What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Played two games of note lately:

Battle of Five Armies was first. The rulebook, of course, is a disaster. That's sort of Ares' trade mark now. It has a lot in common with War of the Ring including 90% of the minis being the same although there are some new ones. The Eagles and Great Bats being the most notable.

Combat and mustering have been changed significantly. The Characters like Gandalf, Thorin, Bilbo and Beorn all have interesting abilities. The time track is also pretty cool.

Some of it is clumsy though. The card use in combat is very guilty of this as is the use of the Eagles.

I liked it but it's not a game I can play once and pass judgement.

I have two nagging questions. A game of this sort should have aggressive AND defensive aspects for both sides. I got the feeling that it may be that the Freeps are always in the a reactionary role. That may be just inexperience though and be superficial. Secondly, this game may be a bit shorter than War of the Ring but close enough as to make no difference. So with the commitment at approximately the same level, does Battle differ enough that I'd rather play it than War of the Ring?

Promised Land was next. A game set in ancient Israel and Judea with two players playing two tribes of Hebrews and two others playing the heathen tribes around the edges. It draws from the Vinci, History of the World, Small World lineage with some noticeable differences. Acquiring territory, in of itself, gains you little to nothing. It only serves to gain key locations to place your "patons", pieces that represent merchants, farmers, and priests or to deprive your opponents of the same. The pieces generate revenue to a greater or lesser extent depending on their location.

It's money that counts as you use it to buy artifacts (sort of like one use techs) and advances on the royalty track. Both of which give vps at the end of the game. There is also an objective track made of a set of randomly drawn tiles so it's different each game. You have to achieve them in order but each time you move forward on that track you gain vps.

It's a good game with a lot going on and a good planner will find it a good challenge. What kingdoms to take, what provinces to take based on the order the kingdoms appear, the best way to work off the previously played kingdoms to maximize revenue and what to buy when....all interlinked in a brain burning way. Worth checking out.

repoman wrote: Battle of Five Armies was first. The rulebook, of course, is a disaster. That's sort of Ares' trade mark now. It has a lot in common with War of the Ring including 90% of the minis being the same although there are some new ones. The Eagles and Great Bats being the most notable.

Combat and mustering have been changed significantly. The Characters like Gandalf, Thorin, Bilbo and Beorn all have interesting abilities. The time track is also pretty cool.

Some of it is clumsy though. The card use in combat is very guilty of this as is the use of the Eagles.

I liked it but it's not a game I can play once and pass judgement.

I have two nagging questions. A game of this sort should have aggressive AND defensive aspects for both sides. I got the feeling that it may be that the Freeps are always in the a reactionary role. That may be just inexperience though and be superficial. Secondly, this game may be a bit shorter than War of the Ring but close enough as to make no difference. So with the commitment at approximately the same level, does Battle differ enough that I'd rather play it than War of the Ring?

We played the Eagles so, so, SO horribly wrong that I think that alone is not enough to pass judgement. My understanding is that if the shadow is being played well (and I'm sure I wasn't doing a very good job), then the tension is very much there for the FP.

There are parts that I like better than WOTR, and combat is actually one of them. Combat rules seem simple enough in WOTR but it still manages to be pretty convoluted when you get into sieges, what gives a defensive bonus and what doesn't (there's by far fewer terrain features that affect combat in BoFA, and that's a good thing), etc. The combat cards really aren't so bad and they bring something great to combat: decisions.

BoFA, while not necessarily streamlined or shorter, is a much cleaner design and on paper, that should lead to a tighter game overall once I learn what the hell I'm doing. I'm holding out judgment for now though.

Had a big game night tonight.

Started with 4 player Wiz-War. I was the first wizard dead, which luckily ended the game so I didn't have to sit there. It was a lot of fun and I look forward to more plays.

Next was 2 rounds of Till Dawn. This was a really cool game and was a pleasant surprise.

Several rounds of Cube Quest got played as well; this game is really cool as a light filler game.

Topped off with Dead of Winter, which we lost after a few rounds due to morale. Kodiak Colby was the first to go down due to being bitten.

What an awesome day of gaming yesterday.

I went to my FLGS (Nerdageddon in Brighton, MI) to pick up some comics and Netrunner for my girlfriend for Christmas. I met a dude there playing Warhammer 40K Conquest and we struck up a conversation. So yesterday we met up for some Netrunner and Conquest. My girlfriend came with so she could learn Netrunner.

We played two games of Netrunner. I won as the Runner and lost on bad luck as the Corp. I made a bit of mistake that I won't make again if I play that deck.

Then one game of Conquest. This game is completely different than Netrunner and has some serious potential. I didn't do very well, but it was the first game I actually played so that's to be expected. I started picking up stuff towards the end so it was a good learning experience. Cool game. I will probably buy in as we're at the start of this one and it's a good time.

After coming home, we played two games of DungeonQuest Revised. My girlfriend ran into dead ends the first game after I died early. She never made it to the middle but found some gold. In her attempts to get out, she just got stuck and the sun set. Pretty much the same thing happened to me the second game. Those are good ways to lose in DungeonQuest.

We wrapped it up with her first game of Biblios. Still one of absolute favorites of all time.

Yup, that was a good day of gaming.

Back from a trip to visit family. I brought no games with me because I knew I was getting two for Christmas there. Staying with my wife's family means games of Rummikub and Canasta, because her mom will play those, but if I try to bring even something simple I get, "Oh I have no idea what I'm doing" and "This is far too complicated". Fortunately I like Rummikub and Canasta, so no problem there. My mother-in-law also got hold of a copy of Tenzi which I was fortunate to avoid.

From Santa I got Cockroach Poker, which I played once with my wife, her sister, and our nephew. I think it's a fun little game, but you need the right crowd and that ain't it. The other game I got was Pandemic: The Cure, which got more love. We played about six times, only winning once, but coming very close on some other times. I like this as a shorter, a little less complex version of Pandemic.

Pandemic: The Cure is awesome. It's a tough one for sure. I think it's a lot more chaotic than the base game but I love that.

I haven't been gaming much with the holidays and parents in town but Saturday I ended up alone and with some free time so I broke out Dawn of the Zeds: 2nd Edition and took a crack at it. I've had it for a while, but this was my first play and I used the tutorial scenario.

Overall, it basically feels like a tower defense game and it was very easy in the tutorial scenario. I'm sure I got a few things wrong too as I found out later in the game, like placing chaos markers and small things like that. I won with no losses assuming I did everything right. This could have a lot of potential given the advanced rules and I could see it being a very tough, thematic tower defense style game. I really just want to play a game with Pickles the dog so he can scrounge for me. Overall, it's cool, but I'm not sure if it's a long-term keeper. Maybe it will grow on me with more advanced play.

My wife talked me into setting up Arkham Horror last night by making some mulled wine. I'm glad she did. We had a blast, one of the better gaming experiences I've had in a while. There is still no beating Arkham Horror for sandbox gameplay. I can't imagine simplifying it with Eldrich because it would kind of go against the point of what I play AH for. The reason it's the best coop game is because the game state evolves so much and there is so much going on that there is no best answer for anything. Which means even thinking about bossing people around for anything besides a general role breakdown is pointless.

For me, though, I have found my sweetspot---Arkham Horror and Dunwich Horror with cards (items, encounters, etc) from everything else mixed in. Then use old ones from those two base games. I just don't want Arkham to be that hard, I like being able to do inefficient, fun things and still be in the game.

Now I wish I had traded Von Tush for that copy of Kingsport just to get the extra cards.

Santa brought me Mountains of Madness for Eldritch Horror so I soloed a game Saturday night and brought it to game day yesterday and introduced some of the new elements (not the Antarctica Board though).

Saturday went good and was my first solo win out of a half dozen tries or so. Sunday was a disaster as we didn't complete a single mystery.

What I'm realizing is that this is very much a mental game, fighting and focusing through the distractions, separating the needs from the wants. And steeling yourself for the appearance of a hopeless situation and getting ready to put up a fight. That's what caused success on Saturday and failure on Sunday. Half way through one player gave up and started to play phone games, at that point is when I feel we lost the game...Not when the GOO woke and not when all our characters died because of an mythos event.

As far as Mountains of Madness goes, this is one of those perfect expansions for me. It adds a few more cards to decks to bolster them more, adds new monsters for the monster cup, new Great Old Ones and new characters. The new mechanics fit pretty seamlessly into the game also. Focus is a new action which gives you a token that can be cashed in to reroll a die, same as a Clue Token, but easier to get and not as painful to lose.

Prelude cards are drawn at the beginning during setup and provide both a perk and a hurdle which adds some variety at the beginning of the game - I look forward to more of these cards because six just isn't enough. The Antarctic board I didn't use because I already have a hard enough time not getting distracted and I want to solo that board first.

Gary Sax wrote: Now I wish I had traded Von Tush for that copy of Kingsport just to get the extra cards.

PM me your address and let me know if you want the box or not.

I played Imperial Settlers over the holidays. I'm still not totally sure where I stand on it.

First of all, the graphic design is awful. I don't mind the cartoony artwork so much, but the miniature font and obscured iconography is unforgivable. I would pay serious money for an Artscow deck that removed all the cute location art and made the vital information more visible.

The game play is enjoyable, though. It's typical resource churning, but you feel like you have some control over how your civilization develops. My group can be notoriously slow, and that was deadly to this game. I think with some familiarity, though, that play time would improve and that would make for a better experience.

There's also a significant learning curve regarding how to best utilize your civ's unique aspects. That, too, would improve over multiple plays.

It sounds like I have nothing but bad things to say, but I actually found the game rather fun. The rules are pretty straight-forward and simple, yet offer lots of variability in one's actions. I'm eager to give it another go, but I suspect that the negatives will eventually outnumber the positives.

Very informative, but not what I was hoping to hear about Imperial Settlers. Maybe I'll pick up someone's used copy in a few more months to give it a try.

I like Imperial Settlers a lot, but the problem with it being a slicker, sleeker New Era is that I'd always rather be playing New Era. So in a sense I resent it for the same reason I resent Ticket to Ride: I know why I'm playing it instead of something better, but I'd still rather play something better.

Please describe what you mean by slicker/sleeker. I'm really interested in Imperial Settlers but not if New Era is better.

Imperial Settlers is essentially the ruleset for New Era, only streamlined and simplified. It does away with a lot of the confusing (and frustrating) bits of TNE/51S, repackaging it with a better rulebook to get a very similar game that is easier to teach, easier to learn, and quicker to play. There's a lot to like about it.

That said, as a fan of New Era, while I recognize that it's an overly fussy design with a terrible rulebook and awful euroglyphics, I just enjoy it more than Imperial Settlers. I like IS, an I especially like that it's a more vicious game than it appears to me, but for me, the only reason to play it is if I can't play New Era.