My own self

There's no truth in the pleads of the damned.

- Liliana Vess, Planeswalker.

On the suggestion of Obdormio, I decided to write a short review of this game, technically an expansion to the original A Game of Thrones-game.


The original is probably my favourite boardgame of all time (which is saying a lot, because I play relatively many), based, as the title suggests, on the first book of George R. R. Martin's amazing fantasy-series A Song of Ice and Fire. A warning, by the way - while GoT is set during the first book and barely spoils the first half of it, and little else, SoS is set far later and spoils much of the first book and maybe parts of the second. If you are planning to read these books but haven't, GoT is a rather safe pasttime-pursuit, but SoS probably isn't.


While the original is primarily intended for five players - and a subsequent expansion-set let you play with six - Storm of Swords gives you a new board and several new rules tailor-made to transplant the gaming-system of the original to a game for four players. (I will for purposes of this post assume that the reader has at least a superficial degree of experience with the original game)

I've only yet played one game with it, and feel hesitant to be too adamant in my opinions, but so far I'd say it does a damned good job at it.


SoS introduces a lot of new tactical elements, primarily Leaders, two for each of the houses of nobility fighting for supremacy, that give you several new options especially relating to movements; and tactic-cards, which adds one major all-spanning tactic to the concrete orders you place every turn. I was sceptical to the latter, but it worked surprisingly well. Both of these options are available as possible add-ons to the original game as well, but I do believe it would make the game imbalanced and boringly slow if that was done. The one exception, here, might be for three-player-games on the original board, where I've tried out Leaders with what I think could only be described as great success, and am also strongly suspecting would favour an inclusion of the Tactics-cards.

SoS also introduces Allies, an option that is quite interesting indeed and sadly not transposable to the original game. Three powerful non-player houses of nobility as well as Merceneries and Outlaws add their influence to your civil war, and you as the player are always stuck between wanting to spend your resources improving your OWN position, and spending resources to win favour with the different fractions of non-player parties. In our game, interestingly, the second-place player (me, playing Baratheon) basically owed his entire position to his allied aides, while the first-place player (playing Greyjoy) managed completely without them whatsoever. This fact alone has me convinced that this is an excellent addition to the game adding many levels of strategy and choices neeed without really increasing the amount of boring silent sit-to-yourself-and-think-time mentionably.

Another thing SoS does is increase the importance of the three oversized tokens. On the smaller board, the order of play seems more pressingly vital than on the original one, and skimping out on the Iron Throne-bid is thus less easy a choice than before. Additionally, there is a second bidding-phase that sometimes occur, replacing the wildlings, and in some ways being able to break ties in this bid might seem at least somewhat more powerful than in the wildlings-bid of the original game. The Iron Throne-bid is thus adjusted in power and is more on the level of the other two. Additionally, as mentioned, the three tokens are more powerful, as the new Westeros-decks to be used with the SoS-board allow the holders of the tokens to influence the events of the game. This particular element is also useable with the original game, but I'm unsure if it will work as well there - it seems less appealing to increase the value of the first position compared to the second and the third in a five- or six-player game, as where in a four- or three-player game it adds dynamic it would instead simply overpower the leader on each track in the original one. Still, by the same logic, it could be interesting to try out with a three-player-game on the original board.

The floods, allowing some borders (rivers) to be crossed at some points and not at others, is another clever addition to the more crowded four-player board that allows for the nice mixture of planning, odds-calculating and hints of unpredictable luck that this series of games is so incredibly good at. You're never in control of everything, but you always know what you're not in control of and you always have options to act accordingly to minimise or maximise the influence luck will have on your play. It is, to my dice-hating-heart, ingenious.

Of other elements introduced by SoS is the wildlings-deck, to be used as an optional part of the original game to vary wildling-attack-outcomes if wished. I haven't tried this option out, but I suppose it might have its qualities. I instinctively feel uncertain about something adding more random chance to the game, however. Also included is a new set of House Cards, compulsory for use with SoS but optional instead of the old set(s) with the original game. More powerful than the original but less so than the one from the previous expansion, this new set is custom-made to balance out the added element of power the Leaders bring to the game.




All in all, I greatly enjoyed the game, and I find it had adapted the basic gameplay of the original game onto a new board for a lower amount of players absolutely superbly. Highly recommended for anybody who's tried out the original but often can't get together more than three or four players. (Obviously, this is an expansion, and you need the original game to make use of it, as it doesn't include all the pieces you'd otherwise need. Feel like that should be specified in such a post)

Today I spent 100 kroner on a cinema-ticket, 420 on "Battlestar Galactica"-DVDs (the miniseries and seasons 1-2), 160 on the complete "Fawlty Towers"-series and 200 on "Scrubs"'s fourth season. And yesterday I spent 200 on an impulse-buy of some cardgame I fancied in passing just to celebrate being done with this term's exams and 50 on a baguette 'cause I couldn't be bothered with making dinner before the evening.


Sigh.



(wheee! pretty DVDs!)

Or, in English, "Battle". In my "book-project", though it is an insult to book-projects to call it so, I today had to have two characters play a strategic board-game. While the world the plot takes place in resembles ours closely, culture- and technology-wise, I felt having chess or backgammon there would be pushing it. So I invented some names and pieces on the spot.

Then I made a mistake. I showed this latest addition to the text to Obdormio. Who, by his nature, of course insisted upon a comprehensive guide on how to play the damned thing.


So, here I am. This is still just in the "random ideas"-stage, and it will probably never get any further than that, but hey, I put some work into it, so here you go:



The green line is the Castle Wall of the Green House, the grey one is the Castle Wall of the Shadow House. The blue lines on the sides mark off the Astral Plane, where only the Magicians move. They may move elsewhere - and, to take out other pieces, they usually have to - but are far less powerful outside it ny nature of being more vulnerable.

The purple squares are the High Seat of each of the two houses. The red square is the Throne of the Realm, and the yellow squares symbolize the Royal Court. Most pieces gain some kind of bonus ability when standing in the Court, for example, if your King-piece is on the Throne of the Realm and there are no enemy pieces on the yellow squares, you may promote any one of your peasant-pieces standing on a yellow square to a Knight. (Provided you have no more than one Knight already, there cannot be more than two on each side at the same time) Likewise, if a Knight reach the Throne and you have no King in play, the Knight becomes a King.

Now, how do you win? Well, there are, at this planning-stage, several ways, divided into three categories:

In all scenarios:
1. By placing a Magician-piece on the Royal Throne without any enemy Magician-pieces being placed on the corresponding Astral-squares.
2. By the other player yielding, signified by tipping over (one of) his or her highest ranking remaining officer-piece.

If neither side has a King-piece in play:
3. By having a Knight or Field Marshal-piece in your opponents High Seat-square whilst having no enemy pieces on the Royal Throne or your own High Seat.
4. By taking out all the enemy's officer-pieces and retaining at least three officer-pieces yourself.
5. By placing a High Priest-piece on the Royal Throne without any enemy Magician-pieces being placed on the corresponding Astral-squares.

If only your side has a King-piece in play:
6. By having your King-piece in your High Seat-square without any opponent pieces threatening him.

If both sides has a King-piece in play:
7. By having your King-piece in your opponent's High Seat-square without the opponent being able to remove it in one move.
8. By having your King-piece, non-threatened, on the Royal Throne, while no other piece (including your own) occupy any High Seat or Court-square.
9. Only if you in addition to the King-piece have two Knights in play and placed on squares behind your Castle Wall: By having your King-piece in your High Seat-square without any opponent pieces threatening him while no enemy piece is on the Royal Throne or in Court.



I know. I over-complicate. I always do. It's a character-flaw.

Just wait 'til you see the rest of the rules. (That is, until I bother to imagine them with enough clarity to write them down)


Edit:

Okay, I've made (tentative) rules for the pieces.

Pieces you start play with, from lowest to highest rank:

6 peasants
3 archers
2 siege engines
2 chariots
2 knights
2 magicians
1 field marshal & 1 high priest

Throughout play you may also acquire the following pieces:

1 knight templar, of equal rank with magicians
1 king, highest rank


Peasants: Move and strike like pawns in chess, but cannot move two squares on their first move. When standing on their own Castle Wall they can strike forwards as well as diagonally forwards. When on the enemy Castle Wall, they may strike horizontally as well as diagonally forwards. They cannot enter the Royal Throne-square.
When a peasant is situated behind the enemy Castle Wall its owner may choose to spend a move removing the peasant, and adding a new peasant on any of his or her own free Castle Wall-squares (bar, of course, the two Astral-squares)
When a peasant is situated on a Court-square and its owner's King-piece is standing on the Royal Throne, if there is no enemy units on any of the Court-squares adjacent to the one the peasant is standing on, a move may be spent to exchange the peasant for a Knight.

The officer pieces:

Archers: Move like peasants, but with the following changes: They may enter the Royal Throne-square. May always strike forwards as well as diagonally forwards. May move backwards as well as forwards, but cannot strike backwards. When on own Castle Wall they can strike any directly opposing Siege Engine within firing distance if there are no pieces between them.
May, under the same circumstances as the peasant-knight-exchange described above, be exchanged for a Siege Engine or Chariot, by choice of its owner.

Siege Engines: Moves one square in any direction, save to the three behind it. Cannot strike pieces that aren't placed either on the enemy Castle Wall or in Court. Does not move to the square it strikes pieces in, but spends a move striking them without moving the siege engine itself. Is within "firing distance" when there are between two and no free squares between it and an enemy piece situated on a Castle Wall or in Court. (Though they may not move backwards, this opens for them being able to, in some rare instances, strike backwards, on ones own wall or on the Court.)
No player may have more than two Siege Engines in play at the same time.

Chariots: Exactly like Rooks in chess, but cannot enter any enemy Castle Wall-squares. No player may have more than two Chariots in play at the same time.

Knights: Move and strike like Bishops in chess. When a Knight is moved into the Royal Throne, if its owner has no King in play, it is exchanged for a King-piece. When located on a square next to a High Priest or King-piece, Knights may move - not strike - one square forward, sideways or backward, as long as the square they move to is directly next to the High Priest or King as well, effectively changing the diagonals they may move on.
When the same conditions as for the peasant-knight-exchange are in place, only with a Knight instead of a Peasant and a High Priest instead of a King, a Knight may be exchanged for a Knight Templar-piece.
No player may have more than three Knights or two Knights and a Knight Templar in play at the same time.

Magicians: Move and strike like Knights in chess, but when on the Astral-squares may also move (not strike) one square forward or backward. Able to move on the Astral-squares. If both a players magicians are situated on exactly opposing Astral-squares while the opponent High Priest is on a square between them, a move may be spent to strike the High Priest.

Knight Templar: Move and strike like both Bishops and Knights in chess. You cannot have more than one Knight Templar in play at the same time. Knight Templars may move onto the Astral plane but only to strike a magician or high priest-piece.

Field Marshal: Move and strike like the Queen in chess.

High Priest: Move and strike like the King in chess, only up-to-two squares instead of being limited to just one. May, however, not jump over pieces. Are able to move on the Astral-squares, and able to strike magicians on it. Cannot strike officer-pieces except for Kings and Magicians.

King: Move and strike like the King in chess, but without restrictions - you may for instance move the King into a square where it may be struck.
If, at any time, all the Court-squares are filled with peasants and/or archers, regardless of sides, all Kings are immediately removed from the game.
You cannot have more than one King-piece in play at the same time.




A concern I'm having is that there'll be too few peasants. A variant rule may be to add four Village-squares, like so:

and say that whenever a peasant is located on a village, a player may skip his move to place an additional peasant on any free non-Astral square of his Castle Wall - the limit of peasants for each player being eight.

Mr. Rosewater reference "Buffy" again.

The page is somewhat untrustworthy, available one second and unavailable the next, but I suggest everybody who likes Monty Python and has the barest clue as to what "Magic The Gathering" is checks this out.

Huh, I've been reading his weekly column for years, and suddenly it has Whedon-referances several times in a row! This time, he clearly states his fan-status and brings up the character of Fred.


Edit: Hush, cool, www.tv.com tells me that the sitcom Rosewater wrote episodes for is also the sitcom where Whedon started his television-career. Maybe they know each other? Anyway, this fan-status and similar humour-past might explain why I've always thought of Rosewater's writing-style as slightly whedony.

We re-learned this card-game that my dad and, especially, the generation before him (in other words his uncle and mother and their crowd) claims to have played a lot today, "Raudskjegg", or in English, "Redbeard".

It was heaps and heaps of fun, despite me coming out second-to-last.


EDIT: The rules have been added in a comment to this post.

All hail.



I was at work today. For a little over nine hours. So I'm rather tired. But we won't go into that here seeing as that would be a very blog-like thing to do. And, as previously stated, this is not a blog-like thing. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. Yes. You guessed it.


It is a non-blog-like thing masquerading as a blog-like thing claiming to be a non-blog-like thing.


Confused yet? If not, don't worry, we're just on day two, you'll get there with the rest of us eventually.





Well now. More Game of Thrones today, my brother possibly felt bad for yesterday and arranged a game, and due to some very, very, very clumsy mistakes (one where I somehow ended up thinking 1+3 was equal in total to 2+3, and one where I simply forgot to execute my carefully laid out plan) on my part, my brother once again won. Not that he didn't deserve it, he showed great ability with his calculations. I think I managed a poor third. (We were five players, three of them newbies...)


To quote the Governator, I will be back.

No, not in the perverted way. I'm simply trying to make a pun, seeing as I'm somewhat annoyed that my brother's friends chose today of all days to ask if he (and myself) wanted to play a round of board-games. Good board-games, like "A Game of Thrones" which we probably will play tonight - usually take time. And tomorrow is the only day during the entire vacation where I have to get to work at nine in the morning.

Conclusion? Faith's a bitch. (No offense intended towards all the Dushku-lovers out there)



I'll probably get only five hours of sleep tonight. Way too little, of course, and it still won't let me stay up as long as I would had tomorrow been almost any other day of the year.





Anywho. Having ranted somewhat about this blasted conundrum, I'll go over to less blog-like-things, to keep in style with the non-blogyness that hopefully encompasses this, er, blog.

SNOW.

It's white, it's cold, and it's damn dangerous when placed in the wrong spots or appears in the wrong amount, but darn it, it's nice. There's snow outside now. Has been for some time. Still far less than it would have been on the twenty-eight of December ten years ago, but that's global warming for ya. Hopefully this will invoke the wrath of Ymir upon humanity and smite them all asunder. (I do like Knox and count myself out for purposes of health. Of course, he died right afterwards...)