Jump to content



Photo

Can Siege Engines Be Chosen As Casualties for House Cards?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Eunomiac

Eunomiac

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:33 AM

I've already asked one question that had its answer printed very clearly in the rules (re: Garrison Tokens)—I hope I'm not doing it again! 

I know that Siege Engines are destroyed when forced to retreat, and I very vaguely recall reading on a forum somewhere that they can't be chosen as casualties for House Card sword icons.  But I'm unable to find this second part in the rules, and the sequence of events for retreating doesn't appear to exclude it (i.e. you choose casualties before retreating, and thus before Siege Engines are automatically destroyed).

Thanks!  (And my apologies if I've missed a "Siege Engines & Casualties" headline in the rulebook!)



#2 kauai1964

kauai1964

    Member

  • Members
  • 383 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:25 PM

Until the FAQ is released, the best place for answers is the "Official Responses from FFG" thread @ BoardGameGeek.com:

 

http://www.boardgame...8372981#8372981

 

Siege Engines


If a player losing a battle has to take one casualty with a force of one footman and one siege engine, does he lose a) both units or b) only the siege engine. I'm asking this because according to the rules siege engines are lost if they are forced to retreat. So knowing this can a player pick the siege engine as the casualty before retreating and save the footman or is the siege engine destroyed first?

"Siege engines cannot be chosen as casualties. They are removed in addition to all other casualties. Another way to look at it is for the loser to immediately remove his siege engines (but not those supporting) before concluding with all other casualties dealt."



#3 SerJordah

SerJordah

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 04:15 PM

I don't see why siege engines should not be a sufficient enough sacrifice when it comes to chosing casualties.

As far as game play goes, I feel that siege engines have an adequate balance of strength (+4 vs castles) and weakness (no strength if attacked/not attacking castles; destroyed if routed). To further penalize those using siege engines by insisting that they sacrifice an additional unit in the case of a loss w/ casualties, seems excessive to me.

The way I see it, the opponent has won and inflicted a casualty w/ their sword icon... knowing that the siege engine would be destroyed either way, the opponent had the option of choosing a house card w/o a sword icon (provided had one available) e.g. choosing to play Roose Bolton over Greatjon as the casualty rate would be the same against a force that included a siege engine.



#4 SexyMike44

SexyMike44

    Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 06:24 AM

Yea, i thought seige engines were units. and thus could be taken as casualties.

This changes a lot IMO.

 Do you now need a footman/knight to accompany a siege engine at all times?  (if no, and you only have a siege engine in a battle, can you still use house cards?)

personally since siegne engines cost 2 this is a bit unbalancing.

Also, siege engines can get upgraded FROM footmen.  so my thinking was that they were a unit since they started as a unit.

 



#5 asphaltcowboy

asphaltcowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:28 AM

SexyMike44 said:

Yea, i thought seige engines were units. and thus could be taken as casualties.

This changes a lot IMO.

 Do you now need a footman/knight to accompany a siege engine at all times?  (if no, and you only have a siege engine in a battle, can you still use house cards?)

personally since siegne engines cost 2 this is a bit unbalancing.

Also, siege engines can get upgraded FROM footmen.  so my thinking was that they were a unit since they started as a unit.

 

If a siege battle is defending on its own, you still get House Cards, so all is not lost as soon as it's attacked.



#6 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:31 AM

i suggest making a house rule option:

 

siege engines are units and can be taken as casualties.

they can retreat and are treated like all other units.

OR

they are not units per se. (like a footman or knight) as the rules state now.

they can only be mustered from strongholds as they cannot be upgraded from footmen, and thusly require massive resorces only found there and must be manufactured from scratch.

 

not allowing siege engines to retreat, and being automatic casualties in a loss is phenomenally faulty.

they are a unit or aren't pick one not both FFG.



#7 kauai1964

kauai1964

    Member

  • Members
  • 383 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:27 PM

The FAQ makes it clear:

 

Combat and Unit Movement


Q: Can Siege Engines be chosen to satisfy the
necessary number of casualties suffered as the loser in a
combat?


A: No. Siege Engines are destroyed automatically
as a result of losing combat in addition to all other
casualties suffered.



#8 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:09 AM

yes we are clear on the FAQ.

I am just calling into question the logic of it.

leaving out the technicalities real life siege engines, the question is that of what is or isnt a unit in the game.

 

footmen -> knight  = 1 muster point, 2 strength on attack and defense, order tokens and house cards are played on them and the knight is a unit...

for caualties and can retreat.

footment->siege = 1 muster point, 4 strength on attack-castles, 0 on defense, order tokens and house cards are played on them, BUT siege is not a unit...

for casualties, and  may not retreat.

 

see where i am going here?

now the diatribe:

FFG can/will/may argue sieges are too slow to retreat and are a tool by which to take castles and have no mobility. (as in real life siege towers).

then you argue a battering ram or ballista is very mobile, perhaps that is what is used.

or a catapult, trebuchet,organ gun... etc yada yada yada...

FFG proponents state:

"no the siege is more like the towers used for castle assaults."

the moment you open that can of worms up you can then question the logistics of how a siege tower gets on a boat, and retains all the mobile advantages of raiding, supporting, consolidating that normal units do.

just refer back to my previous post:

chose 1 rule or the other. not give the siege a hybrid set of rules.'

With regards to this, i say poo poo to the FAQ.



#9 aedrill

aedrill

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:21 AM

I agree with jhagen. It' not even a matter of realism, fight in this game is very schematic. There's no point in arguing what would happen in real life, because in real life you wouldn't "upgrade" footmen into knights. But if you look at the balance and rules consistency, current solution makes no sense. Siege engine is considered a unit with some additional special rules (0 when defending, no retreat). And that's both fine balance-wise and absolutely briliant when it comes to strategy. Creating a siege engine is a big deal because everyone knows you're up to something and they start preparing for some serious battles. But losing SE in addition to any oter casualties is simply too much, IMO. On top of that, this solution creates another rule regarding SEs, something that's not even hinted in the rulebook. I think it's quite a big deal, and I'd like to see FFG elaborating on this matter.



#10 dypaca

dypaca

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:30 PM

It's unfortunate that the 2nd edition rulebook left this out and it had to be put in the FAQ, but the 1st edition (and clash of kings which introduced siege engines) made it very clear that when you lose a battle all routed and siege engine units will be destroyed, and casualties must be taken from the other forces.  Something they described as "potentially resulting in devastating losses".

Another thing that got cut from 2nd edition was the explanation that swords represent a Leader pursueing, flanking, and slaughtering broken enemies as they retreat.  So although game step-wise, casualties are chosen before retreating, the casualties are supposed to be taken from units that actually retreat.



#11 ArcticPangolin

ArcticPangolin

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:40 PM

I always imagined that the siege equipment was too heavy/bulky to carry/cart away by the losing forces in order to beat a hasty enough retreat for any chance of survival; it makes enough sense to me, and offsets the HUGE impact that they make on the game.

There're a few possible explanations about upgrading footman, but none really entirely plausible. I'm just grateful that we have the option, really.






© 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