Definitely choose HotS over Wizard Kings!!

It seems I spend most of my time on BGG praising this game (heck, most of Columbia's games). That being said: it's my current favorite game (though it may be supplanted by Crusader Rex).

Hmmmm.... since there may be a 50-50 chance i'd like this, I think i'll play it safe and remove it from my top choice at the moment until I get more into block wargaming. Not completely off my list but maybe at the bottom...

This is something I don't get. HotS is basically a souped up version of the combat system here, yet this game gets panned while HotS is lauded? While HotS is a solid game, there is not the same replayability as what you have here.

I guess a bad scenario really can make or break a game. HotS came with two solid scenarios, whereas WK came with a very poor scenario.

I was in your shoes, asking the same question a couple of weeks ago. I got Wizard Kings and love it! I have to disagree with the rules preference though. I think what many players confuse as a "flyer retreat problem" is actually a strategy known as "scouting." No offense intended to the above poster.

If you love fantasy get this. The replayablity is higher than HotS.

A note for newer readers: 1st ed sold armies as consistent units; you bought a box of X, and it was just that... Firkins, Amazons, etc.

2nd edition randomizes somehow.

That was enough to lose me.

I have heard a lot of people like this one. They say it is similar to HotS. I haven't picked it up simply because the theme doesn't really interst me.

Read about it, the Third Crusade was the most interesting militarily, as both sides had relative parity on the battlefield. That, plus and assymetric position make this a winner.

I give it one more thumbs up over HotS, mostly because it has simpler rules. I would definately go for either this or HotS.

This was my second block game, which I picked up within a week of getting/playing the first. I think that this has more of a "lines of battle" feel than HOTS, which sounds like the "end-year reset" kind of muddies things up.

The rules are relatively simple, though if you check out the threads, there are some things, (especially in dealing with siege battles, Harrying, Sallying and the like), which are tricky, and not helped by the v1.0 rules and the v1.1 rules being completely opposite.

I've played once, (came close as the Franks but couldn't quite get it done), and had a really good time. The simplicity of the rules belies some very tricky stuff, as you do have to get everyone to winter quarters...

I've rated this as a 7 so far, and after I've played it a few more times, I'm pretty confident it will go up.

I just played this for the first time recently. Overall not a terrible game, but something ust jumped out at me. The game is won and lost over control of certain cities, and because of fairly dynamic movement, essentially all the big battles become much the same. The north end of the board is not much different from the middle or the south. Again, not bad, just would like a scenario with a little more differentiation and character in different places.

I have played both and found this to be more complicated than HOTS.

Both are great games, but go with HOTS.

My disclaimer. I have played HOTS several times and have only played Crusader Rex once.

Haven't played a full face-to-face game yet, but my "test" games and rule reading have got me very excited to try it out. I have a feeling this'll be as good as HotS.

I found this game to be too dry. Games seem to drag on. Much more tension in the old War of 1812.

This is the only one I tried so far, and I hated it.

Looks like this is off my list then, thanks for the comments.

I'm seriously considering this one too.

Be sure to use the optional (and very simple) written-orders/simultaneous-moves rule. It ratchets up the tension considerably.

Actually, get HotS or CR instead. This game is a much earlier desing than those two and lacks almost all of the chrome that makes them shine. While combat in HotS or (more so) CR is tense and tactical (units are different both in strength, initiative and abilities, so it is not just a matter of bringing in the most strength points) combat in 1812 is mainly just a dicefest. The map and the options available to you in HotS or CR are so much more numerous and varied than in 1812 (where you pretty much have to commit yourself to one or two fronts at the start).

I'm not saying this game is bad. (It is not.) I'm just saying it is not as good as those other two.

I'll disagree with the poster who implies this game is "much worse" than Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex. While those two are great games, War of 1812 is also a great block game in a different way. War of 1812 is the most playable (and a very replayable) block game of all these listed. It always plays in less than 2 hours (can be as quick as 1 hr) including set up(almost all the others require at least 3 hrs.), and it has enough strategic scope to be interesting and replayable, without too many complicated or unforgiving rules that might put off casual gamers or first-time wargamers. It is by far the easiest to just set up and play with reasonable skill.

Hammer of the Scots has a great, somewhat unique noble-switching-sides mechanism, and Crusader Rex has interesting siege rules, both with assymetric sides. However, there is a steep learning curve in both games (especially for the Franks in Crusader Rex) which will probably require several plays for you and your opponent(s) to figure out good strategies.

If I have 3-4 hours and an experienced or committed opponent , then HOTS or Crusader Rex are good choices. However, if I have less time, or I'm playing my brother (Axis and Allies was the most complex game he's played before), or I'm introducing block games to someone, I'll pull out War of 1812 every time. I enjoy playing it just as much as I enjoy HOTS or Crusader Rex. My brother enjoyed it too, while he didn't enjoy Liberty very much.

You can play War of 1812 as "I go/ You go" (as in Gamma 2 version rules), or with random initiative die rolls (as in the Columbia rules), or as a simultaneous move game (using written-down turn orders). All give variety and different levels of strategy to make this game even more replayable.

You can't go wrong with War of 1812.
Just my two cents.

I concur with Gamezendo, War of 1812 is a great block game. I know it lacks the chrome of the later games but, what it may miss in the chrome stakes it more than makes up in the game play. The rules are simple and straight forward which allows for ease of play. There are plenty of options and strategies to employ and it is a game worthy of replay!

In addition I have CR, HOTS and Napoleon. All are good in their different ways. So far I would rate Napoleon as being the best mix of playability over sophistication. It sits between Quebec/War of 1812 on one side and HOTS & CR on the other.

....
<---got his ''Nappy Hat'' on!

I just played this sunday morning. Lots of fun, 90 minutes tops, three pages of rules...get it.

This was my first block wargame. It is simple and can be played with 2-3 players. I like the game but prefer Hammer of the Scots.

And this was the first one I got, about two weeks ago. Again, a very simple ruleset. I would say that this is not as "user-friendly" as Crusader Rex, as you have to remember that Calvalry are F2, but F3 on their first attack, and F1 against infantry in square, etc. The rules of play on the strategic map are very simple. The rules for the tactical battles are a bit more difficult, but pretty smooth once you understand them.

This game has a much more "set-piece" feel to it than the others, but with a greater variability in battle outcomes. An overmatched force will only win in CR if they roll well and the opponent rolls poorly. In Napoleon, the enemy loses a battle when any one of their three battle columns is reduced to zero blocks. So a quick calvalry strike to an opponents weak flank can completely turn the tide. Also, while only the blocks in the same town start the fight, blocks from adjacent towns can appear as reinforcements, making careful planning on the strategic board, and proper positioning of all of one's forces prior to entering battle, very important. There is also the tough decision as to whether to reinforce a battle you are losing, (potentially winning, but potentially losing even more troops), or attempt to retreat out as many blocks as you can prior to a column collapsing.

There are too many blocks for the too small board, but there is a reason this has been around so long. It's a classic, and very very good. An excellent intro to block games, though not as simple as Quebec, (which might be too simple).

In the current edition that is certainly the case. The game's new "divisional" scale has ~ 1.5x as many blocks as the older editions.



Maybe it was the more succinct order of battle of the original two versions.

This is a good game but, IMO, not quite HotS caliber. What makes it a winner is the ability to incorporate a 3rd player.

If you like the mechanics of Hammer but prefer the Revolutionary War era, this would be probably be a good choice. I have read the rules (they are very similar to HotS with a few differences) but have not played this game yet, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

This is a good game, but it _can_ be frustrating (especially for the British player).

One of the best beginner block games. Very easy!

Like War of 1812, a great starter for the novice block gamer. Simultaneous movement and 'dummy' blocks for deception make it different than War of 1812.

I really wanted this game but I have trouble with the rules, mainly because I'm reading them during computer class. I tried laying out the game and playing step by step. The supply rules are interesting, even if they are difficult. I think its a new ascept to wargaming I have not yet encountered. Rommel is also a part of WWII that I've not been very familar with. I'm not a history buff but enjoy learning. I like the game so far even if I was doing a rules run through. The map is beautiful but so are all the rest of the games you listed. I really like Columbia block wargames.

This is a great game!!!

Excellent game. There is a little investment in learning, not the rules themselves, but the ramifications of the rules (in terms of the supply line play and the map). But this game has great tension and excitement. I like this much more than Hammer of the Scots, which I like.

This is a v.good game but the rules are not that good.

Both myself and a friend who are both veterans of much more complicated games struggled with the rule book. It took several play throughs before things started coming together

Perhaps the best marriage of subject matter and the block design -- this military campaign was the perfect hide-and-seek, hit-and-run example of what block games are best at simulating.

Hoping someone takes the block concept to Vietnam soon.

Thanks for the additions Voynix. I forgot to add this to my list - it's one i'm also interested in from good reviews.

A very unique block game. No dice, and no CRTs. An outstanding design.

I've been reading a lot of good things about this game, it's moved up to my buy list.

Truly something different in wargame design, and plays quickly once the novel mechanics are mastered. A current personal fave.

This is also not a typical block game in that it will not have Fog of War elements. It is apparently closer to Memoir 44 and Battle Cry in gameplay despite the fact that it uses wooden blocks to represent the units.

A ways from being released? Nope. I get this one in December - that's not so bad.

I wonder why they decided to use blocks instead of plastic figures if it's similar to Memoir or Battlecry? It doesn't look like the blocks could be rotated.

Good question. What is the point of blocks without a fog of war element? Perhaps to cash in on the popularity of block games?

It's cuz minis were too expensive to make, so they were going to make cardboard stand-ups, but then realized blocks would be cheap and look good.

The story goes that plastic figures would have been too expensive given the limited print run likely with a GMT game... Originally, the game was going to consist of cardboard counters and cardboard "stand-ups." The block idea came along late in the development process and was the catylst needed to generate the orders needed for the the game to make the "P1000" cut.

While not a traditional "block game", the blocks are a good compromise between cardboard counters and plastic figures.

EastFront can be expanded with the VolgaFront map and 'What If' scenarios, and can be linked with sister games WestFront and MedFront via the MasterFront set of rules to create a monster block game.

12 hours?! I don't think I'll ever be that manly.

And don't forget the planned "The Bulge: Fast Action Battles #1" by the same designer, now on GMTs P500, if you want a shorter game that should be similar in terms of deuced splendidness.

I played this a few weeks ago and I was very disappointed. The game felt very scripted and the moves that had to be made were very apparent.

Probably the best game ever invented. Superb strategic simulation of the WWII in Europe!

I am interested in this but it takes a whole afteernoon or evening to play.

This looks great -- it even has a Futsy counter!