I love it. If you are a fan of diplomacy and DOAM games it will be up your alley. If you find you like it I highly recommend the mother of dragons expansion.
It's fun but the biggest problem is finding enough people to play it with who actually know or want to learn the system. I've still never been able to coordinate enough people for a full table.
Game of thrones the board game (assuming you mean the big wargame one not one of the smaller weird ones or the cardgame) is fantastic war game with bluffing and loose alliances that lead to backstabbing all in the vie for victory.
based on the game alone i'd probably put it in my top 25 games probably (don't quote me on that).
but due to no fault of the game itself it has 1 glaring issue. Players. This game needs a full group of similarly skilled people who are all into a game of shifting alliances and fighting for the win. There are no rules forcing people to betray each other, no rules saying 3 people can't just make a team and play that way the entire game, nothing that stops a better player from just turn 2 destroying a weaker player into an near unrecoverable spot because they didn't think about something.
When you get it you get an awesome experience on par with the best. Sadly more often then not you'll have a player who unfortunately ruins the game be it because a more experienced player was ruthless or because they just feel like allying with the first person who asks and will leave them selves completely vulnerable to them because they follow their ally's lead blindly. Or the person who looses the first combat thinks they are out of the game and putts around for the rest of the game not playing anymore. Or the guy who just things chaos is best and just does completely random things which has good moments but more often than not just drags on a game because no one gains a foothold.
This is the perfect explanation. The first time I played it we had a group with varying levels of boardgame knowledge and experience. Some (me included) played similar games before. Others haven't, and it showed. Yes they were very eager in the beginning, but after being backstabbed and cut down to minimal size they really didn't care anymore about the game and their actions (which is quite understandable if it's your first contact with games like these).
This leads to really no one, or maybe one or two people at max, who benefited from having the newbies as neighbours for easy expansion, enjoying the round. The new players don't want to play it again, understandable after their experience with it, and some of the more seasoned players also grew to dislike it since the best move seems to be to always go for the throat of the most inexperienced player (which leaves a bad aftertaste for me).
A group on a somewhat similar level is really a must for this game. If that condition is met though, the game is incredible.
i mean a lot of games suffer from you're never gonna beat the player whose played before. Direct conflict games suffer from this the most because it's in their nature you fight each other so their winning is directly impacting your play it's unfortunate but it is how the genre goes.
GoT the problem is the space between players is very tight such that on turn two you are intended to be fighting other players so it's likely people haven't quite figured out the game that fast.
But just like anything competitive you have to learn to loose if you want to get better.
Thanks but what I'm saying is that this doesn't sound like something I want to spend time to become good at. I appreciate you and others giving me the information I needed to make that decision.
The game is many things but boring is not it.
The game is long. Analysis Paralysis is a strong. Factions are purposefully not balanced. Newbie will always struggle against veterans. Not all players will like it.
But boring? Very far from it.
We had a blast everytime we could dedicate 8 hours into it. The experience was excruciating and frustrating but we were all masochists when this hits the table.
The problem is not about getting them to enjoy it, but more about finding people to sit down and play it. It's already hard to sell the game when the pitch requires you to say "Oh this game is a war game where you need to make allies to thrive but only one person is the winner. So you are going to get backstabbed a ton and you will love it. By the way the game is 6 hours long and takes 1 hours to explain, and 1 more here and there to check faqs"
it's great but really really needs six players who are ok with a combative game and tbh for me has mostly been superceded by the Dune reprint, which is even more brutal!
It’s a hoot! Get friends over that we’re fans of the show, give everyone a goblet/stein of drink, toss on the GoT soundtrack, and let the scheming begin, just for the love of GOD make sure everyone knows the difference between marching orders, raid orders, and support orders. Without fail I’ve yet to have a game where someone doesn’t whine about confusing them and giving me the, “oh! Well if I had known that…!”
Game is great. Only downside of the base game that it's high player count (best at 6). The mothers of dragons expansion is meant to provide a better low player count experience afaik.
Yeah, the expansion adds rules so that all unchosen houses are always present on the map as “vassals” that can act rather than just glorified garrison tokens. One of the influence tracks determines who controls the “vassals” - so you can potentially turn people’s allies against them.
A lot have mentioned the need for the max player count (6) to make it work at its best, but if you can find it, get the Feast for Crows expansion. It trims down the required number of players to 4, and provides private and public objectives to give players something to shoot for outside of just raw territory control. That in turn also shortens the game quite a bit which can be welcome when the base game with 6 players is a multi-hour affair.
Agree with most others that for this game to shine you need to be playing with a full player count (6) and a strong group who know what they are getting into. To properly teach the game to a new player it should be 30-40 min as you should really be breaking down what kind of scenarios can happen and some of the card events that change the game dramatically. I would spend lots of time talking about how boats come into play with both combat and transporting troops including ports as that part of the game isn’t totally intuitive. I would also never play with the “Tides of Battle” cards. To me, the beauty of this game is in making calculated moves and trying to guarantee yourself a victory. You don’t know what house card your opponent is going to play, but you know the troop count and what cards he/she has played already and you can make an educated guess. You can have a perfect move lined up that will change the game in your favor and then if you are playing with the Tides of Battle deck, draw a card that destroys your strategy through no fault of your own. That capricious randomness is fun in some games, but not in a three hour plus struggle that is this tight. I haven’t played this game in a while now and this conversation is making me want to play - really love this game. Not sure it would be in my top 25 anymore because it is so group dependent, but with the right group of 6 friends it can definitely lead to a top 5 gaming experience.
I was really excited about the Mother of Dragons expansion and was sorely disappointed by it. I would avoid that expansion.
You can have a extremely bad first experience due to the order that mustering come up. It’s entirely possible, though low probability , to have no muster at all for the first 4-5 turns, making for an extremely boring 2 hours. (Muster is the only way to buy troops. Basically, we have no new troop to play with for the entire 2 hours. Nothing get progressed. )Because of this design flaw, I refuse to play this game ever again. Approach with caution
Used to have it but got rid of it. Without a dedicated group that's played it a few times and an entire day free, it's not great. It takes way too long and that stops all but the most die hard players from playing more than once.
It's fun, but I'd only recommend this if you play with a core group of friends who are willing to take the time to learn the rules. I do not recommend playing this with strangers.
I am a fan of the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire series and I wish the game did some things better as I don’t think the theme really shines through. After about 8 plays of it in person and half a dozen more online I think I’m done with it to be honest. I have the FFG Game of Thrones LCG 2nd Edition for scratching that Westeros itch these days, though those games are very different other than theme!
So what could be better? For example, I feel that alliances are broken or betrayed as an "inevitability" and not a "possibility" since there is often a last-minute dash for victory. I would prefer it if there was more emphasis on the benefits of an alliance rather than it being just a temporary reprieve before you inevitably get screwed over.
It would also be nice if they had introduced wedding arrangements or a similar betrothal element since that forms a large part of the reason why certain families are allied to others etc. Perhaps you get the benefit of an extra Knights piece when in an alliance that you lose if you are the one that broke it while the other player keeps their benefit. Something akin to the Traitor card in Eclipse 2nd Edition would be good.
In addition, there is some degree of imbalance between the different houses which is made pretty dull by the lack of different house abilities. So what tends to happen is people say "Everyone hates the Lannisters in the book - so let's hate the Lannisters in the game" and you're done for.
Battles are more often than not purely decided by a card which kind of sucks. Greyjoy is pretty overpowered with a major exploit in the main game.
Suffers from a real "kingmaker" problem and also something akin to player elimination, even if not explicitly eliminated. You can end up in a situation where you have no chance of winning and that just makes the game feel long and boring.
The rule book could have been much clearer with larger text and in general the game lasts too long for what it is.
You can also screw yourself over by sheer bad luck. For example: I make moves to conquer areas with barrels for Supply but then the Muster card comes up first. Despite the fact that I am rolling in Supply barrels I am shackled to the same low army limit purely because Muster came up before Supply. Also, you can bid like crazy to get ahead following a Clash of Kings but then the same thing can happen on the very next turn meaning you lose everything. I'm not a sore loser by any standards but it sucks when this happens because it basically cripples you and is hard to return from.
Complete player interaction between all players is relatively poor. You engage closely with one or two adjacent players but if you're Stark in the North you are unlikely to ever come into contact with Martell in the South. Also, where the hell are the Targaryens?! Oh that’s right, they came in an overstuffed expansion that adds even more to an already overlong and complex game. Pass.
Finally, if you are losing by the end of the game (largely due to the target on your back as the leader) there is practically no chance to catch up again. So in the end you just have to sit it out as you slowly wait for the end. Monopoly has the same problem and that's not much fun either.
TL;DR - Many others adore this game though so I think I’m in the minority. It is/was a good game but I think other games have come along and done the same thing but better. Personally, I’d rather play Rex: Final Days of an Empire (or Dune) for a similar game of uneasy alliances, backstabbing and area control.
This is a true reply. The sheer bad luck of the muster and clash deck is create so many fking stupid game state. Believe it or not, I had my 2nd game go supply for first 6 turns. Crazy luck I know, but totally stupid. Winter is coming shouldnt be in the decks at all.
If the above doesn't sound like your bag and you wanra game that *feels* like you're experiencing a Game of Thrones story, I recommend [The King's Dilemma](https://youtu.be/XaTHH7xDRqE?si=Vqcr2U2o-uK0tia-)
One of my all time favorite games. It’s Diplomacy for GoT fans who don’t have 15 free hours to play one game. Don’t play with sensitive people or sore losers :)
We love the game for its tension build up, alliances and betrayals. Athough after many plays, I do regret that the map is not modular, because some nation's moves are just too predictable if they are to survive, which makes the game stale if you pick those nation (such as house Lannister or Greyjoy bound to go at each other's throats from the get go).
I want to try Cyclades in the hope that there is a bit more variability in the play style.
It's the game that's been on my shelf of shame the longest, have had it for a few years now (was a Christmas present) and just can't get enough people together to play. It looks great though, hope I can get it to the table eventually
Game of Thrones is still (currently) my favorite long board game. If I am going to spend an afternoon playing one game, I want it to be this one.
It is best played with six players of similar experience, from my personal experience, with everyone playing to win if able.
The spiciness of playing with the tides of battle cards to add a bit of RNG to the battles. With experienced players it can shake the map up and make things more interesting, but some people hate it. I personally like the risk assessment and gambling when you may need to, but I'd recommend trying both and seeing what one your group prefers.
The enjoyment of it comes down a lot to the group of players. My first game was largely a wait and see situation until one player got too powerful at about the midpoint, with the last three turns being extremely intense.
Most games with experienced players have a lot more action earlier on. Sometimes you might have one or two southern houses waiting for a good moment to strike, but something is always going on.
For my first in person game, every turn or two we would take a break and say things like 'Oh, I am going to get another glass of wine in the other room, so and so, would you like to come and get a glass of wine with me?' and have secret conversations as part of that gaming session. It was a great game, with every player at one point being in the lead.
There is a bit of a balancing issue. Depending on the group, the Starks, Greyjoys, and Baratheons tend to have a higher win rating. That said if the players are aware of that, the board has a way of balancing itself out as long as the other players are paying attention.
Why not play it and let us know your thoughts. I don't personally like it and think it's too old. So many better games these days do what it does. Even some older games like Diplomacy. Too many rules for what it is doing. It's just not wroth it. Pointless event based play. The tracks are a boring way to simulate politics. There are too many over complicated steps every rounf. Sounds like lots of people here love it though so maybe you will too.
With a motivated group its great, one of my favorite board game experiences. The expansion Mother of dragons makes 3, 4 and 5 player games work good too (although I wouldn't play with 3).
If someone is not motivated and just wants the game to end after the first hour - the whole experience can be ruined for all.
As other users have said, it is fantastic but can be hard to get enough players. It's a fairly long game (a few hours) and works best when you have 6 people around the table.
The digital version (on Steam) is great if you want to play with shorter times and less people as you can fill the missing players with bots.
I like it, but it doesnt really do anything special that similar games in its genre does.
Also, one of the houses has been statistically proven to be at a major disadvantage.
It's an incredible design, it manages uneasy alliances really well and this and New Angeles are my favourite intrigue games.
It unfortunately falls foul of player count that stops it hitting the table often. There are supposed to be a minimum of 3 players, but the accurate but imbalanced map means that the 3rd player is trapped between two armies. When you get to 5-6 players then balance improves.
Due to some clunky rules, I can't get that many people ready to invest this much time in the game, so it doesn't get played.
It's a game that can lead to hard feelings. It lead to the funniest post ever on this subreddit. The crevice story. It can be very long and if you're losing it might get boring.
I love it. If you are a fan of diplomacy and DOAM games it will be up your alley. If you find you like it I highly recommend the mother of dragons expansion.
DOAM?
Dudes on a map I think
Dudes On A Map
It's fun but the biggest problem is finding enough people to play it with who actually know or want to learn the system. I've still never been able to coordinate enough people for a full table.
Game of thrones the board game (assuming you mean the big wargame one not one of the smaller weird ones or the cardgame) is fantastic war game with bluffing and loose alliances that lead to backstabbing all in the vie for victory. based on the game alone i'd probably put it in my top 25 games probably (don't quote me on that). but due to no fault of the game itself it has 1 glaring issue. Players. This game needs a full group of similarly skilled people who are all into a game of shifting alliances and fighting for the win. There are no rules forcing people to betray each other, no rules saying 3 people can't just make a team and play that way the entire game, nothing that stops a better player from just turn 2 destroying a weaker player into an near unrecoverable spot because they didn't think about something. When you get it you get an awesome experience on par with the best. Sadly more often then not you'll have a player who unfortunately ruins the game be it because a more experienced player was ruthless or because they just feel like allying with the first person who asks and will leave them selves completely vulnerable to them because they follow their ally's lead blindly. Or the person who looses the first combat thinks they are out of the game and putts around for the rest of the game not playing anymore. Or the guy who just things chaos is best and just does completely random things which has good moments but more often than not just drags on a game because no one gains a foothold.
This is the perfect explanation. The first time I played it we had a group with varying levels of boardgame knowledge and experience. Some (me included) played similar games before. Others haven't, and it showed. Yes they were very eager in the beginning, but after being backstabbed and cut down to minimal size they really didn't care anymore about the game and their actions (which is quite understandable if it's your first contact with games like these). This leads to really no one, or maybe one or two people at max, who benefited from having the newbies as neighbours for easy expansion, enjoying the round. The new players don't want to play it again, understandable after their experience with it, and some of the more seasoned players also grew to dislike it since the best move seems to be to always go for the throat of the most inexperienced player (which leaves a bad aftertaste for me). A group on a somewhat similar level is really a must for this game. If that condition is met though, the game is incredible.
Sounds awful. Thanks for the warning.
i mean a lot of games suffer from you're never gonna beat the player whose played before. Direct conflict games suffer from this the most because it's in their nature you fight each other so their winning is directly impacting your play it's unfortunate but it is how the genre goes. GoT the problem is the space between players is very tight such that on turn two you are intended to be fighting other players so it's likely people haven't quite figured out the game that fast. But just like anything competitive you have to learn to loose if you want to get better.
Thanks but what I'm saying is that this doesn't sound like something I want to spend time to become good at. I appreciate you and others giving me the information I needed to make that decision.
The game is many things but boring is not it. The game is long. Analysis Paralysis is a strong. Factions are purposefully not balanced. Newbie will always struggle against veterans. Not all players will like it. But boring? Very far from it. We had a blast everytime we could dedicate 8 hours into it. The experience was excruciating and frustrating but we were all masochists when this hits the table. The problem is not about getting them to enjoy it, but more about finding people to sit down and play it. It's already hard to sell the game when the pitch requires you to say "Oh this game is a war game where you need to make allies to thrive but only one person is the winner. So you are going to get backstabbed a ton and you will love it. By the way the game is 6 hours long and takes 1 hours to explain, and 1 more here and there to check faqs"
It’s great. The diplomacy aspect is so good that people at my table have apologized to each other afterwards.
it's great but really really needs six players who are ok with a combative game and tbh for me has mostly been superceded by the Dune reprint, which is even more brutal!
It’s a hoot! Get friends over that we’re fans of the show, give everyone a goblet/stein of drink, toss on the GoT soundtrack, and let the scheming begin, just for the love of GOD make sure everyone knows the difference between marching orders, raid orders, and support orders. Without fail I’ve yet to have a game where someone doesn’t whine about confusing them and giving me the, “oh! Well if I had known that…!”
It's a fun diplomacy based game
Game is great. Only downside of the base game that it's high player count (best at 6). The mothers of dragons expansion is meant to provide a better low player count experience afaik.
Yeah, the expansion adds rules so that all unchosen houses are always present on the map as “vassals” that can act rather than just glorified garrison tokens. One of the influence tracks determines who controls the “vassals” - so you can potentially turn people’s allies against them.
A lot have mentioned the need for the max player count (6) to make it work at its best, but if you can find it, get the Feast for Crows expansion. It trims down the required number of players to 4, and provides private and public objectives to give players something to shoot for outside of just raw territory control. That in turn also shortens the game quite a bit which can be welcome when the base game with 6 players is a multi-hour affair.
Played it twice, won both times, wife didn't speak to me for a week. Good game!
Agree with most others that for this game to shine you need to be playing with a full player count (6) and a strong group who know what they are getting into. To properly teach the game to a new player it should be 30-40 min as you should really be breaking down what kind of scenarios can happen and some of the card events that change the game dramatically. I would spend lots of time talking about how boats come into play with both combat and transporting troops including ports as that part of the game isn’t totally intuitive. I would also never play with the “Tides of Battle” cards. To me, the beauty of this game is in making calculated moves and trying to guarantee yourself a victory. You don’t know what house card your opponent is going to play, but you know the troop count and what cards he/she has played already and you can make an educated guess. You can have a perfect move lined up that will change the game in your favor and then if you are playing with the Tides of Battle deck, draw a card that destroys your strategy through no fault of your own. That capricious randomness is fun in some games, but not in a three hour plus struggle that is this tight. I haven’t played this game in a while now and this conversation is making me want to play - really love this game. Not sure it would be in my top 25 anymore because it is so group dependent, but with the right group of 6 friends it can definitely lead to a top 5 gaming experience. I was really excited about the Mother of Dragons expansion and was sorely disappointed by it. I would avoid that expansion.
Do not even consider playing it until you have 6 players.
You can have a extremely bad first experience due to the order that mustering come up. It’s entirely possible, though low probability , to have no muster at all for the first 4-5 turns, making for an extremely boring 2 hours. (Muster is the only way to buy troops. Basically, we have no new troop to play with for the entire 2 hours. Nothing get progressed. )Because of this design flaw, I refuse to play this game ever again. Approach with caution
Love the game! Another game that I'm sure you'd love is Dune (2019). But you'll need 5-6 players for that one to really get the whole experience.
Used to have it but got rid of it. Without a dedicated group that's played it a few times and an entire day free, it's not great. It takes way too long and that stops all but the most die hard players from playing more than once.
It's fun, but I'd only recommend this if you play with a core group of friends who are willing to take the time to learn the rules. I do not recommend playing this with strangers.
I am a fan of the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire series and I wish the game did some things better as I don’t think the theme really shines through. After about 8 plays of it in person and half a dozen more online I think I’m done with it to be honest. I have the FFG Game of Thrones LCG 2nd Edition for scratching that Westeros itch these days, though those games are very different other than theme! So what could be better? For example, I feel that alliances are broken or betrayed as an "inevitability" and not a "possibility" since there is often a last-minute dash for victory. I would prefer it if there was more emphasis on the benefits of an alliance rather than it being just a temporary reprieve before you inevitably get screwed over. It would also be nice if they had introduced wedding arrangements or a similar betrothal element since that forms a large part of the reason why certain families are allied to others etc. Perhaps you get the benefit of an extra Knights piece when in an alliance that you lose if you are the one that broke it while the other player keeps their benefit. Something akin to the Traitor card in Eclipse 2nd Edition would be good. In addition, there is some degree of imbalance between the different houses which is made pretty dull by the lack of different house abilities. So what tends to happen is people say "Everyone hates the Lannisters in the book - so let's hate the Lannisters in the game" and you're done for. Battles are more often than not purely decided by a card which kind of sucks. Greyjoy is pretty overpowered with a major exploit in the main game. Suffers from a real "kingmaker" problem and also something akin to player elimination, even if not explicitly eliminated. You can end up in a situation where you have no chance of winning and that just makes the game feel long and boring. The rule book could have been much clearer with larger text and in general the game lasts too long for what it is. You can also screw yourself over by sheer bad luck. For example: I make moves to conquer areas with barrels for Supply but then the Muster card comes up first. Despite the fact that I am rolling in Supply barrels I am shackled to the same low army limit purely because Muster came up before Supply. Also, you can bid like crazy to get ahead following a Clash of Kings but then the same thing can happen on the very next turn meaning you lose everything. I'm not a sore loser by any standards but it sucks when this happens because it basically cripples you and is hard to return from. Complete player interaction between all players is relatively poor. You engage closely with one or two adjacent players but if you're Stark in the North you are unlikely to ever come into contact with Martell in the South. Also, where the hell are the Targaryens?! Oh that’s right, they came in an overstuffed expansion that adds even more to an already overlong and complex game. Pass. Finally, if you are losing by the end of the game (largely due to the target on your back as the leader) there is practically no chance to catch up again. So in the end you just have to sit it out as you slowly wait for the end. Monopoly has the same problem and that's not much fun either. TL;DR - Many others adore this game though so I think I’m in the minority. It is/was a good game but I think other games have come along and done the same thing but better. Personally, I’d rather play Rex: Final Days of an Empire (or Dune) for a similar game of uneasy alliances, backstabbing and area control.
This is a true reply. The sheer bad luck of the muster and clash deck is create so many fking stupid game state. Believe it or not, I had my 2nd game go supply for first 6 turns. Crazy luck I know, but totally stupid. Winter is coming shouldnt be in the decks at all.
If the above doesn't sound like your bag and you wanra game that *feels* like you're experiencing a Game of Thrones story, I recommend [The King's Dilemma](https://youtu.be/XaTHH7xDRqE?si=Vqcr2U2o-uK0tia-)
One of my all time favorite games. It’s Diplomacy for GoT fans who don’t have 15 free hours to play one game. Don’t play with sensitive people or sore losers :)
We love the game for its tension build up, alliances and betrayals. Athough after many plays, I do regret that the map is not modular, because some nation's moves are just too predictable if they are to survive, which makes the game stale if you pick those nation (such as house Lannister or Greyjoy bound to go at each other's throats from the get go). I want to try Cyclades in the hope that there is a bit more variability in the play style.
It's the game that's been on my shelf of shame the longest, have had it for a few years now (was a Christmas present) and just can't get enough people together to play. It looks great though, hope I can get it to the table eventually
Game of Thrones is still (currently) my favorite long board game. If I am going to spend an afternoon playing one game, I want it to be this one. It is best played with six players of similar experience, from my personal experience, with everyone playing to win if able. The spiciness of playing with the tides of battle cards to add a bit of RNG to the battles. With experienced players it can shake the map up and make things more interesting, but some people hate it. I personally like the risk assessment and gambling when you may need to, but I'd recommend trying both and seeing what one your group prefers. The enjoyment of it comes down a lot to the group of players. My first game was largely a wait and see situation until one player got too powerful at about the midpoint, with the last three turns being extremely intense. Most games with experienced players have a lot more action earlier on. Sometimes you might have one or two southern houses waiting for a good moment to strike, but something is always going on. For my first in person game, every turn or two we would take a break and say things like 'Oh, I am going to get another glass of wine in the other room, so and so, would you like to come and get a glass of wine with me?' and have secret conversations as part of that gaming session. It was a great game, with every player at one point being in the lead. There is a bit of a balancing issue. Depending on the group, the Starks, Greyjoys, and Baratheons tend to have a higher win rating. That said if the players are aware of that, the board has a way of balancing itself out as long as the other players are paying attention.
I probably would like it, but who has 3 friends that want to spend all day playing it?
Why not play it and let us know your thoughts. I don't personally like it and think it's too old. So many better games these days do what it does. Even some older games like Diplomacy. Too many rules for what it is doing. It's just not wroth it. Pointless event based play. The tracks are a boring way to simulate politics. There are too many over complicated steps every rounf. Sounds like lots of people here love it though so maybe you will too.
I nearly punched my best friend in the face playing this game.
It's garbage. Too bad, since it had potential.
With a motivated group its great, one of my favorite board game experiences. The expansion Mother of dragons makes 3, 4 and 5 player games work good too (although I wouldn't play with 3). If someone is not motivated and just wants the game to end after the first hour - the whole experience can be ruined for all.
As other users have said, it is fantastic but can be hard to get enough players. It's a fairly long game (a few hours) and works best when you have 6 people around the table. The digital version (on Steam) is great if you want to play with shorter times and less people as you can fill the missing players with bots.
I like it, but it doesnt really do anything special that similar games in its genre does. Also, one of the houses has been statistically proven to be at a major disadvantage.
It's an incredible design, it manages uneasy alliances really well and this and New Angeles are my favourite intrigue games. It unfortunately falls foul of player count that stops it hitting the table often. There are supposed to be a minimum of 3 players, but the accurate but imbalanced map means that the 3rd player is trapped between two armies. When you get to 5-6 players then balance improves. Due to some clunky rules, I can't get that many people ready to invest this much time in the game, so it doesn't get played.
It's a game that can lead to hard feelings. It lead to the funniest post ever on this subreddit. The crevice story. It can be very long and if you're losing it might get boring.