MOONGHA INVADERS- Best AT game of 2010

If Z-Man put this game in their catalog and y'all didn't know it was Martin Wallace you'd be all over it. I get it that the price is EXTREMELY off-putting, and I'm not about to justify it. But a good game is a good game, no matter who designed it or where, and no matter how much it costs. Just because a game is expensive doesn't make it bad, that's a stupid conjecture.

If it's the looks of the game that bother you, then I'm shocked since it seems to be consensus around here these days that it's silly to "bitch" about visual elements like fonts.

Just try the damn game if you get a chance, I think a lot of folks here would really get into it, and I think some would adore it. It's WAY closer to classic AT games than some of the more overblown, overdeveloped junk out there.

As for the monsters fighting each other, not only do they fight each other but there's a particular monster that gets VPs for killing other monsters, and when you kill other monsters they are OUT OF THE GAME, which is the ultimate doom of a gaming piece. There's also the Shagoo, that is specifically for revealing hidden monsters (so you can drop a nuke on them, that's what it's for Frank- he's a spotter).

Here's one way this game creates narrative and theme. I figured out the whole thing with charging up to unleash one major attack early on with the Moogre. He leveled Tokyo singlehandedly, but the army got called in and knocked him down to one hit point. He had to go into hiding, so he slunk off to Siberia and laid in wait. While he was there, he gained a hanger-on fanboy. The Kidoo is a "sidekick" that looks a lot like an annoying kid. He gives you an extra die, so he's not totally worthless. So Kidoo started hanging out with him in Siberia. Moogre's plan was to go hit Moscow so he started charging up. Kidoo got excited and did the same thing. I summoned a Spectoor onto the board, a tentacled thing that is sort of a superintelligent overseer that lets you move one monster twice or two monsters together- perfect for the bromance brewing in Russia. But then Dan Baden's Mechoor blew up Paris and then I nuked him, so he only had like one hitpoint left. Moogre realized that Dan's Mechoor was a better prize (and more VPs)than Moscow, but to get there he was going to have to leave some baggage behind to move two space. So he was going to have ditch Kidoo, probably telling him to go scout out Moscow while he snuck off to Paris. The game ended before this came to fruition, but I don't see many Eurogames telling stories like that.

Isn't "Shagoo" Mr. Magoo's pet dog?

So what you are saying is, that even if a game has
- the price of HORUS HERESY,
- the artwork of DEFENDERS OF THE REALM and
- the theme of BATTLE OF WESTEROS,
that's no reason to dismiss the game without trying it.

Michael Barnes wrote:

If it's the looks of the game that bother you, then I'm shocked since it seems to be consensus around here these days that it's silly to "bitch" about visual elements like fonts.

You don't seem to understand. There were a few people who are indifferent towards Comic Sans, another few who hate Comic Sans, and yet another group which deemed it ridiculous to care about the elegance of a font while playing a game about slaying orcs and dragons. That doesn't make it a consensus. Similarly, there were people, who mostly weren't even part of the Comic Sans debate, and think the artwork of Moongha is ugly.

These are all just opinions. How come you're emotionally affected ("shocked")?

I'm with you Barnes. I hate when people dismiss a game outright without even playing it.

So what you are saying is, that even if a game has
- the price of HORUS HERESY,
- the artwork of DEFENDERS OF THE REALM and
- the theme of BATTLE OF WESTEROS,
that's no reason to dismiss the game without trying it.

It could turn out to be the best game you've ever played, but that doesn't mean you can't be critical of elements. This is silly.

Besides, I've played all three of these games listed. Of them, one I dismissed out of hand because it was billed as a new version of a game that I don't like and with a theme I don't like. One I was excited to death over and was really disappointed with. One is a very good game with some production issues, and the other is a very good game with some marketing issues.

I just don't get your point here at all.

Just try the damn game if you get a chance, I think a lot of folks here would really get into it, and I think some would adore it. It's WAY closer to classic AT games than some of the more overblown, overdeveloped junk out there.

I said the same thing after your four page rant on a bad font and was accused of being defensice.

Moongha is twice as ugly and costs twice as much per the components and yet its a
'GotY'. Seriously Mike, you need to get a reality check.

Steve"Telling it like it is"Avert

I said the same thing after your four page rant on a bad font and was accused of being defensice.

Moongha is twice as ugly and costs twice as much per the components and yet its a
'GotY'. Seriously Mike, you need to get a reality check.

What the hell, man! How many times do I have to spell it out- I LIKE DEFENDERS OF THE REALM. I HAVE PLAYED IT FOUR TIMES NOW SO I AM HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE I HAVE GIVEN IT A CHANCE. In fact, I didn't even really comment on it until after I had played it. Don't you worry, I'm not going to ruin your (our) friend Richard's sales. But this game is better on almost all points, including its graphic design. More than that, this game is every bit as AT as DotR is.

I don't care if the game is a thousand dollars. It's still a good design. Does that mean that I would recommend it or try to get other people to buy it? No. But a good design is a good design, regardless of the shitty decision to do it as an ultra limited, exclusive collectible. That's not the game's fault, that's Martin Wallace's fault, really.

Michael Barnes wrote:

I just don't get your point here at all.

All discussion of these games (HORUS HERESY, DEFENDERS OF THE REALM, BATTLE OF WESTEROS) has never been about their gameplay.

Are you joking? If not, WOW. That's a total exaggeration that's ignoring the facts. I've talked a lot about the gameplay of all of three of these games here, including one very long review of BoW and there's a full review of DotR coming next week with the HORUS HERESY review forthcoming.

I've talked about the gameplay of all three of those games but others may not have because one game is outrageously expensive and only four or five of us have played, one came out last week, and the other only three of us here have even seen a copy.

This place is getting more and more like how BGG was. I can't even come on here and say "hey guys, I played this cool game" without it turning into this bitchy, petty "na na na" thing anymore.

Michael Barnes wrote:

I can't even come on here and say "hey guys, I played this cool game" without it turning into this bitchy, petty "na na na" thing anymore.

Threads like: "hey guys, Scott Nicholson reviewed this cool game" - "Dudes, the art is fucking awful" everywhere I look. I still have no idea how the game works other than "basically like Pandemic".

And I think it was Scissors who opened a second thread because he wanted to know the merits of Horus Heresy, which is pretty telling. The first thread bogged down into a debate a board game prices.

Michael Barnes wrote:

....Here's one way this game creates narrative and theme. ...but I don't see many Eurogames telling stories like that.
<snip>

Does the game actually require 3 players (as so many of Wallace's games do) or can 2 make it work in any fun fashion?

Hallefuckin'llujah, game talk and not Michael Barnes talk.

we did three and it worked pretty well but I got a sense that four is where it needs to be. There were a couple of points where I felt like it needed the extra friction from a fourth player, not just on the monster end of things but also in policing the monster actions with the heroes and military. Two, I dunno. I think it would work, but it wouldn't have the "Destroy all monsters", battle royal feeling and you really want that.

Schweig, when it comes down to it, people want drama and arguing more than they want actual talk about games or gaming. I put tons of effort into doing a long interview with a really cool up-and-coming figure in the hobby and folks would rather go see what wacky old Steve Weeks is up to, at least based on the hit counts (almost twice as many) and the comments (almost three times as many). So all this "wah, talk about the games" whining doesn't pan out because bickering and feuding is what sells copy, so to speak. My last countdown, the "Barnes Biggest Bitches" thing was one of the top-ranked articles at Gameshark last month, and one of the top three of all time out of all 150+ that I've done there. Not the really tough reviews, not the articles where I'm highlighting obscure games, not the reviews of the really great games or celebrating good games in general by encouraging open-minded and more productive talk about them. But the articles where I'm making people angry just by stating opinions. So I guess this is really par for course.

It doesn't help that most people haven't played these games, so it's not like when we talk about ARKHAM HORROR and everybody's played it. And yep, that's a function of games being too expensive and their attach rates being lower.

But whatever man, if you want to see more talk about the gameplay, start it. I try, but it doesn't always work. And raising criticism about things like graphic design is absolutely important because we are talking about artistic consumer products.

Anyway, I'm done, if somebody wants to talk about MOONGHA INVADERS or has any questions about it, I'd love to discuss it.

Michael Barnes wrote:

[...] encouraging open-minded and more productive talk about them. But the articles where I'm making people angry just by stating opinions. So I guess this is really par for course.

You know what's best for you.

But whatever man, if you want to see more talk about the gameplay, start it.

Sorry, I don't have an xbox.

And raising criticism about things like graphic design is absolutely important because we are talking about artistic consumer products.

Then, however, you shouldn't act all surprised when people call Moongha ugly.

Anyway, I'm done, if somebody wants to talk about MOONGHA INVADERS or has any questions about it, I'd love to discuss it.

Yeah, as I said I'll probably end up playing it next week. Then I can comment on it further.

Akin to this I ended my first comment to this thread, which I initially thought would be the only one. I guess your style simply evokes controversy which is probably a good thing in your business. Or maybe I'm overtly aggressive today. I will let it rest for now.

I like to know more about what makes MOONGHA INVADERS different from MONSTERS MENACE AMERICA, because as someone who has played neither, they seem awfully similar. I've picked up from Frank and yourself that there are some suttle mechanical differences and that MOONGHA INVADERS seems more refined, but a more detailed comparison would be appreciated, even though it's unlikely I'll ever get a chance to play MOONGHA INVADERS unless it's pick up by one of the larger gaming houses and mass produced.

MONSTERS MENACE AMERICA gives you one set monster. You move it around the board, it goes to mutation sites, eats cities, and gets attacked by military units controlled by other players. At the end, when all the cities are smashed, the two strongest monsters have a showdown. It's a fun game, it's very silly and not really all that great from a critical standpoint, but if you can't have a good time with it you're doing it all wrong.

Yes, it does bear some similarities to MOONGHA INVADERS. In some ways though, I think MOONGHA is less abstract and in some ways more. But the result is like what Frank said, it's just enough of everything to make it work. The main thing that MI abstracts is the geography. There's no moving the monster from hex to hex to walk him over to where he can eat a city.

There is a lot more depth to the actual gameplay despite there being a similar amount of rules. Having a variety of monsters to choose from, and having many of them on the board at once increases your options and the potential situations that could occur in the game. The six actions and the way the selection works (where you can bank them on the monsters) creates a lot of long-term planning opportunities that just aren't an issue at all in MMA. There are no cards in MI,so no mutations or special military techs- but that's still covered in the way the action selection seeds each turn. If you roll one six during the replenishment it's just a tank, two sixes and it's a plane, three sixes and it's a nuke.

In sum, MMA is fun but really dumb. It's old fashioned, but it does have better production with the plastic toy monsters and all. MI is fun but much smarter. But still a little dumb. There's more cardplay in MMA, more dice rolling in MI.