by mac03579
Just back on here since before the holiday break and want to say THANK YOU!!↧
Reply: Heroscape Master Set: Rise of the Valkyrie:: General:: Re: LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY HEROSCAPERS EIGHTH ANNUAL CHRISTMAS CHARITY EVENT
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: "Draw" a card vs (May Spoilers)
by Antistone
I failed to consider the sticker's location in the rulebook because I've been reading the stickers but not actually sticking them. Mea culpa.↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.
by mfaulk80
JoeNothin wrote:
clivej wrote:
JoeNothin wrote:
The first cracks in my up-to-that-point positive view of pandemic legacy started in may. At that point we’ve been beating the game successfully for four straight rounds, and our funding ran out; which meant, in game terms, that the game was punishing us for beating it by taking away one of the only strategic elements it had.
Um... funding is supposed to reduce by two each time you win, so if you didn't lose it ought to have run out in March.
You say the game was far too easy; I do wonder if you played it correctly. I've not seen many people who would agree, and this poll suggests only a small minority of people make it to the end without losing a single month, the median being four or five losses. And that's even amongst BGGers.
Meanwhile, if you like events, you had the option of using game-end upgrades to create unfunded events. It's your call if you decided there was something else you'd rather do.
For what it's worth, in our group Pandemic Legacy has discouraged, rather than encouraged the emergence of an alpha player. We don't know what's coming up, which makes a diversity of views, hunches and speculations more useful.
We lost the first game on January, which caused funding to go up by two; we've been beating the game easily since, so our funding was gone by may.
Wait. Have you not finished the campaign? Based on how the review was written, I assumed that you had based on how the review is written. I think you should make it clear if you haven't completed the campaign, especially since you've commented on the story. Some of your critiques may not depend on finishing the game, but comments on story definitely do.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Two or "four" players?
by MHindmarch
Yes, you can switch number of players or characters between games.↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: ***March/September Spoilers***
shelbeeray wrote:
Somewhere in the rules, it states that characters with the dog tag symbol are military characters. So, when we faced this, we decided the dogtags were part of the upgrade, turning the character into a veteran. This meant, to us, that they were military and so now have the military pros and cons.
So, in our game, yes, that means the extra movement.
So, in our game, yes, that means the extra movement.
Agreed! We played this way too.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Pandemic Legacy No 1? I have a question.
by codevirus
clivej wrote:
codevirus wrote:
I should clarify that I was OK with Pandemic but was not "crazy" about it. It didn't hit the table that much - i was not that good at it.
Go for it.
I respect Pandemic as a game. I've enjoyed it when I play it. If someone suggests it, I might be in the mood to say "yeah, OK" without bothering to see what the alternatives are. But I don't think I've ever suggested playing it and I don't own it.
Pandemic Legacy, on the other hand, I bought on the assumption I'd manage to pull together a group of friends to play it. I succeeded and we're having a whale of a time. I'm not one of the people who thinks it's the best game ever made, but it's really good and I'm very glad we're playing it.
Thank you!
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.
by johnnyspys
ras2124 wrote:
johnnyspys wrote:
I am also sad that in last few years the hyped, most common denominator games have all reached the top 50. It used to be that the top 30 games had to take some time before they reached number one. Puerto Rico stayed number one for a long time, and it took awhile for Agricola to reach that spot. Now I am worried that once a year when some mass produced "hit" comes out we will have a new number one game. I guess that is one of the effects of BGG getting so big.
That aside though, I think it is a bit premature to say the sky is falling or BGG is too big now. Pandemic Legacy has several unique things going for it that led to its rise (which I believe is legitimate).
First, this is not a new game, it is a reworking of Pandemic, a very popular and well-loved game that alone has had a top 50 position for many years, has a long list of Golden Geek awards from 2008/2009, and has been through numerous, wildly successful printings. To say that P:L came on to the scene out of nowhere is just nonsense.
Second, people love Legacy. I think we can safely say that this is beyond the hype stage as Risk:Legacy came out 5 years ago. Admittedly, it is not for everyone, but there is a reason that Risk:Legacy is still 125 in the ranks while basic Risk is in the 10k region.
Finally, the combination works. Again, not everyone is going to love it here, and you and the OP raise good points about its flaws, but for the majority it takes two really loved things in boardgames that have stood the test of time and combines them really well.
Essentially to act like its rise to the top is some sort of cult of the new craziness that will continue to happen, you are really leaving out a lot of history that has led to this point.
I am sure I could be wrong and I have selective memory. However, at the moment I disagree. Please find me the stats of any game that shot to number one on BGG this fast in the past 10 years. Better yet just find a game that shot to number five this fast.
You could also say this is a beloved game, but I am willing to not everyone who loves this version likes the first. I would want to see raw numbers before I made up my mind either way and I doubt there is any objective way to measure this so both of us are simply using conjecture. I just don't see this as the same game based on the very big differences in rating averages and Pandemic never hit number 1.
24 out of 50 of the games were from 2012 and sooner. Only 4 out of the top 50 games (top 50 of all time mind you) are 2001 or before. There are too many great games made in the 90s and 80s to be only 4 games in the top 10. Now this happens at any major website that sees a large amount of people joining in the last few years. Check out music, movies, art, etc sites. Whenever you get enough stats and a majority are recent to the phenomenon you will see a statical sway to the newer things. Again this isn't bad, perhaps it even is Democracy in action. I just miss the old days and that is certainly my problem. I like a little wait and see, a little cynical nature to give ones devotion to something so quickly. As I imagine other do, I frequently change my ratings up and down depending on number of plays, but I rarely have every seen this many tens in such a short time. Good for the game as my first sentence stated but this is change...whether good or bad is up to the BGG member.
The same can probably be said about the top 20 although I am willing to say at least two to three games in the last 15 years rose fast but not this fast. I don't know how to retro actively look at the top 20 for the 10 years or so and get data output (I am sure someone knows how) but I seriously doubt any game took less than four months after a general release to hit the top 10 and less than four months of general release to hit number one. Here is an example from 2007.
Here is the top 25 for the first three quarters of 2007
1. Puerto Rico
2. Tigris & Euphrates
3. Power Grid
4. Caylus
5. El Grande
6. BattleLore
7. Twilight Struggle
8. Princes of Florence, The
9. Die Macher
10. Age of Steam
11. Ra
12. Commands & Colors: Ancients
13. War of the Ring
14. Goa
15. Paths of Glory
16. Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
17. Wallenstein
18. Railroad Tycoon
19. Shogun
20. Go
21. YINSH
22. Memoir '44
23. Taj Mahal
24. Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
25. Settlers of Catan, The
Again, I realize I am writing this in the Pandemic Legacy entry so I am going to get a ton of people reading one line out of context who are fans that are going to take umbrage. That is ok, I don't mind being the contrarian. In fact I am almost tempted to start a new thread saying congrats on Pandemic Legacy being the fastest rising number one in 15 years or more, but that has already been done...sort of. I expect if I did that I wouldn't get the same critiques. So in the end if you are a fan take my critique as a complement even though I take it as a bit of cynical change I am not looking forward to. I tend to abandon trends because there is something lost when everyone is doing it...that something being intimacy, the intimacy of a small scene. Thats is my hang up and I don't expect anyone else to agree.
My other prediction that this signals a possible trend of new games rising rapidly to the top ten in the next five years is yet be determined. Lets see if Pandemic Legacy can hold number one for the year first before anyone declares me wrong or right. I would love to be wrong in this instance. :D If it is as good as people think it should last till 2017 at number 1 I would think.
↧
Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Why I think Pandemic Legacy is brilliant. (Spoiler-Free)
While I've always really enjoyed Pandemic, I've always felt like the card shuffle really dictates whether or not a victory is feasible. Much like the game "Solitaire", I still enjoy it as an activity and seeing how it plays out, and I can still make good or bad decisions. However, at the end of the day, I don't always feel like I could have won or lost a game if I had played better or worse (unless we just played like idiots, which is unlikely).
However, with Pandemic Legacy, decisions from one game can ripple into future games, which is super interesting! Depending on what end-of-game upgrades you want to choose, things you do in this game are going to matter later. You're not only focusing on winning now, but winning in the future as well!
For example, take the placement of research stations. In a normal game of Pandemic, you're just placing it where it's convenient for that particular game. However, in PL, you can make that research station persistent if you'd like, so you're really thinking ahead about where you might want that research station for the entire series of games.
Or, in another example, typically in Pandemic, eradicating a disease is often not worth the wild goose chase. However, in PL, you can choose to reward yourself for doing so, which will ease up the difficulty a bit in future games. This makes the decision tree a little more interesting, as you're not only trying to win the current game, but trying to set yourself up for an easier path in all future games.
We've even had a game where the final winning cure for that game was in-hand, and we had to debate whether or not to sit on it, playing one more round around the table in order to get some other things in place before claiming the victory. A very entertaining position to be in!
To top it off, there's is a big element of trying to predict the story arc of the game. If we do this, do we think this thing is going to be important 3 months from now? Perhaps it will be even more important than it is now. Or, perhaps it will be removed from the game at some point and be completely useless. There's really an element of gambling to it, making your best guess as to what the future holds.
These elements really make Pandemic Legacy unlike any other game I've played, and in a good way. A really great gaming experience!
However, with Pandemic Legacy, decisions from one game can ripple into future games, which is super interesting! Depending on what end-of-game upgrades you want to choose, things you do in this game are going to matter later. You're not only focusing on winning now, but winning in the future as well!
For example, take the placement of research stations. In a normal game of Pandemic, you're just placing it where it's convenient for that particular game. However, in PL, you can make that research station persistent if you'd like, so you're really thinking ahead about where you might want that research station for the entire series of games.
Or, in another example, typically in Pandemic, eradicating a disease is often not worth the wild goose chase. However, in PL, you can choose to reward yourself for doing so, which will ease up the difficulty a bit in future games. This makes the decision tree a little more interesting, as you're not only trying to win the current game, but trying to set yourself up for an easier path in all future games.
We've even had a game where the final winning cure for that game was in-hand, and we had to debate whether or not to sit on it, playing one more round around the table in order to get some other things in place before claiming the victory. A very entertaining position to be in!
To top it off, there's is a big element of trying to predict the story arc of the game. If we do this, do we think this thing is going to be important 3 months from now? Perhaps it will be even more important than it is now. Or, perhaps it will be removed from the game at some point and be completely useless. There's really an element of gambling to it, making your best guess as to what the future holds.
These elements really make Pandemic Legacy unlike any other game I've played, and in a good way. A really great gaming experience!
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: How many games did you play up to the end of your Legacy Experience? *NO spoilers*
by getsumaiki
We won with 14 games, Losing both games in August and the first part of December.The four of us are experienced gamers; we felt we did well but sometimes the epidemic cards just killed us (especially in August).
I think sometimes, depending on the initial setup and when epidemics hit, you just get into a no win situation; If you have bad luck at the start of the game it will really hurt you in later months, but if you are able to eradicate diseases and upgrade in those early months you set yourself up for an easier game.
Anyone that has played Pandemic knows the game is far easier with just two players, I think the designers really should have added in an extra epidemic card or something if you are just playing with two players.
And we messed up a rule here and there, but caught ourselves quick.
I wonder if folks perhaps missed the [o]"add faded figures when you draw player cards of a CODA country" rule[/o]
↧
↧
Reply: Heroscape Marvel: The Conflict Begins:: General:: Re: Anyone still play this?
by LeftOn4ya
FYI, RotV, Forgotten Forest, lava set complete are each going for more than $50 on eBay. I suggest buying and trading from people on Heroscapes trade forum: http://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=110Guessing you're the one who posted the same question on heroscapers http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=52551. Here is the answer:
I did a quick search on the Maps Spreadsheet, and while that's not complete, there are a few non-Hasbro maps that just use the Marvel set:
Merry-Go-Round Nadious http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Zombie Assault AliasQTip http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Heroes Day Parade AliasQTip http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Art District AliasQTip http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Merry-Go-Round Nadious http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Zombie Assault AliasQTip http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Heroes Day Parade AliasQTip http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
Art District AliasQTip http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&i...
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: How many games did you play up to the end of your Legacy Experience? *NO spoilers*
by getsumaiki
I should add, that particular rule caused numerous outbreaks for us, in fact i dont know how you could avoid at least a few outbreaks from happening because of that rule.↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: How well did you do in the game? (ENTIRE season 1 spoilers!!!)
by getsumaiki
14 games870
Lost all of August and the first half of December.
I wonder if people that say this games was easy either
1. played with two players
or
2. Didnt follow the [o]"add faded figures when you draw Coda player cards",
that rule caused a few outbreaks for us (epidemic, draw card off bottom, "oh its the city with one faded figure in it"...Outbreak chain)[/o]
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Why I think Pandemic Legacy is brilliant. (Spoiler-Free)
by mfaulk80
chaddyboy_2000 wrote:
However, with Pandemic Legacy, decisions from one game can ripple into future games, which is super interesting! Depending on what end-of-game upgrades you want to choose, things you do in this game are going to matter later. You're not only focusing on winning now, but winning in the future as well!
This.
Everyone keeps focussing on the component destruction, opening of boxes, and storyline, but it's the long term decisions that truly elevates the game IMO. The other aspects help, but every decision takes on a new flavor when we realize that we may be stuck with the consequences.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: New #1
by redspyder
crosenkrantz wrote:
Pandemic Legacy must also be one of the most important general cultural creations of the Human Kind.
I, for one, welcome our new Legacy overlords.
↧
Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Spoilers! Poll; What character combos did you use in your game?
by getsumaiki
[poll=174103]↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.
by ras2124
I am just going to say, you have a lot to say for a guy that owns and enjoys Agricola. Probably a good choice to use 2007 as your example year.Just let Pandemic have its time; it is well deserved. It will fall out of 1st soon enough, but will stay in the top for sure. This isn't BGG getting too big or cult of the new (though there is some of that to be sure); it is simply people enjoying a fun game the same way they enjoyed the mass appeal of Agricola back when it was released.
Really good games are coming out every year, many of which are as good or better than those that have come before, and based on the ones you own, you agree, whether you want to admit it or not.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Spoilers! Poll; What character combos did you use in your game?
by mfaulk80
Beginning?↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: New #1
by Deano2099
clydeiii wrote:
Deano2099 wrote:
Even by the rating guidelines, they're about if you want to play it again, not if you can. I want to play month 13. I just can't.
That's no different from rating TS as a 1/2 because your gaming group is always more than 2 people, so you're never able to play it.
That's no different from rating TS as a 1/2 because your gaming group is always more than 2 people, so you're never able to play it.
Sorry knave, try again.
I know I "want" to play it. You're right, it might suck. Doesn't change the fact that I want to play it. Same way your next game of TS might well suck, you don't know that either.
Again, this only matters if we're literally interpreting the BGG guidelines which are around how much you "want" to play a given game. If you're saying that's a silly way to assess things: yes, you're right. Hence why most people have their own rating system.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Spoilers! Poll; What characters did you use in your game?
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Mild, very mild Spoilers, just a question about the roles.
by getsumaiki
sorry, i havent seen anything yet. I can give you a mild spoiler as to what they look like:[o]You'll need 2 more scientist looking females
Two male soldiers (one an officer and both are white)
One female medical military officer with African hair[/o]
With that you'll be good with what you already have.
↧