Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 190847 articles
Browse latest View live

Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Two questions... **mild spoilers through April**

$
0
0

by Geerod

Hey guys, two quick questions for you guys. One pertains to when the new set of relationships is released and the other is one from the start of the game that I just want to confirm...

1. Now that another set of relationships has been released, can one character have two of the same relationship on their card? (ie: can a researcher be co-workers with a Ops Expert and a Quarantine Specialist) Or are you only allowed one relationship of the same "type" per character? We assume that they can have two co-workers as that does not seem to be a mutually exclusive thing, but want to confirm how you guys have played it.

2. With regards to scars... we have played through four months and haven't had any scars yet. Because of this I just want to confirm something - (aside from the newly introduced fallen cities) scars only occur when a character is IN the city that outbreaks, correct? If a character is in a city that has a cube added to it as a result of an outbreak, they are still fine? This is how we have been playing, just want to confirm since it seems like we should have had a scar by now. (To put this in an example, if Atlanta outbreaks and my character is in Washington, they don't get a scar?

Thanks

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Two questions... **mild spoilers through April**

$
0
0

by MHindmarch

1. Two of same relationship with different characters is fine.

2. Correct

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: New #1

$
0
0

by linusglenhaber

This thread seems to be mainly two discussions going on at the same time. The first is weather or not TS should have been number one, and the second is about troll votes, and if voting a 1 because you disagree with the legacy idea is troll voting.

For the first discussion, it seems that the bgg community had for the past 5 years put TS at the top, and whether or not anyone agreed with this, it is not a correct action to down vote TS, just in the same way people should not down vote PL.

Troll votes are never good, and they just hurt all parties involved. The rating system should not be anyones ways at "getting back" at games, or forcing their opinions on other people, but to give their honest feedback.

On a slightly related sidenote, does anyone know how the score is calculated? Thanks!

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: ON NO! Eight...

$
0
0

by The Chaz

we ran out blue cubes. We also maxed our outbreak counter


I don't know if that's legal... doesn't the first one of those to occur end the game immediately?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: ON NO! Eight...

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: ON NO! Eight...

$
0
0

by Geeky_Farmer

We had an outbreak (#8), marked the city (Washington) and were two cubes short. Either way we lost.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: ON NO! Eight...

$
0
0

by The Chaz

Yeah, it occurred to me that "running out of cubes" and "maxing out the outbreaks" could be interpreted in different ways.

You'll do better in January 2.0 =)

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: ON NO! Eight...

$
0
0

by Geeky_Farmer

It was a pretty unlucky game. In setup we had all three of our three cubes as black, then all three of the twos as blue! We then pulled an epidemic card first round. The problem came though when we went a while till epidemic #2, (resolved the Jan two epidemic condition :( ) Then the next persons turn they pulled epidemic #3. Which was just very bad because of the two cards were the same, unhappy color we pulled at the beginning of setup...

We will not let the world down second half of January!

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.

$
0
0

by Jefferoni

1. What effect does an exponentially larger number of potential voters (i.e., growing number of BGG users) have on the rating of a game based on BGG's current rating system? My understanding is that the number of votes plays a definitive role in the overall "score".

2. Also, with Pandemic base game being available at retailers like Target and Barnes&Noble, the exposure it has received is much greater than any of the previous #1's. Stands to reason P:L would get a healthy boost from an already popular base game.

3. And we're talking about BGG's rankings. I dunno...it seems a bit weird to get riled up about an esoteric thing like that.

But back to the OP...I think he makes some good points worth considering and glad someone is out there looking to help me keep a little more of my money.

Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Very weird May spoiler

$
0
0

by maximum

So my group played our games for May today, and we noticed something strange. Under dossier I, it has all the normal stuff listed there, but it also says "917 channel". Does anyone have any idea what this is about? We're all quite confused.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: [Spoilers] Rules Question, let's say August?

$
0
0

by climatron

Thanks for the message. I think that was my interpretation too, I just didn't know if that was the only way you could play that card.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Poll - why Pandemic Legacy have risen in the rank so quickly?

$
0
0

by Venton

I have a theory for its quick rise to the top of the rankings:
A lot of people really, REALLY like it.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: 2 players, play 2 characters or all 4?

$
0
0

by carlsbad

ahmorse wrote:

Conventional wisdom is that 2 characters is easier than 4 characters.


Could you explain why this is so? I would think that more characters would give you more flexibility and cover more territory?

We just started January 2 player tonight and played one character each, but I am curious what the difference would be if we were to play with a neutral third character. How would it be more difficult with a third?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: ON NO! Eight...

$
0
0

by Budapest

Geeky_Farmer wrote:

January minor spoilers...

He also found great joy in destroying our first card. Here is hoping our early failure does not doom us or the world...



What card could possibly be destroyed in the first half of January?

9 Games I wish I had played in 2015

$
0
0

by Kevin B. Smith

I got to play a lot of good games in 2015. But there are several games I would like to have played, but didn't get a chance to. In descending order of how many times I played them before 2015, they are:

Walnut Grove (34 plays total)
I traded my copy away for PACG Rise of the Runelords. It was a good trade, since I have already played PACG over 100 times. But I do miss Walnut Grove. I normally hate tile-laying, but WG does it well. And I love the feeding/heating each year. Maybe I'll pick up another copy at some point.

Legends of Andor (9 plays total)
My wife and I played several times, plus I played a few times solo or with others, but only the first 2 scenarios. My wife soured on the game, and the setup is a bit daunting, so I'm unlikely to take it to game night. Somehow I would need to get my wife back into it. She's not a big fan of dice resolution of combat, but she's OK with it in PACG. And although she prefers to win co-ops, she's OK losing half the time in both Witch of Salem and Forbidden Desert. I think she didn't like the scripted nature of the first 2 scenarios, where you were pretty much guaranteed to lose the first time (or few) tries.

So my plan is to play the 3rd scenario solo, to see how much it feels like the early scenarios, and how much it feels more like a conventional co-op. If it seems like something she would enjoy, I'll probably be able to get her to try it at least once. Hopefully we'll both enjoy it, and it can enter regular rotation. She enjoys fantasy-themed games, and highly thematic games, so there's hope.

The Game of Life: Card Game (4 plays total)
This game is a lot better than you would expect from a single-deck filler with the name "Life" on the box. It's not a fantastic game, but it has some solid mechanisms, and generates some fun storytelling. Ironically, although it is cheap, it's hard to find. I am reluctant to take it to game nights where food and beer are prevalent, which sadly has been the case for me for the last year. My wife doesn't love the mundane theme, so she'll only play occasionally. And I didn't try to push her into it in 2015. Don't confuse this with other simple card games with Life in the title--from what I have read, this is the only decent one.

51st State (3 plays total)
I have only played this a few times, but want to explore it more. The fact that you lose all your unspent resources each round bends my brain in really interesting ways. Ramping up your production without also creating ways to effectively use those resources is counter-productive. It's a bit of a pain to teach, so ideally I would find one or a few people interested in exploring it for several plays within a reasonably short time. Despite its violent post-apocalyptic theme, it's actually a very low-conflict game--much friendlier than the cute Imperial Settlers.

The Voyages of Marco Polo (.5 plays total)
As soon as I read about the "overpowered" characters, I wanted to try this mid-weight dice-placement euro. I got to play half a game at a con, and that convinced me that my initial interest was well-founded. My brain struggled in a good way, although there's a chance it might be a bit heavy for my tastes in the long run. I wish we could have finished that game, and I wish I knew someone who owned a copy. Now that it's back in stock, I could buy it, but honestly I don't have anyone to play it with right now. As soon as I get into a regular euro-friendly gaming group, if nobody else has it, I'll probably buy a copy.

The Dwarves (never played)
This looked awesome in Rahdo's runthrough, and I think my wife would really enjoy it. Unfortunately, the kickstarter campaign for the English version was very oddly structured, where you would have to basically buy the game twice to get one really good edition. I understand they did it to leverage their existing German customer base, but I really hope they end up releasing a simple affordable English version at retail. If/when they do, I'll almost certainly buy it.

Port Royal (never played)
I almost always enjoy a push-your-luck element in games, and I like tableau-building and "spend cards to play a card" games. So I have every reason to believe I'll enjoy this one. If I had a regular gaming group, I would already own it.

Royal Goods/Oh My Goods! (never played)
As I said, I enjoy push-your-luck. I also really love production chains (one example being that I love the misunderstood Vanished Planet). So I'm pretty sure I'll really enjoy this one as well. To repeat myself, when I get into a regular euro gaming group, I'll probably buy a copy.

Starship Panic (never played)
This is a PnP (Print-and-Play) cooperative game that just looks fun. I don't have the time/skills to build it myself, so I'm considering writing a software implementation instead. But of course I don't really have time to do that either. So I probably won't have a chance to try it unless it gets published (perhaps via The Game Crafter, LLC?

Reply: Betrayal at House on the Hill:: Rules:: Re: Stealing items from dead explorers, and Monsters facing a knowledge roll

$
0
0

by Rimewisp

mandry2 wrote:

I have a few questions regarding an unusual game we just played. Any help is appreciated.
1. Can items be stolen from a dead explorer? Or what happens to a dead explorers items?
2. For monsters trying to escape the pentagram chamber, how do they do a knowledge roll when they have no knowledge? Are they trapped in the room forever? Or do they substitute another trait?


Be sure to read the Monster Section of the rulebook. They move in strange ways. Including, but not limited to: Their speed being dictated by a dice roll, not their speed. (A speed of 3 for them is a speed = result of 3 dice being rolled), being able to move freely through rooms, being able to fish for the basement landing if they're trapped, etc.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Charter upgrade: Local Pressure, Rules clarification (Start of Sept.)- Spoiler

$
0
0

by Antistone

I believe the thing you're asking about is from the end of March. Why does the thread title say September?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Compiled FAQ (Spoilers Hidden, each month hidden Separately)

$
0
0

by Antistone

The main post of the thread has a spoiler section for every month except September? Is that an error?

I was looking for clarification on (September)...
[o]After finding the paranoid soldier:
[o]:d6-1:If you have not used the Paramilitary Escort upgrade, the instructions say to select a military character (according to an algorithm).
1) Does this have to be a character you've "created" (played before), or just one you have a card for?
2) If it has to be one you've created, what happens if you've never played a military character? (Or if all the military characters you've played have already been lost?)
3) Can you select a character with the "Veteran" upgrade? (i.e. does the "Veteran" upgrade make someone into a military character, or does it only let them use the Military Shuttle Flight action as if they were a military character?)

:d6-2: I'm not entirely sure whether the C4 equipment is supposed to:
A) Have all the same effects as the sabotage action, but without spending an action or a card
B) Let you perform a "Sabotage" as a non-action, but still discarding a card as normal
C) Be a pre-requisite for performing the Sabotage action at all (implying it can never be done without C4)

(A) seems the most intuitive, but since C4 can only be used at the location of a military base, and being at a military base allows you to spend an action to add an equipment sticker to any card in your hand, the ONLY advantage of the normal Sabotage action (requiring a city card that exactly matches your current city) would be to preserve your supply of stickers, which seems like an odd result. (That is, as long as you haven't used all of the C4 stickers already, you could ALWAYS perform Sabotage for 1 action + any card, instead of 1 action + the exact right city card.)

Yet (B) seems extremely weak, and (C) seems like it ought to have been mentioned in the Sabotage action itself if it were intended.

Also, if (A) is correct, then... (end of month spoiler)
[o]The Parachute equipment says that if you show the card, you can Charter or Direct Flight to a rioting or collapsing city. I'm 99% sure that, in this case, you're still supposed to play a city card as normal to perform the Charter or Direct Flight.

So...on what grounds am I supposed to infer that using a Parachute also requires you to pay the normal card cost for the specified action, but C4 does not? If neither of them have a clear indicator one way or the other, shouldn't the answer (whatever it is) be the same for both of them?
[/o]

:d6-3: I no longer have an objective to build military bases, and instead have an objective to destroy them. And new ones pop up automatically every game. That makes it seem like I'm supposed to view them as a bad thing. But, tactically speaking, it seems like they're still extremely useful?

Specifically, they still enable the actions: Build Roadblocks, Military Shuttle Flight (for military characters), Equip (with military stickers), Remove Faded Figure (for the Colonel character), and Quarantine in adjacent city (with the Local Pressure upgrade). Plus, having more of them around gives me more opportunities to fulfill the new objective.

Also, I don't see any new rules that would prevent me from building them, or from making them permanent using my end-of-game upgrades (until the ones created during setup use up all my stickers, of course).

So...it looks like I could easily get into a position where I'm building new military bases solely so that I can destroy them (especially with the Operations Expert and the Soldier, who both have enabling combos for doing that). Am I missing something?
[/o]
[/o]

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Pandemic Legacy No 1? I have a question.

$
0
0

by Rapscallion_69

reverendunclebastard wrote:

Rapscallion_69 wrote:

That's the wonderful thing about this hobby is that there is something for everyone's tastes. Pandemic left an AWFUL taste in my mouth. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, or vice versa.


The poster made it pretty clear that this is not about your taste, it is about your objectively incorrect assertion that the card decks will frequently make the game unwinnable. On rare occasions that can happen, but statistically it is very, very uncommon. So to recap, you are not wrong for disliking Pandemic, but you are objectively wrong about how often the deck can make the game unwinnable. You are still free to dislike it though.

It's funny you left out the sentence BEFORE what you quoted. In MY EXPERIENCE that happens VERY often! This has nothing to do with my personal tastes (because I love Co-Op's as a genre). I don't know if those games were just the "rare" times they happened with my core group or what, but of the 5-6 games I played with them 4 of them ended because of the decks being un-winnable as they came out. This was the general consensus of the group in the post game analysis as to why it went so wrong. The cities that were infected were clustered and were generating cubes faster than we could get rid of them. We follow the rules and don't cherry pick our roles and if you don't have the right roles in those situations, you lose. the final turns were multiple outbreaks which effectively ended the game. And quite frankly ANY game that can achieve that where the game will beat you regardless of how good your strategy or decision making was applied, is a broken mechanic TO ME! Even if it's a statistical anomaly (which you may believe and which your experiences may say is true, but what my experiences say is not). No one will EVER get me to say otherwise. My personal EXPERIENCE is that the game is broken and 100% un-fun to play. Pandemic Legacy fixed literally everything I did not like about the original.

The line you DID quote was me saying we do not have to agree on this. And you know what? WE DON'T! There is more than enough gaming goodness out there that this argument does not have to be had. The OP asked if someone who didn't like regular Pandemic, would like Pandemic Legacy. I answered in the affirmative and listed why I thought they might. Their opinions of the original game aligned with mine so that's TWO people at least who feel this way. After the MULTIPLE conversations I have had about the game both online (I have gotten PM's from people on both sides when they have seen my 1 rating of the Original Game ranging from "You are a moron who didn't know how to play the game" to "God I thought I was the only one who felt this way about this game that is so beloved!") and in the "real world" I can tell you that number is not an insignificant number. LOTS of people feel the way I do about it. Lots of people have had the same exact experiences I have had with it. It makes you not want to bother developing a better strategy for the game because the experience itself is NOT FUN to US. You love it? GREAT! Play it, buy it, do whatever you want with it. But your argument holds zero water with me because my EXPERIENCES tell me otherwise.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: 2 players, play 2 characters or all 4?

$
0
0

by onigame

carlsbad wrote:

ahmorse wrote:

Conventional wisdom is that 2 characters is easier than 4 characters.


Could you explain why this is so? I would think that more characters would give you more flexibility and cover more territory?

We just started January 2 player tonight and played one character each, but I am curious what the difference would be if we were to play with a neutral third character. How would it be more difficult with a third?


For a 2-player game, each character will draw about half of the cards in the deck. For a 3-player game, each character will draw about one-third of the cards in the deck. Since curing a disease requires many cards of the same color in the same player's hand, it stands to reason that a cure is more likely to be naturally discovered, without Sharing Knowledge, if there are fewer characters. This advantage is somewhat stronger than the advantage a large team would get from having more character abilities.

This is true of base Pandemic. For Pandemic Legacy, it would spoiler-y to go into the details as to why this argument would still hold true as the game changes radically...
Viewing all 190847 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>