I'm glad to hear all these enthusiastic cheerings for this game, but unfortunately, my gaming knowledge is rather limited (maybe I'm too young for knowing properly all the great classics from the past). Can anyone tell me why this game is supposed to be so good? Has (had) it something special in its mechanics? Or?

How important was the strategy / tactics in the first edition? Was it enjoyable even when played only by two players?

Thank you all :-)

JULIA

I just recently discovered it myself, so I can't answer all your questions, but it seems like a nice "light" wargame. Not too complex, but with enough depth to make players think about what they were trying to accomplish. The quality of the minis was also a big draw, even if the rest of the art was a bit cartoony.

There is a nice demo still up (for now) on the WotC website:

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/nexusops_demo/nexusopsdemo.asp

It came out in 2005. I just played it a few months ago for the first time, but's been out of print for a little while now.

I do think part of the appeal also has to do with the whole Scarcity / Commodity / Value issue. You want things more if they are unavailable.

That said, I wanted to buy it after the first time I played (before I knew it was unavailable). And, I think FFG is in high stride, so I'm expecting they will "kick it up a notch".

Julia said:

#1 would be a long answer. But I will try to be brief. It is a light - light/medium weight wargame that plays between 60-90 minutes. The theme was a bit silly so it was just a game to pass the time with in a fun way, and not a very serious way. The component quality was great and much underappreciated during its print run. I was talking to Kevin Wilson a few weeks ago about how great it would be if FFG got to make it and he said that for Hasbro it wasnt a success because they needed to sell so many more units in order to be profitable. But if FFG had it, it would likely be considered a successful game in the numbers it sold in.

#2 Actually it really doesnt have anything special in the mechincs of the Avalon Hill version. It was how the mechanics were incorporated that made it special. Most of the mechanics are rehashed stuff, but the final design is rather sublime and enjoyable for even non gamers to get into.

#2.5 That and the day glo components were attractive as well.

#3 Almost non existent really from reading the rules. But there is a subtle variety of decisions to be made in the game even though your victory points are randomly assigned through cards and dice play a rather large role in the game. Your strategy comes from the cards mostly, but how you assign your units tactically is considerable. It has to be played to be appreciated since if you just read the rules it seem like a horrendous dice fest at first blush.

#4 this game scales incredibly well with 2-4 players. Many consider it to be the best 3 player game out there since genuinely good 3 player games are so rare. My GF and I play this 2 player constantly. It works very well with 2 as one may expect with a wargame. 4 players can get a bit clunky in comparison to 2-3 player games, but this is solved when playing 2 teams of 2 players.

I am an unabashed fan of the game as it is in my top 10 fave games in my collection. It is fast, fun, high replayability (and it would seem even moreso with the FFG revised rules from what little we know).

Hope that helps.

Hellfury, Grim6,

thank you all for your response. I enjoyed watching the demo on WoC's site (even if the fight mechanics left me rather unsatisfied). The idea of a light wargame is appealing to me (often I play very long games, and sometimes there is no time for a 3- or 4-hour game; besides the only wargame I played -and play on a regular basis - is Hannibal from Valley Games. And again, I like the idea of a wargame, but Hannibal it's just to long, sometimes we have to split it over two days, not something always possible), and from your description it seems like it's a lot of fun.

Generally speaking, it's not a "must have" for me, but for sure it's something I can think about in the months to come

Thank you

JULIA

Nexus Ops is much much better than Twilight Imperium or Starcraft IMHO.

It's faster and easier to learn and teach! It has better aesthetics (both the new and old version)! It takes up way less space! And lastly, it is much more fun than the more bloated war/space games!

Many said it was too simple, but that is what makes it great. I'm glad FFG has kept the game the same and made the new additions as alternate stats on the back of the play sheets and the back of the monolith tile.

I'm glad FFG is starting to publish lighter to medium depth games. They went crazy with the EPIC games that never get played because of their difficult learning curves and gargantuan play areas.

Frog said:

I agree the simplicity is what makes Nexus Ops great, and I also agree that I'm happy FFG is moving towards having at least some non-13 hour marathon games. I like TI3 as well, but it's a matter of what I feel like playing on any given day. Nexus Ops hits a sweet spot where the rules are simple but the tactical engagement is deep. =)

Steve-O said:

Thank you, Frog and Steve, for sharing your thought. As for me, I geneally prefer "heavy" games, but having a good, lighter alternative for playing with friends is something appealing. Often you have just a couple of hours to play,and you simply can't do some games because time is an issue. Generally speaking, it's good to see a company offering a wide range of games to meet everyone's taste.

One of the reasons that Nexus Ops is preferred over other conquest games like Risk, TI3 and the like is because you cannot win Nexus Ops by turtling. To win you have to attack, so if you spend the game turtling and building up resources, the two or three guys that pounded on each other will all finish ahead of you.