From the few reports at Boardgamegeek, I wonder: are there key differences with CONAN and those games, making them worth buying them (all)?

I've had the same thought myself, but my answer has been:  this is from Nexus, those folks behind "Marvel Heroes" and "War of the Ring'.  Might it have some similar mechanisms to WOTR?  Possibly.  But since Nexus games are always so creative and innovative, I'm betting there will be enough differences in Conan to make it a "must have".

TK

It's not like Risk at all, except in the look of the Board and the fact that you move armies between provinces and resolve combat with dice (and with cards).  It has a similar dice mechanic to WOTR; your actions in the game and what you can do on a turn are determined by the role of special dice.  And Conan is moving across the board having adventures in a way reminiscent of the movement of the Fellowship (and particularly Frodo and Sam) in WOTR.  You can see the two games are cousins, but this one seems much simpler and more straightforward.  A lot of the flavor and theme seems to be in the Kingdom Cards and the Adventure Cards.  Lovely!

If you can afford all three, I'd get all three.  They're different enough from each other that you won't feel you're playing the same game over and over again.

The issue isn't price (I'm lucky) but limited time to try variants of a single game...

So WOTR would be a close parent. here I see..

Sometimes storage concern (space wise) can be an issue as well, but if you are free from that you really are a lucky person.

silenceindigo said:

Wotr and AoC share some basic elements of design (mainly the Action dice concept), and some AoC rules can 'ring' familiar to a Wotr player, but that's it; they are two very separate games, certainly not variants of the same game.

As someone already said on BGG, it is more like Hannibal and, say, We the People: they are both card-driven games with point-to-point maps, but that's mostly it (actually, Hannibal and We the People are more related to each other than AoC and Wotr, but the comparison can give you a rough idea if you know those games).

Francesco

When a game has the name of Conan don't you think it should be a one hero against many monsters experience and not an army game?

bikinilord said:

Sure ... if it were meant to be a role-playing game.

So why it is not RPG?

ughh...because that particular horse has been beaten...err spawned many times already in the past?!

Conan the boardgame (especially with armies) however is pretty rare in comparison...unique in recent years.

bikinilord said:

The first, and biggest, reason is right here.

ah...the d20 system. How I love thee...will miss your passing.

bikinilord said:

Somebody should look into Conan ccg. Yeah, it's pretty much dead, but you can get starters/boosters cheap.

Ruvion said:

jadrax said:

I much prefer 4th edition to 3.5, but it was a lot of fun while it lasted.

Of all d20 incarnations, Conan is the one I still GM with my group, and their excitement for the game has not lessened with time. The RPG is actually excellent despite the d20 rules. I play with the same atmosphere as Howard's original works, dark, gritty, brutal and amoral. This is a game where the setting manages to overlap any rules' problems.

Vincent DarLage's sourcebooks are amongst the most excellent material I've ever read for Conan, excluding Howard.