Jump to content



Photo

IMPERIAL PALACE REGION DOUBTS


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 LETE

LETE

    Member

  • Members
  • 699 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 02:51 AM

Hi!

 

I was wondering which AREAS of the IMPERIAL PALACE REGION are considered Fortified?

A-ALL OF THEM (the Inner Palace & all "Outer Palace" areas, plus the Forbidden Fortress & the Monastery)

B-ONLY THE "BORDER" PARTS (those bordering with other Regions; for instance, the Outer Palace area that borders with the Imperial Plateau area)

C-ONLY A COUPLE OF THEM (like the whole of the Inner Palace, & the Fortress & the Monastery, for instance)... If this is true, could you please point out which?

 

Basically, I wanna know if when within an Imperial Palace Region Area, attacking another area, also within the Imperial Palace (for instance, from the Fortress Assaulting one of the adjacent Outer Palaces), the Defender still has the Fortified position advantage when  damaged (-2 to the total)?

 

THANKS!

L



#2 Warhammer00

Warhammer00

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 03:34 AM

All are considered independent fortified areas. Consider each area as its own Fortification.

So, if you were to attack the inner palace from the outer palace or vice versa, the defender will get the fortification bonus. Same goes if attacking from one outer palace area to another outer palace area.

 



#3 LETE

LETE

    Member

  • Members
  • 699 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 03:41 AM

...sniff...

Just as I suspected...

Goddamn the Emperor!  Playing Traitor is such a pain!  Gods of Chaos Help me!!!!!

   !!!!

 

 

L



#4 Warhammer00

Warhammer00

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 03:45 AM

I have found that the best way to win as Chaos is to take all 4 space ports. I plan my strategy in this regard.



#5 Palpatine

Palpatine

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:35 PM

 Also if you attack fortifications bring Magnus (as traitor) and choose a bombardment result that cause a breach, you could also bring thunderhawks but as soon as they are eliminated you loose the breach (Loyalists have a tendency to kill them fast for several reasons, this being the lesser). Loyalists are the ones that will have real difficulties in assaulting a fortification, once the traitors are there they are damn hard to get out.

-P



#6 Dam

Dam

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,295 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 07:30 PM

Palpatine said:

Also if you attack fortifications bring Magnus (as traitor) and choose a bombardment result that cause a breach

It's more like, choose a bombardment either precise or reckless and hope one of the two cards you drew has breach in the section you chose (since you have to pick precise/reckless before drawing).

 

 


"A dirty mind is its own reward."


#7 Palpatine

Palpatine

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 19 May 2010 - 02:13 AM

Since precise hits have a 37,5% chance of causing a breach vs. 18.8% for reckless, I would in this case allways choose precise. It's still a gamble, but the odds are on getting one when drawing two cards.

-P



#8 Dam

Dam

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,295 posts

Posted 19 May 2010 - 03:14 AM

Palpatine said:

Since precise hits have a 37,5% chance of causing a breach vs. 18.8% for reckless, I would in this case allways choose precise. It's still a gamble, but the odds are on getting one when drawing two cards.

-P

That is from a full B-deck though? Scenario 1 for example, you'll draw 16 cards during setup already (that's half the deck IIRC), so one has to take into account those cards already drawn and their effects (IIRC, those with Chaos star have Reckless dmg, those with Imp Eagle are all "no effect" with Reckless). Of course, you can only see the top card of the deck, so have to keep a running tally in your head about which cards have gone and which haven't.


"A dirty mind is its own reward."


#9 drmabuse00

drmabuse00

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 19 May 2010 - 07:56 AM

Dam said:

Palpatine said:

 

Since precise hits have a 37,5% chance of causing a breach vs. 18.8% for reckless, I would in this case allways choose precise. It's still a gamble, but the odds are on getting one when drawing two cards.

-P

 

 

That is from a full B-deck though? Scenario 1 for example, you'll draw 16 cards during setup already (that's half the deck IIRC), so one has to take into account those cards already drawn and their effects (IIRC, those with Chaos star have Reckless dmg, those with Imp Eagle are all "no effect" with Reckless). Of course, you can only see the top card of the deck, so have to keep a running tally in your head about which cards have gone and which haven't.

That's one thing that bothers me about the bombardment deck. I'm probably going to house-rule that after the set-up draws the deck gets reshuffled and again during the each order draw phase.



#10 haslo

haslo

    Member

  • Members
  • 583 posts

Posted 20 May 2010 - 12:46 AM

drmabuse00 said:

That's one thing that bothers me about the bombardment deck. I'm probably going to house-rule that after the set-up draws the deck gets reshuffled and again during the each order draw phase.

You can do that if you want a random result (in fact, if you really want a random result, you can use a combat result table instead and throw dice, or shuffle the deck between every draw).

The way it is with this deck however also balances things out a bit in the short run: Long-term distributions of results are exactly the same, but in the short term, if individual cards are always either better for the imperial or the traitor player (and not one aspect of a card is different from another, like eagle cards with high bombardment values and breach would be), this means that you can count on every "cluster" of 32 random results being fair for both sides.

So it retains the same random results overall, but reduces standard deviation and variance for both sides - essentially yielding both a bit less randomness and better predictability towards the end of a stack, and less runs of good random results only for one side.

In short, using cards instead of dice makes things more fair in the short (cluster of 32 random choices) term.

Edit: If on the other hand you shuffle the deck every so often between the times the deck runs out, you increase randomness a lot and also increase standard deviation and variance over and above if you'd use dice or shuffle between every draw. You'll make things a lot more wildly random and increase the odds of one side winning through lucky draws. If that's what you want, fine. If it isn't and you want to value skill over luck, shuffle only when the deck runs out.

2nd edit: This is assuming that indeed individual cards are either benefitting the imperial or the traitor player overall. If they're mixed, it's all out of the window. I haven't checked.


Imperials: 13 TIE Fighter, 5 TIE Advanced, 15 TIE Interceptor, 4 Slave I, 6 TIE Bomber, 5 Lambda Shuttle, 3 TIE Defender, 4 TIE Phantom

Rebels: 1 Tantive IV, 1 Rebel Transport, 7 X-Wing, 5 Y-Wing, 4 YT-1300, 6 A-Wing, 5 B-Wing, 5 HWK-290, 6 Z-95, 3 E-Wing


#11 drmabuse00

drmabuse00

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 20 May 2010 - 05:32 AM

haslo said:

drmabuse00 said:

That's one thing that bothers me about the bombardment deck. I'm probably going to house-rule that after the set-up draws the deck gets reshuffled and again during the each order draw phase.

You can do that if you want a random result (in fact, if you really want a random result, you can use a combat result table instead and throw dice, or shuffle the deck between every draw).

The way it is with this deck however also balances things out a bit in the short run: Long-term distributions of results are exactly the same, but in the short term, if individual cards are always either better for the imperial or the traitor player (and not one aspect of a card is different from another, like eagle cards with high bombardment values and breach would be), this means that you can count on every "cluster" of 32 random results being fair for both sides.

So it retains the same random results overall, but reduces standard deviation and variance for both sides - essentially yielding both a bit less randomness and better predictability towards the end of a stack, and less runs of good random results only for one side.

In short, using cards instead of dice makes things more fair in the short (cluster of 32 random choices) term.

Edit: If on the other hand you shuffle the deck every so often between the times the deck runs out, you increase randomness a lot and also increase standard deviation and variance over and above if you'd use dice or shuffle between every draw. You'll make things a lot more wildly random and increase the odds of one side winning through lucky draws. If that's what you want, fine. If it isn't and you want to value skill over luck, shuffle only when the deck runs out.

2nd edit: This is assuming that indeed individual cards are either benefitting the imperial or the traitor player overall. If they're mixed, it's all out of the window. I haven't checked.

I'm am not someone who shies away from randomness. There's plenty of skill needed in order to adjust to luck whether good or bad,( I'm a fan of MMP's Warriors of God after all). As a CRT is not added to the game this is not an option, which frankly I'm glad of. 

For me games that try to implement "fairness" in it's structure bores  (I'm not a fan of Eurogames) and card-counting seems to go against the spirit of the game. Personally, excitement comes from being thrown curveballs and having to adjust my game play. There are other aspects of the game that have greater importance for instance managing the Init. track & area control. It makes sense to have some control during the set-up phase as Horus is assaulting and has the upper-hand initially, but as the game progresses being able to predicate your choice due to whatever's been played seems too contrived to me.

I understand that other players aren't like me, which is why I said that I would house rule it.

 

To each, their own. :)



#12 haslo

haslo

    Member

  • Members
  • 583 posts

Posted 20 May 2010 - 05:57 AM

drmabuse00 said:

To each, their own. :)

Of course :) Personally, I am much too overwhelmed by all the other things to track those cards as well anyway, so for me, it doesn't really matter how random exactly they are. In fact, when I saw the mechanic of drawing cards instead of rolling dice for the first time in Runewars, I found it pretty silly, and I'm not sure why I prefer it here - I guess it's because the results are less binary than in Runewars, where the cards are mostly "yes/no" with certain chances that could very easily be implemented just by rolling a D20 and saying "you hit on a 4+"...

Still, I think it does add another layer of potential strategy to an already complex game, which is not really a bad thing IMHO because it is entirely optional, only adding depth for those who seek it without polluting decision space for those who are still learning the intricacies of the game.


Imperials: 13 TIE Fighter, 5 TIE Advanced, 15 TIE Interceptor, 4 Slave I, 6 TIE Bomber, 5 Lambda Shuttle, 3 TIE Defender, 4 TIE Phantom

Rebels: 1 Tantive IV, 1 Rebel Transport, 7 X-Wing, 5 Y-Wing, 4 YT-1300, 6 A-Wing, 5 B-Wing, 5 HWK-290, 6 Z-95, 3 E-Wing





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS