MOONGHA INVADERS- Best AT game of 2010

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for obliging.

There are elements to both that I like the sound of.

I just read the rules and can't find anything that would prevent the game working with 2 players... If the problem is that there's less opposition for the monsters, maybe there's some way of boosting the forces of the players... Any ideas? I think I can really like this game and I'm hoping it won't be as expensive to get from within Europe...

The gameplay sounds great, it looks just fine (not every game needs plastic figures), and I think I could look past the price if it supported fewer players better. I'd love to give this a shot though.

The way some of you misconstrue the stuff Barnes says makes me think you're either too attached to your definitions of this hobby or suffer from reading comprehension problems. Maybe he should write everything out using bullet points.

I have this game on my watchlist since Chapel wrote about it earlier this year(Btw Chapel, stop lurking here and get back to writing your blog. It's good!). Álthough it sounds very Wallacy, the excitement it generates with Barnes and Chapel has me convinced it's worth looking at. However the price might be a showstopper (although postage and the conversion rate are much better for me than for the US). It's still high in Euros (€51) considering production values.

Michael Barnes wrote:

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.

You raised the stakes pretty high by declaring Moongha Invaders the Game of the Year. Fortunately, we still have nearly half a year for something better to show up.

Jur wrote:

I have this game on my watchlist since Chapel wrote about it earlier this year(Btw Chapel, stop lurking here and get back to writing your blog. It's good!). Álthough it sounds very Wallacy, the excitement it generates with Barnes and Chapel has me convinced it's worth looking at. However the price might be a showstopper (although postage and the conversion rate are much better for me than for the US). It's still high in Euros (€51) considering production values.

Yeah, I know. Go in waves, and need to update soon.

It's a cool game. I don't think I'd label it "game of the year", but it's a typical good Wallace fare with some trashy lipstick.

The price I doubt will ever improve, and I am "still" waiting for Princes of the Renaissance reprint and have been waiting for that going on to 7 years now.

Michael Barnes wrote:

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,...

Yes, this and the nukes are giving me a warm feeling in my nether regions. I hope that another company picks it up. As much as I enjoy parts of Monsters Menace America, it's the lack of monster interaction and endgame that kinda wrecks the whole experience.

Thanks for the write-up Michael.

Dr_Mabuse wrote:
[quoteYes, this and the nukes are giving me a warm feeling in my nether regions. I hope that another company picks it up. As much as I enjoy parts of Monsters Menace America, it's the lack of monster interaction and endgame that kinda wrecks the whole experience.

Thanks for the write-up Michael.[/quote]

I reaaly want to love MMa, but I've gotta agree with you on these points. The whole thing just winds up falling flat. I'd love a chance to play Moongha, but I really don't think it's in the cards. Maybe if enough buzz is generated he'll do another run. As far as the layout go's, it certainly seems functional. I could get behind it if not for the boutique pricetag.

Michael Barnes wrote:

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

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.

This is one of the great things about this site, because of all the dissenting opinions, but it can also be one of the more annoying ones. A lot of times it becomes less a place to discuss games than it does a place for gamers to piss and moan and yell at each other. Maybe it's because of all the non-game threads that go on here, but these threads are why F:AT has more or less become my one stop spot on the net for culture, game related or otherwise. Anyway, thanks for bringing this game to our attention, and for all the other articles you mentioned as well.

I think Barnes' interview with the Grindhouse Games guy shed lots of light on the facts of the publishing process: Price, production in China, costs, etc. that have been debated a lot.

Interviews with gamers could be interesting, too, but it needs to have a hook. Interview with a pro Magic player or WBC Twilight Imperium champion or something.

The game *might* be fun but boy does it suck from the accessibility department. If I were to pull this out immediately everyone would try to change the evening’s entertainment over to pure drinking or checkers. Guess I'm not a board game purist but I'm also happier for it I think. Man that is ugly...what’s the game about again?

$100 for a pile of loose bits I clean off the recroom floor during spring cleaning? Fogedaboudit.

Steve Chaos Weeks wrote:

My hit count has always been higher than yours Barnes, and it will remain so but don't knock it, while they are reading "Wacky Old Steve Weeks" someone might stumle on one of your articles, and we all benefit.

The only hit count you ramped up Steve, was the bourbon shots your barman kept pouring as you watched the tumbleweeds blow by on your website.

Steve Chaos Weeks wrote:

I have said it before, we are paying WAY TOO much attention to game designers. Give me the old days when the designers were not on the box, just the company. Game designers by their very nature are boring people. The most interesting people in this hobby are the gamers themselves.

I disagree. There are at least a couple of people, like myself, who rather enjoy learning about the design process and the people behind it. I also think that some of us also possess enough awareness to temper or ignore the "commercial" aspect of these kind of interviews.

I'm baffled as to what you mean by "too much attention" being paid to designers as there are very few threads, if any, that focus solely on designers.

You don't like it, fine. I do.

Being able to choose from the diverse content on F:AT is what I like and find interesting about this site.

MI looks like an interesting game but not one I'm willing to pony up $100 for. If I was at a con or a gathering and someone brought it out I'd definitely give it a try.

-Will