What's your opinion of Onitama?
For those that don't know, Onitama is a board game played on a five by five grid. Each player has four pawns and Master. The goal of the game is to either capture the other player's Master or to get your master to other side of the board an onto the starting space of the opposing Master (which is the center far space).
The movement of your pieces is where the game is different. You start the game by dealing out five cards, two to each player and one to the side. The cards have an outline of the board and black square with different spaces on the board colored in. The different colored spaces are moves available to any piece relative to their location (which is the black square).
After a player picks on his two cards and moves a piece he places the card used off to the side and takes the fifth card. The second player uses one of his cards to move a piece and then places the card used off to side and takes the first player's discarded card. The first player moves, discards a card, takes the second player's discarded card, and so on and so forth until a player wins.
You can't land on one of your own pieces or go off the board (but you can move through pieces).If you land on any opponents piece you capture it.
That is pretty much all there is to the rules in their entirety and a typical game takes between five to ten minutes.
This is the Arcane Wonders set, but to be honest it too pricey and the box is not shelf friendly. They did fix a very, very slight balance issue with the cards though where you had something like a 1.2% of getting a hand that would allow the first player to win in 3 moves.
Now, the worst is a .12% chance of getting a hand that could allow for a win within 9 moves if you play flawlessly. So that is a plus, but the original game can be found as a printable title if you scour the interwebs enough.
Two things.
1. /tg/ isn't a huge fans of abstract strategy games in general and those that are would find random card dealing to be blasphemous.
2. This is a newer title so nobody on here will really know anything about it much less have played it.
>>46771238
Seems potentially interesting, but thirty-five bucks seems kinda steep for a game this simple. I'll keep an eye out for a sale or something.
>>46771454
A strategy game with an element of randomness is a lot of fun. Backgammon is one of my favorite games for that reason.
I enjoy chess casually as well, but when I play friends who are really good, I will lose (badly) 99 out of 100 times.
I'll check out this game but I'm pretty sick of the weeb aesthetic... I assume this was designed by a company in Omaha or something. Do the different pieces have any meaning, or are they just for looks?
Very interesting if it's a short game.
>>46771929
>I'm pretty sick of the weeb aesthetic... I assume this was designed by a company in Omaha or something
It's a Japanese game.
>>46771971
Well shut my mouth!
If there were an inventory of the cards, it'd be very easy to make your own set.
I made my own set a while back, only using Game of Thrones sigils instead of Japanese themed animals, because meh.
I rather enjoy it, but the games are almost too short to be interesting, and sometimes it comes down to a lucky draw.
>>46772604
>Sometimes it comes down to a lucky draw
Using the original cards? Yeah. A whopping 3.2% chance of getting a card combo that can force a perfect play into victory within 9 moves.
The new cards? a 0.12% of a victory within 5 moves, but the removal of one card (Tiger) actually utterly removes that chance of happening and the cards have to be dealt exactly to get that chance to occur in the first place.
So, really your argument is kind of invalid about it being a lucky draw for the vast majority of game plays.
>Its too short to be interesting
Put money on the line then. Same thing with Backgammon. Five bucks a game and suddenly that shit gets way more entertaining and serious at the same time.
>>46771929
FUCK YEAR BACKGAMMON!
Problem with that in the states is basically zero people to play with and those that do play very, very rarely put money on the game which is kind of the whole point of playing it.
>>46771597
You can print out everything you need to play the game really.
Sixteen cards and a 5X5 grid with a king and four pawns from a chess set (or something similar) for either side and you are good. Hell the original game used meeples (cows for pawns, people for Masters).
I do agree that $30 is way too pricey, but I do have to say, they made a pretty nice looking game board and pieces and the card stock and box are supposedly well made as well.
Still, if they were to come off the price about $10, I think it would sell better. Then again unique pieces, unique board, unique cards and box all probably drove the price up at printing.
They could have made a shittier version just to get out there on the cheap.
>>46773227
I'd be okay with a cheap version that gives me the basics for about fifteen bucks. I don't think this is going to replace my nice go board or chess set for the fancy-ass decorative game in my apartment.
>>46771929
Fucking Japanese and their obession with weeb culture
>>46771238
Too long, didn't read.
I've played Onitama.
It's alright, but doesn't really offer anything new to abstracts.
In the short term it has novelty value, in the medium term it will get hella boring, in the long term it will fade into well-deserved obscurity.
>>46773852
Heyyyyyy...
Those are Eclipse ships.
>>46773852
I don't know, a fast abstract strategy game with variable movement set-up each game is pretty damn unique.
Is it deep? I would actually argue that it is pretty deep, just fast. Something doesn't need to play long to be deep after all.
What would you consider a better more recent game in terms of abstracts?
>>46776097
>What would you consider a better more recent game in terms of abstracts?
Depends on what you mean by recent.
It's actually not all that deep, and more importantly the replay value is actually quite low.
>>46773179
>Using the original cards? Yeah. A whopping 3.2% chance of getting a card combo that can force a perfect play into victory within 9 moves.
>The new cards? a 0.12% of a victory within 5 moves, but the removal of one card (Tiger) actually utterly removes that chance of happening and the cards have to be dealt exactly to get that chance to occur in the first place.
>So, really your argument is kind of invalid about it being a lucky draw for the vast majority of game plays.
I did say "sometimes."
But I don't know anything about new cards. Is there an image somewhere?
