Game: Game of Thrones, A: A Storm of Swords Expansion

Thread: Re: Stark imbalance vs. Greyjoy?

Umbratus — 2008-09-24T11:03:20+00:00

Interesting article as it may help open eyes to some folks that complain house Stark is underpowered compared to Greyjoy (winks at Haggis. I have taken a few statistics on PBEM games I was running, it showed that indeed Greyjoy wins more games than Stark does, Stark all in all looked pretty weak handicapped and hard to play.

But I have always been telling you just need to adapt your style of playing to house Stark and not complain and call them broken. What I think is that for unexperienced players house Greyjoy and especially Baratheon can be put to glory more easily than Stark or Lannister, but thats just among ASOS newbies, when you're not so sure of what to do. Starks swords swung by a firm hand can be pretty deadly, but then a Greyjoy who knows his business and how to dance the dance of the two ways may come out on top just as well. Alot depends on ally cards, events and other circumstances. E.g. Stark not having the Frey Galleys when needed, Stark having that Frey Military Support from scratch while Greyjoy cant grab any ally card to counter that or vice-versa.

So I'd not call this an imbalance of any sort, quite the contrary, it can go either way, which shows its pretty well balanced, maybe not perfect but thats rather situational than general. Unfortunately there are too many games where Starks real potentials are not revealed and used and thus they utterly fail. That applies more often to Stark than to Greyjoy as Starks strengths may not be that obvious than Greyjoys, but then I am rather fond of the subtleties anyways

PS: I only won once with Stark when not having Ned back but losing him to the hangman. I think its a tough call but you can do it, its easier when you have him back home for sure.

Thread: Re: Archer Units

thiagbs — 2008-09-19T22:34:03+00:00

I prefer this:

Mustering Points : 1
- Attack: 1
- Defend: 0
- Any Support OR defend city/stronghold/fortification : +1

Special:
- may be upgraded to knight or siege (in case playing with as well)

Examples:
Attack: 1
Defend (any area): 0
Defend(city/stronghold or fortif.): 1 (0+1)
Support an attack: 2 (1+1)
Support a defense (any area): 1 (0+1)

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Haggis — 2008-09-18T14:27:38+00:00

No apologies needed, I don't think anybody's upset, it's good to see feedback and discussions. Good luck!

Thread: Re: Archer Units

Umbratus — 2008-09-18T09:20:11+00:00

Yeah, sort of

Mainly, I was just abit bored with the selection of available units in ASOS, as you dont have ships anymore and I think sieges dont really fit in.

Archers always appealed to me to supplement the range of units thats right, and I am quite happy with the actual result as it is

Thread: Re: Archer Units

Waldemar — 2008-09-18T09:10:35+00:00

Archers? It's always been your pet concern, right?

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-18T07:06:03+00:00

Haggis wrote:
Scout762 wrote:

I think the main reason why your 6 player map, as is, does not sit well with me is Karhold touches Greywater and Winterfell. I posted 2 options, one of which, I may use on my map. So if they actually are posted by BBG, please look at them and let me know what you think. I may remove the stark shield…

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373095

A better way to upload images, if approval is in doubt, is to upload them to your personal gallery here at BGG. It's under "My Geek", "Gallery" at the top.

I'm still reading the replies, nothing much to add yet.

Edit: For example, in my gallery...
]]>

Awsome! Again, Thanks! We'll have to play F2F when ever I go visit my father in Ohio!

Here are just a few options I came up with:

]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

Seeing how I will play face to face, my group will start with this version and go from there as needed.

]]>

We seem to be leaning toward #'s 2 or 7

I didn't mean to upset anyone with these changes, I just like having options. I figured that if one guy likes options, so may others. If you like them or just want to try a different flavor, cool; if not, cool.

Again guys, thanks for the six player map!

Scouts Out!

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Haggis — 2008-09-17T16:54:55+00:00

Scout762 wrote:

I think the main reason why your 6 player map, as is, does not sit well with me is Karhold touches Greywater and Winterfell. I posted 2 options, one of which, I may use on my map. So if they actually are posted by BBG, please look at them and let me know what you think. I may remove the stark shield…

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373095

A better way to upload images, if approval is in doubt, is to upload them to your personal gallery here at BGG. It's under "My Geek", "Gallery" at the top.

I'm still reading the replies, nothing much to add yet.

Edit: For example, in my gallery...
]]>

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-16T12:10:05+00:00

Scout762 wrote:
These are just the numbers of available resources for each house at the start of the game and on turn 1. The turn one stats show what each house could possibly take with out a fight. In other words if Baratheon moved all units on turn one and no one else moved or opposed him, he would have 1 stronghold, 1 city, 1 town, 4 crown icons and 5 supply icons. This was just so I could see what everyone started with and what their early potential was.

Hmm yeah, but I think you should rather regard what any house is likely to take instead of what they may potentially take in this case, otherwise these stats will be a bit twisted when it comes to areas that are contested in Turn 1 by more than one house already. Or you should distinguish between real free areas and contested ones - ones which you can really take because there is NO combat possible and other where combat is possible, but then you'd need to take playing of tactic cards like Manage Troops into account ! So after all, saying its likely that house takes this and that area or dividing the map into home areas for each house and contested regions should be enough, and after all more realistic than saying potentially this and that house can take as many as X barrels and Y crowns. When you consider manage troops and leaving power tokens along the way, I guess any house can pretty much max out on any ressource, but the question is will that be a good move that is regularily done or does it rather screw the house up, leaving it in a weak positioning of scattered troops and so noone will really do it.

Scout762 wrote:
HAHA! I am going to be sooooo disappointed if you are not really German! Because I am cracking myself up reading your posts in a German accent!

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am really German. So even though english is not my mother tongue and I may twist some words and get some grammar wrong sometimes, I dont think you'd hear much of a typical german accent when I speak. You dont hear that "classical" accent that much anymore nowadays.

Scout762 wrote:
I think the main reason why your 6 player map, as is, does not sit well with me is Karhold touches Greywater and Winterfell.

You're right with that, so I admit Moat Cailin may have been the better name, but then you never really hear the name of Silverhall being a major city of any importance in the books, and like on the original ASOS map, a connection from Flints Finger to Winterfell is rather awkward as well as some other things. So you see, FFG is priorizing balance and playability before theme and stricktly sticking to the books as well

And if thats the only problem, I suggest you just change the name from Karhold to Moat Cailin

Scout762 wrote:
I posted 2 options, one of which, I may use on my map. So if they actually are posted by BBG, please look at them and let me know what you think. I may remove the stark shield…
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373095

But hey, now you actually added 2 territories, both Karhold and Moat Cailin. Again, wouldn't recommend that. If just changing names is not enough for you, I'd suggest you leave the area of Karhold attached to Winterfell, containing a crown and make a house specific arrow to Greywater Watch. Maybe this fits your need for changing something

Scout762 wrote:
Now now, that is a very good argument; with all the variables (allies, battles, turncoats) it is only the numbers that do not change. So it is only that constant that I may use as a measuring tool. Because in the absence of every thing else, the shortest distance from a predator to prey is a straight line.

True, but with the number of enemies dynamically changing by events on the board and by diplomacy you still cant say one house is more endangered than another even though the potential distance is constant.
All teaming up on Lannister will gain you nothing for instance, if he is harassed by 2 already and you are the 3rd neighbour you'd rather want him stabilized in order to maintain your own chance of winning. If you chime in as a 3rd there'll be nothing to pick from a kingdom in ruins over which someone else crowned himself king already.

Scout762 wrote:
And this is what I was looking for, reasons for the changes. Not just, here is a map, use it because we said it is the best.

I dont say its the very best solution there ever will be and I cant lay out reason and proof to any tiny decision we made as a detailed list beforehand, cos that'd be rather lengthy, but as you can see I can give good reasons and arguments to follow for decisions we made if you ask for it.

Its certainly the best we came up with, Haggis as well as my group of test players are probably among the most experienced players there are or at least that I know of, even though everyone didnt always agree 100% to everything. Most of them are playing this game for years, especially with PBEM where tactical and strategical depthness is given, games are decided by subtleties and not by major errors that are quickly done in the heat of the night of a face2face game.

So in the end, I still have to say you should rather trust us with this, instead of questioning it all the way. You can of course anytime play as you want and do modifications to it on your own. I can only advise you to really give any change thorough and global thought about all its consequences and then try it out by actually playing several times, under different circumstances (such as events, ally cards and different players/diplomacy), because so did we

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-16T11:07:05+00:00

Umbratus wrote:
Well, thats good you did. Talking about the same thing is always an advantage. It just makes me wonder what else there is you missed
Lets see....

I am sure I have missed a ton, but that should diminish as play the game more.

Umbratus wrote:
Scout762 wrote:

Starting stats
======== Fort == City == Town == Crown == Supply
Baratheon ==1 ==== 1 ==== 1 ===== 2 ===== 2
Geryjoy === 1 ==== N/A === 1 ===== 2 ===== 2
Lannister == 1 ==== 1 ==== N/A ==== 3 ===== 3
Martell ==== 1 ==== N/A === 1 ==== 1 ===== 2
Stark ===== 1 ==== 1 === N/A ==== 2 ====== 2
Tyrell ===== 1 ====N/A === 2 ===== 1 ===== 2

Potential stats within one move with no combat
======== Fort == City == Town == Crown == Supply
Baratheon ==1 ==== 1 ==== 1 ===== 4 ===== 5
Geryjoy === 1 ==== N/A === 3 ===== 2 ===== 6
Lannister == 1 ==== 1 ==== 2* ==== 4* ===== 4*
Martell ==== 1 ==== N/A === 2 ==== 4 ===== 3
Stark ===== 1 ==== 1 ==== 3 ==== 3(4**) == 3
Tyrell ===== 1 ==== N/A === 2 ==== 3* ==== 5*
* More than one option to go to
** Counting Karhold

Not sure what you wanna tell us with that.

These are just the numbers of available resources for each house at the start of the game and on turn 1. The turn one stats show what each house could possibly take with out a fight. In other words if Baratheon moved all units on turn one and no one else moved or opposed him, he would have 1 stronghold, 1 city, 1 town, 4 crown icons and 5 supply icons. This was just so I could see what everyone started with and what their early potential was.

Umbratus wrote:
But Scout, my dear, you are completely twisting the point of discussion here. I never said Karhold/Moat Cailin was an important territory to go to for anyone, but Winterfell is. What Karhold/Moat Cailin is important for is an option for Stark to support Winterfell from. Winterfell is the destination you desire to reach when playing Greyjoy. You close him one option and point towards Moat being still theoretically crossable for anyone, ignoring the fact that it is out of reach for anyone but Stark, and this is just as its supposed to be, really !

True and I concede your point; it is not impossible, just improbable.

Umbratus wrote:
Whoo, thats a very easy looking sentence that sooo much more difficult in the actual game to do. How is Greyjoy supposed to work through securing the Twins so easily that he is even already thinking about how to on through these areas ?? Sorry but thats a pretty unrealistic estimation. If Greyjoy just has to face 2 swords of Starks (Robb being the best card at 4 with the double damage dealer that sacks any Greyjoy leader as he is lacking a double fort card) Balon is gone and with him any great and quick ambition to win the game. So its not like Greyjoy just knocks at the Twins doors and walks in.

HAHA! I am going to be sooooo disappointed if you are not really German! Because I am cracking myself up reading your posts in a German accent! Again, when you are right you are right, but this time you are NOT right! Ok so I lied, I concede again, you are right. I did not consider the Stark/Greyjoy card comparison.

*knock knock*
*who’s there*
*land shark!*

Umbratus wrote:
Yep, so we carefully considered that Stark needs another option to collect power when under pressure as well as being able to support Winterfell from some location in order to make it more stable and abit harder to take. But not that hard to take in order to cancel this option for Greyjoy entirely.

Well, I just cant see that you really realize yet what you're doing with your "twist" just as I cant even see the reason WHY you wanna do it, other than for reasons of theme, which is a bad thing balance-wise like pointed out.

I think the main reason why your 6 player map, as is, does not sit well with me is Karhold touches Greywater and Winterfell. I posted 2 options, one of which, I may use on my map. So if they actually are posted by BBG, please look at them and let me know what you think. I may remove the stark shield…

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373095

Umbratus wrote:
Excuse me, but (as you now realized) numbers are a good thing to determine distribution of ressources, as well as ally cards, military strength and all, but alas I dont think by picking some numbers off the board you can say who is in more danger !

I give you this: Stark has one and a half potential enemies, Lannister has 3, thus Lannister is in twice as much danger and will only win half as many games. Thats all crap as it doesnt regard diplomacy and many other aspects.

You really cant tell by taking numbers of how long a road is how threatened someone is. There still has to be someone to actually walk that way ! Sorry that one is a pretty bad argument of yours

Now now, that is a very good argument; with all the variables (allies, battles, turncoats) it is only the numbers that do not change. So it is only that constant that I may use as a measuring tool. Because in the absence of every thing else, the shortest distance from a predator to prey is a straight line.

Umbratus wrote:
For myself, I dont recommend any of the changes you propose for the reasons above ! You even removed the support area we added, so you really pretty much take out Winterfell from the game, instead of making it abit harder to take, what we intended.

And this is what I was looking for, reasons for the changes. Not just, here is a map, use it because we said it is the best.

Umbratus wrote:
Your uploading of 4 different proposals is another indicator that you arent quite sure and convinced of any way to do it by yourself

Exactly 150% true, and that is the genesis of my post

Feed back welcome!

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-16T09:45:57+00:00

Similar reasons led to having 2 ways down in the south to harass each other by the way. The way via The Arbor is sort of a bottleneck so its hard to cross and set foot onto the other side, but it can be done, if you mass troops with big supply and the other side is only lightly garrisoned.

If there was just one way around, people could seal it more easily and look north abit to much, shaking up the middle of the map more than desired.

So you'll always have to worry and keep your eye on that backdoor way, the south dancing a similar dance like the north. Looking at the board in a grander scale this both takes away pressure that could otherwise hit the center of the board which would render the houses there (especially Lannister) unplayable or at least with a fairly low chance to ever win a game.

So the arrows at the Arbor had to be commonly usable for both sides, even though theme may suggest otherwise.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-16T07:57:49+00:00

Scout762 wrote:
Bam, now I get it! After reading what you posted about the arrows I went and re-read the rules. I did not realize you could not raid/support across arrows. I thought you could just like ships. Now I know, and it makes sense.

Well, thats good you did. Talking about the same thing is always an advantage. It just makes me wonder what else there is you missed
Lets see....

Scout762 wrote:
So basically you guys wanted a way to help Stark. To do so, you gave an out of the way section connected to Winterfell and called it Karhold. Karhold serves as a free low danger area to farm 2 power tokens every turn and when needed, you could support Winterfell from an attack from Flint, Seagard and on rare occasions, Greywater.

Exactly. Just a little addition. Karhold is supposed to help when "Game of Thrones" events are played as well, increasing Starks income by one. All in all, Stark does not have need of Karhold when he is on the upper side against Greyjoy and does expand. But it will serve him well when he gets under pressure.

Scout762 wrote:
What I am wondering is why you all did not just add a crown to Grewater and call it even?

Simple reason. There is a small chance that Baratheon might try to come up the Kingsroad while Stark is busy with Greyjoy. For this occasion Karhold may serve as well as a deep line defense (the north is vast, not easy to invade, its alot about deep line defenses -> similar to the south), being able to support from Karhold and defend in Greywater, even though another line may be lost already. The question is what do you gain/encourage and what do you discard/handicap when adding another territory or simply add a ressource to an already existing area. We decided adding another territory for reasons of support/raid options is the way to go here.

Scout762 wrote:
If you added a capital support location to Winterfell, why not add a capital support location to Pike?

Because in all games of ASOS I played (make that easily more than 50) Winterfell was taken alot, alot more frequently than Pyke was taken. So as a modification to even this out, Winterfell needs a support base not Pyke. There is one important difference between the two. Adding Karhold is a support base for Stark only, noone is supposed to get that far when you look at the map. If you added a support area to Pyke its more easily threatened from 2 sides as Lannister is much closer to Pyke than Baratheon is to Winterfell. Losing it once may then mean losing it forever, or 2 players might easily cooperate to tear Greyjoy apart.

Scout762 wrote:

Starting stats
======== Fort == City == Town == Crown == Supply
Baratheon ==1 ==== 1 ==== 1 ===== 2 ===== 2
Geryjoy === 1 ==== N/A === 1 ===== 2 ===== 2
Lannister == 1 ==== 1 ==== N/A ==== 3 ===== 3
Martell ==== 1 ==== N/A === 1 ==== 1 ===== 2
Stark ===== 1 ==== 1 === N/A ==== 2 ====== 2
Tyrell ===== 1 ====N/A === 2 ===== 1 ===== 2

Potential stats within one move with no combat
======== Fort == City == Town == Crown == Supply
Baratheon ==1 ==== 1 ==== 1 ===== 4 ===== 5
Geryjoy === 1 ==== N/A === 3 ===== 2 ===== 6
Lannister == 1 ==== 1 ==== 2* ==== 4* ===== 4*
Martell ==== 1 ==== N/A === 2 ==== 4 ===== 3
Stark ===== 1 ==== 1 ==== 3 ==== 3(4**) == 3
Tyrell ===== 1 ==== N/A === 2 ==== 3* ==== 5*
* More than one option to go to
** Counting Karhold

Not sure what you wanna tell us with that. I guess by Fort you mean Stronghold, a fort is a different thing after all. Greyjoy will of course almost always take Riverrun as a city, but he is unlikely to contest the towns of Seagard and Fairmarket, not without combat, not by getting easily repelled from there for sure. So I dont quite get the meaning of these stats, so I skipped over the rest of it, after seeing these points.

Umbratus wrote:
Going from Moat Cailin to Winterfell is really never going to be any realistic option for Greyjoy.
Scout762 wrote:
I guess I could say the same about Karhold… why bother going there if you have to move thru a deep line of defenses?

But Scout, my dear, you are completely twisting the point of discussion here. I never said Karhold/Moat Cailin was an important territory to go to for anyone, but Winterfell is. What Karhold/Moat Cailin is important for is an option for Stark to support Winterfell from. Winterfell is the destination you desire to reach when playing Greyjoy. You close him one option and point towards Moat being still theoretically crossable for anyone, ignoring the fact that it is out of reach for anyone but Stark, and this is just as its supposed to be, really !

Scout762 wrote:
Once you secure the Twins, you can support the defense of the Twins.

Whoo, thats a very easy looking sentence that sooo much more difficult in the actual game to do. How is Greyjoy supposed to work through securing the Twins so easily that he is even already thinking about how to on through these areas ?? Sorry but thats a pretty unrealistic estimation. If Greyjoy just has to face 2 swords of Starks (Robb being the best card at 4 with the double damage dealer that sacks any Greyjoy leader as he is lacking a double fort card) Balon is gone and with him any great and quick ambition to win the game. So its not like Greyjoy just knocks at the Twins doors and walks in.

Scout762 wrote:
Fairmarket and Oldstones could support Seagard from the marauding wolf raiding down the Stark only route to Seagard.

Shoot, Greyjoy does not even have to bother with Winterfell; Pike, Riverrun, the Twins and Harrenhal gives house Greyjoy 5 claim right there.

Again, taking The Twins means beating Stark on the field ! You are way to much simplifying this. What is Stark supposed to do while Greyjoy expands from Pyke over the Twins as far as Harrenhal where Greyjoy most probably will either meet Lannister or Baratheon forces as well ??

Also, expanding himself on those 5 claims does not win him the game after all, there is 3 more to gain, which is quite alot. He can play his unique tactic, sure, but that leave him vulnerable that turn for attacks by Claim Westeros unto his cities and other picking up powerful ally cards or rearranging their forces with manage troops in order to stop him. Also while attaining 3 more political support he'll have to make further sacrificies such as worse positions on the track by bidding on claim instead, picking Political Support cards instead of Military Support or other cards that help in battles, thus his Military Strength will be lacking while he walks over the Twins and to Harrenhal
You see, Greyjoy will always have an eye on Winterfell, as it provides 2 claim at once.

Umbratus wrote:
Taking away options with no apparent reasons or real trade-offs is not good.
Scout762 wrote:
I would have to say the same for “giving” options (free power farm and support area that is out of the way of danger)

Yep, so we carefully considered that Stark needs another option to collect power when under pressure as well as being able to support Winterfell from some location in order to make it more stable and abit harder to take. But not that hard to take in order to cancel this option for Greyjoy entirely.

Umbratus wrote:
little things can have big impacts, dont underestimate that.
Scout762 wrote:
See my reply above.

Well, I just cant see that you really realize yet what you're doing with your "twist" just as I cant even see the reason WHY you wanna do it, other than for reasons of theme, which is a bad thing balance-wise like pointed out.

Look, by closing one route to Winterfell for Greyjoy entirely, unless he picks up the Merc Transport in order to use that Stark specific arrow (which is another handicap to even do it and quite unlikely while having 6 houses to pick from 36 ally cards) he will be drawn away from this option entirely. If he cant even properly plan to separate his forces between the two ways anymore in order to separate Starks forces as well, he will rather look for other options to get the claim needed to win. Stark and Greyjoy dance a dance with those two ways and thats good, because it'll keep both busy. If thats not applicable anymore, Greyjoy will seal Oldstones by support from Banefort and Riverrun with as few forces as possible and try for Lannisport with all the rest he can spare, which is most probably more than anything Lannister can spare, regarding the fact that the Lion is spread out so much and faces so many potential enemies already. Thats the big thing you gotta fear with this twist as well, in case you havent realized. Help Stark defend Winterfell even better, alright, but that'll turn Greyjoys attention elsewhere, and thats MOST likely towards Lannister, so the whole balance of the game may be at risk with this.

Umbratus wrote:
The Mountains separating Lannisport and Highgarden were placed to make it not that easy to access each others capital. Especially Lannister has enough potential threats around so it'd be over the edge if Tyrell was allowed to reach Lannisport within 2 areas as well.

Scout762 wrote:
So having Pike being able to hit Winterfell in 2 moves is any better?

It the original design of the game, we didnt shortcut the route or anything, no but we even added Karhold to support Winterfell !

Also Stark for once is supposed to mainly deal with Greyjoy anyways (concerning that short route to Winterfell) but Lannister is supposed to deal with Baratheon early on as Tyrell is supposed to deal with Martell, now if Lannisters and Tyrells capitals would be in easy reach that'd be an imbalance there for whoever can spare the troops would have a very good option on a game winning rather easy campaign on taking a capitals 2 claim(probably Tyrell, as ways in the south are rather long, and other potential threats are abit further away that Lannisters additional threats as well). Thats the reason why and I think that a good one to put those mountains there.
Also I wanna point out that there may be a rather open area of Searoad Marches on FFGs original maps, but the maps in the books also show mountains in that region, and so far in George Martins novels its as far as I can remember never mentioned anyone makes that way from Lannisport to Highgarden along the shore that quickly and easily. Any way may be passable given time, but uncrossable mountain areas on the map should be able to indicate that crossing that way is not an option withing reasonable time and effort, thus crossing this way is simply not an option on the board.

Scout762 wrote:
Looking at the numbers, Stark (4-2-4) is in more danger than Lannister(5-3-4)

Excuse me, but (as you now realized) numbers are a good thing to determine distribution of ressources, as well as ally cards, military strength and all, but alas I dont think by picking some numbers off the board you can say who is in more danger !

I give you this: Stark has one and a half potential enemies, Lannister has 3, thus Lannister is in twice as much danger and will only win half as many games. Thats all crap as it doesnt regard diplomacy and many other aspects. You really cant tell by taking numbers of how long a road is how threatened someone is. There still has to be someone to actually walk that way ! Sorry that one is a pretty bad argument of yours

Scout762 wrote:
I believe Winterfell is not as far as it may seem, see above. But I do agree with you, why try for Winterfell; go for Riverrun, The Twins, Harrenhal or any of the other non-capital cities out there.
MasterDinadan wrote:
and there's no reason for the two of them to even consider Winterfell as a target.

Scout762 wrote:
I do agree with you 100%!

I do agree as well, but I think you differ in what you derive from this point with me. My conclusion is that this is a bad thing, there should be a reasonable way to go and take Winterfell as a reward. Not an easy way for sure, but its not that easy as it is anyways. Taking Winterfell out of the game for others to take is surely not a thing I desire, if you desire to do that, you should get along with your mod, so I think I cut this short here, as the rest of your post pretty much says the same.

For myself, I dont recommend any of the changes you propose for the reasons above ! You even removed the support area we added, so you really pretty much take out Winterfell from the game, instead of making it abit harder to take, what we intended.

Your uploading of 4 different proposals is another indicator that you arent quite sure and convinced of any way to do it by yourself

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-16T05:19:30+00:00

Haggis wrote:
I'll stay out of the Stark modification discussion... other than to say Stark really needs a crown there and I would really like to see Karhold/Moat Calin connected to Winterfell for the support ability rather than a movement arrow.

Bam, now I get it! After reading what you posted about the arrows I went and re-read the rules. I did not realize you could not raid/support across arrows. I thought you could just like ships. Now I know, and it makes sense.

Umbratus wrote:
little things can have big impacts, dont underestimate that. What you're about to do is seal it up on one route entirely, that over the edge, imho.

So basically you guys wanted a way to help Stark. To do so, you gave an out of the way section connected to Winterfell and called it Karhold. Karhold serves as a free low danger area to farm 2 power tokens every turn and when needed, you could support Winterfell from an attack from Flint, Seagard and on rare occasions, Greywater.

I did some calculating and looking at the numbers (see below) Stark could use some power love. What I am wondering is why you all did not just add a crown to Grewater and call it even? If you added a capital support location to Winterfell, why not add a capital support location to Pike?

Starting stats
======== Fort == City == Town == Crown == Supply
Baratheon ==1 ==== 1 ==== 1 ===== 2 ===== 2
Geryjoy === 1 ==== N/A === 1 ===== 2 ===== 2
Lannister == 1 ==== 1 ==== N/A ==== 3 ===== 3
Martell ==== 1 ==== N/A === 1 ==== 1 ===== 2
Stark ===== 1 ==== 1 === N/A ==== 2 ====== 2
Tyrell ===== 1 ====N/A === 2 ===== 1 ===== 2

Potential stats within one move with no combat
======== Fort == City == Town == Crown == Supply
Baratheon ==1 ==== 1 ==== 1 ===== 4 ===== 5
Geryjoy === 1 ==== N/A === 3 ===== 2 ===== 6
Lannister == 1 ==== 1 ==== 2* ==== 4* ===== 4*
Martell ==== 1 ==== N/A === 2 ==== 4 ===== 3
Stark ===== 1 ==== 1 ==== 3 ==== 3(4**) == 3
Tyrell ===== 1 ==== N/A === 2 ==== 3* ==== 5*
* More than one option to go to
** Counting Karhold

Umbratus wrote:
Going from Moat Cailin to Winterfell is really never going to be any realistic option for Greyjoy. They wont even bother anymore going into Seagard if they cant press on into Winterfell from there, too many territories there for deep line defenses.

I guess I could say the same about Karhold… why bother going there if you have to move thru a deep line of defenses?

In the first map version I proposed, here are three reasons why you would want to go into Seagard:

Supply
Town
Support your attack on the Twins

Once you secure the Twins, you can support the defense of the Twins.

Fairmarket and Oldstones could support Seagard from the marauding wolf raiding down the Stark only route to Seagard.

Shoot, Greyjoy does not even have to bother with Winterfell; Pike, Riverrun, the Twins and Harrenhal gives house Greyjoy 5 claim right there.

Umbratus wrote:
Taking away options with no apparent reasons or real trade-offs is not good.

I would have to say the same for “giving” options (free power farm and support area that is out of the way of danger)

Umbratus wrote:
little things can have big impacts, dont underestimate that.

See my reply above.

Umbratus wrote:
The Mountains separating Lannisport and Highgarden were placed to make it not that easy to access each others capital. Especially Lannister has enough potential threats around so it'd be over the edge if Tyrell was allowed to reach Lannisport within 2 areas as well.

So having Pike being able to hit Winterfell in 2 moves is any better?

Looking at the numbers, Stark (4-2-4) is in more danger than Lannister(5-3-4):

Numbers of moves from A’s start locations to B's capital
B ->
=======Baratheon===Geryjoy===Lannister===Martell===Stark*===Tyrell
v – A – v
Baratheon == N/A ====== 5 ======= 5 ====== 4 ==== 4(5) ==== 4
Geryjoy ==== 4 ====== N/A ====== 3 ====== 7 ==== 2(4) ===== 7
Lannister === 3 ====== 3 ======= N/A ===== 6 ==== 4(5) ===== 5
Martell ===== 4 ======7 ======== 6 ===== N/A === 8(9) ==== 3
Stark ====== 4 ====== 4 ======= 6 ====== 9 ==== N/A ===== 8
Tyrell ====== 3 ====== 5 ======= 4 ====== 3 ==== 7(8) ====N/A

*Bracket number is with the new Stark Route/Moat Cailin option.

MasterDinadan wrote:
You've put Winterfell so far away from the center of the board by changing the arrows, that anyone who wants to take it (besides Pyke) pretty much has to dedicate their entire game for it. Really, take a look. It's at least 6 turns from Lannister and Baratheon's starting positions. They could leave on turn 1 and arrive at turn 7.

I believe Winterfell is not as far as it may seem, see above. But I do agree with you, why try for Winterfell; go for Riverrun, The Twins, Harrenhal or any of the other non-capital cities out there.

MasterDinadan wrote:
and there's no reason for the two of them to even consider Winterfell as a target.

I do agree with you 100%!

MasterDinadan wrote:
Pyke's "alternate" route of hitting Winterfell from the south is impossible, for the exact same reason. This means that Winterfell's only real threat is from Flint's Finger. Anyone who tries to take it from the south is an idiot, and Stark is pretty much only defending one front. He can assault Riverrun and Harrenhal with relative impunity because even if he botches big time on the southern front, there probably won't even be enough time left for his opponents to make the long trek north.

Again I echo your statement: why even hit Winterfell?

But if the wolf comes down from the north into Harrenhal, he can be cut off via the Twins or surrounding areas. Or even worse, be invaded from the Fingers

---------

So all in all, I would like to thank everyone for stimulating my mind and opening it up to interesting ideas and possibilities.

I Think I may do this:

Keep the top half of the map exactly the same as the official map with these changes:

- Make the Seagard-Winterfell route Stark only

This will allow the wolf to harras Seagard and encourage the squid to invade Winterfell thru Greywater or Flint.

- Place a crown in Greywater Watch.

This will give Stark the 2 extra power tokens he is wanting but will force Stark to choose between power, support, etc orders, and taking away Starks FREE power farm and capital support area. This will also make the invasion of Winterfell more viable from either Fingers or Greywatch.

Muster figures if anyone was wondering:

Mustering start points and potential points with no combat
======== Start = Turn 1
Baratheon == 4 === 4
Geryjoy ==== 3 === 5
Lannister === 3 === 5
Martell ==== 3 === 4
Stark ===== 3 === 6
Tyrell ===== 3 === 4

Thoughts are welcome, don’t fear the debate… it’s actually quite fun seeing different points of view!

I will put the 200dpi files of these maps in the DL area for those that would like to try other options.

Karhold:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373073

Extra Crown in Greywater:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373072

Extra Crown in Greywater and a Stark only route:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373075

Extra Crown in Moat Cailin and a Stark only route:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/373074

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

MasterDinadan — 2008-09-13T14:18:57+00:00

You've put Winterfell so far away from the center of the board by changing the arrows, that anyone who wants to take it (besides Pyke) pretty much has to dedicate their entire game for it. Really, take a look. It's at least 6 turns from Lannister and Baratheon's starting positions. They could leave on turn 1 and arrive at turn 7. Of course that army of starting units will have no chance of making it through all of Stark's defenses (given that the last few steps are a big bottleneck no matter which side you come from) and there's no reason for the two of them to even consider Winterfell as a target.

Pyke's "alternate" route of hitting Winterfell from the south is impossible, for the exact same reason. This means that Winterfell's only real threat is from Flint's Finger. Anyone who tries to take it from the south is an idiot, and Stark is pretty much only defending one front. He can assault Riverrun and Harrenhal with relative impunity because even if he botches big time on the southern front, there probably won't even be enough time left for his opponents to make the long trek north.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-13T14:14:49+00:00

We already made the way into Winterfell abit more defended by adding a territory to support from. Thats quite a change, little things can have big impacts, dont underestimate that. What you're about to do is seal it up on one route entirely, that over the edge, imho. Going from Moat Cailin to Winterfell is really never going to be any realistic option for Greyjoy. They wont even bother anymore going into Seagard if they cant press on into Winterfell from there, too many territories there for deep line defenses. Not that it cant be defended if you leave those areas as they are, but at least there is an OPTION to go through there. Taking away options with no apparent reasons or real trade-offs is not good.

The Mountains separating Lannisport and Highgarden were placed to make it not that easy to access each others capital. Especially Lannister has enough potential threats around so it'd be over the edge if Tyrell was allowed to reach Lannisport within 2 areas as well. Like it is, there is a route to go there, but one of a reasonable length, not too short and not to long.

Priority is on balance, only then theme may come into regard.

I took your adding of a town to Moat Cailin as a pretty good indicator that you are yet priorizing theme and think about balance such as distribution of ressources thereafter

Thats just what I wanted to point out, you better do it vice versa, saves abit of playtesting the more you think on such things before.

Theme, is nice but not of first importance when you wanna give each house a fair chance to win. So I'd abandon any neat theme-stuff without blinking if I come across any balance-wise or playability hesitations.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Haggis — 2008-09-13T13:57:09+00:00

Scout762 wrote:
@Haggis: Awsome! now I know where the map came from, thanks. The map I uploaded is a Low-Res version. The high-res map was 2.5Meg and I was not sure if I should post a pic that big.

By textures, do you mean the map/water/mountains? Or the other bits?

Well, the texture set you used (I'm looking at the source file here on my hard drive) is something like 72 dpi, and the one I used is 200 dpi if I remember correctly. It's not a resolution problem with your uploaded image, it's the underlying textures.

I do prefer the set you used, but I felt for a PBEM version the higher resolutions were needed, and I had to do some texture shifting to get everything to line up. I still didn't get everything right, someday there will be another revision I'm sure...

If you have the ability, print sections of the map at full scale on letter paper and see how the textures will look. For a tabletop game you will probably be fine, from a distance of a couple of feet you won't be able to tell.

I'll stay out of the Stark modification discussion... other than to say Stark really needs a crown there and I would really like to see Karhold/Moat Calin connected to Winterfell for the support ability rather than a movement arrow.

Good work though, and I'm looking forward to seeing a physical version!

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-13T13:51:25+00:00

Umbratus wrote:
Its really unrealistic to assume Greyjoy will enter Winterfell by Moat Cailin, how the hell is Greyjoy supposed to work his way through all those territories ?

I guess I would be better able to answer that question after I get my first game in. As for now, I am just "war-gaming" and looking for advice from others who had the pleasure of playing a game.

Umbratus wrote:
Edit: I think having the arrow back to Seagard as a Stark specific is not enough. Make it back to Seagard for sure and maybe make the arrow Winterfell Greywater Watch Stark specific instead, if you feel need of having one.

I dont feel the need to have a Stark specific route. I was looking to make it more in line with the books and still be balanced. Again that is why I posted here looking for help before I have the map printed.

I may move the route back to Seagard and leave the other one in Moat Cailin, both being non house specific. But I will play test it first.

Riddle me this batman... If you are so against making the rout to Winterfell a little more defended and theamatic, why place a mountain range separating Lanisport and Highgarden?

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-13T12:22:05+00:00

Its really unrealistic to assume Greyjoy will enter Winterfell by Moat Cailin, how the hell is Greyjoy supposed to work his way through all those territories ?

No, the way you changed things, Flints is left as only realistic access to Winterfell for the squid. Going through Seagard is tough enough as it is, against the added support territory of Moat Cailin/Karhold, whatever you may call it.

Edit: I think having the arrow back to Seagard as a Stark specific is not enough. Make it back to Seagard for sure and maybe make the arrow Winterfell Greywater Watch Stark specific instead, if you feel need of having one.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-13T12:17:31+00:00

Umbratus wrote:
Edit: I like your naming of that territory Moat Cailin, we named it Karhold because it represented a classical harvesting of power area for Stark. But it may be out of place abit geographically, Moat doesnt picture it perfectly either, guess you can go with either name.

Thanks! If you can see, I did not connect it directly to Winterfell. I felt it made the name Moat Cailin more acceptable. I thought Karhold attached to the Watch looked odd.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-13T12:13:32+00:00

Umbratus wrote:
Greyjoys only route he will ever be able to use to Winterfell is via Flints.

Not true, they have two options, Flint's and Moat Cailin.

Umbratus wrote:

Also with your change, Stark has no route from Winterfell to Seagard anymore, bad thing, as it will slow down and handicap Starks movement and positioning of troops. He has sort of a hard way to go down south and back north if need be (Greyjoy entering the Flints) and with the way you changed those arrows its even worse.

I may return the arrow to Seagard and make it stark only and leave the Moat Cailin where it is at. I'll have to do some play testing.

Umbratus wrote:

So maybe better start thinking game- and balance-wise and then try to put that into story-background as good as possible, as a priority.

Odd; I thought by me asking for thoguhts and oppinions, that was me thinking game- and balance-wise.

Thanks for the input!

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-13T10:23:39+00:00

Thinking a abit about your new movement arrows, I have to say I dont like them either.

First, it makes Winterfell nearly untakable for Greyjoy, we added a territory where Winterfell may be supported from, to make it harder for Greyjoy to take, now with changing that movement arrow to Greywater Watch and making it Stark specific, Greyjoys only route he will ever be able to use to Winterfell is via Flints. All in all I think this is abit too much of a handicap and limiting Greyjoys options. You gotta provide options at least no bullet proof ways to win a game, thats bad, that there have to be options for each player.

Also with your change, Stark has no route from Winterfell to Seagard anymore, bad thing, as it will slow down and handicap Starks movement and positioning of troops. He has sort of a hard way to go down south and back north if need be (Greyjoy entering the Flints) and with the way you changed those arrows its even worse.

Frankly spoken, in my humble opinion, not wanting to offend you, I think you're doing one basic mistake thats often done when designing such things. You are starting of with the story background, thinking theme-wise and then trying to fit that into the game, but that'll often create some flaws, because you are designing/altering a game not a novel.
So maybe better start thinking game- and balance-wise and then try to put that into story-background as good as possible, as a priority.

Edit: I like your naming of that territory Moat Cailin, we named it Karhold because it represented a classical harvesting of power area for Stark. But it may be out of place abit geographically, Moat doesnt picture it perfectly either, guess you can go with either name.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-13T07:07:14+00:00

@Haggis: Awsome! now I know where the map came from, thanks. The map I uploaded is a Low-Res version. The high-res map was 2.5Meg and I was not sure if I should post a pic that big.

By textures, do you mean the map/water/mountains? Or the other bits?

Only the land route to Winterfell is harder, the Twins being one of the keys, the ally boat card is the other.

@Umbratus: Looking at the map I see your point about the muster areas. I'll put the power icon back, Thank you.

What do you think about the new routes? Is it acceptable to have the Twins and more so, Moat Cailin inportant for a land invasion of Winterfell?

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Umbratus — 2008-09-13T00:38:45+00:00

Even though it might fit theme-wise, I'd not recommend to add another mustering point to Starks backyard. We've done some analysis on the distribution of ressources, you should be aware on what impact such changes will have.

Look at the map, most houses got 4 mustering points in their reach to settle on in Turn 1, some might have 5. Now Stark as an exception can already settle himself on 6 mustering points as the map is with the original game, what you do is add a 7th mustering point. Not only does this imbalance things for the early turns, it will not help Stark a tiny bit for later on when troops are maxed out. What Stark needed was another crown, some save area where to collect power, thats why we added that area as well as giving some area where to support Winterfell from, which he was lacking, so Stark can better defend his capital. Keep the name, Moat Cailin if you want, see no prob with that, but better add a crown, maybe think through adding a barrel, but adding a mustering point there looks like the worst of options to me.

Thread: Re: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Haggis — 2008-09-12T23:28:35+00:00

Some textures might be an understatement, it looks like you redid the whole terrain, 3d-ified a lot of the extras, and redrew all the boundaries! I recognize the texture set, and the only issue you might run into is the resolution, it's a little low but for a tabletop version it should be ok.

I'd love to have access to a high resolution scan of just the textures (incidentally, the map came from this artist: William McAusland).

Nice looking! Balance-wise, I'm not sure how the Stark modifications will affect the game. Off the top of my head it looks like it will help Stark quite a bit, since the route to Winterfell is a lot more difficult. Personally, I'm in favor of helping Stark but I'll defer to Umbratus as the resident Stark expert (in other words, I have yet to win with Stark... )

I like the vinyl printout idea, be sure to post photos when you get it done! A game in progress would be awesome.

Image

Scout762 — 2008-09-12T22:33:50+00:00

H and U's Six player map with a twist

Thread: Haggis and Umbratus' A:SOS six player MOD with a twist...

Scout762 — 2008-09-12T22:31:04+00:00

Haggis and Umbratus, Thanks for the most excellent map/mod.

I almost got to play my first game of AGOT/A:SOS the other day. But I ended up as “banker/card turner/timer” because I own the game and we had one extra player. With that being said, I am super excited about playing the six player A:SOS!

I have never tried playing over the “net” in “favor of face to face”. I will print this map on vinyl with protectant clear coat. Before I spend almost $100, I would like some feed back if I may.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/371775?size=medium

The only changes are: I renamed one location to Maot Cailin now with a town, adjusted two of the routes into Winterfell and some textures/effects.

Maot Cailin:
I did this because I felt it was more thematic… In the books, the Neck was the key to marching on the north.

Routes into Winterfell:
The routes, I wanted to make the Twins more like in the book. With out this adjustment, the enemy can just pass the twins and hop up into Winterfell.

I gave Stark their own route because they “hold/ally” the Moat and can circumvent it if they wanted to. The enemy can not use this route because of the frogmen harassing their army. This forces the enemy to take the Moat in order to march on the north

Textures/effects:
Just was playing around with images found on the net. I will most likely change the water effect before I print it.

I’ll work on printable Ally cards after I print the map.

Thanks for looking!

“Never Seen… Always Feared”

Scouts out!
G

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

Umbratus — 2008-09-12T10:13:31+00:00

A word on another thing relating to this thats worth pointing out, for the folks who didnt download the files and had a closer look at. When designing the new ally cards, I redesigned a couple of the old ones as well.

Not doing big changes to any mechanics, functions or abilities (whatever you want to call it) but just a few values in order to get more balanced decks. ASOS out of the box provides sort of hierachical ally decks even though they might differ alot in the quite occasional usefullness of that one special ability card each deck has (Tyrell Supplies, Arryn Lookout, Frey Galleys) those Tyrell cards are clearly the most powerful, Loras being the strongest leader, +3 military support and a knight along with a footman as allied troops. Now I wasnt overly fond of this anyways, but as you might be able to cope with this in the original 4 player game, I just didnt want to port this into a 6 player mod.

One thing seemed obvious enough: 4 players -> 4 decks of allies, 6 players -> 6 decks of allies.

As House Tyrell is now part of the playable range of houses their deck got renamed to Tully, Ser Loras became the Blackfish and Tully Supplies fit into the theme just as Tyrell Supplies did.

And as for the changes that have been applied to rebalance the decks so there is not a deck anymore that everybody wants to draw from (Tyrell) and others that noone really want.

So there is no more Military Support+3 !
Each ally deck has either +1 or +2 Military Support card.

And there is no more "gain one allied knight and one allied footman" !
You either gain two allied footmen OR one allied knight in each deck.
Like the Sellsword Army which only gives one allied footman there is another card like this in the new deck "Across the Narrow Sea" which is called "Unsullied Army" which only gives a footman but a special ability for all allied units in addition, you may check it out by downloading the stuff Haggis put online.

All in all, each deck should almost equally be worth picking from, rather individual cards deciding where you pick and not decks in general.

Check out cool cards like "Bolton Flayers" or "Qarth Warlocks" as well

Thread: Re: Archer Units

Umbratus — 2008-09-12T07:47:52+00:00

In order to avoid new balance problems with starting units and opening moves I decided to keep them as they are with ASOS, 4 footmen and 1 knight for each house as given. So archer are for mustering later and I think thats good.

With archers, your musterings in ASOS will finally be something to think about again

Thread: Re: Archer Units

DeathFangsBane — 2008-09-12T02:38:42+00:00

Will you change what units each house starts with, or does everyone (on ASOS) still get 4 footies and a knight? I was thinking maybe everyone should get 3 footman plus one archer unit? Like maybe Lannister could start with an archer in KL instead of the footman because it's defending a city or something like that? Or possibly make a footman in Trident Woodlands an archer? You could put another archer in Pyke to represent Theon perhaps...
Maybe give Black Walder an archer in the Twins. Hmm...giving Baratheon an archer to start with seems a bit too powerful. They are gonna want some archers to attack King's Landing with, while using all their other units in support. Not sure about Tyrell and Martell.

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

DeathFangsBane — 2008-09-11T21:28:20+00:00

Ok, cool, I feel much better about the allies now. The way I interpreted it, I felt it benefitted Baratheon way too much because they have so much power and often a lot of good ally cards due to their position on the throne track.

Thread: Archer Units

Umbratus — 2008-09-11T08:10:19+00:00

I am playing this game alot for years but I have never been quite happy with the selection of available units.

Since I favor ASOS over the original board you dont have ships anymore and I dont dare to include siege engines to ASOS as I see little use for them other than giving Baratheon a very powerful tool to wear down Kings Landings walls pretty easily. So with ASOS you are pretty much reduced to footmen and knights which gets boring rather quickly, making musterings a no brainer.

I always had some sort of archer units in mind to fit in well into selection of units given by FFG. They should on the one hand be quite effective on the offensive side of a battle but on the other hand they should be quite vulnerable as well. Sort of intermediate siege engine thats not so much limited for assaulting cities/strongholds but having a more versatile and general bonus in exchange for some general disadvantage as well.

So here is what I finally came up with after discussing this on the official FFG board as well as with some of the most experienced AGOT/ASOS players that I know. This definition of archer units has been played in several test games and worked out well. In the end, rules for archer units have been kept as simple as possible.

Mustering Points : 1
Base Strength : 1

Strength Modifiers :
- Attack or support an attack : 2
- Defend : 0
- Support a defense or defend city/stronghold/fortification : 1

Special:
- killed on retreat
- may be upgraded to knight or siege (in case playing with as well)

So, archers are cheap units that have a good strength when using them in an attack or for supporting an attack. On the other hand they are very vulnerable (0 strength) when directly attacked unless they are positioned behind walls (city/stronghold/fort) where they maintain their regular strength of 1. When not directly under attack but supporting a defense (regardless of terrain such as city/stronghold/fort) they may add their base strength of 1 as well. Just like siege engines, archer may never be routed, when they are directly involved in a battle (attacking or defending) and the battle is lost, those archers are to be removed from the board immediately, before casualties are removed, they cannot serve as casualties inflicted by swords over fortification icons.

As for amount of available archers, in PBEM thats easy enough to adjust, as unit pieces are virtual. Since the ASOS supply track leaves abit space on for some units even when maxed out on troops and allied units, in our test games, we removed 2 footmen in favor of adding 4 archers per house and this worked out well so far. So all in all there are 2 more units available. For a face2face game, you may as well try to give say 3 of your footmen a special mark and treat them as archers instead of footmen, or you borrow some units like ships or sieges, or use units of house Martell maybe.

I guess archers should work on the original board as well, but I have to admit I havent tried them out there yet. If anyone does, please let me know how they worked for you.

Anyone having another question or comment on this variant, speak aloud

Here is the link to the unit picture for photoshop, thx alot to Haggis for providing: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/33884

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

Umbratus — 2008-09-11T05:46:00+00:00

No, any Plots card may be used as before, with the exceptions that there is no more permanent alliance and so that led to only allowing any ally card to be just used once per turn.

Just for using Filthy Accusations you'll have to beat your enemy in a battle in order to activate its function of removing one claim from the track (we added that if you have 5 or less claim you may replace that claim with one of your own, like with the political support cards).

So I repeat: for plots you DONT have to beat your enemy on the field.

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

DeathFangsBane — 2008-09-11T01:41:30+00:00

I believe you said that to use plots now, you have to defeat a house in battle before stealing an ally card from them? I feel this is much weaker, because now fewer houses can steal cards from you. Regarding Baratheon, for example, only certain houses can fight battles against him. Thus, it's much harder to hurt Baratheon because it has to be one of those houses (like Lannister or possibly Tyrell/Martell), rather than any house that wants that card.

Regarding leader exchanges - I guess I never read that rule very carefully. That's a shame...it seems like it would be more fun if other houses could get in the bargaining for hostages, like my example with Greyjoy trying to get ahold of Ed to stop him from going back to Stark.

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

Umbratus — 2008-09-10T16:06:31+00:00

I dont play any PBEM without the Westeros Variant anymore for years, while I think it does overburden players in a face2face game, it just works perfectly for email games, where you have enough time to consider such things. It further reduces randomness so nicely

I might add that the 5th game we were playing until Turn 9 (!) almost any house (besides Greyjoy maybe who have lost their leaders as hostages to Stark this time) might still have won that game when we quit. For myself I was looking at quite some nice odds to maybe win with Martell.

That parallel game of this mod on my page by others might still be in progress at Turn 6 (it looks like, but I cant say for sure, they were going at a slower but steady pace). There, Lannister is still clinging on to KL, Baratheon is involved in skirmishes with several houses, even taken Ser Loras hostage, but overall he isnt looking that much in a winning position yet (especially with KL not taken). Current leader there is Martell with the most Victory Points (6) at the moment, 3 claim added to the track and a big host closing in to Storms End, as it seems.

As for archer untis (who arent connected with this mod, have only tried them several times with straight 4 player ASOS yet), I will post my rules for them, which appear to be working well in a separate thread tomorrow from work.

Thx for uploading the according file, Haggis, I'll put a link to that new thread, in case I am able to find your file(s) here.

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

Haggis — 2008-09-10T14:55:23+00:00

Good analysis, DeathsFangsBane and good to see you again, Umbratus (PS - I put those archer units up here in the file section here but I'll leave it for you to handle the rules)!

One thing I forgot to put in the description was to play the lookahead Westeros variant, where the next three cards are revealed. Especially for PBEM, this is a good variant. I'll edit the original post...

A couple of things I noticed, DeathsFangsBane, on your writeup. I wasn't sure what you meant by the nerf of the Plots card, the function should be the same as the base game.

The other piece I saw was the discussion about ransoming of another house's leader to somebody else. The only time you can give a leader to another house (not the leader's house) is during a hostage swap -- a pure power deal has to involve the leader's house directly.

Pg. 8 of the rules wrote:
Hostage Negotiations
Immediately after receiving power from a Consolidate
Power order, a player may choose to initiate hostage
negotiations in that area. The player initiating negotiations
can ask any player to release one or both Leaders
belonging to the initiator’s house. In exchange, the initiator
can offer any amount of his available power and/or
any hostages he currently has.

Great writeup! One of the main points we hoped to accomplish was putting additional pressure on Baratheon, in this case via Martell. Experienced players should recognize the warning signs of an impending Baratheon victory and take steps to prevent it -- in the base game this is very difficult since it's up to Lannister almost solely to stop this, while here at least Martell and maybe Tyrell can get in on the action a little.

Thread: Re: PBEM anyone?

Umbratus — 2008-09-10T12:17:13+00:00

For all interested in AGOT-PBEM:

As for PBEM the less players the better, keep that in mind.

It might look fantastic and awesome and the more players involved the better and the more fun on first sight, but having played it all, I can definately say it isnt.

It isnt hard to come by folks that cheer and go whoohoo about playing by mail, but then it sort of hard to really find reliable folks that play games until the end and respond on short intervalls.

The bad thing is, one slow and just half-interested guy can ruin a whole game and scatter the group.

I started years ago on a private server of agotonline, played like a handful of games simulanteously all in all about a dozen, but just half of them finished properly the rest of them were abandonded due to some bugs of the program and people losing their interest.

As Agotonline only featured the base game, not even ports it soon lost its appeal to me for another reason.

So with some russian fellow I started playing games on a simple html page that was run by a moderator who couldnt participate in the game and had to update the map manually by photoshop. We ran a few games until he was fed up and some french fella came up with a new idea about a page that lets you confirm your orders, bids and house cards, so no moderator was needed anymore, that was quite an improvment, so we ran some more games with that, still updating the map manually (which I was doing that time).

We even ran a game of AFFC 9 player fan expansion that single game we played (with the most enthusiastic people available) took about a whole year, but we finished it ! Another game of AFFC with abit less dedicated players was soon abandonded. As my french fella wasnt quite able to figure how to automate the map as well, I finally took things in my own hands, being a C/C++ Programmer I taught myself abit of php and sql, copied that french page and implemented an automated map where you can simply move around unit pieces on your own, place and remove your orders and so on...

I quickly recruited lots of folks willing to play, especially with the new ASOS expansion there was some sort of pbem community. You could play 6 player ACOK games or 4 player ASOS games with not all but nearly all available options (the one that make sense) on my page(s) and for some months even ASOS 6 player mod. I hosted lots of games for people I picked up on the boards (mainly at FFG) so I knew they at least own the game even though there cant be final proof (FFG copyright issues).

So for quite a while I was what you could call the head and organizer of the AGOT Pbem Community. Some games I played were finished in about 2 weeks, a record for some ASOS 4 player standing on 7 days if I remember correctly.

But then I was abit fed up with telling people the same things over and over again, teaching them how to handle this and that concerning my page, rules of the game and pbem in general. So I am pretty much done with hosting and setting up games for others, I am merely playing my own games these days, not recruiting people on a broad base anymore and stuffing them into games. Too many just ran away without even saying goodbye or anything alike. Abit disappointing in the end for all the time I invested, so I dont dare to invest such an amount of time just so people can play and then leave the table with their plates uncleaned after you taught them how to eat and get along.

Well, why I do I tell you ?

Not to whine or rant, no (another waste of time

Rather to tell you there is some sort of community, people wanting to play, but expressing the will to play is just not enough, there is noone taking your hand and guiding you along, you have to take things into your own hands if you really wanna play AGOT by mail. When you decide to invest your time choose your fellas wisely, only take enthusiastic folks who can ensure they can report back on the game and do their moves on a daily basis, reporting twice or even thrice a day is even better. To my undoubtetly long experience anything less is just not worth the effort, such a game will fall apart after a while. Things will not speed up, it will rather slow down as situations become more complex and some houses dont see a chance to win anymore.
My advice: start AGOT-PBEM with 4 player ASOS, as this can be played fastest and thus a game will be most thrilling and entertaining when it moves along every day. When for a week or several days nothing happens, people forgot what they wanted to do, have to rethink alot of things and finally will lose their interest.

Starting a 9 player PBEM with people you dont know yet as for their PBEM reliability: a pretty unrealistic approach, doomed to fail, waste of time.

Thread: Re: Six player Storm of Swords posted

Umbratus — 2008-09-09T18:28:41+00:00

First, thanks to Haggis for supplying us with neat graphics and a perfectly made up map, finally with the terrain background as well, which I favor over a pure map out of style reasons even though its said to limit clear
view on things.

Second, well done on that analysis without having played the game, I can agree on most thats been summed up there, even though there are, naturally, a few things on which my opinion differs, after having actually played a few games of this mod.

Just a few points in random order that came to my mind when reading your analysis and suggestions, I can come up with more if there is some demand

A Manage Troops opening for Lannister is very risky as it doesnt add any strength for defending KL at all. One reason for us to give the Lion 4 power to start with is to provide him the opoortunity to go with Careful Planning which allows him to perfectly react to whatever threat Baratheon may come up with in Turn 1. Seeing the events and ally cards of Turn 1 you should either decide to go straight with Forge Alliance to properly build up your realm or go with Careful Planning if you cannot be entirely sure of Baratheons plans and potential threats, changing to Forge after that or in dire need to Hold or to Manage Troops if you see fit in that option is the following step. Under no circumstances should you lose KL as early as Turn 1.

One point to Stark, Flints is not that important to take in Turn 1, Greyjoy may put a footman there which may bother you as a foot in the doorstep later on, but it doesnt directly bother you that much as to have to take action against it in Turn 1 right away. Of course it should be cleared off as with more troops on the board it might threaten Winterfell but early on your garrison will easily help to hold it. Whats of more concern is to get Ned back (depends on early events when to do it, but with a Game Of Thrones up, you should usually trade him back as soon as possible, doing so from Winterfell usually). When you go with all consolidates as first orders there is a chance (depending on available ally cards) that Greyjoy may set foot into Seagard. Leaving ally cards aside Stark can only get up as much as 6 strength (2 foots, one knight, 2 leaders) for a counterattack when you go with consolidates (which do not yield any power when triggered by Black Walder anyways). Now Greyjoy can put a knight, two leaders and a footman on his own to Seagard, he will want to keep a line of movement by leaving another footman at Oldstones, the one point of strength he lacks he can make up by the blade, so you should max out your strength as Stark for a counterattack by placing your march+1 on The Twins, that will increase your strength to 7, meaning that if Greyjoy wants to set foot to Seagard early on, he has to commit maximum forces and spend his best house card (which will deal no casualties) just to make sure. As he is likely to have to give up his line of movement as well, this opening will make him abandon this plan.

One word to Tyrell, I think he has the most fearsome card in his deck of cards, the old Lady Tyrell, Queen of Thorns. I played her and she made me win the game with some nasty actions. One brought me the head of the Kingslayer (Jaime) when Lannister turned on me when I was busy fighting Martell, and two other plays of the Queen ensured decisive breakthroughs. She can be quite wasted as well, but when properly set into szene she can be a very powerful card, a most annoying as well when she is played against you. After all, you can just make a feint attack, play the Queen to remove a nearby raid or march order which can ruin a whole turn of a neighbour by cutting of his chain marches right at the source.

Baratheon is said to be overpowered but I have seen players press them hard onto KL early on, just to fail on that and have a not so great course for the remainder of the game. You need alot of patience with some houses, against a strong Lannister played Baratheon is likely to be one of those. I'd strongly advise you to take your time of securing the outskirts of KL before you ready yourself to deal that blow. Once KL has fallen you will most likely have to skirmish at least on more enemy. Others will or should watch out your grabbing of political support cards. Thats true for any house, as soon as one house picks up a second card of those, some alarm bells should ring as it will put almost any house in a very fine spot to finish off the game with a military dash on the board now.

In our games Greyjoy won twice as noone acted against his picking up of political support cards and there was noone to stop him from leading his armies to the claim that was needed to be taken on the board after that.
Having an eye on these things it can surely be countered by several houses though. As for picking up ally cards any house may interfere if there is some cooperation of others against that.

There were several voices speaking for Baratheon to be overpowered (to come back to that) but in the end they only won once (that being when I played them). Lannister didnt win at all, but when I played them I was just one march to late to win after Greyjoy did (was about to take Highgarden with the next march to win). Martell did quite well several times but couldnt pull one off, Greyjoy won twice as I said. Stark didnt win yet, but then I didnt play them

We were in our 5th game when we were stopped by serious illness of one of our most reliable players and then summer finally broke us off.

I'd gladly start off another round but on my last (recent) call to start a new round we were just 4 of us, so we came back to regular ASOS with another mod of mine: Archer units