Legends of Andor

It's hitting my FLGS this weekend and I know some of you guys have played it. Can anyone tell me whether this is worth getting? I like the story driven idea of it but so far the reviews I've read are a little mixed particularly when it comes to replayability.

It seemed at one point to be getting a fair amount of love here but I'm not sure how that held up.

Edit: I've been away for the summer so I missed Barnes's Boss Monster review (just read it after reading Egg's post) and in it, he talks about Legends and how's he liking it so far, so there's that.

Legends of Andor is a fantastic game. It is well worth picking up. The retail price was cheap in comparison to other games of a similar nature. Some of this is no doubt due to there being no plastic minis but rather cardboard standees in the game. Don't worry though. The standees are great there is a little tower and even a big ass dragon.

There are I think 12 scenarios in the box. Six on the surface and 6 when you go into "the cave". The board is double sided to reflect topside and below. Each scenario is linked story wise to give the whole game a unified story. That's pretty cool.

The scenarios have aspects of exploration, finding items, defeating specific monsters, all the while defending the castle from invasion.

The game play is different than most in that one of the key mechanics is that every time you "kill" a monster you advance the game clock. The end result is that there are times where you need to avoid killing or to choose very carefully which monster to kill otherwise you could run out the game clock and lose.

The replayability of the game I don't feel is a big issue. Are the scenarios more fun the first time through. Absolutely. Will you have to do some of them more than once to succeed, yes. Will you get your money's worth? I think so. There are at least 12 gaming sessions in that box and probably more. $50-ish retail. I think it pans out. Is it a game you can play over and over forever? No probably not.

The one issue is the way the rules are presented. There is no rule book. Instead the game is taught in increments via cards used in the scenarios. Presenting rules needed for that scenario. This is great as you learn however if you put the game aside for any length of time it is a little annoying to flip through those cards to relearn. It becomes a barrier to taking the game off the shelf again. Not a deal breaker but still something to consider.

I really do think it is one of the best adventure/co-ops out there. It looks great, it is challenging, it's reasonably priced and most of all it's fun.

It's a hard call on this one. I like it, but there's a lingering sense of lukewarmness about it. I think it comes across as a pretty ballsy, fairly experimental way to present a rules system but the problem is that it may actually be TOO integrated into the storytelling- I don't think the game really succeeds as a comprehensive system, at least not through the first few scenarios.

The idea is that there isn't really a rulebook other than a setup guide to take you through the first scenaro and a short reference. The rules all come out in the story cards, and the effect is sort of like how the old Avalon Hill games had a "programmed" way of teaching the rules. The problem is that because it's a progessively more complex game, the earlier scenarios seem to lose replayability because there's less of the game in them.

There are some things I really like- it uses the Thebes time mechanic, which is great, and I like that it does focus so much on the story so that the fetch quests and "fight the siege" elements have a stronger context. I like that the co-op portion is meaningful- some players may have to fight the siege, others might have to quest, another might have to do something like rescue farmers before they get eaten. There is some variability built into the scenarios, but it's not really very significant- something might appear in a different area or something.

But then there's a lot of immutable elements...the fog is always on the riverbank, certain events always happen under the same set of circumstances, and the stories are always ultimately the same with a pass/fail resolution.

I think it's a tremendously interesting game and it doesn't really feel or play like anything else. It's very novel. But I'm not sure that in the end it's worth playing over Robinson Crusoe or other adventure games. I think it's definitely worth playing through the full set of scenarios, but I don't know that it's a Forever Shelfer.

I'm tempted even with those caveats. I bought Android despite its flaws for its original game mechanics. I might do the same here. I've had a look at my list of played games and for me a game is good if it gets at least 10 plays...so it sort of meets the bar there.

I'll have to think about it.

Wh-? 12?

I think it's only got 5 scenarios out of the box. Scenario 3 have lots of randomness (especially that each Hero begins with a random quest), so there's that. The other ones have limited random setup, so they're also replayable. For example, Scenario 2 is my choice to play with newbies and non-gamers. It's simple and has coherent story, with small variability in setup (scenario 3 is *brutal*).

And you *will* lose, so you'll play a scenario several times just to win it, and maybe some more.

I really like the fogs on the riverbank. I mean, it's random, but also familiar. There's no particular game balance or anything about it. Fog in river bank. As simple as that.

It's also a very beautiful game. Many people want plastic, but I think for this one, Menzel aced it with his illustrations all over the place, including the cardboard standees.

I stand corrected. Actual scenario count is 6.

Scenario 3 is kind of like the "normal" game, and is replayable at least a few times. Scenarios 4 and 6 on the second boards are rather different.

There is also an expansion due later this year.

That said, I think Crusoe is the better game, but far longer. The best thing about Andor is how the scenario details are such a surprise the first time you play them. They seem absolutely impossible. And you will probably die very badly. Then when you replay, you kind of get an idea what is coming and can start to plan for it.

So even the more scripted scenarios does lend itself to two outings.

I've only played two scenarios, but for me this is one of the worst games i have ever played. The story was bland, the combat system inanely risk like, and the game was very puzzlesc. You need to work out the most efficient moves and actions several moves ahead, not really what i look for in a fantasy story.

I think what Frank says is accurate in terms of replayability/longevity. That surprise element of having no idea what's coming next is priceless...but it doesn't last. It doesn't really affect the replay, just how you approach it and anticipate it.

What Duke says also rings uncomfortably true to a degree. The stories are pretty bland and the world feels flimsy and generic. What he says about planning moves and actions several moves ahead ties into losing the sense of discovery in a scenario because you know what sequence things are going to happen with limited variability.

I don't know, I admire the game and I really like a lot of what's going on in it, but it just doesn't seem to follow up on its own promise. Maybe an expansion will help, I don't know.

On the one hand I'm tempted by a novel story driven game system. On the other, I'm hearing it's a false and empty promise.

If the best part of the game is discovering the story for the first time, then it seems to me it's a non starter unless it's supported by expansions. I should probably wait for one. Then again, if everyone decided to do that....

The discovery part is amazing. There is story, but it is linear. No way around that without a complex system (such as Crusoe's).

But there are two things that stand out for me about the game.

The first is how the game is created. There is a sense of personality to the board. The small details. The monster path. To the way the areas divided. Haven't feel this way for a very long time. This is very different from a lot of FFG games which are more mechanical. I'm not sure if it's just me, but FFG games of late seem to be taking the "safer path", especially with text on cards or special location.

On of my gripes of Android (which is one of my favorite games) is the generic location abilities. +1 to this. +1 to that. Get 1 token. Oh, so boring. Let me get drunk, throw me to the street and mugged. Same with cards. This happens across their games. It seems that they're designed from top to bottom. So locations positions and types were "averaged", cards simplified, etc. I suppose they do this to avoid "conflicting rules".

Andor feels more courageous in this one. Fog on the river bank. Unequal movement paths. I find something awesome now and then.

The second is the tactical/strategic play which, as Duke said, can be "puzzly" (which is good in my book). Now, for my taste, it's a little bit too difficult (esp. adventure #3). But there's definitely good game in there so the repetitive story is not as bad as it sounds. I really enjoy that you have to plan ahead, while adjusting to rising problems. Andor map is *big*, and once you send someone out there alone, you have to be sure you want to. Planning for this is quite exciting. While the discovery part is fun, the full knowledge an adventure is also important for the planning.

mikecl wrote: On the one hand I'm tempted by a novel story driven game system. On the other, I'm hearing it's a false and empty promise.

If the best part of the game is discovering the story for the first time, then it seems to me it's a non starter unless it's supported by expansions. I should probably wait for one. Then again, if everyone decided to do that....

Attachment the-scream-18931.jpgBlog.jpg not found

I believe that story-driven game systems are generally the worst form possible for delivering stories. It is a kind of weird dichotomy. For a linear, tightly scripted story to really work as a story, it probably has to be so tightly scripted that there isn't really a game.

Random capriciousness probably works better. There are some other techniques as in Star Saga which uses multiple arcs. Very few games have a box of books to back them, of course.

Andor isn't a story game. It is a tightly-themed puzzle game created by an evil man who just likes to fuck with people. The primary thematic driver in Andor isn't the story. It is the revelations and sheer abuse that it heaps on you.

I agree wholeheartedly with board games as the worst story-telling platform. Fortunately that was not what I was looking for in Andor. I've got Talisman for emergent story stuff. Was interested in Mage Knight, but I face enough numbers in my day job.

I don't disagree but still loved Android and Tales of the Arabian Nights for their quirky story driven game systems so there's exceptions to every rule.

I know nothing really about Andor but described it as story driven based on what I'd read. Thanks for setting it straight. It's one of the reasons I come here.

So, now that has been years, what do you think about Legends of Andor?

I'm looking for a coop to play with my so in PT-BR, I have three options:

LotR LCG R$150 ($62,50) small expansions for R$40 ($16,66);
Eldritch Horror R$225 ($93,75) no expansions yet but both promised; and
Legends of Andor R$250 ($104,16)

I'm leaning Eldritch, but I'm not feeling the love here in F:AT, none of those is also an option, but although sensible a rather boring one.