Why a (of 2) game is better than (the) other ?

Thanks

Buy game of thrones. It's fun and easy to learn to play. Warrior knight is hard to play and whay to many peices. I've had the game for 2 years and still have not figured it out. Hope this helps

I own both games and all official expansions to both games.

In AGOT, there are fixed starting positions, and some factions start off in better positions than others. Also, the base game only works for 4-5 players, and expansions are needed to have a viable game with 6 players (A Clash of Kings) or 2-3 players (A Storm of Swords). However, other than starting positions, there is very little luck involved in AGOT - it is all about negotiation (helping and getting help from allies in battles, and backstabbing allies as needed) and strategy (not expanding too fast or too little, knowing when to attack and when to strengthen your defenses, and using your gains to bid for important positions). One of the positions determines turn order, which is very important. There is luck involved with the event cards, but the events usually affect everyone in the same way.

In WK, players chose their starting positions based on turn order, and so each game is always different, although in a 6-player game, the 6th player will usually start in a weak position. In WK, there is more luck involved with the battles, and battles only occur between 2 players with no help from others. There are events, but many events target only one player, either randomly or as determined by the Head of Church. WK invoves a lot of negotiation, but not in the battles. The negotiation centers around passing laws in the Assembly (which provide benefits to certain players) and who gets targeted for events by the Head of Church. The strategy in WK centers around finding the balance between increasing one's wealth versus increasing one's influence in the Assembly. After the initial setup, there is no real turn order, as each person gets 2 actions in 3 phases every round, with the action order being randomly chosen. The expansion makes WK more complex (by adding another office, other tactics, and optional rules, but also makes the game more complete.

Although I agree with rumfox that WK is more complex, I still find it more fun than AGOT. I do not like the unequal playing field that everyone starts with in AGOT.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, since its really late and i'm really tired.

A Game of Thrones is more popular than Warrior Knights, but i like that second one more. I think Warrior Knights has greatest capabilities than Game of Thrones. But, GoT has no Fate in fact, and WK has too much... You can play Warrior Knights in small and big group of person(it is nice in 2-3player game and great in 5-6), in Game of Thrones, only 4 or 5player game is good (without expansions). Rules in GoT are easier than in WK,but - does it matter?

If buying Warrior Knights - you should buy at once expansion, if buying Game of Thrones - i don't know, i hasn't play with expansions.

GREAT SORRY FOR MY ENGLISCH - I'm learning:)

That's a very accurate assessment, Jashobeam. Something else that may help is to look at the various classic games which inspired/influenced each one---

AGOT is very much inspired by Diplomacy. I've often described it as "Diplomacy on acid." You start out small, your armies move slowly, everyone sets out their orders & all are revealed simultaneously. Yes, there are rabid differences, and I much prefer playing AGOT, but it's very easy to see how much the designer inherited from Dip.

WK is a direct descendent of Kingmaker. You have nobles moving across a larger board, with a very structured political milieu for which to influence the game.

Some other things to consider: WK is much improved w/ it's expansion, where you don't really need AGOT's expansion, the only vital thing is being able to play w/ 6 players. AGOT, you MUST play w/ 5 (or 6) players, it's not very good otherwise. WK can play w/ 3-6 people, and it still works.

I'd say that if you like flying a model through the air going 'pew-pew-pew,' then get WK. If you enjoy alliances and backstabbing, then get AGOT.

Archmage Nemmerle said:

Is this true? Is the expansion that good for WK? I'm only asking because I do own WK but not the expansion (wanted to buy it after I played the base game a couple of times) but if you tell me that the expansion improves the game that much (as e.g. Shattered Empires did with Twilight Imperium) than I have to think about getting it.

Killer Power said:

The expansion does indeed make this outstanding game even more awesome. It's well worth it to get it. The King ending variant by itself is worth it. Instead of the game just ending once all the influence is out, you now play a few more turns, with whoever has the most influence when it runs out becoming the King. The King gets a cool crown token, and 6 free '100 King's Armies'. Everyone else then tries to dethrone you (if someone destroys your Stronghold THEY become King), so it makes the end game much more fun, tense, and thematic!

It's a good game with the add-on. But 2 players is too little to enjoy it. It only seems to shine at higher numbers.
Next week saturday i'm going to try and get a game going with as many players as possible. Time i got back into this great game i put asside out of lazyness.