The Boardgame Thread

[Goldenmean]

I'm a little baffled at the aesthetics that result in someone finding Cave Evil attractive, but thinking Gloomhaven is too ugly to purchase, but to each their own.

I will address that though, because I guess that could be a sticking point for some people. *I* happen to like (though not love) the art in Gloomhaven, but it is of a particular non-standard style, and everyone's tastes are going to be different there. Possibly more concerning to people is that there is not actually a ton of art in the game, period. Most cards do not have art on them. This is because most cards have a ton of text, and there just isn't space for art, not to mention because did I mention there are 1700 of these? You've got art on your character sheet and then art on the monster standees and obviously the tiles you use to construct the map, and terrain, etc. Of the cards themselves, I think only the item cards have art on them off the top of my head. Monsters are all standees on pretty thick cardboard. The characters themselves are all miniatures (though there was also a kickstarter only version that let you get cardboard versions of them also). I'm not a hard-core miniature guy, but the quality on the miniatures seems pretty good to me. They're a nice hard plastic with lots of detail on them.

Some miscellaneous other things that I didn't mention in my previous epic screed that might be of interest to people (and also that I just want to talk about because I really, really, really love this game). The world itself is fantasy with some very light clock-punk touches, mostly represented by a tinkerer character class whose cards are technological gizmos. I also found a mysterious gear item early on that unlocked an "ancient technology" global achievement which has five tech levels, so it's possible that as I increase that more gearwork type things will enter the game. Who knows! The races are unique. There are humans, but you won't find any elves or dwarves or the other fantasy tropes (though of course you can draw pretty clear lines from the existing races to those tropes)

Of the starting six characters, there is a Human Scoundrel, who plays like a typical rogue/thief class. Lots of very fast initiative cards. Very mobile, with lots of advantages for flanking and the ability to stealth and backstab. This is probably the class that will be most familiar at first glance to people familiar to people. It's also the one I have the least experience with, which is why this entry is a bit brief.

There is an Inox Brute. Inox are the obligatory proud warrior race people, and the Brute plays the way you'd expect a class named that to play. Lots of running boldly into battle and swinging wildly with either hard hitting single target attacks or sweeping cleave style melee AE attacks. Some light tanking abilities. A good amount of pushing. One of the highlights of the games we played involved our brute opening a door and blindly charging through it headlong into some bandit guards, one of which he promptly collided with sending it flying backwards through two damaging traps in a row and instantly killing it before it got a chance to do anything. Probably the most straight forward of the starting six.

There is the aforementioned Quatryl Tinkererer. I guess Quatryl are the dwarf equivalents. They like technology, and the Tinkerer has a whole lot of gizmos. He seems to be a jack of all trades character. Do you want to flamethrower your enemies? Place mines? Summon a harmless, but distracting robot to follow you around? Throw smoke bombs? Shoot nets? All of the above? The tinkerer is the character for you. He also seems to have the most healing abilities of the starting classes. I'd say this is one of the two most complicated characters of the starting six.

The other complicated character is the Orchid Spellweaver. Orchid are the elf equivalents. They live for thousands of years and mostly spend their time in quiet meditation, often for long enough that crystals begin growing on them. The Spellweaver, as the name implies, is the mage of the starting group. Almost all of their abilities either generate elements or consume elements for an additional effect, so there is a lot of nuance of either coordinating with your allies, or else imbuing an element one round and then consuming it the next (you can not do both in the same round). They follow all of the other mage tropes. They are flimsy, and this is represented both in their hp value and also in their hand size. They only get 8 cards as opposed to most classes 10 (the tinker gets 12!), though they also have an amazingly good card that lets them retrieve lost cards so they can theoretically cycle through all of their cards twice, unlike most classes.

Then there is the Savvas Cragheart. This is one of the most unique of the starting characters, both in terms of race and class. Savvas look like earth golems with a clear pane of glass in their chest, and spend most of their time studying the elements. Mastery of an element gives them a power core of that element behind the pane of glass... except for the Craghearts. The Craghearts are outcasts. They get their chest cavity smashed in and kicked out of Savvas society. The end result is a kind of tanky, strongly earth themed physical fighter. If the Cragheart has a single theme, I would say it's probably obstacle manipulation. They can summon new obstacles in the form of giant rocks that they throw, blow up existing ones (which is non-standard, those are usually permanent), move them around, etc. They also have a lot of melee AE. Way more so than the brute, which has a handful of "Hit enemies in this particular arc" cards. The Cragheart has a ton of "Do damage to everything around you", with the caveat that most of those abilities also affect allies (which again, is non-standard. There is no friendly fire by default). The result is a character that it seems like should play like a bruiser character, but is really more about tactically manipulating the battlefield.

And now we get to the character I've been playing the most, the Vermling Mindthief. Vermling are rat people with psychic abilities, and hoo boy is the Mindthief fun. This is another "Big bag of nasty tricks" class. I guess in D&D terms, the best starting point is that he's a rogue, except a rogue if you're playing with the psionics rules. He's primarily a melee fighter, and has a series of cards that provide mutually exclusive powerful buffs to his melee attacks, but he's also got a pretty good selection of ranged abilities, many of which incapacitate the enemy with various debuffs, and then conveniently enough he's got a series of abilities that deal more damage to an enemy based on the number of debuffs on it. On top of that, he's got one of the few low level summon spells in the form of a rat swarm, which is actually damaging, unlock the tinkerers robot buddy. And it poisons them to boot. More delicious debuffs to take advantage of. And if that wasn't enough for you, he can also manipulate the enemies. One of his cards lets you move the enemies around at long range, so you can march them into traps, or move ranged fighters into disadvantageous melee, etc. Oh yeah, and he has a level 4 ability called cranium overload that just straight up kills a non-elite enemy and does AE damage to everything around them as they are pelted by shards of flying skull. I never knew how much I wanted a fantasy class that involves both Wilfred-ing a giant swarm of rats against their enemies and also detonating their heads Scanners style, but man, now I *really* want to get to level 4.

That last bit brings up one of the (many) things I like about this game. There is a strong correlation between abilities and theme. I don't need art on the cranium overload card, because its ability and name make it so obvious what is happening. I come from a role playing background though, so I'm used to having to make up these little scenes in my head without the benefit of art. I guess it might be more of an issue for someone approaching this from the board game side of things.

Another thing I love about this game is that it is probably the most accurate simulation of what a melee is actually like. I haven't actually found myself in the position to be fighting a lot of bandits in my life, but it seems to me that if I were, it would not involve a lot of shouting to my friends "Ok, you're five squares away from him, why don't you walk over there, and then on my turn I'll backstab him". The hidden planning and simultaneous reveal of cards means that you do not know exactly what your friends are going to be doing. The table talk rule suggests that you just talk in terms of generalities. "I'm going to try to hit that guy" "I'm going to go relatively late in the turn order", etc. and I would strongly suggest you play that way. The result feels chaotic. You have the perfect plan, but then that god damned Cragheart just tossed a boulder in your way, etc. Even without friendly fire, there are still lots of ways you can trip over each other. But because each class has a fairly fixed set of abilities (at least until they level up) as you get experience with your party, you start knowing what to expect out of them and you become a more cohesive unit. This also removes the quarterbacking problem that's prevalent in cooperative games. And if you don't want to do that for some reason, well, there's solo friendly optional rules where you play with perfect information, and increase the scenario difficulty to compensate for that. I can't imagine that's nearly as fun though.

Oh, here's another fun feature that solves a common legacy problem. You can play this with multiple playgroups. The game is really about the world evolving as a whole. Characters will come and go as they complete their personal quests. In a similar vein, you can have multiple adventuring parties in the world at once. The first game I played involved my usual gaming group trying the first scenario and getting their ass kicked (I blame our scoundrel who thought opening the door to the second room while there were still enemies in the first one was a good idea). Then last night, a friend was over and expressed interest, so we went through that scenario again and won. We got some experience and a personal achievement that unlocks the catacombs beneath that scenario, but we also found a map that leads to a new side scenario. If I play this again with that first group, then once they're done licking their wounds at the inn, they won't be able to do that first scenario again, because it's been defeated, and they don't have the personal achievement to unlock the catacombs, but when they fold out the map, they'll see that there is now a mysterious volcano sticker on it. Maybe they'll go explore that instead (I know I want to on that character, because my spellweaver's personal quest involves getting different elemental essences from different areas of the world). This is probably a bad idea early in the campaign, because there aren't really enough scenarios unlocked yet to support many simultaneous adventure parties, but there is always the option to play a scenario in "casual mode" without the story elements, so they could do scenario one again, but it wouldn't be the bandit infested barrow that the merchant wanted us to recover her missing scrolls from, it would just be another random bandit infested barrow, or there is always the option to do a random scenario. There are terrain and monster randomizer cards provided. Later in the campaign, it seems that enough quests open up that there are several plot threads dangling and different adventuring groups could be tugging on each of those separately.

[Goldenmean]

Anybody here played T.I.M.E Stories?

I have. It's ... interesting, and I'd be happy to keep playing new scenarios for it (and will keep buying them), but I think most of my group burnt out on it pretty hard. The problem is really that the design has tedium baked into it. You run through a scenario, and you almost certainly fail it, unless you're incredibly lucky and take all of the "right" paths the first time, but it's neat. The story is decent. You're puzzling stuff out. So you play again, and that's still pretty interesting because you're exploring areas you didn't get to before, or you're trying different responses to things, so you see new content, but you probably fail again, and that's where the problem starts, because on your third run you're just going "Ok, we need the key from there, and then we need to get to that room, but not before picking up the doo-whangle from that room", etc. and you're just grinding through the formula you've figured out until you get to new stuff near the end of the scenario, and if you fail again, it's even worse on the next go round.

It does have its good points though. I did enjoy all of them the first time through, even the more combat heavy ones (combat in this is not terribly interesting). There are some genuinely neat little adventure game style puzzles. There seems to be some sort of overarching narrative between the different scenarios, and I'm always a sucker for an ongoing narrative, so I want to keep playing to find out what happens.

This is also a really bad "bang for your buck" ratio as far as board games go. I think the scenarios are 25$ or so? You will get maybe 2 good hours of enjoyment out of that and then probably a few hours of "Oh god, this again" out of it, and then you will be done. Permanently. You will never want to play that scenario again. You will never particularly want to think about that scenario again. I had like one moment of "Oh yeah, I liked that" reminiscence while writing this up and a bunch of "Ugh, the fourth hour of that sucked". If you split the costs that's still better than a night at the movies, but compared to other board games, that's a miserable "Fun per dollar" ratio.

[Goldenmean]

Sort of curious because I've seen a couple of people now talk about not liking the look of Gloomhaven, and I'm curious as to why. Dislike the art style? Dislike the lack of art? Dislike the graphic design? Something else? I'm not racing to its defense or anything. This is just something that genuinely does not register much for me, and I'm curious. I've been playing games since the original D&D and Avalon Hill days, and those had sub-laughable art, so I think maybe everything just seems good by comparison when I notice the form over function at all.

[Khaldun]

Thanks, confirms what I'd heard about T.I.M.E Stories, that people really like the writing but that the design is frustrating. I think a lot of the story-based games seem to have this problem? Something you'd tolerate or even like a lot in a video game (often because you can return to a save point just before a divergence/choice/failure) is really annoying as a boardgame-type experience, and also gets exhausted way faster.

[Goldenmean]

Thanks, confirms what I'd heard about T.I.M.E Stories, that people really like the writing but that the design is frustrating. I think a lot of the story-based games seem to have this problem? Something you'd tolerate or even like a lot in a video game (often because you can return to a save point just before a divergence/choice/failure) is really annoying as a boardgame-type experience, and also gets exhausted way faster.

In the case of Time Stories, its mostly because you are forced to do the busywork to make the universe work that the computer does for you in an adventure game. Walking from one room to another in a fictional computer version of Time Stories would be a few milliseconds of load time. Walking from one room to another in the board game version involves pulling out a separate deck of cards, laying them out, etc. It's better than a computer game the first time because the physical components force you to engage more with the experience than you would on the computer (at least for me), but subsequent times, that part drops away because you're not getting any new information, but the tedium of physically manipulating the cards never drops.

[schild]

I'm a little baffled at the aesthetics that result in someone finding Cave Evil attractive, but thinking Gloomhaven is too ugly to purchase, but to each their own.

Well. Cave Evil is the result of aesthetic choices and design. Gloomhaven just looks like it was put together by people who are artistically bankrupt.

[lamaros]

I'm a little baffled at the aesthetics that result in someone finding Cave Evil attractive, but thinking Gloomhaven is too ugly to purchase, but to each their own.

Well. Cave Evil is the result of aesthetic choices and design. Gloomhaven just looks like it was put together by people who are artistically bankrupt.

While remembering that schild thinks Affliction Clothing is 'teh awesome'; one has an (unattractive) aesthetic executed pretty well, one looks like it was put together by an intern using deviantart freebies.

[schild]

You mean when I was a 23 year old alcoholic and lived in Arizona? Land of Affliction Clothing and tribal tattoos and before they went bonkers gaudy shit clothes? Yes.

I think it's more, remember I have a degree in the fine arts and Gloomhaven is fucking ugly.

[lamaros]

Gloomhaven is fucking ugly.

Let's agree to agree.

[ghost]

Neither Gloomhaven or Cave Evil really turn my crank when it comes to artwork, but neither of them have anything on the god awful pile of shit that is Ascension, particularly the earlier sets.

 

[Goldenmean]

Neither Gloomhaven or Cave Evil really turn my crank when it comes to artwork, but neither of them have anything on the god awful pile of shit that is Ascension, particularly the earlier sets.

I met someone once who actively liked early Ascension art. Not tolerated. Not "Tried to ignore". Actively liked. I thought I had fallen into a parallel universe. Also, as bad as Ascension is, my gold standard is still, and will probably always be early Galactic Empires, which I will just let speak for itself.

[schild]

Early Ascension is wretched. New Ascension is p bad.

They owe me a bunch of shit from their Kickstarter.

Galactic empires is real bad. Early Magic at least had charm (stasis, etc). Jyhad, Netrunner, etc tho, what a fucking mess.

[eldaec]

Sort of curious because I've seen a couple of people now talk about not liking the look of Gloomhaven, and I'm curious as to why. Dislike the art style? Dislike the lack of art? Dislike the graphic design? Something else? I'm not racing to its defense or anything. This is just something that genuinely does not register much for me, and I'm curious. I've been playing games since the original D&D and Avalon Hill days, and those had sub-laughable art, so I think maybe everything just seems good by comparison when I notice the form over function at all.

Graphic design I find uninspiring but fine, it is at least clean  and readable. The art has two issues, first everyone in it is ugly by design - I assume it is intended to signify the gloomhaven equivalent of grimdark; second the choice to represent 'gloom' by low and flat light levels makes everything boring to look at.

If you make an economic game about brown and green cubes it wouldn't be much of a thing, but in an rpg...

[Sky]

I think it's more, remember I have a degree in the fine arts and Gloomhaven is fucking ugly.

While I'm no fancy goddamned pants, even my little bit of study of anatomy and gesture has made me fucking hate 90% of deviantart and fantasy artists.

(I don't think my stuff is good, either...but I'm a padawan learner and not trying to hock it to some company...)

Everyone wants to draw, nobody wants to put in the work to draw well.

[Lucas]

So, I'm undecided between the following games with a solo variant included. Anyone can offer advice on these?

- Glass Road
- At the Gates of Loyang
- Viticulture
- Freedom:The Underground Railroad

Yep, as you can see they're mostly euro-games because I want to scratch that itch, since I don't own any of them, yet. I would have added GMT's Blackbeard and Navajo Wars, but regarding the former, for now I'm happy with Merchants&Marauders and its expansion (and a very good solo variant that I found on BGG), and the latter (which I heard great things about) is basically nowhere to be found on the italian soil (when I'll cave in I'll probably buy it from an overseas store).

"Glass Road" seems quite nice and far from the complexity and length of some of the Uwe Rosenberg's games; same with "Loyang".  Again, it looks like almost everyone loves "Freedom" as a solo game and Viticulture (along with the Tuscany expansion) has quite a unique theme.

[Goldenmean]

So, I'm undecided between the following games with a solo variant included. Anyone can offer advice on these?

- Glass Road
- At the Gates of Loyang
- Viticulture
- Freedom:The Underground Railroad

Own them all, but I haven't played Freedom yet aside from a sample round or two, and I haven't fully explored all of the Tuscany expansions for Viticulture (there's like 10 of them). It's been quite a while since I played Loyang as well. I think that Freedom is going to offer a very different solo experience than the other three. Freedom is a co-op to begin with, so the solo mode is going to be basically identical to the multiplayer mode. If you like GMT games, Freedom is going to offer an experience pretty close to those

Of the other three, I'd personally rate Loyang lowest. It's not a bad game, but it also didn't particularly hook me at all. I just had to pull it off the shelf to spark my memory of it, so that's probably slightly telling. I feel that Glass Road is easily superior to it, though they are fairly different games. It's worth noting that the solitaire mode in both of those is just going to be of the "Tally your points and try to beat your previous high score" variety. Maybe that appeals to you, but it's always felt a little hollow to me. Viticulture on the other hand has "Automa" cards, so you're actually playing against an AI of sorts. IIRC, it also has some different difficulty levels, so you can tune it. In addition, it has the benefit of having a very modular play experience, because Tuscany has different variants you can plug into the base game (not all of them work solitaire though).

I think my personal purchase priority for those for purely solitaire play would go Viticulture > Freedom > Glass Road > Loyang. But I am a sucker for new stuff, so that's probably artificially inflating Viticulture's numbers (FWIW, for multiplayer play, my ratings would go Glass Road > Viticulture > Freedom > Loyang)

[Goldenmean]

Graphic design I find uninspiring but fine, it is at least clean  and readable. The art has two issues, first everyone in it is ugly by design - I assume it is intended to signify the gloomhaven equivalent of grimdark; second the choice to represent 'gloom' by low and flat light levels makes everything boring to look at.

If you make an economic game about brown and green cubes it wouldn't be much of a thing, but in an rpg...

Hrm. I can't disagree with any of that, but I haven't worn a piece of non black clothing in about twenty years, so maybe the muted palette just doesn't bother me the way it does other people. And it's funny, but I almost feel the opposite about styles of games. The action of an RPG or of a highly thematic combat game like this is taking place almost entirely in my head anyway, so the actual board presence is secondary to me. Short of a dungeon masters screen, most of the actual RPGs I played didn't have any art showing at all unless you're counting some crude map drawn on graph paper. Whereas with a euro-y economic game, there's not really a ton to hook my imagination, so I'd rather the pieces were more vibrant.

Anyway, thanks for responding.

[Soln]

FWIW all this sparky chat on Gloomhaven now has me interested in the game.

In other news, my unpunched copy of Case Blue came yesterday.  Now I just need another lifetime to play it.

[Lucas]

So, I'm undecided between the following games with a solo variant included. Anyone can offer advice on these?

- Glass Road
- At the Gates of Loyang
- Viticulture
- Freedom:The Underground Railroad

Own them all, but I haven't played Freedom yet aside from a sample round or two, and I haven't fully explored all of the Tuscany expansions for Viticulture (there's like 10 of them). It's been quite a while since I played Loyang as well. I think that Freedom is going to offer a very different solo experience than the other three. Freedom is a co-op to begin with, so the solo mode is going to be basically identical to the multiplayer mode. If you like GMT games, Freedom is going to offer an experience pretty close to those

Of the other three, I'd personally rate Loyang lowest. It's not a bad game, but it also didn't particularly hook me at all. I just had to pull it off the shelf to spark my memory of it, so that's probably slightly telling. I feel that Glass Road is easily superior to it, though they are fairly different games. It's worth noting that the solitaire mode in both of those is just going to be of the "Tally your points and try to beat your previous high score" variety. Maybe that appeals to you, but it's always felt a little hollow to me. Viticulture on the other hand has "Automa" cards, so you're actually playing against an AI of sorts. IIRC, it also has some different difficulty levels, so you can tune it. In addition, it has the benefit of having a very modular play experience, because Tuscany has different variants you can plug into the base game (not all of them work solitaire though).

I think my personal purchase priority for those for purely solitaire play would go Viticulture > Freedom > Glass Road > Loyang. But I am a sucker for new stuff, so that's probably artificially inflating Viticulture's numbers (FWIW, for multiplayer play, my ratings would go Glass Road > Viticulture > Freedom > Loyang)

Thank you for your great advices: I opted for "Viticulture" but I'm sure I'll eventually purchase Freedom too in the next few months :)

[eldaec]

Freedom lacked mych replay value for us. It is a fantastic example of how to deal with a theme like that, but honestly I can't recommend buying it over more Pandemic expansions.

[ghost]

FWIW all this sparky chat on Gloomhaven now has me interested in the game.

In other news, my unpunched copy of Case Blue came yesterday.  Now I just need another lifetime to play it.

Just sit on it for five years, sell it and retire. 

[Hawkbit]

Ah, regarding the "focus" action introduced by MoM, expansion arrived today, just in time (I already own the two smaller ones, Forsaken Lore and Strange Remnants)  .

Finally, about the investigators, yup, I'll probably go with Charlie Kane (the one that allows you to hand out an asset card you just acquired throughout the appropriate action) but pick the other three randomly to add some useless pain in the ass spice 

Hey, I have the base Eldritch Horror game and I'm thinking about adding in the two smaller expansions that you mentioned, Forsaken Lore and Strange Remnants. Is that okay, or would you recommend adding the expansions sequentially?

It looks like MoM adds adventures that I don't think I can use with Strange Remnants.

[Lucas]

Ah, regarding the "focus" action introduced by MoM, expansion arrived today, just in time (I already own the two smaller ones, Forsaken Lore and Strange Remnants)   .

Finally, about the investigators, yup, I'll probably go with Charlie Kane (the one that allows you to hand out an asset card you just acquired throughout the appropriate action) but pick the other three randomly to add some useless pain in the ass spice  

Hey, I have the base Eldritch Horror game and I'm thinking about adding in the two smaller expansions that you mentioned, Forsaken Lore and Strange Remnants. Is that okay, or would you recommend adding the expansions sequentially?

It looks like MoM adds adventures that I don't think I can use with Strange Remnants.

So:

- "Forsaken Lore" was the first expansion to core EH and it's basically unskippable if you like the game: it adds a good amount of cards to every encounter deck (if you have some games already under your belt you probably noticed repetition and thin decks) and also 2-3 new mystery cards to every Great Old One in the core set (yep, including "basic" Azathoth, the so called "tutorial GOO" :P). As you can see by reading its contents, it also adds a new GOO, new mythos cards etc.

- "Strange Remnants" came after MoM; it builds on some features added by the big box expansion, but it's perfectly playable standalone, meaning you can go ahead and add it to core EH + Forsaken Lore because those new features are explained on the small rulebook of Strange Remnants too. For example, the newly introduced "Prelude Cards ": If you only purchase SR you'll have a 4-cards Prelude deck; with MoM+SR you'll be able to draw from a 10-card Prelude deck. "Focus action" is another feature introduced by MoM that came with focus tokens, that are included in SR too, so you're all set on that front as well.

If you don't purchase MoM, you'll miss on the new side-board, but that's a whole different (and non-mandatory) thing.
-------------

In conclusion, it's just a matter of increasing your decks and having more choices and variety during games.

[Hawkbit]

Thanks! That's perfect. I'm going to add the two smaller boxes first I think.

How much overhead did MoM add in your plays? I've watched a few playthroughs and it seems to add a lot that confuses people.

[eldaec]

Ah, regarding the "focus" action introduced by MoM, expansion arrived today, just in time (I already own the two smaller ones, Forsaken Lore and Strange Remnants)  .

Finally, about the investigators, yup, I'll probably go with Charlie Kane (the one that allows you to hand out an asset card you just acquired throughout the appropriate action) but pick the other three randomly to add some useless pain in the ass spice 

Hey, I have the base Eldritch Horror game and I'm thinking about adding in the two smaller expansions that you mentioned, Forsaken Lore and Strange Remnants. Is that okay, or would you recommend adding the expansions sequentially?

It looks like MoM adds adventures that I don't think I can use with Strange Remnants.

I'd recommend the small expansions over the large ones. There is also a third one.

They don't need to be added sequentially.

The large expansions introduce side boards that I'm not a huge fan of.

[Lucas]

Thanks! That's perfect. I'm going to add the two smaller boxes first I think.

How much overhead did MoM add in your plays? I've watched a few playthroughs and it seems to add a lot that confuses people.

Sorry, still have to try out MoM :)

Yeah, I imagine that "Signs of Carcosa", the other smaller one, follows a similar logic.

[Hawkbit]

Thanks for the advice, all! Good info.

[Lucas]

Meanwhile, for me it's love at first sight with Viticulture. Love everything, from the box art, to the quality of illustrations of the main board and personal ones, the mechanics of the game and how it tries to simulate the theme 

[schild]

See, that's hot garbage to me also, but it's a euro worker placement so it's totally ignorable.

Pret-A-Porter really raised the bar for worker placement art though: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/87890/pret-porter

And it's 7 years old.

[MrHat]

See, that's hot garbage to me also, but it's a euro worker placement so it's totally ignorable.

Pret-A-Porter really raised the bar for worker placement art though: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/87890/pret-porter

And it's 7 years old.

I have that! We went through a phase where we played it every weekend.  That game is fantastic.

It's also considered a collectible I think, last I checked a used copy goes for like $180.

[ghost]

Yes, goes for that much.  I haven't played my copy, but bought it at Schild's recommendation.  I would sell it for $180...

[schild]

You should play it, it's exceptional.

[ghost]

I'm sure I will at some point.  You've seen what's in my collection.  

Have to wait until I get done with my residency and the boy gets a little older.  And I need to meet some nerds in Shreveport.


You should have picked up that copy of 1989 for $15, by the way.  It's also selling for a fair amount.  

[schild]

So you ended up in Shreveport.

That's... something.

[ghost]

And will likely be here until I'm looking at the other side of the grass.   

Unfortunately, if you want to make money in what I do you have to live in a shithole, generally.