Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

BoardGameGeek features information related to the board gaming hobby
    0 0

    by Mark Hengst II

    So I have spoken at length, on more than one occasion, about my obsessive collective tendencies when it comes to the hobby of tabletop gaming. My collection has gone from 8-10 at the start of 2017, to over 100 today in 2018. Initially, much of my gaming money was spent either buying up Eldritch and Arkham Horror and their expansions, or buying a bunch of sets of LCG booster packs and expansions. Then I have my numerous miscellaneous purchases, such as Cave Troll, Jamaica and Android Mainframe, which I picked up for very little money during last year's Asmodee clearance sale. I can recall picking up all of the Cosmic Encounter expansions, one at a time, simply to have the whole set, despite not having played the game at that point in time. At first there was a mostly logical progression to my purchases, as I bought Cthulhu-themed games that I thought my wife would enjoy, as well as other games, such as Ex Libris, which I assumed she would also like, having been an actual librarian at one time.

    As last year and then this year progressed, my collection started to increase at quite the clip. This time, it was me finding an purchasing games that I had missed out on. In the last 8 months alone, I picked up Merkator, Le Havre, At the Gates of Loyang and A Feast for Odin, and Nusfjord , because I determined that I would enjoy playing Uwe Rosenberg's games. Fortunately I was correct and that part, and even more fortunately, the games all support solo play. This also started me into trying to find and purchase copies of out of print games that I felt I "needed" to add to my collection. This included:


    Thunderstone Advance Numenera - purchased brand new

    At The Gates of Loyang - purchased brand new
    Chaos in the Old World - purchased an open, but never played copy
    Forbidden Stars - purchased brand new
    Battlestar Galactica - purchased brand new

    I purchased these either on Ebay, or thorugh BGG auctions, which I have found to be another dangerous means of acquiring games.

    Still, prior to this, I had only Kickstarted one game, the Ninth World: a Skillbuilding Game for Numenera. Sadly, this was not to be the end for my Kickstarter obsession. First, my wife and I purchased a Table of Ultimate Gaming. It is a 4x6 gaming table, that has a recessed gaming surface, but can be used as a dinner table by using the cover. We are excited about receiving it and expect it at any point in the next few weeks. Secondly, I backed the KS campaign for Kill the Unicorns, as it looked like something my wife and I would enjoy and we didn't have a lot of lighter games at that point. The thrid campaign I backed this year was the Dinosaur Island Campaign. I went all in on this campaign and expect to receive the base game in the next 2 weeks and hopefully the expansion and Duelosaur Island by the end of the year. After that......well things started to go downhill for me.

    I backed Unbroken, because its premise and game mechanisms appeal to me and I like the idea of solo games designed from the ground up for solo play. I next back Imperious, which seems like a fun card based game that will present an interesting challenge and be good for starter games on game night. Then CMON launched the campaign for Zombicide Invader, the "zombies?" in space game that seemed to be a slight evolution on what I had experienced in Black Plague. However, they had me at the $150 soldier pledge which was the base game and some extra content, and then they dropped the Dark Side add-on. This was a $90 standalone set that was a little different. They billed it as a "limited print run" which made the collector in my scream. Annoyed, I dropped down to $1 and went on with my life.

    Gugong the Forbidden City and Cosmic Run: Regeneration, scratched different, but equally compelling itches for me. Gugong looks beautiful and the game itself, from what I have read and seen, should be a lot of fun and sort of hit that mid-weight euro game feel. Cosmic Run: Regeneration, is a much smaller game, but it has a solid cooperative mode and after watching the Ant Lab games play through, I decided to give it a backing. Plus after Biblios, I will tend to give Dr. Finn games a chance. Hellboy was the next big campaign, and being a fan of Mike Mingola's work, coupled with the great movie versions, I decided to back this. Much like Zombicide Invaders, the campaign creep started to come in, with numerous add-ons raising the price to close to or over (with shipping) $200. Yet again, I dropped to a dollar and moved on.

    Heroes of Land, Air, and Sea was a game I had been circling for a while, so when it came back to Kickstarter with a new expansion, I went all in on it. When I say all-in, I mean everything that you could get for it, to include the pre-painted minis. I don't really have anything like it in my collection and so I jumped on it. Shortly after this, I got an email informing me that the 7th Continent pledge manager was re-opening and I now had a chance to go all-in on it and its expansions. Realizing that this was likely to be my last chance to get the game at a lower price, I once again took the plunge. Meanwhile, Snowdownia hit Kickstarter and had me pretty interested. I was at $1, thinking of getting the game, when I saw a BGG post for a DC area group buy. I ended up getting the game for around $52 due to having either 30 or 36 people in on the buy.

    At this point, I knew I had at least one major campaign remaining on Kickstarter, that being Cthulhu: Death May Die. Which if you have read this blog you know I also went all-in, even purchasing the huge 2ft tall Cthulhu statue for the game. While this campaign was going on, I backed two much smaller games in the form of Wreck Raiders and New Corp Order. One is a family weight game and the other a card based game that looked fun. I actually canceled New Corp Order and the designer started messaging me via Kickstarter messages and after chatting a little I decided to re-back the campaign. Sometimes persistence can pay off and customer engagement, especially for one lone customer, is an impressive feat.

    One would think by the point, that I would be exhausted by all of this stuff. One would be mostly right....up to a point. I am currently backing AEG's Thunderstone Quest at all-in, having missed last year's campaign. I am backing at a level that will have the base game delivered to me 6-8 weeks after the campaign ends, as they have about 1k copies on hand still. Additionally I am backing the Call to Adventure game, based largely on it's ties to Patrick Rothfus' Name of the Wind series, and the Terror of London deckbuilding game. I am feeling like at least one of these 3 games is going to be dropped, possibly two of them. I have also been trying not to look at Vital Lacerda's Escape Plan, as it also might be worth a play.

    As a side note, or perhaps a sad note? I went into the pledge manager for Zombicide Invader and went all-in. I don't have a zombicide game and the nature of the game its game play appealed to me. It is like a far less involved crawl and I think there is a place for it in my collection. Or perhaps I am just trying to rationalize my spending habits. Either way, I think I just need to finally stop. While I will be getting a slew of interesting games in 2019, I have shelves full of games that I am not playing right now. My recently found love of Legendary Marvel Superheroes, has led me to join my first BGG league and I only have one expansion for the game. If it kills, me, I am going to quit the Kickstarter obsession and get back to playing games. At least that is my plan.....

    Thanks for reading my Meeple Life Crisis.


    [poll=388123]

    0 0
  • 08/05/18--07:53: New Image for Le Havre
  • by GameSnake

    <div>Le Havre, English, 2018 - Back</div>

    0 0
  • 08/05/18--07:53: New Image for Le Havre
  • by GameSnake

    <div>Le Havre, English, 2018 - Front</div>

    0 0
  • 08/14/18--02:25: New Image for Le Havre
  • by Gwynor

    <div>In the 10th anniversary of this masterpiece, great 3 players match with my wife's victory (she built a luxury liner as the last action for the win!)</div>

    0 0

    by adamsd

    I have multiple times solo - it is mostly an optimization game especially when playing solo.

    Cons playing solo is you see a very limited set of buildings compared to say playing it with 4 players. The only thing that changes are the order that the buildings are placed and the special buildings that come out.

    0 0
  • 08/18/18--11:42: New Video for Le Havre
  • by miguelmichan

    video<div></div>

    0 0

    by edifanobbonafide

    I agree with you that in the end it is up to you to decide how you want to play the game.

    For me there it does not appeal to select the buildings and their order in advance.

    So far I played it three times solo with card selection according to the rules excluding ZOO and HARBOUR WATCH and with zero resources at the start because I missed step 7 of the set up.

    I ended the games with 107, 108, and 135 points.

    Next time will start with 5 Franc and 1 Coal as described and see what will make the difference.

    0 0

    by magikmax

    I use a combination of 0.14l Really Useful Boxes, and 0.07l Really Useful Boxes, these fit perfectly into the squares on the board, and are perfect size for holding the resource tiles. They come in different colours, but if you get the clear ones you can still see the artwork on the board.

    The 0.07l boxes aren't as easy to get hold of (they are half the height of the 0.14l, and perfect for the resources that do not have as many tiles), but the 0.14l are pretty common. Here's a link on Amazon showing you what I mean:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Really-Useful-Organiser-Storage-Pla...

    I don't have my copy of the game to hand to tell you how many you need of each, however each resource has its own box, with an extra one for the coins, and they are roughly half 0.14l and half 0.07l. They all fit with plenty of room in the box.

    0 0

    by Brandon Kempf

    Introduction: We’re going to deliver a new type of content: lightly edited transcripts of some of the chats we have on our slack channel. This is a great way to discuss news with different voices in our hobby. Normally we’d do this on a podcast, but sometimes the written word is easier to skim. Plus, Chris is still bemoaning the demise of the written word in board game content creation.

    Chris Wray: The nominations for the 2018 International Gamers Awards were announced yesterday. You can find them in a post we did yesterday. We're going to talk about the nominees. But first: who got snubbed? Brandon, what three games did you think you'd see, but didn't?

    Brandon Kempf: I think the obvious one in the room is the Kennerspiel des Jahres nominee, Ganz Schön Clever, right? I realize that the IGA committee wants to be a bit “heavier” and more “Gamer-y” than the SDJ jury, but they do have Azul in the nominees.

    Chris Wray: Given its enormous popularity, I was very surprised it wasn’t on the list. I could say the same thing about Die Quacksalber von Quedlinburg. But the biggest omission to me was Pandemic Legacy Season 2. Any other surprising omissions to you?

    Brandon Kempf: I think those are big omissions, especially PLS2. Only other snub I can think of is possibly something like Spirit Island, which is kind of an anti-colonialism cooperative game that has had some fairly critical success. Could it be that they aren’t recognizing co-ops?

    Chris Wray: I think you're onto something: I suspect there are several members of that jury that don't like co-ops. I do think they did pretty well with the 2-player category, though. The only real omission I noticed was Lost Cities: To Go, but Lost Cities won the award back in 2000, and To Go was pretty derivative. So let's talk about the nominees, going with that 2-player category first. Three questions: (1) What are your overall thoughts? (2) Which one would you vote for to be the winner? and (3) What do you think is the most likely to win?

    Brandon Kempf: (1) Overall thoughts are, I just don't follow the 2-player field as much as I probably should. I don't think any of these games particularly excite me personally. (2) If I were voting here I'd probably lean towards Codenames Duets. Honestly this is my preferred variation of the Codenames lineage and I think it works far better than it has any right to… wonderful job designing that and developing it into a 2-player game. The rest are kind of just there. I think maybe Fox in the Forest deserves some love. (3) As for who I think will win, 13 Days would be a pleasant surprise I think, only based on designer lineage. Asger has been one of those designers who is very quietly building himself a fantastic reputation and an IGA would be something to hang your hat on. But I think that it goes to Codenames Duet. How about you? And we should preface this by saying, you don't know how the committee would vote right now, but you do know a fair number of the voters, right?

    Chris Wray: I personally know about 1/3 of the jurors. (1) Overall thoughts: The 2-player award has always been harder for me to predict. And it is especially hard this year, because those games are all quite different from each other, except for Claim and Fox in the Forest, which have the (extremely interesting) distinction of being 2-player trick-taking games. (2) I'd also vote for Codenames Duet, and I hope that is what prevails, because I agree: it is the best version of Codenames. (3) I’m having a hard time predicting, but I’ll go with Codenames Duet. So we’re in agreement, I guess. Turning to the Multi-Player Category, I have the same three questions: (1) What are your overall thoughts? (2) Which one would you vote for to be the winner? and (3) What do you think is the most likely to win?

    Brandon Kempf: Claim may have been the most interesting take on the 2-player trick taking genre, but I just think that Fox in the Forest worked a lot better. Turning to multiplayer, (1) of the list, I have played 9 of them and feel like I probably played 10 just judging by lineage. But I think overall this is a pretty solid list of Mid-Heavy Euro Strategy games. Definitely a lot of J.A.S.E. (Just Another Soulless Euro) feeling in here, minus a couple of titles. The two that stand out to me are of course Azul which is just an outstanding game that felt classic from the first play and Decrypto which surprises me to be in here, because one of these games is not like the others. Of the ones that I haven't played yet, only TransAtlantic stands out as something I'd even really look into playing, although I've heard fine things about Agra. (2) Hands down, my vote still goes to Azul, I don't think that there has been a better designed game in the last year or two. It's just an absolutely perfect puzzle to try to solve each and every game. (3) Most likely? I'm just going to go with critical response and say maybe Heaven & Ale gets the recognition it deserves this time around. How about you: those three questions, right back at you.

    Chris Wray: (1) It's a good, but not amazing, list of games, and I have a hard time picking a front runner. (2) Remember when we talked about Pandemic Legacy: Season 2 getting snubbed? That's what I think should have won. But of the games on the list, I hope Heaven & Ale wins, as I thought it had a bit more soul than most medium-to-heavy Euros. I like games like Azul, but I also kind of like that the IGA rewards heavier games when other awards don't. (3) I'd predict Heaven & Ale wins. I know a couple of the jurors really like it, and that game seems to get better and better the more you play it. One final thought on the list overall, though: many of these are forgettable. I don't think anybody will be playing Nusfjord or Pulsar 2849 in 5 years. Heck, I don't think many people are playing them now, and they were just released a few months ago. Moreover, some games on that list are in pretty limited edition. Do you agree? Some of these just aren't memorable already?

    Brandon Kempf: Yes, I agree, Thus my comment on JASE. This feels like an award for that judging from half the list. Pulsar 2849 was a fine game, it was a convoluted point salad game in space: the Feldiest Feld that ever Felded that isn't by Feld. Nusfjord was forgettable by the second play. Agra (approaching 2100 copies owned on BGG) and Gentes (approaching 1k owned copies on BGG) probably fall into that difficult to get area, but I think that distribution is fine for them and the audience that follows the IGAs will know them. Of the games, I think Santa Maria is my dark horse though here. I don't know how the jurors felt about it, I don't necessarily follow many of them, but I think Santa Maria is pretty good as well. Sad thing is, pretty good gets you forgotten in a couple years now a days. So Chris, what would you like to see in the IGAs in the future? Or do you think that they path they are on is the right path for the award?

    Chris Wray: They’re mostly on the right path. As I once explained in my IGA series, they have a remarkable track record of predicting what will be a hot game for years to come. That said, I’d like to see them give more a premium to innovation than they currently do. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate is via example: back in 2009, the award went to Le Havre, a perfectly fine game, but also in many ways just another Euro-style efficiency exercise. That same year, Dominion was nominated, and that game would go on to practically found the deck-building genre. To me — and perhaps with nearly a decade of hindsight — Dominion was the more innovative game, with far more of an impact on the hobby, and with far more popularity and timelessness than Le Havre. I’m not saying that the jury veered this way in 2018, but my biggest criticism of the games they pick is that they don’t seem to put an emphasis on originality. What about you?

    Brandon: I’m not sure, in a way I think that they are kind of just doing what their jurors want right? They are awarding the best game to these specific games from critics with a predilection to liking these types of games. I don’t think they are necessarily trying to award genre defining games, just games they will like. I would like for them to branch out a bit, but that seems a lot to ask of an Award jury with this kind of history, right? But I could be 100% incorrect in that assumption.

    Chris Wray: I think you're right. But to me, I think award juries should be only somewhat subjective (where they evaluate how much they liked the game) but strongly objective (where they sit outside of their personal preferences and look at the art of the design and how much a game advanced the hobby). The Spiel des Jahres jury does that, and others don’t and that’s why the SdJ is so successful. Any other thoughts?

    Brandon Kempf: It has to be difficult for juries to judge games that fall outside of their comfort zones, or even outside of their preferences, but you would almost think that helps the award mean more, right? I mean if there was a big bombastic Ameri-trash game that somehow worked its way into the nominees of the IGAs, I’d take a look for sure, I mean I guess Gloomhaven would qualify as that, but it also had that Euro hand management thing that folks love. But looking at the list of past winners, this committee has a definite way of leaning and a definite style of game that they want to reward for being their “Best”, especially in the multiplayer category, and I think that’s okay. Given some of the members, we probably should give credence to their choices.

    Be sure to head over to www.wdyptw.com to get all your WDYPTW Production fixes.

    0 0

    by ajax013

    Am I reading this right: we remove 9 of the 21 building cards so there’s only 12 total to build?? That seems like too few...

    0 0

    by Jasonbartfast

    That's part of what makes it the short game.

    0 0

    by ajax013

    Jasonbartfast wrote:

    That's part of what makes it the short game.


    Got it. Mostly just wanted to check to make sure that was right. So it’s possible to not have any wharf in the game then?

    0 0

    by dkeisen

    Why are you removing 9 buildings? It looks like the short version with 3 players uses 21 buildings.

    0 0

    by Chipacabra

    Just use the cards that are labelled for use in the 3 player short game. There should be 9 cards that are used in the full 3 player game that aren't marked to be used in the short game. You do NOT randomly select 9 cards to remove or anything like that.

    0 0

    by grant5

    ajax013 wrote:

    Am I reading this right: we remove 9 of the 21 building cards so there’s only 12 total to build?? That seems like too few...

    No, there are 21 buildings used of the 30 total in the deck. And you don’t remove the 9 randomly! So of course there will be a wharf in th game (2 actually). Just remove the 9 buildings that don’t have a small outline check mark in the 3 player box.




    0 0

    by grant5

    Chipacabra wrote:

    There should be 9 cards that are used in the full 3 player game that aren't marked to be used in the short game.

    Close. 6 of the 9 removed are used in the 3p long game. The other 3 are just for 4p and 5p games.

    0 0

    by ajax013

    grant5 wrote:

    ajax013 wrote:

    Am I reading this right: we remove 9 of the 21 building cards so there’s only 12 total to build?? That seems like too few...

    No, there are 21 buildings used of the 30 total in the deck. And you don’t remove the 9 randomly! So of course there will be a wharf in th game (2 actually). Just remove the 9 buildings that don’t have a small outline check mark in the 3 player box.





    Holy crap. Thank you so much for the clarification. I assumed that it meant randomly remove from the correct "check-marked" cards. Let me just confirm it for everyone: playing with 9 randomly removed buildings (including all sources of bricks and beef) was NOT fun. ;)

    0 0

    by Chipacabra

    grant5 wrote:

    Chipacabra wrote:

    There should be 9 cards that are used in the full 3 player game that aren't marked to be used in the short game.

    Close. 6 of the 9 removed are used in the 3p long game. The other 3 are just for 4p and 5p games.


    Ah, right, thanks. I was going off memory.