This Board Game Life Episode #015 – Wandering Dragons & Quarmageddons

//This Board Game Life Episode #015 – Wandering Dragons & Quarmageddons

This Board Game Life Episode #015 – Wandering Dragons & Quarmageddons

In this episode Jeff shares his favorite game store experience along with some discussion on two new board game stores that opened up at the same time just blocks away! (1:23)  Jeff then gets a bit pissed off at Sedition Wars (20:43) and reviews the new Quarriors! Quarmageddon expansion along with the base game. (30:06)

Rob talks about Monza (50:38) and the hosts then discuss Lost Cities (53:05), Zooloretto (59:11), and Saint Petersburg (1:04:41).  Rob and Jeff both share separate rants about Yucata.de (1:17:23) and then cover several games in the Game Lust segment including The Hunters: German U-Boats at War (1:23:25), World at War America Conquered (1:24:54), Conflict of Heroes 2nd Edition (1:26:00), Bloody Crossroads (1:26:25), Macao (1:27:08), Vegas (1:31:00) and Victory Point Games (1:31:55).  The hosts then conclude the show. (1:35:20)

Play
By | 2014-03-10T23:04:30+00:00 July 4th, 2012|9 Comments

About the Author:

9 Comments

  1. Alan Emrich July 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM - Reply

    Regarding Victory Point Games, you said that they "should really step it up for 2012." You need to know about our GOLD BANNER games. As of April, all our games come on thicker stock, with full-size cards, laser-cut counters that are thicker than Fantasy Flight's or found in Conflict of Heroes (and that's saying something), and full-color rules booklets. It's going to take a LONG time to retrofit all of our older titles, but we've released a half-dozen games in the new Gold Banner format, and I hope you will take a look at those and mention to your listeners that Victory Point Games has done what you've requested!

    Onward!

    Alan Emrich

  2. CarlG July 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM - Reply

    Hey guys! Just wanted to thank you for the great show! I really appreciate how you give reference points for each segment so I can easily jump to the points of interest for me.

    It was interesting to hear your takes on Yucata.de. I enjoy playing there myself and seem to go on streaks where i play there alot and then not at all. I don't mind the varying skill level found on there as I suscribe to the "you got to beat the best to be the best" mentality. Also, in the process of getting pounded hopefully I will pick up a thing or two from the experience.

    Speaking of Yucata.de I would be interested to hear your thoughts(if you haven't covered this in a previous show already) on the differences between online and face 2 face plays. As much as I enjoy Yucata.de I don't really consider it "playing a board game". This is for multiple reasons I think. 1) it isn't playing a board game, it is playing a computer game implementation of a boardgame. 2) because of the slow turn based format it isn't a fully involving experience. I am not necessarily fully engaged, and I have no way to know if my opponent is fully engaged either thus the feeling of competition is lessened. A loss or win on yucata doesn't feel the same as a loss or a win while playing an actual boardgame because of this. 3) I tend to play 2 player predominantly online but usually in person it's with 3 or 4. 4) I normally like games that are fairly involved but because of I might play a turn a day on Yucata.de I tend to prefer lighter games online. It's annoying to go through where I am in a certain game and where my opponents are as well every single turn. 5) I can't see my opponent and read their body language and emotions(this is a fairly minor point but there are times where your opponents visible nervousness alerts you to aspects of the game you miss at first glance). These are my feelings on online gaming and I am curious if you (and other listeners) have experienced something similar.

    Once again, thank you for the show, keep up the good work!!

    PS- I am interested to see what your take will be on Macao once you have gotten it played. For that game I tend to explain the way to get points first and then follow that with the order of play and then end by clarifying small details that I have missed along the way along with giving basic strategy tips to new players.

  3. E Charles July 5, 2012 at 4:46 AM - Reply

    Really enjoying this podcast lately, keep up the great work. One minor nitpick with Jeff who has an obnoxious rhetorical tic of saying "right?" at the end of many of his sentences during the episode. Other than than, love the show!

  4. Jeff July 11, 2012 at 8:16 PM - Reply

    Carl,

    Thanks again for the feedback. In regards to Yucata.de I definitely agree on all points and we have talked about Yucata quite a bit in past episodes. In fact so much that we are both trying to make a point NOT to bring it up any further for the time being. Rob assures me he has some interesting comments on his first plays of Macao. My thoughts on it were covered on our "All Things Feld" episode.

    E Charles,

    I'm glad you've been enjoying our podcast! I suppose the reason I at times say "right?" a lot is in order to provide an opening for Rob to comment. It's a lot easier with pre-scripted shows to know exactly when to interject with your question etc…but less so with a more "real" approach such as we use. I will certainly try to change it up more…

  5. E Charles July 16, 2012 at 4:52 AM - Reply

    Thanks Jeff. If you listen back, Rob rarely responds- rather than "what do you think Rob?", it comes off more like "no one can possibly disagree with what I'm saying.". Right? 😉

  6. Craig G July 21, 2012 at 9:17 PM - Reply

    I'm not sure I understand the argument against the Sedition Wars Kickstarter. Of course it's planned out ahead of time. That's what a Kickstarter is supposed to be: the machine is ready to go, it just needs the final kick. Isn't good pre-planning (Sedition Wars) better than under-planning (Ogre)? Note that CMoN sets the initial goal very low, because Kickstarter gives more exposure for higher pledge percentages.

    Most of the extra stuff will be available next year, so there really wasn't a reason to buy those things now. They also said the Kickstarter promo's would not be "canon", with several of them to be introduced in different form next year. Even if the base games sells discounted for $65 later on, you are still getting some cool, playable stuff for an extra $35 at the $100 biohazard level (no tax or shipping either). To me, the painting guide will be worth that.

  7. Craig G July 21, 2012 at 9:19 PM - Reply

    Also, why didn't you mention the two game stores near you by name?

  8. Jeff July 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM - Reply

    Well Im not entirely arguing against Sedition Wars. I did still back it. I simply reduced my pledge down from a million dollars j/k to just the $100. I guess I didn't like being nickle and dimed to death from that amount on upwards of $400 day by day as they announced yet another promo and stretch to go along with it. It is definitely borderline predatory practices and designed to take advantage of buyers weaknesses. Sure I'm "smarter than that" or perhaps you could say it just passed my threshold for what was tolerable. I thought Zombicide, by contrast, just pushed towards that grey area/line without actually crossing it. For me Sedition Wars did and I don't like the trend its setting since they went far far far beyond what they did with Zombicide and I don't think its good for anyone if more kickstarter games go the way of needing to spend $500 for everything they are peddling.

    In regards to the game stores, I did mention the main one, and the title of the show includes it. Its called "The Wandering Dragon" http://www.wanderingdragon.com
    The other one I have no particular reason to ever go to or talk about again so long as the Wandering Dragon is around (Which I continue to do what I can to help make sure that happens)…

  9. Royce Coppola March 10, 2014 at 7:51 PM - Reply

    Hi just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different web browsers and both show the same results.

Leave A Comment