Recommend me a board game?

aganazer · 2012-01-06T11:44:38.000Z

Bahimiron:

They’re actually looking for something a little Ameritrashy.

Unfortunately, the one time I played CoN I didn’t care for it.

Yeah CoN is just a bad idea. Too much downtime and most of the game is designed around long and drawn out dice-fest combat. Small World would probably work better in this category.

You’re in the wonderful position of being able to ignore what is popular right now. There is 15 years worth of games to choose from.

Dominion or the more Ameritrashy Thunderstone might be cool.

Earth Reborn might be taking things a bit too far, but its a great game with lots of thematic bits.

I could recommend King of Tokyo to almost any group.

Race for the Galaxy would be a good choice.

There must be some older classics, but none are coming to mind at the moment.

merryprankster · 2012-01-06T11:45:44.000Z

Tracy Baker:

I like Runebound, but only as a two player game. Downtime kills it, especially with the movement rules, but with two people who have the rules mastered the game just flies.

Have you considered having everyone move and draw thier cards, then resolve the combats and what not simultaneously? We haven’t tried that yet, but if we play again I think that’s what we are going to do. Otherwise yeah, downtime is so inactive in this game that it is pointless.

aganazer · 2012-01-06T11:52:29.000Z

Giaddon:

I’m not much of a board gamer, but I’m thinking about picking up a medium-difficulty game for small group play (2-4), and reading through the last several pages of this thread (and the game of the year thread), it seems like Race for the Galaxy, The Lord of the Rings Card Game, and 7 Wonders all fit this criteria and are in my price range. Any thoughts on why I should avoid one or which is best?

Thanks!

7 Wonders would probably have the broadest appeal. Race can be a little hard to break the ice on with its myriad of icons, but is great after that. LotR never really appealed to me even after repeated plays. It felt a little too contrived, but a lot of people really like it.

None of these games have much player interaction, or least no conflict. That can be either good or bad depending on the people you play with.

dtolman · 2012-01-06T11:53:19.000Z

Giaddon, you might want to consider San Juan as well - its essentially a more streamlined version of Race For the Galaxy - similar gameplay, but a lot less cards.

Plus once you master San Juan, the concepts in Puerto Rico are easier to pickup as well :)

Seven Wonders is a great game, and it handles differing amount of players as well. Race can sometimes be a bit… mathematical. It can produce a love/hate reaction from some players, and its hard to say which it’ll be. Never played LOTR CG.

Nephrinn · 2012-01-06T12:05:43.000Z

UndeadViking just did his top board games of 2011 and, much to my surprise, he put Mage Knight at #3, citing that it’s so good that even he plays it solo (and he hates playing solo).

He gave Eclipse #2 and Urban Sprawl #1, which is making me take a second look at both of these games. I love Sim City, so I’m wondering how well Urban Sprawl captures that theme and if it plays well with 2 players.

Lorini · 2012-01-06T12:07:41.000Z

Bahimiron:

They’re actually looking for something a little Ameritrashy.

Unfortunately, the one time I played CoN I didn’t care for it.

How about lords of Vegas? Great game and a lot shorter than Eclipse.

merryprankster · 2012-01-06T12:08:04.000Z

Giaddon, I think RftG might be tough for a group just starting out, and kinda requires buying into the idea of “comlex shit is fun”. The symbols really are a pain in the ass to learn. That being said if you have the kinda people who enjoy figuring out complicated systems this would probably be great.

I love, love love LotR: LCG, but it can be pretty complex. Fortunatley Watch-it-played can help out with this. But really the fun here is tweaking decks and fussing about trying to set up winning combos prior to play, then testing them against the encounters. I love this, but I like iterative deck building.

I haven’t played 7 wonders, but I have heard good things.

Mike_Cathcart · 2012-01-06T12:36:27.000Z

Bahimiron:

I know these two games probably don’t have a whole lot in common, but for a four member board gaming group that has only recently graduated past Catan, and who I am attempting to prod toward bigger and better. Chaos in the Old World or Eclipse?

Whenever you have a choice between two games the answer is always Chaos in the Old World. It’s even true when neither of the games in the original choice was Chaos in the Old World. That being said, my recommendation based on your question would be Chaos in the Old World. If they really want to play something awesome, though, I’d go with Chaos in the Old World.

Chuck_Jordan · 2012-01-06T12:38:58.000Z

Giaddon:

I’m not much of a board gamer, but I’m thinking about picking up a medium-difficulty game for small group play (2-4), and reading through the last several pages of this thread (and the game of the year thread), it seems like Race for the Galaxy, The Lord of the Rings Card Game, and 7 Wonders all fit this criteria and are in my price range. Any thoughts on why I should avoid one or which is best?

I haven’t played LOTR, but from what I know of it and the other two I’d say go with 7 Wonders. It’s very accessible without feeling too simple. I’ve never encountered anybody who disliked the game (in real life, anyway, I’m sure they’re out there on the internet).

Only caveat is that I’ve never enjoyed it when I played it with less than 4 players. If you’re regularly going to have only 2 or 3, I’d say Race for the Galaxy or, as mentioned upthread, San Juan.

Tracy_Baker · 2012-01-06T12:43:52.000Z

merryprankster:

Have you considered having everyone move and draw thier cards, then resolve the combats and what not simultaneously? We haven’t tried that yet, but if we play again I think that’s what we are going to do. Otherwise yeah, downtime is so inactive in this game that it is pointless.

That’s what we do with two. I look to see if the other person is doing anything worth watching, and if not I roll my movement dice and get on with my turn. You might be able to do that with more people, but Runebound simply sucks with more than two. Less quests for people to get, more PvP shenanigans that do little more than bog down the game, better chances that the stuff you really want will be gone by the time you get there, more people bitching that they’re stuck because of a bad movement roll, the list goes on.

What I like most about Runebound is tearing around getting as much crap as I can from an enormous loot pile so I can smack down the bad guy at the end. I play it for the same reasons I play Tomb (which also needs to move at a breakneck pace to be fun), and would rather play just about anything else when there are more than two people around.

apost8 · 2012-01-06T12:56:14.000Z

Giaddon:

I’m not much of a board gamer, but I’m thinking about picking up a medium-difficulty game for small group play (2-4), and reading through the last several pages of this thread (and the game of the year thread), it seems like Race for the Galaxy, The Lord of the Rings Card Game, and 7 Wonders all fit this criteria and are in my price range. Any thoughts on why I should avoid one or which is best?

Thanks!

The LOTR card game really works best with two players, and is okay solo if you don’t mind the sometimes unbalanced difficulty. 7 Wonders works fine for three or more players, but the two player game is a bit weird because there is a third board that is played as if there were to be a third player in the game. And, as others have mentioned, Race for the Galaxy requires a certain tolerance for complexity that may or may not be present in your group, though if your group has the right temperament, I think it works fine for any number of players between two and four.

If your budget allows, I’d pick up both LOTR and 7 Wonders, and play LOTR when you have two players present, and play 7 Wonders when you have three or more.

Lorini · 2012-01-06T12:56:21.000Z

Nephrinn:

UndeadViking just did his top board games of 2011 and, much to my surprise, he put Mage Knight at #3, citing that it’s so good that even he plays it solo (and he hates playing solo).

He gave Eclipse #2 and Urban Sprawl #1, which is making me take a second look at both of these games. I love Sim City, so I’m wondering how well Urban Sprawl captures that theme and if it plays well with 2 players.

I don’t think Urban Sprawl is like Sim City. It’s game play is more like Dominant Species, although many people consider it even more chaotic than Dominant Species. I’ve only played it once with two people and didn’t have a good experience but a lot of people seem to like it two player.

Bahimiron · 2012-01-06T13:01:07.000Z

aganazer:

I could recommend King of Tokyo to almost any group.

I don’t want to hurt anybody, but I would kill a man, in front of his own mama, for King of Tokyo*.

Unfortunately that one is super out of stock everywhere.

Maybe when I can finally get it King of Tokyo and Power Grid will make for a good one two.

Also apparently followed by Chaos in the Old World, since Mike is kind of scaring me.

*Or Cosmic Encounter. I played twice and I’m hooked. Yet it’s sold out everywhere.

merryprankster · 2012-01-06T13:01:54.000Z

Tracy Baker:

That’s what we do with two. I look to see if the other person is doing anything worth watching, and if not I roll my movement dice and get on with my turn. You might be able to do that with more people, but Runebound simply sucks with more than two. Less quests for people to get, more PvP shenanigans that do little more than bog down the game, better chances that the stuff you really want will be gone by the time you get there, more people bitching that they’re stuck because of a bad movement roll, the list goes on.

What I like most about Runebound is tearing around getting as much crap as I can from an enormous loot pile so I can smack down the bad guy at the end. I play it for the same reasons I play Tomb (which also needs to move at a breakneck pace to be fun), and would rather play just about anything else when there are more than two people around.

Agreed on all points really. I can’t wait for Mage Knight to show up, since that seems like the answer for those of us who like a good old fashioned fantasy quest. :)

Mysterio · 2012-01-06T13:34:44.000Z

Nephrinn:

He gave Eclipse #2 and Urban Sprawl #1, which is making me take a second look at both of these games. I love Sim City, so I’m wondering how well Urban Sprawl captures that theme and if it plays well with 2 players.

Damn it. Why, oh why, didn’t you use spoiler tags? Now I know how the movie ends.

Bahimiron:

I don’t want to hurt anybody, but I would kill a man, in front of his own mama, for King of Tokyo

You’re better off waiting for the 2nd print run (due in March), since it will contain engraved dice rather than the poor quality silkscreen dice.

Daagar · 2012-01-06T13:57:10.000Z

Maybe too early for anyone to know, but I only have LOTR LCG with a single expansion pack. With the new dwarf expansion out, should one jump on that and start the new cycle or will the game really somehow benefit from fleshing out the previous cycle first? I’m getting a lot of mileage just out of the core set so far, so at least for the moment don’t “need” a ton of expansions.

Nephrinn · 2012-01-06T14:10:17.000Z

Daagar:

Maybe too early for anyone to know, but I only have LOTR LCG with a single expansion pack. With the new dwarf expansion out, should one jump on that and start the new cycle or will the game really somehow benefit from fleshing out the previous cycle first? I’m getting a lot of mileage just out of the core set so far, so at least for the moment don’t “need” a ton of expansions.

The game certainly benefits from the other expansion packs. The song cards make building multi-colored decks a lot easier, the heroes open up new strategies, and many cards from the Gollum cycle let you capitalize on keywords, like eagles, rohan, and even dwarf characters, which Khazud Dum is centered upon.

Honestly, unlike other LCGs where the deluxe expansions are much better bang-for-your-buck values than the single packs in terms of cards that benefit YOU, that definitely is not the case with LOTR LCG. The Khazud Dum expansion only has 2 heroes, a neutral, and a few unique player cards per sphere. The rest (majority) of the cards are quests/encounters.

Nephrinn · 2012-01-06T14:16:07.000Z

Mysterio:

Damn it. Why, oh why, didn’t you use spoiler tags? Now I know how the movie ends.

You’re better off waiting for the 2nd print run (due in March), since it will contain engraved dice rather than the poor quality silkscreen dice.

You are aware, sir, that Tom Chick does not like spoiler tags? You’re just looking to get me banned, son. :P

But yeah, sorry about the spoilers.

Lorini · 2012-01-06T14:29:01.000Z

You can use any tool the forum has. Tom doesn’t like spoiler tags, but that has nothing to do with your use of them. I didn’t consider it a spoiler, but I can see how someone else might.

Wader · 2012-01-06T14:56:10.000Z

Bahimiron:

I don’t want to hurt anybody, but I would kill a man, in front of his own mama, for King of Tokyo*.

Unfortunately that one is super out of stock everywhere.

Maybe when I can finally get it King of Tokyo and Power Grid will make for a good one two.

Also apparently followed by Chaos in the Old World, since Mike is kind of scaring me.

*Or Cosmic Encounter. I played twice and I’m hooked. Yet it’s sold out everywhere.

Bahimiron, if the developer/publisher posting on BGG is telling the truth, King of Tokyo will be reprinted in late February/Early March and be available in the US about that time. The new editions will even include better dice than the original.

Which is kind of annoying, because I had a group I wanted to play the game with that’s meeting in late January and I don’t own a copy.

edit to say - crap, I completely missed Mysterio’s post…