Read some excellent reports about GoT. Just one question, is it suitable foe 2 players?

Many thanks.

No, it can't be played with two players. The fewest you can officially play with is a three player variant included in the Clash of Kings expansion, but personally, I wouldn't play that either. Political bargaining, alliances, backstabbing, and treachery are integral parts of the game -- and you don't have that with only two players...

I am inclined to agree. I tried to do a 2-player game, but it wound up way to hard to try and make the changes needed. I definitely recommend that you play with 5. With that number, everything works perfectly, and there doesn't have to be any alterations to play to be able to have 'neutral' houses.

Actually, you can play 1vs1 , if you want. I've made it few times with my friend, and it worked pretty well for us. We've made two alliances consisting of two houses each. We tried Baratheon+Stark vs Lannister+Tirrel (Greyjoy neutral), and Greyjoy+Stark vs Baratheon+Lannister (Tirrel neutral). All you need is to change the number of castles to be captured from 7 to 13. All other rules have to stay as they are, like trading for power tokens ("clash of kings"), transporting units only through ships of the same house as of units, giving support to allied units in neighboring areas as usual (you would do it for sure ), using battle cards only of that house that is involved in battle as defender or aggressor, using power tokens only by that house which possesses them. It was real fun to play this way.

Try it! Don't be totally bound by the rules. Be creative. I don't think authors would blame anybody for doing it, if they knew. When I start to understand all of the mechanics of a game and see the things that can be altered for better, I try it.

If you will have more questions about playing GoT 1vs1, feel free to ask.

Strider809 said:

Do you mean BIDDING with power tokens?

Yes, bidding. Bidding with dominance tokens to get one of three power tokens (Throne, Sword, and Raven). Each house bids for itself, like you are playing 4-players game. That's fair and logical.

Played your 2-person game yesterday with someone who hadn't played the game before (but grasped it pretty quickly).

Unfortunately (I think), we decided to pick alliances randomly -- he drew two house cards from the 4-person game (no Greyjoy) -- and he got Baratheon, Tyrell. A Lannister-Stark alliance is pretty deadly with no Greyjoys in the game. There's nothing to stop Lannisters from taking the fortresses in their area (Pyke, Riverrun, etc.); with the Lannisters providing a buffer, Stark could focus naval strength in the East and drive the Baratheons back. I don't know if a more experienced player could have stopped Lannister-Stark, but it looked like a hard combo to stop without really really strong play (and perhaps some good luck with the cards).

Yea, you're right, that is why I did not suggest these alliances like Stark-Lannister (actually, they cannot be allies, as they are deadly enemies according to the story) and Baratheon-Tyrell. When we play 2-player game we choose between alliances, and not all houses. I should have had mention that earlier, but probably forgot. So, we actually pick between two cards (one house from alliance). This works better.

Also when we play Stark-Baratheon vs Lannister-Tyrell I place the ship of Stark into Bay of Ice instead of placing it into the Shivering Sea as it says on the starting card. This will allow Stark to compete with Lannisters on taking Pyke in a timely manner. And it makes sense while there is no need to compete with Baratheon on the east side. I had taken Pyke once this way by Stark.

Also I now use neutral armies token for Pyke with 6 points while playing without Greyjoy. I have downloaded it from Boardgamegeek files for Game of Thrones. javascript:void(0);/*1311161745844*/ It really helps to balance the game for 4 players. Plus Highgarden token for 3 player game. Also I play with ports now in the base game. You can as well download files with port tokens from BGG, if you don't have Clash of Kings expansion. It really changes the balance for better as you won't loose your sea area forever while having a port under your control. Just download Clash of Kings rules and you'll get to know how to use ports, if you haven't done so already. I have also changed sea borders near Highgarden and Oldtown like it was done in Clash of Kings. It gives more chances for Tyrell to take over strong Lannister. Oldtown becomes a Stronghold instead of just a city (CoK again), and Baratheon will have 1 supply icon in Kingswood (adapted from CoK as well) - the one he desperately needed.

Need to test Stark-Greyjoy vs Baratheon-Tyrell after applying these options. Will give a report later.

Hope that it is more clear now. English is a foreign language for me.

Played a 2-person game vs. a novice: Stark-Baratheon (experienced player) vs. Tyrrel-Lannister (novice). We played the basic rules except (1) we did not put the Greyjoy pieces out; (2) we made Pyke a 6-point neutral army; (3) we placed Stark's initial boat in the West rather than the East. A good game, but experience ended up winning out in turn 8. Lannister controlled the rich cities of the neck, but Tyrrel did little to help -- lost the chance to expand the navy and Baratheon ended up the southern seas which let it take southern territories when convenient. (A complicating factor was that there were no musters until turn 5 or 6).

Still, a close game and mostly quite fun. (With a 2-person game, one ends up focusing on so much more of the board that planning stage turns seem to take a while -- you've got lots of orders to place, lots of territories in which to place them, and all those options make a thoughtful player take quite a while. If it could be implemented without being too obnoxious, I'd consider adding some sort of a time-limit on turns).

Both players agreed that here experience was telling in the experienced player's (correct) assumption that the novice player would be cautious, allowing the experienced player to steal marches -- correctly anticipated "defend" orders guaranteed that the novice's armies would remain stationary and unable to stop a march or a consolidate power.

Glad you liked it. Yep, sometimes you can end up earlier.

Did you ever try a new way of Westeros phase like suggested in CoK (you open three rows of cards from each set)? It allows good planning ahead, esp. for noobs. Gives some certainty, when you can plan for three turns ahead. And planning phase becomes shorter this way. Good option, if you like.

I noticed that every house always has some specific predictable orders to place based on their location. Esp. those for Rade and Consolidate Power. But this comes with experience. Noobs do not get it usually, but later on.

For example, Baratheon will often place Consolidate power in Kingswood (unless he hasn't got Kings Landing, which is more profitable in this case). Tyrrel, then, will often place Rade against it in Dornish Marches.

Strider809 said:

Actually, you can play 1vs1 , if you want. I've made it few times with my friend, and it worked pretty well for us. We've made two alliances consisting of two houses each. We tried Baratheon+Stark vs Lannister+Tirrel (Greyjoy neutral), and Greyjoy+Stark vs Baratheon+Lannister (Tirrel neutral). All you need is to change the number of castles to be captured from 7 to 13. All other rules have to stay as they are, like trading for power tokens ("clash of kings"), transporting units only through ships of the same house as of units, giving support to allied units in neighboring areas as usual (you would do it for sure ), using battle cards only of that house that is involved in battle as defender or aggressor, using power tokens only by that house which possesses them. It was real fun to play this way.

Try it! Don't be totally bound by the rules. Be creative. I don't think authors would blame anybody for doing it, if they knew. When I start to understand all of the mechanics of a game and see the things that can be altered for better, I try it.

If you will have more questions about playing GoT 1vs1, feel free to ask.

This is exactly what someone tried to explain. An integral part of AGoT is the political intrigue, the backstabbing, the unkept promises, the military turmoil when alliances fall apart. In a 2-player-variant all of this goes out the window. Though you seem to miss the point that you butchered the game and turned it into something far less interesting in the process. It's not that AGoT is not playable in a 2-player-variant. It's that it's no fun in a 2-player-variant because all that this game is gets lost in the process. You might as well go back to playing Risk.

You are right, "ronsen_04" , concerning the integral part of the aGoT as that was the intention of designers to make it such. I agree. Though I didn't mean to butcher the game. I've played this game many times, and sometimes just for testing some things alone, and found the things I wanted to see in the "Storm of Swords" and in a "Feast for Crows" (unofficial expansion). And I as well consider my variant less interesting now, though playable when you are really don't have much players and still want to play it. Right now I would rather "go FORWARD" and play Starcraft, if there would be just one opponent to play with.

You see, I live in the country and the place where boardgaming such as this is in the beginning of its development. My variant suggested was just a testing for me. And I don't fear to make mistakes. It seemed to me that I felt free to share as there was a question about 2-player game. I'm open to receive different opinions. And I care.

Looks like you are a judge here, huh. Especially noting your signature. I thought this forum is for free sharing of opinions. But you sound like "shut up, and listen to me, little boy". I wish you could consider the environment before you say something harsh from the top of your mountain. It may sound offensive.

ronsen_04 said:

Strider809 said:

Actually, you can play 1vs1 , if you want. I've made it few times with my friend, and it worked pretty well for us. We've made two alliances consisting of two houses each. We tried Baratheon+Stark vs Lannister+Tirrel (Greyjoy neutral), and Greyjoy+Stark vs Baratheon+Lannister (Tirrel neutral). All you need is to change the number of castles to be captured from 7 to 13. All other rules have to stay as they are, like trading for power tokens ("clash of kings"), transporting units only through ships of the same house as of units, giving support to allied units in neighboring areas as usual (you would do it for sure ), using battle cards only of that house that is involved in battle as defender or aggressor, using power tokens only by that house which possesses them. It was real fun to play this way.

Try it! Don't be totally bound by the rules. Be creative. I don't think authors would blame anybody for doing it, if they knew. When I start to understand all of the mechanics of a game and see the things that can be altered for better, I try it.

If you will have more questions about playing GoT 1vs1, feel free to ask.

This is exactly what someone tried to explain. An integral part of AGoT is the political intrigue, the backstabbing, the unkept promises, the military turmoil when alliances fall apart. In a 2-player-variant all of this goes out the window. Though you seem to miss the point that you butchered the game and turned it into something far less interesting in the process. It's not that AGoT is not playable in a 2-player-variant. It's that it's no fun in a 2-player-variant because all that this game is gets lost in the process. You might as well go back to playing Risk.

There are plenty of games where the creators tell you to make up your own "house rules". They want you to enjoy the experience. We have a house rule for playing Arkham Horror. It is called the common sense rule. If you get a card that says "you eat some strange glowing mushrooms" you have the option to say "um, no...those mushrooms are glowing, and i am not that hungry." House rules are important to game playing. It gives a different perspective and if you submit your input to the designers, they may even add your rules to future editions of the game.

SpleenballPro said:

I agree with everything you've said here except for that last part. FFG has a policy that prohibits them from using unsolicited suggestions, for some reason.