Space Hulk: Death Angel – The Card Game Review http://fortressat.com/ Thu, 23 May 2013 07:49:09 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26443 [quote]I'm starting to think this describes EVERY Co-op game. Those few that don't fit that mould are solveable. It's a flaw with the game type I think. [/quote] Yep. This is a really excellent point. In competitive games, the level of difficulty is determined by your opponents. In co-op games, it's determined by two things: 1. random card draws/event tiles/dice rolls 2. the script If the design limits the influence of #1, then the script will dominate and the game will be repetitive. On the other hand, a script helps to ensure that the game has a reasonable pace. In Knizia's [b]The Lord of the Rings[/b], for example, the script is a tool for spreading out the chance events and breaking up good or bad runs of luck. If the design limits the influence of the script, you can have huge swings of (mis)fortune with a long run of (un)lucky random events. I haven't played Death Angel, but that seems to be what Matt is describing in his review. Juniper Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:32:22 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26441 [quote]I would be curious to hear other perspectives though. [/quote] Well the one answer is certainly that the best games are far more than the sum of their mechanical parts. It's possible that Arkham Horror, for example, is "too random" but the randomness is obscured under so many layers of rules complexity and choice that it makes it near impossible to tell, and therefore the players tend to ignore it as an issue. Besides which AH has a narrative richness which alone is virtually enough to make it worth playing: the possibility of added strategy is just the icing on the cake. MattDP Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:19:05 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26440 [quote]Yes, I've wondered about this for some time. I think I might have to do another article about co-op design, as it raises a number of interesting issues. For the record I don't think it's an insurmountable flaw: I can think of at least one game, possibly two, that get past it, but it's a terrifically difficult hurdle to overcome: most co-op games are either too random or too repetitive. [/quote] Its funny, I too have been pondering this and don't really see a way around it. The closest thing I've come to a solution is that the gameplay has to be so transparent that you don't really feel the grind of random/repetitive events. I would be curious to hear other perspectives though. Steve"Must...solve...the ...co-op..equation"Avery Stephen Avery Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:49:09 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26437 [quote]Did you only play solo games Matt?[/quote] I did manage to strong-arm friends and family into playing a couple of multi-player games with me, otherwise I couldn't really have given it a fair review. But my plays were mostly solo. [quote]I'm starting to think this describes EVERY Co-op game. Those few that don't fit that mould are solveable. It's a flaw with the game type I think. [/quote] Yes, I've wondered about this for some time. I think I might have to do another article about co-op design, as it raises a number of interesting issues. For the record I don't think it's an insurmountable flaw: I can think of at least one game, possibly two, that get past it, but it's a terrifically difficult hurdle to overcome: most co-op games are either too random or too repetitive. MattDP Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:04:39 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26429 Great review Matt. "However, after a couple of games I really started to feel that the level of decision making in the game was little more than a thin veneer over what was essentially an extremely random and chaotic system." I'm starting to think this describes EVERY Co-op game. Those few that don't fit that mould are solveable. It's a flaw with the game type I think. Mr Skeletor Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:46:52 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26422 Did you only play solo games Matt? Nice job on the review though, despite your hesitations this is something I hope to try out some day. metalface13 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:58:54 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26389 Indeed - that's what I was getting at in the last paragraph. You can forgive a game a lot if it's short & cheap :) MattDP Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:32:28 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26383 Played it once so far and I loved it... I thought there were plenty of interesting decisions to make throughout, and I thought the way that everything moved and adjusted gave you a cool scrolling kind of perspective to the layout. The marine cards don't move on the table, but there is a sense that they are moving in a hallway and moving along it, with genestealers coming in at them. Some of it is indeed "gamey", but so what... it's a 30 minute card game that gives you a little Space Hulk flavor. Replayability may become an issue after several more plays, but eh, still worth the price, I think. Grudunza Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:29:59 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26375 Matt, I think you nailed exactly what I have problem with when a rule is not thematic - basically, it doesn't simulate anything in the fiction; it's just a constraint added to increase the challenge. The situation being model should offer enough interesting decisions without having to resort to this crutch. Otherwise, the situation is maybe not worth exploring. Nick Warcholak Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:22:25 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26371 Played once at gencon. We had 5-6 players which is way too many for this game so I didn't get a good read on the game. The paper /scissor/rock thing is *really* annoying since mostly you want to fire all the time. A better choice might have been fire/move /reload-clear jam echoing the overwatch rules in Spacehulk. that way you push your luck firing until your weapon is out- then you get eaten. The facing thing didn't bother me and I felt like it was a good represntation of going through the corridors of a spacehulk. The activation thing was also clunky. If you could fire every turn you wouldn't need to split up the genestealers' activations into stages. Overall not bad game but it could have been streamlined a bit. Steve"Glad FFG is trying new stuff"Avery Stephen Avery Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:12:11 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26370 Very interesting appraisal. And I agree with Gary Sax: we're getting spoiled around here with all these quality reviews. Hatchling Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:10:28 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26369 Good stuff, Matt! This sounds like a chunk of fun times, for sure. I'm actually surprised that FFG is so loose with their product for you. You must have a very special place in their heart because most of the journalistas I know that have tried to get anything from them generally get told to bugger off in no uncertain terms. You, sir, are legend! :) superflytnt Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:05:58 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26368 Thanks for the review Matt. I think I can safely pass on this one. From what you describe, this wouldn't hold up to repeated plays at all in my book. -Will Bulwyf Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:24:49 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26367 [quote]From what I read about the game (alot) I get a feeling of a game that on the surface nicely captures the tension of walking in narrow corridors, being attacked from all sides, but not the tactical depth and planning. [/quote] Actually, that sums up the pros and cons of the game near-perfectly. Next time I write a review, I'll forget about paragraphs and shit, and just try and write one line :) MattDP Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:14:10 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26365 Great review and unlike some other reviews of the game you tried to look beyond the first "that is cool" phase, directly into the belly of the design. That facing-card does look a bit harsh...adding to the random feel of it all. From what I read about the game (alot) I get a feeling of a game that on the surface nicely captures the tension of walking in narrow corridors, being attacked from all sides, but not the tactical depth and planning. Shapeshifter Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:21:43 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26362 Very nice review. We've been getting tons of quality reviews on F:AT in recent weeks from lots of folks. Really appreciating it. Gary Sax Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:17:01 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127#josc26360 Thanks for the review Matt! It was honest and thorough enough to push me off the fence. ;) Stormcow Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:52:05 +0100