I'm conflicted on this game. Being from the Northwest, all the names are from my area. However, I hate playing the random roll-and-move type games. I know, I'm sure there are ways to be strategic about it, but when I go back to the second week of January for the fourth fucking time, I'm ready to flip the table.
Board Gamers, show us your loot! (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter anotherdaydown
- Start date
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
You are not alone.Okay, time to liven up this thread with some controversial opinions.
Terraforming Mars is a good game. But I don't like it. Similarly, we got Villainous for Christmas, and we played it, and it's a good game, but I don't like it. They both fall into a gigantic category of games that I don't like, a category that includes games ranging from Magic The Gathering to Race For the Galaxy to Oath. And that category is:
Games Where You Really Need To Know What Special Rule Is On Every One Of The Hundreds Of Different Cards In The Game
I like games where you can hold the entire game, conceptually, within your head. Even if the game demands attention to intricate details, and has surprising and complex interactions between the moving pieces, I want to be able to understand how all the pieces move - what all the rules of the game are - and to be able to explain them simply and briefly and coherently. Games where the bulk of the game is actually driven by the special cases that constitute each different card simply frustrate and annoy me. You need to know all the cards; and if you don't know the cards, then you need to read them one by one as they come into play, whether they're in your hand or your opponents', and how fun is it to ask the other players to read their cards out loud to you especially if they already know them? No fun, that's how fun. No fun at all. And a great deal of the game is about sorting through all the different cards to find optimal combos, which is a daunting task if you don't already know what they all are, being a mostly hit-or-miss affair of making guesses on the fly.
I have a certain degree of tolerance for this kind of stuff, but the more different cards there are, and the fiddlier each card's special rule is and the more finely the rulespace is carved up into tiny differences just to have more cards, the greater the strain the game places upon my limited tolerance.
... but maybe that's just me.
I once loved those styled (GWYRNTKWSRIOEOOTHODCITG) games. Lets call them Rule-bender games. They allowed every game to play quite differently, and provided the game was balanced, it was always interesting.
Then I got old.
The old noggin doesn't work as well as it once did. Synapses fire a little slower, and I don't game frequently enough to remember each card. Add to that, the difficulty in reading the tiny 6-point font text and I almost dread rule-benders. Now add to the mix, rule-benders are built for infinite expansions. You will never have everything, or if you do I won't know what the F is going on half the time.
I still enjoy Terraforming Mars, but the digital version. At least on the big screen, I can see the card. But I know I'm not going to play it with others that know all the intricacies of which cards work better together. I'm just too disadvantaged for that now.
Okay, time to liven up this thread with some controversial opinions.
Terraforming Mars is a good game. But I don't like it. Similarly, we got Villainous for Christmas, and we played it, and it's a good game, but I don't like it. They both fall into a gigantic category of games that I don't like, a category that includes games ranging from Magic The Gathering to Race For the Galaxy to Oath. And that category is:
Games Where You Really Need To Know What Special Rule Is On Every One Of The Hundreds Of Different Cards In The Game
I like games where you can hold the entire game, conceptually, within your head. Even if the game demands attention to intricate details, and has surprising and complex interactions between the moving pieces, I want to be able to understand how all the pieces move - what all the rules of the game are - and to be able to explain them simply and briefly and coherently. Games where the bulk of the game is actually driven by the special cases that constitute each different card simply frustrate and annoy me. You need to know all the cards; and if you don't know the cards, then you need to read them one by one as they come into play, whether they're in your hand or your opponents', and how fun is it to ask the other players to read their cards out loud to you especially if they already know them? No fun, that's how fun. No fun at all. And a great deal of the game is about sorting through all the different cards to find optimal combos, which is a daunting task if you don't already know what they all are, being a mostly hit-or-miss affair of making guesses on the fly.
I have a certain degree of tolerance for this kind of stuff, but the more different cards there are, and the fiddlier each card's special rule is and the more finely the rulespace is carved up into tiny differences just to have more cards, the greater the strain the game places upon my limited tolerance.
... but maybe that's just me.
Hey, I get that opinion, I just think the opposite. I enjoy games due to the GWYRNTKWSRIOEOOTHODCITG mechanic. Terraforming Mars, Race to the Galaxy, Agricola...three games probably in my top 5 that all have some level of that trait.
CrazyEddie
Full House
I didn't know you were Welsh.
mistahclean
Pair
Terraforming Mars is one of my favorite games but definitely has some mechanics that can feel bad.
It's a great engine builder where it's not super easy to tell who is winning in a game if the game is close.
There are a ton of times where I'll just try to build my own little engine without really caring to see if it's capable of winning or not.
For expansions
Maps - must have, provides alternate tile play choices plus milestones and awards
Venus - Adds the venus board plus an additional milestone and award
Prelude - Adds an additional beginning of game element to "kick start your engine". I find it speeds the game up by about 2 generations.
Colonies - I like this expansion as it adds alternate economy but I know folks that complain that it slows the game down some.
Turmoil - I love the mechanic behind this expansion, but I *hate* that it basically adds another hour to a 3 hour game. I've played turmoil a half dozen times now and if given the choice, won't play using it again.
They recently came out with a "lighter" version called Ares Expedition but having played it a few times, I don't think it's *that* much shorter and I think while it scratches an itch, I like original TMars better.
mistahclean
Pair
Wow, didn't realize there was a thread for board gaming but I shouldn't have been surprised. I re-ignited the chip collecting flame thinking about how I'd use the chips for board games after all.
Currently been really into Lost Ruins of Arnak.
Currently been really into Lost Ruins of Arnak.
Mr. Cheese
Full House
My wife and I just played it again today with a friend of mine that was in town. Three of us it took about 2 hours and 20 minutes. We all really enjoyed it and I think its safe to say the more I play it the more I like it. We will definitely be getting some of the expansions. Sounds like Maps and Prelude will be our first two.
mistahclean
Pair
I think there's a handful of extra cards that are outside the expansions as well.
https://www.fryxgames.se/produkt/tm-promo-pack/
Not necessary by any means but I think they add a few interesting corps to the mix.
Mr. Cheese
Full House
Oh nice, we picked up the kickstarter promo cards so it was about 25 cards I think but I don't believe it had those ones so I may need to pick those up as well. Thanks
FDLmold
Royal Flush
I've tried three times to play, like, and understand Terraforming Mars. I'm "ipgyst" on BGG, and I rate it a solid 1. Fuck that "game".
The Farming Game is great for kids, and was a quality game in the 1970s and 80s. It's nostalgic garbage now. The "go back" space is hot poo, and the taxes card is so broken I recognized it as broken the first time I played the game when I was 12. The only interesting roll-and-move game I've ever played is Auf Achse.
I bought and played Paladins of the West Kingdom recently, on a recommendation. I don't buy many games any more. It's solid and I look forward to more plays. It's good at 2 OR 3 players, which is tricky for almost all board games to be good at both.
Empire Builder is selling for $200+ on eBay right now. I have a played-once copy and I'm off to go sell it.
The Farming Game is great for kids, and was a quality game in the 1970s and 80s. It's nostalgic garbage now. The "go back" space is hot poo, and the taxes card is so broken I recognized it as broken the first time I played the game when I was 12. The only interesting roll-and-move game I've ever played is Auf Achse.
I bought and played Paladins of the West Kingdom recently, on a recommendation. I don't buy many games any more. It's solid and I look forward to more plays. It's good at 2 OR 3 players, which is tricky for almost all board games to be good at both.
Empire Builder is selling for $200+ on eBay right now. I have a played-once copy and I'm off to go sell it.
CrazyEddie
Full House
CrazyEddie
Full House
mastercave
Sitting Out
Carcassonne and Love Letter seems to be the favorite out of my beginner's descent
Both are great games!
FDLmold
Royal Flush
Anybody on BGA? So much new content on there now!
mistahclean
Pair
I'm on BGA. They've always had a pretty good selection but they've been adding new games at a pretty rapid clip since the pandemic started. Even with Asmodee buying BGA, it didn't really seem to slow them down at all.
FDLmold
Royal Flush
I think the Asmodee purchase actually sped up the process of adding new games. Days of Wonder, a long time ago, figured out that electronic adaptations of board games help to sell MORE copies, not less. I think Asmodee is taking that lesson to heart. If you are on the fence about, say, Feast For Odin, you'd like to try the game before you drop $90 on it I'm sure. Then you try the electronic copy and decide you love the occupations and tetris pieces and whale hunting, then off you go to buy a physical copy.
Legend5555
Full House
Playing some Great Western Trail (1st Ed) with expansion. Been over 2 years since I last played it. Forgot how great this game is. Had to stop and take a break since someone wokw up from their bad early. But we'll be finishing tonight.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Fruit, fruit, fruit. That’s the key to that game.
FDLmold
Royal Flush
True. Your game is hopeless if all the OTB cards you get are hay and harvesters.
I own both editions of Great Western Trail now. Not sure which I like better yet. There are many gameplay improvements to 2nd edition, but the art and readability and usefulness of cards and the board and tiles got worse.
Looks impressive!
Legend5555
Full House
None of the changes struck me as enough to warrant rebuying a game I play at most twice a year. You can easily implement all the changes (minus the new cow) if you have the expansion. The new cow is interesting, but kinda whatever.
mistahclean
Pair
Not sure if this is the right thread for this (probably will make a post elsewhere) but how does everyone's breakdowns look for use with board games?
A little backstory. About 10 years ago, I built myself a small cash set for use with home games but within a couple years, I'd gotten tired of poker for various reasons and had only used them for board games since. Fast forward and I'm trying to fill out the set with denominations in order to support some games that make use of them (Read : 18xx and similar stock games) and I'm trying to revive a small home game for micro-stakes.
Thinking a similar breakdown to this could work:
100 5c
100 25c
300 1
300 5
80 25
40 100
20 500
20 1000
I'm actually 40 chips short of the full 1000 but I figure something "around these lines" would work.
There are a few other games that make use of "3" chips or "10" chips, but I figure I don't need to really go that far (yet).
And in other games news, I recently tried out Carnegie on BGA. It's different than I expected it to be and I kind of regret not backing it on the kickstarter. There's an interesting mechanic behind managing your meeples.
A little backstory. About 10 years ago, I built myself a small cash set for use with home games but within a couple years, I'd gotten tired of poker for various reasons and had only used them for board games since. Fast forward and I'm trying to fill out the set with denominations in order to support some games that make use of them (Read : 18xx and similar stock games) and I'm trying to revive a small home game for micro-stakes.
Thinking a similar breakdown to this could work:
100 5c
100 25c
300 1
300 5
80 25
40 100
20 500
20 1000
I'm actually 40 chips short of the full 1000 but I figure something "around these lines" would work.
There are a few other games that make use of "3" chips or "10" chips, but I figure I don't need to really go that far (yet).
And in other games news, I recently tried out Carnegie on BGA. It's different than I expected it to be and I kind of regret not backing it on the kickstarter. There's an interesting mechanic behind managing your meeples.
CrazyEddie
Full House
For board games I prefer a 1/5/10/50 (etc) progression rather than the typical cash/tourney poker progressions. I use 1/5/10/50 for Power Grid and 100/500/1000/5000 for Acquire (both of which match the paper denoms those games come with). I find that breakdown more convenient for the particular use cases of those games - where players need to pay and be paid arbitrary amounts not of their own choosing.
For example:
"I'll buy two shares of Quantum and one of Phoenix, that's 1800. That's 1000, 500, and 1 2 3 hundreds."
"You powered seven cities, that's 82. Here's a 50, three 10s, and two 1s."
Whereas in poker people typically think along the lines of
"Pot's around 150, I want to bet half-pot, that's 75, so here's three greens."
I don't play 18xx so I can't comment, but I imagine experienced train gamers will be more comfortable with (i.e. more used to) the traditional breakdowns than with my suggestion of 1/5/10/50/etc.
For example:
"I'll buy two shares of Quantum and one of Phoenix, that's 1800. That's 1000, 500, and 1 2 3 hundreds."
"You powered seven cities, that's 82. Here's a 50, three 10s, and two 1s."
Whereas in poker people typically think along the lines of
"Pot's around 150, I want to bet half-pot, that's 75, so here's three greens."
I don't play 18xx so I can't comment, but I imagine experienced train gamers will be more comfortable with (i.e. more used to) the traditional breakdowns than with my suggestion of 1/5/10/50/etc.
mistahclean
Pair
Yeah, I can see that. It might be better suited to two different sets of chips rather than one that does it all.
Trouble for me is that I'm trying to get my chips into play more as it is!
Trouble for me is that I'm trying to get my chips into play more as it is!
damn man, its a shame you live down in jesusland - i think we would get along real well (despite our political differences). you have fine taste in gaming.
Legend5555
Full House
It's much less jesusland than people think here in the Atl burbs. I only talk politics online and with my family. IRL I basically never bring it up. And when gaming, if anyone does, I shut that crap down.
i was joking about the jesusland thing, just meant the physical distance. and same, same.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
I get what you are saying, but rarely will a typical poker set breakdown be very inefficient for board games. Sometimes you have to use an extra chip or two, but that's really not that bad.
Even in your examples, a poker breakdown would be:
Same: T1000 +T500 +T100(x3)
T25(x3) +T5 +T1(x2)
Admittedly, It is a little odd sometimes. In Monopoly, the $50 is frequently used, and the lack of a T50 means using two T25s. However, the adaptation comes pretty quickly - it's just childhood habits that need to be adjusted (or you buy "specialty" chips).
The other challenge comes with different games. Depending on the game you may need to combine chip sets, or have a rather expansive set (like @mistahclean 's breakdown). Simply because I don't have a cash set that runs up to $1000 chips and I don't have a tournament set that goes down to T1s.
It's really hard to recommend the perfect breakdown for board gaming, because "perfect" will vary by game. Best course of action is to track how many paper bills you have in play in each board game, and then use that to determine the best breakdown for your needs.
...Or do what I did, and buy 9 different sets, then pull out the set(s) needed for tonight's games.
I never said I always give affordable advice.
CrazyEddie
Full House
... I too get what you are saying, and you're not wrong. 
For me it's less about efficiency, i.e. covering the game's needs with a minimum number of chips / minimum investment in equipment, and more about the ease and flow of counting out currency during the game. The mental math feels more natural and comfortable when dealing with the same two values in each decimal place rather than adding up twenty-fives to get to 43. At least, that's how it feels for me. Everyone is different. And it's not like doing the counting using any set of chips is particularly challenging; it's just a small nicety, and I appreciate such things.
For me it's less about efficiency, i.e. covering the game's needs with a minimum number of chips / minimum investment in equipment, and more about the ease and flow of counting out currency during the game. The mental math feels more natural and comfortable when dealing with the same two values in each decimal place rather than adding up twenty-fives to get to 43. At least, that's how it feels for me. Everyone is different. And it's not like doing the counting using any set of chips is particularly challenging; it's just a small nicety, and I appreciate such things.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
