Recommend
34 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Quarriors!» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Who put silly string in my deodorant? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
Like many here I am a many-time recovering and many-time relapsing board gaming (and general gaming) addict. I somehow always manage to rub enough copper pieces together to afford at least one new game each month and have over time amassed a collection which consists of most the usual suspects which make up the board gaming equivalent of Who’s Who. I have a pretty eclectic range of titles which broadly stand beneath the umbrella of “Theme does matter… kinda” and while I’ve pushed my fair share of wooden cubes about I’m not the kind of guy who gets excited by the prospect of spending 4 hours in order to determine who is the best seller of wheat during the late 1500s. That’s the kind of collector I am.

I’m always interested in new mechanics or ways of presenting old mechanics with a twist. This is partly because of the feeling you get when you play a worker placement or deck building game for the first time (“why did I not think of this?!”). Once you begin to take deeper strides into the hobby however you will soon realise that there are very few new ideas. Everything is essentially a re-hash or hybrid of other items which, like the longbow, have long since been removed from the secret weapons list. However just like the guy who uses his palms to sand down the thigh area of his trousers every time he sees a newer and faster sports car, I am always a little bit more than interested by new and shiny things which turn old cogs in new ways. That’s the kind of gamer I am.

So, enter Quarriors, which despite having a daft name (what is this? a militarised unit of elite miners?) sounds most intriguing indeed. A deck building dice game you say? Variable versions for each dice you say?! 130 beautiful dice you say?!! Best sign me up as a miner and begin my training in the secret ways of dual wielding a pick axe and shovel, because it looks I’m digging up gold tonight!

“Yeeehaaaa.....oh”

It turns out however that Quarriors is much like the Beijing Olympics, where the opening ceremony was rather fancy and the structures and buildings appeared architecturally very impressive BUT there was still undoubtedly “something missing”. For Quarriors… well the issue is for me is mediocre implementation of a very clever reimaging of an already innovative idea.

To explain my point let’s look at the way Dominion works (and no… this is not me saying I want to play Dominion when I’m playing Quarriors, because I don’t. This is something I will get to later). Very few cards in Dominion do “everything” and those which do don’t do all these things better than everything else. You need a number of cards to get a huge amount of money, actions and buys. This is done with very good reason… It forces you to balance the choices you are making now with those you will make in the future. If you buy to a load of victory point cards to early you will become bogged down and lose.

Now let’s look at one of the standard “Quake Dragon” card... Ok so I’m holding this card in my hands which on average has more attack and more defence than other dice, produces the joint most glory (4), has some pretty powerful special abilities and even has a good chance of producing a respectable amount of cash on its weaker faces. It does everything and it does it all better than almost all other dice.

Of course this dice is expensive, but that’s not the point (not to mention that with a bit of luck you can still buy one on your first turn). If you look back at Dominion as a comparison even the most expensive cards can’t singularly achieve what this dice can.

It such a shame that the dice were not more clearly defined by the rolls they could fill. A powerful “Dragon” type card should be great at knocking out your opponents dice but off little or no reward for its owner. Conversely a dice with weak defence would be a prime candidate for something which earns you a sizable amount of glory should it cross the line. There should be more dice which buff other dice, dice which allow you to cull your own dice and in general more dice which allow you to manipulate what you get after you roll. These thing do not have to be over blown with complicated rules either.

Think of it as having player positions upon a football (i’m talking soccer here) pitch. Everyone fills a roll and works together as a unit. You can’t simply buy 11 strikers and plop them down on the field.

The fact is that many dice are simply better than others and if you roll enough cash you have almost no reason not to buy the best possible card at that level of expense.

Now I can see people saying “this is not dominion” and this is true. I don’t want to play dominion nor do I expect this to be something which shows luck the door. However simply saying “this is a dice game, thus it is random and crrrraaaaazzzzy!” does not wash with me. There are innumerable games which use dice and allow you to manipulate the rolls in a number of clever ways (Kingsburg and Alien Frontier for example).

I hate to see a mechanical opportunity such as this go to waste. I feel as though I’m a caveman who has been given a power drill which has been modified with an “Awesomely random!” egg whisker attachment. I can see a power drill beneath all the wildly splattering yoke and I’m left sitting here in my cave. I’m wondering just how they got this thing so close to greatness and yet got things so totally wrong.

I think you can tell that something has been rushed out the asylum door when the number of players posting variants to fix some of these underlying issues is so great.

There will perhaps be more expansions in the future which bring more sensible cards to the table. However, this won’t change the fact that the base set is full of square pegs in a land of round holes.

I will now quantify the above by saying this... I do not believe that this is a terrible game, I am however certain that this is a game which has inexplicably missed a golden opportunity.

Give me a power drill... and a power socket as well while you’re at it!
35 
 Thumb up
0.26
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Goodridge
United States
Windsor Locks
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Currently at 1:2 ratio, getting better every week
badge
I don't want it, I don't need it, but I can't stop myself. - Stabbing Westward
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmmm. Someone else who independently noticed some of the GPs should be reversed? Inconceivable!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kiren Maelwulf
Canada
Richmond
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:

To explain my point let’s look at the way Dominion works (and no… this is not me saying I want to play Dominion when I’m playing Quarriors, because I don’t. This is something I will get to later). Very few cards in Dominion do “everything” and those which do don’t do all these things better than everything else. You need a number of cards to get a huge amount of money, actions and buys. This is done with very good reason… It forces you to balance the choices you are making now with those you will make in the future. If you buy to a load of victory point cards to early you will become bogged down and loose.


Lets not kid ourselves Dominion has a very clearly defined line between powerhouse cards and situational cards. Games of Dominion often end with all involved players having similar decks because the choices to best optimize your deck are fairly obvious.

Quote:
Now let’s look at one of the standard “Quake Dragon” card... Ok so I’m holding this card in my hands which on average has more attack and more defence than other dice, produces the joint most glory (4), has some pretty powerful special abilities and even at has a good chance of producing a respectable amount of cash on its weaker faces. It does everything and it does it all better than almost all other dice.

Of course this dice is expensive, but that’s not the point (not to mention that with a bit of luck you can still buy one on your first turn). If you look back at Dominion as a comparison even the most expensive cards can’t singularly achieve what this dice can.


The price point is a huge factor when considering any Dragon card. They are powerful but also on average you will not be buying one every second turn, they usually end up being late game buys more often than not. Dominion on the other hand has it's early luck swings as well. Depending what is on the field a 5/2 split can give a huge advantage. An early witch pull for example can turn your opponents chances into an uphill battle very early on in the game. As Quarriors only has a base game I tend to only refer to Dominions base game as well but later expansions have cards that can cause games to become onesided even faster. Possession comes to mind as a big one, I would say far more capable of outright winning a game than a Dragon.

Quote:
It such a shame that the dice were not more clearly defined by the rolls they could fill. A powerful “Dragon” type card should be great at knocking out your opponents dice but off little or no reward for its owner. Conversely a dice with weak defence would be a prime candidate for something which earns you a sizable amount of glory should it cross the line. There should be more dice which buff other dice, dice which allow you to cull your own dice and in general more dice which allow you to manipulate what you get after you roll. These thing do not have to be over blown with complicated rules either.


This seems like the difference between having the game flow smoothy and quickly as it currently does and making it MTG with dice. A lot of spell and creature roles are defined by their effects and there is enough synergy to warrent the purchase of certain combos. Keep in mind the base game of Dominion was very simplistic with pretty obvious choices, it was the expansions that really opened up the game.

Quote:
The fact is that many dice are simply better than others and if you roll enough cash you have almost no reason not to buy the best possible card at that level of expense.


It depends how much you roll. If you roll 8 or 9 then yes there are not that many cards at that price point currently and you will probably grab the best one. In the mid range there are more choices. Of course in Dominion assuming it isnt nearing the end game if you draw $6 often times you buy a gold, $5 you buy the best 5 costing card available.

Quote:
There are innumerable games which use dice and allow you to manipulate the rolls in a number of clever ways (Kingsburg and Alien Frontier for example).


Which is a limited usage for assistants that have a small chance for rerolls but of course a major use of dice like shaping and portal which offer additional draws and rolls, giving a huge boost in the average quality of your rolls.

Quote:
I think you can tell that something has been rushed out the asylum door when the number of players posting variants to fix some of these underlying issues is so great.


That could be said about every game on BGG. Granted it has been out far longer but Dominion has 65 pages of variants.

Quote:
There will perhaps be more expansions in the future which bring more sensible cards to the table.


Oh I am sure there will be expansions that add some great things. For the fans of the game that is. If you don't like the game I don't think there is much that can be done about it.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
This game grows on me each time I play it (only four plays so far), but I do agree with the general sentiment that it would be interesting to have some of the more powerful cards be a bit weaker in at least some respects (e.g., by reducing GPs). But even the base game has several ways to deal with even super-high-defense cards. Whether you get them in a timely fashion -- well that just comes down to luck sometimes as it should.

I would be interested to see a future expansion that makes cards even more specialized, for example maybe a card that really targets high-power cards, or Dragons, or whatever.

Interested to see where it goes though. The points re base Dominion in here are quite valid imo. Look forward to Quarriors rounding itself out into a great game as well, even if it takes a few expansion. Base Quarriors is fun enough by itself to keep me playing though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
Kirenx wrote:

Lets not kid ourselves Dominion has a very clearly defined line between powerhouse cards and situational cards. Games of Dominion often end with all involved players having similar decks because the choices to best optimize your deck are fairly obvious.

Agreed, but my point was not to imply that no one card in Dominion is better than another (that is of course silly). I think it’s safe to say however that exactly which card is best often (though admittedly not always) depends on the other cards on the table as well and how many of those synergising cards you are able to get into your deck.

I also agree that a game of Dominion is often determined by the player who A) notices the most powerful combination of cards and B) gets lucky enough to acquire enough of them first.

However for me the big difference here is that cards depend on one another a lot more than the dice do in Quarriors do because no one card can do everything (or at least not better than everything else while it does so).

I’m also not oblivious to the fact that the “just buy money” argument also existed in dominion once upon a time.

I’m not saying your without a point, I just believe that things are more black and white in Quarriors when a couple of more refined choices could really have thrown a lot more grey in there.

I can also see that this is supposed to be a bit more silly and random and quick affair than Dominion, I just happen to believe that it took the wrong way to achieve that result.
Kirenx wrote:

This seems like the difference between having the game flow smoothy and quickly as it currently does and making it MTG with dice. A lot of spell and creature roles are defined by their effects and there is enough synergy to warrent the purchase of certain combos. Keep in mind the base game of Dominion was very simplistic with pretty obvious choices, it was the expansions that really opened up the game.

I disagree here, defining cards by role is essentially breaking down a workshop into its various tools. This is exactly the philosophy which Dominion wisely chose to follow with its base game, you have to get your hammer, your nails and your wood before you can make a frame for your chair... then you can think of what kind of cushion you want to rest you cheeks on. None of this needs be MTG in any way, simply a more elegant set of design choices made with the base set.
Kirenx wrote:

That could be said about every game on BGG. Granted it has been out far longer but Dominion has 65 pages of variants.

I would put forward that most a great deal of the initial variant posts for Dominion where simply new cards ideas not “lets balance this thing up because the core mechanics are a bit wonky”.
Kirenx wrote:

Oh I am sure there will be expansions that add some great things. For the fans of the game that is. If you don't like the game I don't think there is much that can be done about it.

I probably did not qualify enough that I don’t dislike the game. I just think that the game really missed a great opportunity and that frustrate me. I thought that a review which voices this frustration would be useful to people. I may however be wrong.

This is my first review after all. lol
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
Cardboardjunkie wrote:
Hmmm. Someone else who independently noticed some of the GPs should be reversed? Inconceivable!


"I do not think this word means what you think it means" hehe

Still i agree, this is an issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gastel Etswane
Canada
Peterborough
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Well done review. I find too many of the reviews for this game are just straight negative and don't seem to embrace that this is a game with a great deal of luck involved.

However, I agree completely with your assessment that the middle ground was missed. I would have liked more middle strength dice with a wide variety of powers.

The good thing though, is it is easy to fix these problems by house-ruling the different dice and making your own glory points / burst or standard rules. All that needs modification is a single card (if you want to go to that extreme - a piece of paper with modifications would work too).

Again, great review.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M C
United States
Honolulu
HI
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you for the review!
I read one similar review, I think between these two Quarriors has been pushed squarely into the "do not buy" category.

one nit picky thing, I think you mean lose, not loose.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
sirius23 wrote:
Thank you for the review!
I read one similar review, I think between these two Quarriors has been pushed squarely into the "do not buy" category.

one nit picky thing, I think you mean lose, not loose.


I would not say "do not buy this game" but I would say that you should know what you are getting if you choose to.

Ultimately this game has a sound idea behind it, its just that it does not (in my opinion) deploy the best execution of that idea.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
Gastel wrote:
Well done review. I find too many of the reviews for this game are just straight negative and don't seem to embrace that this is a game with a great deal of luck involved.

However, I agree completely with your assessment that the middle ground was missed. I would have liked more middle strength dice with a wide variety of powers.

The good thing though, is it is easy to fix these problems by house-ruling the different dice and making your own glory points / burst or standard rules. All that needs modification is a single card (if you want to go to that extreme - a piece of paper with modifications would work too).

Again, great review.


Thanks :)

I guess I that is my main problem with Quarriors... it feel like they wanted to make a very "entry level" game but though doing so wasted a great opportunity to present something which really took advantage of the system they had designed.

I will stress once again however that the intention of my review was not label this as “A bad game”. Quarriors is simply something I would recommend trying before buying. It may not be what you are expecting or ultimately hoping for.

Really glad you liked the review!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M C
United States
Honolulu
HI
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:


I would not say "do not buy this game"



Don't worry, I didn't take it that way. I think its a very fair sounding review. I am now pretty certain this is not the game I was hoping it would be. Thanks for helping me figure that out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Kløve
Denmark
Hillerød
flag msg tools
badge
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cardboardjunkie wrote:
Hmmm. Someone else who independently noticed some of the GPs should be reversed? Inconceivable!


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The review left me with two impressions, unfortunately both negative. I don't think the designers are any way at fault for not creating the game so that your expectations are met. My only expectation was to have fun playing a game with dice. Quarriors is all of that for me.

The second thing is a couple of points I think you completely missed about the Dragon. First of all, unlike Dominion, the Dragon doesn't always do something very powerful. In Dominion a card always does the same thing every time you get it. Thus power needs to be ramped up in Quarriors. Secondly, if we can try to drag this into some type of a real instead of abstract setting, if we are in a battle and I have a Dragon and you don't, isn't it reasonable to think I might have a better chance to win that fight? That goes all the way back to classic games like Monopoly. If I have Boardwalk and Park Place and you don't, I stand a better chance of winning. Only in Quarriors each player has a shot at a Dragon or two because there is more than 1 in each game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:

I don't think the designers are any way at fault for not creating the game so that your expectations are met. My only expectation was to have fun playing a game with dice. Quarriors is all of that for me.


I’m not sure that I entirely agree with this point. You could, by that logic conclude that Transformers is a good movie because all I wanted to see was robots beating the snot out of each other and that Michal Bay is not therefore at fault for creating such a movie even if his finished work is critically reviewed to be utter tripe.

Art (and I think of board games as art) has to be able to be judged or critiqued based on what the punter receives from it, otherwise the entire act of reviewing is demoted to the rank of petty grumbling against the poor tortured artist. Sometimes an artist needs to be told that putting soiled bed linen on display is simply "not good enough" to warrant appreciation.

Saying that something composed of dice is somehow elevate it into a position whereby a reviewer can no longer criticise its lack of application is surely flawed?

Also fun (mine or yours) is entirely in the eye of the beholder and I therefore believe that a “its good because it’s fun” type statement is of little use in a review. Sure you can state that you enjoyed the experience but you have to bring more than that to the table.

rickert wrote:

First of all, unlike Dominion, the Dragon doesn't always do something very powerful. In Dominion a card always does the same thing every time you get it. Thus power needs to be ramped up in Quarriors.


I disagree, surely if we assume that all players have equal access to the same type die it should be assumed that on average they will both miss as often as they hit. I would in fact argue that a dice’s effects should be scaled down, not up, for that very reason. A game with a wide degree of luck would be better served by having only a small reward offered for each instance of being lucky.

By your logic we could both ultimately end up playing a game similar to the following:
Both players take one dice
Both players take turns to role their dice
The player who rolls a 6 first wins.

rickert wrote:

Secondly, if we can try to drag this into some type of a real instead of abstract setting, if we are in a battle and I have a Dragon and you don't, isn't it reasonable to think I might have a better chance to win that fight? That goes all the way back to classic games like Monopoly. If I have Boardwalk and Park Place and you don't, I stand a better chance of winning. Only in Quarriors each player has a shot at a Dragon or two because there is more than 1 in each game.


I would argue that there is more glory in the survival of the weaker or lesser being rising to victory than the already powerful leviathan doing what its naturally disposed to doing. A great deal of literature backs up this stance.

A professional footballer making a 20 yard pass may get a “well done” from his team mates.

A blind guy doing the same thing with his feet while in the apex of his bungee jump will probably get millions of hits on YouTube.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:
rickert wrote:

I don't think the designers are any way at fault for not creating the game so that your expectations are met. My only expectation was to have fun playing a game with dice. Quarriors is all of that for me.


I’m not sure that I entirely agree with this point. You could, by that logic conclude that Transformers is a good movie because all I wanted to see was robots beating the snot out of each other and that Michal Bay is not therefore at fault for creating such a movie even if his finished work is critically reviewed to be utter tripe.

Art (and I think of board games as art) has to be able to be judged or critiqued based on what the punter receives from it, otherwise the entire act of reviewing is demoted to the rank of petty grumbling against the poor tortured artist. Sometimes an artist needs to be told that putting soiled bed linen on display is simply "not good enough" to warrant appreciation.

Saying that something composed of dice is somehow elevate it into a position whereby a reviewer can no longer criticise its lack of application is surely flawed?

Also fun (mine or yours) is entirely in the eye of the beholder and I therefore believe that a “its good because it’s fun” type statement is of little use in a review. Sure you can state that you enjoyed the experience but you have to bring more than that to the table.

rickert wrote:

First of all, unlike Dominion, the Dragon doesn't always do something very powerful. In Dominion a card always does the same thing every time you get it. Thus power needs to be ramped up in Quarriors.


I disagree, surely if we assume that all players have equal access to the same type die it should be assumed that on average they will both miss as often as they hit. I would in fact argue that a dice’s effects should be scaled down, not up, for that very reason. A game with a wide degree of luck would be better served by having only a small reward offered for each instance of being lucky.

By your logic we could both ultimately end up playing a game similar to the following:
Both players take one dice
Both players take turns to role their dice
The player who rolls a 6 first wins.

rickert wrote:

Secondly, if we can try to drag this into some type of a real instead of abstract setting, if we are in a battle and I have a Dragon and you don't, isn't it reasonable to think I might have a better chance to win that fight? That goes all the way back to classic games like Monopoly. If I have Boardwalk and Park Place and you don't, I stand a better chance of winning. Only in Quarriors each player has a shot at a Dragon or two because there is more than 1 in each game.


I would argue that there is more glory in the survival of the weaker or lesser being rising to victory than the already powerful leviathan doing what its naturally disposed to doing. A great deal of literature backs up this stance.

A professional footballer making a 20 yard pass may get a “well done” from his team mates.

A blind guy doing the same thing with his feet while in the apex of his bungee jump will probably get millions of hits on YouTube.


I don't follow the logic on nearly anything you wrote. I think ramping up power on dice that only has a 50 percent chance of being powerful makes more sense than nerfing it so that even that 50 percent is ho-hum. In your final comment it makes no sense in the reality that I was painting. I like my chances to win a battle if I have a Dragon and you don't. So it is in Quarriors and all players have an equal chance at them. Your discussion on that topic doesn't even touch on that point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:
In your final comment it makes no sense in the reality that I was painting. I like my chances to win a battle if I have a Dragon and you don't. So it is in Quarriors and all players have an equal chance at them. Your discussion on that topic doesn't even touch on that point.


Sorry I misread your post and thought you were talking about the glory associated with a dragon winning a battle not the likelihood of its victory. My bad.

None the less I did say in my original post that I have no problem with a dragon having a role as a powerful “it wins battles” kind of card, I just have a problem with it also being good at everything else including the amount of glory it gives you. So I think you have also missed my point in the initial post.

rickert wrote:
I think ramping up power on dice that only has a 50 percent chance of being powerful makes more sense than nerfing it so that even that 50 percent is ho-hum.


On this I stand by my point.

Are you are saying that because a dice may not roll a 6 every time it should instead have that face valued as a 60 just to make up for it?

I’m not arguing that a dragon should not be powerful or that a more expensive dice should not essentially be superior to another dice, I just think the scale in which that power increases should be more subtle. My major point is that no dice should be good at everything. On this I believe I am logically and thematically on solid ground.

Anyway,

Once again, sorry about the missread of your post! to many late nights for me!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kiren Maelwulf
Canada
Richmond
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
When I first started playing I had a similar view of Dragons. I figured they should score 1 Glory and and smaller creatures should score 3+. The thing is after sinking in a lot more play time I have come to realize that by doing this you would essentially make Dragons pretty much pointless. I could never see buying a Dragon just for attack if it wasn't going to net me much of a score, the only time it wouldn't be an expensive dead draw would be if the opponent had plenty of low defense high scoring creatures out when it got to attack and of course no defensive spells. More often than not it would be better to just buy more high scorers yourself. I suppose the change could be done IF you change a lot of other elements of Quarriors but I think you would end up with a completely different game, and not one I would care to buy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:
rickert wrote:
In your final comment it makes no sense in the reality that I was painting. I like my chances to win a battle if I have a Dragon and you don't. So it is in Quarriors and all players have an equal chance at them. Your discussion on that topic doesn't even touch on that point.


Sorry I misread your post and thought you were talking about the glory associated with a dragon winning a battle not the likelihood of its victory. My bad.

None the less I did say in my original post that I have no problem with a dragon having a role as a powerful “it wins battles” kind of card, I just have a problem with it also being good at everything else including the amount of glory it gives you. So I think you have also missed my point in the initial post.

rickert wrote:
I think ramping up power on dice that only has a 50 percent chance of being powerful makes more sense than nerfing it so that even that 50 percent is ho-hum.


On this I stand by my point.

Are you are saying that because a dice may not roll a 6 every time it should instead have that face valued as a 60 just to make up for it?

I’m not arguing that a dragon should not be powerful or that a more expensive dice should not essentially be superior to another dice, I just think the scale in which that power increases should be more subtle. My major point is that no dice should be good at everything. On this I believe I am logically and thematically on solid ground.

Anyway,

Once again, sorry about the missread of your post! to many late nights for me!


No what I'm saying is that I don't care as much if one or two faces are real powerful because three or four are not and those might be he ones to come up. If every side, or even five of the sides were that really powerful face, then I would be in total agreement that it should be less powerful on that face.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:

No what I'm saying is that I don't care as much if one or two faces are real powerful because three or four are not and those might be he ones to come up. If every side, or even five of the sides were that really powerful face, then I would be in total agreement that it should be less powerful on that face.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree then. I don’t really see the necessity to make some dice faces so drastically better than others. I guess I think this game would be better served by offering you differing options (with a more gradual increased rate of power) rather than wild swings in power.

I’m all for luck and do enjoy luck driven games, but I think there was an opportunity to make something a lot more uniquely tactical here with relatively few changes to the game. As I have said, I don’t think Quarriors is terrible, I just think it missed out on an opportunity… I really don’t see what the problem in stating that is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
Kirenx wrote:
When I first started playing I had a similar view of Dragons. I figured they should score 1 Glory and and smaller creatures should score 3+. The thing is after sinking in a lot more play time I have come to realize that by doing this you would essentially make Dragons pretty much pointless. I could never see buying a Dragon just for attack if it wasn't going to net me much of a score, the only time it wouldn't be an expensive dead draw would be if the opponent had plenty of low defense high scoring creatures out when it got to attack and of course no defensive spells. More often than not it would be better to just buy more high scorers yourself. I suppose the change could be done IF you change a lot of other elements of Quarriors but I think you would end up with a completely different game, and not one I would care to buy.

I disagree. The aim of adjusting the numbers would be to reward you for bringing together a better-rounded team of dice. Some which defend, some which attack, some which score big. Almost every value (cost, attack, defence, level, glory and some powers) would have to be changed to achieve this result however, so this is not a simple fix. Mechanically the game would be almost identical (maybe with the addition of a few other small variants).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:
rickert wrote:

No what I'm saying is that I don't care as much if one or two faces are real powerful because three or four are not and those might be he ones to come up. If every side, or even five of the sides were that really powerful face, then I would be in total agreement that it should be less powerful on that face.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree then. I don’t really see the necessity to make some dice faces so drastically better than others. I guess I think this game would be better served by offering you differing options (with a more gradual increased rate of power) rather than wild swings in power.

I’m all for luck and do enjoy luck driven games, but I think there was an opportunity to make something a lot more uniquely tactical here with relatively few changes to the game. As I have said, I don’t think Quarriors is terrible, I just think it missed out on an opportunity… I really don’t see what the problem in stating that is.


It's the missed chance idea that bothers me. It is like saying that Dominion missed a good chance to be a card-based, heavy strategy chess variant.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Pittock
United Kingdom
Cambridge
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:
It's the missed chance idea that bothers me. It is like saying that Dominion missed a good chance to be a card-based, heavy strategy chess variant.


Stating that a game, product or artwork does not, in your opinion, forfill its potential and/or has missed a trick is for me a vital part of the reviewing process.

I go back to Transformers. You could argue that no one should complain about it being god awful film, after all there are indeed transformers within the movie and they do indeed fight one another... However, the reality of the matter is that Mr Bay has (in the opinion of many) made a shockingly poor film which fails to live up to its potential.

That really is a very valid stance to take. Though your in no way compelled to agree with the conclusion dawn on either topic by the reviewer, whoever they are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kiren Maelwulf
Canada
Richmond
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:
Kirenx wrote:
When I first started playing I had a similar view of Dragons. I figured they should score 1 Glory and and smaller creatures should score 3+. The thing is after sinking in a lot more play time I have come to realize that by doing this you would essentially make Dragons pretty much pointless. I could never see buying a Dragon just for attack if it wasn't going to net me much of a score, the only time it wouldn't be an expensive dead draw would be if the opponent had plenty of low defense high scoring creatures out when it got to attack and of course no defensive spells. More often than not it would be better to just buy more high scorers yourself. I suppose the change could be done IF you change a lot of other elements of Quarriors but I think you would end up with a completely different game, and not one I would care to buy.

I disagree. The aim of adjusting the numbers would be to reward you for bringing together a better-rounded team of dice. Some which defend, some which attack, some which score big. Almost every value (cost, attack, defence, level, glory and some powers) would have to be changed to achieve this result however, so this is not a simple fix. Mechanically the game would be almost identical (maybe with the addition of a few other small variants).


I don't see how the game would be similar at all. More that a restructure you would have to make an overall different game otherwise it would play MUCH much longer. The game plays so smmothly and quickly right now because everything is scoring if you made it so you have to buy 3+ creatures to do the job 1 currently does you are going to have longer peroids of buying and far less streamlinded draws as dead draws will be a lot more common. What would be the odds you will regularly draw a balance of scoring creatures, defense creatures, and attack creatures? More likely you will have annoying games were certain types are simply far less viable choices and turns become a huge waiting game for that perfect hand of scoring creatures and at the least defense creatures since otherwise they could just get wiped by an attack creature. I don't know it sounds really boring to me, I just do no see how it could work without being a completely different game and as I said before it doesnt sound like a game I would want to play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kanachi wrote:
rickert wrote:
It's the missed chance idea that bothers me. It is like saying that Dominion missed a good chance to be a card-based, heavy strategy chess variant.


Stating that a game, product or artwork does not, in your opinion, forfill its potential and/or has missed a trick is for me a vital part of the reviewing process.

I go back to Transformers. You could argue that no one should complain about it being god awful film, after all there are indeed transformers within the movie and they do indeed fight one another... However, the reality of the matter is that Mr Bay has (in the opinion of many) made a shockingly poor film which fails to live up to its potential.

That really is a very valid stance to take. Though your in no way compelled to agree with the conclusion dawn on either topic by the reviewer, whoever they are.


I think a reviewer. having done over 200 myself, needs to weigh potential against intent and not against the reviewer's expectations. So I believe it is valid to judge whether the game succeeds in what it is trying to do. I believe it does. The reviewer is certainly allowed to voice the opinion that it does not.

I think your Transformer parallel is a bit skewed. I think if the reviews criticized it for not being Gone With the Wind or Love Story, we would all have laughed. But the reviews I read of the film said it wasn't a good action film set in the Transformer setting. I don't recall any review stating that Transformers failed because it could have been Academy Award material.
2 
 Thumb up
 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.