Home Videos Games Podcastle

Your Last Played Game


Well, played Tiny Epic Galaxies during lunch again, with popular vote at the table adding a simple house rule: You may only follow one action on each other player’s turn, regardless of how much culture you have.

And it was a hit! Instead of being a game they would maybe play once more, it became a game they’d be happy to play semi-regularly. The burden of following shifted from the player taking their turn (“I don’t want to do X because it will benefit him more than me.”) to the player doing the following (“I want to follow on X, which he may get on a reroll, but I could follow on Y now for a sure thing.”).

Also played Euronimoes, a “euro” take on dominoes that is supposed to make playing domino-based games less boring. Due to a critical failure of rules comprehension, it made me genuinely angry and my wife almost cried, but the lovely folks at BGG have sorted us out and I’m excited to try the correct version of the game.


That’s a reasonable compromise, but just to clarify: you’re house ruling all follows like that? Following is such an integral part of the game, I’d personally only want to house rule the culture follow, specifically.


That’s correct. All follows were limited to one per other player’s turn.

Honestly I liked it. It prevented other players from being almost as (or more) productive than you on your turn, and you could colonize a planet faster than someone else if you did well with the dice. My wife’s biggest objection was that if I was ahead on colonizing a planet and had enough culture, she couldn’t compete on that planet. This removes that element.

I’d still want to try it the correct way more, but if the house rule got people more engaged and more excited to play the game, I think it succeeded.


My wife and I played Guilds of London last night for the second time in a few weeks. We’d played it several times when we’d first got it, but then it languished on the shelf over concerns about the overhead of remembering what all the cards meant. These last two times we’ve discovered that it took almost no effort to remember what things were what, and last night we only needed to look at the card cheat sheet three times.

I was very careful to control turn order and was never first, often letting her win guilds even when I could prevent it. I was favored by there being quite a few low-scoring guilds out, so I claimed those as often as was feasible and ended up running out of liverymen at the end of the game. (But I did shenanigans to get my last guild to resolve anyway. Yay, shenanigans!) I easily outpaced her in the end-game scoring with a large block of adjacent guilds.

I’m disappointed at how poorly the game seems to have fared… the current price on Amazon US is a steal.


Played a couple of games of Champion of the Wild tonight. Notable in that we used the rules from SU&SD’s live PAX playthrough. And I think I prefer this way more than the standard game.

We started off with drafting cards. So there was the initial dilemma of what to base your choices on (as no events had been revealed yet). Then we went through revealing and deciding one event at a time, meaning you wouldn’t know whether the animal you chose would be better suited to something else coming up later.

It definitely results in more creative play, as you’re left trying to upsell some sub-optimal animals. And it means the animals that often get left out (because they’re small, slow, etc) get a chance to shine. Or at least be imagined in comedy scenarios :stuck_out_tongue:

And including the “coach does an event” rule meant we were treated to the hilarity of our archaeologist friend cursing having entered herself into an earlier event when the “dig a hole” event came up :laughing:


I’m curious how you guys are able to afford following so often! Even with the infinite culture “exploit”, we’ve found that following allows for a little off-turn engagement, and opportunities here and there to capitalize on a timely strategic move, but rarely are we presented with multiple good opportunities to do so. Even when we have a high-action off-turn it’s at the expense of the on-turn options, which we’ve found more consistently lucrative.

Bearing in mind I’ve only played this with a second player (not counting the highly enjoyable solo mode), so I’m super curious if the added player count really changes the dynamic that much. It certainly makes sense that it would present more opportunities (i.e. 3 off-turns with 4P, 1 off-turn with 2P), but the economy doesn’t scale for the added players, so I’d have certainly expected more reasons to follow, but equal opportunities to afford it.


We played out first game of Tiny Epic Zombies tonight; 2 player full coop.

There is a lot going on in that little, err tiny, game. We won with one card left in the search deck! Definitely played some things wrongs; for instance, I need to clarify what walls can be walked through.

Seems to be pretty fun. We need a few more plays to really get the rules down. Once that happens and our games are smoother, I think it will shine.


We had our secondary office board game night last night. We didn’t stay too long due to the weather but still had a good time.

Kicked off with a simple game of Ravine. I really, really liked this and will probably pick it up (breaking news, just did). It’s a survival co-op that’s very lightweight and easy to learn, with an easily adjustable difficulty curve. The strategizing isn’t that deep so it might be offputting for hardcore players, but the ease of setup, the super-easy-to-teach ruleset, and the clear card instructions would make it great for less intense players.

Followed that with a late-prototype game of Kingswood. This is one that everyone else had played in a very early stage (I hadn’t), but it showed off the almost finalized art this time. The designer for this one also did the recently funded Parks, as well as the somewhat similar (and GORGEOUS OMG) Space Park, with which it shares some mechanics. It’s a cute kind of action rotation resource collection monster murderer thing. In tone it makes me think of Bargain Quest, to be honest. I might recommend it if you liked that but didn’t care for the amount of overheard in managing all those cards. But that’ll be kickstarted in April if that sounds interesting.


Good to know about Kingswood. I’m a fan of the Keymaster guys, so I am intrigued to see that come out in April.


More planets means a higher likelihood of culture-producing planets on the table, and knowing how easy it is to abuse culture, people favor putting ships on multiple culture-producing planets. As soon as you’re on 2+, you can gain free culture any time someone else produces any, so players tend to sit in the 3-5 range on culture pretty consistently. That’s a lot of follows, and you just don’t dip below 1 culture - that last bit is saved to follow culture production.

It’s a vicious cycle, and if you try to break it by not producing culture or taking ships off of the culture producing planets, you simply fall behind as you get less actions than the other two players. I found 3 players to have a very different dynamic than with just 2 players.

Another factor is energy vs culture. Sure, you can buy rerolls and keep gambling that with those two junk dice you might be able to get the action you really want, but when 2-3 other players have turns to take, the odds of them taking that action (which you can follow) are much better than paying for rerolls. This led to any and all ways of converting energy into culture being used whenever possible. Limiting all follows brought these into balance, as you could get 2 follows per round with good odds of taking the action you want to take, but you still needed to use energy to make the most of your own actions.


Well that pretty definitively answers the player count changes for me! Have you tried limiting the culture follow (one for two) to only once a round? I think that’s where I’d start when I get more to the table at once, but I’ve also played with folks who really dig the follow mechanic.


I have both expansions and quite honestly will never play without them, at this point. They’re both good and extend the game in fun ways that offer more options but don’t make that game appreciably more complicated or longer. I really wish I could get it to the table more often.


The Quacks of Quedlinburg - 6 plays in 6 weeks? Yeah, we like it. A LOT. Pretty much everyone who has played it with us has loved it, regardless of 2, 3 or 4 player count. The different books change the gameplay, but don’t complicate it. Every time I bring it to the meetup, someone walks past and says ‘Man, I’d like to try that, later!’

Wingspan - I didn’t even know of this game until my wife informed me that we’d pre-ordered it. She was smart (as usual) and it is DELIGHTFUL. Smooth and clever mechanics, pretty art and just great table presence. 4 plays in a month.

Herbaceous Sprouts - A solid filler game inspired by the OTHER filler game. Not deep, but quick and fun. Exactly what you’d expect from Dr. Finn Games, really.

Reykholt - Played once solo, 2 player and 4 player. Despite being a big Uwe fan, I’m not sure how I feel about this one. I mean, I like it but don’t love it? I’m more interested in getting The Norwegians to the table, tbh.


Your wife has the same odd definition of “we” that mine does! Like when “we” have to take out the trash (in this instance, “we” is, apparently, myself) or when “we” have a little extra money in the budget to buy some new clothes (this is tricky, so watch carefully: in this scenario, “we” is my wife)

But in all seriousness… good job to your wife for spotting the potential for greatness! Wingspan has quickly become a permanent installation on my dining room table. Even when we’re eating dinner at the table, the Wingspan box is set off to the corner.


Quacks of Quedlingberg is a game that has so many theoretical problems that melt away in the actual play. Like it’s a pure luck fest that has dozens of rules and shoehorned socialism rules. And yet all of this is invisible because playing the game is a tense hoot.


I’ve heard good things about both expansions actually. I’m primarily looking at Heroes because I’ve heard that it works better at 2 players than Fields of Fame.

As I usually game at 2, that’s a big factor.


I’m intrigued by what in this game you consider to be ‘shoe horned socialism’? Not sure I understand.


Free positions up the track just for being behind in VP. I saw someone use the term and it seemed funny to me so I use it to refer to any real sort of catch up mechanic. I think in Quacks it’s fairly ungracefully layered on but it also feels completely necessary.


I see, thanks for explaining


Played this with a group on a ski-lodge holiday and I think it went down well, not too sure about replayability as some of the funnyness with the madness cards would be lost.

For example, we had three players go mad silmultaneously. One went blind. One decided to get into a staring contest. With the blind person. And the third mimiced everything the starey person was doing. This lead to some hilarious shenangans, but not sure how well it would work if you knew about these kind of things or if they happen every game.