• Log in
Kris Hall: A Rules Preview of War of the Roses
I like to keep an eye out for Euro-wargame hybrids, and so when Z-Man Games posted the rules for Peter Hawes’ War of the Roses, I was quick to take a look at this upcoming game.
War of the Roses is primarily intended to be a four-player game, although it can accommodate two and three players as well. Each player represents a faction in England’s War of the Roses, a medieval civil war among noble houses that were battling for control of the throne. The gameboard features a map of England divided into six areas. Each area contains one royal castle, one cathedral town, one port, one bishop, and one ship. Each area is also associated with two specific nobles who consider that area their home turf.
Each turn, a number of cards are turned face-up to form a draw line, and players select these cards one at a time. Each card represents one of the towns, nobles, castles, bishops, or ships on the board, and players mark ownership of their assets on the board with cubes or discs.
After players have chosen the available assets for the turn, they collect income from towns, bishops, and ships.
Next, players secretly and simultaneously plot their moves on player boards that are hidden from other players by screens. Players may buy troops, move ships and nobles to other regions, and try to bribe enemy nobles or counter-bribe their own forces to ensure their loyalty.
After planning, players reveal their player boards and execute their moves. Opposing troops at castles and towns negate each other until the side with superior numbers wins (it is possible that both sides will wipe each other out, and a targeted town or castle will become neutral). Bribe attempts are automatically successful unless the defending player has placed a counter-bribe. It should be noted that any bribes against a particular noble or ship are twice as expensive as counter-bribes.
After players have resolved their moves and any resulting combat, a Parliament (scoring) phase begins. Control of each area is determined by tallying the control points each player has. First and second place players earn victory points. It is then determined which of the two major factions has enough points to make their contender the king. The player who controls the king gets victory points as well. Players also score victory points for having the most ships, castles or ports.
Of course, I have simplified the rules a bit, but you should have a good idea of what the game is about. War of the Roses looks to be a medium-complexity area-majority game in the tradition of Shogun/Wallenstein. By avoiding undue complexity, Mr. Hawes may have created a highly playable game.
What he has not done is create a simulation of the War of the Roses. The game may have some medieval flavor, but it could just as easily be about internal conflicts in France, Germany or Spain. I say this as an observation and not as criticism. Mr. Hawes decided to favor playability over theme, and thereby probably increased the audience for his game.
Gamers who enjoyed Shogun/Wallenstein will probably find something to like in War of the Roses. Grognards who are looking for a detailed military simulation should look elsewhere.
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!|
I talk a bit about my experience with War of the Roses in my December 2008 column. I played a prototype at BGG.CON in November 2008 with Peter, so the game might have changed somewhat since then, but hopefully my comments are still accurate and helpful. I’ll paste them here for ease of reference since they seem relevant for anyone potentially interested in this game: “War of the Roses is a prototype designed by Peter Hawes, who also recently designed Heads of State (and Colonial Diplomacy many moons ago). This was actually the only prototype I tried at BGG.CON, which means I unfortunately missed out on the Pandemic expansion prototype, so I guess I’ll just have to wait until Z-Man releases that in 2009. War of the Roses was the last game I played on the last day of BGG.CON. I played with the designer and with Jeff Anderson and his brother (who I also enjoyed Duck Dealer with earlier in the convention). It’s a partnership game, so Jeff and his brother teamed up, and I was on Peter’s team (which I thought would guarantee a win, but Jeff’s brother squeaked out a victory in the end). However, it’s a partnership game where you don’t win or lose as a team, but rather a game where only one person wins, like Peter Struijf’s new Krakow 1325 AD (and also like Krakow in that it’s strictly a four-player game). I really like this concept of a partnership game where you have to work with your partner but also be suspicious of your partner and his or her possible attempts to subvert you (which is why I’m looking forward to the impending arrival of my Krakow order). The game also reminded me vaguely of Hammer of the Scots because a significant part of it involved nobles switching sides, although they didn’t have to be beaten into submission in War of the Roses, but rather could simply be bribed, for the right price. Finally, it also reminded me vaguely of Wallenstein because of the simultaneous action selection for the movement of units and attacking your neighbors. It was a very interesting game, more so because of the partnership aspect that wasn’t truly a partnership since there was only one winner. Peter was nice enough to demonstrate this aspect of the game by attacking me in a few places towards of the end of the game! I liked how the game started off fairly simple and the complexity grew over the course of the five game years as more units were deployed and the players’ treasuries built up, increasing the range of options significantly in the latter half of the game. It took a few solid hours to play, but seems like the playing time could vary significantly based on how much analysis and/or negotiating you and your opponents wanted to do during the planning phase of each year. I won’t go into any more details about the gameplay (so I suppose you’ll just have to imagine a strange amalgam of Krakow 1325 AD, Hammer of the Scots, and Wallenstein) because it’s subject to change as the game is further playtested and developed, but it looks like it will be picked up by a publisher and hopefully released next year. I look forward to trying it again once it’s released (and in the meantime it has piqued my interest in giving Heads of State a try sometime too).” See: http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/tom_rosen_november_madness_part_2/ Posted by Tom Rosen on Dec 4, 2009 at 03:09 PM | #
|
Next entry: Surprised Stare Auctioning Fzzzt! for Charity
Previous entry: Game Review: Dream Factory






