|
Post by dave3 on Apr 13, 2009 14:32:15 GMT
Looking on Board Game Geek....what do people think to the game Twilight Imperium? Anyone have it? Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Apr 14, 2009 0:00:24 GMT
Next week I plan to play Tannhauser...any takers? can accommodate 10 players ( 9 + me!) Dave
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 14, 2009 8:01:14 GMT
Count me in DAve
So, make that 8 + you & me
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 14, 2009 8:37:08 GMT
If you want to buy Twilight Imperium, I'd quite like to play it. It one of those games that's been on my I should buy this sooner or later list for quite a while. It's supposed to be really good, with quite a lot of depth.
However it's not a short game, the handful of people that I know who do play it occassionally say that you should probably allow about a hours time per player, plus a little bit extra if there are any new players.
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Apr 14, 2009 17:00:14 GMT
Here is a thought. Some games are no doubt out of people's budgets, and the club does have a few games stored up stairs. Is there any call for the club buying one or two of the newer generation games? they will then be available for no shows, or short notice games. And Yes Twilight imperium interests me! I may get it at Campaign. Especially if there is interest to play it. Dave
|
|
|
Post by joeoe18 on Apr 15, 2009 0:38:11 GMT
Board games are played fairly regularly, so it certainly seems sensible for the club to purchase a couple of games.
Also, I'd certainly be up for trying out Twilight Imperium.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 17, 2009 10:27:59 GMT
There does seem to have been something of a renaissance with board games lately (hey, I've even bought a couple myself), so it would make sense for the club to purchase one or two of the newer ones
What's Peter's views on this? -- after all, he's got control of the purse strings
I don't know about Twilight Imperium as I've never seen it -- but on the "try anything once" principle, I'd happily give it a go
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Apr 17, 2009 11:50:17 GMT
Obviously this must be ratified by the committee, but I propose a budget of £150 for board games. Titles we could consider.... Doom, the board game Kingsburg Tribune Small World Memoir 44. Any other suggestions? Dave
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 17, 2009 12:09:54 GMT
I would suggest Agricola, which is a little similar to Kingsburg in feel, but with more strategic depth and less of a random factor.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 17, 2009 12:32:44 GMT
Obviously this must be ratified by the committee, but I propose a budget of £150 for board games. Titles we could consider.... Doom, the board game Kingsburg Tribune Small World Memoir 44. Any other suggestions? Dave I don't like this idea at all. The last time we did this (with RPG's) they were all stolen. I don't like the principal behind this. I can't afford all the miniatures I'd like to use - so should the club buy them for me to use at the club? Of course not. I could list quite a few boardgames that I'd like to play - should the club buy them, so I can use them at the club? I don't see the difference, so the answer is for me is again, of course not.
|
|
|
Post by joeoe18 on Apr 17, 2009 13:40:17 GMT
This makes some sense, but there are certainly arguments the other way. For a start, those members who play predominately board games and rpgs are paying exactly the same fees as wargamers but are not having nearly as much money spent on them. As far as I'm aware, the club has spent a fair amount of money buying terrain and other wargaming materials - certainly much more than £150. It makes sense to neglect other things when wargaming is in the vast majority, but given the new influx of interest in board games it only seems sensible to spread the budjet a little more evenly among the club's members. I don't like the principal behind this. I can't afford all the miniatures I'd like to use - so should the club buy them for me to use at the club? Of course not. Minis are not analogous to board games. They are considerably more expensive, require assembly, painting, and generally more individual input. They are also not as universal as board games, or as useful. Also, it's not that the club is buying things that individual people are after (as in your miniatures analogy), rather that they are purchasing a game that a significant portion of the club are all after (or at least agreed upon).
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 17, 2009 13:52:34 GMT
But I don't approve of the club buying terrain/figs either. Although it does make more sense if the club is going to provide some equipment then it should provide the equipment which is hardest to transport.
The argument that it's the role-players or boardgamers 'turn' is a load of old toot and if I recall was the reasoning behind buying the last lot of RPG stuff which was stolen. Not that I'm suggesting there's a deliberate plan to do the same again or anything even remotely like it, but the club lost a couple of hundreds of pounds worth of stuff last time. I argued against buying it then, and would again today.
As you say boardgames don't cost a lot when compared to a miniatures army, or even the rules. I think players should buy them for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by joeoe18 on Apr 17, 2009 14:44:23 GMT
But I don't approve of the club buying terrain/figs either. Although it does make more sense if the club is going to provide some equipment then it should provide the equipment which is hardest to transport. What should the club spend the money on then? That sort of stuff seems like it would be the most useful way of spending money, in that it's the sort of stuff that club members want to use on a regular basis. Boardgames might not be as useful, but I still think they would be used a reasonable amount. What sort of things would the large amount of cash in the club funds be used for if not things like terrain and board games? I'm not very experienced in these matters The argument that it's the role-players or boardgamers 'turn' is a load of old toot For what reason is it 'a load of old toot'? Worrying about them being stolen (given that there's a precedent) seems like a very valid concern. Is there any way, if they were bought, that theft could be discouraged?
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 17, 2009 15:01:09 GMT
I just wrote a massive post saying that I tend to think buying boardgames is a bad idea.
However, pragmatically, the club has a sizeable kitty at the moment and if the board gamers want to spend a small portion of that on things that are of interest to them then I haven't yet heard a better proposal for where the money should be spent.
I would however like to propose that we get some more of the D&D dungeon tiles, something Chris suggested and certainly fits as a club purchase.
What I don't like is this logic:
Should we start sharing the room rent 3 ways? Because I'd bet we don't do sufficient boardgaming to cover the ~£55pm share. To be completely 'fair' we would put a extra £1 a week onto the subs for anyone who predominantly boardgames and give predominantly wargamers a discount. Or do you really think that we should act as one club for expenses while simultaneously complaining that our specific interest didn't get its' 'share' of the pork?
|
|
|
Post by joeoe18 on Apr 17, 2009 15:32:17 GMT
Should we start sharing the room rent 3 ways? Because I'd bet we don't do sufficient boardgaming to cover the ~£55pm share. To be completely 'fair' we would put a extra £1 a week onto the subs for anyone who predominantly boardgames and give predominantly wargamers a discount. Or do you really think that we should act as one club for expenses while simultaneously complaining that our specific interest didn't get its' 'share' of the pork? I'm not trying to argue that the boardgamers deserve or contribute an equal amount as wargamers. In re-reading what I wrote above it might have appeared that this is what I was arguing, and that's my fault for being ambiguous. (N.B. When I say 'wargamers' and 'boardgamers' I don't literally mean that specific individuals belong exclusively to one sect or the other, obviously there is significant overlap.) Everyone contributes the same amount to the room hire because everyone makes roughly equal use of the room. The club is predominately wargaming, and so it certainly makes sense to spend a fair amount of the club's spare budget purchasing things for them. However, boardgamers do contribute something, and it seems correct that they should be attributed a roughly proportionate amount of money to subsidise their activities. For example: Given that there is a certain amount of money set aside to be spent of gaming subsidies (e.g. terrain, boardgames, etc), if wargamers contribute 90% of that fund then 90% of that money should be spent on them. If boardgamers are contributing 10% of that money then 10% of it should be spent on them. At the moment it seems that 0% of that fund is spent on boardgamers. --------- I'm not sure I necessarily agree with or believe that idea, but I certainly think it's worth arguing and exploring. Also, it's difficult to come up with counterarguments once you become entrenched in a position, so I'd really like to here why and if people agree or disagree with it.
|
|