I can understand why someone would dislike that an LCG’s design would compel them to buy cards. On the other hand, I mean, that’s what an LCG is for. But anyway, I don’t think Arkham Horror is seriously intended to be played by 3 or 4 players. Or even 2, really. It’s a surprisingly good solitaire game right out of the core set, though - much more playable than Lord of the Rings was.
I tried it (the Arkham Horror LCG), and it just completely bounced off of me.Immediately sold it, as I really did not see any meaningful decisions to be made.
Fortunately, others seem to really enjoy it, so I’m glad it’s bringing happiness to some people. :)
I would say the ONLY value of the Arkham Horror card game is in multiplayer with 3-4 people. Be cool with the fact that you’re basically going to run a one-off quasi pen & paper session, have a blast with one weekend night of going through the campaign, then never touch it again.
Which makes the “must buy 2 whole core sets” requirement for 3-4 players even harder to swallow.
I guess I just don’t get the appeal for anything outside of an atmospheric one-off for people who wished Arkham/Eldritch had more of a story. Once you run through the story and the surprises are gone, I don’t get the appeal of replaying it when you could just play Eldritch Horror.
Getting 4 people to chip in $15 each for one fun game night is the only context I can really recommend the game for.
Because even though it’s possible to see all the plot points in a single scenario playthrough, I find the personal stories in each replay are varied enough and the central puzzle of each scenario interesting enough, that I know I will get plenty of enjoyment out of replaying them multiple times. Frankly, I find the card play and general mechanics to also be considerably more engaging than playing Eldritch Horror. But then I also have no desire to play the game with 3-4 people.
And it is an LCG. So for those that enjoy the game enough to continue spending money on it, the experience extends far beyond the mini-campaign contained in the core box. I look forward to years of creative, replayable scenarios (judging by how LotR went) and an ever expanding player card pool to experiment and build with. Though I get why that business model would be a turn off for some.
I have to agree with most of Toms points. Sorry but MK is not the #1 board game so If anyone happens upon this old thread I would say Arkham Horror is a better game in this situation than MK. That or Robinson Crusoe and I think MK was the king back in the day but its overhyped now. I jumped on that train and I still have my copy but its collecting dust and I would rather play AH.
Theres much better options now and if Arkham Horror (not the LCG) is too fiddly then I suggest Eldritch Horror. You want to strike a balance with complexity and game time and accept it to get that great replayable solo game.
I’ve had Mage Knight for years, and really WANT to like it. Want to go on an adventure on hexes, and roll dice and get stuff, and all that. But every time I play, it’s just sooooo slow to start out. Turns spent just trying to move, etc. etc. Pretty much everything Tom said really. Then, by the time it’s mid-end, the battles are just SO obnoxious to get through all the fire/ice/block/ranged/cold-fire/hot-ice/poison/whatever, that it’s not even fun. Doing all those numbers is TEDIOUS as hell.
So, I picked up Unicornus Knights this week. Put a map together of hexes, move around, roll dice to have combat, get cool skills, get allies. Bam. It’s obviously nowhere near as in depth as Mage Knight. The landscape is mainly there to affect movement, defense, etc.(not as many things to visit). But it TOTALLY scratches that itch for me. Combat is dice-rolly, but not TOOOO many dice. Not as many spells and stuff, but enough. Cool characters, fun theme. Plays is a fraction of the time.
The rulebook is a mess. There’s an UK reprint available online, hopefully it’ll ship with that in the future.
tldr: Unicornus Knights replaced Mage Knight for me.
Interesting timing: I was just browsing Star Trek Frontiers at the game store, and as far as I can tell, its a refined, streamlined version of Mage Knight with a Star Trek license.
Has anyone played Star Trek Frontiers and what do folks think?
I was tempted but it has an $80 sticker price so…
It’s almost exactly the same as Mage Knight, to the point that it’s easier to enumerate the differences than similarities. The biggest difference is that there is no day/night cycle.
This is a really good video review.
So, this is going to sound weird, but I kind of like Star Trek: Frontiers. For me, the Mage Knight turn-by-turn puzzle of how to optimize a handful of cards to move and punch stuff doesn’t seem so arbitrarily clunky when you’re representing a spaceship and its crew. It’s still a bit too puzzley for me, but as a solitaire game about flying ships around to fight stuff and upgrade your deck, it kind of worked for me.
That said, I think you have to not be into Star Trek too much. I don’t really know my Star Trek, but you get things like, uh Captain Picard flying a Romulan ship and fighting Wharf with a proton torpedo. I could be misremembering some of the specific verbiage, but you get the idea. I know just enough to see that the game couldn’t care less about the lore. It’s also a pretty half-assed conversion of the Mage Knight basics. Way too many of the rules are just reskinnings.
But still, what’s another solitaire game about flying a spaceship and it’s crew on a five year tour to explore strange new planets?
Ooh, look, it’s by Seiji Kanai, the Lost Legacy guy! You might have just cost me $35. Do you feel it’s got much variety and replay value?
Old but good. Yes. Correct. 100%. Everything is in order. But Forest Snare is 1) Expensive for lore and 2) Does require the Troll to attack once already. (Ouch!) (barring modern card pool)
As an aside, I did complete Journey down the Anduin on Nightmare mode some how.
Given my avatar, I suppose I’m duty-bound to try Star Trek: Frontiers. Haven’t pulled the trigger yet, though.
I don’t love Mage Knight – I dread the idea of digging out those rules and re-learning them a third time – but I’m not sure it’s the worst boardgame of all time! I’d rather play Mage Knight than Monopoly, Chutes & Ladders, the Game of Life, or Trump: The Game. (Yes, there really is an old boardgame about Trump.)
Edit: looked at the MK ruleset again. Ugh. Maybe Tom isn’t wrong.
HE IS WRONG
[quote=“roguefrog, post:205, topic:128485”]
But Forest Snare is 1) Expensive for lore and 2) Does require the Troll to attack once already. [/quote]
True, but you plan for these things. Using Forest Snare is the centerpiece of your strategy for that scenario, so you build your deck and your actions towards that.
So far seems pretty good. The princess, who acts like an AI sort of, has 4 different versions that affect the game feel/strategy and difficulty drastically. You build the map at the beginning of the game, so it’s different every time. You don’t play with the enemies every game, but you play with all but two, so it could probably use a few more there.
I’ve been playing solo with three characters so far, and there are a TON to choose from, and then the combinations completely change how you approach it. It’s just puzzley/strategic enough, and then combat is dice rolls to keep it exciting.
Unicornus Knights really is not like Mage Knight, and probably belongs in the solitaire thread. I was gonna write a review about it, but have been distracted by real life stuff.
TOTALLY WRONG! Mage Knight is great*!
*: Assuming you only play 2 players co-operative mode on the City Capture or Lost Legion scenarios on a high difficulty with no AP prone players and require explaining in character what you’re doing each round including why you could only move 3 spaces and do nothing else.
Has anyone played Mistfall?