/bgg/ Board Game General - the future is here edition

>A new year is here /bgg/ did you get all the games played you wanted?
All but one
>tfw want to play Commissioned but know my non-Christian gamer friends won't appreciate it and normie Christian friends will think it's too hard

>Did you do a 10x10 challenge?
No, but I would like to in '18

>Have unplayed titles on the shelf that you made sure hit the table?
See first green text

>Any plans for next year?
Play some more gaems

/diy/ projects?
Nope

>Cons to attend?
Some of the local ones or Gen Con

>Megagames or weekend long tournaments?
I don't do tournaments

About to teach/play Bora Bora for the first time. I took it out of shrink over a year ago...
So I went to BGG to read a few reviews and seek some cheatsheets so teaching went smoother.
I randomly chose a review out of the list, and surprise, surprise, it criticised Bora Bora for typecasting women into heteronormative, traditionally submissive gender roles, but conceded that gender representation was a step in the right direction.
I guess if SJW bullshit is the main issue to bitch and moan about, then the game must be pretty fucking good.

I just bought this yesterday, what am I in for?

>Did you get all the games you wanted?
user, pls.
>10x10?
Nah. I'll concede that it's a good way to focus on games you may have neglected, but I'd rather play without restrictions.
>Unplayed titles on the shelf?
Finally got to play Broom Service, Viticulture and Keyflower with a new group of players, that was nice.
>Plans for 2018?
Not skipping meals because I destroyed my budget buying cardboard.
>DIY projects
Gonna PnP Gingkopolis and make a few foamcore inserts.
>Cons to attend
I'm a poorfag from Bumfuck USA, and can't afford to.
>Megagames or tournaments.
A man can dream.

> le chess is a mystical deep game meme
No, chess is a simple-ass normie game with obvious strategies. What makes chess different from other boardgames is the competitive scene. Nobody really plays chess "just for fun", so you're subjected to theory and opening books and shit right from the start.

As a game -- i.e., from a game theoretic point of view, the wealth and depth of stategies, etc. -- Great Western Trail is much, much deeper than chess. It's just that nobody plays GWT competitively, so nobody cares to formulate strategy for it in a formal manner.

Is Gaia Project good or is it a meme like Terra Mystica?

thanks

Rate my collection, nerds.

>Eclipse
>No Twilight Imperium
>Istanbul

You're like my worst nightmare. I imagine my collection would drive you insane too

>Shadows of Brimstone
>TI4 (and 3 with all expansions)
>Loads of Dungeon Crawlers

Quantum is good though. Great even :)

decent for Terra Mystica alone. wtf is a wikipedia game though?

I've played Coup, so, yay Coup?

I should look some of those up.

As someone who is relatively new to the whole boardgame thing coming from Tabletop wargaming originally:

Is it just me or are a great many boardgame makers (authors/designers?) afraid of direct player confrontation?

Getting into it I expected games to be pretty much evenly split between race-for-points, wipe-the-other-guys-out, considering the absolute classics of boardgames are monopoly and risk respectively. Instead, the vast majority of games seems to be about optimizing within the game engine to accrue the most victory resources through some combo or other; meanwhile games like Diplomacy that are actually about playing against each other are heralded as friendship-destroyers. Who the fuck would be salty about a boardgame? Is that really what the common audience thinks like?

Why is there seemingly such a strong bias against actually "fighting" each other in boardgames?

>Kemet, Cyclades, WotR, T&E, Civ, Archipelago, Terra Mystica, Panamax, Twilight Snuggle
Mah Nigga
>Wipikedia, Exploding Kittens, Kingdom Builder
We all make mistakes
>Eclipse, Tzolk'in, Yamatai, Mission Red Planet, Village, Tash Kalar, A. 1503
No formed opinion, curious about them.
>MAGA sign
May yet come bite you in the ass

Germans.
'Nuff said.

M8 I'm a schnitzel myself. In every store I walk in they have 6 different Risk variants. The demand is obviously there.

Monopoly and Risk are both terrible games. Player elimination is boring if you're gonna be playing for 2+ hours.

Player elimination, overly long play times, high luck dependency and snowballing are regarded as "bad" design in modern boardgames.
A guy that finally gets kicked off the table after a 2 hour ordeal not because significant strategic blunders, but because the dice sent him spiraling into an unsalvageable losing scenario won't be getting anything but frustration out of a game.

>Monopoly and Risk are both terrible games
Absolutely
>Player elimination is boring if you're gonna be playing for 2+ hours
Absolutely

Nothing says every player elimination game needs to be 2+hours though.

>overly long play times, high luck dependency and snowballing are regarded as "bad" design in modern boardgames
I agree 100%

>Player elimination
I don't understand that. Being too far behind or lacking so many parts for your engine you'll never win is exactly the same thing in practice.
Also you could have direct confrontation without elimination and elimination without direct confrontation.

Because people are snowflakes who break down in tears and furiously demand be given a participation trophy when they get their asses handed to them in a real high stakes game, so they'll rather play coops and multiplayer solitaire.

the mentality comes from the players who don't like feelbads such as being wiped out in a multiplayer game because they were "unfairly" targeted by other players, so designers need to cater for people who require participation awards for making a "best effort" with engine building

if you look hard enough, you'll still find quite a fair amount of games with player elimination being made, but sometimes the elimination mechanic will be a "soft elimination" like in Bemused or Nevermore where you can be extremely crippled but not entirely out of the game, and still can win from being clearly disadvantaged if you're able to play your cards right

>Being too far behind or lacking so many parts for your engine you'll never win is exactly the same thing in practice.
yeah, but they tried through the entire length of the game and that's more satisfying for people than the actual victory (and I don't disagree with that personally, even if I'm all for player elimination)

>Who the fuck would be salty about a boardgame? Is that really what the common audience thinks like?
Yes.
>Why is there seemingly such a strong bias against actually "fighting" each other in boardgames?
The length of play seems to intensify oppositional discord. Player elimination (actual or effective with a large enough points split) is boring and compounded with game length. Co-op and deductive/betrayal games are fashionable, and allow for "pivoting" gameplay instead of elimination.

>January 1
>News about the Kemet reprint is they shipped and we are waiting for Asmodee to stop being lazy fucks

I can't wait for this fucking reprint.

>vidya has gone to complete shit with dlc, remasters and microtransactions cancer
>I guess i'll just find a better hobby. boardgames seem nice
>legacy cancer
>reprint cancer
why can't we ever have nice things?

You don't deserve nice things, peon. You'll take what they give you and be fucking thankful.

t. Asmodee rep.

Don't forget
>kickstarter exclusives cancer

>Nobody really plays chess "just for fun", so you're subjected to theory and opening books and shit right from the start.
It is because it has been analyzed to death for so many years that there is a huge meta for the game. If anything, this proves how deep the game is. If GWT was played for 10 years that competitively, everyone would drop it for how shallow the gameplay is. I bet even you will drop it for the next "Billion-mechanics-in-one euro game"

>Great Western Trail is much, much deeper than chess. It's just that nobody plays GWT competitively, so nobody cares to formulate strategy for it in a formal manner.
Because the game is not that deep. You are lucky if you have 2 options to consider per turn. The number of decisions you make per game is so limited that it is depressing how people like this game so much. GWT is constrained by a ton of rules from a bunch of interlocking mini games. It is extremely shallow once you understand the logic behind the mini games.

Just so you know:
Rules complexity =/= Depth

I already play as many games as I want as many times as I can. Arbitrary assignment won't magically create any more table time. Plus some of them would be other people's games and I have a pretty regular influx of new games.

tl;dr not applicable

In any case started this. Horrible stratego cards reboxing. It's the leftover from my Castle Dice box circumcision and some scrap cardpaper from a phone glass. I can't help but keep thinking I should just throw the goddamned heap in the trash, especially the cards but I'm going to try giving the game a chance- there are just so many things I'd rather be doing than playing a riff on stratego. :*(

>No, chess is a simple-ass normie game with obvious strategies.
Why don't you become a chess champion then? There's good money to be made and you make it sound so simple

>decent for Terra Mystica alone

Not that guy, but: War of the Ring, Tash-Kalar and Tzolkin are all excellent games in their respective genres and most of the others are fun alright games that no one would mind spending an evening playing.

Are you by any chance a colossal faggot?

Another user here, I find the Terra Mystica fanboys to be insufferable in general.

What genre is War of the Ring?

There's quite a bit less known boardgames that aren't cancer, if you are willing to put a little effort in researching them. If you settle for being spoonfed by boardgamegeek, /bgg/ and Facebook groups/ads you'll get what you deserve.

There's also no need to start the hobby by the newest shiny thing or to spend a grand per year on it. You could buy a dozen classics from the 80s-90s and play them for the rest of your life. Modern boardgaming rarely improves much over tried and true mechanics.

He's not wrong you know.

1. memorize every opening, move and strategy from every game every played

See one step to being great at chess. Simple

2p assymmetrical themed 'wargame'.

>Germans.
>'Nuff said.

He meant that modern boardgaming design tend to follows what we call the "German-Euro" paradigm, which was made famous by designers from guess where. Those games tend to feature, as you said, little to no direct confrontation and an abstract victory system rewarding you from a pick of diverse activities (As opposed to, say, "fuck up the player who picked the yellow plastics") Most of them place less value on turn-by-turn tactics and aleatory factors, but that is not mandatory.

Most modern boardgames are designed this way because the greater emphasis on planning your game makes gamers think they are playing the grownup games for the truly intellectual gamer, so it's just another form of catering to millennial bloated egos. Personally I don't think there's anything very intellectual in committing to memory optimal strategies that, if they are not obvious after three plays, you can research on bgg, but whatever.

Then do it. It sounds boring as fuck, but then, slaving 40 hours per week at your job is too.

>tried and true mechanics
>boardgames from the 80s-90s
Like what? There are a few ones that were good, and generally get reprinted every now and then (sometimes with different names for some reason) since they are still decent fun, but most were garbage.

You do it fag. I just said he wasn't wrong, chess fucking sucks.

>You could buy a dozen classics from the 80s-90s and play them for the rest of your life

So a dozen monopoly and risk reprints?

I don't think you actually modern boardgaming or you're trolling.

Are you by chance a colossal retard with no reading comprehension?

It's way more of a thematic game IMO.

GIVE ME ONE REASON WHY I SHOULDN'T BUY GAIA PROJECT RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND YOU CUNTS

just got the Dark Souls board game I'm so looking forward to playing, is there any advice, do's and do not's for my first time playing?

go in blind, fag

your two pour

So play it just like the game, fair enough

I also meant your stereotypical german likes having a lot of rules to follow to the letter, is polite, restrained and avoids overt conflict because of post-war education, and likes to perform even the most menial and repetitive tasks with great efficiency.

1) I'm not
2) I can't decide what to buy. Help me thread

Thinking about adding viral and photosynthesis to my collection...

Should I do it?

yes.

people in my group seem to like viral a lot but I haven't played.

Photosynthesis... yeah. I mean you basically have to start on opposite sides of the board and block everyone to have a chance. It seems like the kind of game anyone could win with the right strategy but I'm convinced anyone wins because no strategy beyond the above really pays off. I feel like it's about as deep as checkers strategically, once all the frufru is stripped away. Just my impression but I'm certainly not spending actual dollars on it, pretty tho it be.

find a different hobby

buy whichever theme speaks to you the most - they are virtually identical

traps and real girls are virtually identical pham

exactly - that's why you go for whichever genitalia that speaks to you the most

>It is because it has been analyzed to death for so many years that there is a huge meta for the game.
Retard, you're somehow using "meta" when you really mean "strategy". "Meta" is short for "metagame", and the metagame is what happens outside of the game rules. "Meta" for chess, e.g., psychologically intimidating your opponent during a tournament. The stuff of analysis isn't meta.

>If GWT was played for 10 years that competitively, everyone would drop it for how shallow the gameplay is.
No. Highly competitive games are shallow and simple by design, because nobody wants to play a competitive game that's hard to analyze.

See for example Fisher random chess, which is a better kind of chess by any imaginable metric. People don't play it because they actually like those stupid rote memorization opening books.

>Why is there seemingly such a strong bias against actually "fighting" each other in boardgames?
Because zero-sum interaction makes for a stupid and boring game theory analysis.

>Why don't you become a chess champion then? There's good money to be made and you make it sound so simple
Because being a chess champion isn't about figuring out complex strategies.

>Why is there seemingly such a strong bias against actually "fighting" each other in boardgames?
Because faggotry.

>As someone who is relatively new to the whole boardgame thing coming from Tabletop wargaming originally:
>Is it just me or are a great many boardgame makers (authors/designers?) afraid of direct player confrontation?
>Getting into it I expected games to be pretty much evenly split between race-for-points, wipe-the-other-guys-out, considering the absolute classics of boardgames are monopoly and risk respectively. Instead, the vast majority of games seems to be about optimizing within the game engine to accrue the most victory resources through some combo or other; meanwhile games like Diplomacy that are actually about playing against each other are heralded as friendship-destroyers. Who the fuck would be salty about a boardgame? Is that really what the common audience thinks like?
>Why is there seemingly such a strong bias against actually "fighting" each other in boardgames?

Son, you want Kemet. a game thats all about fighting and bullying.

In that case TM is cheaper so it's the better game.

What games are you looking forward to in 2018 /bgg/? I'm most interested in the Inis expansion so far because it looks like it'll totally change up the base game.

>reprint cancer
Good games should only get one run?

>rate
Some good, some trash. A good mix of Euro, Ameritrash and party.

>all that Eclipse stuff
Might want to unload that before the new edition hits and recoup some of your money.

Sticking to stuff from before 2000 would be retarded but he has a point insofar as there are many great classics that still hold up. A bunch of Knizia and Sackson titles from last century, for example, should be considered as essential as anything from this year.

>If GWT was played for 10 years that competitively, everyone would drop it for how shallow the gameplay is.

Puerto Rico has been played competitively for years and people still love it. It's probably one of the less random Euro games (only randomness is in the tile draws).

Cosmic Encounter
Diplomacy
Dune / Rex
Ikusa
Die Macher
Civilization
Titan
Fury of Dracula

Most of those originated in the 80's and have reprints with some minor rule changes today.

How about you stop following what the boardgamegeek/kickstarter faggots think is hot.

There is a ton of great stuff how there, in all sort of genres, both new and old. Do some research and quit your bitching.

>Retard, you're somehow using "meta" when you really mean "strategy". "Meta" is short for "metagame", and the metagame is what happens outside of the game rules. "Meta" for chess, e.g., psychologically intimidating your opponent during a tournament. The stuff of analysis isn't meta.

Poor choice of words on my end. That was what I meant.

You are complaining about the level of detail in the analysis performed on Chess and pushing it as a shallow game. I am saying GWT does not warrant such level of analysis because it is not as deep or good. Go play something better like Tigris and Euphrates and then we will talk.

>Puerto Rico has been played competitively for years and people still love it. It's probably one of the less random Euro games (only randomness is in the tile draws).
Same for the Race for the Galaxy. There is a reason for them to be liked this much. GWT will not be one of those games that will be remembered in 10 years.

I agree with this except reprint cancer. survive and wiz war have been in print for 35 years each. There is a reason.

>Cosmic Encounter
except cosmic encounter is utter shit

also it's from the 70s

the fact that you recommend it makes me dubious of your statements

Often said that Star Trek Fleet captains is Star Trek in a box. I completely agree. In fact is the only Star Trek game I own and feel I have a need to own.

I'm looking for something some more that covers the American Civil War. I would like a Civil War in a box game whereas I will only need to own one Civil War game to feel like I have the theme completely covered. Any ideas?

Mechanics don't matter, and I would say it should be at least 2+ players but bonus points for solo and card mechanics. But not required

I said most, not all, of those originated in the 80's.

Cosmic Encounter is great with the right people, and awfully tedious with the wrong people. People that prefer to play games like Terraforming Mars and Puerto Rico are not going to like CE, whereas the crowd I used to play CE with also liked a lot of social games, as well as highly thematic games like Twilight Imperium.

Acquire also a olod classic

Liberty or Death from GMT's COIN series seems perfect for you.

>civil war
>not revolutionary

Fuck, disregard

Just traded a few old games for tales of the arabian nights. Can’t wait to give it a go

the revolution was a civil war

The Mage Knight reskin is amazing, and ST Panic is okay. Ascendancy is trash. Star Fleet Battles is good.

In the Year of the Dragon is fun online.
Anyone else like it?

Battle Cry?
Same system as memoir 44 and battlelore. Only 2 player, though.

Technically, the "metagame" can also refer to the general consensus among players of the implications of the rules (thus ascribing potency or viability to specific choices), regional variations of dominant/preferred strategies, and other non-explicit game data.

So, if my region is full of players that believe a heavily aggressive strategy is the best choice for black, then I can assume I will encounter the Sicilian Defense with frequency, and can study counter-methods. Preferably not blatant counter-methods, since my goal should be to continue letting them THINK their method is the superior one, allowing me to 'narrowly' win more frequently.

Or the fact that specific openings have names at all is an example of meta development: the names are not officially codified in the rules of Chess, but rather developed understandings of optimum movements.

This is easiest, of course, in games with more frequent rules changes or adjustments, like vidya games, where the optimum strategy of the game may change on a weekly basis, depending on the size of relevant content updates/patches.

If a strategy is particularly well-represented one year at high-level chess play, you can expect that the high-ranking players will spend effort to research the strategy, and work to counter it the next year, causing the "meta" of chess to shift.

>Cosmic Encounter is great with the right people

Which could be said of anything.

>Apples to Apples is great with the right people.

See?

A good game is good with almost any people, and cosmic encounter is still fundamentally BAD even if you're having a great time with your besties.

It's a horrible recommendation that relies on something not in evidence, and, to iterate, it's a bad game.

Some things are great even with the wrong people though.

Memoir 44 is only two player, if only because the two-copy six player version sucks ass. I mean it sounds great on paper, but the actual handing out of the command cards and the alternative move from the subs just falls so flat it sucks all the enjoyment out of the game.

Please give me a list because apparently the wrong people like to gravitate towards me at game night...

Just put on your civil war reenactment garb and then play Fleet Captains anyways.

Kinda screwed up the wrap scale and graphics but then again I'm still questioning why I even bothered.

Done except for inside stickers which will contain the revised instructions I rewrote. Might drop a scaled logo sticker on the front while I'm printing anyway.

hiya steev