×
Coming the Week of November 18th (18 Nov 2019)

We have reviews of Horrified, Kingdomino Duel, Dragon Market, Flesh & Blood, and Rolled West. "Why Do I Own This" and "Beyond the Veil" returns. And more TBA

Warrior Knights: Two Different Games with the Same Title

More
24 Jun 2015 00:01 #204891 by wadenels

What started out as a reply to Let's Talk Warrior Knightsis ending up as an article.  So let's talk about Warrior Knights of 1985 and 2006, in 2015.

Read more...
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose, Mr. White

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2015 16:04 #204892 by Sagrilarus
I very much enjoy both games, though the original is more my thing. "Clean" is the proper word to describe it. I'll be honest, I had a devil of a time with the card combat in the new version just because it seemed so convoluted in comparison to the original. Constricting as well.

S.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Dr. Mabuse

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2015 16:55 #204895 by southernman
I quite liked the card combat even though I love rolling the dice. I've played the FFG edition a few times but it's a hard game to get out as you need the right crowd and, being best with 5 or 6 players, it always has competition when I do have that crowd from lots of other great games.
I have had the GW version longer than the FFG one but fate has never conspired to have it played.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2015 17:51 #204896 by mikecl
I have the FFG version of Warrior Knights as well as the Crown and Glory expansion which adds quite a bit of extra stuff: town levies to support armies, garrisons to defend cities and a larger Fate deck,. I bought the game when it was first released and never got the opportunity to play the original. I have to agree though that the FFG version like a lot of FFG designs is definitely on the clunky side and not very intuitive.

It's still good though.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2015 19:25 #204898 by Chapel
I haven't played the FFG version. I have the original, and like it well enough. I even printed out the Iraq map and played once a few years ago. It's a brutal map.

The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Jun 2015 13:02 #204926 by Almalik
Do you have a higher-res version of that map? I found the website link but it looks like it's down.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Jun 2015 13:58 #204930 by Chapel

Almalik wrote: Do you have a higher-res version of that map? I found the website link but it looks like it's down.


You know, I looked for it yesterday. I had the high res version saved off somewhere, and I thought I mailed it to someone years ago on gmail. But haven't been able to find it yet.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Jun 2015 20:05 - 25 Jun 2015 20:11 #204951 by wadenels

Chapel wrote:

Almalik wrote: Do you have a higher-res version of that map? I found the website link but it looks like it's down.


You know, I looked for it yesterday. I had the high res version saved off somewhere, and I thought I mailed it to someone years ago on gmail. But haven't been able to find it yet.


Closest thing I could find was the original artists page on DeviantArt , but it's probably not big enough to make into a game board unless pixelated images get you moist.


EDIT: The Wayback Machine has it .
Last edit: 25 Jun 2015 20:11 by wadenels. Reason: found it
The following user(s) said Thank You: Almalik, Chapel

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jun 2015 00:43 #204971 by Mr. White
Thanks for returning to this, Wade. Knowing you're a GW fan as well as a big fan of the FFG WK, I was hoping I'd get to hear your take on the GW original at some point.

Obviously, I'm a big fan and I agree...the towns and armies...well the 'world', I suppose feel more real in the GW edition. I think, for me, it's because the FFG version is so mechanical that focusing on gaming these subsystems to win pulls me out of the narrative. I also _really_ like the medieval, woodcut look of the card backs in the GW game. Plus ,those little shields are way more functional that the plastic minis of knights on horses. That GW game is a fantastic production.

How do you feel about the viciousness of the Fate cards in the GW game? Do you play them as written? Only draw one for the table per round? Prefer some other house-ruled variant?

What's the deal with this Iraq map? Do you use all the other pieces from the original game?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2015 18:37 #205144 by wadenels

Mr. White wrote: How do you feel about the viciousness of the Fate cards in the GW game? Do you play them as written? Only draw one for the table per round? Prefer some other house-ruled variant?

What's the deal with this Iraq map? Do you use all the other pieces from the original game?


I like the Fate cards. They bring a sense of foreboding to the game, and their viciousness means that you have to stay flexible. I've always really liked vicious and dramatic event type cards; cards like that are among my favorite parts of games like Civilization and Age of Renaissance. I play them as written in WK. I can see why some people feel they're too unbalancing, but I feel they help write a better story for the session.

I haven't played the Iraq map, but there are some basic instructions at the Wayback Machine link above.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.305 seconds