Original only. I’m glad to hear they fixed it, but it sounds like some kind of fix should have been sent out to original owners. Can I just get the new rules and use my current set?
I have the 1980’s FASA-made version of Battlestar Galactica, it was pretty terrible then too.
The Guns of August was a strategic-level World War One game from Avalon-Hill. I guess it was realistic in the sense that you ended up with a battle-line stretching from Switzerland to the Channel and then nobody could take any hexes for the next four years. Fun.
He’s talking about this one.
I have played a different boardgame also called Shogun which is pretty fun. It’s a pretty simple wargame, but it has a bidding component, multiple unit types, a variable setup, and other neat features. A pretty good step up for players who think Risk is high tactics.
Plus, everyone gets a little plastic katana to mess around with for no reason whatsoever.
I’m even more intrigued to be honest.
It’s pretty simple. You divide up the buildings into three decks: one deck of all the purple cards (the landmarks deck); one deck of all the non-purple cards with a value of 1-6 (the one die deck); and one deck of all the non-purple cards with a value of 7-14 (the two dice deck). Shuffle each deck separately.
You then deal out cards face up to ten piles. Two piles from the landmarks deck, four cards from the one die deck, and four cards from the two dice deck. If you deal out a card that’s already been dealt put the card on top of that existing pile.
When you’re done you will have ten piles of cards, each of which will have a different card (but some of which will have more than one copy of that card). Players can buy any one of these ten cards during their turn. Any time a pile is emptied out, deal new cards from the appropriate deck (if you get a duplicate put it on the existing pile and deal until you get a different card). So everyone always has ten choices to choose from and there will always be the 2:4:4 ratio in the types of cards available.
One possible problem is when a card is dealt and nobody wants to buy it. It can then end up uselessly filling a slot. So if a card has been out there for a couple of rounds and nobody is buying it, the players can agree to discard it and deal another into its place.
Whoa, I think I remember this, and my mom, too, loved it. Was it two decks of business-card-sized cards with questions on them meant to get people talking to each other? The two decks were different somehow (different types of questions), but I don’t remember how. It was a horrible, horrible “game.”
Axis and Allies was a fun party game but (at least in the classic edition) the Axis was hopelessly overmatched. Unless the Allied players were idiots, the Axis players’ only hope was a lot of remarkably lucky dice rolls. Aside from that you could play terrifically, but if the Allies know what they’re doing, you always lose.
Some of the adult leaders in my MYF group had that. They didn’t bother with the actual game but rather simply read the questions to us teens and we would answer. Kinda fun.
Ha! Of course, you are both correct, you roll d6s to see if the haunt starts. Don’t know where my head was, considering I just played it two days ago.
There are a lot of saving rolls players need to make. You’ll enter a room and flip a card. The card will tell you something like you encounter a ghost and need to do a five dice roll against your sanity. You roll five dice and if the number is equal to or less than your sanity level, you pass; if the dice roll is higher than your sanity level, you fail. There’s generally rewards and penalties; like the ghost gives you a cryptic warning and you gain an intelligence level if you pass but the ghost slimes you and you lose a health level if you fail.
Heh. I also dislike Ticket to Ride (and variations on that theme, like Power Grid or whatever it’s called). Their genre is usually described as Euro-Games, but I think of them as expansions to a single game, “Mid-level Bureaucrat.” When I’m using my leisure time to fantasize about building baroque castles or flying spaceships or leading fantasy armies, that’s awesome. When I’m using my leisure time to fantasize about optimizing a public utility, oh my god.
The mechanics of many of these games are no doubt brilliant game mechanics, but the aesthetic bores me to tears.
[Principal Skinner] Do you want to be like the real UN, or do you just want to squabble and waste time?
I play two-player on tablets with my wife. Two-player is more manageable and vastly better than the group game. It works well as pass & play because you both basically are playing your own game to see who can do better.
The only time I’ve played A+A in the past 10 years I was America and we lost through a combination of bad luck and bad playing. I foolishly didn’t tell my side about the “attack south from Leningrad” gambit so as to not monopolize my side’s strategy planning, and while I’m not sure if the strategy of attacking in the Far East is a good strategy for Russia, they did anyway and added everything including the infantry once I told them about ablative wounds, but that attack failed.
I see later in the thread it says expansions have fixed this, but man do I agree with you. We all sort of realized at the same time that there was a crappy path to victory, and we quietly put the game away.
I love Kingmaker. Admittedly there’s a lot of incentive to go grab heirs and immediately kill them, but I don’t think a game can get much more thematic than that!
One time my teens realized I was quietly keeping score, and called me a “try hard”. They then ganged up and killed me. I was both proud and angry!
I so hate “parallel play” games. Even worse for ToR in particular, experienced players go grab the short lines they might need later. It’s just a weird dynamic, and both boring and annoying.
All the way to the bottom of this post, and no “worst” game comes to mind. I’ll think of one later I’m sure. 
I remember when I was a kid, a friend of mine had Stratego, and we tried playing it once or twice. Seemed like the obvious strategy was to surround your flag with bombs and the other side could probably never take it. I don’t think we ever finished a game.
For that matter, did anyone ever play War to completion?
Dear God.
Munchkin is a personal non-favorite. If anyone isn’t paying attention it takes forever because if you move on with it, they of course have a card they wanted to play and can we back up? Even if everyone is paying attention, it’s mostly luck, and everyone is ganging up on you.
Mafia/werewolf isn’t a bad game, it’s just the worst of its genre. It stinks if you get killed early, and any early killings by the townsfolk is close to random. Avalon and secret hitler are good “serious” versions, and one night ultimate werewolf is a good goofy version. (Battle star galactica might be worse, but the only time we played we dealt the wrong number of cylon cards, and 4/5 people were cylons, so I can’t really evaluate it)
Oh, I loved Stratego and played it to completion with my friends quite often. You are right that the best strategy was generally to surround your flag with bombs. That meant judicious use of your (4 or 5 I thInk) miners, who could defuse bombs and therefore had value far above what their rather putrid rank would indicate. Finding the bombs and then trying to get the miners safely there was a tricky business.
Of course, deception played a role as well. After a while your start doing things like building walls of bombs around a 7 or a 6 as a kind of decoy. And I remember feeling foolish when a friend, knowing I’d focus on walls of bombs, put his flag behind one of the lakes in the first row, completely unguarded by any bomb and there for the taking by any piece of mine that wandered by. But I didn’t—too focused on exploding bombs.
Yeah, I think Stratego is a pretty good intro to strategy games. The good strategies are a little more obvious than in chess an a little more complicated than in checkers. The bluffing component is pretty fun, and the rewards for combined play (taking your high-powered general along with a spy, for example) are great.
As for the worst, that would be a game called Class Struggle. It really wasn’t much of a game; it was much more of a political rant disguised as a game.
I don’t remember very many of the details, but the players took on different roles: student, farmer, worker, capitalist. Which one you wound up being depended largely on the color of your skin and the number of X chromosomes you had.
You went around the board doing fairly stupid things, most of which I no longer recall. The game designed not for entertainment but rather to demonstrate how our society favors the wealthy white make capitalist at the expense of everyone else, and it did so in a very heavy handed and not very interesting way.
My favorite (for some definitions of “favorite”) was a space called “nuclear war” or some such. If the capitalist landed on that square first, nuclear war broke out and the game was over and everybody lost. If anybody else Landed there first, the nuclear war was defused and play continued. We played about three times before the didacticism became unbearable and the game was returned to its box. Political indoctrination does not lead to exciting game play—or at least did not, in the case of that particular game.