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.

Not quite sure where to post this as it will be a combination of the ideas and inspired by the formats of warhammer and lotr game play, but here is goes...

I would like to/ have set out in a creating a uniform set of rules for a Game of Thrones based miniatures game. This would be a quality pdf file so it can easily be shared yet house stat lines and rules, illustrated to give it the authentic feel it deserves. Looking up what wargamers have used for rules turns up battle boards and other really poor efforts that don't possess the flow of game play that could catch on with a greater crowd.

Anyway my point in posting this is to collaborate with other table top wargamers and look upon the ideas you may have in my effort to put this together special rules, gameplay, etc.
Because it is such a character driven story, the game would reflect this. Whilst there would be troops for each faction, the characters are going to be the central component much like the LOTR SBG.

So post any thoughts you way have as I work to put this together and post it in the upcoming weeks.

Would this be faction only, or would there be more "special characters" (ie, the Mountain, the Hound, etc)

I do think it'd be cool to be able to take this to a "logical" wargame conclusion and have a "Stark army" fighting an army of Unsullied

Also, more info on where in the GoT timeline you want this to take place... Is this during a time when Targaryens still ride dragons? Is it somewhere towards the end of our "current" time, and as such Dany has Dragons, but can't ride them yet?

Total War franchise

The problem, I think, is that Game of Thrones has fights, but they're rarely the focus or turning point of the narrative. Robb Stark was a great general, after all. A game of just miniatures fighting it out in abstract battles would only really have the aesthetics, and not the mood or tone (and the aesthetics are not the strong point). It's a bit like how the various Star Wars wargames have at times been pretty good games, but never very Star Wars beyond the imagery.

It would be factions to separate them as they are all races of men, but special characters would be a massive component. Think along the lines how GW did the LOTR SBG (the original not that bs war of the ring junk) minus the whole good vs evil thing as this story is far more complex than that.
The setting would be the books/show era (song of fire and ice era if you will) as it is most identifiable and possesses the widest range of front line named characters (khal drogo, the mountain, rob stark, etc).

I'm writing some GoT rules myself based off the LOTR SBG, and have found it's best not to do them by house but rather by which of the seven kingdoms they come from, as it gives you the option of fielding many smaller houses as well as different states of play between those kingdoms during different points in the narrative (for instance a force of the North and the Riverlands could be Starks and Tullys, or equally Boltons and Freys, depending on when in the story you want to play).

Yea exactly what I had in mind, and I agree with using the lotr sbg as a base template. I find the combat system a lot less complicated than that of warhammer fantasy IMO and would be easier to pick up for the casual gamer/fan.

The biggest "issue" is character personalization, stat lines and special rules that reflect that them but all the while keeping in mind the balance of the game. I'm play testing some now, which is my current obstacle.

 ironfistslayer7 wrote:


The biggest "issue" is character personalization, stat lines and special rules that reflect that them but all the while keeping in mind the balance of the game. I'm play testing some now, which is my current obstacle.

It'd be a lot of work, but perhaps you could to a chart, like in the Space Marine codex from 4th ed.?? Basically, minor bonus, minor "detriment", major bonus/weakness type system.... This way, if players are playing an in realm game, but don't want to use the special character "Eddard Stark, Warden of the North, Lord of Winterfell... blah blah blah" they can create their own "Lord Brandon Stark, first of his name, king of the north and a billion other titles"

But I do agree having the "kingdoms" helps with some issues, but does create others... For instance, the nations beyond the narrow sea. Qarth, Mereen, the Dothraki, Braavos, etc are too wildly different to really combine into a single non Westerosi faction.

Yea the dothraki would be a nation to themselves, the others aside from bravos can be somewhat grouped into some kind of eastern kingdoms type of thing as going through each individually seems tedious and would narrow down army selection.

That's a good point, but I disagree because I feel like those who wish to play a table top version of game of thrones would do so to use named characters like eddard stark, oberyn, tywin, etc. It will just take a fair amount of play testing to ensure no one is over Powered and breaks the game, all the while staying as true as possible to the individuals strengths

 ironfistslayer7 wrote:

That's a good point, but I disagree because I feel like those who wish to play a table top version of game of thrones would do so to use named characters like eddard stark, oberyn, tywin, etc. It will just take a fair amount of play testing to ensure no one is over Powered and breaks the game, all the while staying as true as possible to the individuals strengths

I guess I should've explained a bit further.. I'd definitely include a few named characters per Kingdom, but ALSO add in the ability to create your own lord who has his own abilities... you could also place some limits on certain named charactes ie. The Hound could have some rule stating that the Hound may only be taken in an army that includes Joffrey as its leader.

Yea the idea would be to restrict certain characters to certain houses/factions. Alliances and use of combined faction armies would also be dictated in a table like fashion showing trusted allies, uneasy neutrality and enemies. Example: Martells' hatred of Lannisters

Whilst I like a lot of the lord of the rings sbg rules that im looking at incorporating, the combat sequence of rolling to see who wins the fight and then only the winner strikes to wound that turn is something im not crazy about. So that a big thing im thinking about interms of game play

 ironfistslayer7 wrote:
Yea the idea would be to restrict certain characters to certain houses/factions. Alliances and use of combined faction armies would also be dictated in a table like fashion showing trusted allies, uneasy neutrality and enemies. Example: Martells' hatred of Lannisters

Whilst I like a lot of the lord of the rings sbg rules that im looking at incorporating, the combat sequence of rolling to see who wins the fight and then only the winner strikes to wound that turn is something im not crazy about. So that a big thing im thinking about interms of game play

I think you'd like to look at the WHFB rules for CC, or even 40k for that matter. Things like extra damage on the charge, having strong defense, etc all come into play, and each round of combat, everyone (in theory) gets a chance to swing their weapons/do damage.


I would use caution in using a table, because as we've seen in the movies/books, some houses can be bought by others (like the Boltons to the Lannisters)... Some of those sorts of betrayals would seriously only work in a campaign setting of course.

Although a simple "True enemy" type chart would work well enough in a one off game, perhaps you could somehow incorporate a clause or rule that says, "if players are running an extended campaign, include these political intrigues, and the chart of alliances on page X, can be ignored"

I would look into doing a sub-plots table for the characters, both special and vanilla (Muskets and Tomahawks have a similar idea). That way you can add in a dynamic of not just the known plots from the books but also create new ones the players can build a narrative around.