$30.00
$15.00
$20.00
$5.00
Recommend
16 
 Thumb up
 Hide
72 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

WarQuest» Forums » Reviews

Subject: How I feel about this after first play rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here are my feelings after a 3 player full game (16 rounds). This is going to focus on the negatives because (spoiler alert) that's how I feel about the game right now. I had such an awful time that I quit the game with 5 rounds to go.

Manual: Needs a lot of work. It takes you through the flow of the game just fine, but the minor yet important details are scattered throughout. There was A LOT of page flipping at several points through the game. And some things are a little unclear until you sit down and think through the logic of the game, like conquest tokens when flipped to their 'inactive' side. Do they still get the benefit of control of a region even though they're inactive? We decided yes. How about 'Hunt' conquest cards? It seems really OP that one player can have 5 different 'Hunt' cards and become an unstoppable death machine, but the rulebook seems to indicate it's in-bounds. One other gripe is that many units have a special power. Why that information is NOT in the table on the back page of the manual that summarized all other important details of the units is completely baffling!

Art: The map is beautiful. It's also really hard to make things out and not very functional. The borders are too subtle and it's often hard to tell what is an actual region because of rivers and mountains since there's no representative border shading for 'interior' regions. Add to that I have the 'mousepad' version and it is extremely washed-out compared to the mounted boards, which further exacerbates the problem.

Fiddlyness: The fact that all the minis are supposed to go on the map just makes it very cluttered and confusing. Add to that the minis in the 'recruiting areas' and it's a forest of plastic that hides the already hard-to-use map. The other thing is that the army boards are great, but there is no real way to track which army goes to which leader when they're on the map. We were moving armies on the map with the leaders, but it would have been nice if there were markers you could attach to a leader and place on an army board so you didn't have to do that. It was pretty crowded and confused.

Meanness: This is not 'trip-through-a-field-of-daisies-quest', this is 'Warquest'. That said, this game encourages the classic 'pick on the guy in last for easy VP' behavior of many of its ilk. Last night, I was the guy in last. I love my friends as people, but I was ready to throat punch them at the table last night. Mainly because all of the ways I could have earned VP were on a region of the map where one of my friends was asserting dominance, and in a big way. Then the other just dogpiled on for good measure because I was easy pickings. They, figuratively speaking, punched me in the mouth, knocked me down, kicked me in the groin until I passed out, then defecated in my mouth for good measure. Translation? I DID NOT HAVE ANY FUN.

Other Thoughts: I want to like this game. The concept is really cool and the way you can quest or conquer and seem to need to do both is really awesome in theory. A quick anecdote to describe the biggest thing that bothers me about the overall game at this point. I had a game of Cthulhu Wars where I jumped to a huge lead and was two points from winning mid-game. Then my friends piled on in much the same way they did last night to prevent me from scoring any more points for the rest of the game. I was extremely frustrated because I couldn't do anything. I ended up losing because of it. But after going home and picking the game session apart in my head, I was able to think of things I could have done differently that would have made me less of a threat and allowed me to squeak those two points in earlier and win more gradually, but still win. Even turning it over and over in my head now, I'm not able to see anything I could have done differently in Warquest that would have still helped me move towards victory.

Conclusion: I will reserve judgment for whether I actually dislike this game or just dislike playing with my friends until I can explore it with another game group or possibly even solo. But for now, I will not be excited to get this back to the table. Which is a shame because not only was I excited to get this to the table last night, I spent a good chunk of money on it on Kickstarter and got everything in the first campaign because I loved the concept.
25 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Team Ski
United States
Dover
Delaware
flag msg tools
CHOMP!!!!
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry about that. I have had this feeling about a lot of other games out there. I wanted to like this game as well but backed out due to cost. Might have been a wise decision in the end. Thanks for the look.

-Ski
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noel
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So it left a bad taste in your mouth?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike
United States
Olathe
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
n815e wrote:
So it left a bad taste in your mouth?


I think the reviewer and his friends need a safe word.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This may sound condescending but I promise you that is not my tone nor intent.

Not every game is right for every person. The "dog piling of the loser" phenomenon is common to this genre. It is something you actually have to expect.

Best wishes. By the way, the "exhausted" side of a control marker just means that that player cannot use influence in that area (to get a card) again. (Until an opponent takes control and you take it back.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
martimer wrote:
Not every game is right for every person. The "dog piling of the loser" phenomenon is common to this genre. It is something you actually have to expect.


I've come to expect that designers do something to address it. For the most part, those expectations have been met in recently published games.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to agree with all the points you made. Overall, this game has something special going for it. I blame pretty much 85% of what's wrong with this game on the rule book. The other 15% is due to small things with a large chunk of it being what you stated about the board. I pulled up the KS and the map they have pictured there hasn't had the color washed out from it and is much, much more vibrant and easy to differentiate zones. I understand they wanted to go with the old worn out map look but damn, they should have stuck with what we were shown when we dropped as much money as we did.

Anyways, back to the rule book. I know there are worse rule books out there in existence but personally I have not come across any. The flow is pretty good like you said but damn is there actually no information given in that small dinky little book. It seemed like in almost every player's activation there came about a specific situation where everyone looked at me and was like "what do the rules say?" After stopping the game to look through every page the general consensus was that there was nothing in the book addressing the issue so we had to house rule it on the spot. Turn after turn after turn...

Let me say this when it comes to the dog pile on the last player issue: I won the game 100 VP to 75VP and 30VP. I'm not going to go into depth on what the 75VP player was able to accomplish by the end of the game, but let me say he controlled every race's recruiting zone excluding the goblins along with pretty much 2/3rds of the world. I on the other hand didn't. I had my home base next to the 30VP player's base. We went at it all game and since I was closer to the goblin recruit zone, I could recruit and he couldn't. I farmed him. Over, and over, and over, and over gaining 5VP for each victory and I won the game.

Like I said, almost everything wrong with this game is the rule book. It needs to be re-written so badly. I was actually physically angry when dealing with that book. The idea of how much money I dropped on this game and this is what the game designers pumped out? Ludicrous and insulting. If someone competently writes the rules to this game from scratch and provides a comprehensive FAQ we might just be in business with a real winner of a game. This game really does have something special going for it, just fix the rule book. Please.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
martimer wrote:
This may sound condescending but I promise you that is not my tone nor intent.

Not every game is right for every person. The "dog piling of the loser" phenomenon is common to this genre. It is something you actually have to expect.


Not taken in a condescending tone, and also why I titled the thread 'How I Feel...', so no argument that not all games are for right for all people from me.

I play these kinds of 'dudes on a map' and area control games all the time and Cthulhu Wars most of all, so I know what to expect. This game, as also described by another poster in the thread, just seems to encourage 'farming' to the level of MMO griefing, which is one of the big frustrations I had with it.

EDIT: Finished the thought...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
n815e wrote:
So it left a bad taste in your mouth?


I see what you did there! laugh

Yeah, after this game, The Others: 7 Sins was a great palate-cleanser for the night.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SharkBait wrote:
(...)

I play these kinds of 'dudes on a map' and area control games all the time and Cthulhu Wars most of all, so I know what to expect. This game, as also described by another poster in the thread, just seems to encourage 'farming' to the level of MMO griefing, which is one of the big frustrations I had with it.

(...)


Another thought about this point in particular is that most 'dudes on a map' games I play punish the players that go after each other constantly because they just wear down their infrastructure and keep each other occupied while another player coasts to victory. TI3 punishes this. Blood Rage. Cthulhu Wars. Kemet. Cyclades. Tyrants of the Underdark. All these are games where I have myself or a friend has butted heads with another player repeatedly and knocked themselves and, most importantly, the other player out of the running for victory. On the contrary, Warquest rewards this behavior and makes griefing a legitimate path to victory. My frustrations as a participant in the experience aside, I can't objectively fault my friends for doing what they did based on the behaviors the game rules seem to encourage.

The following comment is not intended to reflect on my friends as people in the real world: I'd encourage any designer who wants to bring this style of game to fruition to go find a couple of gamers whose 'in-game' personas are cutthroat, merciless, and highly conflict-oriented and add them to a playtest group with other players who like to explore the game system, civilization-build, and are generally more defensive-minded. Then see if the defensive-minded individual actually had fun or not. If not, then you need to adjust focus.

For this game, if I'm going to bring this game to the table again any time soon, I will have to institute some sort of 'no-griefing' house rule where you can only use a 'Glorious Victory' card against any player once even if you draw multiples, and if you engage a single army repeatedly, only the first victory gives you the 5VP bump, otherwise you only get the unit-kill VP for each subsequent engagement. Or maybe do the army-engagement limitation based on some combination of adjacency and a set number of rounds to 'cooldown' the 5VP bonus. ...I'll have to mull that one over.

Like I said in my review, I want to like this game. I think it has an interesting framework and offers great potential but, based on my experience, needs some serious tuning before it is a truly well-oiled machine.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Paella
United States
East Aurora
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Jason, if you have the expansions, namely whatever ones contains the Lich King, there is a rule that on turn 9 transforms the player in last into the Lich King, a very powerful force. I haven't played yet so I do not know if helps the last player but it's an option to use. It doesn't help the 2nd and 3rd to last players but at least it's something.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Failing that, you could increase the restarting warlord with gold more commensurate with the other players so the restarting army is less of a target.

I do like the rich lord rule idea, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Koeppen
United States
Bellevue
Nebraska
flag msg tools
LEGO: Hopeful for new 'Castle' sets in 2015!
badge
Games: Regarding my favorite theme of 'Fantasy', I'm hoping for fewer 'card' games and more 'board' games.
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm, this is definitely not the first time that I've heard about the issue with the issue telling regions apart. I haven't had that problem myself, which I know doesn't help those that have, but the dark dotted lines are pretty clear on my map.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ghorro wrote:
Jason, if you have the expansions, namely whatever ones contains the Lich King, there is a rule that on turn 9 transforms the player in last into the Lich King, a very powerful force. I haven't played yet so I do not know if helps the last player but it's an option to use. It doesn't help the 2nd and 3rd to last players but at least it's something.


I do have it. My problems are with the core game systems. The Wraith King is what I would consider a "nuclear option". It's a consolation prize for getting griefed over and over in the game. It doesn't fix the problem of the incentive offered to grief as a path to victory. I mean, I agree that the Wraith King presents an interesting variant, but the original experience as I described it is completely the fault of the core rules. The Wraith King really just presents an outlet to get revenge, not to be rewarded for good play.

My point is that if you are going to try to convince me that the game is great as-is, I will vehemently and vocally disagree with you on that point. But in a to-the-point and respectful manner. I fervently wish that I can take this crusty rock and find a gem inside, but to my eye, it needs a lot more work.

As an aside and thought I failed to mention in my initial post, my current feelings towards Warquest are quite a letdown for me because I love Empires: Age of Discovery and also went all in on Empires: Galactic Rebellion, so I have great respect for some of Glenn's other work.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keene
msg tools
designer
I haven’t tried playing the game yet but I would have to agree with the problems with the map. I set things up just to take a look and was having serious trouble discerning where regions started and ended. Having roads shown on the map just seems like a really bad idea since they are so similar to region sub-divisions and using mountains as dividers is just confusing. It has made me reluctant to try bringing the game out for my friends.

The interesting thing is looking at the smaller representation of the map in the rulebook is actually more legible than the full size version because you can take everything in at once.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Bartlett
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
VigotheButch wrote:

Let me say this when it comes to the dog pile on the last player issue: I won the game 100 VP to 75VP and 30VP. I'm not going to go into depth on what the 75VP player was able to accomplish by the end of the game, but let me say he controlled every race's recruiting zone excluding the goblins along with pretty much 2/3rds of the world. I on the other hand didn't. I had my home base next to the 30VP player's base. We went at it all game and since I was closer to the goblin recruit zone, I could recruit and he couldn't. I farmed him. Over, and over, and over, and over gaining 5VP for each victory and I won the game.


I ask this question to illustrate a point - the point being diplomacy is a necessity in odd-numbered-player, straightforward DOAM games.

Shouldn't the 75-point player have shored up the "farmed" player, not out of altruism or interest in fairness, but instead to prevent the farming that would eventually cost him/her the victory?

Do the game mechanics allow for this type of overt help, or at least lend themselves to less direct help like opening a second front on the "farmer?"

There may very well be an issue with this game's three-player mode, but sub-optimal play that resulted in a bad experience once or twice should not necessarily mean immediate corrective action is required.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Price
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
Member of the San Francisco Game Group since 2005
badge
This is a customized Bane Tower from the game Man o' War
mb
DaviddesJ wrote:
martimer wrote:
Not every game is right for every person. The "dog piling of the loser" phenomenon is common to this genre. It is something you actually have to expect.


I've come to expect that designers do something to address it. For the most part, those expectations have been met in recently published games.


Yea. The "dog pile on the loser" is not a feature, it's a bug. Any game that relies on luck of the draw for your quests, combat, and other card-driven reward systems, needs to have a more robust system to allow players who get bad hands of cards to somehow get back in the game.

That's a pity. I was thinking I would check this out at retail. But you aren't the first to complain about this - and the game's brand new! Sounds like maybe this won't be a good fit for my game group...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mattprice wrote:
(...)

Any game that relies on luck of the draw for your quests, combat, and other card-driven reward systems, needs to have a more robust system to allow players who get bad hands of cards to somehow get back in the game. (...)


And this is actually a fantastic point that I didn't mention in my OP!

The game itself added to my sense of being taken advantage of because the 'bad' random events are typically crushing to a single player. And lucky me, two crushed me right before the dogpiling started in the form of plagues that wiped out my armies. So sheer randomness made me a juicy target for the face punching and griefing.

I'm okay with random events in games, but random events that only impact a single player and have little to no way to mitigate other than timing are just a really bad game feature. At that point, it goes from being random to being arbitrary. If I'm going to play an arbitrary game, I'll just take a deck of playing cards, put a sticker on the face of one that says 'You LOSE', and then just start flipping through them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Off The Shelf Board Game Reviews
United States
Anchorage
Alaska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This definitely does not bode well at all.

A really good war/dudes on a map game will allow dog-piling BUT make it a really terrible strategy that does not pay off. There are numerous ways to fix the issue and I think of all the games I have played Kemet and Cthulhu Wars have the best fixes, where sure you can pick on someone but that just means neither of you will win the game.

I find it interesting that the Wraith/Lich seems to help the situation making me think the base game as is, is not how the game is meant to be played.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cc_TheToph wrote:
VigotheButch wrote:

Let me say this when it comes to the dog pile on the last player issue: I won the game 100 VP to 75VP and 30VP. I'm not going to go into depth on what the 75VP player was able to accomplish by the end of the game, but let me say he controlled every race's recruiting zone excluding the goblins along with pretty much 2/3rds of the world. I on the other hand didn't. I had my home base next to the 30VP player's base. We went at it all game and since I was closer to the goblin recruit zone, I could recruit and he couldn't. I farmed him. Over, and over, and over, and over gaining 5VP for each victory and I won the game.


I ask this question to illustrate a point - the point being diplomacy is a necessity in odd-numbered-player, straightforward DOAM games.

Shouldn't the 75-point player have shored up the "farmed" player, not out of altruism or interest in fairness, but instead to prevent the farming that would eventually cost him/her the victory?

Do the game mechanics allow for this type of overt help, or at least lend themselves to less direct help like opening a second front on the "farmer?"

There may very well be an issue with this game's three-player mode, but sub-optimal play that resulted in a bad experience once or twice should not necessarily mean immediate corrective action is required.


The 75 point player was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing in the spirit of the game. He followed the guidelines the rules laid out, completed quests, built armies to protect himself on multiple fronts, controlled zones for points, bought cards while in cities, and more or less became a very scary opponent (and he did swoop in on the last couple of turns to reign death upon us..if memory serves he was around the 50pt range before he realized that farming is how you win). Not a single person signed on to back this game in order to do that but then be forced to go "baby sit" the other players to make sure they aren't doing gimmicky annoying things to get cheap points. If I were to setup a brand new game of Warquest I would just go to the nearest opponent and immediately start trying to farm them which in turn would cause player 3 to stop what they're doing and come join in the fray. Whether to join in on the farming or to "baby sit" me and prevent me from doing that. "So much for questing or building a really cool army, looks like I have to stay down here and out farm everyone else." From everything I witnessed there is no way player 3 could just ignore the points being dished out from farming and still win by questing and having free reign of the entire board.

Like someone else pointed out, in other DOAM games it is not beneficial to either player to farm one another. There are built in detriments. Player 3 would just laugh at those two fighting against each other all the way to the bank. In Warquest it actually rewards players to farm each other with zero setup (the army I started the game with is what I started farming with). I make more VP per activation by just whittling away at your army until only your Warlord is left for me to farm all game than by actually going out and trying to quest/expand/evolve which is the entire point of the game.

Another thing about this game is I thought the game's board design was pretty weak. By that I mean how the spaces are setup, mountain range placements, river/bridge placements. Nothing really seemed flushed out. To answer your question about if the farmed player could have gotten out another way (or had player 3 let him out another way) the answer was no. I had him pinned down which actually doesn't seem too hard to do anywhere on that map, not just where we happened to be. As in if we played a new game and started in different zones it wouldn't be too hard to pin a player down again. The lack of bridges in key locations is brutal. The only way for him to get out was to cross a river which immediately stops his movement. In which case I just moved across the river, killed his Warlord which caused his Warlord to respawn back in his city (which I wouldn't conquer as I wanted him to keep spawning next to me). Then while I was sitting across the river the only place he could run was south which just so happened to be towards my city and generals. And even if he managed to somehow get away from me he had no money and no where even plausible to recruit from as player 3 controlled everything else. It was ridiculous.

As far as I could understand with the rules, you get gold refunded to you to build a new army based on what actually died in the battle that caused you to have to respawn your warlord. So, if you had a 20 gold army at the beginning of the game and we just decided to duke it out until one man walked away, then you would get 20g to buy a new army when you respawn back in a city you control. We quickly figured out that if you keep doing multiple battles and lose a few troops here, lose a few troops there, by the time you get to a final battle where you plan on taking out their Warlord they only have like 4 gold worth of troops that would qualify for a refund. So then you respawn in your home city with a 4 gold army and somehow you're supposed to make a comeback with that and not open yourself up to infinite farming. This rule specifically needs to be either A) explained better/thoroughly or B) needs to be tweeked/reworked. As it stands the game just promotes farming each other for easy, easy victory points instead of doing what you're supposed to be.

Obviously this is all just IMO.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Paella
United States
East Aurora
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Sean, thanks for the very descriptive account of your game(s). I haven't played the game yet, but from what I recall from the manual, the default rules for a defeated Warlord respawning with a new army allow him to spend 20 gold. There is an optional "advanced player" rule that only gives you an amount of gold equal to the value of your defeated army, up to a max of 20.

Do you think playing with the default rule would change this farming problem? I would think 2 players smashing into each other until one warlord died would leave the victories army in a very weakened state, unable to prey on the newly respawned warlord and his 20 point army. Or, would the weakened army have enough time to tax and recruit to repopulate his ranks to smash the newly built 20 point army?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Foss
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ghorro wrote:
Sean, thanks for the very descriptive account of your game(s). I haven't played the game yet, but from what I recall from the manual, the default rules for a defeated Warlord respawning with a new army allow him to spend 20 gold. There is an optional "advanced player" rule that only gives you an amount of gold equal to the value of your defeated army, up to a max of 20.

Do you think playing with the default rule would change this farming problem? I would think 2 players smashing into each other until one warlord died would leave the victories army in a very weakened state, unable to prey on the newly respawned warlord and his 20 point army. Or, would the weakened army have enough time to tax and recruit to repopulate his ranks to smash the newly built 20 point army?


In my game, 20 was pointless as the other players had built 50/60-ish gold armies and were able to slap me down without any consideration. And the 'default 20' rule you mention is only if you get completely wiped off the map... Which happened to me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Paella
United States
East Aurora
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Isn't the 20 points of new troop rule for when you lose your warlord, regardless of what other leader-lead armies you have? I don't have the rulebook with me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ghorro wrote:
Sean, thanks for the very descriptive account of your game(s). I haven't played the game yet, but from what I recall from the manual, the default rules for a defeated Warlord respawning with a new army allow him to spend 20 gold. There is an optional "advanced player" rule that only gives you an amount of gold equal to the value of your defeated army, up to a max of 20.

Do you think playing with the default rule would change this farming problem? I would think 2 players smashing into each other until one warlord died would leave the victories army in a very weakened state, unable to prey on the newly respawned warlord and his 20 point army. Or, would the weakened army have enough time to tax and recruit to repopulate his ranks to smash the newly built 20 point army?


I have the book here with me. Let me type out the paragraph so we all can try to make sense of it:

(Pg 10, lower right hand corner)"6. The Warlord If the Warlord is killed during a battle, on the player's next turn, a new warlord emerges from the faction's ranks and is placed in a city controlled by that player (first option) or in any city or region that does not have one of his opponent's ownership tiles on it (if the player does not control a city). The player gets up to 20 gold that must be spent on troops for the new Warlord's army. (A Warlord cannot get more gold than what would be needed to recruit the army that was lost). The player takes no other actions this turn. Thus, players are never eliminated from the game, as a 'new' Warlord will always arise to continue the fight. Lieutenants are their armies are not lost if a Warlord is defeated."

Unless I'm missing something (and I actually never saw anything about advanced/beginner rules on the matter) when the Warlord is killed, any army that was lost in that particular battle basically gets changed in to gold which then must be immediately spent on a new army (doesn't have to be the same troops. You could have lost an entire Goblin army and decided to recruit a couple Orcs and Dwarfs with the gold). You don't always just get 20 gold each time you die. My friend (actually the one getting farmed all game) came up with a good example why that cannot be the case (getting 20 gold each time).

Let's say for example it is the beginning of the game. Player 1 takes his Warlord, 1 Melee Orc, and 2 Goblin Archers with him 3 spaces north (that is an army cost of 7 gold) to go on a quest. He leaves behind in his city his Lieutenant and 13 gold worth of army to stand guard. Player 2 decides that Player 1's Warlord and small army is within range of his starting zone. Player 2 takes his entire 20 gold army and plops it on player 1's Warlord. Combat ensues and Player 2 kills everything. Player 1 "spawns" a brand new Warlord in his city and is given 20 gold to replace his 7 gold army. Now he has 32 gold worth of army sitting in his starting zone. What an awesome, effective way of making gold and quick way of recruiting any forces you want. Instead of wasting multiple activations taxing, completing quests, and moving across the hazardous game board to recruit a specific force, I'll just die, respawn for free and get paid to do so (although you do give up your next turn AKA next 3 activations - still seems very beneficial/cost effective). This cannot be the way that rule is to be interpreted. Even if that wasn't broken enough, the whole concept goes against the spirit and theme of the game.

Now, if you did receive 20 gold each time your Warlord + Army was wiped from the board, yes, that would solve the problem of getting farmed. Obviously the person who killed you suffered losses by your hand and would be weaken. He wouldn't charge at you again with an 11 gold army when you just spawned a 20 gold army. However, by fixing the farming problem you've created a whole new problem that can/should be exploited.

That's what I'm saying, that whole paragraph needs to be re-written or just simply re-worked from the ground up. In my eyes no matter how you interpret that paragraph a very large glaring issue arises that breaks the spirit of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Paella
United States
East Aurora
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Good catch Sean, I didn't have the manual in front of me (still waiting for a digital one,.... grrrr).

Not sure what to do about this problem right now. Maybe I'll come up with something after I play and get a feel for the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.