[CHV: Mike wrote this review as the base piece for a BROG multi-view review, I thought it would be interesting to see it separately]

Like Agent Mulder, I have a bad feeling that I am being manipulated. The Bergster has lined me up to review a game I do not much like, so my outpourings will be paired with 'another viewpoint'. We can therefore have balance, synthesis and all make up our minds calmly. And in case you were wondering why I am here at all, it is because I enjoyed the shorter scenarios from Alexander when it first came out, feel the system has gone rapidly downhill ever since, and I was willing to give it another chance as I like Samurai's subject matter. Apart from international cachet, I suggest the other reason I am writing here is that I am a proponent of quick, simple, historical games - the diametrically opposed position to the marketing high ground claimed by GBoH.

In many respects this is an easy review to write. I do not care for reviews based on paraphrased rules and laundry lists, so thankfully the hard work has already been done by the many reviewers of the GBoH system. By now, you will have either played it and fallen in love, doomed to buy expansions ASL-fashion for evermore, or will have sold it to those nice people at the flea market. Samurai is, I am assured, standard GBoH with some minor tweaks, one of which I couldn't honestly discern because of the intricacies of the activation rules, and the other which sometimes takes over the action in the shape of individual combats. Thankfully, there are none of the battle line rules from SPQR which, all things considered, is a godsend.

Summary

What I thought might be interesting, before telling you what I did not like, was to come up with a summary of what appeals to me about GBoH, even after the agonising experience that was Samurai.

Firstly, I think in the right situation (a small scenario and preferably a well known battle) it does a creditable job of conveying the situation, flow of the battle, unit and weapon differentiation and no little period atmosphere. Largely the product of OrBat research, but still there. This is what drew me to play and replay Alexander, with its phalanxes and skirmishers, and to give Samurai a chance.

Secondly, as a gamer in many other fields, I rather like the idea of trumping and its effect on the game. Note I do not say this is a historical benefit, just a gaming one. It keeps the game ticking over, and adds uncertainty, but I think the same effect might be achieved in a less involved and more historical fashion.

Thirdly, there is a challenge to this game system that makes me want to play it, analyse it and try to get inside the heads of the designers and fans. Why? Because as with many fields, one must know one's enemy. So there is an almost academic interest in determining why these games are played at all.

Six Distinct Battles

With six distinct battles, Samurai delivers a good selection of commanders, troop mixes and situations. Indeed, if one were choosing the important, and interesting, combats and characters from a history book, these would be the ones selected. Sadly, despite the impression that many get from popular history, there are few brightly dressed archers, cavalry, swordsmen and ninjas here.

Those depicted are later Samurai battles where the field is dominated by the uniform, but still exotic, ashigaru spearmen, the cavalry are somewhat hamstrung and the musket is already becoming a force to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, the busho and Samurai are present in numbers, which partly makes up for it, and you can always imagine the sweeping action from Kagemusha and Ran as a reference point.

Brass Tacks

But now to brass tacks. We played Okehazama and Mikata-Ga-Hara, each taking around 45 minutes to set up and almost four hours to resolve. We each won one game, but the second battle is so unbalanced as to make this an invalid comparison. In fairness the rules clearly point this out, it was just that we were looking for the shorter games in preference. If you wanted to play Sekigahara, which is effectively the biggest in the box and the one most of us know, I guess you would be looking at 7 or 8 hours of play, perhaps more, and this does not even include all the troops at the battle. It is a matter of conjecture as to whether the large number of troops out to the East might have had some involvement, or at least psychological impact, but the designers elect to leave them out.

Moan

The first moan concerns set up, a gripe not specific to Samurai but reflecting a personal drift away from lots of counters and hexes. This took me back to the bad old days. Popping loads of counters, scanning for factors, squinting at hex references, stacking, the time taken. As they say round these parts, purple faced, "I can't be having this". These days, it is not unusual for me to learn, teach, set-up and play some boardgames in 45 minutes. Even in the historical field quick play games show where, to my mind, we have to move. Whether that is in the short, medium or longer term for the market, I really do not know, but I am there already. And waiting.

Trumping

The next game aspect is command, activation and the infamous trumping mechanism. I have said this before, but if you could come up with a more artificial and strained system to simulate command, I would really like to see it. Ironically, it works as a game but fails to recreate period command procedures and their impact - with commensurate bearing on the battle process. This to me feels nothing like commanding an army, and perhaps more to the point it rarely acts like a Samurai army being commanded. It is too flexible by half, allows for battlefield feats that must be considered unlikely and, as a by product, spawns some of the stodgiest and incomprehensible rules I have yet had the necessity to read. Is there an editor in the house? We also desperately need a flowchart to explain all the various states of trumped, finished, activated, momentum, continuity and so on.

I can't be alone in finding this a nightmare of terms and play sequencing. I think the impact of the system is reduced in Alexander because of the simple linear battles, fewer units and factions and the relative unanimity of the armies. Certainly I did not find it as onerous as in SPQR, LotN and Samurai . But most of all it feels too gamey - this is not wrong in itself, but the terminology of trumping and the ability to stop an opponent in his tracks feels out of place here. And neither is it design for effect, since barring poor die rolls, the commanders have it way too easy. The result is battles that are driven by mainly the whim of commanders, rather than fate.

All of this I can live with, but not condone, since I know trumping is the core of the system and perhaps much of its appeal. But when we got to the meat of the game, combat, I quickly turned anti-GBoH again. I am sure you know how it works: identify factors, check charts, add modifiers and shifts, roll dice, check charts, fiddle with hit markers, flip counters, re-stack the fallers, repeat ad nauseam down the line, go gradually mad. The killer blow is that, broadly speaking, Samurai counters can take about twice as much damage as their forebears. Oh joy.

Death of a Thousand Cuts

It feels like a death of a thousand cuts. Some of the smaller engagements were taking two or three turns to get a result, and the overall flow of the game (otherwise pretty good) was lost in a number of prolonged battles that, towards the end of the second game, I really couldn't be bothered to work out. Thankfully, there is a rule that allows for entire factions to depart the board due to cracked morale, which quickly relieves the suffering.

The question I have is whether the detail benefits (namely unit micro- differentiation, incremental losses and multiple counters per faction) are a) required and b) balanced by all this fuss. Doubtless this is down to personal taste, and I can see why the detail appeals, but the same could be tackled differently, using fewer counters, quicker systems and introducing the detail in compensating mechanics.

All that said, my opponent for both battles enjoyed the combat more than I did. While he too hates long set up times and hundreds of counters, he is more used to miniature gaming systems where lengthy and intricate calculations and casualty marking are common. But even he said the games were far too long for the benefit derived and questioned the realism of the command and activation systems. A man ripe for conversion!

If I was asked what I remember about the games, I would say the Samurai challenge rules. This is both good and bad. Good because it generated enough interest for me to remember it above the profusion of dice rolls and factors, and because it was flavoursome, bad because it seems to be another artificial command mechanism often used to slow troublesome units, and because this is a battle level game at heart, not a series of individual combats.

Granted, they were important events but surely not to the extent, and the time, they take in the game. And comment on the Internet would at least back this up. There is no talk of how the battles went or how long they took, or whether the results were historical, it is more a focus on graphics, how many battles are in the box and how many severed heads were taken.

Style and Formula

I do not know in how high a regard Rodger MacGowan is held these days; to me he is doing much the same formulaic stuff as he was years ago and still getting away with it. I have nothing against his style, which can certainly be appealing (my favourite box art ever is GDW's 1815), but what I question is his approach. In evidence I have two major gripes, both relating to the counters. The first disappointment is just four uninspired counter illustrations in the entire game, despite the fascinating uniforms and heraldic variety of the Samurai period. This is not the work of a graphics studio going the extra mile. One does not wonder for long how the talented designers at Vae Victis would have tackled the counter graphics - and it is safe to assume cries of 'Wow!' and 'Cor!' would not be far behind. By contrast, Samurai is a sombre game representing a unique and exciting period. But still worse are the counters themselves - a mishmash of numbers, colours, codes and factors that frankly are anything but intuitive.

I thought the secret of good design was that it conveys the message and the information clearly - I would suggest that these counters achieve neither. Granted, the designers have dictated that these figures be present and familiarity with GBoH will greatly improve the situation, but there has to be a better way. We spent a lot of time just looking up what all the factors were, especially on the commanders.

So that is that. A game that, because of the subject matter, should appeal but which managed to not only alienate me, but also decided me against the system for good. I know this will be a different strokes argument, but it depresses me that a game system this fiddly, inelegant and archaic seems to have established itself as something of a tactical standard, yet it could be so much better. Quicker, simpler, historical and with just as much decision making interest. There is so much that is wrong with GBoH and so little right, that I do wonder at the success it has achieved. A triumph of marketing over content? Or simply what gamers want to buy and play? Or, most likely, that there is so far nothing else to rival the series?

Graphic Presentation: Counters: Cluttered and confusing, lacking variety and atmosphere.
Maps: Pastels and rich browns, about par for the course. Striking box.
Playability: Set-up grim. Play fiddly and overlong. Tortuous activation/trumping mechanism provokes gamey and artificial feel.
Replayability: I would rather have a prostate inspection.
Creativity: Close to zero, given the ancestry. Lopping of heads and some tweaked mechanisms is the sum total. Dare one say Cookie Cutter?
Historicity: Command system makes the results dubious. Choice of battles not bad.
Wristage: Maximum Wristocity. I am in physio.
Comparisons: Better than the Command effort.