I also just grabbed The Champions of the Wild. October 2019 here we come!
From my experience, Pandasaurus does a great job on KS. The campaigns are typically high energy (not that this is necessary of course…just a nice bonus), they communicate well, and they deliver a good product. Dead Man’s Cabal isn’t really my thing, but I do hope it does well, as Pandasaurus has been good for me.
On that note, I sent them feedback about their banner ads on BGG. I never do that. But my god, some hack put these terrible taglines in awful, generic, red, DROP SHADOWED font over those amazing design cues and I had to say something. Made them look like a Mickey Mouse show.
I dunno. I read some upsetting posts and, while I won’t share them as they are not professional reporting, I would recommend anybody do their own research on Pandasaurus before committing what you would perceive to be a considerable amount of money.
One incentive, albeit not exactly one specifically for the consumer’s benefit, is that I’d rather see more of the money go to the creator than a retailer like Amazon. I had a really good customer service experience with a snafu relating to my Monikers pledge and the creator was extremely responsive so it does make me that much happier to back Wavelength rather than get it retail.
I think I saw this pop up on Reddit. At first, I was pretty turned off by the price; for me, at least, that’s a big chunk of money to spend on a game that, sadly, is targeting a fairly hit-and-miss style of game.
But, I changed my mind (for now, at least) and I’m currently backing… (wait for it…)
In the post on Reddit I saw, they were asserting that people who enjoy puzzly-programming games such as SpaceChem would enjoy Mechanica
That turned out to be untrue. Better judgment took over with this one since it’s likely another classic example of a game that is 100% what I’m after, that will never get to the table. Will wait for retail before making a decision here.
I missed previous mentions of
here, but it’s in the latest Games News and I’ve now backed it.
Also, for people who like Aeon’s End (which includes me), the new box – with a campaign system, though details are lacking so far.
Ive been hearing a lot of buzz about aeons end (they’ve pretty consistent in their release schedule! Maybe even more so than Clank!!). What sets it apart from the likes of Thunderstone?
I’ve not played Thunderstone. Things I find distinctive about Aeon’s End compared with deckbuilders in general:
- Fully cooperative against automated enemy
- Never shuffle your deck: the order you discard is the order in which cards come back to you
- Removing cards is rarely important (sometimes not even possible)
- Delayed effects (you prep a spell on your turn, and it goes off at the start of your next turn)
- Random player order prevents it from becoming a pure puzzle-solving exercise
I’ve only played it once, but for me, the fully cooperative aspect was a minus point, our success/failure seeming to hinge on the random player order was a minus point (player coordination disrupted, the enemy getting two turns in succession overly swingy), and although “never shuffle your deck” sounded really appealing, I actually didn’t enjoy the level of micro-management that it entailed, or, more correctly, the degree to which remembering the sequence of your deck was rewarded (you might need to make sure two cards are drawn in the same hand, so you might need to make sure your card draw doesn’t end on the first of the two, for example).
So, not a game for me. Seemed popular for a couple of months, but I haven’t seen it at a game day for a long time.
We only have the core box (2nd edition) but I’m thinking of getting this. We’ve really enjoyed it so far, but it deffinitely seems like a game that benefits from added variety. I’m hoping to slowly add in the rest of the content.
It may be one of my favorite full coops (a top genre in our house). I love the fact that the game is basically a repeatable boss fight.
Another point thay makes it different to other deck builders (that I know of), is that you don’t discard unused cards at the end of you turn, so you can hold cards to try and build combos.
Is the £1/$1 shipping legit???
My previous experience of IB&C has been that they’ve managed to sort out advance customs payments and such like, and they don’t use ShipNaked. But I’m not an insider (and if I were I’d probably have to say “we stand by what’s on the KS page”). Slight disclaimer: I have been a demo guy for IB&C at several Essens so you may not consider me a neutral party.
Thats fine. Thanks! You gave a sufficient reason why they only charge a quid for shipping.
I was just forced to bail on Shipwreck Arcana. Looks like I was victim to some bank fraud and while the bank confirms they already know I’m a hapless victim in it, they’ll still take 7-10 working days to sort it out and reimburse.
You know what it feels like to say you can’t afford $23? Feels bad, man. Could barely cover a card and homemade dinner for V-day.
Thankfully I should be able to keep my pledge in with Champion of the Wild.
For what it’s worth, you generally have at least a week to fix a bounced Kickstarter pledge and Shipwreck Arcana doesn’t end for another four days. You have a reasonable chance of being able to pay. On the other hand, I totally understand if that’s not something you feel comfortable trying, or if you’d get charged fees etc.
I really don’t understand the buzz on this forum about Shipwreck Arcana. It sounds like a very dry numbers game. Perhaps it has some hidden charm in actual play…
I would definitely expect fees, but it’s more about being uncomfortable about it. This is my first ever pledge, the company is pretty small… just not how I want to roll, especially given this is hardly important stuff.
Dry numbers games go over well with my casual game playing friends. I personally enjoy the art and theme (not to mention portability), but the draw was a certain fully cooperative Euchre appeal. Simple numbers deduction from a small base of cards… that’s a damn fine hook.
I wouldn’t call it a numbers game. You give clues about numbers, but the game is in the clues you give (or could have given but chose not to), not the numbers themselves.
Here is a link to my playtest. Three months on, here’s my stance on the game: Would I play it? Sure, I guess. Am I backing it? No, I’m not. The best part of the game is when a player gives a 2nd clue, and the team recreates the same logic as the clue giver and deduces the right number and it feels great the same way Codenames feels great when your team is on the same Wavelength (see what I did there?). The problem is that feeling doesn’t come up as often as I’d like. Sometimes the clue makes deduction trivial. Sometimes you use a power that makes the deduction trivial. Sometimes you put the clues together but it’s still too ambiguous to guess. Sometimes, instead of giving a second clue about their original number, the player has a reason for using their original number as a clue for their new number, which doubly sucks because (1) your team isn’t expecting it; and (2) your team still only has one clue on your current number, so you’ve made no progress.
Also, the designers themselves acknowledge that it’s a quick, light game where people can drop in and out because all of the player’s puzzles are effectively independent, and that there is no game progression so players are doing the exact same thing at the end of the game as they were at the beginning.