Smashbomb

Search

Search results

All (5000)

Content

Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books

Dec 21, 2018

For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.

Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!

He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.

Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.

So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.

Kudos

Russell Evans (179 KP) rated Tyrants of the Underdark in Tabletop Games

Feb 24, 2020 (Updated Feb 24, 2020)

Interesting deck building mechanics (3 more)

Several different viable strategic options

Quick paced, easy to learn to play

Great artwork on cards

I wish there were more expansion decks available to prolong playability (0 more)

A quick paced game of fantasy deck building strategy, skilfully mixed with area control

This game mixes up a couple of game genres, but it balances them really well. I brought this game as my teenage son is a D&D fan and we have played it many times now. We’ve enjoyed it, so we also brought the expansion decks – which, for me, is always the sign of a good game. The game is pretty easy to learn, and once you have the grasp of the game mechanics, the turns flow smoothly and quickly. A 3 player game takes us just over an hour to play.
A brief overview of the Game
Each player controls a Drow house in the Underdark, competing to take control by getting the most Victory Points at the end of the game. Victory points are gained from various sources, for example, controlling locations on the board, assassinating your rivals troops, card abilities, cards owned in your deck or promoted.
Each turn the player draws cards from their own deck that determine what they can do in their turn. There are several different strategies you can pursue to try and win – subterfuge, violence, using spies, gathering a powerful deck etc. You can use influence that you gain in the game to buy new cards from the communal market to expand your deck and buy new minions with a range of different abilities. Random card drawers in the market can be frustrating when your opponents get the card you want straight after your turn, but that’s the nature of the game. Some of the cards can seem super–powered but there are several of these, so we find it balances out overall.
The promotion mechanic is rather interesting - it gives you the dilemma of promoting a card to gain increased victory points but means that the card (and its abilities) aren’t available for you to use for rest of the game. Do you hang on to it a bit longer to use that awesome ability and risk the game ending before you can promote that card for loads more victory points?
There are 4 decks included in the base game; Drow, Dragons, Elementals and Demons and they all play very differently. You use a mix of 2 decks each game, so that adds a bit of variety and re-playability. (Add in the 2 from the expansion for a bit more – Aberrations and Undead.)
Also worth mentioning; the artwork on the cards is nice and the board is good too.
I think Tyrants of the Underdark is a very enjoyable game and it gets a solid 9/10. I just wish there were some more expansions for it.