Columbia Block Games Discussion

[Jerry Taylor]

It’s been almost four months since I posted the first entry to my design diary and things have progressed quite a bit since then. To recap, War of the Roses (as it is tentatively titled) will be a two-player game with blocks primarily representing the King as well as Dukes, Marquis, Earls, and a few of the most prominent Lords. The basic design will be familiar to those who’ve played Hammer. I’m shooting for a 2-4 hour game that will span the entire war – from the historical reign of Henry VI through that of Edward IV, Richard III, and the early years of Henry VII.

I nearly decided to suspend these public game development diaries. Why you may ask? Because word is that GMT signed a contract earlier this month with someone to produce a War of the Roses block game for THEM and I wasn’t sure I wanted to share with the competition what I had cooking. But heck, I can’t imagine that GMT will gain much by producing a game that’s rather similar to mine. And that’s particularly true since their production queue is so backlogged at the moment that it’s unlikely that they’ll beat us out of the gate with a product. As you’ll see below, we’re about ready to begin playtesting and – if all goes well – we may well have a game to sell by the WBC next summer. That’s the hope anyway.

Cast of Characters

We’ve tentatively settled on 63 blocks. Some nobles can “flip” (change allegiances) while others – those for whatever reason could not possibly have found themselves in the other party’s camp – cannot. So many – but not all – nobles can go to either side, just as in Hammer.

Starting the game for the House of Lancaster will be Margaret of Anjou (representing both the guardianship of Henry VI and his son, the Prince of Wales), the Duke of Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland (with a corresponding Yorkist block should he change allegiances), the Earl of Pembroke (with a corresponding Yorkist block representing the Herbert family should the Earldom fall to the Yorkists), the Earl of Wiltshire, Lord Audley, Lord Beaumont, Lord Clifford, Lord Egremont (with a corresponding Yorkist block should Egremont change allegiances), Lord Hungerford, Lord Roos, and Lord Scales.

Starting the game for the House of York is the Duke of York, the Marquis of Montagu (with a corresponding Lancastrian block should Montagu change allegiances), the Earl of March, the Earl of Salisbury (with a corresponding Lancastrian block should Salisbury change allegiances), the Earl of Warwick (with a corresponding Lancastrian block should Warwick change allegiances), Lord Dinham, Lord Fauconberg (with a corresponding Lancastrian block should Fauconberg change allegiances), Lord Ferrers, and Lord Mountjoy.

Eleven nobles start the game as neutrals and may join either side during the course of the war. Accordingly, each will have a red and white block. They include the Duke of Buckingham, the Duke of Exeter, the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Suffolk, the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Essex, the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of Oxford, Lord Grey, Lord Rivers, and Lord Stanley.

Yorkist blocks that may be deployed later in the game if certain conditions are met include a King block (which will represent whichever Yorkist heir has the throne), the Duke of Clarence, the Duke of Gloucester, and Lord Hastings. None of these blocks will have a corresponding Lancastrian block.

Finally, we have a few miscellaneous blocks. They include a Lancastrian King block, the Calais garrison, the army of the Northern March, the Scottish army, and a Neville King block (representing an heir from either side that might fall under the Kingmaker’s spell). All of these save the Lancastrian King will of course have both a red and white block.

Block strength will typically range between 2-4 strength points depending upon how large an army each of the nobles could raise historically. The army of the Northern March, however, was so large that I’m seriously contemplating making that an 8-6-4-2 block. The same goes for the Scottish army block..

There will be no A-B-C ratings for blocks because the armies during this period were typically very similar to one another. Most blocks will hit on a 1-2. A minority, however, will be able to hit on a 1-3. These better blocks represent armies led by those nobles who were most capable on the battlefield.

The Map

For now, we’re going with an area map in an evocative period style. There are 36 areas on the map (Hammer, by way of comparison, had 22) and it will include all of England, Wales, southern Scotland, and Calais. There will also be an abstracted holding box to represent blocks that are in exile somewhere in Europe (historically, that could mean France, Brittany, Burgundy, or Ireland). I thought about including specific holding boxes and cards for each country with some special rules about each, but (i) this would take up too much mapboard and card realestate space, and (ii) it’s not really warranted given that neither side had any trouble maintaining themselves in exile. If things got too hot in one country, they simply high-tailed it to another that was more amenable to their stay. Accordingly, I didn’t see the point.

Most of the Dukes, Marquis, and Earls will have multiple “home areas” given the wide distribution of their lands. Lords for the most part will have only one home area (Hastings being the major exception). Areas where the King held a great deal of land directly will also serve as a home area for the monarch. The only areas on that map that don’t have noble associated with them are the two areas in Scotland and the Principality of Durham. Most areas will have two or more nobles with “seats” in that area.

So what does a “home area” mean? Several things. First, blocks can be deployed at the beginning of the campaign season in any one of their home areas. Second, blocks get +1 on their firepower if they are fighting a battle in a home area. This represents not so much their control of castles in the area as it does the fact that they can recruit a larger army when on their home ground. Third, blocks can gain replacement steps if they end a turn in their home area.

Most blocks will have a movement rating of 2 areas per turn, but borders will not restrict movement at all. That is, as many blocks as might wish to cross a border – even into battle – can do so. The standing army of Calais and the Northern Marches, as well as all of the Kings, will have a movement rating of 3 to represent the more professional nature of those forces.

Kings & Things

To keep the game from taking forever to play – and to keep the game balanced – each side will have only four potential kings. Once all your potential kings are dead, you lose.

In the order of their succession, the Lancastrians have Margaret of Anjou (representing the feeble Henry VI and his young son the Prince of Wales at the start of the game), Edward of Lancaster (the Prince of Wales come of age), the Duke of Somerset, and finally, the Earl of Pembroke (the future Henry VII if history repeats itself).

In the order of their succession, the Yorkists have the Duke of York, the Earl of March (the future Edward IV if history repeats itself), the Duke of Clarence, and the Duke of Gloucester (the future Richard III if history repeats itself).

Each claimant will be represented by a card, which means there will be four claimant cards for the Lancastrians and four for the House of York. Each card will probably sport some sort of pithy line from Shakespeare and then tell you special rules to employ when that particular individual takes the throne.

The Card Deck

There will be 42 cards in the deck. When you consider the eight claimant cards (which are kept separate from the deck), that means that the game will have a total of 50 cards.

My idea for now is to completely divorce movement from the cards. In short, you can play a card whenever you want and don’t need to play a card for movement. This allows me great flexibility in fashioning these cards and similar flexibility in deck management. Player A, for instance, might have five cards in his hand while Player B has but two. You can naturally play more than one card at a time (even a flurry of four in bang-bang-bang-bang fashion if you want to shoot your load like that) and gain or lose cards depending upon circumstances. This will allow one more flexibility in managing the politics and whatnot of the period than might be possible with the conventional one-card-at-a-time approach.

One-third of the deck (14 cards) represent cards that will “flip” a designated noble or (in two special cases) a group of nobles. Another card allows you to flip the Calais garrison. You can play them at any time – even at the onset of battle! Holding one of these cards for a block you control is the only way to know for certain that this guy is firmly in your camp. Don’t have the card, and you’ll have to wonder about his allegiance.

The remainder of the cards provide for some interesting events. My tentative list of cards follows:

There are two “Rebellion” cards, which force the King to go to a designated area to put down this alleged rebellion.

A “Robin of Redesdale” card will do some serious damage in that designated area (getting both this and the rebellion card will be a pretty good thing for a player challenging the throne).

A “Scottish Alliance” card allows you to deploy the Scottish army, while a “Scottish Invasion” card allows you to march it south of Northumbland/Cumberland.

Four “Mercenary” cards will give you a bump in firepower in a battle.

“The Best Laid Plans …” allow you to negate an enemy card that was just played.

“The King is Dead” allows you to kill a monarch of old age, disease, or some such.

“Navy” makes it difficult for exiles to land in England.

“Conspiracy Uncovered” forces the enemy to discard all of his cards that might flip a noble or the Calais garrison.

“Kingmaker!” allows you to flip an enemy heir to your side if you happen to control the Neville family (replace the heir’s block with a Neville King block in that case).

“Diplomacy” forces the enemy if he has blocks in exile to discard half of his cards.

Two “Foreign Assistance” cards allow you to bring a block in exile to full strength (they are otherwise only 1-step blocks).

“Sudden Death” allows you to permanently remove a noble from the game (both white and red representations), simulating something that kills off all male heirs in the family.

“Time of Choosing” allows you to roll for all neutral nobles.

“Reshuffle the Deck” returns all discarded and played cards to the deck.

“Neville-Percy Feud” allows you to take control of the Warwick/Salisbury/Montagu/Fauconberg blocks if the enemy controls the Earl of Northumberland/Egremont and visa versa.

“Warden of the Northern March” allows you to deploy the Northern March block if you control the Earl of Northumberland.

“Spy” allows you to examine your opponent’s cards.

“Mercenaries Go Home” forces your opponent to discard all mercenary cards.

“Propaganda” reduces an enemy army in a designated area.

“Welsh Marches” allows you some combat bonus if you’re fighting an army in Wales.

And finally, “Reconciliation” allows you to flip an enemy noble block but it is removed from play until the campaign season is over.

In theory, these cards ought to lead to some really interesting and tense game play. For instance, you may be tempted to play a bunch of cards at once, but holding a number of cards back and keeping the enemy guessing regarding what you have up your sleeve can keep your opponent in a state of serious doubt about your military and political capabilities. This strategy will look pretty good if you’ve also got the “Spy” and/or “Conspiracy Uncovered” cards, but perhaps risky if you don’t. You may be tempted to discard some events – like noble loyalty cards if you already have the designated noble(s) – but unless you also have the “Reshuffle Deck” card, you run the risk of handing him off to the enemy that way. Even if you have nothing but junk, if you hold those cards tight and act confidently, perhaps you can bluff your opponent into thinking you have some killer cards that you really don’t. In short, the possibilities here are quite rich from a gameplay perspective.

How do you get cards? At the beginning of each campaign season, you’ll get a set amount. The insurgent player (meaning, the player who does not control the throne) must decide to either pass or play. If he passes, he gets to discard a card and draw another. If that’s what he does, the other player may do likewise and a year immediately passes.

If the insurgent plays (meaning, he plays a card or moves an army or group of armies), the war is on! Henceforth, cards can still be discarded and drawn if you sit and pass – but if the enemy does likewise, the campaign ends and the board resets (which is probably bad news if you’re the insurgent player). If you win a battle, you get to draw a card clean from the deck without discarding, and if you win a battle against the King, you get to draw a couple. Moreover, if an insurgent player has a block at the top of his succession line sitting around in England, he gets to draw a card at the end of his turn. This puts pressure on the King to deal with insurgencies as quickly as possible.

This ought to be fun stuff.

Gameplay Basics

At the beginning of each year, the player in control of the throne deploys his blocks in whichever of their seats he wishes. They are dialed-up a point if they were damaged in the previous year. The insurgent player does likewise, but blocks in exile do not dial-up. This “game reset” will be broadly familiar to those who’ve played Hammer.

A Turn begins with a die roll with ties going to the insurgent player (winner chooses). If you pass, you know what happens. If you play, you move any/all blocks you want. Your opponent then does likewise with the usual pinning/reinforcement dynamic. Two passes end the year. Battles are then fought. And as noted above, cards can be played at any time during the turn.

As I noted in Design Diary (I), defenders in battle during the war gained absolutely no advantage on the battlefield. This suggests simultaneous fire, but that can get awkward to manage if more than a few blocks are involved at a time. We’ll experiment with this and see. If that doesn’t work, we may try a battle-board approach, but I’d rather not do that because it makes the game a bit more complicated to play and might well add substantial play time to the game. Moreover, given the fact that there was little “generalship” in these fights, I’m not sure a battle board is really warranted.

Another interesting feature of these battles is that retreats with substantial forces in tow were very rare. Either you vanquished the enemy in battle or you were obliterated. Accordingly, I’m inclined limit retreats to one block per round for each side. If the King or the insurgent heir is in battle, it can opt to try for exile abroad during a battle turn, but that prevents the entire army from firing (they tend to get disillusioned if they see their leader looking to make a run for it). Roll one die; on a 1-3, drop your King or heir down to 1 strength point and put it in the European exile box or in Scotland if you control the Scottish army. If you succeed, any other nobles in the your army also have the opportunity to roll for exile. On a 4-6, tough luck; you’ve got to stick around that battle turn and forgo all your army firing to boot. Nobody gets out.

If you kill a noble block during battle – and it has a corresponding version that you can control – it stays out of the game for the year but flips to your side at the beginning of the following year. Deploy it at 1 strength point in a home seat. If that dead enemy block does not have a counterpart that you can control (say, if you’re playing the Yorkist side and you kill the Duke of Somerset), then the block is permanently removed from the game. If any enemy noble goes into exile – and the noble has a corresponding block that you can control (for instance, if you’re playing the Yorkist side and the Lancastrian Duke of Buckingham goes into exile), deploy your version of that block at 1 strength point in a home seat.

A year will not have any turn limit. It will go on until both sides pass or until an heir or King goes into exile. At the end of the year, you keep whatever cards are still in your hand. Reshuffle the deck, reset your guys, advance the year track by one, and start all over again. Games go on until all of one side’s heirs are dead or until 1489, in which case whoever controls the throne is the winner. Alternatively, players can mutually decide at the beginning of the game at what year they’re going to call the game. Whoever controls is King at the end of that year wins (assuming all the heirs weren’t off-ed earlier, of course).

Where Things Stand

I have finished a working draft of the mapboard and will begin designing the labels this week. After that, I’ll work on the cards. Then, playtesting will commence. Again, let me issue the standard warning - everything above is subject to change and nothing is written in stone.

In the meantime, Columbia tells me that they’ll be putting the game up on their “Gameplan” page (with a map for you guys to see) within a matter of days, so if you like what you’ve read so far – and liked Hammer and/or Crusader Rex – I hope that you’ll pre-order the game.
_________________
Designer, Hammer of the Scots & Crusader Rex

[Jim Krohn]

It will be good to have it on gameplan. It can start the process of racking up orders while you finish the design.

[bigcheese]

For the second time today I can quote Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane . I was becoming concerned considering I first heard about it more than a year ago in an interview on BBG and there have been mixed comments about its future since. It's also good to see a tentative, if optimistic, timetable.
_________________
Matthew

[rcube]

Jerry, this sounds very exciting. A lot more "concrete" news on this second post. Thanks for choosing to keep sharing with us your progress (at the possible expense of snooping from other companies).

At first I thought "well, it's basically a very supped up HotS with some CR on the side".... not necessarily a bad thing. But then I read about the new cards which to me add everything I like about CDG's: random events that add certain advantages/disadvantages and lots of flavor to the game. In this case, it's not driving the game as in CDG's, but they add a very interesting level of strategy to the game. Now it's not just good maneuvering and succesful battles that will win the game, but good "political skills" through use and combination of these cards. Great stuff.

The only pitfall? The questions that will come up. It's hard to predict all the possible combinations, and counters, and gaming situations to know how everything will work. Like in other CDG's, I'm suspecting (but I may be wrong) that a lot of questions will pop up from gamers (eg " if my friend plays so and so, and I play so and so, and this block had retreated from wherever, and ...").

REALLY looking forward to this game after seeing this new post!

[Stan Hilinski]

I've always wondered just how much each wooden block contributed to the cost of a CG game. I ask this because it occurred to me one could put the sticker for a noble who can switch sides onto a neutral color block, and one could tell its current allegiance by simply noting which direction it was facing. True, some fog of war would be lost, but I wonder how significant it would be. In this case using a neutral color block would eliminate 11 blocks, and I wonder what effect it would have on cost and design flexibility.

I notice you said there would not be A, B, C ratings, so I wondered how you thought combat might be resolved. Assuming that the defender got first shot, would he fire all his blocks in each round before the attacker got off one shot? If true, then this seems like a defensive game because big defending stacks might be unbeatable. Or would you consider simultaneous fire or alternating fire, i.e. defender block, attacker block, defender, etc?

Concerning an 8-6-4-2 Goliath block in a world of 4-3-2-1 Davids, the one trouble with that is if one uses the convention that hits are always taken from the strongest defender, then Goliath will have to go down to half strength before any other block is even considered. I'm assuming Goliath would need 2 hits to reduce one step, but still, it seems a little out of wack. Another thing I think might happen is once Goliath gets down to 4 SP, he probably will walk around like that for most of the game. Ron Draker has some 5-4-3-2 blocks in Fredericks War, and I've noticed they tend to hang at 4 strength because the 5 always gets "shot off" first, and one never gets around to topping him off.

I like your idea of decoupling movement from the cards, but of course I then wonder just how movement might be accomplished? Are you thinking about a fixed number of movement actions per player?

The one thing I wasn't crazy about in your description was how blocks might change sides at the instant of battle. I enjoy games better if I need to make rational judgments and not guesses. If I am deciding should I attack a 4-block defender with my 6-block stack, I think I'm making a judgment based on experience, etc. However, now my opponent can slap done a switch-sides card after I committed, and suddenly my rational attack is 4 vs 6 instead of 6 vs 4, and what should I have done instead? Made a better guess? It's the kind of thing that just annoys players.
_________________
Stan Hilinski

[Jerry Taylor]

[rcube]

[bigcheese]

[Jerry DeMoss]

Well, as soon as War of the Roses hits the preorder list, I'm ready to make my order. Really looks interesting from your description and answers to the questions already asked.
_________________
A wargamer since the AH games of the 1970's with rekindled interest in the last several years.

[Duglis]

This game should not be called WotR as an abbreviation. That game is already out and is doing well. It is called War of the Ring by FFG and Nexus.
Lord of the Rings game.

Let's think of something else...

how about WRoses?
WotRS?
WotRO?




be well

[Natus]

Jerry,

all this sounds great and just what the surgeon ordered. Can you explain more about how nobles flip? Are there conditions that need to be met, at least with card play? Right now it sounds a tad chaotic and like how the mercenary armies of so many wargames are handled. And I hope there are some foreign blocks included that can be picked up in relevant spaces: Welsh, Cornish, Irish, French mercs, Burgundians, Normans, Flemish, Bretons, etc. Also, what if the Scots army wasn't a honking big block, but 3-5 blocks? ould that work?

Forgive me if you've already given answers to the above, I'm working on a very slow and volatile comp.

[Stan Hilinski]

[Jerry Taylor]

If a game on this topic does not provide for the risk that one of your nobles might backstab you in the heat of battle, then it's simply incapable of reflecting the political tension of the war - and incapable of storyboarding history at all. Gameplay is important, but you've got to make sure the historical fundamentals are covered.

In this game, if you don't want to run the risk of getting betrayed in the heat of battle, you have an easy out - only bring those nobles into combat who you're sure won't turn on you. That is, only use those nobles for whom you have a corresponding "flip" card in your hand. The uncertainty about such things is one of several reasons why armies at the time weren't all that big. Alternatively, don't go into battle with questionable nobles unless the other guy has spent most of his cards. Without a specific "Essex flips" card, Essex isn't going to flip. Finally, if you have the "Best Laid Plans" card in reserve, you can nix at least one flip card if you need to. Or play a "Spy" card before a heavy commitment to ensure no unpleasant surprises. In sum, how much political risk you take with these nobles is up to you.

The downside, of course, is that you run the risk of getting mauled by a larger army if you play too conservatively. But remember, the other guy has the same worries you do and runs the same risks you do if he masses all his blocks together for a fight regardess of what's in his hand.

But the bottom line is that tastes differ. Decisions about how much risk to take in battle sounds tremendously fun to me. Card management ought to be a blast. But perhaps that doesn't appeal to you. The honest take - not the rude take - is to say, "sorry about that - you can't please everyone."

Anyway, we'll see how it playtests. Just because it's a good idea in theory doesn't mean it wil execute well over the board.
_________________
Designer, Hammer of the Scots & Crusader Rex

[Laurie Gordon]

Your description sounds great Jerry. I think the number of blocks and areas sound good for a fast game, and the mechanics are so streamlined that this lengthy war could well be played out in one evening. Simultaneous fire and dropping the A B C ratings both seem well justified in historical context. I also am looking forward to a period map.

The event cards add a wonderful dimension to the game, and I think are a great way to represent the ebb and flow of this protracted conflict. About half the cards favour the pretender/weaker side, while only Navy and Diplomacy favour the reigning monarch. So the during the lulls between invasions the pretender will gradually accumulate a hand that will give him a fair shot at success when he does invade.

I can't wait to pre-order this one.

One question though.

Your desciption says one side moves, the other moves, two passes end the year, battles are then fought. But if battles don't take place until both sides have passed, it sounds like neither force can catch the other one dispersed. You might have set up a nice battle with 8 of your blocks to his 4, but your opponent just keeps moving his units in from all over the country until every unpinned unit he has is in that battle.

Perhaps I read too much into the phrase "two passes end the year" coming before "Battles are then fought". I took that to mean the sequence is A moves, B moves, A moves, B moves, ... A passes, B passes, battles are fought, year over. More likely, you mean, A moves, B moves, battles are fought, A moves, B moves, battles are fought, ... A passes, B passes, year over. Is that it?

Laurie
_________________
Toronto Area Boardgaming Society - www.tabsonline.net

[Jerry Taylor]

Yes, that's it. But perhaps I will restrict moves to some set number of group moves per turn. We'll see what works best.
_________________
Designer, Hammer of the Scots & Crusader Rex