Board Games

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Chowderhead**

What your favorite board game?

Mine's Pentago, which is just advanced Tic-Tac-Toe. It's awsomely addicting.

http://www.pentago-online.com/

**Avatar 720**

Monopoly.

Followed by Scrabble and Cluedo.

**rubiksnoob**

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabble makes me want to gouge out my eyes with those little stick things.

**Wolfun**

Last night on Earth.

Zombies + Board game = AWESOME.

**ChrisWWII**

Axis & Allies, 1942 Edition.

"So...why is there a Japanes armored column advancing on Moscow again?"

**legoburner**

Settlers of Catan with the cities and knights expansion is amongst my favourites.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Risk

**filbert**

Game of Life

**rubiksnoob**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Risk

Ehh, risk always leads to trouble.

Spoiler:

**SilverMK2**

filbert wrote:Game of Life

I loved the original version of this. The newer electronic/boardgame version is pants.

**filbert**

SilverMK2 wrote:
filbert wrote:Game of Life

I loved the original version of this. The newer electronic/boardgame version is pants.

I used to enjoy the incongruity of getting a job as a cheerleader yet being paid $100k for it (or something similar). If only real life were that simple....

/wistful

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Scrabble, more specifically competitive Scrabble. Some of you people need to challenge me on facebook.com/cannerus

I also like Hexago Continuo for it's simplicity and the fact that anyone can play it. I think it only costs 7 or 8 bucks to top it off.

**Scrazza**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Risk

I used to play this with my father...happy times.

Otherwise I would play it with a couple of friends...and after a few hours of painstakingly conquering the world we played god, and shook the board like an earthquake....More happy times.

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

Depends if you class Warhammer Quest as a boardgame.

If not, Chess or Risk.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

It's a game
with a board

and jolly good fun

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

I disagree.
It's a quest
With war

And hammer

**VikingScott**

BloodBowl.

**Grakmar**

Settlers of Catan
Puerto Rico
Carcassone
Power Grid
Go (I enjoy it, but am not very good)
Munchkin (does this count? there's no board...)
Wits and Wagers
Runebound
Clue
Backgammon

I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting.

**Baragash**

Warhammer Quest
Space Crusade
Cluedo
Monopoly
Risk
Trivial Pursuit
Backgammon

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

VikingScott wrote:BloodBowl.

This is startling new evidence, and yes all my previous entries just died a death as I have a horrible tendancy to forget this is a boardgame at heart, just with lots and lots of team options.

**Kilkrazy**

Moving thread to Boardgames forum.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
When people talk about boardgames they are normally thinking of what I used to call "general games" and include themed card games such as Munchkin.

A lot of people mentally classify board wargames distinctly from general boardgames.

Some of my current favourites are:

Carcassone
Citadels
Kingmaker
Dixit
Settlers of Catan

**Samus_aran115**

Pokemon Monopoly. The one with only 150 pokemon

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I disagree.
It's a quest
With war

And hammer

and a board

There is more war in Risk.
Literally
with players coming to blows

It was how WW1 started.

**djphranq**

legoburner wrote:Settlers of Catan with the cities and knights expansion is amongst my favourites.

+1 for Settlers ...and maybe followed by Agricola.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I disagree.
It's a quest
With war

And hammer

and a board

There is more war in Risk.
Literally
with players coming to blows

It was how WW1 started.

I was just messin'

My big problem with risk is that whoever gets Australia seems to win in around 75% of the games I've played.

Settlers is fun a few times, but it seems when one player gets ahead it takes the dice to outright screw them; kinda the Monopoly effect, though nowhere near as bad. Monopoly is a horrible game while we're at it. Who ever gets property up front wins, and whoever doesn't loses.

**legoburner**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Settlers is fun a few times, but it seems when one player gets ahead it takes the dice to outright screw them; kinda the Monopoly effect, though nowhere near as bad. Monopoly is a horrible game while we're at it. Who ever gets property up front wins, and whoever doesn't loses.

Unless someone has a really awful start, we've never had this problem in my game group. Almost always, the other 3-5 players start mercilessly attacking and targeting the leader until they are beaten back. The last few games I've played alone have had 4 people within 2 points of victory at the end. With 3 players I can see it happening, but 4+ and it is not a problem and is fantastically self balancing.

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

Candy Lan....

Umm, Stratego!!!!

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Do people like Settlers because it brings instant relief?

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

legoburner wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Settlers is fun a few times, but it seems when one player gets ahead it takes the dice to outright screw them; kinda the Monopoly effect, though nowhere near as bad. Monopoly is a horrible game while we're at it. Who ever gets property up front wins, and whoever doesn't loses.

Unless someone has a really awful start, we've never had this problem in my game group. Almost always, the other 3-5 players start mercilessly attacking and targeting the leader until they are beaten back. The last few games I've played alone have had 4 people within 2 points of victory at the end. With 3 players I can see it happening, but 4+ and it is not a problem and is fantastically self balancing.

That makes sense. Bear in mind that most of the people I play with aren't competitive in the slightest and tend to help each other instead of trying to screw anyone...

**Grakmar**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I was just messin' My big problem with risk is that whoever gets Australia seems to win in around 75% of the games I've played.

Settlers is fun a few times, but it seems when one player gets ahead it takes the dice to outright screw them; kinda the Monopoly effect, though nowhere near as bad. Monopoly is a horrible game while we're at it. Who ever gets property up front wins, and whoever doesn't loses.

I played Risk quite a bit, and it's a really easy game to watch and see how much experience the players have.

First time players always worry about capturing their own continent, and don't take into consideration what other people have captured.
After that, newbies all try and do dumb things, like conquer Asia. They also seriously undervalue the power of cards.
Following that stage, everyone realizes Asia is unwinnable and ignore it. This leads Australia to go untouched for the entire game and win!
Once everyone realizes this, no one lets Australia go uncontested. They march their armies across the Himalayas just to attack the Australian player.

Settlers is much the same way. By the time someone reaches 5 VP, you should really be laying out embargoes. And, if someone gets a 2VP lead, toss the thief on their land and keep it there 100% of the time!