Board Games!

[mykonian]

I fear I'm not really familiar with puerto rico.

[zoraster]

It's not the same game exactly by any means, but I'd say it has some similarities in feel. For one, it's also a farming game. For another, it rewards having a strategy that you follow through with. It doesn't involve much luck outside of whether other players screw you over unintentionally or not.

[hitogoroshi]

It's worth noting that position around the table matters a LOT more in Puerto Rico. Being first corn and/or being left of the worst player are both pretty big boons in Puerto Rico, and I can't really think of an equivalent in Agricola. Personally, I prefer Agricola but can never get it on the table, whereas my friends will put up with Puerto Rico.

[zoraster]

I like Agricola, but there's something about fences that both bores me and makes me really angry as a game concept.

[xRECKONERx]

If I have a little idea of who you are I don't think it's for you. It's more of a game game then a fun game.

I mean, most of the games I like playing range from insanity/fun to strategic like AGoT and Kingsburg

[hitogoroshi]

I like Agricola, but there's something about fences that both bores me and makes me really angry as a game concept.

Really? I quite enjoy the tension between cooking animals and keeping them. It takes less setup to cook an animal than it does to fence and then house them, but housing them is better. So players without fences can still threaten the animal squares with a fireplace, but fences are necessary to house them. You DON'T need to choose in advance which kind of animals you're housing (so the cooking player can't simply deny you), but you DO need to choose the size and divisions when you build fences, which gives some insight into your plans. At least compared to the crop subsystem (plow get ingredients sow is like, NOT worth it unless you have at least one occupation/minor improvement in play that helps with it) I think the animal subsystem is pretty fun and elegant.

[zoraster]

oh, i don't mind that. I specifically hate the

fences

. I don't know why. It's clearly irrational.


But I almost always go for the animal route as the crop thing seems tedious.

[Sudo_Nym]

So, I've now had cause to play three games of Arkham Horror. Won game 1 because we forgot that you get 2 monsters per gate at 6 players. Lost Game 2 because of The King in Yellow. Then won game 3 with Azertoth at 13 doom counters.

The problem I'm having with the game is that there's a million things to keep track of; we only played with one expansion at a time (Dunwich, then King in Yellow, then Kingsport), and it still felt overwhelming. Maybe if we had more experience, I guess? Still feels like trying to play with multiple expansions would be a real nightmare.

[xRECKONERx]

Arkham Horror is just "Things Happen to You: The Board Game" where there isn't really any strategy or tactics and it's basically like a roleplaying adventure where the game decides if you live or die.

[hasdgfas]

Arkham Horror is just "Things Happen to You: The Board Game" where there isn't really any strategy or tactics and it's basically like a roleplaying adventure where the game decides if you live or die.

Not true, actually. It's a combination of risk management, strategy, and luck. There are plenty of things you can do to try to win. I think I have something like a 60%-70% win rate with just the base game at this point.

[UberNinja]

Arkham Horror is just "Things Happen to You: The Board Game" where there isn't really any strategy or tactics and it's basically like a roleplaying adventure where the game decides if you live or die.

This appraisal was more entertaining than it had any right to be.

[Claus]

I've played Agricola a couple of times. In my head, it looks like a fun game. But every time I actually sit down to play it, when I'm finally feeling "settled" with the game it is already over.

[Ythan]

Arkham Horror is just "Things Happen to You: The Board Game" where there isn't really any strategy or tactics and it's basically like a roleplaying adventure where the game decides if you live or die.

You should really play NetHack though.

[xRECKONERx]

Arkham Horror is just "Things Happen to You: The Board Game" where there isn't really any strategy or tactics and it's basically like a roleplaying adventure where the game decides if you live or die.

Not true, actually. It's a combination of risk management, strategy, and luck. There are plenty of things you can do to try to win. I think I have something like a 60%-70% win rate with just the base game at this point.

It really has nothing to do with strategy at all.

"What random location will spawn a gate this turn? Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll open somewhere that's closed. If not, OH WELL, because it's literally impossible to close one gate before the next one spawns unless you're just lucky as shit."

"Let me go to X location to try and get X item/unique item/spell/ability/whatever to help us out... oh wait, I forgot, it's luck of the draw, instead of getting an item, by character just gets fucking murdered instead!"

"What kind of monster will I be fighting? Who knows! The player will literally reach into a cup blindly and pick one at random, so maybe I can beat it, maybe I can't."

[Chevre]

Do you believe that Elder Signs is more or less strategic than Arkham Horror? I watched the TableTop episode on it and it was quite fascinating.

[petroleumjelly]

Arkham Horror is just "Things Happen to You: The Board Game" where there isn't really any strategy or tactics and it's basically like a roleplaying adventure where the game decides if you live or die.

Not true, actually. It's a combination of risk management, strategy, and luck. There are plenty of things you can do to try to win. I think I have something like a 60%-70% win rate with just the base game at this point.

cow is pretty much on the money. If you look at things individually (monsters, gates, items, encounters, etc.) it looks random, or perhaps more apt,

chaotic

. Playing Arkham Horror well is about managing the chaos -- this involves both long-term planning (strategy) and short-term planning / reactions to situations as they come up (tactics). From the sounds of it, you just haven't played enough games to get a good handle on the game.

[zoraster]

i view games like arkham/mansion as sort of a choose your own adventure game.

[xRECKONERx]

No no, I've played enough games of it. Probably ten or more between real life games and playing online.

You can plan long term to a certain extent, after that you're at the mercy of the game. I mean, about as much planning as you can do is, "You take care of that gate, I'll go over here or something and hope something good happens to me".

To be fair, there are other types of "Get Fucked by the Game" type board games that I really enjoy, like Betrayal at House on the Hill, and even Mansions of Madness. I think the difference there is that there's enough variance game to game to warrant multiple playthroughs. In both of those games, you get a different scenario that creates WILDLY different results/outcomes every single time, so the randomness takes a backseat to "What is our objective and how do we accomplish it?". Arkham Horror doesn't have different objectives or scenarios. It's literally the same wincon every game and the only gamewide variance comes from what Elder God you happen to be facing, and dealing with whatever minor effect that god has on the game.

I think if Arkham Horror were a much shorter game with a bit more actual brainwork, I'd appreciate it more (or even think it was a good game at all). But considering the bulk of the 'strategy' for the game comes from "which investigator is going to close the gate while everyone else gets RNG'd", and the game lasts hours, I can't really bring myself to appreciate as anything more than a beautifully flavored Lovecraftian RPG with dice rolls.

Do you believe that Elder Signs is more or less strategic than Arkham Horror? I watched the TableTop episode on it and it was quite fascinating.

They're in the same universe and made by the same developer, and the only difference is instead of random card draw in Arkham Horror, it's random dice rolls in Elder Sign. Also, IIRC, you can move wherever the hell you want in Elder Sign, while in Arkham Horror, you're limited by your speed.

[Chevre]

...that's why I asked you to compare them, silly.

[hasdgfas]

No no, I've played enough games of it. Probably ten or more between real life games and playing online.

You can plan long term to a certain extent, after that you're at the mercy of the game. I mean, about as much planning as you can do is, "You take care of that gate, I'll go over here or something and hope something good happens to me".

To be fair, there are other types of "Get Fucked by the Game" type board games that I really enjoy, like Betrayal at House on the Hill, and even Mansions of Madness. I think the difference there is that there's enough variance game to game to warrant multiple playthroughs. In both of those games, you get a different scenario that creates WILDLY different results/outcomes every single time, so the randomness takes a backseat to "What is our objective and how do we accomplish it?". Arkham Horror doesn't have different objectives or scenarios. It's literally the same wincon every game and the only gamewide variance comes from what Elder God you happen to be facing, and dealing with whatever minor effect that god has on the game.

I think if Arkham Horror were a much shorter game with a bit more actual brainwork, I'd appreciate it more (or even think it was a good game at all). But considering the bulk of the 'strategy' for the game comes from "which investigator is going to close the gate while everyone else gets RNG'd", and the game lasts hours, I can't really bring myself to appreciate as anything more than a beautifully flavored Lovecraftian RPG with dice rolls.

I'll just have to disagree with you and leave it at that. I've had the experiences with Arkham Horror that you seem to want to have, so it's either that it's just not the game for you or you're just doing something wrong.

...that's why I asked you to compare them, silly.

Elder Sign is even more about risk management than Arkham is. You have to deal how many dice you have to get as well as what you have to get on the dice instead of skill levels. It's more streamlined than Arkham, in terms of time and mechanics, so if you want the Arkham-style experience in 1 hour instead of 4, go for it. I enjoy it, but I prefer Arkham because I feel like I have more choices.

[Thesp]

I concur with pj and hasdgfas on Arkham Horror. It's extraordinarily rare where there's a game where we're not making significant choices. The variety of potential win conditions in particular can have an effect on what routes to pursue.

[gorckat]

Blood Bowl fans:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/174 ... ports-game

[xRECKONERx]

can someone explain Blood Bowl because my LGS is getting a league going in about a month and I'm a bit curious

[gorckat]

Blood Bowl is an awesome game that is based on American Football. You move minis around a board, passing the football, running with it and tackling opposing players. It is LOADS of fun.

The downsides are those of all Games Workshop games- Official Leagues (or even just games at most stores selling there stuff, iirc) will require official, painted minis and when adding players to your team, you have to buy those minis and paint them. It's a money sink, like Magic is, but not as bad as Warhammer 40K and Fantasy.

ADD: And the teams are Orks, Undead, Elves, Dwarves, Skaven (rat men)...

Double ADD: The card game by Fantasy Flight is wicked fun as well- it simulates the simulation, if you will (card game of board game of real game )

[zoraster]

Blood Bowl Team Manager is sort of a card game version of it that's pretty fun.