First impression of 7 wonders duel pantheon expansion is really, really good. It fixes basically every problem that we had with the base game (gives more ways to flip parity, incentivizes flipping cards faceup, adds much more depth, etc).
We played one game. My opponent was pretty quickly forced to commit to a science victory, i held a bit of an edge in resources and started pushing military. We both wound up activating the pantheon cards that we put as the highest costs for ourselves; i used zeus to zap the last copy of a science symbol and he used hades to grab it back from the discard. It basically came down to me activating the gate in age 2 and needing exactly mars from the red deck, and none of the red cards had been dealt so i had a 1/3 chance to just win the game immediately... and no dice. Age 3 starts with him having 5 science symbols and the weaker military, and of course there's the sixth symbol waiting for him as the last card dealt in the structure.
The interesting thing about it to me is that the first time I played it, it was with my friend and we were with a group of people that we vaguely knew. I wound up getting a military victory I think, and they were all surprised because in practice in their games no one ever won off of anything but VP.
I think around half of my games give or take have ended in military or science. I'm curious if the rate of alternate win conditions being achieved varies drastically based on some kind of metagame of how much people value going for them.
Yeah, it's alright. I haven't played it enough to have a strong opinion. Crossroad cards are probably the coolest mechanic but they get a bit played out over multiple games as you know what some of the common triggers are or what some of the common effects are and it can be annoying to be punished for doing common actions like moving or killing. I like the idea in concept a lot of "there might be a traitor" and the objective cards are pretty well-made around it. It also does have its share of very amusing moments/stories, like the game where (minor spoiler of one of the objective cards since we didn't look at them before playing)
Spoiler:
i played super recklessly/explicitly antagonistically because my (non-traitor) objective was that a certain number of characters had to die, and i just kept having to say "cmon guys plz trust me"
I'd say it's probably a great game in the right group and a mediocre game otherwise. If it sounds like the kind of thing you'd enjoy it probably will be.
In post 2812, implosion wrote:(minor spoiler of one of the objective cards since we didn't look at them before playing)
Spoiler:
i played super recklessly/explicitly antagonistically because my (non-traitor) objective was that a certain number of characters had to die, and i just kept having to say "cmon guys plz trust me"
this is exactly what I don't like about it. The "there might be a traitor btw I have a traitory win-con and/or have to intentionally play sub-optimally so I can win". I feel like it goes out of it's way to create extra tension when the tension is already there when you wind up with a junk in the food pile or something.
We played Fury of Dracula with the basic rules (no rumors) because we were learning. It wasn't bad. It was long though and I can see a situation in which it wouldnt be that it would be frustrating. But hey, take my opinion with a grain of salt, Rhino Hero is my favorite game
i like Dead of Winter but the setup and breakdown of it made it too cumbersome IMO
like it's basically a slight twist on the whole "cooperative but oooo spooky traitor" concept ive seen done a hundred times before. it did it well, but it didn't reinvent the wheel or anything
I think it downplayed my like of "Social Fun" cause I think it ranks Social Fun highly in the "co-op" stuff but I could take or leave co-op. Any table I'm at always has banter because I mostly play with he shit talkers and talk shit, even if it's Mysterium. Like my table banter is high even if the game isn't like "yo guys let's have a table banter game". That's why Rhino Hero is great. Lots of banter that's not guaranteed by the rules.
Accessibility, co-operation, chance, socially manipulative, immersion, social fun, discovery, and strategic. In that order, which I pretty much thought would be the case. I'm a fan of teaching people how to play games, and being part of a team. Dislike conflict in games, but a bit of unease and tension with a possible traitor is cool. Overall pretty good.
Ride forth you merry gentlemen of yore and tell the lords of Hades that we come for to claim their heads in the names of vengeance and righteousness!
yeah no surprises here. I like the intellectual challenge, be that the game or the opponent, and I like to explore either in a playfull setting. I want to discover different ways to play the game, or I want to discover who you are. And whether it's to crystallize that out or just for the rush, games are at their best when everything builds up to a crescendo where every little thing matters, and this enjoyment is something I really want to share with people.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
Oh man, I didn't notice I had 4 pages of recommendations. This actually might be a lot better than I think I initially gave it credit for cause the games I've played on the recs were pretty great and the games that I haven't played are mostly games I was interested in, so I'm pretty happy.