I have invented a device that can stomp people's testicles from across the internet, and I will not hesitate to use it if people start talking politics.
If quozl and SouthernMan would actually be arguing for a reason ... if you didn't read the thread on BGG you'd think they were kicking their balls for nothing. Which is kinda weird.
If quozl and SouthernMan would actually be arguing for a reason ... if you didn't read the thread on BGG you'd think they were kicking their balls for nothing. Which is kinda weird.
[/i]
Quite explicitly mentioned in my third post on the first page .
I have invented a device that can stomp people's testicles from across the internet, and I will not hesitate to use it if people start talking politics.
King Charles II of Spain had more balls than I have, so eat shit. I only bow for Mr Skeletor (willingly)
Quite explicitly mentioned in my third post on the first page .
See, that's kind of the problem. Three posts on the first page? Something's up. Like up your butt and around the corner.
Kids' insults for the win!
Meanwhile....
WARRIOR KNIGHTS looks like something that would have been great if I'd gotten into the hobby before Fantasy Flight blew everyone away. Now that FFG has set a new standard, there's not a lot of drive for to revisit a design like this-I don't have nostalgia, so unless it's a unique experience, there's no there there.
DUNE for example, has yet to be duplicated in any decent sense. So it still gets the looks it deserves. Does Ye Olden WARRIOR KNIGHTS belong in the same class?
jeb wrote:
DUNE for example, has yet to be duplicated in any decent sense. So it still gets the looks it deserves. Does Ye Olden WARRIOR KNIGHTS belong in the same class?[/quote]
No, but it's in the next class down. Dune and (arguably) Fury of Dracula are deservedly in the "all time classics list". Warrior Knights is in the "old, but still worth a play" list. Underneath that there's tons and tons of crap
If quozl and SouthernMan would actually be arguing for a reason ... if you didn't read the thread on BGG you'd think they were kicking their balls for nothing. Which is kinda weird.
[/i]
Quite explicitly mentioned in my third post on the first page .
What I mean: It would make sense if you would actually discuss the "opinions on your drug dealing bro" or the incidence of "the spineless prick who whined off to the admins", instead your conversation ran more like this:
You arsehole.
You bastard.
You cocksucker.
You douchebag.
You egghead
You fool.
You goon.
You hobo.
You idiot.
You jerk.
You knacker.
You lunatic.
You moron.
You nutter.
You ostrich.
You poof.
You quack.
You retard.
You shithead.
You tosser.
...
Please don't take it upon yourself to think you know better about how I feel on this matter and how I should proceed ... I get enough of that on T.O.S.
DUNE for example, has yet to be duplicated in any decent sense. So it still gets the looks it deserves. Does Ye Olden WARRIOR KNIGHTS belong in the same class?
No, but it's in the next class down. Dune and (arguably) Fury of Dracula are deservedly in the "all time classics list". Warrior Knights is in the "old, but still worth a play" list. Underneath that there's tons and tons of crap
Yeah, but is WARRIOR KNIGHTS, the -old- version worth the effort to track it down when the new one is on the shelf? DUNE has no modern equivalent as yet, and FURY OF DRACULA went from pewter to painted plastic and had some rules changes--maybe the old version is still worth the effort.
I think of it like this...
Only a real diehard is going to make the time to track down the original ARKHAM HORROR game. I bet only a collector is going to jump through the hoops needed to land an AH TITAN now that VG is finally un-fucked. Does WARRIOR KNIGHTS v1 deserve the same effort as FoD on this scale?
Last edit: 20 Nov 2008 16:07 by jeb. Reason: fixed quotes
I know it's hard finding the Warrior Knights parts of this thread but Matt earlier compared the two:
MattDP wrote:
Warrior Knights is one of the best old-school conflict games around, but it is very much old-school: long, fairly complex, and prone to diplomacy overriding mechanics. If you're happy with that sort of unreconstructed fare, you'll enjoy it. If you prefer things more refined then you probably won't.
In terms of facing up to the FFG edition, my opinion is that one is no better than the other. FFG smartened it up, smoothed off the rough edges and made it more integrated, streamlined package for the modern audience. However, in doing so they took much of the interest out of the game, hence the common complaints that the game ends when it feels just like it's getting started. If you change the victory conditions and play for longer it ends up being very much more like the original.
As an aside, this is the problem with game companies "updating" old designs. In doing a modern update, what made the older game interesting and enjoyable is often removed in the process. Companies that republish games should just republish them pretty much straight - and if they see an idea in an older game that they like, far better to spend the development time and effort in growing something new from a worthwhile seed than trying to redevelop a game into something it wasn't meant to be.
Games
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
. 
