What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Is 4 people enough for a good game of Cosmic?

I can tell you that 3 is not. I think 4 is the beginning of fun.

We've played with four quite a bit (Mayfair's Simply Cosmic was made for 4 players). More is better, but 4 works in a pinch. Don't play with less than 4.

I'm not sure how FFG's Cosmic works with Flare Cards, but when we play with 4 using Mayfair's Cosmic we shuffle in all the Flare Cards to give it a little extra crazy.

That would be completely bonkers using FFG rules, since they allow you to keep the flares when you play them. That's in line with Eon. Mayfair changed that.

You will get a different answer from everyone on how many people is best, but I think six is the best. Anywhere between 4 and 8 is really fun though. I can't imagine it functioning too well with 3.

I was bored today and I dragged out Robinson Crusoe. I got it in an early batch when I found it on the shelves of my local game store (no, not fucking friendly) even though it was way out of stock online. I played it about 12 times in a two week span... and then I haven't played it since.

I played a solo game today and the magic is still there, it is far more than the usual BGG flash in the pan, low supply, 3 month cult of the new game. It is an outstanding thematic eurogame. In particular, it is *tightly* balanced and feels well playtested. I have no idea why I stopped playing it, I almost feel like I got hyped out by the game when it was still sitting on my shelves and I could just play the damn thing! It's a really good game.

I'm kind of surprised to see no mention of Dead of Winter yet. I guess you guys really do avoid hype and Cult of the New. I generally do too, but after I played it at Origins I immediately pre-ordered it when I went home. I know I did a lot with Summoner Wars, but Dead of Winter is really only the second game after SW that I've really liked from PHG.

I had 6 people over last night and we ran two games simultaneously. One of the groups (mine) played two back to back. I'm gonna try to play at least once or twice more before I head out for GenCon on Wednesday.

There's been low level buzz, Jexik, in a bunch of different threads. But you're right, nothing like the white hot desperation at work over at BGG. Glad to hear impressions---tell us more if you get a chance. What do you like about it? What is working for your group so well?

After 4 months without, I played 5 games of Netrunner today with some other casual players. It was a blast, even though I got my ass handed to me.

We had about an hour left at the end and I convinced them to pull Tumbling Dice off the FLGS shelf. None of us had played before but I've heard good things and wanted to try it. We had a hell of a time and didn't want to stop. I may have to pick it up at some point.

Gary Sax wrote: There's been low level buzz, Jexik, in a bunch of different threads. But you're right, nothing like the white hot desperation at work over at BGG. Glad to hear impressions---tell us more if you get a chance. What do you like about it? What is working for your group so well?

I was surprised by how long it takes to explain, because there are a lot of different things you can do, and many are interconnected. Once it gets started it's pretty intuitive though - the art and the graphic design go a long way towards making things clear. The character cards are pretty clear, aside from the one card with the typo. (It has a 4 in parentheses instead of saying 4+). The noise tokens have those little lines going from an ear; food looks like food; starvation reminders are empty cans of food; you can tell how many people fit somewhere by how many spaces there are, etc. The crisis cards are pretty similar in their requirements (usually some resource card type required equal to the number of non-exiled players) but varied in their consequences. They aren't as central to the game as in BSG, since they only occur 5-8 times in a game. The crossroads cards are a neat way to get you involved in other player's turns and watching what they do, saying nothing of all the different story moments that will spring up from them. I really don't want to spoil any of them, but some cool stuff happened in our first two games. I think the writing is pretty good - I think Mr Bistro does dark better than he does storybook.

On a superficial level, I think the game looks gorgeous. The box looks great. Standees are nice and chunky and pretty easy to identify from the card portraits. The snow on all the locations gives you a feeling for the setting.

From top to bottom I'm pretty impressed. It just feels really complete. If anything were significantly lacking, it would stick out. There are a few "anti-thematic"* things, like using newly searched items for any one of your survivors anywhere, but I think the game would be super hard and clunky if you had to manage separate hands for each of your survivors.

Some people hate the 12-sided exposure die, but I love the tension that it brings.

*I'm really annoyed by how people use the word theme, although I struggle to find a better word for it. The real theme in DoW is the ramifications of binary choices and binary coin flips.

That said, there are a few things that worry me. In one game, we each had 4-5 survivors in a 4 player game. That means that we had more than half of the characters on the table. The cast is big (I think 30), but because you get so many, it can feel small. Granted, different characters' utility will vary on the board state and scenario. I've only played three times, but there are a couple crossroads cards that I've seen come up twice. I've got a good memory, so once I heard the first few words, I knew what was coming - I'm the type that rarely reads the same book twice. The crossroads card generator could be a lifesaver for the longevity of the game. The last is that I'm still unsure how balanced all the various secret objective cards are. I won as a traitor with an objective that seemed super easy to complete (I talk about it in spoilers HERE ). So it seems very hard to actually detect a betrayer since they don't really need to do bad guy stuff until the very end. At the same time it's pretty neat that they often contribute nicely and bide their time until they actually have their own stuff worked out.

I don' know. I've not been this excited about a game since Risk Legacy or Heroscape.

Played Dead of Winter today also. One of the easier win conditions I believe. Four player game, took almost two hours total with two noobs (me) and two experienced players. We won, and most of us met our personal goal. We didn't have a traitor out of the four.

I can see alot of fun things in the game. The crisis cards reminded me alot of BSG in that a traitor will try and sabotage things, but that didn't happen for us ever this game. The individual characters all had a different ability that was useful every turn. The story telling aspect with the crossroads cards was very well done and added alot of atmosphere to the game and tension at times. Leaving the shelter takes a die roll where there is a 1/12 chance you are bitten and either die or can infect others so taking the risk of walking around is somewhat tense at times depending on if the character has alot of nice gear, etc.

Still it isn't something I'd look to play again. I'm not a fan of co-ops and really not a fan of zombie games at all either. Nor am I interested in games that focus on telling a story no matter how well done it is. I haven't played that many co-ops, Forbidden Island and Pandemic are it along with BSG if you want to classify it as that. I wouldn't get excited about playing any of those again either. Probably a fun game if that is your thing, and maybe a different experience with a traitor in play. I played it primarily because of the hype and the fact that I loved City of Remnants from Plaid Hat. Just for reference I'd say my top games of the moment are Wallenstein and Twilight Struggle.

Played a great game of Modern Art last night. It was a three player game, two of the players new to the game. The first round served mostly as a learning experience, I find that new players often struggle with strategies in the first round. After that though the game got pretty tense and people were bluffing, using lots of double auctions to throw off any runaway leaders. I ended up winning, but mostly as a result of some over zealous bidding on my opponents part in the last two rounds. Those last two rounds are when things get really interesting and people tend to bid really high.

A great game overall and everyone had a good time. The other players commented that it was a pretty stressful experience, but loved all the bluffing and speculation involved. Look forward to getting this out again, hopefully soon!

I also played a round of Battle Line for the first time. We had a bit a of rough start with some rules about how flags are won, but once it clicked we had a blast. I ended up winning 5 flags to 3, but it was close all game, and near the end, we were both fishing for one or two cards that we really needed. I ended up drawing that one card my opponent really needed (the last card!) and ended the game with it. We didn't use the tactics cards in the first game, but now that we know how to play it, we will in our next game.

Also played a round of Pandemic on the hardest difficulty. We were slaughtered because we just couldn't get the right combination of cards. We all kept getting two copies or cards, and people were taking lots of chartered flights, so in the end we just couldn't muster up enough cures, and the draw pile eventually emptied and sealed out fate. We did a decent job of containing the disease though. Next time...

Played Firefly the other night with the expansions, and was underwhelmed. All four of us were pretty much "meh" at the end, which is too bad for me since I was the one who shelled out for it. I think it may come down to the fact that 90% of the time these days, game night consists of one-shot RPGs, and most board games just don't hold a candle to them in terms of entertainment value.

Jason Lutes wrote: Played Firefly the other night with the expansions, and was underwhelmed. All four of us were pretty much "meh" at the end, which is too bad for me since I was the one who shelled out for it. I think it may come down to the fact that 90% of the time these days, game night consists of one-shot RPGs, and most board games just don't hold a candle to them in terms of entertainment value.

It also could come down to the fact that Firefly is kind of a meh game, anyway.

Gaming last night was Bottle Imp. That's a game that can get ruined if not everyone is on the same level, so I wasn't expecting much from the fact that one player was learning it. However, he picked it up super fast and overtook us for most of the game. I won, but only barely, and only because he took the bottle on the last hand. Great game, at its best with three.

Then Wiz-War. Not my FFG copy but my friend's P&P copy from before it got re-released. A good time, and more satisfying than my last, but still not one of my favorites and it didn't make me reconsider ditching my own copy.

Got a shot at 1775, and it was simply excellent. A must-have for this Christmas, my only game in that category to date.

Moved to the next table and tried Underground Railroad, with the disadvantage of playing with guys that wanted to see it to the end when it was very clear that we were toast. I get the feeling that once you learn how to move the hunters and earn money the game becomes a very trite affair, the only question is how long it takes for that to happen.

Found myself in the uncomfortable position of explaining that we have to lose slaves in order to make progress. That didn't go over well considering the theme.

S.

I think 1775 is an excellent game and superior to 1812.

I got in a game of Merchants and Marauders before I left today against "Spicey" Pete. I forgot how fun this game is