Warrior Knights:

What a game! There are very few games with which I have felt an instantaneous connection (Faidutti & Laget’s Castle and Schacht’s China are two), where the game just seemed to make sense and feel right, Warrior Knights felt that way not even a quarter of the way through my first game.

This new edition of Warrior Knights has a long development history; the original game was by Derek Carver and was produced by Games Workshop (responsible for the Warhammer phenomenon). Fantasy Flight secured the rights to reprint the game, but instead of simply reprinting the original (an even more epic game) Fantasy Flight decided to take the risk of redeveloping the game for the modern game market. To this effect a range of highly skilled designers have worked on translating the original into its new form. Derek Carver, who was the game’s author, had his original version; from this Bruno Faidutti (the fun-loving French designer responsible for Citadels and Dragon’s Gold) and Pierre Clequin (who worked with Faidutti on the original Knightmare Chess) fashioned their version, and from this Corey Konieczka developed the final game. A product of three sets of talented designers, Warrior Knights is an excellent modern wargame and has been produced with Fantasy Flight’s typical flair and skill.

What a game! Having played a certain amount of Axis and Allies & Risk, having graduated to board games from my days of Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, from DBM (De Bellis Multitudinus) and HOTT (Hordes of the Things), I appreciate a good old-fashioned, wargame. Warrior Knights takes the careful tactics from this style of wargames, simplifies and streamlines them a touch, and adds in a huge amount of extra features. One of the things everyone I have played Warrior Knights with has said is, ‘there is so much going on’.

A difference that is important to raise at this point is the gulf between ‘so much going on’ and ‘a lot to take in at once’. Many heavier Euro or American wargames fall into the category of being rules heavy and quite counterintuitive, having read about some of the issues people had with the Warrior Knights rules on the Boardgamegeek I was concerned that it would have those same issues. Warrior Knights is not a lot to take in at once, but there is certainly a lot going on. After running through the rules players can stumble through the first turn without much of a problem, from there on the game becomes much easier, actions are taken much quicker, and the play begins to heat up.

One of the things I really love about Warrior Knights is the way in which turns are taken; players select 6 action cards from a personal deck of action cards, these 6 cards are then split into 3 decks (2 cards in each), each of these three decks will have 2 of every player’s cards as well as 2 randomly selected neutral action cards. The player acting as Chairman of the Assembly will then flip the top action card from the first deck, this is resolved, then the second card is flipped and resolved and so on through the first deck, then the second and third decks are resolved. This action card system has the benefit of allowing players to select and prioritise their chosen actions, and means that some bluffing and double guessing are needed at times, especially during inter-player conflict.

One of the most interesting elements to Warrior Knights is what happens to a player’s action cards after they have been resolved, some of them go back to the players action card deck, the others get placed in three different areas on the board, when the cards in one of these three areas reaches a certain amount (depending on the number of players) a special phase is triggered.
The three special phases are the Taxation phase (during which players earn money), the Assembly phase (during which players vote on various agendas which will change the game in different ways), and the Wages phase (during which players must pay all their soldiers or risk losing them). When players begin to manipulate the piles of cards in these three areas to deliberately trigger or delay certain phases the game can really take off as a tactical battle.

As stated above, one of the best elements to Warrior Knights is the amount of interesting things going on, I enjoyed playing war games for a time, but found that modern board games offer more variety in a smaller package, Warrior Knights is a neat cross-over. Not only is there the war game aspect, there is also the raising and maintenance of your armies to consider, your finances to master, overseas expeditions to invest in, Events to cope with, Revolts to suppress, the Assembly to control, the Church to manipulate, and Neutral Cities to take over by siege or assault to govern or raze. There are a great many things that go into making Warrior Knights an engrossing experience.

Warrior Knights plays well with 2 players (though players should make good use of road networks and position their Strongholds intelligently), it also works well with 6. Some people have criticised the Influence pool as a method of determining the game length, but I think it works fine – as long as players recognise what playing a game of a certain amount of influence means (the player with the most influence after the pool has been depleted is the winner).

It seems that 8-10 Influence per player will mean a game of expansion, where players will conflict only a little; while a game of 15-20 Influence per player will allow the full blown game to be experienced from it’s early expansion stages through to full blown civil war and struggle for dominance. This system of being able to not only control the length of the game, but also the feel, is a good one and means that Warrior Knights has much re-playability.

In any multi-player wargame there will be issues with leading players, the run-away leader problem can be witnessed in many games, though it is, as someone once said to me, ‘a feature of the players, not the game’. A run-away leader is highly possible in Warrior Knights, but all players should be well aware of the amount of Influence in the pool and how much each player has, if any player seems to be travelling too swiftly on the road to victory it is the responsibility of the players, not the game, to rein them in. Warrior Knights provides a range of ways for players to affect how each other score Influence, ranging from the subtle to the drastic.

Warrior Knights is a fantastic game, it can last longer than four or five hours, depending on the player group and amount of Influence, although it can also run quite a bit quicker, again depending on the players and Influence. This is not a game for people interested only in light family fare or party games, but it is certainly a game unlike many others in feel, weight and design. Fantasy Flight should be commended for their beautiful production of this great game. Warrior Knights is one of the only games of its type I will happily play, it is easier to learn than a game with a 20 page rules booklet has any right be, and is one of the best I own.

Nice review. You almost have me interested.

ALMOST why you...

Naw...Thanks Jim, I appreciate your comment, your honesty, and your opinion!

Cheers!

(Warrior Knights is great fun!)

Giles.

My second comment was not sarcastic. It's just that I checked out WK before and wasn't really interested. The way you describe it, I may have to check it out again. One of the great powers of reviews, and of reading reviews to games you may think you do not like.

Thanks Jim, I guessed it wasn't sarcastic, I was just joking around! Thanks for commenting though - I do appreciate it!

Giles.

I'm very interested in this type of game. How would you compare it to something like A Game of Thrones (which I've played twice and like very much)?

Sorry Robert, I haven't played A Game of Thrones and cannot make any comparisons for you. I have read favourable comparisons however, Warrior Knights is probably more general in set up, it can have a strong elemnet of diplomacy and player interaction, but again I can't really comment for sure.

If you like A Game of Thrones I don't doubt you will like Warrior Knights, it s a great game and has been well recieved overall.

There are a number of superficial similarities. Reworking the original WK to meet modern sensibilities undoubtedly involved the designers looking at games such as A Game of Thrones for ideas. The strongest similarity is in the roles which may be held by various players throughout the course of the game. Here you can have the Chairman of the Assembly who sets the agenda for assemblies and gets to break ties in voting. Also, you have the Head of the Church who can influence who gets certain good or bad random events assigned to them. In AGOT you have the holder of the Iron Throne, Valyrian Sword and Messenger Raven, each of which grants its holder special privileges. There are no similarities in the character of the roles from game to game but the concept is obviously related.

Another superficial resemblance is the thrust for territory in AGOT to the conquest of cities in WK; ie. expand and conquer. There is a "magic number" in each game for these things that can give instant victory. In this respect both show their Risk-like lineage. Overlaid on this, both games require paying attention to income in order to purchase and maintain your forces. And, of course, as in most multi-player games of territorial expansion, diplomacy can be a strong factor.

Thereafter, the games depart radically from each other. The nature of the way leadership is depicted is totally different as is the conduct and resolution of battles. Turn-phasing is another distinction, and there is simply nothing in AGOT remotely resembling The Assembly and its outcomes and impact on a game of WK, or the Puerto Rico inspired use of influence counters to accumulate victory points and also act as a game timer.

Both games have their unique character and each has its own charm. At the moment I am leaning more in the direction of WK but it could be simply because it is more recent (novelty factor) and because it incorporates features that I liked from the earlier games of Kingmaker (troop types/assignment and Offices/Titles) and Wallenstein (semi-random turn phasing), but I enjoy both.

Thanks for adding that Richard! I apprecite the addition - I obviously like Warrior Knights a lot - but unfortunately cannot comment on the differences between Warrior Knights and A Game of Thrones (having never played the latter).

Thanks!

Giles.

some snippage (not snippy-ness!) for brevity's sake...



That's just how I felt too, until the middle of the game.

/snip.

Which is exactly my problem with it (I adore Citadels and can't wait for Mission: Red Planet!) These designers worked on this game and it works as poorly as it does? That's bizarre!



Which this is not, right? I'm also a big wargamer and I play a good deal of Warhammer Ancients/Medievals. I don't see how WK compares.



Quite right, but then why do I feel so constrained?
Why is the game so unforgiving? If you don't maximize your every move, you are dead in the water. I love the stuff, I'd just like a chance to explore it more.

/snip

Very true, although Experimental Me wanted to do everything different from my compatriots, with devestating results. Stupidity was in full sway, but I feel there are things you MUST do in this game or be penalized again and again. So, yes, the rules are fine (a bit finicky here and there, but that's just FFG), but the learning curve is steep if at first you don't see what the optimal moves are.

/big snip

Here we really part ways, Giles. There is a lot of stuff going on, but not a lot of it makes sense. The Revolts penalize you for moving your Knights away from cities and are completely random. I also never felt that becoming the Assembly Master or the Pope (as it were) was that big a deal; there were far bigger fish to fry. FFG games will always have a lot of moving pieces and interlocking layers; absolutely. But do they all mesh and work? My opinion, after one play, is not very well.

Also, WK really cannot be compared to a wargame in strict terms. It is a Euro-strategy hybrid. It's like calling AGoT a wargame. It's not. Anyone who has played AH's Kingmaker knows that WK is its bastard son.

/snip

Does it really play well? I can think of many, many other 2-player games I'd rather play than a multi-player strategy game meant for more.



But what most people have been complaining about is that even with 15 the game stops when you are just attacking other players. Maybe 20 is the key.

Controlling the length of the game is great, but that should not be lauded as a brilliant feature (after all, Bruno himself felt strongly that it should have been included in the final version, time constraints be damned.)



That someone was wrong. It's a feature of the game. There are no catch-up mechanisms at all.



But it's very hard to do that when you are down and out, or when two players are in a race for the lead. And it's OK to have a runaway leader "issue" if you don't mind unforgiving games. I do, especially when I'm on the receiving end.

/snip

As always. It's gorgeous.



Giles, can you explain what you mean by "only game of it's type"? Do you mean multi-player strategy games? Of all the games you've rated, you've almost played none. Maybe you have a long history of multi-player strategy games, but as far as I can tell, you're a Euro-master. Which is fine, but this is going to be your best multi-player strategy game if you haven't played that many. But I tell you, after one play of Wallace's Struggle of Empires--which is VERY much like WK--I can't see why anyone would play WK, and that's without bringing up all the other strategy gems around.

Thanks for sharing your opinions Nate, I appreciate the time and effort you've gone to to share your thoughts!

Evidently we are somewhat diferent in our opinions, likes and tastes, that we can all give voice to our thoughts is fantastic.

I agree and disagree with some of the points you raise and will attempt to provide you with some reasons for saying what I have said in the review.

"That's just how I felt too, until the middle of the game."

I felt the game just got better as it went along, if you were shut out of your first game for making some elementary mistakes the game is not necessarily bad because of it.

Certainly there are bad moves, Warrior Knights, like many games (particularly euros), has a definate 'push your luck' feel to it. This in my opinon does not ruin the game, but enhances it. It is certinly not a game where the better tactician will win ALL the time, but they will win most of the time. The luck and other elements make hard desicions even more delicious!

"Which is exactly my problem with it (I adore Citadels and can't wait for Mission: Red Planet!) These designers worked on this game and it works as poorly as it does? That's bizarre!"

I'm sorry you feel that way! I liked the game though - it seems we just have different tastes!


"Which this is not, right? I'm also a big wargamer and I play a good deal of Warhammer Ancients/Medievals. I don't see how WK compares."

I'm not sure I made the statement that Warrior Knights was an old fashioned war game - but it is certainly a game of that ilk. It is a game about military conquest, it asks players to strategise, but it also has many other elements that make it more than a war game. It is the more I particularly appreciate. I too have played plenty of warhammer - and yes - I do beleive there are similarities.

"Quite right, but then why do I feel so constrained?
Why is the game so unforgiving? If you don't maximize your every move, you are dead in the water. I love the stuff, I'd just like a chance to explore it more."

I'm not sure constrained is the right word, you are certainly under pressure to make the right choices, you are certainly asked to maximise your efforts. But those traits aren't bad things in my book.

"Very true, although Experimental Me wanted to do everything different from my compatriots, with devestating results. Stupidity was in full sway, but I feel there are things you MUST do in this game or be penalized again and again. So, yes, the rules are fine (a bit finicky here and there, but that's just FFG), but the learning curve is steep if at first you don't see what the optimal moves are."

I agree. But there are a couple of paths to victory that keep the game fresh and original.

"Here we really part ways, Giles. There is a lot of stuff going on, but not a lot of it makes sense. The Revolts penalize you for moving your Knights away from cities and are completely random. I also never felt that becoming the Assembly Master or the Pope (as it were) was that big a deal; there were far bigger fish to fry. FFG games will always have a lot of moving pieces and interlocking layers; absolutely. But do they all mesh and work? My opinion, after one play, is not very well.

Also, WK really cannot be compared to a wargame in strict terms. It is a Euro-strategy hybrid. It's like calling AGoT a wargame. It's not. Anyone who has played AH's Kingmaker knows that WK is its bastard son. "

Here we part ways indeed! I think that all of the 'stuff' going on does make sense, it is not completely random. With many of the choices you make you will be riding your luck and hoping for the best. I feel that at times in the game the Pope and Assembly Master (as you put it) are highly important roles with potentially far-reaching consequences. I feel that the game does work, that all the pieces do lock in together well. That is just my opinion however.

I do call WK a wargame, I do it several times and all of them deliberatly! (I will also continue to do it)

"Does it really play well? I can think of many, many other 2-player games I'd rather play than a multi-player strategy game meant for more."

Yes it does play well - for Warrior Knights. There are a bunch of games that work better for 2, but that does not mean WK doesn't also play well with 2.

"But what most people have been complaining about is that even with 15 the game stops when you are just attacking other players. Maybe 20 is the key.

Controlling the length of the game is great, but that should not be lauded as a brilliant feature (after all, Bruno himself felt strongly that it should have been included in the final version, time constraints be damned.)"

I think it is a clever feature, I wouldn't call any games 'brilliant' - but that is a difference of terminology. I enjoy the feature as it allows me to dictate not so much how long the game lasts, but rather the FEEL of the game.

"That someone was wrong. It's a feature of the game. There are no catch-up mechanisms at all."

A difference of opinion again - I do think they were right. Catching up can be hard to do - limiting other players can be hard to do, but not doing so is a choice the players make.
I agree that Warrior Knights, may on occasion, have run away leaders - that doesn't take away from the game experience for me however.

"Giles, can you explain what you mean by "only game of it's type"? Do you mean multi-player strategy games? Of all the games you've rated, you've almost played none. Maybe you have a long history of multi-player strategy games, but as far as I can tell, you're a Euro-master. Which is fine, but this is going to be your best multi-player strategy game if you haven't played that many. But I tell you, after one play of Wallace's Struggle of Empires--which is VERY much like WK--I can't see why anyone would play WK, and that's without bringing up all the other strategy gems around. "

Nate - what I meant was - a game fo its length, size, and complexity. I don't mind other games of similar size and length. But this is one I have really enjoyed.

Euro-Master? Thanks!

Thanks again for commenting Nate! It is good to hear the opinions of others (even if I don't agree with everything they've said - or they with everything I have!)

Giles.

I just wanted to chime in to say that I'm enjoying your point:counter-point discussion and am hoping to play soon so I can see what side I weigh in on.

Thanks John! I hope you like the game as much as I do!

Giles.

Because there are other sources of income, I don't see the city revolt rules to be a major inhibitor of an offense. If it boths you that much, just raze the city, take the money & run!

On the whole, I think the newer rules are an improvement, though I'll reserve judgement until I play it. I have the original WK and have probably logged around 20-25 games when it first came out, and every few years afterwards. It goes without saying that I am glad it got republished so that some spillovers from Euro-solitaire games can cut their teeth on a game where you sometimes have to break somebody's eggs, and then rub their nose in it a little ;-)

One rule I wished didn't change was the stronghold attack rules. In the original, players had to secretly determine whether they would attend Assembly, "Stay At Home", or "Start Stronghold Attack against Faction X". If you didn't attend assembly, you just remained quiet until assembly ends. Afterward, anybody who didn't attend reveals their decision. If you launch a stronghold attack, you get a free move and must stack 200 crowns (old money system ... it's probably now 20 crowns if you converted the rule to the new system) as a "security deposit" representing general supply and efforts to destroy the stronghold. If you stayed at home, your stronghold garrison troops are doubled (though defending nobles don't double). The reward for killing the stronghold was return of your deposit, half of your opponent's crowns, and half of all of their cities! This was the game winning move in about 1/3 of the games. The stronghold aspect made attending Assembly a risky proposition. On the other hand, if you're brave and the other players are conservative, you might be the only one at Assembly and get to vote yourself all of the offices.

In the new rules, it seems like the player elimination is too drastic, especially when there is no financial prerequisite for the attack. Suspect the "lose half crowns and a city of your choice" is a reasonable compromise for sake of simplicity and playing time.

No, but as I will endlessly assert, you have to be able to make mistakes, to experiment, to deviate in a strategy game. If the game punishes you for that, what's the point? So, is the game bad because its unforgiving? No. But it sure makes it hard for n00bies and experienced players like me to give it a shot, or another shot.



Sorry, but this paragraph means little, I'm afraid. Can you re-phrase? You're basically saying that the game has luck, decisions, and a push-your-luck element to it. Ok, but how many other games have the same thing? Lots!



Right, which makes it a strategy game, not a wargame. Just because WK has soldiers in it does not make it a wargame!



Giles, pardon me for pursuing this matter, but can you name a few, other than the fact that both games have soldiers? WK has more in common with Euros than it does wargames or miniature games.



Constrained is the right word, and it isn't a bad thing, but you certainly do not have the freedom you enjoy in Dune, Here I Stand, Cosmic Encounter, SoE, etc.

/snip


OK, fine. You can also call it a chocolate bar for all I care, and it would make about as much sense. I continue to assert that WK is not a wargame, and all you say is "it is because I say so." In your world, perhaps. Any grognard worth his salt would laugh at that appellation, however.



No! My whole point is that if you are behind, you cannot limit other players without totally being suicidal, which is generally understood as bad gaming ettiquete. I don't know any other way to say it.



How nice for you. In the gaming circles I frequent, that may not be a game killer, but it certainly makes the game less playable than others I have mentioned.



I'm glad you enjoyed it, it's just that I think it pales a bit when put up against other strategy games. It may not for you, but I've played a lot of them, and the constrained nature of play (prevalent in most Euro-games) and the runaway leader scenario make it very difficult for me to want to play this again when there are such other great games out there. One must prioritize one's time, after all.

No, but as I will endlessly assert, you have to be able to make mistakes, to experiment, to deviate in a strategy game. If the game punishes you for that, what's the point? So, is the game bad because its unforgiving? No. But it sure makes it hard for n00bies and experienced players like me to give it a shot, or another shot.

Thank you for commenting again Nate, again I disagree with many of your assertions, but if we all agreed the world would be a duller place.

My friends and I have made different choices in this game, in our approach to what we have done and how we have done it. None of us were punished to harshly for our choices. The game can be unforgiving, yes, I wouldn't describe it as being punished however, if I make poor choices in a game of Chess or Go which other players take advantage of it is not the game that punishes me. The point for me, whenever I play a game (whether I win or lose), is to have a good time with my friends.

Sorry, but this paragraph means little, I'm afraid. Can you re-phrase? You're basically saying that the game has luck, decisions, and a push-your-luck element to it. Ok, but how many other games have the same thing? Lots!

I'm sorry you felt that way.

Have you considered the way in which you make your comments? The tone and phrasing you use?

Right, which makes it a strategy game, not a wargame. Just because WK has soldiers in it does not make it a wargame!

Giles, pardon me for pursuing this matter, but can you name a few, other than the fact that both games have soldiers? WK has more in common with Euros than it does wargames or miniature games.

OK, fine. You can also call it a chocolate bar for all I care, and it would make about as much sense. I continue to assert that WK is not a wargame, and all you say is "it is because I say so." In your world, perhaps. Any grognard worth his salt would laugh at that appellation, however.

You can call it what you will too, I will not change my designation however. I call it a war game because it is a game about war, it is a game about military conquest, it is a game in which you build armies and then use them to fight other armies.

I think I, along with many other people, have commented on the fact that the new version of WK straddles the border between older American style war games like Axis and Allies, and the newer Euro style of game. Yes it does have elements in common with Euros.

WKs is a game of military domination, and has a style reminiscent of Risk and Axis and Allies, the designers themselves state as much.

You can say "it is not so because I say so" if you will, that you have a particular definition of war game is fine with me, my own definition of it is obviously different however. Again - it would be a dull world if everyone agreed!

No! My whole point is that if you are behind, you cannot limit other players without totally being suicidal, which is generally understood as bad gaming ettiquete. I don't know any other way to say it.

How nice for you. In the gaming circles I frequent, that may not be a game killer, but it certainly makes the game less playable than others I have mentioned.

I haven't experienced this myself, and have read in many places here on BGG the many ways people can and have limitted other players. I would agree that suicide attacks are bad gaming ettiquete.

Being behind and not being able to limit the leader is a problem with many games. If it ruins the playing experience for you that's ok, you should steer clear of those type of games. If ever I am behind in a game I satisfy myself with carving out a small but functional empire and am happy with that. Gaming for me is not about winning, it is about having fun with my friends.

I am happy to have a discussion with you Nate, but I would ask you to consider the way in which you are phrasing your comments please.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, it's just that I think it pales a bit when put up against other strategy games. It may not for you, but I've played a lot of them, and the constrained nature of play (prevalent in most Euro-games) and the runaway leader scenario make it very difficult for me to want to play this again when there are such other great games out there. One must prioritize one's time, after all.

Again it seems we are gamers of different ilks. Variety is the spice of life they say and I am glad to have heard your points of view on this review and on this game. Whatever you do, whatever you play, I hope you and your friends have as much fun as I!

Happy Gaming!

Giles.

Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'd like to interject here with a couple of comments.

First, WK is one of my favorite games, so take my adorations with a grain of salt if you like.

Second, I'm not sure I understand the criticism that this game is unforgiving. On the contrary, I think that some aspects are very forgiving, particularly with respect to losing battles. I discussed this in another thread in this forum. Here's the link:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/119468

As I state in that post, I think that the rules regarding losing battles are counterintuitive, or at the very least, are contrary to how most games handle warfare. Consequently, I think players believe that they are more constrained than they really are.

Third, while this is one of my favorite games, and I agree with the reviewer's assessment of it, I myself did not like the game after the first play. I attribute this to the rules. Although not complex, they are somewhat voluminous and as stated above, might seem counterintuitive. I remember that in the first game I played, all of us would discard a noble's mercenaries when he died. Not because that is how the game is played, but because that's how most other games do it. When you lose a battle, you lose your armies, right?! Wrong.

Finally, who cares if it's a wargame or not? It seems to me that this is a debate over semantics. What is accomplished if the game is, or isn't, a wargame? It is a game about warfare. I think it's hard to argue with that, which tends to suggest it's a wargame. On the other hand, I can also see how someone could argue that it is not like a traditional wargame, which would suggest it is not one. Wargame or not, it is one of my favorite games.

Thanks Eric! I'm glad you enjoyed the game, thanks for commenting!

Giles.

Natus - I fear that you've descended rather into the realms of nit-picking and semantics.

Giles - I enjoyed your review and am currently just reading through the rules in preparation for my first game this weekend.

I would like the first game not to turn into an epic as this might put one or two people off if it runs into the realms of four hours or more. Would anyone advise tinkering with the Influence mechanic to try and keep the game at three to four hours? or would you recommend keeping the game as published?

Cheers

Hi Paul, thanks for commenting!

I think if you play to 10 or 12 influence (although I feel 12-15 is 'better'), and make sure that everyone is familiar with the rules then you shouldn't have too many problems with the length of the game.

Have you read the excellent strategy article here by Imnop?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/116751

Make sure players understand that they will only get the edge in Influence if they are actively aggressive or/and trying to mess with the other players.

I hope you have a great game!

Giles.

Now that I've given Giles a year to reinforce and re-supply after my initial assault...



I'm happy to tell you that your fears are unfounded. Let me explain:

"A rose by any other name..." Pardon my using Shakespeare to beat a dead horse, but when I read a review I disagree with, in this case vehemently, I always try to gauge where the author is coming from. When a bunch of grognards and wargamers wrote reviews praising A Victory Lost, a game I had an initially lukewarm reaction to, I got to thinking that I should try the game again and try to look at it in a new way. But when Giles here calls Warrior Knights a "wargame"--and I know wargames--that tells me something, beginning with the fact that I should take his review with a grain of salt. That's all.

That said, Giles' review and especially Imnop's dialogue with the designer have led me to desire to try the game again, this time with the fix, in industry circles known as an expansion. Perhaps it will have improved with time and a fresh look.



I think there's a lot in this game that is counter-intuitive and for me it's the fussy taxing, etc. that I find unforgiving, when all you want to do is sieze land and crack skulls. However, I find myself tripped up in the same way with AGoT's random supply & levy system, so maybe it's just me not enjoying the fiddly Euro "improvements". As I told the designer, I would love to try the original game.



Well, coming from a red-hot fan, this is huge! Thank you for your honesty, and I hope I have a similar "road to Damascus" epiphany.

What variants do you all use from the Crown and Glory expansion, by the way?

I don't see the arguement here. Nate, are you saying that you want to play a strategy game where players are not punished for their mistakes? Do you want a game where a player can make stupid move after stupid move and not face any consequences? That doesn't make any sense to me.

All games let you experiment. If there is no punishment for bad plays, how do you ever determine how to play well?

Personally, I don't find WK to be overly punishing at all. First turn moves are important, but afterwards the game is much more forgiving. WK is no where near the realm of Age Of Renaissance and it's ilk. Heck, I'd place WK below games like Axis and Allies as far as the "forgiveness" scale is concerned. It's simply my opinion, but I don't see the validity of this arguement.



Uggg.... I can't believe you want to drudge up this belabored internet discussion again. People sometimes call "conflict" games "wargames". And some people seem to get their panties twisted when those people call Risk a "wargame". Who cares. It's obvious that Giles was using the term "wargame" to mean "conflict" game. No one on these boards would mistake WK for ASL. To bring this up is going beyond "nit picky".





I strongly disagree with this point. If you are behind in a multiplayer conflict game, it is your job to convince the other gamers to help you attack the leader. This is a key element to these types of games. If you lack the diplomactic skills to sway the actions of your fellow gamers, that's not really the games fault.



Well, runaway leaders are generally not a problem for my gaming group. We are all well versed in these types of games (playing many old Game Masters series games all the way to TI3 and Blood Feud of today). If your game group finds runaway leaders to be a problem, then simply steer clear of such games. It's very easy to conclude that a conflict game like WK can have this problem just by looking at the cover.

Look, I think I was clear here. There are games where good vs bad play is apparent. To everybody. Then there are other games, like WK, where good/bad play is not so easily determined until a few turns later and you are hosed. My issue is that the mechanics are Euro-ized to such an extent that grokking good/bad play was difficult for me.

And let me say, Dignan, that I can be an idiot in all sorts of ways and I have a losing record with my Brooklyn buddies beyond compare. But in most games I play--AT, wargames, Euros--it's logical and easy to see where you made a mistake. Not the case with WK.



Don't know that I agree with your comparisons, but the point is that all my bad play was in the beginning turns. After that, I was snowed under.



Please read my reply to this. Context is everything.



And once again I go hammer and tongs at this issue. My whole point is that there is no point in trying to get opponents to help you in this game. Why should they? As a strategy game afficiando and a Dip fanatic, I'm really tired of FFG fans preaching to me about how I apparently "lack diplomatic skills." If, in AGoT and WK, you are caught flat-footed, and it can happen, Dignan, even to you, what is to stop your opponent from repeatedly trouncing you? Why should the other players care? This whole meme boggles my delicate mind.



This is just laughable! Since WK has a runaway leader problem, that's my fault, not the designer's, so I should simply stop playing strategy games, do I have that right? Since your particular group is not bothered by an obvious flaw in the game, it's everyone else who has it wrong? Got it! What a simple solution.

Come to NYC some time. I'll show you "well-versed."

Natus, we had this discussion over a year ago - I would still refer to WK as a wargame, as I would refer to Nexus Ops or Neuroshima Hex as wargames - I gave you the reasons for that too - the main preoccupation in those games is war. You are allowed to disagree with me. Of course these games are nothing like ASL and games like that, I never said that they were - all things in degrees.

You're welcome to take this, or any other of my reviews, with a a grain of salt. As I stated over a year ago, in these posts and in reply to the geekmail that followed, we are obviously gamers of very different ilks, BGG would be a sadder place if gamers all agreed.

I am greatly pleased that you consider replaying the game, I don't believe the expansion is required (though admittedly I have never played with it). It took me a few games to realise that you need to play aggressively, and also go out of your way to make life hard for your opponents.

Imnop has written quite a few very engaging and interesting articles about Warrior Knights that can be found here, they are well worth reading.

Cheers.

Giles.