So after a few plays I am considering removing one of the Clash of Kings cards from the game. Reason being that when it happens as often as it has everyone is left with zero to a few power tokens. One round it was pulled and after two rounds was pulled again. No one had any power to bid then, and then a wildlings attack card was drawn and we were unable to defend against that at all either.

So, should everyone just bid far fewer power tokens bearing in mind the clash could happen again at any time as well as the wildlings, or have other people run into the problem of having zero to few power tokens available as well for those events? I think just by removing one clash of kings card it could solve the problem we've been having with it. Dont get me wrong bidding on the tracks is a huge part of the game, and by the time the 1st one comes up everyone is ready for it, but not to be almost directly followed by anoter one which has happend both times I have played so far, hence my consideration of removing one of the CoK cards.

Thoughts?

Overbidding is a risk.

Failing to Consolidate Power is a risk.

Failing to save Power is a risk.

Sometimes when you take that kind of risk, things don't work out for you…

Maybe you should just warn everyone next time, "Remember, this could come up again next turn in the Westeros Phase, so plan accordingly!"

Hmm, I see your point, but that leaves you with only a few power tokens to bid at any given time for any given track + defending against wildlings. To me it seems like its slgihty un-balanced in that regard.

If I'm going to bid for a track I want to win generally I want to bid more then 1 or 2 PT's to insure I get it. Your saying bid any more then that and risk losing everything else? I think it would make more sense to either have more PT's generally available, or remove one of the clash of kings cards, just to keep things interesting. If everyone bids between 1-5 on each track that seems more fun then just 1-5 on one track and 0-2 on everything else…..

???

Just looking for community thoughts n suggestions. Whattaya think?

Thanks n have a goodin.

Ok, we got it.

Our "House Rule" is that when the CoK card comes up, we just take a majority rules vote to see if everyone wants to bid on the tracks or not. That seems to work best and does not break the game/tracks. After we vote we either bid, or draw another card from that stack.

I really like the game mechanic, it plays to the books a lot where most houses don't really recognise the threat that beyond the wall poses, and focus their resources on cementing power for themselves instead. Our gaming group recognises the possibility of these things happening and generally plans accordingly.

One of the best things about this game is that random chance affects everyone equally, and victory comes down to bluffing, counter-bluffing, planning and decision making. No-one gets boned because they can't roll a 6.

Clash of Kings keeps the game dynamic and interesting. I would personally rather bid less power tokens more often and keep changing up the order rather than make the game more predictable. That's just my perspective.

I can't help but feel like this house rule defeats the entire point of the clash of kings. It's about shaking up the status quo. If one player has a lot of power tokens and bad positions, but everyone else has good positions and no power tokens, obviously there won't be a clash of kings, which puts that one person in a terrible situation where they aren't able to reap the intended benefits of their labors. Alternately, one person might be at a severe disadvantage in terms of power, but a potential bid could bring everyone down to his level. There are a lot of instances where a majority rules vote is far too biased to be applied: the point of the clash of kings is that not everyone gets an equal vote.

I'd propose as an alternative you make the vote to skip the clash of kings unanimous. I think this is the best option, if it's really happening too often a concensus shouldn't be hard to reach, if it needs to be forced it obviously isn't happening too often. I disagree that it happens too often or that a depleted amount of power is "unbalanced" or somehow a problem, but if your gaming group really does then surely getting a unanimous vote shouldn't be difficult, and if even one person wants to play by the rules they sort of have that right, don't you think?