What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

I wanted Conan because I'm a huge Conan fan (have read the Carter/de Camp collections more than once) and I even liked the Conan game that the War of the Ring guys did, just because I got my cheap thrills reading event cards that referred to those stories (while everyone else at the table looked at me with blank expressions.) But I didn't want to spend the cash on a Kickstarter at the time and I'm kind of in the minority around here of any Conan game having to be someone playing Conan. That scenario means that you essentially want a 2-player game: Conan vs Thoth-Amon/Overlord. Or you want a Many vs. One where the majority of the many feel like they're not getting the full impact of the game, since they're not Conan. My mindset is that if it's a Hyborian adventure game, I'm cool with it.

There's a ding-and-dent copy at my FLGS for $80 that I've been eyeing. Charlie's opinion makes me want it more. Hotseat's makes me want it less.

It's going for much less than $80 in the Asmodee holiday sale.

I also haven't played the particular scenario Mark is talking about, so haven't run into that.

$50 on the Asmodee holiday sale FYI. holiday-sale.asmodeena.com/catalogue/conan_241/

charlest wrote: I also haven't played the particular scenario Mark is talking about

Pro Tip: Don't.

Not making a detailed post about yet, but HOLY SHIT DO I LOVE NEON GODS.

Played a (sigh) solo game of Legendary Encounters: Predator. I'd been thinking about trading for a copy of LE: Alien for a while, since a former X-Wing opponent of mine introduced me to it on a slow day at the shop, but I'd never gotten around to making it happen. Someone mentioned it the other day, so I figured I'd put Alien, Aliens, and Predator on my trade list at BGG and landed the latter. It has mild differences to Alien and there's certainly a feeling of tension as the Predator appearances become more prominent. The opening scenario is essentially the original film and I was a little underwhelmed with Mac's deck, especially later when I was facing increasingly dangerous opponents and not having enough combat power to deal with them. A Hazard dropped You're One Ugly Mother in my lap (10 strength, Double Strike) and I just couldn't deal with it, despite all of the Dillon and Blain cards allowing me to avoid/heal strikes. I never played Alien solo, but Predator suffers from all of the Commander cards with Coordinate, since there's no one to Coordinate with if you're playing alone. I still liked it and will probably try the LA scenario (Predator 2) tomorrow, perhaps by playing two roles, instead of just one.

Josh Look wrote: Not making a detailed post about yet, but HOLY SHIT DO I LOVE NEON GODS.

I'll look forward to the detailed post! Plaid Hat is really hit or miss for me, but when they hit they HIT.

Went to Worlds for the Game of Thrones card game this past weekend. That was pretty great. My mom came up on Wednesday to watch the boys while my wife worked, and I was out. Community tournament with alternate deckbuilding restrictions Wednesday evening, first day of joust Thursday (the classic 1 v 1 format), melee Friday (four-player free-for-all format, where I made second in three of four matches (my best result ever)), second day of joust Saturday day (scraped in with a 4-2 record and was promptly blown out and eliminated by the eventual runner-up in my first match of the day) and a custom draft cube (actually won it!) in the evening, and a variant melee on Sunday before heading home. That was pretty great.

Okay, so about Neon Gods.

First off, let me preface this with saying that this is a game I’ve wanted for years. Not this specific game, but a game that does what it does. Something that has streamlined yet interesting mechanics that still gives you all that you want out of a Dudes on a Map game. The kind of game that couldn’t have existed in 2009 because we were too busy bolting every mechanic known to man to every game that came out. No, what I’ve been thirsting for is Nexus Ops but with more but not too much, if that makes sense.

The reason why I need to preface my enthusiasm for this game is because immediately upon finishing it, one friend stated that as far as narrative goes, it’s as dry if not more than Terraforming Mars (a game we’d been arguing over before). The setting is weird. It’s 2006 via 1985, or The Warriors by way of the gangs from The Dark Knight Returns. The rulebook doesn’t make much effort to properly explain it, but you can still interpret what it’s trying to convey and it’s pretty unique. It’s more an aesthetic than it is a theme and I like that aesthetic. It’s like Nexus Ops where it’s presenting you it’s own setting but mechanically it could have been anything, yet it has a look that defines it.

So down to the important stuff, the gameplay. I never played City of Remnants, so I can’t compare the two, but I was really struck by how straightforward yet smart the game is. There’s a deckbuilding element to it that is unlike anything I’ve seen in the genre before. Early game, buying new cards give you some more options and help you do things you want to achieve on your turn, as cards go directly into your hand. Yet as the game goes on and you build your deck up, which is totally not about combos but actions and combat, you really feel the weight of your over-expansion. They also did a great job of recognizing which actions were the ones you’d want to do most and pairing them with the better combat dice. It was constantly a difficult decision between doing something I really wanted to do and saving the card for combat later. It’s simple but not overwhelming or too thinky. Those two elements make the more personal side of the game.

On the interactive side, there’s several ways the game draws you into conflict. First off, I love the tunnels. They put you in striking distance of each other from the start, and as the game goes on you start to recognize interesting situations that use them. We had a guy decide he was going to camp out on all the tunnels, which you totally shouldn’t allow to happen. You have to build factories to start making money, but what you really want to do is take someone else’s. You get money based on how far away the factories are from your base. Factories are also worth a ton of points towards the end, so there’s a ton of fighting towards the end. The combat system is terrific, possibly the best card and dice combination system I’ve ever seen. You’re already going about your turn deciding if you want to take an action on a card or save it for combat, but by the time you get to combat, you’re wondering if you want to save it for an action next turn. Combat is fast, as it should be. It also has a mugging element where you can steal money, which I love. TL;DR, lots of player interaction and several good reasons for it, all of it fun.

It’s also modular in a totally simple way. The rulebook gives you several maps that will give different experiences, but I can see folks who have a few games under their belts getting creative without spending a ton of time thinking about it or playtesting.

Just stellar game that I want to play over and over.

Sounds interesting. I am looking forward to some direct comparisons to City of Remnants; I have seen some comments that this is more streamlined / simplified.

hotseatgames wrote: Sounds interesting. I am looking forward to some direct comparisons to City of Remnants; I have seen some comments that this is more streamlined / simplified.

Based off of what I know about CoR, it absolutely is. Even the most enthusiastic CoR fans I know said there were a few too many things bolted on to that game. Neon Gods feels like a 2018 game. Very accessible without giving up tough decisions.

I played Brass: Lancashire today for the first time and we talked a bit about how it compares to Birmingham. I think that the core difference is not so much mechanics as it is philosophy. The first game is a narrow, tight game, much like the games of its time. It's very much about one thing and has as few parts needed to power that thing as it is reasonable.

The second game, on the other hand, has far more options and strategies available to the player. It is, again, a game much more in the vein of its time, but this time it's 2018. The core mechanics are more or less the same, but what you are worried about is much different.

For example, blocking is much nastier in the first game and spaces on the board are more heavily contested. The other has a lot of competition too, but it's less tight because you have more options. You don't need that steel mill or railroad link as much because you can do something else. Let's call a spade, a spade. Birmingham is very much one of those games where you have a lot of nice options so everyone can have their "thing" and walk out of the game happy.

I haven't played enough to really comment on what's better, but I suspect there might be a fun/tension divide here. As in, yeah, it's more fun to have more options. However, more options is also less tense and hence less interesting. The original Brass is unforgiving. This new game? Not so much. Time will tell if this is a good trade-off.

There are, however, some refinements in the second game. There are better "Joker" actions, Railroad links have been nerfed (even in just 1 game we could all tell the "build 2" action was underpriced) and from what I read online, the dominant strategies have been tackled head-on.

Of course, there's no real reason to choose, because they are not really different games as they are different scenarios. It's a false choice, in practise.

By the way, while the new edition is prettier, it is printed too dark and colour-rich and is kind of annoying on a visual level.

I also played March of the Ants which is positively awesome. This time I tried to play aggressively and it both paid off and showed many of the game's strenghts. I think the game's reception might have heavily suffered by a combination of very poor play and playing at a player count (4) which I would not recommend.

Trashfest is here. We got things started with Western Legends a self described "sandbox" game set in the Wild West. Let's just say that when a game is described as a "sandbox" I find myself scrambling for matches and lighter fluid so that I may purge the world of that accursed misnomer the only way possible: with fire.

However, I'm glad I stilled that instinct long enough to give it a try. It can more accurately be described as an Adventure game which cribs a bit from Spurs, Merchants and Marauders, and even a little bit from Dead of Winter with its story cards. It has some cool stuff going on in it. Locations that let you do some neat things like gamble or prospect for gold or rob the bank. You can herd or rustle cattle. You can be a hero or a villain. All very fun.

The game looks great with awesome art. The player boards are highly functional and the player aids useful.

In tonight's game it was a tie between Uba and Al. To be fair, we played the cattle rules way wrong which affected the outcome. I came in last but I did beat Al in a gunfight and stole a bunch of his money which was great. On the next turn he arrested me and sent me to jail. That's just how life goes when you wear a black hat.

hotseatgames wrote: Sounds interesting. I am looking forward to some direct comparisons to City of Remnants; I have seen some comments that this is more streamlined / simplified.

City of Remnants, while almost brokenly unbalanced, is still one of my all time favorite games, overcoming its pseudo-deckbilding mechanism (I don’t like deck building). It’s relatively fast and as long as you play 3 players and exclude Yellow, it’s awesome. Yellow, with an experienced player, will win more often than not because the game is ultimately an economic one and Yellow is the king of the economic aspect.

Now, I know I may be wrong about that, because if you ask anyone, Red is overpowered. Or Green. Just google it.

In my experience, though, most people will play a game once or twice, form an opinion, and if they detect a perceived problem, they will be first to run their gums. Like I’m doing now, except I’ve played it maybe 15 times. Probably a little more.

A common complaint is that there’s way too much shit going on, mechanically, like it’s Aquasphere, a game whose design goal was almost positively “develop a game with every concievable path to victory ever”. It’s really not. What makes people say that is that there is a MASSIVE, stackable set of powers in the cards and it’s a very card driven game.

Either way, a FANTASTIC game with the most horrible looking board ever.

SuperflyTNT wrote: Now, I know I may be wrong about that, because if you ask anyone, Red is overpowered. Or Green. Just google it.

In my experience, though, most people will play a game once or twice, form an opinion, and if they detect a perceived problem, they will be first to run their gums. Like I’m doing now, except I’ve played it maybe 15 times. Probably a little more.

A common complaint is that there’s way too much shit going on, mechanically, like it’s Aquasphere,

Interestingly, I've seen (and experienced) both these reactions about Root. I felt like the Vagabond was OP; many other people say the Woodland Alliance is; a few others think the Eyrie is since so many card combos can push them way out of reach. Everyone says that you'll get things wrong the first 3 or 4 times you'll play, since there's so much going on. I think that's the very definition of a "hobbyist" game, since how many people other than those like us will be willing to play a game 4 times before getting it right?