I’ve played it a few times, and I’m a big fan… but I think the hook works better if you’re not a big fan of “proper” CCGs. The Collectible Card Game portion is kinda weak (not bad, but not the game’s strong suit), but the meta-game around the CCG is a tonne of fun.
I think the problem for, like, MTG players or Pokemon players is that it kinda highlights the absurdity of CCGs? Maybe that’s just my read of it.
Anyway, yeah, solid game, and the stacks of money are chef kiss.
I didn’t like the combination of speed decision-making with the need for deck knowledge. So, like, iirc, you have to compete to pick things faster than other players while also needing to know what’s in the decks that you’ve only seen if you’ve played before (a lot).
I might be misremembering, it was a long time ago, but it didn’t leave a good impression.
The resolution was kind of plodding too.
The stacks of cash are a great aesthetic touch I think.
it seems consistently the “duelling” part is less liked. I think though it’s probably fair to say that type of game is well catered for elsewhere. and the focus might have been the scrabble and tension of collecting.
I wonder if this occurs in other games which pretend to replicate some real process but more often than not a certain part gets represented way more often than other parts?
I think an example that occurred to me is something like Distilled. A lot of drinks games are logistical but I think the tension of creating recipes that might not work.
Has anyone played Destinies enough to have an opinion on it?
I have zero knowledge about Ascending Empires but based on this comment I can’t help but think, Why Not Flipships? That game is cheap, light, and boss.
It is under my bed and I have had a great time fanning through the cards. That is roughly as deep as my knowledge goes.
Flipships is Co-op, yeah? Great artwork, but a radically different game.
There are lots of great dexterity games, but Ascending Empires and Catacombs kinda stand alone as complicated dexterity games. Games in which strategy plays an active role in the game.
To put it differently: somebody who is great at flicking ships/disks but doesn’t understand tactical and strategic gameplay will do very poorly. Somebody who can’t flick to save their lives but plays very strategically will still do quite well.
As an aside: I wrote Kwanchai Moriya a few months ago to ask if he would draw the cover of my newest novel. He sent a very polite email back saying that he is only doing board games for the foreseeable future. Dang shame.
Maybe someday I can drive a dumptruck full of cash to his house and convince him to do a cover for me.
I have played it twice, the tutorial scenario both times.
I think it is very good. Strong writing, and due to the “Every time you fail you get stronger” mechanic it encourages you to try things.
Push buttons! Fight wolves! Climb mountains! Even if/when you fail, you will get stronger and better as a character (but if you succeed, you will get better faster, so the game still rewards smart play).
I also love the price point due to keeping the miniatures small.
It does use an app (that requires a camera), so a tablet is your friend if possible.
But yeah. Based on exclusively the first mission I have it and two or three of the big box expansions.
Yeah, I just saw - and was very surprised by - the price point!
Anyone played River of Gold? I’m seeing a lot of love for it online.
Played it on BGA once. Won the game and had no idea what I was doing, but I don’t think anyone else did either. It started making sense by the end. It seemed fine.
Yeah I own it. A nice production. Solid mechanics. Doesn’t do anything too exciting but a nice engine building game on the lighter side of things.
Would note I’ve only played it at 2 but the scaling options for the game seem robust.
I was part of that game. Struck me as “I’d love to play this a few more times, better if in person” but had no jones to buy it.
Struck a lot of the same notes as Iki (Asia, rondel, placing buildings and landing on them) but Iki is so electric in comparison.
Okay, important question for the upcoming gift-giving holidays: how is Hot Streak with 4?
I see BGA recommends 5-6. If I had this, 4 would be the usual player count, with the occasional 5 and rarely more.
With this info in mind, is it worth owning?
I don’t know (I am still waiting on my many-months-old pre-order!) but I’ll just note that the BGG recommendations look really solid for every count from 3p to 8p.
I’ve not played with 4, lowest is 5.
I think it’s about the energy that people bring to the game - if you think the 4 of you will stand up and scream because a plastic hot dog fell over then it’ll be great.
I’ve only played with 3 and I think the game is excellent. I can easily see more being good but I would still buy it to only play with 3. You should be safe with 4 and can be reassured you could still have an excellent time with 3. Which sounds to me like you could play with your wife and brother in law no problem and not have to wait for a 4 if you didn’t want to. Assuming of course they’d like the style of game.
I think I played with 6 and it looked like it would be absolutely great at 4. If anything, 6 just guarantees that the bet you want will have been taken by the time it gets back around to you, so 4 may even feel better.
Played with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8
Works well at all player counts, but my enjoyment is massively amped by playing the race part with lots of enthusiasm.