Warrior Knights: Two Different Games with the Same Title

Read more...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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?

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.