I had extremely high hopes for Warriors (Face 2 Face Games, 2004 - Alan Moon and Richard Borg.) Not only was the game designed by two of my favorite game designers, but the theme was promising. However, I dislike the game to the point of near hatred. I was so convinced that there must be something I was missing that I played the game five times and detested it all five. Even when I added the expansion, the game still didn't work for me, and yet I wanted to like the game so much!
Normally I enjoy some games less than others, but Warriors just really bombed for me. The gameplay is almost like Risk in a card format (something already a bad idea in my book), but the mixture of fighting and set collecting just did not work for me. The sheer overwhelming randomness of the design, plus the erratic combat, just made my game time wretched. Add to this the fact that occasionally a player can do nothing on their turn and simply must sit there, really makes the game something I never want to play again.
A deck of cards is shuffled, consisting of army units for six different races. Each race (undead, goblins, trolls, barbarians, elves, and dwarves) has three different army types: infantry, archers, and cavalry. There are also three wizards, nine catapults, and fourteen attack cards in the deck. The deck is shuffled, and eleven cards are dealt to each player (attack cards are discarded and players receive replacement cards). Players take their cards and place them face up in front of them. Each race is placed together, in the same "nation", with catapults placed to the side, and wizards assigned to any nation the player prefers. Five dice are placed in the middle of the table, and the deck is reshuffled for the first round of play (out of three).
In each round, a player is dealt seven cards. They pick four of these cards to keep and discard the other three. Once all the players have chosen, the cards are revealed while the army, wizard, and catapult cards are placed just like the initial setup. Battle cards are placed in front of the armies. The battles then begin.
Each attack card has a different number (which range from 2 to 38) and is either a Battle Card or a Mercenary Card. A mercenary attack consists of the player taking the number of troops shown on the card (3 or 4) from any nation, and making an attack with them. A battle card attack consists of an entire nation attacking. A mercenary army can attack any other player's nation, while a nation can only attack the same type of race, or their "natural enemy" (shown on their card).
In an attack, the attacker and defender both roll one dice for each infantry symbol in the battle (including those on the attack card). The attacker rolls a maximum of three dice, and the defender rolls a minimum of one die and a maximum of two. The player who has the most archer symbols on their side adds one to their highest roll. The highest roll of each player is compared, and the player with the lower roll (defender wins ties) must give one card from their force to the opponent, who places it face down in their "Victory" pile. If the defender rolled two dice, then the second highest dice of each player is compared with a casualty occurring from that also.
After the initial roll, the attacker can either continue the battle or quit. The battle can also end if one side is completely destroyed. Once the attack is over, the battle card is discarded, unless the attacking player won and has a cavalry symbol on their side. If so, they may make an additional attack, but must turn one card in their attacking force face down).
Wizards protect the nations they are with, which can neither attack or be attacked. They can only be killed by catapults. Players may use their catapults during a battle to target any card in the game, which pauses the battle while that attack takes place. The player using the catapult rolls a die and scores a hit (adding the card to their victory pile) on a 4-6. Either way, the catapult is discarded. After all attacks have been resolved, all wizards and catapults are discarded.
After the first round ends, the same round begins, with seven cards dealt to each player, and each player keeping four. In the third round, players get to keep five cards, instead of four! After the third round ends, the game is over, and players total their points. The player who has the biggest nation of each race gets points (Barbarians = 12, Goblins = 10, Elves = 8, Trolls = 7, Dwarves = 6, and Undead = 5), with ties giving all tied players the same number of points. Also, each card in a player's Victory pile nets him two points. The player with the most points is the winner!
Some comments on the game…
1.) Components: No one can fault Face 2 Face games for their components, as the cards included with the game are very high quality and have beautiful illustrations. Each race is distinguished not only by a different color but by very different artwork. In a small circle at the bottom of each card is a picture of each race's hated enemy, which is nice but is a bit small, so some players confuse them occasionally. The game also comes with three red dice for the attacker, and two black dice for the defender. The five dice are really nice, with gold pips, and the two different colors help distinguish them (especially with crazy dice chuckers at the table.) Everything fits in a small box (the expansion also fits in easily) that is sturdy and covered with more of the very nice artwork.
2.) Rules: The eleven pages of the rulebook (which comes in several languages) fold out (which is kind of annoying, actually) and are filled with examples and a few full-color illustrations. The game is fairly easy to explain to people (especially if they have a Risk background), although the lack of attacking may confuse some of them. I had no problem teaching the game to teenagers, and adults also picked it up fairly fast. The biggest snafu was players trying to remember which races were worth how many points. A reference card would have been great for this purpose, as even I couldn't remember after five games and was constantly looking it up.
3.) Combat: I've never liked the Risk combat system, but at least in Warriors, it's modified slightly better. I like how the archers give a +1 to the player who has the most, and I enjoy how the attack cards add symbols to a player's army. What I didn't like was how the cavalry was almost worthless, as players rarely had enough forces left after a battle to successfully make another attack. I also didn't like the limitations on the attacks. Sure, I know that this was to add some strategy to the game; but if I have attack cards and a large Goblin army, and my opponent has a one-warrior Dwarf army (the Goblin's enemy) and NO Goblin army, what am I supposed to attack that will make it worth my while? And if they have a big army, the odds are too even for me to even attempt it! It's just not the same as Risk. In Risk, you attack because the more you attack, the more territories you gain, which in turn provides you with more armies. In this game, you don't get much when you attack small armies; they only provide you with a few victory points.
4.) Battle Cards: But by far, the most annoying factor about combat for me was that you might not even have it! With only fourteen attack cards in the deck, it's very possible that a player get only one or even NO attack cards. When you get no attack cards, all you basically do is just sit there, twiddling your thumbs and waiting for someone to come after you. For some people this is satisfactory, as they simply sit there and build up their armies. But I would submit that those type of people would be totally put off by the combat system. And this is where Warriors fails. Players who enjoy combat systems like Risk will hate it when they cannot attack or can only attack once or twice the entire game. Players who like set collecting games will despise the total randomness of the combat. I don't think that there are many people who would be fond of both and certainly not in the same game.
5.) Fun Factor: Well, it's apparent from my review that I had no fun playing the game at all. I played it several times, each time with a different group, and I just couldn't stomach it. I solicited people for their opinions; and while a few said that it wasn't as bad as I thought, none of them had much pleasure playing the game.
6.) Time and Luck: The game is over fairly rapidly, especially if there aren't several attacks. In fact, luck plays a large function in this; because if few attack cards are played, then the game ends quickly (and ends rather unsatisfactorily, I might add).
7.) Choices: Knowing which army to attack sounds like a strategic option, but in reality, it's simply too obvious. Adding the right cards to your army - again obvious moves. I just didn't find many options that I had during the game to make my time worthwhile.
8.) Expansion: There is an expansion for the game, called Dragon Hordes. I've written a review on that game also, but suffice it to say that it adds a bit of attack to the game, while also increasing chaos. In other words, it doesn't salvage the game.
9.) Risk: The combat system is like Risk, and that's about the extent of it. One draw of Risk is that you can continue to attack, and attack, and attack. You can only do that if you have cavalry in Warriors (which is rare) and then only if your army is large enough to sustain multiple attacks (even more rare) and then only if there are enough available, viable targets (forget it!). Risk: the card game sounds neat, but I don't think Risk fans will enjoy Warriors. Not enough fighting for them, and not the same drive for world dominance.
I've been fairly harsh towards Warriors, and I feel rather badly about it. For one, I really like both designers, as they are true gentlemen and have designed some of the best board games of all times. And also, the theme and idea really intrigued me. Could you take a game like Risk and make it into a fun card game? For Warriors, the answer was "no." This design simply didn't work for me, and I didn't find that I had enough interest from others to cause me to ever bring it to the table again. Risk as a card game may interest some people (it's not a selling point for many), but this game isn't Risk. It's a combination of Risk and a Eurogame, and the mutant produced is rather deformed - very few will enjoy the playing of it.
Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."
www.tomvasel.com
