Thursday, November 21, 2013

5 Popular Board Games I Find Highly Overrated

Time to have some fun - let's trash talk some board games enjoyed by legions of players that, for one reason or another, just don't appeal to me that much.  Yes, I have played all of them.  And if you like them - hey, that's your opinion.  These are just my thoughts.  I'm going to list these in reverse order of their overall ranking on BoardGameGeek (in parentheses), the be-all, end-all of board gaming websites.

'Twas fun for a while, Catan, but you've lost your luster.
Settlers of Catan (110)
Now, I have to give Settlers credit for its success as one of the first "gateway" games to open the floodgates in the US to great European board games back in the late '90s.  Since then, though, better gateway games have emerged, and plain Settlers has simply lost its appeal to me.  My biggest issue?  I'm convinced it's impossible to win without getting lucky.  In theory I have no problem with luck or randomness in games.  But in Settlers, unless you can pull off a magic move scoring 3 or 4 points in one turn (which itself requires luck), once you get close to winning, people will stop trading with you.  Period.  Then you have to hope the dice come up with the resources you need.  For me that is incredibly frustrating, to have all your carefully laid plans rely on one or two dice rolls, and it renders Settlers obsolete.  Note that I have played later variants and enjoyed them more as they introduced mechanics that reduced the randomness problem - my favorite being Settlers in America: Trails to Rails, which incorporates train game elements.

Surely this will get D&D nerds to play a board game!
Lords of Waterdeep (29)
When LoW came out, it was hailed as a truly great merger of theme and mechanics.  A worker placement Euro game set in the world of Dungeons and Dragons?  Here, finally, was the game that could bring RPG nerds and board game nerds together - get those DMs to put down their D20s and think about cost/benefit analysis for a change.  For me, Lords is a fairly standard worker placement game with a very pasted-on D&D theme.  It could be replaced with anything.  It's fine, but nothing special.  It's certainly not the ideal marriage some claim it to be.

Look at all those cards! ... Hope you like shuffling.

Dominion (17)
Dominion took the gaming world by storm in 2008 when it introduced a new gaming genre, that of "deck building."  Magic: The Gathering nerds (which I never really was) who loved to spend hours crafting the best possible decks suddenly had a Euro-style card game completely focused on that mechanic.  The problem?  That's basically all there was to it.  That and shuffling.  So much shuffling. I didn't mind Dominion in short bursts, but really failed to grasp some peoples' obsession with it.  I hear the expansions make it better, but I'm not a fan of expansions being required to make a base game interesting, and don't feel like learning dozens of new cards just to give Dominion another chance.  Fortunately deck-building has since been incorporated as an element in other, better games, rather than composing the near-entirety of the game itself.

The guy on the right has the perfect reaction to TM.
Terra Mystica (7)
As this game recently came out, I think it's currently feeling the effects of being the "new hotness," and it remains to be seen whether its BGG rank stays so high.  I really hope not.  Yet another in a long line of Euro games that promises to couple a strong theme with solid mechanics.  Nope, try again.  It is long, overly complex (it takes a real kitchen sink approach to game mechanics), and while the fantasy theme is theoretically interesting, you forget about it five minutes after you start playing.  TM also suffers from my chief complaint of heavy Euro games - having to go through about five steps before you accomplish something like scoring one victory point.  Ugh.  Also, all this excitement is probably going to set you back over $60.  Not worth it.

I built a fence, and all it cost me was two hours and the starvation of three children.
Agricola (3)
Agricola's been out for five years so it's proven that it has true staying power - for reasons that baffle me.  It is the shining example of why many people, including me, are turned off by many heavy Euro games.  First there's the theme - subsistence farming!  Wooo!  Haven't you always wanted to pretend you're a serf barely eeking out an existence?  Who needs winning World War II, conquering distant planets, or managing business empires when you can worry about having enough grain to bake bread?  Speaking of which, I'll give it credit for at least connecting the theme to its most annoying mechanic - constantly having to generate food for your family, which is so demanding it feels like you can't get anything else done.  It's not fun, and takes away from the escapism that partially drives people to hobbies like board games.  It feels way too much like work, and I just don't get it.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

The Tea Party Shut That Whole Thing Down

Well, they went and did it.  The group of "patriots" who very explicitly detests all parts of government except the military succeeded in their mission in shutting it down.  And then, of course, they celebrated it while simultaneously blaming it on the Democrats.  What a mess.  Let me try to sort through it and explain why, for the good of the country, the Tea Party needs to die.

Dude, It's In the Constitution 

The people that hate government shut it down?  I am shocked!
How did we get here?  Well, it has to do with the banality of government financing and the inability of Congress to do one of its most basic jobs - pass a budget.  That hasn't happened for years, but the federal government is able to keep operating on a temporary basis by passing continuing resolutions (CR) that have to be reauthorized every so often.  The federal fiscal year starts on October 1, and the current CR before Congress would have authorized the government to keep operating through November 15.  But the Tea Party in the House refused to pass it unless it defunded the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare), whose insurance exchanges opened up for business on October 1.  The Democratic Senate, of course, refused to pass a CR that defunded the ACA (which the House repeatedly sent them), or delayed its implementation in any way.  Both chambers stood firm, and so without a CR in place, nonessential federal services stopped when the clock struck October 1, and 800,000 federal employees were indefinitely furloughed.

The House GOP immediately and consistently accused President Obama and the Senate of refusing to compromise.  While it's true they aren't going to compromise on the ACA, here's a fact that's going woefully underreported in the mainstream media: the CR that was before both chambers was already a significant Democratic compromise.  It funded the government at sequester levels, far below what both the President's budget and Senate's ideal contained.  Remember the sequester?  Yeah, that's still around, and still having its effect felt - and the Democrats were willing to keep living with it in order to keep the government running.  That's not a compromise?  Moreover, why should the Dems compromise on the ACA, the most important legislative achievement of Obama's tenure?

Let's clear something up about the ACA.  It is not a liberal's wet dream of a socialist utopia, nor was it passed in secret in the middle of the night without proper discourse.  It was the result of 14 months of negotiations with the final result disappointing many progressives who wanted something resembling a single-payer system (essentially, Medicare for everyone).  The roots of the ACA were drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to "HillaryCare" in the '90s.  It was supported by Newt Gingrich and first put into action by a Republican governor who just happened to be the party's presidential nominee last year.  It was a conservative health care plan until Barack Hussein Obama came out in support - then it became the surest sign of the Marxist Apocalypse and "one of the most insidious laws ever developed by man" (Rep. Todd Rokita of Indiana).  Nonetheless, it passed the Democratic-controlled Congress and has been upheld by the Supreme Court with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts voting in favor.  The American voters indirectly weighed in by handily reelecting Obama last year; after all, Romney made it clear he would repeal the ACA.  So, Obama has a clear and constitutional mandate to implement perhaps the biggest accomplishment of his presidency, and it's going into effect right now.

And what do Republicans offer in exchange for giving up the ACA or at least delaying it?  They would agree to fund the government at sequester levels for six whole weeks.  Why in God's green earth would Obama and the Democrats take that deal?  They would face yet another budget crisis in November and Republicans would demand yet more concessions to keep the government running.  That is not how you govern a functioning country, lurching from one fiscal crisis to another.  Moreover, if they agreed to delay ACA implementation for a year (so the Reps can use it in the 2014 election), do you honestly think the GOP would be totally fine with letting it go ahead next year?  Of course not.  The whole cycle would begin again.

Speaking more broadly, such actions threaten to set a dangerous precedent for how our country is governed.  Shutdowns have happened before but they were over general budgetary issues.  Here, we have a minority party that controls one chamber of Congress (through gerrymandering - they lost the House popular vote by a million votes) that has succeeded in shutting down the government because of a constitutionally validated law that they don't like.  That is not how our system was designed to function.  There is a constitutional method for repealing or changing laws you oppose.  You know the constitution, right?  That old document conservatives claim to love so much?  That method is called winning elections.  If the GOP were so sure the ACA is going to destroy America, the politically smart thing to do would be to let it go into effect.  Then when people hate it, they ride those sentiments to huge victories in the 2014 and 2016 elections.  In 2017 President Ted Cruz could repeal the ACA five times over if he wanted.  Instead they chase the impossible dream of repealing it under a Democratic Senate and President and have no problem dragging the rest of the country down their fever dream with them.  It is reckless, irresponsible, and proves that the Tea Party has no place in governance.



John Boehner (R-Incompetent)

The saddest part of this whole debacle is that the shutdown could be over in five minutes if not for the actions (or inaction) of one man – House Speaker John Boehner.  There are enough votes on record (all Democrats and enough moderate Republicans) to pass a “clean” CR at any time.  However, Boehner generally refuses to bring any votes to the floor of the House that don’t have the support of a majority of his caucus.  In essence, the Tea Party is holding Boehner’s job hostage.  If he allows the vote, he will either be primaried by a Tea Partier in the next election or be deposed as Speaker.  Consequently, Boehner comes off as one of the worse, most ineffectual Speakers in American history and the Tea Party is revealed as the bunch of vindictive, anti-government nihilists they are.

The Great Memorial Farce

The WWII Memorial in happier days
The hypocrisy and sheer mendacity of the Tea Party congregation really came into light early this week as the shutdown took effect.  While simultaneously declaring the shutdown no big deal (Fox News rebranded it a “slimdown”), they also proceeded to blame Obama for shutting down things that are highly visible, within easy reach, and that they happen to like.  This was no more evident than at the World War II Memorial on the Mall in DC.  When groups of WWII vets from Mississippi and Iowa arrived as part of a planned trip and found the memorial closed due to the shutdown, some of the Tea Party’s brightest stars leapt into action.  Now, I can buy that Steve King of Iowa was there, for obvious reasons.  But the fact that Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota claims to have been walking nearby purely by chance and came over to see what was going on is laughably incredulous.  Louis Gohmert of Texas just happened to be there too!  What a coincidence!  The Representatives moved the barricades, allowing the vets in, and proceeded to get great photo ops and make high-falutin’ speeches about how Obama and the Democrats were so evil for depriving the vets access to their memorial.  They do not care that their votes are what caused the shutdown.  Hypocrisy is nothing next to a chance to wrap themselves in the flag and pretend they care about veterans.  But I’m no veteran, so let’s hear from a real one, Iraq war vet Representative Tammy Duckworth:


 “These same veterans that they’re pretending to help today at the WWII memorial, you know, they’re going to have access to their disability pensions is going to be limited after Oct. 15. There’s going to be cuts in prosthetic research for veterans. The National Cemetery Administration is not going to be able to lay our heroes to rest at the same rate that they were,” Duckworth said. “And Michele Bachmann who was there today at the World War II Memorial actually said, ‘The shutdown is exactly what we wanted. We got what we wanted.’ A good day for the tea party is when government is having a bad day.”


Rep. Tammy Duckworth
Well said.  I am so tired of Republicans getting to claim they’re great patriots by pulling stunts like this, and their base voters and the media eating it up.  It is baloney.  Their actions prove sadly otherwise.  I wonder if King, Bachmann, and Gohmert cared to explain why all of them gleefully voted to kick 140,000 veterans off of food stamps last week?  No?  Or that the shutdown is seriously impacting the VA and other services relied on by our veterans?  Probably not.  No, they saw an opportunity to stroll on down to the WWII memorial and slam that evil socialist Obama for being so un-American and mean to our veterans.  To which I would ask, which President’s actions have led to more American military casualties, Obama or his predecessor?  (Shh!  You’re bringing up something that happened before 2009!  That’s not allowed!)  Oh, sorry.  Is it too much to ask, if you care so much about people being impacted by the shutdown, to pay attention to other groups, such as patients at the National Institutes of Health or children and families served by the WIC program?  Obviously it is.  Because they really do not care.


Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer kept up the "class act" today by chewing out a Park Service Ranger for daring to do her job at the memorial, where vets are still being let in.  “The Park Service should be ashamed of themselves,” he said to her, to which she bravely replied ‘I’m not ashamed,” and people in the crowd thankfully stood up for her, one noting “This woman is doing her job, just like me.”  It reveals the fundamental disrespect the Tea Party has for government and all of its employees.  They are the enemy and do not deserve respect – it’s not like this ranger was there at the personal behest of Lord Obama.  99% of the civil service is nonpartisan and are ordinary people just doing their jobs.  They deserve better.  But guess what?  Some Republicans are even unsure whether those furloughed employees should receive back pay when the shutdown ends, even though they always have in past shutdowns.  They say this with no trace of irony or sympathy as they themselves continue to receive their salaries.  They are despicable.

Moderate Republicans:  This Is On You

It would be amusing if not so tragic and consequential – a fair number of self-identified “common sense” Republicans coming out of the woodwork this week, finally realizing just how crazy the Tea Party faction is.  Like this one, who makes some good points beyond being misinformed about the ACA.  The funny part is that they are basically saying what liberals have been saying for years.  As I blogged about a while back concerning the Southern Strategy, the GOP has been courting the votes of the far right fringe for decades and has gleefully used it to win elections – but then in large part ignored its agenda.  No more.  The fringe has grown to become the mainstream and has taken over the party.  This is not the party of Eisenhower, Colin Powell, or Bob Dole.  It is the party of Steve King, Ted Cruz, and Rush Limbaugh.  Lots of analogies to employ here, but it’s October so let’s go with horror: Frankenstein’s monster is loose and is wreaking havoc in DC (not to mention many state capitals).

If “common sense” Republicans – the few that are left – want to be taken seriously when they insist on separating themselves from the Tea Party, the onus is on them to slay the monster they have created and set loose upon the country.  The rest of us certainly can’t do it.  You must deprive them of power.  Denounce them publicly.  Remove their committee positions in Congress.  Cut off their funding.  Challenge them in primary elections.  Kick them out of your party for good.  You claim to be the party of personal responsibility.  Well, it’s time to put up or shut up.  If you refuse, you will prove just how dependent you are on the support of the Tea Party, and you will be just as responsible for whatever messes they leave in their wake.