Front Page



Game Index


Site Tools



You May Also Like...

Michael Barnes
July 30, 2021
Matt Thrower
July 30, 2021

Play Matt: Klask Review

Board Game Reviews
July 29, 2021

UFO Wave

Board Game Reviews
July 28, 2021
July 22, 2021

Fight for the Forest in Root

Board Game Reviews
July 16, 2021

Feline Felonies

Board Game Reviews
July 15, 2021
Matt Thrower
July 12, 2021
July 09, 2021

Canine Capers

Board Game Reviews
July 08, 2021
July 07, 2021

Watergate Board Game- Review

Board Game Reviews
July 02, 2021

Clash of the Ardennes Review: Unusual Presentation of a Tired Topic

J Updated March 17, 2021
0.0 (0)
1797 0
Unusual presentation of a tired topic: Clash of the Ardennes review

Game Information

2 - 2
There Will Be Games

A relatively novel idea with an overused setting that can't escape the seemingly rote gameplay.

In the genre of historical wargames, one of the most frequent locales/eras is that of World War II. Along with the most widely-known example of Axis and Allies, one can't look at the wargame genre in general without seeing that conflict in a multiplicity of forms; from Avalon Hill's old hex-and-counter approach to Triumph and Tragedy's card-driven format to Memoir '44's Battlelore-style mechanics and even to one of the latest recent hits, Undaunted, a straight card game. So, when I was approached to review an advance copy of Clash of the Ardennes, I confess to being a little underwhelmed at the setting for the game. Here was yet another depiction of the war, even if the approach was somewhat novel. But it's that novel approach that intrigued me enough to agree to sit down and play it several times to see if there was something there that could elevate it past its source material. My conclusions are mixed.


Clash is a 2-player game between German and American forces during the Battle of the Bulge on the Western Front in 1944. The fight through the Ardennes forest was complex and tested the then-limits of maneuver and logistical strategies. Clash has decided to represent that not with cards or pawns or cardboard tokens glutted with information, but instead with a board made of an empty framework of puzzle pieces and units represented by slats, for lack of a better word, displaying the unit's type and its "reach" into the battlefield situation. Each player takes turns using action points to either place their units in the field in prescribed columns or "streets" or to move already placed units back to their supply or to move them up and down those streets. The object is to be the first to conquer three streets by reaching your opponent's side of the board.

The units are multiple ranks of infantry, tanks, and anti-tank mines that, when contact is made with the enemy, defeat each other in a rock-paper-scissors style (tanks > infantry > mines > tanks) with different ranks of infantry defeating the lower-ranked ahead of them, as well. Thus, the game isn't concerned with stats of any kind or die rolls or active card draws or other types of RNG. Except for the random Objective cards drawn by each player during setup that stipulate exactly what set of streets are to be conquered and the random Victory card drawn for conquering a street, there is perfect information. You can always see what your opponent is doing at any given time, which gives the game more of an abstract feel (like chess) than most other WW2 games. That's to its credit, in that the game will be far more about matching wits with one's opponent than what they happened to draw or roll during play. There are also several "special" units (General, Spy, Command Tank, Mortar) that have special abilities that often allow them to exert their influence over neighboring streets, so that the contest is not strictly (and almost literally) linear. The proper use of said units can often be a key moment in any given game, as one would expect when something like a general or command tank is brought into an actual engagement in the field.


But only one of those special units can be on the table for each player at any time and, if they're part of a squad that conquers a street, they're then frozen to the table until the end of the game. In essence, you use a special unit once to achieve 1/3 of your overall goal and that's it for the day. And that's where the problems with the design are highlighted. Clash isn't an abstract, with broad strategies that create enormous depth in variation and approach; again like chess or Go. It's more detailed than that and, thus, has more specifics to remember in terms of when to place what units and where. But a game that employs that detail encourages one to take advantage of it and, too often in our plays, we found that without the special units, many of our contests became an exercise in tit-for-tat; surging back and forth across the table as whole rows of the enemy were removed and replaced by friendly units only for those units to be removed and so on. The special units made for more interesting tactical maneuvers, but said maneuvers could only take place once per game. Then you were back to the tit-for-tat for the rest of the encounter, which grew tiresome.

The variability created by the different ranks of infantry alleviated that somewhat and the varying objectives brought us into the game with the idea that a different strategy would lead to different gameplay and results, but too often that wasn't really the case and we'd find ourselves bogged down in the hedge country, as it were (that's a Western Front joke), placing the same units over and over as we tried to hurry up and finish our goal before the opposition; if not entirely to win the game so much as to simply get through it. We didn't find ourselves reminiscing after the game about the narrative of what had taken place, as is often the case with games that aspire to tell a story. There was no "Remember when you placed that Spy and it wiped out half of Street #5?" Most abstract games outside of high level play don't often tell stories, either, and that may again be indicative of where this game aspires to do something more than an abstract in a narrative sense, but doesn't quite accomplish it because the gameplay is neither deep nor interesting enough.


In that narrative sense, I understand the desire to limit the use of special units since, after all, how many generals or command tanks are you going to have in any given battle? Furthermore, the Victory card abilities can be transformative, such as the one that allows you to play a second special unit or the one that allows your Corporals to defeat the Spy (the deus ex machina unit of the game that can defeat any opposition.) But they can also compound the limitations of the game, such as the one that denies your opponent's Command Tank its key ability (flanking the enemy.) In a game where unit abilities are already fairly restrained, do you really want to deny them entirely? Again, the restraint is admirable for trying to keep the game within its seeming confines. The time suggested on the box is one hour, which seems reasonable. Our major difficulty was in playing for about half an hour and then really kind of wanting it to be over, since we were in that rut of repetition again.

Now, certainly, games that aspire to depth in play are often less exciting for beginners than they are for more experienced players and that certainly may be the case here. More savvy players might be able to avoid the aforementioned rut and proceed to a stage where the gameplay is actually interesting. But that's what I usually refer to as the Root Problem. How many games are you willing to play that aren't enjoyable until you get to the stage where it is? Root typically solves that problem with an original theme and presentation and wildly asymmetric mechanics. Clash of the Ardennes, unfortunately, does not have those advantages, despite the initial draw of mystery presented by the components, and is weighted with the challenges of an overused setting, as well.

A preview copy was provided by the publisher. Clash of the Ardennes is currently on Kickstarter. 

Editor reviews

1 reviews

Clash of the Ardennes
Marc Reichardt  (He/Him)
Associate Writer

Marc started gaming at the age of 5 by beating everyone at Monopoly, but soon decided that Marxism, science fiction, and wargames were more interesting than money, so he opted for writing (and more games) while building political parties, running a comic studio, and following Liverpool. You can find him on Twitter @Jackwraith and lurking in other corners of the Interwebs.


Articles by Marc

Marc Reichardt
Staff Board Game Reviewer

Articles by Marc

User reviews

There are no user reviews for this listing.
Already have an account? or Create an account
Log in to comment

Sagrilarus's Avatar
Sagrilarus replied the topic: #320730 17 Mar 2021 08:45
Alright, so, I haven't finished reading your review yet. It looks good.

But putting those photographs sideways instead of upright on St. Patrick's Day is borderline cruel. I damn near threw up my 2-2-2 Irish breakfast (2 eggs, 2 toast, 2 shots) from the vertigo. Please consider the gastric well-being of your audience in future postings.

Now back to the article.
fightcitymayor's Avatar
fightcitymayor replied the topic: #320731 17 Mar 2021 09:03
So it's an abstract with a WW2 coat of paint to maintain some semblance of popular appeal.

And they list 39 (!) different "preview"/"first impression" links, and I have not heard of a single one of them. Nice to see the preview-industrial complex of setting up your own "game review" brand in exchange for free games & publicity is alive & well in some corners of the globe.
Jackwraith's Avatar
Jackwraith replied the topic: #320732 17 Mar 2021 09:12

Sagrilarus wrote: But putting those photographs sideways instead of upright on St. Patrick's Day is borderline cruel. I damn near threw up my 2-2-2 Irish breakfast (2 eggs, 2 toast, 2 shots) from the vertigo. Please consider your audience in future postings.

Sorry. Didn't even consider that when I was adding them, but after looking at them again, you're right.
Sagrilarus's Avatar
Sagrilarus replied the topic: #320733 17 Mar 2021 09:24
Granted, I carry some wargame baggage coming into this review. But when I saw the image on the TWBG front page and "Arden" truncated at the end of the title my first thought was "jeeze, another one." But that's the nature of wargaming, dominated by three settings -- Bulge, Market Garden, and "Eastfront" (the last so overused that the industry has removed the middle syllable to save man hours.) Oddly enough the mechanics in the game you're describing sound better suited to Market Garden, but let's just leave it at that before anyone gets any ideas.

Wargames need unpredictability, because "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is the nature of the business. So as I continued to read your review it became more and more clear that this package doesn't stand as a unified package. If you're going to use setting it needs to fit. Tanks do not defeat infantry. It's more complicated than that and anyone with any interest in this setting is going to grit their teeth a bit. That is, the game deselects its target audience. The result is that the wrong people pick up the box and no one is happy. At no point in the design process was there a sanity check that identified this fundamental disconnect. It makes me wonder why the publisher didn't identify this problem and let the designer know during development or testing. (And yes, that's a straight line.)

Oddly enough, I think a setting in war production, i.e., the arms race in the air or across all of operations might have been a better fit for a Rock/Paper/Scissors sort of mechanic and lifted the game away from its dependence on a 1970s romantic view of the war. But that wouldn't solve the fundamental problems you identify in the gameplay, the back and forth slog that doesn't make for good gaming. When there is no unusual die roll to break things open, to change up the mix, slogs remain slogs, not entertainment.

There's a reason luck has been part of this industry for fifty years.

Well written review. I liked this one.
Jackwraith's Avatar
Jackwraith replied the topic: #320734 17 Mar 2021 09:34
Thanks! That point about tanks automatically defeating infantry occurred to me, too, when first reading the rules. My first thought was: "You know that tanks were usually supported by infantry because of their vulnerability, right...?" But I'm betting that the designer was approaching this from a small engagement perspective, like in the town battle scene in Saving Private Ryan, where the approach of the Tiger is daunting for all Americans involved. That's why you're fighting over "streets", rather than hillsides or proper strategic objectives. But it was also something of a sidestep to make the system work. After all, said infantry are the ones placing those anti-tank mines, which is also kind of a deviation, given the static nature of mines and the more mobile nature of infantry and tanks and the original engagement, overall. Like FCM said, I think it was an abstract idea that had the theme slipped on in order to generate interest from an audience that is still ready to press the pledge button for anything WW2-related. I probably should've poked at the thematic issues a bit more, but I had already half-dismissed all of that because it was a WW2 game.