Over the past few weeks I have played numerous games of Dead
Man’s Hand (DMH) (Great Escape Games, 2013), against both wargaming friends and
others who do not play miniature gaming. I’m not giving AAR of individual
games, but they were all fun and quick.
The rules are nicely presented and illustrated, and they
remind me strongly of other rules produced by Tomahawk Studios (Saga, Muskets
& Tomahawks etc.) due to the use of character narrative boxes to clarify
specific rules and ideas. The rule mechanics are simple and easily understood.
There is not a great deal of depth; a pistol is a pistol, and not further
distinguished by make (Colt vs Remington) or type (single action vs double
action) etc., but I did not find this an issue. I was primarily searching for a
fast paced, all action set of rules reflecting the ‘Hollywood’ style of game
experience.
I really like the use of initiative cards to determine turn
order. I was initially concerned that the card reveal would give too much
advanced knowledge to players, in contrast to the more disguised randomisation
used in “Rules With No Name” (RWNN) which I had previously played. The ability
to assign the first card drawn was also a good mechanic, giving a player some
control over the initiative phase. In addition I was concerned that the small
size of the cards would be an issue but after a game or two it became clear that
the small card size was necessary to reduce table clutter. That said, the cards
do result in table clutter, but I cannot see a way around this distraction.
The ‘action’ phase (3 actions per turn) is simple. We often
found that players ‘forgot’ to definitively state their actions before their
move, which may cause dispute. I therefore made some order counters (dice)
which players select prior to their move, and this worked well to define
actions. Moving first (higher initiative) may seem best, but later players have
the option to use ‘interruptions’ which can be very useful for survival.
Interestingly everyone frequently used the ‘duck back’ option whilst the ‘quick
shot’ was very rare, most players were not willing to sacrifice their total move
for a single, simultaneous shot at an opponent. The movement tokens are another
good idea, clearly tracking the move actions of individual figures.
A great mechanic revolves around the dual use of the cards;
as well as determining initiative, a number of cards are held in a player’s
hand. Each card has a specific effect that can alter the actions of your own or
opposing figures, and choosing when and where to play these cards is key. As
well as generic cards (2-10), there are gang specific cards (J-A). As you only
get a single replacement card, it is best not to play more than one card in a
turn. No player used an identical card to cancel that of an opponent’s card in
any of my games (not sure why, maybe just down to chance).
Shooting is easily calculated by rolling a D20. A natural ‘1’
results in out of ammo, and a modified score of ‘19+’ is an out of action. The
differences between pistol, repeater and rifle work well. Rifles are best at
longer ranges and after taking a couple of actions aiming. Shotguns can be
deadly a close range (I would have liked a sawed-off version included), and
players usually let loose with both barrels if they can. The accumulation of ‘under
fire’ markers is easier than tracking specific light/heavy wounds, but because
they can be recovered it means that top characters with 5 hits can be hard to
take down. These top characters usually need to be taken out by a single ‘19+’
score. The probability of ‘out of ammo’ (1/20) seems low considering most
weapons have only 6 shots, but I can understand the game rational; it is a
random event, players don’t need the book-keeping of tracking shots, and
constantly running out of ammo would prove frustrating. Reloading (a single action)
seems a bit too quick for me, and cover also seems too slight.
At no point in any of the games I played was there any
example of hand-to-hand fighting, so I cannot comment on these rules, but it
appears to revolve around a simple comparative dice roll. No player ever
resorted to riding horses (even though they were on table and available), so
again I cannot comment on these rules. The ‘big nerve test’ gives a clear game
end, which is useful, and relates to the number of characters down irrespective
of level, so you cannot sacrifice your lower characters as cannon-fodder.
The gang specific rules again add colour to the game. Remembering
to enact these gang rules is one of the things a player needs to keep in mind,
and I found I frequently had to remind non-gaming opponents to employ their
unique rules. I used all 4 basic gang types in the games played and the
specific rules were always useful and worked well. Rather surprisingly I don’t
have a personal favourite gang yet! Most of the games played were simple
stand-up fights, but I did play a couple of linked scene games given in the
rulebook and these went OK, but I need to play more of these linked scenes
before I can comment on them. When playing gamers I used 21 Rep point gangs
(8-9 figures), but with non-gamers I used 12 Rep gangs (5-6 figures) lead by either
a boss or right-hand leader, and I found these to work well and keep the game
to less than an hour generally.
So, my final thoughts on DMH: I really like
them! They are fast and fun. I think they give as good a game as given by my
previous favourite rules for the Wild West, RWNN, and they are certainly easier
to explain to new gamers and non-gamers. I do have a few minor gripes: (1) No
sawed-off shotguns (2) The out of ammo probability seems too low. Maybe
introduce an increased probability for 2nd and 3rd shots
in a turn (natural 1,2 for 2nd shots; and 1,2,3 for 3rd
shots)? (3) Reloading is too easy and quick. Maybe introduce the need to pass a
‘nerve’ test to successfully reload? If fail, then a player can either insert a
second reload order in their sequence (discarding their last action), or change
the next order to reload. A character always succeeds if they carry out 3
successive reload actions. This would make reloading less certain and more time
consuming in terms of actions expended. Top characters would be more likely to
pass, whilst weak characters and those under fire, less likely. I have yet to
try this out, but it is worth a thought.
The first game I played was Mr Jack against Graham (whilst
Elaine was preparing dinner). I took the role of Mr Jack (disguised as
Sherlock). Graham narrowed down the possible suspects and prevented me from
escaping off the board. In the last pair of turns (7 & 8) Graham narrowed
the suspects to only two, and the last turn had determined Sherlock to be Mr
Jack. But, I managed to ensure Graham had no final character who could reach
Sherlock to make the accusation! Therefore, a win for me and Graham would not escape
from the w/e undefeated. The game really forces you think hard and is
deceptively difficult. I was glad to get my first win of the w/e.
Next, just before dinner, we fitted in a quick game of
Tsuro. Elaine got boxed in with no choice that would not take her off the
board. I emerged as the winner (again). Tsuro is an excellent filler game,
especially for new players because the rules are so simple, also the graphics
are very pretty.
After dinner we played a game of Blueprints. The rules are
simple to explain, and maybe we taught them too well because Graham
comprehensively beat the both of us.
‘Ticket to Ride, Europe’, which surprisingly Graham had
never played before. In the first game Graham got stuck trying to build
tunnels, whilst Elaine beat me by a single point! I was sure I was going to win
(must have added the scores wrong!). The second game was dominated by Elaine
who streaked ahead. So, the w/e finished all square. A thoroughly enjoyable
gaming session. Graham remains the dominant force in the wargaming arena (one
day I will beat him!), but on the boardgame front things are more balanced.
