Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InfinityDoctor

  1. InfinityDoctor said: I'm afraid I lost interest after the guy running the stand told me I couldn't actually buy anything and wandered off to get a sandwich... Obviously I meant I wandered off to get a sandwich, not the FFG guy...
  2. FFG did indeed have a stand at Games Day, just off the main trading hall. Unfortunately they didn't actually have anything for sale !?! They had two copies of Rogue Trader for people to look at (but not buy) and a locked glass case which contained a sealed Radical's Handbook and Dead Cities (plus the new Warhammer board game/rpg thing and Talisman). I'm afraid I lost interest after the guy running the stand told me I couldn't actually buy anything and wandered off to get a sandwich...
  3. 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...
  4. 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.
  5. InfinityDoctor


    Yep, as discussed in the Play Reports thread, it was available here in the UK a couple of weeks ago, so I bought it when it was out. Miniatures are roughly the same size as the ones in War Of The Ring, although Conan's figure is a little taller than the rest. The troop and emissary figures are different for each nation, but towers and forts are the same across the board.
  6. What are your feelings towards Radicalism opposed to Puritanism? Puritanism represents the current, accepted canonical beliefs and practices of the Ministorum. Radicalism is a means of pushing the boundaries of those beliefs, by examining, exploring and expanding upon their meaning. Both paths hold their own dangers. Puritanism maintains the ecclesiastical status quo, but invites stagnation of thought. Radicalism offers expansion and new thinking, but risks shifting the teachings and beliefs of the Ministorum too far from their intended centre. Are these terms well defined enough to even bring up debate? The definitions are relatively straightforward - one stays within Ministorum canon, the other goes beyond it. However, the beliefs and practices associated with each can change according to the accepted beliefs and practices of the Ministorum at any given time. The debate, I suspect, should be more concerned with how far a loyal servant of the Emperor's Light should be allowed to go in order to redefine the ecclesiastical norm, before being considered truly heretical. Does each Ordos of the Inquisition require one ideal over the other? The Ordo Hereticus, by its very nature, must cleave to the Puritanical in order to maintain a balanced approach to Inquisitorial justice. Ordos Xenos and Malleus deal with highly unorthodox enemies and situations, and as such, stepping outside of the tenets of established faith, while dangerous, will sometimes be required in order to better oppose those enemies and situations.
  7. I'd say its a prelude to the main campaign, especially considering the questions raised in the final block of text on p.221
  8. I actually bought the game last week, and at £60 it wasn't cheap! I've only played 2 player so far, and while I don't think the game is terrible, I do agree with some of the points b_Sol Invictus raised. I should point out that we did have fun with the game, but none of us are master strategists by any stretch, we're mostly into roleplaying games with the odd boardgame as a break. As such, I guess I'm not considered a serious strategy gamer, so bear that in mind when reading my comments below. Taking the first game as an example, I played Stygia, the other player was Aquilonia. I know the rules recommend Aquilonia vs Turan for a 2 Player game, but I always liked the Stygians, so we chose to ignore that, and that may have had an adverse effect on game balance. I started out with the Cobra Crown, the Aquilonia player had the Heart of Tamuz. He also won the bidding for control of Conan at the start of the game. Now, a word about Conan. Throughout our game, he didn't have a very great effect on proceedings. That might be just because we were both a bit rubbish and didn't use him properly, but he basically served one of two purposes - a means to grab Adventure Tokens, or a means to drop Raider Tokens. The randomness that Sol mentioned was definately a problem here, cos the first adventure we drew was The Frost Giant's Daughter, which kept Conan pretty much out of the way of both of us initially, and later draws sent him into Turan, similarly out of the way. I know we could have moved him towards our own realms, but that would have meant sacrificing Adventure Tokens which are needed later. Some odd rolls of the Fate Dice kept the military actions very limited, with Court+Conan and Intrigue being the majority of our moves. This led to a lot of cards being drawn and a couple of towers being built. The proliferation of Court+Conan dice (which happened more than once) also meant that the adventures were being completed pretty quickly, again a nod to Sol's complaints about the random nature of the game. Kingdom Cards are a definite must in this game. I had a couple of Play On The Table ones, Personal Guard Of The Ivory Throne and Holy Soldiers of Khemi were pretty heavy deciding factors in battles and campaigns respectively. Sorcery Tokens, too, are a must. I started with two, and the advantage gained by having a complete re-roll was a decent one. We actually found we weren't really coming into conflict with each other an awful lot though, I think we only contested Western Shem and Argos during the entire game - again though, that may be an artefact of the 2 player game itself. Suffice to say, the game ended with myself as the winner, even though the Aquilonian player successfully crowned Conan as King. This leads me to a final grumble - the crowning of Conan doesn't have much of an effect on the final outcome unless both players are very close in Empire points. An extra 3 points and the removal of the ability to win points by having the most treasure tokens didn't make up for the fairly large gap that had opened between us. Finally, yep, the game was fun, the Kingdom Cards have the Conan flavour to them, even if some of the other elements don't, and it might be a bit simplistic for the more tactically minded folks out there, but we kinda liked it.
  • Create New...