Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I've not seen much in the way of discussions for this on Dakka, so I thought it'd be nice to start a discussion here. It's safe to assume some of you just bought it for the models, but I'd love to hear how those of you who played the game are getting on with it .

Just played the first scenario with my brother this evening, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I've only played as the Thousand Sons so far, but they're pretty good fun to play. Lots of interesting spells to choose from and the warp charge deck can be really useful (though one of my combat squads suffered a case of warp related spontaneous combustion!)

So yeah, what do you lot think?



On a side note: I think if the psychic phase in 30/40K was done with a card system like it was for BoP that'd be pretty great.

I'll paste my recent thoughts from another thread, as this is a better place for it anyway:

 Gobbla wrote:

Sherrypie wrote:

 Gobbla wrote:

 Freytag93 wrote:
IMO, these boxes are made purely to put out new marks of armor that will get new players into 30k and current players spend more money on new tacticals..

IMO, they are both good games, too. It's worth repeating.

They contain games, too, ye blind power armour hungry bats! (though it is true that many only buy them for the miniatures, sadly)

I'm personally very enamored by Calth's system, but sadly Prospero has left me cold thus far (having played dozens of BaC matches and several of BoP). It is kind of sad to see they couldn't just add to a relatively easily modifiable base and give it more depth. If Prospero's movement mechanic wasn't so utterly punishing and the game actually felt more tactical instead of "well crud I rolled badly and am now wrecked" -rolloff, I might enjoy it a bit more. The psychic system is fun though, might rip it to my games of Calth

Compared to Calth, in that game I almost always feel like I've accomplished something when things go right: well-timed and prioritized moves, special cards that I have held in my hand for the entire game until they can be unleashed in a decisive blow when stars align, a sacrificed unit here and there that actually held my line as expected and so forth. The tactical depth offered by its simple mechanics is pretty amazing. Asymmetrical lines of fire, different weapons that are all useful in some manner, actual advantage from breaking and reforming units on the battlefield, tense maps with interesting layouts, the absolute gem of alternating actions and the power to strip those points away with humble bolters... Beautiful, just beautiful. Also considering how tight the system is (our games are usually nigh-annihilating attrition wars of mutually assured destruction with equally skilled players and curb-stompy massacres if one is better than the other), I think it was developed much more as a game than Prospero was (more weight on decisions, less forgiving unit placement, line of sight that actually matters, offence-orientated mechanics that encourage being proactive and agressive, very clear victory conditions that both players must constantly strive towards...). IDK, Prospero's rules feel like a watered down Calth to me, like someone went "how about we remove that tense tactical decision making that is the core gameplay element and add more random dice rolling" and then called it a day. It feels more beer'n'pretzels than I want my games to feel. How I'd hope to see more official material for BaC, sigh.

Anyhoo, on topic, I'd personally like to see some Isstvanian action. Bunker assaults, perhaps? Count the Seven, loyalists!

Great description of Calth! A little harsh when it comes to Prospero.

Despite the scale and subject matter, they are VERY different in design. Calth has a skirmish level system that drives the game. Prospero has abstract game functions that make the game work. To illustrate the difference, I like Calth more because I like games that more closely approximate 40K combat in a board game (Space Hulk, Advanced Space Crusade). My Buddy likes games that play more like boardgames than skirmish games (Lost Patrol, Horus Heresy). He loved Prospero. Lot's of decisions, card-driven psychics, chess-like movement, simple combat. Different strokes for different folks.

Yes, that is very true. It is quite clear that they are intended to work towards different goals, which is all fine and dandy by itself, it just bothers me that Prospero feels less meaty (for my tastes) in those all-important in-game decisions that elevate the game to something truly enjoyable. Having now played half a dozen matches more than during my previous write-up, I can concede that the game gets better as its size increases. This gives more meaning to obstructions (of which there should be like twice the amount, dangit!), Short Range is an actual factor once in a while and the potential teleport shenanigans with psychic powers start to matter a lot more. I very much enjoyed the mission 3, Hunters hunted, to pick an example, even if it suffers from the next point like all the other. The problem remains, though, that barring some outrageous rolling, the missions are usually kinda heavily inclined towards one side. And usually that is the Loyalists' side, with either a ton of extra troops or too easy objectives. This wouldn't be so problematic, if other imbalance factors were ironed out a bit better. As it stands, it doesn't feel to me like the game offers a fair(ish) chance for both sides to pull through by clever play. It could be argued that since the Thousand Sons are losing the war, they should be at a disadvantage most of the time, but that does make a pretty dull setup for a game if the outcome between equally skilled players is mostly known in advance barring some lucky dice rolls. The game is not a trainwreck, though, and I'd still recommend it if the setting is inspiring and this type of skirmishing feels like it's up your alley.

Some personal observations:

- Terminators get shot to pieces with about anything. Why do they only have Stamina 2? For it to be possible, that a normal legionnaire can critically punch anyone's head off? Custodes and characters have more, so no. The terminators are usually valued about as highly as two ordinary troopers, but are in no way their worth in offencive capabilities. Barely in defence, either, as they get shot to death almost as easily by any amount of shooting that throws more than one dice. My fix: Stamina 3 or a gradual decrease in successive defence rolls (Like a d10, d8 and a d6 against ). Maybe even make it so that they never go below d8? Potentially interesting, if a tad powerful.

- Supporting Fire with bolters is pretty damn powerful, as it often alters the whole ranking line up and makes massed tacticals a pretty powerful asset. I cannot even count the number of times I've rolled from 1 vs 5 to 6 vs 5 and critted those terminators down. Which brings up the previous point, the most durable personal protection in the galaxy really needs a fix.

- The Space Wolves, who usually are anyway at an advantage in the mission line ups, can punch through armour by equaling it in close combat, not by exceeding it. And this does carry on to other models in the unit too. *deep grumbling sigh* Eargh. Such Guardian Spear, much murder, very wow. This is very, very powerful in a system like this, especially with the highly unforgiving movement system that can basically tie up almost every important target in the enemy force and prevent them from moving. Yes, with correct psychic powers the Thousand Sons player can mitigate this somewhat, but I found that very often this means that lone fighting pairs of Wolves can curbstomp unwary terminators merely by kicking them in the face before they can retaliate. Combine this with the fact, that Wolves win most of the Initiatives (as they win ties) if Ahriman is not present, and you can pretty much kiss your elites good bye. Compare this to Calth, where moving to your enemy in such a tie up move was more often than not lethal as you ran into IMMEDIATE counter and could very likely lose your squad.

- The line of sight is as basic as it gets. There is almost no worth to obstructions in most cases (of course there is, but not nearly enough) as you can shoot at seemingly noneuclidian angles at the guys who, it turns out, really weren't behind that corner or anything. Calth had a clean, elegant answer to this: if it's a direct shot from middle to middle, full effect. If not, but some visibility, reduced effect. Seriously, I guess most of my numerous gripes here would vanish if the positioning regarding cover had a bigger effect on the outcome of battle. You know, like in ANY real battle ever. As a fix I propose something along the lines of bumped up defence dice for those shot at, makes it harder but not impossible to get those all-important criticals. Another issue I have with it is that you can shoot through your own units willy-nilly, as LoS only stops at zones occupied by enemy models. Once again, this is very well implemented in Calth, where firing through your own guys makes the shot Obscured.

- The criticals. Okay, this is a minor gripe on a simple system, but the "double damage for crits" is boring. In Calth, every weapon had a unique effect on crits and none were strictly better than others. In this case it is true that some differentation happens before that (dice size, flamer rules, bolter rerolls, dual wielded lightning claws...), but the effect on gameplay is very limited beyond firing away and hoping for the best. In the very statistically orientated world of Calth, one often tried to combine his men in such a fashion as to make most use of the criticals as tactical assets and get so many dice in there that it was very likely to happen. I need a point off those guys? Get at least 6 bolter shots in their direction. I need to punch a termie in the face? You two, charge with the sergeant armed with the mighty power fist! And that termie (with Stamina 3) was quite literally unkillable by a normal legionnaire without big guns, btw

- I enjoy the psychic phase a lot. The different powers are quite well fitting to the game and produce very much of the depth the game has, which is a bit unfortunate because they are also very very random. The ones that affect movement and firing lines are those I find matter the most, along with Hyper regeneration, as it ought to be. There might be perhaps one too many "enumeration phase ends now" cards in the decks, as it is somewhat rare to get more than one successful power to go off on a turn. Not necessarily that bad, as it forces prioritizing from the player, but it cuts some edge from the Loyalists card that gets 3 Willpower instead of 1 but lets the Sons try an extra power this turn as they might never even get to the second one. And so forth.

- The missions show very much lost potential in their design. Yes, this game is tactically lighter than Calth and its ilk, but some things are just glaring at me as I read them:

1) The first mission pits some tacticals against each other, with a nice addition of a Sister Superior and Tartaros sergeant... and Geigor. My mind boggles as to why he is there. Once more, barring some very succesful warp buggery the Thousand Sons are doomed as this murdertrain of a man simply rips through them nigh-invulnerable due to his Stamina 4. And unlike Calth, where every mission had a strict timelimit, in this case the poor defenders of Tizca cannot even take solace in the fact that they have delayed their enemy (thus winning by stalling enough time). No, they have to kill every last one of the invaders. Including the technoviking from Hell. Just no. The size of the battlefield is also too small to do justice to the open areas fought over in the city by highlighting the issues with the movement system. If there was a lull in the beginning, like one board tile more, so that the forces wouldn't immediately be at each others faces, this could do much better.

2) The Custodes mission is actually pretty great. The elite behaves like they ought to, killing legionnaires left and right if they don't sit behind cover (of which there should be a whole lot more, dangit!).

3) Hunters hunted is also pretty rewarding. I played it through several times and even though I couldn't even once pull a win with the termies, it was tactically intriquing every time. This map shows very well how this is a game of fighting in the open, as the massed Loyalist fire can absolutely destroy Ahriman's little strike force if they aren't protected by all sorts of nonsense (the best kind of nonsense) like Kine Shields and Shrouding. Mm-mmh, Shrouding, mighty fine that one. I currently think that this one is pretty much unwinnable by the Thousand Sons if the Loyalist knows what he's doing, as this one does have a time limit and the movement system hamstrings the terminators from making any real advances. Merely throwing singular bodies at them is pretty much enough to stop them in their tracks while the sisters move further to safety, all the while shooting with bolters and plinking the termies down. This, however, might be very different with suitably mobile psychic powers like Wings of Fire that allows the lightning claw monsters to jump on top of the sisters and rip them apart. Even Surge of Rapidity, I'd say. The titan mechanic is fun, I just wish it would eradicate obstructions as it shoots. Could be a bit bigger effect too, now it is too easy to dodge

4) Kine wall defence. Well. Talk about missed potential. A mission completely dependant on a single model that can be shielded by both Geigor and a d10-armoured Custodes with a shield until the breach? Did I mention the Stamina 4 on the Wolf? Urgh. I have managed to get both sides to win this, but it was never too satisfying. The first two turns of marching to the shield wall are horribly, horribly underused. Why not have any interaction there? A small diversion from the Thousand Sons, a bit of scenery to make the Loyalist ponder a bit about his moves instead of simply putting a Custodes in every unit to soak fire and marching to the shield as a big blob? Even some defensive turrets they could try to either avoid or overrun? You know, something that creates interaction between the players beyond a completely arbitrary dice roll on "bombardments"? The situation at the breach is actually pretty similiar: heaviest hitters surge in, defenders throw everything in small increments (lest they lose too many men they can't afford in the first swings) in their way and blast away with everything they have to the scrap. Beyond some Kine Shield -psyching, there isn't too much to do except watch dice fall. Some positioning, certainly, but the space is once again a bit limited. Why not make the board a tile or two bigger, so that the defenders could actually create killing zones and deeper defence lines like the bloody supersoldiers they are are supposed to? And since there is once again no time limit but a "kill 'em all" order, options for varying strategies are very limited. The Loyalists either punch through and supermurder everyone in their way or get shot at the hole and are shut out long before the terminators, that the Sons are supposed to have, ever arrive. Why not use them as the distraction outside? While the tacticals inside are rushing to defence, why not drop some suicide teleporters outside the shield at the same time? Puts some pressure on both sides and would be a lot better, I'd wager. Still, I must say I like the actual situation described here very much as a mission brief.

I haven't tried the last two missions yet, but they could very much be the positively shining stars of this gander. Especially the Labyrinth Maze seems interesting, with the Thousand Sons deploying forces as needed and selected by the player while the Loyalists rampage through. Looking forward to that.

Whew. Maybe that might provoke some thoughts

I'm sorry I lost track of this thread, and never replied. The above is a cogent and thoughtful summary. But, it relies on assumptions that are not universal. Which does invite further discussion.

First and foremost is a mild assumption that randomness is the opposite of strategic depth. Prospero makes use of a lot of randomness (opposed die rolls, psychic card draw decks). A given in any GW game. That doesn't mean the game's outcome hinge mostly on luck. They don't. Good play is still rewarded, bad play is punished.

Secondly, it's fine to compare Prospero to Calth. That's illuminating. And, OK to prefer one to the other . I also prefer Calth. But, it's off-base to find fault with Prospero because it is not like Calth. Or, worse because it does not use Calth's basic rules. Prospero's simply a completely different game. Same scale and nearly identical opponents. But, an entirely different approach. Not a tactical game like Calth. More like a boardgame than a miniature game. And, judged by that metric, it's pretty good for what it does. Like I said earlier, I've a regular opponent who prefers boardgames to miniature games. Those folks are out there.

As for balance, I think that is in the eyes of the beholder. Both sides in Prospero have strengths and weaknesses that make them dissimilar. I find any combat advantages the Loyalists have is more than compensated for by the Traitor's psychic powers. In fact, I find the psychics too damn good for the Traitors. Winning ties in the the power draws usually results in successful casting. And, with the right powers used at the right time, the Loyalists can be whittled away, or their advance simply stagnate. Yes, Geigor can be a killing machine. But, Traitors can be returned from the dead pile, and still keep Geiger from advancing. Also, the elite vs massed firepower seems to favor the Traitors, too.

The smaller complaints are maybe a little more like peeves than game flaws. Maybe. I like Prospero's Critical Hits mechanic. It's simple, quick, and easy. And, logical. It gets the job done. And, I get the complaint about the lack of terrain effects. And, the really symplified LOS rules. But, the game simulates a Horus Heresy battle on wide open urban plazas, instead of dark, underground caves. Just ain't much terrain to be had. If terrain effects were more prominent, this would give outsized benefits to the rather paltry cover.

That all said, I will grant I'm not 100% sold that each Propero scenario is 100% balanced. Ditto, Calth. In both cases, it's a process.

Anyway, nice write up. Deserved a rebuttal.

 Gobbla wrote:
I'm sorry I lost track of this thread, and never replied. The above is a cogent and thoughtful summary. But, it relies on assumptions that are not universal. Which does invite further discussion.

First and foremost is a mild assumption that randomness is the opposite of strategic depth. Prospero makes use of a lot of randomness (opposed die rolls, psychic card draw decks). A given in any GW game. That doesn't mean the game's outcome hinge mostly on luck. They don't. Good play is still rewarded, bad play is punished.

Heh, that happens. But hey, I'm always up for a good discussion about these things even when they've had their spot in the limelights

So, first point: I do not assume that. I like me some random.

Randomness isn't opposed to strategic depth, though it can diminish it as I feel is the case here, but it can also very well provide many interesting things that have to be taken into account on strategic level in any given game. Like spawning random monsters on the map or possible rebellions in grand strategy video games, or in case of miniature games like this you don't necessarily know what psychic powers you might have at your disposal or how any given moves affect your position later on in the game like you'd know in chess, for an example. For many gamers such random elements may even be the very reason they enjoy that game while deterministic chess-like systems leave them cold. You can see this very often in board gaming, where the wedge between traditional Eurogames (often very deterministic action economies, like Viticulture) and Ameritrashes (which isn't derogatory, just covers a wide range of games that often like to use things like dice or cards to determine random oucomes, like Risk or Chaos in the Old World) is often pretty wide in gaming communities. In wargames the randomness is often desired, to some extent, so that we might have a somewhat simulationist element there in that uncertainty about how our dudes fare.

I also don't say that good play isn't rewarded nor bad punished, oh no. I still utterly trounce someone in this game if they don't think their moves through. The problem here is that I personally feel BoP falls short in how it uses it's randomness because it has a large amount of swing in such a small scale and thus makes for more boring rolloffs between somewhat similarily skilled opponents. See, in something like 40k you throw so many dice that the law of large numbers kicks in and you can pretty reasonably trust in expectational values for your actions while correcting for deviations when anomalies arise by bad or hot rolling. That is random on strategic level, though somewhat problematic there too (as swings can hit pretty dang hard). In BoP though, the scale is so much smaller that you can expect swings to have more impact on tactical level as every lost man counts for much more and together with the somewhat restricted combination of movement, psychics and attacks
that gives random a very large part in determining the outcome of every round. This stems partly from the comparison with Calth, of which more later on: the random here hurts the less lucky party so much more, because the moves you actually have agency over are ALREADY MADE (aka moving and positioning) for that round before you dish out the hurt. So you try to calculate the odds, set up the field and then let the random sort out what you got in front of you for the next round, whereas in Calth you see your opponent take one move and eat the opportunity cost of you having a go with the unit of your choice after it, possibly countering his move. Prospero locks you out of this: think, move, throw dice and hope in that order, but for the whole force at once. And as I see this as something a tad problematic, which indeed is a subjective and nonuniversal claim, it is in my opinion excerbated furthermore by the Critical system. The terminators in this game are way overrated by designers, who don't properly look at how the mechanics intertwine to make them laughably fragile to swingy dice, because the variance in an opposed dice roll almost guarantees that they'll get overwhelmed by even pretty light concentration of fire. This is bad randomness, I feel, that diminishes the value of making good plays in the parts where you actually have agency over your moves.

 Gobbla wrote:
Secondly, it fine to compare Prospero to Calth. That's illuminating. And, OK to prefer one to the other . I also prefer Calth. But, it's off-base to find fault with Prospero because it is not like Calth. Or, worse because it does not use Calth's basic rules. Prospero's simply a completely different game. Same scale and nearly identical opponents. But, an entirely different approach. Not a tactical game like Calth. More like a boardgame than a miniature game. And, judged by that metric, it's pretty good for what it does. Like I said earlier, I've a regular opponent who prefers boardgames to miniature games. Those folks are out there.

Sure, I can agree that games should stand or fall by their own merits. It is however wrong to say it isn't a tactical game: it absolutely tries to be, as the forces as presented are small skirmishing squads and their actions moves in the immediate tactical situation. A player can have a strategy regarding how they approach the mission presented, but the actual gameplay is about combat tactics. The comparison to Calth is in my eyes fair as these are sold on the same Heresy line as small, light wargames in 30k universe and there certainly were expectations amongst the fans after Calth that Prospero would continue with the same system as the previous one that many liked. As a game, it is of course independent, but as a gamer my brain registers them in the same bin and there Calth gets the better score. "You want plastic 30k? You want a small miniature skirmish game with them? Prospero does X and Calth does Y, for reasons I'd suggest you buy Calth."

 Gobbla wrote:
As for balance, I think that is in the eyes of the beholder. Both sides in Prospero have strengths and weaknesses that make them dissimilar. I find any combat advantages the Loyalists have is more than compensated for by the Traitor's psychic powers. In fact, I find the psychics too damn good for the Traitors. Winning ties in the the power draws usually results in successful casting. And, with the right powers used at the right time, the Loyalists can be whittled away, or theri advance simply stagnated. yes, Geigor can be a killing machine. But, Traitors can be returned from the dead pile, and still keep Geiger from advancing. Also, the elite vs massed firepower seems to favor the Traitors, too.

I do not agree, but I'm currently travelling and cannot look at the rules to compute enough situations through to arrive at any statistical proof. The psychic powers are very useful, but they aren't too good by any stretch of the imagination, as they are cast unreliably and restricted in usefulness by the units they have in any mission (which leads us to the main balancing factor, mission design, which I found to be that important little bit too much on the handwavy side of things). Hyper Regeneration as an never has time to truly get you back on track against more formidable assault and as the missions more often than not do not have time limits, simply stagnating the advance almost never works well enough.

Also, what? Massed firepower favouring the traitors? Care to elaborate here as my brain seems to remember otherwise? This has to be in the mission context too, as that is what gets played, but except for the Custodes missions I can't remember almost any situation where the Thousand Sons would really have either more mass nor fire superiority.

 Gobbla wrote:
The smaller complaints are maybe a little more like peeves than game flaws. Maybe. I like Prospero's Critical Hits mechanic. It's simple, quick, and easy. And, logical. It gets the job done. And, I get the complaint about the lack of terrain effects. And, the really symplified LOS rules. But, the game simulates a Horus Heresy battle on wide open urban plazas, instead of dark, underground caves. Just ain't much terrain to be had. If terrain effects were more prominent, this would give outsized benefits to the rather paltry cover.

Sure, the Critical Hits thing is up to taste, but I do feel it contributes badly towards the feeling of rng dicefest because it hurts terminators disproportionately. Quick and easy, sure, not a concern for me on a game of this scale. Calth managed to pack a lot more character and mechanical intrique to a system which isn't really any heavier to play with. We have to disagree on the terrain too: never in any warfare has terrain not mattered, especially considering Tezca is an urban environment. The terrain isn't paltry: there are ruined pillars, fountains and piles of rubble all over the place, as well as height differences between different open areas. In real world, this would absolutely not be an empty and flat battlefield, as urban areas are utter hell for combatants. Once again, contrast with Calth: you could have your view obstructed (terrain in the way) or you could reside in an area that provides some cover (rubble, ledges, pillars...) and that would give a lot more weight to the decisions made in regards to positioning. If we look at some other games, especially in this more boardgamey frame of reference, Command & Colors games like Memoir'44 and Battlelore are pretty similar in that they require you to make your movement decisions, throw dice with a lot of variance and hope with very light rules, but they also incorporate a few terrain types to the mix to really provide a scene for those good plays we want to reward to happen.

 Gobbla wrote:
That all said, I will grant I'm not 100% sold that each Propero scenario is 100% balanced. Ditto, Calth. In both cases, it's a process.

Anyway, nice write up. Deserved a rebuttal.

None of them are 100% fair, but the difference between 80% and 30% (which I just pulled from my hat full of enlightened guesses) is still huge and meaningful. As they are, I cannot in good conscience say BoP missions to be fair enough to get a pass: they are either set up favouring one side (like the first with Geigor-what-the-actual-f-why), set up to negate meaningful choices (kineshield wall, which is sad as it is a cool idea) or suffer from designer neglience towards their own mechanics (termies hunting sisters, never live through all the Critical dakka nor get the sisters in time if they don't actually run to you like fools) and so forth. This leads directly to the game feeling meh, even if one is okay with the swingy core mechanics like opposed dice pools (I'm cool with the concept, but feel the execution lacking).

Rebuttals are good, they drive discussion. It's almost like we like these games or something

"Tactics" is one of them words with one too many meanings. Prospero is a tactical SCALE game (squad level, even named individuals). Or, "tactics" can refer to individual movement of pieces (units/squads) and individual combats, use of psychic powers, etc. As opposed to "strategy," the use of the force during a game to achieve or deny an objective(s). Or, a third meaning, the combat and movement system itself that the game uses. So, maybe, two too many meanings? In the case of Prospero and Calth, it's the third meaning where they differ. Calth has a defined tactical system that closely resembles miniature gaming. So much so, it is flexible enough to be used to create different scenarios, alternate forces, and even play it on the tabletop. And, yes, it's a system that could have been used again in a different Horus Heresy game. I don't why it wasn't. Unless GW didn't want to risk a sameness that might have turned away buyers.

Instead, Prospero went more boardgame. It doesn't try to be as tactical (that word again!). It is more abstract, all around. From movement, to shooting, to terrain. A really different vibe. Easy to see that shift is controversial.

If you are familiar with other recent 40K boardgame offerings, the contrasts are interesting (to me). Assassinorum is more tactical than Calth. Individual models have more action options. The movement and combat rules are more detailed, and less abstract. Yes, it is still a boardgame. And, fundamentally, its "tactical system" is basically Space Crusade/Tyranid Attack, with AI, and some compensation for a slightly different environment.

Conversely, Deathwatch Overkill is the part where the suspense music stops, and the shooting begins. Talk about minimum terrain...there ain't none. The Range Ruler provides the only thing that affects or inhibits ranged fire. Oh, and I'm the only one I know who likes the game without qualification. Because...Genestealer Cult.

Now, I'm not such a fanboy I paid full price for all four. OK, I did for Deathwatch, I'm a Genestealer Cult kind of guy. Needed those minis. Otherwise, I got the other games without minis for very little each. Instead, used my existing leftover 40K stuff (with maybe a couple of ebay additions). So, when I am promoting a game for what it's worth, I am NOT saying it is worth what GW charges/charged for it. That includes too many factors. Not the least of which is how desirable the miniatures are to the buyer. So, having bought Prospero for a pittance and the ebay price of a box of Custodes, it's worth every penny. Especially if one of my best gaming pals prefers it to other offerings.

Thoughts on randomness. I absolutely don't mind a game hinging on a die roll. In fact, some of the best gaming moments come from that out-of-the-blue, one-in-a-million last-ditch occurrence. Sure, we all get that. Certainly all GW gamers do. And, yes, that can't be how every game is decided. But, "It came down to the last die roll," is high praise, not a lament. Too much randomness? Sure, not good. I'm not a fan of say, press your luck games. I want the meager satisfaction that decisions I made in the game mattered (NOT just the decision to roll the dice one more time). I'm not a purist, I can have fun with that, too. But, not a steady diet of it. Conversely, deterministic games are not all that immersive for me. I want to feel a little of my little toy soldier's trials, toils, and troubles. In that regard, Calth is much more immersive than Prospero.

Yeah, "tactical" is a fuzzy one to try and nail down in gaming context. Almost all 40k games besides Epic model singular clashes one might expect to happen as a small part of a larger operation, or in entertainment sense, in a single scene. This naturally forces the game towards the tactical side of things, as any proper strategic decision making is already done and the rest is tactics. You'd really need more length and scope to the game to properly take it into the realm of strategy, when you're not able to create your own forces or choose your deployment positions.

The other games you mention, Gobbla, are somewhat familiar to me (but I haven't actually played Assassinorum or Overwatch), but I don't think they are very good comparisons here as Assassinorum is basically solitaire and Overkill a smorgasbord of action movie pew pew which revels in it to the extent of not even bothering with terrain. Might not be too surprising that I'm not very fond of it

I'm not saying those games are necessarily bad, but something like Overkill definitely is its own thing that might not fare well if looked at in the same category as Calth, Prospero or Space Hulk.

Regarding games coming "down to the last roll", I too think that is high praise for a game when the journey there felt engaging and gratifying. If a game is decided by a coin-flip, it's either great or terrible depending on how we arrived at that flip. If it's tight because players could effectively match their wits and try to one-up each other fairly throughout the game? Great! If it's down to that without really taking into account what happened during the game? Bleh. My personal opinion regarding Prospero is that the variance of opposed dice-rolls combined with how armour works creates unsatisfactory randomness that hurts the experience by favouring one side over the other and doesn't entice me to play it more. My pals feel the same, so the game doesn't see much play here. Your mileage may vary. Enjoyment is subjective and if you have a buddy who really enjoys it, that is great.

Assassinorum is also co-operative. Four assassins vs the clever AI Chaos baddies. Because it's co-operative, we've played it more here at the house than the other games. It is let down by one scenario, and no room for more variety. And, it's was pricey, if bought with the minis (I had all 4 original assassin models, painted and collecting dust for more than a decade).

In fact, my key advice is to go back in time and purchase and paint a wide variety of 40K models, when it was both affordable, and you had the time. So, my observations are possibly overly generous. But, I speak for the forgotten and neglected old minis that will be here like cockroaches, long after we depart for that Great Game Room in the sky.

 Gobbla wrote:
Assassinorum is also co-operative. Four assassins vs the clever AI Chaos baddies. Because it's co-operative, we've played it more here at the house than the other games. It is let down by one scenario, and no room for more variety. And, it's was pricey, if bought with the minis (I had all 4 original assassin models, painted and collecting dust for more than a decade).

In fact, my key advice is to go back in time and purchase and paint a wide variety of 40K models, when it was both affordable, and you had the time. So, my observations are possibly overly generous. But, I speak for the forgotten and neglected old minis that will be here like cockroaches, long after we depart for that Great Game Room in the sky.

Which is cool with the right people, but as always with co-op games: is it though? There are many, many co-op board games and card games out there and most things I've encountered were really just solitaires under the hood, aka outside the cop-out answer "everything is more fun with friends" the games rarely truly require other players and run fully well with only a single player (who might use multiple players worth of stuff) because their decision making points don't often really have much to offer that might not be deducted alone. If I've understood correctly, Assasinorum is a solitaire game where you can have multiple players too, but the game is virtually the same except you can debate stuff with your pals and have a laugh versus just pondering by yourself.

Love coop games like assassinorum and silver tower. BOP and CALTH are great too. They both have unique properties to them.

However, I much prefer the 'dungeon crawl' type of game like silver tower, hammerhal, or assassinorum (esp with all the white dwarf extra rules, tweaks, new enemies, etc for all three).