Doom: the boardgame

[The Rocketman]

I bought Doom this weekend, and I was wondering if anyone else here had it?

I played through 1 scenario with a friend, ant although the box says that takes 60 to 90 minutes, we took about 4 and a half hour! It was a really fun game, it actually kinda captured the feeling of a mix between Hero Quest and Doom. Pretty fun.

BUT!

One big but, the balance... In the first scenario, the Invader Player (bad guy) has to make 6 frags (or kills) to win. We ended the scenario with him having 8 frags. That's not even a close match, the bad guy just seemed so powerful! He can spawn, use event cards that totally f*** up your strategy, and can deal tons of damage!

Anyone else has the game, and feels the same about the balance? We're gonna play the next scenario with some upgraded marines (+1 armour will be enough we reckon, since armour makes a huge difference for your health).

[Turtle]

If you check the boardgamegeek reviews for the game, many people say the same thing.

The real problem is that the game is actually balanced so that the marine player should keep running away.  That goes against the game its based on, where you would normally just blow up anything that got in your way.  So if the marines stand and fight, they get killed, but if they run away, it's not a satisfying victory.

Luckily, there's a few updates and variants they've released online at fantasyflightgames.com

They have difficulty level modifiers and a faq that should help clarify things.  It still doesn't change the way they skewed the game, but it helps a little.

Oh, and a different designer has taken the Doom boardgame mechanics and made a fastasy version called Descent.  It's a massive $80 big box game (like Twilight Imperium 3) that makes quite a few improvements to the formula, such as making the Overlord's cards cost a certain amount of "threat", basically points that the overlord gets as the players move forward in the game or as he discards cards.  There's also a way for players to get more "lives" as it were, by completing certain tasks or reaching certain points in the game.  Thus, you don't end up in situations where its clearly impossible for the players to win.

Oh, and there's no ammo.  

[the Nightbreeze]

Having played many Fantasy Flight Games' releases of board and card games, your observations on this game do not surprise me.  They are great concept people, but terrible nuts and bolts/balance type people.  Their projects seem to spend more than sufficeient time in the design and development phases, but  it looks to me like they  cut down the playtesting time in order to get the products out thier doors at  whatever deadline they set.  They have a dedicated playtesting division to their staff I believe, but these people miss so much that pops up once it gets in the hands of the greater public.

And thier CEO was a self-important twit when I met him in person and when he addressed my comments on the company's forums. You can tell him I said so.

[Dreamshadow]

While I agree with the fact that the FFG creators are the current Errata Kings, I still enjoy their boardgames.  Doom is rough, and the first couple of plays were like you said. Once we got the flow of the game and the marines worked together, it all fell together.  

Decent is looking good, and I like the Runebound world.  I'm looking forward toward to it, guardedly.  Kevin Wilson did the Doom boardgame, and is working on an expansion for it (36 new minis, including three more marines, rules for DM and CTF).  I think he's on the right track for it from what he is posting on the BGG listing for it.

[Turtle]

These days, I'm more looking forward to new releases from Days of Wonder.

[The Rocketman]

Hmm, that Descent title seems really great, but from what I gather, it's from the same developer, namely free flight games (or something like that).

I was reading a bit about altering the rules so the marines have a chance, and I think i'll try this set-up next time:

*fully loaded rule: guns come with 1 ammo token;

*spawn at end of turn: this may be too game-altering. The invader player basically activates his invaders, and AFTER that, he spawns some new if he can. This prevents any "haha I spawned a hell knight, I run to you and smack you a lot"-encounters. Perhaps the spawning monster should be able to do 1 action: run or attack (in the rare cases a monster can spawn in attack range).

This is for playing with 2-3 marines. With 1 marine the consensus seems that it's a well-balanced game.

[The Rocketman]

Actually, skip that part about the spawning. Thinking some more about it, it would heavily handicap the invader player. Besides, as a marine you can have some influence in the spawning, by guarding every hallway for instance.

How would this sound?
*guns come with 1 ammo token
*marines start with 3 armour instead of 2
*when playing with 3 marines, invader player only gets 2 cards to draw instead of 3.

Would this make it more balanced for an unexperienced group of gamers that don't yet know the scenario's? (We've only played the first one so far).