geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
14
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Subject: A Game of Groans rss
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Erik Latoni
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
A Game of Thrones » Forums » Reviews
A Game of Groans
FIRST THINGS FIRST

1 I really wanted to try this game out because it is rated so highly on the BGG :cool:

2 Gaming at Don's (Hugh G Rection) makes trying out new games pretty balanced and fun. Between Don's game facilitating, the humor and laugh of the twins (Phil & Pat), and the overall gaming experience of the group (Dogzard-player #5) it makes for a great venue for all sorts of games. Oh and Izzy's cooking and other concoctions are total icing on the cake (or as in tonight Margaritas in the cup)...yum!!! :D

3 Out of five players I ended up next to last on this first time play. It was a slow and painful death, made even more painful by Phil's long, slow deliberation about each move. It was so bad that I really couldn't complain that much when Don stepped in to help him make plays against me...at least Don speeded up the game play! Ahh! Alliances. Its a love/hate thing! :shake:

4 I actually liked this game. Someone once asked on the BGG if we only like games we win at...I actually like games that play well and have interesting mechanics. This one played pretty well and did have some interesting mechanics that deepened the more we played into the game. :)


This is all on a Five starstarstarstarstar Scale

THEME starstarstar
The premise here is to contest against other barons and houses for the throne of the kingdom. As Dogzard commented...Kind of a scaled up version of SAGA. Each house has different starting locations and different abilities in the card hands. While I have never read the book our gaming group members who had, brought it up a couple of times during the game. It seems that the game represents the book fairly well though it is not a strong tie. The objective is to be the first player with 7 strongholds/cities or the most strongholds/cities at the end of the game.

COMPONENTS starstarstarstarhalfstar

You have got to hand it to Fantasy Flight Games. They consistently deliver quality components.

Counters: Heavy Cardstock, elegant but simple graphics, and highly functional. There were not an unwieldy number of different counters to keep track of and they were not hard to read as in Starcraft.

Cards: Nice texture finish to the cards (this really should be an industry standard as it makes them easier to handle). The artwork was good though not great, and the coloring on the card artwork was a bit dull, negatively contrasting with the other colorful components.

Map Board: The map board was nicely illustrated and easy to decipher. The artwork and coloring was also functional and well done. It was printed on a heavy board and folded from six large squares to form a rectangle.

MECHANICS starstarstarstar

Area Control Each area on the map can produce something. It will either be a supply, a power token, and/or a stronghold/city. The more areas you control with these options the more flexible your game plan.

Bidding Players use Power Tokens to bid for the Throne, the Sword, or the Raven, and in the case of the Wildling Horde, to battle.

Figures Placement There are three different types of figures. Footmen (1 pt), Knights (2 pts), and Ships (1 pt). These figures are used to gain and hold territories and to spread a network of influence for movement and support.

Card Play Cards are used to influence the outcome of battles. There are no dice and game rules allow opponents to see which cards are in an opponents hand, not necessarily which card they will choose to play. This, IMHO, is perhaps one of the weakest elements of the game.

GAME PLAY starstarstarstarstar
The game play is elegantly straightforward. It consist of three phases.

Westeros Phase
There are three decks (I, II, III). In this phase the top card of each deck is turned over and players follow the instructions on the cards. These represent events during the game that include, re-evaluating supply, mustering troops, dealing with the Wildling Horde, and bidding for the Throne, Sword, or Raven Markers , by using Power Tokens.

The Throne (determines order of play and resolution of bidding ties)

The Sword (adds +1 to one battle and resolves battle ties)

The Raven (allows a player to switch out a planning marker, as well as allows players to play "starred" planning markers that give bonuses)

Planning Phase
This is the game phase where you can issue orders to your standing troops. Where you are on the game turn track will have a lot to do with the strategy and orders you will execute.

RAID: Allows players to cancel another raid order (Throne Influence Track - game order is important here!), a support order, or consolidate power order in an adjacent territory.

MARCH: Allows movement into adjacent territories, and battle.

DEFEND: If you believe you will be attacked this gives you +1, or +2 bonuses to defend.

SUPPORT: If you are next to a territory being contested either through an attack or defend, this allows units in an adjacent territory (ships included) to add their strength to any battles.

CONSOLIDATE POWER: This will allow a player to get more power tokens through claiming territory that they can then use for bidding on the influence tracks.

Action Phase
In this phase players execute orders one at a time (remember the Throne Influence Track?!). Raids are resolved first. After raids players then execute march orders, and resolve any battles that ensue. Finally players execute the Consolidate order. After all this the round is over and the round marker is moved. Game play ends after ten rounds or after one player controls seven strongholds/cities.

Sweet Spots

thumbsup The bidding for Throne, Sword, or Raven gets a thumbs up. It is perhaps the most tension generating aspect of the game because it will heavily influence the planning and action phases. If you are player four or five here...it is an occassion to GROAN!

thumbsup The planning phase is also tense. You have to consider where you are on the Throne Influence Track, and what your opponent is likely to do. Should you March into other territories? Should you attack? Should you Consolidate? Should you Raid? This is a place where you do want to deliberate...but too much can result in Analysis Paralysis and throw your gaming buddies to GROAN!

thumbsup The action phase is where it all comes together. Kind of reminds you of that scene in the Indiana Jones movie of the search for the Grail. There will be a GROAN or two if you planned poorly! I found myself wishing I would have attacked earlier.

thumbsup For not having to battle in order to move yourself closer to victory. Don spent most of the game expanding his influence in the southern territories, and when he finally did have to battle, enjoyed a full and option filled hand! Hhhhhmmmm!

thumbsup For being able to plan and play movement action tokens in a sequence to move across two, or maybe even three territories in order to attack. This came up in game play (way to go Don) and blindsided me (GROAN), but it is a sweet option to exercise!

thumbsup For being one of the rare games that take logistics into account. You are limited in the size of armies you can field by the amount of supplies that can sustain them. Really sweeeeeeet mechanic!

Groan Spots

thumbsdown The battle system is rather lackluster. If my opponent can know the cards I have in my hand, then battles are a pretty done deal. Why wouldn't I want to play my highest card? Very few reasons here not to do the obvious with 100% intelligence on my oponents options. This is one part of the game that needs to be reworked.

thumbsdown For not empowering the losing player with a spoiler option. What I mean here is that once a player starts to lose, it is a pretty done deal for the remainder of the game and unless there is an option they have that no one else has, one is just prolonging the inevitable. I would suggest that since most players cannot renew their battle hand until all their cards are used...the losing player for each round would be allowed to discard a card from their hand without having to do so through a battle. This would allow them to reconstitute their hand and get back into the game quicker.

OVERALL starstarstarstarhalfstar
This is a good game that I would like to get back to. On the BGG I would give it a 7 or 8. If I play it more I may move that up. The one big Groan Spot for me is the Battle system. Still, when considering the other mechanics and game play I can see why so many people rate this game highly on the BGG. Heck! If I lost and still liked playing it that has to count for something!
Last edited on 2008-02-17 15:58:20 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Merric Blackman
Australia
Waubra
Victoria
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
El Hidalgo wrote:
thumbsdown The battle system is rather lackluster. If my opponent can know the cards I have in my hand, then battles are a pretty done deal. Why wouldn't I want to play my highest card?


Because you only have one 3?

Your leader cards are the one resource you have that can allow you to swing a losing fight to a winning one. If you always play your highest card, you don't have a chance of doing that.

Cheers!
Snooze Fest
United States
Hillsborough
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
El Hidalgo wrote:

thumbsdown The battle system is rather lackluster. If my opponent can know the cards I have in my hand, then battles are a pretty done deal. Why wouldn't I want to play my highest card? Very few reasons here not to do the obvious with 100% intelligence on my opponents options. This is one part of the game that needs to be reworked.


The battle system is one of the things I like best! No dice, but lots of cards. Why wouldn't you use your highest card? Because that's what the other guy thinks you're going to do. Play something lower, make them waste their high card, then come back next turn, or later this turn, and blow 'em away. It's partly a bluffing game -- will the other guy really use his 3? Should I save it for another battle? Do I need swords or fortifications!

El Hidalgo wrote:
thumbsdown For not empowering the losing player with a spoiler option. What I mean here is that once a player starts to lose, it is a pretty done deal for the remainder of the game and unless there is an option they have that no one else has, one is just prolonging the inevitable. I would suggest that since most players cannot renew their battle hand until all their cards are used...the losing player for each round would be allowed to discard a card from their hand without having to do so through a battle. This would allow them to reconstitute their hand and get back into the game quicker.


I don't think you need it. The game is mostly diplomacy; try not to get too far behind! If you do get behind, it's time to start allying with the other guys; you need to avoid leaving yourself wide open so they don't attack you themselves, but there should be some incentive to ally with the losing player against the leader (if you can identify who that is!). Having said that, it is possible that if you get far enough behind the rest will finish you off!
Erik Latoni
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
While it is understood that players only have one three, however, why the 100% intelligence factor over here? That is why the battle system is lackluster for me. If I only have one three and it is played it would be up to the other players to keep track of the cards in my hand and my discards.
Snooze Fest
United States
Hillsborough
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
El Hidalgo wrote:
While it is understood that players only have one three, however, why the 100% intelligence factor over here? That is why the battle system is lackluster for me. If I only have one three and it is played it would be up to the other players to keep track of the cards in my hand and my discards.


Ah, I see! Well, you could certainly play with hidden hands. I'd rather not bother tracking that stuff, though. Plus, asking to examine someone's hand of cards can give them a clue that you're thinking of attacking (or, refraining from asking can make them think you're not even if you really are). But if that's your problem with the combat, it's easy enough to fix for your group!
oystein eker
Norway
Unspecified
sola
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmbmbmb
A think: I am going to loose anyway - I play my lowest card

B think: He will loose anyway and play his lowest card - no need to play my highest card. I can win with next lowest card.

A think: B thinks he will loose anyway and play his lowest card - no need to play my highest card. he can win with next lowest card. Now I can win with a slighly higher card.

B think: A think that I will loose anyway and play his lowest card - no need to play my highest card. he can win with next lowest card. Now he can win with a slighly higher card. Maybe I win with my next highest card.

A think: I am going to loose anyway - I play my lowest card.

B think: .... brainburning......

.......

This game is all about alliances. The weakest must cooperate to bash the leader.



Last edited on 2008-02-17 11:16:12 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
David Wiens
United States
Lakeville
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
El Hidalgo wrote:
While it is understood that players only have one three, however, why the 100% intelligence factor over here? That is why the battle system is lackluster for me. If I only have one three and it is played it would be up to the other players to keep track of the cards in my hand and my discards.


I find it thematic to have everyone know the cards you have left in your hand. If this was a real war between houses, one house would keep track of where various members of the opposing house had showed up. If you're fighting Lannister and you've already run into Jaime in a battle somewhere, you know he's not going to be available somewhere else.
Erik Latoni
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow! A lot of you seem real wedded to this battle system! Regardless. I find it lackluster and unimaginative for the reasons I have stated. People can keep track of my discards or not without having to have access to my hand or discard pile. So the comment begs the question. I find this a good game, and would like to play it more to take advantage of the alliances and intrigue, all of which would still leave me feeling that the battle system is the weakest part of this game. After going over my review and looking at some others I am not alone in this assessment.

As was stated by Snoozefest in his most recent comment, this could be fixed with some house rules and I will suggest that in future play. Hidden hands and unavailable discards would make it more interesting. I believe the spoiler feature for the losing player (however one would define that) would facilitate alliances and intrigue.
Last edited on 2008-02-17 15:01:33 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Larry Rice
United States
Grand Rapids
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
0506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
This game is all about alliances and "table talk". If you are doing poorly you need to be talking up alliances and talking down anyone from attacking you by pointing out how this person or that is likely to be making a sneak attack here or there, etc. Distract people from your weakened position. I never consider myself out of this game until I am fully eliminated. After being destroyed down to 2 regions at one point in the 3rd round or so, I was still able to come back and end up winning the game because I was able to persuade the person about to put me totally out of the game that it would be better for him to go after my opponent south of me since there was a greater threat.
oystein eker
Norway
Unspecified
sola
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmbmbmb
I urge you to try battle again as it is. You have not even scratched the surface of phsychological effect in a battle.

Why on earth should you waste a "10" on a "1" ?

If you all do it without thinking each time I agree - but then it is a memory game. It is probably better to draw random.

Erik Latoni
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Fellow gamers...

Understand that I do like this game

Understand that many comments here miss my point.

Again...it is not that I do not understand the battle system...it is not that we have not played it as it is...it is that I find it the weakest part of the game and rather lackluster. I understand there are reasons for not playing my highest card, or lowest, but that is not the point I am making. I do not see the need to exercise 100% intelligence for my hand or discard pile. In my estimation there could be more done with this system given the other fine features of the game.
oystein eker
Norway
Unspecified
sola
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmbmbmb
We agree on a great game. Agree that we both disagree on battle :)

Maybe you could try the variant #8 mentioned in expansion Clash of Kings:

Each player pick 3 cards and draw one of them.

(side note: we still prefer the open card original version)
Erik Latoni
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Eker. I will make sure we get to the variant. The game belongs to our gaming guru Hugh G Rection but after playing it I am considering buying this game for myself. My assessment of the Battle System does not deter me at all from the other great things going on here. I know that it works for you and others...just not quite for me. Still, the game has enough going on that I cannot wait to get back to it. :)
Stephen Groves
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
The combat system is fine. The fact that you do not necessarily lose any troops when you lose the battle gives some flexibility in what you play. If you play your big attacks early then you are more prone to be attacked so maybe some caution is required. Also the champion against the wildlings gets to redraw a combat card which can be useful and entice greater use of tokens in bidding. The game is relies more on diplomacy than combat for players to make gains but both are linked especially in the use of support chits.
Hugh G. Rection
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
For a first time playing this game, I think it went a lot smoother than other first attempts (StarCraft, Arkham Horror). There wasn't nearly as much rulebook referencing needed.

The battle cards in the expansion are supposed to be a lot more varied, though I haven't looked them yet. Next time we will definitely play with the A Game of Thrones : A Clash of Kings Expansion in the mix.
Gregory Amstutz
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
snoozefest wrote:

I don't think you need it. The game is mostly diplomacy; try not to get too far behind! If you do get behind, it's time to start allying with the other guys; you need to avoid leaving yourself wide open so they don't attack you themselves, but there should be some incentive to ally with the losing player against the leader (if you can identify who that is!). Having said that, it is possible that if you get far enough behind the rest will finish you off!


As the losing player from this particular example, I take a minor exception to the above, for the following reasons:

1) Due to my own errors on my opening moves, it became very obvious -at least to me- from about turn 2 that I was going to be the loser. This lead to...

2) The one guy who was beating up on me was pretty much leaving everyone else alone. And..

3) Although he was stomping me, it was never glaringly obvious that he was the leader (He didn't win) So..

4) Being in such a poor position left me with absolutely nothing to offer the other 3 players, which ...

5) gave them absolutely no incentive to ally with me, or help me in any way. They were too busy dealing with each other. *** This, of course, ultimately led to..

6) Me losing.

My one "triumph", if you will, was that I actually did have pieces left at the end of the game. This, truth be told had nothing whatsoever with my playing skills, but was entirely due to my opponent's unfathomable reluctance to finish me off, which he could have done at pretty much any time.

A big reason why the above is true is the Power Token bidding for the Sword, Throne, and Raven. Since I was so far down, I couldn't get any power tokens bid on anything. This of course meant that I was at the bottom of all three tracks, which in turn meant that I never had any type of initiative/advantage, and could never obtain it. (yada, yada, yada...)

*** Just a random thought. It occurs to me that in our situation, the game mechanics were not very conducive to alliances. You couldn't give money/units to other players, trading cards is not allowed, and with the small scale of combat, (armies of no more than 3 or 4 units) and the close confines of the map, it just didn't make sense for anyone to make attacks for someone else's benefit. (IMHO)

Bottom line, I was so far behind from the very beginning that I was never able to recover, and it was obvious to everyone. I spent the entire game losing, which made for a very un-fun game. Not that I mind losing, but even an illusion of a chance would've made it more enjoyable. Without a mechanic to allow that, I think that I will definitely vote to play something else.

A PS here. I didn't wholly despise the game. I really liked that there was a mechanic in place that stressed the importance of supply and logistics. Too many games are just build as many units as you can, and the one with the biggest army wins. I will also admit (reluctantly) that, had I won, my opinion of the game might be better. (hey, I'm only human)
Hugh G. Rection
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
dogzard wrote:
the game mechanics were not very conducive to alliances. You couldn't give money/units to other players, trading cards is not allowed, and with the small scale of combat, (armies of no more than 3 or 4 units) and the close confines of the map


This is where the Support order can make a huge difference in combat. Your attacking force may only be worth 2 or 3 points, but if you've got big support points, the attack can be overwhelming. One thing you can give to another player is support.

The first few times playing through a game like this is about learning the nuances, not instant mastery.
Last edited on 2008-02-17 22:48:32 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Gregory Amstutz
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
The only nuance is that I suck. :shake: :laugh:
Dan Freedman
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron07
dogzard wrote:


Bottom line, I was so far behind from the very beginning that I was never able to recover, and it was obvious to everyone. I spent the entire game losing, which made for a very un-fun game. Not that I mind losing, but even an illusion of a chance would've made it more enjoyable. Without a mechanic to allow that, I think that I will definitely vote to play something else.

A PS here. I didn't wholly despise the game. I really liked that there was a mechanic in place that stressed the importance of supply and logistics. Too many games are just build as many units as you can, and the one with the biggest army wins. I will also admit (reluctantly) that, had I won, my opinion of the game might be better. (hey, I'm only human)


This happened to a player in my only play. My guess is this is a pretty common occurence for at least one house. And due to board configuration, the house to be screwed is usually going to be Lannister. They are surrounded by everyone. Just curious, were you Lannister?

I'd have to agree w/Snooze on this though. It all comes down to diplomacy. Your opponent was able to work the other players into attacking each other (or maybe they did that on their own). That way he could focus on you. If he had opened up another front while attacking you, then he would not have been as successful against you. In fact, he may have called off the attack on you, and tried to ally w/you. You have to call out the fact that your attacker is getting ready to win. Make the peace between the other houses so that they attack your attacker. Whine if nothing else works...even play the pity card. :)

I liken this game to Diplomacy. The bidding, supply, and wildings are flashy chrome...which I like...but chrome nonetheless. The goal is to win alliances not bids.

Unfortunately, what I don't like about the game is that the winning condition is so close (6 castles in a 6er game). Every house starts w/2. Each house generally picks up 2 more during expansion. So each house is only 2 away from winning. This lends itself to allying w/everyone and just waiting out an opportunity to stab for the last 2. This is where I think the game Diplomacy is much better. The supply centers needed for the win are enough to keep the action going and the alliances shifting.
Hugh G. Rection
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Double Dan wrote:
And due to board configuration, the house to be screwed is usually going to be Lannister. They are surrounded by everyone. Just curious, were you Lannister?


Actually, it was Lannister that won! On turn 10 Lannister was tied with Greyjoy on cities/strongholds, so he won by having a higher supply.

That's what happens when everyone in the game hasn't played before. :laugh:
Dan Freedman
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron07
Actually I'd suspect that Lannister would be too juicy a target for Greyjoy in most beginner games. Especially that lone Lannister naval unit.
Hugh G. Rection
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Greyjoy chose to cleanse the world of the Stark infestation. (Stark = dogzard) :laugh:
Gregory Amstutz
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Hugh_G_Rection wrote:
Greyjoy chose to cleanse the world of the Stark infestation. (Stark = dogzard) :laugh:


Infestation?! I think blight is a better word, thank you! Or, perhaps plague? Maybe even cancer?
Erik Latoni
United States
Chula Vista
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
:D It was more like a Tuuuuumoooooor!

:p A small but persistent tuuuuummoorr!
Wolf Stalwart
United States
Boston
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Actually, that's exactly what happens. For better or worse, due to the fact that there's so little chance in terms of battle, there are ENORMOUS consequences to certain strategies.

A time-tested consequence of Greyjoy aggressively attacking Stark is Lannister winning (at least in games that I've played, with different play-groups).

This highlights one of the main drawbacks of the game; that there's a pretty significant learning curve, in terms of strategy. Accordingly, playing a game with players of mixed experience levels is very different from playing a game with exclusively experienced players. So when teaching the game to new players, it's very important that the lannister and greyjoy players are at the same competence level (and they should probably be the best players)

All that being said, I love this game
Last edited on 2008-06-01 21:16:36 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.