Grim... wrote:
Zombies! is out on WP7. Were you aware, MS phone owners?
Yeah, it came out about a year ago - I was showing people at the cottage. Maxed.
Grim... wrote:
Craster wrote:
Yes. No online multiplayer. Which is the most mental thing I've ever heard of.
I know, right? A turn based multiplayer game, and they decided to implement it hotseat only. Morons.
Excellent weekend of Catan, Munchkin and Zombies. Recommend all three. Again.
Craster wrote:
Played again last night. Thought it was going quite well, two diseases cured, then we ran out of player cards. Game over, world dies in a hell of rot and filth.
Clearly the talent in the successful team lay elsewhere.
If you had more that one set of the Zombies! game (for instance, we could have three sets at the cottage) I think making sure the helipads are right at the bottom of the deck and splitting into teams of two or three would work really well. Each member of the team has their own pawn with cards, ammo and hearts as normal, but ammo and weapons can be shared between the team. You'd be able to nail far more zombs (put the required number to win up to 25xTeam members, obv), but if you got split up because one of you died it'd be a proper nightmare - just like in "real" zombie situations. We could even invent new cards* that allow you to break up the team.
If you wanted to go mad, you could "specialise" the team members - one carries five cards but needs a 5 or 6 to kill the zombs, one is a heavy gunner who only needs to get above a 3 to get the kill but only has one card and can't use ammo counters, etc.
*Doesn't one of the expansions have cards that are basically 'create your own'?
If you wanted to go mad, you could "specialise" the team members - one carries five cards but needs a 5 or 6 to kill the zombs, one is a heavy gunner who only needs to get above a 3 to get the kill but only has one card and can't use ammo counters, etc.
*Doesn't one of the expansions have cards that are basically 'create your own'?
Zombie Corp has some blank cards in it.
Turns out I've got Heroquest. And Space Hulk (the pre-2009 version). And Space Crusade.
$$$
$$$
Yeah!
Attachment:
IMG_0301.JPG
I got my 100 extra Zombies and should get Zombies 3.5 today, which has more cards to make the game flow a bit ebtter. Will report.
We should do like the topic title says and have a boardgame night.
I'm happy to host it, but I'm not sure I'm easiest to get to for everyone.
For those that don't know (ooh, I can use the thing) I live here:
I'm happy to host it, but I'm not sure I'm easiest to get to for everyone.
For those that don't know (ooh, I can use the thing) I live here:
Hosting it at Grim...'s seems a great idea to me 
Trooper wrote:
Hosting it at Grim...'s seems a great idea to me
Postal district o/
I'm right in the middle of the country. It makes obvious sense to have it at my house.
myp wrote:
I'm right in the middle of the country. It makes obvious sense to have it at my house.
I have friends in Nottingham I could probably stay with, or, if at Grim..'s the hotel is good for me.
myp wrote:
I'm right in the middle of the country. It makes obvious sense to have it at my house.
How big's your table, though?
Grim... wrote:
myp wrote:
I'm right in the middle of the country. It makes obvious sense to have it at my house.
How big's your table, though?
Now you're shifting the goalposts! You could probably cram eight people around it if we were all friends.
I have an outside table that could be brought in and placed next to it though.
myp wrote:
Grim... wrote:
myp wrote:
I'm right in the middle of the country. It makes obvious sense to have it at my house.
How big's your table, though?
Now you're shifting the goalposts!
I'm pretty sure the goal was "host a boardgame night".
"Shifting the goalposts" is one of the few management terms I don't mind.
Grim... wrote:
I'm pretty sure the goal was "host a boardgame night".
But your main caveat was location. Bring your table to my house.
You host if you want to, I was just providing an alternative for them there northerners.
Well if we're all jumping in on this then I'LL host the boardgame night!
myp wrote:
Grim... wrote:
I'm pretty sure the goal was "host a boardgame night".
But your main caveat was location. Bring your table to my house.
This is true. And I could! But I'm not sure it would fit in my car.
Strap it to the back of the Tomcat, and set off the day before.
It'd be cheaper for me to buy you the same table when I arrived.
Grim... wrote:
It'd be cheaper for me to buy you the same table when I arrived.
If you could even get it into my house at all.
myp wrote:
Grim... wrote:
It'd be cheaper for me to buy you the same table when I arrived.
If you could even get it into my house at all.
FINE, I'll buy you a new house as well.
HAPPY NOW?
With a new house, it'd seem silly not having a nice new car on the drive.
Mr Russell wrote:
Well if we're all jumping in on this then I'LL host the boardgame night!
In! Bagsy the double bed.
myp wrote:
With a new house, it'd seem silly not having a nice new car on the drive.
Might as well get a younger wife to go in the passenger seat too, right?
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Well if we're all jumping in on this then I'LL host the boardgame night!
In! Bagsy the double bed.
Bagsy the other half of the double bed.
Not that we'll be using it
Yeah, we'll be playing board games ALL NIGHT!
Grim... wrote:
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Well if we're all jumping in on this then I'LL host the boardgame night!
In! Bagsy the double bed.
Bagsy the other half of the double bed.
Not that we'll need it
myp wrote:
Yeah, we'll be playing board games ALL NIGHT!
Hang on, you mean we are actually going to be playing board games?
<puts car keys away>
<puts car keys away>
I already have an idea for Hero Quest where you get shots instead of health points, and drink them as you lose them. A potion of healing would literally be a bottle of Sambuca to fill them up with
I used to have Hero Quest, it might have been awesome, but I don't remember ever playing a full game.
Quite an interesting show on the Geek & Sundry youtube channel
"Tabletop" which is basically setup as a regular show (30 minutes) of Wil Wheaton and some guests playing a boardgame.
First week is Smallworld (which looks fun) - next one due next friday is going to be "Settlers of Catan"
"Tabletop" which is basically setup as a regular show (30 minutes) of Wil Wheaton and some guests playing a boardgame.
First week is Smallworld (which looks fun) - next one due next friday is going to be "Settlers of Catan"
<Gets wood>
This looks superb.
http://cardsagainsthumanity.com/
I will be undertaking a mission to get a copy for the cottage this year. They give away the cards free in PDF format, but I think ones on card would be better.
http://cardsagainsthumanity.com/
I will be undertaking a mission to get a copy for the cottage this year. They give away the cards free in PDF format, but I think ones on card would be better.
I'm really enjoying Munchkin, get it.
Every time someone posts in this thread, it makes me "yay" because I think someone is organising an "event".
Why isn't there an online Cards Against Humanity? It'd make a great forum game, with a public vote for the answers.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Why isn't there an online Cards Against Humanity? It'd make a great forum game, with a public vote for the answers.
You may just have given Grim... another idea for the current Mafia game.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Why isn't there an online Cards Against Humanity? It'd make a great forum game, with a public vote for the answers.
This was a flip off-the-cuff remark before, but I've been thinking about it for 30 seconds so far and now I think it could really work.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Why isn't there an online Cards Against Humanity? It'd make a great forum game, with a public vote for the answers.
This was a flip off-the-cuff remark before, but I've been thinking about it for 30 seconds so far and now I think it could really work.
Uh-oh...
It'd be pretty damned easy, wouldn't it? You store a list of black cards and a list of white cards, and you allocate a list of 10 to each player. Then you just need the ability for each player to 'play' one or two cards each turn, and voting functionality for the outcome.
You could reasonably do it with a master spreadsheet, a game runner, and PMs. The hardest part would be typing all the cards out -- I couldn't find a plaintext list.
Grim... wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Why isn't there an online Cards Against Humanity? It'd make a great forum game, with a public vote for the answers.
This was a flip off-the-cuff remark before, but I've been thinking about it for 30 seconds so far and now I think it could really work.
Uh-oh...
The one thing it removes is the chance of tailoring your answer to be the one you think the first player will think is the best.
Introduced 'Settlers of Cantan' to a couple of friends tonight. Very tight game (my tiles were producing nothing for the first six rounds or so!) , but I managed to sneak to victory just ahead of my mate who was just about to play his winning settlement. Ha!
As usual, anything relating to sheep or wood never ceased to be highly amusing.
As usual, anything relating to sheep or wood never ceased to be highly amusing.
ON THE SUBJECT OF HeroQuest: I was forced to play it last week as I was holidaying with the girlfriend and her parents in Devon, and her dad brought HeroQuest. He's the only one that like it and the rest of us think it's trash. It's as dull as dishwater. I remember being really excited about it as a kid but never playing it. I did play the PC game though! The rigid turn order makes it so that most players spend ages being blocked in a corridor with no much to do, especially as the optimal move is to just make the barbarian P1 and send him to stand in doorways and hack at stuff, doing this one room at a time. There's also a tonne of cards that are basically "you get hurt/die", which means the weak wizard should never do any searching ever, as he'll often just die from it. A more flexible turn order would suit the game better and allow everyone to actually do something, as well as getting rid of the shitty cards (or make them luck based?). Well except for the evil Wizard. He has the most boring role ever and I can't think of a way to change that without making HeroQuest another game.
Though really you're better off just buying a game like Descent or even Doom[1], which are a modern, actually-fun version of HeroQuest, though they take even longer to play. Any dungeon crawl would be better, really. SpaceHulk is still brill, though. You can sell the original HQ + expansions for tonnes if you have the original box. You could do that and buy descent + expansions and be much better off in terms of fun, says I.
On holiday I did manage to get my girlfriend's mum addicted to Lords of Waterdeep. It's a simple worker placement jobbie that involves lots of blocks. And I also bought Stronghold over the holiday, just because I was near Exeter and I knew there was a shop there. Anyway the game caused my girlfriend to cry when we played it yesterday.... hmmm. Not sure if I should bring that one out again, no matter how positive she seems to be about playing it again with the rule errate we've found on BGG. (Even though the version we have is essentially the second English edition, the rules are still ambiguous and crap and don't completely match the intent of the original polish version, it seems).
IN OTHER NEWS, as I'm sure you all care, I'm about to start forcing my usual group of players to play a game I designed and printed out on card. Let's hope it is great success and once it's in working order I can force all of you to play it. After that: World Domination.
[1] I've not played this, but it's meant to be a bit unbalanced, I think I remember reading? I
Though really you're better off just buying a game like Descent or even Doom[1], which are a modern, actually-fun version of HeroQuest, though they take even longer to play. Any dungeon crawl would be better, really. SpaceHulk is still brill, though. You can sell the original HQ + expansions for tonnes if you have the original box. You could do that and buy descent + expansions and be much better off in terms of fun, says I.
On holiday I did manage to get my girlfriend's mum addicted to Lords of Waterdeep. It's a simple worker placement jobbie that involves lots of blocks. And I also bought Stronghold over the holiday, just because I was near Exeter and I knew there was a shop there. Anyway the game caused my girlfriend to cry when we played it yesterday.... hmmm. Not sure if I should bring that one out again, no matter how positive she seems to be about playing it again with the rule errate we've found on BGG. (Even though the version we have is essentially the second English edition, the rules are still ambiguous and crap and don't completely match the intent of the original polish version, it seems).
IN OTHER NEWS, as I'm sure you all care, I'm about to start forcing my usual group of players to play a game I designed and printed out on card. Let's hope it is great success and once it's in working order I can force all of you to play it. After that: World Domination.
[1] I've not played this, but it's meant to be a bit unbalanced, I think I remember reading? I
I spent pretty much the whole of yesterday playing Dominion, Pandemic and 7 Wonders with my wife and son, only taking a break in order to make a really nice roast dinner. Best Sunday EVER.
I wihs to know more about 7 Wonders, please. Knowledge dump me.
7 Wonders is a fairly light civ-building card game. The object of the game is to end up with the most impressive civilisation which you achieve by playing cards representing different buildings or military resources that your civ has available to it. Oh, and if you could find time to build one of the seven wonders of the ancient world (which generally gives you scads of victory points if you manage it), that'd be nice.
Things that are great about 7 Wonders:
a) The card-drafting mechanic. The game is played over three "Ages", with each Age featuring more powerful (and expensive) cards than the one before. At the start of each Age, each player is dealt 7 cards. Everyone picks one of those cards to build, places it face-down in front of them then puts their now-six-card hand between them and their neigbouring player. Once everyone's picked, everyone reveals the card they're building simultaneously, then picks up the hand they've been passed and repeats the process. This means that there's almost no downtime and the game really flies by, even in a seven-player game. Really, it takes practically the same amount of time to play with seven than with three (maybe 30-40 minutes).
a (Slight return) Pretty much every time you select a card to play you're being asked to make an interesting decision with no clear-cut right answer. Should you take a source of raw materials that might help you build better cards down the road? Should you respond to the fact that your neighbour is building up his military? Should you take the card that will give you the greatest direct benefit even though that means you'll be passing your neighbour this other card that he desperately needs? Should you pass up your opportunity to improve your civilisation and instead use one of these cards to start building your Wonder?
b) The artwork. 7 Wonders is absolutely gorgeous.
Things that aren't great about 7 Wonders:
a) The iconography on the cards can be a touch on the arcane side. The game includes a nice reference sheet which explains what each card does which can be passed around (and there's a second copy of it in the rulebook) but it does take a bit of getting used to.
b) It's not a terribly deep game. For me that's a feature not a bug but there's probably not enough "crunch" to it for some.
c) I generally look for three things in my boardgames - relatively quick playtime, interesting decisions to be made and player interaction. 7 Wonders has the first two in spades, but it's a little lacking in the third. It's not quite "multiplayer solitaire" - as mentioned earlier, your choice of buildings will be strongly influenced by what the other players (and particularly your direct neighbours) are up to, but there's no negotiation in the game and the fact that everybody is taking their turn simultaneously sort've dampens down table-talk.
Even with those caveats, I like 7 Wonders a lot. It's quick to set up, quick to play and quick to put away again so as a sort of palate-cleanser between two meatier games it's hard to beat, particularly for larger groups.
Wow. Sorry, that got wildly out of hand.
Things that are great about 7 Wonders:
a) The card-drafting mechanic. The game is played over three "Ages", with each Age featuring more powerful (and expensive) cards than the one before. At the start of each Age, each player is dealt 7 cards. Everyone picks one of those cards to build, places it face-down in front of them then puts their now-six-card hand between them and their neigbouring player. Once everyone's picked, everyone reveals the card they're building simultaneously, then picks up the hand they've been passed and repeats the process. This means that there's almost no downtime and the game really flies by, even in a seven-player game. Really, it takes practically the same amount of time to play with seven than with three (maybe 30-40 minutes).
a (Slight return) Pretty much every time you select a card to play you're being asked to make an interesting decision with no clear-cut right answer. Should you take a source of raw materials that might help you build better cards down the road? Should you respond to the fact that your neighbour is building up his military? Should you take the card that will give you the greatest direct benefit even though that means you'll be passing your neighbour this other card that he desperately needs? Should you pass up your opportunity to improve your civilisation and instead use one of these cards to start building your Wonder?
b) The artwork. 7 Wonders is absolutely gorgeous.
Things that aren't great about 7 Wonders:
a) The iconography on the cards can be a touch on the arcane side. The game includes a nice reference sheet which explains what each card does which can be passed around (and there's a second copy of it in the rulebook) but it does take a bit of getting used to.
b) It's not a terribly deep game. For me that's a feature not a bug but there's probably not enough "crunch" to it for some.
c) I generally look for three things in my boardgames - relatively quick playtime, interesting decisions to be made and player interaction. 7 Wonders has the first two in spades, but it's a little lacking in the third. It's not quite "multiplayer solitaire" - as mentioned earlier, your choice of buildings will be strongly influenced by what the other players (and particularly your direct neighbours) are up to, but there's no negotiation in the game and the fact that everybody is taking their turn simultaneously sort've dampens down table-talk.
Even with those caveats, I like 7 Wonders a lot. It's quick to set up, quick to play and quick to put away again so as a sort of palate-cleanser between two meatier games it's hard to beat, particularly for larger groups.
Wow. Sorry, that got wildly out of hand.
Page 4 of 32 [ 1599 posts ]