The rules are a big problem? Come on now. Most of the questions I've fielded about the rules are instances where gamers are assuming things about the game that simply aren't there. For instance, the rules say that Outremer draws from the pool can go into any town. Some people, however, apparently assumed that that the draws had to go into towns with numerical ratings. The rules, however, neither said nor implied anything of the sort - it was just an assumption that was probably a hold-over from experience with "Hammer of the Scots."

Rules which spell out and answer every single potential question in advance are rules that are virtually unreadable for a newbie and can often themselves prove confusing. For instance, those who read the last iteration of the HotS rulebook before the 2nd edition of the game came out found it very hard to follow and seemingly complicated when the game was really anything but. In short, a rulebook that tells you not only what you CAN do in the game but also what you CAN'T (you cannot steal an opponent's block while he's not looking - why not? - the rules don't say that I can't!) will satisfy rules lawyers but not help newcomers pick up the game.

In your example, David, it seems intuitive to me that players can choose which blocks are storming at the begining of each battle round. Why wouldn't the attacker avail himself of all of those guys just lingering around the walls with nothing to do if his attacking force needs help? Particularly since there's only 6 turns to a year, which implies that a "storming" event actually reflects about a month's worth of activity. While every rule book that I am aware of inadvertently leaves some matters opaque (and this is something we admittedly should have spelled out), most areas of ambiguity in the rules (like in the above example) can be easily adjudicated with a little bit of thought and common sense. These, however, have represented the minority of questions. Most are of the "not reading rules closely" variety.

Regardless, that's what I'm around for. I typically answer rules questions a day or two after they are posted and an FAQ is going up soon at CG that will be frequently updated.

Unfortunately, I can't agree about the rules. The Crusader Rex rules (like most Columbia Games, unfortunately) are a big problem: there are lots of ambiguities and it seems likely to take several months for them to all get ironed out. There are questions that make a huge difference to the game (e.g., when storming a castle, can you select a different group of units to storm each round, or do you have to use the same units for all rounds of the battle) and aren't answerable from the rules as written (it's not just me---on discussion boards you see half the people guessing one thing, and half guessing another).

It's true that Liberty was even worse.

Rules which spell out and answer every single potential question in advance are rules that are virtually unreadable for a newbie and can often themselves prove confusing. For instance, those who read the last iteration of the HotS rulebook before the 2nd edition of the game came out found it very hard to follow and seemingly complicated when the game was really anything but. In short, a rulebook that tells you not only what you CAN do in the game but also what you CAN'T (you cannot steal an opponent's block while he's not looking - why not? - the rules don't say that I can't!) will satisfy rules lawyers but not help newcomers pick up the game.

Siege warfare in Crusader Rex is brilliant and it is what sets it apart from the others.

The rules are a big problem? Come on now.

I may try the game again in a few months when they get cleaned up. I'm sure all of the questions will eventually be asked and answered, and eventually there will be a ruleset and Q&A that together are enough to play the game correctly.

No no no, this review doesn't help me at all! Couldn't you say something like, "it's just like Hammer of the Scots, but with green and orange blocks; if you already have that game, you don't need Crusader Rex or Liberty. And you especially don't need to pre-order Hellas!"

I've been playing wargames for 40+ years and I have seen some bad rules written. Crusader Rex's rules are not badly written. They are a good solid effort that for the most part uses rules that have been utilized in previous Columbia games.

The one area where most of the confusion arises is in the siege rules. this is the new concept in the game and it depicts sieges very well. For players new to wargames or to the CG block style games this is where they will get a bit confused. But a few moments rereading the rules will answer 99% of the questions. Could they have been clearer? Maybe but how much more would be needed and what would be the gain? The few questions that do arise have already been answered by Jerry and can be discerned through a careful reading of the rulebook.

Crusader Rex is IMO the best of CG's block games published to date. I'll play it anytime as either side. There isn't much more you can say about a game than that.

The loss in complexity may result in a slight loss in character, but certainly not in strategy.

Crusader Rex has 7 victory point towns, valued from 2-4 points each. They are spaced perfectly, and allow for depth in strategic maneuvering and positioning. The Franks begin with a one point lead in VP’s.

Movement in Crusader Rex is limited to 8 units max per turn along major roads and 4 units max along minor roads, halved if moving to battle. It’s as easy as that.

The rules are beautifully done. My perception of this may be skewed in that I already have experience playing Crusader Rex’s sister games, but I still think a new player would have very little problem learning the game quickly and effectively from the rulebook alone.

Crusader Rex is a more streamlined and simplified version of the HotS and Liberty system. The loss in complexity may result in a slight loss in character, but certainly not in strategy. It is extremely well balanced, exciting to play, and the simple yet effective siege rules push it over the top.

Regarding the wargame vs strategy game, I think I understand what's being aimed at here, even though I've never played Crusader. Comparing War of 1812 to Eastfront shows a similar kind of split. Eastfront has a much higher degree of "granular detail" than War of 1812. In 1812 you pick an area to concentrate your forces; in Eastfront you pick the area, then you have to execute the concentration, too. It's almost like in 1812 you have an officer corp that executes some of the details and lets you focus on the high level whereas in Eastfront you both look at the high level and the details as well. Hence in Eastfront there's less luck, but more complexity.