Quarriors

[Gerald]

Players take on the roles of Quarriors - mighty mystical warriors who have the power to capture dangerous quarry from the untamed Wilds! They must conjure the mysterious powers of Quiddity, cast powerful spells, and summon their creatures to battle if they hope to overcome rivals and earn their rightful place as the Champion!

Quarriors has the frenetic excitement of a dice battle game, with an added ‘deckbuilding’ twist: players customize their dice pools during the game using resources generated by their rolls.

Quarriors takes the best of deckbuilding games without the tedium of shuffling. Take a typical deckbuilding game, add the speed and fun of dice and in 60 minutes you’re on your second or third game trying unique strategies against your opponents.

In Quarriors, each player plays as a Quarrior competing for Glory in the eyes of Quiana, the Empress of Quaridia. Each player starts with an identical set of 12 dice in their dice bag. At the start of the game, Creature and Spell dice (Quarry) are dealt at random to form "the Wilds" in the center of the table. As play progresses, players roll their dice to attempt to summon Creatures, cast Spells, and harness the magical power of Quiddity (the in-game resource) to capture Quarry from the Wilds to add to their repertoire and into their dice bag. Players draw and roll 6 dice a turn from their bag, making that controlling bag composition is key to victory.

Quarriors is a fast-paced game where players must strategically balance their choices each turn. Do I use my Quiddity to summon Creatures in the hopes of scoring Glory or should I spend it all to capture more powerful Quarry from the Wilds? Players must outmaneuver their opponent's through strategic Spell use, the acquisition of powerful Quarry, and ultimately, by striking down opponent's Creature in combat. If your Creatures survive until your next turn, you will score Glory points and move closer to victory!

[ClaroPaulo]

after watching me wants

[Talismanic (Mark)]

An interesting concept with some promise, though the actual execution makes this a game that I don't mind playing but won't buy.

I got two games in with the Red Ribbon stalwarts and a potential new recruit and kickstart game designer-Ari. Tom pointed out that the game is about "deck building" and that such minimizes randomness, but the die-rolling actually increases it such that the game design is contradictory. I have to agree with that, also as Jay pointed out the dice give you half monster results and half "quiddity" (Mana) results, but the game is won by getting creatures out and not buying, resultantly poor rolling will often end in your turns being useless- a factor that hounded many of us on certain turns.

I liked the idea of die-rolling monster fighting, but there is something definitely lacking  to make the game better. Also, the Dragon makes many of the lower casting cost creatures superfluous and is not that hard to get, so its presence makes the "winning" strategy a race for the dragons.

I still prefer Puzzle Fighter and Thunderstone over this.

  

[ClaroPaulo]

Here's my take on Quarriors:

This game really just boils down on what kind of mindset you have when you play this game.

For me there are two schools of thought (no its not ameritrash or euro). Either you get in the game thinking of how youre gonna plan your game with all the strategies in mind (ex. which die to buy) or you enter it with a light-hearted attitude knowing full well that even the best laid out plans will end up on your face.

If youre the former then I have sad news for you... stop reading. Seriously, stop reading this. This game will not amuse you save for the numerous colorful dice. Stop reading now. This will only disappoint... ooh colorful dice!

Now if youre the latter, then great news for you! This game is a LIGHT FILLER that captures the heart of fun-loving gamers and when I say fun-loving. Gamers who love to make fun of others and themselves

The strategy part of this game ends upon choosing what to buy. The randomness of game by rolling the dice is the selling point! (or the downfall whichever side of the coin you are in).

Why is it the selling point? Many times I have pulled out the right dice on the right time but only fall flat as my roll would be utterly disgusting! But hey thats how the dice rolls! My gf and I would woot and laugh at each other for getting sucky rolls or getting a good one only to have your opponent get better... and thats the fun part of this game!

The enjoyment of this game is not how well oiled your dice engine is but on how (un)lucky you are with the rolls. Granted this game isnt for everyone but I implore those who are willing to try it to lower your standards loosen that grip and just let loose!

[togashi]

I wholeheartedly agree with Claro

[Talismanic (Mark)]

I wholeheartedly agree with Claro

yun lang! Ha ha ha! Nahawa na ata ako sa mga serious folk, oh noes!

[darkrock]

I wholeheartedly agree with Claro

Me too. If you like Quarriors... you may want to try King of Tokyo as well. Another good dice fest game made by Richard Garfield. 

yun lang! Ha ha ha! Nahawa na ata ako sa mga serious folk, oh noes!

Hahaha..

[Zinegata]

The Tom Review:

The lack of strategy isn't the problem. The problem is that there are simply too many monsters that are way stronger than others.

Far from making the game more random by having creatures, the game becomes extremely deterministic. Everyone will buy a Dragon if one is available and you rolled enough quiddity. Everyone will buy the ghost that remains alive if you cull a Quidity dice. Everyone will buy the Knight of the Pale in the absence of other stuff. Everyone will get rid of a Quiddity dice when you cull.

[Caveat: I will note that some card combinations will result in a more interesting game, particularly if the "broken" version of multiple spells and monsters are available. But if there's only a couple of broken monsters/spells are out, it will become VERY deterministic VERY quickly.]

That's not the absence of strategy. That's the absence of alternative strategies. If everyone does the strongest strategies, then yes it becomes a pure dicefest. Otherwise, choosing not to pick the best strategy will just increase your chances of losing dramatically.

Moreover, one of my biggest complaints about the game is the lack of what I call "tension of multiple choices" (the fancy term for which is "Risk Management"). In Dominion for instance, there is always a tension between acquiring gold cards, action cards, or VP cards. Will you get more gold cards so you can (hopefully) buy more stuff later? Will you get action cards thinking you can combo them? Will you get VP cards because you think the game is about to end?

Quarriors largely eliminates this tension because of the multiple purposes of its spell and creature dice. Getting rid of regular Quiddity dice is almost a no-brainer because you can still get Quiddity from your monsters and spells anyway. It will almost always boil down to an arms race where everyone tries to get the biggest monster; and there's very little setup needed to get the biggest monsters (You have a decent chance of rolling 8 Quiddity with your starting dice, which is usually the cost of the priciest monster.).

Personally, I think the game would have been much superior if most monters don't have any Quiddity sides, and their levels instead range from 1-6 (with level 1 being very weak, and 6 being very strong). That would retain the game's random combat aspect (hoping you roll and get your level 6 monsters), while still retaining the tension of having to choose between spells, quiddity, and monster dice.

[Titus]

Personally, I think the game would have been much superior if most monters don't have any Quiddity sides, and their levels instead range from 1-6 (with level 1 being very weak, and 6 being very strong). That would retain the game's random combat aspect (hoping you roll and get your level 6 monsters), while still retaining the tension of having to choose between spells, quiddity, and monster dice.

I disagree with this. If creature dice did not produce Quiddity, then there would be little reason to cull. You would still need some Quiddity to pay for spells, but imagine near the endgame when most players' dice pools consisted of creatures and those creatures ranged from level 1 to 6, it would be a luckfest because whoever rolled the highest level creatures would win. And level 1-6 per die is too wide a range.

What I think would improve the design is varying the number of faces for Quiddity and creatures on creature dice and also varying the amount of Quiddity rolled, say, the cheaper/weaker creatures producing more Quiddity on the average.

I think it's a kneejerk reaction to assume that the game is simply a race to purchase dragons. An obvious powerful choice tends to be overestimated in the early experience with any game. However, I think Quarriors has built-in counterstrategies that you can't see in the first or even second play, due to lack of familiarity with the possibilities. I've only played two games (4-player both; I think it might be better with fewer) so it's too soon to dismiss it as "lacking in strategy or meaningful choices." But even in the second I already saw counterstrategies at work and the dragon didn't dominate that game. And there was a lot of tension near the end when the scores got close.

It’s also worth noting that during that second game, two of the most vocal critics of the game, apart from continuing to criticize it, also stood by for the duration and kept giving suggestions to the players on what they should do, especially during the tight endgame! So clearly there is enough meaningful decisionmaking in the game to keep the interest of even those who don’t like it much.

[JayMata]

It’s also worth noting that during that second game, two of the most vocal critics of the game, apart from continuing to criticize it, also stood by for the duration and kept giving suggestions to the players on what they should do, especially during the tight endgame! So clearly there is enough meaningful decisionmaking in the game to keep the interest of even those who don’t like it much.

Well played my friend

[Talismanic (Mark)]

I think it's a kneejerk reaction to assume that the game is simply a race to purchase dragons.

Just to clarify, (the curse of my profession being to stack on the verbiage for clarity) when I said "winning" strategy the same was in quotations meaning that when dragons are present, you can't really go wrong in buying them and hoping you roll well with them, which makes them a very attractive and relatively "superior" means to victory. Even with the Ooze and the Guardian of the Pale present, Dragons are still a good way to go. Certainly, it's not auto-win, but it will make you a contender especially if you have the majority. Hence, while you can say that the game is not simply a race to purchase dragons, games in which they are present make draconian superiority the best strategy while other players, who fail to make the early purchase, or do not at all, will just have to attempt to counter it. Of course, the caveat is the dice rolling...

But like Claro said the game is really about dice rolling, and enjoying  randomness as part and parcel of the experience. I appreciate that its a very light game, and the play time almost makes up for it. But IMO, I still prefer Thunderstone as I never have to worry about drawing gold and only gold for three turns in a row. I enjoy randomness as much as the next fellow AT player, but Quarriors is just too dicey for me. 

(edited for clarity  )

[xtriker]

Personally, I think the game would have been much superior if most monters don't have any Quiddity sides, and their levels instead range from 1-6 (with level 1 being very weak, and 6 being very strong). That would retain the game's random combat aspect (hoping you roll and get your level 6 monsters), while still retaining the tension of having to choose between spells, quiddity, and monster dice.

I disagree with this. If creature dice did not produce Quiddity, then there would be little reason to cull. You would still need some Quiddity to pay for spells, but imagine near the endgame when most players' dice pools consisted of creatures and those creatures ranged from level 1 to 6, it would be a luckfest because whoever rolled the highest level creatures would win. And level 1-6 per die is too wide a range.

What I think would improve the design is varying the number of faces for Quiddity and creatures on creature dice and also varying the amount of Quiddity rolled, say, the cheaper/weaker creatures producing more Quiddity on the average.

I think it's a kneejerk reaction to assume that the game is simply a race to purchase dragons. An obvious powerful choice tends to be overestimated in the early experience with any game. However, I think Quarriors has built-in counterstrategies that you can't see in the first or even second play, due to lack of familiarity with the possibilities. I've only played two games (4-player both; I think it might be better with fewer) so it's too soon to dismiss it as "lacking in strategy or meaningful choices." But even in the second I already saw counterstrategies at work and the dragon didn't dominate that game. And there was a lot of tension near the end when the scores got close.

It’s also worth noting that during that second game, two of the most vocal critics of the game, apart from continuing to criticize it, also stood by for the duration and kept giving suggestions to the players on what they should do, especially during the tight endgame! So clearly there is enough meaningful decisionmaking in the game to keep the interest of even those who don’t like it much.

Actually the dragon is not an auto-win.

I played a game with Claro and Rosch and won using a goblin rush strategy (ala Summoner Wars hahaha!, yes addict ako sa game na ito).

The weakness of dragons is that they are hard to get. And a rush would be enough to give you just enough allowance in VP to be able to hold it off in the end game.

In terms of luck and randomness. You just have to prepare for it as much as possible (minimize your risk but you can never zero it out). Hold on and pray. Sabi nga ng kapatid ko, tiwala lang sir! =D

Plus meron naman the OOZE to fight the dragon!! go OOZE!!

[Zinegata]

It’s also worth noting that during that second game, two of the most vocal critics of the game, apart from continuing to criticize it, also stood by for the duration and kept giving suggestions to the players on what they should do, especially during the tight endgame! So clearly there is enough meaningful decisionmaking in the game to keep the interest of even those who don’t like it much.

Well, we had to console you somehow  .

Seriously though, the concept of the game is nice, and I was looking to see if the game played better with certain setups (which it did). The second game had a much more viable setup, since you had four excellent creatures (Dragon, Knight of the Pale, Ooze, and the Ghost), plus one that was "good" (the Priest), and at least two good spells.

That was a much more interesting game than ours, wherein the only really good creatures was the Dragon and the Knights of the Pale. Hence my caveat.

[Talismanic (Mark)]

It’s also worth noting that during that second game, two of the most vocal critics of the game, apart from continuing to criticize it, also stood by for the duration and kept giving suggestions to the players on what they should do, especially during the tight endgame! So clearly there is enough meaningful decisionmaking in the game to keep the interest of even those who don’t like it much.

Was I the other vocal critic? I just remember seeing the last 2 player turns where no one could kill Yami's remaining ghost (though as I recall he had a number of dragon dice in his discard pile, though I don't know if they helped him). In any case, it's a "one man's game is another man's math trade-able" situation, I respect all the opinions presented, but as de gustibus no disputandum est, I submit that likewise in matters of play there can be no dispute . 

[Zinegata]

It was me and Jay