http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/20.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Second question for the many fans is what kind of game would you like to see? Right now I am playing a fan made 6 player Storm of Swords game by email. Its bascially the 4 player game with an expanded lower map for the Tyrell and Martell players. Its quite nice. I also like the fan-made 9 player game. Its a very roomy map and I wouldn't mind a new map because I have grown a bit bored on the original 6 player map after playing it at least 100 times I ran this post on the other board before the crash and someone suggested a 2 player game. I have suggested a few times to FFG that they could always released a new set of event/house cards to keep the game "fresh" or some new tactics/ally cards and leaders too. What are everyone's thoughts?]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/20292.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/20292.page GMT
The deterministic nature of combat makes the "correct" opening moves a matter of two or three optimal choices.

There must be another IP in need of some strategy loving...]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/20649.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/20649.page GMT
Summary: New maps would be all I might want.

Note: I don't read the books, so I have no interest in new thematics. In fact, I am against new characters and thematics because they might conflict with the way I see things in my own imagination. Not that anyone in FFG is going to care what I think ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/21241.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/21241.page GMT
At least I cannot get away from such feelings, after each expansion it starts anew.

Oh and if you havent read the books you certainly should, they are not just some crap but actually the best that is out there. Its not Elf and Dwarfs hardcore fantasy its something more serious, with which The Lord of the Rings, which is for lots of people some sort of revelation, can hardly compete

Go check some reviews in case you are interested, they will prove me right.
Just dont blame me, if you get addicted and devour the 4 books that are out like nothing

You will also yearn for theme after that as well ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/21324.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/21324.page GMT Oh and if you havent read the books you certainly should, they are not just some crap but actually the best that is out there. Its not Elf and Dwarfs hardcore fantasy its something more serious, with which The Lord of the Rings, which is for lots of people some sort of revelation, can hardly compete
[/quote]
I liked the game so much, I did go read the books. I got though the first, and after 100 pages of the second, I got sick of it.

Although I don't put Lord of the Rings on the plane of revelation, it is definitely a much better read.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22018.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22018.page GMT ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22022.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22022.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22311.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22311.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22331.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22331.page GMT
...or maps.

There are a lot of IP's that could provide a new and interesting map...Warhammer comes to mind. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22357.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/22357.page GMT ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/25572.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/25572.page GMT
At least I cannot get away from such feelings, after each expansion it starts anew. [/quote]

A whole year?

What a good problem to have

I just wish my order of AGoT and all the expansions would arrive. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/25685.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/25685.page GMT [/quote]

Well I do love Martin's ASoIaF series as much as I can state that it was the best for me in the last couple of years.
But I think Martin seems much more unique because he instead of following the ill tradition of many fantasy-authors fitfully rewriting Tolkien's LotR(Jordan for example), he draws a lot from Shakespeare, and the War of the Roses period.
I can strongly recommend you all to read Maurice Druon's Cursed Kings. It's a novel based on the events leading to the Hundred Years War, full of complex, interesting and living characters. I guess Martin was also inspired by the this fantastic series himself. Belive me, you'll like it.

You've found LotR black&white. Read it again and forget about the movies!



]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/25819.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/25819.page GMT
Here's what I propose. The expansion boardgame would make use of the ASOS board. As a minimum, the game should include new house and westeros decks, additional tactic and ally cards, and new starting locations and troop distributions. New leaders, additional troops, and more castles would be nice as well. Finally, some official rules about how to adapt ACOK expanison (seige engines and fortresses) while maintaining ASOS balance would be nice as well.

A new overlay making it possible to add a house, or territorial changes would be nice, but not necessary, since this game would be branded as a partial expansion. Since it is not a complete expansion, it should be resonably priced at $20-30.

While i am hungry for a significant addition to the series, I believe they could be met with the upcoming [i]A Dance with Dragons [/i]book theme in mind. For now, some tinkering with ASOS would hold me over until that time.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26235.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26235.page GMT
An example I have found is from an old game by TSR called A Line in the Sand (a game about Desert Storm). The actual game play was completely unlike AGoT, but it had a very interesting Diplomatic aspect that could seriously spice up AGoT if a variant were implemented by FFG. How it worked was at the beginning of the game each faction secretly drew one of three objectives at random (and each faction had their own three unique possible objectives). With six factions with three objectives each, there were 18 possible objectives that could be drawn. I am no math major so I will just say that I think the possible combinations of objectives likely numbers in the hundreds. Here are the objectives as posted in a thread at boardgamegeek:

[quote]US & Allies:
A. Iraq must be conquered at the end of the game.
B. All Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oilfields are controlled by Moderate Arabs, and Israel is within its original borders, at the end of the game.
C. Iraq holds no foreign territory, Iran holds no foreign territory other than Iraqi spaces, and U.S. forces hold four oilfields at the end of the game.

Iraq & Yemen:
A. Iraq conquers Kuwait (holding all sites) and has held it for at least the last three turns at the end of the game.
B. The Jihad Track has reached 10 anytime during the game, and 10 non-Muslim Land units (US, UK, FR, IS or UN) have been destroyed by the end of the game.
C. Iraq has control of 3 more oilfields than it started with at the end of the game.

Iran:
A. Iran captures and holds Baghdad and Basra at the end of the game.
B. Same as Iraq & Yemen (B).
C. the U.S. succeeds at its War Aim, and Iran holds a site in Iraq at the end of the game.


Israel:
A. Israel conquers Lebanon and Jordan at the end of the game.
B. Iraq and the Volatile Arabs control no territory outside their borders, and Israel retains its original borders, at the end of the game.
C. The U.S. succeeds at its War Aim, and Iraq and the Volatile Arabs control no additional territory at the end of the game.

Volatile Arabs:
A. Same as Iraq & Yemen (B).
B. Israel holds fewer spaces at the end of the game than they started with.
C. At least one more Moderate Arab country is converted to Volatile via revolution than the number of Volatile Arab countries converted to Moderate.

Moderate Arabs & Turkey:
A. the Moderate Arabs lose no territory, no original Moderate nations fall to revolutions (or are restored by the end of the game), and Iraq is either conquered or falls to revolution at the end of the game.
B. Same as Volatile (B).
C. Opposite of Volitile (C).[/quote]

As you can see, it is possible for one game to have the US, Israel, and Iran as diametrically opposed to each others' goals and the next game for all three to be direct allies! The brilliant part about this was that each nation's goal was secret. This leads to bluffs and backstabbing not unlike the Tyrells switching sides or the Red Wedding from the books. The last cool thing about this game was that it had diplomatic pouches that allowed you to send written notes to other nations in private. However, old messages went into a collective pouch that a successful espionage result would allow you to draw one old message out of the pouch. This would let you read the mail of your enemies (or yourself if you had bad luck on the draw). Imagine using the Raven token to draw from this pouch instead of replacing an order token.

All else being equal, I think the combat system in AGoT is perfect the way it is and I wouldn't change it. But you can only expand this so far by adding different decks or new units and that sort of thing. There is a point of diminishing returns by doing this repeatedly. What the game needs is a whole new aspect of the game that doesn't throw everything else on it's ear and THAT is what a robust political mechanic would add to the game. And it wouldn't have to alter the mechanics of anything else to add tremendously to what is already there.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26268.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26268.page GMT
We have heaps of politics in our games, it all builds up around alliances and truces.

We have mission-like objectives, for example, Baratheon decides take Stark's coast instead of swamping Tyrell or Lannister.

Random objectives arise out of your decisions - Baratheon needs supply, he can fight Lannister and Tyrell for supply or occupy Stark's coast or the areas around the Mountains of the Moon.

There are mini-missions throughout the game - Sea dominance between Baratheon/Stark and Lannister/Greyjoy/Stark/Tyrell...getting strong Power producing areas or enough Supply.

You'll make alliances to support those objectives...but your ally won't let you win and attack you once you've reaped too many benefits...or his less defended areas will be your last handful of cities that win you the game.

That's about as Machiavellian as you can get.

If you play it like chess and don't table-talk you'll miss out on the politics.

Set missions like "Greyjoy must take Riverrun by the fifth turn" would warp the natural negotiations.

There would be [i]less[/i] politics because someone could just say "Oh, he's not attacking you really he's just going for his mission" which isn't nearly as vindictive and doesn't warrant reprisals. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26273.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26273.page GMT
*SPOILER ALERT* (if you haven't read the books)

*SPOILER ALERT*

*SPOILER ALERT*

In the books, Lannister and Baratheon were fighting over King's Landing, and with it the Iron Throne over all of Westeros. The the Starks just wanted to go their separate way and be left alone. Tyrell actually helped Renly at first, and switched sides when he died to help Lannister win because they wanted to be on the side that won. [b]They weren't fighting for control of Westeros as the others were[/b].

Remember how when Ned Stark was the Hand he was trying to get Stannis put on the Iron Throne. When he died, Rob decided he was going to make his own kingdom in the north. A game could have both possible objectives, where others would only be able to deduce which goal they were pursuing.


**END SPOILER**
**END SPOILER**
**END SPOILER**

An objective for the Starks could be to maintain control over Riverrun while not losing any cities to the Greyjoys (that was the goal of Rob Stark). Or it could be to make sure Baratheon wins the Iron Throne back (which was Ned Stark's goal). Or maybe an objective could be that Stark wants Lannister to maintain control of King's Landing (a hypothetical scenario where Ned bent the knee after all...)

This whole mechanic would add a little more scenario-type flavor to a game where players' goals might coincide or contradict each other. You would have to feel out your neighbors to discover whether they might be friends or enemies based on [i]their[/i] secret objective. There would be a strong open meta-game coupled with a nefarious under the table, secret meta-game. Each player would have his own motivations for doing things, just like the books, and it wouldn't always be so straight forward.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the game as it currently is. But if they REALLY wanted to bring, frankly, the most important part of the books into the game, an actual diplomatic/political [i]mechanism[/i] should be included in the game. I just think this would add a strong new flavor to games without actually requiring completely new [i]board[/i] mechanics that require major re-balancing such as new units, new cards, etc. (which are really just tweaks anyway, they don't really transform the game)]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26293.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26293.page GMT
Make some house rules. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26307.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26307.page GMT
Make some house rules. [/quote]

Well for Pete's sake, I honestly don't mean any offense but you could also draw your own maps (which was your suggestion). Of course some of the ideas could be "done" at home but these sorts of things are better [i]implemented and fleshed out[/i] by professional game makers than something made with cardboard and crayons in the basement. I thought the point of this thread was to post what you [i]wish[/i] was [u]officially[/u] part of the game. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26314.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26314.page GMT ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26316.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26316.page GMT [/quote]



That's hilarious! Says the guy who dismisses other people's posts. I'll be sure to send you a copy of my crayon masterpiece once I complete it in my "troll cave." It will amaze you ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26366.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/26366.page GMT
I don't like the idea because of the currents on the board. If Stark gets one targeting down into Riverrun and the Twins, and Tyrell gets one targeting northward, then Baratheon has free reign to do what he pleases on a mostly deserted coast! The secret objectives could set up currents that favor or slam other players. It adds a random element to the game that I think would detract from the joy of playing.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/34858.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/34858.page GMT
Because when you snap someone in half, you really want them to get cranky about it.

Its not very AGoT to be exonerated of your crimes by serving some wishy washy objective.

Everything should be a power grab, a retribution for a broken alliance or a feint.

Nexus Ops is a good game for secret objectives on a risk-style map, very fun, but not AGoT. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/34874.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/34874.page GMT
Other than that, I would really want the story to go on so that the Free Cities and Danys' part of the story get involved in the game. [b]Dance of Dragons![/b]]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/45491.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/45491.page GMT I would just like to see orders that are non-military
[/quote]
Granted. They are called "Consolidate Power" orders. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/47930.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/47930.page GMT i really want a new AGOT style game, with much more space, possibilities, and much more complicated.
AGOT starts to be too crowded and a bit boring after 60-100 games and almost nothing is new or surprsing, especially when you play with the same guys most of the time]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/64964.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/64964.page GMT


Its not mine alone for sure, other experienced players have helped to create it as well of course ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/64974.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/64974.page GMT


Its not mine alone for sure, other experienced players have helped to create it as well of course [/quote]

Is there a map or rules I can peek at? ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/67807.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/67807.page GMT


Its not mine alone for sure, other experienced players have helped to create it as well of course [/quote]

I need someone to make a good scan of it so I can make myself a physical copy ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/77775.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/77775.page GMT

But actually the terrain backgrounds are still missing, maybe you wanna wait for that ?

Gotta contact Haggis someday, asking him if he can add it now that I think the map is stable and playable like it is.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/78124.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/78124.page GMT
I'll wait for terrain backgrounds as well, if it's possible to get a photoshop source file of it.

Any ETA on your final version (I haven't seen any changes to the map on the website yet, but guess your group hasn't finished playing all the Houses yet).
No pushing, just interested how things stand (I find it quite difficult to follow the game if I can't save the map/units. And print screen had too much limitations.)

I'm havin' a blast at my own 4 player PBEM-game though. Thanks a lot for the slot.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/79061.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/79061.page GMT
1st one I with Baratheon
2nd one I won with Tyrell
3rd one was won by Greyjoy, I had won with Lannister just one march order later.
4th one I won with Greyjoy as well.

Now in our 5th the thing is pretty much still open to be won by anyone in Turn 8.

As there might have started a abit of an imbalance towards Greyjoy, in this game Stark crushed and encircled the squids expeditional forces. He lost both leaders and 2 knights there, so he'll probably not win this game now, which reliefed me abit actually

What we still need is a Stark and a Martell win, Lannister at least came pretty close once and at the moment he has the most claim in this game as well, so in case we hit the end of Turn 10 he might win as well.

Stark decisively beat Greyjoy on the field, like I said, and I am advancing with Martell now as well, but Tyrell and Baratheon are strongly opposing me, the guys are certainly warned now, after the recent series of wins

I think the 6 player mod is surely playable and not that badly balanced.

What we changed was to add a crown to Honeyholt after the first game, because Tyrell was abit too short of crowns. Also adjusted some initial track positions and ally cards.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/79087.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/79087.page GMT

But actually the terrain backgrounds are still missing, maybe you wanna wait for that ?

Gotta contact Haggis someday, asking him if he can add it now that I think the map is stable and playable like it is.[/quote]


I will wait for Haggis to make it look all spiffy ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/79396.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/79396.page GMT [/quote]
[b]Done!

[/b]Files uploaded to boardgamegeek, or PM with your email for a direct copy (it's 15 megs though...)
See [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/335130]this thread[/url].]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/244657.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/244657.page GMT ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/246507.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/941/246507.page GMT