1066, Tears to Many Mothers Review
You're presuming Harold is less Danish than William?
"As a good Englishman, I take the part of Harold and William is my Foe."
I've been looking at this game since they first put out the PR push a couple of years back. It's right in my pocket as far as theme, but I've been concerned that it doesn't have a map and appears to be closer in ancestry to Magic the Gathering than any wargame. That's not a showstopper, but enough of an issue to make me wait until the critter is available and people I know have put eyes on it. This review certainly is a vote in its favor.
I don't mind the luck, and frankly, considering the warfare of the day it's almost a necessary part of a design if you're going to attempt to evoke the setting. An arrow in the eye is bad luck indeed, but it wasn't uncommon for a king or prince to have to ride in front of his own troops with his helmet off to prove that he is still alive, as unfounded rumors of a leader being killed would race through the troops in a heartbeat.
Artwork is a selling point for me, as is name-dropping, which you seem to indicate happens aplenty in this game. It never hurts to have a game that fits in your glovebox either, and if this is a cards-only game that is an advantage as well.
So, to heck with the map. I think this may be a birthday gift next month.
The questions --
1. You said there were lots of cards. How many, and how many does a typical play go through? I'd be curious to know if there are 200 and you use 20, or 100 and you use 40.
2. Does it include a card for Halley's Comet? Because if it doesn't, I'M OUT.
Sagrilarus wrote: It's right in my pocket as far as theme, but I've been concerned that it doesn't have a map and appears to be closer in ancestry to Magic the Gathering than any wargame.
That's very much the case. I have zero problems with this given how little certainty we have about the battle - no-one is even sure exactly where it took place - and how tactically dull dark age warfare generally was.
Sagrilarus wrote: 1. You said there were lots of cards. How many, and how many does a typical play go through? I'd be curious to know if there are 200 and you use 20, or 100 and you use 40.
There are 76 in each side's deck. How many you see during a game varies quite a lot but I'd guess on average it's probably around half. However, because they're used as currency a significant number of those won't actually get played: your realistic card selections each game vary hugely. Expensive cards, for example, are much more likely to see play if drawn late, otherwise they're more likely to be discarded to pay for earlier, cheaper cards.
Sagrilarus wrote: 2. Does it include a card for Halley's Comet? Because if it doesn't, I'M OUT.
A caveat: read the card carefully. It does nothing and is simply discarded at the end of the first turn so it's only effect is to lengthen the objective timer for both players by a turn. As the first objective, though, you will see it every game, so there's that.
jur wrote: So I gather it's a good game, but it seems pretty highly priced for what is essentially a card game. What do you think?
Yes, it is. This has come up before and the designer's take on it was that it took just as much design and development as a physically bigger game and so warrants a similar price tag and shelf space (the box, as I mentioned, is enormous given the contents). Make of that what you will: although the price tag is high for a card game, it is cheaper than most actual board games.