geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion - Stash Promo Card
Runewars
Dominion: Alchemy
Thunderstone
Dominion
Dungeon Lords
Alexander the Great
Agricola
Twilight Struggle
Murder at the Four Deuces
Stronghold
The Republic of Rome
Race for the Galaxy
Small World
Arkham Horror
Founding Fathers
Race for the Galaxy: The Brink of War
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Vapor's Gambit
Battlestar Galactica
Chaos in the Old World
Le Havre
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Mystery Express
Puerto Rico
Endeavor
Power Grid
Vasco da Gama
Warhammer: Invasion
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Space Hulk (3rd Edition)
Pandemic
Hansa Teutonica
Carson City
Campaign Manager 2008
War of the Ring
Livingstone
Cosmic Encounter
Stone Age
Le Havre: Le Grand Hameau
Tobago
Cosmic Encounter: Cosmic Incursion Expansion
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Summoner Wars
War of the Ring Collector's Edition
Macao
Carcassonne
Dominion: Prosperity
Neuland
Steam
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Subject: Session Report rss
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nero » Forums » Sessions
Session Report
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.
i watch for judgment anxiously
United States
Hillsboro
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
Thanks for the report, Chris. This is a major disappointment - I was really looking forward to this one.
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
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
United States
Tinton Falls
New Jersey
flag msg tools
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
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
0406070809
mbmbmbmbmb
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
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
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
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
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
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
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
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
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
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
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
Ubergeek
United States
Camas
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
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
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
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?
Ubergeek
United States
Camas
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#19810), You're certainly entiteled to your opinion. I like to work with games and turn them into something better if I have to. If you want to get rid of your game, email me off line with a desired amount and we can haggle.

I think there is a fix for the last person problem and it's variable turn ending. After each player round, roll a 10 sided die (or better 2d6). If the number is equal to or less than the number of player rounds accomplished so far, the turn ends. I'll have to get out my Granada: the Fall of Moslim Spain, as it has a mechansim to end the year in a similar fashion that works well. Now you don't know when the turn might end. Now there's an incentive to play more cards earlier on since on average (with 2d6) a round will only last 7 player turns. Also shifting the start player each round may balance the problem you mention. I'm still trying to think of a way to bring the map's cities and ports into the equation.

Granted, these are fixes to ideas that could have been incorporated in the original game to balance it better. I like board and card games because I can fix minor problems which is something I can't do with computer games. Ultimately, I get the enjoyment I want out of it. I've made plenty of "gut feel" and "spur of the moment" game purchases that I should have made after playtesting or trying out first. But I only blame myself afterward if I'm displeased. With some publishers I've been able to get rules changed in the interest of balance or fun. Trying to do this with RHB would be futile since he claims to design games for himself and not others.

I think in the situation of Nero, I'm willing to buy the game if it appears that I can fix the problems to my satisfaction. So far, I think I can. I'll probably need to buy the game in order to find out. I do appreciate your review of the game and find it balances out those that seem to like it.
John Rodriguez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron04
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#19810),

"Horrid" and "Broken" seem like unusually strong words. This makes me want to play it just so I can see how bad it really is...

Anytime these kind of strong words are thrown out I tend to get skeptical, but who knows....
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
Velusion (#19815),

"Horrid" and "Broken" seem like unusually strong words. This makes me want to play it just so I can see how bad it really is...

Yeah, they are. I suppose there is a scale of these things ... is it as bad as Imperium 3k (Avalanche)? No, certainly not. The rules are complete; it is playable. Is it entertaining? For me anyway, not at all. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.

For the curious, certainly check it out. But may I heartily recommend that you do so on somebody else's copy.
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
It looks like Richard Berg *may* have admitted there is a problem; if you surf over to www.consimworld.com and check out the Nero folder, he has proposed some rules additions (moving big stacks will cost more MPs if they aren't with a leader, and you can play a card to draw a card).

Neither of these two solutions will help, but at least he's working on the problem; we'll see what they come up with.
Michael Greene
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#22030),

I've just read all the articles up to this point, and I agree with you. I played a game of Nero, and at the end said the same thing--"Are we playing this game right?" Before I purchased the game I looked at Phalanx' website, and looked at the box---things looked pretty good. Even when I bought the game and read the rules through, things STILL looked pretty good. But when we got down and played the game, things started going horribly wrong--"Are we playing this game right?"

I hope it gets fixed, as I think it has potential---time will tell.
Rob Doupe
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
cfarrell wrote:

...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.


Phalanx may have fallen into the pitfall of tying the fortunes of the company to one designer, a designer who is plunging into the low-complexity market after decades of doing wargames. One would think rigorous playtesting of these sorts of games would be standard, but that seems to not be the case.
John Rodriguez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron04
Re:Session Report
I'm curious actually to see how his other game The Prince does. It seems to have gotten better reviews than Nero, though nothing spectacular.

I've playtested Berg's next game a number of times which is suppost to be released through Phalanx (Alexander) and found it to be fun (after like 5 revisions). I haven't tried Nero or Prince yet though.
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
Velusion (#25055),

The Prince actually looks OK, better than his last effort along these lines (Medieval, which was pretty weak but not terrible), if not spectacular. Of course, I haven't played yet, but I actually would like to. With expectations properly set, though; it certainly seems a pretty standard American "take that" card game along the lines of Munchkin or Chez Geek, but with a bit more content and more appropriate length. But this is speculation of course, which Nero taught me can be dangerous :).
John Rodriguez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron04
Re:Session Report
cfarrell (#25056),

Yea, I wasn't too impressed by Medieval. Part of that was probably due to the price. GMT vastly overpriced the simple card game (or overpaid). I would think you could get that kind of game for $10-18 in a small box.. not $45!

Medieval was OK, but nothing to write home about.

His next big "euro-empire-wargame" like game is Alexander, set roughly like Mare Nostrum except all conflict and more complex. The last revisions I saw (and I've been out of the loop for months) I enjoyed. Funny how many of the complaints I heard about Nero that he dismissed in the forums he seemed to want to cover. I got the "impression" that he was trying to "fix" Nero... but seeing as how I've NEVER played Nero, nor heard those official words I could be **spectacularly** off in my assessment. Maybe it's not like Nero at all (which, after the amount of revisions I saw, is very possible).

Anyways, bottom line was that I enjoyed the version of rules I tested and will look for it when it comes out.
Tim Hall
United States
Salt Lake City
Utah
flag msg tools
patron04
mb
Re:Session Report
Velusion (#25065), Okay, I just wanted to say that CFarrell's use of the word "wretched" is the right term to describe Nero. It was the only truly terrible gaming experience I had in all of 2003. It was downright silly, the way the game played. Still it looks nice. I'm wondering if I can frame the map and counters and use the resulting work of art to decorate my gaming room. No, alas, the memories would still be too painful. Better to let someone else become the emperor rather than have to play all those cards just to get assasinated. However, I must say that I still appreciate R. Berg's designs overall and over the years. One of my all time favs is Terrible Swift Sword. So I'll cut him some slack here. Still be less likely to buy another of his "German-Oriented" games and more likely to buy one of his wargames. Haven't played Medieval yet but I'm sure it's better than Nero.
John Rodriguez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron04
Re:Session Report
Hah!

Actually a friend gamer of mine showed me his newly bought box a month ago and said "this looks cool... want to try it?"

I wanted to tell him that he should look on here before buying games, but didn't have the heart.

I was, and still am, non-commital about trying it. ;)
Togu Oppusunggu
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
Re:Session Report
Check out the official optional rules I've posted. It should address most of the problems that have been expressed.
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Session Report
toguopp (#26337),

I dunno ... it seems to me that the huge, showstopping problem is that you are better off not doing stuff, waiting for others to burn their cards so you can play last. Since now you can effectively pass by pitching a card to draw one, the rules updates might even *aggravate* the game's already quite serious problems.

But I dunno. I'm certainly not going to play this one again to find out for sure.
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | DMCA | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.