chris0zz
Rating: 10
This is probably the most addicting war game I have ever played. It is bloody and there a lot of tension all the through the very last turn. My dad and myself can't get enough of playing this game. This and Crusader Rex are two favorite Columbia block war games and I've played them all. The theme and this war are captured and it's extremely interesting. You really wanna go online and learn all about this war
CelticLover
Rating: 10
First Wargame. Very fun.
Cruo
Rating: 10
Simple, fast, exciting, great.
chansen2794
Rating: 9.5
My initial thought is that this is as good or better then Hammer of the Scots, which is high praise since that is one of my favorite games. I definitely want a few more plays under my belt but I am very impressed thus far.
DerRabe
Rating: 9.5
even better than HoS.
Belisarius88
Rating: 9
I may actually enjoy this slightly better than Hammer of the Scots, although this historical event interests me less. Have not played either game enough though. I do prefer how the nobles switch sides here, with the units having a wider variety than in HotS. Some units are completely loyal, some are mercenaries, and others can potentially switch. I'd like to read up on the period.
dougbass68
Rating: 9
I've played three times now, all as the House of Lancaster, and I really like the game. However, the third game was lost after some very uneven dice rolls, although my decision to go on the offensive may have been at least partly to blame.
dumpty
Rating: 9
We played Richard III and had an absolute blast! It may very well become my favorite Columbia block game.

R3 plays in under 3 hours (probably more like 2.5 hours) and seems pretty well balanced to me. Much more so than either Hammer or Crusader. No siege in the game, which I like.

Watch out for bad card draws. I might adjust the mulligan number to 15 AP.
davidhunter
Rating: 9
Very early days yet, but first impressions are very good. Some similarities to Hammer of the Scots, which means that it is very easy to pick up, but the game feels a lot shorter - time will tell whether this is a good thing or not.
bpowers
Rating: 9
Very good game, and fine alternative to Kingmaker. Plays very fast with lots of room for maneuver. I really like the campaign resets. Far less chance to 'turtle', keeps the game fluid.
DeviousDamen
Rating: 9
A fantastic 2 player game. Now the rules are down it plays comfortably in an evening. Towcester (where I live) is on the map.
drago74
Rating: 9
Probably the best Columbia Game in my collection.
Really deep, better than Hammer of The Scots.
Don't take the terrible cover into account. :)
elijah234
Rating: 9
Very compact game - three hours top! - but having the flavour of the Wars of the Roses. Treachery, death of heirs, the works. Battles come fast and furious. The new combat rules makes combat more exciting, with the possibility of death of the heirs at a more heightened level.

Admittedly, the new combat rules makes combat a more high-stakes affair and dice will be dice. But the advantage of the shorter duration means you can play again within one afternoon.
civplayer
Rating: 9
Definitely the best Columbia game in a very long time. Game length, complexity, and strategic depth are right in the sweet spot. Did I mention the game is FUN?
Chanfan
Rating: 8.5
Very enjoyable, made me read up on the history.
fehrmeister
Rating: 8.5
Excellent block game that's only a bit easier to learn, and somewhat less asymmetrical than Hammer of the Scots.
Braunschweig
Rating: 8.5
After first few plays, I have the feeling this might be even better than Hammer of the Scots, at least of equal quality. The shorter play time and the better looking components (map, cards) explain the higher rating. Perfect introduction game for block war games.
Capt_S
Rating: 8.5
After the initial playing...

I am intrigued. Like most of the Columbia block games I have tried, I tend to think of this as a puzzle that needs to be solved rather than a simulation. A fluid (ie dynamic) puzzle. Nothing wrong with that! The experience left me wanting more and I have spent several hours afterward studying the rules, map, units, etc..

Quick playing as there are only three turns of 7 cards each. I would guess that this is a 1.5 hour game on average. Beautiful components. There are a few rule exceptions that you need to keep in mind. Interesting victory conditions (either kill the five enemy heirs else be the King at the end of the game) makes timing important.
Arbuthnot
Rating: 8.5
Love this game. Played it 10+ times.
aro246
Rating: 8.5
One of the best block games that I've ever played. Better than Hammer or Rommel.
coker
Rating: 8
I still prefer Hammer of the Scots, but the fluidity of Richard can be a plus--not to mention the shorter play time!
Cthulhu1
Rating: 8
A fun variation of the main Columbia Games block mechanics. I particularly enjoy the Treachery rules!
Arkobla Conn
Rating: 8
Our first Block Game, which prompted me to get two more. The Young lad and I have really enjoyed this one, but the White team seems to win predominantly....

We are seeing a change in this - We didn't, at first, realize that MP's were applied to groups of blocks...this has made the game a bit easier to Red.

PS - this might look like the game we play the most..its not, but it might be the game we play the most since I started tracking play's.
da pyrate
Rating: 8
Quite different from Hammer of the Scots and much better. It is all about fermenting a rebellion. An excellent block game.
aro246
Rating: 8
One of the best block games that I've ever played. Better than Hammer or Rommel.
Duglis
Rating: 8
CG Block Wargame.
dougbass68
Rating: 8
I've played three times now, all as the House of Lancaster, and I really like the game. However, the third game was lost after some very uneven dice rolls, although my decision to go on the offensive may have been at least partly to blame.
asta
Rating: 8
Fog of war and lots of bluffing. A good block game that would need repeat plays to fully understand.
Bobby Tweaks
Rating: 8
This game is pure fun. I'm 3 for 6 with a couple of awesome games in that mix. Each play reveals new tactics. I love the combat system and the power of the Hier Charge.
Drewcooter
Rating: 8
Another solid Columbia Games product, nice tweaks to the Hammer system really give this one it's own flavor.
bretcliftawn
Rating: 8
Played one and a half times. Really liked and is interesting with the similarities and differences between this and Hammer of the Scots. So far I like both a lot for the same and different reasons:D
gittes
Rating: 8
This is one of Columbia's simpler games and it has lots of flavor including treachery, foreign mercenaries, and dramatic charges. So far though I'd say something is a bit missing in this one. Maybe the game strikes me as too short and it does lack rules for leader death not involving battle (Edward IV died of sickness not in battle). Regardless of all this it is a tight game and a decent simulation.
Charles Vasey
Rating: 8
I'm not sure it works too well as history but it tries to get some history deployed within a strong game chassis.

I thought the way the estates of the nobles was handled was very effective, and the campaigns are a neat way of recognising how little fighting went on in these wars. The Treachery rule was also nice and effective without resulting in mass treachery every battle

So history-lite but a handsome example. It will not impede anyone new to the hobby or subject, though it may not satisy those who know their WOTR. Fortunately the former group is much bigger

I did find the map too dark and the different movement lines did not always register with my eyes.

The possibility of killer stacks seemed strong; so be very careful in play.
Checkallday
Rating: 8
Tentative rating; I need to play again. Very much like Hammer. My interest in block-gaming may be on the wane.
Chee
Rating: 8
good fun. need to figure out how to play Lancaster...
Gargapod
Rating: 8
Richard III - history has not done this guy any favours. Can't fault the game other than I can't find a regular opponent.
Bought from Seriously Board :)
airjudden
Rating: 8
Another game using the [thing=3685][/thing] combat system. This is a great game. The treachery rules are wonderfully devious (bwahahaha!) This one is a lot more bloody than the others, since combat units have higher hit values and you cannot add strength to a block. Short playing time (3 turns, 7 cards per turn) is a big plus.

The only downside I have seen is that it seems to be imbalanced is favor of the York side. Maybe it's just me.
geas
Rating: 8
Good one, a worthy addition to the block games.
Haven't played it enough to be sure.
Fury
Rating: 8
Richard III is a variation of Hammer of the Scots. RIII is easier and faster to play than HotS. So far we've had no issues with the rules.

Other than learing how to best use each side, the biggest curve is learning the map.

A player-aid that cross references family shields, names, and map locations would be helpful.

Give the Yorkies to the less experienced player. They seem to have more obvious advantages; 2 blocks that can make treason roles, higher loyalty rated blocks, London is their city, better mercenaries in terms battle ratings and flexibility of placement, and the heirs are stronger blocks than their counterparts.

Lancaster needs to be much more position aware. They need to know key areas to hold for themselves and those areas to hold to prevent York nobles being recruited. Lancasters have smaller margin for error.

A low activation hand for Lancaster in 1st turn likely spells big trouble for them. Definitely run for the north (good advice for 1st turn with any hand really)
epilgrim
Rating: 8
a great block wargame, in many ways superior to HotS. I love the combat variables and how each side runs to France when they lose a turn. you're never the usurper for long...
angelgabriel
Rating: 8
Another great Columbia block game, quick playing but lots of back and forth, plenty to think about. Only played one game so far but really enjoyed it.
fractaloon
Rating: 8
Rated after 2 plays. I think this rating could easily go up for me.
Cathan
Rating: 8
A pretty simple block game. I'm looking forward to playing it a few more to see what sort of strategies emerge. Right now I'm giving it an 8. That may be a smidge high. We'll see how it rates once the newish luster starts to wear.

After another play i think it will remain an 8. We didn't get some important rules right the first two time (rose nobles eliminated from game if killed and the Scots not being able to sail). Third game was a lot more nerve racking as a result.
CDRodeffer
Rating: 8
Excellent game! There's a lot going on, but in a really good way. I might consider bagging the blocks by scenario (If playing 1483, use just these blocks. If playing 1470, add these blocks to the 1483 set. If playing 1460, add the rest of the blocks.) Matt Thrower's alternative treachery rules sound like a great thing to try as well, but I would like to try them in addition to the standard treachery rules, not all by themselves.
cfarrell
Rating: 8
OK, as anticipated, my initial impressions were a little unfair. Second time through was much more satisfying. Richard III really does score by being sharp and short, so that's nice. It's also - and this can throw you - somewhat different from other block games, in that it's more of a press-your-luck game than an operational game. Once you get behind you have to start taking risks, and so you need to figure out where and how to take them, and you really need to be aggressive even though the system is very hard on attackers, especially Lancastrian attackers. Once you get behind on points, superior tactics and strategy are not going to bring you back in; this is a game that punishes you a bit for being behind. You need to know when to throw the dice even if the odds don't look good.

I dunno. I think I'd like this one better if it weren't the 6th game using almost the identical core system, especially since the last two (Athens and Texas) weren't very good, and also since the theme feels a little shoehorned here. The system is just starting to feel a little tired to me.

So anyway. I enjoyed the second playing of Richard III, and it does make a virtue of brevity. It seems pretty solid, although as is traditional from Columbia these days, play-balance seems suspect (take the Yorkists if give the choice, I think). But the system just isn't grabbing me; the card play doesn't provide enough nuance, and the events tend to be flavorless and slightly lame. Although I can't say yet whether Hellenes is really any good, I'm glad we pried it away from Columbia and moved it to GMT, so we can at least get something different.
---
Extremely provisional rating. Some elements of the game I like; I like the fact that it's short and sharp, I like the historical flavor, I like the period, the treachery is clever although it's not clear to me it's ever much more than a long-shot that turns into a game-buster if you make it.

So, some positive impressions, but also some concerns. I'm a bit worried about balance. There is a big snowball effect at work here; I'm not sure that it's possible to come back once you get a little behind other than by just taking some big risks and hoping. Also, the Yorkists have some very powerful A-rated units, while the Lancastrians don't; the good Lancastrian units are also hard to marshal. The Lancastrians will get absolutely raked if they have to go over onto the offensive against the Burgundians. Lancaster cannot afford to get behind early, but I'm not sure they can avoid it as the early game has them very vulnerable. Regardless, there should be some less-stringent auto-victory conditions that kick in when the game is effectively over for one player, since it's basically a rich-get-richer game. Being the Pretender seems to be mostly a disadvantage, and that after you are already losing on all the other metrics.

I dunno. I enjoyed playing it, and look forward to giving it another try, and remain hopeful - Jerry Taylor has done good work, and one has to give him the benefit of the doubt on this - but after just one play have to admit I am more skeptical than optimistic. I think it's time to put the card system pioneered by Hammer of the Scots back in the drawer. It's really been done to death since then, without ever producing much better than decent results. Crusader Rex was good, Hammer was OK, but too many of the others (Liberty, Athens vs. Sparta, Texas Glory) have been dicey at best. Time to move forward. Most of Columbia's recent games have mainly left me thinking that I'd rather be playing Wizard Kings.
DLG_Cuvelier
Rating: 7.8
Excellent game of the Wars of the Roses. Need to play again.
evadimus
Rating: 7.636
Got half a play in. I like the system and want to try out more. Very clever mechanics, Columbia Games.
Emperor JD
Rating: 7.5
Great two player game which is hard to find.
Alessandro Raimondo
Rating: 7.5
Initial rating. Just played two short solo games. Battle resolution and permanent elimination of died rose nobles make the game very different from Hammer of the Scots.
Amuk
Rating: 7.5
Wonderful game I just couldn't get to the table.

Traded away in GenCon 2015 MATH trade.
ajdavis
Rating: 7.5
A great game! Great components, a very good map (and it's nice to see where I live on a wargame map) and easy to learn rules all come together to make a very playable and interesting simulation. The two mini-scenarios (available from http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/3171/R3-Scenarios.pdf) make great introductory and learning games. The card driven mechanic works well, as each player has to make some tough decisions (move, add new forces etc.) each turn whilst not knowing what their opponent will do. It's a different game from Kingmaker but, if you are a fan of thhat game, I think you should take a look at this too.
EndersGame
Rating: 7.5
Arguably the best introductory block war game. Two player game, as the house of Lancaster takes on the house of York in a quest for the kingship in the Wars of the Roses. Built on the successful HotS engine, but quicker, easier, and with a different theme and some different mechanics. Really enjoyed learning and playing this, pictorial session report here. Pictorial illustration of gameplay here.
The beauty of this game is that it can serve as common ground for a range of tastes: it's within the reach of euro gamers, and yet there's enough meat for fans of block war games to savour. Its appeal could even exceed the success seen by its cousin, Hammer of the Scots. A well researched and integrated theme, quality components, and fun gameplay. See my pictorial review here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/468642

Status: traded
bigwhipper
Rating: 7.5
Excellent! Probably the best block game design from Columbia Games. Have not played enough to figure out how to beat York though.

update: lowered rating, still great gameplay, but I think that the game is somewhat imbalanced in favor of York.
ejohnson7
Rating: 7.5
Good game with interesting decisions to be made; nice blend of luck and skill. Accurately simulates "fog of war," with misdirection and bluffing possible. Quality unit blocks a pleasure to play with; too bad the board's unmounted and the box is a bit cheesy.

BGG estimate of 120 minutes playing time probably 1/2 your actual playing time.
adalbert
Rating: 7.1
I actually find Richard III better than HotS because of greater replay value (at least in my opinion). Battles are very bloody at times. Of course there is considerable amount of luck that involves dice rolling but there's also just enough strategy.
adalbert
Rating: 7
I actually find Richard III a little more interesting than HotS because of greater replay value (at least in my opinion). Battles are very bloody at times. Of course there is considerable amount of luck that involves dice rolling but there's also just enough strategy.
abeheron
Rating: 7
Not bad...quite a brain burner (dunno why people say its easier than HoTS for a gateway block game - it is NOT!).

Really need to play this a few more times to figure out the optimal placement strategy (and to learn those bloody shields!)
alexgrant
Rating: 7
Didn't really impress me. It mostly felt like large armies running around looking for weak nobles. I imagine future plays would reveal more but my first play of Julius Caesar was far more compelling.
alzhiel
Rating: 7
2
Andy Parsons
Rating: 7
Before buying Richard III I did ask myself whether I needed yet another game in the Hammer of the Scots family. There is much that is familiar in Richard, but yet again some quite minor tweaks have produced a game with a distinctive feel.

Most important of those tweaks is a victory condition that makes the game all about keeping your nobles alive while killing your opponent's or converting them to your cause. The only value of territory is that your nobles need a home to go back to at the end of each seven-turn campaign. While the noble count is close, this leads to an intriguing game of feints and jabs. However, it's tough for a player who finds themself well down in nobles as they really have to push their luck to try and redress the balance. While their opponent has no incentive to do anything but create big stacks and defend. And combat favours the defender.

On early acquaintance, I'd agree with those who say that the game favours the Yorkists somewhat. Their forces seem easier to concentrate and they start with 8 blocks on the map or in their pool that hit on 1-3, compared to the Lancastrians' 6.

Richard's artwork is among Columbia's best, with the map particularly handsome. There is, however, the usual problem of massed blocks obscuring important information.
anemaat
Rating: 7
To win in this game you are ought to realize that you need nobles on your side. You can kill them in battle, but the better way is through treachery. If you don't realize that, you will find it difficult to win as the white Yorkist .

The treachery mechanic is a bit odd in my view. In only 1 out of 8 attempts Warwick will change sides.

Many events are a bit awkward and you can get locked up in areas that only borders on two other areas. It is a matter of taste but this game lacks a certain amount of elegancy to be outstanding. A missed opportunity on a very interesting topic.

Rose nobles are permanently eliminated, while others change sides infinitely.

The gamesystem hasn't been put to another level like Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex did. It occurs to me, that gamedesign was more driven by playing it in a limited amount of time instead of an elegant gamesystem. In the Columbia range this game is a weak one. It lacks the brilliant gamedesigns of [gameid=3685] or [gameid=37836].

At last I would like to say that I was hoping for the Shakespearian version of this event instead of the historical one, since his plays Henry VI and Richard III struck me and they are more fascinating than the historical event.
avale
Rating: 7
Nice light wargame, playable in 90 minutes. While the game is a bit lighter than I'd prefer, it's hard to argue against the playing time; nice to scratch the wargame itch when you don't have much time. Gives a good flavour of the war of the roses without bogging down in chrome.

Combat seems to be quite deadly, which makes me wonder if the different nobles are balanced (some die permanently, others don't, and treachery can be hard to achieve).
AvramL
Rating: 7
Short and fun with lots of room for manouver.

High chaos and luck factors. The only real object of the game seems to be to corner and kill your opponents blocks. Also it seems unbalanced in favour of the Yorkists.
barbalex
Rating: 7
like new, unplayed
brainst0rm
Rating: 7
One game. A learning experience.

The game was not what I was expecting, but still a good experience.

Need to play it again to decide if buying it or not.
I think I prefer Hammer of the Scots.
Chris Bayley
Rating: 7
Single session Wargame #5 2013 - not played.
consolewa
Rating: 7
Gamestorm 2014 outgoing math trade.
Crossy
Rating: 7
First long war game I've played. I made a couple of key tactical errors in this one. I realised too late that Lancaster relies very heavily on holding their initial board position to win the game. By giving up early board position after the first round (e.g. London) I essentially ruined my chances of winning, as it became clear that the York side had significantly stronger units on average (which makes sense because they start as the pretender in exile). So by equalising map position and going for quick kills (which didn't pay off) I gave the game away. Would play very differently next time.

While I would be interested in playing again, I felt slightly disappointed with the longer war game format. The additional complexity and depth added in this format over other shorter block games (Commands and Colors for instance) doesn't seem worth the time investment to me. I also found the board quite difficult to interpret in a practical sense while playing(e.g shields on the map were difficult to identify relative to opponents). It is also clear to me that these types of war games aren't that big on aesthetics (cardboard map with little effort paid to the readability and usability of the map - zero points for components).
Cyberboarder
Rating: 7
Une notation basée après deux parties...
Une première partie sympathique mais qui montre que l'équilibre du jeu semble très fortement à l'avantage de la rose blanche...
Du coup les réflexes du côté Lancastre, lors des parties suivantes, risquent d'être très défensifs. Repli vers le nord et attente du gong de fin de la 3e campagne...Ce qui peut nuire à la rejouabilité de l'ensemble.
Il n'empèche, Richard III est un jeu plaisant pour une courte soirée...Mais la remarque restera t'elle valable sur plusieurs parties?
DanAbraham
Rating: 7
Columbia Games. Decent block double blind game for the War of the Roses.
djberg96
Rating: 7
Definitely a radical departure from AH's Kingmaker. The combat mechanics intertwined with the treachery aspect definitely keeps the game interesting. The open map and nobles bouncing around at the end of each turn prevents bottlenecks and predictable unit movement and placement, something Hammer of the Scots sorely lacks. Also, the game is short, which is a bonus.

There are a couple issues that prevent me from giving it a higher rating. First, as an old Kingmaker grognard, I miss the multi-player wheeling and dealing. Also, I didn't find the events terribly interesting. Some were useless and others only marginally so. In some cases they could downright backfire. I'm also not sure about play balance.

But, on the whole, a pretty decent block game that I'm happy to play from time to time.
DukeofChutney
Rating: 7
I'll leave this game on an 8 despite the fact that i feel as though i've played it out after about a dozen games. I've enjoyed getting there with it. For the Lancaster side there appears to be one serious strategic solution. The distribution of cards, and Yorkist moves may force you to adapt a little tactically but your essentially going to be doing something similar each game. Yorkist remains very varied but your the antagonist so you choose which direction to invade from.

---------------------

I've posted a review on its' page.

In short, a good game, historically viable if not precise. Balanced around the first campaign. So if one player comes out of round one badly they will struggle to catch up later. It is rather asymetrical. Uses the standard columbia system with some appropriate chrome.
essjam
Rating: 7
Unable to rate this one yet as I have only played it once. It was reminiscent of Hammer of the Scots, so I am sure it will stand up to repeated plays - Have played several times now, the game is terrific. The third campaign is a nail biter.
fattylumpkin
Rating: 7
[4 plays] Just an awesome game in a fairly short play time and simple rules for a war game. The heirs and treachery really make the game seem like it could develop a lot of different ways. The game feels nicely asymmetric, but not too much so. It feels like either side could be on offense at any particular time, though the burden of attack is usually on the Yorkists. The heir charges are especially fun when eliminating your opponent's heirs. It also feels nicely dynamic and decisive. Many block games feel like a war of attrition, but not so in Richard with blocks with a rating of B4. It's nice to be invested in each piece; losing a block can be devastating because your forces come back at full strength for the next campaign and it's nice if they can survive to fight another day. By far the best looking game columbia has put out. It is nice to see them stepping up in the graphics department.

My major issue with this game being that the second and third eras devolve into a very predictable game of bluff with Lancaster hunkering down in a few cities and York making a gamble on which city doesn't have the heavy hitters in it which greatly diminishes my interest. The first era is terrific, however, and probably my favorite experience from Columbia Games.
fjordi
Rating: 7
Block wargame featuring conflict between York and Lancaster dynasties in 15th century.

Easy rules, dynamic play, campaign lasts 3 hours and scenarios are not interesting. A good option to start in block wargames.

Nice map and block stickers.

It's more difficult to win as Lancaster since its blocks are less powerful than York's, so that side must be played more carefully.
folalqui
Rating: 7
Ma
djberg96
Rating: 7
Definitely a radical departure from AH's Kingmaker. The combat mechanics intertwined with the treachery aspect definitely keeps the game interesting. The open map and nobles bouncing around at the end of each turn prevents bottlenecks and predictable unit movement and placement, something Hammer of the Scots sorely lacks. Also, the game is short, which is a bonus.

There are a couple issues that prevent me from giving it a higher rating. First, as an old Kingmaker grognard, I miss the multi-player wheeling and dealing. Also, I didn't find the events terribly interesting. Some were useless, like Piracy, and others only marginally useful. In some cases they could downright backfire. I'm also not sure about play balance.

But, on the whole, a pretty decent block game that I'm happy to play from time to time.
Bayushi Sezaru
Rating: 6.5
Block wargames are great for enticing a non-wargamer... and this one did its job wonderfully! The rules are quite simple, but the gameplay seems deep enough to grant many plays. The components are gorgeous: the map is thin but magnificent, and the blocks give a fetish pleasure! A great game!
airjudden
Rating: 6
Another game using the [thing=3685][/thing] combat system. The treachery rules are wonderfully devious (bwahahaha!) This one is a lot more bloody than the others, since combat units have higher hit values and you cannot add strength to a block. Short playing time (3 turns, 7 cards per turn) is a big plus.

The only downside I have seen is that it seems to be imbalanced is favor of the York side. Maybe it's just me. Plus, it's just not very thematic. It feels like Hammer pasted on to another map.
BradyLS
Rating: 6
A teachable and playable block wargame covering the War of the Roses that can be finished in three hours. My first game was a close contest that went to the end after three campaigns. The neat twist is the opportunity for brininging over opposing nobles into your factions.

For two players and especially those new to block wargames, it's a real treat.
alhay1959
Rating: 6
Interesting twist on block game
Bobby4th
Rating: 6
One playing.

Combat fell flat for me and I am not sure why. Was it not decisive enough? Maybe I will figure it out at some point?
dougadamsau
Rating: 6
Players represent the Yorkist or Lancastrian faction, fighting out the Wars of the Roses in 15th century England. Players simultaneously play an action card which determines play order and the amount of actions they get on their turn. Actions are spent on activating areas of England and moving units around, possibly attacking. The aim is to control a majority of nobles in England at the end of the "campaign" (i.e. 7 turns), which means you either retain or usurp the throne. The game is played over three campaigns, with the King at the end the winner. There are auto victory conditions - if you bump off the five heirs of the opposing house, you win instantly. Very interesting game, definitely feels like part of the modern Columbia Games line, with the game's theme pressed into the Columbia format (8 pages of rules, the standard combat rules, card play, etc). However, the dynamic and complex nature of the Wars of the Roses is retained via some simple, and clever rules. Having three campaigns over the 30 year period is well thought out, as there was a lot of inactivity during that period as well. I also like the treachery rules, where some blocks will swing from faction to faction, but tend to be a bit more sticky to one side via the different loyalty ratings for each faction's version of the same block. Enjoying this one. The only downer is the map - looks lovely but very dark and difficult to play on... part of the growing trend of modern game maps... pity.
das Andere
Rating: 6
2-player only. Not overly complex, but the rules take a few read-throughs to learn.
Andrei Shlepov
Rating: 6
Great low-complexity game.
claudio212
Rating: 6
A very provisional six rating. Ultimately, this and Hammer of the Scots don't feel like wargames to me. That isn't a bad thing, but it does mean that they fall in a curious netherworld of euro-y dice-y abstracts. The whole package is quite fun, but I need to remember not to pull them off the shelf when I want a wargame. I like everything about HOTS bu the mid-board clog. And that has been significant in both my plays so far. Richard III really creates a lot of openness with sea moves and with the pop-out-of-nowhere forces, but the game waters down some of the interest of the traitorous nobles; I much preferred the nobles HOTS that are flipped if they winter in occupied territory. The role-to-flip mechanism in R3 is just too random. Do I give up rolling a bunch of attack dice for a 50/50 or 25/75 shot at turning someone? If I fail, I'm hosed.
davekohr
Rating: 5.5
Unlike most of the other Columbia pre-modern games based on the Hammer of the Scots system, I didn't much like this one. Each of the "campaigns" (basically, hands of cards) tended to end in a big, static stalemate, with a long WWI-style line of stacks splitting the southern part of England in half. Sometimes there would be a big battle at the end of the campaign or end of the game, sometimes not--it depended on how desperate the potential attacker was. This dynamic was encouraged by the victory conditions, which rewarded picking off individual nobles (they were all roughly equally important) to get a better claim on the crown. There wasn't much reward for controlling territory, except that it gains you control of the nobles from that area. So as a defensive strategy, there was a big advantage in simply forming bigger stacks to protect your nobles, and parking them on the nobles' home areas. Because there's a "reset" at the end of each campaign where everybody goes home, you get this pattern repeated 3 times. Unlike in HotS, which also has a periodic "reset", nobody has an option to stay on campaign.

There are probably offensive strategies to counter the static defenses we had settled into, but after 2 games like this, I lost interest, crossed R3 off my might-buy list, and moved onto other things.
Foo Dog
Rating: 5
Feb 26/2011: 6
Oct 9/2010: Changed rating from 7 to 6.5
bentlarsen
Rating: 1
First impressions leave me thinking this is an excellent GAME; how it will turn out as history will take further play and study. The area map is likely among the best I have ever seen. More to follow.

_________________________________

(August 2011) The problem with reading solid history books is that they can make or break a wargame. As history, Richard III is a farce. The "real" game is the one Jerry did not make, but I hope he is able to get solid support from a publisher and make the game that he should have made (see his wonderful designer notes). The game, as is, has only a map's thickness of real history behind it. Even as a game, when one is willing to set history aside, is dull after a few plays. The two extra scenarios are shameful add on's that add nothing to the enjoyment. The map is still a wonder, but it only serves to demonstrate how bad everything else is. It is time for Jerry to set his evident talents to the task of making something that is outside of Columbia's constraints.
gamefool
Rating: -
Mark, Paul.
Game_Storm
Rating: -
Owned by OSFCI |
Donated by Columbia Games at GameStorm 12, 2010
Gargapod
Rating: -
Seriously Board :)
chocoworm
Rating: -
콜롬비아 게임즈도 구입하게 되었다. 해머오브스캇의 느낌이 너무 좋았다. 다행히 이건 일어룰북도 있어서 조만간 룰북 제작 예정이다.
buffmeister
Rating: -
bought from Orc's Nest - June 2013
Dutch Boy
Rating: -
Block game want. Intro to block wargames.
August222
Rating: -
Got all the blocks stickered and sealed with acrylic--beautiful. Have not gotten around to this one yet.
bgamedroid
Rating: -
YTP RTR OnDeck - downloaded some player aids, actually got the pieces out and set up for a sample game - first turn was about to commence, when . . . do'h, priorities!! Ended up getting boxed up and I haven't gotten it out since. But, but . . . soon!!
Andy Pain
Rating: -
Geek Trade Aug 2016
angelgabriel
Rating: -
Would like to try this style of block wargame, and I like the theme of this one.
Arggg
Rating: -
Columbia
Benjaminviking
Rating: -
Purchased at GameStorm 18--side deal.
Biswut
Rating: -
G42
djflippy
Rating: -
Voted for this title in the Columbia Games Gameplan.
DrChek
Rating: -
Great Reviews.
desertfox2004
Rating: -
12/25/09: Got this for Christmas. I have the stickers on and the game looks fantastic. Can't wait to play.
DesertWargamer
Rating: -
Purchased on: 8/27/16
Purchased from: GEEK Market (armadaman)
Purchase price: $49.95 (+ 11.00 SH)

Notes:
- Purchased New

Weight: 2.63 (8/27/16)
bigcheese
Rating: -
Shipped. Awaiting delivery.
eldrave
Rating: -
on preorder
Darkseal
Rating: -
Interesting 2-players wargame who should resemble some Hammer of the Scots mechanics.
dargath
Rating: -
Opponents?
cscottk
Rating: -
Traded for Troyes.
donlyn
Rating: -
Columbia Games
Critical Mass
Rating: -
Probably the block wargame I should have waited for when I got HotS
crankyengineer
Rating: -
2 player block wargame
chiefsachem
Rating: -
Not for Trade. Mint. Still in shrink wrap.
Constantinople
Rating: -
April 2014 traded with Hells Gate
to me for Command Singapore 1942
Furan
Rating: -
waiting for a first game
---
EDIT - unfortunately it was waiting too long :( sold
ClineCon
Rating: -
Played once so far with my HOS opponent. Much of the game was similar to HOS. I didn't realize on the first play that the Bombard is A on the first round of combat. First play ended with a smashing Yorkist victory after just 13 turns, as all of the Lancaster heirs were killed along with most of their stalwart noble houses. Lesson learned, you have to protect your heirs. The ability to charge individual units is devastating to heirs.