Hi!

I would like to share with you some changes I've made in the winning conditions of the game. Now I use points to decide the winner instead of numbers of castles. By doing that I was able to consider other aspects that I believe should be relevant.

The changes:

The game ends normaly as it used to, by reaching end of round 10 or by having 7 castles. At the end of the game you count the points to decide winner:

Small Castle - 1 point

Big Castle - 2 points

The Iron Throne - 5 points

The Fiefdoms - 3 points

The King’s Court - 1 point per star of tracker’s position

Each influence token - 1 point

That is it! Is quite simple!

What do you think about this changes? Any suggestion how to improve it? Hope you test it and come back to tell me if this changes are worth.

I think that sounds great! You could tweak the amount of points to suit your group's play if necessary.

I can't promise any testing I'm afraid, because this game takes so long to play and only gets on the table a few times a year (all day-gaming is unfortunately reserved for special occasions).

Interesting idea!

I am not sure if I will use it on the near future but it will be easy to check who would have been the winner with this point system.

A few point to think about for your system :

1. Should the remaining armies/units give victory points?

2. Should the controlled territories without castle/stronghold give victory points?

Interesting idea!

I am not sure if I will use it on the near future but it will be easy to check who would have been the winner with this point system.

A few point to think about for your system :

1. Should the remaining armies/units give victory points?

2. Should the controlled territories without castle/stronghold give victory points?

My group consider that at first, but we decided that units and other territories should only be a means to achive victory (helping to conquest more castles and influence tokens). And I believe that makes sense, does not matter if you have a big army if you don't put it to use...

And I don't like the idea of a player losing the game because he/she has a smaller army but was able to be better in other aspects I considere much more relevant. Nor do I want players focusing on building an army instead of actually putting it to use... Players may end up avoiding battles...

What do you think? Does it sound plausible?

Yeah your arguments are convincing enough.

You are right in saying that a person doing better with a smaller army should be winning over the opposite.

Maybe it could be a secondary way to select the winner in case of a tie in the point system. (which is very unlikely)

I feel like 1 point per influence token is a lot and might influence the "greed" among players when it comes to bidding on widlings attack. Not that it is a bad thing though. It makes sense that the far threat is not considered important...

Well I need to try it before judging!

I feel like 1 point per influence token is a lot and might influence the "greed" among players when it comes to bidding on widlings attack. Not that it is a bad thing though. It makes sense that the far threat is not considered important...

Well I need to try it before judging!

Yes, after the last play of our group we've realized that. We've limited the amount of points to a maximum of 5, to avoid these problems. XD