Support NeoGAF

[Evlar]

That said, the version I like playing most is this one:

Clue Master Detective...only sold for a few years, has more of everything, and a great board with high-risk/high-reward paths, and fantastic opportunity for misdirection.

I have a copy of Clue Master Detective that's falling apart from more than a decade of use. I don't like Clue that much but it's my brother's favorite game, so when he visits on holidays it always gets opened up. I agree, it's the best edition of Clue thanks to the gigantic board. You can get screwed pretty badly at the start with a bad hand but that's a flaw in all versions of the game.

I bought and played Ticket to Ride (US) this weekend. This was my first time playing any of the Ticket to Ride games and I think I understand what all the excitement is about. It's as easy to explain as Scrabble or checkers, it plays fast since you can only take one action per turn, it has a good combination of luck and strategy, and there's a LOT of possible interaction between other players. This is exactly what I've been looking for to lure friends and family back to playing board games.

 

[iapetus]

Screw you people, the game is great. "Oh! it has chance!" whatever, it also turns friend to enemies beautifully.

There are many better games that do that. Monopoly is broken on just about every level.

Clue Master Detective...only sold for a few years, has more of everything, and a great board with high-risk/high-reward paths, and fantastic opportunity for misdirection.

Have you considered:

It's a more modern boardgame take on Cluedo (a pox on the American abbreviation of the game's true name), and although I haven't played it personally, the fact that it's by Days of Wonder pretty much guarantees its awesomeness.

shocked noone has mentioned this game yet. WHY HAVEN'T ANY OF YOU MENTIONED CHRONONAUTS?!?!

Because technically it's not a board game, it requires too much space to be a really neat travel game, goals are often too obvious, and setup can be a pain? There are small (or smallish) box card games I'd pick over this any day of the week. If you're not limited to what you can carry in your pocket, Spy is perfect - or Ninja Burger if you want the silliness and pseudo-role-playing aspects. If you are limited to pocket-size games, then depending on the number and nature of players, The Big Idea (one of my all-time favourite games with five or so creative players), the Great Dalmuti (really a 6+ player game, but you can play with as few as 4 or 5), one of the Friedeys games (Give Me the Brain or Lord of the Fries) or even a quick game or seventeen of Flux would be my picks over Chrononauts. Not that I don't like it - I just like them more.

I also picked up Arham Horror, but haven't gotten around to playing it (just set it up, and went through the rules...still sketchy on a lot of things...will have to find some trainer or something online, I guess).

You'll want this. Also this.

This might be handy too.

 

[oatmeal]

I play Scrabble and Life often with my fiance. We're nerds.

 

[iapetus]

I'd also HIGHLY suggest "Puerto Rico" especially to anyone who likes catan (so would boardgame geek, it's their #1). The game is great since there's NO luck (no dice rolls, percentages or anything).

Untrue. The available plantations are pure luck, as is your bonus plantation with the hacienda (though at least that's avoidable). The number of times I've been screwed over by the wrong plantations turning up...

Spoiler

I think it's about twice. But there's some luck...

Though I'd also recommend it to anyone who likes Catan. Also to anyone who dislikes or is indifferent to Catan.

 

[iapetus]

More of a card game than a board game, but I'm rather fond of Killer Bunnies

I'm not a huge fan of the random selection of the winner at the end. I can kind of see why it happens, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[FnordChan]

It's a more modern boardgame take on Cluedo (a pox on the American abbreviation of the game's true name), and although I haven't played it personally, the fact that it's by Days of Wonder pretty much guarantees its awesomeness.

I have Mystery of the Abbey and can vouch for it being a really souped up version of Clue (sorry, I'm an American and thus drop the -do suffix) with an excellent Name of the Rose theme, up to and including a little bell to ring to announce it's time for Mass. The setup is that someone has been murdered and twenty-four monks are suspected, which is where the players come in, questioning each other (not that easy when your suspects are prone to vows of silence), and vying for special cards to help liven things up. While it's not in my regular game rotation - I'm just not that good at the heavy deduction angle - Mystery of the Abbey is just the thing for the Clue fan looking for something more sophisticated.

As for Chrononauts, I have the game and like it's strong theme, but the gameplay strikes me as being essentially random - everyone plays cards and hopes that they aren't setting up victory for someone else. This is also why I'm not a fan of Flux. For quick card games I second the Big Idea recommendation. Also, the group I play with is completely obsessed with Bang! and that gets broken out on a very regular basis.

Bang! is essentially Mafia (or Are You A Werewolf?, or any number of names) with a lot more structure: you've got one Sherrif and everyone else is playing a deputy, outlaw, or renegade as secret roles and the trick is to figure out who's who before your side loses. The spaghetti Western theme is so strong the cards are in Italian (though the new edition wimps out by providing English translations on the cards themselves) and while the opening moves can be a bit random - yes, I realize I just criticized the Looney Labs games for the same reason - once things get going it's fun attempting to deduce (and more importantly bluff others into not deducing) who's who and then shotting them. Games go very quickly (as long as you avoid the expansions which, new characters aside, serve no purpose other than to prolong the game) so if you're knocked out early it's easy to jump back in again. I've probably pimped Bang! in this thread already, but the reminder doesn't hurt. It's well worth your eleven hard earned bucks.

FnordChan

 

[echoshifting]

Received Descent for my b-day yesterday. Oh my. Fantasy game porn indeed.

Snagged Road to Legend and Well of Darkness as well, going to jump right into a campaign, I think.

I will try to return here with impressions from session 1 (Descent campaigns are 50+ hours).

Thought I'd update this in case anyone is interested.

I was initially attracted to Descent by the campaign rules introduced in the latest expansion pack, Road to Legend, as well as my love of the Runebound setting (not to mention my wife's fondness for that game). I didn't need another simple dungeon crawl game, which is what the "basic" version of Descent appeared to be. I have my fond memories of Hero Quest and Warhammer Quest, and Arkham Horror and Runebound both offer fresh and interesting opportunities for "adventure gaming" that don't require a "Game Master" (Zargon!) or a lot of overhead. And hey if I do want the "Game Master" role I've got Doom (which is an AWESOME game, by the way).

But the concept of a campaign was something neither HQ or WQ managed to integrate fully to my satisfaction. There were attempts in both games, especially WQ, but nothing that offered that cohesive sense of progress and satisfaction you'd get from characters developed in a roleplaying game.

Unfortunately, attempting to learn the campaign rules while also learning the basic rules of the game is a huge mistake, as I should have expected. The Road to Legend rulebook is the thickest board game rulebook I've seen since WQ. It is a beast. Much of the book is maps, but the added rules are still quite complicated.

One of the greatest annoyances of the campaign is having to stall play when the characters are ready to enter a dungeon to actually build the dungeon. There isn't a graceful way to have the dungeon prepared ahead of time as the dungeons are randomized. It takes a lot of time and it completely shuts the game down. And when it was finally all set up we had to switch from "Campaign mode" into "Dungeon mode" and learn the basic rules...which is my fault, but a disappointment nonetheless. To make matters worse, if the players see the board setup and decide they don't have a good chance of winning, they can choose to simply "flee" immediately, and all of the work devoted to setting the dungeon up is for naught. UNGH.

So, a lot of potential, but unfortunately Road to Legend is for those who are already Descent diehards; no newbs allowed. We're going to try to learn the basic game this weekend (which allows for the dungeon to be set up ahead of time). If that goes better maybe I'll report back. Unfortunately, like I said, a "basic" dungeon crawler isn't what I was looking for. I want a campaign, dammit! =/ There has to be an easier way to get immersed in it. Ah well. Maybe there's a writeup on BGG...

Oh, one more thing. If nothing else, Descent and its first two expansions come with some incredibly gorgeous plastic figures. I'm always impressed by Fantasy Flight's miniature work, and they've outdone themselves here. I used the bat figures from the basic box in my 4E campaign this past weekend and my players were quite intimidated by them. So, even if we don't get into the board game, I'll still find a use for most of the components that came in the box...

 

[Zalasta]

So, a lot of potential, but unfortunately Road to Legend is for those who are already Descent diehards; no newbs allowed. We're going to try to learn the basic game this weekend (which allows for the dungeon to be set up ahead of time). If that goes better maybe I'll report back. Unfortunately, like I said, a "basic" dungeon crawler isn't what I was looking for. I want a campaign, dammit! =/ There has to be an easier way to get immersed in it. Ah well. Maybe there's a writeup on BGG...

Sorry to hear that. Never played Descent so I can't offer you any advices. BGG is a good place to pose questions though so maybe you'll find what you need there.

 

[iapetus]

As for Chrononauts, I have the game and like it's strong theme, but the gameplay strikes me as being essentially random - everyone plays cards and hopes that they aren't setting up victory for someone else. This is also why I'm not a fan of Flux.

To be fair, that's exactly what Flux is for. It's a great leveller, and I use it to sucker people who don't play card games into getting involved. Family Business also works for this if you're willing to not play it too seriously (especially with our house rule of 'pick on the person who won the last game'). If you want random games where hoping that someone hands you victory on a plate is actually one of the best strategies, consider Aquarius. Now that's arbitrary. Ivanhoe is another fun but largely random card game, though you can apply some thought in that one if you're willing to be unsporting like that.

In more awesome news, Days of Wonder have announced that they are going to be releasing Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries outside of... well, the Nordic Countries.

 

[Evlar]

To be fair, that's exactly what Flux is for. It's a great leveller, and I use it to sucker people who don't play card games into getting involved. Family Business also works for this if you're willing to not play it too seriously (especially with our house rule of 'pick on the person who won the last game'). If you want random games where hoping that someone hands you victory on a plate is actually one of the best strategies, consider Aquarius. Now that's arbitrary. Ivanhoe is another fun but largely random card game, though you can apply some thought in that one if you're willing to be unsporting like that.

In more awesome news, Days of Wonder have announced that they are going to be releasing Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries outside of... well, the Nordic Countries.

Yeah, I'm planning to pick it up when it comes out September-ish. According to reports here and there some people think it's the best 2-3 player version of the game, which is perfect for us.

 

[AstroLad]

Yeah, I'm planning to pick it up when it comes out September-ish. According to reports here and there some people think it's the best 2-3 player version of the game, which is perfect for us.

Ditto here. I already have all the other expansions. TtR is just one of the best casual/party games out there.

 

[AMUSIX]

Have you considered:

It's a more modern boardgame take on Cluedo (a pox on the American abbreviation of the game's true name), and although I haven't played it personally, the fact that it's by Days of Wonder pretty much guarantees its awesomeness.

I've considered this, but I'll take a closer look. Might have to play it before buying, as Clue (the -do I'll add when I'm in the UK) really is one of my all-time favorites. Heck, including the VCR game.

Because technically it's not a board game, it requires too much space to be a really neat travel game, goals are often too obvious, and setup can be a pain?

Yeah, I suppose it's be a 'card game', though I just see the grid as a board game that happens not to have a board. (That is, if one made it digitally, they'd make the timeline a board rather than a series of cards).
Personally I like Chrononauts because it feels a little like Gin to me. That is, I've got to keep track of what people play when to understand what they're goals are (Clue is much the same way for me). Guess I just see them as a big logic puzzle where I'm trying to get 2 steps ahead of my opponents.

the Great Dalmuti (really a 6+ player game, but you can play with as few as 4 or 5),

Great, great, great game...just needs that larger group of people to play. 4 players is a bit meh...7 is absolutley perfect, though not always easy to get together.

You'll want this. Also this.

This might be handy too.

Thank you for these. We played last night with a helpful PDF, and it was nice not to have to flip through the book...

We also got our asses KICKED. Got an ongoing rumor that caused two portals to open every turn way early, and it just destroyed us. Not to mention the other ongoing that boosted the terror track every other round. I think next time we're going to be choosing our investigators, but leave the Elder to chance rather than the other way around (which is what we did this time).

small rant following
Another note, I'm noticing that any game that heavily involves chance (be it the drawing of cards, the rolling of dice, etc) is considered crap here. While I enjoy my pure strategy games, the element of chance is what makes a lot of these board games fun. Being able to prepare for as many eventualities as possible (like in Chrononauts or Gin) I've always seen as the skill in playing the game. I've often encountered people who complain about losing a game because the thing they were setting up was foiled, or needed just one more card, or their opponent got a lucky roll. I just feel that they simply don't get it...they don't understand that you have to expect this stuff to happen, so you have to play in a manner that will allow them to without completely botching your strategy.
Then again, people hate items in Smash Bros. so there's no helping some.


Finally, picked this up yesterday. Have only played 4 times, but all were great. Perfect Gobblet-level game, takes about the same amount of time, and plays up to 8 people (but works with 2).

 

[Zalasta]

small rant following
Another note, I'm noticing that any game that heavily involves chance (be it the drawing of cards, the rolling of dice, etc) is considered crap here. While I enjoy my pure strategy games, the element of chance is what makes a lot of these board games fun. Being able to prepare for as many eventualities as possible (like in Chrononauts or Gin) I've always seen as the skill in playing the game. I've often encountered people who complain about losing a game because the thing they were setting up was foiled, or needed just one more card, or their opponent got a lucky roll. I just feel that they simply don't get it...they don't understand that you have to expect this stuff to happen, so you have to play in a manner that will allow them to without completely botching your strategy.

Luck has its place in boardgames, but in my opinion, too much of it often dumbs down the experience as well as prolonging it unnecessarily (2+ hours of Monopoly or Risk? No thanks). Although I do prefer skillful games, but I realize ones with perfect information can sometimes be dry and you can't always play them back to back. Anyway, I personally dislike dice fest, not to the point I won't participate, but it's definitely something I don't seek out actively. Luck also provides replayability in most cases. Even in brain burning games such as Age of Steam, the drawing and refilling of commodity cubes is random and rely on dice rolls.

 

[AstroLad]

I'm always praising games that smartly and judiciously incorporate chance (which is why I love card-draw-based games), mostly because chance can be a wonderful equalizer that keeps games interesting for everyone (and also because it's fun to try to get lucky). I don't like pure strategy games at all, though I certainly see the appeal.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

small rant following
Another note, I'm noticing that any game that heavily involves chance (be it the drawing of cards, the rolling of dice, etc) is considered crap here. While I enjoy my pure strategy games, the element of chance is what makes a lot of these board games fun. Being able to prepare for as many eventualities as possible (like in Chrononauts or Gin) I've always seen as the skill in playing the game. I've often encountered people who complain about losing a game because the thing they were setting up was foiled, or needed just one more card, or their opponent got a lucky roll. I just feel that they simply don't get it...they don't understand that you have to expect this stuff to happen, so you have to play in a manner that will allow them to without completely botching your strategy.
Then again, people hate items in Smash Bros. so there's no helping some.

Not at all. When appropriate to the game and its mechanics, it can be acceptable as long as there's enough player involvement to make it feel like they have some control despite having to rely on dice. Arkham Horror and Last Night on Earth are prime examples of what could be considered as luck-heavy games, yet most people in here rave about it. Other examples for me would include race-themed games such as Winner's Circle or Formula De. Even games like 1960 or Twilight Struggle can be considered to have a strong chance element (card draws in both, bag draws in 1960/dice rolls in TS). Again, the key to all of these games is there's enough for the players to do to make it feel they can make chance work in their favor, or at least know they're taking the worst of it odds-wise if they go for a risky move.

Pure strategy games have their place and can be fun. But completing avoiding a boardgame simply because it as an element of chance as a primary mechanic is more of an elitist stance not shared by most here.

 

[AstroLad]

Not at all. When appropriate to the game and its mechanics, it can be acceptable as long as there's enough player involvement to make it feel like they have some control despite having to rely on dice. Arkham Horror and Last Night on Earth are prime examples of what could be considered as luck-heavy games, yet most people in here rave about it. Other examples for me would include race-themed games such as Winner's Circle or Formula De. Even games like 1960 or Twilight Struggle can be considered to have a strong chance element (card draws in both, bag draws in 1960/dice rolls in TS). Again, the key to all of these games is there's enough for the players to do to make it feel they can make chance work in their favor, or at least know they're taking the worst of it odds-wise if they go for a risky move.

Pure strategy games have their place and can be fun. But completing avoiding a boardgame simply because it as an element of chance as a primary mechanic is more of an elitist stance not shared by most here.

Have you ever tried:

?

:lol

 

[Sanjuro]

This thread is giving me a craving for some Monopoly. I wish there were a free online multilayer version or XBL version we could play. The only ones I have seen are variations of the original. I remember playing the C64 one with my family ages ago.

 

[dreadfulwater]

Thought I'd update this in case anyone is interested.

I was initially attracted to Descent by the campaign rules introduced in the latest expansion pack, Road to Legend, as well as my love of the Runebound setting (not to mention my wife's fondness for that game). I didn't need another simple dungeon crawl game, which is what the "basic" version of Descent appeared to be. I have my fond memories of Hero Quest and Warhammer Quest, and Arkham Horror and Runebound both offer fresh and interesting opportunities for "adventure gaming" that don't require a "Game Master" (Zargon!) or a lot of overhead. And hey if I do want the "Game Master" role I've got Doom (which is an AWESOME game, by the way).

But the concept of a campaign was something neither HQ or WQ managed to integrate fully to my satisfaction. There were attempts in both games, especially WQ, but nothing that offered that cohesive sense of progress and satisfaction you'd get from characters developed in a roleplaying game.

Unfortunately, attempting to learn the campaign rules while also learning the basic rules of the game is a huge mistake, as I should have expected. The Road to Legend rulebook is the thickest board game rulebook I've seen since WQ. It is a beast. Much of the book is maps, but the added rules are still quite complicated.

One of the greatest annoyances of the campaign is having to stall play when the characters are ready to enter a dungeon to actually build the dungeon. There isn't a graceful way to have the dungeon prepared ahead of time as the dungeons are randomized. It takes a lot of time and it completely shuts the game down. And when it was finally all set up we had to switch from "Campaign mode" into "Dungeon mode" and learn the basic rules...which is my fault, but a disappointment nonetheless. To make matters worse, if the players see the board setup and decide they don't have a good chance of winning, they can choose to simply "flee" immediately, and all of the work devoted to setting the dungeon up is for naught. UNGH.

So, a lot of potential, but unfortunately Road to Legend is for those who are already Descent diehards; no newbs allowed. We're going to try to learn the basic game this weekend (which allows for the dungeon to be set up ahead of time). If that goes better maybe I'll report back. Unfortunately, like I said, a "basic" dungeon crawler isn't what I was looking for. I want a campaign, dammit! =/ There has to be an easier way to get immersed in it. Ah well. Maybe there's a writeup on BGG...

Oh, one more thing. If nothing else, Descent and its first two expansions come with some incredibly gorgeous plastic figures. I'm always impressed by Fantasy Flight's miniature work, and they've outdone themselves here. I used the bat figures from the basic box in my 4E campaign this past weekend and my players were quite intimidated by them. So, even if we don't get into the board game, I'll still find a use for most of the components that came in the box...

I love Descent, and I have also played RTL, and I can't say I dissagree with your points. My suggestion would be to spend an entire play session on just plain vanilla descent. once you master that, RLT will fit nicely over top, and the dungeon encounters will speed up, as you wont be hunting around for the basic rules when the party is in a dungeon.

 

[TimeKillr]

Luck has its place in boardgames, but in my opinion, too much of it often dumbs down the experience as well as prolonging it unnecessarily (2+ hours of Monopoly or Risk? No thanks). Although I do prefer skillful games, but I realize ones with perfect information can sometimes be dry and you can't always play them back to back. Anyway, I personally dislike dice fest, not to the point I won't participate, but it's definitely something I don't seek out actively. Luck also provides replayability in most cases. Even in brain burning games such as Age of Steam, the drawing and refilling of commodity cubes is random and rely on dice rolls.

I'm pretty much the same way.

I tend to dislike Risk and Axis & Allies because they're almost pure dicefest. Too many times I've seen games of Axis & Allies get two exceptional players and it invariably boils down to a single dice roll at the end that determines the winner. I just simply don't see the fun in that.

Some elements of luck I have no trouble with - Puerto Rico's random plantation draws, for example, are random, but still balanced around the number of players. Plus you can eliminate a lot of the random element in that you can pick the role and get to choose first.

Other games where I don't mind TOO much is stuff like Warhammer, simply due to the insane amount of dice rolls making the statistics start to go towards the norm. It should be the case in Risk, as well, but for some reason all I ever see in there is people getting screwed over by bad dice rolls

Luck is a great equalizer, though. It generally makes games enjoyable by a wider variety of players than it normally would, although it tends to push away players who enjoy more strategic play.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm pretty much the same way.

I tend to dislike Risk and Axis & Allies because they're almost pure dicefest. Too many times I've seen games of Axis & Allies get two exceptional players and it invariably boils down to a single dice roll at the end that determines the winner. I just simply don't see the fun in that.

Some elements of luck I have no trouble with - Puerto Rico's random plantation draws, for example, are random, but still balanced around the number of players. Plus you can eliminate a lot of the random element in that you can pick the role and get to choose first.

Other games where I don't mind TOO much is stuff like Warhammer, simply due to the insane amount of dice rolls making the statistics start to go towards the norm. It should be the case in Risk, as well, but for some reason all I ever see in there is people getting screwed over by bad dice rolls

Luck is a great equalizer, though. It generally makes games enjoyable by a wider variety of players than it normally would, although it tends to push away players who enjoy more strategic play.

One reason that Risk dice rolls still have an effect even though there are a lot of them, it works out that once you start to lose a fairly even battle, the odds keep increasing that you will lose it. The first couple of rolls in any big battle usually determine the outcome.

The overall game plays that way too-- Risk is not usually a game of remarkable turnarounds, but rather slow, lingering death. The real skill is in manipulating the other players at the right times.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I pretty much want to have the babies of most everyone in this thread.

Hobby Games > Video Games

Astrolad: Get Deadlands if you hadn't already. It's a great CCG. And WotC has re-done RoboRally if you weren't aware. I have a copy sitting on the shelf at my store.

Flynn: I am going to GenCon this year. I've been going since 2000 and I'm pretty sure I'd kill myself if I ever missed at this point.

I'll take a picture of my closet and highlight a few of my recommendations so my shame can be fully public.

 

[Flynn]

Flynn: I am going to GenCon this year. I've been going since 2000 and I'm pretty sure I'd kill myself if I ever missed at this point.

Sweet. We should get together in one of the board game rooms and play some Power Grid or something.

Signing up for any tournaments? I was thinking about trying my hand in a Ticket to Ride tourney since I've been getting so much practice.

 

[AstroLad]

I pretty much want to have the babies of most everyone in this thread.

Hobby Games > Video Games

Astrolad: Get Deadlands if you hadn't already. It's a great CCG. And WotC has re-done RoboRally if you weren't aware. I have a copy sitting on the shelf at my store.

Yep, I've got the new RoboRally myself. The only bummer is that they have no plans to release the expansions. The old expansions work OK with the new version, but not perfectly. And they're expensive as hell: looking at $500+ for the full set. I will check out Deadlands for sure; I've hard great things about it.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Sweet. We should get together in one of the board game rooms and play some Power Grid or something.

Signing up for any tournaments? I was thinking about trying my hand in a Ticket to Ride tourney since I've been getting so much practice.

That'd be cool. I've heard good things about Power Grid but haven't tried it out yet.

I have actually signed up for zero events. This is my first GenCon in 5 years where I am not an employee of a gaming company so I'm going to just going to get a bunch of generic tickets and play in whatever catches my eye and be belligerently drunk the rest of the weekend.

 

[Flynn]

I have actually signed up for zero events. This is my first GenCon in 5 years where I am not an employee of a gaming company so I'm going to just going to get a bunch of generic tickets and play in whatever catches my eye and be belligerently drunk the rest of the weekend.

I like the way you think.

And yeah, I'm going to avoid working at GenCon as much as possible.

 

[Gatekeeper]

My closet

TransAmerica
Innsmouth Escape
Silverton
Russian Rails
Puerto Rico
Ra
Cranium

Risk Godstorm
Ticket to Ride
Alhambra and Metro
Careers
North Dakota Trivia (don't ask)

AD&D First Quest
History of the World
Global Pursuit
Original Monopoly
Aggravation
Doubletrack
Chutes and Ladders
Scotland Yard
Pente
Simpsons: Loser Takes All
Parcheesi
Star Wars Monopoly
Pay Day
Deluxe Monopoly (yes, it's my favorite game)
Risk
HeroQuest
Dragonlance

Settlers of Catan Card Game
NHL IceBreaker
Munchkin Bites
Reiner Knizia's Kingdoms
Card Football
San Juan


Other games not pictured

Betrayal at House on the Hill
Acquire
The Scepter of Zavandor
The Farming Game
Amun-Re
Go For Broke
and too many others....

I recommend the following:

Ra- Recognized as the best bidding game. At certain points in the game, players bid on pieces of an Egyptian civilization, then the winning bidder has to forfeit the "currency" he used to win the auction and make it a part of the next auction. It routinely sells for $100 when out of print and was recently reprinted by Rio Grande.

Puerto Rico- For reasons many other posters have laid out already. Puerto Rico is the game that I tell people who adore Settlers of Catan need to play when they're ready to play with the big kids.

Alhambra and Metro- Very similar to Carcassonne, especially Metro. In Metro you draw and place tiles creating the subway system of Paris. The objective is to make your routes as long as possible before they wind up at the central hub. In Alhambra, players collect money and use it to buy tiles that they use to build their alhambra. Each tile is worth a set score, and the players who have the most of each tile are the ones who score the points.

Acquire and Scepter of Zavandor kick a ton of ass too.

 

[Flynn]

Nice collection!

 

[echoshifting]

I second the Alhambra recommendation. Lovely little game. Pretty sure it's already been discussed at length somewhere in the thread.

edit: omg, no Alhambra love anywhere. Try this game you mooks!

 

[iapetus]

Gatekeeper: Nice. Have you played Princes of Florence? Seems like the sort of game that would fit in nicely with that selection.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

Poleconomy bitches!

Set inflation to ten and watch people sweat!

 

[echoshifting]

iapetus, recommend me an Arkham Horror expansion. I'm itching to get in a couple of solo games while the wife and daughter are out of town but I'm having trouble picking. I only want one. I only have the base game and it's gotten a little stale (although I'm still at maybe a 50/50 win ratio).

 

[ProfessorLobo]

So I got my Robo Rally, Modern Art, and Mr. Jack about a week ago.

- Robo Rally's a lot of fun. It seems like it would be even better the more people you play it with. I've only played it a couple times so far.

- Modern Art's pretty unique. You action off the paintings in your hand and buy others in the hope that they're worth more at the end of the round. It's purely an auction game. Easy to set up and take down.

- Mr. Jack is a two player game where one player is Jack and the other is the investigator. It seems that so far Jack hardly ever wins. A lot of strategy involved.

I'd recommend any one of these games to anybody.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Gatekeeper: Nice. Have you played Princes of Florence? Seems like the sort of game that would fit in nicely with that selection.

I have not but as with any board game I will try it once given the opportunity or buy it sight unseen given high enough recommendations.

Robo Rally's a lot of fun. It seems like it would be even better the more people you play it with. I've only played it a couple times so far.

It is. 8 players on 16 boards in a 2x8 rectangle is AWESOME.

 

[AstroLad]

So I got my Robo Rally, Modern Art, and Mr. Jack about a week ago.

- Robo Rally's a lot of fun. It seems like it would be even better the more people you play it with. I've only played it a couple times so far.

- Modern Art's pretty unique. You action off the paintings in your hand and buy others in the hope that they're worth more at the end of the round. It's purely an auction game. Easy to set up and take down.

- Mr. Jack is a two player game where one player is Jack and the other is the investigator. It seems that so far Jack hardly ever wins. A lot of strategy involved.

I'd recommend any one of these games to anybody.

Yep, RoboRally is fun with two players just to get a feel for the game, but you definitely need 3+ to really get the fun going with destroying robots, pushing people off the board, etc. On most maps, with 4+ you almost always have to worry about your lives, which is fun. Also you can do some of the team games which are great.

On Mr. Jack, I recommend playing how we do. One "game" is really two individual games where you alternate sides. Assuming investigator wins both times, whoever got the farthest turn-wise with Jack wins. Actually I do this with almost all games with two completely different sides, regardless of the balance issues, but it works especially well with Mr. Jack which is pretty short.

 

[iapetus]

iapetus, recommend me an Arkham Horror expansion. I'm itching to get in a couple of solo games while the wife and daughter are out of town but I'm having trouble picking. I only want one. I only have the base game and it's gotten a little stale (although I'm still at maybe a 50/50 win ratio).

If you're only getting one, then I say Dunwich Horror has to be the one. The others just add a few cards, monsters and minor rules changes. Dunwich Horror extends the board, and gives you another decision to make - how to divide your time between Dunwich and Arkham and avoid the Horror turning up. The new locations are pretty flavourful too, and it finally gives a meaning to the train station.

Second choice would be King in Yellow, which has more of an impact on the game than the Egyptian expansion. Don't play with the herald unless you like losing...

I have not but as with any board game I will try it once given the opportunity or buy it sight unseen given high enough recommendations.

8 out of 10 on boardgamegeeks.com, making it their 9th rated game overall? That's pretty strong recommendation. It's a very neat game - like Puerto Rico it's got very little randomisation, and not too much direct player interaction (though each turn contains an auction phase where you can end up in direct competition with other players for limited resources). The idea is to build up your estate to inspire artists to create great works of art for you, which need to reach a quality threshold that increases each turn. A neat twist is that your payment for the works of art either comes in the form of cash, victory points or a combination of the two, but you have to select how much you're taking in each when the work of art is made, with the result that especially towards the end of the game you have to juggle money and victory points very carefully to make sure you can still afford to do everything you need to but maximise your victory points rather than having wasted money left over at the end. It's a pretty simple game rules-wise, but you're so time constrained - two actions and one auction phase per turn, and one of the actions should normally be creating a work of art - that finding the optimal strategy in any given game - especially when competing against other players for the auctionable items that are valuable early on - can be quite tricky.

It is. 8 players on 16 boards in a 2x8 rectangle is AWESOME.

I'm not a fan of long courses - makes it too easy for the players to get strung out and avoid each other. I prefer a square or squat rectangle with target markers spread around the place so that even the player in last place can get in the way of the leader. I also like the rule variation where each marker has one upgrade per player stored at it, and as each player reaches the marker for the first time, the player to their left selects an upgrade to give to them. Means that the slower players end up with the best upgrades, which helps to level the field a bit.

Oh, and the robocopter must be removed from the deck or otherwise limited. It's just too damn good.

 

[Gatekeeper]

8 out of 10 on boardgamegeeks.com, making it their 9th rated game overall? That's pretty strong recommendation. It's a very neat game - like Puerto Rico it's got very little randomisation, and not too much direct player interaction (though each turn contains an auction phase where you can end up in direct competition with other players for limited resources). The idea is to build up your estate to inspire artists to create great works of art for you, which need to reach a quality threshold that increases each turn. A neat twist is that your payment for the works of art either comes in the form of cash, victory points or a combination of the two, but you have to select how much you're taking in each when the work of art is made, with the result that especially towards the end of the game you have to juggle money and victory points very carefully to make sure you can still afford to do everything you need to but maximise your victory points rather than having wasted money left over at the end. It's a pretty simple game rules-wise, but you're so time constrained - two actions and one auction phase per turn, and one of the actions should normally be creating a work of art - that finding the optimal strategy in any given game - especially when competing against other players for the auctionable items that are valuable early on - can be quite tricky.



I'm not a fan of long courses - makes it too easy for the players to get strung out and avoid each other. I prefer a square or squat rectangle with target markers spread around the place so that even the player in last place can get in the way of the leader. I also like the rule variation where each marker has one upgrade per player stored at it, and as each player reaches the marker for the first time, the player to their left selects an upgrade to give to them. Means that the slower players end up with the best upgrades, which helps to level the field a bit.

Oh, and the robocopter must be removed from the deck or otherwise limited. It's just too damn good.

Princes sounds cool. I'll have to see if I can give it a try somewhere.

And I agree on RoboRally. A 2x2 or 3x3 board is optimal. I still can only play it about once a year because of the massive headache it gives me, but its easily Garfield's best game to date.

 

[AstroLad]

Damn. I wish I'd kept mine now. I had the original game and I think two or three expansions. Ran out of closet space and had to give a bunch of stuff away, and RoboRally had to go. My friends weren't big fans of it, sadly.

Wow, this is the first such report I've ever heard re someone not liking RoboRally. Hopefully you got rid of them as well.

As to price afaict the original WotC goes for around $70, Crash & Burn, Grand Prix, and Radioactive around $100 and Armed & Dangerous $150+. I'm sure there are still some places where they can be found a good deal cheaper, but I haven't scoured too much since I quite enjoy the base game and don't play it regularly enough to be burnt out on it.

 

[echoshifting]

If you're only getting one, then I say Dunwich Horror has to be the one. The others just add a few cards, monsters and minor rules changes. Dunwich Horror extends the board, and gives you another decision to make - how to divide your time between Dunwich and Arkham and avoid the Horror turning up. The new locations are pretty flavourful too, and it finally gives a meaning to the train station.

Second choice would be King in Yellow, which has more of an impact on the game than the Egyptian expansion. Don't play with the herald unless you like losing...

Thank you sir! I'm picking this up tonight.

I'm kinda scared of the King in Yellow after reading your play reports. :X

 

[slayn]

Thought I'd update this in case anyone is interested.

I was initially attracted to Descent by the campaign rules introduced in the latest expansion pack, Road to Legend, as well as my love of the Runebound setting (not to mention my wife's fondness for that game). I didn't need another simple dungeon crawl game, which is what the "basic" version of Descent appeared to be. I have my fond memories of Hero Quest and Warhammer Quest, and Arkham Horror and Runebound both offer fresh and interesting opportunities for "adventure gaming" that don't require a "Game Master" (Zargon!) or a lot of overhead. And hey if I do want the "Game Master" role I've got Doom (which is an AWESOME game, by the way).

But the concept of a campaign was something neither HQ or WQ managed to integrate fully to my satisfaction. There were attempts in both games, especially WQ, but nothing that offered that cohesive sense of progress and satisfaction you'd get from characters developed in a roleplaying game.

Unfortunately, attempting to learn the campaign rules while also learning the basic rules of the game is a huge mistake, as I should have expected. The Road to Legend rulebook is the thickest board game rulebook I've seen since WQ. It is a beast. Much of the book is maps, but the added rules are still quite complicated.

One of the greatest annoyances of the campaign is having to stall play when the characters are ready to enter a dungeon to actually build the dungeon. There isn't a graceful way to have the dungeon prepared ahead of time as the dungeons are randomized. It takes a lot of time and it completely shuts the game down. And when it was finally all set up we had to switch from "Campaign mode" into "Dungeon mode" and learn the basic rules...which is my fault, but a disappointment nonetheless. To make matters worse, if the players see the board setup and decide they don't have a good chance of winning, they can choose to simply "flee" immediately, and all of the work devoted to setting the dungeon up is for naught. UNGH.

So, a lot of potential, but unfortunately Road to Legend is for those who are already Descent diehards; no newbs allowed. We're going to try to learn the basic game this weekend (which allows for the dungeon to be set up ahead of time). If that goes better maybe I'll report back. Unfortunately, like I said, a "basic" dungeon crawler isn't what I was looking for. I want a campaign, dammit! =/ There has to be an easier way to get immersed in it. Ah well. Maybe there's a writeup on BGG...

Oh, one more thing. If nothing else, Descent and its first two expansions come with some incredibly gorgeous plastic figures. I'm always impressed by Fantasy Flight's miniature work, and they've outdone themselves here. I used the bat figures from the basic box in my 4E campaign this past weekend and my players were quite intimidated by them. So, even if we don't get into the board game, I'll still find a use for most of the components that came in the box...

I'm confused. I played descent this week for the first time and either you are playing it wrong or we did. I had never played it before so I could have completely misunderstood the game maybe.

What is this setup that you are talking about? There is a lot of 'stuff' in the game, but nothing shows up until the heroes can actually see it. So when you first enter a dungeon, it probably wouldn't be anything more than one board piece slapped down on the table with a closed door.

I actually liked descent quite a bit, although I don't know if we got really lucky or what because the heroes (3 of us) absolutely *destroyed* the monsters. We had so many conquest tokens at the end that we could each die like 3-4 times with no penalty. Not to mention we took out the final 'boss' room in a single turn.

 

[iapetus]

And I agree on RoboRally. A 2x2 or 3x3 board is optimal. I still can only play it about once a year because of the massive headache it gives me, but its easily Garfield's best game to date.

Not sure how true it is, but I heard that he invented Magic: The Gathering in exchange for getting Robo Rally published. Which would technically make Robo Rally a tool of evil...

The lesser-known fun Garfield game that I have quite a soft spot for (despite it being massively random in a lot of ways) is Filthy Rich. Another game that couldn't (or wouldn't) have been made without Magic: it uses a folder of card protectors to provide a 3D board into which players put advertising signs for their businesses, then gain or lose money when passers by see the signs. Not that much strategy to it at all, but it can be great fun.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Wow, this is the first such report I've ever heard re someone not liking RoboRally. Hopefully you got rid of them as well.

:lol I knew I couldn't be the only one thinking that.


Flynn- Have you ever checked out the Auction Hall at GenCon? It is _the_ place to get new and used boardgames. A lot of games are available in the auction store for a flat price too. Great bargains for 5-10 bucks can be found.

 

[echoshifting]

I'm confused. I played descent this week for the first time and either you are playing it wrong or we did. I had never played it before so I could have completely misunderstood the game maybe.

What is this setup that you are talking about? There is a lot of 'stuff' in the game, but nothing shows up until the heroes can actually see it. So when you first enter a dungeon, it probably wouldn't be anything more than one board piece slapped down on the table with a closed door.

I actually liked descent quite a bit, although I don't know if we got really lucky or what because the heroes (3 of us) absolutely *destroyed* the monsters. We had so many conquest tokens at the end that we could each die like 3-4 times with no penalty. Not to mention we took out the final 'boss' room in a single turn.

My comments are based on a (somewhat foolish) attempt to play the Road to Legend campaign with the basic game right out of the box, without trying the basic game first. In Road to Legend the heroes start on a world map (miniaturized version of the Runebound map, which is pretty cool), and when they want to enter a dungeon they draw a card. The Overlord player then finds the corresponding dungeon map in the Road to Legend manual and builds it. The pause in the action is pretty jarring; I'm having trouble seeing it diminish much after we get the rules down a bit more firmly; especially since the heroes can choose to flee immediately if they drew a dungeon they don't like.

Road to Legend does look pretty cool, but more aimed towards those who have exhausted several scenarios in the base game and at least one of the earlier expansions. It's a little disappointing to me because I already played Hero Quest and Warhammer Quest to death, I want something different.

Your comments also highlight one of the other big problems I always hear about Descent - the basic game is unbalanced in favor of the heroes, and the early expansions are unbalanced in favor of the Overlord. Soooo...yeah. Give me Road to Legend dammit!

 

[AstroLad]

Not sure how true it is, but I heard that he invented Magic: The Gathering in exchange for getting Robo Rally published. Which would technically make Robo Rally a tool of evil...

The lesser-known fun Garfield game that I have quite a soft spot for (despite it being massively random in a lot of ways) is Filthy Rich. Another game that couldn't (or wouldn't) have been made without Magic: it uses a folder of card protectors to provide a 3D board into which players put advertising signs for their businesses, then gain or lose money when passers by see the signs. Not that much strategy to it at all, but it can be great fun.

The lesser-known Garfield game I've been dipping into a lot recently is NetRunner. CCG that is balanced out of the box--the rules are a bit tricky at first, but the game basically boils down to misdirection and bluffing. The mechanics tie in with the theme very well, which I always love. The mid-90s (game came out in 1996) "hacker" vibe is also hilarious now, and the art is actually of a pretty good quality relatively speaking. Apparently this completely forgotten game is pretty big in some parts of Europe, which explains the surprising priciness of some of the boosters I've found.

I will have to try Filthy Rich some time.

 

[slayn]

My comments are based on a (somewhat foolish) attempt to play the Road to Legend campaign with the basic game right out of the box, without trying the basic game first. In Road to Legend the heroes start on a world map (miniaturized version of the Runebound map, which is pretty cool), and when they want to enter a dungeon they draw a card. The Overlord player then finds the corresponding dungeon map in the Road to Legend manual and builds it. The pause in the action is pretty jarring; I'm having trouble seeing it diminish much after we get the rules down a bit more firmly; especially since the heroes can choose to flee immediately if they drew a dungeon they don't like.

Road to Legend does look pretty cool, but more aimed towards those who have exhausted several scenarios in the base game and at least one of the earlier expansions. It's a little disappointing to me because I already played Hero Quest and Warhammer Quest to death, I want something different.

Why do you have to "build" the dungeon before the heroes really get into it? Why can't you only build the first room, and build the rest as the heroes actually get there?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Not sure how true it is, but I heard that he invented Magic: The Gathering in exchange for getting Robo Rally published. Which would technically make Robo Rally a tool of evil...

The lesser-known fun Garfield game that I have quite a soft spot for (despite it being massively random in a lot of ways) is Filthy Rich. Another game that couldn't (or wouldn't) have been made without Magic: it uses a folder of card protectors to provide a 3D board into which players put advertising signs for their businesses, then gain or lose money when passers by see the signs. Not that much strategy to it at all, but it can be great fun.

It is more or less true. He designed RoboRally before Magic and was trying to find a publisher for RoboRally when Wizards approached him showing interest in Magic. Basically they said if Magic does well we'll print your silly little game.


I'll stay away from the M:TG comment

 

[TimeKillr]

8 out of 10 on boardgamegeeks.com, making it their 9th rated game overall? That's pretty strong recommendation. It's a very neat game - like Puerto Rico it's got very little randomisation, and not too much direct player interaction (though each turn contains an auction phase where you can end up in direct competition with other players for limited resources). The idea is to build up your estate to inspire artists to create great works of art for you, which need to reach a quality threshold that increases each turn. A neat twist is that your payment for the works of art either comes in the form of cash, victory points or a combination of the two, but you have to select how much you're taking in each when the work of art is made, with the result that especially towards the end of the game you have to juggle money and victory points very carefully to make sure you can still afford to do everything you need to but maximise your victory points rather than having wasted money left over at the end. It's a pretty simple game rules-wise, but you're so time constrained - two actions and one auction phase per turn, and one of the actions should normally be creating a work of art - that finding the optimal strategy in any given game - especially when competing against other players for the auctionable items that are valuable early on - can be quite tricky.

We used to play Princes of Florence quite a bit a few years ago, until one of our group discovered a strategy that made him unkillable. Mind you, I'm playing with people who take 20 minutes to plan their turns in meaningless games; they're all pretty crazy power gamers.

Nobody could find a way out of the other guy's strategy. I don't even remember what it was since we stopped playing so long ago due to that, but I remember it being quite an enjoyable game. It's more or less Tetris with auctions and such...

Another game we often play is Goa. It's overlooked, but very entertaining. No direct player interaction (it's another german game after all!). It's all about building an economic empire in the indian sea... The theme is kinda weird, but hey. It's got auctions, planning, upgrades, etc. Lots of very different paths to victory, doesn't take too long.. It's fun.

One very important thing we usually keep in our group (which kills me, to be honest), is short games. We have 2 players who always complain when games last over an hour, simply because they always figure the game is decided in the first 2 turns, so if it takes 3 hours, it's 2 hours wasted dying. I have the game I consider to be the single best strategic wargame I've ever played, A Game of Thrones, and its 2 expansions. It's absolutely STELLAR, no luck, rather fast gameplay (unless you're playing with overmanagers) simple rules, lots of fun. Kinda sucks we can't ever play those games...

 

[iapetus]

We used to play Princes of Florence quite a bit a few years ago, until one of our group discovered a strategy that made him unkillable. Mind you, I'm playing with people who take 20 minutes to plan their turns in meaningless games; they're all pretty crazy power gamers.

Nobody could find a way out of the other guy's strategy. I don't even remember what it was since we stopped playing so long ago due to that, but I remember it being quite an enjoyable game. It's more or less Tetris with auctions and such...

I don't see how there can be such a strategy - certainly not by a single player, because it'll only ever work sitting in a particular position in the auction. There may be a best possible strategy for the first auction, but even then it only takes a single player to push the price up beyond the optimum level on the relevant item and it all falls to pieces.

 

[Gatekeeper]

One very important thing we usually keep in our group (which kills me, to be honest), is short games. We have 2 players who always complain when games last over an hour, simply because they always figure the game is decided in the first 2 turns, so if it takes 3 hours, it's 2 hours wasted dying. I have the game I consider to be the single best strategic wargame I've ever played, A Game of Thrones, and its 2 expansions. It's absolutely STELLAR, no luck, rather fast gameplay (unless you're playing with overmanagers) simple rules, lots of fun. Kinda sucks we can't ever play those games...

Let me guess... the complainers also rarely win?

 

[RetroMG]

I don't know if anyone's ever played this, but my Wife has introduced me to a neat game called Quelf. It's just a fun silly game where you do fun silly things. Like Mario Party or Cranium on Crack. You might have to sing a song that includes the day of the week. Or impersonate the person next to you for the next two turns. Just weird, random, funny things you have to do to progress.

Anyway, highly recommended.

 

[echoshifting]

Why do you have to "build" the dungeon before the heroes really get into it? Why can't you only build the first room, and build the rest as the heroes actually get there?

Not a bad idea in theory but I don't think this would work in practice. I don't think you could properly spawn all the initial monsters. The way it's written, there are only a couple of monsters in designated spots on the map. The Overlord then picks a batch of monsters to spawn and places them anywhere on the board that isn't in the designated line of sight area. It would be awkward, not to mention unfair, to reveal those spawns as the heroes moved through the dungeon, Hero Quest-style.

I dunno, I'll have to read up on how other people have done this before trying Road to Legend again. We are definitely going to get in a practice dungeon or two before we attempt it. I think familiarity with the components would help quite a bit as well which is why I made the comment that Road to Legend is designed for those who have already invested a lot of time in Descent, and that game by itself doesn't interest me or my wife nearly as much.

To explain a bit...I started up a 4th Edition D&D group recently and of course invited her to be a part of it, but her experiences with roleplaying games in the past have demonstrated that she doesn't like them that much, and, as I expected, she declined. As the campaign has gone on over the past couple of months, though, she has expressed regret that she can't get into it; she thinks certain aspects of it are a lot of fun, if she could just do away with the stuff she doesn't like. We both thought Descent would be a good way to provide that...and without Road to Legend, it really isn't.

BUT. Like I keep saying, we ARE going to give it a fair shake. Maybe we will both enjoy the base game a lot more than I think we will.