You've actually played it? Woah.

When I was 13 back in 1992 :(

I had this game, my moms cats would wreak more havock than the cannon ever did.

Baleen, I think you're the only one here who HASN'T played it.

doohhh my broken youth

3:04 : Somehow, horse fucking is involved here. Somehow.

I stand with the Red Sea Pedestrian on this one; never played this game. Did have a big plastic army set, including a Guns Of Naveronne plastic mountain replica. Battles were stages with fireworks. Men fought and died in Terrible ways. The smell of burning polyethylene in the morning, smelled like ...victory.

I hate Mike Matei

I've played Warhammer 40k. Nobody had money to buy any of the figures, so I mostly just pretended to play.

yeah 4 for how untalented these two geeks are.

I would raise it to 5 if I knew that every time they walk into their game room they are overwhelmed with the right mix of pride and shame.

Every video reviewer who gets famous is obligated to bring along their less talented and funny friends into the act.

Even the somewhat less irritating wacky internet video nerd reviewers tend to succumb to "skit disease" where they and their annoying pals engage in some zany, time-wasting comedy sketchs that are sub-'amateur improv comedy group' in quality.

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.

fucka youu

"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.

ok!

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.