Recommend me a board game?

[Nephrinn]

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.

Thanks for the extra input!

Regarding scoring. It seems like the bonuses might balance out assuming that player 1 is always paying attention to player 2 and vice versa. If you know player 1 has acquired a bunch of spells, but hasn’t put much effort into conquering or adventuring, you’d put more of a priority into those areas. However, it does seem like some of them play off of one another, which might make that whole point moot.

Would a reasonable solution for scoring in competitive 2 player games be to reduce the fame bonuses to 1 or eliminate them altogether?

I’m probably going to wait and see what Tom Vasel has to say about it when he reviews it this week, but I’m not expecting that he’ll love it either.

[Bahimiron]

Innovation isn’t a deck builder, but crazy combos are at the heart of the experience.

[SlyFrog]

So, anymore comments on Mage Knight? Would this work well for me as a 2 player co-op game?

I am also very interested in feedback on this, though specifically with respect to how well it does as a 2-4 player competitive game.

[Lorini]

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 would suggest the Intro/Event decks for Magic the Gathering. I would also second the suggestion of Innovation.

[merryprankster]

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?

I’ve been playing a bunch of LotR:LCG lately and I think it is great fun. I think that the big distinction between it and Dominion is that LotR is more of a deck refinement game, rather than a deck building game.

It sounds like you want something that is always different and more “think on your feet”. I would say that LCG’s probably don’t fit the bill here.

[Nephrinn]

I’ve been playing a bunch of LotR:LCG lately and I think it is great fun. I think that the big distinction between it and Dominion is that LotR is more of a deck refinement game, rather than a deck building game.

It sounds like you want something that is always different and more “think on your feet”. I would say that LCG’s probably don’t fit the bill here.

I think it has to be mentioned that LotR: LCG (and the upcoming Star Wars LCG) do something quite a bit different than other LCGs: it’s purely cooperative. So, even comparing it to other CCGs/LCGs is a bit of a misnomer.

Also, Thunderstone is definitely not the game I would recommend for fans of Dominion’s combo mechanics as Thunderstone has very little in that department (which I appreciate).

[merryprankster]

I think it has to be mentioned that LotR: LCG (and the upcoming Star Wars LCG) do something quite a bit different than other LCGs: it’s purely cooperative. So, even comparing it to other CCGs/LCGs is a bit of a misnomer.

Agreed. Though I still think it is more about deck refinement than deck building. Although if you had two people with a pile if cards I suppose you could randomly draw heros and then have to build a deck around them. That might be kinda interesting is a “deck buildy” sort of way.

[aganazer]

So are there suggestions for games that reward clever combos like that?

I’ve only played a few games, but Sentinels of the Multiverse is all about clever card combos. The combos were so compelling that I didn’t even mind getting my butt kicked by the game over and over. I just wanted to fiddle with the interesting combos that could be made.

Its a hard game to recommend though. It doesn’t scale to the number of players which is why our 3-man group didn’t do to well. Four players are pretty much a requirement.

Its also difficult to recommend because it lacks the elegant balance that we have come to expect in a post eurogame era. Some villain, environment, hero setups are going to be too difficult or too easy. Some heroes may feel useless under certain conditions.

Despite the rough edges, this game has depth. More than the LotR LCG which I got tired of after just a few sessions. More than Rune Age, which I thought was a very shallow game. More than most card games I’ve bought over the years.

[merryprankster]

What about Race for the Galaxy? Not a deck building game, but it does require a certain level of clever card combos to set up an economy.

[Gordon_Berg]

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?

Innovation plus the expansion will make your head 'asplode from the combos. Same designer also did Glory to Rome, an equally combo-rific game, and one I slightly prefer over Innovation (probably because I can’t quite wrap my head around Innovation enough, where as it seems a tad more straightforward in GtR).

If you don’t mind the $$$ pit that is Game of Thrones, then that’s probably the game for you. Visiting sites like carddb.com will do all the deckbuilding for you, but it’s still a tough game to comprehend because of the constant decisions each round. I enjoy GoT LCG a great deal, but I doubt I’ll ever be good at it.

[apost8]

Innovation plus the expansion will make your head 'asplode from the combos. Same designer also did Glory of Rome, an equally combo-rific game, and one I slightly prefer over Innovation (probably because I can’t quite wrap my head around Innovation enough, where as it seems a tad more straightforward in GtR).

I’ll second the Innovation, Glory to Rome and Race for the Galaxy recommendations as having that crazy card combo feel, although none are deck builders, and all cards are drawn from decks common to all the players in the game. I’d say that I feel more control in Race for the Galaxy, and Innovation and Glory to Rome feel more chaotic to me. (Though both undoubtedly reward skill, so don’t think I am saying they are too random.) I don’t know how important that is as a consideration.

[Chuck_Jordan]

Thanks for all the suggestions! More are welcome.

I’ve got Race for the Galaxy, but I never got the sense of building combos from it. It was always just “build up as much power as you can, as quickly as you can.” But then, I haven’t played that much since it’s unpopular with the folks I usually play with. While I like the game, I still think that it’s unnecessarily hard to teach it to people – it seems more complex than it really is, and there are aspects of it that still don’t make sense to me.

And it turns out a friend has Innovations but has never played it, so I hope to try it out on the next game night.

[Reldan]

I really enjoy Game of Thrones LCG. It has the most interesting gameplay of any card game I’ve played, and it’s a game that’s very easy to make mistakes at, and very hard to play well. It’s really about finding and exploiting synergies in your cards while keeping a careful eye on what your opponent(s) are doing and what kinds of tricks your opponents might have up their sleeves - you can always be walking into a trap that could annihilate your board position so there’s always a lot to think about.

I think Amazon has the core set for like $20. To get started, buy 2-3 of those as you’ll get enough cards to do some decent deck-building, and it’s not a waste because each set has almost no duplicates (game rules allow only 3 copies max of any card in a deck).

[Gus_Smedstad1]

I’ve got Race for the Galaxy, but I never got the sense of building combos from it. It was always just “build up as much power as you can, as quickly as you can.”

While you can play that way, combinations are usually the essence of Race for the Galaxy.

The ones in the basic set are pretty much laid out for you, since the cards involved often mention each other by name. A typical consumption engine centers around 3 blue production worlds, Consumer Markets, and Free Trade Association. Free Trade Association gives you 1 point + 1 card for up to 3 blue goods, and Consumer Markets gives you an extra card for every blue good you produce, plus some extra Blue consumption if you end up with more than 3 blue worlds. Free Trade Association gains points just for having Consumer Market on the table, as well as some specific blue worlds (i.e. Expanding Colony), just to underline how it’s supposed to be played.

Another obvious combination is the mining-related cards, Mining Robots, Mining Conglomerate, and Mining League. Again, Mining League mentions the other related cards by name. It’s an obvious strategy for Alpha Centauri since you get -1 cost to brown worlds. Get Mining Robots out early, and most brown worlds will be free or nearly free. Even the overpriced New Earth isn’t so bad at cost 3.

Some combinations aren’t about produce / consume, but about laying down high-value worlds. Alien Tech Institute + Alien Rosetta Stone makes most Alien worlds quite cheap, and can get you alien military worlds with little or no military.

There are other, less obvious but powerful combinations. Colony Ship is often iffy by itself, but can give high-scoring military worlds with Contact Specialist, without the long build up of a military strategy.

As you add more expansions, some of the combinations in the basic set are greatly diluted because specific, named cards are harder to get, but others open up. For example, Research Labs gains you +1 card from each Alien (yellow) good you produce. Producing yellow goods is pretty rare in the basic game, but much more common with the expansions with Damaged Alien Factory and Alien Toy Shop.

The expansions of course also have combination that center around cards that aren’t in the basic set at all. Uplift Code comes to mind. Prior to Uplift Code, there are some genes-related developments like Galactic League and Galactic Genome Project, but nothing as powerful as the Consumer Markets or Diversified Economy.

[Nesrie]

I’ve probably already mentioned Carcassonne as a great strategy game to play in person, but the gamersgate version is excellent as well… with several, not all, expansions and works in Vista/Win 7 too (had to give admin rights on mine). Its one of those simple to learn but hard to master.

[apost8]

I’ve got Race for the Galaxy, but I never got the sense of building combos from it. It was always just “build up as much power as you can, as quickly as you can.” But then, I haven’t played that much since it’s unpopular with the folks I usually play with. While I like the game, I still think that it’s unnecessarily hard to teach it to people – it seems more complex than it really is, and there are aspects of it that still don’t make sense to me.

Yeah, it is unnecessarily hard to teach. That’s a total shame, because there is a fantastic game there that is visible after you’ve played half a dozen times, but that can be a pretty hard sell to some people.

Gus explained the combo-centric play better than I could have.

[JM1]

I’m surprised no-one’s mentioned Warhammer: Invasion yet.

[Reldan]

I’m surprised no-one’s mentioned Warhammer: Invasion yet.

It’s an good game if all you want is something that’s quick for a 1v1. I was under the impression that he was wanting something that could play more than that well.

[Chaplin]

It’s an good game if all you want is something that’s quick for a 1v1. I was under the impression that he was wanting something that could play more than that well.

Agree. I wanted to like Warhammer Invasion for my gaming group, but the game just didn’t really work with more than 2 people, and even then it seemed to really suffer from “he who gets a better start, wins”. However this was back when the game first came out and with no deck building. So things could have changed.

[Jason_Lutes]

I am also very interested in feedback on this, though specifically with respect to how well it does as a 2-4 player competitive game.

Mage Knight is probably my boardgame of the year at this point. I absolutely love it. I haven’t tried 2-player co-op, but the solo game is good. As a 2-player competitive game it’s great; haven’t had the chance to try it with more than 2 yet. The only issue with more players is downtime if some of them are AP-prone. There is a lot to think about when it’s not your turn, though – you can plan out exactly what you’re going to do next because you have all the cards to work with in hand. If everybody at the table spends their downtime planning their next turn, things can move relatively quickly.