What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

My spouse swears by the purple legendary spell that lets you drop tons of mages quickly.

Sagrilarus wrote: So what's the consensus on 1775? I have it, and enjoy its swingy nature, but I know that doesn't settle well with some people.

I'm trying to decide if I should get 1754 instead.

One of the best games out there. I love it. Of the three? other iterations of the system. I like it the best.

Gary Sax wrote: My spouse swears by the purple legendary spell that lets you drop tons of mages quickly.

I don't think I've used that one yet. With the orange technomage golem one(need to have a mage at the end AND not take the last bell tower), I was actively trying to 'not' use all my people first. which was weird.

Taking advantage of vacation with the in-laws to get in our daily recommended value of the Arkham Card game. Just finished the core Night of the Zealot campaign with the new cards that add a little variety in locations and unique enemies and change up two encounter sets. It was nice to win the campaign after getting rolled with the starter decks and little idea how to play. The wife took Agnes the mystic waitress who damages enemies as she takes horror, and I was Carolyn the psychologist who loves to cure horror with alcohol. I found clues and threw some timely dynamite. My wife did most everything else.

Today we started the latest campaign in Mexico by beating up the guardian of a lost Aztec city because our soldier and painter weren’t smart enough to talk to her.

Do we still have the rule around here that you can't be taken seriously if you don't have an avatar?

Get on that Darth Jojo.

I played Eclipse. I enjoy it, but I can't help but think it's too much of an eurogame to be truly great.

Here's the thing: This is not a multiplayer conflict game. It looks like it, it seems squarely in the same genre than some very old entries in the genre, but it does not have the same design goals. Its focus is not in fighting but in building and expanding and getting more stuff. The fact that attacking is mostly a way to earn VPs and that you can win without ever attacking are not so much limitations that try to reign in conflict as much as an extension of its core design.

In other words, I think that on a fundamental level you could make a game like Eclipse without conflict. The way ship building works and the way it ties with technology is, for example, very similar to the "tracks" in so many eurogames (Say, Orleans) where being the first gives you a small bonus and being last gives you a small penalty and there are too many tracks so as to have an advantage in all of them.

Anyways, the reason why I've been thinking about this is because I had a game very similar to Eclipse in my bag today and that's March of the Ants.

On some level, March of the Ants is an attempt to streamline Eclipse. It works in a very similar way, down to having hexes you explore with spots for cubes on them. It's shorter (1 Hour) and gets rid of some of the least interesting content, like alliances. It has no dice to determinate combat and there's no downtime because it uses a Puerto Rico-like action system. It is more elegant and more euro-looking than Eclipse and yet it's more of a conflict game.

Here's the thing, the core of March of the Ants is holding ground. The largest amount of VPs is earned by controlling the innermost hexes of the game and the second largest is earned through colony goals, which tend to require the same. Every mechanism leads to fighting over hexes, be it directly (Points) or indirectly (Resources). It is not so much a game about getting stuff, it is a game about pressuring others and keeping your troops on the ground. And I think it's the best 4X in the market. So there.

EDIT: I just realized I spent so many words just to say "Eclipse is mostly about beating the game under the threat of another player beating you up if you make a mistake"

March of the Ants is a solid game but I personally felt it was too short. Both because its one of those games where it ends the moment you finally get an engine going and it doesn't feel epic as an empire-building game should, imo.

So I've been agressively demoing games.

Yesterday was new Cosmic Encounter. It's the same thing FFG has had, but with a couple minor tweaks. Some cosmetic and the new suggested powers scenarios are a welcome way to play a quick and engaging cosmic game without worry of a power otherwise making a game a bit less interesting due to random draw.
Completely unnecessary, yet welcome.

Today, I was demoing 'Holding On'.
If you were wondering to yourself:"Gosh, I wish my friends and I could play as end of life caretakers", then this is the game you've been waiting for.
I think it's ok. It has a strong thematic element, yet it is a worker placement/ resource management cooperative game.

My brain hurts from the juxtaposition of fun. From zany Cosmic to somber Holding On. It can't be healthy.

ChristopherMD wrote: March of the Ants is a solid game but I personally felt it was too short. Both because its one of those games where it ends the moment you finally get an engine going and it doesn't feel epic as an empire-building game should, imo.

I think it's a hair too short, but not too much, if you play the long game (1 extra round).

That said, something I like is that there's no actual engine-building. You cannot get some cards and just repeat their actions every turn to win. There's no setup and no long-term payoff, it's a purer "trade for VPs" or "trade resources now for more power" thing.

It does feel a bit weird, in that, played well, it has no building nor preparation phase. The first round should be as competitive as the second or third, which is something we are not used to. We all expect the first round to be an easy affair where you get your little piece of land and I don't think that's the case here.

Eclipse is actually about one thing: who can get Plasma Missiles first.

i remember that used to be true, it still is? I thought the meta evolved a bit since thing

They added some anti-missile techs to the expansion, but Plasma Missiles is tough in the base game. I wouldn't call it an auto-win; it's an expensive tech. It's definitely overpowered in the base game, and I'd rather have it than not have it.

Napoleon Against Europe by Hexasim

Today was our second attempt at getting through this game but, alas, after a few turns we arm swept it back into the box or at least as close as we ever get to doing that which is to take the counters and throw them into a zip lock bag unsorted. Once a game is deemed unfit for GMT counter trays, it has been given the kiss of death for all intents and purposes.

There were two reasons for this. First was the foggy nature of the rules. Too much ambiguity, too many (not so fringe) situations that were either covered poorly or not covered at all. Too many event cards which were unclear as to when they could be played, what they did when you played them, or how to resolve what they did. The 1st edition had a bad reputation for having a rule book that was horrible. We were using the 2nd edition where they had worked to improve it. Not enough apparently. It led to a lot of wasted time and frustration.

Secondly, I found there to be too much "illusion of choice" where on the surface it appears you have a great deal of latitude in pursuing your goals but in actuality, if you deviate from a much narrower coarse of action you have abrogated any chance of victory. For example, Napoleon must MUST defeat Austria in the first year. If he does not the game is over. It might take five more hours of playing for the actual defeat to arrive but it is inevitable, or so discussions on Consimworld by people who have numerous plays of the game under their belt claim. This rings true to me from what I've seen of the game as well. Another example is the naval conflict portion of the game. A whole section of rules is dedicated to it. Many counters represent the fleets. But it is a guaranteed game loss for the French to attempt to gain a sea borne advantage. You devote to much time and effort to a unwinnable strategy. Why then include it in the game? Bad design.

It's too bad because they game looks awesome. It gets an A+ for cosmetic appeal but the machine underneath just didn't deliver.

I demoed Choose your own adventure for a few hours today.

It's not ground breaking, and the mechanics are certainly simple. But that's to it's credit. because its a pretty faithful representation of those books.

For example, imagine being able to sit down and enjoy one of those books whith your whole family interacting, and you have this game.

I'm not a hyper fan, or even a moderate fan. But I was allowed to take a demo copy home and it will be enjoyed. Initial impressions are on the positive side.

I just tried out the Choose Your Own Adventure game today too. You are spot on, not ground-breaking, but enjoyable as playing that style of game. Much less complexity than Legacy of Dragonholt, but I would play it again (and will finish the full playthrough of it).