leaders with AGOT old board

Why is it that so many people don't like to play with Leaders on the old AGOT board? Is it because of their extra march command that makes them overpowered?

Yeah, its the main reason. That map is too cramped for those additional march orders they create.

Some minor reasons are that you have to use the tactic cards in order to have a mean available to rescue a captured leader. With Manage Troops you got additional effects on that tight map. Control Westeros may be considered overpowered with all those cities and strongholds around and its secondary effect to improve all bids. I dont like quite the Support Allies tactic card either

As you dont have any ally cards to obtain additional leaders, some houses will have an advantage over others, Greyjoys leaders for example are both raid triggered, while Starks for example are raid and CP triggered, which provides the full range of versatility. Baratheon for instance will never have a crown triggered leader either.

All in all I dont think the old board is made to deal with leaders and too many options can make the game a whole boring stalement. I have tried and seen various efforts but none actually made a fun game. It was either over in Turn 2, 3 or 4 when everyone else just got comfortable and setup someone already managed to dash through somewhere (6 cities is over really quick) or the game seemed to last forever with noone being able to break through somewhere and its all just trench warfare, hopping forth and back with your leaders (blessed you are if your leaders produce additional power outside of CPs

Supply is very limited on that board, now if you had supply you could form a bigger army to break a line somewhere, but additional supply is outside your reach, but you could reach it, if you'd just be allowed to form a bigger army

There is also no counter to Hold Territory on sea areas. It evens out with Control Westeros for cities and stronghold, but on the seas just Hold provides a general defense bonus. Its very unlikely that someone will give you his support so you may break up the seas, because that may result in a very quick victory of yours. Also a raid mostly prevents that anyways, and as leaders can get on ships to raid-trigger an attack before your opponent may remove support by a raid, this doesnt work either as it does for land-based battles.

So much to the flaws I see, there are some more but they dont cross my mind at the moment. Might find them again after a while

Wow... yes that IS a lot of flaws...

I'm currently working on compiling some houserules for adding leaders to the base map in a way that could be more balanced. I just playtested a version that worked out really well! I'll let you know how it goes...

well u can always just add a rule that you get your leader back from being a hostage if you take a city or stronghold from the owner of him so you can avoid tactics cards.

Ah thats abit too easy to my taste.

Ah thats abit too easy to my taste.

I was thinking of a few house rules for using leaders on the main game. My rules totally change how they work

1. The leaders are just considered units with a base strength of 1 and they don't count towards supply.
2.Leaders are no longer "triggerable"
3. If you lose a battle with a leader and the attacker deals a casualty he may choose to kill the leader instead.
4. if you lose a leader this way you also lose the corresponding house card.
5. Place the neutral leaders on their "home" cities(Littlefinger on the eyrie, Thoros on Harrenhal) and you gain them when you take those cities.
What do these house rules do? Well they make the leaders and how they work more "simpler" for the main game. They don't increase the amount of marches on an already crowded board. The thing I like about the 5/6 player game is knowing my opponite only has 2-3 marches. They add some moretheme to the game as well. Thoughts?

I quite like the first part of your rules, interesting idea.

Dont like the part that you can take over those leaders though.

Lets face it, that way Stark gets Littlefinger for free additionally because hardly anyone else will take the Eyrie. Where do you place Black Walder and Thoros of Myr ? They are the only other leaders that you can add. So some houses might have another leader, others wont. I dont like that.

Maybe just add them to the neutral strength, so Littlefinger garrisons the Eyrie in addition, so its even harder to wear them down, but with your leaders you got some additional strength coming anyways.

I like your adding of leaders simply for their base strength, but oh look at Tyrell, Mace has a strength of 0 when passive, in favor of being a 2 when triggered, so I think you gotta correct that as well and just say any leader token is worth 1 strength for any purpose, to even it out

There are just not enough neutral leaders to give them away as supplements. There either has to be one for each house or none at all.

We use a similar house rule but changed the trigger to ONLY when that leader's corresponding house card is played. This way, you can get a rare extra march but not every single turn. It give the leaders some good power but not every single turn. In fact, probably once or maybe twice a game.

Maybe you could also give every leader either a sword or a powertoken symbol (One of each for every House). Only useful/activated when in a march.
That might stimulate players to risk their leaders in marches (like in ASOS), as opposed to just to bolster support (Of course, this might make the choice between choosing a knight or a leader casualty even easier).
And as there are less uses for power in the AGOT-version, the powertoken symbol might be unbalanced, though.

do you play that the winner of a battle decides whether its the knight or footman as a a casualty? i thought that the loser decides and gets to pick a footman and the winner only gets to pick leader or not.

He is not talking about deciding whether to kill a footman or knight.

What I read is a decision to either take a leader hostage or deal a casualty (on a knight-only army).

Yes. The example I stated deals with a Knight only army. Should have put that info in. I figured the choice between a footman or a leader would be simple in the Bighab's leader-in-AGOT proposal.
Sorry for the confusion.

Umbratus wrote:I quite like the first part of your rules, interesting idea.

Dont like the part that you can take over those leaders though.

Lets face it, that way Stark gets Littlefinger for free additionally because hardly anyone else will take the Eyrie. Where do you place Black Walder and Thoros of Myr ? They are the only other leaders that you can add. So some houses might have another leader, others wont. I dont like that.

Maybe just add them to the neutral strength, so Littlefinger garrisons the Eyrie in addition, so its even harder to wear them down, but with your leaders you got some additional strength coming anyways.

I like your adding of leaders simply for their base strength, but oh look at Tyrell, Mace has a strength of 0 when passive, in favor of being a 2 when triggered, so I think you gotta correct that as well and just say any leader token is worth 1 strength for any purpose, to even it out

There are just not enough neutral leaders to give them away as supplements. There either has to be one for each house or none at all.

I stated putting Thoros on harrenhal and maybe add a neutral force(3 strength) there as well. I'd put Black Walder on riverrun with a neutral force of say 3 too. Maybe we could create 3 more leaders and place them on the board so each house has the ability to grab one?
As I said earlier ALL the leaders in the game would have a base strength of 1.
I also agree that the attacker shouldn't be able to choose the casulty so I am wrong there but maybe say if all the units are killed the leader cannot retreat? Or just leave it as is and make it hard for someone to take a leader but not impossible.

we play that the defender picks which gets sworded so always picks a footman over the knight, is it the attackers choice when no leaders are involved?

dukehockey wrote:
we play that the defender picks which gets sworded so always picks a footman over the knight, is it the attackers choice when no leaders are involved?

No. The loser of each battle chooses which units to take as casualties.

well i played with leaders and there trigger attacks in a 5 player game yesterday and i think i like it better then without them. no tactics cards and u can negotiate the leaders back or take a stronghold to get them back.

i also made leaders for the 9 player game but i fear that it would take 30 hours to play, so still debating that.

We played a game where a leader ONLY triggers if you use his corresponding house card in battle. Also, they don't get extra marches. It was fun and thematic.

No tactics cards... Only 1 leader's combat bonus can be added per army so you might want to split them up (or not...)