I understand the reprint of AGoT may be just that: a straight reprint. I understand the mechanics and gist of play from that forum, and I understand the expandible nature of this game makes it range beyond any Diplomacy-like mechanics. So will someone explain what their similarities are, beyond theme, and let me know which one you think is better? I'm leaning toward waiting for the boardgame at this point, but I do love me some Magic...

Asking whether the AGoT boardgame is better than the AGoT LCG card game is like asking whether Risk is better than M:tG. Or whether peanut butter is better than motor oil.

The question isn't "which game is better." The question is "do you prefer non-customizable strategy boardgames or infinitely customizable card games requiring deck construction."

Put it like that, it makes you sound biased, ktom

But it's impossible to compare them on a "better" scale, alright. Which is most complete for the least amount of effort? Definitely the board game, and I can say that without having played it. It should have what you need for the listed number of players as-is. Expansions are not absolute requirements.

The LCG gets you the most basic decks out of the box, for 4 out of 6 major factions. They're not even all that complete, and filling up some of the factions takes a few chapter packs. But the more packs you have, the more your options multiply. OK, I'm slightly biased towards the card game too

evilidler said:

Put it like that, it makes you sound biased, ktom

I was just trying to say that they satisfy completely different audiences - making them hard to compare without knowing something about the general preferences of the person you are making the comparison for. If someone is looking for an "Ice and Fire"-based gaming experience, either one is a fine choice. As to which is the better choice will depend on what type of gaming experience someone enjoys more, not the specific game mechanics or even the quality of the products.

In a fairly abstract way the boardgame and Melee are quite similar. The boardgame's use of the I, II & III decks dictating how the game pans out is sort of analogous to the plot deck - the shape of the turn is often dictated at the start of the turn and it is the job of the players to react and take advantage of the current situation. Equally, deals, betrayal and masking your strength are often important to stop you becoming the target of every nasty thing the other players at the table can throw at you. That's where the two games are distinct.

In the boardgame 'something nasty' tends to be fairly predictable - your armies are getting ganged up on and all of your power is getting raided until you're no longer a threat. The boardgame is more direct and is usually more brutal. The LCG is more complex, but also more refined and can be much more subtle. Rather than straight up killing all of your stuff, players is the LCG can screw you over in a whole load of inventive ways. Although (of course) sometimes, they'll just kill all of your stuff.

It comes down to how you like your betrayals (because if your group is anything like mine, good play will be rewarded with beatings - deciet and trickery are the only real paths to sucess)? Easy to predict, swift, brutal and much cheaper (in terms of money) - the boardgame is for you. Tricky to guess, subtle and much more expensive? LCG.