Confrontation Launches, Welcomes Ragnarök Rag’narok

Cyanide are getting another crack at converting boardgames to the PC (having already done so with Blood Bowl) with their version of miniature tabletop game, Confrontation. It’s out today. I’ve had a brief look at this earlier in the week, but haven’t played enough for a critical verdict. I can certainly report that some fantasy dudes get killed right up, in a real-time strategy fashion, if that’s your sort of thing. Check out more of that sort of thing in the launch trailer, below.


  1. Yachmenev says:

    Like Blood Bowl, this is a big no-no automatically because of their DRM.

    • Space_Masters says:

      Just checked it out on Steam. 5 machine activation limit? Are companies really still doing this?

    • Drake Sigar says:

      I purchased BloodBowl not knowing this. If it makes any difference, they refreshed my codes whenever I asked (more like demanded).

    • sokkur says:

      I red somewhere that you will get those activations back when you uninstall the game.

    • Wreckdum says:

      Someone has more than 5 machines? lol Well I guess you can blame people like me. I share my 200+ game steam account with whichever of my friends wants to use it when I’m not on it.

      • Valvarexart says:

        It so happens that I regularly re-install windows or “accidentally” format my hard-drives… That is not very nice if you have a limit on how many times you can install certain games.

  2. sneetch says:

    Hmmm… this any good? The interwebs seems very light on game information and previews (the name doesn’t help).

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Couple of hours into the single player now, and hmm. It’s pretty dull so far.

      • President Weasel says:

        The single player AI for Blood Bowl isn’t the best, either. I’d hope, as a tabletop game, that it would come into its own in multiplayer; does the preview build they gave you let you play versus peoples?

        • Jim Rossignol says:

          Yes, you can build and paint armies, and play multiplayer. I haven’t seen any games online yet, will try tonight.

          • Choca says:

            The biggest crowd of players I’ve seen online so far was composed of six AFK people… I’m not so excited about the multiplayer anyway, it’s only duels between two players apparently.

      • sneetch says:

        Thanks Jim, I thought as much from the limited information at hand. I will hold off until I read some more thinks wot you (and others) thought so.

      • Rymdkejsaren says:

        Both Blood Bowl and Confrontation are designed for playing against people. The single player bit of Blood Bowl was ghastly so I imagine the fun is in the MP in Confrontation as well.

      • lordcooper says:

        You’re not meant to insult games while your site is advertising them!

  3. Tei says:

    The gameplay videos don’t show much variety in enemies or voices. The two videos I have watched have the same lines from the same voice actor. So basically I am a eye floating in the sky, and every time I attack something the hero will say “At your orders” to me. I would be attacking brown things that look like monsters from Full Metal Alchemist (AMV). Or thats what I get from the gameplay video. Cyanide don’t seems confindent enough in his game to put a gameplay video in the Steam game. So I am not confident enough to be confident enough in the game. I mean, I am not going to be more confident than the authors!.

  4. Tony M says:

    Cyanide doing another boardgame conversion? Woot! Real time? Nooooooooooo

    • svr says:

      Relic made Warhammer 40k into succesful series of RTS games. Some complained but generally the games are good. With this title I would be more worried about Cyanide and their abysmal reputation with game breaking bugs and crashes.

      • Brise Bonbons says:

        The problem is in the specific implementation of “RTS” that we’re used to getting, I think. Most devs (Relic included) seem to think RTS has to involve “intense action” and “visceral combat” – which are often goals at odds with at least some of the spirit and rules of the original turn-based game.

        On the other hand, if the next 40K game was given to, say, Arcen Games (makers of AI War), I would have no qualms at all about it being real time. Of course, a single match would likely take a few hours to play out.

        I guess my point is, you can make a real-time game which still runs at a thoughtful pace, or you can make one that is designed for “action!” and “excitement!” and winds up compromising the original game’s vision. I.e. neither of Relic’s games ever really captured the full scale of tabletop 40K in my mind, nor the feeling of battles being specific scenarios, nor the great rarity and power of certain units and factions, nor the true depth of customization.

        Dunno, perhaps I’m just a grumpy pants because I prefer my war games turn based. While I always enjoyed the DoW1 series for their scope, personality, and the factions they included, I really felt DoW 2 went increasingly off the rails and became entirely divorced from what 40K TT was about. I mean, heroes that level up? 4-man space marine squads? Tiny squad-based ‘Nid armies?

  5. Heliocentric says:

    Bloodbowl is only a good game because it’s near enough exactly the board game (bar the bugs) this will be real time? I already have to set my router to play bloodbowl, can you imagine the state of their netcode on a real time game?

    They can put out a demo or I don’t give a damn about this.

  6. Phantoon says:

    The spelling of it as “Rag’narok” drives me insane every time I see that ad on this site.

  7. Blackcompany says:


    Because we don’t want to offend any worshipers of Thor. Or…maybe its actually Thor they’re worried about?

    But the real question is this: Why would you convert a board game to PC and not make it turn based?

    • RedViv says:

      Why would you create what would be a very fine board game version of Game of Thrones in theory, and then somehow turn it into a very dull real-time strategy game? Because you’re Cyanide, that’s why.

    • Choca says:

      The Confrontation universe is (or was, since the tabletop game’s publisher died a while ago) is full of over complicated “fanasy sounding” names (think like five K and Y in everything). Ragnarok was probably too simple for their taste.

  8. Quizboy says:

    Such a wasted opportunity, this. Confrontation the tabletop game (at least before its disastrous fourth edition) was a good fun skirmish-scale thing, with gorgeous models and some really imaginative stuff under its vaguely generic-fantasy skin. Given that (the miniatures game’s creators) Rackham aren’t with us any more, the PC version could’ve potentially been the holy grail of tabletop-game-to-video-game translation that everyone wishes were possible with 40k etc: a totally faithful turn-based simulation of the entire thing, with all the units and rules, but with animated combat resolution and spell effects and so on.

    There can’t be that many opportunities to buy up the rights to a defunct but fairly well-remembered game like this, where you’d presumably be free to drop the whole thing into a PC game the way Games Workshop etc never could for fear of killing their model sales. It’s a shame to see one squandered.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      I’ve never understood why they don’t sell digital models and “paint” alongside the real stuff, like WotC does.

      I mean, which seems like the better profit engine: Producing and packaging the same model over and over, paying to ship and stock it, and then letting the stores take their cut; or creating a digital model (with bits and bobs and extra parts for sale via DLC, of course), and then replicating it for free and selling it directly to anyone who wants to buy it? Also, of course, extra colors cost more via DLC, as do novelty auras (your Chaos army can trail ghostly skulls for only 30 of your country’s currency units!) and other vanity items.

      I suppose they have their reasons, but I can’t fathom the logic here myself. Unless it’s as simple as “but we’re scared of new things!”

      • Lykurgos says:

        I’d love this too, oh so much, but the rationale given by Games Workshop is simply:

        1. Our core business is making and selling physical miniatures
        2. We don’t want to cannibalize our core business, nor dilute our focus upon it

        I’d argue against this from my own perspective. I’m probably never going to buy an army of miniatures, at least not until I retire and have the time to assemble, paint, manage and use them. I would sink lots of cash into digital equivalents given the chance. I dare say Poxnora is just about the closest you can get, and gosh, I’ve sunk 100s of £s into that over the years.

  9. Was Neurotic says:

    I’ve never heard of this in either it’s table top or computer incarnations, but I’ve been looking at the ads for it all over RPS for days now. I’ve no interest in it anyway, BUT, I am keen to see the Wot I Think, so I can finally lay the bastard to rest.

  10. Ritashi says:

    I feel like I should mention a bit of a warning on Cyanide’s (and to a degree Focus’s) track record. Namely, that they are not exactly stellar. I own and often play Blood Bowl: Legendary Edition, and I bought the original BB on release. I was active in that community back in the day, I was involved in modding, basically just to say that I was there and I’m not just spouting random nonsense; I’ve watched their BB game since before release.

    First, and probably most importantly, their game was riddled with bugs. Far more egregiously than even say Skyrim on release. Many features that they tried to implement simply did not work (I’m looking at you saved formations), and there were many bugs that would commonly cause a crash to desktop in the middle of games (many of which were reproducible, quite easily). A game that went by without a single noticeable bug wasn’t unheard of, by any means, but it was something I at least usually took special note of. (That said I’m a huge fan of the board game and know the rules by heart, so I may have noticed several bugs that would fly under the radar for most). Oh, and there were constant connectivity issues and for a long time there were some really serious online exploits. I know they fixed the biggest ones, but several are still there (disconnecting *still*, as far as I’m aware, causes the server not to register the results of the game at all, if you do it a certain way). Anyway, suffice it to say the coding was really bad on that game.

    Second, their support was less than stellar. Although we got a few good representatives every now and then, for the most part the English forums were manned by people who were not fluent in English, which lead to frequent misunderstandings and overall poor communication between the devs and the playerbase. Secondhand I’ve heard their tech support was decent, but I never had to interact much with them. However, I do know that patches were infrequent and tended to not really accomplish much. The only time I ever saw them react quickly was when one of their patches somehow made it possible to play a Dark Elf team (who had never been released at that point) in online matches, with some fiddling. That was fixed in about a day. At the same time they angered a lot of fans by deleting anything stored in the file directory where Dark Elf models would be kept, presumably because the models they had created for Dark Elves had been leaked. Dark Elves were given out as a free update not long after that, on a positive note.

    Third, anything they tried to design was pretty spectacularly terrible. Despite the fact that they were creating BB due to a copyright infringement lawsuit relating to a game they made that was essentially real time Blood Bowl and was from what I hear fairly decent (Chaos something-or-other), the real time mode was terrible. Not that I’d bought it for that, but it was there, and it sucked (sucks). The Blitz! mode, which added a few changes from the normal rules, was similarly pretty terrible, for the most part. Their AI was really, really, terrible (not that it couldn’t beat you sometimes, it could occasionally beat certain playstyles that were perfectly valid against human opponents; it was more that it just never behaved intelligently. Fun fact, after looking through a bunch of fan work done to improve the AI, one of their coders noticed that they had mislabeled the “Blocker” and “Dodger” archetypes). Even basic things like skill selection weren’t handled intelligently (and it’s pretty easy to put together a basic idea of what players like what skills).

    Lastly, their translation job was pretty bad. Some of the writing was actually kind of funny, and I love the announcers, but a lot of the written stuff was obviously never proofread. Not a big deal, but hey, if I’m listing problems anyway I should probably mention it.

    Don’t take this as me just bashing BB; I love the game, and it was well worth the money I spent on it. Also don’t take this as me saying you should never buy anything from Cyanide. However, the take away is that that game was only good because of the underlying board game. I do not know this board game, but if you’re interested in buying this game for anything other than online multiplayer, I would tread with extreme caution. If you do want it in order to play the board game online, I would still recommend checking out multiple reviews and maybe their forums before putting money down. Just my 2 cents.

  11. trjp says:

    I’ve been reading the (few – tbh) comments on this from people who’ve picked-it-up and the overwhelming concern I have is that the only thing people talk about is

    Bad controls (the mouse control is described by several people as ‘unusable)

    Bugs – mostly in pathfinding and the like (quite important in a tactical game surely??)

    The publisher and the developer’s history aren’t exactly shining at me thus giving it a wide berth for the time being

    • ZIGS says:

      The mouse problems, if true, are surprising, since this is actually a PC exclusive (according to everywhere I looked). Are they now fucking up PC games on purpose or did they just unlearn how to make them?

    • Choca says:

      Haven’t had any “mouse problems” (what does that even mean anyway ?)

      The pathfinding is properly horrible though, which really sucks in a game as unforgiving as this.

      Bugs are a problem too, I’ve had a few crash back to desktop on quick save. Always fun.

  12. frightlever says:

    If this was a turn-based, squad-based wargame with a rich single player campaign and meaningful character development I’d be very interested. Sorta Necromunda. But I watched the trailer and now I don’t need to think about it ever again. (edit – speeling)

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      Yes this. Someone could do something like, I dunno, get a Kickstarter going.

  13. Morph says:

    The tabletop version was good for its lovely miniatures, some of the best I’ve ever seen – and the background was pretty good too. But the game itself was just a bit blah, my gaming group played for a while before losing interest. So I’m not exactly rushing to buy this version.

  14. Lykurgos says:

    “We discarded the turn-based gameplay and concentrated on the fluff, the graphics and the general feeling of Aarklash’s background.”

    Quotation taken from the dedicated Confrontation forums here – link to

    I would like this to simply be a non-native english speaker’s wordmash, but I don’t have much hope.

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      The use of the word discard is a really nice touch.