Game: Warriors

Thread: Re: English Rules

420017 — 2008-09-24T17:26:29+00:00

i know beats me ,they just flat refused to upload it.
e-mail the compay but no reply ......!

Amos

Thread: Re: English Rules

Starsaver — 2008-09-24T15:57:50+00:00

I dont understand why they can put up the Spanish version of the rules but not hte english one. Especially when you consider the fact that Warriors is essentially a "dead game".

Thread: Re: English Rules

420017 — 2008-09-11T19:25:45+00:00

BGG Will not put them up due to copyright laws.
Still waiting for the OK for them to be put up.

E-Mail amos.b@blueyonder.co.uk
Amos

Thread: Re: English Rules

jimmyting — 2008-09-11T15:12:06+00:00

i can't find the english rules
where can i find it ?

Image

daronan — 2008-09-11T12:25:34+00:00

others home made cards

Image

daronan — 2008-09-11T12:23:52+00:00

map cards front

Image

daronan — 2008-09-11T11:58:25+00:00

spell cards

Image

daronan — 2008-09-11T11:57:07+00:00

game with my home made card

Thread: Re: English Rules

420017 — 2008-08-25T21:00:36+00:00

Just uploaded the english version of the rules.
Also the "Dragon Hordes" rules too.

Amos

Thread: Re: English or Dutch manual for Warriors and the expansion.

Caesar — 2008-08-25T13:45:25+00:00

I've got a similar deal, but for me (I'm Italian) German is somethin unaffrontable.

Did you manage to find out at least English Rules?
Tahnk you in advance.
Alessandro

Thread: English Rules

Caesar — 2008-08-25T13:43:30+00:00

Hello everyone.
I've recived my German copy of this game.
Can somebody tell me where to find out English Rules (or even Italian one)?
Thank you in advance.
Alessandro

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

420017 — 2008-08-23T22:27:07+00:00

Just play my mates copy of this game and i thought is was a quick fun game to play.

Then we added the expansion game and we had more fun.

If you want to go for strategy buy a chess baord ,square board black and white pieces lots of fun ....yer notn .

What do you want from a pack of cards.

The more players the better.

Any one who does not want the copy of this game please send to me.
I would like try with more cards.

thx in advance:

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Gronak — 2008-07-03T17:43:58+00:00

I have just read all the reviews after noticing the game + exp on sale at
http://www.eaglegames.net/SearchResults.asp?Search=dragon+ho...
for $15.

WRT the objections some have, I was wondering why you couldn't just play the game until all 14 Attack cards have been used, instead of ending after 3 rounds? Or add some more from the Exp game until the players get enough action. Would that satisfy the objection that sometimes a player doesn't get a chance to attack?

You could also count 2 Cavalry as an Attack card.

WRT Cavalry not being very useful -- more strategy might be added by declaring the card to be either the usual 2nd attack "reserve" or to add to the lowest die; perhaps only bringing it up to a tie at best. Think of it as acting as a skirmish screen to protect the worst troops.

Image

jsper — 2008-02-16T15:49:55+00:00

Example of cards

Image

Ceryon — 2008-02-01T21:52:50+00:00

German box front - original size

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

riddle13 — 2008-01-04T19:09:41+00:00

disagree entirely with review and all comments!

this is a fun, light-hearted fantasy game. it doesn't take long to learn or play. it's about the same luck/strategy quotient as a game of Fluxx.

if you're going to get the Dragon Hordes expansion, try playing my Variant rules (not the ones below, the ones posted on the expansion's page) or you may be disappointed by how the expansion imbalances the game.

recommended house rules:
1) if you don't like your hand of cards at the beginning of any round, you can trade your entire hand for a new hand minus one card.
2) if a player doesn't have an attack card they may use one catapult card to launch an attack (with value 100), but they have to announce it as an attack card when the cards are first revealed. if both players are using catapult cards as attack cards, the player with the lowest amount of tribe members (total in all tribes, not counting wizards) goes first.

Thread: Re: Warriors - The playable "Risk"

riddle13 — 2008-01-04T18:57:47+00:00

i haven't played the game much but i like it so far.
one thing i would say is that the Dragon expansion does not improve the experience, but worsens it.
this is because the addition of the dragons and their attack cards makes the card draw even more random. one game i played, i got four Dragon only attack cards with no dragon. how is that fun?

my two suggestions:
1) skip the expansion. especially if the game's randomness is a downside for you.
2) house rule: if you don't like your hand of cards at the beginning of a round, you may trade in the entire hand for a new hand minus 1 card. you can do this once.

Thread: Re: Warriors Variant

riddle13 — 2008-01-04T18:45:01+00:00

this seems like a decent variant.
but i want to point out one thing that people don't seem to get about the game:
not drawing battle cards doesn't "lose" you the game. A)if you didn't draw battle cards then you drew tribe members, which are good to have, and B) because this game relies on the die roll, even if you don't have an attack, you have a chance of winning victories on defense, should someone attack you.

here's another idea for a variant:
if a player doesn't have an attack card they may use one catapult card to launch an attack (with value 100), but they have to announce it as an attack card when the cards are first revealed. if both players are using catapult cards as attack cards, the player with the lowest amount of tribe members (total in all tribes, not counting wizards) goes first.

Thread: Re: Warriors - The playable "Risk"

Rliyen — 2007-11-22T02:49:10+00:00

qrux wrote:
1. When we draw the initial armies, any attack cards are discarded so that every player has a legit army from the start.

2. Adding the Dragon Hordes expansion enhances the game.

#1: Oh, yes, I know that rule. But, you still have a chance of being screwed by getting a lot of Wizards/Catapults and having no need for them (i.e. your opponents not having Attack cards).

#2: I have the expansion, but I haven't gotten around to playing it yet. It definitely looks as if it makes the game go "fantasy nuclear" with the addition of the Dragons. They look hard to beat.

Thread: Re: Warriors - The playable "Risk"

qrux — 2007-11-22T00:58:02+00:00

1. When we draw the initial armies, any attack cards are discarded so that every player has a legit army from the start.

2. Adding the Dragon Hordes expansion enhances the game.

Thread: Warriors - The playable "Risk"

Rliyen — 2007-11-21T23:08:08+00:00

Warriors is Risk without the board, but doesn’t take eight kabajillion hours to finish an actual game. This card game distills the essentials of the boardgame into a portable, enjoyable format that can actually be played in twenty minutes.

Components: the cards have a nice satin feel, and the artwork is top notch, but they are stiffer than regular playing cards. This leads to border nicking and card creasing if one is not careful. Thumb up for artwork, thumb down for durability.

Game: Warriors is played in 3 rounds. The initial card draw is 11 cards per player. Any Attack cards that happen to be drawn for a hand are discarded and replaced. Wizards and Catapults are kept. Then, players play their cards face up, divided by Nation (Barbarian, Goblin, Elf, Troll, Dwarf, and Undead).

The round procedure is as follows: On Rounds 1 & 2, each player draws 7 cards, chooses 4, and discards three face down. On Round 3, all the discards are reshuffled into the main deck, each player draws 7 cards, and then just discards two face down.

The object of the game is to have the highest score. Players score two points for each enemy they kill. They can also aspire to get bonus points through amassing the largest Nation of a particular faction (ex: Having the most Barbarians). The scoring is as follows: Barbarians (11 points) Goblins (10 points) Elves (8 points) Trolls (7 points) Dwarves (6 points) and Undead (5 points). Players who tie with having the most of a particular Nation each score the bonus points.

Each of the cards has a military designation: Infantry, Archer, and Cavalry. Infantry cards are the mainstay of the Nations, for each Infantry card in a Nation, you receive one die for attack or defense (3 dice maximum for attack, 2 maximum for defense).

Archers affect the highest die roll by 1 (ex: 5 changes to a 6, a rolled 6 becomes a 7) if a particular Nation has the most Archers. If both armies have equal amounts of archers, there is no effect.

Cavalry allows a particular army to continue attacking other enemies, provided that that army has another card in the army to turn facedown to simulate “holding territory”. This procedure can be done as many times as desired, provided that the attacking army a) is successful in eliminating its target b) has additional cards in the army other than the Cavalry unit to turn face down to hold territory and c) has another legal target to attack.

The heart of this game is the attack cards, which come in two varieties: a Mercenary Attack card and a Regular Attack card. Each one works slightly different so I will describe them separately. The attack cards have a number in the upper right corner, indicating when the card will be resolved (lower numbers go first over higher numbers) and proffer “bonus” enhancements to your army.

Regular: The advantage of this card is that it enhances your army in a particular way, by giving you two bonuses, even though you don’t actually have that unit in your army.

For example, say you have two Infantry. The attack card has the bonus designation of Cavalry and Infantry. That means when you attack you will be able to roll three dice instead of two and you will be able to perform a follow up attack on another target, provided that you have an Infantry card to turn over.

The limitation on this Attack card is that while you can attack with an entire Nation, you are restricted in being able to attack another Nation of the same race, or the natural enemy of your Nation. (Ex: Elves can only attack other Elves or Trolls and vice versa. Barbarians can only attack other Barbarians and Undead, and vice versa.)

Mercenary: The advantage of this card is that it allows you to cobble together units from different Nations to form an army that can attack ANY Nation; it’s also the most flexible for follow up attacks if you include Cavalry in your army.

The things going against this Attack card are two fold. One, instead of two bonus enhancements like a regular Attack card, you are only gifted with a bonus Infantry enhancement. Two, the army size is restricted to the number listed after the Infantry enhancement, which will be either three or four. That means you will have a three or four unit army when you attack your target.

Attacks against an opponent are carried out just like the combat system in Risk, dice comparison with the high die (or dice) winning the conflict. Ties go to the defender. An attacker may call off his attack at any time or when he has completely eliminated the target of the attack.

The last thing to discuss is the two support cards, the Catapult and the Wizard. Catapults are essentially “Fantasy Scud missiles” in the game. You may only use them during an attack, even one you are not involved in. Combat halts momentarily to resolve the Catapult when they are announced. You then pick your target, roll a die, and hope for the best (the things only hit on a 4, 5, or 6. Hence, the reason why I call them Scud missiles).

Wizards act like “bunkers” in the game. A Nation under the protection of a Wizard is immune from attack as long as he stays in play. The only way to get rid of a Wizard is to bean him with a Catapult. Only then will the Nation being protected will be susceptible to attack. The downside of the Wizard is that they act like over-protective mothers and refuse their charges to engage in any fun, such as regular Attacks. However, you can take units from a protected Nation to form a Mercenary army.

The other limitation to both of these cards is that they are temporary. After a Round is completed, any Wizards or unused Catapults are discarded.

What I liked: The game plays very quickly, with most of the time being utilized in figuring out how to optimize your current Nations, as well as glancing over your opponent’s area to see which Nations are providing him with the most points or which Nation will offer the least resistance to an attack. Since army buildup is simultaneous, you sometimes have hard choices to make. Do I protect the Barbarian Nation with the Wizard or should I use their massed might for a devastating regular attack against their miniscule Undead Nation? Do I choose a Catapult to deploy to knock off a Wizard to open up a Nation to attack or do I use it to try and pop off a unit in a Nation so that I will get the bonus points at the end of the game?

What I didn’t like: Sometimes, as card games go, you will get a WHOLE LOT OF BUPKUS as an opening hand. There have been times I have been loaded down with three or four Catapults, a couple of Wizards and hardly enough units to comprise a majority of a particular Nation. It also sometimes happens that you will get a slew of Attack cards, when what you really need are additional units to populate your Nations. Or, you can have the opposite luck and need just one attack card to use all those Catapults you’ve been laden with, only to not get one. In a two player game, your only hope is that your opponent attacks you; or with more than two players, somebody attacks somebody else.

Luck of the draw can be mitigated somewhat by skillful play, but there’s no way in getting around having a horde of Catapults and not being able to use them. If there’s one thing I’d love to change is the attack card prerequisite.

The other problem with the game is that the rules aren’t very clear when it comes to timing issues for using Catapults. Who goes first? The attacking player? The defending player? The first one to blurt it out? What if each side has more than one Catapult? Do you alternate the rock chucking or do them all in a IGO/UGO manner? Fortunately, I use a little common sense and use the timing tricks I learned in combat resolution of Shadowfist.

Final result: This game is like crack to me. Fast, addictive, and fun. 8/10

Thread: Re: What is the beginning and the end of a battle? -Catapult

Tigrebianca — 2007-07-15T15:45:07+00:00

A battle starts when you start to resolve a battle or mercenary card (they are resolved in order of the number in the upper right and you can't decide to not resolve a battle), and ends when the card is discarded.
In a round there can be zero, one or more battles. At the end of the round, you have to discard any unused catapult. If there are no battles, that turn, then you are unlucky as you have no choice to use the catapult and have to discard it.
Any other question?

I quite like this game (don't really like the expansion, tough). I think it has a decent strategic component and requires to think and count points continuously. Its biggest downside is that it relies a good lot on luck, especially on die rolls.. But this way everyone has a chance. Not the best game ever but pretty nice.

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Castef — 2007-05-30T08:28:02+00:00

Darthlord wrote:
Pallet Ranger wrote:
I played the base game once, and will never play it again. The expansion remains unplayed.

From what I've been reading, you have to include the expansion to make it anything like playable. Whether it's any good even then... ?

Trust me... stay away from the game even with the expansion.

It adds a slim layer of extra strategy, but usually it manages to unbalance the game, as the dragons are drawn like other cards...

Let's say that with the expansion the game could be considered a little bit better.

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Pallet Ranger — 2007-05-30T07:48:55+00:00

Darthlord wrote:

From what I've been reading, you have to include the expansion to make it anything like playable. Whether it's any good even then... ?

Maybe..... But I think I'll leave that for others to find out. I never want to go near this again...

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Darthlord — 2007-05-30T07:38:04+00:00

Pallet Ranger wrote:
I played the base game once, and will never play it again. The expansion remains unplayed.

From what I've been reading, you have to include the expansion to make it anything like playable. Whether it's any good even then... ?

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Pallet Ranger — 2007-05-29T13:19:39+00:00

Castef wrote:

Well... I need room to review other baaad games...

Fair point. But that would mean there are worse games than this out there

I hope I don't find them...

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Castef — 2007-05-29T12:56:30+00:00

Pallet Ranger wrote:
4 out of 10??

I think you're being incredibly generous...

Well... I need room to review other baaad games...

Thread: Re: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Pallet Ranger — 2007-05-29T11:33:55+00:00

4 out of 10??

I think you're being incredibly generous... This "game" (and I use the term lightly) is appalling. I bought it along with the expansion "Dragon Hordes" based purely on it being an Alan Moon game. I played the base game once, and will never play it again. The expansion remains unplayed.

The only thing this is suitable for is fuel and a lighted match.

Thread: Take Risk, add cards, remove a little bit of strategy...

Castef — 2007-05-29T09:15:15+00:00

The Idea: create a "Risk-ish" wargame entirely made of cards, with a fantasy setting, quick gameplay and make it suitable for 4-5 players.
This deserves at least ten ninjas out of ten. Sounds REALLY good. I'm sold.

The Doubt: (after reading the rulebook...) they DID create a "Risk-ish" entirely made of cards, with a fantasy setting. And a HUGE amount of luck. And a little less strategy than Risk.

Now... Risk is not the most tactic game around. It is a luck-fest. You need luck when drawing territories, you need luck with the objectives, you need luck when you pick reinforcement cards and, of course, you need LOTS of luck with dices. LOTS of dice rolls...

In this typhoon of luck you have a little bit of strategy thanks to the board, which requires you to plan moves, check territories and so on.

What happens if I REMOVE the board? Simply, you get Warriors.

All in all, it still sounds interesting. Not as much as before but, hey, it's a fantasy card-game/war-game. It should be at least a little cool. And it is from Alan Moon. I mean, it still sounds great. I'd give it seven ninjas out of ten...

The Reality: Warriors is a bad game. I mean: even if you try to like it, it just does not work. Not enough strategy, not enough rules. When you draw the cards and put it in front of you, 90% of times you already know which attacks will be made during the current round...

And there is no reason to NOT attack a player if you think it would be good, as the following round (with random reinforcements...) may totally scramble the situation, so it is better to attack while you can. Dice rolls will do the rest... good luck!

Yes, there is a little amount of strategy due to the two different kinds of units, you have to take into consideration ranged attacks (a sort of "first strike"...), but every strategy you try to build will crumble to the mighty power of randomness.

And it is a pity, because:
- Artwork on the cards is great
- The idea of different countries represented by cards was nice

But apart from this positive sides, Warriors is a total let down. I can think of about one hundred better games that work well as fillers if players look for a fast wargame or a fantasy card-game.

Too bad. Three more ninjas killed by this dicefest, the final score is then four ninjas out of ten.

The Bottom Line: nice idea, good artwork, bad gameplay. Ok for younger players and for Risk fans.

Thread: English or Dutch manual for Warriors and the expansion.

Eggduck — 2007-05-29T08:19:12+00:00

Hello,

I got the game and expansion yesterday on the 999sale.
Got them bot for only 7.50euro (new) but they are in german.

I can make it thru the german rulebook, but if someone has a translation for both of them it will be very appriciated.

Thanks in advance,

Eggduck

Thread: What is the beginning and the end of a battle? -Catapults

Tsaar — 2007-05-25T14:36:04+00:00

Yesterday we played Warriors twice. The rules were very vague and we spent way too much time figuring out what was actually meant here and there.
In the rules it is stated that catapults can be used any time during a battle. We interpreted that a battle starts whenever a player has announced his battle and the enemy in that battle, and that a battle is over once the attacker decides to stop his battle. If there are unused catapults, they'll be discarded (assuming there's not another battle that round).

I didn't really like the game but we'll give it another try after some heavy, evening-filling game. No brains needed here, except to understand those lousy written rules.

Thread: Questions about Attack cards

rett_brone — 2007-01-01T18:36:54+00:00

Ok, so I just picked this game up and have read through the rules, but am in need of clarification on Attack cards. (I hope someone still comes to this forum )

Battle Cards:
1) How long do these cards last? If you play one in round one, does it carry into rounds 2 & 3?

2) When determining who goes first, if you lay down more than one, you go with the smallest numbered card and not the combined total of the two cards, right? (I believe I already know this answer, but wanted to confirm.)

Mercenary Cards:

1) The units you put in them: can they consist of Archers and Cavalry, too?

2) Does one form the mercenary army as soon as you lay down this card, or do you wait until it is your turn to attack?

3) Is the Infantry symbol on the Mercenary card itself included when determining the amount of dice used in an attack? For example you have two infantry beneath the Mercenary card, would you be able to 3 dice to attack?

I think once these questions are answered, I'd find more joy in the game.
A personal note: I'm not impressed with F2F's website and the lack of support towards their games.

Image

Ceryon — 2006-12-28T23:13:47+00:00

Thread: Session Report: Warriors

gschloesser — 2006-06-28T21:56:46+00:00

Editor’s Note: My full review of Warriors will appear in Knucklebones magazine.

Man’s dominance of earth is in danger. Powerful armies of wizards, dwarves, elves, trolls, goblins and even the undead are assembling to challenge man’s rule. The struggle will ultimately pit race against race in a brutal struggle for power.

Such is the theme of Warriors, a bloody card game from award-winning designers Alan Moon and Richard Borg. The cards depict the various races vying for power, with attractive artwork and easy to understand icons.

The game begins with each player receiving 11 cards, which they divide into forces by race and type.

The game is played over the course of three rounds. Each round, players are dealt a fresh batch of seven cards, keeping four of those (5 in the final round). These cards are assigned as above, but attack and mercenary cards are set aside face-up. These cards are numbered, and allow players to launch attacks against their opponents. Attacks are conducted in the ascending order, based upon the value on the cards. A player may not attack if he does not possess an attack or mercenary card.

Combat is the central mechanism of Warriors, and it is conducted in a fashion very similar to that found in the classic board game Risk. The active player chooses a force he wishes to use in the attack, and chooses a defender. The defender must be either the same race, or the arch-enemy of the race. Players then roll a number of dice based on the number of infantry they have involved in the conflict. As in Risk, the attacker can roll a maximum of three dice, while the defender’s limit is two dice. The player possessing the most archers in the battle receives a +1 bonus to the highest result he rolls. Individual dice are then compared, and losses are taken. If a force is not completely destroyed, the attacker may continue to press the attack, or withdraw.

After all attack cards have been used, all catapults and wizards are discarded, and seven new cards are dealt to the players. Three rounds are played, and the victor is determined.

Cards eliminated in conflict are placed in the conqueror’s victory point stack. At game’s end, each vanquished card is worth two victory points. Finally, points are awarded for the largest surviving army in EACH race. These points range from 5 points for the lowly “undead” army to a whopping 11 points for the powerful barbarians. The player with the greatest number of points has conquered his opponents and rises to be ruler of the earth.

Warriors is clearly not a deep strategy game, and is not without its flaws. Too few cards are available each round, and players have little control over which cards they receive. Also, the ability to launch an attack is dependent upon receiving attack cards, and it is quite possible to not receive any when being dealt cards. This is a significant disadvantage. Of course, the heavy emphasis on dice-rolling does substantially increase the luck factor, with the best laid plans easily dashed by the toss of the dice.

Still, deep strategy gamers are clearly NOT the target market for Warriors, which seems to primarily be a young audience. Fans of Risk and other light, attack-heavy games should find much to like here. Those attracted to fantasy themes should also be intrigued. Another plus is that the game plays in 30 – 40 minutes, so an entire evening is not necessary to satisfy one’s lust for conquest. Viewed with these factors in mind, Warriors certainly fills this niche quite well.

Kevin, Rhonda, Jim and I massed our forces and vied for world dominance. Jim proved to be the most effective tyrant, leading his forces to a bloody victory.

Finals: Jim 54, Greg 40, Rhonda 33, Kevin 33

Ratings: Kevin 6.5, Rhonda 5, Greg 5, Jim 3

Image

SwedeLad — 2006-04-26T19:27:05+00:00

Co-designers of Warriors. Richard Borg (left) and Alan R. Moon.

Thread: Warriors Variant

otha62 — 2006-03-03T02:58:11+00:00

We came up with the following Warriors variant to keep the number of attacks for each player more balanced. In most of our games, there was at least one player, some times two, that hardly got any attack cards, while one or two others got a decent amount of 'em. In one game, there were hardly any attack cards at all. Using this variant, all players have the option to attack each round.

Warriors Variant: Separate the cards to where you have two decks, an army deck (contains Nations, Wizards, and Catapults) and an attack deck (contains Battle cards and Mercenary cards). The initial amount of cards each player receives to start the game remains the same. The variant comes in during the cards dealt before each round. In the first two rounds, you still deal 7 cards to each player, but now you deal 5 cards to each player from the army deck and 2 cards from the attack deck. From those 7, he/she still only keeps 4 and discards 3, but this way he/she at least has the option of attacking once or twice during the round. In round 3 it would be the same, except they'd keep 5 cards instead of 4.

This is the only change we made and it works fairly well for us; there's a lot less complaining about not drawing attack cards now.

I've posted a similar variant for those using the Dragon Hordes expansion on its page.

Thread: Re: Review - minor problems, on the whole very engaging

drasher25 — 2006-02-24T14:54:08+00:00

I think this is a good game - if you're in a roll dice and cheer type mood. If you're looking for a serious strategy card game, then forget it. Like in Risk, the dice ARE the game! If you're up for that then Warriors is a lot of fun.

Thread: Re: Review - minor problems, on the whole very engaging

Darkholmme — 2006-02-15T20:38:27+00:00

I gave it ample testing time, and unfortunately it is about as bad as the ratings give it. The random factor in the game allows for a chance for there to be no conflict at all, or far too much. And on the whole, even with 4 players it's not all that fun.

Thread: Re: Review - minor problems, on the whole very engaging

captkayoss — 2006-02-15T20:11:22+00:00

Nice review Andrew!
I picked this up when it came out and haven't gotten it to the table yet (not an unusual occurence for me).

I shared you initial skepticism when I opened the box and read the rules, and then later was a little surprised by the low ratings here on the Geek; but every time I look at it I think "a game created by Alan Moon and Richard Borg can't be that bad." I'll have to get this game to the table.

Thread: Review - minor problems, on the whole very engaging

LoopyWolf — 2006-02-15T17:40:23+00:00

I had the chance to try this game the other night. Never having played it, and just reading the rules I was VERY disappointed after purchase. I’d been hoping for some colorful sort of imaginary battle of “warriors , myth, and magic” – The game is not that.

What it seems to attempt to do, is to make a card game as accessible and straight-forward as Crazy-8s or Gin Rummy such that any card players in the world, or family, might be able to play it. It does this very well, the rules are exceedingly simple and straight-forward once you have read through the rule book 3 or 4 times .. I swear, the people who write rule-books should be shot. Most games could be describes in 3 or 4 lines, why do they do this to us? This and Arkham Horror are the two people I’d punch up the conk.

I think it ALMOST hits this mark except for the necessity of dice which mars a concept which could otherwise be cards-only and kept in a box. I’d also recommend that the boxing chance, to be much more pocket-sized like a deck of proper cards, if it’s got that market in mind.

I also disagree with the 2-4 maxim on the box. I say play this with more people.. There’s no inherent limitation in the setup for number of players.

Having played the game, my initial impression completely changed. It’s quite strategic and challenging, a very clever game which involves as much thinking as chance.

How it plays: It’s very simple. 3 rounds, deal out 7 cards to each player, keep 4 (except the final round, keep 5.) There are nation cards, infanty, archer and cavalry cards in 5-6 different nations (eg., dwarves, elves); Two special cards: Catapults - which can destroy any 1 card during battle, at any time, and Wizard cards which keeps an army safe but harmless for 1 round; and battle cards, which describe an attack of one nation on another. They also give bonus infantry, archer, and cavalry symbols. Mercenary cards are also battle cards, but let you take pieces from any army.

You use battle cards to carry out attacks on enemy nations, capturing cards for 2 points each. At the end, the player gets 2 pts for each card captures, plus a high bonus if you control of any 1 nation (most cards). Some nations such as the barbarians, are worth more than others – so I presume they are more rare.

The strategic part is this: Each nation can only attack their own nation, or their mortal enemies. The Barbarian nation for example, I presume is rarer, and worth the most and can only attack itself, or the Undead nation who are plentiful and worth the least points. Goblins are worth the 2nd most victory points, and can attack only dwarves – the second least valuable, and so on. The actual combat is exactly like Risk – you roll and match up dice depending on the number of units in attack and defense, with some bonuses for archers and cavalry.

After 2 or 3 rounds, the rules become transparent and you play fluidly, and strategy starts to come to you a little while after, and is QUITE tricky. Keeping enough cards to control a nation, while making forces large enough to use in attack when you can only attack CERTAIN nations is very challenging.

After playing one round we played 5 more, it was that infectious, so despite it’s minor problems this game goes with my hearty recommendation.

Similar to Geist only with more chance, as a game that really engages you to think.

Image

puppi — 2006-02-13T07:51:58+00:00

Image

markmist — 2006-01-20T18:02:26+00:00

from Rick Thornquist / Gamefest

Thread: Re: Catapults

drasher25 — 2006-01-05T05:04:51+00:00

An unoffical FAQ that I maintain (and this is the only Warrior FAQ that I am aware of) is right here in the file section!

Thread: Of Drakes and Wyverns and things that go bump...

qrux — 2005-11-26T20:30:36+00:00

Of Drakes and Wyverns and things that go bump

The following analysis assumes that the Dragon Hordes expansion is included.

Battle/Attack cards

Warriors is Risk: The Card Game. As such, attacking is a critical element. Unlike the classic board version, the ability to confront an opponent is dependant on card draws. As such, the composition of these attack or battle cards is significant information. The inclusion of the Dragon Hordes expansion significantly increases the number of these cards and thereby alters the flow of the game. (In my opinion the expansion is a requirement - Warriors should not be sold without it.)

Battle cards in the non-expanded version of the game comprise only 12.7% of the deck, minimizing the number of available attacks. With the expansion the percent to the deck that comprise battle cards rises to 18.2%. In addition to the physical increase in the cards the expansion start allotment is greater than in the original rules. (These are the starting armies for each player.) The expansion rules for 2 to 4 players allots 14 cards per player with no battle cards included. This removes 56 army cards from the deck (of 165 total cards). It serves to increase the ratio of battle cards to army cards and the percentage of battle cards remaining in the draw pile constitutes 27.5%. On every turn, each player should receive 2.5 battle cards. Of course, there will be occasions that this doesn’t occur just as there are occasions that players roll box cars or snake eyes - it happens but not often. In addition to the above are the Catapult cards which act as a limited attack card. When these are factored into the mix the percentage of battle cards in the play deck rises to 39.4%!

An inventory of the various battle cards indicates certain strong trends and knowing this players are able to better formulate a strategy. Just as with classic Risk, initial games do not necessarily reveal this information. ‘Newbie’ players to the classic game are often disappointed to find themselves in untenable positions or eliminated very early. This has always been a problem with the original game and it could easily repeat itself with Warriors. Familiarity with the game and in particular, the battle card composition will improve a player’s chances and expose opportunities. In short, the game is neither as simple as it first appears nor as random as some might claim.

There are four categories of battle cards in the game: Standard, Mercenary, Dragon and combination cards. The distribution of the cards is as follows: Standard (7), Mercenary (7), Dragon (8) and combination cards (8).

The seven standard attack cards comprise 6.4% of the play deck. There are two with double shields generally permitting lengthier attacks. There are two more with a shield and a horse permitting additional attacks. The remaining are single cards: one with a shield and bow (lengthier attack with possible die roll increase), one with double bows (possible die roll modifier) and one with a bow and a horse (possible die roll modifier and additional attack).

The seven Mercenary cards are split between three that allow 3 additional units to join the attacking force and four cards that permit 4 units to join. The proper selection of these units can significantly alter the chances of winning a particular battle. Players should never simply treat these as Standard attack cards foregoing the opportunity to introduce additional units, especially archers that may/can alter the die roll.

There are eight Dragon attack cards (7.3% of the deck). The Dragon attacks can be devastating and certainly Dragons have more influence on the outcome of the game than any other single group. Discrete use of a Dragon attack can move a player into a winning position.

The combination cards allow a player to select the card as a Mercenary battle card or a Dragon battle card. This increases the number of Mercenary cards to 15 and the number of Dragon attack cards to 16 (14.7% of the play deck; more than the total number of attack cards in the un-expanded game). Often control of the game will be by a player that has a Dragon with several flames defending and three Dragon attack cards played.

Before the accusation arises that the Dragon strategy is an absolute (as in classic Risk where so many novices appear to believe that controlling Australia is the sole key to victory) one should consider some alternatives. Having the majority in the Dragons is worth 12 points; more than any other single army. However, concentrating on Dragons can leave the remainder of the player’s armies defenseless, weak or non-existent. If one player begins to accumulate an excessive number of Dragons, one solution is to concentrate on other armies as any combination of armies save Dwarves and the Undead will produce a greater number of victory points. It is important to recognize the distinction between the classic sole-survivor, winner-take-all, king-of-the-hill, found in the original game and the Euro-type points victory system in Warriors. Knowing the difference and managing resources (the card draws) is the actual key to playing the game.

Armies

One last but significant concept to recognize is that of card counting. Those familiar with games such as Battle Line, Gang of Four, etc. are aware of the advantages of knowing the number or type of cards remaining in the draw deck. Warriors is not an exception. There are occasions when, based on the exposed cards, an attack is certainly pointless. For example: there are only 11 Undead army cards in the deck. If one player has 3 of these and another has 2 while a third has six, there is absolutely no point in attacking the Undead armies of the players with only 2 or 3 armies as they cannot gain the majority through draws and therefore they must attack the player with the greater number. Never waste precious attacks on pointless battles.

Player Styles

Long time classic Risk players are aware of the ‘personalities’ that often play the game. After a substantial number of games to date, I have witnessed this same phenomenon in games of Warriors. (This is a tribute to the designers/developers that the same experiences are presenting themselves.) None of these styles appears to have an advantage over any of the others but it is interesting to note their appearance. The monikers attached are my own selection.

The Builder - This is the most conservative approach to the game. These players will always take additional armies, never holding battle cards unless drawing too many. These players are non-confrontational.

The Gambler - Similar in the first two rounds to the Builder, this player avoids attack cards in favor of building large armies. On the third (final) round, the Gambler will try to play every battle card drawn as if unleashing a storm at the last moment. He stakes the entire game on his draw in the third round.

The Sniper - This player attacks opponents in an attempt to instigate further confrontation. He never battles longer than required to accomplish his goal. For example: two players have an equal number of Undead armies. At the conclusion of the game, if still tied, each would receive the points for the majority. The Sniper will often attack one of the two players reducing his army by a single unit hoping that this will initiate a battle between the two opponents as one attempts to regain parity with the other while the player holding the majority attempts to retain the advantage. Very often the Sniper is accused of being a ’trouble maker’.

The Dragon King - This player concentrates on one Dragon, very often placing a huge number of flames on a single army. This is his ’nuclear’ response to his opponents, always attempting to remove any chance for his opponent’s success.

The Renegade - this player will use every battle card drawn, attacking anyone and everyone. It often appears as a compulsion to attack rather than employ a viable strategy.

The Survivor - Similar to the Sniper, he enjoys small but strategic attacks reducing his opponent’s armies to a level below his in order to be the sole recipient of the points at the conclusion of the game.

Final Comments

As with classic Risk, Warriors presents itself as a possible great tournament game. There is sufficient randomness to allow the whims of fortune to affect the game and yet enough depth to attract the light strategist. With the game playing in 30 minutes, there is little to prevent a round robin type tournament or one based on final position.

It is unfortunate that too often early reviews of a game are based on a single play or so few plays that the underlying strategies have not revealed themselves. As with classic Risk, ’there is more here than meets the eye’. I hope that the game survives some of the early, negative reviews as there is a potential here to expand even further into the world of Risk.

Thread: Re: Why low ranking?

emceekhan — 2005-11-24T05:38:11+00:00

qrux wrote:
I believe that part of the problem is the game oozes confrontation (it's based on Risk). As with Mammoth Hunters (another good Moon game that was trashed on BGG) the Eurogamers tend to dislike games with direct confrontation.

There's a little of that, and a little of the forementioned randomness that turns a lot of gamers off to this game.

One thing I've noticed is that most gamers who rank stuff on the BGG like it when they have complete control over every option they have except a maybe one or two small exceptions (like not being able to control other players or a tiny bit of randomness generated from an unknown event, for example).

You tend to have less control with your forces in this game, so if you like strong control, you probably don't like this game.

Thread: Re: Why low ranking?

qrux — 2005-11-24T02:32:32+00:00

I believe that part of the problem is the game oozes confrontation (it's based on Risk). As with Mammoth Hunters (another good Moon game that was trashed on BGG) the Eurogamers tend to dislike games with direct confrontation.

Thread: Re: Catapults

mrspank — 2005-10-04T04:11:02+00:00

Thank you very much. Where is the FAQ by the way? I'm not a regular Warriors player.

Thread: Re: Better with four or less

code_ronin — 2005-10-04T03:15:50+00:00

I agree. I like four better than six. I am still mulling over whether I like the dragons or not.

Thread: Re: Catapults

code_ronin — 2005-10-04T03:11:48+00:00

Read the FAQ. Catapults cannot attack catapults or Attack cards despite the phrase "attack any card".

Thread: [Review] Warriors

TomVasel — 2005-09-02T23:22:08+00:00

I had extremely high hopes for Warriors (Face 2 Face Games, 2004 - Alan Moon and Richard Borg.) Not only was the game designed by two of my favorite game designers, but the theme was promising. However, I dislike the game to the point of near hatred. I was so convinced that there must be something I was missing that I played the game five times and detested it all five. Even when I added the expansion, the game still didn't work for me, and yet I wanted to like the game so much!

Normally I enjoy some games less than others, but Warriors just really bombed for me. The gameplay is almost like Risk in a card format (something already a bad idea in my book), but the mixture of fighting and set collecting just did not work for me. The sheer overwhelming randomness of the design, plus the erratic combat, just made my game time wretched. Add to this the fact that occasionally a player can do nothing on their turn and simply must sit there, really makes the game something I never want to play again.

A deck of cards is shuffled, consisting of army units for six different races. Each race (undead, goblins, trolls, barbarians, elves, and dwarves) has three different army types: infantry, archers, and cavalry. There are also three wizards, nine catapults, and fourteen attack cards in the deck. The deck is shuffled, and eleven cards are dealt to each player (attack cards are discarded and players receive replacement cards). Players take their cards and place them face up in front of them. Each race is placed together, in the same "nation", with catapults placed to the side, and wizards assigned to any nation the player prefers. Five dice are placed in the middle of the table, and the deck is reshuffled for the first round of play (out of three).

In each round, a player is dealt seven cards. They pick four of these cards to keep and discard the other three. Once all the players have chosen, the cards are revealed while the army, wizard, and catapult cards are placed just like the initial setup. Battle cards are placed in front of the armies. The battles then begin.

Each attack card has a different number (which range from 2 to 38) and is either a Battle Card or a Mercenary Card. A mercenary attack consists of the player taking the number of troops shown on the card (3 or 4) from any nation, and making an attack with them. A battle card attack consists of an entire nation attacking. A mercenary army can attack any other player's nation, while a nation can only attack the same type of race, or their "natural enemy" (shown on their card).

In an attack, the attacker and defender both roll one dice for each infantry symbol in the battle (including those on the attack card). The attacker rolls a maximum of three dice, and the defender rolls a minimum of one die and a maximum of two. The player who has the most archer symbols on their side adds one to their highest roll. The highest roll of each player is compared, and the player with the lower roll (defender wins ties) must give one card from their force to the opponent, who places it face down in their "Victory" pile. If the defender rolled two dice, then the second highest dice of each player is compared with a casualty occurring from that also.

After the initial roll, the attacker can either continue the battle or quit. The battle can also end if one side is completely destroyed. Once the attack is over, the battle card is discarded, unless the attacking player won and has a cavalry symbol on their side. If so, they may make an additional attack, but must turn one card in their attacking force face down).

Wizards protect the nations they are with, which can neither attack or be attacked. They can only be killed by catapults. Players may use their catapults during a battle to target any card in the game, which pauses the battle while that attack takes place. The player using the catapult rolls a die and scores a hit (adding the card to their victory pile) on a 4-6. Either way, the catapult is discarded. After all attacks have been resolved, all wizards and catapults are discarded.

After the first round ends, the same round begins, with seven cards dealt to each player, and each player keeping four. In the third round, players get to keep five cards, instead of four! After the third round ends, the game is over, and players total their points. The player who has the biggest nation of each race gets points (Barbarians = 12, Goblins = 10, Elves = 8, Trolls = 7, Dwarves = 6, and Undead = 5), with ties giving all tied players the same number of points. Also, each card in a player's Victory pile nets him two points. The player with the most points is the winner!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: No one can fault Face 2 Face games for their components, as the cards included with the game are very high quality and have beautiful illustrations. Each race is distinguished not only by a different color but by very different artwork. In a small circle at the bottom of each card is a picture of each race's hated enemy, which is nice but is a bit small, so some players confuse them occasionally. The game also comes with three red dice for the attacker, and two black dice for the defender. The five dice are really nice, with gold pips, and the two different colors help distinguish them (especially with crazy dice chuckers at the table.) Everything fits in a small box (the expansion also fits in easily) that is sturdy and covered with more of the very nice artwork.

2.) Rules: The eleven pages of the rulebook (which comes in several languages) fold out (which is kind of annoying, actually) and are filled with examples and a few full-color illustrations. The game is fairly easy to explain to people (especially if they have a Risk background), although the lack of attacking may confuse some of them. I had no problem teaching the game to teenagers, and adults also picked it up fairly fast. The biggest snafu was players trying to remember which races were worth how many points. A reference card would have been great for this purpose, as even I couldn't remember after five games and was constantly looking it up.

3.) Combat: I've never liked the Risk combat system, but at least in Warriors, it's modified slightly better. I like how the archers give a +1 to the player who has the most, and I enjoy how the attack cards add symbols to a player's army. What I didn't like was how the cavalry was almost worthless, as players rarely had enough forces left after a battle to successfully make another attack. I also didn't like the limitations on the attacks. Sure, I know that this was to add some strategy to the game; but if I have attack cards and a large Goblin army, and my opponent has a one-warrior Dwarf army (the Goblin's enemy) and NO Goblin army, what am I supposed to attack that will make it worth my while? And if they have a big army, the odds are too even for me to even attempt it! It's just not the same as Risk. In Risk, you attack because the more you attack, the more territories you gain, which in turn provides you with more armies. In this game, you don't get much when you attack small armies; they only provide you with a few victory points.

4.) Battle Cards: But by far, the most annoying factor about combat for me was that you might not even have it! With only fourteen attack cards in the deck, it's very possible that a player get only one or even NO attack cards. When you get no attack cards, all you basically do is just sit there, twiddling your thumbs and waiting for someone to come after you. For some people this is satisfactory, as they simply sit there and build up their armies. But I would submit that those type of people would be totally put off by the combat system. And this is where Warriors fails. Players who enjoy combat systems like Risk will hate it when they cannot attack or can only attack once or twice the entire game. Players who like set collecting games will despise the total randomness of the combat. I don't think that there are many people who would be fond of both and certainly not in the same game.

5.) Fun Factor: Well, it's apparent from my review that I had no fun playing the game at all. I played it several times, each time with a different group, and I just couldn't stomach it. I solicited people for their opinions; and while a few said that it wasn't as bad as I thought, none of them had much pleasure playing the game.

6.) Time and Luck: The game is over fairly rapidly, especially if there aren't several attacks. In fact, luck plays a large function in this; because if few attack cards are played, then the game ends quickly (and ends rather unsatisfactorily, I might add).

7.) Choices: Knowing which army to attack sounds like a strategic option, but in reality, it's simply too obvious. Adding the right cards to your army - again obvious moves. I just didn't find many options that I had during the game to make my time worthwhile.

8.) Expansion: There is an expansion for the game, called Dragon Hordes. I've written a review on that game also, but suffice it to say that it adds a bit of attack to the game, while also increasing chaos. In other words, it doesn't salvage the game.

9.) Risk: The combat system is like Risk, and that's about the extent of it. One draw of Risk is that you can continue to attack, and attack, and attack. You can only do that if you have cavalry in Warriors (which is rare) and then only if your army is large enough to sustain multiple attacks (even more rare) and then only if there are enough available, viable targets (forget it!). Risk: the card game sounds neat, but I don't think Risk fans will enjoy Warriors. Not enough fighting for them, and not the same drive for world dominance.

I've been fairly harsh towards Warriors, and I feel rather badly about it. For one, I really like both designers, as they are true gentlemen and have designed some of the best board games of all times. And also, the theme and idea really intrigued me. Could you take a game like Risk and make it into a fun card game? For Warriors, the answer was "no." This design simply didn't work for me, and I didn't find that I had enough interest from others to cause me to ever bring it to the table again. Risk as a card game may interest some people (it's not a selling point for many), but this game isn't Risk. It's a combination of Risk and a Eurogame, and the mutant produced is rather deformed - very few will enjoy the playing of it.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."
www.tomvasel.com

Thread: Catapults

mrspank — 2005-08-24T21:24:43+00:00

Can catapults attack other players' catapults? The rules don't seem to say that you can't, so I'm assuming you can. However, playing this way doesn't seem to be as much fun since players with 2 or 3 catapults can simply use 1 or 2 to take out a player that has only one.

Our group ruled that since they were "behind the front", catapults couldn't target each other. That's probably wrong, but we enjoyed the game more playing it that way.

Thread: Re: Warriors Review by Patrick Korner

balbie — 2005-07-21T10:41:46+00:00

Would not the fact that races can only attack certain races imply a geographic proximity element wherein they are limited to attacking those races simply because they are the ones next to their lands? Perhaps the different continents in risk were converted into these "races".

Thread: Re: Warriors Review by Patrick Korner

steveoliverc — 2005-07-18T17:10:40+00:00

Excellent review, Patrick -- thanks! I've had some of the same misgivings about this game and I agree with you that this game is good for the right audience (those who enjoy luck of the dice and card draw) -- I've seen kids really enjoy this game.

Thread: Warriors Review by Patrick Korner

PatK — 2005-07-18T16:25:09+00:00

Warriors Review

There are precious few folks out there who didn’t play at least one of the following three games growing up: Monopoly , Clue , and Risk . Indeed, to many, Risk was their first taste of wargaming – albeit of a very limited, non-realistic type. The problem with Risk, though, is that it takes a long time to play, is subject to all sorts of annoying ‘fortress’ strategies that draw a long game out even longer, and takes up a lot of real estate on the table. But what if you could get the flavour of Risk in a card game? Now that would be something worth trying out! Enter Warriors , Face 2 Face Games’ latest release (along with its first expansion, Dragon Hordes , which is not part of this review). Originally planned as Risk: The Card Game, it gained a new lease on life when F2F picked up what Hasbro chose to pass on. But is it any fun? Does it capture the essence of Risk? Read on…

Components

As is standard for most Face 2 Face games these days, the production of Warriors is in China. As such, the quality of the game is very good, but not quite at the European standard. With each new release, the cards get a little nicer, the box a little less chunky – give the Chines industry about another year and I’d wager that few will be able to tell the difference between games produced in Asia and those from the traditional European printing houses.

The game comes in a small, square box of about the same size as some of the small German games (like Winning Moves’ Nuggets or the Kosmos smallbox line ( Spy et al). The box finish is linen and aside from the cardboard being a little thicker and stiffer than the German standard, it’s top-notch production. Packed inside the box are 110 cards of varying types (several fantasy races as well as some special cards) a set of five dice, and rulebooks in multiple languages.

The cards are very nice – the same quality as those in Face 2 Face’s version of Sleuth . There’s the occasional card with a little bending on the edge from a slightly imperfect punching process, but generally the cards are linen finished and very nice. The dice are plastic and perfectly serviceable – three red dice for the attacker and two black dice for the defender – just like classic Risk.

Gameplay

Gameplay is a mixture of the new and the old. To start, each player gets dealt a set of 11 cards that they place face-up onto the table – these are the cards that form the starting sizes of the various armies. The cards of like types of races are placed together such that they are all visible – and in this first round, any Attack cards (see below) are discarded and replaced with other cards.

There are six races (or Nations) in the game: Undead, Trolls, Dwarves, Elves, Goblins and Barbarians. However, there are unequal numbers of each race in the deck – there are more Barbarians than Trolls, and more Trolls than Undead, etc. These relative abundances have impact on the game’s scoring, which I’ll cover in greater detail below.

There are also Wizard and Catapult cards, which have defensive and offensive benefits. Wizard cards get added to whichever nation the player owning them wishes – all to one Nation, split apart, whatever. Any nation with a Wizard in it can’t be attacked, which can be quite useful. Catapults are different – they’re set aside as single use special attacks that a player can choose to carry out during a regular attack. Again, I’ll explain in greater detail below.

Once each player has their initial setup on the table, they get dealt a new set of 7 cards. They get to choose which 4 to keep – the rest are discarded. Once all players have chosen, the cards get added to the table – creature cards with their respective nations, catapults with the other catapults, wizards as the player wishes, and Attack cards in front of their nations.

At this point, each player will have a series of groups of cards in front of them, each split into a single nation type (along with any wizards added to said nation), as well as some catapults (maybe). Each nation’s force is somewhat different, since there are three types of units in each of the nations: Infantry, Archers and Cavalry. Infantry are the ‘backbone’ of the army and are the total number of units available to attack with, while the other two units provide different offensive bonuses. In battle, the player with the most Archers on their side gets to add +1 to their highest die roll, which can come in handy. And if an attacking force has any Cavalry units, they get to make additional attacks instead of just one, which is the usual game rule. So how do you attack? Well…

Attack cards are how you attack in the game – each player can only attack as many times as the number of Attack cards he/she has been dealt. There are two kinds of Attack cards: Battle Cards and Mercenary Cards. Normally, each nation has a single ‘opponent’ nation that it can gun for (shown on the cards with a little graphical aid at the bottom of each card) in addition to its own kind – and those are the only nations that can be attacked using a Battle Card. Mercenary Cards let you bring in forces from other nations (in other words, not just the nation you choose to attack with), and let you attack any other nation, not just that nation’s regular opponents.

Each Attack Card has a number on it, and the attacks are resolved in order from lowest to highest. To attack, a player chooses a nation and then, depending on the type of Attack Card used, gets to either add extra forces in from other nations (Mercenary Cards) or count the extra symbols on the card (Battle Card) as part of the army with which he’s fighting.

The battle resolution rules are pure Risk: The attacker can roll with a maximum of 3 dice, but no more than the number of Infantry in the attack, while the defender can roll up to 2 dice, provided they have at least 2 Infantry units left. Note that the defender always gets to roll at least 1 die, even if they’re out of Infantry. Highest rolls are compared against each other, second-highest against each other, and casualties are incurred depending on how the dice went. Each hit removes one creature card from play, and these cards get put into the Victory Pile of the player who nailed them. The Victory Piles are how the points are calculated at the end of the game, which means that the more guys you kill, the better your chances of winning.

Now that the battle’s over, the attacker’s turn is over – unless, as mentioned above, there was a Cavalry unit involved in the battle. In that case, the player can leave 1 Infantry unit behind (as a garrison) and then choose another legal nation to attack. The player can keep doing this as long as he’s got the Cavalry unit and Infantry unit(s) to do it. Once he decides he’s finished, his turn is over.

The one other thing a player can do during an attack is forego his usual attack and attack with a catapult instead. Catapults are single-use, which means that they’re used up after being used, regardless of whether they were successful or not. A Catapult attack involves the player choosing any single target card (which can be a Wizard too, which is different from the usual ‘no attacking Wizards’ rule), regardless of whether it’s part of the current battle or not. The player then rolls a single die. A 4, 5 or 6 is a hit and the target card is added to the player’s Victory Pile. Roll a 3 or less and the attack fails.

The round continues in this way until all the Attack cards have been used. Then, another 7 cards are dealt to each player and a second round is played, identical to the first. Then the third and last round of play takes place, in which the entire discard pile is shuffled in with the remaining cards and the players keep 5 of the 7 cards they are dealt. Once that round is over, the game’s over and each player counts his Victory Pile points to see who won.

Each card in a Victory Pile is worth 2 points, regardless of which nation it’s from. Then, the players with the largest armies left of each of the different nations get points for them as well – and as mentioned above, the creature abundances matter - the nations of which there are fewer cards of in the deck are worth fewer points. So while the largest Undead army is worth only 5 points, the largest Barbarian army is worth 11 points – quite a spread. Total up all of the points gained and see who has the most – your winner!

Comments

At first glance, Warriors does a pretty good job of porting the Risk game mechanics over into a card game. The battles are the same smash-mouth game I recall fondly from endless nights in high school and university, but the window dressing around said battles is completely different. In Warriors, the reinforcements are different, the ability to press on in battle is different, and, most importantly, the ability to choose where and how often to fight is different. And to me, these differences make for a less satisfying game.

While there’s no denying that Risk is a very luck-dependent game, it does have some fundamental advantages over Warriors, unfortunately. My main problem with Warriors is that you don’t have full freedom in attacking, which is completely the opposite from the free-wheeling Risk style. In Warriors, you can only attack certain races with your armies, and you can only attack if you have Attack cards that let you. Well, what if you don’t get dealt any Attack cards (which I’ve seen happen multiple times)? Then you sit and watch others take the initiative. What if you don’t get any Catapults? Then you sit and stew while the others stick Wizards onto the nations you’d love to take a chunk out of. Lots of, luck, and it seemed in the games I played that the luck didn’t even out over time, since the game tended to be over before things had a chance to balance out. 3 rounds just doesn’t give you a lot of room for error.

The other thing about attacking is that it’s tricky when you’re playing for the first couple of times to remember who can attack who. The lack of text on the cards make them wonderfully language independent, but a little hard to identify at first – is that a troll or a goblin? It gets easier with play, though, so this isn’t a major issue – just chalk it up to the learning curve.

I would have preferred for the three unit types to have more impact in battle than they do – you’re telling me that the Cavalry units sit on the sidelines until it’s time to press on? Why don’t they add a +1 modifier to the highest roll as well, which is more in keeping with what one would usually think of as a benefit of being on horseback? I can only assume that something like this was deleted during playtesting because it would make them too strong or something.

There are some things about Warriors that I do like: The ability to use Wizards to try and protect a vulnerable army is interesting, and the Archer ability is also kind of cool. I also quite like the reinforcements mechanic, which is more focussed and less random than the ‘add armies when you get sets’ mechanic from the board game. A bad deal will still mess you over, but you can say that about all sorts of card games, no?

The last thing I wish there was more treatment of in Warriors is geographic proximity. Here, you can take on any nation you want – oh, provided that you’re allowed to- regardless of which player owns them. The geographic aspect of Risk, which had such a major impact on gameplay (yes, some negative impacts as well – Fortress Australia, anyone?), is missing completely here, which I think is a shame. I can’t think of an easy way to add it in, but then that’s why I’m a game critic, not a designer – remember, those who can’t either teach or review…

I had really been hoping to play the game with the Dragon Hordes expansion before writing this review, as I think the game’s probably not complete and can’t be appreciated to its fullest extent without it. But I’ll have to wait and add an appendix on to this review once I get a chance to try the expansion out.

Conclusions

Ultimately, I don’t think Warriors is a game for me. I can see it going over very well with the younger set, as it’s a simple game that features lots of dice-rolling without too much strategic thought required – you get your cards and bash heads with whatever the biggest army at your disposal is. Probably tailor-made to play with your kids when you don’t have the energy to set up a game of Heroscape or Memoir ‘44 . I can see it being a fun beer and pretzels game, maybe as a starter before moving on to Axis & Allies or something – but probably only as a big multiplayer melee, for which I think the Dragon Hordes expansion is required. So lest anyone come away with the impression from my comments that I don’t think this is a good game – that’s not strictly correct. I think it’s a fine game, provided you’re the right audience for it. And I’m pretty sure that’s not me. Thankfully, F2F has released some stellar games like I’m the Boss or Sleuth that I’ll get to play instead and have a great time with.

Scores

(Out of Five)
Components: ****
Balance: ***
Fun Factor: ***
Replayability: **
Duration: ***

Overall Rating: ***

Thread: Re: Warriors unoffical FAQ v1.3

kvn299 — 2005-07-07T14:54:42+00:00

thanks for clearing that up

Thread: Re: Warriors unoffical FAQ v1.3

drasher25 — 2005-07-07T14:52:04+00:00

Good question. F2F's reply:

'All cards are shown at the same time. Thus the attack cards are visible and everyone with a wizard will know who has one available. The lowest attack card should place wizards first and then rotate to the left.'

So the ruling is somewhere in between table order and attack order. First attack places first, then clockwise around the table.

Thread: Re: Warriors unoffical FAQ v1.3

kvn299 — 2005-07-07T02:21:49+00:00

Of course, having asked the question and gotten an answer, it was pointed out to me that the rules say nothing about determining who is the first player.

Is the person with the lowest battle card, or the person to the left of the dealer? *sigh*

Thread: Re: Warriors unoffical FAQ v1.2

drasher25 — 2005-07-07T01:45:23+00:00

kvn299 wrote:
What happens when more than one player has a wizard card? Do players place their wizards in turn order or simultaneously? This brings up the issue of placing wizards in response to seeing how others are placing theirs.

This is actually something I wonder about every time we play, but for some reason I overlooked it as a FAQ question. It's been added to the version 1.3 FAQ!

Thread: Re: Warriors unoffical FAQ v1.2

kvn299 — 2005-07-06T15:55:26+00:00

I sent my question to F2F Games:

Lawrence Whalen Jr. wrote:
Place wizards in turn order.

You might want to consider adding this to the FAQ unless it's covered in the rules.

Thread: Re: Warriors unoffical FAQ v1.2

kvn299 — 2005-07-05T17:08:18+00:00

What happens when more than one player has a wizard card? Do players place their wizards in turn order or simultaneously? This brings up the issue of placing wizards in response to seeing how others are placing theirs.