Author Topic: Rules re-write suggestion thread  (Read 37717 times)


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2009, 10:00:49 PM »
When you have a calvary unit on close but it will not be able to engage an enemies unit on that turn & it gets shot at by ranged weapons, does it get the charging bonus for defensive skill? Or does that only apply when it charges & engages? For example, the Hawks Knights are a 2/3 on defense with a +1/0 on defense when charging.  If they are shot at on a turn when on their next move they will not engage, do they get that bonus? Thanks for any help that anyone can provide.

The way I understand it, there are two sets of "attack" or combat types- Ranged (also referred to as "shooting") and Engaged.

[Frankly the v.2.4 Rules are confusing on this point. It reads to see "Attacks", listed in contents to being on pg.27 but that covers "Free Attacks"; Shooting Attacks are on p.30. &etc]

Charging is defined on p.34, in the "Combat Modifiers", "Engaged Combat Modifiers (hand to hand)" subsection; it follows the info on the definition from the cards. Cavalry get a special modifier (added defense for that one combat phase) as it is defined on the unit card, as I would refer to it as a "special ability".

So specifically for your question, "Charging" combat modifiers only apply to "Engaged Combat".

There are some terms that are shared, like 'engaged', but should not be confused with how each are distinct in their specific functions. Possibly a matter for the rewrite sticky.

When using Ranged ("shooting") Combat to attack a unit, the Attacking unit would get a modifier for Cavalry (if it is so) and if the Cav is engaged with an enemy unit, under the current rules, another modifier.

It is important to note that even though the Combat Modifier might Benefit the Defender, the actual Modifiers affect the Attacking unit for rolling the dice. IMO, it is a clever and rational game mechanic to have all the Standard Combat Modifiers Only affect the (for that resolution) Attacker's Attack Stats.

You need to keep in mind the correct Combat Type to apply the correct modifiers.
In this case "Shooting Combat Modifiers (Range Combat)" would be found on p.35.


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2009, 07:13:48 PM »
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.

*And, duh!, of the ambiguity of a Large unit behind a standard unit when making evaluations; and this would also have some impact on different terrain elevations and the concept of "clearly visible".

Strictly speaking "clearly visible" would not allow a unit to engage if its CV line crosses over a portion of a friendly unit at a lower elevation at start of the player turn, even if it moves out of the way by engagement, but a unit of Crossbows needing direct LOS would be able to fire over a friendly unit at lower elevation.

Perhaps this needs to be addressed as a "Clear Path" to Engage at the start of a turn.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 03:53:00 PM by ajax98 »


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2009, 01:44:24 PM »
From - Line 'em up

Rules v.2.4, p.46
"Lining Up while Engaged
If at the end of your Movement and Command Phase one of your units is engaged with a single enemy unit and their center points are not lined up, then (if possible) move your unit so that their center points line up." much as possible.

Italics are mine for pointing.
Chad's comment indicates a point for clarification; like to just add that to the end of the rule. Makes a bit of difference.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 04:43:25 AM by ajax98 »


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2009, 03:39:44 PM »
Board Edge Constraints _

As Andrew noted, this is something that occurs in any unit-based mini's game to some extent.

There are actually ways you can set things up in the middle of the board such that a unit is within final rush range of two enemies with what looks like plenty of room but can't actually engage either one because of slight overlaps.  As Andrew also noted, one reason we didn't try to address this (other than that any fix is likely to be messy) is that we weren't hearing about it from players and didn't see a reason to get into a complicated fix if the problem was largely theoretical.
Perhaps that time has come.  In general, though, I would recommend a common sense approach -- agreed to by both players in advance.  For the table edge, we use something very much like the optional rule proposed above -- a unit can go off the table in order to engage but only to engage.  That way the table still defines the maneuverable part of the battlefield but it doesn't serve as a cliff or magical wall.

Niko White

  • Celestial Guard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2009, 11:02:22 AM »

Routing units leaving the table:

Right now the rules say that a routing unit that leaves the table "is removed and cannot return to play."  This is somewhat ambiguous with Kingdoms which counts cards destroyed differently.  I'm confident that a unit that routs off the board edge should count as destroyed, but it would be nice if the rules phrased it that way, to avoid arguments.


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • BGFW:SiliconValley
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2009, 05:28:31 PM »
Clarification for final rushing: when to do Two's Company, a pinch, or neither.

First things first -- it doesn't matter, per se, which point is further from your unit but which side is the facing side.  Assuming that the front side is the facing side your opponent is correct -- you must either engage via Two's Company or spend a command action to keep your cavalry from engaging this turn so they can engage on the flank next turn.

The exception to this is if there isn't room for a Two's Company attack (due to other units in play or to impassable terrain).  In that case, the rules allow you to maximize engagements, so you would be able to pinch.

At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political ideas.  -Aldous Huxley


  • Guest
Terrain Type & definition - Cliffs.
Kingdoms Terrain Limitations printed on scenario cards.

Walls (some types) and Cliffs share same definition; Walls specifically prohibited in certain Kingdoms scenarios. Cliffs not specifically named as prohibited, but should be by inference of definition.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2009, 12:57:49 PM »
Not sure if it has been addressed (sorry if this is a dupe) but can you number or reference the rules in the book and each subsection of the rules and then use that numbering system in the rules themselves to direct people to the appropriate section?


1.0 Quick Start Rules

1.1 Set-up
1.2 Movement
1.3 Attacking

And further on...

2.0 Basic Rules
2.1 Unit Cards
2.2 Command Cards
2.3 Scenarios
2.4 Army Building
2.5 The Battlefield
2.5.1 The Deployment Zone

This makes it very easy to find the rules when you're looking in the book. So instead of referring someone to the Routing rules you'd refer them to x.1.1 Routing and then there is no way that someone can't find them in the book

Also makes the book "layout proof" as these references are independent of page numbers


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2009, 11:07:43 PM »
...but can you number or reference the rules in the book and each subsection of the rules and then use that numbering system in the rules themselves to direct people to the appropriate section?...
Call me an old grognard, but I really thought highly of the old SPI system of laying out their rules. Very effective.


  • Playtester
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2009, 09:31:59 AM »
...but can you number or reference the rules in the book and each subsection of the rules and then use that numbering system in the rules themselves to direct people to the appropriate section?...
Call me an old grognard, but I really thought highly of the old SPI system of laying out their rules. Very effective.

ADB still are very effective in rules layout, although you need to be a lawyer to actually understand all of them and the intricate implications, cross-references and precedents.  I think they gave someone a rank once, just for being able to understand all the rules.


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #40 on: July 19, 2009, 07:46:49 PM »
If I have a unit that is moving slower than its maximum, does it still final rush at its full MC. For instance, if I cap my Trolls to 3.5" in order to stay even with the rest of the orc line, do they still Final Rush 5"? Can they, if I decide I want them to?
The rules (v 2.4. p19-24) specify the minimum requirements. It does not address your specific question pertaining to a Movement modifier. Since the move modifiers entered into the rules in an update, this non synchronization is not a surprise. [Another item for the rewrite sticky.]

IMHO if a units movement is capped a 3.5, it will not consider a unit 4 inches away within final rush range, period. 

Of course, on your own turn you can always use a command action to change its orders and uncap its movement.

This is the correct answer.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 06:09:16 PM by ajax98 »


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2009, 02:57:02 PM »
Niko White
Re: Random Questions
« Reply #1 on: 2009-07-27, 14:10:44 »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Hannibal on 2009-07-27, 10:21:15
Final Rushing:  Can you Direct Control into a final rush?  If yes, this means you could final rush a target that's not the closest?  Similarly, can you maneuver and final rush?  moving sideways or reforming to face behind you?

You can't direct control into a final rush.  But you can sometimes final rush someone who isn't closest; you just give the unit in question a targeted close order.  You can't do this if you fall into the "no turning back" rule (can't final rush anyone else if someone's center point is within 1.25" of your front center point.)  You also can't do it if you don't have a clear path to the other unit, though in some cases targeting on a different enemy will prevent any final rush at all, if that's the best way to go at the target.

If a final rush is legal, you just pick up your unit and put it center to center (or as close as possible) with the thing it is final rushing.  No maneuvering is needed, so you can sometimes get an effective boost in MC this way.

Note you can't final rush anyone who isn't "clearly visible" however.  That term is defined exactly in the rulebook, but it includes anyone who isn't in your front arc.  (This is true even if you specifically target them; your unit will reform and get as close as possible.)

Units on Hold with Objective:  let's say you have a unit on Hold Objective with the objecive being a spot on the table.  An enemy unit is between your unit and the objective.  Could the unit on Hold final rush the enemy in its way?

No, units on Hold will never final rush.  If it were close with an objective, then it would.

Close w/Objective battlefield:  Lets say you have a unit on Close Objective, with the objective being a point on the battlefield.  The unit is 1" from the objective and moves 3.5".  What happens when the unit reaches the objective?  Does it stop for the turn or does it move 1" toward the objective then 2.5" towards the nearest enemy?  (I was taught the unit stops for a turn once it reaches the objective).

A unit with close on a terrain objective uses it as a waypoint.  It will move 1" towards the objective then 2.5" towards the nearest enemy.  If it is on Hold, it will stop when it reaches the objective, then get a free reform on the next turn.

Objective Behind a unit: Let's say you have a unit with Range Objective, the objective being a spot on the battlefield.  The objective is behind the unit.  Can the player opt to have the unit move backwards towards the objective or do you have to turn around?

The unit will about face in most cases, because it will be the fastest way to reach the objective.  If you put the objective close enough behind it that it can get to it without about facing, you might get a choice, I'm not 100% sure.

Post combat free attacks:  lets say my swordsmen are flanking your bowmen.  Your bowmen rout, turning to face their deployment zone.  The way they turn makes it so that my swordsmen are still touching the flank of the bowmen.  For the free attacks, do my swordsmen count as rear attacking or still flank attacking?

If a unit turns to run and is engaged, it will turn to run away from the unit it is engaged with, regardless of if this is towards its owner's table edge.  So the Bowmen will turn away from the Swordsmen.

In a pinch or similar situation where a unit takes a free attack and it somehow isn't against the rear, apply whatever modifiers are appropriate.

Pinching:  let's say my swordsmen and spearmen are pinching your crossbowmen (swords on the flank and spears on the front).  Next turn, a unit of your battleaxemen flank charge my swordsmen.  So who gets the pinching bonus? Everybody?  Just the battleaxemen?  The battleaxemen & the spearmen?  Nobody?  (this has to do with the definition of "engaged with exactly one unit" in the pinching section)

Everyone who isn't being pinched themselves and is pinching someone gets the bonus.

Flying:  does a flying unit count as the closest unit for enemy units on close?  i.e. does an enemy unit on close have to advance on the dragon even though they can never engage it while it flies?  Similarly, is the dragon considered the closest unit for ranged attacks?

I think yes for ranged not for melee, but I'd have to double check, this is a good question.

Magic:  is magic like a ranged attack, in that you need LOS and have to measure range from your front centerpoint to another unit's centerpoint?

Only if it works like a ranged attack, like the Elementalist.  Umenzi spellcasters don't need line of sight.

Command card questions:
Certain units either can't have cards played on them (bomb chuka) or require the player to discard a card or two first (Dragon).  How do cards played in the command phase work for that?

Specifically, if the Orc player plays the Battle Lust card (which is +1 attack die to everyone).  Can the bomb chuka benefit from that?

I believe the 'chucker says command cards have no effect on it; most of them where that might come up do.

Similarly, the Cry Havoc card on Dragon.  Can the dragon be giving Havoc points (and an extra attack) without having to ditch command cards first?

You'd have to discard the card.

Also, do command cards played in the Move & Command phase count as 'playing a command card' for a unit?  So if I used Cry Havoc and gave a unit +! attack, when it came time to attack could I play another red card on the unit.  (Same example could be reached with Orcs with the Battle Lust and a red card).

No, they don't count, unless they say they do, like Orc Frenzy.

In the same vein, Dwarf run cards have a Courage Bonus as well.  Let's say I play a blue command card (which doesn't say you can't play another card while this one is in effect).  So I get +1 def and +1 Courage (for example).  Then when its my turn to attack could I play Rune of Skill?  If so, would that mean the Courage increases stack?

Yes, the courage bonus stacks.  You can't stack up the attack bonuses obviously, but the courage does.

Ordered Retreat card:  can the card be used when you rout from shooting (i.e. you're not engaged).  It doesn't say you have to be engaged to use it, but it says the word "engaged" two times in the rules description.

Yes, you can use it in any rout, it won't take any damage if there's no engaged unit.

Full Member
Posts: 143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Random Questions
« Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 12:43:43 »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Thanks for your replies, Niko!  My responses:

You can't direct control into a final rush.

Not trying to be rude, but does it say that somewhere?  I've always played this way but when asked about it this weekend, I couldn't produce a spot in the rules where it says that and the person wanted to know.  Am I missing it in the rulebook?

No, units on Hold will never final rush.

Yeah, this one was another I couldn't find in the rulebook.  (when I said "this was answered on the forum" the counter was "not in the rulebook.")  Sorry to be pedantic.   Undecided

The unit will about face in most cases, because it will be the fastest way to reach the objective.

Ditto above...

Only if it works like a ranged attack, like the Elementalist.  Umenzi spellcasters don't need line of sight.

And neither do healer mages I'm guessing.  So where do you measure the range (thinking healer mages)?  From front center point to a center point?  From any point to point?

I believe the 'chucker says command cards have no effect on it; most of them where that might come up do.

It says "You cannot play Command Cards while the Goblin Bomb-Chucker is attacking."  The question comes because Rampage and Frenzy are played during the Move & Comm phase.

Thanks again.  Sorry for being so literal, but it's come up a lot this weekend.
   Report to moderator   Logged
Niko White
Lord of the Steppe
Hero Member
Posts: 850

Do Not Betray Your Khan

View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Random Questions
« Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 13:49:11 »
   Reply with quoteQuote

I think Rampage and Frenzy just apply to engaged attacks, right?  So the bomb chucker is welcome to benefit from them if it is engaged but I think at that point it is a bit late Wink

Preface to "where is it in the rulebook": I agree the rulebook isn't always that clear.  I'm about to start a project, in fact, to look at it and revise it to 3.0, which will definitely involve extensive looking at the questions and suggestions here on the forum, so don't feel like you need to apologize for asking "where is it in the rules"; knowing where the rulebook is unclear is a big help Smiley  That said, I'll answer as best I can.

In terms of "units on hold will never final rush," it could be clearer, but in the description of orders with a terrain objective (page 10) it says that a unit on close will final rush units in the way.  Because it specifically mentions being on close, it is (IMO) pretty clear that if you're on R or H, you won't final rush.  (See also the about face issue below.)

In terms of "no final rush from direct control," you're correct, that isn't at all clear in the rulebook.  On the other hand, the section on Final Rushes (p 22-23) makes it pretty clear that even if you could, it wouldn't actually matter, because when you final rush, you must engage the facing side (unless the facing side is occupied.)  Since units can only become engaged by means of a final rush, even if you could final rush out of direct control, you couldn't go at a different side because that's not how a final rush works Smiley  It also wouldn't let a unit on Hold final rush because the Final Rushes section says that you can't final rush unless your standing order is Close.  Ditto "no turning back"; because it applies to what is and isn't a legal final rush.  Meanwhile, you can already final rush someone who isn't closest for 1 CA; just target them.  It is possible that if you are playing with a really "in the rulebook or not in my game" crowd, then you should allow final rush off of direct control, but given all the above it makes literally no functional difference.

The about facing thing: for the rulebook revision, I hope we'll be able to have the section about movement be more clear about exactly how rigid standing orders are, but several places in the rulebook (first page 4, then page 13) that you must move units in accordance with their standing orders.  Except for the written exceptions, like indirect path, you don't get choices about this unless you direct control.  Because of this, it is pretty clear by implication that if there's a fastest way to achieve your orders, that's what you do.  Again, we could be (lots!) clearer about this, but if you think about the flavor (a unit commander trying to do what he's told) or the point of the command system (forcing interesting choices)  it is pretty clear that you can't be creatively interpreting your unit's orders.  You can't decide not to do a maneuver if it makes the most sense any more than you can decide to force your units to maneuver when it makes no sense (aside, again, from direct control.)

Spells just aren't clear.  I'd measure them like a ranged attack (your front center to any center on another unit) but I've flagged this for the rulebook revision.

Well, attack spells are because it says to treat them just like ranged attacks, but healer mages etc. aren't.  If someone argues that your way is wrong just point out that it is unclear and you're the judge Tongue  (I know it sucks to have to do that though, so I'll make sure to clarify this one.)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 03:11:43 PM by ajax98 »


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2009, 02:03:05 PM »
A unit can only have one SOM.  If you want a unit to go to the top of a hill and then shoot a particular enemy, that costs you two command actions.

My hunch is that we will some day introduce a faction that can have more than one modifier (reflecting their superior training in this area).

If a unit has a location objective, it will always try to achieve that objective -- this may mean that a unit of archers will lose a shot as they march behind a forest.

Point of order: Chad meant to say you can only have one objective.  You can give an objective and also modify the order with a movement cap  :)


  • Guest
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2009, 02:08:41 PM »
I may have missed it or it may have got lost in edit, but there are a couple of "Battle Ends" criteria that need to be addressed, especially in Kingdoms.

I have solved the situations for our current Kingdoms Campaign:
All enemy units destroyed or Routing out of range of being attacked (at start and end of Routing unit Player turn)- Battle Ends.

3 turns pass for each player without any unit engaged or ordered to Close or with Enemy Unit Objective (without changing Close order or less than group max movement) - Battle Ends.

A bit of turn tracking required, but it is to prevent manipulation of end game.
I can't remember the scenario name in question, but can describe what happened and you can likely figure it out.

There was a swamp on one side, and it had a "die" put into it.  Each turn, whomever controlled the swamp, could lower the die, and once lowered "1", would end the scenario.  The opponent could possibly pay 3 command actions to stop the die from moving.

So, I could certainly relinquish control of the swamp, and just come back after fully healed.

As for it being difficult to avoid that last enemy unit, I don't know, doesn't seem that hard.  We aren't talking about having to keep away for years here, likely even one turn could make the difference between knocking off the one point to put someone back into the green/yellow.  Especially since I avoid healing anyone one away from a courage break anyway previously, for obvious reasons. 

Sal Vasta

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Rules re-write suggestion thread
« Reply #44 on: August 03, 2009, 08:57:35 AM »
The following are quotes from another thread and was asked to note them in Rules re-write

1) Is there a "typical" height for Forest terrain that can serve as an official height unless modified by the players for a scenario? The v2.4 rules give a "typical" elevation line for hills at 10'.

2) If a unit is on a higher elevation and traces a LOS through another unit, is the size of unit being traced through taken into account? For example, a Wildmen Archers unit is sitting on level two (20') of a hill and a Hill Giant is in front of it on level one (10'). Would the Hill Giant block LOS?  I'm not asking for a "realism" answer. I am driving at whether or not from a rules standpoint any unit has a height that could be considered the equivalent of an elevation level.


Good questions.  On the first one, I'd say 20' sounds right, but that's really just off the top of my head.  Anyone else have a different number in mind?

On the second one, I'm not sure.  Please add it to the rules rewrite thread.  I'm having Niko take point on that.

perhaps elevation of the woods terrain pieces can be determined by the players before the game.  if you want it to represent an orchard, 10' is tall enough, a forest of redwoods (or a fantasy equivalent, like Lorien), you better be going big - 50-100'.

The OP's second question is a good one - what are the elevation values of Large and Colossal units? Colossal units are stated to be LOS blocking terrain, but no height is given...