Author Topic: Rules re-write suggestion thread  (Read 31190 times)

andrewgr

  • Guest
Rules re-write suggestion thread
« on: April 01, 2009, 05:58:13 PM »
I am going to sticky this thread.  It will be used to collect suggestions for a potential eventual re-write of the rules, to incorporate all errata and rulings, organize things more consistently, explain things that confuse people in greater detail, etc.  If you reply to this thread and your suggestion seems at all reasonable to me, I will add the suggestion to this inital post, so you don't need to go digging through all the posts to see if your suggestion has already been made.  I will number the suggestions so that they can easily be referred to, but will not attempt to prioritize them.  This is an effort to help YMG; there is no stated or implied promise that they'll use any or all of these suggestions.

1. The order in which command cards is played should be explained.

2. The rule about there being an invisible millimeter of space between you and the surrounding cards when you rout should be explained.

3. The fact that you cannot final rush with a unit that is under Direct Control should be stated explicitly, rather than implied.

4. The terrain rules should be expanded.  There are probably many areas in which they're ambiguous, so I'll sub-letter them:
     (a) How do you determine if one unit is uphill or downhill of an opposing unit?
     (b) How do you determine if a unit has seized a terrain objective?

5. An index

6. The current wording for routing from pinching (page 33) could be read that a rout check need not be taken if the unit was not engaged at the start of the Movement & Command phase, so that it wouldn't need to make a rout check if it was engaged on two sides on the same turn.

7. Define "extreme range" in the shooting section, where "long range" is defined (page 39).

8. Move rules about core and elite units to "army building" section.

9. State explicitly that flying units may make and be targeted by ranged attacks.

10. State explicitly that the "follow" order can be modified.

11. Point (10) suggests that it might be useful to have an errata section; there isn't that much errata, maybe it should be included in the rules.

12. Much more detailed explanation of where units rout to and how they get there, with at least one example diagram.  (NOTE: This one is *really* important.)

13. Final Rushing with Flank needs to be explained better.

14. Greater clarity concerning the "follow" order: how it works, whether it can be modified, etc.

15. Specify that units routing off the board count as destroyed for purposes of victory point calculations.

16. Specify how a unit may voluntarily exit the board (does it stop at the edge for a turn?).

« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 06:22:33 PM by Dru'ahn the Gross »

Chad_YMG

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Your Move Games
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2009, 09:32:30 PM »
One thing to bear in mind is that we're stretching the limits of how big we can make the rulebook without using a more expensive process (although I suspect we gained some ground with the larger size).  In addition to things that should be added, think about anything that can be cut.  For example, now that Kingdoms is out, do we even need a section on advanced scenarios or should we just have a paragraph or two saying, "Go buy Kingdoms"?

Also, think about bringing sections together.  I think we can probably drop the whole division between basic and advanced rules, which helps.  The advanced rules aren't really all that advanced; we mainly just put what you absolutely had to have in the basic rulebook because that's what came in the starter.  Things like terrain aren't terribly advanced.  With that in mind, it makes sense to move Terrifying over with Fearsome and we can bring the "advanced" standing orders and modifiers in with the rest.  We can also do some more sensible groupings such as Flying with movement.
David Humphrey está todavía en la Colina 217.
      - From Spanish translation of Hill 218 rules

Karasu

  • Playtester
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2009, 03:39:42 AM »
More of a layout suggestion than a rules suggestion:

If you get to the point where you need more space, have you considered grabbing the quick-start rules out of the main booklet and putting them on a single double-sided fold-up sheet?  I must admit to having no idea of the relevant costs but it might be cheaper than whatever the more expensive way of doing the rules are.

Also, it makes the whole thing look less daunting for the demo games.

Roderick

andrewgr

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2009, 10:38:33 AM »
One thing to bear in mind is that we're stretching the limits of how big we can make the rulebook without using a more expensive process (although I suspect we gained some ground with the larger size).  In addition to things that should be added, think about anything that can be cut.

I think there are enough players that care enough about the game to justify writing a complete, unambiguous set of rules and making them available on the website, regardless of size.

I would guess that such a document would then be an excellent starting point for whittling down to whatever size you can fit in the box, though I can't say that for sure.

Chad_YMG

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Your Move Games
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2009, 03:20:10 PM »
I agree, and that's a good point.  I still think that there are probably things currently in the rules that aren't really that useful.  As someone who normally uses too many words in anything I write, I've learned painfully that deleting things that aren't necessary can add to the overall value.
David Humphrey está todavía en la Colina 217.
      - From Spanish translation of Hill 218 rules

Chad_YMG

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Your Move Games
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2009, 04:36:46 PM »
As a general note, let's keep rules suggestions (i.e. changes to how the game actually plays rather than how the rules are written) in other threads; this one will have plenty to talk about on its own!
David Humphrey está todavía en la Colina 217.
      - From Spanish translation of Hill 218 rules

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2009, 10:11:00 PM »
Here are some mostly minor suggestions.

- First of all, I will second the request for a good index.  It took me forever to figure out what an "impact hit" was.  >:(

- Clarify the ambiguous wording about rout checks being required when a unit is pinched.  Page 33 (rulebook 2.3) states "Each unit that was already engaged on at least one side which becomes engaged on one or more additional sides...[must make a rout check.]"  A literal reading of this rule suggests that if if two units move in on an enemy on the same turn and hit different sides that enemy will not have to do a rout check, as it was not "already engaged."  At least that's how my friend and I interpreted it before you guys set me right.  It should be easy enough to rephrase.

- Under "shooting attacks" (Page 39 rulebook 2.3) Long range is defined, but extreme range is not.  Extreme range should be defined there.

- As the rulebooks will be combined, move the rules about core and elite units from the advanced rulebook into the "Army building" section.

- State explicitly that flying units may make ranged attacks, and be targeted by ranged attacks.

- State explicitly that the "follow" order can be modified.

 
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2009, 12:01:24 AM »
In general the new Missile fire combat.
vis:
I think the official rule should probably be something like:

Engaged Enemy

When a unit makes a ranged attack on a target that is engaged with a different friendly unit, it gets O (-0)-1/-0. 


So, to clarify, the Elephant riders will get the penalty if there is another friendly unit fighting their target but not if the elephant is the only target.  A Roman unit of Hastati's pila attack won't be penalized if the Hastati is the only unit engaged with it, but if they were already engaged then the penalty applies.

Addition:
Explicitly explain Shooting/ Ranged Attacks Targets. Right now, any friendly Indirect Fire unit Shooting Attack (missiles, spells) does not pass Enemy units, Friendly units Larger than itself. The interaction of Terrain (Hills) features need to be addressed when LOS/LOF passes over Large Units. The Height of Large/Colossal units needs to be figured & nailed down.

Forest is the only LOS defined Blocking Terrain. Hills are obviously so, but only implied by the 10' height elevation lines. Walls and Cliffs, and possible other Terrain, need to be addressed explicitly.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 03:48:51 PM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2009, 12:11:19 AM »
Clarifying the parameters for Routing units (first priority is to rout furthest away from all Enemy units then to move towards your deployment edge) and when they must move off board.
I did a post of an exceptional situation and the determining requirements but it disappeared when the server hiccup happened. I've got a saved file I think.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2009, 12:18:21 AM »
Final rush with Flank - clarity and examples.

Terrain obstacles movement reduction - is reduction of maximum speed/class. Thus allowing a line of units all moving at the reduced speed (of affected units) to stay in line. Clarity and examples.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2009, 02:36:19 AM »
Quote
Another question, if a umenzi unit is being attacked and the opponent plays the card with the "if it does 1 damage, it deals another" effect. If the damage is prevented by the Faith Armor, the card still
does another damage? I think so, but I had to ask.

That's a very good question and the answer is no...but Andrew will probably point out that this isn't clear at all in the rules.  Essentially the timing works as follows:

1. Damage roll is made.
2. Attacker may modify or reroll the damage roll (e.g. Fortunes Favors the Bold); if he does not, Defender may.
3. Attack deals X damage, where X is the number of dice at or below the number needed to damage.
4. Damage prevention and redirection effects trigger and players may play command cards that prevent or redirect damage.
5. Effects that trigger off of successful damage trigger and players may play spells that specify "play when an attack deals damage".

••••
So if I read Chad's reply correctly, the example card play would not work, because of point 4 and the person should know not to use the card.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 04:44:36 AM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2009, 03:41:28 AM »
Universal rules definitions only found on cards should be included with a standard rule set.

Can umenzi spells be used in the Movement and Command Phase then? What I mean is before applying faith armor.

No, the action to use 'spells' is taken during the combat phase, "cast like ranged attacks for timing." Information about the spell casting is only to be found on the cards. In this case the "Umenzi Tribesmen" card.


And another question: Who would a shaman or high priest follow if both units rear center points are equally far? I think you would be able to choose, right? Or can you control the shaman/high priest to remain in the center between those two units?

You are allowed a great deal of flexibility in the movement phase. Other than Final Rush, you are permitted to determine in what order you move your units. So if you have a Plan or reasonably know what you want to do with units having a "Follow" order, you should know how you want to make your unit move. Thus you could declare to move the Follow unit first have nowhere to go and burn up its move phase with no relative movement. This would be very helpful if your units were the object of a missile attack and you wanted to stay out of range as long as possible.

On the same card, the definition for Follow "will move towards the nearest non-front center point of a friendly unit." Though not specified directly, it is assumed that this could only be through the front arc of the Follow unit and using the center point.
If there are equal distance reference points, then you declare which is the one "nearest" and move accordingly.

Therefore you will most likely not be able to remain "centered" on two forward units - unless you wished to use a Command Point for direct control.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2009, 04:28:48 PM »
Perhaps a Glossary or Roster of all the units and their abilities and restrictions, like the Umenzi Possessed. The Possessed have considerable restrictions but is only listed on the card and often overlooked.
Terms cross referenced, etc., as like a player aid which might list specific unit abilites/restrictions to sequence of Play.

I think it would be a great adition if the rules included a section on the various army abilities.

One advantage would be as a sales tool since someone could read about an army ability and then see which faction possessed that ability and they might buy a faction because they wanted to have that ability.

Another advantage would be to have a more fully realized description of the abilities than what is possible on the back of the card (and all in one place). Also, it would give players access to other army's abilities so they wouldn't have to keep borrowing their opponents card to remember what the ability did or how it functioned.

Finally, as more factions become available, it may come to pass that certain factions may include different special abilities in a suite of abilities. So maybe there would be another faction that would have the 'maneuver mastery' or 'lash' special ability. Also, as people are designing new factions and new faction abilities they would have a ready reference so they could be more certain of not reinventing the wheel.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 01:56:10 PM by ajax98 »

Chad_YMG

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Your Move Games
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2009, 03:47:23 PM »
Quote
Another question, if a umenzi unit is being attacked and the opponent plays the card with the "if it does 1 damage, it deals another" effect. If the damage is prevented by the Faith Armor, the card still
does another damage? I think so, but I had to ask.

That's a very good question and the answer is no...but Andrew will probably point out that this isn't clear at all in the rules.  Essentially the timing works as follows:

1. Damage roll is made.
2. Attacker may modify or reroll the damage roll (e.g. Fortunes Favors the Bold); if he does not, Defender may.
3. Attack deals X damage, where X is the number of dice at or below the number needed to damage.
4. Damage prevention and redirection effects trigger and players may play command cards that prevent or redirect damage.
5. Effects that trigger off of successful damage trigger and players may play spells that specify "play when an attack deals damage".

••••
So if I read Chad's reply correctly, the example card play would not work, because of point 4 and the person should know not to use the card.

It will not deal another point of damage because damage isn't considered dealt until after damage prevention effects are applied.  Devotion of Corruption (like its predecessor, Flesh Rot) only work if the defender actually marks damage off on his unit.  Just to clarify, though, "The person should know not to use the card" is not necessarily correct.  Devotion of Corruption and Flesh Rot are usually risky to use in situations where you only expect to do a point of damage because they are vulnerable to being trumped but their payoff can be big, too.  If you rate two points against an Umenzi Javelineer with two yellow hits left and Faith Armor, Devotion of Corruption or Flesh Rot may be a good choice -- if you score the two points (down to one after healing) you get a rout check which may be better than another card would have done.  In any case, it isn't like Festering Wound which you literally cannot play in the described situation because it is only playable when damage has actually been dealt.
David Humphrey está todavía en la Colina 217.
      - From Spanish translation of Hill 218 rules

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2009, 04:16:57 PM »
Just to clarify, though, "The person should know not to use the card" is not necessarily correct.

Ah, the intricacies of not knowing all the intricacies of the cards.