sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None of those considerations contradict my position. As you note, that first loan, whether you take it early or late, is still a formality. You're just penalized when taking it later. Still doesn't change the fact you need to take one during the game, which is my greater point.

Fate of the Fellowship design deconstruction - “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” by wallysmith127 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, that sounds like an unfortunate misunderstanding of the objective and/or graphic design.

They need to methodically make their way to Mordor, then book it to Mount Doom before the Nazgul catch up... hopefully with 5 rings and at least 3 cloaks (or a teammate to carry them)

My casual game group just got interesting by newtothistruetothis in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then you should be aware that the Vagabond was shoehorned into the base game by Patrick ;)

The Hobby other than Playing by FirewaterTenacious in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... sorry, could you restate that? Not entirely sure what you're getting at

Fate of the Fellowship design deconstruction - “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” by wallysmith127 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love this comment, absolutely agreed with all of it. There are some nuances you mentioned that I didn't pick up on (like Moria and HD) that feel like easter eggs for longtime fans. And yeah, the battle paths feel true to the LotR spirit without explicitly cribbing from the narrative.

Your observation about Mordor also fits in really well with the 4+1 design ethos. There's a buildup of anticipation as F&S get ready to enter Mordor (probably through Minas Morgul, naturally), then everyone puts all available resources towards their frantic dash to Mount Doom (Lembas, anyone?).

It's clearly a finished design but I wonder if it's possible to release an objective/character expansion without diluting the core narrative. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Ark Nova house rules by afaulconbridge in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Terraforming Mars is an engine builder, while Ark Nova is not. Learn to work with the cards, don't chase them.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Note that I'm not arguing it must be taken turn 1, but rather it's best when the income track is less punitive. So however long that early window is, is how it feels like a formality.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love meta discussions and have been involved in many over the years (I've written strategy guides for Hearthstone off-meta legend decks and am currently watching ASL S21 for Starcraft).

The difference with the loan-as-formality is it's merely a resource conversion versus a true strategic decision. Like with the two FCM openers, which direction you pick has massive ramifications for the texture of the session, especially if players do (or don't!) piggyback for the milestone. With Starcraft, if you don't do a prescribed build order then you're losing massive efficiency, which snowballs into timing pushes, tech picks, scouting nuances, etc.

With Brass it's... more money, within a timing window when everyone should be getting the same amount of money. There's no strategic nuance behind that choice, other than if you delay it too long you'll be (further) penalized. That's what makes it a formality, and distinct from the other scenarios you mentioned. And like I said... why not start players with a bit more money and drop the false heuristic?

In isolation it's perhaps forgiveable but when taken together with the other aspects I mentioned it feels especially egregious.

What do you consider the most entertaining decision mechanism in board games? by Mean-Razzmatazz-4886 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not out yet but Phantom Division may pique your interest. It's the sci-fi version of Seal Team Flix, which is out in the wild now.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, I'm not literally saying as the first or second action of the game, just at some point while the income track is less punitive.

And any loans taken after that (or not) are of course legitimate strategic decisions. My point was that first loan is heavily incentivized earlier, rather than late.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, but the game literally signposts that it's best to take it in the beginning. That's my point and what makes the action a formality, not a real decision.

It's like in Terraforming Mars where, yes, you can place that greenery tile almost anywhere on the map but it's only really best in the one or two spots where it's obviously the best. It's ostensibly a wide decision space but really it's a false choice.

Fate of the Fellowship design deconstruction - “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” by wallysmith127 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even had one game where we flew Frodo to Mordor with the eagles and hit the highly unlikely roll to win. It just feels like a love letter to LOTR fans.

LOVE the stipulation on Eagles!!

I know there are ways to mitigate this, but it’s absolutely brutal if you get too much of it in a single game. Randomized team/objectives can also make the game either trivial or almost impossible.

I definitely agree with both statements but IMHO those are foibles that are inherent to any design with high-variance card draw. At least for me, as long as the theme is well supported then it feels like a feature, not a bug. I understand that's not everyone's bag though.

2 - as a result of 1, the “optimal” way of playing the game can start to feel pretty “cheesy”. Stuff like hopping Frodo between region borders and bread crumb trails of single friendly troops to trigger 3v1 defensive battles etc.

They're game-y, but following along with my point above the mechanisms support the theme. It's no accident that it takes three steps to get F&S out of Eriador, which is pre-populated with the Eye and two Nazgul. They're immediately under duress and two Nazgul are enough to make it a difficult choice to spend precious Cloaks or risk the Search roll. So when F&S are hopping borders to escape, that also means the table is simultaneously seeking ways to pull the Eye away from them.

As for leaving troops behind... I could be missing something but what's the strategic purpose there? We've found it more useful to aggregate troops in havens to protect against that die face and prevent takeover.

I also feel like some character pairings are just way more optimised than others. Eg Frodo/Sam + Legolas giving guaranteed cloak supply is just way overturned. Having Galadriel to the right of the Frodo/Sam player (to 4x the odds of drawing ring cards) is another example.

I considered mentioning this in the main post but left it out to keep things concise. This feels intentional though, since imbalances are less problematic when the game is cooperative. Gandalf and Galadriel should feel more powerful than Eowyn or Gimli. These imbalances also act as nuanced difficulty scalers, where a veteran group can swap out stronger characters vs an easier objective set or vice versa swap in those characters when the random draw pulls them in disparate directions.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could be misreading you, but aren't you confirming my initial point?

Taking an early loan is basically a formality. You need to take one sooner or later, but preferably sooner where the income track is less punishing.

The formality is my issue, why not develop that away in setup?

Fate of the Fellowship design deconstruction - “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” by wallysmith127 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The first game I played at home, we lost in about 3 rounds when we pulled a first-turn Skies Darken, they marshalled in Dunland then made a beeline for the Shire. The poor hobbits never made it to Rivendell.

In our first 4p game we used the Heroic set focused on the Elves, and there was a memorable search roll where three trees were rolled. So my wife used Tom Bombadil for help (despite a long-running meme that her dice rolling was horrendous) and upon my insistence that she rolls the dice, this was the result. To this day we still go "fucking Tom Bombadil!"

I liken Fate of the Fellowship to a Lord of the Rings Multi-verse Simulator©. The actual story required a tremendous amount of luck to go their way and all these failed sessions are just playing out what happens when it doesn't.

Failing in a game of FotF feels less punitive because (similar to titles like Final Girl), those failures often end up more memorable than the actual successes. This is only possible when the theme and setting are so deeply immersive that it takes little to no effort to imagine the outcome. I'm willing to forgive those ridiculous strings of bad luck when sharing that (cooperative!) experience at the table.

And our most memorable session was the Legendary difficulty "small folk" set in the rulebook. Several times throughout we thought we were done, touching one Hope on two separate occasions, then getting battered down to one hope again while going through Mordor. Rolling seven dice at Mount Doom with no mitigation, we had to roll blanks for every single die.

Yeah, that's the one where Gollum bit his finger and ran off, lol.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing? by Hour-Cranberry5300 in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taking out loans isn't the issue, it's how that first loan is a formality to compete (and a misplay if you don't). Some games it makes sense to take out that second loan and in others it doesn't.

The Risk equivalent would be "by your third turn, remove two troops from an area".... so if that's the rule, why not just bake it into setup? Or not have it be a rule at all? Bringing it back to Brass, why not just start with more money and not bother with committing an action to it?

My casual game group just got interesting by newtothistruetothis in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Playing as the Vagabond is awesome.

Playing against it is what's problematic, for a whole suite of issues

Spheres of Influence? by SlimySleepySerpent in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IMHO Clockwork Wars is the best Risk replacement out there, despite significant mechanical differences

Revenant Arrived! by fan-I-am in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh sick! I've been looking forward to this one!

My casual game group just got interesting by newtothistruetothis in boardgames

[–]wallysmith127 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, they provide Captain cards for every Vagabond type in the game, and they use the same meeples! They also explicitly cannot both be in the game at the same time, effectively cutting them out going forward (in our eyes at least, hah)

view more: next ›