion, 4 is fine. 5 is too many.

Sad, Clockwork Wars hasn't worked out for your Scott. We're still loving it and played a game a couple of weeks ago.

Hey this weekend I'm getting together with the family for the long weekend and my mom has requested board games are to be played. So I'll actually contribute something next week to this thread. "As I live and breathe..."

Puerto Rico for sure will be up to task, hopefully one or two others as well. Would love to convince them to play Terra Mystica but I've never played and can't remember how.

Black Barney wrote: Would love to convince them to play Terra Mystica but I've never played and can't remember how.

You could always, I don't know, read the rules.

TITAN, 2 player

I forgot how long this game could take. We're talking four 2.5 hour sessions here. Eeesh. I couldn't recruit for shit. By the halfway point my opponent had 12 stacks to my 6. After losing my second best stack it was all downhill to having 2 stacks vs 10-6 teleporting Titan so I naturally conceded.

Played in a Dreadball Tournament down in San Antonio earlier today. 4 matches. $10. Good deal.

I had never played in a DB tourney, so in the interest of not expecting to win I took my Zee team. They're the lowest rung team in the game. Think BB's halflings. Surprisingly I ended up winning one of my four matches and in hindsight I don't think the field was as challenging as I assumed. Which is odd because two of my losses happened due to landslides... Still, I should have taken my Ada Lorna.

Anyway, the first two matches, the very first turn I had the ball, the 'ball shatters' event was drawn. This prevented me from a score attempt in the first game and solid possession in the second. I know that card is in there, but it's still annoying. I've often thought of removing that card in my home league. Think of that explosion card in Wings of War. You don't want that in there for tourneys as it really only impacts one player and doesn't balance out. Same thing here. there's only one in the deck. I got hit by it twice. Oh, you don't cycle through a whole event deck in a game, maybe a third of the cards. The fact that this hit me twice was a bummer. But it's the game...

I lost to Sphyr, Female Corporations, and Convicts, but I beat Marauders (the team in the picture below).

All in all it was a fun time, but I think overall,after about 2 years, I'm starting to tire of tournament play of games. League is the way to go.

Saturday I played my 5th game of Triumph and Tragedy in 5 months. Which is pretty impressive for a game which takes 4-8 hour complete. But I'll go out on limb and claim it as the game of the decade 2010+. It totally fires Axis and Allies unless you have 5 players or want to play a WW2 game with the Pacific front. The game is pretty simply to play with only 10 or so pages of rules but the depth and strategy is great in T&T. Each game has been unique depending on players strategy and each games has been close with plenty of surprises.

Here's a reprint of the T&T game report that I just posted on BGG:

We played T&T with all 2nd ed rules proposals (6.5 hours). I was the Axis, KingPut was the West, and theseus12 was Russia.

Highlights:

- Russia grabbed Rocket Artillery very early, so the West and Germany did the same asap.

- The Axis went last in 1937 and drew all action cards, veering away from an attack-West strategy. This resulted in Hungary and Rumania becoming satellites. Almost Poland as well, which would have paid huge dividends - but no such luck.

- In an unprecedented move, Russia played a purely defensive game, building fortresses willy nilly on the Eastern front and going heavy in diplomacy, mostly trying to win on atomic VP and peace dividends. It worked, as the game went the full stretch and Russia eked out a win by one point.

- The West opted for unit builds over industry increases (stopping at level 12), which hurt the West point-wise in the long game.

- The West was coaxed into attacking Munich in mid-game, which left Paris open to Axis conquest. Eventually, the Americans made a big play for Rome and the Ruhr in 1944 and 1945 (LSTs were key) - and almost recaptured Paris - but they couldn't quite pull off their liberation master plan. T&T automatically ends in 1945 if no one wins earlier, but if there'd been one more year (1946) the West probably would have won militarily with the Ruhr and Berlin.

- The Axis essentially ignored the seas.

So, a very fun game and well worth the time.

The Russian player also build up and attacked Persia and declared war on West in India late in the game. This forced me, the West into build up 9 pips to fight the Russians in India rather than on the Western front fighting the Germans. With a couple of more ground forces on the Western front I might have taken Germay. But it worked well for the Russians. And that's why I love T&T.