So I am (very) tempted to pick up War of the Ring with some of my xmas money, but I was wondering if it adapts reasonably well to playing in teams. We always have 3-4 players so for Earth Reborn we play as teams, which works pretty well. Just wondering if the same sort of thing would work ok for WotR?
dtolman
4582
Lorini,
Were you turtling as well, or actively placing hexes when exploring to facilitate movement?
It seems to me that you have a group problem, not a game problem. Its like complaining chess games always devolve into stalemates because you and your opponent keep moving your knights around, and never attacking…
I did an all newbie 4.5 hour game last weekend with the full 6 players. In the end aggressive combat won the game (we had a 3-way fight for the galactic center, not to mention one empire got ripped to pieces as everyone panicked about their dreadnaughts with +9 to hit and plasma missiles). It wasn’t clear at all who the VP leader was though - 3 of the empires were definitely leading, but hard to say which was the leader until rep was revealed.
I’m really tempted about purchasing Mage Knight after watching the walkthrough video on BGG. I’ve read some of the comments here about it being AP heavy, which shouldn’t be a big deal for a 2 player co-op experience (how I mostly intend on playing it).
I already own games that have somewhat the same feel/theme, Runebound, Runewars, and, one of my favorite games, Middle Earth Quest, but the fact that Mage Knight can be played co-op intrigues me greatly (Runebound co-op isn’t done well IMO). I’m also really liking the deck-building element.
The only real review I could find about it was by Mike Barnes at Gameshark giving it an editor’s choice as an “absolute masterpiece”. He did point out its troubles with AP and how it may even be better played solo, which is interesting.
So, anymore comments on Mage Knight? Would this work well for me as a 2 player co-op game?
Lorini
4584
It may or may not be a group problem but it’s not a game for our group. If aggressive play was rewarded instead of punished or made to appear so risky, our group would like it a lot better. We play plenty of aggressive play games like Conquest of Nerath, so it’s not a problem with not being aggressive per se. But there has to be a clear reason that turtling won’t result in more points, and in this game, the risk/reward is just not persuasive enough. If there were a lot less level 3 hexes, if each hex was worth double what it is, if there were no 1 VP hexes, and maybe if the game didn’t reward and encourage turtling with the (silly) diplomacy rules, then we’d probably be all over it. But like it is, no thanks. And I since I can almost certainly get my money back, I think I’ll just do that.
Again I do appreciate the feedback.
If there’s any Twilight Struggle fans out there. Labyrinth: The War on Terror is currently on year-end clearance at FRPGames.com
It’s currently -30% off but if you use END2011 coupon code, you get another 50% discount for a net price of $21.00 plus shipping
dogbert
4586
Lorini, what was the scores/point spread in your game?
Wow. Just… wow. I don’t want to look up how much I paid for Labyrinth, but it was at least twice that. Good find!
That’s… totally insane. It’s completely worth this price. Hell it’s worth three times that.
— Alan
Syzygy
4589
Thanks for the heads up on Labyrinth. Definitely a fan of Twilight Struggle so I picked it up.
Technically you can do it, but I think it’s a bad idea. There’s really nothing to make the team aspect interesting, it’s just a 2p game where you have to agree with someone else before taking your turn.
Lorini
4591
The winner had ~45 or so. I came in second with 24. I don’t know the other two scores as I had to leave the table to start another game.
To be clear, I don’t care that I didn’t win. I play about 30 games a month and win at most 3. Winning is not important to me, the play is all that matters.
dogbert
4592
I was just curious how much points your group generated for turtling. Our point spreads have been pretty close, usually everyone in the 30-40 range - one game with aliens had someone score 55 because he abused the alien powers perfectly.
I’ve played it four times so far, and our group had another game of it going last Wednesday, so I’ve got a sample of five games effectively, mostly with the same 6 players. Definitely easy to fall into some ‘group think’ with this sort of game in my opinion. We’d all been insisting missiles were overpowered & a must have, and in the latest game, noone took them because we couldn’t afford them, for example ;)
In our games, we’ve been relatively exploration heavy with lots of diplomacy (all 4 player games) but there’s always been a tipping point in about round 7 where one player starts a military build up against other players. We’ve noticed a pattern of players with the most exposure to alien tiles getting better points in the long run…
In the last game we played, I was turtling - lots of monoliths, only a couple of entry points against my strongest neighbour. He feinted me by attacking the only player he was neutral with & then upgrading his movement on his ships & blitzing me - sending enough ships to get by my pinning defensive forces to take over three of my monolith tiles. I couldn’t produce fast enough to defend because of how he timed his movements.
I’ve yet to play against Chapel who is always super aggressive in these games so I’ve yet to see an out & out military strategy.
Still love it & desperate to play it again.
Lorini
4593
Good :) I think I’m going back to Space Empires:4x. An uglier game for sure, but it’s more suited to our style of play.
dogbert
4594
We’ve been trying to get it to the table too, but hard to coordinate the time for everyone.
I played my third game last night- 2-player, and the first time we played with the full rules. We played the Full Conquest Scenario, that runs 3 days and 3 nights. Jon and I had played the basic scenario twice before, within the last 2 weeks, so were fairly familiar with the rules.
The game ended halfway through the third night, four hours later. I really have no idea how we’re getting the time down to much less than that- there were a few instances of AP, mostly at the start of a new Round. Co-op might go quicker, but we weren’t playing with PVP anyway, so I really don’t know how much time it would’ve saved.
All that said, it is a great game. The only problem I have with 2-player is the end-of-game Achievement scoring. The bonuses for having the most of something are brutal in 2-player. I mean, you’re already outscoring the other player in that category, and then you get bonus points on top of that, and anything you aren’t getting, your opponent by-definition is. It is totally mitigated with more players, as the bonuses are (hopefully) spread around more.
Here’s a somewhat vague and open-ended question, and I’m suddenly getting deja vu that I’ve asked it before (but can’t find it with a simple search):
After Dominion became my favorite game and I got a little obsessed with it and its expansions, I became convinced that I love deckbuilding games. I’ve tried several of the billions that have come out since then, and discovered that the actual deck building isn’t my favorite aspect.
I realized my favorite aspect of Dominion is combining card effects, and having to come up with a new strategy with each game. (I realize this isn’t any huge insight, as it was designed into the game based on the mechanics of Magic, but it’s still nice to be able to distill what I like about a game down to one thing). There’s a little bit of that in Ascension, with building Mechana engines and figuring out Lifebound combos. But while I love Ascension, I still always end up feeling that the games come down more to luck than cleverness.
So are there suggestions for games that reward clever combos like that? Should I start looking into the semi-collectible card games like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones?
I’ve only played a handful of games since getting it for Christmas, but Thunderstone (THUNDERSTONE) seems like a good fit.
The problem with LCGs and CCGs is that you make the deck first from a large card pool. This lets you experiment with crazy card combos, but the game/strategy isn’t different every single game unless you’re willing (and have the cards and means) to create a lot of decks. Or you can get a pile of cards and do booster drafts.
Try Thunderstone for a great twist on Dominion.
Thanks, Tracy & Two Sheds, for the info. I should’ve included a list of what deckbuilding games I’ve already tried: Dominion, Ascension, Thunderstone, Eaten by Zombies, RuneAge, and Eminent Domain (just enough of a deckbuilder to qualify).
Thunderstone was fine the two times I’ve played it (w/o expansions), but it didn’t distinguish itself enough from Dominion or Ascension to hold my interest.
I suppose I don’t quite understand what an LCG is, although I thought I did. As I understand it, CCGs are basically variations on Magic the Gathering, although usually with a smaller pool of cards. Are LCGs just the same thing, but sold in major pre-set expansion sets instead of booster packs?
Yep. CCGs are blind-buys with random booster packs. LCGs are sold in fixed base sets, decks, and expansions so you know precisely what you’re getting. Nearly all the LCGs available right now were once CCGs.
EDIT: I haven’t played it, but hear pretty good things about Nightfall so you may want to look into that. Blood Bowl: Team Manager is another possibility.
Also, if you want a great CCG format for Magic without dumping all of your gaming budget into cards, Cube Drafts are awesome. You make a fixed set of cards that are used to create boosters that everyone drafts from. Here’s a site with the basics: http://www.tomlapille.com/cube/cube.html
And another: http://www.cubedrafting.com/2009/03/20/how-to-begin-your-cube/
