Boardgaming in 2018!



It is not nothing, but it is something. OK, that number is kind of pulled out of the ether. Most of your points are going to come from contracts. But, a player who can find a way to get 3 of their cities visited can nab something like an extra 10 points. On the flip side, visiting all cities is worth only like 20 points, and winning scores are in the 80’s, if my memory serves. It has been awhile since I’ve played this.


This is probably the main issue in terms of wrapping your head around Voyages of Marco Polo. Travel is really difficult and there simply aren’t that many turns in the game. The goal cards exist mainly to add a little uncertainty to the scoring at the end. I think it’s a bit misleading to call them goal cards, because that sets up the expectation that these four places are the places you need to reach, your “goals”. And if you don’t reach a goal, you have failed.

But as @JoshL and @Greatatlantic said, you don’t want to focus on them, unless (there’s always an “unless” in Voyages of Marco Polo) you’re using one of the guys with a travel advantage. The guy who teleports among the oases for example. Different characters lend themselves to different kinds of gameplay, and the goal cards are an element of that.

The goal cards are designed to screw you. There are basically four routes to the east, and they’re mostly shut off from each other. The goal cards will always put the goals on different routes, which is a real jerk move.



So, owning Empire of the Sun and not Pacific War am I missing anything really?

Tom Mc


The entire 18xx series does this.

Tom Mc


Well, they are better equiped to reach their goal cards, yes, but maxing out goal cards still only provides something like 22 points. Those travel bonuses are probably better spent picking out the choicest cities for bonuses and combos. Now, the guy who drops houses along the way? He probably could put together a pretty good travel package (of points). However, I’ve not seen that happen.


Anyone Palyed the Arkham Horror LCG and have any thoughts? I’m trying to talk myself into either picking up the game (or not).


I’ve enjoyed my plays of it, both solo and in a group.

If you’re okay with the LCG business model then I think AH is a good one to dive into.


“Owning” a game means you are missing playing it. If you just “own” it, that is.

As far as playing, Pacific War and Empire of the Sun are completely different games. Pacific War is more “wargamey” and in my opinion a better game.


Dragged out Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Skull and Shackles for the first time in ages. We tackled a scenario which had us fighting off a ghost ship and its undead crew while rescuing people in a thick fog bank. This was frustrating and ultimately unsuccessful, but also displayed some of the reasons I think Skull and Shackles is a much better (and more challenging) set than Rise of the Runelords. The central challenge here was that you can’t close either location until you’ve completely emptied them, and you’re dealing with a ridiculously obnoxious pirate captain who makes you do FOUR separate checks and then doesn’t even get defeated unless the location’s empty and a crew of swarming zombies that are immune to both poison and fire. (Plus various random other monsters, undeadified by their location.) Usually, you’re hoping to close at least a couple of the locations through early to mid-deck henchmen and if you have to clear every location in full, you’re probably going to lose. Here, with just two locations (though with a bunch of extra cards based on character count) your timer isn’t quite as tight, but you still have significantly more cards to clear than time to clear them. And any time you encounter the villain, welp, that’s a turn wasted -and- a turn cleared from the timer (because you can’t defeat him or close locations, so it’s always a blessing from the deck, not the box). And that’s best case, if you manage to succeed at literally every check of the four, so as to not take damage. He is a supreme ass. Furthermore, his henchmen are, as I say, immune to poison (irrelevant in ROTR, mostly, but a bunch of stuff does poison here) and fire (a wide range of combat spells and alchemy, etc), making them surprisingly challenging.

So yeah. That’s rough. On the other hand, like I say, it demonstrates the improvement in design since the first set. Lots of checks that aren’t combat. Traits that become very important to your tactics (immunities, for sure, and also a bunch of items, weapons and so on with handy conditional bonuses, or monsters with additional weaknesses/penalties based on checks you’re contributing). Bunches of ways to contribute to one another’s checks (e.g. the warpriest displaying cards for plusses to checks, the gunslinger contributing damage at range, the alchemist throwing potions as bombs, various bonus items contributing their bonus at range at a slightly steeper usage cost). Items in general being more useful, particularly consumables, which were never worth an item slot in your deck due to being banished on use…until the alchemist, who recharges them instead. A rechargable Potion of Heroism (+1d6 on all checks for a character for a turn) is a beautiful thing. Etc.


I really like the Arkham Horror LCG. The continuing stories with your character decks slowly evolving that still leave constantly you on the edge of failure can be replayed with slightly different outcomes.

You can get quite a few hours of enjoyment either solo or with a friend from the base game and then decide whether you’d like more scenarios and characters to play.


I enjoyed AH LCG. It had some good stories and interesting mechanics. It’s worth it to try the base game as it does not cost too much.


Bear in mind that a single core set for AH only allows two decks to be made at once, and while there are options there, it has to be a particular set of 2 decks, not any 2 you want.


Also, as I have ranted above, Fantasy Flight go out of their way to not provide storage for the game so you will want to buy your own. Great game, though. Probably the best and most thematically appropriate take on the source material they’ve done, and I enjoy all of them except Elder Sign and their previous Call of Cthulhu LCG.


I enjoyed the base set, but found it to be a bit anemic in content. Not sure how much content for the buck the scenario packs have.


I like the Arkham LCG too, but I’d warn that you might not have a ton of fun with the base game. I thought the interesting mechanics didn’t kick in until the Dunwich Legacy expansion.


I found the pricing for the card game to be ridiculous. $80 for the core set if you want full options (why the hell can’t they just sell extra investigator decks separately? That’s ALL you need from the 2nd core set; 60% of the other components are redundant and go to waste), and $15 per scenario after that.

I could only ever see it being worth it if you treat it as a D&D campaign night and a group chips in $5 each for an evening of entertainment.

(well, and the base campaign was pretty weak that turned us off to it. Carnival of Horrors was good though)


Picked up This War of Mine. I think I enjoyed it.


I found no problems with the pricing of the Arkham Horror card game. $30 for the core set for a nice solitaire setup. Gives you a chance to experience a decent-sized piece of the game…and then I think I paid $25 for the Dunwich Legacy expansion. As a solitaire experience, it’s just fantastic.

Only minor quibble I have is that the cards aren’t of the greatest quality, and I had to sleeve them to forestall warping. Great game. The base campaign is terrific.


So Fantasy Flight hasannounced a standalone video game based on Mansions of Madness. Hard to say what it is at this point. A straight port? Based on it with different mechanics? Multiplayer? Online play?


Well they call it an “Adventure Game” so probably not a port.