What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Played the prologue of Zpocalypse 2 with my girlfriend last night. It's basically a tutorial that just focuses on one night of zombie killing, minus all of the daytime stuff. I've gone through the manual and am excited to start the campaign. It really sounds like a cool experience, taking various actions during the day in order to prepare for zombies to come at night. Every now and then you have to take on mutant boss zombies. So far, so good.

Zpocalyose is ultra underrated. It’s one of the best simulations of hunker down zombie war fare/survival ever.

OK. Two-day gaming weekend at a friend's house with about a dozen other people. There were usually three games running simultaneously every couple hours.

Friday:
Century Spice Road: 4 people, my first play. I'm... underwhelmed. Like so many other discarded Euros, it feels more like a mechanical exercise with a theme painted on than it does an actual game about spice trade down through the centuries. Plus, it seems very easy to end up with a hand full of crap that doesn't reflect the scoring cards showing up. The woman who taught the game crushed the three newbs into oblivion and we cut it short (won with 4 cards, rather than 5) because the other games had already finished up.

Modern Art: I taught this one. We had 4, which always seems best with this game. I and another player came out with an aggressive buying strategy, trying to push our hands to be top sellers in the first couple rounds. But I think we carried it too far, because one of the other two just kind of sat back and sold paintings to us and ended up with a decent margin (~$75) at the end.

Wits and Wagers: The whole group got together on this one. I really didn't care for it. Trivia about general info I'm a fan of. Trivia about just numbers seems too dry to me. Our team came in third.

Five Tribes: I wanted to play Dead of Winter, but it was in high demand and I remember being interested in Five Tribes before it got extensively talked down here, so I figured I'd give it a try and get my own impressions. Unfortunately, I was playing against two very experienced players, which resulted in the same situation I had in my games of Dominion (the two people I was playing against had dozens, if not hundreds, of games behind them and I couldn't really get a grasp of what was going on.) The mancala-like movement is a hindrance to strategy but, unlike something like Theseus, there's no way to hedge your situation by setting up roadblocks for your opponents. If you aren't high enough in turn order, you're often left with nothing to do at all; to say nothing of doing less than you'd hoped for. I really like the changes that the djinni introduce and I might think differently with a couple more plays. I came in third: 161-151-131.

Saturday:
Guildhall: I really, really liked this one. We had four and I took a narrow victory (21-19-18-17.) Once you get the rhythm of how the cards operate, you can really get rolling and make some really entertaining plays. I wanted to try to trade for a copy and it seems like they're out there, but I also noticed that the Fantasy version seems to have had many more expansions/development. Are there any major differences between the two?

Blood Rage: I taught this one, too. We had one other experienced player and two first-timers. My card drafting was all over the place, probably because I kept getting such a weird variety of stuff sent to me and thought I'd be able to build into something like usual and not finding it. I got into a tit-for-tat in the First Age with the Serpent clan and really shouldn't have, as the Wolf clan managed to spread out to four different spots and score four Quests that gave him a 25-point edge after the first scoring. With that, he also soon maxed out his Rage and was the easy leader on the board in the Second. He overextended in the Third and looked to be in trouble, but the Glory bonus from his highly-upgraded stats carried him to a solid win, even after the Serpent clan played and exploited the double Quest scoring card. Still love this game.

Werewolf: We played three games over lunch. The townsfolk won the first two and the werewolves the third. We only used the Seer and the Hunter. I was the latter at one point when one townie led the charge to string me up. My killing shot was aimed at him because I assumed he was a lycanthrope leading the mob. The townies still managed to win that one. One guy was a werewolf in all three games and seems to be in a majority that they play, so standard procedure is now just to kill him on turn one to remove the risk.

Root: This is what I'd been waiting to play. We had the Marquis, the Eyrie, the Alliance, and the Vagabond; so, base game. Like everyone, we screwed up a few things while playing, since there's a ridiculous amount of detail to the game. I was mildly entertained to see the Vagabond wander away with the win by scoring 8 in one turn. I say that because I had seen some discussion around here and on BGG that the Vagabond may be broken. I saw nothing to dissuade me of that impression. The Vagabond is defenseless, so he's automatically going to have a lot of broken stuff if he's attacked. The problem is that attacking takes significant resources for everyone but the Eyrie and the end result is simply that the Vagabond loses 1 turn while he slips into the woods and repairs his stuff. That's it. Next turn, he's back to running around, finishing quests, and racking up points with near-impunity. I especially felt that impact with the Woodland Alliance, which starts agonizingly slow. I was just getting to my snowballing level, but sat there and watched both the Eyrie and the Vagabond tear ahead of me. There's no way that I could be tasked with attacking the Vagabond, since it's a serious investment for me to take one of my precious Officers and do nothing but hit him. So, it's basically up to the birds or the cats and, if they don't, the Vagabond can easily win the game. Something ain't right there.

There was a game of Clank! happening that I wanted to get in on, but my girlfriend was burned out by then, so we left. We had a great time, even if I would have liked a few more visceral things.

It was the worst type of fall weather, raining and 40 degrees outside. So went over to the Secret Lair of the True Believers to play some games. Well, ok, if it was sunny and 80 degrees I would have done the same thing so the weather really had nothing to do with it.

Star Trek: Ascendancy was brought out. I do enjoy this game and am glad that I get to play it fairly often. Uba was Romulan, Al was Klingon and I was the Federation. Uba came out swinging with some early aggression that led to she and I duking it out for the first part of the game. Al meanwhile, sat in his quiet corner of the galaxy gleefully rubbing his mandibles together as he watched his rivals destroy each other. Uba and I came to terms and turned to destroy the vile Al but we were too late. He won again.

However, it should be noted that Uba actually claimed the 5th Ascendancy token first but Al was able to turn Romulas, her home planet, to a smoldering pile of ash on the same turn and thus prevented her winning. I crept into Kronos's system on the same turn and attempted to homogenize it. Not that I could have won but it would have caused Al great dismay. I needed to roll a 6 on a 1d6 roll and only had enough juice for three attempts. Those were some tense rolls. Alas, the needed 6 was not rolled. It would have been glorious.

Kudos to Uba though who on only her second play was able to bring the Romulans far closer to victory than I have ever been able to achieve. Just proves that I'm the worst gamer ever or that she is a super player or, most likely of all, both. Oh yah, congrats Al....woo.

Next we finished up the game of Hunt for the Ring that began a few weeks back. This was the second chapter of this hidden movement game where Uba went from controlling the hobbits to controlling Gandalf while Al and I stayed in our roles as the Nazgul. Uba was on the razor's edge the whole time, starting the second chapter with 9 of 12 corruption. We located the hobbits early and put down another 2 but Gandalf was busy completing his "deeds" which increase Frodo's resistance to the corruption and also being cautious to rest at night and have Samwise heal up some of it too. Through the use of rabbit stew and Po-Tay-Toes presumably.

We had those pesky halflings pegged on the last turn and were swarming in for the kill but Uba was able to lay down a damnable "ally" token in the one spot we needed to be. This is like the "holy host" in Fury of Dracula, it prevents the bad guys from entering into or passing through a space. She was able to make it to Rivendell with no corruption to spare.

I liked this game. The two halves are differentiated enough that they have a different feel but maintain enough of the mechanics from the first half to not feel as if it were two separate games bolted together. I asked Uba what she thought playing as the Ringbearers and she said that the second half felt a lot quicker. She did not have to plot out the moves of the hobbits (the move according to a preplanned route mapped out on a card). So the first half of the game seemed to place the tough decisions on the Hobbits while the second half requires more thought on the part of the Nazgul.

In comparison to other hidden movement games, I liked it better than Camp Grizzly Last Friday which has the same sort of alternating emphasis but I attribute that to my preference for the theme of Middle Earth and distaste for slasher horror not to any difference in quality of the games themselves. I asked Uba, who has played both, if she liked it better or worse than the newest edition of Letters from Whitechapel and she said she liked this better.

You mean Last Friday.

Today I kind of dropped 1870: Railroading across the Trans-Mississippi and while the experience wasn't bad at all, I think I explained myself poorly and could have done a better job communicating how the game works.

Here's the thing: 18XX games are not actually complex when it comes to rules. In fact, they are simpler and more elegant than many eurogames. However, they are much more difficult on a conceptual level because they dabble in far more advanced concepts. For example, the difference between who you are and the companeis you control is the core of the game, but it's hard for some players to grasp it.

The difficult part is that not all players run into the same blocks. That is, there are some players who play the "building game", others who don't buy enough trains or who don't buy and sell in the stock market. I think showing them by doing it is key here. For example, making one of your companies buy the trains of another for clearly-should-be-illegal prices is a pretty advanced move but the moment I do it, a light bulb goes off and everyone starts manipulating their companies, which is great.

Rules-wise, I think the main issue are the phases. For example, players keep trying to buy a train first and then running when the order requirs you to first whatever trains you have, don't make any money if you don't have any and then you get the chance to buy more.

Computer assistance is also difficult for some players to grasp. Most people simply are not used to seeing their money as a number on a screen and I can tell they don't check the screen enough. Perhaps reading the amount of money companies have when they operate is a good idea.

The problem here is that, sure, newbies might think that they would prefer Poker Chips but, in my experience, they are far worse off with a game that takes 2-3 hours more.

--

Regarding the game itself, I really think 1870 is underrated. It's not as explosive as 1830 but that doesn't mean your actions have any less weight. Most notably, price protection doesn't mean you cannot trash people's companies early on and the long train rush requires a lot of management. Quite simply, there's not enough money in companies to buy all the trains and I can see a lot of bankrupcies when 8s hit the table at 800$ each.

Trackbuilding is a lot of fun because the map gives you a lot of options. You can collaborate with other companies or harm them, you have a lot of company inter-play, destinations, good early-game money makers and very long potential runs that must be accounted for. It won't do you any good to have a 10-train if you cannot run it for more than a 6-train would.

Also, while it might not seem so to most people, I really think that the board with the track on it looks beautiful. The choice of colours is much more pleasing than it was in AH's 1830.

Somewhat reluctantly picked up Discover: Lands Unknown yesterday, seeing it on my game store shelf. Played the first scenario solo (controlling 2 characters) a couple times today, and quite like it! It's very much in the neighborhood of Robinson Crusoe, but a little bit simpler/lighter/shorter. Overall, RC is a more interesting and richer design, and I like the "more is more" of that system, but regardless, Discover is a pretty solid exploration/adventure game. A fair number of decisions to make as far as how to spend your actions, and seems like a decent challenge to win.

The whole "unique game" thing is super gimmicky, sure, but there is a small cool factor to knowing that this particular adventure I'm experiencing is its own particular version, if only broadly so. I don't think I'll have any interest or concern about feeling like I need to buy another copy, but once I'm done, I could possibly see trading my copy with someone who has a different enough mix of stuff. My main question as far as that goes, though, is if the different scenarios/worlds/characters will be different enough to really care. If I'd essentially be playing the same scenarios, just in a desert setting instead of the Bayou, then I wouldn't really care at all about that. Part of that question will probably be answered by how different the next 3-4 scenarios in my box feel.

But as it is, it should keep my interest through its 4-5 scenarios, and justify its price.

Jackwraith wrote: I say that because I had seen some discussion around here and on BGG that the Vagabond may be broken. I saw nothing to dissuade me of that impression. The Vagabond is defenseless, so he's automatically going to have a lot of broken stuff if he's attacked. The problem is that attacking takes significant resources for everyone but the Eyrie and the end result is simply that the Vagabond loses 1 turn while he slips into the woods and repairs his stuff. That's it. Next turn, he's back to running around, finishing quests, and racking up points with near-impunity.

I think that more than being a balance issue, it's a design issue. As in, interacting with the Vagabond is simply a matter of wasting your best actions to slow him down. There's no real decision to be made beyond "hey, worsen your position so he doesn't win", which is not really fun. He ignores map control, he can rack up a lot of points in just one turn and doesn't change how you play the game beyond "hey, attack him so he doesn't win". And you can't really stop him, because you can't lose points in Root.

Ultimately, it's just good 'ol bashing the leader and kingmaking. Which is not fun. Really, making decisions based on who's going to win is boring and plays out exactly the same no matter what game you are playing.

Yes. I think that's exactly it. He's an outside element, by design, which is interesting and worthwhile to have in the overall picture. But he's too much of an outside element in certain respects, such that he's playing his own game, distinct from everyone else's. Everyone else has to interrupt their game to deal with him, while he just keeps doing his thing.

You can actually lose points in Root as the Eyrie. I think there might be an opportunity there to put some of the Vagabond's quests on a clock, so that he has to either finish them in a certain time or lose them or lose points if he doesn't complete them.

I had a gaggle of our home school coop kids over at my house Friday ages 7-12 (one boy, four girls). Just hanging out, not actually doing any school work and the one 7 year old boy was driving all the girls nuts, so I busted out Survive! They required a fair amount of encouragement to be nasty, but once they got into it, sound effects of wooden meeple being devoured by wooden sharks filled the living room. They followed it up with Saboteur.

I played a few solo games of Robinson Crusoe on Sunday. I managed a win on castaways and then a horrible lose on the exorcist one... on the exorcist can you remove fog by re-exploring the site?

Grudunza wrote: My main question as far as that goes, though, is if the different scenarios/worlds/characters will be different enough to really care. If I'd essentially be playing the same scenarios, just in a desert setting instead of the Bayou, then I wouldn't really care at all about that. Part of that question will probably be answered by how different the next 3-4 scenarios in my box feel.

But as it is, it should keep my interest through its 4-5 scenarios, and justify its price.

I played my first scenario of my box this weekend (Valley/Snowy Mountains) and then conferred with Raf, and our first scenarios were totally different. Not similar in the slightest.

I liked this game more than I thought I would. It's very streamlined and smooth. I do think it suffers from replayability issues, as I have no desire to replay the first scenario (which is 20% of the content), but we'll see if that persists. It took me only about 30 minutes going it solo. This is definitely not the agonizing, brain burning play of Robinson Crusoe, and it's not the extremely fiddly and repetitive 7th Continent. But yes, it's not as rich or deep as either as well.

I also played Arkham Horror 3rd Edition this weekend. And, unsurprisingly, it's good. It's very tight and much more focused than 2e. It reminds me of a blend of the LCG, Eldritch Horror, and some elements of Fallout (the card codex/library thing mostly).

I really dig the branching scenarios, but again, any game with scripted content is going to suffer from losing its magic over time. I wouldn't want to replay a scenario more than 2-3 times probably, if they all remain similar to the first.

I think it's a solid game but it's certainly suffering from that homogenous Arkham Files issue where all of these designs are borrowing from each other and blending together.

Does kind of scream out for a cheap region module style expansion setup with some baseline boring biomes in the base set.

Grudunza wrote: Discover: Lands Unknown

So do you have any clue what terrains you're getting when you purchase? It would suck to buy a second copy (or your buddy buys a copy) and discover that it's largely a dupe of what you already have.

Is there any indication on the outside of the box, or is it completely hidden?

Finally got ROOT on the table yesterday, albeit only two players. We played Cats vs Eagles, splitting the games. First game I managed to get a seven card Decree engine going, which meant I scored a ton of points at the end to jump ahead and win. Second game, my cat opponent wised up and stymied my Decree at one point, vacating the space I needed to fight a Battle in, causing me to go into Turmoil. He followed this up by Crafting the Mouse nuke card, wiping out two Mouse areas and scoring 5 VP for the units I lost and setting me back so far I couldn't recover.

Once you get the hang of it, the actual game mechanics are trivially simple. The bulk of the rulebooks are outling the faction specific powers. We will try some new factions next time, and/or possibly the Cat bot aka "Mechanical Marques" .