Forbidden Stars - Review

Finally got to play this with three. None of us had played before, and the other two hadn't played Starcraft, so this was their first time with the order token system. Took them a while to get into it, but they got into the swing of cockblocking each other pretty quick.

There were definitely some learning pains. I was running Chaos using the first-time setup, and managed to grab two of my objectives on turn 3, since they were lightly defended. The guy playing orks got two of his objectives by around turn six. The marines player never got anything. He had some lousy luck in fights, and didn't really win any until the end of the game.

By round 8, I had things wrapped up. The ork player messed up and didn't expand far enough, so he wasn't able to even get in striking distance of a third objective token on the final round. I felt kinda bad for him, because he forgot he could only place order tokens in a space with his units or adjacent to it.

So yeah, I dug it. I like the unit mix and upgrade cards better than Starcraft. Since there are fewer units, they're easier to deal with. The combat upgrade cards are a better buy, since the deck stays small enough that you're likely to see them. In Starcraft, I felt like I'd buy upgrades, but never actually see them in a fight. The combat in FS was kind of unexpected too. Since it's Warhammer, I think we were expecting lots of units to die, but units were routed far more frequently, especially if you brought reinforcements tokens along. I think we also thought attacking would be a little easier, bu it turns out you really do have to bring overwhelming force if you want a good chance of winning. Bring too few, and you leave it up to luck, or risk tying on morale, which goes to the defender. So really, it seems to be more about mustering forces for big, decisive strikes instead of skirmishing. But I could be totally wrong about that, since it was just one play.

Still sad I never managed to get a Titan out. I really wanted one, but never got hold of a forge world.

I don't necessarily agree that it's about mustering huge forces. You can definitely win small battles if say you're Space Marines with a couple of Marines against some Ork Boyz. Their morale is so horrible all you need to do is get shields out there and last the fight and you take the planet.

The objective system doesn't want you to stay still and build. It wants you to execute quick strikes on planets that are important to you and hold them for a single round. You can even cede a really powerful world if it allows you to focus on gaining another objective in a different sector.

The strongest play I've witnessed is all about performing triage on which planets you are OK with giving up while absolutely striking hard and fast elsewhere.

In the game we played, the Marines player had no luck winning battles. Most of the fights were him vs my Chaos, but a lot of his attacks got pushed back by the defenders. Could have been crappy luck on rolls and cards, or just bad play on his part. He may also have been playing too defensively. He built a lot of bastions, which meant building fewer attacking units. The smaller fights definitely require that you rely a little more on luck, since you really have to have at least some of your forces standing up at the end if you don't want to rely on eagles popping up on dice.

I agree that the system wants you to move your main force across the map. It's a tricky mindset to get into, since so many DOAM games want you to establish your base and hold it, then take a new area and hold that too, etc. This one goes against that by saying that this one planet is super important right up until you capture it, then maybe you can just get out of dodge. Converting to that mindset probably takes at least half a game.

It kind of depends on the faction though. Marines, both Chaos and regular, are very strong early game. Chaos is probably the strongest faction right out of the gate.

You should easily be able to take down Orks and especially Eldar early game. The regular Marine player needs to rely on his dominate ability to pump out Space Marines for cheap, and the Chaos player should rely on his amazing early battle cards.

Fighting each other probably didn't help.

Is anyone still poking around at this game? It has sort of fallen off the radar but Josh Look is still evangelizing... how's the balance? I wonder if it'll see an expansion.

(ha, also, looking through this thread it looks like I said I was definitely buying this... looks like I chose Armada for my giant FFG purchase of last year, instead)

I didn't get this to the table until late last year but it is a winner in our group of three. I think the combat cards/dice mechanic is FFG's best in their evolution of card combat over the last 10 years and the game is a great hit for three players, haven't managed to get a fourth back into our small group yet but I expect it to be even better then. Admittedly the other two have a Warhammer universe history and appreciate the theme more than me but I still think it is quality.

Oddly enough I played it yesterday. Two player game Chaos vs. Space Marines. I've owned the game since it came out first and have played it maybe 5-6 times total. I like it alot, I don't love it. Its a little long for what it is and I'd hesitate to play it with four people due to the down time. But it is surprisingly good as a 1v1 game and even a 3 player game if all three players realize that ignoring one player will hand that faction the win. As a 2 player game with some rules teaching it took about 2.5 hours. But I don't have a big problem with that given that the choices and thinking the other guy does really affects you, and not just in an irritating "I'm getting stone this turn" way. I still have yet to find another person who wants to learn the game and play it routinely; all I've done is teach it every time. In theory that should be easier given the lower player count, but my two player games tend to be Twilight Struggle/Hannibal/Sekigahara and this is clearly very different.

We've been playing this a lot lately after a guy I showed it to fell in love with it. Played three games in the past two months and still love it. The only thing that really keeps this game from being one of my favorites is it's length.

We tend to play to three objectives in four player games which helps the length a tiny bit.

charlest wrote: We've been playing this a lot lately after a guy I showed it to fell in love with it. Played three games in the past two months and still love it. The only thing that really keeps this game from being one of my favorites is it's length.

We tend to play to three objectives in three player games which helps the length a tiny bit.

But that's the normal game end for three players - which means you guys are pretty hardcore if you can can play to four objectives !

I was really psyched about this game when it came out, but after three or so plays, I kinda lost interest. It's a good game, but there's just something missing, I think. I was hoping it would be the new Starcraft, but it pales in comparison. Ultimately Forbidden Stars felt slow, un-dynamic, and just a tiny bit boring. Playing it more would definitely help - especially if playing with the same group so that you get to learn the different combat cards and strategies - but I sold my copy and don't miss it.

Southernman wrote:

charlest wrote: We've been playing this a lot lately after a guy I showed it to fell in love with it. Played three games in the past two months and still love it. The only thing that really keeps this game from being one of my favorites is it's length.

We tend to play to three objectives in three player games which helps the length a tiny bit.

But that's the normal game end for three players - which means you guys are pretty hardcore if you can can play to four objectives !

Oops, meant in four player games.

charlest wrote:

Southernman wrote:

charlest wrote: We've been playing this a lot lately after a guy I showed it to fell in love with it. Played three games in the past two months and still love it. The only thing that really keeps this game from being one of my favorites is it's length.

We tend to play to three objectives in three player games which helps the length a tiny bit.

But that's the normal game end for three players - which means you guys are pretty hardcore if you can can play to four objectives !

Oops, meant in four player games.

A good idea, I think in four 3-player games we have only had one where someone got three objectives and that was mainly from poor play by the other two of us. Playing for one objective less will make it quite bloodthirsty in the last couple of rounds as players go for most worlds.

Gary, I think you made the right choice with Armada. Having only played it once, I thought it was a poor amalgamation of mechanics from some of FFG's other titles (Thrones, TE, Warrior Knights, etc). The combat was a drag on play time. I thought the concept of space as a 3x3 tic-tac-toe map with warp storms limiting movement between was just another means of stretching game length. For 2, 3 or 4 players there are better games at shorter play times for every size group.

I'm beginning to wonder if the game is really mainly appealing to fans of StarCraft. Those who dislike it mostly seem to be people who haven't played or don't like StarCraft?

I don't love Starcraft, not sure if I even like it, but Forbidden Stars is one of my favorite games to come out in a long while. I've played it quite a bit, really, really love it. Mostly 2 player, which is actually a selling point for me. I have too many games like this that are best with 4, 5, or 6.