By Crom, there are no players that want to post their demo experiences? February is too far off in my opinion!!

There are some reports over at BoardGameGeek:

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

Been there, done that, need more to quench thirst!

Me, being into details, would really like to read reports (sessions) where each and every fate die roll, the "pool" roll, result is mentioned, along with what action each player took. I know, that's a lot of writing to do, but those are the type of reports I like reading.

Never mind the effort to type it...that's a lot of remembering (or taking notes) to do!

Ruvion said:

When doing session reports, I take plenty of notes myself. Mostly not because I can't recall generally what happened, since I tend to write right after a game, but because I want to get it 100% accurate. Yeah, I know.

Also, you could naturally put the Fate Pool roll as a letter combo using C+C, C, I, M, I/M, W. And given the similarities between AoC and War of the Ring, you could do something similar to the "Example of Play" here:

http://www.warofthering.webb.se/

In parts I feel like AoC wouldn't require as much writing down. It's a long road to February (assuming the release date sticks), but I'll definately try to something like that once I get my hands on the game.

Dam said:

It's a long road to eternity.

Ruvion said:

In the meantime we should live, burn with life, love, slay, and be content.

I have the Conan ccg to help me get my Conan fix .

I have tried the complete (final release) game at a game con, thanks to the local official producers who were advertising it and let people try and play it.

Sorry, but the game REALLY sucks I was really disappointed as I love Conan and expected to buy it, but now I'm sure I won't.

I can try to answer some questions about the game if you want. But really, this is a mediocre game...

Glad that you put yourself on the block for us...

Do describe mediocre...

...how so?

My fear was that the theme would be largely mostly subsumed in the card interplay to a point it's barely felt.

Well founded fear or no?

The theme is absolutely marginal.

It's a game of placement (German-style) + a game of "strategy" warfare. I used quotation marks because strategy is really scarce, as the game is mostly dominated by pure luck.

Some parts are completely abstract (all auctions, Conan adventures, etc.) and really depressing.

Armies are all the same, cards change but you can barely notice it.

All in all, it's a game with various and heterogeneous parts, whose rules don't merge at all. The result is a chaotic and incoherent game, uninspired and whose theme is absolutely fake and badly attached.

How many players in the game? You don't have War of the Ring in your top-5 (nor in your collection), have you tried that? If so, where do you feel AoC veers off course compared to WotR?

We were 4 players, I was the only one at 1st match and I managed to win - this to show how much the game relies on pure luck.

I don't have War of the Ring, but I know it and I don't like it much. Conan is even worse, as you can clearly feel the theme is fake.

I expecially hate the action dice, which add another degree of randomness to an already all-random game - a particularly stupid idea, in my opinion, masked as an original way to add depth to the game, which it doesn't.

I don't know how much I can describe the mechanic without spoilering some copyrighted "secret", but unfortunately I could demolish almost every aspect of this game - give me back my dream of a good game on Conan

bSol_Invictus said:

I expecially hate the action dice, which add another degree of randomness to an already all-random game - a particularly stupid idea, in my opinion, masked as an original way to add depth to the game, which it doesn't.

Well, that right there kinda blows your credibility with me out of the water. I like WotR and am expecting similar thing from AoC. Action dice especially are one the key ingredients that I feel make WotR the game it is (making each game of WotR have a very different feel to all previous games, because the dice won't roll the same, thus your strategy will change as well), looking at the rules, AoC will be in the same vein.

bSol_Invictus said:

Well, the rulebook has been online for a month or two, so everyone who has a serious discussion about the game is already familiar with the mechanics.

I suppose the dice matter is a question of personal tastes. I find *nothing* strategic in not being able to choose your actions.

But, if it were just the dice...the problem is, the whole game is ruled by randomness. You have the cards, the dice, the treasure tokens, the Conan adventure, the objectives...EVERYTHING is determined randomly, so that you end up struggling against the chance. And since this game has ambitions to be strategic, well believe me that leaves really little room for strategy.

Apart from the above - which, for some obscure reasons, you may still like - I hope you will at least agree that the theme of the game is extremely weak.

Armies are all the same, save for some cards which don't put in so much difference anyway.

Conan adventures are all the same, just "put the obelisk there" and then just draw abstract treasures.

Magic is *completely* abstract and really poorly implemented.

Auctions are one of the most abstract and less inspired methods I've ever seen in a game. You have this 5 tokens which represent...nothing at all, but for some reason they influence Conan. And the same for artifacts.

The artifacts cards are not balanced at all, and you can quite easily predict where they will end. You wil likely end up with a totaly useless one, because of your (random) treasures.

Cities and towers are an abstract part of an abstract placement game. They have almost *nothing* of what a city/tower is supposed to do in a themed game like this. Diplomats well complete this part.

The map is simply not balanced, due to its shape.

The idea of ending the game at 3rd era with the gambling is weird, but is one of the few marginally stratgeic parts of the game.

Combats are...you bet, double random, as you have weird combat dice + combat cards. You soon learn the one and only "strategy": attack with 5, and hold cards as long as you can, to be used in the rounds following the 1st. And, of course, pray to roll well. Woho, what a strategy.

Of course you can argue that all the above makes for a challenging environment where you can really put your strategic ability to the best, as you have to constantly face random odds and adapt your strategy. You can say that, and well, that's simply ridiculous because the game is, de facto , very minor strategy + very abstract mechanics. You can like it or not, but the result is NOT what you'd expect from "the strategy boardgame in the world of Conan". Not at all. And this is what I can't stand...

bSol_Invictus said:

You're right, people have different tastes. Hope I didn't come off too snarky. For me it's better that a game has randomness, because in a normal, pure strategy game, you can get to a situation where people have analyzed the game to death and each game follows the same pattern because that is the most effective way of playing/winning. With Action Dice, you have to adapt, work with what you get, not follow a set path every single game, every single round.

bSol_Invictus said:

Can't really comment on the theme as yet, since I have no first hand experience with the game. But I wasn't expecting it to focus on Conan anyways, definately not in a way Conan CCG did.

bSol_Invictus said:

I don't think a game needs 5+ different army types for it to work. Granted, Infantry/Cavalry division would've been nice. WotR worked no problem with just 2 types on Troops.

bSol_Invictus said:

What are they supposed to do in your opinion?

bSol_Invictus said:

Hmm, after reading the rules, I've been pondering the pros/cons of doing rush-attacks and/or forced marching, especially when an Age change is about to happen. Also, playing it safe aka only attacking with 5 might leave you lagging behind on points. You gotta play the odds sometimes. Furthermore, sounds like you really dislike any randomness at all. How do you find Arkham Horror, which isn't in your top-5, but is listed as a game you have?

No, I do not dislike total randomness. I *hate* those German games where there is zero or so randomness, as they look like math exercices.

I do like some degree of randomness in a game: as you can see my top is TI3 which has a good degree of randomness, but also has a large part of decent planning. Unless you are insanely unlucky with dice, cards, etc. your long-term strategy is going to work, more or less.

Conan doesn't work like this. Or, it works like this maybe 10% of the time, as chaos is what mostly rules it. And I don't think that's funny.

But, in particular, bear in mind that I'm angry to FFG because they are selling this as "the strategy game of Conan", while this game has absolutely minor strategy and mediocre theme. As a prototype without a title, I wouldn't probably hate it so much, but I strongly believe that if they produce a game with a certain name and theme, they do it for one only obvious reason: to sell it thanks to that famous name. And it's very unfair and "hypocrite" to sell a game of "strategy+Conan" that lacks both elements. Thus my displeasure and resentment for this product.

About Arkham Horror: I simply hate it but not for the random part. I like traditional dungeon crawling with lots of dice and stuff, I simply can't stand AH. I sold my copy long ago.

When people think of Conan, they largely think of "Wanton Violence+Conan": a raging barbar with a big honkin' sword.

At least that's what I think of him anyways (despite his cunnings, kingly potential, and what not).

...so I don't think it's unfair or hypocritical to somewhat lack in the strategy department.

Maybe I didn't made myself understood

Despite what people think about Conan, I think it's safe to assume that they actually expect "Conan stuff" to be present in a game about Conan. And this game has such a weak theme that it doesn't really have any strong bond to Conan. Just the names, and almost nothing else. And if you think that's enough to make a themed game..well, sorry, it's not the way.

I'm not going to repeat what I already wrote. I, as a fan of Conan, am perfectly sure and aware that the theme is weak and disappointing. You can like it of course...I don't, and explained you why, and I have more than one good reason for it.

I think we can close this discussion, as we have used more than enough time and forum space for this. I wrote what I wanted to write, everyone will make his own choices as usual.

bSol_Invictus said:

I think your expectations do not meet what the game ever intended to be. It's not "CONAN", it was from what I've read, never meant to focus solely or even in a major way on Conan. For me it's WotR in Conan's time/realms.

Also, regarding your point about the game not being a "strategy game of Conan", again, I focus on "Age of Conan", with "Strategy Board Game" part being of secondary importance.

Sol Invictus - Thank you so,so,SO MUCH for your opinion !

You disillusioned me about the game (and I was interested in it since maany months). My expectations can not be fulfill with sth like that. You've saved my 80$ !

Glad to hear that, you are very welcome: I'm happy my words were at least useful to someone who actually wanted to hear them

bSol_Invictus said:

Heh...maybe a $part of my psyche really wanted to find a negative comment & not buy this game