Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35176 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20840 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7430 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3986 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3509 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2080 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2587 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2258 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2501 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3022 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3699 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2627 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2463 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2295 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2511 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

Weekly Trash - A Game Of Thrones

More
03 Nov 2008 14:22 #13611 by ChristopherMD
Ken B. wrote:
A tense, taut nailbiter based on Martin's Song of Ice and Fire novels, A Game of Thrones pits five players against one another in an attempt to take and hold a number of cities on the map.

At first, there looks to be plenty of space to spread out and expand, but you'll quickly find yourself at odds with other players as you try to grab more land.

Orders take the form of placing tokens in the action round and then taking turns carrying out those orders. You can March, Raid, or Support, and that's where the diplomacy comes in--you can either lend your support to your own troops, or give it to someone else in their time of need, either to repel a common enemy or in hopes of earning a favor down the road when you need it.

Combat happens by adding up strength and then each player using a card in secret to buff their strength and/or gain special benefits. Once a card is used, you don't get it back until you have used all of your cards, so choose wisely.

I rate this a 5 because it needs the expansion tweaks to really shine, and the static setup could hamper its longevity. Still, this is a great game and I believe the game that really put FFG on the map as a company to be reckoned with. This was released in 2003, and in 2004 there was Doom, War of the Ring, and the company never looked back.

A great, solid design. Pick it up and nab Clash of Kings while you're at it.




Weekly Trash is a series of discussion threads in the F:AT forums. Each week a comment from the recommendations database is highlighted here. Don't be shy about posting further comments, questions, answers, funny stories, pictures, "this game sucks", or anything else related to the game.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 14:32 #13612 by Shellhead
I want to love Game of Thrones. But I've only gotten to play it once, because my usual group of players doesn't like wargames or games that last longer than two hours and don't have the name Arkham Horror. Also, the original game was unbalanced against the Lannisters, until fixed by the adjustments in Clash of Kings.

One of these days, I would love to take the time to put together that 9-player set from the Westeros fan group. But first I would need to find enough willing players to make it worth the time and expense.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 15:32 #13617 by bfkiller
I thought the base game felt too scripted and confining, but the additions in the two expansions (ports, leaders. etc.) ramp up the unpredictability and fun. This is one game I really want to play more often.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 16:21 #13621 by DeletedUser
How does this game compare to Warrior Knights?
I don't have either and have been trying to decide between the two. They have similar themes and at first glance, they could almost be the same game set in different worlds. I'm sure that this isn't the case and would be interested in hearing from anyone who has played both.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 19:30 #13624 by DeletedUser
Just refreshed my memory by checking out AGOT and WK on TOS.
I think I'm leaning toward WK. Seems to have a bit more going on and perhaps a slightly smaller focus on Diplomacy...?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 20:33 #13627 by metalface13
I've always heard that AGOT needs 5 players or it's not worth playing. I've never picked it up since I can usually only round up a total of 2-3 players. It's on my list of games I'd like to play before I die though.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 21:12 #13630 by Michael Barnes
Five years on and I think AGoT is more "seminal" than "good".

When it came out, it was pretty daring stuff- I mean, it was like DIPLOMACY welded on to the stricter structures and processes of a Eurogame. Really, only AGE OF MYTHOLOGY came before it in terms of actively bridging the differences between AT and Euro design paradigms. AGE OF MYTHOLOGY missed the boat on a lot of things, but AGoT got more of them right. I think it's an important game- even just five years later I think it's proven to be a very influential design.

But even with two major expansions, a lot of variety and options, and really dense theming (that I really care nothing about since I don't like the Harlequin Romance novels it's based on) I find that I rarely _want_ to play the game at all. When it does come out, it's usually a pretty good time and I thought the STORM OF SWORDS add-ons were fun...but it's missing something that makes me want to go back to it. It doesn't have the fluidity or life that DUNE has, it doesn't have the economics and variety that MARE NOSTRUM has, and it doesn't have the sense of scope that TI3 has. It's kind of a bastard child of a game, sort of left behind by more interesting designs.

I actually really prefer WARRIOR KNIGHTS (with a couple of mods to take the appease-the-Eurogamers stuff out of the rules) over it- I like the more universal Medieval theme (none of that oh-so-dark and moody raven-in-the-snow crap), I think the combat system is more interesting, the political element is more intriguing, and little bells and whistles like the exploration thing give the game more depth.

It does feel very script-y and at times over-structured...not so much as SENJI, but that same sense that you're on rails at times comes through.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2008 21:40 #13631 by ubarose
Michael Barnes wrote:


I actually really prefer WARRIOR KNIGHTS (with a couple of mods to take the appease-the-Eurogamers stuff out of the rules) over it- I like the more universal Medieval theme (none of that oh-so-dark and moody raven-in-the-snow crap), I think the combat system is more interesting, the political element is more intriguing, and little bells and whistles like the exploration thing give the game more depth.


Since there is so much praise for A Game of Thrones, I had high expectations the first time I played. However, I had already played Warrior Knights several times, so by comparison, A Game of Thrones just felt dry and dull. However, the game does do a good job of recreating the experience of reading the book. Four chapters in, I tossed it and found something better to read.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Nov 2008 01:31 #13646 by Mr Skeletor
Michael Barnes wrote:

Blah blah blah


Go back and play some solo games of Agricola, cocksucker.

This is the greatest game ever. If you don't agree, you can eat the popcorn kernels from my shit.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Nov 2008 01:32 #13647 by Mr Skeletor
ubarose wrote:

Since there is so much praise for A Game of Thrones, I had high expectations the first time I played. However, I had already played Warrior Knights several times, so by comparison, A Game of Thrones just felt dry and dull. However, the game does do a good job of recreating the experience of reading the book. Four chapters in, I tossed it and found something better to read.


Christ Almighty, that's it, I'm quitting this site. There is no hope for you clowns.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Nov 2008 08:23 #13654 by Schweig!
A GAME OF THRONES

This is a great game which builds upon DIPLOMACY, but integrates a few more thematically justified rules (chrome) and randomizes recruitment, supply, turn order and combat a little, so that players can't always rely on getting new units, building an ever increasing army and winning all combats when having the better odds. As an effect the game pretty much solves all problems leading to stagnant or repeating multiplayer games, but leaves the diplomatic aspects of alliances and ganging up on the leader intact, which for example I hated about STRUGGLE OF EMPIRES. What I don't like about AGOT are the conventional victory conditions (conquering castles), I think something like eliminating another family would be more engaging, but I'm not a game designer and usually don't come up with house rules. By the way I don't know the books this game is based on.


WARRIOR KNIGHTS

Another excellent game, which follows the same intent of improving multiplayer games. Here are the similarities:

- Turn order, recruitment, combat are random.
- Alliances are free.
- You win by capturing cities.

Here are the differences:

- Instead of bidding for turn order, players each place two actions on two decks, which are then shuffled and the cards are drawn one after the other, with the players taking their actions.
- In combat players can either try to kill the enemy troops, protect their own, or try to outmaneuver the opponent (1 Victory).
- Recruitment is not done by waiting for the event to be drawn, but by placing chits in the mercenaries area and once the event is triggered (when a number of battles are fought or enough chits are placed) then all players who placed chits receive troops with the player who placed chits first also having first choice over troops to recruit.
- You need victory points to win. You get these by capturing cities, but there are also other possibilities to grab them.

Furthermore:
- A lot of different events were built into the game, naming just a few: council meetings, expeditions, foreign wars (mercenaries leave), uprisings, etc. which leads to a far more different game each time you play.


I don't know any of the expansions to the two games.

Both games are great and sufficiently different. Sure, if you know DUNE what other game would you want to own? But you can definitely play all three and have a great time. However, if you understand AGOT and WK only as distractions to playing DUNE, then you should avoid them at all costs, just as you should throw away all your other DVDs if the only movie you want to watch is Citizen Kane.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.305 seconds