Game: Blood Royale

Image

kswingruber — 2008-09-16T16:49:31+00:00

The Board

Image

kswingruber — 2008-09-16T16:48:41+00:00

The Character Sheet

Image

Dr.Octopus — 2008-08-28T07:20:12+00:00

International game: Paolo (Spain), Silvia (Italy), Maria (Spain) and me playing BR during the kids siesta...

Image

Dr.Octopus — 2008-08-28T07:12:02+00:00

Game in progress: Italy invades Spain, but the Spaniards have a surprise sailing for Romagna...

Thread: Re: You need two things; time and no breeze.

Lord_Winter — 2008-08-15T11:15:21+00:00

I'd love to have a Blood Royal thru CyberBoard.
But I haven't the correct files... can someone help me?

Thread: Re: Looking for suggestions on metallic replacements for the crappy plastic tokens ...

Ze Weeg — 2008-08-10T02:19:55+00:00

These are nice.

http://www.deadmentellnotales.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?searc...

Thread: Re: What neutral province do they mean by "France"?

mentis — 2008-06-30T06:59:30+00:00

I don't know what the designers intended, but I have used Flanders before. It makes sense since many of the provinces selected are border provinces. More importantly it was a contested area historically that was controlled by different nations/rulers during the general period of time in which the game is nominally set.

Thread: Re: What neutral province do they mean by "France"?

Chump — 2008-06-30T04:56:37+00:00

nnf1 wrote:
From memory it is France, but I could be wrong. One of the optional rules was if you had 4 players a whole country became neutral.

Uh, no ... I don't think that's it. Nice try though ...

Thread: Re: What neutral province do they mean by "France"?

nnf1 — 2008-06-30T03:20:22+00:00

From memory it is France, but I could be wrong. One of the optional rules was if you had 4 players a whole country became neutral.

Thread: What neutral province do they mean by "France"?

Chump — 2008-06-29T22:40:19+00:00

Reference Optional Rule (F), "France" is listed as a neutral province at the beginning of the game. Do they mean "Flanders"?

Thread: Re: Fleets

Chump — 2008-06-22T18:00:31+00:00

nnf1 wrote:
From memory Derek had the intention that you could write anything into marriage contracts. Just cause it contradicts a game rule doesn't mean you can't have variants and the beauty about this game is that marriage contracts allow you to do just that.

... yet the rules specifically say, "Anything is permitted in Marriage Contracts that does not contravene the game rules." (My emphasis.)

Thread: Re: Looking for suggestions on metallic replacements for the crappy plastic tokens ...

Liumas — 2008-06-20T19:56:51+00:00

We've always enjoyed these coins. It may sound strange now, but it was one of the things that made me look at the game when it was first advertised. I remember the last time we were planning to play, taking them out and realizing that it can be *tough* to distinguish the denominations (agreeing with you).

I took different colored sharpies and 'painted' on the numbers (only the numbers). Fairly quick job, now easy to tell them apart. I may redo this - I suspect Silver or White will make these stand out even more (glad you brought this up). No other suggestions - this has worked well.

Thread: Looking for suggestions on metallic replacements for the crappy plastic tokens ...

Chump — 2008-06-19T10:59:36+00:00

The plastic tokens provided in Blood Royale are lousy--they're cheap looking and it's difficult to distinguish between denominations.

Any suggestions out there on replacing them with metal coinage, either actual (foreign) coinage, or something you can buy, purpose-made?

Thread: Re: You need two things; time and no breeze.

mentis — 2008-05-30T02:05:08+00:00

I really like this game, but it hasn't made it to the table in a long time because of the length.

I see that there is a Cyberboard module for it. Has anyone played using Cyberboard? How diminished was the experience not playing face to face?

Is anyone willing to play it via Cyberboard?

Image

Xookliba — 2008-05-29T13:41:20+00:00

cyberboard gamebox

Thread: Re: You need two things; time and no breeze.

wolvenwood — 2008-04-29T17:03:53+00:00

A gang of us old-time SCA folks took to Blood Royale back in the 80's. We play in male-female pairs, acting as a royal couple. We usually make a huge party of the deal, and a full game takes us about 6-8 hours. The time flies because we're having such a blast. Even though a bunch of us are no longer involved in the SCA, we still get together every couple years for Blood Royale.

If a remastered version came out it would be at the top of my list.

Thread: Re: You need two things; time and no breeze.

Sphere — 2008-02-08T01:59:25+00:00

I bought a copy and played it several times when it was released. I ended up being disappointed and trading it away. It just didn't have enough depth to warrant the time required.

Thread: Re: You need two things; time and no breeze.

Jake Boone — 2008-02-07T16:56:30+00:00

I've played Blood Royale, and I love it. However, you really need exactly five players, or it's not as fun. As a result, I've gotten to play it maybe twice in the last decade. I'm hoping that Fantasy Flight will pick up this one to redo in the vein of Fury of Dracula and Warrior Knights. But I do hope they keep those little character sheets; altering the heraldry to reflect marriages in successive generations was always great fun!

Thread: Re: You need two things; time and no breeze.

SmartQuin — 2008-01-27T22:29:23+00:00

I think it's sad that no-one has replied to this post since it was written in Oct 2006. Maybe because no-one else in the English speaking world has ever played the game because it takes too god-dammned long to play? Just a thought.

Image

patrel — 2007-11-10T02:21:31+00:00

Blood Royale GW Boxfront better resolution image

Image

sauceybugger — 2007-11-06T10:06:56+00:00

Home made pieces, to replace missing bits.

Image

sauceybugger — 2007-11-06T09:11:22+00:00

Bits I made up quickly for my copy that is missing some.

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-24T07:51:17+00:00

the british playing pieces

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-24T07:50:54+00:00

various counters and components

Thread: Re: Negotiations -- when can they happen?

OtisBFilthy — 2007-08-09T19:17:40+00:00

So you can't just make a verbal agreement to trade resources(obviously not binding if not a marriage contract). We played that someone could do that and on their movement phase you would just move said resource into that persons territory.

Thread: National succession rules

Angry Martian — 2007-07-14T21:56:41+00:00

While developing succession rules for my Kingmaker variant, it occured to me that the rules in BR are oversimplified. Just as well, perhaps, but different countries had different patterns of succession:

England: division amongst daughters
When a male line failed, and there were more than one daughter, the estates were split evenly between them. This should also be applied to titles, but a kingdom can never be divided in this way and must go with the eldest daughter.

Germany: division amongst sons
Traditionally in this country estates were divided up amongst sons, even whole kingdoms. This is why any medieval map of Germany is so complicated!

France: Salic law; exclusion of the heir general
The French crown always descended to the nearest direct unbroken male line, excluding all claims of female lines. Of course the English (heirs general) disputed this, hence the Hundred Years War.

I'm not sure which of these patterns was followed in spain and Italy, will have to research this some more.

Thread: Re: Genetics and the Queen Mother

rmidjord — 2007-05-17T09:38:57+00:00

That it does indeed - but the charisma of a princess or queen seems strangely inconsequencial in BR, despite knowing that historically, beautiful/gracious queens have played a significant role in keeping the population at large happy - especially given the concept of adding of guile and strength...

Rune

Thread: Re: Blood Royale

chad56s — 2007-05-08T00:33:02+00:00

Boy, this game intrigues me so much. It's probably the single game I want reprinted the most and that includes Age of Steam, Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization.

Please, please, please reprint this!

Thread: Re: Genetics and the Queen Mother

sdiberar — 2007-05-07T17:30:32+00:00

This is just based on my own recollection, but doesn't the Charisma of female characters provide bonus/penalty cash upon marriage? That's nothing to sneeze at.

Thread: Genetics and the Queen Mother

rmidjord — 2007-05-07T16:16:55+00:00

My buddies and I have just been (re)playing the ever-wonderful game of Blood Royale with great amusement and happy ganshing of teeth as a result!

However, we were left pondering two things:

1. The effect of parents' characteristics on their off-springs characteristics - genetics?

-> several of us being students of science and missing the effects of genetics, we were wondering if a rule such as "add the parents characteristics and add that to the die roll for the child's roll in the characteristic" has been tested and how it worked (I even think we did something like that, when I played Blood Royale as a teen)?

2. The effect of the queen's charisma on the monarch's charisma in the eyes of the people?

-> We found the charisma of the female characters to be strangely redundant (especially as we're all enthusiastic fans of it in real life ) and knowing how beautiful and/or charming queens have propped up otherwise bumbling kings in the eyes of the peons, we wondered if not a "charisma + charisma" rule similar to "guile + strength" was appropriate for the monarch and his queen (aswell as for all titles, if playing with the optional rule of governed provinces) and if that had been tested, with what results? This would also make charismatic princesses extra attractive ('scuse the pun!) and introduce competition between all three characteristics - or did we actually just miss a rule that's already there or in some errata?

I hope Derek himself answers, that would be awesome!

All the best
Rune
Denmark

Thread: Re: Fantasy Flight new edition?

Weapon — 2007-04-25T17:25:35+00:00

MattDP wrote:
That's a great shame. FFG have gone and revamped the two classics GW games that didn't need a revamp (not saying there's anything wrong with the FFG versions, but the GW versions were already very good). I reckon Blood Royale is the GW classic game with by far the most unused potential. Some good streamlining could make this into a unique and brilliant game.

So, anyone know what one they are going to republish next?

Games that are harder to find, and not accessable to the average gamer, that people may be interested in, are completely worthy of revamps. Fury NEEDED a revamp, just to make it more accessible to the majority of gamers that don't scour ebay for copies of older games, but who are interested in that style of game.

Thread: Re: Fantasy Flight new edition?

chad56s — 2007-04-25T17:11:18+00:00

Maybe so, but a 4 hour game is something I wouldn't really mind. Most of my favorite games are of longer length.

Thread: Re: Fantasy Flight new edition?

RDewsbery — 2007-04-25T14:56:49+00:00

I *thought* that I'd heard at the time of the original deal for WK that FFG gotthe rights to a "package" of GW titles - Fury being one, and BR being another.

Although I'm sure that there are aspects of BR that could be updated, I can't see any sensible way to reduce the playing time to anything that I'd find acceptable these days. Lose all the negotiations and family tree stuff, and you lose the atmosphere; keep them both, and you're not finishing in under 4 hours.

Thread: Re: Blood Royale

Mooninite — 2007-01-16T01:09:11+00:00

Boardgamenews lists it as "2008?".

http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/C50/

Thread: Re: Blood Royale

Mooninite — 2007-01-16T01:05:01+00:00

Last time I checked, it's not on their Upcoming page at all, which means it's way out there on the horizon. They did announce their plans to reprint, though. We're just going to have to wait.

Thread: Blood Royale Reprint?

greglios — 2007-01-16T00:43:36+00:00

Has anyone heard anything about Fantasy Flight bringing out a new edition of Blood Royale? I'm excited!!!!

Thread: Re: What optional rules do you use?

nnf1 — 2006-10-19T20:10:30+00:00

From memeory we used to use

Neutral Provinces-reduces interplayer conflict for a turn or two so as allows them to build up family, resources, etc
4 character start-too speed the game up a little
Disputed succession-for a bit of a laugh
Event Cards-for a bit of variety
Governing provinces-for more money

Thread: What optional rules do you use?

robf — 2006-10-19T15:17:21+00:00

I'm in the process of figuring the game out. I was curious about what options people use. It looks like the event cards and neutral armies would add a lot. Any thoughts on those or other optional rules?

Thread: Re: Negotiations -- when can they happen?

nnf1 — 2006-10-08T08:12:36+00:00

My memory is that Anthony is close to the mark but also you can negotiate anything at any time but they are only binding in a marriage contract.

Thread: Re: Negotiations -- when can they happen?

fellonmyhead — 2006-10-08T05:06:48+00:00

It's been a while, but as far as I can remember only marriages allow any sort of exchange (which, in a game about dynasties is the way it ought to work). Marriage is the only way in which any commodity (well resources, gold, people - perhaps ships and armies but I'm unsure) can be traded.

I believe you are allowed to negotiate (as in if you leave province x alone then my ally won't attack your province y), but only marriage is binding and both parties must adhere to the agreement drawn up with the marriage.

Thread: Negotiations -- when can they happen?

robf — 2006-10-08T01:53:46+00:00

Just cracked this one open, laid it out to see how it works.

My question is about trade and negotiations. Are they only allowed via marriage contract? Or can there be informal trades unrelated to marriage (I'll give you a trade item this year in exchange for yours next turn?)

Are both allowed, but only marriage contracts are enforceable, and non-marriage contracts on the honor system?

Thanks for your explanations/interpretations.

Thread: You need two things; time and no breeze.

thebadgerboy — 2006-10-04T18:36:23+00:00

Blood Royale has been in my boardgame collection for an age. My brother and I used to play it a lot when we were younger, now when we get together to play boardgames Blood Royale is not really on our list. There is only one reason for this; it takes ages.

Boardgamegeek have it listed in the 240min category but I think this is conservative. Playing the game can span a weekend no trouble, make sure you have food/drink/comfy chair.

Now this in itself doesn't make this a bad game, indeed having a spare table to play this on may be the best way to go*. Because when you get into this game it is grand. The depth to your dynasty is key, and marriages are necessary. Remember that marrying off a young female to a 2nd inline to your enemies throne may sound like a waste of a good child bearer, but this action could land you the crown of that country if you can kill off the King and the newly wedded Prince in battle... think about it

It is easy to get involved in the game, it can consume you in a way that a lot of games can't. Playing it over a few evenings can also help suck you into the world. I have honestly been at work thinking how I can work out who to marry off to whom, what eligble woman could be good for my prince, etc. The character management is via small character sheets (about the size of a beer mat), after a number of rounds you'll find that your dynasty takes up a fair amount of space on the table. What you need to ensure is that you make a marking/numbering system for your character sheets. You'll also need to spread them about on the table, but if a gust of wind should entre the room, you may have an issue getting them all back in the right place. (Personaly I write that two parents names on the sheet.)

This is a good game. No question. The long time it takes to play is not a downside, you shouldn't be getting bored. However the major hindrance to playing this game is real-life commitments mean that playing it over a few nights is impracticle, maybe ok for three people but unlikely with more. One way to do this is for two players to play two countries each. Howeverthis can only take place if the two players play their countries as if they are not playing the other. This can work if the players are up for it, indeed this is how I generally play this game.

Good game, just sometimes impracticle. An 8/10.

Thread: Re: Expansion articles from White Dwarf?

stove — 2006-09-19T17:15:07+00:00

Weird, it shows up when I "browse" the file section, but not in the general file list. Odd.
Thanks very much, though, it's what I remembered.

Thread: Re: Expansion articles from White Dwarf?

Liumas — 2006-09-19T16:23:09+00:00

"Blood Royale - Bounden to the See of Rome.pdf" in the files section.

A PDF file.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=837

Thread: Expansion articles from White Dwarf?

stove — 2006-09-19T13:18:28+00:00

I could've sworn there were articles floating around here a few months ago from White Dwarf - especially rules for the church. Am I just blind, or have they been removed?
(I just traded for the game a few weeks ago and was really interested in looking at church rules.)

Thread: Re: Errors in rulebook?

SeattleGamer — 2006-08-14T23:52:08+00:00

Good catch on the birthdates. I confess I never noticed that before, but you are correct, the example does indeed have the wrong year of birth for the king and queen.

There was probably a mixup during layout, since those ARE the correct birthdates if you use the Optional Rules (p 19) for Four Character Start.

And you are also correct about the fleet movement example involcing Cornwall. The rest is correct, but the fleet could not pull in at Bordeaux because it would need to travel through a second sea zone to get there. (Had to dig my game out of storage to double-check the map for that question)!

Steve

Thread: Re: Errors in rulebook?

Langy — 2006-08-09T08:07:08+00:00

Look at the dates written in setup and then the dates on the "filled in " form in example 2 - they are 5 years out -the king and queen.

The other problem was the fleet movement example - bordeux is in a seperate sea area and thus cant be reached with 1 move point.(in my reckoning)

Thread: Re: Fleets

SeattleGamer — 2006-08-09T05:26:05+00:00

Neil is spot-on with his answers Andrew. Marriage Contracts are quite powerful documents, and there are plenty of opportunities to nail somebody due to the wording or lack thereof.

My advice to players is to keep the contracts limited, and say "No" to just about anything other than the top half-dozen standard items (see my sample marriage contract uploads for what I consider to be standards).

We found that crafting marriage contracts could take 15 minutes or longer for ONE contract. This game is going to have 50 at a minimum, so unless you are planning to play for many sessions over multiple days, you can speed things up and just stick to basics.

Here's an example of a contract that blew up. In exchange for a terrific female who would lend many bonuses to her husband (already a powerful warrior) the bride's father had it worked into his contract that if attacked, the husband of his daughter would send 10 armies to garrison his capital and protect it.

Well, one thing led to another, and he was invaded, and the husband did send 10 armies. But he refused to fight with them. His interpretation of garrison was to sit. The contract didn't specify that his 10 would work in conjuction with the standing armies to actually fight and defend the capital. He never agreed to do anything other than send 10 armies.

All in good fun, it was agreed he lived up to his contract. But the next couple of contracts required reams of text to explain what was meant by alliance, ally, move, come to the aid, defend, fight, attack, etc. It became a huge drain on time.

So we stuck with some basics after that, stuff that doesn't require a lawyer to figure out the meanings for, and things went more smoothly. Stuff like "In exchange for my daughter Stella, you will transport to my nearest controlled province and give me the next Metal you receive."

Steve

Thread: Re: A few rules questions ..

SeattleGamer — 2006-08-09T05:15:15+00:00

Greetings Derek! This is so cool, having the designer pop in to answer questions! : )

This is going to sound pretty cheeky then when I say I'm not sure Andrew has the right answer to #3. : )

Andrew asked:

1)Can a player only control 5 outside home provinces?

You said he can use other markers if he runs out. And I agree, there's nothing in the rules to say otherwise - no hint of "limited to the counter mix" stuff. That said, my advice to Andrew is this is a trade and diplomatic game, with military overtones, not a game of outright conquest. When I've played with my friends, we limit ourselves to the five markers. You can conquer more than 5, but since there are only 5 markers, any others would require your military presence to guarantee they stay controlled. But I guess given Derek's answer that we have been using a "house rule" for this.

2) If my army is in a empty enemy province at the end of my move , do I control it , or do I have to place a marker to do so?

And Derek said you control it. Nuff said.

3)If you start your move in enemy country can you use your full 3 movement or do you have to keep stopping after moving once?

This is the confusing one. I'd say that Derek's answer applies if you are moving your army into a hostile territory from a former hositle territory (now controlled by you), in which case you don't get to move 3 but only 1 and then must stop. But, if you were in a former enemy territiry which you have controll over, then to me, it's "yours". So if you wanted to move any armies there "back" through other provinces you control, then yes, you can move up to three. The limitation is that you must stop once you enter a hostile territory.

4)Is the pre battle roll conected to the normal battle table or is it always a 1-4 roll ? Can it be reduced ? Im not sure how it works .. as you can tell!!

Derek cleared this on up too. The 1-4 was just an example.

Thread: Re: Errors in rulebook?

SeattleGamer — 2006-08-09T05:01:15+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean about example 2 being wrong. I just re-read the set-up rules and the example (which I've never even looked at before) and nothing stands out as being wrong.

The initial king and queen look fine (the basic rules have these figures start out with all "0" characteristics, and aged 25 and 20 years respectively. The characteristics for the one child are rolled for, as is the sex. It's been a while since I played, but the example looks good.

What did I miss?

BTW: Optional Rule A gives you two kids to start, and optional Rule B has you roll for all the characteristics for the initial king and queen.

Thread: Re: Fleets

Langy — 2006-08-08T11:11:59+00:00

Hi Neil , yes you are right Anything goes according to Derek himself. Cheers for the answers .

Thread: Re: Fleets

nnf1 — 2006-08-06T01:43:07+00:00

From memory Derek had the intention that you could write anything into marriage contracts. Just cause it contradicts a game rule doesn't mean you can't have variants and the beauty about this game is that marriage contracts allow you to do just that.

Thread: Re: Fleets

Langy — 2006-08-05T15:11:00+00:00

Surely that wouldnt be allowed as it directly contradicts a game rule?

Thread: Re: Fleets

nnf1 — 2006-08-05T11:48:05+00:00

Langy wrote:
1)Do fleets in port block another persons fleet moving into the sea area?

2) Must you stop if you meet a bigger fleet even if its a friendly nations fleet?

From memory

1) No not sea area but stops you from docking

2) Yes but the good thing about blood royale is that you can write anything into marriage contracts so I'd write that in just to make sure.

Regards

Thread: Fleets

Langy — 2006-08-05T08:18:30+00:00

1)Do fleets in port block another persons fleet moving into the sea area?

2) Must you stop if you meet a bigger fleet even if its a friendly nations fleet?

Thread: Re: A few rules questions ..

Langy — 2006-08-04T09:53:42+00:00

Cheers , and I take it in question 1 - that I can control more than 5 - as you said no - but then improvise for markers - there are 5 markers so I must be able to control morethan 5 - yes?

Thread: Re: A few rules questions ..

Carver — 2006-08-04T09:38:22+00:00

Langy wrote:
Thanks Derek but due to the way I asked no 3 ( 2 questions) Im not sure what the answer is ! So I'll do it again - Once inside enemy land do I get my full move (3) ?

In a nut-shell "No"

Thread: Re: A few rules questions ..

Langy — 2006-08-04T08:17:06+00:00

Thanks Derek but due to the way I asked no 3 ( 2 questions) Im not sure what the answer is ! So I'll do it again - Once inside enemy land do I get my full move (3) ?

Thread: Re: A few rules questions ..

Carver — 2006-08-03T16:56:27+00:00

Langy wrote:
1)Can a player only control 5 outside home provinces?

2) If my army is in a empty enemy province at the end of my move , do I control it , or do I have to place a marker to do so?

3)If you start your move in enemy country can you use your full 3 movement or do you have to keep stopping after moving once?

4)Is the pre battle roll conected to the normal battle table or is it always a 1-4 roll ? Can it be reduced ? Im not sure how it works .. as you can tell!!

1. Yes (improvise if you lack markers)
2. You control it (the marker is really only necessary when you leave it)
3. No. You have shifted the border, as it were. (In an early prototype we drew frontiers on the board) The next province is Enemy territory still.
4. It is connected to the normal battle table. The free roll merely reflects the impact of a royal personage's presence. (The "1-4" example is maybe misleading in the way it is worded. It assumes there are at least four units there.)

Thread: A few rules questions ..

Langy — 2006-08-03T15:24:18+00:00

1)Can a player only control 5 outside home provinces?

2) If my army is in a empty enemy province at the end of my move , do I control it , or do I have to place a marker to do so?

3)If you start your move in enemy country can you use your full 3 movement or do you have to keep stopping after moving once?

4)Is the pre battle roll conected to the normal battle table or is it always a 1-4 roll ? Can it be reduced ? Im not sure how it works .. as you can tell!!