Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a chance to pick up a kickstarter and was wondering if it was a good idea or not.
I really like the minis but was wondering how the game played. It looks like a basic old school warhammer.
Are there plans for expansion?
Would a non game of thrones fan find it entertaining?

My area is pretty hyped and playing often. (Phoenix, East Valley)

There are already expansions out for it, The Boltons, and Nightwatch are out, with the Wildings at the start of next years and more to be announced for 2019.

I think it's the best wargame like this since I played WHFB in 6th, (7&8 sucked) So Anyone should like this game.

Never played it but watched several gmg battle reports.


While it looks solid, this one IMO is mostly a card game disguised with minis.


I guess then if you take it as a 1v1 boardgame is pretty good.


I played whfb in 5th and 6th and soif does nothing to remind me of it TBH.

Really?
Cards play that big of a role in it?

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
Really?
Cards play that big of a role in it?

To clarify: there are cards which you draw and you use as sort of "stratagems". But what I meant is that to me it looks like a game that could have been made just with cards and a board with tiles.


Manouvering and shooting look risible, a grid would have been more than enough. The throne mechanic seems out of place in a miniature wargame and taken straight from a boardgame.

Individual models do not really have stats. The whole unit has stats and they degrade when it lose ranks.

It's clearly targeted at miniature wargamers but the core of this game doesn't feel very wargamey. Just my opinion though.

All in all it kinda reminds me of Mage Wars Arena, a game that looks like a card game but it is not in the end.

Seraf wrote:
Never played it but watched several gmg battle reports.


While it looks solid, this one IMO is mostly a card game disguised with minis.


I guess then if you take it as a 1v1 boardgame is pretty good.


I played whfb in 5th and 6th and soif does nothing to remind me of it TBH.

If you've just watched and not played and you think this is a card game, then you need to re-evaluate it.

The Tactics cards/board mostly replace mechanics such as magic in this world, the are far from the end all be all and the movement system imo is what matters in this game. The main difference between this and WHFB is alternating activations, which drastically changes the game, but holy cow positioning is so important, which why this game feels like WHFB.

If has flanking/rear bonuses, which give you armor modifiers to enemy saves, which is a rare ability, thus flanking and rear charges are really important to breaking units, instead of grinding it out.

I say ignore the cards, learnt o play without them and you'll see what I mean, it's a fantastic game. With a tactical card system instead of a magic system.

 Coyote81 wrote:


If you've just watched and not played and you think this is a card game, then you need to re-evaluate it.

The Tactics cards/board mostly replace mechanics such as magic in this world, the are far from the end all be all and the movement system imo is what matters in this game. The main difference between this and WHFB is alternating activations, which drastically changes the game, but holy cow positioning is so important, which why this game feels like WHFB.

If has flanking/rear bonuses, which give you armor modifiers to enemy saves, which is a rare ability, thus flanking and rear charges are really important to breaking units, instead of grinding it out.

I say ignore the cards, learnt o play without them and you'll see what I mean, it's a fantastic game. With a tactical card system instead of a magic system.

Yup just watched and never played. You sure are more reliable on the matter since you play.


What do you think of the throne mechanic? To me that one seems useless (like it adds neither fun neither tactical depth) and not so well implemented.

The throne is a KS optional rule and not implemented in a standard game. Unless your talking about the tactical board. There is actually a lot of depth to that imo, especially since it compete with your actions. and allows some interesting options since you have to take into account that people might be able to re-activate a unit or two, using that tactics board, so it's a bit of cat and mouse on moving units vs using tactics.

I recently got into it in a big way, picked up a KS pledge and a lot of other stuff.

Expansions are rolling out at a steady (albeit a bit slow) pace. Nights watch just released, Wildlings are out within the next month. The existing factions are getting more units too.

Its a fun quick game, it does have a "gamey" feel that some might not like if you are a strict wargame purist, but I enjoy it. Plus the minis are gorgeous.

Having a blast with it in Central California. It's doing pretty well here. Expansions have been confirmed through 2020. Pretty vibrant future we can hope.

I've gotten a lot more games in and at bigger point values, the game feels even more fleshed out and miniature tactics based.

I've heard that this game is very easy for boardgamers with no Wargames experience to get into. How true is that?

Not true.

Good to know. Thanks.

I could see it being a good starting point for board gamers.
The minis are preassembled and it seems like movement is a little more forgiving than say old school fantasy battles.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of Kings of War, that is to say I can see a lot of similar game design. However it does offer enough differences to stand on its own too feet. Namely alternative activations, and the tactic board.

The models while nice are a bit pricey, they may come assembled, with a movement tray, and rules, but it is only 13 infantry models.

I recently received the Freefolk starter set, and I have to say those are good value for money. I think one of the best ways to build up a bigger force may be to buy two starter sets for your faction of choice. It won't offer the full variety however.

It is a ni e game, and I hope CMON can keep up with the demand, it was hard to track down my set, and I have heard that people struggle to order unit boxes as they sell out very fast.

I don't know how the game can be called pricey. :-p A starter set gets you 80% of the way to a legal, normal tournament sized list, plus options of Commander, for $60-75. Additional units are complete and again often come with an attachment which can further change other units, for $25-30. It being so cheap has been a huge part of its success locally.

One of my FLGS just easily pulled twenty players for an event, so while it is far from 40k, it isn't an unplayed, unknown dud either. :-)

I play a lot of historical game, Fireforge Mongolian infantry roughly €25 for 24 models. That is why I view ASoIaF as being expensive. The core sets are as I mentioned great value, however they don't offer a lot of options. I play Freefolk, while Raiders are workable, Followers of Bone and Spearwives do a fair bit of heavy lifting in the faction.

Just because the starter set is cheap it doesn't mean that players are going to stick with the contents of the box for their force, what if I wanted to field a force where Trackers, and Cave Dwellers were the bulk of my force? It would soon add up as they are roughly €25 a box.

Yes, which is a perspective I understand, but historicals are famously cheap, and literally any miniature game compared to those is expensive. :-)

Also, there's a big discount scene for these minis. I've bought four or five different unit boxes for about $15 each over the last year or so.

Are they going to release the dragons as models? Or kings guard?

I get they would be OP in a game setting but id buy one just to have and paint...

 Argive wrote:
Are they going to release the dragons as models? Or kings guard?

I get they would be OP in a game setting but id buy one just to have and paint...

Kings Guard are already available, usable as one unit or individually. Super value rich in game terms for $24.

Dragons are confirmed and will be done in stages, IE newly hatched, young, and way down the road, full sized.

I see.
I had another look and they are part of 'Lannister Heroes II' box set.

I was expecting them to have a tri-ridge crested helmet design like in the show and similar armour.. That's disappointing.

Looking forward to the dragons.

anyone have a scale shot with an AOS fig?
some of these would make nice freeguild.

I played it once and the experience just made me very glad that I do not like ASOIAF.

Because if I did, goodbye money.

I hear good things about it, mainly why I'm in this thread looking for info.

For what its worth, I tend to broadly divide games into categories where I feel the designers intentions clearly allow one to do so... IE Frostgrave and This is Not a Test are clearly narrative games, intended to let two players craft personal cres through which fun stories get told...

To that end, among "competitive" games, I find ASoIaF to be my favorite after ten years in this hobby, and five years working as a designer. Its just a really good, clean, skill-based system that understands the line between interesting list building choices, tactical movement, etc... while stopping short of the kind of sometimes abrasive crunch of something like tournament war-machine.

Here a good player will almost always beat a bad player, but the gulf isn't such that it has to become a full-time job to be competitive.

Really excellent game so long as you know its intent which is to be a good, competitive face-off.

I only played it once but that rings completely true to me. The only thing I don’t like that much is the side/mini game of “politics” but I get how that is thematically important and it certainly adds another level of strategy.

 Manchu wrote:
I only played it once but that rings completely true to me. The only thing I don’t like that much is the side/mini game of “politics” but I get how that is thematically important and it certainly adds another level of strategy.

I'd argue it completely makes the game. You're often dueling over those finite, powerful resources with your opponent, and weighing order of operations, those versus the battlefield, all modified by the bonuses from tactics cards, makes really nice, tough choices that are THANKFULLY more than just mathhammer.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
For what its worth, I tend to broadly divide games into categories where I feel the designers intentions clearly allow one to do so... IE Frostgrave and This is Not a Test are clearly narrative games, intended to let two players craft personal cres through which fun stories get told...

To that end, among "competitive" games, I find ASoIaF to be my favorite after ten years in this hobby, and five years working as a designer. Its just a really good, clean, skill-based system that understands the line between interesting list building choices, tactical movement, etc... while stopping short of the kind of sometimes abrasive crunch of something like tournament war-machine.

Here a good player will almost always beat a bad player, but the gulf isn't such that it has to become a full-time job to be competitive.

Really excellent game so long as you know its intent which is to be a good, competitive face-off.

I strongly disagree, the game is good, however there are too many layers of special rules which get in the way of tactics, and can lead to a situation where the better player can be taken by surprise. A lot of the time I played it desends into 'my special rule trumps yours'. I honestly think that each objective does not need a unique rule, and terrain needs to lose a few special rules.

CMON, can't help themselves for adding these types of rules, they are almost as bad as GW for it. Games that adopt a Keep It Simple Stupid approach to the rules and interaction of said rules produce tighter game systems, where the game allows the better player to demonstrate their skill, and thus player interaction creates the complexity.

The core mechanics, are sound... the addition of NCU's really make the game shine. I just hope that CMON can keep up with demand for the game.