Oh, yeah. It’s one of my favorite games, yet I rarely win on either side.
I’m more of an 18xx man myself, and that has competitive in spades.
I was so pumped for the expansion of Rebellion since the game seemed promising but had a lot of clunky shit to iron out (who thought those tactics cards were a good idea?).
Then I saw that all the new stuff was all going to be Rogue One themed.
NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo
That’s always the biggest problem with asymmetrical faction games. It’s not quite so bad in Cthulhu Wars since you learn all the upgrades in one go and there’s no cards to worry about.
I will never touch the Game of Thrones Board Game again though. 3 hours wasted so a new Lannister player can discover and be crushed by the ridiculous Balon Greyjoy card.
You can just use the new combat cards and rules and ignore the rest.
Yeah, I prefer 18xx too, but that’s a totally different discussion.
The expansion really fixes the game short comings. You can just play with the new rules for battles, though I think the new units, and type of dice are a brilliant touch…:)
Same here, although I think I am going to dump the tactics cards in general. There is one Rebel one that is just mean, where if you play it, and then all units are destroyed that round, the Imperial leader is removed from the game.
BBG has a variant that doesn’t use the tactics, but does use the block mechanism from the crossed lightsabers rule. After thinking about it, I almost think the tactics cards still don’t really affect things too much. Usually, it’s just a couple of blocks or an extra hit. they do add to the time combat takes, also.
I also wish there was some sort of rule to handle massively one-sided combat. I had a few where we had to play out wiping out a few minor pieces just to see how many fighters got wiped out on the attacking side.
The Rogue One stuff is minor and really is just a few extra leaders. Thematically it is the same.
But it’s like if I’m not using any of the leaders and missions, why am I even buying the expansion at all? The Rogue One stuff also bleeds over into all the new units. TIE strykers? Tanks? Bazooka infantry? U-wings? They had SO many unused classic trilogy stuff left to include and they left if all out in favor of u-wings? Where are the B-wings? The A-Wings? TIE interceptors?
The base game combat was such a fumble though. I can’t believe that clunky tactic card system ever made it out of playtesting.
On the way, I’m sure. You don’t think they’re going to roll out that stuff before they’ve bilked you for a couple of half-assed expansions first, do you? This is Fantasy Flight we’re talking about.
-Tom
Usually the first expansion is the best! Arkham Horror, Eldritch Horror. It’s the followups after that where it gets half assed.
That is true, isn’t it? I wonder if they’ve learned to lead with the crappy stuff to keep everyone on the hook. That’s what it sounds like here. Because I love Rebellion, but the only thing that would cause me to clog it up with a bunch of Rogue One junk is impatience.
-Tom
They probably saw the Rogue One window as being limited and wanted to get it out there before people forgot about it/lost interest.
I remember our first game of Age of Steam. I used to have 3-4 buddies of mine over every year for a boardgame weekend when we all lived within a couple hundred miles of Chicago, and we would spend three days just cranking through games. Age of Steam knocked us for a loop. Are we doing this right? we thought. Yes, we were doing it right.
It’s an incredible design. And almost certainly a guaranteed turn-off for new players. Of course, since it’s a Martin Wallace game, it got a redesign to make it more friendly and lame and just a worse game overall.
Age of Steam is one of only two train games that I actually like.
Sante Fe Rails is the other one.
I could be forgetting about a third, but I don’t think so.
@Brooski @arrendek you two are dead to me.
Joking aside, I do actually take some issue with
Now I appreciate why you feel that way. And obviously we each have our own perspectives and reasons for this. But for me that more friendly aspect is absolutely critical. Why Railroad Tycoon/ Railways of the World is the superior game (and I’ve played Age, Steam, and RotW extensively) for me. Because it is a game I can play with my wife, my brother, and his wife. Also many of our friends and their spouses. The mechanics aren’t so… unforgiving. Strategy is still king, but the fact is that you never wind up in a situation without any positive options. Which makes all the difference. It also helps curb some of the snowball effects, both good and bad.
So while I can certainly understand why some people like the Age design better, the playability of RotW and the enthusiasm I get when bringing it out, far supersede all other considerations for me.
Plus it has nicer looking maps ;)
We played a ton of Age of Steam back in the day. One of my gaming buddies even started his game publishing company (Bezier Games) by publishing Age of Steam maps. It is a weird game though, because it is about delivering goods in the least efficient way possible. I still own it, but we never play it any more (and we only played Steam once or twice, and the Steam Barons expansion is a disaster).
I don’t play many train games anymore. If I was going to I’d bust out an 18xx, maybe 1825? We play Russian Railroads, but that’s not really a train game, it’s a worker placement game.
46 is the easiest one to get and one of the gentler ones though imo it’s most interesting at higher player counts.
I like CZ but it’s a bit harder to come by.
Just got back from an evening at the Sacramento Conquest convention. Played a pair of games by Steven Feld, Castles of Burgundy and Bora Bora. I thought Castles of Burgundy was quite good for a point-salad Euro. My initial take on Bora Bora was “this is really weird” but it started to make more sense as I just relaxed into flowing with it’s point-salad-y ways.
I haven’t decided what I’m going to play tomorrow yet…
Is that Stefan Feld’s American stage name?
Play Trajan and get back to us…