A board-game of thrones. (2nd. ed.)

[PetterTomBos]

I just bought the game of thrones - boardgame and tried it out with my group yesterday. Unfortunately two people failed to show up, so we had to play with four players. The game seems to be designed with 6 or perhaps 5 players in mind, 4 players turned out a little weird, but it worked!

Weird thing was: a lot of "get power-tokens" cards were drawn, yet very few "use power tokens"-cards. So pretty much everyone ended up sitting with the max amount of them.

Anyone tried it ? :)

[houlio]

I also own it too. Sometimes that kind of thing can happen. I played one game where I pretty much sat at the bottom of every track (stupid Doran Martell) the whole game and not a single bid was drawn. It was a little rough for me.

I think the game is best with either 3 or 6 people, anything between that seems to make the board feel really unbalanced.

[Driderman]

I also own it too. Sometimes that kind of thing can happen. I played one game where I pretty much sat at the bottom of every track (stupid Doran Martell) the whole game and not a single bid was drawn. It was a little rough for me.

I think the game is best with either 3 or 6 people, anything between that seems to make the board feel really unbalanced.

I have to agree that it's the kind of game that does best when you're max number of players. 3 might work as well, since then everyone has an easy neighbour to conquer.

[Driderman]

I also own it too. Sometimes that kind of thing can happen. I played one game where I pretty much sat at the bottom of every track (stupid Doran Martell) the whole game and not a single bid was drawn. It was a little rough for me.

I think the game is best with either 3 or 6 people, anything between that seems to make the board feel really unbalanced.

I have to agree that it's the kind of game that does best when you're max number of players. 3 might work as well, since then everyone has an easy neighbour to conquer.

[Driderman]

I also own it too. Sometimes that kind of thing can happen. I played one game where I pretty much sat at the bottom of every track (stupid Doran Martell) the whole game and not a single bid was drawn. It was a little rough for me.

I think the game is best with either 3 or 6 people, anything between that seems to make the board feel really unbalanced.

I have to agree that it's the kind of game that does best when you're max number of players. 3 might work as well, since then everyone has an easy neighbour to conquer.

[Driderman]

I also own it too. Sometimes that kind of thing can happen. I played one game where I pretty much sat at the bottom of every track (stupid Doran Martell) the whole game and not a single bid was drawn. It was a little rough for me.

I think the game is best with either 3 or 6 people, anything between that seems to make the board feel really unbalanced.

I have to agree that it's the kind of game that does best when you're max number of players. 3 might work as well, since then everyone has an easy neighbour to conquer.

[PetterTomBos]

H: Hmm, I should try it with 3 then! :)

Sort of sad that the game only work with max players, as it is quite hard to get exactly 6 people together (not 7 or 5...). There are a lot off fan-versions for 4-5 players floating around tho.

I'm working on my own for a 7th player :)

[KuReshtin]

I've played it both with 3 players and 5 players, and I thought it kind of worked well either way. I came into the game as having not read the books or watched the tv show, so knew pretty much nothing about the world and the history or anything, so I saw it just as a board game, and it worked well for me.

[Driderman]

I've played it both with 3 players and 5 players, and I thought it kind of worked well either way. I came into the game as having not read the books or watched the tv show, so knew pretty much nothing about the world and the history or anything, so I saw it just as a board game, and it worked well for me.

I was speaking from a purely mechanical game-balance point of view. Played it with 5 players and the guy who didn't have a human-player neighbour was obviously winning a lot more than the rest of the players, since he could gobble up the territory not held by anyone. I can imagine it working just fine with 3 players, so long as all players don't have a neighbour but all in all, I think the game is built for 6 players best.

[Tyndmyr]

I was speaking from a purely mechanical game-balance point of view. Played it with 5 players and the guy who didn't have a human-player neighbour was obviously winning a lot more than the rest of the players, since he could gobble up the territory not held by anyone. I can imagine it working just fine with 3 players, so long as all players don't have a neighbour but all in all, I think the game is built for 6 players best.

I've only got the first edition, but yeah, this was also a concern here. If you had an empty neighbor and nobody else did...it mattered. Or a neighbor who was particularly non-aggressive. Full board is best, though. Then, there's just not enough empty room for such concerns to be severe.

Other than the addition of the sixth player, how much has the game changed?

[Driderman]

I've only got the first edition, but yeah, this was also a concern here. If you had an empty neighbor and nobody else did...it mattered. Or a neighbor who was particularly non-aggressive. Full board is best, though. Then, there's just not enough empty room for such concerns to be severe.

Other than the addition of the sixth player, how much has the game changed?

Well since I've never tried the 1. edition, I'm not really sure. I know the expansion for the 1. edition was incorporated into the 2. edition basic game but nothing more than that.

[PetterTomBos]

I was speaking from a purely mechanical game-balance point of view. Played it with 5 players and the guy who didn't have a human-player neighbour was obviously winning a lot more than the rest of the players, since he could gobble up the territory not held by anyone. I can imagine it working just fine with 3 players, so long as all players don't have a neighbour but all in all, I think the game is built for 6 players best.

I agree there, I played Baratheon in a 5-er and won quite comfortably (thanks, in part, to Lannister not taking kings landing, and Stark not taking Cracklaw point tho, but these things happens).

A fix I found on BGG, is to draw one tides of battle (TOB) - card when you fight the neutrals. Especially the skulls makes taking over neutrals way more frightening! (We had a player gamble and lose!)

Tyndmyr: I think the siege engines and ports were expansions originally.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't know for sure if it's compatible, but the Storm of Swords expansion does a great job of making this into a four-player game that actually paces really well. I think a group of us finished in 2.5 hours, albeit we had experience playing the other editions. It's my vastly preferred version.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't know for sure if it's compatible, but the Storm of Swords expansion does a great job of making this into a four-player game that actually paces really well. I think a group of us finished in 2.5 hours, albeit we had experience playing the other editions. It's my vastly preferred version.