Author Topic: Rules re-write suggestion thread  (Read 31194 times)

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2009, 12:24:24 PM »
OK a quick, probably stupid, question.  The "Muddy Field" condition in Kingdoms says that infantry get -1 MC, cavalry -2 MC, wheeled -3 MC. 

Is "infantry" simply anything which is not cavalry or wheeled?  Is a Tyrannosaurus Rex "infantry?"  If not, what's the official definition?
It's not stupid and I'm pretty sure that the term is not officially defined anywhere.  For now I would say that it refers to non-large, non-cavalry, non-wheeled units, so a Troll is not infantry but Orcs, Goblins, etc. are.

Ah, so...
So Large units automatically love mud.
I dunno, they've got legs that slip and slide also, and with more Mass to keep in place. Then there is the basic weight/displacement value for just plain sinking.

For movement purposes I think that all units not defined as Cavalry or Wheeled should be by default - Infantry.

Hmm, Raptors in Mud.
Baked slowly of course.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 02:22:50 PM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2009, 12:45:17 PM »
Just to keep some of these agenda items readily available in one spot.

While we never specified how standing order modifiers work with Follow, any order can be modified unless stated otherwise.  (That's a clarification -- I don't claim that the rules already state this.)  I've often specified who I want a unit to follow and I don't see any reason why a location objective wouldn't work either.

To me that is a significant change. Given the current set of Rules and the way they are written, I would not have suspected that Follow could be modified.
I like the clarification. Not sure of the implications.

As to the meaning of "can be modified unless stated otherwise" that seems to be counter to the definitions given.

Rules v.2.4, p19: "There are three standing orders: Hold, Close and Range Attack, each of which may be modified with an objective and/or maximum move."

From the Umenzi Tribesmen card:
Follow (standing order):
Shamans and High Priests may be given the Follow (F) order. A unit on Follow will move towards the nearest non-front center point of a friendly unit. If this would bring the Follow unit into final rush range of an enemy unit, you may choose to have it move towards the next closest non-front center point of a friendly unit.

As is seen, the main rules state 3 standing orders which may be modified.

The Umenzi card adds a new and special order, as it can be used only by specified units and its definition clearly indicates how the order works. There is no specification for modification.

You're right.  We should probably state that more clearly, especially if we want Follow to be a generic standing order that anyone can use.

Now for some more confusion-

One thing that is a bit unclear is what should cause Follow with a person objective to work.  (By the way, follow can't be given an enemy unit as a modifier.)  Normally we say that an objective lasts until it is "achieved" where achieved can mean reaching a point or destroying an enemy.  One could say that follow with a friendly unit lasts until you make contact, but I think it makes more sense that it lasts until that unit is destroyed.  (One could also make a case for "is destroyed or routs".)

So most standing order modifiers work - Except the Enemy Unit objective.
Hmmm, methinks a considered rewrite is coming.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 12:52:07 PM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2009, 02:08:53 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was always my understanding the Spirit Guidance only applied on the "to hit" roll.  From what you're saying, it seems to me that you can also use it on the damage roll.  Is that correct?

Rules v.2.4. p33:
Rolling to Hit
When a unit attacks, roll dice equal to its attack dice. Each die roll less than or equal to the attacker’s offensive skill minus the defender’s defensive skill will hit.

Rolling to Damage
Each die that hits is rolled again to see if the hit is hard enough to do damage. Each die roll less then or equal to the attacker’s power minus the defender’s toughness will do one damage.

Spirit Guidance - " to change the result of one of that unit's Attack Dice to a "2". This counts as playing a Command Card."

The only differentiation for "Rolling to Hit" and "Rolling to Damage" is the sequence and the results of comparing different combat values of the units.

To do so you use a unit's "attack dice." Which is not clearly defined other than the dice used to roll, the number of which is given on the unit card are "equal to its attack dice".

After the first roll to hit, then the unit's attack dice may be a new quantity - but they seem to be still attack dice.

One way to read this is that the WHOLE Resolution, both  "Rolling to Hit" and "Rolling to Damage" of the Combat Roll constitutes using "attack dice".

This is supported by the phrase "Each die that hits is rolled again", thus implying that the attack dice are still used. It could be written as Each Attack Die that hits is rolled again.

If that is so then Spirit Guidance may be used for changing an Attack Die in either sequence, to Hit or to Damage.

Illuminating to me also.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 12:51:17 AM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2009, 04:13:29 PM »
I think in some posts the Centaurs (as with Javelineers) have been characterized as getting a "free attack" before engaging. Centaurs unit card refers to it not by that phrase, but by definition, giving the specific parameters to allow a Ranged Attack before normal (engaged) attacks.

This would not be any matter except that one of their Faction cards, Aspect of Wolf, has a juicy bonus for play during a "free attack". There is a sort of unclear clause "(against the routing unit)." which may or may not be a condition to using the bonus.

To wit, the card, Aspect of Wolf, should be rewritten to make it clear that the bonus is only for Pre/Post-Combat Courage Phase; or for all "free attacks".

This is because it seems that the type of attack defined by the Centaurs' card will be categorized as "free attacks".

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2009, 10:21:22 AM »
OK here's a clarification I'd like to see:  currently, units can be given a location modifier on a "Close" or "Hold" order.  There are references to allowing a unit on "Hold" to maneuver "on that location."

However, nowhere is it defined what it means to "reach that location."  Does it mean that the front-centerpoint of the card touches that location marker?  Does the card have to completely cover up the location marker?  Does any point of the card simply need to be touching the marker?

A clarification of this would help.  It makes a significant difference regarding how much flexibility units have when given a location target, as well as how much units given the "Hold" order can twist around once the target.


A secondary suggestion along these lines is that I normally use pennies as location markers--they're flat, they're cheap, and between heads, tails, and dates it's easy to differentiate them.  If the ruling is that the location marker must be covered by the card, it may not be the worst idea in the world to specify that pennies be used, as different sized location markers will give different amounts of flexibility.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2009, 05:14:06 AM »
OK here's a clarification I'd like to see:  currently, units can be given a location modifier on a "Close" or "Hold" order.  There are references to allowing a unit on "Hold" to maneuver "on that location."

However, nowhere is it defined what it means to "reach that location."  Does it mean that the front-centerpoint of the card touches that location marker?  Does the card have to completely cover up the location marker?  Does any point of the card simply need to be touching the marker?

A clarification of this would help.  It makes a significant difference regarding how much flexibility units have when given a location target, as well as how much units given the "Hold" order can twist around once the target.

A secondary suggestion along these lines is that I normally use pennies as location markers--they're flat, they're cheap, and between heads, tails, and dates it's easy to differentiate them.  If the ruling is that the location marker must be covered by the card, it may not be the worst idea in the world to specify that pennies be used, as different sized location markers will give different amounts of flexibility.

Lacking a GPS, the units are given an terrain objective. Any part of the unit card can come into "contact" with the objective and thereby fulfill its defined requirement.

It comes to the requirement that the unit move with "directness" to get there. The measure of "directness" is from the front center line, but I have had units within a gaggle of units get part of the unit card to the Objective. At that point it has fulfilled its order and now reverts to the Standing Order. If that SO is "Close" it will immediately continue on!

If this situation is within "Final Rush" range, the unit can become Engaged! (Please be aware of this situation and play according to doing Final Rushes first.) I have used and had it used against me in such a manner that it almost comes very close to taking direct control to attack an enemy flank. It often requires the expenditure of a Command Pt to reorder a unit to a Terrain Objective, but well worth it!

It really doesn't matter as to the size of the marker- what ever works for you. It is as if whatever the Faction has used for training purposes for the unit to move on the battlefield has worked.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2009, 05:16:43 AM »
IMO, if they're large they can cross the swamps easier most of the time.
They have longer legs that do not get stuck that easily and they are stronger than normal units.

The only exceptions I can think of is the abomination and Giant catapult (if it is considered large).

P.S. The goblin bomb chucker is wheeled, is it?

There seems to be some gaps of information with some units within Factions and qualifying Key words or definitions of units for movement/terrain purposes.

As for the above examples - Abomination and Giant catapult, both Large and Fearsome. The Giant catapult shows no wheels on the unit illustration and it is questionable about just how it moves. I always imagined that it had wheels.

The Goblin Bomb Chucker is wheeled in the unit illustration but it has no qualifying Key word.

The Dwarven Ballista appears very similar to its Roman counterpart, looks very much a stationary weapon with no obvious motive ability. Again, I always imagined that it had wheels like the Bomb Chucker.

I just always figured that for any big weapon system to move around the battlefield, it had to have wheels of some sort - maybe a nearby cart to lug it about.

Ice and Mud have always been an impediment to all sizes of creatures and machines. It doesn't matter how strong it is, its the lack of Friction that makes it so treacherous. With Mud there is the additional aspect that it literally sucks. Under a lot of circumstances the mud can help create a "suction" event as peds move through it.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2009, 03:15:04 PM »
Voluntarily leaving the map as in Kingdoms. Direct adherence to Routing rules or if they can move completely off during their movement phase?

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2009, 05:22:40 AM »
There's a more general problem with trying to heal damage in order to avoid a rout check -- you only cast spells when you're the active player which means you're going to cast them all before your opponent makes any attacks.  There normally isn't a window where your units will have taken damage but you'll still have time to heal them.

I stand corrected in my first pass at answering the question of using a "Heal" spell to prevent a "Courage Check". I wrote No, but; and gave incorrect details.
I find on the Umenzi Tribesmen card the qualifying and defining process for "Spell Casting".

..."Umenzi spells are cast like ranged attacks for timing."...

Therein is source of the confusion, I believe. Heal is not normally considered an "Attack" spell
and the basic Combat rules specify how the sequence for combat resolution is done.

Rules v.2.4, pg28-29
>>
Combat Phase
The Combat Phase is divided into four steps:
Step 1: Choosing Defenders
Step 2: Active Player’s Attacks
Step 3: Non-Active Player’s Attacks
Step 4: Removing Destroyed Units
...
Step 2: Active Player’s Attacks
All of the active player’s engaged and shooting units make
their attacks in any order (see Attacks).
<<

What I missed from my previous answer is the clearly divided Steps to resolve the Combat Phase. It is in Step 2 that any and all Spells, including "Heal", would be cast, in any order - during that Step, as "Umenzi spells are cast like ranged attacks (shooting units) for timing." 

Slightly different terms: shooting units / ranged attacks, could have obscured the relationship of the correct method.

"Spell Casting" would obviously be concluded in Step 2 before any resolution of enemy combat in Step 3 where damage to the Active Player’s units would be recorded. That would make any modification to that damage by a "Heal" spell incorrect, out of proper sequence.

Curufea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • Curufea's Uber Website
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2009, 01:25:40 AM »
I'd like to give it a once-over for grammar and syntax, fix it to first person active, and remove the gender language - because all up it doesn't make reading rules any easier, and in rules where I've seen them be apologists for assuming the reader is always male - it just makes the writers appear lazy, and it reduces their market.

im in ur boardz addin content

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2009, 03:26:53 AM »
...and in rules where I've seen them be apologists for assuming the reader is always male - it just makes the writers appear lazy, and it reduces their market.

I have reservations about the "gender neutral" concepts. Traditional writing is what it is and the standards are well understood.

I have actually had conversations with long time gamers that become irritated when reading such in rules and info blurbs about games. One that I know of even sold off all his games with such structures and vowed not to buy from the company again.

Curufea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • Curufea's Uber Website
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2009, 11:26:34 PM »
I have actually had conversations with long time gamers that become irritated

Male gamers or female gamers?
:)
im in ur boardz addin content

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2009, 11:01:34 PM »
I have actually had conversations with long time gamers that become irritated

Male gamers or female gamers?
:)

Male gamers have been those who have expressed themselves. The female gamers that I know or who have talked to me have not, to my memory, made any issue with it.
I cannot say if this is due to one reason or another as I have not taken a survey.

At present there are 2 salient facts: the majority of "gamers" are male; even more so with war games; the gamers that do most of the purchasing and have the biggest influence on the 'market' tend to be "traditional" minded when it comes to language. They find those written instructions that are "gender-neutral" awkward or stilted.

I'm not saying it can't be done or whatever. All I ask for is clear comprehensive instructions. I dislike wasting my time trying to find points of disagreement after having played a few times.

My point is who gets irritated the most will become the most vocal about it. So far it has been males.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2009, 11:17:17 PM »
Quote from: Kevin on 2009-04-24, 16:35:19
An example to illustrate the question:

A Tyrannosaurus Rex (standing orders always an unmodified "Close"), standing by the edge of a forest, is hungrily eyeing two potential opponents.  Measuring the corner-to-corner distance per the standard rules, one opponent is 10 inches away across an open field.  The other is 9.5 inches away, buried deep in the forest (-3 MC for large creatures).  The one in the forest is "closer," but it would take the T-Rex 6 turns to reach it, as opposed to 2 turns to reach the opponent across the field.

Which unit does the T-Rex move toward?

This is (I think) one of the gray areas of the rules -- I'm fairly certain that the answer is, "You choose."  If the nearest enemy by conventional measure would take more turns to reach than another enemy unit due to terrain, friendly units in the way, etc., you may apply the indirect path rule and choose as your nearest enemy whatever enemy unit takes the fewest turns to reach.

1. Nearest in my terms would be how many turns would it take to get to the enemy unit.

2. Another discriminator is the distance into the woods the enemy unit is located. If it is greater than 2.5", the cut off for visibility for missile fire, I say that it is out of sight, and the unit in the open is the closest.
 
3. A unit on unmodified "Close" is assumed to be driven by visual stimulation, unless otherwise indicated, and thus focusing on the visible enemy to meet its move requirements.

*Addition
This needs to be comprehensively combined with "Clearly Visiable" p.21- If you can draw a line from the front center point of your unit to any part of an enemy unit (that is in your unit’s front arc) without passing through any other units or line of sight blocking terrain, then the enemy unit is clearly visible; Enemy Unit as Objective p.10 (because if a Standing Order can be Modified, the enemy unit can be anywhere on the map) and Nearest Enemy, p.18- Only enemies in a unit’s front arc can be the nearest enemy (because if you allow Enemy Unit as Objective change as modifier this Orientation may be violated, i.e. for being outside front arc).
Exception: If there are no enemy units in the front arc, then units outside the front arc may be the nearest enemy.
P.19-20 - For a Moving Unit with the Close Standing Order- The nearest enemy is the enemy unit for which the following measurement is the shortest:
From — the corner on the front of the closing unit that is farthest from the enemy unit.
To — the corresponding corner of the facing side on the enemy unit.
Note: If the path between the closing unit and the nearest enemy unit is blocked, determine if it would take fewer turns to engage a different enemy unit (assuming the enemy units do not move). If so, that enemy unit becomes the nearest enemy.

Found another bit of rule info to add to your considerations:

Rules v.2.4, p.21
Clearly Visible
A unit may only engage an enemy unit if the enemy unit was clearly visible at the start of the turn. If you can draw a line from the front center point of your unit to any part of an enemy unit (that is in your unit’s
front arc) without passing through any other units or line of sight blocking terrain, then the enemy unit is clearly visible.

So logic would ask if your unit could not engage due to line of sight blocking terrain, then how should this affect the overall formula for Nearest Enemy?

So for this example, let us say that the Nearest Enemy unit was fewer movement turns closer to your always Close unit but that it could not Engage due to not being Clearly Visible.

The current formula would have you moving to the not visible enemy unit and perhaps never being able to Engage.
So some regard for being in Line of Sight needs to be addressed.
& Line of Sight Blocking Terrain.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 01:58:25 PM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2009, 11:44:43 PM »
Specifically, Modifiers that are generated in Courage check phase (both pre and post Combat Phase) "free attacks" combat.
All of the combat bonuses do so, IIRC.

Rules v. 2.4, p.27
>>
Step 2: Free Attacks
After all rout checks have been taken, each unit that is engaged with a routing unit gets to make a free attack on the routing unit.
<<

Information should be added that Qualifying Modifiers are generated in all Combat Phases.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2009, 05:45:00 PM by ajax98 »