What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Man, Kingdom Death: Monster. Man.

Fuck The Butcher. I managed to survive, my insane woman who is now growing claws barely took him down and I let out a roar when the final shot was a Death Blow. Snagged the Butcher's Cleaver. Also had 20lbs of expansion content arrive. Five Lanter Years (sessions) in and I'm ready to put this on my top 10 of all time.

I updated with the second chapter in my narrative session report , which is lagging behind my actual play by about three sessions.

I had my second awful, no-win scenario in Blood Rage and I'm beginning to think the game has a serious "winners win more" problem.

Basically, it seems to me that the game is like a cone balanced on its tip. Technically, it's balanced and as long as all players push it on an equal measure the game remains challenging and fun. The problem is that when they don't, the cone falls over by its own weight. The reason as I see it is that the game is highly inflationary:

- If you are winning, you get more resources.
- If you win, you get points.
- If you win, all your enemies are destroyed.

The last one is huge. Many good games are inflationary. But this game is both inflationary and destructive. You cannot stand back and build a slighty smaller railroad or take the loss and accept ten points less because you get completely eviscerated. If you lose, you lose hard. Really hard. And someone is always going to lose because making other people lose is the whole point of the game.

That could also be fine, if it were hard to lose. But it's not because battles are resolved Cosmic Ecounter-style. Reallistically, you have two options: Bluff or not. If you pick the wrong one, you get cleaned out of the board and the enemy is now stronger and has a massive tempo advantage. Which again, it could work, if the game were longer. But it's played to just three rounds so if you lose on the first one, by the time you recover the game is practically over.

I don't know, I like the ideas contained in the game but I keep getting unfun games from it. Even when everyone's doing well I notice the mood is stilted, like everyone is one the edge and ready to give up when the game inevitably goes awry. I've played all sort of games with my group including some that are extremely nasty (The Republic of Rome, 18XX) and I've never seen anything like that.

You guys know this game better than I do. Am I very off the mark? Can't shake this feeling at all.

Every game I've played with people who know the cards, has been close, like 2-6 points between winning and losing close. There are ways to keep your figures on the board, and that is part of the strategy, but maybe you already know that and you're seeing something I am not. That balancing act is more readily apparent in Chaos in the Old World, and I more and more find I prefer that game, as everyone has their established roles in that balance.

Zombicide with the toxics shuffled in. I think we need to progress to the hard missions, as we're mopping these up pretty effectively while still in yellow experience levels. Still a good time.

The Grizzled which was alright, though it seems like decisions are essentially dictated.

Viticulture: Tuscany which I still suck at, but was a good euro time. I'm always looking for something different to do, probably should just grow grapes, make wine and sell it. After the talk of the essential edition I am curious to go back to the original board and see how I feel about it (I always play the Tuscany board).

Cthulhu Realms still fine but the loss of a colour vs Star Realms and the lack of tight card play ordering make this a bit loose feeling- jumping back and forth off of cards as you play them to trigger effects in certain orders. It plays four out of the box though, so it worked for three of us.

Homeland I forgot this one :O We did a five player game, it was actually pretty great. The terrorist mole won, but I think that was because we all needed to figure out where the balance should be on stopping threats.

Erik Twice wrote: I had my second awful, no-win scenario in Blood Rage and I'm beginning to think the game has a serious "winners win more" problem.

Basically, it seems to me that the game is like a cone balanced on its tip. Technically, it's balanced and as long as all players push it on an equal measure the game remains challenging and fun. The problem is that when they don't, the cone falls over by its own weight. The reason as I see it is that the game is highly inflationary:

- If you are winning, you get more resources.
- If you win, you get points.
- If you win, all your enemies are destroyed.

The last one is huge. Many good games are inflationary. But this game is both inflationary and destructive. You cannot stand back and build a slighty smaller railroad or take the loss and accept ten points less because you get completely eviscerated. If you lose, you lose hard. Really hard. And someone is always going to lose because making other people lose is the whole point of the game.

That could also be fine, if it were hard to lose. But it's not because battles are resolved Cosmic Ecounter-style. Reallistically, you have two options: Bluff or not. If you pick the wrong one, you get cleaned out of the board and the enemy is now stronger and has a massive tempo advantage. Which again, it could work, if the game were longer. But it's played to just three rounds so if you lose on the first one, by the time you recover the game is practically over.

I don't know, I like the ideas contained in the game but I keep getting unfun games from it. Even when everyone's doing well I notice the mood is stilted, like everyone is one the edge and ready to give up when the game inevitably goes awry. I've played all sort of games with my group including some that are extremely nasty (The Republic of Rome, 18XX) and I've never seen anything like that.

You guys know this game better than I do. Am I very off the mark? Can't shake this feeling at all.

I can see your criticism but in practice, the game doesn't often work that way. In nearly every play I've participated at least one person goes the Loki strategy and wants to lose. Additionally, board presence is so dynamic due to monsters and upgrades that you aren't screwed if you have no one on the map.

If you're failing to pillage or win fights, then you can adapt and focus on quests. Players typically don't do a great job of opposing quests because they're hidden and require a lot of resources to actively thwart.

Tempo is important in the game, you are correct. I think the key to the game is manipulating that tempo and controlling the chaos, but through battle and pillaging is only one of several ways to do it.

Played some Neuroshima Hex last night. Goddamn that game rules.

We used three new (to us) armies: Uranopolis, Mississippi, and New York, and all three had cool stuff going on. Mississippi won.

Also, never forget:

That is a great rule! Right up there with Wiz-War's set-up step, "Prepare tokens and die."

Finally got the copy of Relic on the table last night with Uba and Al, Damn is that a fun game! I'm not the biggest Talisman fan, but Uba and Al are, . It's very much a love/hate relationship for me, but the additions to Relic are really awesome. Love the missions, the relics are super cool and I love that they eliminate fishing the deck for Talismans, and the power cards are by far better than the re-roll tokens FFG added to Talisman. Al loved I wish they had kept the "heal vs gain life" verbiage and the numbers on threat cards to help remind you what order they resolve in, but I can't complain too much because I had blast playing this thing, even with Can't wait for the next time!

We brand cheaters in my neck of the woods. But the brand was mis-forged and it actually says "chester". That is a long, in-joke story.

Ya, Relic is really good...it kind of makes me feel icky inside when I talk like this, but the last time there was a Talisman opportunity with some friends I not only persuaded them to play Relic instead but I also actually said the words "I think it's better than Talisman". It feels WRONG. But...well, there it is then.

It adds just enough to the Talisman chassis while the overhaul of the entire adventure card system gives you more variety and choice. I also really like the equipment, corruption and the leveling mechanics- all of which are again god damn it- better than Talisman. And the expansions aren't just 20 new locations to draw adventure cards, they add very different concepts to it. It all feels like a logical, respectful evolution of Talisman.

I was putting some games in storage the other day and I packed up Talisman...and left Relic on the main shelf.

Yeah, I didn't want to say it front of Shellie and Al because Talisman is one of their favorite games ever and they have this long, rich history with it, but I do think it's better. It's not a massive reimagining that loses sight of the original game's flavor, something we all know is certainly possibly in FFG's hands, but it feels very natural. It's as if they were giving everyone the game and said, "Look, it is 201X, but we know there are people who still want to play this kind of game, and that's ok, there's nothing wrong with that...but we can do just a little bit more with it."

Al said it gave him the feeling that Talisman did the first time he played all those years ago. Everything is fresh, exciting, dangerous and fun and it's in SPAAAAAAAACE!

That's right and it's kind of a thumb in the eye to anyone that erroneously thought that Timescape for Talisman was bad.

Highly recommend those expansions...and I hope that's all they'll do with it, because it's just enough at this stage.

I already have Nemesis, will definitely pick up the other one.

the other one is better than Nemesis

I finally got a good game of Ferox in. Finally lived up to my hopes.

Also finally played Survive: Space Attack. Didn't dig it that much. Too much shit going on so it ends up really chaotic and it's pretty much a crap shoot...it's less about strategy and more about doing what is optimal at the time. Goes against what Survive! is all about. Yes, there's more fuckery but I think there's just too much.

We decided that if we play again, turrets and fighters can kill ships. It's lame that in a game about murder, you can't shoot people.

Played my first two games of Specter Ops. First I was controlling two hunters vs. the agent, and then I was the agent against two hunters.

I like the game. It plays smoothly and easily. I don't think it has the epic tension of Fury of Dracula. But it is a shorter, lighter game that would absolutely suffice if your crowd couldn't handle the weight of Fury.

PROS:
I like that the agent's actual identity is secret until he is first spotted. I also like that most of his equipment is secret.
The hunter powers are all fairly useful. The Puppet's ability to remotely control the car seems practically vital.
By far, the best part of the game for me is the board. It is beautiful, and the spaces are all marked with this glossy lettering that is visible from any angle or in any light. Fantastic.

CONS:
The werewolf's tail is bad. I don't know if that's what they sent to China, but it's just... bad.
Doesn't have the tension of Fury of Dracula, at least not with 2 hunters.

I have not tried the 5 player version but frankly it doesn't sound great. In that one, one of the hunters is a traitor and doesn't have to acknowledge that he saw the agent. Has anyone tried it?

I held onto my old copy of Tallisman primarily BECAUSE of Timescape. What a great expansion.