Yep and 2 for 1 at that.
What besides Jaws did you find at Target?
I was on the verge of running to a Target to pick it up myself, but after reading the rules online, I’m concerned it’s just a gimmicky hidden movement game.
Oh me too. I watched a bgg explanation and it seemed like there was enough to do and was still short enough. I’ll probably keep it sealed till some more reviews come out.
I think I’m ready to throw in the towel on Through the Ages.
I’ve been playing for a year and a half, dozens of games, and I don’t think I’m getting any better and can never quite tell why I ever win or lose.
More than that though, I think the way military conflict works in that game is busted. I’m seeing too many games that go on for so long, only to be completely decided by who gets the most ridiculous army in the final age. Now, you can say that’s part of the game and if you ignore military, you deserve to lose.
But that’s where the “busted” part lies. You can play perfectly smart, developing your economy and culture generation while getting a respectable army to defend yourself against the guy who goes all out military, but if there’s even one player who neglects military, they become a culture farm and the military player takes the game.
The rules even acknowledge this in a half assed way. A player can resign at the start of their turn to drop out if they just become a hopeless culture battery. Except it’s totally optional, which once again goes back to the problem of the punching bag deciding the game. It doesn’t do any good if it’s not an forced rule. The game really needs another new edition that smooths out the way military works.
Well, lots of games include ‘king making by skill differential’. I’m not fond of it either.
A lot of conflict/conquest games though, you can only gain so much by attacking someone before they’re gone with nothing left to take. TTA you can just farm someone for huge gains over and over.
Hmm. Are you playing the new edition? That version has tweaked the military game quite a bit, and my own experience (not very many games, admittedly) is that it’s much better now than before - wars don’t drain the defender as badly (no sacrificing) and tactics being possible to copy help the defending players(s). Also, there’s always the peaceful game variant (which I’ve played a couple of times with conflict-averse gamers).
The “surrender rule” is rubbish, though - completely agree.
Why are you guys talking about a videogame in the boardgames thread?
Received my copy of Antinomy the other day and it is great. Great solo and 2 player game. Really thinky at either player count. Really enjoy multiple of then button shy wallet games but has shot to the top of my list.
Join us on team Hate Through the Ages. We have doughnuts. Well, I guess, join me. Until now it seemed I was the only one.
It’s kind of taken the place of the same category as Race for the Galaxy for me: a game that you seem to hit a plateau in strategy wise and there stops seeming to be any way to improve and victory just seems to go to whom lucks out.
Except Race is a very quick affair while TTA demands a big investment (especially the completely unplayable 3 hour physical version). And there’s almost no king-making or half assed roll your own optional resignation rule.
Just remember: the same guy who made Mage Knight also made Through the Ages. Something to think about.
what a wide spectrum of visual quality in this post. That Clank! Legacy game looks horrible!
Some people love Penny Arcade stuff. Not for me though.
I love Penny-Arcade proper, but I’ve never been enough of a D&D guy to care about their campaigns or anything to do with Acquisitions Inc. So this will actually be the first Clank! product I’m not buying.
Which is for the best, because I legitimately love Clank!, but I’m already sitting on two or three expansions I’ve just never gotten anyone to play with me.
You are hexploring it!
Well put. I still like both games (Race more because its shorter and tells a better story) but as you both say, once you find the edge of the strategy then you are left with the final X*% which is either outside of your control or random. *“X” being how the game ends. Who wins etc.
I have to be on the mood now to play either. And the mood is, to my surprise, when I want some mindless entertainment. Both these games have lots of decisions and mechanics to go through which dont matter.
I also find I prefer both digitally.
I can’t even imagine playing Through the Ages as an actual board game. I do enjoy playing it on my tablet though, with friends. I guess I lucked out in going digital the first time around.