• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. GameFAQs Contests
  3. my top 32 tabletop games

User Info: Naye745

1 month ago#71
im sure kemet is good but it never looked like the kind of game for me

my friend who had a copy moved away before i ever got the chance to give it a go
it's an underwater adventure ride

User Info: Nelson_Mandela

1 month ago#72
Been playing Castles of Burgundy

Might be my favorite game in my limited experience thus far!
"A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25
"Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso

User Info: Naye745

1 month ago#73
its a great one, i'd say a classic at this point
it's an underwater adventure ride

User Info: cyko

1 month ago#74
Castles of Burgundy is definitely a modern day classic and it's one of my favorites. I wish the art wasnt so drab, but it's an overall great game that's easy to teach.
Yay - BkSheikah is the guru champion of awesomeness.

User Info: SeabassDebeste

1 month ago#75
26. Word Slam (2016)

Category: Team vs Team
Genres: Party game, clue-giving, word game, real-time, separate hands
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 0
Game length: 1-10 minutes per hand
Experience: 50+ hands over 5-10 sessions (2018-2019) with 4-10 players
Previous ranks: NR (2016), NR (2018)

Summary - Each team has a clue-giver who knows the same word. Simultaneously, they begin clueing their team in... by using a massive deck of word cards, which include both concrete words (green, man, animal, job) and more abstract concepts (up, not). The twist is that while each team can only see its own clues, it can listen to the other team's guesses. The first team to guess a word wins it.

Design - Simple but exceedingly clever. Cluegiving is one of my favorite mechanisms, especially in party games, and Word Slam... well, it is a clue-giving party game. To be fair, it's about as vanilla as it comes in terms of design, but given that it's a "players make the game" situation, that's entirely fine by me.

The twist in Word Slam comes from the fact that cluegivers are giving simultaneous clues for the same word. So you're getting the usual manic energy as a cluegiver scrambles to put together the set of cards that will lead someone to the solution ("round," "food," "yellow," "brown")... but now there's some tension, since you don't necessarily want to guess everything right away. If you're a guesser and you see "round" and immediately start saying "wheel," "basketball" immediately, the other team will quickly deduce that you received the clue "round." If they were first to get "food" and "yellow," they would be highly likely to get "pancake" thanks to your giving away "round."

Word Slam's biggest "learning curve," if you can actually describe the game as having that, is its deck of cards. My friends and I, when we played, would spend a few minutes before the game laying out the entire deck like a massive keyboard. Deciding how to organize the deck so you can access your clue-cards is half the game. It's a solitary half with little madness, but it can be satisfying and empowering.

Experience - A friend got Word Slam in mid-2018, and it immediately became one of our party games of choice for months afterward. With new gaming pal's being lower on clue-giving games and groups overall being smaller, it hasn't really seen any play in a relatively long time for how much fun it is.

Future - I'd gladly play Word Slam again. There are two big strikes against it. The first is opportunity - gaming pal #1 isn't a big fan of word games, so I'm guessing it wouldn't go over amazingly. The second is that Word Slam's niche is rather well-worn: it's not my #1 cluegiving party game, so when the scarce opportunity arises, I may prefer to go a different route.
yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they inhale its fickleness

User Info: KommunistKoala

1 month ago#76
are pancakes really yellow

as for cluegiving i have OG codenames and I think that's the only one we've really played much
does anyone even read this
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: TomNook

1 month ago#77
Word Slam's premise sounds almost exactly like Password, but with a limited clue pool, which adds a layer of puzzle to it. Seems fun!
Bells, bells, bells!

User Info: SeabassDebeste

1 month ago#78
25. Dominion (2008)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Deck-building
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 2
Game length: 25-40 minutes
Experience: 50-100 games online/vs AI with 2-3 players (2014-2015), 5-8 games in person with 2-6 (2015-2019)
Previous ranks: 8/100 (2016), 15/80 (2018)

Summary - Each player has a deck consisting of action cards, treasure cards, and victory point cards. Each turn, you can play one action and spend treasure to buy one card from a static marketplace. All cards drawn and purchased then go in the discard pile, and you draw a fresh new hand. When your deck is empty, you reshuffle your deck. When certain stacks in the marketplace are emptied, your score is the sum of the VP cards in your deck.

Experience - I played an absolute ton of Dominion before I properly got "in the hobby," online. Simple, addictive, yet with undeniable depth of strategy. Playing it in person is almost a bit of a disappointment, since tracking the number of gold or actions or buys in your turn is kind of tedious, and it got me used to expecting others' turns to move lightning-fast, too. Watching someone else draw out their deck in person is much less fun.

Design - Dominion is the granddaddy of the deck-builder. The genius of it is comes from the restraints it places on you. Since deckbuilders are such a well-worn genre, we can examine each design element of Dominion individually and see why it is still superior.

- The fixed market - Many deckbuilders, in an attempt to inject randomness (or something), give you a draftable market of available cards. This reduces overhead in setup and in reading the cards at the beginning of the game, but it makes the game less strategic. Dominion does have this overhead, but the tradeoff is that you can form a tremendous strategy, that you'll never be denied cards based on luck and that you won't have to read what cards do during the game.

- One action and one buy - Fantastic. The one-action part means you can't just pick up every good card, which is boring - you need to synergize them in the right ratios of extra-action cards, non-action cards, and of course those powerful action cards (like Smithy, the draw-3 card from the base set).

- You discard your entire hand on each turn, which means you must tune your deck to get the best five-card-draws - no waiting around for it to clear up.

- VP cards make your engine worse. This is arguably the most radical part of Dominion. It's without question an engine-builder (as deck-builders are), and like most engine-builders it has a point where you should "flip the switch." But other engine-builders don't actively punish you for flipping the switch too early the way Dominion does.

Future - I love the game for what it's been, but it scores more here on respect and past love than on current desire. For my taste, at this point, Dominion is arguably too pure. Its setup time and what downtime there is act against it. That said, if the right expansion is used for a 2-3-player game and everyone pitches in for the setup, I'm still game.
yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they inhale its fickleness

User Info: turbopuns3

1 month ago#79
Dominion isn't my favorite game, probably not even top 10, but it's a game I'm always happy to play. I don't think I've ever once thought "eh, just not in the mood for Dominion atm". Any time it's been on the table and I didn't vote to play it was simply due to there being something else I was especially excited to play, or knowing that if we wear it out then the others in my group won't want to play it any more.

Unfortunately I've found that in my circles the simplest strategy nearly always wins. Just buy money then provinces, or dukes/duchies, etc. People often get tangled up in an overly complicated strategy where they rattle off 12 actions all to just end up with 2 buys and 7 copper, or something.
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: turbopuns3

1 month ago#80
Hard agree on the notion of static market = good. For games that have randomness in the market, I prefer if they come packaged with a secondary objective separate from the deck itself, a la Clank! or Quest for El Dorado. If ALL I'm doing is strategically buying cards, let me buy the damn cards I want.
  1. Boards
  2. GameFAQs Contests
  3. my top 32 tabletop games
  • Post New Message