There seems to be a shortage of good Age of Conan reviews, right now. Having now played the game as three of the four kingdoms, I can say some things about it, but not that much. Maybe the game is too "deep" to allow quick quality reviews.
On the surface Age of Conan looks like a Risk variant. Underneath that layer is a game about converting resources into victory points. You essentially have three types of resources: Conan bid tokens, cards, and the fate dice.
Conan bid tokens (plus a strategy card) convert to control of Conan (assuming you win the auction). Control of Conan gives you access to adventure tokens (which can be kept for potential end game scoring or converted to money/sorcery), Conan's aid in battle, and ability to drop raider tokens (negative points and/or make neutrals harder to take).
Fate dice let you do 4 things: move emissaries (main source of gold in the game), move armies (main source of VP in the game), get cards (which make your other actions more efficient), or effect Conan (either by dropping raiders, shortening the adventure track or moving Conan more quickly to his destination).
And cards (as I claimed earlier) aid your efficiency. Increasing your odds in dice contests, giving you special powers to sway events in your favor, and so on (I'm not that familiar with Stygia's deck so I'll keep things vague).
I am familiar with Aquilonia, Turan, and Hyperborea. I know what most of my opponents have hidden in their kingdom decks. I am not surprised when Turan plays Sultan's Gold (for example).
But all of this still feels like the surface of the game. I'd need a lot more plays to see how it all pans out. All these fun plays are just me getting a handle on the strategy and tactics allowed by the game.
I've tried a game where I tried to control Conan via lots of card draws (for the auction), tried a cash strategy (doesn't do much unless you have play on the table cards to fuel), and even tried a military only approach. Each has some merit and I don't think there is an optimal path through the game.
Multiple paths to victory and all that.
Maybe the reason there are so few good reviews of Age of Conan out there is that the game takes time to learn and enjoy (which is true of teaching and individual sessions). Maybe that level of depth will give Age of Conan a level of replayability that most new games lack.
But those new games do get quick quality reviews. Oh well.
Showing posts with label Francesco Nepitello. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francesco Nepitello. Show all posts
Monday, 30 March 2009
Friday, 13 March 2009
Long Games
Played Age of Conan and Android. I really enjoyed both games, but I'm not close to being able to review them.
I've been Louis Blaine in both Android games. They've been different cases (which make the game play differently), but same character. I even ended up with the same starting plot.
In the second game, I played Louis more in character. He didn't have the maga-happy ending with his wife, but did catch the criminal. Going for the marginally happy ending gave Louis extra powers (ability to move evidence after following up a lead), which isn't there if you resolve the first 3 days favorably. Being able to place evidence helped a lot (Louis was also obsessed with his suspect).
But there is so much more to the game: 4 other characters to try, many other cases, different strategies to try out with each character. Only problem is the length-phobic gamers make it harder to get played than other games.
I've been Louis Blaine in both Android games. They've been different cases (which make the game play differently), but same character. I even ended up with the same starting plot.
In the second game, I played Louis more in character. He didn't have the maga-happy ending with his wife, but did catch the criminal. Going for the marginally happy ending gave Louis extra powers (ability to move evidence after following up a lead), which isn't there if you resolve the first 3 days favorably. Being able to place evidence helped a lot (Louis was also obsessed with his suspect).
But there is so much more to the game: 4 other characters to try, many other cases, different strategies to try out with each character. Only problem is the length-phobic gamers make it harder to get played than other games.
Played a full game of Age of Conan (as Aquilonia). I seemed to be doing pretty good conquering territory, but the game ended shockingly: Stygia crowned Conan king. Last time I checked Conan hated Stygia, but they had enough "women" tokens to win Conan over.
I had also left 1 army unit alone next to Stygia. They were able to attack it for a Crom counts the dead token. This was enough to give them +3 points (instead of +1 for ties on Crom counts the dead). Did I mention that I lost by 1 point?
Although, if he thought he wouldn't win via crowning Conan the game would have ended normally and Hyperborea would have won. They had the majority of Monster and Treasure tokens (+10 points) which would have put them in the lead.
It is amazing to play a quick 3.5 hour game (with 3-4 players, one player left early), and still be within striking distance of each other. The "rubber banding" mechanism of the Conan bonus card didn't seem to come into play (although that might be because Hyperborea had it and they kept winning Conan auctions).
I'd like to play the game again as a different kingdom (probably one of the sorcerous ones) to see how the game changes, but as it is the game is great fun.
Not sure when/if I'll be picking up a new game. The current crop of games are very fun (at least the first few times) and need a lot of time. This is probably a good thing, why spend money on a "disposible game"?
I had also left 1 army unit alone next to Stygia. They were able to attack it for a Crom counts the dead token. This was enough to give them +3 points (instead of +1 for ties on Crom counts the dead). Did I mention that I lost by 1 point?
Although, if he thought he wouldn't win via crowning Conan the game would have ended normally and Hyperborea would have won. They had the majority of Monster and Treasure tokens (+10 points) which would have put them in the lead.
It is amazing to play a quick 3.5 hour game (with 3-4 players, one player left early), and still be within striking distance of each other. The "rubber banding" mechanism of the Conan bonus card didn't seem to come into play (although that might be because Hyperborea had it and they kept winning Conan auctions).
I'd like to play the game again as a different kingdom (probably one of the sorcerous ones) to see how the game changes, but as it is the game is great fun.
Not sure when/if I'll be picking up a new game. The current crop of games are very fun (at least the first few times) and need a lot of time. This is probably a good thing, why spend money on a "disposible game"?
Monday, 12 January 2009
Rules 2fer
Some game publishers release rules before the game is in stores. Some people feel like they can review games based on reading the rules. Maybe that is true for some games and/or some gamers, but I think it is like reviewing a film after reading the shooting script. Fantasy Flight posted rules for both Android and Age of Conan. I have played Android since then, but Age of Conan still isn't out.
So let's talk about the rules for Android. Are they long, complicated, and hard to grasp first time? Yes. Are they "strongly thematic"? A set of rules governing the behavior of Noir detectives seems questionable.
I was able to write 5 whole sentences about the rules. Like number of players or play time unless long "meaty" rules aren't enjoyable then there's nothing to scare you away. But the rules aren't the game.
Specifically there are lots of cards which have special rules on them which change the game for you. Without reading all the cards, you can't know how the game will play.
Even playing for the first time, I couldn't really get the system. It is big and different and hard to evaluate. After the game, I thought about what had happened for days afterward (which is something I enjoy in games).
The more I thought about what had happened to my character and how the game played out, the more I could see the theme in the game played.
I played Louis Blaine. He's a corrupt cop who let his partner die just before the game starts. His wife knew something was up and left him. I spent most of the first week trying to get Blaine back with his wife. This gave me 7 VP, but I was kind of confused with what to do. I was in a bad mood and that somehow translated into Rachel (the bounty hunter) having her car break down. I figured she was out of the game for the time being. And then I turned my attention to Caprice (the psychic).
For the second week Caprice was pelted with Nightmares and emotional trama. Her sanity began to slip (even though I was now in a good mood). Louis had decided to end his relationship with Mr. Li (the underworld guy who Louis sold his partner out to). During the beginning of the week, Louis managed to corner Mr. Tanaka and beat him to death with a lead pipe.
Louis's plot was going so well he as it entered the second part of the second week. Then I realized that Louis couldn't be corrupt any more and have a happy ending. The cards I drew to frame suspects and throw out evidence caused me to gain bad baggage. I couldn't even gain favors like I used to. I stuck it out and managed to resolve the plot for 7 more VP.
However, I'd burned all my favors trying to reconcile Louis with Sarah. With the favors spent I couldn't profit from the work I did uncovering the conspiracy either. And I couldn't sway guilt at the end of the game. I ended up with 14 VP. Thematically, I chose to stop being corrupt, but it meant that the criminal got away.
Which seems like a very Noir story, but I only realized the importance of my decisions after the game was finished. I would lost more points pursuing the happiest endings than I gained from them.
This is how Blaine played. I am sure that the other detectives play very differently. I'm interested to see how they play.
I've kind of rambled long enough about Android. Age of Conan isn't out yet. So who knows how it actually plays. Just like Android, Age of Conan has decks of cards. The rules for Age of Conan don't seem all that thematic (whatever that means), but the flavor could well be in the cards.
I am waiting anxiously to find out.
So let's talk about the rules for Android. Are they long, complicated, and hard to grasp first time? Yes. Are they "strongly thematic"? A set of rules governing the behavior of Noir detectives seems questionable.
I was able to write 5 whole sentences about the rules. Like number of players or play time unless long "meaty" rules aren't enjoyable then there's nothing to scare you away. But the rules aren't the game.
Specifically there are lots of cards which have special rules on them which change the game for you. Without reading all the cards, you can't know how the game will play.
Even playing for the first time, I couldn't really get the system. It is big and different and hard to evaluate. After the game, I thought about what had happened for days afterward (which is something I enjoy in games).
The more I thought about what had happened to my character and how the game played out, the more I could see the theme in the game played.
I played Louis Blaine. He's a corrupt cop who let his partner die just before the game starts. His wife knew something was up and left him. I spent most of the first week trying to get Blaine back with his wife. This gave me 7 VP, but I was kind of confused with what to do. I was in a bad mood and that somehow translated into Rachel (the bounty hunter) having her car break down. I figured she was out of the game for the time being. And then I turned my attention to Caprice (the psychic).
For the second week Caprice was pelted with Nightmares and emotional trama. Her sanity began to slip (even though I was now in a good mood). Louis had decided to end his relationship with Mr. Li (the underworld guy who Louis sold his partner out to). During the beginning of the week, Louis managed to corner Mr. Tanaka and beat him to death with a lead pipe.
Louis's plot was going so well he as it entered the second part of the second week. Then I realized that Louis couldn't be corrupt any more and have a happy ending. The cards I drew to frame suspects and throw out evidence caused me to gain bad baggage. I couldn't even gain favors like I used to. I stuck it out and managed to resolve the plot for 7 more VP.
However, I'd burned all my favors trying to reconcile Louis with Sarah. With the favors spent I couldn't profit from the work I did uncovering the conspiracy either. And I couldn't sway guilt at the end of the game. I ended up with 14 VP. Thematically, I chose to stop being corrupt, but it meant that the criminal got away.
Which seems like a very Noir story, but I only realized the importance of my decisions after the game was finished. I would lost more points pursuing the happiest endings than I gained from them.
This is how Blaine played. I am sure that the other detectives play very differently. I'm interested to see how they play.
I've kind of rambled long enough about Android. Age of Conan isn't out yet. So who knows how it actually plays. Just like Android, Age of Conan has decks of cards. The rules for Age of Conan don't seem all that thematic (whatever that means), but the flavor could well be in the cards.
I am waiting anxiously to find out.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Marvel Heroes Scenarios and Scaling
I just played a game of Marvel Heroes that seemed to go on forever. We had 4 players (2 had never played before), and the scenario was drawn randomly (it was Acts of Vengeance). I don't think that Acts of Vengeance is well suited to this play environment. The game lasts for 5 full game rounds unless someone gives the game to the person sitting to their left.
Our game dragged. 5 action rounds per game round and 5 game rounds in this scenario and 4 players. That's 100 player actions (not counting planning). The game doesn't seem to be able to support that much play time. Repetitive nature of headlines becomes more clear. Also limited ability to hinder leader is clear (couldn't play my Dormammu or Ultron on game leader).
In my opinion, Acts of Vengeance is best suited for 2 players. Then the negatives cited disappear. You have complete control of villains (and can win with your super-villain's master plan). Instead of 100 actions there are only 50 (makes the game a lot quicker).
This highlights the "scaling" issues with Marvel Heroes. There are ten different scenarios in Marvel Heroes, and each scenario seems "best" with a certain number of players.
I group Galactus is Coming, Inferno, and Maximum Carnage together. They do have differences, but victory conditions are the same (after 15 points a special headline appears). They seem to play well with 4 players. 15 victory points seems like a good ending for a 4 player game. The game doesn't drag on too long. Repetition doesn't set in. There is even the Special Headline to keep the game interesting (5 or 6 points can be a huge swing).
Other "15 point" scenarios are Born Again and The Brood. Born again doesn't have any flavour, I'd prefer a special headline. I haven't played the Brood in a 4 player game so I can't really comment. However, the possibility that everyone can lose in The Brood should add a co-op element to the game.
The last quick scenario is The Evolutionary War. It is a race against the clock, and only plays for 3 turns (that's 48 player turns quite close to Acts of Vengeance with 2 players). There is a lot of competition for good headlines because you need to average 5 VP per game round to be one of the winners.
The other timed scenario is Onslaught. This plays for 4 game rounds and winners need 20 points. It seems like it would play too long with 4 players, but with 3 players it has 48 player turns just like Evolutionary war with 4. Another 4 game round scenario is House of M and that is explicitly not for 4 players (X-Men aren't available as a team).
So Onslaught and House of M seem better suited to 3 players. What about the last 4 game round scenario: Marvel Heroes. I haven't played it with 3 players. Marvel Heroes seems to encourage defeating the team's Nemesis. Which would lead to cautious play by the villains (losing a mater plan fight gives the heroes 1/3 of victory).
So by my count there are 5 scenarios suited for 4 players. 1 scenario which is especially good for 2 players (Acts of Vengeance). 1 scenario which I'd never play again (Born Again), and 3 scenarios which seem geared towards 2 or 3 players (depending on taste). I suppose the 5 "4 player" scenarios could be played with 3 players, but then the game seems too short for me. Your mileage may vary. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on scenario scalability in the comments sections.
Our game dragged. 5 action rounds per game round and 5 game rounds in this scenario and 4 players. That's 100 player actions (not counting planning). The game doesn't seem to be able to support that much play time. Repetitive nature of headlines becomes more clear. Also limited ability to hinder leader is clear (couldn't play my Dormammu or Ultron on game leader).
In my opinion, Acts of Vengeance is best suited for 2 players. Then the negatives cited disappear. You have complete control of villains (and can win with your super-villain's master plan). Instead of 100 actions there are only 50 (makes the game a lot quicker).
This highlights the "scaling" issues with Marvel Heroes. There are ten different scenarios in Marvel Heroes, and each scenario seems "best" with a certain number of players.
I group Galactus is Coming, Inferno, and Maximum Carnage together. They do have differences, but victory conditions are the same (after 15 points a special headline appears). They seem to play well with 4 players. 15 victory points seems like a good ending for a 4 player game. The game doesn't drag on too long. Repetition doesn't set in. There is even the Special Headline to keep the game interesting (5 or 6 points can be a huge swing).
Other "15 point" scenarios are Born Again and The Brood. Born again doesn't have any flavour, I'd prefer a special headline. I haven't played the Brood in a 4 player game so I can't really comment. However, the possibility that everyone can lose in The Brood should add a co-op element to the game.
The last quick scenario is The Evolutionary War. It is a race against the clock, and only plays for 3 turns (that's 48 player turns quite close to Acts of Vengeance with 2 players). There is a lot of competition for good headlines because you need to average 5 VP per game round to be one of the winners.
The other timed scenario is Onslaught. This plays for 4 game rounds and winners need 20 points. It seems like it would play too long with 4 players, but with 3 players it has 48 player turns just like Evolutionary war with 4. Another 4 game round scenario is House of M and that is explicitly not for 4 players (X-Men aren't available as a team).
So Onslaught and House of M seem better suited to 3 players. What about the last 4 game round scenario: Marvel Heroes. I haven't played it with 3 players. Marvel Heroes seems to encourage defeating the team's Nemesis. Which would lead to cautious play by the villains (losing a mater plan fight gives the heroes 1/3 of victory).
So by my count there are 5 scenarios suited for 4 players. 1 scenario which is especially good for 2 players (Acts of Vengeance). 1 scenario which I'd never play again (Born Again), and 3 scenarios which seem geared towards 2 or 3 players (depending on taste). I suppose the 5 "4 player" scenarios could be played with 3 players, but then the game seems too short for me. Your mileage may vary. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on scenario scalability in the comments sections.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Games I'm Looking Forward To (or instantly dated post)
There are tons of games that I am looking forward to in 2008, but in the interests of brevity (and blogger's 200 character label limit), I'll be talking about two in this post. Others might follow later, depending on comments and what else is going on.
As I've written earlier, I'm a fan of Marvel Heroes, but War of the Ring isn't enjoyable for me. I mentioned that the theme turned me off War of the Ring, but there are a few more quibbles with the game. The action dice serve to limit your choices and strategy. A lot of the game is spent working against the dice (and the dice have no direct link to Tolkien's prose).
I am not the biggest fan of Robert E. Howard, in general, and Conan stories in particular, but I am anticipating Nexus's new "Age of Conan" game with the ill-patience reserved for great games. Age of Conan sounds like a re-tooling of War of the Ring. So why am I so enthused given the theme and mechanics?
Because it sounds like the fantasy war game. It is really multiplayer (unlike War of the Ring which has a fixed 2 sides there are 4 countries players can be). The action dice are back but this time in a common pool. So if I take an action it means that others might not be able to do it, too. This sounds like it will add tactical decisions instead of taking away options (as the dice is War of the Ring could do).
There is also a diplomacy mechanic so war isn't the only path to victory (I enjoy multiple viable victory paths). And Conan is in the game. Auctions to steer the "force of nature" that is Conan might be the best implementation of Conan in board game form that I've heard. It does sound a bit like the Groo game, but the level of detail on Conan's activities, decks for each player nation, cards for events in neutral countries, and so on sounds like it will bring an immersive fantasy world to the table in a way not seen.
Age of Conan is very high on my radar. Here's hoping it is a great big sprawling epic game.
The other game, I'm interested in is actually an English reprint of a game already available in German: Agricola. It is about being a farmer in Europe. The fun in this game would be the same fun in economic games (see comments on Brass, 1825 and Industrial Waste for my love of economic games): building a profitable enterprise.
It also shares limited actions that make a lot of eurogames fun for me. With only 14 turns, it appears that figuring out what needs to be done now and what can wait until later will provide a delicious tension. Blocking other players actions sounds unthematic and just a way to interject interaction into the game, but since when have euros been judged on their thematic strengths?
But wait there's more (just like the infomercials say). You also get the first few planned expansions in the box. That's something like 350 cards. The cards do seem to have combinations, but simply being dealt a good hand doesn't hand the game to you on a silver platter. You have to take an action to play cards, and who knows what the opponents will do with their action advantage over you.
There doesn't appear to be any catch-up mechanism. So if you mess up then that's that. Player elimination is fine in games. It sounds like a tough game that doesn't cut much slack (other than allowing your family members to beg for food instead of staving, but even that comes with a big cost -3 points for each mouth you can't feed).
Looking over this post there doesn't seem to be much in common between the two games I'm anticipating. But that's probably good. If every game were exactly the same as every other one, then there'd be no reason to play different games. I guess variety is the spice of life.
As I've written earlier, I'm a fan of Marvel Heroes, but War of the Ring isn't enjoyable for me. I mentioned that the theme turned me off War of the Ring, but there are a few more quibbles with the game. The action dice serve to limit your choices and strategy. A lot of the game is spent working against the dice (and the dice have no direct link to Tolkien's prose).
I am not the biggest fan of Robert E. Howard, in general, and Conan stories in particular, but I am anticipating Nexus's new "Age of Conan" game with the ill-patience reserved for great games. Age of Conan sounds like a re-tooling of War of the Ring. So why am I so enthused given the theme and mechanics?
Because it sounds like the fantasy war game. It is really multiplayer (unlike War of the Ring which has a fixed 2 sides there are 4 countries players can be). The action dice are back but this time in a common pool. So if I take an action it means that others might not be able to do it, too. This sounds like it will add tactical decisions instead of taking away options (as the dice is War of the Ring could do).
There is also a diplomacy mechanic so war isn't the only path to victory (I enjoy multiple viable victory paths). And Conan is in the game. Auctions to steer the "force of nature" that is Conan might be the best implementation of Conan in board game form that I've heard. It does sound a bit like the Groo game, but the level of detail on Conan's activities, decks for each player nation, cards for events in neutral countries, and so on sounds like it will bring an immersive fantasy world to the table in a way not seen.
Age of Conan is very high on my radar. Here's hoping it is a great big sprawling epic game.
The other game, I'm interested in is actually an English reprint of a game already available in German: Agricola. It is about being a farmer in Europe. The fun in this game would be the same fun in economic games (see comments on Brass, 1825 and Industrial Waste for my love of economic games): building a profitable enterprise.
It also shares limited actions that make a lot of eurogames fun for me. With only 14 turns, it appears that figuring out what needs to be done now and what can wait until later will provide a delicious tension. Blocking other players actions sounds unthematic and just a way to interject interaction into the game, but since when have euros been judged on their thematic strengths?
But wait there's more (just like the infomercials say). You also get the first few planned expansions in the box. That's something like 350 cards. The cards do seem to have combinations, but simply being dealt a good hand doesn't hand the game to you on a silver platter. You have to take an action to play cards, and who knows what the opponents will do with their action advantage over you.
There doesn't appear to be any catch-up mechanism. So if you mess up then that's that. Player elimination is fine in games. It sounds like a tough game that doesn't cut much slack (other than allowing your family members to beg for food instead of staving, but even that comes with a big cost -3 points for each mouth you can't feed).
Looking over this post there doesn't seem to be much in common between the two games I'm anticipating. But that's probably good. If every game were exactly the same as every other one, then there'd be no reason to play different games. I guess variety is the spice of life.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Why I like Marvel Heroes
Marvel Heroes is one of my gaming "guilty pleasures". It is extremely fun to play with the right people (I've never played it with the wrong people). It took me several games to realize that the designers at Nexus did an excellent job on this game.
Marvel Heroes is an odd game. It is highly abstracted in some areas (almost no tactical dimension), but in other areas it almost seems like a simulation (literally hundred of different superpowers for heroes and villains intersecting). It seems too detailed for a Eurogame, but too abstracted for Ameritrash. I had a hard time figuring out what my "role" was in the game, the first few times.
Then I realized my role: a "Marvel Heroes coach". You feel like the coach of a sports team. Deciding who to bench and who goes out on the field each round. Some characters are also forced to the bench because of injuries. While you don't call the tactical details (that's abstracted by dice rolls), you do get to call the major strategy for each fight.
The field of play is different each game because the "headlines" (problems that need super hero help) are generated by a card deck. The difficulty of a headline depends on which heroes are sent to investigate. Do you send a weaker character who is better at the type of activity happening or a stronger one who will have more challenge (but might overcoming said challenge easier)?
The dice for this game are brilliant. They allow for a "realistic" power spread between a hero like Electra (not too powerful) and someone like the Hulk (unbelievably strong) to be represented in the same game. I can't run the numbers for different dice combinations in my head so I just go with the different power names, and the dice results fit the names of the powers being used (if you are familiar with the comics).
The other stroke of genius is that you play the villains as well as heroes. This means that there is little downtime. However your primary focus is on the heroes, the villains can only react to hero activity. Playing villains well means managing your resources (villain cards) well. It took me a long time to realize that sometimes not playing a villain to allow for an easy hero win is sometimes better than spending all your villain cards (leaving nothing for the headlines which really need blocking).
If the feeling of playing as Charles Xavier (of X-Men fame), leading your team to glory, is appealing then this is the game for you. If you wanted more tactical feel (less abstraction of powers) then Marvel Heroscape might be the ticket (I prefer grand strategy so I've never played Marvel Heroscape).
Marvel Heroes is an odd game. It is highly abstracted in some areas (almost no tactical dimension), but in other areas it almost seems like a simulation (literally hundred of different superpowers for heroes and villains intersecting). It seems too detailed for a Eurogame, but too abstracted for Ameritrash. I had a hard time figuring out what my "role" was in the game, the first few times.
Then I realized my role: a "Marvel Heroes coach". You feel like the coach of a sports team. Deciding who to bench and who goes out on the field each round. Some characters are also forced to the bench because of injuries. While you don't call the tactical details (that's abstracted by dice rolls), you do get to call the major strategy for each fight.
The field of play is different each game because the "headlines" (problems that need super hero help) are generated by a card deck. The difficulty of a headline depends on which heroes are sent to investigate. Do you send a weaker character who is better at the type of activity happening or a stronger one who will have more challenge (but might overcoming said challenge easier)?
The dice for this game are brilliant. They allow for a "realistic" power spread between a hero like Electra (not too powerful) and someone like the Hulk (unbelievably strong) to be represented in the same game. I can't run the numbers for different dice combinations in my head so I just go with the different power names, and the dice results fit the names of the powers being used (if you are familiar with the comics).
The other stroke of genius is that you play the villains as well as heroes. This means that there is little downtime. However your primary focus is on the heroes, the villains can only react to hero activity. Playing villains well means managing your resources (villain cards) well. It took me a long time to realize that sometimes not playing a villain to allow for an easy hero win is sometimes better than spending all your villain cards (leaving nothing for the headlines which really need blocking).
If the feeling of playing as Charles Xavier (of X-Men fame), leading your team to glory, is appealing then this is the game for you. If you wanted more tactical feel (less abstraction of powers) then Marvel Heroscape might be the ticket (I prefer grand strategy so I've never played Marvel Heroscape).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)