Was it mentioned as an option somewhere in the expansions, or my group invented it, i don't know. Point is, we always play [and we play a classic AGOT boardgame with ports added for balance and map overlay for the 6th player] with basically two top westeros cards from each deck face up. I was wondering if this is popular with the fellow gamers around here. Personally i really like it, as it gives you chance to plan your turns better, and removes the last random element from the game - makes it even more chess + diplomacy like.

Also my first post, so hello : )

I'm fairly divided on the house rule; I find part of the fun is the collective groans that come up when a Supply card is drawn yet again. Also, a bunch of the new Westeros Cards allow the Sword/Raven/Throne holder to choose, which dramatically changes the dynamics of a bid when players know that one of the cards come up. Also, when the Westeros cards are unknown a winning aggressor can sometimes have the tables suddenly very dramatically reversed. Such reversals can be a bit harder to pull off if the attacker knows exactly when to clamp down for the kill and know there's no Westeros cards that could foul his plan.

There's no denying the strategic depth you get when playing with cards face up, but it also does remove an element of contingency planning and risk assessment. Since the randomness affects all players the same way, there's still a not inconsiderable amount of player skill that can go towards keeping some stuff in reserve - troops, power tokens, etc. to deal with random effects.

Someone, on this forum or somewhere else, talked about his houserule where the 3 following Westeros cards were revealed only to specific players, one turn ahead.

I don't remember if it was following the iron throne track or the kings court track, the 2 first players could see the 3 cards, the third player could see 2 cards (I and II), and the fourth player could only see the first card (just as the number of stars on the kings court).

I really want to try this rule, maybe I will this Sunday. Feel like it would decrease the randomness, and increase the value of the track we use, making clash of kings even more passionate (if can be) !

the cards are not good for the game and should be removed. any house rule you can think of that removes the cards is to the betterment of the game on a whole.

However knowing the future 2 turns ahead makes it largely pointless to use the cards.

i will create a new thread for "house rules suggestions"

jhagen said:

You still have to somehow determine when you will muster troops, count supply and bid for the tracks

I like this rule because it removes the element of players winning and losing the game because of the wrong bet on the next turn cards. But the situation can be better in the second edition [ i hope to play it at last in few days!] where the certain cards allow the player first in the right track to determine what will happen. Can anoyone tell me if that is how it plays out in his experience?

Don Pedro MCh said:

See, that's exactly the element I like about keeping the cards hidden. No position or rush at victory is ever 100% guaranteed.

That being said, I've been playing with the 2nd edition cards and I do like the choice mechanic added. Basically they allow the leader on one of the influence tracks to choose the effect of the card - for example the choice card in deck I allows the Iron Throne holder to choose between a muster, supply, or nothing happening. It definitely raises the probability of your desired effect happening... if the Throne player is cooperative or you have the Throne. Adds a nice diplomatic element.

I personally like not knowing what westeros cards are next. They make the game more random and make the game more realistic. After all, you would not know the weather forcast (as in autumn raining) if you were a general. And I also like the idea of the tides of battle cards. Again more randomization and realism.

the tides of battle cards are crap. it introduces too much randomization to battle. if you want this much randomness, may i suggest:

Axis and Allies

Risk

flipping a coin

dealing out your hose cards randomly as in WAR

now that i mention it... war.

Playing a strategy game where you outwit your opponent everyway imaginable, guile subterfuge, amassing your legions... whatever... then have your force destroyed by a card being flipped over is super uber powered up crap.

A little random in a strategy game is fine. (Twilight Imperium, Civilization)

alot is fine too if it suits the game mechanic (Dungeonquest,Talisman,Arkham Horror)

but the mechanics of this game do not warrant such over the top one card takes all.

Don Pedro MCh said:

created a rule variant post that addresses this issue. have a look. that way it meets your liking of the random power of cards and still addresses the gamble all or nothing because of what you expect to come up next.