Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Flick 'em Up!» Forums » General

Subject: Scenario 2: why bother? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dan Conley
United States
Milwaukie
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Life is too short not to live it up a little!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, everyone! My adult sons and I get together now and then to do some gaming. Tonight, one of them wanted to return to Flick ‘Em Up after a long absence. We had only played scenario 1 up until now. So we tried #2...

We honestly couldn’t understand why we invested time in the scenario if you’re allowed to let the sheriff and the outlaw leader hole up most of the way. Why not just skip to the duel between the two and move on? While we did have some laughs shooting down the other cowboys, the point of this one is to take out the other leader.

Every time we play this game, we come away feeling like the rules could have been much improved and the game could be so much better. In this case, simply stating that the two leaders must spend alternating turns out of buildings before heading back to cover. It’s late and I’m tired, so not sure this is making much sense.

If my sons weren’t so busy with work and families, perhaps we could sit down and write house rules. But time doesn’t allow it. And seriously? I don’t feel like that should be on us. Perhaps better playtesting and a clearer rulebook from the company? That would have been nice.

Apologies for the rant. This game has SO much to offer, but I just feel that it falls short. Your thoughts are most welcomed to improve future games. Thanks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If one team decides to just hid their leader, then they're at a severe disadvantage in a gunfight if the other team is actually using theirs to fight. I would posit that the hiding leader will quickly be overwhelmed and have to deal with multiple duel attacks before the end of the game with such an imbalanced fight.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Conley
United States
Milwaukie
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Life is too short not to live it up a little!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Makes sense, Trevor. Thanks! In our case, both sides were being quite conservative with the leaders, so things were badly stalemated...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not a big fan of direct conflict games (war games/skirmish games). This of course doesn't count as it's an awesome dexterity game. But I imagine this is likely true for any game like this (as with RTS computer games). If everyone 'turtles' the game is likely going to drag out or reach the 'tie-breaker'.

But then I'd rather die taking 2 with me in Flick'Em Up, so I'm probably not the best voice of reason for sound strategy!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Young
United States
Orange Park
Florida
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
If one team decides to just hid their leader, then they're at a severe disadvantage in a gunfight if the other team is actually using theirs to fight. I would posit that the hiding leader will quickly be overwhelmed and have to deal with multiple duel attacks before the end of the game with such an imbalanced fight.


Yes, precisely!

In Flick 'em Up - toss 'deep strategy' out of the mix. You have to be responsive to the constantly changing game state. Scenario 2 isn't for turtling - fortune favors the bold!
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rolando
msg tools
mb
yosemite wrote:
Hi, everyone! My adult sons and I get together now and then to do some gaming. Tonight, one of them wanted to return to Flick ‘Em Up after a long absence. We had only played scenario 1 up until now. So we tried #2...

We honestly couldn’t understand why we invested time in the scenario if you’re allowed to let the sheriff and the outlaw leader hole up most of the way. Why not just skip to the duel between the two and move on? While we did have some laughs shooting down the other cowboys, the point of this one is to take out the other leader.

Every time we play this game, we come away feeling like the rules could have been much improved and the game could be so much better. In this case, simply stating that the two leaders must spend alternating turns out of buildings before heading back to cover. It’s late and I’m tired, so not sure this is making much sense.

If my sons weren’t so busy with work and families, perhaps we could sit down and write house rules. But time doesn’t allow it. And seriously? I don’t feel like that should be on us. Perhaps better playtesting and a clearer rulebook from the company? That would have been nice.

Apologies for the rant. This game has SO much to offer, but I just feel that it falls short. Your thoughts are most welcomed to improve future games. Thanks.


Interestingly, we just played this scenario with our kids: mom/dad vs son/daughter. My kids decided to barricade the outlaw and a bandit in one of the buildings. Wife and I went guns blazing with two of our cowboys while the other two protected the sheriff, who came out of the building and was placed in a corner behind some cover. He was basically there to pick off the other bandits, while being in deep cover.
The other two made it to the barricaded outlaws, each triggering a duel and both failing. So another cowboy tried to make it there, but the game ended before that, triggering a final duel, which the sheriff won when a flick slowly came to a stop, tapping the outlaw with barely enough momentum to knock him over. All in all, super fun.
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.