Articles Reviews Wizard Kings - Boardgame Review
 

Wizard Kings - Boardgame Review Wizard Kings - Boardgame Review Hot

Wizard KingsI have to do penance. Horrible, painful penance. Because I have done the thing that makes reviewers everywhere look like greedy douchebags - I asked for a game, got it in the mail, and never reviewed it. For, like, eight years or something. To express my shame, I will force myself to live with pygmy goats and eat only frozen waffles.

Eight years ago (give or take two or three) I requested a copy of Columbia Games' Wizard Kings. It looks cool, with a built-in fog-of-war element made possible by hidden blocks and a fantasy theme and geomorphic boards, and so I was thrilled when they sent it to me. Not thrilled enough to play it, I guess, because not only did I forget to review the game, I forgot I ever got one. I was reminded when, in a fit of unjustifiable stupidity, I asked for a copy - again. This was six months ago, and they reminded me that they had already sent me the game. So I went to look for the review, and it's not there. I never wrote it.

So I bought another one. And I have to say, I kind of wish I hadn't asked for it eight years ago. After receiving a review copy, then not writing about it, then forgetting I ever got it, I really want to write a positive review to make up for all that. But I can't, because I really don't like this game at all. I feel so bad that I'm going to have to wear a hairnet made of stinging earwigs.

Wizard Kings really does look like it has a lot of potential. It comes with seven different armies in one box, and after you finish putting stickers on all the blocks, you could play all kinds of battles with them. There are four different maps in the box, so you can build all different kinds of islands to fight over, and the rules are relatively uncomplicated.

When you start playing, it keeps looking cool. You're trying to take cities from your enemies so that you can win, and there's a lot of maneuvering and positioning and timing your attacks for maximum potency. There are stacking limits and movement limits and special terrain effects, and this makes for a pretty cool setup.

Until you get in a fight. It's all downhill after that.

This seems like it should be pretty cool. You set up, take turns whacking each other with sharp sticks, rolling dice and counting your dead. Only the odds of hitting each other is so ridiculously low with so many of the units in the game that you're practically sitting there watching the dice flip you the bird. We seriously had fight after fight where nobody ever got hurt and then someone had to go home because Mom was calling them for dinner. It was incredibly frustrating - you send a big stack of warriors into the woods to bust a cap into some enemy ass, and then you just take turns rolling dice and cussing.

The thing is, this dice thing is the only problem I have with the game. The maps work great. They could be prettier, but they work great. The blocks are awesome, because you can track unit strength just by turning the block. You can cast spells and shoot fireballs, raise skeletons and summon orcs, and do it all on a blood-soaked field... except that hardly anyone actually gets killed, so the only blood on the field happened when the amazon charmer cuts her legs shaving.

It's really not as bad as I'm making it sound. We did have casualties, every now and then. Not a lot, or anything, and not nearly enough to be satisfying, but once or twice, somebody did die. It just wasn't enough to make the game fun. You maneuver and position and wait for the right moment to strike, then realize that your entire battle plan was based on a bunch of guys who couldn't hit ground if they fell off the roof.

I'm actually kind of considering giving Wizard Kings another try, but just adding one to the combat value for every unit. This would make battles go crazy fast, and probably give too much advantage to the faster guys, but it would at least make the fights end in a body count. Plus, maybe then I would like the game, and I could come out here and go, 'Hey, it turns out, I don't actually mind this game!' And then I could take all the carpet tacks out of my pillow case.

 Summary

2-7 players (yes, really!)

Pros:
Cool maps that can be combined to make neat battlegrounds
Clever use of blocks means you can track changing stats without any kind of accounting
Mostly a pretty good game

Cons:
Any pros are completely negated by the dice mechanic that ends in pacifism

If you want to give this one a whirl, you can get it from Columbia Game:
DOES NOT COME WITH STINGING EARWIGS

Powered by JReviews
Comments (11)
  • avatarldsdbomber

    damn this reminds me I got a copy of a game maybe even longer ago than 8 years and also never reviewed it after getting it free.
    I have been inspired by your article to contact the author and pay for it, and thus avoid having to actually play and review it!

  • avatarDukeofChutney

    I had a copy of this for a while, 1st ed with a couple of expansions that i got in a trade. I traded it on after a few plays. I agree with the lack of danger in battles. I mostly traded it on however because i felt it wasn't nearly as interesting as the historic games from columbia. The historic games tend to be more asymetrical and require a more varied strategy. I guess if found WK a little simplistic. It does have the benefit of taking more than 2 players, and being very customize able.

  • avatarMichael Barnes

    Ha! It happens. I think I have two games that I recieved and never reviewed, not counting stuff that was sent to me unsolicited. One of them was a game so bad that I felt that ANY coverage would be a disservice to the publisherand designer.

    I really want to like Wizard Kings because I do like the Columbia system, but it seems like this game requires a huge commitment in terms of purchasing, setup, scenario design, and so forth that I'm just not interested in making. They made it worse by having random booster packs.

    But at the end of the day, the game is just extremely generic. Their other games leverage just a small amount of historical detail and chrome to make them interesting, this one just can't seem to pull it off.

  • avatarscissors

    Ha love all the forms of punishment described - hairnet full of earwigs, pillow full of tacks - great stuff!

  • superrph

    Thanks for the review & comments, they reflect what I have read on CSW. I think I may just sell off my unpunched/unstickered game & expansions.

  • avatarFury

    I have the original with a bunch of armies. My buddies and I liked it quite a bit. I don't remember having problem knocking off enemy blocks. I wonder if there are some rule changes in the 2nd edition?

    Scenario selection/design is key for a good game of Wizard Kings. Even in 1st edition the starting scenario is too even and not worth playing. You need to dig around for good scenarios; like attacker/defender, one guy has to rush treasure across a map before someone else captures it, one guy is running out of resources while the other is gaining, or other turn dependant objectives.

    P

  • avatarDogmatix

    Conversely, this is the only of columbia's "A-B-C" games that I actually like. I *despise* Hammer of the Scots, Crusader Rex, and the rest. (Oh, and Rommel in the Desert is fucking brilliant. It was on the strength of *that* game that I tried the newer games and developed my deep, deep loathing for the whole approach to wargaming.

    I also don't remember having so many problems damaging units. I'll have to break this one out again as it's been a couple of years....

  • avatarlj1983

    a matter of expectations maybe? most of the block games have units who hit on a 1, elite units on a 1-2, and really badass units are hitting %50 on a 1,2,3.

    2nd edition also has some pretty severe stacking limits, that make it really hard for an attacker to break into a determined defender's hex.

  • avatarThunder  - Defensive Game

    I have all the First Edition stuff and played it a bunch of times. I ignored the second edition stuff because of the collectibility crap.

    The ONLY problem with the first edition is....who ever attacked first - lost.
    Pretty Much Every Game.

    The road limits and stacking limits combined with the defender firing first leads to a crippling defensive game. I know why the stacking limits are so low, because of the low block density on the maps. It makes sense to give the defender an advantage of some type, and firing first seems reasonable. But the two combined just doesn't work.

    I wanted a game where units were attacking and counter attacking and all kinds of mayhem was taking place. The spell system is simple and easy to use, the game really is well put together. I have kept all my first edition stuff and hope that someday someone makes some decent combat rules.

    Peace

  • avataredulis

    If you are looking to sell it (hopefully cheap since you don't like it?) I might be interested.

  • avatarcraniac

    I am selling a combined first and second edition set with eight armies, sixteen maps and 300+ blocks on Ebay right now. I have had some really fun games with my kids, but they are into electronic games now and I have some bills to pay. Unleashing hidden units on people is fun, as are flying units. The 2.0 rules fix some of the problems with combat, and there's an economic engine in the game too.

Only registered users can write comments!
Text Size

Top