Blood Rage

Ah Blood Rage. I was hoping someone would talk about that here. I posted my initial impression of it somewhere here. It wasn't favorable. I thought it was a more point crunchy, efficiency driven, theme-less game than any other dudes on a map game. But that was one play and I'd happily play it again. I don't want to decide which actions will net me the most points every action, and the Viking theme itself didn't add anything to the game. Each faction is identical barring the molds and the one or two upgrade/monster cards you can use - and those seemed to be of the "+1" in battle type like Kemet. Same with the battle aspect, very Kemet-ish but without the unique power tiles and instead using cards. Based on one play it was a mix of two games I love, Kemet and Chaos in the Old World, and simpler and more point crunchy, neither of which I want. I'm almost alarmed at the overwhelming hype/praise for this game when it was very blah for me. I could be way off base and love it if I get a chance to play it again.

I think you are way off base.

It definitely is a synthesis of Kemet and Chaos though. I'm not sure why you would feel it's more about points than Chaos in the Old World?

Your factions end up far more asymmetrical than one or two upgrades in my opinion. You have around 8 upgrade slots on your board for different types of units. It's definitely not as asymmetrical as something Chaos but each player will definitely be engaging the game to win in different ways and it will feel like a completely different experience.

Dan Thurot posted a great review of it yesterday which sums up why I love it - It's so immediate and instantly gratifying. You throw down guys and you're butting heads from the get-go. There's no hiding, no turtling. It's fist to face with huge toy miniatures.

Also, originally the factions had different values/powers, but CoolMini took them out as they didn't want to force players down one specific avenue of victory.

Scott, your impression was the only response to my thread asking to sell me on it and I was super grateful for your post. I was craving it after the early reports but a needed reality check and evaluating the points you bring up seems to point that I may fall more into your camp then what seems to be the general consensus. I will happily give it a shot when the time comes, but to push out the masterful games that currently fill that slot when I have those types of players available (Dune, Runewars, etc.) its gonna have to be fantastic.

The card drafting to create asymmetry seems interesting but I think I'll have to play it in person to see if it falls on being more gamey and number crunchy OR just plain fun.

I missed that thread, sorry - did you post it during Gen Con?

I wouldn't put it in the same category as Runewars or Dune because it only takes 70-90ish minutes with 3 experienced players. It's more in the Cyclades/Kemet/Chaos in the Old World/Hyperborea realm. It's not going to feel as epic as Runewars or Forbidden Stars, as it's more fast paced and brutal with huge churning through of units into Valhalla.

Also, I think it's best with 3 (although it's solid with 4), which puts it in a unique place.

That kills it for me. I'd rather play Risk if we're talking about a game that has static factions with no advantages/disadvantages. That's old-school design that should've died with the dinosaurs.

SuperflyTNT wrote: That kills it for me. I'd rather play Risk if we're talking about a game that has static factions with no advantages/disadvantages. That's old-school design that should've died with the dinosaurs.

Have you researched the game at all Pete? You draft upgrade cards each round those upgrades stay with you the entire game.

So my warriors may deploy in pairs while yours have +1 strength when pillaging. I will have a Fire Troll while you may have a Sea Serpent. Additionally, I may get rewarded with Glory (VP) when my guys go into Valhalla, wanting me to sacrifice dudes in battle left and right.

What's interesting is that you draft these upgrades along with Quests (another path to Glory) and Battle Cards. So you have to make a conscious choice on which path you're going towards.

Edit - One thing to be clear on is that this is definitely a hybrid and not a straight up AT game. As earlier, it's more similar to Kemet/Cyclades/Chaos in the Old World than Nexus Ops.

Actually it was right after GenCon... inspired by your claim that you no longer needed CitOW.
fortressat.com/forum/10-ameritrash/197733-sell-me-on-blood-rage

The type of gamers that will play Blood Rage in my circles are the type that will say... well lets just try to get 6 so we can play TI or Dune. If we don't get to that number then it would have a chance to hit the table, but the game of choice's length doesn't really matter just the experience.

I'd like to add more about Blood Rage but after one play I don't really think thats fair. My main criticism is first that the sides are identical with the exception of 2-3 upgrades you can get, and those upgrades, while they may look like a cool unique monster, often really come down to "this unit can be placed in Yggdrasail (sp) and has a +1 strength". So the upgrades to me looked like cool molds with a +1 or +2 to battle; not really unique and more along the Kemet lines of upgrades but without the depth and variety of Kemet. Second the point salad aspect of it bothered me a bit. You get points from dying in Ragnorak, you get points from winning battles, points from quests, points from maxing stats...whereas in Chaos you get points two ways, and other people are after those very same points, every round. The VP scoring optimization was something I disliked and felt was crunchy.

I enjoyed the game and want to play it again, but I did prefer other games and felt Blood Rage was surprisingly dry given the Viking theme. Maybe with the Gods and Mystics upgrades it will feel more thematic to me. I did play it with four and for whatever reason I understood the game far quicker than the other players and as a result won easily by something like 140 to 90 to 80 to 80. Maybe thats another reason I didn't love it, I won too easily.

Sorry for missing that original thread, might just not have been on the forum for a couple of days.

The Trolls/Giants destroy every warrior in their space when you place them. That's impactful far beyond a +1.

Additionally, they have a higher strength which is somewhat similar to CitOW's units and their combat/battle stat dice pool.

Much of the game is geared towards this sense of immediacy and rapid destruction. Nothing has hit points, whoever wins the battle kills everyone else. Everyone. A huge battle in Yggdrasil with all players will result in armfuls of plastic going to Valhalla.

Guess what? Next round you can throw those guys right back into the fray. The board isn't about locking down areas long term, it's about rapid movement and striking at the right moment. Everything can move so freely and even move in response to a pillage if adjacent, so there's constant jostling.

The point salad thing I will agree with, but the game didn't feel like I was playing a point salad game to me. I think the overt sense of constant battle overruled that in my head but it's definitely something that's worth being cognizant of and could turn people away.

In the two games I played people had far more than 2-3 upgrades though. Most players had 5-6. One guy was all about Quests, another was heavily devoted to sacrificing ships and fighting with warriors, another went heavy on creatures, and I went hard into pushing units into Valhalla.

You know in retrospect - this game feels a bit like Sons of Anarchy with like half the normal locations, although each player can move in response to someone exploiting a location so battles are much more involved and bloody. It also has that stellar draft that SOA doesn't have.

Blood Rage seems to be the grand culmination of hybrid designs. I still can't decide if that's a good thing or not.

All I know is that we might want to wait a few years before we start setting our copies of Chaos in the Old World on fire. CitOW is one of the best games ever made...that's not an opinion, it's a stone cold fact. Blood Rage has barely been out and it seems like it's generating a silly amount of hype.

Blood Rage also might be the ugliest expensive game I've ever seen. The board is a muted snore and while the minis look great, the whole package is kinda drab looking. It reminds me of an early PS3/Xbox 360 game where everything was brown or gray. I'm not a fan of how it looks.

That being said, I'd like to try it and see what the fuss is all about.

charlest wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote: That kills it for me. I'd rather play Risk if we're talking about a game that has static factions with no advantages/disadvantages. That's old-school design that should've died with the dinosaurs.

Have you researched the game at all Pete? You draft upgrade cards each round those upgrades stay with you the entire game.

I thought that was what I was doing...listening to you guys!

The upgrades sound kind of lame, and I go back to the complaint that a good modern DOAM game design should include variable, persistent player powers as WELL as upgrades. This sounds like someone took bits from other designs and smooshed it into a new one that the consensus says "YMMV".

To be fair, it sounds a lot like Cyclades, which would be awesome if I didn't have Cyclades. And with the art complaints, it sounds like an ugly Cyclades, which is not attractive to me at all.

Just my 2c. Still looking to get fucking Runewars. The bastard who offered it to me for 40$ backed out and is now auctioning it for 75$, at which point it's just too much money for me.

BUMP

Runewars is 75 dollars? Is it OOP?

1st edition with plastic mountains and thick player mats is.

$75 is still not a bad price considering it originally retailed for $100. Shipping that fucker is gonna cost though given the large box size.