Warrior Elite versus Michael Barnes Part II: The Quickening Hot

I'm taking a wait and see stance towards this game.

I really appreciate the effort to do a detailed setting that doesn't borrow heavily from Tolkien's Middle Earth. But the drab visual stylings of the samples seem like they could get very samey, partially defeating the point of even having artwork on the components. That was the big strike against Innsmouth Escape, from Twilight Games.

The modular aspect, allowing flexible scaling of the game, is a terrific idea, so I am curious to see the implementation. But again, looking at those sample cards, I'm seeing some really busy card layouts, with too many icons and too many numbers crammed onto each card.

So this is going to be one of those games that I pass on buying until I get a chance to play it, or at least watch a game being played.

I hear you on the saminess issue...I like the style a lot, I like the muted palette a lot, and I like that it is a unique look...but on the table, it does
sort of one-note. I suspect that better quality of printing and maybe just a little more subtle color variation would go a long way to improving that though.

Layouts are a little busy mainly because there's a lot of information...remember this game is closer to UP FRONT than BLUE MOON. There's been a lot of complaints about the font they used but I don't think that's the problem, the problem is the icons look very similar to each other. It's nice that they're all unique and there's no generic, stock icons...but some of them are hard to decipher without really looking hard at them.

It's kind of like how in DRAGON DICE it's hard to tell some units apart and they'll just have like a slightly different hat on or something.

Good point about the icons, I should have noticed that. I'm working on a big side project that required me to invent nearly two dozen new icons and make them work at a very small scale, so I know that it's important to have that variety in appearance.

One of the things that I noticed when I first went through the decks is that there are a lot of women in the warrior ranks, so I asked Nigel about that. He responded: "We based these on Celtic clans where women were classed as equals to men and fought." Edadh does not remind me of Tolkien really at all in light of seeing it up close. Although I would have appreciated a bit more color and clearer iconography the game does indeed establish its own flavor.

Sag.

Anything interesting coming out in the next few months?

If Age of Conan doesn't interest you then your gaming tastes must be radically different than mine.

Yeah, the Angueth are all ladies, as a matter of fact...the Celtic thing is definitely there, no doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien...but I don't understand why 90% of all fantasy games have to be so hugely indebted to Tolkien's specific ideas, concepts, and settings. It's one of the reasons I like EDADH a lot, that it's "new" fantasy.

If Age of Conan doesn't interest you then your gaming tastes must be radically different than mine.

When it was announced, I nearly peed myself. I adore CONAN, of course. Looking at the game and the rules, I'm definitely taking a "try before buying" approach in accordance to my 2009 game procurement policies. It doesn't look very innovative or compellingly different and I'm not really crazy about the concept. Conan, to me, is much more about personal adventure, achievement, and challenge than mass combat between nations. Sure, Howard wrote about all that...but Conan was about a _man_, not a government or other organized bodies of people. I'm just not really all that excited about another light/middleweight fantasy wargame.

At this point, I'd rather pick up DIVINE RIGHT or DRAGON PASS if I want to do that kind of thing.

But I'll definitely try it, and I'll definitely review it. I may be pleasantly surprised. I hope that I am, because I'd love to have a really great Conan game (even if only in name)on my shelf.

I'm getting more intrigued by War for Edadh. Although as I doubt anyone I know will purchase it, it will be up to me to take the plunge. All the talk about expanding the game into realms of adventure and campaign modes sound great, but that's what Days of Wonder said about BattleLore. The no luck thing kind of makes me think of games like Fire Emblem, where you have a pretty clear idea before you attack what kind of damage you'll be dealing.

What should you write about in the next several months? You already mentioned it: Dragon Dice!

Oh, and don't worry Barnes, I'm sure FFG will send you a review copy of Age of Conan, so don't worry about having to buy it to review it.

Michael,

Hey! Did we ever even get to these vaunted "Trashies" yet? I mean c'mon...it's almost St. Paddy's Day!

Thanks for the ongoing review on this one Michael. I had previously dismissed this one out of hand, but your articles have prompted me to go to their website and take a closer look. Like Metalface, I am becoming more intrigued and the pricepoint is low enough - including postage to NZ! - to take an early gamble.

I picked this up recently, and am enjoying it a great deal. It doesn't surprise me at all to find out that it was developed over 7 years. It really feels like they just crammed in every good idea they could think of, which normally would be a recipe for disaster, but somehow the Pine family has made it work impressively well.

My only two complaints are that even with the rules modularity, there is a ridiculous amount of stuff to remember in the game. I can see myself forgetting rules more or less constantly - I played the basic starting scenario and we still managed to miss a couple things! My second problem ties into the first; I think the rulebook is a weak link in the game. It is rife with mistakes, which seem to have been caught and errataed, but it is still a hassle to have to consult the errata sheet every time you look up a rule to make sure that the rule is written correctly. Also, I would like a stronger index. The rulebooks are quite large, and i have spent a while casting about for specific rules that are hidden in unlikely places. For example, the rules regarding how wildsmen affect terrain are under the "Skirmish setup" heading. Minor complaints aside, the game is both fresh and fun.

Also in regards to
The no luck thing kind of makes me think of games like Fire Emblem, where you have a pretty clear idea before you attack what kind of damage you'll be dealing.

The big difference to the systems is that in War for Edadh, while you know how much damage each troop will deal to the other, you don't know which troop will end up dealing the damage and which will take the damage. So while there is no luck in WfE, there is plenty of uncertainty.

lollocaust wrote:

My expectations have risen again as according to The*Mad*Gamer's Gaming Rules of Thumb - the quality of the game is inversely proportional to the quality of the rulebook.

Hey! Did we ever even get to these vaunted "Trashies" yet? I mean c'mon...it's almost St. Paddy's Day!

I asked for open nominations and only Vialy stepped up. No one else. The thing is, the Trashies were very much about a place that is dead to me. I wanted F:AT users to step up and tell me what _they_ thought was the trashiest trash of the year. They didn't. They let me down. Therefore, no Trashies. I wanted to decide and commentate on what the winners were going to be, but nobody nominated anything. You probably would have definitely won the Jimmy Carter Peanut Cup Prize for Euro/AT Friendship and Understanding, Ryan. And "The Board Room" would almost certainly have been nominated for several key awards.

I agree about the rulebook, I do think it's a weak link, very much so. There's just so much of it. It works kind of like GALAXY TRUCKER though, you learn pieces of it as you go along. It's kind of like the old "programmed" rules learning from the old AH games too. But it is tough to keep it all straight once you get into the more advanced games.

I bought the game, it should arrive tomorrow or the day after that.

I hope to have it played soon, to be able to comment on your review.