No one had written anything yet.. so why now start with talking about how great this game is?

Def. one of my fav. board games ever. Only played with three people yet, but it's always a blast. It's like playing 3-4 games in one. Go on explorations, capture cities, fight other knights, go to assembly... KICK ASS. And the expansion pack makes the game even better, though it stands strong alone as well.

Oh yeah.

I've only gotten one game of this in, and it didn't go to well. The game seemed to end shortly after all the neutral cities were taken and before much warfare between nobles could get going.

However, I think that that was mostly due to my group's playing style than anything inherant in the game. And of course, there is always the possibility of rules errors.

I would like to try again, but my group plays games so rarely that most of my players would rather play something they know they will enjoy.

The shortness of your game was likely not a rule error. We play with the extended rules (more influence in the pool) and the expansion, else the game is far too short.

My first game (3 players) was so fast that we ended up by, with the game playing, adding influence, first getting to 12 for player and a round latter we added some more to get to 15 for each player! (and that without having read anything but the official rules)

Hmm... We're always 3 players and use minimum 4-5 hours to finish a game. And that's without the expansion/expanded rules. Stuff just takes time when in assembly and building up forces. The fighting is just a small part of this game in my eyes. One round takes at least 30minutes with us..

Did you do the cards right? There are three piles of cards that needs to be picked before the turn is over etc.. That's the only thing I can see where someone would have misunderstood.. Or it might be us being too much focused on building up our forces instead of rushing out. We messed up the rules the first time we played as well, and it was over in maybe less than 1hour.

This game NEEDS the 'longer game' optional rules to really shine. By default it's ends as things start to get good! The irony is the 'longer game' option doesn't tend to make the game last much longer timewise anyway.

I havent got this game yet but i am really tempted...

Is it worth it? (Please give a quick rundown )

Thanks, it looks awesome

Maybe not a quick rundown...

I saw the ad for it on the Condottiere SilverLine FFG game and bought it because it looked cool. There are lots of rules to get around to, but by playing it a couple of times you'll get the flow of it. It kind of is a given that you get high quality cards/pieces/board since it's FFG, but the game itself is the real winner IMO. There are no dice in this game, with decisions being made at random with cards. Every player gets different cards which dictates what you want to do, then you put two cards (or three) into three piles and the other players does the dame. Shuffle each pile with the cards chosen by your opponents and the random "neutral" cards that the game requires. There's your round. When the three piles are gone the turn ends, and you collect influence.

I don't understand how anyone manages to play this in less than 3 hours though. It is a long game, and we might have played a game for 7hours even. But that's just my experience with it. It only was short one time because we misunderstood the rules regarding when to pick up influence. We thought it was after the first pile of cards was drawn, but it's after the 3 piles are drawn, which f.ex concludes round#1 finished.

Other elements in the game I like is going on random explorations to far away lands, where you either lose all the gold you put into the exploration, or you get lucky and almost triple your gold.

Assembly is also pretty nice. You have a certain amount of votes that you can use to get certain "laws" in your advantage. Of course if there is something in particularly interesting for all players, the one with the most votes for himself gets the "law". I can't think of a better word than "law" at the moment...

Then we have warfare, you can conquer cities and build fortifications, hire armies, and of course attack other knights. But it's more "political" than that. As it says on the Warrior Knights site "Warrior Knights is a game of medieval diplomacy, politics, and war."

Also the card element is pretty brilliant. It's always randomly chosen what will happen in anything you do except on laws you vote for. Oh, and you also get certain faith points which you can use to f.ex bless your sea exploration team.

I really don't know how to better explain it. I think it's a "the more the merrier" kind of game as well. I've only played with 3, but you also can be 6 people. I'd definitely try that out if I got hours to spare.

No dice, no need to write notes, everything is in the box. All the faith, votes, cards, armies, influence +++. Easy peacy Japaneasy

And the expansion makes the game even better.

I thought I had played every old Games Worshop game, but I do not remember this one at all!

I have had this game for a while but never found the moment to bust it out as it never seems to be the right time for it. With how many players is it best at?

I would recommend at least four players and it is very fun with five. And add in 15 influence per player.

thanks for the rundown nighthawk

Nighthawk said:

When I said fast I meant in terms of game moves, as it was my first game we did take a few hours (with all the rules read from the rule book, and I’m a very good reader) but in terms of turns it would have ended in 3 turns, without any conflict. The only player who attacked was me and even so only once. Without longer games in terms of TURNS (the time will depend on the speed of the players, and it is my opinion that with training you can be quite fast), the game ends too soon. That is also my opinion in Starcraft (the second game of FFG that I bought after WK), but instead of increasing influence you have to increase event cards and conquest point needed.

I would say that you have to put at least more 15 influence for 3 players, 14 to 4, 13 to 5 and 12 to 6.

personally. i found the whole influence component of the game a let down. playing with the influence means that the game often finishes just as you get into it! i also dislike the concept of chairman of the assembly, with the people i play the game against, everyones too self-serving to pass any motions in your favor!

You should play with less egocentric people

If you pass motions in favor of other people, it might give you a bargaining card later on.

What i don't understand is how to get enough faith. It seems like we never get more than 1-2 faith especially when playing with a few players because most of the time the one who draws the event cards uses the faith to tilt it in his favor.

Do you know if you can dismiss event cards whenever you want with faith or just when you get them? For example cards like the one which prevents heirs to a certain knight?

I enjoy this game but it has been far too long since I have been able to give it a go. I found the expansion added some interesting options but there is so much in the core game that its hardly necessary. Reading this thread makes me want to break it out again.

warrior knights is one of my favorite games. I would recommend to play it with at least 4 players and play it with 15 influence tokens for each player.

if you have the crown & glory expansion we play it with ten influence, till the king is crowned. Normally a game in our round last about 5-6 hours, but is never boring. More players don't make the game last much longer because the most timeconsuming part is the assembly.

Just got back from a 4 player WK game. We used 10 influence per player. The game lasted about 4 hours and it was the core game only. It lasted for 4 turns with 3 being tied with 11 influence each and the last person with 10. I won because I had more cities than the two others I was tied with.

I've mostly played it with crown&glory expansion, but I enjoyed this round as well. Though this is the first time we all felt that it ended when it just started to get good. It might have to do with all our 4 expeditions being lost throughout the game, leaving most of us broke early on and losing forces from wages underway. As someone mentioned before, it has alot to do with how you play the game. You can make haste and try taking out the other players, but in most cases that would be bold and maybe unwise. I think it's all about keeping a terror balance between the players.

But in the end the game isn't about conquering all your other players. If you want to win, you need to think strategic and get as many neutral cities as possible. And if you're low on influence and one of your enemies are doing too well. Just take over his city. But assembly, the fate deck, wages, lost expeditions and even the random event deck is enough to sabotage your plans in this game.

I will definitely play with more influence next time though.

I've only played a few games so far, but I've really enjoyed every one so far. For beginners, 10 Influence per player makes for a short game that ends just about the right time: people have learned the rules, explored some strategies, and are full of ideas for the next game. With more experienced players, I'd suggest 15 or even 20 Influence per player (I have not tried the "King" variant yet). Our short games have all been 3-4 turns, not really enough time I think to use all the goodies that are there. Our last game was 3 turns, and only two of each triggered phase. I think 5 to 7 turns would really make a different game.

I do think that the length of Warrior Knights is greatly effected by group play style. I think that more aggressive play, for example, attacking Strongholds and seiging player cities, would reduce the consumption of influence per turn, and make the game last longer, and probably tighter. I will try to initiate more aggressive play next time and see what happens ("I'm attacking you as an experiment , nothing personal mind you...") It may well be that 10 Influence per player was chosen with more aggressive play in mind.

Smeelbo