What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

charlest wrote: I liked it, but another prominent member of my group did not like it multiplayer and was only interested in playing it as a 2 player game. This kind of killed it for me.

My concern is in the opposite direction -- there's guys in my group that want every game to include everyone every time. 1812 and 1775 should be in that mix, but they also tend to shy away from combat games of all kinds. The fallout is that one guy decides he isn't interested and the rest say no so that we can all play the same game instead. Irksome.

I'll grant that my limit with the two is just a few turns on 1775. I liked it though, and other games I've gotten a few turns in on haven't given me that same level of positive feedback. Everyone was raving on Underground Railroad and I didn't find it very good at all.

Here's the sleeper that my boy played that is starting to get a lot of positive reviews -- Quartermaster General. I watched over his shoulder for the second half of the game (I missed the startup playing Underground Railroad) and it looked very good. Wasn't for sale at the time. But it's available now and getting very solid reviews. One guy compared it to Maria which is pretty audacious if you ask me.

S.

Buy Condottiere. Plays 3-6 fine. Has a great wargame theme for you, but your group should be fine with it as it's a card game feeling sorta like poker. It may satisfy everyone.

I thought Quartermaster General looked very interesting, but I haven't really followed up on it since I first heard about it. I guess I need to trudge off to check out the reviews....

I sent an email asking for a review copy of Quartermaster General. No response and I won't be buying it. But it looks pretty good.

Bugs in the Kitchen .

Very silly and very fun.

I also played Coconuts, which was a good time, though I prefer Ring-o Flamingo.

WBC in Lancaster was a hot mess this year. Highlights: Legend of the Moonsword, some very close games of Thunder Alley, a trio of sweet Napoleon 20 games (Waterloo x2, Fuentes de Onoro), a tight game of Eldritch Horror, a great session of Descent 2nd ed with adults and kids, and more games of Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring Deck-Building than I can count. Impossible Mode is incredibly awesome.

I played lots of other games as well. I have a list around here somewhere...

Edit:

Found it. Here's the exhaustive, completely unnecessary list of my "other" WBC games: Steam, Washington's War, Elder Sign, Warcraft Adventure Game, Zooloretto Dice, Love Letter, Flash Duel, Bucket King, Defenders of the Realm, Neuroshima Hex, Haggis, Mascarades, Hanabi x4, Dungeon Raiders x2, and King of Tokyo x2 (I played in the inaugural tourney, won 1st round).

Very close games of Thunder Alley? What are the chances???

Someone queue Josh please.

S.

Ha.

Actually, they were unusually close. Most of my Thunder Alley games have been "blowouts" - meaning that each winner won by at least 10 points, and the difference between the 1st and last place players was at least 25 points. Bonus points rarely seem to matter.

My games ran between 5 and 15 points difference between first and second place. I figured it was sort of designed to work that way.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote: My games ran between 5 and 15 points difference between first and second place. I figured it was sort of designed to work that way.

S.

The way the scoring is structured, I think it almost has to work that way. But, I think that isn't the games design -- it is just NASCAR

nascar.about.com/od/standings/a/nascarpoints.htm

If you played a season it probably would show up in greater differences, unless it really is random who wins. But, that fear should be a little mitigated because you are supposed to base beginning position in a race on finishing position in the prior race. There should be a moderate correlation between beginning position and finishing position.

Space Ghost wrote: If you played a season it probably would show up in greater differences, unless it really is random who wins. But, that fear should be a little mitigated because you are supposed to base beginning position in a race on finishing position in the prior race. There should be a moderate correlation between beginning position and finishing position.

So are you saying NASCAR suffers from a "Rich get richer" mechanic?