Chaos in the Old World rules are up

FFG Chaos in the old world

This is the new game I'm most excited to hear about.

Waiting for reports from GenCon.

This is the problem with browsing the FFG site when I'm at work with nothing to do - I just pre-ordered the game. Though normally I wait until there are lots and lots of reviews up before I make a decision, so maybe this time I'm taking one for the team in case it turns out to suck.

Reading the rules, it seems like it should clock in under 2 hours - though a big factor in that will be how much time it takes for all the Powers to spend all their energy each round... at any rate, it looks to me like the cards will provide enough variety to keep the game interesting for about that long.

Based off of just reading the rules this looks like a combination area control/ battle game. If El Grande got drunk and decided to slum it AT style by hooking up with Risk Revised, you might get this game. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure.

Ok let's consider the positives. CitOW focuses on one of the coolest aspects of Warhammer mythology, the struggles of the four chaos powers. If you're like me and loved the old Realms of Chaos books, this game's theme is right up your alley. If they properly captured the essence of each power in the game then this might be a winner. I say might because I haven't seen the individual decks or player mats for each power. The rules read clearly and the game presents itself well, so those factors are a plus. Conflict seems like it resolves quickly so that's good (Most of it is rolling d6's), again though the real question is how much do the cards add to the actual gameplay. I could see this one clocking in under the two hour mark, so playtime isn't a concern.

Now for the negatives. It's another area control to score victory points game. I'm not reading anything in this rulebook that we haven't seen somewhere else before, or just totally blows me away. Yeah there are multiple ways to win but I'll bet that more often than not, VPs will be involved in determining the winner. Meh... I admit that I wish CitOW pushed the envelope a bit more. On the other hand CitOW looks very accessible. Perhpas they were going for this and hoping for some cross market sales in say GW retail stores.

In the end I think this game will succeed or fail not on innovation but on how well it imerses the players in its theme. If I'm playing Nurgle do the tools available to me make me feel "Nuglely"? If I'm playing Khorne will the abilities of my minions and the cards in my deck inspire me to slay with abandon? If yes, then this game will work.

Take all this with a grain of salt. Like I said, I've only read the rules. As of right now I'd definitely give it a try. Also I would love to hear from anyone that has actually played it.


-Will


btw - You all know FFG loves printing expansions. Am I the only one that thought if they expanded CitOW they would add a 5th player to represent the Old World denizens? Instead of being a passive canvans for the wars of the ruinous powers, the Old World would have an active player fighting off their depredations. It could be a neat reversal of recent adventure game trends where the many are "good" and the one is "bad" like MEQ or Descent. Shades of Fortress America?

Unfortunately for me (but fortunately for my bank accounts), this looks like it will absolutely require 3, which means it will rarely if ever see the light of day unless someone builds a VASSAL module.

Bulwyf wrote:

Based off of just reading the rules this looks like a combination area control/ battle game. If El Grande got drunk and decided to slum it AT style by hooking up with Risk Revised, you might get this game. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure.

Ok let's consider the positives. CitOW focuses on one of the coolest aspects of Warhammer mythology, the struggles of the four chaos powers. If you're like me and loved the old Realms of Chaos books, this game's theme is right up your alley. If they properly captured the essence of each power in the game then this might be a winner. I say might because I haven't seen the individual decks or player mats for each power. The rules read clearly and the game presents itself well, so those factors are a plus. Conflict seems like it resolves quickly so that's good (Most of it is rolling d6's), again though the real question is how much do the cards add to the actual gameplay. I could see this one clocking in under the two hour mark, so playtime isn't a concern.

Now for the negatives. It's another area control to score victory points game. I'm not reading anything in this rulebook that we haven't seen somewhere else before, or just totally blows me away. Yeah there are multiple ways to win but I'll bet that more often than not, VPs will be involved in determining the winner. Meh... I admit that I wish CitOW pushed the envelope a bit more. On the other hand CitOW looks very accessible. Perhpas they were going for this and hoping for some cross market sales in say GW retail stores.

In the end I think this game will succeed or fail not on innovation but on how well it imerses the players in its theme. If I'm playing Nurgle do the tools available to me make me feel "Nuglely"? If I'm playing Khorne will the abilities of my minions and the cards in my deck inspire me to slay with abandon? If yes, then this game will work.

Take all this with a grain of salt. Like I said, I've only read the rules. As of right now I'd definitely give it a try. Also I would love to hear from anyone that has actually played it.


-Will


btw - You all know FFG loves printing expansions. Am I the only one that thought if they expanded CitOW they would add a 5th player to represent the Old World denizens? Instead of being a passive canvans for the wars of the ruinous powers, the Old World would have an active player fighting off their depredations. It could be a neat reversal of recent adventure game trends where the many are "good" and the one is "bad" like MEQ or Descent. Shades of Fortress America?

What separates the game seems to be the asymetrical sides. Each side is pushing for a different way to achieve victory with different tools.

The designer did a very good job of setting up a simple, straight-forward and easy to understand system for the game, and then made it interesting by giving each player completely different powers and goals. (This isn't all that surprising when you consider the designer has made alot of LCGs, which work on the same principle) Then throw in Event Cards to keep the map different every time and you've got an interesting and different game.

The rule book only tells about 1/3rd of the story.



The restriction to only 4 players is gonna be the only issue with the game for me.

shryke wrote:

What separates the game seems to be the asymetrical sides. Each side is pushing for a different way to achieve victory with different tools.

Well that's the key isn't it. How well do these assymetrical sides let you get into the character of the Chaos God your playing? Since we only have the rulebook so far, it's too soon to tell.

The designer did a very good job of setting up a simple, straight-forward and easy to understand system for the game, and then made it interesting by giving each player completely different powers and goals. (This isn't all that surprising when you consider the designer has made alot of LCGs, which work on the same principle) Then throw in Event Cards to keep the map different every time and you've got an interesting and different game.

The rule book only tells about 1/3rd of the story.

Agreed. The rules look good on paper. We just need actual session reports at this point.

-Will

Bulwyf wrote:

btw - You all know FFG loves printing expansions. Am I the only one that thought if they expanded CitOW they would add a 5th player to represent the Old World denizens? Instead of being a passive canvans for the wars of the ruinous powers, the Old World would have an active player fighting off their depredations. It could be a neat reversal of recent adventure game trends where the many are "good" and the one is "bad" like MEQ or Descent. Shades of Fortress America?

Could be a good idea, although I'm not sure they actually planned the game with expansions in mind.

At first I was disappointed that each god's deck has only 23 cards (unless I'm remembering wrong) but in light of Bulwyf and shryke's comments that seems like a hopeful sign for the "asymmetrical sides" because you need to be able to have a reasonable expectation of getting certain cards every game as a given god for that god to have a distinct "feel."

I'm excited to play this... I didn't mean to sound like I was anticipating failure in my first post

If someone can tell me how to submit a picture directly instead of a link to another sites pic I'd be appreciative and I'd upload a pic of the game in play. - Ok I figured this out, can I campaign for larger upload image sizes?



I was in a demo for this at GenCon and I think you've hit it on the head Will. It seemed primarily an area control game and even though it has a bit of battling, asymetrical sides, three unit types, some cool round event cards, and interesting wheels that enhance each god's abilities during the game and can lead to an end game condition; I found the game very dry and dull. The minis are cool, the map is cool, the wheels are cool, but the GAME just wasn't there for me.

According to my demonstrator, you technically can play the game with less than 4, though I would imagine it being very poor.

Uh oh, I see a victory point track on the edge of the board. That's just not a good sign from an AT standpoint.

Shellhead wrote:

Uh oh, I see a victory point track on the edge of the board. That's just not a good sign from an AT standpoint.

The VP track is one at least two ways the game can end. The wheels are another (and way cooler) way.

Mr. MOTO, the game is boring? Hmm. That drops this game several notches down my wishlist.

Has anybody that has played this also played Age of Conan? Which feels more like a battle between different armies?

kookoobah wrote:

Mr. MOTO, the game is boring? Hmm. That drops this game several notches down my wishlist.

Let's put it this way... Unlike The Adventurers game that I had watched where people were hooting and hollaring and having fun, no one at the demo table of this showed any emotion during the game and I know that two of the players were usually 'all in' fun and vocal players. It might be someone elses cup o tea, but I think Will summed up the game best.

kookoobah wrote:

Has anybody that has played this also played Age of Conan? Which feels more like a battle between different armies?

I've only played AoC, but let me tell you this: if you attack another player in AoC, there is very little doubt you'll crush him. It's almost impossible to defend your territory. As it takes a while to recruit new troops to launch a campaign, this isn't a really fast moving game. However there are many Kingdom cards that can help you surprise your opponents, Turan especially can launch some pretty fast attacks. It can take a few actions for a player to conquer a neutral territory. If you attack another player and defeat his troops, you then have to launch a campaign to conquer the now-neutral land, so unless it's really profitable to achieve or deny objectives, you're better off going for some more neutral territories.

It's more of a long-term strategy game than a risk-like game where territory changes hand every turn.