Doubts About Age of Conan

As a fan of REH's Conan stories, I thought this would be an immediate purchase for me. I just finished reading the rules though, and I have to say I'm not so sure about this one. There seems to be plenty of Conan "color" in the game, but I'm not sure about the thematic implementation. Here are some of my observations:

*I find the premise odd, though this is my smallest reservation. Why doesn't anyone actually get to play Conan? The stories are about his exploits, sometimes set against the backdrop of warring kingdoms. I would prefer a Fury of Dracula setup with one player trying to dominate the kingdoms and the others banding together to stop him (perhaps with individual scoring if the kingdoms win). Still, I'm open-minded about it.

*What is bidding for Conan supposed to represent? The bidding tokens don't represent anything in the game space? Why isn't gold used for this?

*I'm not sure about the action dice. Although more flexible than the action selection process in Agricola (though in the latter rounds in Agricola it opens up a little more), it still seems unnecessarily restrictive. I know we have plenty of War of the Ring fans here, so why does this mechanic get a pass?

*Intrigue is just another dice roll contest. I guess Emissaries are there just to soften up provinces. If there wasn't an artificial limit on the number of armies you could have in a province, these units probably wouldn't be needed.

*What are strategy cards in battle supposed to represent? It just seems like a set collection and matching mini-game. I would have preferred to see more meaningful terrain differences, perhaps with the armies from different kingdoms functioning better in certain terrain or more cards in the kingdom deck keyed to terrain.

*What does moving Conan around to complete adventures represent. Am I the ruler of the kingdom or do I control Conan? Why would I have to "help" him complete adventures?

*Bidding for artifacts with adventure tokens and trading them doesn't make any thematic sense. Conan goes on these adventures, I move him around, get some of these tokens, and then bid for items with them?

*The game is VP driven and has multiple ways to score (military conquest, objective cards, adventure tokens, gold) with bonuses for having the most points in each category. There's definitely going to be some optimization going on.

I hope I'm wrong about this one, but I think this is going to fall flat for the Ameritrash crowd. Flavor text and artwork do not equal theme. When I first heard about this game, I assumed Conan would function like an atom bomb that people bid on using real resources to make their military conquests easier. I assumed you'd be able to form temporary alliances with other kingdoms, and that I would be able to take the actions I wanted unless I was under the effects of sorcery. As it stands, it seems to be an overly restrictive, VP-chasing, impress the monarch/provost (Conan) Eurogame that, to its credit, features direct conflict and player elimination in the late game. If my perceptions are correct, that's not going to be enough for me.

Has anyone here demoed this? Please tell me I'm way off base.

I share your concerns.

I can understand why nobody gets to be Conan, because of course everybody wants to be Conan. So right from the start, there is a problem, to play an Ameritrash game about Conan without getting to play Conan.

Since nobody gets to be Conan, it's understandable to shift the players to playing kings of various empires. The setting of Hyperborea is kind of cool, but isn't even a close second to the basic appeal of Conan himself. So another problem is that the scale of the game is wrong. Conan stories did sometimes address major shifts in power in Hyperborea, but the focus was always on Conan and his own adventures.

So I'm going to pass on this game for now. Maybe some really enthusiastic reviews here could change my mind, or maybe I will get a chance to play at some point, but otherwise... not for me.

I got a similar impression but I think it will be real popular with the Shogun/Wallenstein/Friedrich loving "weuro" crowd who don't care that the mechanics and the theme are mostly disconnected. Honestly I think AT people are divided about 50/50 on this style of game so I am sure Conan will get some play here. Plus a lot of games that look like shit when you read the rules are actually a lot of fun when they hit the table. Dune, for example.

Nick Warcholak wrote:

As a fan of REH's Conan stories, I thought this would be an immediate purchase for me. I just finished reading the rules though, and I have to say I'm not so sure about this one.

Same here. But for me, the problem wasn't so much not getting to play Conan — I'm okay with leading some Hyborian Age armies on my own — but the rules themselves.

I don't know what it is with these Nexus guys, but their rules and the engines they build to run their games always leave me mystified. Everything, frankly, seems to have about three too many steps. The War of the Ring rulebook is barely usable; the Marvel Heroes rules are the worst I've ever read (not exaggerating) in a mainstream release. I don't know ... it's like everything is there in Nexus rules, but there's too much of it, and there's no glue helping to hold everything together.

AoC has gone from "for-sure first-day purchase" down to "wait and hope someone posts a good tutorial or video." I just don't have time to fight my rulebooks any longer.

To paraphrase a comment I'd read on the game ... it's like War of the Ring but simpler, shorter and supports more players.

That's pretty much sold as far as I'm concerned. Mind, I've never read any Conan books and know very little about the stories or the world, so a little thematic disconnect isn't going to bother me much. I'm just viewing it as a generic fantasy wargame.

That said, I'm only going to snap buy on this if it turns up as another hugely discounted line on the book depository. Otherwise I'll sit on it for six months and see what opinion on the game looks like then, once people have had a chance to experience multiple plays.

Yeah i was really looking forward to this one, but right now it just feels like it aint gonna be anything special. Conan and the hyborian age have the potential for some monstrous gaming going down, but somehow it feels like "simplified" and "easier" shouldnt be associated with anything CONAN. rather terms like MONSTROUS and CRUSH! and WENCHES! would be better. Well let's just wait and see, but i really dont expect anything from this one even though i really really would like a good conan game.

ubarose wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

I share your concerns.

I can understand why nobody gets to be Conan, because of course everybody wants to be Conan.

What are we, 6 year olds? Give me a break.

Okay, I forgot about Red Sonja.

ubarose wrote:

What are we, 6 year olds? Give me a break.

Have you been keeping up with the forums?

Shellhead wrote:

ubarose wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

I share your concerns.

I can understand why nobody gets to be Conan, because of course everybody wants to be Conan.

What are we, 6 year olds? Give me a break.

Okay, I forgot about Red Sonja.

Ha!

There are some cool secondary characters in the Conan canon I definitely wouldn't mind playing. Still, like I said, I'm open to the current concept and am more concerned about the implementation.

I recently re-read the first 25-30 issues of the Conan comic (collected in full color trades by Dark Horse and featuring great Barry Smith artwork), and yet I can't remember the names of any characters besides Conan and Red Sonja and some treacherous wench named Jenna. There weren't a lot of recurring characters.

How bout an Arkham Horror Expansion,

HYBOREAN HORROR

it all makes sense...

Shellhead wrote:

I recently re-read the first 25-30 issues of the Conan comic (collected in full color trades by Dark Horse and featuring great Barry Smith artwork), and yet I can't remember the names of any characters besides Conan and Red Sonja and some treacherous wench named Jenna. There weren't a lot of recurring characters.

Yeah, there aren't in the REH stories either. You'd have to do some "re-writing" and I could see how some wouldn't like that. How about a 2-player adventure game where one person plays Conan and the other his foes?

The more I think about this, the more I believe the premise of the Nexus game sucks.

Shellhead wrote:

Since nobody gets to be Conan, it's understandable to shift the players to playing kings of various empires. The setting of Hyperborea is kind of cool, but isn't even a close second to the basic appeal of Conan himself. So another problem is that the scale of the game is wrong. Conan stories did sometimes address major shifts in power in Hyperborea, but the focus was always on Conan and his own adventures.

I actually like the Hyperborean setting enough to make up for not being conan, and I like that they used the same style as the comic; although I'd have prefered a more "historically accurate" (so to speak) re-designed look, the comics still look cool.

I thought the rules looked good when I glanced over them, but I didn't look hard. Show me a game with plastic soldiers set in Hyperborea and I'm happy, so maybe I was too distracted by the look and feel of the rulebook.

It is somewhat lame that they only have one troop type, but it seems like it fits the overall style of play. I'd reserve judgment until trying it. Certainly the rules didn't seem any more complicated than, say, Twilight Imperium or Descent or Tide of Iron or any "blockbuster" FFG game that is not noteworthy for it's simplicity.