Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35150 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20825 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3498 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2076 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2583 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2255 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2496 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3016 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3692 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2625 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2290 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2506 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

Star Trek: Ascendancy

More
02 Oct 2016 09:42 #235314 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Awesome.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 10:02 #235315 by Michael Barnes
Let me be the first to say...

I told you so!
The following user(s) said Thank You: southernman, Josh Look

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 11:19 #235317 by Josh Look
Replied by Josh Look on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

Michael Barnes wrote: Let me be the first to say...

I told you so!


Hey, I never doubted you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 12:07 #235319 by Disgustipater
Replied by Disgustipater on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Did you guys find yourselves regularly needing more dice than the ten provided?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 12:17 #235320 by Josh Look
Replied by Josh Look on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Not really. The most we ever rolled at a time was 10, so we just took turns. Romulans also had their First Strike bullshit, so rolling them simultaneously wasn't entirely a thing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 13:30 #235326 by repoman
Replied by repoman on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

Disgustipater wrote: Did you guys find yourselves regularly needing more dice than the ten provided?


Nah, the number of dice were fine but they used those small light weight crappy dice so when my game comes I'll be getting a couple sets of those beefy dice color coded to the factions. Just because, I like you, am a man of style and taste.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 15:09 #235330 by Disgustipater
Replied by Disgustipater on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
That's exactly why I was asking. I'll probably get faction colored dice anyway.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 17:05 #235331 by southernman
Replied by southernman on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Pretty much sold on the game from all the reviews here along with reading GF9s website and the rules but a quick question to you guys that have played it - what size table is needed (a bit of an issue in small UK houses), I see GF9 sell a 3 x 3 mat for it and say it will allow up to four players, is that enough space ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 17:10 #235333 by Josh Look
Replied by Josh Look on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
For 3 players, I think 3'x3' is fine. You'd probably want more once we get more players (maybe a foot per player).

It's weird, as games continue to take up more and more table space, here comes a game that actually uses it in its design and makes limited space interesting.
The following user(s) said Thank You: southernman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 17:54 #235336 by Michael Barnes
The playmat is totally worth it. It has starting spaces defined and it sort of contains the playfield. It also looks way cooler with a space background.
The following user(s) said Thank You: southernman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Oct 2016 18:12 - 02 Oct 2016 18:13 #235341 by southernman
Replied by southernman on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

Josh Look wrote: For 3 players, I think 3'x3' is fine. You'd probably want more once we get more players (maybe a foot per player).

It's weird, as games continue to take up more and more table space, here comes a game that actually uses it in its design and makes limited space interesting.


Three player is probably all I'll get mostly. The small houses in over-crowded Britain makes me damn jealous of you US people (some of your gaming rooms may be larger than the biggest room in my house), I have a 3x4 table that fits nicely in my gaming area (not a dedicated room) so I may survive.


Michael Barnes wrote: The playmat is totally worth it. It has starting spaces defined and it sort of contains the playfield. It also looks way cooler with a space background.


I have a PVC-type mat I got printed up for X-wing a while ago (before I decided it was a bit too slippery and that the ships looked better on a black cloth mat) that, coincidentally, is a very similar looking nebulae so I seem to be set there (and my ocd-ish "shit that is wasted sitting unused rolled up in the corner" worrying can subside).

Cheers both.
Last edit: 02 Oct 2016 18:13 by southernman.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Oct 2016 21:11 #235441 by Feelitmon
Replied by Feelitmon on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
I've had this on pre-order since mid-August and the anticipation is starting to drive me crazy.

Here's a crucial question though. By my reckoning we have had two sure-thing game-of-the-year candidates around here this year. So which one wins the death match: Ascendancy or Loopin' Chewie?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Oct 2016 10:53 - 04 Oct 2016 10:54 #235478 by jpat
Replied by jpat on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Not to step on the joke, but Loopin' Chewie came out in 2015, didn't it?
Last edit: 04 Oct 2016 10:54 by jpat.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Oct 2016 12:40 #235481 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Friend of mine played it and had this commentary:

"It was...good. But not great. The VC is "get 5 ascendancy" which you purchase by collecting culture tokens. There really isn't any way to take them away though, so there is an element of inevitability to the game.

And there isn't any mechanic for slowing down a leading power. The game is economic, and having more economy lets you build more economy, with no check on that. So if you get unlucky early and lose a ship or two (and hence are a turn behind developing new systems) I don't see much way to catch up."

My response was "Does it make the game more of a race game, or is it a matter of reigning in game length ? Or both. "

Any feedback from those that have played it ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Oct 2016 12:48 - 04 Oct 2016 12:49 #235482 by Unicron
Replied by Unicron on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Planetary invasion will let you wreak havoc on other players' economies. Hegemony will let you steal them whole. 5 Ascendancy won't win the game for you if someone takes your home system. Klingons have tech that churns ships out whether you have great economy or not. I feel like the conquest strategy is solid, but I haven't pulled it off yet. When you apply the threat, it slows other players down. Early exploration can still hose you if you don't take some precautions. Don't send fleets where only a lone ship is needed.
Last edit: 04 Oct 2016 12:49 by Unicron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.179 seconds