I missed the bit about Black-Ops being a promo preview copy for the press.

I gather we don’t rate a copy?

BGN is getting a copy for review, and I’ll have it at the Gathering so that others can try it as well. This sounds like an interesting Euro take on Risk, combining the dice-driven combat with short-term objectives and a general lack of player elimination (although you can still be wiped out).

The new version of Risk (not Black Ops) might be shown at NY Toy Fair in a couple of weeks. If so, I hope to get pics then.

Eric

Just once I’d like to see a version of Risk that tweaks the combat resolution system to guarantee losses on each side for each roll (making combat a bit more predictable).  But people like the original system too much, so I doubt it will ever happen.  Still, this looks intriguing and Daviau’s track record with other Risk variants is excellent.

I dunno, the two Star Wars Risk games were great, and from the description above I don’t see the new game being as good as they were. The key thing about the SW Risks was that they were team games, so they didn’t have the problems that the free-for-all versions had (combat generally weakens both sides, so the real key to the game is diplomacy and not getting picked on rather than actual game play). You can load all the chrome you want onto it, but as long as Risk is still a multi-way free-for-all, you haven’t changed the fundamental dynamics that adults dislike and have fled to euros to get away from.

Chris:

I disagree about the free-for-all being a problem. It doesn’t pose a problem in Nexus Ops. Going with hidden objective-based goals makes being picked on less likely.

In Risk, the best person to attack is the weakened one. Objective based games could change your target to a smaller focus than merely hitting the weakest defended territory.

I’ve felt that the only two problems in Risk have ever been the elimination objective and the idea that Risk works with more than 4 players. (Player 6 in a 6 player game has lost before the first turn is taken.)

Chris, based on the article at the web site, I think what Daviau is trying to do is come up with a version of Risk that works but isn’t much more complex than the original.  I think Hasbro intends to have this *replace* the original, so it needs to be fairly simple.  As Frank says, going the Nexus Ops route sounds like a good way to go.

I corroborate the goodness of the Nexus Ops mission cards.  It’s one of the driving features that elevates Nexus Ops.

Maybe. I wasn’t that impressed with Nexus Ops, honestly. The need to fiddle your economy made for unacceptable downtime in my opinion. Also, since the winner seemed to be the one who fulfilled all the missions he or she drew, it seemed to put a premium on drawing the good/easy ones instead of the hard ones. The risk/reward balance of many missions was out of whack since the terrain setup was random (a number of missions were terrain-based) and you didn’t have much control over whether a neighbor built one of those dragon-things to kill (for example). So it felt kinda random, but didn’t play quickly enough to make up for it with fun. I’d take the two Star Wars Risk games any day over Nexus Ops, personally, not least because they are simple and quick-playing, but also because they were nicely thematic and it didn’t feel like the cards were jerking your around.

Agreed on Nexus Ops. The only thing we worked out is that if you break the turn order apart so that you move units on the outer range of your domain, then purchase units to backfill things. Makes the game run in 45-60 minutes, which is about the right length.

I did really like how the objective cards changed to focus of the game. My worry about Black Ops is that missions are equally value. Hopefully you get enough of them to even out the relative imbalances in mission difficulty.

Interesting: Every game of Nexus Ops I’ve played has lasted about 45 minutes, no matter who my opponents have been.  It plays quickly, on a compact board, with small missions that encourage you to get out there and fight.  I can see how you could find yourselves at those complaints, and given your long and unlucky games, Chris and Frank, I’m sure I’d feel the same way.

Chris and Frank:  My understanding is that the objectives in Black Ops form a public pool at the start of the game.  The first player to achieve an objective earns it.  The player who gets three objectives wins the game.  The advantage of going after harder objectives is that it gives you greater abilities (this sounds reminiscent of Louis XIV).  But there are no concerns about players being dealt unbalanced objectives, because they aren’t dealt out like that.

The open objectives doesn’t really mitigate things that much, and can lead to extreme AP. There is a similar attempt to “solve” the problem of card luck in the various crayon rails games, the public contracts variant, where instead of each player having individual “objectives” there are also public “objectives”. But it’s extremely inelegant: you have to look around, figure out who else might go for what contracts, figure out the risk profile for each. And it still doesn’t help that much in the end, because if public contracts are dealt out to favor one player - i.e., contracts come out in such a way that one player gets contracts that he can do but nobody else realistically can, while other players have to compete - it still feels unfair. And it takes the downtime from being problematic to being absolutely intolerable.

No, I want my Risk-like games to be fast-playing, end quickly, and not feel needlessly complex or arbitrary. Risk already has open objectives - it’s called conquering continents and taking territory, and it’s simple, clear, and intuitive.  Is adding more open objectives going to do anything to change the reality, or is it just going to make the game take longer as players parse out their options? It seems to me that if you want to play a game that’s less directly confrontational than Risk, you should play some other game instead of trying to shoehorn Risk into something it isn’t. I think the SW Risk games are great because they really highlight the good things about Risk while marginalizing much of the bad. You can graft all the euro-like stuff you want onto the base game, it still is what it is, a game about taking risks and beating the snot out of your neighbors, and that reality isn’t going to change. Antike was basically Risk with open objectives, and that didn’t really work. Although admittedly Antike took the risk out of Risk, which couldn’t really have been a good idea.

On the flipside, though, I’m glad to hear the designer is considering a speedier combat resolution system :)

Your article says that this version of Risk has been posted to “Gone Cardboard”. Can’t seem to find it?

Sorry, David—the listing for Black Ops is now in pace on GC, although the link is to the Gamers With Jobs article included in the news item. There’s nothing on the Hasbro site now.