-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Boardgame-Age
- Thread starter SCHUEY F1
- Start date
- Status
Came in to post about HeroQuest. I still sometimes kick myself for callously throwing it all in the bin when I moved to a new home. D:dreadfulwater said:Also, Warhammer Quest, the sucessor to HeroQuest By Games Workshop is the best Dungeoncrawl ever made, also out of print! look at all the loot you get in that box!
It's a perfect set to create your own RPG with. Since you have all these props: furniture and traps and plastic figures for all types of monsters and characters.
Nocebo said:
I'll just quote myself from several pages back, to make you feel better:
Wired said:*snip* Stumbled across two of the expansions a while back so I picked them up, *snip*
In any event, I've just bought a few doors, a couple of Genestealers and a missing board piece from Ebay, when it all arrives I'll finally have a complete set of 1st ed. Space Hulk, the board game I've wanted to own since the early 90's. Well not completely complete, I'm missing 4 of the old-ass Terminators but replaced them with the 2nd ed. versions (which looks a bit better).
Balderdash falls under the "Why Even Bother" catergory of packaged games for me. I love the game, used to play it a bunch with friends, but all we ever used was a bunch of scrap paper and a dictionary. Part of the fun was trying to find a word that noone knew. On-the-shelf retail versions just seemed so pointless.TheExodu5 said:
This has come up with other games, too...Pictionary, Liar's Dice, Truth or Dare, and this gem I only recently came across:
its less about wanting to play a competitive game with solid rules and more about a large group of friends wanting to all hang out and do something together. We've tried doing two games at once and it isn't as fun. Breaking the game is better than breaking the group.Flynn said:
Thanks for the suggestions guys!
slayn said:
Well, there go my top three recommendations based on your description of what you want.
slayn said:
Get yourself to eBay, and spend whatever it takes to get a copy of Warhammer Quest. Going off on a single adventure with the base rules is like Descent with almost no setup time. Or you can play a campaign with continuing characters and blow a whole weekend on it. This is one of the front runners for most awesome board game ever, and it's fully co-operative. Although the basic rules are for four players, you can scale up the monster count for more players, and there are guidelines for this in the rulebook, I believe - though you'll probably want to buy or download the rules for additional character classes to keep it varied. We've happily played with six players in the past.
dreadfulwater
aka morbidesque
iapetus said:Well, there go my top three recommendations based on your description of what you want.
Get yourself to eBay, and spend whatever it takes to get a copy of Warhammer Quest. Going off on a single adventure with the base rules is like Descent with almost no setup time. Or you can play a campaign with continuing characters and blow a whole weekend on it. This is one of the front runners for most awesome board game ever, and it's fully co-operative. Although the basic rules are for four players, you can scale up the monster count for more players, and there are guidelines for this in the rulebook, I believe - though you'll probably want to buy or download the rules for additional character classes to keep it varied. We've happily played with six players in the past.
yeah, mine has been sitting in the closet for a while now, but i am getting the urge to play it again. Im having a friend over for christmas weekend, so maybe I'll get it out. we got tired of descent being so long, and the RPG flavor only improved moderately with the Road to legend expansion. PLus its more fun to play against the game system of WQ and taking turns placing and rolling for the monsters. Also, the Roleplay book for WQ adds some nice touches for a light campaign feel. I also started to read the rules again for Arkham, but I don't have it yet. We are pretty good with the Rules of descent, and I considered those rules to be moderately complex, especially when you add in the Road to legend rules. how difficult is learning Arkham compared to Descent?
dreadfulwater said:
Haven't played Descent myself, but found Arkham fairly straightforward to pick up. If you're getting any of the expansions, I'd strongly recommend starting with the basic game - although there's nothing too complex in there, there are a lot of game mechanics to get to grips with, so starting out simple and building up is the best way to do it. There are cheat-sheets out there that can help for early run-throughs (and even as reminders for more experienced players) too.
dreadfulwater said:
I have yet to play Descent so I can't directly compare the two - there's a fan in my game group but I keep missing the chance to play when he breaks it out - but I can state that Arkham, while fiddly, isn't terribly complicated. There's a lot to keep track of and it can be a bit overwhelming at first, but if you download a turn flowsheet from boardgamegeek.com you'll be fine for your first couple of games and will have everything (more or less) down after that.
As for Warhammer Quest, I never played it but I seem to recall it being sold with a sticker proclaiming "OVER SEVEN POUNDS OF GAME!" on the shrinkwrap.
FnordChan
arkham isn't hard, but it has a pretty long turn chain. there are some good turn flow charts out there for coming to terms with the normal order of events in the game... but yeah, it isn't hard at all.. You do have to remember to do everything though otherwise the game loses much of its challenge.. we got through most of the game in an early play and were about to win when we realized that we were supposed to have many more monsters on the board and were supposed to be involved in multi-monster fights much more often.
edit - doh.. beaten by fnord
edit - doh.. beaten by fnord
arkham horror and descent probably have any equal number of rules, but descent was much easier for us to learn because the rules are more... logical? Everything fits together.
Arkham horror has a lot of unrelated rules (eg, the sky, outskirts, horrortrack, etc) as well as a lot of memorizing number (how monsters can be in the outskirts?) that make it, to me, a much more difficult game to learn. For arkham you really need 1 person who knows the game inside and out or you will get a lot wrong.
descent was easier for us to stumble through.
I made a note to check out warhammer quest, but after reading the description and review of last night on earth I was so immediately sold on it that I already purchased it online with two day shipping.
Arkham horror has a lot of unrelated rules (eg, the sky, outskirts, horrortrack, etc) as well as a lot of memorizing number (how monsters can be in the outskirts?) that make it, to me, a much more difficult game to learn. For arkham you really need 1 person who knows the game inside and out or you will get a lot wrong.
descent was easier for us to stumble through.
I made a note to check out warhammer quest, but after reading the description and review of last night on earth I was so immediately sold on it that I already purchased it online with two day shipping.
TheFightingFish
Member
My wife and I have been playing lots of the Settlers 2-player card game recently.
With the baby we've got more down time at home together and the ~70 min playtime is perfect for sneaking in a match or two after the baby is sleeping. The rules keep everything pretty balanced and it's very rare to have a blowout match (a big no-no for games that you play on a regular basis).
Anyone have anymore games that fit the criteria above? By which I mean games that are for 2-players, don't have a crazy complex ruleset, keep gameplay pretty balanced and don't take anymore then 90 min? I'm always looking for another game to add to the rotation and I often have trouble with getting ones that work well for just 2-players. Aside from the basics (Chess, Checkers, various Card games) we pretty much just have the Settlers Card game and Hey That's My Fish (also a very good game for 2-4).
With the baby we've got more down time at home together and the ~70 min playtime is perfect for sneaking in a match or two after the baby is sleeping. The rules keep everything pretty balanced and it's very rare to have a blowout match (a big no-no for games that you play on a regular basis).
Anyone have anymore games that fit the criteria above? By which I mean games that are for 2-players, don't have a crazy complex ruleset, keep gameplay pretty balanced and don't take anymore then 90 min? I'm always looking for another game to add to the rotation and I often have trouble with getting ones that work well for just 2-players. Aside from the basics (Chess, Checkers, various Card games) we pretty much just have the Settlers Card game and Hey That's My Fish (also a very good game for 2-4).
Yep, love the Catan card game too and have its expansions. Other simple games (although I wouldn't personally consider Catan card game to be that simple) my wife and I really enjoy are Mr. Jack (one player plays Jack, the other plays the investigator; it's sort of like Clue+Chess and takes about 45 mins tops), Battle Line (straightforward card game, but very fun strategically and takes about 30 mins tops), and Race for the Galaxy (can be played with 2-4, but an awesome 2p card-draw game imo).
TheFightingFish
Member
AstroLad said:
Thanks for the recommendations! I'll keep my eyes open for them the next time that I'm at Uncles. Yeah I didn't really mean simple as Settlers has plenty of rules, just didn't want anyone recommending that my wife and I should play Advanced Squad Leader together.
Yeah, Battle Line you can learn in about 10 mins. Mr. Jack maybe half an hour plus a playthrough. Race for the Galaxy is very similar to Catan actually in many ways, and about as complex, maybe just slightly less (though it's still different enough that I play both). If you like Catan card I can basically guarantee you will like Race for the Galaxy.
Well, I ended up getting Settlers and really like it. I've played 6 games so far with friends. I can see it getting a little stale now though, as there's not enough variance in strategy for only 3 players (the winner seems to be mostly determined by starting position and luck).
What other games are good 3 players? I'm enjoying this whole board game thing, and would like to try something else.
I would rather stay on the simple side (not much more complex than Settlers), and something based more on skill than luck. Also, no more than an hour or two of playtime (maybe 3).
What other games are good 3 players? I'm enjoying this whole board game thing, and would like to try something else.
I would rather stay on the simple side (not much more complex than Settlers), and something based more on skill than luck. Also, no more than an hour or two of playtime (maybe 3).
AstroLad said:
I found it more similar to San Juan (the card game equivalent of Puerto Rico, which it shares a lot of mechanics with). San Juan seems much more accessible to me than RftG, though I have no idea why this should be. I think it's the more logical connection between the card names and their effects.
TheExodu5 said:
There's a lot of luck involved in Settlers, but you can still mix things up by ignoring the standard setup suggestions and randomizing everything and by incorporating the expansions. In particular, Seafarers is a fairly straight forward expansion that adds enough new material to keep things interesting without adding extensive new rules to worry about. Cities and Knights is a more complicated expansion but integrates nicely.
It's a bit more complicated and games take up to two hours (longer on your first go) but for a widely well-regarded German game with virtually no luck you should check out Puerto Rico. Alternately, the SF themed card game spin-off of Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, is a faster game but with a lot more luck involved.
FnordChan
TheExodu5 said:
Puerto Rico is the best board game in the world. It can be played with 3-5 players, and as a result is the best board game in the world for three players. Plenty of different strategies to apply, and there's not much luck involved - there's randomness in what plantations are available at any time, but you can see in advance of each turn what they are. The only complaint people have about it in most cases is that it can be a bit like three-player solitaire, as there's not much you can do to impact on other players. People making this complaint tend to lose at the game a lot in my experience, though - every decision you make will impact other players, and you have to plan things so that you get the maximum advantage over them, and so that their best moves will also benefit you.
Adding the expansion kit - either with random building selection or drafting (preferably avoiding the advised bad combinations) adds even more to the variety. There's no one strategy that seems to win this every time (though I have a very bad habit of going for a building/money strategy every time I play, which doesn't always work out...)
Adding Cities and Knights to your Settlers set might be a way of adding some more variety - it's the expansion that does most to introduce new ways of playing and winning. Gives you a shot at a military victory, and makes sure there's a real choice between focussing on city/military construction and more traditional Settlers-style expansion.
As for the basic game, have you considered such freakish strategies as building your initial settlements on big sheep/wood/brick hexes and the best corner of the corresponding port? If there aren't any great high-dot-count positions to go for then it can actually be a very strong strategy, particularly if some resources are highly limited.
Edit: Aha! My turn to be beaten to the recommendation this time.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Astrolad, how did you Agricola session go?
Thanks both of you, I'll check out Puerto Rico
Yep, did that on my third game. Worked quite nicely. Thing is though, now me and my friends are pretty wise to the different strategies available, so it's kind of killed it.
My main problem with Settlers now is that I never feel like I've won because I truly outsmarted my opponents.
iapetus said:As for the basic game, have you considered such freakish strategies as building your initial settlements on big sheep/wood/brick hexes and the best corner of the corresponding port? If there aren't any great high-dot-count positions to go for then it can actually be a very strong strategy, particularly if some resources are highly limited.
Edit: Aha! My turn to be beaten to the recommendation this time.
Yep, did that on my third game. Worked quite nicely. Thing is though, now me and my friends are pretty wise to the different strategies available, so it's kind of killed it.
My main problem with Settlers now is that I never feel like I've won because I truly outsmarted my opponents.
Thanks to the suggestions on the last page I bought Apples to Apples to play with family over the holidays. I guess it's pretty popular (box said 3M copies sold, and there's already spinoff versions), but I had actually never heard of it until I saw it suggested here.
As for casual board games, I remember having a good time playing Sequence, several years ago with my family, and having a lot of fun:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2375
As for casual board games, I remember having a good time playing Sequence, several years ago with my family, and having a lot of fun:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2375
Haven't played Agricola yet; unfortunately had a bunch of work this weekend so wasn't able to play anything.
Off the top of my head, some of these being more material than others, and some are more obvious than others:
-Flying monsters only attack people on the street when their symbol comes up, not just every time there is an investigator on the street. This means a big batch of flying monsters can actually bump up the Terror level fairly quickly just because there is no way to dispatch of them until they come out and attack you once they've gone to the Sky.
-When you go over the outskirts limit, you discard the number of monsters TO the limit as well as the monster that made you go over the limit.
-You cannot trade clue tokens or trophies.
-Combat bonuses do not apply to fight checks, Sneak bonuses do not apply to evade checks, etc.
-When you close a gate, remove all monsters with the Gate symbol from anywhere (ALWAYS forget this one at least once a game).
-the +1 skill cards give you BOTH +1 to the skill and the opportunity to add an extra bonus die when paying a clue token to roll another die.
-you reshuffle after ever draw from a location deck (some people house-rule this differently)
I know there are about a dozen more big ones, but that's what I can think of right now. A lot of the "missed" rules are just products of there being so many things to keep track of more so than any rule's complexity, though I will note that this game more than many others features some fairly tricky interactions between distinct rules and events, such as, e.g., drawing an encounter that allows you to close a gate, but getting knocked out in the process.
iapetus said:Interesting. In what way do most people play it fundamentally wrong? Intrigued to see whether I've got it right.
Off the top of my head, some of these being more material than others, and some are more obvious than others:
-Flying monsters only attack people on the street when their symbol comes up, not just every time there is an investigator on the street. This means a big batch of flying monsters can actually bump up the Terror level fairly quickly just because there is no way to dispatch of them until they come out and attack you once they've gone to the Sky.
-When you go over the outskirts limit, you discard the number of monsters TO the limit as well as the monster that made you go over the limit.
-You cannot trade clue tokens or trophies.
-Combat bonuses do not apply to fight checks, Sneak bonuses do not apply to evade checks, etc.
-When you close a gate, remove all monsters with the Gate symbol from anywhere (ALWAYS forget this one at least once a game).
-the +1 skill cards give you BOTH +1 to the skill and the opportunity to add an extra bonus die when paying a clue token to roll another die.
-you reshuffle after ever draw from a location deck (some people house-rule this differently)
I know there are about a dozen more big ones, but that's what I can think of right now. A lot of the "missed" rules are just products of there being so many things to keep track of more so than any rule's complexity, though I will note that this game more than many others features some fairly tricky interactions between distinct rules and events, such as, e.g., drawing an encounter that allows you to close a gate, but getting knocked out in the process.
One arkham horror rule we played wrong forever was that if you try to sneak past a monster and fail, you take damage and then fight them. We had been playing that if you failed to sneak you were simply forced to fight. That can change things quite a bit.
or maybe I have that backwards, I forget. But we had it wrong for a long time.
or maybe I have that backwards, I forget. But we had it wrong for a long time.
platypotamus
Member
That Catan card game looks hot. Why haven't I played that yet?
platypotamus
Member
AstroLad said:
I'm mainly excited because I need some good replayable 2p card games. My main boardgame partners will be having a baby soon, and it'll likely mean no games for them for awhile, so it'll just be my wife and I.
platypotamus
Member
I'll check them out. Mr. Jack sounds particularly fun... I have a soft spot for the criminal/investigator style games, ever since Clue 2 The Museum Caper as a kid (think simplified Scotland Yard, if you haven't played it).
Twilight Struggle looks like it'd be a tough sell. It seems like a possibility, but when I saw the words "move units"... I don't know. She might see it as too much of a war game and enter stubborn refusal mode.
Twilight Struggle looks like it'd be a tough sell. It seems like a possibility, but when I saw the words "move units"... I don't know. She might see it as too much of a war game and enter stubborn refusal mode.
platypotamus said:
Twilight Struggle definitely contains many war game "concepts," even though it doesn't actually deal with war necessarily, but more with influence. It's going to be a tough sell, especially since it's not the most aesthetically pleasing game either. I really wouldn't recommend it, especially if she's a reluctant gamer, or just starting out.
Oh, and for those that haven't played Agricola, it's a ton of fun, although the options are OVERWHELMING at first. But in a really good way. For a heavy Euro, it's pretty easy to understand and get into, even though it looks daunting with all of its pieces at first.
Played La Havre again tonight. It's not as mindblowingly awesome as Agricola, but I still like it. We played three player this time and it moved pretty briskly. I'm still scoring 30 or 40 points behind everybody else -- trying to wrap my head around the food engine and getting to the higher level money-making schemes. I'll probably be buying a copy of this for myself. Will be nice to have both Uwe Rosenberg games.
AstroLad said:
The game would be ridiculously hardcore if that weren't the case.
I'm not sure we've got the outskirts limit rules quite right the way we play them, but it works well.AstroLad said:
Untrue.
AstroLad said:
Guess I'm doing pretty well at the moment, then.
Though of course I also forget to pop monsters when gates close at least once a game.slayn said:huh? no you can't. Items can be traded but clue tokens and monster trophies can't. Or does the
There are limited situations in at least one of the expansions that allow you to trade clues at times. I seem to remember that one of the extra characters could do it in a limited way as their special ability, and there's certainly at least one card that lets anyone do it.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
So the newest English revision of Through the Ages is finally out (ranked #10 over at BGG). Got my order in from Thought Hammer a day ago, can't wait to try it out when I get the chance. It's a Civilization-style card game. For those interested in what was improved in this revision, check out this thread. Most of the improvements were much needed component quality upgrades and better, streamlined player mats. There are some early reports though of a few printing errors on some of the cards.
Box:
Sample of cards - Wonders:
Sample of cards - Leaders:
Player mats:
Box:
Sample of cards - Wonders:
Sample of cards - Leaders:
Player mats:
Zalasta said:
Yeah, it's even more dependent on food that Agricola in that way. I think that debt and money are the way to manage that. If you can wrap your head around managing those loans and not getting to wrapped up in owing I think you can succeed. Also buying boats. So important. Anyway, I kind of enjoy the problem -- tackling this thing that seems kinda insurmountable.
echoshifting
Banned
Have you tried Lost Cities, AstroLad? That's a wonderful little game for two, and it's just a deck of cards and a small board. It has that whole "easy to learn, hard to master" concept down pat. I'd consider it the most indispensable game in my collection.
edit: I see they have a new edition out this year; I'm not sure if they've made changes to the components or the rules.
edit 2: Wow yeah Lost Cities: the Board Game looks like a completely different game from the one I'm recommending. You want the 1999 edition if you want something that's easy to travel with.
edit: I see they have a new edition out this year; I'm not sure if they've made changes to the components or the rules.
edit 2: Wow yeah Lost Cities: the Board Game looks like a completely different game from the one I'm recommending. You want the 1999 edition if you want something that's easy to travel with.
- Status