[Review] Astroplane
- From: "tomvasel@xxxxxxxxx" <tomvasel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 May 2006 00:59:10 -0700
I've delayed my review of Astroplane (Astroplane, 2005 -Chris Von S)
for quite a while, because I wanted to make sure that my rather low
opinion of it was justified. I've recently begun to really enjoy
abstract games, so my negative reaction to the game was a bit jarring,
even to myself. I never had really thought much about astrophysics,
the theme of the game - and even now I'm not sure how much I know about
it. Oddly, understanding astrophysics, or at least why it works, seems
to be important for understanding the game.
The major problem with Astroplane is simply that it is remarkably
unintuitive, and takes a few games for a player to understand what is
going on. The designers said one must play the game several times to
"truly understand" it; but I don't think that most people will take the
trouble, as their initial games will be confusing and muddled, as they
attempt to wade through the rules. And even after one comes to a
complete understanding, I'm still not sure that the game comes close to
the depth of other abstract strategy games, such as the Gipf series.
Astroplane's tagline is "welcome to the future!", but it's certainly
not in mine.
Up to four players can play and use a board made up of many squares in
a sort of grid - with eight wormhole squares in the corner sections,
one "hyperspace" space on each side, a four space "black hole" in the
middle, and four Astroplane Space/Time anomalies in each corner. Each
player receives ten playing pieces of their color, which look similar
to a B2 Stealth bomber, and place six of them in starting positions on
the board, while keeping the other four in reserve. One player is
chosen to go first, and then the game can begin.
A player can move twice each turn - either one piece two spaces, or
two pieces one space each. Each piece moves through the apex of the
space into which they point, but after moving can be placed into any of
the other three apexes of that space. For those confused by that
statement, the board has some arrows on it to show what movement is
allowed. Pieces cannot move through a space that has another piece in
it but can land on top of another piece or in the other half of the
space. If a piece is placed in the other half a space in which an
opponent's piece lies, the opponent's piece (or pieces, if they are
stacked) is sent back to one of the start areas. When landing on top
of a piece, the opponent's piece is held "captive", which means that it
cannot move until "released" by the moving of the piece on top of it.
A piece that "releases" an opponent's piece gives the owning player one
bonus move on that turn.
If a player manages to maneuver two of their own pieces, so that they
are back to back, filling one of the squares on the board, it forms a
"square". Squares can move in any direction, counting as one piece for
movement purposes. A player can also move a square as far in one
direction as they can if it lands on an opponent's piece, eliminating
it. Squares cannot move over other pieces, nor can they stop in a
space that is next to an opponent's square. They also cannot be
eliminated or captured, and can only be broken up if the player decides
to "disband" them.
Whenever a player moves a piece into a hyperspace space (squares are
not allowed), the piece immediately moves to one of the other three
hyperspace locations. Pieces in hyperspace locations cannot be held
captive or jumped over. When a player enters one of the wormhole
squares with a piece (no squares), they must travel to the opposite
wormhole - and then either commit the piece to the Space/Time anomaly,
or back onto the grid of squares. When moving into the space/time
anomaly, a piece is "loaded", and another piece must be moved in to
"arm" it. Both pieces are then "fired" into the middle of the board,
landing on top of any pieces that might already be in the Singularity.
A player may also move pieces into the Singularity through some access
points on it as a regular move. Once a piece lands in the singularity,
it cannot be moved again, and the owning player brings a new piece from
their reserves onto the board.
The game can end with a "true win", in which a player gets all four of
their pieces on top of the four spaces in the Singularity. Otherwise,
the game ends when no player can make a move, and players score three
points for each piece that has been eliminated: two points for each
piece on top in the Singularity, and one point for each other piece in
the Singularity - with the player with the most points winning the
game.
Some comments on the game...
1.) Components: The game comes in an oversized large square box doused
in space colors (purple, black, and blue). The board shows a grid
superimposed over a star field, and looks rather nice on the table.
The plastic pieces, as I said, remind me of stealth airplanes and are
representing triangular spaceships. They are made of sparkling plastic
and stack easily on top of each other. The game is nicely produced,
and everything fits easily in the box.
2.) Theme: I confess to not knowing much about astrophysics, which the
game is entirely immersed in. After playing the game, I still don't
know much on the subject, and the rules didn't really help much. I did
some research on the internet, and learned more on the subject, which
helped the game accomplish its goal - I guess. Still, science fiction
(although I'm sure people will argue over the "fiction" part) should be
interesting, and at least fun! This game abstracts everything out to a
large degree, yet without making it simple.
3.) Rules: The game states that you don't have to be a rocket scientist
to play, but apparently you have to be rather smart, since the rules
aren't entirely simple. A six page document, with illustrations, nice
examples, and good formatting wasn't enough to help me understand the
game initially. I read and re-read the rules several times, and
watched a mock game at www.astroplane.com several times before I felt
confident enough to explain the game to others. Once a few games have
been played, the rules are fairly easy, but they certainly may
overwhelm a casual gamer. Checkers this is not.
4.) Strategy: One of the bigger problems I have with the game is that
the even after a person understands the game, it takes a while to
understand just what a player should do. Should they form squares and
try to kill all the opponent's pieces? Should they simply attempt to
move into the singularity or try the much harder Space/Time Anomaly
entry? I'm sure that strategies become obvious after half a dozen
games, but who wants to play that many games to figure out how to play
the game? Some games have strategies that aren't immediately obvious,
or rules that might be considered obtuse; but they often have themes as
a pneumonic device that help make understanding of these more
complicated rules easier. Astroplane has a thin theme, and most
players that I've shown the game to have simply done random moves in
their first game. None of the moves are intuitive - as why a ship
filling in a space with an opposing ship kills it, or why two
spaceships form a square that can suddenly travel in multiple
directions. I want to tell you the strategies that I've found in the
game, but I can't offer up any tips, simply because I don't know any.
5.) Impressions and Fun Factor: First impressions of a game must be
high in a game. A player who has a bad first experience isn't going to
want to play it again. In fact, after my first game, I really didn't
want to try it again. But at the urging of the company, and because
I'm a reviewer, I played the game several more times. Each time I had
to find new opponents, because no one wanted to try the game twice.
Each week, in my Geometry class, I play board games with my students,
utilizing abstract strategy games to help them increase their logical
skills. While Astroplane may be a good choice for this, it sits on the
shelf, mostly because of the bad first impression it leaves. Most
people don't have fun as they muddle through games, not knowing what is
going on, and that's the end result of Astroplane.
As you can tell by now, I'm not giving Astroplane a recommendation.
There are hundreds of games that are being produced each year of
varying types. One may need to play Astroplane several times before it
is fun, before they see the deeper strategy. But really, many of the
other hundreds of games that are produced are fun the FIRST time, and I
don't need to play them multiple times to "get" them. So, with regret,
I must push Astroplane to the back of my shelf, where it will most
likely never come out; unless I need the pieces for another game - one
that's fun the first time.
Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com
.
- Prev by Date: [Review] Monster Dice
- Next by Date: Mayfair News Alert: Origins Nominations!
- Previous by thread: [Review] Monster Dice
- Next by thread: Mayfair News Alert: Origins Nominations!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
