I was wondering if anyone else was having issues with the 3 player game? We played 2, 3 player games and house baratheon won both fairly easy. Within 5 or 6 turns. We own the 1st edition and it had the same problem. We were hoping that this was fixed in the second version. If it is the goal of house stark and lannister to stop the baratheons then the game is flawed. You shouldn't have to have to houses gang up on one to prevent them winning the game every time.

Maybe the 4 or more player versions don't have this issue. We are very disappointed with this. We love the books and the show and we want to love the board game,but so far we aren't at all.

We are thinking of trying to start with other houses in the 3 player game or raising the neutral forces to 4 or 5 instead of 3 power.. Any help would be appreciated

this is mentioned in the forums many times.

Baratheon wins in 3-5 player games because the southern house (martell) is empty and only occupied by garrisons. 1/2 siege vehicle (supported by the navy unit transporting it) can take all of them by turn 4 easily if an early muster comes up. this cannot be easily countered.

Play 3 and 4 player games on the island:

3 player: stark/lannister/martell or lannister/tyrell/martell. greyjoy and baratheon capitals are off limits.

Thanks for the help.

Jhagan has an immense amount of knowledge and passion on this topic, and I'm being serious not hating. See his other posts for reference. So his input is probably more accurate than mine in a lot of cases.

In my opinion, the game takes more than 2 run throughs to get the strategy down, and in the 3 player variant, the far south is blocked by impenetrable garrisons, so not having Martell is a non issue. Winterfall in 3 turns in most cases can cause a lot of problems for Baratheon in the castle directly south of the Eyrie. I think its Harrenhal, not looking at the board, but its the one they can get to by water Once Stark plants himself there Baratheon will have a harder time with a quick win. GET BOATS IN THE WATER EARLY if you are Stark.

Lannister can go north and south and have a pretty easy time of things if Baratheon and Stark are jacking with each other. Conversely Winterfell doesn't have to work too hard if Lannister and Baratheon fight down south.

If Stark and Lannister hang back and build up an Army, you give Baratheon an easy time of things, but where is the fun in that. Go to WAR. Its the nature of the game. If you try some different things through multiple play throughs, you will find that if you harry Baratheon early, he is not too tough to beat.

In a four player game, Stark is about the only house that has a chance to stop him from winning based on what Jhagen said earlier. And to do that Stark has to convince Greyjoy to leave him alone for the first half of the game. Even then it is no small task.

In a 5 player game, Tyrell can get over to Kings Landing and the castle 2 spots south of Kings pretty quick, and if all he has are Siege Towers down in Martell's zone with a footman or 2, then Tyrell can obliterate him with the Loras Tyrell card in 1 turn.

Baratheon may not have any friends early in most of these formats, but if you weaken him and are in a position to make some moves later, all of a sudden everyone wants to be his best friend.

This may all be old hack, as I haven't gone too deep in some of the older threads, and I am SURE you can punch holes in all of these statements on some level, but I've played enough now to know that for the most part, all these work at extending the number of rounds in a game.

And I am a big proponent of changing the starting houses if it allows you to have more fun, cause this game is awesome, and thats the whole point.

thanks for the post and the props.

The 3 player game martell is off limits (as well as the south) so my generalization of baratheon was amiss. my apologies.

The issue lies with how tough it is in the game to get over to baratheons units, and to remove him from the seas. with proper mustering, baratheon will find himself at 4-5 victory points by turn 3-4 and in position to win one turn after that.

The key to winning with Baratheon:

turn 1 place:

(+0 march) in Shipbreaker bay.

(*consolidate) in Dragonstone

(-1 march) in Kingswood.

Because Baratheon goes before stark, it is key to manipulate your use of tokens to force Stark's moves.

If Stark played a march (-1) order for shivering sea, move north with one ship before him. Otherwise roll north with both ships. staark will not be able to crack your fleets, play a (4) card and be done with it.

move kingswood to crackclaw or storm's end (your choice) most common is storms end.

Stark can leave the (+1 march) at the sea and hold off to attack Baratheons moved ships if he has placed 3 march orders or plays wisely, so be sure to NOT move north if that happens. Instead spread to blackwater bay and the east summer sea.

Muster with the consolidate 1 ship in in shipbreaker and upgrade the footman to a siege.

turn 2 if muster comes up:

2nd siege in Dragonstone (or second knight i prefer the latter)

upgrade lone footman to knight, or place ship in dorne or blackwater (depending on your position and number of players) instead.

on turn 2 begin marching on the castles with your (+1 march) if needed on the castles in the south taking 3 (sunspear(siege), storms end(knight) and starfall (knight)

that puts you at 5 victory turn 2.

if a muster comes up build last siege at sunspear and win game with (+1 march) and naval supports on kings landing and one other(your choice) from sunspear) and take 2 vp first move turn 3 to hit your 7.

If not remember the key is to have 2 sieges and 1 knight stockpiled at sunspear to make to quick run to 7 victory first chance you get. you will have naval support from the bays and 2 easy targets with kings landing and the eyrie. this can be accomplished by placing a (* consolidate) at sunspear after turn 2.

this is why the game is broken at lower number of players (especially 4 and 5)

and that is why you play on the island instead.

If you play using Stark/Lannister/Martell as your 3 houses, where do you put the influence tokens on the Influence tracks?

have starting positions randomized.

1 2 and 3 position for all players to start on the different tracks.

so whomever is first on the iron throne is 2nd on the fifedoms and 3rd on the raven

then player 2 is 3 on fife and 1 on raven

and last on is 3, 1, 2 respectively

Thanks for the good advice. Tomorrow we are going to play our first four player game, and we will try what you recommended.

jhagen said:

Let me start by saying I''''d love to play a natural game with you JHagen as Stark and you Baratheon, I think you would sharpen my strategy up even more. Here I am offering an early Stark build to counter baratheon''''s quick win. Please advise on any counters Baratheon could throw at it. This is for 4-5 Players.

Round 1 -

Right here is the key for Stark. March+1 in Shimmering sea is a must(has to be done), Consolidate* in White Harbor, March+0 in Winterfell. Baratheon can attempt to take the sea. But he won''''t hold it(without Battle cards, Winterfell wins on Fiefdom with Eddard Card and with BattleCards if he tries he can get ruined by the Rob Stark card which allows you to retreat him NORTH if you win(if he doesn''''t play his 4 card), OR if you play Eddard, both boats will be destroyed, risk is too great for him to even try.

Move your Knight from Winterfell to White Harbor, and your footman over to the barrel on the opposite side of the board from White Harbor(you''''ll need that Barrel later.)

Consolidate a ship into the ocean from white harbor.

With this early position, you are ecstatic if a muster comes up, but even if it doesn''''t you are now primed to jack with Baratheon.

Turn 2: With Muster - Another Ship into the sea from white Harbor, 2 Footmen at Winterfell.

Support +1 on your 3 boats, March+1 in white harbor, March +0 in Winterfell, March -1 on your Lone guy on the barrell on the Far side on Winterfell.

****If Baratheon raids your support on your ships(Unlikely if he is charging south) - Move all the guys from White Harbor to the Castle right above Kings Landing

****If Baratheon doesn''''t raid, take your footman from White Harbor into the Eyrie(+4 for Support,+1 Footman,+1 March order = 6 for Garrison) and your Knight into the Castle above Kings Landing.

Move the 2 footmen in Winterfell to the 2 crown areas above Winterfell, and move the Lone Barrel guy back into Winterfell.

With this 2 round Build-up, Winterfell now owns 4 castles and is in direct attack position on baratheon from the north. He also now has supply barrells stocked pretty good, and solid consolidate power building areas. If Baratheon ignores this threat, and keeps heading south, Winterfell can just march south. If he spends a turn or two fortifying against this threat, then Lannister and/or Tyrell has time to keep him from a few needed castles in the south.

This Strategy also works extremely well in a 3 player game.

FalloutGuy004 said:

You can't use Robb to force an illegal retreat though. What it would do was let you choose where they would retreat to, say Grey Water Watch as oppose to Moat Calin. Then, presumably if you had a march order in Flint's Fingers, you could easily step in and defeat the already routed units.

I had honestly thought I misspoke when talking about the Robb card. I do know the rules state that a routed unit cannot retreat to the area the attack came from. So you are right, the Robb card wouldn't help much, but needless to say with the Eddard Card, you get a strength of 4 with 2 swords, Baratheon will lose no matter what if Winterfell plays the Eddard Card, and will have his boats destroyed in the process. So anyone reading this, forget the Robb Stark card and just play the Eddard Card.

What if siege engines were removed from the game?

I've played a few game now with two groups, one that seems to ignore siege engines and the other that snatches them up early. The group that gets the siege engines has B. win around Turn 5.

And what are the suggest houses for a 4 player game, along with starting positions?

biffer75 said:

So, what is the aversion to ganging up two on one? I thought that temporary alliances were supposed to be part of this game. If the other players know what they're doing, then there is no balance problem in this game, even with only 3 or 4 players.

look up posts with PLAY VARIANT or the like.

you will find optional rules like:

4 players, baratheon and greyjoy sit the game out and the island is played.

Kings landing and eryie are garrisoned only.

starting positions do not change.

castles and strongholds have a defense value of 1. (thusly reducing the inherent attack value of the siege engine)

look up posts on sieges for more.

biffer75 said:

You shouldn't have to have to houses gang up on one to prevent them winning the game every time.

So, what is the aversion to ganging up two on one? I thought that temporary alliances were supposed to be part of this game. If the other players know what they're doing, then there is no balance problem in this game, even with only 3 or 4 players.

biffer75 said:

You shouldn't have to have to houses gang up on one to prevent them winning the game every time.

So, what is the aversion to ganging up two on one? I thought that temporary alliances were supposed to be part of this game. If the other players know what they're doing, then there is no balance problem in this game, even with only 3 or 4 player

A game where you are forced to prevent one Team/Nation/House from winning the game is flawed from the start. It is unbalanced by definition. You are forced to stop the House from winning. If you dont to x,y,z they win. So your options are to do x,y,z, to prevent them from winning or let them win. We played the first edition of this game over 100 times. It is flawed and so is the second edition. They didnt fix this flaw. A board game is supposed to be balanced so that all Teams/Nations/Houses etc. have an equal chance of winning the game. This game does not do this without help from house rules. So by definition this is a flawed board game. aka Unbalanced.

Jhagan has an immense amount of knowledge and passion on this topic, and I'm being serious not hating. See his other posts for reference. So his input is probably more accurate than mine in a lot of cases.

In my opinion, the game takes more than 2 run throughs to get the strategy down, and in the 3 player variant, the far south is blocked by impenetrable garrisons, so not having Martell is a non issue. Winterfall in 3 turns in most cases can cause a lot of problems for Baratheon in the castle directly south of the Eyrie. I think its Harrenhal, not looking at the board, but its the one they can get to by water Once Stark plants himself there Baratheon will have a harder time with a quick win. GET BOATS IN THE WATER EARLY if you are Stark.

THIS..."+1"

The strategy and nuances of House Card play are subtly, but powerfully different in 3p and 4p. I don't like either 3p or 4p in AGoT, but that's just my personal preference, it is an excellent game nonetheless (even though I don't happen to like the 3p or the 4p version).

One key item, especially in 3-player....MOST 3-player games do not work because of the PLAYERS, not the game. In 3p games you have to have experienced gamers who don't get all emotional and play "Vengeance Until the End of Time" blah blah blah...alliances and support must change every round, even in the same round, with all three players shrewdly and callously jockeying for a slight edge. If played with the right players, I would "change my tune" and play 3p AGoT, but for me it all depends on who the other 2 players are as to whether or not it will be fun.

What you said is right, we are the same.





______________________
More Exciting Content Buy fifa 14 coins Waiting For You.

SFRR,

You make an interesting point with reagrd to the "players" and not the "game." As a veteran war game play-tester, I can attest to the need for solid players, and not those who show any emotion during the game. Again, it's a game...and this one, even more than your standard war game presents multiple allies or enemies. I'm looking forward to this weekend, as the players coming to the house have played more than 30 games of AGoT, while I've only read the rules (and numerous strategy threads). We plan on having a great afternoon/early evening of several games.

I do hope the shipment of Dornish Red Wine arrives in time...

Cheers,

Joe

I'm a really sad gamer...

I want this game so bad but i'll crack open the box mayne once a year if i'm lucky...

Not cool for a $50+ piece of cardboard

SolennelBern,

That is sad... My colleague, his girlfriend, and I will make this a regular part of our gaming diet.

Cheers,

Joe

SolennelBern,

That is sad... My colleague, his girlfriend, and I will make this a regular part of our gaming diet.

Cheers,

Joe

Yeah it's just that I can regularly play with 1 or 2 friends...rarely 3+ (kids, stuff, life, etc) and buying a game that clearly not meant to be played under 6 players without making "house rule" adjustements is not the best of moves.

I bought Rex soon after it was released thinking it would give me kind of a TI3 fix when I need some tense space politic gameplay but playing under the max count of players was so boring and clearly not meant to play that way, even though the box says otherwise...

SolennelBern,

Finding three players can be a challenge. I will say that the individual who made the Drive Thru Review of the game is not convinced (nor am I) that the game breaks with fewer people. Instead, the only thing I found a bit peculiar is that House Baratheon starts a bit stronger than the other Houses, and is well-positioned to take King's Landing on the first turn. I feel as though that should be a more difficult location to win. Coupled with the fact that House Baratheon starts with the Iron Throne , only early bidding will change the tenor of the game. As a war-game play-tester and developer, I don't like "Rubik's Cube" games, whereby one merely needs to 'solve' the game and no matter what happens during play, if you DO this or DON'T DO that, one side MUST win or MUST lose. While it's not that extreme, it is an area of much discussion and we'll probably house-rule House Baratheon's starting units on DragonStone as either an Infantry unit or a Knight .

Cheers,

Joe

I've heard people say that you really just need six players for this game to play out well.

We just started playing three players ourselves and the issue we've found is that if the Bar' and Lan' houses both decide to come at Stark via the sea then Stark is pretty much stimied. We've played five times now, each person played Stark at least once, and Stark was pretty much religated to being the tie breaker... i.e. whichever you try to push back against (Bar' or Lan') the other one wins if they are playing smart.

We're not really having a problem with Bar' or Lan' being dominent. The problem SEEMS to be Stark getting the short end of the stick. I know there are other, more aggressive stategies I can try, but I suspect launching them would leave my northern areas exposed.

We might just ditch the three house/player game and go with two houses each with three players.

Any thoughts from people more experienced in three player games?

Bonham,

Three player games are the worst, as AGoT doesn't scale well at the lowest number of players. I've played games where Baratheon and Lannister gang up on Stark, Stark and Baratheon gang up on Lannister, etc., making a short game for the focused attack. The one piece of advice...find more players.