geek
Recently Viewed
Hot Games
Dominion
Agricola
Titan
Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
Battlestar Galactica
Pirate King
Race for the Galaxy
Le Havre
Pandemic
Settlers of Catan, The
Space Alert
Puerto Rico
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942
Red November
Ghost Stories
Playing Gods: The Board Game of Divine Domination
Power Grid
Arkham Horror
Twilight Struggle
Carcassonne
Androids and Belt Bums
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Municipium
Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm
Stone Age
Munchkin Quest
War of the Ring
Carcassonne - The Catapult
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Formula D
Wasabi!
Neuland
Risk
Tigris & Euphrates
Ticket to Ride
Apples to Apples
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game
BattleLore
World of WarCraft Miniatures Game
Scrabble
Chicago Express
Galaxy Trucker
Caylus
Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery
Kingsburg
StarCraft: The Board Game
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Pictionary
Monsterpocalypse
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »  
Subject: Session Report
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe | Bookmark
Your Tags: Login to Add Tags | View 
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
I was finally able to get a foursome together for this intruiging new game from Phalanx/Fantasy Flight that I was able to purchase at Origins (I gather copies are even now not yet available through regular channels). So Matt, Rich, Kim & I sat down to give it a spin.

First impulse of turn one, Matt slapped down an Ave Caesar card to immediately become a contender, then dashed to Rome to become Emperor. Rich then followed suit on his first move. Most of the remainder of the first turn was spent waging various border wars against our neighbhors - when you defeat an enemy in combat, one of his legions switches sides, and this is (more or less) the only way to build up your forces.

So after seeing that isolated legions were vulernable to being picked off, towards the end of the first turn there began the process of consolidation into huge stacks - by the end of turn one, each player had managed to get 90% of their legions into one place. The game then devolved into just pushing around these big stacks, with nobody actually wanting to make a move.

Thankfully, Rich managed to win at the end of the second turn by hoarding enough cards that he could take a significant number of actions after everyone else had played out, which gave him an uncontested run on the board for a few minutes, allowing him to take control of three areas while Emperor (one of two) and finish it off.

These two turns took roughly 2.5 hours to play. While we definitely played quite slowly in fact, I'm hard-pressed to figure out how the game could possibly come in at the 2 hours listed on the box. Previous playtime estimates on Phalanx games boxes have been pure fabrication, and I think that is the case here also. In a full game, you've got 160 cards that have to be played, plus all the peripheral activities. You're going to have to be playing pretty fast and be very familiar with the game to get the time down to 2 hours.

No question, we were disappointed with the game. Everyone at the table kept saying "we must be doing somthing wrong", but we kept poring over the rules and kept not finding anything. The game hugely encourages large stacks, which is very bad (we thought there must be some sort of stacking or activation limit, but we couldn't find anything as hard as we looked). Very few of the events on the cards seemed worthwhile - since you seemed to get an Emperor right away, and since assassinations are rare (and no Emperor in his right mind is going to stay in Rome very long), Senetors were completely worthless, bribes only slightly less so, and Praetorean Gaurds pretty marginal. That's about half the deck, near as we could tell. The whole bit with tallying up the declaration points to become Emperor took us a while to figure out how to play right, only to see that it seemed worthless, since one player dropped an Ave Caesar right away and simply became Emperor - thus making the political angle irrelevant (you can't be "declared" Emperor if there already is one).

Also, running out of cards is really ugly - other players can attack you and know exactly how much they need to defeat you, making your armies largely completely defenseless. Given this, there developed a huge reluctance to actually play cards, with all the players wanting to pass most of the time, not seeing any upside to acting.

It seemed to us, on completing the game, that we *must* have been playing somthing incorrectly, but we just couldn't figure out what. I'd welcome some help in this matter. Until we do, though, nobody in the group had any desire to play this one again. This was a game I was definitely looking forward to, as sort of a low-complexity Successors - Successors is a game I think quite highly of, but it's got complexity issues - but Successors this one definitely isn't.
Thys wille shok you! With a 1,000 elephants!
flag
Avatar
Re:Session Report
Thanks for the report, Chris. This is a major disappointment - I was really looking forward to this one.
Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
Re:Session Report
To be honest, I walked away from this game more confused than enlightened. From reading over the rules & thinking about the game, it really *seemed* like it should work, and a similar fundamental system worked quite well in Waterloo; but I walked away pretty convinced that Nero did not, in fact, work as a game - but couldn't figure out where it had gone wrong. Was it possible we had misappreciated somthing when the "large stacks arms race" began? We're pretty savvy gamers these days, but it's certainly possible. But then, Richard Berg replied to me on consimworld that this consolidation was common and to some extent an intended effect of the design, and if that's true, then my leanings towards writing the game off become stronger.

Hopefully, othes play and let me know if I'm right or if I'm just hallucinating in some way.
Mike Fitzgerald
flag
Game Designer
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#17947),
I liked the game better than you did Chris. You cannot pass a player round- you must play or discard at least one card. We found it fun to try to set up your big run for land or emperor. The bad weather card is very good to stop people using those large stacks to eat up territory. The down side of the stack is not getting them dispersed enough in your last round so they score points for you by owning an area.

Its an unusual game with a different feel than most we play- I don;t say its a great game- but I would play time to time- I like the continous round idea with the cards.
Doug Adams
flag
Avatar
04060708
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#17947),

Thanks Chris - after "Waterloo" I'm very suspect of Berg/Phalanx. I'll be staying away from this one, I suspect.
Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
Re:Session Report

Just to be clear, I said that people *wanted* to pass most of the time. Of course you can't, so in the middle game players usually just played one card to fiddle somthing or even just discarded a card - there was a sense that in trying to make a power play by playing 2-4 cards, you were just going to get reamed by the last player to have cards since you could no longer defend yourself.

The Bad Weather is a good and critical card, I agree, since it allows you to force a battle. One of the few useful cards in the deck.
Ted K
flag
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#17947),
I also liked the game, contrary to your comments. I've played it several times, with both 3 and 4 players, and found it to be a good game for providing players with interesting choices and alternative strategies. None of the games I've played took longer than 3 hours, and most were finished in 2 hours, so I'm guessing your group plays slow. (Hey, we've all had that problem...)
Also contrary to some of the comments here, I liked this game BETTER than their Waterloo game, which I was not particularly thrilled with. Guess it just goes to show that people are different in what they like.
Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
Re:Session Report
After some research on consimworld and checking around, it seems that we did nothing wrong and this game, quite frankly, just sucks (unless you can enter some kind of group delusion in which people are willing to make "power plays" to make the game interesting, knowing that it worsens their own position). It makes FFG's balking at getting it distributed in the US more understandable.

This is sad because I'm sure it will badly tarnish Phalanx Games' reputation, and I like and respect what they are trying to do (publish high-production value, low-to-moderate complexity wargames). But they won't be getting my money again until I'm pretty confident future releases are solid.
Kevn Whitmore
flag
Avatar
0405060708
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#19545),

I played Nero for the first time yesterday. I had not read anything about the game prior to the session. Reading this thread of posts about Nero mirrors just what we discussed yesterday. We quit after 3 turns (about 3 hours), and felt we *MUST* be doing something wrong. One player said that it felt like the game had evolved into a modified Titan game, as we all pushed huge stacks of legions around the board.

However, after reading this thread, I'm now confident that we did play correctly - and I have to agree with Chris - I will not be wanting to play this game again.

Kevin Whitmore
Rob Derrick
flag
Avatar
Re:Session Report
I was in the same game as Kevin. Ditto to all.
There was just this feeling that no one could
have gone to all the trouble to produce a game
that looked this nice, and on reading the rules,
seemed like it should be a fascinating game,
only to have it devolve into one round of consolidating
your forces, 8 rounds of discarding cards to no
effect, and one round of desparately spreading your
legions around for points, and then repeat the whole
thing several times over several hours. I can't stand
not doing anything in a game, so I basically gave
up the Emporer and a huge lead at the end of turn
one, just to make something happen.

Looking back, probably the most amusing thing of
the entire experience was when somebody subverted
my entire army, nine legions!, with the play of a
revolt in Judea card, and then moved in with his
ONLY legion in the game and took over almost all
of mine. Only to find out a few turns later when
my lone legion moved out of the province it had
been hiding in that the province he had subverted
wasn't Judea, but Syria, and my lone legion/control
marker had just been covering up the name.

And the Control Markers seem totally worthless. About
the only thing they accomplished in our game was
to obscure the province name.

I really wanted to like this one, but it appears
irreparably broken.

rob
Walt Mulder
flag
Avatar
0405060708
Re:Session Report
robmderrick (#19764),I've been following all the news and concerns about this game here, the Phalanx forum, and on CSW as well. I went and read through the rules as well and am still considering Nero as a game purchase.

I would change just a few things to see if it improves the game making it more of what was hoped for by some. The rules state that you can't become Emperor by Legion unless you start a player turn in Roma. Thus, you can't just waltz in and become Emperor until your next player turn. I would also add that you cannot leave Roma until your player turn following the one you become Emperor. You would then have to contend with the possibility of assasination and plan accordingly. It would make it less likely that someone would make such a run on the 1st turn. The second change would be to limit units in a province in some manner. At the end of a turn, I would limit the total number of units in a provice to 3 legions (or possibly 4 if a general/contender/emperor is present). Call it a forage limit or say that the troops are going home to harvest the crops before returning the next year. Any legions over the forage limit would be lost. I'm not sure how big the stacks of legions in your games are getting so I'm sure a limit on legions would require a tweak. Maybe an ongoing attrition of one unit every round if a group is over a certain amount (say 5) might also work. It seems from all the negative discussion, that there should be an easy rules change that will fix the problems if they are in fact problems, or at the least would make it more fun to play. All I've read so far are how the game "sucks" or what the problems are, but I haven't seen too many suggestions for improving or fixing it. If anyone wants to sell me their copy cheap, let me know as I'm in the market and will make an offer.
Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
Re:Session Report
Walt Mulder (#19780),
All I've read so far are how the game "sucks" or what the problems are, but I haven't seen too many suggestions for improving or fixing it. If anyone wants to sell me their copy cheap, let me know as I'm in the market and will make an offer.

I paid $40 (or whatever) for the damn thing, I think I am rightfully upset at being sold such a horrid game, and I don't know why I should throw good money after bad and waste my time trying to fix it. I've still got plenty of good games on my shelves ...

While your suggestions seem reasonable, none address the most heinous of the game's problems - the last one to play cards has a big advantage as his or her opponents are effectively paralysed and defenseless.

It seems clear to me that there is no simple fix for this game. I'd just add a comment that reading the rules alone should not convince you to buy it. Talking with a few people, and seeing this thread, it seems that a common response is that "it seemed like it should be good after reading the rules!". Even I thought that, and I have a pretty good sense of these things nowadays. But, the game just doesn't seem to work, and there are plenty of other games that do to spend your time & money on.

Think of it this way - every unit of Nero that Phalanx and Berg sell will go further towards convincing them that their next game doesn't need any quality playtesting or development work either. We wouldn't want that, would we?