What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Played another game of Imperial Settlers - my third. Definitely goes down smoothly, but I wonder if there's too much luck in the faction card draw. Seems like the order your cards come up in can make a big difference, but I guess thinking on your feet is part of the fun.

Also got in a first play of Alchemists. The gimmick here is that you use an app on your phone to determine the outcome of experiments you conduct by taking photos of the ingredients.

I definitely want to try this one again before handing out a verdict, but I will say a few things.

First, unlike a lot of games that use a smart device as part of gameplay, in Alchemists it is very much board-focused, and not device-focused. I'm looking at you, Golem Arcana. Alchemists is basically a deduction game, and it keeps the 'nature' of the ingredients secret, and you have to figure out that nature by conducting the experiments. Using a device to keep the solution to a mystery game is actually a really good idea, and opens up a lot of interesting design space.

Maybe it's time to reboot 'Stop Thief'.

However there's a downside, and that's the time spent fiddling with the app and getting it to scan the cards correctly. It generally worked pretty well, but sometimes was finicky. Fortunately we had two phones with apps that we shared, and a lot of the scanning can happen simultaneously, so that helped move things along.

Anyway, the twist on Alchemists is that it is sort of a deduction game. But the reality is that you just don't have enough time to figure everything out before the end of the game. You basically need to figure out as much as you can and then place a bet on what you think the answer is.

There's this whole 'publishing' mechanic where you put out answers for ingredients you think you know (or maybe know) and you and other players secretly place markers indicating your confidence. And then other players, if they think you're wrong, can try to debunk your theories, which costs points both to you and others that have endorsed your theory.

The designer cleverly nudges the players to publish early, before they probably know for certain what things are. This leads to a bit of bluff and counter-bluff, which adds an interesting dimension.

The other base mechanic is worker placement, very reminiscent of Dungeon Lords and Dungeon Pets. There's an interesting turn-order step, where you choose between executing late and getting more stuff, or executing early and getting little or none (or paying). Then you place cubes in the various spots, and resolve actions.

So there's A LOT going on here, with a lot of moving parts. I need a few more times to see how it fits together and possible strategy options.

A word on the components - They really dropped the ball on this. There is this very cool triangle-thingy with lots of holes where you are supposed to place these discs that mark experiment results. But the discs are slightly too large and don't fit! I don't see how this could have gotten messed up. or missed, but whatever. Also the printing on the triangles is off, so the colors don't match up like they are supposed to. Mainly an aesthetic issue, but still.

Then there are these 'cauldrons' which are supposed to be placed on top of your player screens. You put ingredient cards on them, on this little shelf, and then use your phone to scan them and see what the result is. The cauldrons just don't fit right on the screens, and are constantly falling off. The screens had to have this extra fold in them to fit in the box which throws everything off. And the shelf in the cauldron is formed by folding down a flap of cardboard, so there's a hole right above it. In our game the cards were constantly slipping through the hole, which is a problem because that dumps them on the table, and keeping the ingredients secret is a key part of the game.

We tried moving the cauldrons onto the table surface, which didn't really help. Ultimately we just put the cards flat on the table behind our screens and scanned them there.

So thumb kind of up at this point, but more plays are required to really understand this. Even though it's a different designer, it feels really similar to Dungeon Lords in that you really need to grok a key part for the rest of it to make sense. In DL it's the adventurer attacks. In Alchemists its the ingredient combinations. Until you really get that down the rest of the game doesn't make much sense.

I played a bunch of games this weekend, but let's start with my favorite, The Battle at Kemble's Cascade! Here's my BGG comments:'

So much to like here. If you've ever played a scrolling shooter, this is exactly what you already know but ported from digital to analog. I was amazed at how well the spirit of those games was captured in Kemble's Cascade.

I think one of the things I really liked about this game is the fact that it's basically a constantly changing puzzle. It's got short-term strategy with a lot of tactics.

Even more, this game rewards timing and I think that's what really drives the game. Some people will complain about the PVP aspects, but those serve to drive timing. I really think it's pivotal to the game and not nearly as tacked on as it first appears.

I've been thinking about my first play constantly and can't wait to play it again.

I completely echo the sentiments above about Run, Fight, or Die. The lack of player interaction takes it down below KoT for me. It was still fun. They should probably just call it Die because that's pretty much what happens.

Camel Up was a blast and is deserving of it's SdJ award. A perfect family game. I love the craziness that happens in that game.

Today, I hung out with our very own Jackwraith and played a couple games of X-Wing. I had a lot of fun getting to play with a bunch of awesome ships including the Falcon! My first experiences with that game were just okay, but playing with built-out ships was so much better. We split our games 1-1. Thanks again, my friend!

wkover wrote: The Machine Gun also seems overpowered

Consensus for that during the actual war, too.

I played the Eastern Front half of this game and had the ability as the Russians to pull that card back after it was played, which was crazy-powerful, because the real value of it is as a threat always hanging over you. If your opponent plays it, you know you have some room to work in other regions, so you want to coax it out of the guy. If he holds it it becomes less valuable (less turn left for it to be in effect), but it is always a threat.

This was my game of the year last year because it's one hell of a buy for $19 online. It's nicely put together in spite of being a magazine game too, though I had to buy a box for it. I plan to put Bushy Run (Special Ops' next game) in with it this Christmas morning.

S.

I got to get one game of Shadow of Brimstone (SoB) in yesterday with a group of 4, which is the ideal number, though from the rules it looks like it at least attempts scaling. We played the intro scenario, all you have to do is go into the mine and find two clue tokens, the second clue is a deposit of dark stone.

You have a start tile, and on the beginning of each turn will check to see if darkness creeps toward the mine entrance, if darkness gets out of the mine you fail your quest. The deeper you get into the mine the more likely darkness is to move. This is like the wizard from Warhammer Quest's (WHQ) power roll that can trigger events. Movement is simple roll and move, basic combat is nothing but rolling a specified number of dice at a "to hit" number, then re-rolling hits to total damage. If I told you that last sentence and understood the rules, we could start playing.

The big difference from WHQ is the endless piles of cards. I think a single set comes with more than a dozen DECKS, the majority of which are used in every game, WHQ had pretty simple Treasure and Event decks that were straight forward, and kept a lot of things on tables in the Roleplay book. I sort of prefer the cards, but after one play don't have strong feelings. It worked fine.

One of the neat mechanisms in this is at certain points in the game, you'll put a card from the "Growing Dread" deck into a facedown pile, and upon reaching the objective room, reveal and resolve them all. This game does some clever things with the cards.

The monsters have more personality than WHQ, they often have abilities and each monster can become Elite, which randomly gives it one of six additional abilities. The lack of monster types didn't bug me in the first game, though unlike WHQ, the only monsters you have rules to are the types in the box. Combat was pretty much like WHQ, It's probably the weakest part of WHQ and the weakest part here. It works fine, and this is where your character's individualities can really shine, but in both, the fights last a bit long as it's pretty common to have more than a dozen monsters out in either.

Speaking of characters, this is the game's strongest area. When you build a character you make a sheet similar to an RPG, you choose one of 3 abilities related to your character's class, (the two you do not choose will never come back), you then draw one card from the "Personal Items" deck, which I understand are pretty rare to acquire. They're not super powered, but they're unique. Then you get your "Starting Gear", name your character, and you're off.

The characters we played all seemed very different. The gunslinger was popping off shots left and right, the bandit was an explosives expert that was doing great area damage, the preacher played a cleric's role and kept us alive (and hit monsters with the good book), and I played the indian scout, who made exploring the mines easier. Overall these four played in a way that made you feel they had the strengths their class should. I'm looking forward to checking out the other five soon.

The leveling system is also awesome. (I think) everybody has a simple 2d6 on a chart for how their stats change, but then each character has 4 tech tracks and for each level up you can open up an available ability from it. It's very simple and can actually happen mid-battle.

The last three paragraphs were about characters which I think is really the strongest difference from WHQ. Now that we've played a game, I have those character's sheets in the box, they have names and abilities and items but anyone could just pick one up and play, which is a plus for on again/off again play. I do question how annoying it'll be to dig up character's items, but I doubt that'll bug me, and if you're playing with a group regularly you could easily give each player a baggie for their cards.

We didn't head to town because some folks showed up toward the end of our game so we rushed cleanup and jumped into another game, but the town aspect looks great.

So what are the caveats? This game is a monster. I have a pretty big table, maybe 4'x6' and it held it but there wasn't much free space. You could make do with less room but it might get tight. You have to assemble the models. I don't mind this at all, I think assembling models is pretty relaxing, but maybe you don't and maybe you don't even have experience doing it. It's not hard, but look at about 2-3 hours of assembly and basing per box. The number of monster types, particularly from a single box, are limited. I see this as a potential problem after a half dozen plays of someone who just buys one of the cores. Obviously this game is heavily expandable, and I'm sure if you love it you'll want more, I just wish they offered some more RULES for monsters, but I guess since they're not a miniatures company that would move zero units.

Those aside, and I understand for some there are serious dealbreakers in there, I freakin love this game. It's really, REALLY close to WHQ, the engine is nearly identical, but seems to have a few advancements in character creation and and progression, combined with the unique theme really make it more a cousin than a twin.

Bull, what do you mean about the rules for monsters? You lost me there. Also you say combat is the weakest part but isn't that mostly what you do in this? (Never played WHQ unfortunately.)

Hex Sinister wrote: Bull, what do you mean about the rules for monsters? You lost me there. Also you say combat is the weakest part but isn't that mostly what you do in this? (Never played WHQ unfortunately.)

In whq there were 10 d36 monster tables with stats for dozens on monsters you could meet, so many games workshop minis could be used in whq.

Combat is the biggest single thing you'll be doing, but I just find it procedural and it follows the whq model of here's 12 spiders and 6 tentacles. If you didn't mind that in whq it's nearly identical. Sometimes fun things can happen during combats, but often it's just roll roll roll. The interesting parts come from your character development and the cards combining to tell a story. And the loot of course.

Played a couple of Kickstarter pre-releases: Outrider and Dumpster Brawl. Outrider is what Wreckage (FFG) could've been if they wanted to take it up a notch. Almost like Car Wars: Simplified Version, but with better art.

Dumpster Brawl is essentially Rummy, but with more suits, and some "dice fighting" against other players who you can stick a shit card with or that you can take a card from. The dice also control how many cards you can draw from the deck. It's actually quite fun, and my only complaint is that there's 3 "modes", only one of which I, personally, really care for.

Pete, is there a link to Outrider's Kickstarter or is it not live yet?

I got knocked out with another goddamn allergy attack so I figured I'd get nothing played this weekend. However, a trip to the Qwik Klinik got me some prednisone and by Sunday afternoon I was back in business. Went to game day and played

Pairs - this was a goofy looking quick card game from Cheapass Games (but with Kickstarter-powered quality). Simple push-your-luck, though there are opportunities for some skillful play. It's super easy to learn and a game lasts like 10 minutes. Perfect for rain-dancing, closing out, or shooting the shit.

Lords of Waterdeep - 5 players and both expansions, so it ran a bit longer than you really want LoW to go. I enjoy it, though, and even though I've been playing it a ton online it was nice to get the analog version out.

Battle at Kemble's Cascade - Played it with three. I'd only played once before, and a while back, and the other two not at all. I taught it and emphasized that it's more puzzly and thinky than furious. I think they liked it, though it goes on just a touch too long. Three is definitely better than two, but I'd like to try four to get the whole board opened up. There's definitely something here and I'm looking forward to more plays.

My play of Kemble's was with 4 and it was awesome.