Age of Conan - Strategy Board Game
- Thread starter Strom
- Start date
rabindranath72
Mongoose
According to the rulebook, you only have one nation to start with: Aquilonia, Hyperborea, Stygia and Turan.warzen said:
Strom said:
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.
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...
So much for the ranting about the balance of FFG games...
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.
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.
warzen said:
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.
MGBM said:
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.
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.
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.
Hervé said:
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.
Cool new video for Age of Conan posted by FF:
http://www.new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=493
http://www.new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=493
Lord Jolly the Scribe
Mongoose
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.
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.
