Jump to content



Photo

HELP with Lannister in 2nd Edition!!!


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 Joe Dizzy

Joe Dizzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 01:40 AM

Orctavius said:

I recently purchased Second edition, but have yet to play (or first edition).  I'm looking forward to getting a game in January.  Anyway, the errata for first edition suggests switching Tyrells and the Greyjoys positions on the fiefdoms track so that the Greyjoys don't start with the sword.  Is the switch advisable for second edition as well?

I think people are somewhat overstating Greyjoy's military prowess at the beginning of the game. Yes, Greyjoy is dangerous, but that just makes him more of a target during the first few turns.

I'd suggest, before you introduce house rules and the like, to just try it with your gaming group first. Get some games in, gain some experience with the rules and mechanisms, with the kind of directions your games take and with how much influence diplomacy has in your games. If you feel Greyjoy is still unstoppable then, you should try developing some house rules. But experience will give you a better handle on what adjustments you actually need to make the game work better for you and your group.

Remember though, that the game is supposed to start off with houses on unequal footing. Certain houses are supposed to be have certain advantages, while others have certain disadvantages. This isn't a case of different styles, but equal strength. Accurately analyzing the situation and forming alliances against whichever house is a danger right now, is what A Game of Thrones is all about.

The beauty of this game is that those advantages and disadvantages can change from one turn to the next. House card effects can screw with your best-laid plans and an ally flipping sides and unexpectedly giving their support to your opponent, can quickly turn things around. If people were effectively equally powerful at any given time, there would be no point in negotiation or even supporting a battle that you're not directly involved in.

 

 

 



#22 cadleo

cadleo

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 03:40 AM

Joe Dizzy said:

Orctavius said:

 

I recently purchased Second edition, but have yet to play (or first edition).  I'm looking forward to getting a game in January.  Anyway, the errata for first edition suggests switching Tyrells and the Greyjoys positions on the fiefdoms track so that the Greyjoys don't start with the sword.  Is the switch advisable for second edition as well?

 

 

I think people are somewhat overstating Greyjoy's military prowess at the beginning of the game. Yes, Greyjoy is dangerous, but that just makes him more of a target during the first few turns.

I'd suggest, before you introduce house rules and the like, to just try it with your gaming group first. Get some games in, gain some experience with the rules and mechanisms, with the kind of directions your games take and with how much influence diplomacy has in your games. If you feel Greyjoy is still unstoppable then, you should try developing some house rules. But experience will give you a better handle on what adjustments you actually need to make the game work better for you and your group.

Remember though, that the game is supposed to start off with houses on unequal footing. Certain houses are supposed to be have certain advantages, while others have certain disadvantages. This isn't a case of different styles, but equal strength. Accurately analyzing the situation and forming alliances against whichever house is a danger right now, is what A Game of Thrones is all about.

The beauty of this game is that those advantages and disadvantages can change from one turn to the next. House card effects can screw with your best-laid plans and an ally flipping sides and unexpectedly giving their support to your opponent, can quickly turn things around. If people were effectively equally powerful at any given time, there would be no point in negotiation or even supporting a battle that you're not directly involved in.

 

 

The Greyjoys are fine. Its the Lannisters that are the problem. Their house cards suck, like seriously, and their starting position is precarious at best. Also, you say that this game is supposed to start off with houses on unequal footing. That is incorrect. The Houses have different advantages and disadvantages, but they are meant to be balanced. They are not. The Game of Thrones LCG is an example of a well balanced game in the SoIAF genre that still represents the factions accurately and makes it fun to play any of them and still have a fair chance to win.



#23 Joe Dizzy

Joe Dizzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:08 AM

Well, you assume that the houses are supposed to start off balanced, but the game fails in doing so.

I assume that the houses are supposed to start off-balance, and the game succeeds in doing so.

I don't think we're much in disagreement here (except for the degree), it's just whether one considers imbalance between the starting positions a flaw or a design choice. I obviously consider it to be the latter.



#24 passionis

passionis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:29 AM

Joe Dizzy said:

Well, you assume that the houses are supposed to start off balanced, but the game fails in doing so.

I assume that the houses are supposed to start off-balance, and the game succeeds in doing so.

I don't think we're much in disagreement here (except for the degree), it's just whether one considers imbalance between the starting positions a flaw or a design choice. I obviously consider it to be the latter.

In my opinion its irrelevant if the unbalance is intended or not. Its of course a question of preference for you as a player or your group. Me myself would prefer the factions more equal but different and therefor I'm always interested to read about other players solutions to the "Lannister-problem".

Is there anyone who has tried to exchange Greyjoys knight for a third footman?



#25 cadleo

cadleo

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:42 AM

Joe Dizzy said:

Well, you assume that the houses are supposed to start off balanced, but the game fails in doing so.

I assume that the houses are supposed to start off-balance, and the game succeeds in doing so.

I don't think we're much in disagreement here (except for the degree), it's just whether one considers imbalance between the starting positions a flaw or a design choice. I obviously consider it to be the latter.

Uhhh, why would you assume the houses are supposed to start off-balance? That makes no sense at all. Also, if they did start that way, the Lannisters would be much more powerful than the Greyjoys if it were supposed to resemble the books which you dont seem to have read.

Its like having a Lord of the Rings game and Sauron is a weak little ***** or Frodo having the same stats as Legolas or something. It doesnt represent the story correctly and it also makes for an unbalanced game experience. It fails on both those levels.

However, if you look at the FFG Game of Thrones LCG, the houses are balanced just fine and the flavor of the books is there as well. Its not hard to draw a contrast. Im hoping FFG will fix this somehow, as the game is seriously flawed at the moment.

I would really like an FFG representative to comment on some of these concerns. The opinions of the sheep do not concern me ;)



#26 Joe Dizzy

Joe Dizzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:06 AM

cadleo said:

 

Uhhh, why would you assume the houses are supposed to start off-balance? That makes no sense at all.

 

 

Because a lot of good, well-regarded and highly enjoyable games aren't set up to start off with everybody on equal footing. Diplomacy - this game's ancestor in spirit - doesn't start off all that balanced. Russia has more armies than the other powers. Austria is always on the brink of being torn to shreds by the sheer misfortune of sharing borders with so many powers. Turkey has it relatively easy, what with having at most two enemy powers to worry about.

In fact, those three powers map fairly nicely to Greyjoy, Lannister and Stark respectively. Not all games start off fair for everybody. That's what makes them fun and interesting to play. They invite both strategic and diplomatic skill to get you the win.

cadleo said:

 

Also, if they did start that way, the Lannisters would be much more powerful than the Greyjoys if it were supposed to resemble the books which you dont seem to have read.

 

 

I didn't make the claim that the game was supposed to mirror the books, why would you think that? I have read them by the way, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. I wasn't making a point about fidelity to the source material, I was making a point about game design.

cadleo said:

 

I would really like an FFG representative to comment on some of these concerns. The opinions of the sheep do not concern me ;)

 

 

How about we don't insult random strangers on forums? I'm sure we can all have a sensible and calm conversation about our thoughts and experiences on the game without calling each other names. It is possible to have different opinions about something without either party being wrong or "sheep" after all.

 



#27 zorzogoth

zorzogoth

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:48 PM

cadleo said:

cadleo said:

The Lannisters should be one of the most powerful factions as it is in the books. "Possibly one of the hardest to win with", you say? You have lost the arguement with that statement, ser.


You gave three examples of someone who is new or does not know how to play as the Greyjoys. If you played against someone who knew what they were doing, the Greyjoys would spank the Lannisters every time unless they got seriously lucky with tide of battle cards and somehow a mustering card never comes up. Your navy was going to make a crushing attack!? Dude, if I was playing Greyjoy you would never have a navy.
Its unbalanced, simple as that.


What argument are you talking about ? You say playing the Lannisters is impossible, I say they can do well if played tactically and diplomatically and that what's this game is all about. The Lannisters are not an easy faction to play , so that makes them harder. But it's not impossible to win.

cadleo said:

cadleo said:


You gave three examples of someone who is new or does not know how to play as the Greyjoys. If you played against someone who knew what they were doing, the Greyjoys would spank the Lannisters every time unless they got seriously lucky with tide of battle cards and somehow a mustering card never comes up.

Well maybe you should play with a better Lannister player then. Or share with us your invincible tactics. Also I don't use the tide of battle cards since they are to random.

cadleo said:

cadleo said:


Dude, if I was playing Greyjoy you would never have a navy.


I don't think so, you'd first have to take Lannisport since Lannister can always build a fleet in the port or hide inside the port until a counterattack is possible.

 

I played a new six player game in the mean time. I provoked Greyjoy to concentrate his force against me. He was very strong at first taking Riverrun and the Golden Sound. But I reconquered Riverrun easily . Then he wanted to take Lannisport, but couldn't because I had already a lot of support towards it. He did invade south of Lannisport, to threaten my support from Stoney Sept, but could not hold on to it. He then went for Moat Cailin, which was not defended well at the time, since Stark thought Greyjoy and Lannisters were too busy with each other, taking it for 1.5 rounds until Stark came down on him supported from the valley, his ships and Winterfell. When Greyjoy used his Victarion card, I made a counterattack in the next round to free the Golden sound. We played the game until round 8 were my Lannisters took Seaguard as 4th castle . We stopped at the end of that round since it was too late, but it was clear that Greyjoy would not win the game. He only had two castles left although his fleet remained strong, but he didnt have enough land units to take and hold on to other castles.


Greyjoy is very strong at the start of the game, but once he has used up certain house cards or power tokens he becomes vulnerable to a counterattack. The only two housecards that were really fearful were the Victarion card (a guaranteed naval victory) and the Balon card (basically giving +2 str in any battle, while the enemy gets +0 str) . Damphear seems like he is powerful at first but has a high cost to play. The 4 str Euron card isn't very special either. So when Victarion and/or Euron/Balon are in the discard pile Greyjoy is vulnerable to counterattacks. His biggest strenght lies in the support his ships give him and his mobility.


Lannister has to defend Lannisport against Greyjoy using support from Stoney Sept and/or Riverrun. I think the battle between Greyjoy and Lannisport is pretty well balanced. Greyjoy starts strong, but is vulnerable to counterattacks and Lannister grows stronger in the following rounds. From there it all depends which alliances you make. You can have Stark put pressure on the Greyjoys from the north.

Also I don't find the Lannister house cards that bad , like you describe, on the contrary. Gregor Clegane and Kevan Lannister are really very powerful in land combat.


The game seems pretty balanced this way. Greyjoys and Lannisters keep each other in check /stalemate. This weakens them both obviously.
If Greyjoy concentrates his attacks against Lannister, the game becomes hard to win for both. Only if Greyjoy finds a way to hold on to his conquered castles he has a good chance to win. But this is not easy if the Lannister player defends himself well.


Now if they would make an alliance between themselves somehow Lannister could use the resources for an attack towards the south or east over land. And Greyjoy could threaten Stark and Tyrell by sea. Perhaps working together would make both stronger.


Since you refer to the books. If Greyjoys would have attacked the Lannisters in the books, the Lannisters would not have stood strong either, they had their hands full with the Starks. Though the Greyjoys would not have been able to beat the Lannisters in full scale land battles either. But they were certainly strong at sea.


Lastly if you still feel that Greyjoys are too strong you could try this and let us know :


passionis said:

Joe Dizzy said:

Is there anyone who has tried to exchange Greyjoys knight for a third footman?


 



#28 cadleo

cadleo

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:14 AM

Joe Dizzy said:


In fact, those three powers map fairly nicely to Greyjoy, Lannister and Stark respectively. Not all games start off fair for everybody. That's what makes them fun and interesting to play. They invite both strategic and diplomatic skill to get you the win.

I didn't make the claim that the game was supposed to mirror the books, why would you think that? I have read them by the way, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. I wasn't making a point about fidelity to the source material, I was making a point about game design.

How about we don't insult random strangers on forums? I'm sure we can all have a sensible and calm conversation about our thoughts and experiences on the game without calling each other names. It is possible to have different opinions about something without either party being wrong or "sheep" after all.

 

 

 

The game is titled "A Game of Thrones". It is a given that it should mirror the books and it makes no sense at all to think otherwise, to the point of you arent even trying to bolster a real arguement here, youre just being contrary.

Dude, it was a line from the book (which you claim to have read) and it was a joke, denoted by the tounge in cheek emoticon. :facepalm:

 

zorzogoth said:

 


What argument are you talking about ? You say playing the Lannisters is impossible, I say they can do well if played tactically and diplomatically and that what's this game is all about. The Lannisters are not an easy faction to play , so that makes them harder. But it's not impossible to win.

I said it was unbalanced, and it is. The fact that the Lannistesr are not an easy faction to play is the first clue that something is wrong. Read the books.

Well maybe you should play with a better Lannister player then. Or share with us your invincible tactics. Also I don't use the tide of battle cards since they are to random.
 

They are mathematically at a disadvantage (even moreso without tide of battle cards). There is plenty of numbers to support this earlier in the post, I dont feel the need to repeat what was so effectively explained already. Scroll up.

I don't think so, you'd first have to take Lannisport since Lannister can always build a fleet in the port or hide inside the port until a counterattack is possible.

And your port is as far as they would get. A bunch of ships stuck in port for fear they will be sunk does not qualify as a Navy in my book. 

I played a new six player game in the mean time. I provoked Greyjoy to concentrate his force against me. He was very strong at first taking Riverrun and the Golden Sound. But I reconquered Riverrun easily . Then he wanted to take Lannisport, but couldn't because I had already a lot of support towards it. He did invade south of Lannisport, to threaten my support from Stoney Sept, but could not hold on to it. He then went for Moat Cailin, which was not defended well at the time, since Stark thought Greyjoy and Lannisters were too busy with each other, taking it for 1.5 rounds until Stark came down on him supported from the valley, his ships and Winterfell. When Greyjoy used his Victarion card, I made a counterattack in the next round to free the Golden sound. We played the game until round 8 were my Lannisters took Seaguard as 4th castle . We stopped at the end of that round since it was too late, but it was clear that Greyjoy would not win the game. He only had two castles left although his fleet remained strong, but he didnt have enough land units to take and hold on to other castles.

You only took 4 castle as the Lannisters by turn 8 because you and the Greyjoys were locked in a mutually assured destruction pact. Yes. That was pretty much my main point. The setup is flawed so that both those factions get pooched. Lannisters moreso than the Greyjoy, but the inevitable outcome is that they are both too busy fighting eachother for scraps while Starks and Baratheons claim territory all around them at their leisure.


Greyjoy is very strong at the start of the game, but once he has used up certain house cards or power tokens he becomes vulnerable to a counterattack. The only two housecards that were really fearful were the Victarion card (a guaranteed naval victory) and the Balon card (basically giving +2 str in any battle, while the enemy gets +0 str) . Damphear seems like he is powerful at first but has a high cost to play. The 4 str Euron card isn't very special either. So when Victarion and/or Euron/Balon are in the discard pile Greyjoy is vulnerable to counterattacks. His biggest strenght lies in the support his ships give him and his mobility.

All he needs is a mustering card and all those castles he took will provide plenty of defence for that counterattack which is the only hope the Lannisters have. All he needs to do is defend. Not hard. If the Lannisters overcommit (because they can muster too of course) then they will be in an even weaker position against the Baratheons who can sweep in easily at their rear.

Lannister has to defend Lannisport against Greyjoy using support from Stoney Sept and/or Riverrun. I think the battle between Greyjoy and Lannisport is pretty well balanced. Greyjoy starts strong, but is vulnerable to counterattacks and Lannister grows stronger in the following rounds. From there it all depends which alliances you make. You can have Stark put pressure on the Greyjoys from the north.

Only if the Stark player is an idiot. Any fool can see it would be better to first conquer the North as the Starks and then he can dictate his own terms to either the Lannisters or the Greyjoys as neither of them can oppose him. Words are wind.

Also I don't find the Lannister house cards that bad , like you describe, on the contrary. Gregor Clegane and Kevan Lannister are really very powerful in land combat.

I may have mispoke about the house cards, its only the Jaime Lannister one that I have issues with, but it really is so wrong that it taints the game. There is absolutely no way to defend his stats when compared with the others guys. He is one of the most influential and showcased characters in the book, and he is represented awfully by this card. Period.


The game seems pretty balanced this way. Greyjoys and Lannisters keep each other in check /stalemate. This weakens them both obviously.
If Greyjoy concentrates his attacks against Lannister, the game becomes hard to win for both. Only if Greyjoy finds a way to hold on to his conquered castles he has a good chance to win. But this is not easy if the Lannister player defends himself well.

Correct. This is the imbalance and it favors the Baratheons and Starks.


Now if they would make an alliance between themselves somehow Lannister could use the resources for an attack towards the south or east over land. And Greyjoy could threaten Stark and Tyrell by sea. Perhaps working together would make both stronger.

Yeah, and perhaps Tywin Lannister will **** me some gold. Until then, the math doesnt support that, and forcing two players to work together just to give them a chance to win is ridiculous.


Since you refer to the books. If Greyjoys would have attacked the Lannisters in the books, the Lannisters would not have stood strong either, they had their hands full with the Starks. Though the Greyjoys would not have been able to beat the Lannisters in full scale land battles either. But they were certainly strong at sea.

Incorrect. The Greyjoys were a shell of a house who would crash like waves on the walls of Casterly rock. Even after the Lannister armies were scattered all across the Riverlands and the Reach, the Greyjoys still chose to attack Northern targets even though Lannisport and Casterly Rock are just across the water from them. Yes, they were/are and should be stronger than any other house at sea, but again, this is hardly represented in the game. Basically by one house card and thats it.

 



#29 Joe Dizzy

Joe Dizzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 09:07 AM

cadleo said:

 

The game is titled "A Game of Thrones". It is a given that it should mirror the books and it makes no sense at all to think otherwise, to the point of you arent even trying to bolster a real arguement here, youre just being contrary.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Look at Battlestar Galactica. That game doesn't mirror the source material to the degree that you argue AGOT should. If it did, there'd be no point in handing out Loyalty Cards as we already know who the Cylons are. We even know when and how certain characters leave the show. It mirrors the feel of the source material. And I agree that a good, licensed game should do that.

I would argue that A Game of Thrones succeeds in mirroring the feel of the books. The game is just as dependent on trust between houses, on promises and threats and a lot of maneuvering to stay on top. There are tactical decisions to make, strategies to follow and diplomacy to handle. And much like the books there's a tenseness and undercurrent of paranoia present, which gives both successful advances and sudden betrayals the elegant kick which made the books so memorable.

If you believe that Lannister starts off too weak, and thereby wrecks that feel for you, then I'm very sorry. It didn't in my games, and as far as I can tell nobody I played with felt that the game missed its target due to the way Lannister was handled. But your original point was about a balanced game, wasn't it? And now it's about fidelity to its source.

Isn't that interesting?

cadleo said:

 

Dude, it was a line from the book (which you claim to have read) and it was a joke, denoted by the tounge in cheek emoticon. :facepalm:

Clearly, your clever barbs are too much for us simple-minded folk here. Do try not to overwhelm us with your great insight and knowledge and explain your points more slowly and with simpler words, so us "dudes" can benefit from your great wisdom.



#30 Joe Dizzy

Joe Dizzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:38 AM

Played as Greyjoy today and won by turn 5. It is true that this first attack wave is virtually unstoppable. (Although admittedly, I was playing against 5 players who had never played before. So launching an all-out attack on Lannister wasn't very sportsman-like. But if I had tried the same thing with my regular group, I would have been "most dangerous player" for the next five games to come.) Lannister can try to limit his losses, but he cannot stop Greyjoy on his own.

But that wasn't what won me the game. If Stark had actually bothered to apply any pressure on my end I wouldn't have managed to hold 6 strongholds and grab the Crackclaw Point in turn 5. (By that time Baratheon had left it unguarded and during bidding that turn I spent all my tokens on grabbing the Iron Throne.) In fact without a timid Stark player and a momentarily distracted Baratheon player, Greyjoy would have been stopped by turn 5 or turn 6 the very latest. At which point Tyrell, Martell or Baratheon would have likely been a contender.

But for Greyjoy both Moat Cailin and Flint's Finger are impossible to hold, if Stark decides to advance while Greyjoy is busy reaping strongholds in the south. You need all your house cards to grab and hold the south. As Lannister it is in your best interest to make sure Stark keeps Greyjoy busy, and Baratheon focusses on the south, instead of turning against his "story ally" in the north. And if he does decide to take up residence in the North, Greyjoy needs to hope he leaves Cracklaw Point and Harrenhal alone. Because the cards it takes to actually conquer those two, will have seriously depleted your hand.

So I think, while Greyjoy is very aggressive and thus easy to play for beginners (much like Khorne in Chaos in the Old World), it takes a lot of skill to give him a fighting chance with more experienced opponents. Without some clever diplomacy Stark, Lannister, Tyrell and even Baratheon can easily keep you from grabbing an easy win.

Which, if we return to the original point of this thread (Lannister) just seems to confirm my original suspicion, that Lannister needs to be very diplomatic during the first few turns and make sure that everybody else at the table understands that they need to keep Greyjoy in check. If, for some reason, you have a gaming group that is very soft or light on diplomacy, this might be a bit of a challenge.



#31 cadleo

cadleo

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:50 AM

Joe Dizzy said:

But your original point was about a balanced game, wasn't it? And now it's about fidelity to its source.

Isn't that interesting?

It was about both. They are related.



#32 Cabello

Cabello

    Member

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 09:28 PM

 I have played this game a great number of times starting with the first printing and all of its expansions, and Joe hits the nail on the head. This game is very balanced, because it's all about diplomacy. If pressure is not being applied of a strong player, reguardless if they are stark, greyjoy, or anyone else for that matter, they can very easily win. This game is also about the spirit and feel of westeros which my group and I all find to be spot on. 

Getting back to the specific issue of "The Lannister Problem," its all about diplomacy get stark to get on them, or even baretheon and tyrell. untill of course lanister becomes too powerful, and then they are turned on by their allies, and so on and so on.



#33 cadleo

cadleo

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:03 AM

Diplomacy in A Game of Thrones 2e, 4 player game.

Turn 1:

Lannister: Hey, Baratheon, you know that Stark is the real threat, why dont you go ahead and attack him. While I can offer you nothing tangible, I assure you this is the best move you can make.

Baratheon: No thanks. Im going to go ahead and take over Dorne because no one can contest me. Good luck with the Starks. Winter is coming.

Lannister: Hey, Stark, you know the real threats are the Greyjoys and the Baratheons right? If you let Baratheon go unchecked he will take over Dorne, and the Greyjoys are surely going to turn on you one day. Best that you attack one or both of them now.

Stark: Well, it is tempting to wage a stalemate war with the Baratheons to keep them out of Dorne, but that really doesnt get me closer to winning and it makes me weaker against both you and the Greyjoys. And while the Greyjoys are close to me, I think the targets nearer you are more likely to be hit by them. Nah, I think I will just take all these uncontested northern provinces and then attack whoever is left. Good luck, and quit trying to kill my kids.

Lannister: Hey Greyjoy, you know you want to attack the Starks right? I mean, the North doesnt have nearly enough castle for you to win with and there are some easy kills right here next to my capital that I cant defend, but ya know, do me a solid and go North instead and leave yourself less defended to me. I swear I wont attack. A lannister always pays his debts after all.

Greyjoy: Shut up, *****. Ill be taking Seagard and Riverrun and if you have a problem with that I will give Cersei to the Drowned God after I give her to my dogs. We do not sow (or diplomasize).



#34 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:09 AM

LoL @ cadleo's response. top notch.

 

To the original poster:

My opinion is that there is no help for Lannister in 2nd Edition without reworking something. (this was to be the job of playtesting on FFG's part).

Assuming all players are good at the game and make logical or "proper" play decisions, Lannister is done for.

My suggestion would be to leave Lannister out completely unless you have a 6 player game. Use Tyrell instead.

 

To all the rest of you:

Any argument you have for Lannister to stop Greyjoy from raining on lannister's parade involves diplomacy and multiple houses "ganging up" on Greyjoy. This does not always happen.

I understand there is keeping to the lore of the game. But for those who do not read the books, this is dubious... at best.

In the end we are left with a situation that needs fixing.

I say we brainstorm some kind of solution. here is one i will offer:

I suggest a first turn consolidate for Lannister as an option. Take Harrenhal.  Build a footman and boat to support against greyjoy and I just hope a muster card doesnt come up turn 2.

 

To FFG:

This is not acceptible. properly playtest your games. please.

Please offer a addendum or fix for this. It's like playing chess with someone when all you have are pawns

There is nothing Lannister can do with units on board or cards in hand to take Greyjoy on 1 on 1. No other interraction like this occurs in the game. This is because of starting positions on the board AND the influence tracks.

Try:

Moving Greyjoy below Lannister on the fiefdoms track and no sword for them.

Having Lannister start with Riverrun.

Removing the support restrictions on fleets.

 

 

If i wanted a lopsided game, I would play Axis and Allies.

Speaking of lopsided, why is my board warped? Was it miscut?



#35 Joe Dizzy

Joe Dizzy

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:47 PM

cadleo said:

Diplomacy in A Game of Thrones 2e, 4 player game.

Turn 1:

(...)

I think you've nicely proven that poor play on Lannister's, Stark's and Greyjoy's part will lead to a bad game. If this is even remotely what you think diplomatic play by Lannister would be like, it's no wonder you think the game is broken.

Regardless, if for whatever reason your GoT games are lacking in diplomacy Lannister is effectively screwed. Be it because Lannister's player is utterly incompetent or because the other players won't engage the game on that level. Of all the houses in the game, Lannister is most dependent on working the table and working the players. You can't rely on pure numbers and optimal use of cards and orders and expect to win. In fact, nobody can - unless you're stuck with poor players. Your card hand will run out, and by that time you better hope you haven't stepped on anybody's toes too bad as they will steamroll you.

If your argument is, that the game should be balanced in such a way that diplomacy becomes a non-essential element of play, then you shouldn't play with Lannister in 4-player games. That's fine. But I think there is a legitimate point of view and enough actual experience with games which include a functional and competent play on the diplomatic level, that says that GoT isn't so much broken, as it is designed to give each house a unique play style.

As I mentioned, Greyjoy is the most straight-forward house to play. If you don't know anything about strategy games, you will still know how to play as Greyjoy by the third turn. Lannister is very dependent on alliances and cooperation, and if you lack the skill to cooperate or the players to cooperate with, Lannister will rarely stand a chance. Compare that to Stark who has to make sure that the game stays undecided until he's gathered up the strength needed to make his move and most of the time Greyjoy is the most ripe and easy to pluck fruit. (Which is also why Stark's reply in your little skit, is a complete failure on a comprehending Stark's strategy.) While Baratheon has to keep the rest of the table away from him, so he can invade the South. He can do that either through diplomacy, or through clever use of his fleet. In a way Baratheon is probably the most flexible of houses in a four-player game.

My point is that Lannister becomes increasingly interesting to play, the deeper your gameplay goes. If you don't care for diplomacy though, I can imagine there are numerous little screws you can turn, to lessen the discrepancy between Greyjoy's military prowess and Lannister's ability to respond. BTW, I could easily imagine a year or two from now a small expansion with a variant set of house cards.



#36 cadleo

cadleo

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 03:09 AM

jhagen said:

My suggestion would be to leave Lannister out completely unless you have a 6 player game. Use Tyrell instead.

This is not acceptible. properly playtest your games. please.

We thought about doing this, but it felt wrong not having the Lannisters in.

To their credit, FFG is an amazing company and this is the first of many games of theirs ive played that I ran into this problem. I am fairly confident they will fix this, but I would really like to hear any kind of official opinion on these concerns.



#37 abStractDeath

abStractDeath

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 06:00 PM

I just recently received this game and have only played a couple of times neither of which was Lannister so I could be missing something with what you're saying. What I don't understand is that with your testing it seems like you're assuming that a mustering card will come up and you can reinforce the units that you have moved out to take the three castles but if that doesn't happen you will have several castles all which are lightly defended and can easily be taken by a Lannister army. Lannister always start in a position where it is very easy for them to gain a higher supply rating which will allow for them to have stronger armies if they choose to defend and build armies then attack. Like I said I haven't played as the Lannisters although I plan to make it my next choice to test this out but I don't think they are as bad as you're claiming I just don't think they're being played to their strengths in your games.



#38 Akodostef

Akodostef

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:16 AM

zorzogoth said:

Maybe the following strategy might help.

 

You should leave Riverrun open for Greyjoy in the first round, since it's impossible to defend it if Greyjoy wants it. Instead go for Harrenhal. Move your 1 infantry and 1 cavalry into Stoney Sept. (has now 3 unit army) Then move two infantry from Stoney Sept into Harrenhal. Leave a cavalry in Stoney Sept for support.

Next round if a muster has happened :

you buy another infantry at Harrenhal and two infantry at Lannisport. The greyjoy will likely have bought a cavalry in Riverrun and units in Seaguard if he took that one.

If a bidding for the tracks occurs, try to remain high on the iron throne track, so you can attack before greyjoy does. Also Try to hold on to the Raven token for the special orders and hope for the greyjoy to loose the Valyrian sword.

Place a raid token on your boat to counter a raid or support on the Greyjoy boat, a support in Lannisport , a support +1 in Stoney Sept, a march +1 in Harrenhal.

You'll now be trying to attack Riverrun with Kevan Lannister. This will give 6 str for the 3 infantry, 1 from Kevan, 1 from your march order, 1 from your support in Stoney Sept and 2 from your Cavalry in Stoney sept. Also give a support to Lannisport for the two infantry units over there they add another 4 from Kevan. This will be an attack worth 15 .

Greyjoy can get 15 theoretically but this will be very difficult for him : 5 from units in Riverrun, 1 from the sword, 2 from defence (if he even has this or if it isn't raided by your boat) , 1 support from his boat (if not raided) , 1or 2 support from the infantry in the territory north of Riverrun, 4 being his highest card.

 

 

The dispatching of troops from Stony Sept, keeping a knight there for long-time support is a very clever idea, of which I had'nt thought of, so thank you for this one !

On the other hand, having Footmen (or anything else, by the way) in Lannisport isn't going to help a battle occurring in Riverrun, right ? or am I missing something ? And also, if the Greyjoy player sees that the Lannister has planned this tricky counterattack, a single Defense Order or a Raid to blast the Support order will make the counterattack impossible, wasting all the Lannister's orders for Turn 2 (after a Turn 1 all spent on preparing the Turn 2).

Regarding the overall discussion, I understand each side's points. My personnal view is that playing Lannister and knowing that on the first turn you can do nothing to counter your neighbour, and even getting promises of help from anyone on the board cannot change the fact that Greyjoy will, without any cost, possibly be mustering from 4 Cities and Strongholds on turn 2 while you will only be mustering from two (and these units will remain even if you get to make them retreat, while the units YOU didn't muster will not be generated ever, leaving you with a 1 turn delay over all your opponents), is a real balance issue.

And I am not taking the idea that the Greyjoy will be weakened after they lost their best House cards as a serious argument, since

a) it is the same for all Houses

b) they have 3 powerful cards which will make them win battles, and one (Aeron Damphair) that gets discarded either for a powerful strategic effect (getting to choose the right card for the right battle), or simply for a quicker recycling of the powerful cards effect

House Greyjoy starts with one more unit than its neighbours, more accessible areas, more accessible strongholds. It already was so in the First Edition of the game. The problem is that what was added in this 2nd edition, instead of a reajustment in favor of the Lannisters, is a set of Greyjoy cards which are MORE powerful than any of the previous ones... Balon Greyjoy himself means that your opponents must be prepared to face only defeats until they manage to mount an army which will have more than 3 Force more than the Greyjoy's ; which, considering that the Greyjoy will have more Strongholds than the Lannister, seems pretty impossible to achieve. 

And also, the Lannister player will want to keep a higher position on the Iron Throne track AND a good position on the King's Court's... while not being able to spend a single order to gain Power token, whilst the Greyjoy can gain at least one per turn through the Ship in Pyke's Port.

It is a bit too much to bear, I think, for an enjoyable game for a Lannister House player, diplomacy fun or not.

 



#39 Akodostef

Akodostef

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:35 AM

Oh, and also : the other House which got a better set of House cards in this 2nd Edition is... House Tyrell.

The Lannisters' other neighbour (which of course is pretty happy with a weakened neighbour focused on fighting on a different front, and can reach the Lannister's base camp in a few turns).

To people who argue that the Lannister need to make alliances to get a chance of winning : what prevents the Greyjoy and the Tyrell from reaching a much more profitable and obvious alliance on their own ?



#40 zorzogoth

zorzogoth

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 08:28 AM

Akodostef said:

The dispatching of troops from Stony Sept, keeping a knight there for long-time support is a very clever idea, of which I had'nt thought of, so thank you for this one !

On the other hand, having Footmen (or anything else, by the way) in Lannisport isn't going to help a battle occurring in Riverrun, right ? or am I missing something ? And also, if the Greyjoy player sees that the Lannister has planned this tricky counterattack, a single Defense Order or a Raid to blast the Support order will make the counterattack impossible, wasting all the Lannister's orders for Turn 2 (after a Turn 1 all spent on preparing the Turn 2).

Regarding the overall discussion, I understand each side's points. My personnal view is that playing Lannister and knowing that on the first turn you can do nothing to counter your neighbour, and even getting promises of help from anyone on the board cannot change the fact that Greyjoy will, without any cost, possibly be mustering from 4 Cities and Strongholds on turn 2 while you will only be mustering from two (and these units will remain even if you get to make them retreat, while the units YOU didn't muster will not be generated ever, leaving you with a 1 turn delay over all your opponents), is a real balance issue.

And I am not taking the idea that the Greyjoy will be weakened after they lost their best House cards as a serious argument, since

a) it is the same for all Houses

b) they have 3 powerful cards which will make them win battles, and one (Aeron Damphair) that gets discarded either for a powerful strategic effect (getting to choose the right card for the right battle), or simply for a quicker recycling of the powerful cards effect

House Greyjoy starts with one more unit than its neighbours, more accessible areas, more accessible strongholds. It already was so in the First Edition of the game. The problem is that what was added in this 2nd edition, instead of a reajustment in favor of the Lannisters, is a set of Greyjoy cards which are MORE powerful than any of the previous ones... Balon Greyjoy himself means that your opponents must be prepared to face only defeats until they manage to mount an army which will have more than 3 Force more than the Greyjoy's ; which, considering that the Greyjoy will have more Strongholds than the Lannister, seems pretty impossible to achieve. 

And also, the Lannister player will want to keep a higher position on the Iron Throne track AND a good position on the King's Court's... while not being able to spend a single order to gain Power token, whilst the Greyjoy can gain at least one per turn through the Ship in Pyke's Port.

It is a bit too much to bear, I think, for an enjoyable game for a Lannister House player, diplomacy fun or not.

 

You can protect the support from Stoney Sept with a raid order against the Greyjoy raid order (from your fleet at the Golden sound or from Lannisport). Or you can raid the defense order (although it will likely be nothing more then a +1). You can do all this if you have the Raven.

Keeping an infantry in Lannisport is useful if there isn't a mustering card. So you can place a mustering order there in the next round. Also this gives you extra defense supported again by the Stoney Sept horse.

Greyjoy could be mustering from four castles but will he have enough supply. And then he will become a threat for Moat Cailin (Stark) and be regarded as a threat by all players. This could be a good moment to make an alliance with Stark. 

In a first counterattack when playing Balon, Greyjoy can only reduce the one strenght on Kevan, but the latter will have a lot more strength from the infantry (including any supporting infantry). It all depends on the situation of course. Will Greyjoy fear an attack from Moat Cailin and put a defense order instead of a support order in Greywater watch. Will you be able to raid a support or defense order with your fleet and the Raven.

I'ld go for the Raven when a bidding occurs, since it gives you star orders which Greyjoy doesn't have. Then it depends if Greyjoy has used two power tokens to play Aeron , will he go for the sword rather then the raven... etc.

I agree that Balon is very strong. The most annoying about him is that you loose a house card without having had the chance to use it's strength.

Victarion is powerful on the sea and when supporting with his ships. You'll loose a fight against him. Greyjoy knows this and thus this can become a mind game in which Greyjoy wants to spare Victarion for later use (or use Aeron). So perhaps you could gamble on this one. (not the most sound strategy but if it works you could do some damage, or have your opponent burn two power tokens)

The rest of the house cards are decent but not super. Aeron is balanced by his cost to play.

An alliance between Tyrell and Greyjoy in which both attack you would be devastating indeed. But would Tyrell gain much from this ? There are more juicier targets in the south. And if they still do that Martel will be lurking over Tyrell land.

I think Lannister is very challenging to play, while the Greyjoy player has a more straight brutal path to victory early on. The way to victory is not paved for the Lannisters and requires diplomacy, strategy, tactics, bluff, insight and experience.

I'ld definitely not give Lannister to a new or timid player. Perhaps the problem lies with this. I'm thinking about giving an extra infantry to a Lannister player that is inexperienced and switching a horse with an infantry on Greyjoy's side if Greyjoy is more experienced.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS