Jump to content

Smeelbo

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Smeelbo

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Carmichael, California, United States
  1. I've only played a few games so far, but I've really enjoyed every one so far. For beginners, 10 Influence per player makes for a short game that ends just about the right time: people have learned the rules, explored some strategies, and are full of ideas for the next game. With more experienced players, I'd suggest 15 or even 20 Influence per player (I have not tried the "King" variant yet). Our short games have all been 3-4 turns, not really enough time I think to use all the goodies that are there. Our last game was 3 turns, and only two of each triggered phase. I think 5 to 7 turns would really make a different game. I do think that the length of Warrior Knights is greatly effected by group play style. I think that more aggressive play, for example, attacking Strongholds and seiging player cities, would reduce the consumption of influence per turn, and make the game last longer, and probably tighter. I will try to initiate more aggressive play next time and see what happens ("I'm attacking you as an experiment, nothing personal mind you...") It may well be that 10 Influence per player was chosen with more aggressive play in mind. Smeelbo
  2. I own both the main game and Crown and Glory, but am trying to get the most out of the main game before I try adding the expansion in. From my reading of the rules as well as community feedback, Warrior Knights is much improved by Crown and Glory. There are lots of little but worthwhile improvements, such as a larger Fate deck, and the new Draw 1 Fate/Retreat results, as well as more significant changes, such as the Scholar, new Agendas and Events, Garrisons, Levies, and the new Action Cards, which look like they help move the game along. The King Variant makes for a longer game, and for shorter games, the Mission Cards might add spice. It seems like most people prefer 4-5 players, and a lot of game players prefer to avoid the much tighter competition involved with the maximum number of players, not just for Warrior Knights, but other games as well, such as Caylus. I like the challenge of a tighter game once I feel comfortable with the rules and strategy, but when I am still learning a game, a looser set up is more forgiving and therefore more fun. I don't see Warrior Knights as needing another published expansion. Look at Power Grid or Age of Steam: there are at least a dozen variant boards for each, mostly by fans. I can see room for a few more maps: maybe one with some large islands instead of one mainland, a penninsular map, something like Italy, made especially for three players, and maybe a more open six player map for beginners. But unless you wanted to produce your own Fate Cards, you'd have to stick with the city names already given. There have been a few other variants proposed. Some were listed in the site previous to the site previous to this site, but so far as I can tell, all that material has been lost. I haven't abused my Warrior Knights game enough as it is, and am not eager for a published expansion. Alternate maps might be cool, though. Smeelbo
  3. A poster at BoardGameGeek pointed out that you do the following to find the FAQ for Warrior Knights: FGG Website -> Catalog -> Board Games -> Warrior Knights -> Support Which yields: http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=48&esem=4 However, using the nearly invisible search function (the text box is invisible and pre-filled), yields no useful results for "Warrior Knights FAQ" or even "FAQ." I vastly prefered the website at least two redesigns ago, which I point out, had a far more active community. Indeed, I vastly prefer Board Game Geek, where there is an active community that answers questions in a timely fashion, and which is rationally designed. Smeelbo
  4. I find this the least useful incarnation of the forum so far. First, the design is over-elaborate and amateurish. White letters on black backgrounds? There is a reason nobody does this. I find it hard to believe that the web designer here is really trained in graphic design, as the evidence suggests otherwise. But more telling is the lack of content. The forum previous to the previous forum (or perhaps the one previous to that, I'm not sure, but not the immediately previous forum) had all kinds of content for Warrior Knights, for example. Posted games by e-mail with commentary, tutorials, strategy guides, active discussions. Even an FAQ, which if it exists, is not noted in the forum. In contrast this new new site has almost no content, all the old articles are gone, and almost no activity. I'll come back to see if much has changed, but compared to Board Game Geek, which is run by actual amateurs, but serves its purpose very well, the support for Warrior Knights is far in excess of what I see here, and I suspect is the case for most other FFG games. If this were government work, I'd suspect someone spent money just so they could funnel it to their pals. Smeelbo
  5. So this is at least the third FFG forum I've seen, but why? I went looking for some answers I had gotten earlier, and the forum had moved, and all the previous posts lost. Later, I went back to the "new" forum, only to find there was a new new forum. What is the deal? I can't find any of the information from the earlier forum with more content, there seems to be almost no content in this new forum. Why throw away content that served the players of the game? I can't even find the FAQ anymore. Where is it? Here is a rules question/observation: Re-reading the rules, I found an apparent anomaly. On page 14, under Battles, while it states that only attacking armies lead by an unexhausted noble may participate, under Declare Commanders below, both attacker and defender may choose any noble in the area to attack. While I understand the defender has to be able to choose an exhausted noble to command, otherwise they would often be commanderless, it seems odd that the attacker may also chose an exhausted noble to command. Is this really the case? Can I really move troops into an area with an unexhausted noble, but use an exhausted noble that is already there to command my troops? This seems counter-intuitive, and unnecessary. Smeelbo P.S. WHITE letters on BLACK background? Is the intent of this new new forum to discourage its use? Seems like it. NO ONE does white letters on black background, and for a very good reason. It just makes the web designer appear amateurish.
×
×
  • Create New...