Nexus Ops: Finally got around to playing my copy

I can't say I'm impressed yet.

I'll reserve final judgement until I play it earlier in an evening than 3AM. We did make a few mistakes in our first foray into this that we will fix the next time but as a quick two player DOAM I was hoping for a lot more from the gushing love it gets from the F:ATies here.

Here's what I didn't care for.

1) Balanced powers (why do they even bother color coding the player reference cards?)

2) No goal - I though the victory point thing as you go was lame (it didn't help that I didn't get but one until the end that I had any hope of accomplishing). I would rather the game have say 12 goal cards of which you pick two and if you accomplish either one before any other player accomplishes any of theirs, you win. With the current system you just go plodding along and if you happen to get a VP card that you can accomplish on short notice, you go for it.

Again I think the game would be better with overall goal cards. Something similar to the VP cards could be used to give you rubium or free troops or other nifty temporary advantages mid game but not VPs.

I don't think a DOAM game has to be about strickly player elimination as the endgame, but I'd prefer it have endgame goals that were known from the start. Those goals may be different for each player and all players goals may or may not be known by every other player.

3) The monolith seems overpowering for a two player game. At least that is what happened in the game we played.

4) Because of the pick up as you go VP cards, the lack of enough map hexes, and the monolith in the middle, there don't seem to be a lot of real strategic decisions.


Things I liked

1) The figures and map hexes are cool and they don't take up much table space.

2) I appreciate the goal of trying to design a DOAM game that can be played in 60-90 minutes. After the first play I can easily see this fitting in that timeframe.

3) The energize cards are a nice help for when luck is kicking you in the teeth.


Things others have commented on that I can understand but really don't have any emotional tie toward or just general observations/questions.

1) The monolith could have easily been just another hex instead of the slightly flimsy construct it ended up as. It's kinda cool standing above the other hexes, but I could take or leave it.

2) Is there some reason that there are both one and two hex cutouts? I didn't study the hexes all that much at the time, I'm just wondering why they didn't just make them all one hex spaces. Maybe the lava wouldn't end up in the middle otherwise.

3) We figured out how to assemble the monolith and box insert in a jiffy, I don't know what others are complaining about. However, they might have tossed in some baggies for the forces.

4) The smell of the minis wasn't as bad as I was expecting, but I'm used to pinball plastics that smell like ass (newly made or old).

5) The box art is a little on the underwhelming side.

So does this game play much better with three or four players rather than 2? I could say that as the loser I'm just dumping on this but the winner of the game had much the same opinion as I did.

Again, I'll hold final judgement until I have at least two more solid games where we hit the rules perfectly under our belts.

I have made comment more than once elsewhere that I found the 2-player game a little ho-hum. I enjoyed the 4-player game I played immensely, probably because the chaos factor was turned way up high.

I don't really share any of the dislikes you have mentioned. I have a question mark over replayability though. After a few games, I'm already craving a little more variation, so I think it's better that this game only makes it to the table once in a while.

Death and Taxis wrote:

I have made comment more than once elsewhere that I found the 2-player game a little ho-hum. I enjoyed the 4-player game I played immensely, probably because the chaos factor was turned way up high.

I don't really share any of the dislikes you have mentioned. I have a question mark over replayability though. After a few games, I'm already craving a little more variation, so I think it's better that this game only makes it to the table once in a while.

Wouldn't my 1,2, and 4 dislikes fall right into what you are saying about replayability? Balanced powers + lack of different overriding goals + small map = replayability takes a hit?

I'll make sure that we play it with 3 or 4 in one of the two next times this hits the table per your observations. Thanks for your input.

Sorry guys - I cannot see what the problems are with the lack of goals, this game is the exact opposite where everyone's goals are variable, constantly changing and hidden. When you are being attacked you have no idea if they are after your hex, your units, trying to get to another hex, or just attacking for the hell of it ... just enough chaos to keep interest into it.

Definitely not interesting enough for a 2-player game though.

Many of the reasons you disliked the game are the very same reasons I (and I'd venture to say others) like the game. The secret decisions keep the game light and fast-moving, and ensure that no one is ever completely out of the running. Prolonged control of the monolith is overpowering no matter how many players there are - that's why you'd better get up there and fight for it.

Overall, the game doesn't involve too much thought and encourages extreme aggression, which is why it's a hoot. It's very much a beer-and-pizza type game. Sounds like you might have been looking for something a little deeper.

Southernman wrote:

Sorry guys - I cannot see what the problems are with the lack of goals, this game is the exact opposite where everyone's goals are variable, constantly changing and hidden. When you are being attacked you have no idea if they are after your hex, your units, trying to get to another hex, or just attacking for the hell of it ... just enough chaos to keep interest into it.

Definitely not interesting enough for a 2-player game though.

The problems were that none of the goals I was given were achievable because of the random hex layout I was given and that the goals that the other player were given were easily achievable (given his postition and the hexes on that side of the map). I'm guessing then that the two player setup really made this an acute problem whereas more players would have made those 'secret and exiciting' goals more leveled.

J.T. wrote:

and ensure that no one is ever completely out of the running.

It's very much a beer-and-pizza type game. Sounds like you might have been looking for something a little deeper.

Only that is exactly what it caused in the game we played (that someone was nearly immediately completely out of the running).

I still think a similar and better effect could be created by having a small set of goal cards (revealed only when achieved for the end of game condition) and have all the victory point cards reward things rather than contribute to end of game conditions (they would also only be revealed when completed).

I don't think I was looking for something deeper, but then again I have been much more impressed with deeper games than this. If the play time can be kept under 6 hours that is 'quick' enough for me.

Mr MOTO wrote:

Death and Taxis wrote:

I have made comment more than once elsewhere that I found the 2-player game a little ho-hum. I enjoyed the 4-player game I played immensely, probably because the chaos factor was turned way up high.

I don't really share any of the dislikes you have mentioned. I have a question mark over replayability though. After a few games, I'm already craving a little more variation, so I think it's better that this game only makes it to the table once in a while.

Wouldn't my 1,2, and 4 dislikes fall right into what you are saying about replayability? Balanced powers + lack of different overriding goals + small map = replayability takes a hit?

Yep, you're right. My first post was a bit rushed. When I give some thought around how to increase replayability, 1 and 4 would be the obvious areas to expand upon. I really don't have an issue with the victory point cards and conditions though. This works ok for me.

I've had two games so far.

In both games, the players who focused on holding the Monolith and pimping up their army with dragons lost. The quiet player, who focused on mission cards, won the game.

Southernman wrote:

Sorry guys - I cannot see what the problems are with the lack of goals, this game is the exact opposite where everyone's goals are variable, constantly changing and hidden. When you are being attacked you have no idea if they are after your hex, your units, trying to get to another hex, or just attacking for the hell of it ... just enough chaos to keep interest into it.

Definitely not interesting enough for a 2-player game though.

Best response yet.

While I don't love the 2 player game, I do like it---can still be fun.

3 or four player is a blast...quick, changing strategies, etc...and it encourages battling--forcing you to be aggressive so you're not sitting back just building up armies. I've played it with people who have only ever played Risk, Monopoly, etc...and they catch on quickly and love it.

I've found that the secret goals in many games tend to level out later in the game. One player can be fulfilling lots of goals as soon as they're drawn, whereas the other ends up with maybe six or eight unused cards. However, this is exactly the situation that allows you to move in from the rear and take the game. If you have many missions (goals or whatever they're called) you can easily take 5 or maybe 8 points in a single turn. And when playing to 12 that's a lot.

1st its not the best 2 player game It needs 3 and I really want 4 when I play.

2nd on the goals thing, keep in mind that you get a VP per turn for winning battles. This should always be a goal and you should strive to make sure the other guys can not build up. Also taking and keeping control of the monolith is always a goal. Those cards are strong.

play the game more than once and with more than 2 players before showing up and suggesting Fixes for a game that's not broken. It is a light conflict game and you need to play it like that.

-M

Find two more players and I think you'll look at it with a different perspective. Everything is very cramped, very edgy. I too could not complete goals in my first game because all the lava was on the far side of the board from me -- a LONG walk with four players. But the game lasted long enough for that to even out.

Ironically, I lost the game because people withdrew and I could not win a battle on the right kind of terrain. A bit frustrating, but given the nature of the game I got over it pretty quickly.

Sag.

Yeah, if your secret missions aren't happening, then you just start smashing the shit out of dudes and getting VP through basic conquest.

Also, 4 is WAY better than 2.

And if a couple of your objectives are on the other side of the board then just tool up, jump on the monolith and make as if you're not leaning for awhile, then take that objective hex you were after the next turn.