Age of Conan - Strategy Board Game

Strom

Mongoose
Apple said:
Fantasy Flight tries very hard to make toys to pass your time with, but don't actually put much effort into making a balanced game. If you like the theme, and don't mind that you're playing a game that you quite possibly had no chance of winning from the very start simply because of how the cards or racial powers or whatever get distributed, then you can enjoy FF games. If you'd rather finish a game and feel like what you did mattered more than what happened to you, then look for some other company's games.

To put it another way, FF games are more like movies but they get put on the same shelf with video games, so when you get it home you can have expectations that are pretty far off.

Got your ass kicked and need a justification for it, did ya? Can't fool us. :lol:
 
warzen said:
Hervé said:
King, I guess the colors are associated with culture (ie players): Western (Hyborian Kingdoms), Eastern (Tura, Hyrkania), Southern (Shem, Stygia, Black Kingdoms) and Northern (Nordheim, Cimmeria, Hyperborea).

Really weird to put Aquilonia and Nemedia in the same team...

W.
According to the rulebook, you only have one nation to start with: Aquilonia, Hyperborea, Stygia and Turan.
 

Apple

Mongoose
Strom said:
Got your ass kicked and need a justification for it, did ya? Can't fool us. :lol:

No, I've never played FF Conan and probably never will because of the half-dozen other FF games I've played that were horribly horribly unbalanced, random and poorly designed. When we finish a Rio Grande game for instance, we end up talking about what we could have done better and what strategies might work next time, but when we finish a Fantasy Flight game we end up talking about how to fix the bloody thing we just wasted $80 on.
 

Hervé

Mongoose
Actually, this game wasn't designed at all by Fantasy Flight Games. They are just distributors of the english language version. The game was designed by the same people who did War of the Rings and Marvel Heroes, an Italian company named Nexus.

So much for the ranting about the balance of FFG games...
 

MGBM

Mongoose
Ah yes, the eternal euro vs AT debate showing up on a Conan board, of all places.

As I've said countless times in BGG and to everyone who wants to listen, play the games you find fun. If a game is fun, good, play it. Bad mouthing a company because they produce a certain kind of games is a bit silly, because one person's trash is another's gold.

Categorization of games is stupid. And painting everything a company does because you don't happen to enjoy a game isn't smart either. And criticizing a game that you haven't played is outright silly.

Just so everyone knows, I've played the game today. It's more euro than AT, and the theme doesn't stick as well as all of us would hope it would. It's basically an area-majority game with some twists. Good game, WotR is better.
 

MGBM

Mongoose
warzen said:
MGBM said:
Ah yes, the eternal euro vs AT debate showing up on a Conan board, of all places.

Sorry to be that n00b but what is the "euro vs AT debate" ?.

Hehe. To put it short, it's a damn big can of worms in the boardgaming community.

Lots of boardgamers categorize the games, with Eurogames and Ameritrash games being the two main categories. There is a lot of bad feelings between both camps and it's been the source of a lot of drama, past and present, in Boardgamegeek.

An euro is basically a no-luck, or almost no luck, game that rewards planning and strategies. It's a boardgame that relies on mechanics rather than theme.

An AT is the inverse, a game that relies on theme over mechanics, or in making the mechanics work for the theme. It also has a lot of luck. But it's the type of game that oozes theme. War Of the Ring is a perfect example of an AT game, I guess.

Then again, everyone seems to have their own personal definition of an euro and an AT game.

Me, I don't categorize boardgames. A game is a game is a game. If it's fun, I'll play it. And right now I'm playing AoC.
 

Apple

Mongoose
MGBM said:
Ah yes, the eternal euro vs AT debate showing up on a Conan board, of all places.

Not quite. As you said in your following post, AT often is characterized by a higher proportion of luck. Several FF games I've played however aren't "more luck based" but "entirely luck based." This, coupled with simply bad design makes them something to avoid. Snakes and Ladders is one thing, but Snakes and Ladders where players get dealt race cards to start with, and 1 of them says "if someone else wins, you win instead" on it is quite another.
 

Strom

Mongoose
Great posts MGM - you covered the debatable issue very well. It is a can of worms.

The worst FF game I've ever played was Marvel Heroes (created by Nexus the same company as Age of Conan) - that has me a bit worried. But it sounds like AOC has none of the rules issues Marvel Heroes suffered from.
 

ander

Mongoose
I got the game yesterday, hopefully I will be playing it soon. The cards ooze theme, the rules are a bit simpler than WotR, first impression is positive. Luck is present, but not so terrible, you can influence dice results a lot.
 

MGBM

Mongoose
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/27848

Tons of reviews in, they all agree on the same point.

The game is great, even if the theme isn't strong.
 

Hervé

Mongoose
Strom wrote:
The worst FF game I've ever played was Marvel Heroes (created by Nexus the same company as Age of Conan) - that has me a bit worried. But it sounds like AOC has none of the rules issues Marvel Heroes suffered from.

The Marvel game had some nice concepts, but the rules were so badly written that you had a hard time understanding the game. The miniatures were nice, though... 8)

MGBM wrote:
The game is great, even if the theme isn't strong.
What do you mean? Isn't Conan a strong enough theme? :shock:
 

MGBM

Mongoose
Hervé said:
MGBM wrote:
The game is great, even if the theme isn't strong.

What do you mean? Isn't Conan a strong enough theme? :shock:

Yes. This game doesn't have a strong theme. It could be about warring colonies of ants, unfortunately. The more I play the more I come to realize that this game almost has no theme whatsoever. The Conan name in this game is just that, a name.

A very disappointing missed opportunity when the theme they worked with is this strong.
 
Not trying to beat a dead horse about complexity (I haven't had a chance to log on in a while), but I have three FFGs and I think that each game has its on style. Arkham Horror is a coop and can be hard to beat but we have beaten the game, especially when we have learned how to play and to work as a team. And luck was on our side in one of those victories when we got great Allies and Gear to start.

We also have Fury of Dracula which is 3 or 4 players vs. one and that game has gone both ways. Every time we play, we still don't know who is going to come out on top.

We have Descent and that game borders on a RPG so close, throw in some rules and you could play it as one. And that one is only as hard as the DM at the time.

I have also played Doom (a lot like Descent) and a friend has played Twilight Imperium (he says it is competitive and looooong), and I am interested in Conan's game b\c of the feel and the competitive nature.

In my opinion, each game is different and does deserve its own chance instead of just hating the whole company. I think each should be judged separately and I recommend some of the other non-coop vs. game games to play if you didn't like Arkham Horror.

I myself want to know if any of you guys live close cause most of my board gamers have severe ADHD and can't concentrate on a good board game. :x

Please help me. :cry:
 

Strom

Mongoose
Fixed the above link -sorry about that :oops:

We have a great time playing Runebound - and with the diverse variety of inexpensive expansions and new board expansions no two games have ever really been the same.

Conan Runebound would be a great expansion... 8)
 
Top