"The Michael Bay movie of boardgames."
Was the title sarcastic?
Anyway, the empire wrecked in this game. Chaos had more numerous, weaker units but numbers didn't matter because they'd all just get cluttered up. Also the cannon was insanely better than the ogre.
You've actually played it? Woah.
When I was 13 back in 1992 :(
Baleen, I think you're the only one here who HASN'T played it.
So many parents bought this, so many kids never finished a single game.
this is a gateway drug to warhammer
this game wasn't actually that complicated, these guys are just fake nerd boys. oh fuck there's a rule book it's like the fuckin' bar exam jesus shit how do i even
I've played Warhammer 40k. Nobody had money to buy any of the figures, so I mostly just pretended to play.
Every video reviewer who gets famous is obligated to bring along their less talented and funny friends into the act.
It was really tragic when that happened to Redlettermedia.
Not only was Half in the Bag made up of a huge chunk of skits during bland movie reviews (fuck those things. I'd rather have one new Plinkett review than twenty Half in the Bags), less than half the site even bothers with movie reviews anymore. It's mostly just awful Plinkett skits, cartoons, and plugs for their garage splatter movies.
Every single video reviewer is a failed film student longing to just make garage splatter movies.
Battle Masters came out over twenty years ago!!!!
"Nerdbros teach us how to play one of the most non-complicated old boardgames out there."
OK baleen, that edit is a little better, but it's still very inaccurate. No well-informed board-gamer would consider Battle Masters to be particularly complicated, but calling it "one of the most non-complicated"? HARDLY! Remember, the casual market is quite large within the boardgame industry, and there are countless games with rules so simple even a child could grasp them.
In order to qualify as "one of the most" non-complicated games, Battle Masters would have to be within, let's say, the 90% percentile for non-complicated games. It is not. In fact, I'd say that Battle Masters is a solid median in terms of complexity; it is neither particularly casual nor particularly hardcore, and is perhaps properly viewed as an "entry-level hardcore boardgame". It is the Sid Meiers Civilization of boardgames.
Now as a *mean*, yes, it pobably is a bit low on the scale. This is because boardgame complexity (like video game complexity) does not enjoy an even distribution across all potential values; the majority of casual games are grouped together in a big bunch near the low end of the scale, while the upper end of the scale thins out as individual data points increase exponentially. I suppose one could split hairs in the description's defense because of this, but with it's current wording, the mean complexity value is not what your description implies.
Now the description is so broad that it tells us nothing, but it is technically accurate, so it will do. Thank you.
Well, technically accurate in so far as your assessment of Battle Masters' complexity is concerned. There is still some ambiguity, however: confusion may arise on account of you seem to be drawing comparisons between three *board games*, and strictly speaking, Mr Bucket is not a board game.
But I don't think you need to worry about fixing that one, because your description is textually correct, and would only be misunderstood by someone trying to draw additional inferences from what you said. If some dorks want to over-think things, that's their problem, not yours.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|