Published by Games Workshop, 1985
Designed by Derek Carver

What it’s about

“With fire and sword and your battle-hardened bands of Warrior Knights you hold the balance of power in a kingdom torn apart by bloody civil war and anarchy. The King lies dead, murdered by a traitor’s hand, whilst the forces of the scheming Barons ravage the countryside and war upon their rivals. Which will emerge from the conflict as the new Lord of the Empire? Will it be you that conquers all to become the first of a new dynasty of Warrior Knights?”

Components

1 8 1/2"x11 1/2"x2 1/4" Box
1 12-page 8" x 11" Rules booklet
1 22" x 16" mounted game map
24 3/4" plastic Noble Pieces (4 per faction: brown; black; lt. green; dk. green; red; orange)
24 2 1/2"x3" Noble Cards (4 per faction)
6 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Baron Cards (1 per faction)
6 2 1/2"x3" Stronghold Cards (1 / faction)
25 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Regular Troop Cards (12x100; 12x50; 1 Blank)
62 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Mercenary Troop Cards (6 sets of 10)
1 set English, Lombards, Poles, Rumanians, Swiss and Tuscan mercenaries consisting of

1 300 Mercenary Troop Cards
2 200 Mercenary Troop Cards
3 100 Mercenary Troop Cards
4 50 Mercenary Troop Cards
2 Blank Mercenary Troop Cards

19 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Town Levies Troop Cards
1 100 Levies Troop Card for each city on the board: Gedze; Ballin; Straven; Vecht; Froli; Monz; Bingen; Rota; Alta; Olbi; Surat; Kovel; Lenz; Semlik; Thira; Berac; Isar; Uran
1 Blank Levies Troop Card (spare)
60 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Assembly Cards (incl. 6 Blank spares)
60 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Fate Cards (incl. 1 Blank spare
1 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Chairman Card
1 1 1/2"x2 3/4" Veto Card
1 4 1/2" circular 1/2 Crown Coins (White)
3 3 1/2" circular 1 Crown Coins (White)
10 1/2" square 5 Crown Coins (Gold)
33 1/2" circular 10 Crown Coins (Gold)
20 1/2" circular 50 Crown Coins (Orange)
46 1/2" hexagonal 100 Crown Coins Orange)
18 3/4" circular 500 Crown Coins (Orange)
114 3/4" square Vote Counters
6 1/2" square End of Line Counters
6 1/2" square Fleet Counters (incl. 2 spares)
3 1/2" square Royal Pretender Counters (incl. 1 spare)
12 1" square Razed City Counters
3 1/2" square Game Turn Counters (incl. 2 spares)

1 set counters per faction including:
14 1" square City Control Counters
6 1" square Improved City Counters
1 3/4" square Stronghold Counter
18 1/2" square Garrison Counters
1 1/2" Blank Baron Counter
1 1/2" 6-sided die

Player’s Value

One cannot review the components of Warrior Knights and not be immediately struck by the similarity to Kingmaker. From the office and troop cards that are allocated to the individual knights, to the emphasis on gaining votes within the Assembly, this game is clearly inspired by the Ariel/Avalon Hill classic treatment of the Wars of the Roses.

However, lacking the historical grounding of its spiritual predecessor, Warrior Knights comes across as some what of a fantasy game. The blending of a fictional landscape and faux titles with actual medieval references (the mercenary units, for example) only serves to remind the player that this is not a game about the dynastic struggles they may have studied in school. It feels like an uneasy mix of Kingmaker and Divine Right, without the full charm or appeal of either.

In addition to the lack of historical reference, there is another significant difference between this game and Kingmaker; Warrior Knights adds a level of economic strategy to the mix of military and political planning. Gold becomes as important a contributor to the player’s overall success as troops and votes.

Like Derek Carver’s other Games Workshop medieval game Blood Royale, some players have complained that the game suffers from an excessive length. In fact, in 1997 Carver responded to these concerns with a few rules revisions to speed up game play:

“Many players now report on the game being too long for their present gaming. Hey ho! Not only did we seem to have more spare time back in the seventies (when it was invented) but any of us who still have our original copy have -- along with the box -- grown older, acquiring the additional customary basket of responsibilities along the way. This is certainly so in our own group but, as with many of the longer games, there are ways to shorten it -- even though it’ll never become a 90 minute affair!

With Warrior Knights we now play the following additional rules:

1. Remove the ‘Loan’ and ‘Tax’ cards from the Assembly Motions. These both have a slowing effect on the game -- but you’ve probably discovered that for yourselves, anyway.

2. Deal out approximately 50% more Mercenary cards for auction each turn. (There is no need to give players more cash to start, they will simply pay less for them.) These extra troops allow players to undertake more things right from the start, so it gets the game moving quicker.

3. Fix a time limit for the game and when you know you are getting towards the end record the number of Towns (not Overseas Cities) each player owns at the end of each round. Then if the game ends without a definite winner (i.e., a player owning 51% of the unrazed towns on the board) add up the number of towns each controlled during the final number of turns equal to the number of players. (For this game -- as with most -- it is preferable to record the holding over a number of turns as opposed to just the final turn simply because things can fluctuate considerably from one turn to the next).

Finally I would recommend that if you play with more than four you restrict the number of Fate cards to four per movement round. This was the original intention but it never got into the published game. In the case of five players it can be achieved by the ‘Chairman’ not drawing a card -- and the Chairman plus the Veto Holder in the case of six players.

Alternatively, a method we prefer, which has the additional advantage of being less predictable, is that a standard pack of playing cards is doctored so that one-fifth and two-sixths (one-third) are pictures. One is turned each player turn and if it is a picture no Fate card is turned. Without applying this rule certain actions like sieges or going overseas become more hazardous when the number of players increases, which seems a bit daft when you think about it.”

Collector’s Value

Unlike most of the other Games Workshop titles printed in the mid-to-late 80’s, Warrior Knights does not appear to have the same level of quality components. The counters are thin, and the colour palette is bland. The only plastic pieces are the small shield markers, and the cards are almost all in black and white.

All of the above does not seem to have any impact on its market price, however. Along with most of the other Games Workshop titles, Warrior Knights typically sells for more than $50 at auction.

Boone lists low, high and average prices of 8/45/26.50 at auction and 7/50/ 25.83 for sale.

Other games of this type

Games about the struggles between the different families, religions and kingdoms of Medieval Europe have traditionally been fairly popular. Some of the better known are: Blood Royale, Games Workshop Empires of the Middle Ages, SPI Kingmaker, Avalon Hill Age of Renaissance, Avalon Hill Europa Universalis, Azure Wish A Mighty Fortress, SPI and Jihad, Simulations Canada

Other games by the designer

Showbiz, Avalon Hill; Dr. Who, Games Workshop; Blood Royale, Games Workshop; New World, Avalon Hill; James Clavell’s Whirlwind, FASA; Calamity, Games Workshop (an “Insurance Game” designed with Andrew Lloyd Webber!)

Articles about this game

A more thorough review of the actual gameplay can be found at http://www.grognard.com/reviews/warknigh.txt. Space Gamer 79; “Kingmaking the Noble Way” by Tom Swider. White Dwarf 73; “Power and Politics: Talk about the Warrior Knights game”

Derek Carver has last say

[Warrior Knights] was the first game I ever invented -- called at the time Warlords -- and it had been around for quite some time when it eventually appeared on the market. Games have been played in our house once or twice a week for over 30 years and Ian Livingstone of Games Workshop used to attend from time to time.

Games Workshop had by that time dipped its toe in the water of games production and had got a few games under its belt. But Ian -- who, with his partner Steve Jackson are both keen games players -- had the ambition to publish a really big game and he wanted that game to be Warlords. So the decision was made to take the plunge. Albie Fiore was in charge of things at their end and I could not have worked with a better guy. No rule was changed -we simply refined some of them between us. We also made a great effort to publish the game with a user friendly rule book. Despite our efforts to get everything right, some mistakes still crept into the rules and for your interest I attach a list of Q&A.

The name Warlords had to be dropped because another game had already been published with that title so Warrior Knights was substituted. My only regret about the publication was that in those days Games Workshop did not have the die cutting facilities available to them that have since become a feature of (German) games. So the counters were very thin (I use two sets stuck together!) But apart from that they made a superb effort, and not one that I could envisage a producer today embarking on.

As for republishing, the problem with Warrior Knights and Blood Royale is they are both long games and these are no longer fashionable. In fact, when a major German publisher was thinking of publishing one of my hitherto unpublished games, I was told that 80 minutes was the playing time they aimed at! That successfully rules out anything I have ever had anything to do with!

WARRIOR KNIGHTS Questions and Answers

Q: Fate card #4 ‘Epidemic’ refers to one sixth of the population and then instructs players to remove cards on a die roll of 1 or 2. This can’t be correct – and does it affect armies in transit or overseas?

A: A mistake. The cards are removed on a die roll of 1 only (and not 2). Troops out of the country are not affected. (Also, in order to limit the bad luck, players might prefer to agree that if a Noble rolls a 1 only he dies – each of the troop cards continue to roll and start from the Castle with the Heir, assuming there is one.)

Q: Do Barons cast all of their votes for each motion or do they split them between motions?

A: Except for the two-player game, each motion is voted on separately and each casts all of his votes or abstains.

Q: If a Baron is not at the Assembly can a noble of his Faction be given an Office?

A: Yes

Q: If the Veto holder vetoes the winning candidate for an Office, Concession, etc. can the ‘Corruption’ card then be played to change the order of the ‘runners-up’?

A: No. Corruption must be played at the time the Chairman announces the voting result. The use of the Veto is the final act followed only, possibly, by the Chairman having to use his casting vote to break a tie between runner-up Candidates.

Q: What happens if only one candidate for an Office, Concession, Governorship, etc. is voted for (the rest receiving no votes) and the Veto Holder then uses his Veto?

A: All candidates who received no votes at all are considered as being tied in equal second place and the Chairman has to cast his vote. NOTE: He cannot use his casting vote to reinstate the Vetoed candidate, but must choose from the remainder.

Q: What happens if everybody Abstains in an Assembly vote?

A: Once again, this is regarded as a tied vote and the Chairman uses his vote to determine the outcome. (Except in a two-player game, of course, where different voting rules apply.)

Q: In view of the fact that all Offices except one bring the benefit of troops, what happens if an Office is conferred upon a Noble who is currently holed-up in a town, etc. that is under siege? According to the rules the troops would not be able to penetrate the siege lines.

A: Debatable this one. Most players agree to hold the Office in abeyance until the siege is broken. But this is untidy. It would be better to agree upon a new rule that states: “In order to be granted an Office the Noble in question must at the time of receiving that Office be in a position to carry out his duties.” This would exclude Nobles that are under siege or are overseas. It would not exclude Nobles that were sick. (This rule would not apply to the Office of Lord High Overseer.)

Q: Nobles who lose all of their troops are out of the game for the time being, but what happens if such a noble has the Office of Lord High Overseer and what is the object of this troop-less Office?

A: He retains the office and resumes taking an active part in the game when he gets more troops. The Office is valuable if conferred upon your most powerful Noble, meaning he will never be called away to a General Council Meeting.

Q: What happens if a Noble is not on the board due to having no troops but in the meantime his line is wiped out. Can he still come on?

A: Hmmm. Could be answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Best to agree on ‘yes’.

Q: If a Baron’s Stronghold falls and he loses all of his Towns to he victor, what happens to any of his Nobles who might be in one of these towns?

A: The town changes hands and the Noble and his troops are expelled into the surrounding countryside. If Regular or Mercenary troops have been left there without a Noble to boost the town’s strength, the Mercenaries change sides and the Regulars are removed from play.

Q: The rules state that ‘Defender Retreat’ and ‘Attacker Retreat’ do not affect a force in a town. Clearly the defenders are ‘in’ the town but what about the attacker?

A: In an attack against a town or overseas city, AR and DR results are ignored. (Players will have noticed a type-setting mistake in the rules. Rule 13/3 refers to “DR (Defender Retreats) & AE (Attacker Retreats)”.

Q: Rule 13/1 (Resolving Combat) states that in arriving at Combat Odds the smaller total is divided into the large ignoring any fractions. In the examples surely 150 attacking 400 is not 1:2!

A: The rule is correct and the example is wrong. It would have been better if we had written the rule “... any fractions are ignored in the Defender’s favour” and then given the example of 250 attacking 400 as being 1:2

Q: Rule 13/3 (Combat Results) refers to “Cities and Castles” but makes no mention of Strongholds. Is there any significance in this?

A: Strongholds should have been mentioned. Also, the attacking of Castles is not a feature of the game. In addition, note the term ‘Cities’ as opposed to ‘Towns’. I originally referred to the locations on the main board as Towns and the four overseas locations as Overseas Cities. But the word Cities seems to have been used in places in the rules to refer also to the Towns on the main board.

Q: The rules state that the 300 deposit prior to a Stronghold Attack is lost if the attack is ‘Called Off’. What about if the attack simply fails and the attacker is defeated?

A: The 300 deposit rule was purely a gaming mechanic to discourage frivolous Stronghold attacks, especially early in the game. It was never intended to penalize an attacking player. The rules mean what they say. If the Baron continues with his attack but is defeated, perhaps by another force brought up to help the defender, he does not lose his 300. But if he runs away or is unfortunate enough to have all of his troops under one Noble and that Noble is called away, or whatever, forcing him to abandon the Attack/Siege, he loses his 300. However, should that single Noble die and all of his troops desert one gets into very grey areas of rule making. I personally feel that the player did not ‘call off ’ the attack so he should get his 300 back but I agree that that instance could be debatable. So once again I would urge players to remember the original purpose of the rule.

Q: Insolvency (Rule 19/1).

A: Although there is seemingly no real problem with this rule, players might find the following helpful. In an earlier version of the game, each player paid his wages and received his income at the beginning of his own movement turn. But we found players often forgot, so we made all wage and income payments for all players take place at the beginning of the Movement Round. This is simply a convenient game mechanic. Should a player be unable to pay a penalty Fires at the time the card is drawn, a note should be made of the debt that must be cleared at the next Income/Wages phase. Similarly, if a player is unable to pay wages, he can defer the penalty he suffers until the start of his turn. If in the meantime he has received income from, say, ‘Bumper Harvest’ he might then be in a position to pay the wages in full and so avoid the penalty.

A Shorter Game

Warrior Knights was invented at a time when we all thoroughly enjoyed ‘big’ games. Big then also meaning ‘long’. As time has passed we have found that we no longer have as much time as we did! The game can be easily shortened:

• A few towns can be razed before the game starts, but this can sometimes cause problems because a reduced number of towns at the start can result in a reduction of income. A better (or additional) solution is to increase the number of Mercenaries on sale each turn.

  For example, if in a five player game eight Mercenary cards were offered instead of five this would allow players at the beginning of the game to have enough troops to capture towns more quickly. They will also have enough to send overseas if they wish. This additional number of troops each turn also allows the game to progress at a faster pace. (No more cash is needed because players will bid less for each.)

• You should remove from the Assembly Pack the card “Emergency Fund” and also remove from the Fate Pack the card “Widespread Famine and Unrest”. Both of these cards have the effect of slowing the game down.
• The game should be played to a Maximum Time Limit. At the end of each full turn (not each Movement Turn) the number of towns controlled by each player is noted. Then when the time limit is reached (and if there is still no Winner according to the rules) each player’s town holdings for the final turns equal in number to the number of players are totalled. The player who for this number of turns has controlled the most towns is the winner (e.g., if there are five players you add up each player’s town holdings for the final five turns – from this it can be seen that it is not really necessary to record the Town Holding for the very early turns in the game.
• The number of Event Cards turned should also be reduced – both for the shorter game and also for a full game. When the game was first invented it was intended that there should be no more than four events during a round. (For example, it is more difficult to avoid Disaster at Sea if six are turned in a six-player game than if only three are turned in a three-player.) But this would have made the game expensive to produce so the rule was omitted. However it is easy to rectify this. There are various ways.

  In a five-player you could say that the Veto holder does not draw an Event Card when it is his turn. Likewise, in a six-player you could say that the Veto holder and the Chairman do not draw Event Cards. Alternatively, a deck of normal playing cards could be adjusted so that 4/5ths or 4/6ths are non-picture cards. These are shuffled and on each player’s turn a playing-card is turned. If it is a picture no Event card is drawn. This has a similar effect to the previous suggestion but it means that more than four Events could be turned in one Round and less in another, which is what some players might prefer because it is less predictable.

• The amount of ‘deposit’ needed for a Stronghold Attack could be reduced (say to 200), thereby bringing in the end game earlier.

What I invented, in the early seventies, was a game ‘system’, hopefully allowing groups to add the house rules that appealed to them. However, try to avoid making things too predictable – I find committed wargamers dislike certain random elements in the game. But Warrior Knights is all based on events that were a common occurrence in the Middle Ages and therein, hopefully, lies the ‘fun’ element of the game.