Game: Warrior Knights: Crown and Glory

Thread: Re: Garrison Question

Emperor JD — 2008-08-13T18:38:32+00:00

I was going to post the same question about having multiple garrisons in one city.
I can't seem to find anything in the Garrison rules saying whether you are limited to one or if you can have more than one, however, there is a line under "Upgrade Defenenses" that says that "each Baron [may] hire a single Garrison for one of his un-garrisoned cities." I think that that means you can only have one garrison per city.

Thread: Re: For Glory!

Allos — 2008-08-11T15:46:36+00:00

dragonblaster wrote:
King Variant is good but seems to confuse newcomers a bit if they haven't played before.

My group found the same to be true until we described the variant as: "You're an NFL team playing a regular season to win the Super Bowl. After you've won, you must defend your title."

Thread: Re: For Glory!

dragonblaster — 2008-08-11T06:21:24+00:00

Totally agree. Can't play regular Warrior Knights after this expansion. It's cheap and raises the game up another level. Also aside from the King Variant I have no problem teaching people that have never played the game the other elements of this expansion. Everything in it just makes sense. King Variant is good but seems to confuse newcomers a bit if they haven't played before.

Thread: Re: For Glory!

The Barefoot Killer — 2008-08-11T02:24:56+00:00

It's about time this excellent expansion got a review! (I plan on doing one eventually but I've only played with the expansion once so far.)

I think it is a huge improvement on the base game. It adds so many interesting options that WK would now feel like only half a game without them.

Thread: For Glory!

Allos — 2008-08-11T00:59:10+00:00

INTRODUCTION

I received Warrior Knights as a Christmas gift in 2006, and a year and roughly 15 plays later it had secured a regular spot on my gaming table. My group and I loved the game’s combination of strategic decision making through action cards, diplomacy, and combat. Warrior Knights sessions evolved into games of swords against shields, births and deaths of alliances, political intrigue, and the use of terribly performed foreign accents. Fun was always had by all, but the games weren’t without criticism.

Take the game’s movement rules, for example. When playing the base game, it becomes almost impossible to reach some areas of the map without taking numerous turns to do so due to noble exhaustion and movement restrictions. Because of the restrictions on Noble movement, games did not feature nearly as much combat as we all felt they should have, and often times we saw winning players achieve victory through no interaction with their counterparts. This can be blamed on the other players for not uniting against a common foe, but games often felt too predetermined by stronghold placement at the beginning.

When I learned that FFG released an expansion for Warrior Knights that attempted to correct the problems with noble movement as well as add a plethora of other new goodies, I jumped at the chance to play it.

The rest of this review assumes that you’re well acquainted with the Warrior Knights base game and its rules.

WHAT’S NEW?

Upon opening the WK: C&G Expansion box, you discover the following goodies (blue represents totally new game additions and red represents additions that expand on those found in the base game):

-Advancement Deck- Advancements (or technologies) represent one of the greatest additions to the game. They’re bought through book tokens (another addition) and Barons are allowed to own three technology cards at any given time. Technologies serve a variety of purposes depending on the specific cards owned, but some can drastically affect the game’s outcome. An example is the “Compass Navigation” technology card, which allows the Baron using it to move a noble between sea ports as if they were adjacent. Technologies also introduce a third title to the game in addition to the titles of Head of Church and Head of State: The Scholar. The Scholar is denoted by a feather token and may purchase more technologies at a given time than other players.

-Mission Cards- If players so choose, they may use the “Missions” game variant. In this variant, Barons are secretly dealt Mission cards at the beginning of the game, each with a secret mission objective printed on it. If the Baron achieves his/her mission objective by game’s end, they receive two extra influence. My group has found come to dislike this variant, as some of the mission objectives are easier to achieve than others and some objectives basically require players to do things they may not wish to do to gain influence.

-The King’s Army Deck- Another variant included in the game is the “King” variant. In this variant, the game does not end when the influence pool runs out. The new King is declared, as usual, and receives the King token, but he/she must defend the crown until one player has secured a total of 16 influence. The King gains one extra influence on every Upkeep phase and receives a set of troop cards from the King’s Army deck that act as regular troops to be assigned to the player’s stronghold or Nobles at the stronghold/player-controlled cities.

This variant is a good way to increase game-length while still keeping the game thematically interesting, as it gives players who may have fallen behind a chance to defeat the King and usurp the throne.

-Garrison Deck- The “Upgrade Defenses” replacement neutral action card allows players to purchase garrisons for their cities. Garrisons give the cities 100 extra strength that remains in the city, similar to a fortification. Garrisons defer from fortifications in that they are initially cheaper to purchase, they do not provide taxation bonuses, and they must be paid for on every “Wages” stage. I’ve come to be a fan of Garrisons as they give you a greater feeling of security over your cities.

-Town Levy Deck- Town Levies are new troop types that can be recruited through the replacement “Muster Forces” neutral action card by any of your Barons in a city. Town levies do not have to be paid during the “Wages” step but they immediately desert their assigned Noble if any mercenaries desert and are discarded if the Noble dies. I’ve come to find these troops useful under a few situations.

-New Event Cards- Pretty self-explanatory.

-New Fate Deck- One thing I hated about the base game was the size of the fate deck. It was so small but it was used so often, forcing players to constantly reshuffle it. Thankfully, the expansion replaces it with a shiny new blue fate deck, chock-full of cards.

-New Agenda Cards- Again, self-explanatory.

-New Noble/Neutral Action Cards- Each Noble receives three new Action cards: two “Enrich Mind” cards that grant the noble one book token and allow him to purchase technologies, and a “Forced March” action card that allows the Baron to refresh a single Noble for free and additional nobles for two crowns a piece.
As for the neutral cards, the expansion includes seven to add to the deck (though three are replacements). Due to the increased deck size, the Head of State now places three neutral cards into the action piles instead of two.

-New Mercenary Cards- There are 12 new mercenary cards that represent Merc. Captains and Heralds. These special mercenaries grant 50 extra strength as well as special abilities to the noble they serve under (such as the ability to cross mountains). You’ll definitely want a few on your side.

-Tokens- Included in the game are book tokens (achieved through the “Enrich Mind” action card and spent to acquire technologies), the Scholar token (indicating the player with the current title of “Scholar”), the King token (indicating the current player acting as King), riot tokens (used to indicate riots in cities, another alternative to revolts), and garrison tokens (to indicate which cities hold garrisons). Every token is of the same heavy-duty card stock that the tokens are made of in the base game and have the same protective coating over them.

-Expansion Rules- The rules to the elements found in the expansion are provided on a double sided , fold-out sheet. I found the text to be rather small but the rules were very easy to read through, understand, and reference.

As a quick side note, all of the new cards in the game are of the same superb quality as the cards in the base game.

GAMEPLAY

So how well do the new game elements mesh with the old? Very well, I’d say.

WK:C&G games are far more tense than regular WK games due to three things: increased movement capabilities, more combat (due to the increased movement), and management of a third resource. It’s simply impossible to downplay how much the “Forced March” card affects the game, as players can now reach almost any location on the board easily because of it. This, of course, leads to either a far bloodier (read: more interesting) game or a game flooded with more tension than the Cold War. Meanwhile, players must constantly be aware of what advancement cards their opponents have purchased so that they may come up with ways to counter their effects and come out victorious. These things coupled with all the other new components create a much meatier and more satisfying experience than the base game was capable of.

And then there’s the fact that I’m not shuffling the fate deck every three minutes!

CONCLUSION

Warrior Knights: Crown and Glory takes everything that I loved about WK and ups the ante. With the expansion in play, I score WK at a nine with no hesitations. It corrects everything “wrong” with the base game and provides enough new material to keep you playing for a much longer time to come. If you are a fan of WK, you owe it to yourself to own this.

Image

Emperor JD — 2008-08-10T16:45:26+00:00

New actions including Forced March!

Image

Emperor JD — 2008-08-10T16:43:59+00:00

The powerful mercenary leaders

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

donovani — 2008-04-14T03:53:05+00:00

This expansion does deserve a full review so I hope one of us provides that soon...

After a few tries with Crown & Glory I'd say that overall I like it but I don't think it is "required" to make the game a good one. In fact, it adds a bit more complexity to a game that was already quite complex in terms of the number of dimensions that you have to manage to seek the throne.

And yes, also defending that throne:
If you don't have the expansion, and haven't read the online rules, it is important to know that becoming the King in the new Crown & Glory variant rules basically puts a big target on your head. If anything it is probably undesirable to be King because you can expect all of the players to coordinate against you (since you'll be receiving +1 influence each turn). With one player on the throne, everyone will be well aware that the game is nearly complete, and they will be scrambling to block the King and gain some points advantage or perhaps seize enough cities to win outright. If the King can be slowed, then any other player who was nearly tied for influence before the coronation is well positioned to pass the monarch for the win. And since each player is also given a secret mission worth +2 influence at the end of the game, that could be deciding factor.

The King variant doesn't work at all for a 2-player game, because it makes the person leading the influence race even more powerful, and the game can be expected to last 2 or 3 more turns so the King's influence bonus will counter the possible influence bonus the other player could earn for their secret mission.

The other parts of the expansion can all be used without playing the King variant and make more subtle changes to the gameplay. I get the sense from reading the WK posts here that almost everyone plays with house rules to get what they want from this game, and Crown and Glory helps provide some official options which you are likely to enjoy.

Thread: Re: Revolts in cities with garrisons?

donovani — 2008-04-14T02:59:26+00:00

Good question. Agreed that there should be some relationship between a garrison and the reaction of a city to a revolt, at least thematically.

When we have played WK (with or without the expansion) the warmongering players have often been dealt a setback as soon as they take the field by revolts at home. Protecting the stability of your cities with a garrison would give you a free hand to deploy your nobles. And since you don't have frequent (or guaranteed) opportunities to hire a garrison for one of your cities, it is still a rare tactical opportunity that you'll have to recognize when it arises, rather than something you can plan for with precision.

I definitely like the idea of introducing a house rule for this situation. Perhaps to the effect that a garrisoned city without a noble draws two cards for the revolt check and both have to say "Revolt!" in order for the garrison to be overcome by the populace?

Thread: Re: Garrison Question

oatesatm — 2008-02-14T15:45:29+00:00

There seems to be no rules against having multiple garrisons in a city, the rules do not specify, so until they do (such as in a FAQ or house rule), it is legal.

The answer to your second question is -- No. You would think so, but a garrison prevents riots, not revolts. Only a Noble can prevent a revolt. So you draw cards for each city you have without a Noble but including garrisons, riots are ignored if there is a garrison, but revolts are handled normally. (We house ruled this that if a revolt occured in a city with a garrison, rather than having to pay twice the city's income in crowns, we now can just pay the actual city income.)

Thread: Garrison Question

Anarchosyn — 2008-02-14T11:38:54+00:00

Can multiple garrison markers be assigned to a single city?

Just curious.

*eDit: In a related sense, when a revolt result comes up on a fate card for a city with an existing garrison that result is ignored, right?

Thread: Re: Revolts in cities with garrisons?

oatesatm — 2007-12-08T01:42:13+00:00

I would also think that they would protect agianst revolts as well, but since they don't -- We allow the player who has a Garrison in a city that revolts to pay the city's actual income in crowns instead of twice the city's income. (We don't play with faith so it makes a difference)

Thread: Re: Any though on the " King variant" ?

Boogers — 2007-11-28T05:32:50+00:00

I have only played the basic set so far, but have the C&G expansion. From my knowledge of the game, I can deduce that this variant is useful to amp-up the action early on. Who wouldn't want to be King? Once you get given the King's benefits you cannot turtle. You must be aggressive and enjoy the powers. If you are timid the other houses will turn on you viciously; why wouldn't they?

I reckon the basic game would drag after a while as it is too balanced if you want more than 12 to 15 influence per player. I've only played 10 per player! The King variant is a way to have an epic game with a lot of character and avenues to accelerate levels of testosterone, politics and extreme violence to new heights.

Go for it if you want epic!

Thread: Revolts in cities with garrisons?

Doomfarer — 2007-11-21T10:56:24+00:00

I know garrisons protect against riots, but shouldn't they protect against revolts as well?

I was thinking of trying a variant where revolts in cities with garrisons would remove the garrison and then make the city riot. Still not good for the owner but at least they'd get to keep the city.

Any thoughts on this?

Thread: Any though on the " King variant" ?

Luisito — 2007-10-31T23:47:24+00:00

I just buy the expension, I 'm curious about the "King" variant. The expension looks very nice ..So what your opinion on it?

Thread: Re: Different cut?

cyric036 — 2007-10-25T13:13:08+00:00

FFG has confirmed that you can now receive cards that are cut the same on their message boards. My deck is on its way.

Thank you FFG!

Image

Ratio — 2007-10-09T03:15:04+00:00

Box back

Thread: Re: "Draw 1 fate / retreat" knowledge card

Furelli — 2007-10-08T16:07:38+00:00

Neither.

This ability counts as a Fate card which IS a "Draw 1 fate/ retreat" result. Basically it gives you an extra card in a battle but you draw it in the Draw Additional Fate step of resolving the battle.

Furelli

Thread: "Draw 1 fate / retreat" knowledge card

Nelud — 2007-10-08T11:48:12+00:00

Sorry, I don't remember exact name of this card. The question is: when player use this knowledge, should he/she discard one fate card afterwards? In other words: does this knowledge count as 100 extra troops (for the purpose of draw Fate) or as +100 to noble's commanding ability?

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

MrSkeletor — 2007-09-26T00:00:03+00:00

Not enough influence was an easy fix (it's even mentioned in the rulebook!)

My games pre expansion always had a lot of conflict. I'm also not sure why you think the fate deck wasn't working right.

Then again I never saw a game where we were drawing the maximum amount of cards from the fate deck. Who had time or money to build forces that big? Sounds like these may have been more play style issues.

Now that I have finished my StarCraft review I think I'll go back and complete the review I started for this.

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

mikerbee — 2007-09-25T15:45:45+00:00

If you read my first post, you can see that I'm a big fan of the game, but I still think it had a number of near fatal flaws that could have relegated it to the shelf sooner rather than later.

As in...a fate deck that was too small, not enough strategic options, and not enough conflict for a game that was calling itself "Warrior" Knights.

Patch, Expansion whatever. The game works perfectly for me now and that's the main thing. If "patch" offends your gaming sensibilities, well gee, sorry...but if if walks like a duck...

Let's see...new fate deck because the old one wasn't working right (patch), forced march card to deal with the lack of conflict and Noble blocking (patch), King option because you had to add a ton of influence to make it an interesting game (semi-patch/expansion), new Mercenary card to speed up the draft and provide more selection (patch).

Garrison's, town levies and the Scholar are rightfully expansions (unless you think that the game lacked enough strategic options in which case -- semi-patch!)

That said, in its current form I would rate Warrior Knights as a 9 and it finally is a fitting tribute to the game Derek Carver developed in the 1980's.

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

SouthernMan — 2007-09-25T09:15:10+00:00

Yeah - me too, enough of this patch crap. The base game was great with the only real problem being the Influence pool being too small and that was easily fixed.

The expansion just increases the options available to players and encourages/assists warfare a bit more. Can't comment on 'The King' option as we only played the other two, but all we noticed to think about was that the influence pool could be increased again for those who want a bit more battling and that the new Red cards (especially 'unexhaust') seemed to trigger wages more frequently so you need to think about a gradual build-up rather than use the 'buy army - march - fight' tactic straight away.

Thread: Bring in the King earlier? And a call for support.

oatesatm — 2007-09-25T06:06:48+00:00

Just wondering if anyone has thought about or has tried crowning a King earlier in the game. What I mean is, the rules give the example of playing to 8 influence, crowning the King, and playing to 16 influence --- but has anyone tried playing to that same 15/16 influence but crowning the King after the 1st turn, or maybe after 4 influence, etc. You may need to remove the aspect that the King gains 1 extra influence, but it would bring in the King's army cards earlier and encourage more battles (although the current King's version does do this later in the game).

Also wondering what some think about allowing third parties to be involved in a battle. Current rules state that attacker must decide who to attack in an area that has more than 1 opponent, has anyone thought of a way to allow that 3rd party to lend troops to either side in support one way or another. A downside would be that if casualties were inflicted, they could be placed on the supporting troops instead, but maybe worth it to impede an aggressive attacker.

Anyway, I'm not endorsing either of these ideas, they just popped into my head and was just wondering if anyone thinks they could work in some form.

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

MrSkeletor — 2007-09-24T23:42:54+00:00

Loved the game when it came out so I disagree about the patch comment.
But Crown and Glory does make the game even better. A very clever expansion.

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

Shryke — 2007-09-24T20:29:39+00:00

I think calling it a patch is disingenuous. The original isn't broken. It works great and plays very well. It's my groups favorite game.

Crown and Glory just makes it better. Really, it's everything an expansion should be. It takes the base game, and just expands it to make it a better game. The base game is still playable, but it's just better with C&G.

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

DreadFuzzy — 2007-09-24T20:09:41+00:00

I enjoyed the base game although agree that it didn't exactly encourage combat between the competing barons very well. Still, I've played 2 games with the C&G expansion now and I definitely feel that it improves the game greatly. The new options and dimensions opened up by the additional rules such as the Scholar and advancements, town levies, garrisons, etc. add a new depth to the game. The secret missions are a nice, simple addition that means you are never certain of victory unless you've managed to run away with the game (something that I've not found to be a particular problem). Finally, the King addition provides that real drive towards combat in the end game as otherwise the player who is the King really will run away with it. All in all an excellent expansion and well worth the cost to vastly improve what was already a great game (IMO, obviously.)

Thread: Re: Crown and Glory Thoughts

Windopaene — 2007-09-24T19:49:44+00:00

Well I thought that as long as you added a bunch more influence to the pool, the game worked pretty well. My biggest beef was how easy it was to defend your empire, as movement of nobles was so slow. It was easy to "roadblock" your opponents near the end of the game, and make it impossible for them to reach you. With the new card that unexhausts a noble, this may well be prevented.

Thread: Crown and Glory Thoughts

mikerbee — 2007-09-24T18:49:16+00:00

I like it a lot. It fixes a lot of issues with the original game.

Bigger Fate deck, more mercenaries for hire, expanded game strategy(with the addition of the Scholar and knowledge), expanded tactical with the addiition of town levies and garrisons...all of which make the game more unpredictable which is something it really needed.

The addition of a King Takes care of complaints about the game ending prematurely before any real conflict. Now you have to fight because the King has too great an advantage that should give him the game if he remains unchallenged.

I know it's called an expansion but let's face it, it's really a patch. And as for paying more for it, I don't mind because unlike software it's just too expensive to mass produce. Better that, than not to have it at all.

That said, it would have been nice if Fantasy Flight had got it right the first time. Then again, we don't live in a perfect world and when all is said and done, they finally got it right.

THIS IS A GREAT GAME.

Thread: Re: Different cut?

Doomfarer — 2007-09-18T06:37:57+00:00

I just got a mail from FFG stating that the replacement deck in on its way. Great news and a big thanks to FFG!

Thread: Re: Compass Navigation

Shryke — 2007-08-15T08:36:04+00:00

It's usable by any nobles between any ports. It simply allows you to save one turn when moving by sea.

Image

Ratio — 2007-08-15T07:37:09+00:00

Fate Deck Comparison - Old vs. New

Image

Ratio — 2007-08-15T05:41:01+00:00

Riot, Knowledge & Garrison Token

Image

Ratio — 2007-08-15T05:39:41+00:00

King Token

Image

Ratio — 2007-08-15T05:38:42+00:00

Scholar Token

Thread: Re: Compass Navigation

oatesatm — 2007-08-07T04:05:55+00:00

I believe your first understanding is the correct one, although it could be open to interpretation. The instructions on the card itself hint that only 2 areas may be involved --- by saying from ONE port area to another as if the TWO were adjacent. However, it seems that if you had more than one Noble in that one area you wished to move, you could move 2 (or more) Nobles with Mobilize Forces to the same second port area.

While it would be very powerful to be able to move Nobles from several different port areas, it is still powerful as is because it would allow your Nobles to also make an attack on that same turn without having to refresh them in the port at the end of the current turn to wait for the next turn. This way would prevent an opponent from reinforcing and/or repairing armies and cities to brace for your attack.

Thread: Compass Navigation

AndersGabrielsson — 2007-08-06T09:12:47+00:00

The card says "For this action, you may move Nobles from one port area to another port area as if the two areas were adjacent."

Does this mean I choose two port areas that count as adjacent for this action, or that all port areas count as adjacent for this action?

In the latter case I could use Mobilize Forces to move two Nobles from two different port areas to a third port area, which I could not do in the former case. (I have chosen the latter interpretation so far, since the card costs three knowledge and should be pretty powerful, but I'm not sure if that's how it's intended to be.)

Thread: A noobie's thoughts on C&G. Force multipliers.

Boogers — 2007-08-01T08:16:05+00:00

I haven't had a chance to play C&G yet, as I've just got WK on my birthday. I played my first game of WK on Sunday at my gaming club.

Last night I finally opened C&G to check it out. Now that I understand how to play WK, I'm finding my hourly review of the game makes it more clear the feel of WK strategy.

I can only say the C&G cards make the game actions more decisive. It would appear to be harder to play a quiet 'grey-man'.

I like the fact that there is even more focus on force-multipliers than before. You can add multiple paths to dominate the game and mitigate the effects of misfortune... if you have the right combination of all resources at the right time! I guess the Scholar and King break the stranglehold of the HotC and Chairman, especially in large multi-player games. The new roles might crowd a 2 or 3 player game, or make it more blood-thirsty, depending on your outlook.

As I said to the guys at the club, let's wait until we have played WK hard for a few months then look at C&G. There's enough to think about in the basic game for a while.

What a great game system! Sure beats the move miniatures around the table to roll handfuls of dice I've had for the last couple of years! It's great to have more to think about than game mechanics and simple probability!

Thread: Re: Removing Scholar?

ASLChampion — 2007-07-19T00:59:49+00:00

Doomfarer wrote:
I'm thinking of removing the scholar/advancements from the game as I feel it's just add fiddliness without benefiting the game much. Will it upset the balance of the game? Will I miss out on something great?

Is it just to remove the baron cards and the few events dealing with knowledge or is there something more I need to remove/change?

I'm not sure how it adds fiddleness. I do realize that some of the Cards purchased with knowledge are "expensive", most cards add a good deal to the game.

Ex. Propaganda card saved 3 cities for me during our game. I wouldn't call that fiddliness. For 1 knowledge token...I call it Pretty Good.
Other cards reduce the seige time to one turn(albeit costing a lot of knowledge tokens). The more expensive powers/cards should only be purchased if you are going to use them a lot.

For instance, take the SEIGE card. By the time you accumulate tokens to buy it, you could've seiged probably 2 cities in the game. HOWEVER, if you have the admiral you could take many overseas cities with ease REAPING HUGE amounts of gold in a short period of time.

Thread: Re: Retreating.

cyric036 — 2007-07-17T17:38:53+00:00

That is how I have read it.

Thread: Re: Removing Scholar?

Roliander — 2007-07-17T01:12:43+00:00

Thats interesting that you took the event cards to be random events. We took the neutral ones to be random whereas the red and green were more "acts of God". Those who were pious (generously donate to the church) would receive a blessing and those who were wicked (ahead in points/stingy) got zapped-- although if they had enough faith they might weather the calamity.

I do like your idea for the Serve the People replacement card you made.

Thread: Re: Removing Scholar?

oatesatm — 2007-07-16T16:38:58+00:00

Roliander wrote:

Wow! They don't call you McLean for nothing!

That's pretty creative. Suprisingly, however, it does not make the game as lean as you think. I played a few times with it before I took it out, but I could not get over a player being able to choose the target of random acts such as sickness or plague. While I don't like a lot of random in a game (which is why my 2 favorite games are A Game of Thrones and Warrior Knights), I don't mind if it's limited to actual random acts, so instead of HoC choosing a target, we choose them with the Fate Deck. It actually adds some depth --- for instance, if you get "No Heir" on one of your Nobles, rather than being able to "pay" it off with faith, it forces you to manage that Noble better, protect him, etc.

But it was some work for me, I scanned the neutral event card back, made copies, and pasted them onto the backs of all the event cards, so now we don't know what will come up. I also scanned the front of the "Serve The Church" cards, re-did the text to "Serve The People" that allows you to remove 1 casualty or breach token for 2 crowns, but can still be played in any of the 3 trigger piles. Also changed a few other cards such as the Important Event front, and some of the Assembly Cards.

I know this may not be for everyone, but I enjoy the game a whole lot more now. I would be interested in other ideas for the "Serve The People" cards though, so if anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. (Maybe I'll post it and see what people come up with).

Thread: Re: Removing Scholar?

Roliander — 2007-07-16T06:58:54+00:00

oatesatm wrote:
It was more of a project but I removed Faith and Head of Church from the game, I didn't like how it was implemented and have found I/we like the game much more without it.

Wow! They don't call you McLean for nothing!

Thread: Retreating.

Nanich — 2007-07-16T06:57:34+00:00

I think I may have found a typo I am not sure:

Retreating: If the defender retreats, then no casualties are dealt and no
mercenaries retreat.

Should "no mercenaries retreat" read "no mercenaries disband"?

- d

Thread: Re: Different cut?

bkindt — 2007-07-08T18:57:57+00:00

Me too! I'd love to buy a ton of these sleeves for Arkham Horror, TI:3, and WK, plus a few others....

Thread: Re: Removing Scholar?

oatesatm — 2007-06-29T02:21:40+00:00

You will need to remove the 2 "Enrich Mind" order cards, some of the event cards that reference knowledge and/or scholar, the 2 "Research" neutral order cards. You may want to search through the Assembly deck as well. Removing the Scholar should be fairly simple, but you may find that something else might need to be tweaked.

It was more of a project but I removed Faith and Head of Church from the game, I didn't like how it was implemented and have found I/we like the game much more without it. Removing the Scholar (although not in the base game already) may speed up the game for you a little.

Thread: Removing Scholar?

Doomfarer — 2007-06-27T21:33:30+00:00

I'm thinking of removing the scholar/advancements from the game as I feel it's just add fiddliness without benefiting the game much. Will it upset the balance of the game? Will I miss out on something great?

Is it just to remove the baron cards and the few events dealing with knowledge or is there something more I need to remove/change?

Image

IntvGene — 2007-06-27T02:18:41+00:00

Close up of the King's Crown

Thread: Re: Different cut?

cdwalkley — 2007-06-22T11:53:06+00:00

cyric036 wrote:
In fairness, the response did say that another company was developing card sleeves for small cards to help protect them, so that would resolve the issue.

I'd love to know which company this is! I'll put in my pre-order now!

Thread: Re: Played yet?

RKFade — 2007-06-20T19:41:06+00:00

You've written some pretty batshit crazy things in your time, RK, but this takes the cake. You blame the BGG community in totality for FFG's design?

Oops, my bad, Nate. I forgot that you needed emoticons and smileys to detect silliness and tongue-in-cheek statements. Here ya go, buddy. There's a few extra for next time.

FFG screwed up WK all on their very own;

Your opinion. Plenty here enjoyed it. Oh, right, "fanboys."

Thread: Re: Played yet?

Natus — 2007-06-20T13:34:18+00:00

RKFade wrote:
I agree with your appraisal of the situation, Derek. FFG probably tried to "streamline" the game a bit for us post-80's gamers. I blame the BGG community and its constant praise of the "elegant" and simple rules and mechanics found in modern games.

You've written some pretty batshit crazy things in your time, RK, but this takes the cake. You blame the BGG community in totality for FFG's design? As in poor FFG can't think for itself and bowed under the huge BGG "pressure"? FFG screwed up WK all on their very own; no need to place the responsibility anywhere else, however much it may gall you. It is completely understandable to me why anyone with issues with "modern", Euro, and "elegant" rules (the horror, the horror!) would run screaming for the bloat, chaos, over-production and bugginess of FFG's in-house creations.

Edit:smiley

Thread: Re: Played yet?

rmartinc — 2007-06-20T13:06:40+00:00

Natus wrote:

What's worse, deviousness or design incompetance? Why omit some of the features of the base game and then include them later? FFG, in my view, has a bad track record of issuing patches or fixes and hailing them as simple expansions. Doom, WarCraft, AGoT, TI3, now WK. Pretty obvious.

It sounds like Doom and WarCraft were really broken

The only thing in the expansion for AGoT I'd call a fix is the ports and it would be nice if they had an option for owners of the original to get them without buying the expansion.

TI3 I think it was good with the 1 point ISC and Age of Empire Varient. Looking forward to trying the expansion

Having not played the original WK the new fate deck is the only "fix" I see in it

Lately they seem to put out good games and listen to the fans and make official changes based on their feedback. I like the fact they use the smorgasbord approach so you can take what works for your group. ie Some like the CoK house cards, some like the original

Thread: Re: Played yet?

Natus — 2007-06-20T11:57:57+00:00

Carver wrote:
RKFade wrote:

All pretty irrelevant to the large number of us who have never seen or played the GW version. If I had, I would probably hate the new version as well. That's how things work. However, I've only enjoyed the new version. I'm glad it exists. Does it compare to the old version? Doesn't matter to me. I've never played it and probably never will.

Yes. I'd go along with the above comment. I can't really think that Fantasy Flight purposely held things back (to the detriment of the published game) so that they would have material available for an expansion. They are fiendishly devious if they did and I'm sure Russ had his tongue in his cheek when he mischievously suggested it.

What's worse, deviousness or design incompetance? Why omit some of the features of the base game and then include them later? FFG, in my view, has a bad track record of issuing patches or fixes and hailing them as simple expansions. Doom, WarCraft, AGoT, TI3, now WK. Pretty obvious.

Carver wrote:
I get the impression that they set out to produce a 2000's version of the game in their own house style, whereas the original was typically 1985 (and there was nothing wrong with 1985 games I add defensively!!!). To have included too many rules would have left people floundering and they'd have been unable to see the wood for the trees.

I totally disagree. Many great strategy games have been released in the past three years that have a lot of rules. The point is whether said rules might have improved the game. Just the reaction the the Forced March card sounds like it's nigh essential.

For my part, having been underwhelmed with the new edition, I will definitely keep my eye out for the '85 model!

Carver wrote:
Expansions serve a number of functions (apart from hoping to make the publisher some more lovely money, of course). A few are patches as has been mentioned. Others bring in new rules that the publisher feels are acceptable to players who have learned to play the original and are now eager - and feel able - to take on-board additional aspects. (Normally, in my humble opinion, they usually do nothing to improve on a good original - although not having seen CROWN AND GLORY I can't comment in this particular case)

I just don't think I've ever distrusted expansions as much as I have since FFG started expanding every game in their stock. They seem to me to be mainly money making products--nothing inherently wrong with that--with a fix or two thrown in. I just wish they spent their energies making the base games better in the first place.

Thread: Re: Played yet?

RKFade — 2007-06-20T10:29:05+00:00

Carver wrote:
Yes. I'd go along with the above comment. I can't really think that Fantasy Flight purposely held things back (to the detriment of the published game) so that they would have material available for an expansion. They are fiendishly devious if they did and I'm sure Russ had his tongue in his cheek when he mischievously suggested it.

I think it was Paul, backed by Nate, who suggested that. Don't know about Paul, but if Nate is saying this stuff tongue in cheek, he has likely drilled a hole through his cheek by this point.

I agree with your appraisal of the situation, Derek. FFG probably tried to "streamline" the game a bit for us post-80's gamers. I blame the BGG community and its constant praise of the "elegant" and simple rules and mechanics found in modern games.

Thread: Re: Played yet?

Carver — 2007-06-20T09:40:23+00:00

RKFade wrote:

All pretty irrelevant to the large number of us who have never seen or played the GW version. If I had, I would probably hate the new version as well. That's how things work. However, I've only enjoyed the new version. I'm glad it exists. Does it compare to the old version? Doesn't matter to me. I've never played it and probably never will.

Yes. I'd go along with the above comment. I can't really think that Fantasy Flight purposely held things back (to the detriment of the published game) so that they would have material available for an expansion. They are fiendishly devious if they did and I'm sure Russ had his tongue in his cheek when he mischievously suggested it.

I get the impression that they set out to produce a 2000's version of the game in their own house style, whereas the original was typically 1985 (and there was nothing wrong with 1985 games I add defensively!!!). To have included too many rules would have left people floundering and they'd have been unable to see the wood for the trees.

Expansions serve a number of functions (apart from hoping to make the publisher some more lovely money, of course). A few are patches as has been mentioned. Others bring in new rules that the publisher feels are acceptable to players who have learned to play the original and are now eager - and feel able - to take on-board additional aspects. (Normally, in my humble opinion, they usually do nothing to improve on a good original - although not having seen CROWN AND GLORY I can't comment in this particular case) A lot of groups who like a multilayered game do this anyway, of course. In fact, before WK was first published a number of local players made their own copies of this and its 'sister' game Blood Royal, and some had been so 'expanded' in this way that I no longer had any idea how to play them. And that's how it should be with games of this type.

- Derek

Thread: Re: Played yet?

RKFade — 2007-06-20T05:54:32+00:00

Natus wrote:
Doomfarer wrote:
Carver wrote:
Windopaene wrote:
IN the original, it was too easy to set up a defensive perimeter that couldn't be broached, as your enelies could only move one space a year.

To put the record straight Brad, "In the original" (Games Workshop 1985) Forced Marches were included for the very reasons you state. One always had to be prepared for an opponent being able to make such a move. These were dropped in the Fantasy Flight version but have now been brought back I hear - whether or not in the same form I don't know.

Interesting to note that they now add things that were included from start in the old GW version (town levies, garrisons and forced marches). The usual FFG stunt I guess, first release half the game and then force people to pay again to get the other half.

THANK YOU, Paul! Why does nobody see this? This is one of the mysteries of BGG. And I would think the FFG fans would be more disgruntled than we are! Is it naivete? The more patches/fixes/expansions FFG releases, the more ecstatic their fans are that they can pay $25 for something that should have arrived with the original game.

This all does not, however, stop me from wanting to play the expansion. Unlike most here, I felt that WK almost worked. Maybe the expansion, like the expansions for the other games, will set things right.

All pretty irrelevant to the large number of us who have never seen or played the GW version. If I had, I would probably hate the new version as well. That's how things work. However, I've only enjoyed the new version. I'm glad it exists. Does it compare to the old version? Doesn't matter to me. I've never played it and probably never will.

So some things in the expansion are from the old game? I don't care if they're from Monopoly . . . if they make the game even better.

Also, I didn't pay $25 for something that "should have came with the original game." The retail price is $20 . . . of course, I didn't even pay THAT much with my FLGS' discount. It can be had for as little as $13.37 at some online outlets.

Thread: Re: Played yet?

Roliander — 2007-06-20T05:32:55+00:00

While I think that the expansions to DOOM and the original Warcraft could undoubtably be viewed as patches to fix aspects of the games a majority of fans complained about, I cannot see this expansion in that light. I have played Warrior Knights a number of times and introduced it to several people always with great results. We usually play with 10vp per player and it always is a nailbiter game.

Personally, I have no real interest at this time for the expansion with the exception that a larger fate deck would be nice due to frequent reshuffles. I never played Mr Carver's original, but I love the base game FFG has put out. It stands as it is as a fantastic and complete game.

I bet the only reason the game suffers from lack of greater exposure is its lack of historical theme or at least a lack of a fully-fleshed fictional backstory. It comes across as a generic midieval wargame that takes 3-4 hourse to play(which it is). It is most likely on a lot of BGG user's wishlists and is one of those games they plan to get around to some day. I met one such person at Orc Con. He had looked into the game and thought it looked good but never ordered it. Needless to say he loved it when we played it and at least professed that he would definitely be getting it after playing.

I was the same way about Shogun btw.

Image

Masa — 2007-06-19T17:26:01+00:00

Inside cover art

Image

Masa — 2007-06-19T17:24:14+00:00

New Fate Cards

Thread: Re: Different cut?

cyric036 — 2007-06-19T13:04:28+00:00

Mendosa wrote:
For players whose cards do not match the expansion, FFG is working on the issue. The details are still being finalized, so please check out the FFG website for updates.

That's good to hear. I wish this would have been communicated earlier. But I will wait and watch for a remedy. Thank you.

Thread: Re: Different cut?

Doomfarer — 2007-06-19T10:56:19+00:00

Mendosa wrote:
For players whose cards do not match the expansion, FFG is working on the issue. The details are still being finalized, so please check out the FFG website for updates.

Good news! Thanks for the information. Any idea when to look?