flashburn2012
Member
Hmmm 2P? afaik you really need 4 to make it work, but I'm sure it's OK with 2.
I like it, it's just a very different game compared to more than 2 players.
Hmmm 2P? afaik you really need 4 to make it work, but I'm sure it's OK with 2.
Doesn't 2p have a dummy player? Fuck dummy players.
I'm a huge 7 Wonders fan and I refuse to play it two player. It's just not designed to be a two player game. It's barely acceptable as a three player game. Id say at least four is needed for 7 Wonders.
It's a way to get cards away from the other player that you maybe don't want yourself (put them on the "dummy" player). Also, you can play a card on the dummy player that might help you in scoring that your opponent might not otherwise play.Is the strategy 'try not to be bored to tears'?
Best to avoid twilight Imperium for a while then :0I know the day will arrive when we're all scratching our heads for an hour over a game.
I was very temped to get this as well! glad it worked out ..sounds like a good contender to bring to larger non gamer gatherings. Can you play it teams?The star of my Christmas purchases was Dixit. I bought Dixit and Wits and Wagers for holiday party gaming, and it stole the night every time.
Can't speak for the board game but Elder Sign on Android was lots of fun. I really want FFG to come out with an asynchronous Blood Bowl Team Manager -- would be god damn amazing but I'm sure licensing and other reasons make that a pipe dream.
Noted I do a fair bit of research before buying a game, so I get a general idea of what I'm letting myself in for. I've still made note of the more challenging games I want eventually though.Best to avoid twilight Imperium for a while then :0
It doesn't mention it in the manual, but we did play with a couple of teams at one point when we had too many players without issue. I think the latest version allows for 12 players, perhaps via a team variant.I was very temped to get this as well! glad it worked out ..sounds like a good contender to bring to larger non gamer gatherings. Can you play it teams?
It's a way to get cards away from the other player that you maybe don't want yourself (put them on the "dummy" player). Also, you can play a card on the dummy player that might help you in scoring that your opponent might not otherwise play.
We played 4p with Leaders last week. I think that the Leaders are unnecessary, and didn't really make the game any more fun. Just added more junk to your tableau, and more to look out for on others'. Maybe Cities will be better?
Hmm have to disagree, everyone I've played with love leaders. It basically lets a person develop a plan early on, on what they plan to achieve with their wonder. Always felt like your wonder had little goal outside of luck of the draw until the 2nd act. With leaders you have a more clear cut goal usually early on as people choose the leaders that will give them the most benefit following a specific build/strategy. We always play with leaders... yet we are all not sure on Cities as it doesn't sound that interesting and sounds like the problem you are having with leaders
Sorry I don't have a billion analog gaming friends like you. Two player is pretty much all I can get most of the time./facepalm
Elder Sign is a lot of fun. Its fairly simple, but theres a lot of variety to it with the different ancient ones and investigators.
The app is good, I found it kind of hard with only one player though. It kind of helped me figure out the rules for the real game properly!
Sorry I don't have a billion analog gaming friends like you. Two player is pretty much all I can get most of the time.
I think maybe we both could've handled our responses in a slightly more mature way. However, this is the internet, and I'll let bygones be bygones.I'm only facepalming because my post was cleanly rhetoric, and you go on some ridiculous explanation, like I'm going to/need to be enlightened.
I think maybe we both could've handled our responses in a slightly more mature way. However, this is the internet, and I'll let bygones be bygones.
This thread is already at 84 pages.
Looks like I have to start working on a new one now to have it ready in time.
i thought the limit was 100 pages at 100 ppp. maybe not though?
Having only owned Arkham Horror for a week now, I've played it 3 times. Now I want to expand...
I've also played Pandemic about 15 times since getting it for Christmas. I have that expansion on its away as well.
I'm really loving board games at the moment.
Having only owned Arkham Horror for a week now, I've played it 3 times. Now I want to expand...
I've also played Pandemic about 15 times since getting it for Christmas. I have that expansion on its away as well.
I'm really loving board games at the moment.
Get Dunwich -- you will not regret it. Especially since I'm sure you're hankering for some new encounters and Dunwich adds so much to everything.
So you think I should ditch the chronology and jump right to that rather than the Dark Pharaoh one?
I've only played Dark Pharaoh once (and not the new revised edition -- the old one). There really is no chronology to the Arkham expansions per se, they just all have different themes. Between those two, I think it just depends on the meatiness of the expansion you're looking for. iirc, Dunwich adds new encounters at every location, a whole new part of town, and a few new mechanics that are quite worthwhile. The small-box expansions more add flavor and maybe a few little quirks. The other thing about small box is that I find them more awkward to integrate. They give a few options, but I've never found a single one to be totally satisfactory. Big box, otoh, integrates almost seamlessly.
The small box expansions are fun too and add a bit of spice. What I like about them is they act as a story. For example, The King in Yellow expansion is about a play comes into town that is turing the citizen of Arkham insane. As the game goes on you will have to try and prevent the play from completing. I think it adds a nice little twist to the standard game. The best part is they don't need to be permanently integrated in the base game, they can exist on their own and only added when you want to try something different. Best part, they are cheap as hell.Thanks, I'll probably just get Dunwich then.
Both completely different game but BBTM is really good and if you can't justify the price for WotR now then go for BB. It usually runs around $20 and you get a pretty meaty game for the price.I'm trying to figure out what game to get next as well. I'm interested by Blood Bowl Team Manager and War of the Ring, though the latter is probably too expensive to justify at this point. Not sure where to go next aside from that.
Last night, we played Agricola for the first time in many many months. I was a bit rusty but was able to place third. After the game I poked around on the net and found a rule we may have missed but I wanted to get your opinion on it. During our game we place our farmers first then we perform all the actions once everybody have placed. On BGG they were saying once you place your farmer you immediately take your action. Not sure which is correct, I like the way we've been playing it and I think we will continue to play that way but is there a good argument for performing the action as soon as you place your farmer?
So a friend bought pandemic a few weeks ago and we've been play that quite a lot recently. Though a good game, it seems to be very predictable? Seems like if you've played it a few times, you've pretty much seen all it has to offer.
That said, does anyone ever actually eradicate diseases in it? We've yet to ever do that. Seems if you take time to do it you usually end up losing to outbreaks from another disease.
Just punched Ora et Labora.
These components: 'the fuck?
Flimsy boards and the cut on the chit
Sheets is subpar. Boo this man!