Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
This is a detailed review of first impressions of the new AGOT 2.0 (with 4 players only). I’ve played all versions of my favourite game, the much-revered AGOT 1.0 and it’s expansions many times so I’m hoping this will illuminate some differences and give people an idea about the new 4 player dynamics. We only tried AGOT 1.0 with 4 players 3 or 4 times because there were better-balanced strategic area control games (hello Chaos in the Old World), which seemed better options when we only had a 4 player session.

I know I was hungry for reviews for this game and there aren’t many here yet so please forgive my detailed pontificating based on 1 play.

Components
The Board
I personally like the new map / board. It’s the same overall size although the land seems to take up slightly more space when viewed side by side from memory. Its certainly grittier and more in keeping with the Westeros vibe than AGOT 1.0. Some in our group did not like the new grittier / earthier look as the colour tones are more muted and indistinguishable, specially the sea / land zone contrast. This certainly does lead to some subtle usability concerns in combination with the more muted tones of player pieces. However, I think we will all soon get used to it and see straight through the board to the gameplay.

As far as I can see it has the same regional configuration (with subtle differences in where lines occur) as AGOT 1.0 expansion 2’s 6-player overlay. However, that is now permanently set for all player number variations so there are some distinct changes (more seas and land regions and eg reduced access to Highgarden by sea from the north) which significantly affect 3 – 5 player gameplay compared to the 1.0 version. It’s effectively a new map for all but the old 6-player game and that is the single biggest change to the game.

The city / stronghold Icons are now much more visible and differentiated by size and colour tone (this is good). The region names are now much smaller and next to impossible to read from a distance (not necessarily a problem). This was probably an intentional design decision to enable direct placement of the 3 – 5 player neutral tokens directly over the region titles (they fit perfectly over them, minimising visual clutter).

The victory track is a nice addition which saves discussion time over who is winning etc.

The gear
The overall design of various cardboard pieces is stunning and much more modern in a design sense although not terribly mediaeval in feel.

The screens are great, featuring some of the best recycled art from the AGOT LCG’s best artist - Tomasz Jedruszek I think.

The House cards all look and feel good – no idea how they will stand up to repeated handling though.

The army pieces – well here we all agreed there were some basic usability problems. They are plastic marbled pieces which do fit in more with the gritty mottled vibe of the board and that is ok. But knowing precisely what is where in this game is key. We did find the difference between knights and siege towers was hard to see in all colours and it is a critical distinction (they could have made the siege towers taller than all other pieces as a simple distinction). With the exception of Lannisters bright red, the colours are also simply more muted, particularly for Martell and Stark, and contrast with their regions board colours less. You will need to double check clustered figures are what you think they are more than the version 1.0 pieces specially with siege towers in the basegame now. We will try the old pieces out in this board and see how it looks and feels.

Rule book
We are experienced AGOT players and had done our homework so it all seemed easy to pick up fast (ie we got a 5 /6 turn game done in about 2.5 hours.) although we wouldn’t know if we were doing something wrong yet. Because of our experience with the game I cant offer advice re rulebook ease of use for first timers. It’s a complex game. If it is new for you read it twice before you play and pay attention to the little details that add the spice.

Rules and Gameplay changes

Housecards
We only got to turn 5 or 6 with about 3 or 4 battles each before victory was achieved by Baratheon. Overall the Housecards seem less powerful than the various previous sets but that is a first impression. However - the key thing is balance within the metagame of house cards and its impossible to judge that on 1 play. Loris Knight of Flowers (highgarden) is the standout sneaky game winner for me as he gains you a possible extra attack taking Highgarden to 4 possible attacks (with starred moves), 2 potentially at +1 STR! Combine this with sea movement and going last for major unpredictability in a final push for victory… On paper it seems broken but was untested last night.

New move order tweaks
There were a couple of nice tweaks to the special / starred move orders.

The new starred Consolidate Power ability to muster in that region is the biggest change. In the AGOT 1.0 clash of kings expansion variant you were limited to doing this twice from memory. Now you can theoretically do it every turn of the game. Although reality often gets in the way, that is a major gameplay change we each used 2 / 3 times in our 5 / 6 turn session. Not sure if it was designed to increase the arms race and speed the game to the “full board > player conflict” mid game but it does just that.

The starred raid order, which can remove a defense order, is only occasionally useful – hard to say if it’s better than the old dual raid ability, its just different.

Westeros Card mix changes
There are significant changes here, I think integrating some good concepts from the second AGOT 1.0 expansion Song of Swords westeros cards. There are still 30 cards across the 3 levels.

Level I loses 1 Muster and 1 Supply. These are each replaced by A Throne of Blades which gives the Iron throne holder choice of triggering supply / muster / nothing. In our experience this was excellent as it makes the Iron throne more significant and adds to gameplay and diplomacy.

Level II loses 1 clash of kings (3 influence track bidding) and 1 Game of thrones (collect power from power symbols). Replaced by 2 x Dark wings Dark words which give the Raven holder choice of bidding / power collection / nothing. Ditto for gameplay and diplomacy.

Level III loses a Winter is coming (shuffle the deck) replaced by Web of lies (support orders cannot be played). Also loses 2 last days of summer (boring nothing happens) replaced by Put to the Sword which gives the blade holder choice of no defense orders can be played / no march + 1 orders / nothing. Double ditto re gamplay and diplomacy here as the nothing cards are replaced by action cards.

It feels all good; it gives more benefits to the token special throne / raven / valyrian blade holders and creates various diplomacy or shafting windows which can break deadlocks and mess with calculations and plans.

There are also now 11/ 30 wildling threat symbols compared to 7 / 30 still with 3 Wilding attack cards, so the wildling threat levels should generally be a little higher than in AGOT 1.0 although we didn’t experience that in this play session.

Wildling attack resolution cards
We all like the new Wilding Attack resolution cards as they spice up the rather dry external threat management aspect of the game. In conjunction with the new Raven ability to peek at the top one, it adds some strategy and bluffing fun very much in keeping with the books. 3 of us spent too much power trying to get the potential benefit of the Nights watch victory (against wildling attack level 2) only to find we had been very successfully bluffed by the sneak peeking Raven holders “hmmmmm” noises – with a nothing happens results for the victors and much Lannister chuckling. The higher % of wildling threat symbols on westeros cards should fix the consistently insignificant AGOT 1.0 external / Wildling threat mechanic. This adds to the strategic significance of power management for the Wildling threat and the importance of winning / not losing given the more interesting impacts of the now various Wildling attack resolution effects. So far, all good here AFAICS.

Ports
These were our most used inclusion from AGOT 1.0 Clash of Kings and its nice to see them here in the core. They will be more significant in 5 or 6 player games where the seas are more contested and crowded. In 4 players I think southern players are too busy spanning the southern seas to make much use of them.

Tides of battle deck
In AGOT the area control economy is the slow moving ice and battles are the fire. These new battle cards add more fire: ie uncertainty, luck and a little attrition to battles. In my view they make it more attractive and advantageous to make speculative attacks against larger forces because you can always think “I might get +3 while they get +0… mu ha ha”. This is appealing for me as battles are both the most harrowing and fun thing about this game and sometimes they don’t happen often enough in 3 – 4 hours. I enjoyed playing with them for spice but then I did draw both +3 STR cards! This only really mattered in 1 battle although it did help me win the game against the odds in conjunction with some move / attack order timing misjudgements of my opponents. The other guys fared less well with their tides of battle draws and were understandably less impressed.

Battles in AGOT are a very one sided, winner takes all affair and this game lacks the feeling of attrition that is a major theme in the books. I think there could have been more Skull cards than the 2 there – their attrition would somewhat counteract the rampant extra mustering from the starred Consolidate Power token and spice things up more, making even outright victory have potential costs – a more realistic proposition for the old wargamer in me. There is room for personal tweaking to taste here.

Overall the Tides of battle cards add chance to battle resolution. Deal with it, use them or not, or alternate their use to get the best of both worlds – they are a welcome optional addition in my view.

Garrisons
Each players home city gets a 2 STR garrison on defense. Seems a good idea but wasn’t a factor in our game.

The 4 player variant
Others have already raised issues of balance in the 4 player variant – with a perceived advantage to Baratheon and Lannister having to conquer mostly neutral strongholds and cities for the win. So we approached the 4 player game with a mix of interest and trepidation. Would it be better than 1.0 with 4 players or the 4 player Song of Swords expansion?

I think it does work generally. Although a southerner did win, we had all players on 5 cities for several turns. And its fast - it only took 3 – 4 turns to reach that point and then it was all on. The neutral strongholds and regions do seem easy to beat (mostly needing just 3 to conquer), but this is counterbalanced by Baratheon mainly and Lannister I think meeting neutral resistance in some previously empty spaces, so there are fewer easy walk-ins with 1 unit. This all seems doable but from turn 3 you should have to split your southern expansion against sustained pressure from the north who simply must go south if they want to win the game. There is no real point in greyjoy / stark fighting unless they lose their central supporting seas somehow. Just head south fellas unless you can sneak across the Neck for a 7th location. I do think greyjoy has the roughest deal here – they need to fight over expansion room almost immediately as ever – but that is just part of the game and true to the books. It also makes sure fighting starts early so you don’t just have 1.5 hours of boring build up. Once fighting does start it has a habit of spiralling into madness which is where the fun is for me.

In the 4 player endgame arguably the southern players have a greater range of spaces to take or retake because of their probably wider range of attack points by sea. But in this session everyone seemed to have a shot at victory depending on how the usual mix of westeros cards, order placement, house card and tides of battle cards all played out together. I think the 4 player variant just predisposes the game’s framework in more of a direct north / south direction with a little opportunistic east west aggression. That’s just fine – that kind of variation isn’t a problem when you have 4 / 5 / 6 player options possible. I cant say I’d be jumping at a 3 player AGOT game though, 2 vs 1 is rarely fun.

Having said all that I do see the appeal of playing Stark / Lannister / Baratheon / Highgarden with 4 players and will probably give that a try one day.

Overall impressions
I’m predisposed to enjoy this game being such a fan of the previous version and all things Westeros, but I was in no way disappointed with our first session.

On first play 4 players seems perfectly workable in AGOT 2.0 but it will be interesting to see some more long term stats in terms of north south victories.

I’m desperate to try 5 and 6 players too.

For veterans, the new or co-opted 1.0 expansion gameplay features rejuvenate the game and add enhancements that just make the game better at what it did so well already. More stalemate breakers, more wildling action, more diplomacy points, more combat options, more workable player number variants etc etc.

The only real downside is a higher learning curve for new players, but this is countered by the fact that you now seem to have a deeper / more refined game all in one box.

Kim
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Banks
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Wow, thanks for the detailed review Kim You clearly know the original game really well so its good to hear that comparison. I never played it but I'm glad to hear it sounds like I got a good deal picking up the 2nd edition

I have yet to play my copy, but when I do its likely to be with 4 players also and I wondered about your opinion on something I'm considering. Having gone through the set-up myself and read various write-ups about potential 4-player balancing issues I wondered if it made sense to 'block off' part of the south so Baratheon doesn't have such an easy time taking all those free territories?

That is simply turn over the Sunspear, Salt Shore, Yronwood and Starfall tokens to their 3-player side so they are 'impossible terrain' so to speak.

That would bring the total castles/strongholds to 17, ie. 4 per player +1. This is the same as in the 3-player game, where they block off 7 C/S in the south/pyke so leave 13 between 3 players
Obviously in a 5 player game they have 20, so still 4 per player.

I just wondered if, for someone experienced like yourself, whether this sounds like a positive step or might it cause more issues?

I'm conscious that an alternative is to use Tyrell instead of Greyjoy, but I still feel like the number of C/S p.player might be an issue. Thoughts?

Thanks again for your excellent write-up, would be great to hear your view on a 5 or 6 player game, or maybe even a 3 player one as no-ones been talking about that!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
thanks!

Quote:
That is simply turn over the Sunspear, Salt Shore, Yronwood and Starfall tokens to their 3-player side so they are 'impossible terrain' so to speak.


that might work but it seems weighted against Baratheon giving lannister a free southern run.

It seriously didn't feel like Baratheon had such an easy run in the 4 player version. those territories aren't free - the neutrals do slow you down including a 4 str neutral at storms end which is baratheon heartland! and soon enough you meet both stark and lannister looking for more c/s. I only conquered 4/7 neutrals of the south east neutrals and lost 1 (starfall) to lannister. Stark gets to walk into 10 empty spaces with an 11th neutral!

you are right the average number of c / s to players is highest in 4 players this does create a more open / faster game than 5 / 6 players, but that is not necessarily bad. You could certainly reduce that 4 player to c/s ratio but surely you would have to spread the unconquerable stuff around.

Honestly try it few times in the 4 player standard setup to work out how to play it with 4, THEN throw around ideas and experiment. I presume this 4 player setup was tested dozens of times so you have to give ffg some credit.

I doubt we will try 3 player games often - it just doesn't appeal. We would all rather play the AGOT LCG which is perfect for 3 players
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Banks
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Thanks for your feedback.

I guess you're right about the neutral units slowing them down, I guess I'm just concerned because I'll be playing with mostly gamers who are only used to games like Risk or Dominion, so spending 3+ hours on a comparatively complicated game is a big deal to them I just want it to feel as fair as possible first time round

I'll probably try it the recommended way first, or maybe just turn over Sunspear - I just feel like its unlikely the Martell areas are ever going to be threatened so its like Baratheon gets two or three completely safe C/S in my opinion, where no other house can boast that in a 4 player game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
lannister gets access to the reach stronghold and 2 southern cities - highgarden (no neutral force!)& oldtown plus contests starfall stronghold!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Banks
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
kbrebach wrote:
lannister gets access to the reach stronghold and 2 southern cities - highgarden (no neutral force!)& oldtown plus contests starfall stronghold!


True, but they are (or at least can be) under attack almost immediately from Greyjoy, so while they gain the south they might lose the centre if they split their forces, while Baratheon doesn't really have a 'rival' early on. Plus if Greyjoy (or even Stark) is intent on attacking the south they can reach Highgarden via ships. Sunspear/Yronwood etc. seem miles away from anyone besides Baratheon!

I don't mind their being a bit of imbalance, its what forces alliances and intrigue which is part of the game, but I'm still not sure..

Anyone else feel free to weigh in on the issue!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Laszlo
Hungary
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
kbrebach wrote:
lannister gets access to the reach stronghold and 2 southern cities - highgarden (no neutral force!)& oldtown plus contests starfall stronghold!


Imho Highgarden can have his own garrison in a 4 player game. It's not that much but still something.

btw great review.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Sturm
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice review! Good to know how some of the revised mechanics stack up against the old ones. The new starred order abilities are very interesting and I look forward to seeing how they are received over time.

One thing that I haven't seen discussed yet is how the omission of leaders, one time orders and fortifications affects the game experience. Our six-player games make heavy use of leaders, though mostly for tactical advantage; we rarely take hostages. Occasionally we play with one time orders instead (since you're not supposed to play with both simultaneously) and we like those, too, though not as much as the leaders, who seem more facile. Fortifications are obviously meant to counteract siege towers, so their omission here seems curious to me.

Any thoughts on these omissions? I've considered selling my 1.0 base game and getting 2.0 (the graphic presentation deeply compels me), but I'm not sure I could add in the leaders, etc. without disrupting game balance unless I swapped out the house cards, and if I'm gonna do that then why spend the money to switch it up? Because I must have the shiny new thing! Somebody needs to give me this thing for Christmas and put me out of my misery.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Georgios P.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
It's not easy. But it can be done.
mbmbmbmbmb
I can imagine leaders and the like showing up in an eventual expansion, somewhere down the line.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
I didn't miss the fortifications - we only tried them a few times in 5-6 player games as we found they tended to bog the game down more, but i imagine they could be seamlessly integrated if you have time for some epic 4 hr+ sessions.

Siege engines are indeed great. Their vulnerability is nullified in the early 4 player game where lannister / baratheon can just send one south to crush various neutrals (although for some reason I didnt do that as Baratheon!). Fortifications wouldn't stop that. They are also great in the end game push where there is hopefully no following round where they are useless on defense.

We never played much with leaders either for some reason so i cant comment on that.

The one time orders - well the muster 2 time order is now the special consolidate power order in base game as often as you like. This was always the key special order for us anyway. The house specific one time orders could be added in for sure but id save that for later if i were you. The new game has enough going on to keep you happy for a few plays at least.

We are keeping our 1.0 base and expansion games so we have access to the alt house cards (no reason these couldnt replace the 2.0 version for spice), the more distinct army pieces and the other stuff till we see what other expansions arise.

I think you just need to look into your heart and realise you will get the new game sometime and just do it ASAP!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guilherme von Ah
Brazil
SP
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice session review! Was looking forward to one of these!

Couple of questions:

1) How do you think the game lenght will scale in relation to the number of players? Do you see a 5-6 players game crossing the 5 hours barrier?

2) Which House won after all? laugh

(sorry if i overlooked this information)


edit: you kind of answered the first question as i was posting
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Quote:
True, but they are (or at least can be) under attack almost immediately from Greyjoy, so while they gain the south they might lose the centre if they split their forces, while Baratheon doesn't really have a 'rival' early on. Plus if Greyjoy (or even Stark) is intent on attacking the south they can reach Highgarden via ships. Sunspear/Yronwood etc. seem miles away from anyone besides Baratheon!


You are right re remoteness of Sunspear and Yronwood - but stark took crackclaw point from baratheon on turn 3 or 4 and I nearly lost shipbreaker bay the next turn. I think Stark has the option of forgoing the eyrie for crackclaw on turn 2 if circumstances permit too. Like i said i think 4 players forces southward pressure.

Baratheon was also stuck on 3 barrels for the whole game (which is still winnable) where Lannister and Stark got to 6 fast. There IS lots down south but you don't necessarily have the time and resources to utilise all of it because of the neutrals (which cover all the barrel areas too!) and in theory the consistent pressure from the north, enhanced if greyjoy and stark leave each other alone and punch south hard with everything they have got.

I had similar thoughts to you when i looked at the 4 player setup prior to playing 2.0. Others in our group convinced me to just play as is and now i think the only solution is for lots of people to try it out, talk strategy and THEN houserule some variants if its found wanting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Quote:
1) How do you think the game lenght will scale in relation to the number of players? Do you see a 5-6 players game crossing the 5 hours barrier?

2) Which House won after all?


1 - we did 5-6 turns in 2.5 hrs. more players add more deliberation time and battle time and its more likely to go full game so yes i imagine 6 players would reach the 4 - 5 hour mark just like the 1.0 version.

2 - Baratheon won but in large part due to my arsey luck with the tides of battle cards. at one stage Greyjoy was on 6 (briefly) while we were all on 5/4.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Banks
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Quote:
You are right re remoteness of Sunspear and Yronwood - but stark took crackclaw point from baratheon on turn 3 or 4 and I nearly lost shipbreaker bay the next turn. I think Stark has the option of forgoing the eyrie for crackclaw on turn 2 if circumstances permit too. Like i said i think 4 players forces southward pressure.

Baratheon was also stuck on 3 barrels for the whole game (which is still winnable) where Lannister and Stark got to 6 fast. There IS lots down south but you don't necessarily have the time and resources to utilise all of it because of the neutrals (which cover all the barrel areas too!) and in theory the consistent pressure from the north, enhanced if greyjoy and stark leave each other alone and punch south hard with everything they have got.

I had similar thoughts to you when i looked at the 4 player setup prior to playing 2.0. Others in our group convinced me to just play as is and now i think the only solution is for lots of people to try it out, talk strategy and THEN houserule some variants if its found wanting.


You're right on that account of course, am getting ahead of myself. I think I just waited so long for this game that I already had ideas in my head about how to balance it before I'd given it a go I'll see how it plays and start discussing possible balancing issues (I'm looking at you Balon Greyjoy..) later

Maybe I'll even write a review
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
It is exciting for sure.

One other thing... The more I think about the southern siege tower strategy (lannister / baratheon just roll south with 1 siege tower to take out the neutrals 1 by 1) the more i think it makes their job just a little too easy... If that is found to be a problem you could just houserule no siege forces in 4 player games... less fun and not perfect but possibly simpler than trying to balance all the untouchable neutrals etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Georgios P.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
It's not easy. But it can be done.
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think it's that simple to pull off. When we played it, we made the mistake of letting a siege engine waltz through the areas, even though there were no castles/strongholds available. You still need to get enough regular troops to take the areas in between, before you can take over the castles/strongholds in the south.

The time it takes to set up a functioning attack on the south, should be enough incentive for the players in the north to form an alliance. I only won, because the other players failed to work together. Which sounds about right.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Quote:
I don't think it's that simple to pull off. When we played it, we made the mistake of letting a siege engine waltz through the areas, even though there were no castles/strongholds available. You still need to get enough regular troops to take the areas in between, before you can take over the castles/strongholds in the south.

Surely you can just ship transport that siege force direct to the strongholds and cities? That's what I meant - sorry if i didn't make that clear. As Baratheon I shipped straight to Storms End then Starfall to get the barrel with stronghold before lannister and then fell back on Sunspear at my leisure. That's gotta be even easier with just 1 siege tower leaving more troops for crackclaw / kings landing defense.

Anyway more plays will surface - with the extra room in the 4 player game in no time at all im sure we will see some optimal move order theories evolve.

I agree completely on the need for a northern alliance initially.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Laszlo
Hungary
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
However i haven't played the 2nd ed. yet i have another opinion. Getting the southern castles by i siege engine takes a lot of time. Only to muster it you need about 2 turns. + getting castles 1 by 1 takes a lot of time, which the northern players can use to backstab you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
you are kinda right - but the odds for a first turn muster are 50% given that baratheon is the iron throne holder and will want that muster for the turn 2 siege engine if its that attractive... so southern siege warfare can still happen pretty quickly...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martti R
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
Rock'n'roll
mbmbmbmbmb
It's Storm of Swords. There is no singing involved.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Here are some more refined / specific rules differences between the 1.0 and 2.0 games too
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/783664/differences-in-rules-...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Silver
Belgium
Gent
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you very much for this detailed review. In our gaming group, AGoT is one of our favorites, and I was wondering if this version was better or not. Thanks to you, I think I'll give it a shot :-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Brebach
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Happy to oblige.

Now i wish the A Feast for Crows objective cards work with it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.