Without question for me that would be Magic the Gathering. It still is the game that does it best for me, but lacking the opponents, gets no table time at all (although I still constructed Decks for it). Luckily the next best game for me is LOTR:LCG and I don’t need no pesky opponents for that one, so I am fine. But really, you can’t beat a game with over 30k cards available (I prefer eternal formats where I can play everything) with a puny little LCG with just a few hundred …

The character expansions are just boxes of graphics. No additional Game play value at all. But the high Caliber ops Expansion is great, it has additional missions. Don’t look at the missions as scenarios – they are not. They are Game modes or Game Varianta, but not connected. You play the Varianta you like, that’s it. And don’t overvalue the upgrade – they are nice at best, but really only smallish Tweaks (some later ones are a bit more, but still they are Tweaks). You play to beat the mission primarily, replay coming from the roles you play, the we ay the Crossfire cards and the black market cards fall.

The character expansions are just boxes of graphics. No additional Game play value at all. But the high Caliber ops Expansion is great, it has additional missions. Don’t look at the missions as scenarios – they are not. They are Game modes or Game Varianta, but not connected. You play the Varianta you like, that’s it. And don’t overvalue the upgrade – they are nice at best, but really only smallish Tweaks (some later ones are a bit more, but still they are Tweaks). You play to beat the mission primarily, replay coming from the roles you play, the we ay the Crossfire cards and the black market cards fall.

I have both games and am a big fan of Shadowrun:Crossfire. It is beastly in play, it can really obliterate you, but to me it allways felt more fair than Doomrock – with Doomrock I am very close to table-flipping rage whenever I give it another try, because the way it is structured, far too often I end up with no useful attacks available and so mostly trying to survive the fights (and essentially being wittled down by the enemies). Shadowrun gives me much more the feel of being in control. I still am killed more often than not, but at least I feel like I had a chance.

With Shadowrun I would really go for the High Caliber Ops expansion, though, my favorite mission is the Freefire for all one, because it gives me additional ways to take out obstacles (by bribing other obstacles).

A big benefit of Shadowrun is the super fast setup and the quick play – Doomrock is quite involved in setup and play time. With Doomrock, the expansion can be skipped IMO, because while it adds cool aspects to the game, it adds more fiddlyness, too.

Essentially for me the invovlement required to play a session of Doomrock doesn’t work well with the rage inducing unfairness, while with Shadowrun, I am fine with the occasional unfairness, because I can just shuffle up and play another one.

I have both games and am a big fan of Shadowrun:Crossfire. It is beastly in play, it can really obliterate you, but to me it allways felt more fair than Doomrock – with Doomrock I am very close to table-flipping rage whenever I give it another try, because the way it is structured, far too often I end up with no useful attacks available and so mostly trying to survive the fights (and essentially being wittled down by the enemies). Shadowrun gives me much more the feel of being in control. I still am killed more often than not, but at least I feel like I had a chance.

With Shadowrun I would really go for the High Caliber Ops expansion, though, my favorite mission is the Freefire for all one, because it gives me additional ways to take out obstacles (by bribing other obstacles).

A big benefit of Shadowrun is the super fast setup and the quick play – Doomrock is quite involved in setup and play time. With Doomrock, the expansion can be skipped IMO, because while it adds cool aspects to the game, it adds more fiddlyness, too.

Essentially for me the invovlement required to play a session of Doomrock doesn’t work well with the rage inducing unfairness, while with Shadowrun, I am fine with the occasional unfairness, because I can just shuffle up and play another one.

Well, “better” is allways such a subjective thing. For me, actually Yomi is much better, because it is far easier to teach and I wouldn’t get my wife to play BattleCon with me due to the higher complexity and the fact that it is only available in english, which she doesn’t speak. Additionally, I like Yomi mostly for it’s travelability and the really small footprint while playing – it is one of the few games we can play on a plane table if we want – where BattleCon would definitely be totally out of place 😉

And with regards to OP: Yomi definitely is closer to the “less dependend on the better strategist or the better planner for the win” than BattleCon.

Well, “better” is allways such a subjective thing. For me, actually Yomi is much better, because it is far easier to teach and I wouldn’t get my wife to play BattleCon with me due to the higher complexity and the fact that it is only available in english, which she doesn’t speak. Additionally, I like Yomi mostly for it’s travelability and the really small footprint while playing – it is one of the few games we can play on a plane table if we want – where BattleCon would definitely be totally out of place 😉

And with regards to OP: Yomi definitely is closer to the “less dependend on the better strategist or the better planner for the win” than BattleCon.

7 Wonders: Duels has been our goto game lately for those reasons: the layout of the draft selection and the different other randomized setup elements cnange up tne game quite a bit woth every play and I am far less guaranteed to see the optimal play. And iüeven if I do, the reveal of one bad (for me) card can cost me the victory.

Another game I tried out is Yomi, because the decks are easy to grasp and don’t have too many different concepts, which makes valuation of hands easier – but the underlying rock-paper-scissors mechanics essentially can foil every plan if your opponents decodes to play different from your expectation. We haven’t played it often enough to see if it really works, but first plays looked promising at least.

Or I just play Progress: Evolution of Technology and accept that by now I will probably lose most of the time 😉

7 Wonders: Duels has been our goto game lately for those reasons: the layout of the draft selection and the different other randomized setup elements cnange up tne game quite a bit woth every play and I am far less guaranteed to see the optimal play. And iüeven if I do, the reveal of one bad (for me) card can cost me the victory.

Another game I tried out is Yomi, because the decks are easy to grasp and don’t have too many different concepts, which makes valuation of hands easier – but the underlying rock-paper-scissors mechanics essentially can foil every plan if your opponents decodes to play different from your expectation. We haven’t played it often enough to see if it really works, but first plays looked promising at least.

Or I just play Progress: Evolution of Technology and accept that by now I will probably lose most of the time 😉

I have it, I like it, I play ut – but yes, the structzre of each turn essentially is the same. The math is not the same, though, and the repeated testing is just one of the many things you do. The thing is, you have to olan out missions in a way to maximize your VP and that part is helluva mathy – and thats from someone who loves mathy games. Then you have to plan what technologues to buy in what order and what to test with smaller missions to orepare the big VP collecting missions. I love it, but it definitely is no action game. You are the head of a space agency and do space agency stuff – and that mostly is planning and calculating.

Add to that the fact it us a table hog even in the base game, worse with the expansion. And well, while I love it solo, I can’t see me ever bring it to the table for multiplayer, because this beast is so AP inducing, that play time with just one other noob player will just explode. Even my solo plays easily take 2-3 hours.

So if you want a super mathy and brain burny optimization game for solo play, go for it. If your game group are all mensa members and math gurus (or probably actual NASA organizers), go for it multiplayer. But if you are in doubt, at least play it once before you buy it, because this is ine of the games where I see high potential for falling flat for many people.

I have it, I like it, I play ut – but yes, the structzre of each turn essentially is the same. The math is not the same, though, and the repeated testing is just one of the many things you do. The thing is, you have to olan out missions in a way to maximize your VP and that part is helluva mathy – and thats from someone who loves mathy games. Then you have to plan what technologues to buy in what order and what to test with smaller missions to orepare the big VP collecting missions. I love it, but it definitely is no action game. You are the head of a space agency and do space agency stuff – and that mostly is planning and calculating.

Add to that the fact it us a table hog even in the base game, worse with the expansion. And well, while I love it solo, I can’t see me ever bring it to the table for multiplayer, because this beast is so AP inducing, that play time with just one other noob player will just explode. Even my solo plays easily take 2-3 hours.

So if you want a super mathy and brain burny optimization game for solo play, go for it. If your game group are all mensa members and math gurus (or probably actual NASA organizers), go for it multiplayer. But if you are in doubt, at least play it once before you buy it, because this is ine of the games where I see high potential for falling flat for many people.