Fire & Axe Out Of Print

ubarose wrote:

The truth. So boring that I had forgotten I had played it until I read this thread.

Ok, now I have been turned. Looks like there are definitely better games to immediately spend my money on.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

The problem isn't so much the screwage factor but that the mechanics are so boring. I can't really remember it but pillaging a village was something like "Roll a die, on a 5 or 6 you get it." and that was it. There was no way to increase your stats (because you don't have any) or increase the pillaging armies size or anything like that. The only way you could effect the roll from memory was that if you had traded with the village previously you could take it on a roll of 4,5 or 6.
Overall boring.

Conquest of the Empire beats the living shit out of it.

I love Conquest of the Empire. But in the full interest of disclosure, since that seems to be the new fad these days, my copy was received as a review copy from Eagle Games. That being said... I love the game.

Fire and Axe is certainly not Conquest of the Empire. But the board art is awesome, I like that you have to account for the weather in your movements and it offers a change of pace from anything else I have. It has a healthy dose of strategy but is definitely more of a strategic exploration game than it is a combat game. Until they make a better Viking game, this is the one.

To Death and Taxis:

I'm good with your logic: if it is out of print as you say...what happens if you play it, really like it and then want to get a copy but are unable to? You will always be able to sell it. Just not to Ubarose, Ken B. or Mr. Skeletor.

Hey man, I haven't passed judgement on it...I haven't played it. What, do you take me for a BGG denizen or sump'tin?



But...the rules read like Skelly describes it. Take your dudes. Go to a port. Roll a die. Hope there's a big value inside.

I can't slam it because I know there are games where the rules make a game sound bad (Lord of the Rings) and then the game turns out to be much better than it sounds. So don't take my comments as damning the game. Yet. Wait till I've played it, of course.

I've played the old Conquest of the Empire plenty of times and it's pretty terrible. As soon as one player is eliminated it's basically game over. I've heard the new version offers much better rules though.

How's Viking Fury of Dracula by the way? Hmm ... a game about viking vampires would be pretty awesome.

Death & Taxis here's my mini review of 3 Viking games from last year. Fire and Ice was the best of the 3 Viking games I reviewed. It an ok game.

http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=220&func=view&catid=13&id=2463

Thanks for the link KingPut. I did do a search of the forums before posting but didn't turn anything up. Made for an interesting read. Sounds like a great AmeriTrash Viking game is still waiting to be made. I can't help but thinking that Fire & Axe, with it's great components could still be that game. Perhaps like the revised version of Conquest of the Empire with it's dual ruleset - I'm tempted to try coming up with an AmeriTrash ruleset using the Fire & Axe components. Then it could be two games for the price of one.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

The problem isn't so much the screwage factor but that the mechanics are so boring. I can't really remember it but pillaging a village was something like "Roll a die, on a 5 or 6 you get it." and that was it. There was no way to increase your stats (because you don't have any) or increase the pillaging armies size or anything like that. The only way you could effect the roll from memory was that if you had traded with the village previously you could take it on a roll of 4,5 or 6.

This is not entirely true. You have two different ways of attacking a city (pillage or settle) and in one of them you have to decide in advance how many (up to three) of your guys you want to commit. Only one of them has to succeed, but you'll still loose the rest if they fail. And since the game is very much about speed and having the ressources to do something before your opponent, there's quite a bit of push your luck in the game.

Personally I think it's a great game. It has a clever mechanism for movement, there's lots of screwage in the rune cards, and the different paths toward victory (basically reward now vs. possible reward in the end) seem balanced. It's not a die hard AT game about pillaging and viking combat, but definitely more of an euro. However for me and the guys I play with (and we normally play stuff like Starcraft, TI3 and AGoT) it's a sure hit.

I can't really remember it but pillaging a village was something like "Roll a die, on a 5 or 6 you get it." and that was it.

Well, you just described a core mechanical principle in almost any AT game that has dice. Or wargames. Or RPGs for that matter. It's the context that gives it meaning, not the action itself.

I actually took what Skeletor was describing to mean what you are saying. There is no link to the mechanical action because there is no connection between trying to "build-up" your viking ships via a natural progression through the game. There is never a time that you are attached in a meaningful way to the outcome of the battle -- just a meh, roll these dies and hope for a 4 or better.

Michael Barnes wrote:

I can't really remember it but pillaging a village was something like "Roll a die, on a 5 or 6 you get it." and that was it.

Well, you just described a core mechanical principle in almost any AT game that has dice. Or wargames. Or RPGs for that matter. It's the context that gives it meaning, not the action itself.

Well that's the core mechanic, but normally games built up around them.
In a wargame the unit I'm hitting my be able to fight back. Postition and terrain may be important, giving me advantages. reinforcements and unit numbers may let me hold out more. The board may create bottlenecks making some areas harder to take then others.
In RPG style games I can get equipment, acquire powers or increase my stats in order to overcome challenges. Currently I may need a 5 or 6 to kill the dragon, but if I wait a bit I'll be able to kill it on a 3 - 6. So should I do it now or can I afford to wait so the outcome is more certain? That there is the game.

Don't recall doing any of that shit in F&A. According to Mads there was a unit system that I've forgotten so there might have been more too it, but unless that Alzheimer's in kicking it wasn't much. The game felt as dry as crackers.

Actually the dice rolling mechanic is tied into the theme.

You trade with the local yokels to get them fat and happy. That makes it easier to raid and conquer (settle) them. If you don't trade with them first, they'll be more resistant to violent action taken against them.

Is there interest out there in a serious, historically-based game on the Vikings? I've studied Viking-age Scandinavia in some good depth at University and have been tempted to launch into such an endeavor.

I've researched Viking games, but most of them seem to only be vessels for flavorless Eurogames. I think a nice, in depth and historical game would be great fun.

(Not that this is close to coming anytime soon; I have not forgotten you Sword & Planet Mars!)