zorzogoth said:

The Lannisters should not have to go to such lengths to simply be a playable faction. FFG screwed up and made the Greyjoys way too powerful and the Lannisters way too weak. Look at the Jaime Lannister card, 2 Strength and 1 Sword. What a joke. Is that supposed to be his stats with only 1 hand? Serious lack of playtesting for this one.

I agree that I would have liked to see more flavour on the Lannister house cards.

I don't think it's impossible for the Lannisters to do well, and they are certainly not weaker then Greyjoys although I think they are possibly one of the hardest to win with. They start with the Raven token while Greyjoy can't even use a star order in a 6 player game. They also start high on the iron throne track. They have a very good supporting area being Stony sept. 

Also there are very good Lannister cards :

* Kevan Lannister : boosts infantry 

* Gregor Clegane : three swords

Not fantastic, but ok :

* Tyrion : situational but it can be good

* Tywin : extra power tokens are ok but a little bit boring

* The hound : two towers are ok

* Jaime : only one sword is a little boring for him

bad :

* Cersei : very situational

I played two 5player games as Lannister recently. In the first one I succesfully took Riverrun, Harrenhall and Blackwater then expanded into searoad marches. But Tyrell was too quick to conquer 7 cities, since Baratheon was an inexperienced player. My strategy in this game was to talk Greyjoy into a war with the Starks. Both fought hard against each other and Winterfell switched sides two times, leaving both very weakened. I hesitated to go south, because I was preying upon the north and preparing myself to crush the weakened Greyjoys and Starks.

The second game I again took Harrenhall ,Riverrun and Blackwater, supported by the Stony Sept. My navy was just about to make a crushing attack against the Greyjoy navy, before Tyrell conquered 7 cities again due to Baratheon playing bad (also a new player)

There was another game by another group that evening in which I saw the Lannisters crush the Greyjoys and march north. Greyjoy got obliterated by the Lannisters and an opportunistic Stark. Since it was already late they stopped the game prematurely.

That's three games in which Greyjoy did poorer than the Lannisters.

zorzogoth 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.

 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?

Orctavius said:

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.

Joe Dizzy said:

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.

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.

Joe Dizzy said:

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?

Joe Dizzy said:

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 bitch 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 ;)

cadleo said:

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:

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:

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.

cadleo 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.

cadleo said:

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:

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:

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:

cadleo said:

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:

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.

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.

Joe Dizzy said:

It was about both. They are related.