We've all had games where someone figured out that they could no longer win and were put i a position of potentially acting as kink maker with no real stake in the outcome. I've decided to offer a variant that might fix that somewhat. It is designed to encourage houses which are in difficult position to team up and potentially share a joint win. I also want to leave the potential for back stabbing and betrayal that will keep the game well themed with the novels. Hope people enjoy my idea.

Swearing Fealty

The following rules are only recommended for 5 or 6 player games.

Using a consolidate power action, a house may swear fealty to another house with more castles/cities under its control provided that house does not control the most castles/cities (or is tied for the most) and does not already posses another player's house card. The player controlling the house which is the target of that offer may refuse. A house that swears fealty gives their house card to the play they have sworn fealty to. The house which has been given the house card becomes the Dominant House and the house that has given its house card becomes the Banner House of the Dominant House.

A Banner House only wins the game only if the house they have sworn fealty to wins the game through normal circumstances.

Controlling the house card of a player that has sword fealty to you counts as an extra castle/city for the purposes of winning.

Dominant Houses my not swear fealty to another house.

Dominant Houses my give back the Banner House's card and end their fealty by using a consolidate power order at any time.

A Banner House may take back their loyalty card and become and independent house again if they own more castle/cities (excluding the loyalty card bonus) than their Dominate House with the use of a consolidate power order.

If a Banner House which becomes an independent house has enough castle/cities to win the game when they become independent they immediately do so.

Rather interesting variant. We should give it a try sometimes - maybe it's as good as it sounds

If you give away your house cards it seems very unlikely that you will take more cities. And what if you break ties? Seems unlikely the house you swore fealty to will simply release the generals you gave to their cause so you can attack them. There's no military advantage either. Bannermen should be able to give/combine their forces w/ their leige's and recieve some kind of bonus for being subserviant in the first place. Otherwise the only advantage is coming in second if your guy wins at the expense of your house cards and any possibility of making it on your own. In short, you're opting to be another player's beotch.

Gatha said:

You give them your setup card, not your generals ect. I am worried giving a military bonus to the Banner or Dominant would encounrage early game alliances that would stay in place for the full game. This is not my goal. The bonus comes from making it easier for both players to win and is targeted at those who are in a tough postion mid to late game.

Also, I wanted to put the Banner house in the postion of having to serve the house they have sworn fealty to through changing their goals, not combining armies, which IMO would be game breaking. Army size is very limited in this game and being able to direclty combine armies seems like it could quickly destroy the current balance. Support should be sufficent I think. It would also casue problems if the Banner house was in a potion to break away from the house they have sworn fealty to. I want the Banner house to have to consider the possblity that they will have tied themselves to a dead wight and be foreced to go it alone again once this possiblity.

A Banner house trying to give victory to their Dominant House played well will forgo conquests that will be benifical to themselves if there is a better option for the Dominant House. Conversly they may have to switch up stratagy if their Dominant House starts to falter.

One thing I do not want to do is create a situatuin where a leading house with no Banner houses would find themselves completly out matched by a weaker house with a banner house. I am interested if anyone tries this varient out and if it plays the way I am hoping.

With the rules as I wrote them, a Banner House COULD use swearing fealty as a way of allowing the Dominant house to be lulled into a false sense of security and then fail to support them or even attack. However, they can not consider themselves truly independent until they are on equal footing with The Dominant House.

Hmm, considering the issues with not wanting to allow a free-for-all between allies but not wanting them to be TOO comfortable, how about "A player which marches into a province belonging to their Ally, supports the opposing side during a combat they are attacking or defending in or attacks one of their allies armies must place three influence back into their available power pool. If enough influence is not available they may not take this action."

Does 3 seem like a good amount? It should hurt, but still be appealing in some situations and would make Dominant Houses think twice about accepting fealty but not restrict back-stabbing.

Having two armies in an area can be incredibly game breaking. If someone has 3 knights and someone else moves 3 knights in there's almost nothing an opponent can do (especially w/ supporting regions) w/out getting bannermen themselves. Then there's the ally having to pay to move in when they are likely broke since they're losing and a support action would work just as well. Unless they're allowed to play house cards this way, Regardlessthe Dominate house has all the power if alliances are cemented and it's just an ordinary game if you can swear fealty then attack your ally whenever you want.