I’ve played an awful lot of Race for the Galaxy in various permutations (base game, each expansion) with Keldon’s AI. Not with human players, because I don’t know anyone who will play it.

I love the goals, but don’t care for the prestige or even the takeovers. In theory, the takeovers add more interaction, in practice the cards that trigger them come up rarely enough that I’ve never gotten over the learning curve. Takeovers just happen so rarely that by the time the next situation arises, I’ve forgotten the last one. The main problem with prestige is all the complex secondary effects and those prestige actions. I’d be fine if it were just another currency like cards and military power.

I’m of mixed feelings about the expansions in general. They certainly make the game a lot more interesting, but they also tend to ruin the synergies that were present in the base game. Far too many of the base game cards name specific other cards. I.e. “3 points for Galactic Trendsetters” was kind of iffy when it was a card you’d likely see, it becomes a total waste of time when the deck is really dilute. The cards that specify a kind (i.e. Uplift worlds) rather than a single card work much better.

That, and production strategies get tougher and tougher to pull off as you add expansions. They’re dominant in the base game, but by the time you’ve got Rebel vs. Imperium, most games seem to be won by card-playing. Not necessarily military, but not consumption.

Still, the expansions add some very interesting cards, ones I miss if playing the base game alone, and I generally enjoy playing with up to Rebel vs. Imperium. Brink of War, not so much.

It’s really not the same type of game as M44 – it’s a lot more comparable in weight and complexity to Combat Commander or Conflict of Heroes. Of the three of those games, Tide of Iron is my least favorite, due to having the least gameplay depth and the most fiddly pieces (trying to get those damn peg dudes into and out of their bases is amazingly frustrating).

Combat Commander: Europe is my favorite of those three games, though I haven’t honestly played Conflict of Heroes that much.

(As a side note, though, my son loves Tide of Iron as a toy – which is weird, because it seems like M44 would work better, with guys that can stand up on their own, but nope. He’s constantly got those boards spread out on the floor with elaborate battle scenes set up.)

I can only compare it to Thunderstone. Rune Age’s deck building mechanics are very different. They are more of a build-up mechanic than they are an engine-building or combo-building type of concept. In Rune Age you are just adding more and stronger allies to your deck. There aren’t any decisions about what strategy your deck will have. The deck building ends up being more linear and doesn’t require as much planning as in Thunderstone. This was the big letdown and led me to the conclusion that Rune Age will never have the staying power of a game like Thunderstone (and presumably Dominion) because of their variety.

On the bright side, Rune Age has lots of other things going on besides deck building. It has some real direct player interaction and an event deck that could have been pulled directly from The Lord of the Rings LCG. Those are some nice additions. In the end Rune Age is my replacement for the Lord of the Rings LCG rather than Thunderstone.

Its a good game, but it shouldn’t really be compared to other deck building games because it will only disappoint in that area. Its strengths are more in the player interaction and the coop event deck goals.

That’s a good way to describe it. The appeal of Dominion for me is figuring out combinations of cards that work well together and change with each game. There’s none of that in Rune Age, since the combinations are all prescribed by whatever race you pick at the beginning. You spend the game getting the best cards into your deck, instead of the most clever.

I really need to try Conflict of Heroes.

Any impressions of White Star Rising?

seconded

FFG just announced a big box Mansions of Madness expansion and a deluxe expansion for Lord of the Rings: The Card Game. :D

LOTR: TCG should finally have enough cards by the end of the year to make deck building viable and interesting now.

New investigators, new stories, new tiles, new puzzles, new cards. It sounds great. Definitely a must have for me.

Wendelius

DARN IT!!
Now I have to buy that! Stop making so many good games. My closet is full!

When I attempt to rationalize why I preordered the upcoming Martin Wallace English release of A Few Acres of Snow, well, it’s not easy. There’s something appealingly nostalgic about that art, and while it hasn’t been the first time I find a Wallace game visually appealing, it is the first time that the look is combined with answering a number of my “why hasn’t anyone made a game that x” questions, mainly along the lines of taking mechanics that I find abstractly interesting but boring in most of the games they appear in and working them into a subtly layered light wargame with a strong theme.

Scott Nicholson just posted his talk over at MIT. Fantastic stuff. Even if you’re not interested in his personal design endeavors there’s a fantastic recollection of the history of board games, genres and some important milestones.

Oh, and fuck yes to Mansions of Madness expansion!

This is a difficult report to write. In 1781 I cracked and considered conceding the New World to the filthy ingrates. But the war continues and we must soldier on.

So Dean and I continued our Washington’s War game on Sunday night. We fought the middle years, 1778-1781. I’m a little hazy on the exact details as it has been a few days and we played fairly late, but I took a few notes and this is what I recall.

For the bulk of those years, I forgot how to lose a battle. My armies pushed the Colonials around with ease, and I had all five of my generals in the field, each with some sort of substantial force.

Dean seemed to have three goals during the middle years.

  1. Protect the Congress with George Washington. I managed to disperse the Congress once, but for the most part he was successful at this.

  2. Send Benedict Arnold to Canada. He succeeded at this for a year, but then Arnold turned traitor and I retook Canada with a small force.

  3. Win some battles and get the French into the war. In 1780 he successfully accomplished this goal.

My goals, as I recall them, were as follows.

  1. Take undefended Georgia and threaten South Carolina. This I accomplished with a small army.

  2. Establish New England as a fortress of Tory might. This I more or less accomplished. Dean seemed to draw the line at New York and while we fought for control there, he has established dominance.

  3. Harass the Congress and attempt to kill George Washington. GW is his best general, and killing him sets the Americans way back in their efforts to bring the French into the war. In 1780 (maybe 1779) my cards aligned and I spent most of my resources in dispersing the Congress and attempting to hang Washington in Baltimore. I was successful in all my battles, but George slipped away each time.

The war was set to end in 1781 and I was well positioned to pull it off. I had control of 8 colonies, including Canada, and I only needed 6 to win. As long as a card did not come up that extended the war, all I had to do was fight to a draw this turn and I would win. When the cards were dealt out I didn’t have the card, although I suspected Dean might.

Two things had happened in the previous turn that began my downfall. I had left Howe, my best general, in freezing cold Springfield, Massachusetts and he had lost half of his force to winter attrition. And Dean had won enough battles to bring in the French.

I may have the exact order of things wrong, but the following events occurred.

-Dean butchered Howe in Springfield.

-Dean butchered Cornwallis in Norfolk.

-I wasted my cards trying to hold onto the political control of colonies that Dean didn’t want because he had the card that extended the game by 2 more fricking turns.

-I realized that I had exactly one decent army left with no reinforcements left to speak of, and they were led by my worst general, Burgoyne.

At that point I was close to giving up, as it seemed hopeless due to the lack of troops and the endless supply of troops available to Dean. But after some moping I decided to buck up and continue the fight. I’ve never seen the true endgame of Washington’s War, so maybe this is just what you have to expect as the British player.

Below is our current game state, going into 1782. I still own New England. It will take some effort to turn them back to blue. I have Burgoyne,but I can replace him with a better general and try to use him as a counter to Dean’s efforts at retaking the North. I still own Georgia weakly, but it will cost him some small effort to take it back. All is not lost. We plan to finish the war tomorrow night.

God save the King.

I could have sworn I’d played against a Gus Smedstad on flex. :)

Well, OK, on flex as well. Wish that were still running.

That’s pretty much what I was trying to do, the other thing was to use my better maneuverability to trap the British somewhere they couldn’t retreat from. Basically I have to hang my armies out there like ripe plums, and use my retreat to run away with a bad army while sending a good army in to smash the British. This would have two effects, first to win some battles and get the French into the war, and second, to kill over 3 British combat units in one battle in order to deny the British their +1 for British Regulars for the rest of the game.

Both of these goals were accomplished through a single card, Some German Guy came along and trained my troops. This got rid of the British Regulars bonus, AND gave Washington enough troops to defeat Cornwallis near Baltimore, then chase him down to Virginia and totally wipe him out.

Those victories were enough to convince the French to come into the war.

Greene finally butchered Howe in Springfield and that was mostly because of the Winter Attrition problem you had.

Whenever you play Benedict Arnold you can’t trust him. This leads to a lot of people metagaming and not using him. I decided to use him exactly as he should be used, which was to press the war in the North. He turned traitor, and cost me Canada, but I’m not sorry about that. He tied up a lot of British soldiers up there, allowing Washington to operate more effectively in the middle colonies.

Rob Do Not Read, Secret Future Strategy Below:

Going into the endgame, the French fleet is currently blockading New England, stopping the British from landing reinforcements up there. I’m hoping their fat asses won’t be able to come north from New York, and I’ll be able to retake Fortress New England before they can arrive.

And Rob, if you’re reading this, you’re a cheating bastard, but I blame the lack of early cryptography applied to dispatches sent to generals in the field.

Also, to get a clearer picture, here’s the rest of the map:

You can see that I control inland and have enough control of the bigger states that if Rob wants to take control, he’s going to have to spend all his OPs points on placing control markers rather than maneuvering his armies, that will let my armies carve up New England.

Can you elaborate on that? Do they just give him a random and known in advance chance of treachery, is it card based, or what?

And Rob, if you’re reading this, you’re a cheating bastard, but I blame the lack of early cryptography applied to dispatches sent to generals in the field.

Heh. Obviously you should have sent your dispatches in invisible ink. Errr, I mean spoiler tags! That’d fool those dastardly Brits.

Yep. One of the event cards essentially removes him from the game and screws America over. If you (as America) get the card you can hold on to it or discard in order to delay the betrayal but if the British guy gets it he can play it. Using Arnold is a calculated risk, if you’re lucky you can use him early to help you out and remove him before he becomes a liability.

Dean should have relied on steganography. By which I mean he should go to Rob’s house and dip his monitor in wax.

Has anybody tried “Space Hulk: Death Angel”? (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/71721/space-hulk-death-angel-the-card-game)

I’ve never played a Warhammer game of any sort, so the lack of miniatures and/or depth wouldn’t bug me. I was more curious about it as a kind of Betrayal at House on the Hill-light, in that it’s cooperative and the layout of the environment changes randomly.

Edit: Whoops, forgot that this thread has been going on for over 100 pages. I’ll remember the thread search.

You should do a thread search as it’s been discussed extensively farther back. General consensus is very positive, but there are a lot of rules that are easy to overlook.

Edit: Since most people aren’t aware it exists (I wasn’t for a very long time), there’s a great Google custom search tool for the site. Here’s the Death Angel results from it: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003108258092736810711%3Avitw2h-5mjy&ie=UTF-8&q=recommend+me+a+board+game+death+angel&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D003108258092736810711%3Avitw2h-5mjy