Jump to content



Photo

Key differences with War of the Ring/Risk?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 silenceindigo

silenceindigo

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 01 December 2008 - 03:19 PM

From the few reports at Boardgamegeek, I wonder: are there key differences with CONAN and those games, making them worth buying them (all)?

 



#2 silenceindigo

silenceindigo

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:13 PM

Now that the rules are available, I see more differences, but there are some similarities at the core nevertheless it seems...



#3 Omnicrazzy

Omnicrazzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 07 March 2009 - 11:16 AM

I'm guessing it's more like the MMO that isn't doing so well?



#4 flervk

flervk

    Member

  • Members
  • 126 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:52 AM

Omnicrazzy said:

I'm guessing it's more like the MMO that isn't doing so well?

 

a little OT: MMO's first chapter/section is great and you really get your hopes high. after that, it's all downhill; I was totally bored, so I've sold my account and never looked back.

back on-topic: hopefully, the board version won't be like that.



#5 InfinityDoctor

InfinityDoctor

    Member

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 09 March 2009 - 12:18 PM

silenceindigo said:

From the few reports at Boardgamegeek, I wonder: are there key differences with CONAN and those games, making them worth buying them (all)?

 

Its been a while since I played War Of The Ring (I have the main game plus the expansion), I've only ever played Star Wars RISK, and Conan is fresher in my mind because we only played it last week, after I bought it.

For me, CONAN is a simplified version of War Of The Ring. Both use an Action Dice mechanic (whereas RISK uses fixed phases) but there are fewer actions involved. There are only two unit types in CONAN - emissaries and troops, and they act independently (they perform different, mutually exclusive tasks).

CONAN has only a single special character (Conan himself), whereas War of the Ring has several, and Conan's influence on the game is perhaps somewhat less than that of the Fellowship or Companions.

Those are the most immediate differences.

 

 

 



#6 MGBM

MGBM

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 09 March 2009 - 02:42 PM

InfinityDoctor said:

For me, CONAN is a simplified version of War Of The Ring. Both use an Action Dice mechanic (whereas RISK uses fixed phases) but there are fewer actions involved. There are only two unit types in CONAN - emissaries and troops, and they act independently (they perform different, mutually exclusive tasks).

CONAN has only a single special character (Conan himself), whereas War of the Ring has several, and Conan's influence on the game is perhaps somewhat less than that of the Fellowship or Companions.

 

So saying Age Of Conan is WotR-lite with better 4 player support wouldn't be too far fetched?



#7 Tsugo

Tsugo

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:38 AM

MGBM said:

So saying Age Of Conan is WotR-lite with better 4 player support wouldn't be too far fetched?

That was my initial thought, however, in the designer notes, Francesco Nepitello had this to say:

Action Dice - now Fate Dice
Once this basic structure was defined, we started to create the mechanics, using the backbone of the WotR game: the action dice system. Now, this was actually the second time that we adapted the action dice system to another game, as we already designed the two “operational level” games of Rohan and Gondor included in the Battles of the Third Age expansion for WotR. These two battles are quite close to the original game, but in the end I think they really stand as independent entities, both in terms of mechanics and gameplay. In Conan, a much greater differentiation would emerge through the design and development stages, differences so significant that in the end I think that Age of Conan and War of the Ring can be considered just remote relatives, possibly more distant, for example, than the card-driven Hannibal and We the People.

The main reason behind this separation is due to the fact that we aimed to make AoC a true multiplayer game. The option of multiple players rolling their own iconic dice sets to generate their available actions (as in WotR) would need so many dice to make the game an expensive choice even for opulent Turanians... So, we started to explore a common set of dice, rolled to form a pool of results accessible in turn by all players. We realized that such an approach would bring additional benefits: the system, modified and polished in different iterations, proved to be a very smooth engine, able to offer players variable limited options to create tension, but also suggesting a gaming mood very suited to the source material, with players fighting over the available actions, and sometimes invited to use a die result only to prevent another player to profit from it, as a treacherous ruler must rightly do to hinder his adversaries.

 

I've not had a chance to play it.  I get my copy today.  Take it for what  you will.  WotR is one of my favorite games.  Hopefully, AoC will provide equal amounts of enjoyment.



#8 InfinityDoctor

InfinityDoctor

    Member

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 10 March 2009 - 07:52 AM

I, obviously, have played it.

Its perhaps disingenuous to call it "War Of The Ring Lite", but the mechanics in CONAN are much simpler. There is some degree of tension (perhaps frustration) in using the common dice pool - especially when its down to a couple of actions and the other player nicks the one you wanted...






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS