From: "Steve Burt" Subject: Re: Kingmaker "Robert Rossney" wrote in message news:Tz9vc.32938$eY2.14121@attbi_s02... > "KO@N$" wrote in message > news:W79vc.193198$Zm1.1809482@weber.videotron.net... > : What is the difference between the first and 2nd version ? > : Ariel, avalon, gibson etc ... > > It's been 20 years or more since I've played, but: > > The Philmar edition has a slightly better-quality board. But it's a board > that expects you to know the geography of England better than the typical > American high-school student does: among other things, it's hard to send > the Marshal of England to Cheviots if "Cheviots" doesn't appear on the > board. > > The AH version has many extra counters for marking players' control of > castles. It has a number of optional rules that necessitate (among other > things) the inclusion of Ireland on the map (along with an office, the > Lieutenant of Ireland, to go with it). There are advanced rules as well, in > case you don't think the game is long or random enough and you want to add > an elaborate combat-resolution element to the game. > > And in the AH version, plague can hit Calais, which means you can't hide out > in France with impunity. > > The cards in the AH version are of lower quality (being perforated) as is > the board. It is anyone's guess as to which rule set is better. > The original Philmar rules make it very easy to have a game which never terminates; everyone sits in their power area waiting for nobles from other factions to be summoned nearby and killing them when they turn up. This process can go on almost indefinitely. The AH version introduces much better parliament rules (with voting), and also lots of extra events like Royal Death; I'd say that the AH rules are definitely better, but as you say, the Philmar board is nicer; you do need to add Letraset markings showing where 'Cheviot' and other places are, and we also marked '2 spaces from London' and other such areas with chinagraph pencil to avoid disputes.