I like the theme of Disney Villainous, I just don't like that someone randomly wins without much I can do about it. I know fate cards are a thing but it's just a gamble, and often can only play them at the expense of my own strategy.
You can also be *helping* someone by using the fate action if their win depends on uncovering certain heroes. You're speeding up their sifting for them.
I honestly wish it had more player interaction. Fate is all they really have and some characters need it. They're all villains in their universe, so why not have them be villains to each other too? It feels like it should be cutthroat but it just isn't.
Seriously. In Disney Villainous, it seems nearly pointless to ever try using fate cards against characters like Hook, Yzma, or even Ratigan since their win condition makes it so they WANT to be hit with fate cards. It really makes it so that otherwise good heroes like Maleficent and Gaston pointless to play as if either of those are being used
King of Tokyo.
Love the theme, expansions, Giant dice and powers. It just feels dull to play though. And there didn't seem like any real strategy. Real shame
If it's going on for too long, then you need to be the first one to put pressure on the rest of the table by rolling claws.
You might win, you might lose, but it's meant to be a quick game.
That's pretty accurate description. Down to the feeling of randomness of someone suddenly winning .. or oneself dying. Even when I have won, it feels like I just got lucky. And any group is too large and make a round a boring wait. It shouldn't, but it does.
Both these games have that samme thing as spyfall or coup or werewulf where it is absolutely excellent in a situation of perfect synegy and coincidence, but you can't *make* that happen.
I hate player elimination too, but in Clank! potential player elimination is one of the best parts and generally works the opposite of how it works in classic board games. It is basically a game timer to keep players from making the game too long.
It most often happens when all the other players are already finished so the game is essentially over, and it limits waiting around not the other way around, meaning it triggers when a player has lingered in the dungeon and made the game longer and it is pretty much always a choice. I admit I have seen it happen differently exactly once, when all players got eliminated (because we all lingered too long) which was hysterical.
No one is getting eliminated in Clank! and waiting for an hour for others to finish the game like the classic way player elimination works.
I've played a ton of Clank! and oddly never thought of it as a player elimination game. When it has happened it's been at a point where the game already would have ended in the next few turns anyway. Elimination is even less rarely a game-ender, as provided you are above the Depths you still score and can win, you just miss out on 20 points.
There's also a lot of control over whether or not you build a clank-heavy deck so if being eliminated before the game ends is a concern you can take steps to avoid it. Unlike King of Tokyo and some other games with player elimination there aren't really ways to 'gang up' on a player, unless that player is the one who pursued a clank-heavy strategy and the others try to push clank-pulls, but in that case the player took the risk themselves.
I suspect this will be a popular answer, but Root. An asymmetrical war game with a fun theme should be right up my alley. I love complex games with multiple factions and unique abilities.
But Root just is not cohesive enough. It's not four factions playing the same game with different abilities. It's four factions playing four completely separate games that just happen to use the same board. It takes *way* too much investment to actually be able to tell what is happening in the game beyond what your own faction is doing. And I say that as someone who is really good at Twilight Imperium, so this isn't a matter of me just not getting it. In a game like TI, factions are unique and play differently, but you're all ultimately playing the same game. That is not true in Root, and I just don't want to play the couple dozen games it would be necessary to play in order for me to figure out if I actually like it.
Root (and I guess other Cole Werhle games as well) also has the problem that the self-balancing mechanism introduces a moderately high skill floor. If one player isn't pulling their weight backstabbing whoever is threatening to win, you wind up with very unsatisfying games.
This is actually really eye opening for me to see why other people I've played with didn't enjoy the game. It is complex to keep up with everyone for sure, and I love love love TI despite the massive time sink and scale
Same here, even bought everything Root, unfortunately, I don't like it :( trying to make myself getting it to the table is the main problem, as it will be a drag for at least 1 game and only gets fun after 3.
However, I get to play TI4 with 5-8 people every 3 months.
Now I'm hoping Arcs will be something for when we are just 4 when people drop for TI4.
This 100%. I appreciate Root for what it does but it is way too much. Then when I BFF ally thought I got it I tried with an expansion and just couldn’t. Way too much.
Honestly one of my biggest disappointments. My group loves interaction and asymmetry in play styles. Haven't played TI, but we've played plenty of T&E, Terraforming Mars, Kemet, Terra Mystica, etc. Root was such flop. It really did feel like everyone was playing their own game. We generally play "fair" when attacking in other games. Going after one of the two leaders, never attacking last place, or attacking someone with resources such as meteors killing trees in TM. It never felt like we figured out how to balance that game. Just always felt like a runaway leader game.
My take on 7th Continent did a massive pivot once I realized the core game mechanic was card/deck manipulation, not exploration or resource management.
For example, you should be using those "Remember" cards to bounce key items back into your hand once you've expended them - and timing that with when you're going to be in an area with resources for recreating said item.
Or understanding how item stack combos work, especially "Discard this card" effects. Such as combining Bolas with a Bow. The Bow is the top card, which not only means you can use the Hunt action without discarding the Bolas, but also means you can see the result of the card draws *before* optionally deciding whether to use the Bolas (and if you do, it only discards the Bolas card, not the entire item stack). Or using "discard a card with " abilities to repair item stacks. As in, craft an item explicitly to add durability, then discard it later to free up a slot in the stack.
There's a bunch of extremely powerful card combos which are hidden beneath banal bits of text. Once I realized that, and started actively looking for those combos, it was like a whole other game unfolded before me. And I recognized that many common complaints of the game, such as constant hunting grinds or game overs, are really punishments for not engaging with this card combo/deck manipulation system that many players don't even recognize they should be playing.
This is a really educational comment. I went all in on 7th Continent and have only played it 2 or 3 times and made it off the starting map once. I think I'll have to give it another go keeping this in mind so I can actually dig into the game instead of struggling to now deck myself out and barely making any progress.
I played it with two different groups of friends and loved it! We enjoyed solving the puzzles and exploring.
We took pictures of the whole map, though; I'm not sure if I'd enjoy it more or less on a replay, knowing where stuff generally is.
We did mix in every expansion. I wouldn't try it without everything just combined in one box. We were also D&,D groups, and played this in place of that: it's not the kind of game you sit down and play in one session
Wingspan. It looks good and it’s an engine builder. I like the theme. I should like it. I just don’t. It’s slow, boring, and ends before engines can catch up to just taking quick max points. Also the damn small slippery egg shaped eggs are a pain to handle.
Same here. On paper, I should love everything about **Wingspan**. In practice, after just 2 plays I just dont want to anymore, for the exact same reasons as you. It's also what's stopping me from getting **Wyrmspan** even if theroretically I should be super excited about it (theme, EB, reviews, etc.
Definitely try out Wyrmspan. It is a completely different game and just about everything that is an issue in Wingspan has been addressed.
That being said, the Oceania expansion to Wingspan also addresses a lot of OG Wingspan's issues, too. It's just that Wyrmspan is its own thing rather than a (major) adjustment to Wingspan.
I think that my main gripe with wingspan is how it oozes flavor with every card and yet the overarching narrative of each game is nonsensical. Who am I? What is going on as we play the game?
It sort of makes sense that having birds in the woods gives me more food or does it? Are the birds bringing me food? Am I expanding my woods? What about the field and eggs? My turkey in the field lays eggs which hatch into... a finch? Or did I smash the eggs?
I summon a duck on the river which makes sense. The duck on the river is... getting me more birds? How does that work?
It just feels like the game we play each time doesn't evoke some grand narrative playing out between the players and despite the beautiful art and the flavor of each individual card, I really feel like there was missed potential in that department.
Compare this to Terraforming Mars, another engine builder which has an _excellent_ overall narrative. We are companies competing for government recognition and influence over Mars by each trying to be the primary leader in the terraforming process. Every card's flavor fits well into the narrative like a greenery increasing the oxygen or how an ice aceteroid card will create an ocean. My steel mill helps me create buildings, etc. The cards we buy are even called patents which explains why we must pay a fee to acquire them and why only one company gets to have each.
I can see what my company is doing during the story and I feel my part in the story as it plays out.
To me, wingspan is just a bit more hollow because of this. I like the individual cards, but it lacks an overall narrative to compel me
I've never thought of Wingspan this way before, insofar as it's missing an overarching narrative. That may be because I approach Wingspan as more of a game of collection or inventories, categories, things of that nature. For me, there never is nor was there supposed to be an overarching narrative; it's more about the collection of different kinds of birds, and discovering that there's more than one way that they are interconnected (by flocking, or habitat, or nest type, or size, diet, etc).
I like your viewpoint though. It underlines the view as to how others approach games and why one game may be great for one person and not the other.
The game's rulebook says that we are putting together an aviary as its brief description, but you can tell that the design of the mechanics don't mesh with the narrative all that well.
I think you're right in the idea that the game was not intended to form an overall narrative. I think the mechanics and theme came first and they kind of tried to wrap a bit of narrative on there after the fact. I do think there's a world where they could have captured all those fine details about the birds, but also formed the mechanics into a coherent narrative as well, but doing so wasn't a focus of theirs.
I absolutely see how the game appeals in these other ways too of course! I appreciate how the variety of tastes in games is what drives a lot of innovation in the space. Wingspan does a fantastic job at showcasing those interesting connections between birds, and I agree that's likely where more of the design focus was centered
On a *macro* level, Wingspan's theming is thin. The forest gives you food because, uh, it's the forest and the most biodiversity is there? The wetlands give you bird draws because birds gather at water to drink probably? The grassland gives you eggs because something something eggs.
On a *micro* level, it's cool. The bird powers are typically related to the bird itself. The ravens and crows let you discard an egg from any other bird to gain food. In real life, ravens and crows predate eggs as a source of food. Flocking birds let you tuck cards behind them for points, representing a literal flock of birds. The hawks and owls let you examine cards in the deck, or dice outside the feeder, to hunt for a card to tuck under or food to cache on the bird, as these birds are primarily predators and sometimes predate other birds. The vultures can be played for no food cost because they are scavengers. The doves and quails lay extra eggs when activated because in real life these birds have several broods per year thanks to short (3-week) incubation periods. And on and on.
With some birds the powers are a stretch, but the way real bird info has been gamified is the best part of Wingspan.
>It’s all a metaphor
To quote my geekbuddy HiveGod's user comment from BGG
*"The game is like a downloadable skin for your spreadsheet, and if you get lost in the pretty pictures you're gonna fuck up your taxes."*
Forgive me friend. This is why I rarely play it.
I much rather love to play through a game of nemesis or war of the ring. Games that leave me considering the story that just took place and which allow me to discuss that narrative with the other players are far more satisfying for me
That narrative thing is so true! You put into words something I have struggled to articulate enjoying. (It’s been 15 years but my husband and I still laugh about the time the Fellowship *did* “simply walk into Mordor”).
Same, I have trouble enjoying any game where the theme is completely disconnected from its mechanisms. For me, the theme should inform the mechanisms, not just be a simple paint job.
This is why I love Terraforming Mars, but I'm disappointed by Ark Nova. As you describe, Terraforming Mars has a working narrative. Ark Nova says... my zoo has a boa constrictor, so the animal attacks the opposing zoo builder and affects their zoo? Ugh...
While not an engine builder (it's a tableau game), Meadow handles the theme much better. You're taking a walk and hoping to notice interesting plants and animals and landscapes, and the cards you play build on each other, forming a kind of food-chain, where smaller plants and animals attract larger ones that score you more points, and managing what tags cards use up and provide is the key to winning.
It makes much more sense and flows better than Wingspan, and even has little descriptions of all the plants and animals, too! Different mechanically, but a better theme/mechanic integration. I also feel like there's a bit more player interaction, too, another common complaint of Wingspan. I highly recommend it!
Wingspan to me is like that bad ex that made me figure out what I actually like lol. Turns out weak theme <> mechanics connection and multiplayer solitaire aren’t my thing.
Wingspan is the biggest mystery of why the game is so loved by gamers.
I understand that it is a nice fresh looking game for people who are not that into games. It is easier to pull a non gamer to try a game about birds, than a game about medieval europe etc.
But for board gamers, people who play a lot of games, I just can't understand it. The game has a single dominant strategy, and the last round is just nothing but laying eggs, because anything else is net negative points. The randomness of objectives, the randomness of being able to tuck cards, catch food, etc.
How did the game pass the development step in this stage?
>The game has a single dominant strategy, and the last round is just nothing but laying eggs, because anything else is net negative points.
The Oceania expansion does a lot to round things out, both by adding Nectar as a strategy and by balancing out some of the eggs to food to birds costs and exchange options. IIRC some of the bird abilities from the European expansion encourage other strategies too.
That said, even in base Wingspan, eggs isn't the only viable winning strategy - just the most obvious and straightforward one. You can do well with a tucking or food-on-cards strategy if you get the engine working. Round goals can win you the day too if they're not too far out of your way (though it's essentially never worth stepping away from a viable strategy to chase round goals).
EDIT: See for example the discussion at [https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2357286/one-best-strategy](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2357286/one-best-strategy)
My grandma accidentally got my husband the Asia expansion instead of Oceania, and we play the duet mode all the time now. It feels a lot more balanced with the duet tokens, especially in later rounds.
>The game has a single dominant strategy, and the last round is just nothing but laying eggs, because anything else is net negative points.
As others have pointed out, no it isn't, and no it isn't. For new players and typical players, egg spam is a thing because it's an obvious and easy way to gain points. But advanced players often have multiple things going on in the last round, and spamming eggs is not always your best end-game play.
The last few rounds are where you typically see high-point birds (7 to 9-pt), birds that let you draw a new bonus card, and mid-point bird plays that either net you your bonus card(s) or a higher-value bonus on one of your cards. The people scoring in the 90's and up are generally tossing down two to three 7+ point birds, have three bonus cards, and are using a tuck-and-draw or tuck-and-lay strategy.
The problem with wingspan is, it's heavily driven by luck of the draw. If you don't enjoy the challenge of trying to build something from nothing when you have a really bad starting hand or a run of bad draws, then you're going to find it slow and frustrating.
I want to love azul. I love all the pieces and the tactility of it all. I just find the game a bit boring and it hasn't been a huge success with the few people i've played it with.
Interesting. I find it's my easiest game to introduce to people new-ish to games and it's always a hit.
Do you think it's the style of game (pattern/puzzle) or the implementation that misses the mark for you?
>Do you think it's the style of game (pattern/puzzle) or the implementation that misses the mark for you?
With me - it's having better games for "introduce to people new-ish to games" niche.
Why themeless puzzly Azul, when there is Ticket to Ride.
Or Carcassone. Or Survive. Or King of Tokyo. Or plenty of lighter games (No Thanks, For Sale, Incan Gold, Deep Sea Adventure, Jungle Speed, Pairs, Time's up, Coconuts, ...). And if one really wants a light MPS, I find Kingdomino better - pretends to have a theme, shorter.
My issue with Azul is a silly one, I acknowledge, but it bugs me enough that I never feel satisfied after playing, even if I win.
It just bugs me so much that it feels like the game is encouraging me to create this nice, full Mosaic of tiles, and yet you NEVER (at least in my experience) FINISH that mosaic.
Haha, I've never felt that way personally, but that is usually the kind of thing that I do care about, so I see your point completely. Maybe the Summer Pavilion variant would be better for you?
I love all the Azuls, and I think that Summer Pavilion won’t fix this user’s issue. However, Queen’s Garden might, as you don’t start out with a big, empty board to fill.
It's a brutal strategy game at 2p, with good players thinking of blocks and counter-blocks many moves ahead. It loses almost all of its value at higher player count.
Patchwork could have been similarly bad if they had marketed it as 2-4p, but thankfully they made the right call there.
Yeah it shines but in a completely different way at 4. My group loves seeing how one color just builds up in the center that someone eventually **will have to take** and get -10 points, it's beautiful
Pretty much same impression - why play Azul, when in the same "niche" there are Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne. Both have some vague idea about a theme and even some kind of arch to the game.
Arkham Horror TCG. I bought the revised core set for about €75 and played it through about 3-4 times with a friend and we both felt depressed about how punishing it was. I really wanted to like it, so I checked online and found people saying "You need to get X expansion or Y detective decks, then it'll click." Which felt ridiculous to me considering I'd already spent €75 on what was apparently the demo for the 'real game'.
Same; my friends and I are used to suffering in Arkham games, but the LCG core set was so brutal we thought we must have been playing wrong (we weren't, at least as far as the rules are concerned).
I found Marvel Champions to be a much more enjoyable yet still challenging enough LCG, and the core set alone gives you a ton of replayability (I played it solo ~15 times the week I bought it). My only downside to that game is that the playtime increases astronomically with each additional player, but I can usually tolerate a long game just fine, and at any rate it's my go-to solo game.
As for the thread title, however, I wouldn't really say I *regret* bouncing off Arkham Horror LCG, because liking a card game inevitably results in me losing a lot of money...
Unfortunately, it’s so true that the real charm of Arkham Horror LCG doesn’t show up until you play the first 8 scenario campaign. (Dunwich) I agree this is ridiculous given the cost but it’s true that the demo version as you call it is just not a good representation of the game. Hopefully one day you can snag a used copy.
I already sold it unfortunately. I really considered buying a campaign to see if it would click, but the thought of paying another €50 to see if I would like the game I'd already spent so much on felt like throwing good money after bad haha.
Couldn't agree more on 7th continent. We took a Sunday and played 4 player all day, and I think maybe? we finished the first curse? 4 puzzle solving, experienced gamers. The exploration is fun and once you get used to it, the game is very intuitive, but gets really tedious once you figure out how you have to stay alive (minmaxing hunting grounds and "resetting" the game for no reason.)
Trick taking games in general. They are accessible, cheap, have high skill ceiling. They have depth(people say so) that fun to explore. Commitment is rewarded. And designers regularly innovate the formula, keeping things fresh and interesting. Yet I have no desire at all to play any of them. Lack of a theme doesn't help either.
Trick-taking fans don't help this any, either. If you're someone into those games and I sit down with you to play one, even if you haven't played this one, the core is samey enough that you are already thinking 14 steps ahead and loving it, and I'm sitting here just throwing down the cards I'm forced to throw, bored.
Same, but I feel like The Crew is my one exception. Maybe pasting on a theme helped, but actually feeling like we were on missions made trick taking more palatable.
The Crew being co-op is what helps me. My parents play a ton of trick taking games and always beat me but they struggle so much with The Crew. Their brains are just too wired toward playing competitively I guess. It's hilarious.
Conversely, the Crew might be my answer to OPs question. I love trick-takers and my favorite game is cooperative. I feel so utterly bored playing the Crew
Right there with you, I didn't grow up playing trick taking games either, was more of a Dominos or classic board games kid, so I don't have a nostalgic tie to trick taking either.
For broad mechanic based category, for me it's . . . Worker placement.
There's just nothing really fun about sliding cubes around the board to get a bit of a resource that will help me eventually get points.
Root. I love the theme, but it's so darn complicated that it takes too long to teach to get it to the table. I will eventually learn the clockwork expansions and play solo. Nevertheless, I'd rather play against friends.
I had like two full days free recently with my cousins (we all like boardgames) and spent the entire time playing Root and by the end it was really exciting and dynamic because we all understood the rules. It definitely is a game that builds though.
This is what I was going to post.
For the game to be good, it requires everyone to both care and be either a very experienced gamer or a moderately experienced Root player. I have yet to make that happen. Because of this, every single game has been Cats win by a mile, or abandoned halfway through after it becomes clear that cats win by a mile.
Also, the Root rulebook is everything I hate about rulebooks. It's probably the only rulebook I've read front to back, gone back and tried to understand some things, and still not have any fucking idea how to play the game. Everything is just little isolated bits of info that are never linked back up with the game as a whole. It's like the worst kind of math textbook or paper, brevity and rigor taking ultimate priority over clarity and understanding. I hate it.
I want to love this game. I want it to be TI4 that doesn't take a whole day to play and is also cute. But I just haven't.
I love Root but it’s hard to get it to table with people who care enough. It’s not very fun endlessly playing teaching games or having to basically play for your opponents because they’re not getting it.
Dude, yes. My gaming group only gets together occasionally and any asymmetric game is not worth the (re) learning time. “What can my faction do? What can your faction do?” “Wait, I don’t think we played that turn right.”
I think it’s a good game, but it’s just not feasible for my situation.
Jaws of the Lion. My brother and I were stoked to play it, played 4 or 5 scenarios, and were so bored with it that we put it back on the shelf.
Watched some videos and it seems we played it right but it did not click at all.
The first four or five scenarios are definitely a little boring since they are tutorials. While the system is probably one of my favorites I can totally see this not being for everyone.
[Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/186995/doctor-who-time-of-the-daleks).
Love the theme (each player is an incarnation of the Doctor and you have to complete challenges and beat the Daleks to Gallifrey) and its gameplay is fine (a little bit like the Rising games).
But for whatever insane reason they decided to make it a **semi**-coop game, where your goal isn't just to beat the Daleks to Gallifrey, it's to be the first incarnation to do so. Just... why? It makes no sense. And without that element the game is far too easy. Disappointing. 😔
It sucks when designers miss an entire point of the IP they’re using.
There’s a Discworld game **Clacks** in which you play as the *bad guy*, Reacher trying to beat the hero of the book, Moist.
From an abstract POV the game is a nice little puzzle but Reacher is such a vile horrible person it just… never really feels good to win.
!fetch
Treasure Island. Nsips? Compasses? Markers? Long John silver?! Count me in!
In practice I can't help but feel like I'm just constantly going "there? No? Okay." for two hours.
I liked it, just get good markers for the board - I found the ones they come with are hard to see!
And a group that’s open minded - introducing it to new people I found it easiest to be Long John Silver and encourage people to have fun and work together if they so choose!
Pirate mix up on Spotify, couple of drinks and it’s a fun time!
For me this is Dead of Winter. Cool theme. Interesting mechanic with the traitor. Search and survival. First time I played it, it was 90 minutes, I took a single turn, died, and we lost. Okay, I'll try it again.
Every subsequent play has followed the same formula. We scrape and scrap to get past the first turn or two. The crossroads cards are thematic and a great idea, but rarely actually make an impact. And then we die in round 2 or 3. Setting up a game and playing for two hours to take two turns and then lose just turns me off.
I don't even mind worker placement games - I love Dune Imperium, Lords of Waterdeep, and many others. But every time I have ever played Everdell, I have kinda hated it. Can't even put my finger on why.
For me it was the card linking. Have this card? You get that card for free! The deck is maaaasssive so it just felt like pure luck if you're able to get one of these free cards. Also, resources are so tight that if someone is able to get a few of these free cards off its really hard to compete. This is coming from just a few plays but it didn't make a great first impression.
Brass Birmingham.
I love strategy games, it looks great, I love playing games like Hansa Teutonica or Factorio, Anno, etc. as video games buy Brass Birmingham just does not connect with me at all beyond theme. And that’s just not enough to carry it.
Interesting. I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate the theme / industrial themes, but the gameplay is so engaging; I find it intricate and meticulous and the mechanics dovetail beautifully, despite the fact that it seems full of random nuance and annoying exceptions to remember at first.
On the base difficulty it can be easy, but that depends entirely on the player. One of the great things about it is the nicely adjustable difficulty. I've never lost under difficulty 5, but I win only about half the time on difficulty 10.
There are others who probably win 70-80% at 10, and others who win probably 50% at 1. It's all about finding the right challenge level for your personal ability and mood. Sometimes I want a quick easy game in the morning, sometimes I take some time for a really crunchy challenge.
I know this is a lame, boardgamer response, but how many times have you played? My first game I was like: mother, prepare the incinerator, this supposedly good game is going in TONIGHT.
But then after another game or two the way you have to play to have a chance to win became clearer to us and it was a lot more fun.
Of course, the game IS difficult, and you can very much just lose with no chance of overcoming the onslaught :)
I like Spirit Island, but the game beats you up a lot, and there are many games where you look up mid play and say, "oh. I think we won." It's very anticlimactic.
> there are many games where you look up mid play and say, "oh. I think we won." It's very anticlimactic.
If this happens then you should up the difficulty until you find the sweet spot for your group.
I noticed that too. Most of the time you’re just “fighting fires” and then all of a sudden the fear level changes and you went from not even being close to (or even thinking about) winning on the last turn to “oh, now all we have to do is destroy these 3 cities and we win”.
It usually feels like there is no clear path to victory. You just have to keep “surviving” each turn and eventually the game will be like “ok, you made it long enough, here’s a chance to win”. It’s fine. It’s challenging and I do usually enjoy the game, but yes, anticlimatic is a great way to describe how it usually ends.
Spirit Island is a game that you get good at. I've seen "chess" as a popular descriptor for it. You can't stay being reactive. You need to think several steps ahead. You need to accept and sacrifice pieces to get to a board state you need.
You get whooped, you learn, you challenge "someone" better. You get whooped again, you figure out what worked and what didn't.
Spirit Island is a game that after losing, as I am packing up. Think back and about what I should've done better. Try to pinpoint when I "lost" the game. I always think Spirit Island is winnable. It's just I made a wrong decision that tipped game against me. No other board game has ever done that.
> I always think Spirit Island is winnable
Dunno, some setups like solo whirlwind vs England 6 are just gonna be "pray I draft the best cards because there's only so much my spirit can do here." And then of course the crazy doublemax shit some people like to run are going to require broken team comps or luck.
But within difficulty<=11 setups, yeah, most are going to be always winnable.
Honestly, it's just Pandemic, except your actions are cards and there are 2 action phases (before and after "virus" spread) but you have to make decisions for the later phase early on. And colonists (the virus) first destroy in an area type, then build on it, but since they destroy first and only build in the next round, they'll always build and destroy on different area types in the same turn.
Once you get this through your head, the game flow is easy, and it becomes a puzzle figuring out how each spirit plays, which area to focus on when exactly, because boy oh boy do they differ a lot.
We do not use the Blighted Island cards though. That is extremely punishing. Just use the indicated number of blight tokens and all other blight rules.
Ark nova. Engine builder, a park construction. Pick cards doing stuff. Should be our jim jam Jimmy jam jam.Just doesn't work. Too brain Burnie to be after work play. Not fun enough to justify the brain burn and time on the weekend. Always ends with us being unenthusiastic at the player solitaire.
I *like* Ark Nova but I don’t love it. Too many systems IMO. If you’re looking for a similar type of experience but in a much tighter package, Forest Shuffle is amazing.
Everything about this game just feels clunkier than it should. It took us forever to figure out how private objective cards worked every other game in the universe is just like "take two, choose one, then move on". It's a game where every rule has more sub rules than it should
I adore GWT at two, but for completely different reasons than I thought I would. It looks like a game about customising a single path with your own worker placement spots, but actually a lot of the personal buildings aren’t all the great beyond the points they offer.
Player count is important for this one. Playing it with two people for example is no fun because the board seems really empty. You could also try GWT: New Zealand which adds lots of depth to an already fairly complex game. And it's prettier.
GWT NZ hit for me in a way that the other editions didn’t. Cognitively, I know base GWT is the better game. It’s smoother, not as much dross and it’s a tighter experience. But for whatever reason, it always leaves me feeling cold. On the other hand, NZ is bodacious, excessive and lavish. It’s just a good time.
I agree. I think for me it’s the runtime vs game mechanisms. If it’s going to take 3 hour or longer (in a 3-4 player game), I need something more than what it offers.
Agricola, simply looking at the boards, components, everything set up and your little farm is pure harmony.
However, once I start playing it's a goddamn anxiety fiesta
Scythe. Super about the concept and the timeframe but just can't get into it. I feel like every game ends with one person being a kingmaker and it's never me they help cus I'm usually in first.
Any game where people can help each other I have to play hard mode and keep my score contained until late because other wise people will gang up on me just to make sure I don't win.
Gloomhaven. The admin is....well I just know DnD isn't for me.
Edit: If I'm gonna play a board game, I want one that plays to the advantages that board games bring, not one that I think is unfit for its medium.
I don't want them to stop making this kind of game though; there are lots of people that like it for the reasons I don't. The hobby has room for all kinds of games and all kinds of people.
The admin in D&D is controlled by one player (The DM) and they can just make up shit if they want. Gloomhaven (and any other GMless dungeon crawler) has more admin because there needs to be consistent rules for how monsters act.
>The admin is....well I just know DnD isn't for me
Gloomhaven and DnD are vastly different. There does tend to be admin in DnD but it's of a different kind that you might enjoy more.
(Also if you broaden the topic to Tabletop RPGs in general there are numerous games like *Cairn* and *Dungeon World* that do a DnD-style setting with much less overhead and prep than DnD.)
There's a lot of board games that just seem like videogames with analogue steps. Played GH online with friends and it was fine, but the thought of tracking everything going on by hand just seems insane to me.
Gloomhaven was the game that formed our current gaming group. I have had more fun with GH then any other game... but it's a lot of admin, lots of cardboard and lots of setup so I do understand where you are coming from.
The chameleon. I have a ton of board games and so when people I know want to have a board game night they come to me and the chameleon is one of everyone’s favorites for those who have played. As for those who haven’t played it, all of them say it sounds like fun and then end up loving it. I have never played the chameleon with a single person that hasn’t loved the game and at first I did too. After awhile though it got boring, not because I could memorize all the cards or anything like that, I’m not even close to it. It’s just gotten boring because I have so many other party games that I just find more fun and I’ve played this one so many times that it just feels disappointing whether I win or lose. I want to love the game like I did when I first played it but I can’t. I even got a different version called Blending In and it has completely new cards and everything, I just can’t get into either version.
Aeon's End and its iterations. I like card games. I like deck builders. I like "Arch nemesis" encounters. Co-op and solo. It practically ticks all the boxes for me. But it didn't click. I found it boring to be honest. Every time I played it, I wish I was playing Dominion or Sentinels of the Multiverse instead.
If by this you mean the basegame invader-steps are too formulaic, I would definitely recommend using the Event deck to evolve the game just enough to overcome this without being too swingy one way or the other
Probably an unpopular opinion, but for me (and my family) its Catan. The trading only sort of works until one gets a road to the pier and then its just ez mode to trade what you need from the bank. The rest of the game is pretty stale snail-paced building until the game just suddently ends without any tension. A long game with zero feeling of accomplishment or buildup. Kind of makes me wonder why its so popular, but maybe Im just missing something.
[Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Board Game](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/203102/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-the-board-game).
I love co-op games, I love the theme. In practice it just feels weirdly dry and the painfully repetitive having to protect the townies from the monsters is... painfully repetitive.
idk.
Oh I agree on the preparation, but the game itself was too simple for what it was trying to be. Move around try to collect stuff, pray the dice rolls aren't terrible, rinse, repeat :(
Gloomhaven. I like so much about it (the setting, the campaign, the variety of characters, etc) but the rules overhead and fussybess is just too much for me to enjoy. Even digitally (when I run two characters), I get lost with remembering all the interactions.
Concordia. Elegance and all that. Everyone Ive played this with kinda steps away going "huh okay." I should love it cause Euro games where you set yourself up for a big turn is my jam.... but its just okay.
Formula De. It's not a bad game, but it always seems one lap too long. The last lap is seldom exiting, you already know who'll win. That's 1/3 of the playing time...
I really thought I would love **Earth** as it came highly recommended. I really like the theme, but I find that there are just too many cards, I rarely have analysis paralysis, but this game triggers it for me. I see why people enjoy it, just not my cup of tea.
Smash up
Loved the idea of combing 2 themed decks into one. However, it's been an exhausting experience having to constantly do mental math to keep track of how many points everyone has on the board. Doesn't help that some card values changes based on what is being played.
Scythe. Every time I've played it has been excruciatingly slow and dull.
Also Dominion. I love Deckbuilding, but I find Dominion extremely full as well.
Merchants of the dark road. My local retailer bought the deluxe versions, and they are so nice. But mechanically the game is so weird. It has so many questionable design choices.
Agricola for sure.
Love the designer (Feast for Odin is my fav game of all time)
Love Heavy or Mid euros
Love worker placements
Love engine building games
And for some reason that equals me feeling an uneasy yucky feeling after playing Agricola. My wife and I tried (we played it around 15 times) and every time, EVEN when winning, just doesn't feel fun at all lol.
Clank
I've tried so many times and I just can't do it. It should be right up my alley but that game just doesn't click for me. I think it's the whole if you don't get out you get nothing situation but even then that shouldn't be a deal breaker for me. not sure what it is but this game just didn't work for me.
Scythe. Man, when that came out everyone had so much good to say about it. You'd think it was boardgame Jesus by how excited everyone was.
I played it. I was a alright at it. Didn't get all the hype.
I remember some reviewers I trust said the same. I didn’t listen though! It feels like a looser version of eclipse and I’d almost always rather play that.
Hansa Teutonica
On paper, it has everything.
Routes, tight action economy, beige.
In practice, it's incredibly dull and almost too tight. It feels like there are too many options and yet some how not enough?
Much bigger fan of Iwari as a result of that.
Worker placement games like lords of waterdeep. I just can't wrap my head around the puzzle and how to screw over my opponents. I love strategy games but worker placement just does not compute.
Generally you screw over your opponents by depriving them of opportunities. Mostly you're trying to outrace them in production, but you can also often tell when they're going for a particular goal and it's a better move to torpedo them by going "Oh, you need X? Sooooo sorry, my meeple's going there this turn. 😈" than to use that meeple for a move that benefits you more.
I might be taking you too literally though?
That’s funny because it feels like something my father will say whenever we play a worker placement. He’s always out for blood and I’m just out there trying to make a bitchin’ farm, or cave, etc. Every other move he makes is an attempt to block me (he’s says as much while playing). But, Y’see, I play worker placements to avoid being mean. Typically, I’m not looking to screw you over, im just working on my own situation and trying to work out contingencies for when/if you take my priority location. All I’m sayin is that the winning strategy in worker placements isn’t always centered around screwing over your competition, and for me there will *maybe* be one moment per [worker placement] game where that is the most beneficial route.
Tidal blades. Got the ultra deluxe version at a good price. I love the theme, the world building the vibe. All the mechanisms I love are there, I should love it. But it’s just too darn punishing. Like rather than being fun everyone was looking at each other and asking … are we playing this wrong?
**Raiders of Scythia** and **Raiders of the North Sea**. Because of the worker placement variation used, I find the options very limited, and usually the best option seems pretty obvious. The games are also too forgiving, offering too many second chance points if you miss out on the main target. I think a lot of this may have to do with me being a fan of classic worker placement and some of the older meaner titles like Caylus and Agricola.
[[Zombicide 2nd Ed]] Its killing hordes of zombies while trying to not die and complete a mission. Post-apocalyptic surviving against zombies seems like a great time, but the game was too easy? You just plan your turns then it's just a spree of one or two players out of control just decimating the hordes, while the others complete the goals.
[[Fallout]] tbf atomic bonds wasn't out yet when I had it, but we played and few games and it just fell flat for us. Quests were kinda boring, I played the ghoul so dying wasn't an issue, while I enjoyed the theme, the random picking of special tiles felt..... bad? Got an S? Great, here's 5 more that you can't use. Hindsight being 20:20 I shouldn't have traded away my copy and new Cali expansion xD
Anachrony.
The actions on the board seem detached to each other. The time travel feature ironically feels like an afterthought for a timetravel themed game.
Gameplay wise, it's fun but there are a lot of overpowered combos that experienced players like me search for immediately; and when you get a crazy combo first, there is little to none chance to stop you from winning.
Moonrakers. Deckbuilding, extra mechanics, great theme, great art. But it just.... Stalls. Every game. Whether from quests and items that never move on or players not having enough rain to help each other.
**ISS Vanguard**
I finally got my copy after I think a 2 year wait and it just didn't grab me at all. The idea of it sounds amazing. But it turned out it was two separate games, a dice rolling game and a book keeping game. The former was too simplistic and the latter was just too much. Takes up way too much table space as well.
Dune imperium as i felt that it was actually a deckbuilder & had too much of a luck factor. I only played the base game once though & i should give uprising a go to see if it’s any different.
I like the theme of Disney Villainous, I just don't like that someone randomly wins without much I can do about it. I know fate cards are a thing but it's just a gamble, and often can only play them at the expense of my own strategy.
You can also be *helping* someone by using the fate action if their win depends on uncovering certain heroes. You're speeding up their sifting for them.
I honestly wish it had more player interaction. Fate is all they really have and some characters need it. They're all villains in their universe, so why not have them be villains to each other too? It feels like it should be cutthroat but it just isn't.
Yup. This is my issue with the game. I could practically play by myself and not notice a difference. It’s the major flaw of the game.
Seriously. In Disney Villainous, it seems nearly pointless to ever try using fate cards against characters like Hook, Yzma, or even Ratigan since their win condition makes it so they WANT to be hit with fate cards. It really makes it so that otherwise good heroes like Maleficent and Gaston pointless to play as if either of those are being used
I straight up hate Villainous.
“I see you’re going ahead with your goal. Let me pick a card tiger has a CHANCE of stopping you.”
King of Tokyo. Love the theme, expansions, Giant dice and powers. It just feels dull to play though. And there didn't seem like any real strategy. Real shame
100% it just feels like Munchkin Yahtzee that goes on for too long, which I hate because the theme is so tasty.
If it's going on for too long, then you need to be the first one to put pressure on the rest of the table by rolling claws. You might win, you might lose, but it's meant to be a quick game.
That's pretty accurate description. Down to the feeling of randomness of someone suddenly winning .. or oneself dying. Even when I have won, it feels like I just got lucky. And any group is too large and make a round a boring wait. It shouldn't, but it does. Both these games have that samme thing as spyfall or coup or werewulf where it is absolutely excellent in a situation of perfect synegy and coincidence, but you can't *make* that happen.
> Even when I have won, it feels like I just got lucky. I mean, its a dice game. This is kinda their nature, isn't it?
Munchkin Yahtzee is how I pitch the game usually lol
This! I couldn’t figure out WHY I didn’t like it, but your comparison to Munchkin is exactly it.
It's one of those games where you have to really vibe with the group when you're playing it.
I just don’t like player elimination. On BGA it’s fine. But in person I don’t want to sit bored. It’s why I won’t buy any Clank! games.
I hate player elimination too, but in Clank! potential player elimination is one of the best parts and generally works the opposite of how it works in classic board games. It is basically a game timer to keep players from making the game too long. It most often happens when all the other players are already finished so the game is essentially over, and it limits waiting around not the other way around, meaning it triggers when a player has lingered in the dungeon and made the game longer and it is pretty much always a choice. I admit I have seen it happen differently exactly once, when all players got eliminated (because we all lingered too long) which was hysterical. No one is getting eliminated in Clank! and waiting for an hour for others to finish the game like the classic way player elimination works.
I've played a ton of Clank! and oddly never thought of it as a player elimination game. When it has happened it's been at a point where the game already would have ended in the next few turns anyway. Elimination is even less rarely a game-ender, as provided you are above the Depths you still score and can win, you just miss out on 20 points. There's also a lot of control over whether or not you build a clank-heavy deck so if being eliminated before the game ends is a concern you can take steps to avoid it. Unlike King of Tokyo and some other games with player elimination there aren't really ways to 'gang up' on a player, unless that player is the one who pursued a clank-heavy strategy and the others try to push clank-pulls, but in that case the player took the risk themselves.
I suspect this will be a popular answer, but Root. An asymmetrical war game with a fun theme should be right up my alley. I love complex games with multiple factions and unique abilities. But Root just is not cohesive enough. It's not four factions playing the same game with different abilities. It's four factions playing four completely separate games that just happen to use the same board. It takes *way* too much investment to actually be able to tell what is happening in the game beyond what your own faction is doing. And I say that as someone who is really good at Twilight Imperium, so this isn't a matter of me just not getting it. In a game like TI, factions are unique and play differently, but you're all ultimately playing the same game. That is not true in Root, and I just don't want to play the couple dozen games it would be necessary to play in order for me to figure out if I actually like it.
Root (and I guess other Cole Werhle games as well) also has the problem that the self-balancing mechanism introduces a moderately high skill floor. If one player isn't pulling their weight backstabbing whoever is threatening to win, you wind up with very unsatisfying games.
This is actually really eye opening for me to see why other people I've played with didn't enjoy the game. It is complex to keep up with everyone for sure, and I love love love TI despite the massive time sink and scale
Same here, even bought everything Root, unfortunately, I don't like it :( trying to make myself getting it to the table is the main problem, as it will be a drag for at least 1 game and only gets fun after 3. However, I get to play TI4 with 5-8 people every 3 months. Now I'm hoping Arcs will be something for when we are just 4 when people drop for TI4.
This 100%. I appreciate Root for what it does but it is way too much. Then when I BFF ally thought I got it I tried with an expansion and just couldn’t. Way too much.
Honestly one of my biggest disappointments. My group loves interaction and asymmetry in play styles. Haven't played TI, but we've played plenty of T&E, Terraforming Mars, Kemet, Terra Mystica, etc. Root was such flop. It really did feel like everyone was playing their own game. We generally play "fair" when attacking in other games. Going after one of the two leaders, never attacking last place, or attacking someone with resources such as meteors killing trees in TM. It never felt like we figured out how to balance that game. Just always felt like a runaway leader game.
I'm with you on 7th Continent. We really gave it the old college try, but it just wasn't fun.
My take on 7th Continent did a massive pivot once I realized the core game mechanic was card/deck manipulation, not exploration or resource management. For example, you should be using those "Remember" cards to bounce key items back into your hand once you've expended them - and timing that with when you're going to be in an area with resources for recreating said item. Or understanding how item stack combos work, especially "Discard this card" effects. Such as combining Bolas with a Bow. The Bow is the top card, which not only means you can use the Hunt action without discarding the Bolas, but also means you can see the result of the card draws *before* optionally deciding whether to use the Bolas (and if you do, it only discards the Bolas card, not the entire item stack). Or using "discard a card with" abilities to repair item stacks. As in, craft an item explicitly to add durability, then discard it later to free up a slot in the stack.
There's a bunch of extremely powerful card combos which are hidden beneath banal bits of text. Once I realized that, and started actively looking for those combos, it was like a whole other game unfolded before me. And I recognized that many common complaints of the game, such as constant hunting grinds or game overs, are really punishments for not engaging with this card combo/deck manipulation system that many players don't even recognize they should be playing.
This is a really educational comment. I went all in on 7th Continent and have only played it 2 or 3 times and made it off the starting map once. I think I'll have to give it another go keeping this in mind so I can actually dig into the game instead of struggling to now deck myself out and barely making any progress.
I played it with two different groups of friends and loved it! We enjoyed solving the puzzles and exploring. We took pictures of the whole map, though; I'm not sure if I'd enjoy it more or less on a replay, knowing where stuff generally is. We did mix in every expansion. I wouldn't try it without everything just combined in one box. We were also D&,D groups, and played this in place of that: it's not the kind of game you sit down and play in one session
Wingspan. It looks good and it’s an engine builder. I like the theme. I should like it. I just don’t. It’s slow, boring, and ends before engines can catch up to just taking quick max points. Also the damn small slippery egg shaped eggs are a pain to handle.
Same here. On paper, I should love everything about **Wingspan**. In practice, after just 2 plays I just dont want to anymore, for the exact same reasons as you. It's also what's stopping me from getting **Wyrmspan** even if theroretically I should be super excited about it (theme, EB, reviews, etc.
Definitely try out Wyrmspan. It is a completely different game and just about everything that is an issue in Wingspan has been addressed. That being said, the Oceania expansion to Wingspan also addresses a lot of OG Wingspan's issues, too. It's just that Wyrmspan is its own thing rather than a (major) adjustment to Wingspan.
I think that my main gripe with wingspan is how it oozes flavor with every card and yet the overarching narrative of each game is nonsensical. Who am I? What is going on as we play the game? It sort of makes sense that having birds in the woods gives me more food or does it? Are the birds bringing me food? Am I expanding my woods? What about the field and eggs? My turkey in the field lays eggs which hatch into... a finch? Or did I smash the eggs? I summon a duck on the river which makes sense. The duck on the river is... getting me more birds? How does that work? It just feels like the game we play each time doesn't evoke some grand narrative playing out between the players and despite the beautiful art and the flavor of each individual card, I really feel like there was missed potential in that department. Compare this to Terraforming Mars, another engine builder which has an _excellent_ overall narrative. We are companies competing for government recognition and influence over Mars by each trying to be the primary leader in the terraforming process. Every card's flavor fits well into the narrative like a greenery increasing the oxygen or how an ice aceteroid card will create an ocean. My steel mill helps me create buildings, etc. The cards we buy are even called patents which explains why we must pay a fee to acquire them and why only one company gets to have each. I can see what my company is doing during the story and I feel my part in the story as it plays out. To me, wingspan is just a bit more hollow because of this. I like the individual cards, but it lacks an overall narrative to compel me
I've never thought of Wingspan this way before, insofar as it's missing an overarching narrative. That may be because I approach Wingspan as more of a game of collection or inventories, categories, things of that nature. For me, there never is nor was there supposed to be an overarching narrative; it's more about the collection of different kinds of birds, and discovering that there's more than one way that they are interconnected (by flocking, or habitat, or nest type, or size, diet, etc). I like your viewpoint though. It underlines the view as to how others approach games and why one game may be great for one person and not the other.
The game's rulebook says that we are putting together an aviary as its brief description, but you can tell that the design of the mechanics don't mesh with the narrative all that well. I think you're right in the idea that the game was not intended to form an overall narrative. I think the mechanics and theme came first and they kind of tried to wrap a bit of narrative on there after the fact. I do think there's a world where they could have captured all those fine details about the birds, but also formed the mechanics into a coherent narrative as well, but doing so wasn't a focus of theirs. I absolutely see how the game appeals in these other ways too of course! I appreciate how the variety of tastes in games is what drives a lot of innovation in the space. Wingspan does a fantastic job at showcasing those interesting connections between birds, and I agree that's likely where more of the design focus was centered
On a *macro* level, Wingspan's theming is thin. The forest gives you food because, uh, it's the forest and the most biodiversity is there? The wetlands give you bird draws because birds gather at water to drink probably? The grassland gives you eggs because something something eggs. On a *micro* level, it's cool. The bird powers are typically related to the bird itself. The ravens and crows let you discard an egg from any other bird to gain food. In real life, ravens and crows predate eggs as a source of food. Flocking birds let you tuck cards behind them for points, representing a literal flock of birds. The hawks and owls let you examine cards in the deck, or dice outside the feeder, to hunt for a card to tuck under or food to cache on the bird, as these birds are primarily predators and sometimes predate other birds. The vultures can be played for no food cost because they are scavengers. The doves and quails lay extra eggs when activated because in real life these birds have several broods per year thanks to short (3-week) incubation periods. And on and on. With some birds the powers are a stretch, but the way real bird info has been gamified is the best part of Wingspan.
It’s all a metaphor for a healthy biome, under the premise of a protected bird wildlife preserve. It …really doesn’t need that much imagination.
>It’s all a metaphor To quote my geekbuddy HiveGod's user comment from BGG *"The game is like a downloadable skin for your spreadsheet, and if you get lost in the pretty pictures you're gonna fuck up your taxes."*
I never even thought of this till I read your comment and now I will not be able to unsee whenever I play the game. Thanks 😑
Forgive me friend. This is why I rarely play it. I much rather love to play through a game of nemesis or war of the ring. Games that leave me considering the story that just took place and which allow me to discuss that narrative with the other players are far more satisfying for me
That narrative thing is so true! You put into words something I have struggled to articulate enjoying. (It’s been 15 years but my husband and I still laugh about the time the Fellowship *did* “simply walk into Mordor”).
Same, I have trouble enjoying any game where the theme is completely disconnected from its mechanisms. For me, the theme should inform the mechanisms, not just be a simple paint job.
This is why I love Terraforming Mars, but I'm disappointed by Ark Nova. As you describe, Terraforming Mars has a working narrative. Ark Nova says... my zoo has a boa constrictor, so the animal attacks the opposing zoo builder and affects their zoo? Ugh...
While not an engine builder (it's a tableau game), Meadow handles the theme much better. You're taking a walk and hoping to notice interesting plants and animals and landscapes, and the cards you play build on each other, forming a kind of food-chain, where smaller plants and animals attract larger ones that score you more points, and managing what tags cards use up and provide is the key to winning. It makes much more sense and flows better than Wingspan, and even has little descriptions of all the plants and animals, too! Different mechanically, but a better theme/mechanic integration. I also feel like there's a bit more player interaction, too, another common complaint of Wingspan. I highly recommend it!
To be fair, birds have hollow bones, so wingspawn being hollow tracks.
Have you tried Everdell? It covers the issues you're talking about
As a fellow non-lover of Wingspan. Wyrmspan is not any better for us.
Wingspan to me is like that bad ex that made me figure out what I actually like lol. Turns out weak theme <> mechanics connection and multiplayer solitaire aren’t my thing.
Wingspan is the biggest mystery of why the game is so loved by gamers. I understand that it is a nice fresh looking game for people who are not that into games. It is easier to pull a non gamer to try a game about birds, than a game about medieval europe etc. But for board gamers, people who play a lot of games, I just can't understand it. The game has a single dominant strategy, and the last round is just nothing but laying eggs, because anything else is net negative points. The randomness of objectives, the randomness of being able to tuck cards, catch food, etc. How did the game pass the development step in this stage?
>The game has a single dominant strategy, and the last round is just nothing but laying eggs, because anything else is net negative points. The Oceania expansion does a lot to round things out, both by adding Nectar as a strategy and by balancing out some of the eggs to food to birds costs and exchange options. IIRC some of the bird abilities from the European expansion encourage other strategies too. That said, even in base Wingspan, eggs isn't the only viable winning strategy - just the most obvious and straightforward one. You can do well with a tucking or food-on-cards strategy if you get the engine working. Round goals can win you the day too if they're not too far out of your way (though it's essentially never worth stepping away from a viable strategy to chase round goals). EDIT: See for example the discussion at [https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2357286/one-best-strategy](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2357286/one-best-strategy)
My grandma accidentally got my husband the Asia expansion instead of Oceania, and we play the duet mode all the time now. It feels a lot more balanced with the duet tokens, especially in later rounds.
>The game has a single dominant strategy, and the last round is just nothing but laying eggs, because anything else is net negative points. As others have pointed out, no it isn't, and no it isn't. For new players and typical players, egg spam is a thing because it's an obvious and easy way to gain points. But advanced players often have multiple things going on in the last round, and spamming eggs is not always your best end-game play. The last few rounds are where you typically see high-point birds (7 to 9-pt), birds that let you draw a new bonus card, and mid-point bird plays that either net you your bonus card(s) or a higher-value bonus on one of your cards. The people scoring in the 90's and up are generally tossing down two to three 7+ point birds, have three bonus cards, and are using a tuck-and-draw or tuck-and-lay strategy. The problem with wingspan is, it's heavily driven by luck of the draw. If you don't enjoy the challenge of trying to build something from nothing when you have a really bad starting hand or a run of bad draws, then you're going to find it slow and frustrating.
I want to love azul. I love all the pieces and the tactility of it all. I just find the game a bit boring and it hasn't been a huge success with the few people i've played it with.
Interesting. I find it's my easiest game to introduce to people new-ish to games and it's always a hit. Do you think it's the style of game (pattern/puzzle) or the implementation that misses the mark for you?
>Do you think it's the style of game (pattern/puzzle) or the implementation that misses the mark for you? With me - it's having better games for "introduce to people new-ish to games" niche. Why themeless puzzly Azul, when there is Ticket to Ride. Or Carcassone. Or Survive. Or King of Tokyo. Or plenty of lighter games (No Thanks, For Sale, Incan Gold, Deep Sea Adventure, Jungle Speed, Pairs, Time's up, Coconuts, ...). And if one really wants a light MPS, I find Kingdomino better - pretends to have a theme, shorter.
My issue with Azul is a silly one, I acknowledge, but it bugs me enough that I never feel satisfied after playing, even if I win. It just bugs me so much that it feels like the game is encouraging me to create this nice, full Mosaic of tiles, and yet you NEVER (at least in my experience) FINISH that mosaic.
Haha, I've never felt that way personally, but that is usually the kind of thing that I do care about, so I see your point completely. Maybe the Summer Pavilion variant would be better for you?
I love all the Azuls, and I think that Summer Pavilion won’t fix this user’s issue. However, Queen’s Garden might, as you don’t start out with a big, empty board to fill.
It's a brutal strategy game at 2p, with good players thinking of blocks and counter-blocks many moves ahead. It loses almost all of its value at higher player count. Patchwork could have been similarly bad if they had marketed it as 2-4p, but thankfully they made the right call there.
Depends what you're after. It's still a good casual game with some strategy at a higher player count, IMO. Just not **as** strategic as 2p.
Yeah it shines but in a completely different way at 4. My group loves seeing how one color just builds up in the center that someone eventually **will have to take** and get -10 points, it's beautiful
Online Azul is absolutely brutal lmao
I like the gameplay of Azul, but hate the point counting at the end.
Pretty much same impression - why play Azul, when in the same "niche" there are Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne. Both have some vague idea about a theme and even some kind of arch to the game.
Funny you say that... my family much prefer both of those games and always play them rather than Azul.
Very interesting. I think it’s an easy and fun warmup game!
Arkham Horror TCG. I bought the revised core set for about €75 and played it through about 3-4 times with a friend and we both felt depressed about how punishing it was. I really wanted to like it, so I checked online and found people saying "You need to get X expansion or Y detective decks, then it'll click." Which felt ridiculous to me considering I'd already spent €75 on what was apparently the demo for the 'real game'.
Same; my friends and I are used to suffering in Arkham games, but the LCG core set was so brutal we thought we must have been playing wrong (we weren't, at least as far as the rules are concerned). I found Marvel Champions to be a much more enjoyable yet still challenging enough LCG, and the core set alone gives you a ton of replayability (I played it solo ~15 times the week I bought it). My only downside to that game is that the playtime increases astronomically with each additional player, but I can usually tolerate a long game just fine, and at any rate it's my go-to solo game. As for the thread title, however, I wouldn't really say I *regret* bouncing off Arkham Horror LCG, because liking a card game inevitably results in me losing a lot of money...
Unfortunately, it’s so true that the real charm of Arkham Horror LCG doesn’t show up until you play the first 8 scenario campaign. (Dunwich) I agree this is ridiculous given the cost but it’s true that the demo version as you call it is just not a good representation of the game. Hopefully one day you can snag a used copy.
I already sold it unfortunately. I really considered buying a campaign to see if it would click, but the thought of paying another €50 to see if I would like the game I'd already spent so much on felt like throwing good money after bad haha.
Couldn't agree more on 7th continent. We took a Sunday and played 4 player all day, and I think maybe? we finished the first curse? 4 puzzle solving, experienced gamers. The exploration is fun and once you get used to it, the game is very intuitive, but gets really tedious once you figure out how you have to stay alive (minmaxing hunting grounds and "resetting" the game for no reason.)
100% agreed. I will say I just got 7th Citidel, and it basically fixes every problem I had with 7th continent
Trick taking games in general. They are accessible, cheap, have high skill ceiling. They have depth(people say so) that fun to explore. Commitment is rewarded. And designers regularly innovate the formula, keeping things fresh and interesting. Yet I have no desire at all to play any of them. Lack of a theme doesn't help either.
Trick-taking fans don't help this any, either. If you're someone into those games and I sit down with you to play one, even if you haven't played this one, the core is samey enough that you are already thinking 14 steps ahead and loving it, and I'm sitting here just throwing down the cards I'm forced to throw, bored.
Same, but I feel like The Crew is my one exception. Maybe pasting on a theme helped, but actually feeling like we were on missions made trick taking more palatable.
The Crew being co-op is what helps me. My parents play a ton of trick taking games and always beat me but they struggle so much with The Crew. Their brains are just too wired toward playing competitively I guess. It's hilarious.
Conversely, the Crew might be my answer to OPs question. I love trick-takers and my favorite game is cooperative. I feel so utterly bored playing the Crew
Right there with you, I didn't grow up playing trick taking games either, was more of a Dominos or classic board games kid, so I don't have a nostalgic tie to trick taking either.
It's rare, but some tricktakers have great theme. The Bottle Imp, for example.
We're big fans of Cat In The Box in my house.
For broad mechanic based category, for me it's . . . Worker placement. There's just nothing really fun about sliding cubes around the board to get a bit of a resource that will help me eventually get points.
As others have said, the Crew is probably the one to try. Theres something about the coop component of it that completely changes the way it feels.
Root. I love the theme, but it's so darn complicated that it takes too long to teach to get it to the table. I will eventually learn the clockwork expansions and play solo. Nevertheless, I'd rather play against friends.
I had like two full days free recently with my cousins (we all like boardgames) and spent the entire time playing Root and by the end it was really exciting and dynamic because we all understood the rules. It definitely is a game that builds though.
I like this, it gives me hope.
This is what I was going to post. For the game to be good, it requires everyone to both care and be either a very experienced gamer or a moderately experienced Root player. I have yet to make that happen. Because of this, every single game has been Cats win by a mile, or abandoned halfway through after it becomes clear that cats win by a mile. Also, the Root rulebook is everything I hate about rulebooks. It's probably the only rulebook I've read front to back, gone back and tried to understand some things, and still not have any fucking idea how to play the game. Everything is just little isolated bits of info that are never linked back up with the game as a whole. It's like the worst kind of math textbook or paper, brevity and rigor taking ultimate priority over clarity and understanding. I hate it. I want to love this game. I want it to be TI4 that doesn't take a whole day to play and is also cute. But I just haven't.
I love Root but it’s hard to get it to table with people who care enough. It’s not very fun endlessly playing teaching games or having to basically play for your opponents because they’re not getting it.
>It’s not very fun endlessly playing teaching games my life lol
Yep. Basically, you'll have to play it eight times before you grasp it well enough to get the intricacies.
Dude, yes. My gaming group only gets together occasionally and any asymmetric game is not worth the (re) learning time. “What can my faction do? What can your faction do?” “Wait, I don’t think we played that turn right.” I think it’s a good game, but it’s just not feasible for my situation.
Jaws of the Lion. My brother and I were stoked to play it, played 4 or 5 scenarios, and were so bored with it that we put it back on the shelf. Watched some videos and it seems we played it right but it did not click at all.
The first four or five scenarios are definitely a little boring since they are tutorials. While the system is probably one of my favorites I can totally see this not being for everyone.
I do think that JOTL while being good as a teaching game is very mid compared to actual gloomhaven.
[Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/186995/doctor-who-time-of-the-daleks). Love the theme (each player is an incarnation of the Doctor and you have to complete challenges and beat the Daleks to Gallifrey) and its gameplay is fine (a little bit like the Rising games).
But for whatever insane reason they decided to make it a **semi**-coop game, where your goal isn't just to beat the Daleks to Gallifrey, it's to be the first incarnation to do so. Just... why? It makes no sense. And without that element the game is far too easy. Disappointing. 😔
It sucks when designers miss an entire point of the IP they’re using. There’s a Discworld game **Clacks** in which you play as the *bad guy*, Reacher trying to beat the hero of the book, Moist. From an abstract POV the game is a nice little puzzle but Reacher is such a vile horrible person it just… never really feels good to win. !fetch
Playing as the villain can be fun. **SPECTRE** has you playing the villains from Bond movies and Bond thwarts your plans and kill your henchmen.
[Clacks -> Clacks: A Discworld Board Game (2015)](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/140279/clacks-discworld-board-game) ^^[[gamename]] ^^or ^^[[gamename|year]] ^^to ^^call ^^OR ^^**gamename** ^^or ^^**gamename|year** ^^+ ^^!fetch ^^to ^^call
Treasure Island. Nsips? Compasses? Markers? Long John silver?! Count me in! In practice I can't help but feel like I'm just constantly going "there? No? Okay." for two hours.
That’s too bad. I just bought this.
I hope you enjoy more than I did.
I liked it, just get good markers for the board - I found the ones they come with are hard to see! And a group that’s open minded - introducing it to new people I found it easiest to be Long John Silver and encourage people to have fun and work together if they so choose! Pirate mix up on Spotify, couple of drinks and it’s a fun time!
Lost ruins of arnak 🤷🏻♂️
For me this is Dead of Winter. Cool theme. Interesting mechanic with the traitor. Search and survival. First time I played it, it was 90 minutes, I took a single turn, died, and we lost. Okay, I'll try it again. Every subsequent play has followed the same formula. We scrape and scrap to get past the first turn or two. The crossroads cards are thematic and a great idea, but rarely actually make an impact. And then we die in round 2 or 3. Setting up a game and playing for two hours to take two turns and then lose just turns me off.
Yes thank you, I thought I was playing it "wrong"
Everdell. I absolutely adore the woodland critter aesthetic, but worker placement games *really* just don't do it for me.
I don't even mind worker placement games - I love Dune Imperium, Lords of Waterdeep, and many others. But every time I have ever played Everdell, I have kinda hated it. Can't even put my finger on why.
I absolutely agree. There are many worker placement games I enjoy, but I just can’t get into Everdell. It cute, I should like it, but I don’t 😅
For me it was the card linking. Have this card? You get that card for free! The deck is maaaasssive so it just felt like pure luck if you're able to get one of these free cards. Also, resources are so tight that if someone is able to get a few of these free cards off its really hard to compete. This is coming from just a few plays but it didn't make a great first impression.
7th Continent for me too. I have more fun if I ignore the food rule and just explore.
Brass Birmingham. I love strategy games, it looks great, I love playing games like Hansa Teutonica or Factorio, Anno, etc. as video games buy Brass Birmingham just does not connect with me at all beyond theme. And that’s just not enough to carry it.
Interesting. I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate the theme / industrial themes, but the gameplay is so engaging; I find it intricate and meticulous and the mechanics dovetail beautifully, despite the fact that it seems full of random nuance and annoying exceptions to remember at first.
Spirit Island; I love the art, and theme, but it's just so...difficult.
I love Spirit Island personally but yeah, it's a lot.
Funny, there was a thread I read yesterday complaining about how easy Spirit Island was.
On the base difficulty it can be easy, but that depends entirely on the player. One of the great things about it is the nicely adjustable difficulty. I've never lost under difficulty 5, but I win only about half the time on difficulty 10. There are others who probably win 70-80% at 10, and others who win probably 50% at 1. It's all about finding the right challenge level for your personal ability and mood. Sometimes I want a quick easy game in the morning, sometimes I take some time for a really crunchy challenge.
I know this is a lame, boardgamer response, but how many times have you played? My first game I was like: mother, prepare the incinerator, this supposedly good game is going in TONIGHT. But then after another game or two the way you have to play to have a chance to win became clearer to us and it was a lot more fun. Of course, the game IS difficult, and you can very much just lose with no chance of overcoming the onslaught :)
3 times? I think after 3 tries my view is valid.
I like Spirit Island, but the game beats you up a lot, and there are many games where you look up mid play and say, "oh. I think we won." It's very anticlimactic.
> there are many games where you look up mid play and say, "oh. I think we won." It's very anticlimactic. If this happens then you should up the difficulty until you find the sweet spot for your group.
I noticed that too. Most of the time you’re just “fighting fires” and then all of a sudden the fear level changes and you went from not even being close to (or even thinking about) winning on the last turn to “oh, now all we have to do is destroy these 3 cities and we win”. It usually feels like there is no clear path to victory. You just have to keep “surviving” each turn and eventually the game will be like “ok, you made it long enough, here’s a chance to win”. It’s fine. It’s challenging and I do usually enjoy the game, but yes, anticlimatic is a great way to describe how it usually ends.
Spirit Island is a game that you get good at. I've seen "chess" as a popular descriptor for it. You can't stay being reactive. You need to think several steps ahead. You need to accept and sacrifice pieces to get to a board state you need. You get whooped, you learn, you challenge "someone" better. You get whooped again, you figure out what worked and what didn't. Spirit Island is a game that after losing, as I am packing up. Think back and about what I should've done better. Try to pinpoint when I "lost" the game. I always think Spirit Island is winnable. It's just I made a wrong decision that tipped game against me. No other board game has ever done that.
> I always think Spirit Island is winnable Dunno, some setups like solo whirlwind vs England 6 are just gonna be "pray I draft the best cards because there's only so much my spirit can do here." And then of course the crazy doublemax shit some people like to run are going to require broken team comps or luck. But within difficulty<=11 setups, yeah, most are going to be always winnable.
Honestly, it's just Pandemic, except your actions are cards and there are 2 action phases (before and after "virus" spread) but you have to make decisions for the later phase early on. And colonists (the virus) first destroy in an area type, then build on it, but since they destroy first and only build in the next round, they'll always build and destroy on different area types in the same turn. Once you get this through your head, the game flow is easy, and it becomes a puzzle figuring out how each spirit plays, which area to focus on when exactly, because boy oh boy do they differ a lot. We do not use the Blighted Island cards though. That is extremely punishing. Just use the indicated number of blight tokens and all other blight rules.
Took me a little bit to get over the hump. Luckily I enjoyed it enough in the beginning, now it’s one of my favorites
Ark nova. Engine builder, a park construction. Pick cards doing stuff. Should be our jim jam Jimmy jam jam.Just doesn't work. Too brain Burnie to be after work play. Not fun enough to justify the brain burn and time on the weekend. Always ends with us being unenthusiastic at the player solitaire.
I feel like Ark Nova would be much higher in my rankings if it shave off 30~50% of its length.
With 2 experienced players, Ark Nova lasts between 60 and 80 minutes.
I *like* Ark Nova but I don’t love it. Too many systems IMO. If you’re looking for a similar type of experience but in a much tighter package, Forest Shuffle is amazing.
Great Western Trail, and I don't know why. Everything about it screams that I should love it.
Everything about this game just feels clunkier than it should. It took us forever to figure out how private objective cards worked every other game in the universe is just like "take two, choose one, then move on". It's a game where every rule has more sub rules than it should
I don't understand that game at all
I adore GWT at two, but for completely different reasons than I thought I would. It looks like a game about customising a single path with your own worker placement spots, but actually a lot of the personal buildings aren’t all the great beyond the points they offer.
Player count is important for this one. Playing it with two people for example is no fun because the board seems really empty. You could also try GWT: New Zealand which adds lots of depth to an already fairly complex game. And it's prettier.
GWT NZ hit for me in a way that the other editions didn’t. Cognitively, I know base GWT is the better game. It’s smoother, not as much dross and it’s a tighter experience. But for whatever reason, it always leaves me feeling cold. On the other hand, NZ is bodacious, excessive and lavish. It’s just a good time.
I agree. I think for me it’s the runtime vs game mechanisms. If it’s going to take 3 hour or longer (in a 3-4 player game), I need something more than what it offers.
Agricola, simply looking at the boards, components, everything set up and your little farm is pure harmony. However, once I start playing it's a goddamn anxiety fiesta
It ain’t called “misery farmer” for nothing! FR, the winner isn’t the one who did best, it’s the one who did least bad 😂
I'm with you here, once you have your farm set up nice, boom game is over. Just let me enjoy the fuits of my labour for a couple rounds.
>Just let me enjoy the fuits of my labour for a couple rounds. I'm pretty sure this is when the Thirty years' war starts.
I'm stealing "anxiety fiesta".
Scythe. Super about the concept and the timeframe but just can't get into it. I feel like every game ends with one person being a kingmaker and it's never me they help cus I'm usually in first. Any game where people can help each other I have to play hard mode and keep my score contained until late because other wise people will gang up on me just to make sure I don't win.
Never played it but it looks really cool.
Oh man this is my favorite game. I’ve only ran 1v1 though.
Gloomhaven. The admin is....well I just know DnD isn't for me. Edit: If I'm gonna play a board game, I want one that plays to the advantages that board games bring, not one that I think is unfit for its medium. I don't want them to stop making this kind of game though; there are lots of people that like it for the reasons I don't. The hobby has room for all kinds of games and all kinds of people.
Dnd is much less admin than Gloomhaven. Or at least it is the way I rum it.
The admin in D&D is controlled by one player (The DM) and they can just make up shit if they want. Gloomhaven (and any other GMless dungeon crawler) has more admin because there needs to be consistent rules for how monsters act.
>The admin is....well I just know DnD isn't for me Gloomhaven and DnD are vastly different. There does tend to be admin in DnD but it's of a different kind that you might enjoy more. (Also if you broaden the topic to Tabletop RPGs in general there are numerous games like *Cairn* and *Dungeon World* that do a DnD-style setting with much less overhead and prep than DnD.)
There's a lot of board games that just seem like videogames with analogue steps. Played GH online with friends and it was fine, but the thought of tracking everything going on by hand just seems insane to me.
Gloomhaven was the game that formed our current gaming group. I have had more fun with GH then any other game... but it's a lot of admin, lots of cardboard and lots of setup so I do understand where you are coming from.
A companion app is very helpful, but it's still a load.
Ya I just bought the video game and had a blast that way instead. Both single player and multiplayer.
Gloomhaven is the only game that I have ever personally played where the TTS mod or the Digital Edition are both better than the analog board game.
The chameleon. I have a ton of board games and so when people I know want to have a board game night they come to me and the chameleon is one of everyone’s favorites for those who have played. As for those who haven’t played it, all of them say it sounds like fun and then end up loving it. I have never played the chameleon with a single person that hasn’t loved the game and at first I did too. After awhile though it got boring, not because I could memorize all the cards or anything like that, I’m not even close to it. It’s just gotten boring because I have so many other party games that I just find more fun and I’ve played this one so many times that it just feels disappointing whether I win or lose. I want to love the game like I did when I first played it but I can’t. I even got a different version called Blending In and it has completely new cards and everything, I just can’t get into either version.
Aeon's End and its iterations. I like card games. I like deck builders. I like "Arch nemesis" encounters. Co-op and solo. It practically ticks all the boxes for me. But it didn't click. I found it boring to be honest. Every time I played it, I wish I was playing Dominion or Sentinels of the Multiverse instead.
Anything Stonemaier Games other than Scythe.
Spirit Island. It’s just a formula based defensive game which isn’t for me. I appreciate how tight it is though.
If by this you mean the basegame invader-steps are too formulaic, I would definitely recommend using the Event deck to evolve the game just enough to overcome this without being too swingy one way or the other
The events have definitely thrown well laid plans into total dust. I hate them but they make the game interesting. And different each time.
Formula based?
The game feels so on-rails without an expansion that adds the events. I didn't really like it until I tried it with that.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but for me (and my family) its Catan. The trading only sort of works until one gets a road to the pier and then its just ez mode to trade what you need from the bank. The rest of the game is pretty stale snail-paced building until the game just suddently ends without any tension. A long game with zero feeling of accomplishment or buildup. Kind of makes me wonder why its so popular, but maybe Im just missing something.
[Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Board Game](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/203102/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-the-board-game). I love co-op games, I love the theme. In practice it just feels weirdly dry and the painfully repetitive having to protect the townies from the monsters is... painfully repetitive. idk.
Casting Shadows Too much preparation and complexity but then the gameplay is completely linear
Oh I agree on the preparation, but the game itself was too simple for what it was trying to be. Move around try to collect stuff, pray the dice rolls aren't terrible, rinse, repeat :(
**Final Girl**, and **Dice Throne**
Gloomhaven. I like so much about it (the setting, the campaign, the variety of characters, etc) but the rules overhead and fussybess is just too much for me to enjoy. Even digitally (when I run two characters), I get lost with remembering all the interactions.
Castles of Burgundy. The set up, the optics (especially seeing them with less then ideal eyesight). Just won‘t click.
Concordia. Elegance and all that. Everyone Ive played this with kinda steps away going "huh okay." I should love it cause Euro games where you set yourself up for a big turn is my jam.... but its just okay.
Formula De. It's not a bad game, but it always seems one lap too long. The last lap is seldom exiting, you already know who'll win. That's 1/3 of the playing time...
Heat is a way better racing game.
Why not just play one lap?
Root - loved the asymmetry and the artwork and concept but just couldn’t get past a couple of games.
I really thought I would love **Earth** as it came highly recommended. I really like the theme, but I find that there are just too many cards, I rarely have analysis paralysis, but this game triggers it for me. I see why people enjoy it, just not my cup of tea.
Smash up Loved the idea of combing 2 themed decks into one. However, it's been an exhausting experience having to constantly do mental math to keep track of how many points everyone has on the board. Doesn't help that some card values changes based on what is being played.
Scythe. Every time I've played it has been excruciatingly slow and dull. Also Dominion. I love Deckbuilding, but I find Dominion extremely full as well.
Merchants of the dark road. My local retailer bought the deluxe versions, and they are so nice. But mechanically the game is so weird. It has so many questionable design choices.
Agricola for sure. Love the designer (Feast for Odin is my fav game of all time) Love Heavy or Mid euros Love worker placements Love engine building games And for some reason that equals me feeling an uneasy yucky feeling after playing Agricola. My wife and I tried (we played it around 15 times) and every time, EVEN when winning, just doesn't feel fun at all lol.
Clank I've tried so many times and I just can't do it. It should be right up my alley but that game just doesn't click for me. I think it's the whole if you don't get out you get nothing situation but even then that shouldn't be a deal breaker for me. not sure what it is but this game just didn't work for me.
Scythe. Man, when that came out everyone had so much good to say about it. You'd think it was boardgame Jesus by how excited everyone was. I played it. I was a alright at it. Didn't get all the hype.
I remember some reviewers I trust said the same. I didn’t listen though! It feels like a looser version of eclipse and I’d almost always rather play that.
Hansa Teutonica On paper, it has everything. Routes, tight action economy, beige. In practice, it's incredibly dull and almost too tight. It feels like there are too many options and yet some how not enough? Much bigger fan of Iwari as a result of that.
Worker placement games like lords of waterdeep. I just can't wrap my head around the puzzle and how to screw over my opponents. I love strategy games but worker placement just does not compute.
I played Waterdeep a fair bit digital vs AI. I can recommend it. Very fast and fun game. Also very easy when you can start and stop at any time.
Generally you screw over your opponents by depriving them of opportunities. Mostly you're trying to outrace them in production, but you can also often tell when they're going for a particular goal and it's a better move to torpedo them by going "Oh, you need X? Sooooo sorry, my meeple's going there this turn. 😈" than to use that meeple for a move that benefits you more. I might be taking you too literally though?
That’s funny because it feels like something my father will say whenever we play a worker placement. He’s always out for blood and I’m just out there trying to make a bitchin’ farm, or cave, etc. Every other move he makes is an attempt to block me (he’s says as much while playing). But, Y’see, I play worker placements to avoid being mean. Typically, I’m not looking to screw you over, im just working on my own situation and trying to work out contingencies for when/if you take my priority location. All I’m sayin is that the winning strategy in worker placements isn’t always centered around screwing over your competition, and for me there will *maybe* be one moment per [worker placement] game where that is the most beneficial route.
Hostage Negotiator
Woodcraft.. Love a lot of the mechanics and theme, but I want to be able to do more than one thing every leap year :/
Red Dragon Inn. For some reason I just can’t get into it. But I’ll play anyway because it’s a favourite among our group.
Tidal blades. Got the ultra deluxe version at a good price. I love the theme, the world building the vibe. All the mechanisms I love are there, I should love it. But it’s just too darn punishing. Like rather than being fun everyone was looking at each other and asking … are we playing this wrong?
**Raiders of Scythia** and **Raiders of the North Sea**. Because of the worker placement variation used, I find the options very limited, and usually the best option seems pretty obvious. The games are also too forgiving, offering too many second chance points if you miss out on the main target. I think a lot of this may have to do with me being a fan of classic worker placement and some of the older meaner titles like Caylus and Agricola.
[[Zombicide 2nd Ed]] Its killing hordes of zombies while trying to not die and complete a mission. Post-apocalyptic surviving against zombies seems like a great time, but the game was too easy? You just plan your turns then it's just a spree of one or two players out of control just decimating the hordes, while the others complete the goals. [[Fallout]] tbf atomic bonds wasn't out yet when I had it, but we played and few games and it just fell flat for us. Quests were kinda boring, I played the ghoul so dying wasn't an issue, while I enjoyed the theme, the random picking of special tiles felt..... bad? Got an S? Great, here's 5 more that you can't use. Hindsight being 20:20 I shouldn't have traded away my copy and new Cali expansion xD
Anachrony. The actions on the board seem detached to each other. The time travel feature ironically feels like an afterthought for a timetravel themed game. Gameplay wise, it's fun but there are a lot of overpowered combos that experienced players like me search for immediately; and when you get a crazy combo first, there is little to none chance to stop you from winning.
Moonrakers. Deckbuilding, extra mechanics, great theme, great art. But it just.... Stalls. Every game. Whether from quests and items that never move on or players not having enough rain to help each other.
Holding On: the troubled life of Billy kerr
**ISS Vanguard** I finally got my copy after I think a 2 year wait and it just didn't grab me at all. The idea of it sounds amazing. But it turned out it was two separate games, a dice rolling game and a book keeping game. The former was too simplistic and the latter was just too much. Takes up way too much table space as well.
Scythe. The boards are awesome. I love the turn mechanic. The art is top notch. The gameplay makes me want to fall asleep
Descent. It looks great. Beautiful components, and who doesn't like minifigures. High-fantasy theme. But the gameplay is so shallow and boring...
Scythe
Dune imperium. Just seems like it has a loop that naturally occurs every time I play it
Dune imperium as i felt that it was actually a deckbuilder & had too much of a luck factor. I only played the base game once though & i should give uprising a go to see if it’s any different.