Hello, just in case any of you are dying for some more discussion about Battles of Westeros, I wanted to post my house rules. I've been very public about my distaste for the designer's lack of initiative in clearing up many of the lingering rules issues that are just a distraction as we try to go forward with this game. Battles of Westeros is still one of my favorite games. And I would play anytime by the standard rules, but these are rules that help me enjoy the game more without adding complexity. Please let me know if any of you have suggestions or comments. I'll update if I feel like something is not working or could be better.

WITHDRAWALS
Treat a Withdrawal as if the unit was forced to retreat. Any Advances and Pursuits (including accompanying attacks) that are triggered by the withdrawal must be taken before any other attacks are made. As always, units may not Pursue a second time and units that Advance may not attack.

The unit making the Withdrawal causes a decrease in morale based upon the highest ranking adjacent ordered unit. Therefore, if a blue unit withdraws from both an opponent's ordered green unit and a blue unit, then the side controlling the withdrawing unit loses 2 morale for being the same rank as the higher of the two opposing units.

COMMAND LIMITS
The Command Tokens (not Order Tokens) are removed from play. Any commander can play any number of order cards. The Command Limit refers to the number of separate orders on an order card that a commander may utilize.

Therefore, a Command Limit of 1 means that that commander can only utilize the first order of an order card. This only affects cards that have multiple orders. The extra orders are considered advanced maneuvers that the low Command Limit commanders lack either the charisma or intelligence to carry out.

ORDER CARD DISCARDS
Any number of order cards may be kept in hand or voluntarily discarded at the end of each round. At the beginning of the next round, each player draws up to the scenario specified hand limit.

Players never have more than the number of cards specified in the scenario hand limit, but they always have the opportunity to play either or both Rally All cards as if they were part of their hands, as described in the rules for Rally ALL cards below.

ADVANTAGE
Advantage is calculated by counting cards in hand after voluntary discards. The player with the Momentum marker (Mace token) breaks ties and chooses whether or not to discard cards after the player who does not have the Momentum marker has chosen whether or not to discard cards.

COMMANDER CAPTURE MORALE BONUS
In the case of capture, add the captured commander's Command Limit to the morale usually gained for the color of the unit. Therefore, if Addam Marbrand is captured as a blue unit, then the total morale gained will be 2 for the blue unit and 2 for the Command Limit, for a total of 4.

RALLY ALL
Set aside the two Rally All cards face up from each player's deck. Even though they are not kept in hand, they are played as if they were an order card from hand, taking up a turn as normal. Remove each Rally All card from the game after playing it.

This means that each player has equal opportunity to play Rally All cards, but can do it a maximum of two times throughout the course of the game, even if forced to shuffle during the game, as Rally All cards are never shuffled into a player's deck.

TACTICS ON ORDER CARDS
Do not check Order Tokens or your own morale for Tactics on order cards. All Tactics on order cards are activated for a player when the morale marker is on the opponent's half of the morale track. The cost of Tactics must still be paid. If morale is in the middle of the morale track, then both players may play Tactics.

Reminder: Commanders may not take hits to pay the cost for Tactics. Toughness or Cover may not be utilized to ignore a hit taken for activating a Tactic. And Tactics affect the entire board. These are all official rules.

HILLS
Hills now have no dice restriction. Units on hills have Defender (Stalwart + Heavy Armor).

Because of the Defender ability, the unit can choose to counterattack simultaneously with a melee attack, but then must take all flags and hits normally (without Stalwart or Heavy Armor).

Units on hills do not become Stalwart because of adjacent friendly units. Units on hills may not make adjacent units Stalwart, even if those units are also on hills. Units on hills ignore units not on hills for the purposes of Line of Sight (LOS). Adjacent hills block LOS.

DEFENDER ABILITY
Engaged units lose the Defender ability. Engaged units on a hill do not have Defender.

Just wanted to augment the rules post with a few reflections from the game yesterday. My friend and I played Scenario 2. This was his fourth game and my 14th or 15th. I have been significantly house ruling this game for about half of my plays. My house rules are a labor of love, as I feel like something went wrong in several of the finer points of this game, although I love the setting, components, and the core combat mechanics.

I like Withdrawals a lot, but treating them as a forced retreat seemed a lot less powerful, in a good way. Withdrawing units could no longer be used to completely deny a charging cavalry or would allow an infantry unit a free advance, potentially both. Also, we ran into the issue where two different colored ordered units would be adjacent and of course there was no answer in the rulebook, so my opponent and I agreed that the morale loss would be calculated by comparing the highest ranking opposing unit vs. the withdrawing unit.

After doing away with Command Limits altogether several games ago as an unnecessary and redundant shackle on hand management in this game, I finally came up with a way to have the command limits be more than just a morale bonus. I feel like this is an intuitive way to explain the command token icon on the commander's card. Anyway, it worked well and in this scenario didn't make a big difference. In a scenario where you have a larger disparity in commander's command limits, it would be a bigger deal. This way, the Mountain cannot utilize all the orders on one of Jaime Lannister's multifaceted order cards, but the Mountain is also not limited to the ridiculously inadequate 1 card per turn.

Setting the Rally All cards aside just felt right. They are often the deciding factor between a good hand and a bad hand. And not getting them and/or getting them both at a time when you can't use them is just painful in this game. Having to randomly draw the two aces in your deck just didn't seem proper in a game that is not focused on hand management. There aren't even Battlelore-esque "Scout" type cards that let you dig faster through the deck, so again this just seems appropriate and plays smoothly.

As for the big tactics change, this made a huge difference. You or your opponent now has a legitimate reason to play the flag order token as a rallying cry to move the morale towards your opponent, as a shift of even one towards your opponent's side of the track makes it impossible for him to use tactics on order cards. Of course, your opponent can send it right back. And the idea that players would begin the game jockeying for a lead in morale is a very satisfying thought, especially considering the non-factor that morale represents during most games right now. For me, this was the biggest and best change. It felt like morale finally mattered right from the beginning and eliminating those green units to put yourself at an early morale lead was even more satisfying. It also gave you something to think about when choosing whether or not to withdrawal.

Well, I'm very open to discussion. I love chatting about this game almost as much as playing it. Let me know if any of you give these new rules a whirl and any issues you might encounter. I'm also over on BGG with the same username, so feel free to post over there about this game, too. Those forums are a lot more active.

Thanks.

Okay, so I'll post the interesting discussion that's happening over on BGG. Here is a quote from another user about the house rules I posted above and over at BGG.

****Begin Quote****
I had a long drive today and I was mulling over the rule changes & stewing a bit. The most important thing is the improvement in the game flow. And that I was mulling it in the car at all means this work on the game is really interesting. I like where this is going. The rally cards face up & usable was a big improvement, for example.

I had a couple of thoughts that wouldn't let go:

I've gone back & forth on this, but I'm still uncomfortable with the withdrawal pain. By this, I mean the morale cost. Ordered withdrawal can be a healthy tactic, and on the battlefield needn't represent morale loss. It's enough punishment (in my mind) that one has to turn the flag & lose the unit unless it's rallied.

My thinking is should cavalry crash into archers, it'd be natural for them to retreat into the forest, or retreat in an orderly fashion to gain stalwart while under attack.

My leaning is to credit maneuver in the game.

Also, I'm still uncomfortable that any swing of morale off center means one player immediately looses tactics. Some reasons:

1) On the very first opening action, the player who goes first can just toss a flag icon out & remove the opposing army's ability to use any special tactics. Yet not a unit has been moved on the board. Indeed, nothing has happened but a chill wind I guess. It'd be an awful gamey first move.

2) While I like the idea of exploiting the morale track to somehow layer the potential strategies, I'm less comfortable that maneuver or the scenario goals could be supplanted by bloodlust & rally icons. Or rewarding a unit chasing down a reduced & outside of command enemy unit to gain morale points when that move should be punished by tempo loss on the scenario goals. This is a lesser concern though.

3) I don't know the differing decks well enough to know if this is balanced. And of course I can't study up, as I don't own the game & get to play yours! In last night's game, morale was down on the Starks, which wasn't as big a deal as the Lannister deck has more dependency on their tactics (am I right here?). Also - there's the synergy between the leaders & tactics to consider. Am I right that the loss of tactics between factions isn't necessarily a balanced consequence?

4) In a scenario in which one faction is the defender, it would be natural for them to perform defensive maneuvers & the scenarios attacking faction draw first blood. In doing so, they could eliminate tactics for the defender. Does this seem right?
Thoughts?
****End Quote****

And then my response:
Excellent points. I'm supposed to be going to bed, but I want to get some thoughts down first, since you've given me something tangible to think about. And thanks for that.

Regarding the morale track and Tactics, I think you make excellent arguments for all points.

While it satisfies me that the morale tokens would go from never being used to swing morale in a positive way to being one of the very first things a player does, it does seem a little harsh, especially as only one side may roll the elusive flag for his order tokens and so put the other player at a disadvantage right from the get-go.

On the one hand, I think of an opening play of a flag token to swing morale in this game like the blokes in Braveheart screaming a lot and mooning the opposing army. It takes energy and time to stand there and do that, but it does have a discernible effect. It makes the enemy aware of your energy, especially attacking into a fortified position or against a superior force. And it can screw up the enemy's tactics, or at least so it seemed in the movie.

On the other hand, the flag is only one side of the die and I don't want to make getting a flag or not getting a flag on that order token roll any bigger of a deal than it already is.

I know you haven't seen all the tactics yet, but there are a few commanders that have very strong tactics. Addam Marbrand's is one of the best, actually, as that extra die when flanking can be crucial. I want to see that tactic used when several units coordinate in a flanking attack. I would say at least half the tactics have quite limited uses, though. And tactics aren't that big of a deal in the beginning of the game, as most of them are combat related and frequently the first round is more positioning than combat.

So, as far as the scenario goals being supplanted by morale/tactics concerns, I don't foresee that happening, but would like to continue to test it. So far in my plays, tactics aren't winning games. If anything, many tactics are so situational that they are only rarely used or their effect is so minimal that they don't make or break any of the other parts of the game. So, with that in mind, I don't think the scenario where one side is the defender and loses tactics because one unit was eliminated will be that big of a deal. The more concerning aspect of these games is that players will hunker down, position and wait. The Round Limits do a lot to alleviate this, but I like the fact that going for that first weak unit has a purpose.

If you don't mind, let's give this another game and discuss it again. I'm still hyped to play the game. No surprise there, right?

Oh, and regarding the morale payment for withdrawals, that's an official rule. I hadn't really considered changing it, probably because a payment of morale was almost meaningless before, particularly if you were already ahead in morale and likely to lose a unit anyway if you didn't withdraw.

Again, I can see your point and really I'm just heartened that morale is finally part of the discussion surrounding this game, rather than just mostly forgettable. I also strongly agree that turning the flag is already pain and the thing that makes most sense thematically, especially since withdrawal can be an excellent tactic to keep stalwart and stunt the cavalry's charge.

Okay, now off to bed. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, as always.

KenToad, I hadn't realized you'd already done this. I wanted to say the enhanced rules usually complete the game, not "enhance" them, in what seems to be most people's opinion. They should just call the basic rules of almost any game, "the introductory game."

Hey Pulsar,

Yeah, I totally agree that the enhanced rules more or less complete the game. I refer to them as "enhanced" because that's how they are called in the FAQ. I don't really think of them as all that advanced, either. They simply address some of the issues that players identified in the first months after this game was released.

On the one hand, I'm glad they exist. On the other, I wish that the game had been more thoroughly tested and that the "enhanced" rules had been included in the box, as I believe that having key parts of the game that must be found online only increases the divide between the casual players and the hobbyists/enthusiasts.

I believe the appeal to casual gamers will eventually determine the financial success or failure of the line, so it irks me that some of the most important elements are "hotfixes" that should have been done right to begin with. Also, at this point, I believe they should release and distribute freely a corrected version of the rules and battle plans, as the errors in those documents are so abundant (see the extensive list of errata in the FAQ that is still incomplete) that it's truly shameful for FFG to have gone ahead and published them without further editing. I would suggest that they offer copies of the corrected documents to every gamer who has a proof of purchase of this game and send several copies to every store that keeps the game on the shelves.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the game and so far it seems to me that my house rules have further "enhanced" the game and made it more streamlined, accessible and playable, so I'm happy with the amount of work I've put into this game.

Take it easy.

I havent play Bow lattley bevause i have been working almost like a slave this last month

I like many of the house rules done by Ken Toad yet i tink that the rule for the command limits is not satisfaing me

I see command limits as the intelegence or tatical knowledge of the commanders

We can not expect to have Gregor Cleggan beeing equaly good at tatics as Rob Stark

Yet, i have to admit that commanders with just 1 command is a baddass

Tanks for the sharing of you House Rules Ken Toad

Mancini said:

Hey Mancini,

Thanks for the feedback.

Remember that my house rule changes the number of orders on a given card that Commanders can perform, so the Mountain could only do the first order on a three order card (Each order is indicated by a command token on the card) and Robb Stark could do all three. To me, this better simulates lack of intelligence and efficiency (or cleverness, maybe) without being limited to the number of actual cards any given Commander can utilize.

Hope your paycheck is large and hope to hear more about your experiences in Westeros soon.

You know actually, I find the Dust "premium" (read: basic) game rules much better than the "epic" (read: enhanced) rules, so that'd be the exception. That game's really fun, but I can't buy a set because I'd mostly play it with my little cousins, who's mother, my aunt, I could never bring a box with so much cleavage before.

Ahem, that being said: KenToad, can you compare this to the regular Battlelore for me? Have you played both?

Pulsar said:

Yes, I've played both and I'm a big fan of both. I think the tactical options are more diverse in Westeros, but this also tends to slow the game down somewhat, unless you're both very quick thinkers. So far, my games have felt significantly slower in actual play than Battlelore, so I'm starting to expect this as a result of the diversity of options and lack of an obvious best play that you see so frequently in Battlelore.

I think of the two games as playing at a different scale, Westeros at a skirmish level vs. Battlelore's grand battlefield. The different order systems make sense at their respective scales.

Also, another big difference is the diversity of scenarios. You will never see scenarios that focus on one side or the other of the battlefield in Battlelore, as that would negate a whole category (section) of order card. By design, the units need to be spread out across the board sections and pretty much stay there for the entire game.

This is not so in Westeros and the fighting can and frequently does get concentrated around a specific section of the board that contains key objectives for both sides. You also have the potential to fight to the last man, so to speak, or to win with fewer units, but a better tactical position. This has the added benefit of making a greater variety of scenarios and gameplay options.

The designer of Westeros has done a great job in making a very diverse set of scenarios to accompany this versatility in the ordering system. I love Battlelore, too, but, particularly with the core set, the scenarios feel very same-y. The biggest differences are in what types of lore you're using or if you have specialized troops or creatures.

So, in summary, I love Battlelore for the lore, the quick play and the ability to play with younger or less gamer-y gamers.

On the other hand, I love Westeros for the extra tactical options and interesting scenario goals. I'm a fan of the books, too, so I like seeing the names of the commanders and using their special abilities.

Hey Mancini,

Thanks for the feedback.

Remember that my house rule changes the number of orders on a given card that Commanders can perform, so the Mountaialtld only do the first order on a three order card (Each order is indicated by a command token on the card) and Robb Stark could do all three. To me, this better simulates lack of intelligence and efficiency (or cleverness, maybe) without being limited to the number of actual cards any given Commander can utilize.

Hope your paycheck is large and hope to hear more about your experiences in Westeros soon.

Hello Ken Toad

In my opinion i dont tink that represents so well the "superior tatical power" of the difrent commanders :s

Yet, i have 1 more question, doesnt this house rule unbalances some scenarios?

Tank you agian Ken Toad

Mancini said:

Hello Ken Toad

In my opinion i dont tink that represents so well the "superior tatical power" of the difrent commanders :s

Yet, i have 1 more question, doesnt this house rule unbalances some scenarios?

Tank you agian Ken Toad

So far, no. I've found that the command limits added a layer of redundancy on top of an already restrictive hand management system. If you look at all the layers of redundancy, you have command limits, command tokens, activations costs, strict hand limits and a very limited ability to reactivate (rally) units. Forcing you to discard down to one card at the end of the round was just the cherry on top of a system that is far too limiting for its own good.

In fact, I've found that eliminating the original meaning of command limits (i.e. eliminating Command Tokens) has less effect upon card play than you might imagine, mainly because of the redundancy.

Just for fun and to test out the redundancy, try playing a game with just the command tokens, but no command limits for commanders. You really can't do a lot with three or four command tokens anyway.

But, I'm still playtesting the rules. They've worked well so far by eliminating some of the redundancy and streamlining play. I'll definitely report back if I see that it breaks anything. So far, the scenarios seem to be very balanced and fun with the optional rules and my house rules in play.

Hope you get a chance to play again soon.

for Kentoad:

in your house rules can a commander with a suffcient command limit use BOTH orders on a two-order card or must he/she choose, and is it right that a unit on a hill only has defender status on the first attack, then it is engaged, and loses that status? does it need to be defending or does it have defender status while intitating an attack? and what are activation costs? did i miss something in the rules (im new to BoW). thanks

blackomatic said:

Yes, a commander with a command limit of 2 could use 2 of the 3 orders on a card that has three orders or both orders on a card that has two orders.

Yes, a unit on a hill will lose it's defender status when it becomes engaged. If it manages to push the opponent back during the counterattack or while counterattacking simultaneously, then it will retain defender status. If it chooses to counterattack simultaneously, it loses defender (i.e. heavy armor and ignoring one flag for being stalwart) for that attack only. If it's still on the hill after the attack and unengaged, then it has defender again.

I'd be very interested in any issues you run into with these hill rules, as they are the least playtested. Remember that units on hills do not make other surrounding units stalwart and cannot be made stalwart by other surrounding units.

Oh, and if a unit on a hill attacks, you place the engagement token before the attack, so yes, it loses defender for the counterattack, if there is one. Again, you just check if there is an engagement token to determine if the unit on the hill has defender.

Activation costs for tactics are things like taking hits or other payments that come with certain tactics on order cards. My house rule has the morale track replace the first part of the tactics line, the part that goes something like "If you have a red order token and a blue order token in your order pool" or "If your morale is green or better" with "If the morale marker is not on your half of the morale track."

I've had the most criticism of this part of my house rules. But I like the way it makes morale very important, especially that first unit elimination. But my last opponent suggested that we only have tactics get turned off for a player when the morale marker moves two spaces onto their side of the morale track, i.e. onto that player's house symbol. It worked well and I can see the reasoning for not letting one rally token turn off an opponent's tactics. So, the modified rule would be "If the morale marker is not on a space with your house symbol."

Let me know if anything else comes up or is unclear. Also, I wanted to say that I'm really excited that you are interested in giving these rules a try. I appreciate any and all feedback you can give me. I don't get to play the game enough. Also, I have a thread over on BoardGameGeek and I think I'll update with these clarifications, so thanks a bunch, Blackomatic.

After some contemplation, I have edited the Tactics on Order Cards rule to come into effect only after a morale swing causes the morale marker to move off the middle section (morale track hub), so two spaces rather than just one space toward either side.

I also made a small change to have the keyword Defender only become nullified if there is an engagement token in the unit's hex showing that unit's House symbol, similar to the way that the bonus for Cover is nullified. And that also affects the Hills in my house rules.

This edited house rule for the Defender keyword has the dual purpose of making the House symbols on the engagement tokens more relevant and making the rule regarding Cover X in Buildings less easily forgotten or overlooked.

My hope is that this set of house rules similarly serves the dual purpose of eliminating redundancy and of making certain parts of the original rules, such as morale and tactics on order cards, more relevant.

Please comment below, especially if you get a chance to try these rules out or if you would like a more easily printable version.

WITHDRAWALS
Treat a withdrawal as if the unit was forced to retreat. Any Advances and Pursuits that are triggered by the withdrawal must be taken before any other attacks are made. As always, units may not Pursue a second time and units that Advance may not attack.

The unit making the withdrawal causes a decrease in morale based upon the highest ranking adjacent ordered unit. Therefore, if a blue unit withdraws from both an opponent's ordered green unit and a blue unit, then the side controlling the withdrawing unit loses 2 morale for being the same rank as the higher of the two opposing units.

COMMAND LIMITS
The command tokens are removed from play. Any commander can play any number of order cards. The command limit refers to the number of separate orders on an order card that a commander may utilize. Therefore, a command limit of 1 means that that commander can only utilize the first order of an order card. This only affects cards that have multiple orders. The extra orders are considered advanced maneuvers that the low command limit commanders lack either the charisma or intelligence to carry out.

ORDER CARD DISCARDS
Any number of order cards may be kept in hand or voluntarily discarded at the end of each round. At the beginning of the next round, each player draws up to the scenario specified hand limit.

ADVANTAGE
Advantage is calculated by counting cards in hand after voluntary discards. The player with the Momentum marker (Mace token) breaks ties and chooses whether or not to discard cards after the player who does not have the Momentum marker has chosen whether or not to discard cards.

COMMANDER CAPTURE MORALE BONUS
In the case of capture, add the captured commander's command limit to the morale usually gained for the color of the unit. Therefore, if Addam Marbrand is captured as a blue unit, then the total morale gained will be 2 for the blue unit and 2 for the command limit, for a total of 4.

RALLY ALL
Set aside the two Rally All cards face up from each player's deck. Even though they are not kept in hand, they are played as if they were an order card from hand, taking up a turn as normal. Remove each Rally All card from the game after playing it. This means that each player has equal opportunity to play Rally All cards, but can do it a maximum of two times throughout the course of the game, even if forced to shuffle during the game, as Rally All cards are never shuffled into a player's deck.

Remember that Rally All cards are limited in effect to a single Commander's Zone of Control, just like every other Order Card.

TACTICS ON ORDER CARDS
Do not check Order Tokens or your own morale for Tactics on order cards. All Tactics on order cards are activated for a player when the morale marker is not on that players' House symbol on the morale track. The cost of Tactics must still be paid. If the morale marker is on the middle section (morale hub) of the morale track, then both players may play Tactics.

So, for example, Player A plays a Rally Order Token in order to increase morale for him (move the marker one space toward his opponent's side of the track). Then, Player A eliminates one of Player B's Green Units, moving the marker a second space onto Player B's House symbol on the morale track. At this point and as long as the morale marker rests upon Player B's House symbol on the morale track, Player A can and Player B cannot utilize Tactics on order cards.

Reminder: Commanders may not take hits to activate tactics. Toughness may not be utilized to ignore a hit taken for activating a tactic. And tactics affect the entire board. These are all clarifications from the designer.

HILLS GRANT DEFENDER
Hills now have no dice restriction. A unit on a hill has Defender (Stalwart + Heavy Armor), unless the unit on a hill has an engagement token showing its House symbol in the Hill hex.

Because of the Defender ability, the unit can choose to counterattack simultaneously with a melee attack, but, if they do so, the unit then must take all flags and hits normally (without Stalwart or Heavy Armor).

Units on hills ignore adjacent units for the purposes of Stalwart. For example, units on hills do not become Stalwart because of adjacent friendly units. Units on hills may not make adjacent units Stalwart, even if those units are also on hills. Units on hills ignore units not on hills for the purposes of Line of Sight (LOS). Adjacent hills block LOS.

DEFENDER ABILITY
Units that have an engagement token in their hex showing their house symbol lose the Defender ability. Similarly, units on a hill with an engagement token showing their house symbol do not have Defender.