Trashdome - Small World VS Chaos In The Old World

mjl1783 wrote:

I think trashdome needs to retire for a bit.

More like people need to give me better requests.

Here are the problems with Trashdome as I see them:

1. You put Arkham Horror in here, and you may as well not even have a Trashdome that week.

2. You put a new game against an old game, and nobody's played the new one yet, and theo old one wins.

3. You put a fairly new game against an older one. Now, almost everyone's played the newer one, and only a few of the participants have played the older one. Half of the people voting for the new one bitch about Cult of the Old, half the people voting for the old one bitch about Cult of the New. Of the people who've actually played both, the vote gets split between stubborn old bastards like me, and people with the patience of a frigging goldfish who can't be bothered to play the old one anymore (note: these are actually some of the most entertaining Trashdomes).

4. You put two old games against each other, and almost nobody's played either one, let alone both.

Given the fact that these are basically the options on the table for Mad Dog, I'm surprised he's turned out as many smashmouth contests as he has. The Trashdomes lately have kinda' sucked, but it'll pass once some of these newer titles have had time to settle in a bit.

At least we can count on you to always vote for the ugly duckling.

Whoa -- I said a bunch of guys could futz through Nexus Ops and have a great time. Plenty to look at and make mistakes with, AND (and this is big) your destiny is your own and you are free to do what you want. There's plenty of choices to make and you can play it the way you like without someone telling you a better way to do things, largely because your opinion of what is best is driven by your play style as much as the board. Nexus Ops gives you an opportunity to put your personality into the play.

No, your opinion of what is best is driven by what Mission cards you're holding. I guarantee you that two people who know the game equally well will play the same hand of Mission cards more or less the same way every time. They'll attack the same players in the same areas, and build basically the same stuff. The only real difference in play style might be one player putting more effort into collectin Energize cards.

There's one viable strategy in the game, and that's to do what the game tells you to do. Nobody tells you a better way to do things because they don't know what the game's telling you to do at any given moment. Even if they did know, they'd probably be doing the same thing as you anyway.

Small World is the opposite -- a bunch of new guys will sit down to it the first time, understand the obscenely basic mechanic immediately, play pretty much optimal games their first time out, and likely forget about the details afterwards.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. It's no easier to play an optimal game of Small World than it is of Nexus Ops.

Unless you're Rain Man, you're not going to remember what everyone's scored so far a few turns in. Unless you're a human calculator, there's no real way of knowing whether attacking a player to deny him points would be more advantageous than grabbing a bunch of empty areas and scoring bigger for yourself. You also don't know what's coming up in the race deck, and what the next guy is planning on doing.

At least we can count on you to always vote for the ugly duckling better game.

Fixed.

mjl1783 wrote:

Whoa -- I said a bunch of guys could futz through Nexus Ops and have a great time. Plenty to look at and make mistakes with, AND (and this is big) your destiny is your own and you are free to do what you want. There's plenty of choices to make and you can play it the way you like without someone telling you a better way to do things, largely because your opinion of what is best is driven by your play style as much as the board. Nexus Ops gives you an opportunity to put your personality into the play.

No, your opinion of what is best is driven by what Mission cards you're holding. I guarantee you that two people who know the game equally well will play the same hand of Mission cards more or less the same way every time. They'll attack the same players in the same areas, and build basically the same stuff. The only real difference in play style might be one player putting more effort into collectin Energize cards.

There's one viable strategy in the game, and that's to do what the game tells you to do. Nobody tells you a better way to do things because they don't know what the game's telling you to do at any given moment. Even if they did know, they'd probably be doing the same thing as you anyway.

I know this Dome isn't about NO, but above is the issue I have with that game. I was trying to explain this over in the NO thread on the front-page, so thank you for doing a much better job.

mjl1783 wrote:

At least we can count on you to always vote for the ugly duckling better game.

Fixed.

I'm gonna VOTE: CITOW because Small World fucking sucks.

Better game? Your momma is better game.

What do you do in Small World?
- Pick a race/skill combo, the choice of which is obvious after playing one game, maybe even before. Merchant Dwarfs ... err, no. Flying sorcerers? Yeah, better.
- Then you place some markers on the board, the optimal distribution of which also obvious. You might displace some of the other player's markers, but what do you care, you don't even know who the leader in points is.
- You might occasionally roll a die, but it's the most pointless use of dice in a game ever, because there's no risk management involved. If you roll high enough, you'll get a few more VPs, if not, well, then not.

mjl1783 wrote:

Small World does what it does better.

But yeah, you're right. Obvious choices, gameplay reminiscent of a puzzle, no risk management, minimum player interaction:

Perfect eurogame!

What do you do in Small World?
- Pick a race/skill combo, the choice of which is obvious after playing one game, maybe even before. Merchant Dwarves ... err, no. Flying sorcerers? Yeah, better.
- Then you place some markers on the board, the optimal distribution of which also obvious. You might displace some of the other player's markers, but what do you care, you don't even know who the leader in points is.
- You might occasionally roll a die, but it's the most pointless use of dice in a game ever, because there's no risk management involved. If you roll high enough, you'll get a few more VPs, if not, well, then not.

Okay, what do you do in CitOW?

- Pick a Chaos God, the choice of which is ridiculously fucking obvious afterthe first game. If you don't get to be Khorne, you now know who you need to spend the rest of the game fucking over/running like a little bitch from.

- Then you place some cards on the board, the optimal distribution of which is obvious because even first-grade math skills will tell you there are some areas you can possibly score this turn, and some you can't.

- Now that everyone's played their cards, summon your figures in the areas you now still have a remote chance of scoring after everyone else has played their cards (and they played theirs before summoning figures as well because there's only a stacking limit for cards, and thus no reason to summon until you played all the cards you're going to). Your plans might have gotten screwed up during the cardplay, but what could you have done about it anyway? These are the areas you needed to try for.

- Then you have combat, where there's no real way to manage risk since a few lucky rolls of "6" could very well wipe out your entire presence no matter how much larger your force is. But hey, what else were you going to do? Hang out on the fringes and get dick for points while everyone else ruins the populated areas? Good luck with that.

- Now you get to step through a bunch of procedural folderol to see who scores points, then you get to draw a card and might have a hero kill one of your beasts. Yawn.

But yeah, you're right. Obvious choices, gameplay reminiscent of a puzzle, no risk management, minimum player interaction:

Perfect eurogame!

Absolutely! That's a very good description of CitOW.

Cards! Awesome!

dragonstout wrote:

kookoobah wrote:

metalface13 wrote:

Haven't a lot of those been done?

Just feels like it, but no, I don't think any of them have.

Starcraft vs. Nexus Ops definitely has
Dune vs. Cosmic Encounter definitely has

Actually, StarCraft only featured in a single Trashdome... against A&A.

Dune vs CE is the only one Kookoobah mentioned that has actually been done, I believe.

Aarontu wrote:

dragonstout wrote:

kookoobah wrote:

metalface13 wrote:

Haven't a lot of those been done?

Just feels like it, but no, I don't think any of them have.

Starcraft vs. Nexus Ops definitely has
Dune vs. Cosmic Encounter definitely has

Actually, StarCraft only featured in a single Trashdome... against A&A.

Dune vs CE is the only one Kookoobah mentioned that has actually been done, I believe.

Wow, what a bizarre matchup, I musta been out of town for that dome, though I'm not sure which stinker I'd have voted against. It was the TI3 vs. Nexus Ops fight that I was remembering.

CitOW is just great. It has theme, conflict, cardplay, low downtime, and depth, packed into an epic 1.5 hours. Yes, this is not a game you can bust out and have everyone understand all the subtleties in 15 minutes. I see this as a positive.

Here's the thing though: It's not a DoaM game at all, and it takes a few games to unlearn some things. Firstly, ruination is a really big deal, and it means that it's worth putting a couple of cultists in someone else's area just to get the third place bonus. And since you're already corrupting the area, might as well fight for second place! And if you're second in corruption, why not try for first? And so on. A focus on domination might make you think that it's about each player tending to his own area, trying to work a steady stream of points. It doesn't work like that at all. Chaos is about jamming your fingers into everyone else's pie.

The great thing is, once people learn that it's okay to co-habitate in the same area, and that running away from Khorne just helps him get more dial tokens, Khorne stops being a dungeonmaster/overlord and really starts playing the game as well.

In contrast, Small World is horrifically dry and boring, with fake conflict and fake replayability. If I wanted to play with non-gamers, I could think of a number of games (euro or AT) that I would rather bring out.

Vote: CitOW. It's not even close.

Aarontu wrote:

dragonstout wrote:

kookoobah wrote:

metalface13 wrote:

Haven't a lot of those been done?

Just feels like it, but no, I don't think any of them have.

Starcraft vs. Nexus Ops definitely has
Dune vs. Cosmic Encounter definitely has

Actually, StarCraft only featured in a single Trashdome... against A&A.

Dune vs CE is the only one Kookoobah mentioned that has actually been done, I believe.

I guess that's because there are so few games that we discuss again and again in Trashdome, and sometimes the conversations bleed into each other already.

vote: CITOW

But for me, it is not the turkey shoot that other posters suggest.

I've now had a dozen games of Chaos. My last 2 have been run away victories, as I now have a good feel for card play, upgrades and general strategy. For this reason, I am less excited about playing this unless I am with experienced players.

For me, there are some downsides to Chaos:

Finding 4 well matched players. I've played 3 player games, and the magic wasn't there.

The graphic design of the game could have been better. The art work is good, but the board is confusing, and there just isn't enough room for cards, units and tokens in the regions. It is a continual struggle to ensure that tokens are in the correct regions, and counting tokens to predict when a region is going to be ruined can be a right pain.

On the good side - it is a very impressive design. To have 4 gods play so differently and to theme but still be balanced is a great feat of design. The card play rocks.

Small World is a very tight game. Irrespective of experience, just about every game I have played of this came right down to the wire. I also love how the game scales so well from 2 to 5 players. It's not always about the power combo, a lot of the gameplay is in reading the current play, and picking a combo that can exploit the map as it currently is. How you manage decline is also a very important consideration.

2 good games, in my opinion, but Chaos wins out due to it's card play, and multiple paths to victory.

mjl1783 wrote:

What do you do in Small World?
- Pick a race/skill combo, the choice of which is obvious after playing one game, maybe even before. Merchant Dwarves ... err, no. Flying sorcerers? Yeah, better.
- Then you place some markers on the board, the optimal distribution of which also obvious. You might displace some of the other player's markers, but what do you care, you don't even know who the leader in points is.
- You might occasionally roll a die, but it's the most pointless use of dice in a game ever, because there's no risk management involved. If you roll high enough, you'll get a few more VPs, if not, well, then not.

Okay, what do you do in CitOW?

- Pick a Chaos God, the choice of which is ridiculously fucking obvious afterthe first game. If you don't get to be Khorne, you now know who you need to spend the rest of the game fucking over/running like a little bitch from.

- Then you place some cards on the board, the optimal distribution of which is obvious because even first-grade math skills will tell you there are some areas you can possibly score this turn, and some you can't.

- Now that everyone's played their cards, summon your figures in the areas you now still have a remote chance of scoring after everyone else has played their cards (and they played theirs before summoning figures as well because there's only a stacking limit for cards, and thus no reason to summon until you played all the cards you're going to). Your plans might have gotten screwed up during the cardplay, but what could you have done about it anyway? These are the areas you needed to try for.

- Then you have combat, where there's no real way to manage risk since a few lucky rolls of "6" could very well wipe out your entire presence no matter how much larger your force is. But hey, what else were you going to do? Hang out on the fringes and get dick for points while everyone else ruins the populated areas? Good luck with that.

- Now you get to step through a bunch of procedural folderol to see who scores points, then you get to draw a card and might have a hero kill one of your beasts. Yawn.

But yeah, you're right. Obvious choices, gameplay reminiscent of a puzzle, no risk management, minimum player interaction:

Perfect eurogame!

Absolutely! That's a very good description of CitOW.

Now you are just being stupid, and frankly opposing simply for the sake of being different.

I have yet to play Chaos sadly, but Small World is so fucking boring that I am going to vote for Chaos by default.

Now you are just being stupid, and frankly opposing simply for the sake of being different.

Paragraphs, Frank. We like to use them around here.

We used to own Vinci but found the game kinda bland so I never considered buying this, despite the re-theme. When to decline your civilisation is interesting, but I just couldn't get into it, and I strongly dislike the art of this I've seen in pics.

Vote: Chaos in the Old World.