Warrior Knights – Politics, War, Faith and Trade

This past weekend I managed to celebrate my imminent return to the workforce with an activity I haven't been able to participate in for a while now. My wife and I had a few friends by to play board games, and I got to play favorites of mine that have collected dust for years. Among these was one of my very favorites, Fantasy Flight's version of Warrior Knights. Not so long ago, I wrote about the difference between Eurogames and "Ameritrash" or Thematic board games, and Warrior Knights straddles the line between these extremes neatly. As a result, its design heavily influenced several popular games currently in production including RuneWars and Chaos In The Old World. It is a complicated looking game that is actually pretty simple, though it is not without its flaws, as I'll get into later. This is a revamp of the original published by Games Workshop, with European Game designers brought in to make the mechanics more appealing to modern audiences.

Parallels have also been drawn between this and A Game of Thrones (the Board Game.)

The layout, board, counters and pieces are classic Fantasy Flight. They are well made with solid artwork and plenty of components, but none seem unnecessary. The game is intimidating, as there is a lot going on, and the first turn will take so long unless everyone is a veteran that you'll lose sight of the fact that using standard rules, it'll be over inside of 5 turns. In a generic medieval country that has knights and lords with French, British, Italian and German sounding names, the king died without an heir. Without a clear line of succession, the Barons maneuver for the power to delare themselves monarch. This means that influence must be accumulated, and the easiest way to do that is to bring cities under your control, and keep those cities. Every player must plan six moves from strategy cards in their hand with a little control over what happens first, and then see how fate and the plans of other Barons make their plans all fall apart.

Each turn, players choose six general strategies which allow them to move and/or attack, serve the church, gather political support, levy taxes, draft mercenaries or allow for a less powerful but more versatile strategy. The players put the two orders they'd like to see happen first in a stack marked "1", second in the "2" stack and then third in the "3" stack. Two neutral strategy cards are added to each pile, the three stacks are shuffled and then orders are executed one at a time in a random order. When orders are executed, the strategy cards are temporarily discarded to one of three piles which will trigger sub-phases when those discard piles fill up completely. The piles are labeled Taxation, Wages and Assembly, and when each triggers, income from captured cities is given out, soldiers must be paid or released from service, or Barons convene to vote on legal matters, respectively. Until those piles clear and trigger their phases, those cards are unavailable to use again by the player who spent them.

Game in progress at CABS in Columbus, OH.

To build an empire, players must supplement their own loyal troops with a mercenary army, levy taxes to pay for army upkeep and build a stable economy. Hiring mercenaries and outfitting all troops is difficult to do with taxation alone, so there are several other options to get money rolling. Players may choose to invest in trade expeditions to the far east, gather support to have trade concessions legally assigned to them, or conquer cities in foreign lands. Balancing income versus military might is essential, as the most lucrative options for making money don't typically directly contribute to victory, and large armies are expensive. Getting new soldiers is handled through a mercenary "draft" where anyone who chose to use the "draft soldiers strategy" is allowed to pick, in order from the new units ready to be assigned to nobles.

Taking cities and fighting with these armies is fairly simple. Each player has four commanders to move around the board, each has a special power. Cities can be assaulted at the risk of damaging the defenses and/or taking casualties for a quick (1-turn) capture, or with a large enough army a city can be besieged for 2 turns and it will automatically fall without any damage to defenses or the attacking army. Sieges may be lifted by any player attacking the besieging forces, and in a game where victory points are calculated at the end of every turn, risking two turns to maybe get nothing is significant. Armies and cities get to play one Fate card per 100 troops, with armies led by a noble (anything except an uncontrolled city) getting two extra draws to choose from to represent tactical ability. Fate cards may inflict 100 casualties, prevent 100 casualties or generate 1 victory point. Resolving fights is simple, if either side took enough casualties to wipe out all the troops assigned to them, they lose (and casualties to cities also represent broken walls, etc.) If neither side is wiped out by casualties, whichever side has the most victory points wins, and the opposing force is killed (but buildings take no permanent damage from this phase.)

Each noble may command an army and move about the board, while the Baron
(representing the player) only fights if the home Stronghold city is attacked.

Nobles limit how many places you can be at once, as there are only four of them and all your troops must be assigned to any nobles on the board or to defending your home base. When a noble dies, they are off the board for a turn and a card is pulled to see if any mercenaries under their command desert (by nationality.) The next turn, the noble's heir commands his dead father's forces and rides out again. If nobles don't stay at a captured city, that city may revolt, so rapid expansion comes with risk as well. The power of each of the four nobles either allows them to prevent 100 casualties, deal 100 extra casualties, generate +1 victory in battle or to not have to pay wages to any army smaller than 450 troops. Figuring out how many troops to assign to each and where to place the nobles helps determine who wins.

There are also two roles that players fight for throughout the game, the Chairman of the Assembly and the Head of the Church. Assembly Chairman gets to choose where trade expeditions are started and breaks ties in votes on agendas. Agendas may grant extra income, grant titles (with free troops) to nobles, or put rules into effect for the rest of the game. The Head of the Church may decide to bless trade expeditions to increase their chance of success, and also spends faith to influence the events deck. The events deck may grant free influence, have nobles assassinated in the field, affect plague or revolt, or even declare that a noble has no heir and may not return with his troops to the board when killed.

The game has an expansion that addresses some of the flaws I talk about below.

The biggest problems with the game are that a runaway leader in early turns is hard to catch, as everyone gets influence from all cities every turn, so a player in the lead must be attacked quickly, or everyone else falls behind. Experienced players can deal with this by keeping the game close through a lot of aggression, if people play passively, the outcome is determined almost from the very beginning. Also, the amount of influence in the pool determines game length, and the default number of 10 per player means the game tends to end abruptly just as it is getting good. Adding more influence per player fixes this, but it also makes the game take quite a bit longer. I think that the default shorter game is good to teach it, but after learning the rules, 15-20 influence per player makes the overall play more satisfying. I'm looking forward to giving it another go, as I don't play often enough to not have to play the shorter default version to re-learn it every time.

Boardgame Battle Lines: Eurogames and “Ameritrash” games.

While doing legwork, and double-checking details for some of the articles I've posted here about board games, I've frequently found myself over at Boardgamegeek. Any individual game that has a page on that site (and most of them do) will be tagged with descriptive links not unlike the tags you see on a blog post. Among these tags, you might find “4 player,” “wargame,” “cooperative” or other elements referring to particular mechanics or themes. Not so long ago, I noticed a tag I was unfamiliar with. The tag name was “Ameritrash.” I thought to myself “That sounds unfriendly,” and set out to determine what the term meant. I uncovered not only a new slang vocabulary word, but a schism in the hobby board gaming communtiy that I was previously unaware of, and one I'd be hard pressed to take a side in.

Eurogamers deep in thought at a Puerto Rico tournament.

Ameritrash games are, in general, games that have many components, use random elements to build drama, and strongly adhere to a theme. The term was coined in a derogatory sense by gamers who instead prefer a style of board game called the “Eurogame.” Eurogames tend to focus on balanced and logical mechanics with few or no random elements and if a theme is present at all, it tends to be represented in a highly abstract way. This seems to be a classic “Geek Wars” sort of question like Marvel or DC, on its surface, and I can see how the two styles are completely opposed on key points. That said, I'd find it difficult personally to take sides in this debate. I have in my collection games falling on both sides of the line, and I tend to enjoy both, so long as they are well designed.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Eurogames, according to my tastes:

Eurogames, in general, make a lot of sense. Assuming all players understand the mechanics, strategy should factor into a player's victory more than random chance. Dice are rarely used, and random elements tend to hinge more on whether a fortunate card, tile or counter is drawn at the particular time a player is capable of using it to gain an advantage. Action point mechanics are common in this sort of game, and frequently the individual elements of core gameplay could be distilled to their essential components and you'd have something that looks a lot like an equation. Game rules are in place to keep a single strategy from being too powerful or not powerful enough when compared to other strategies. Critics of this type of game sometimes find them overly dry, and in general they are not palatable to more casual board gamers, as frequently one or more plays are spent learning mechanics and grasping strategic subtleties. Someone who has never played a particular eurogame is usually at a disadvantage with an opponent who has played many times.

A great example of an entirely abstract Eurogame that is a lot of fun despite
a complete lack of theme, Ingenious. This one by German master game designer Dr. Reiner Knizia.

It is also worth mentioning, that even though games of this sort may not have a theme at all, where a theme is present, game objectives are almost universally nonviolent in eurogames. Trade, cooperation and building or connecting things are popular general themes, and elimination of other players pieces or resources are uncommon, and representation of warfare or other violence are nearly unheard of in thematic elements. This also means that many Eurogames may be played with little direct conflict between players, which many players like, but critics of the style of gaming lead to comparisons of eurogames as “competitive solitaire. Popular Eurogame titles include Puerto Rico, Power Grid and Settlers of Catan. In the United States, Rio Grande Games and Mayfair games are two of the largest publishers of this style.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Ameritrash games, according to my tastes:

Fans of this style of gaming have taken the “Ameritrash” label and turned it around as a term of distinction and affection for the style of game that they prefer. For those offended by the negative connotation of the term itself, or by its inaccuracy, as many games in this style are designed and published in countries other than the US, the alternate term “Thematic Game” is used instead. Theme is king for these styles of games, and virtually every play session results in a memorable and dramatic story. Many of these games focus on production values to reinforce the theme, and games with dozens or even hundreds of plastic pieces are not uncommon in the style. Success or failure at critical points in gameplay may depend on the draw of a single card or roll of a particular die, which is highly dramatic but some players may find the importance of randomness devalues strategic play. Sometimes, a player quickly finds themselves out of the running for victory due to chance, and “kingmaker” situations can occur where a player incapable of winning can instead determine who does claim eventual victory.

Runewars, with hand-painted components. Heroes fighting monsters instead
of engaging in commerce or trade... yep, Ameritrash.

It is important to note that pure wargames do not fall into this category, nor are mass market games like Monopoly or Clue meant to be included in the category. The focus on story, drama and theme means that most cooperative and questing games will fall into this category. Elimination of monsters, pieces controlled by opponents or even board elements are common in these games, and people who prefer entertainment with no simulated violence may find them distasteful. Popular titles that wear the Ameritrash or Thematic label include Twilight Imperium, Battlestar Galactica, Runewars, War of the Ring and Arkham Horror. Fantasy Flight Games is one of the largest publishers of this style of gaming, though Avalon Hill (both classic and post-WotC/Hasbro buyout) and Eagle Games are also well known publishers.

I've written articles about games in both styles, and until I was aware of the conflict in styles, I might have identified myself as a Eurogamer, but I find that more of my very favorite games fall under the Ameritrash style. I respect clever design and elegance of mechanics, and do believe that strategy should trump dice rolls in general (I hate Risk based on that principle alone.) However, on the other hand, I am a sucker for a good story, and I can't imagine recounting the tale of having efficiently spent my action points to friends. I will, however, re-tell the time in Battlestar Galactica when I was successfully outed as a Cylon in the early stages of the game, but was so convincing in my demonstrations of loyalty that I had the player who saw my loyalty card wondering aloud if he'd been incorrect, making my eventual betrayal of the fleet more exciting and the Cylon defeat more dramatic. I will, then, do the only logical thing. I won't take sides. I'll just keep playing both.