Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by artemis8

  1. Three Headed Monkey said: SquirrelonRampage said: I am not completely sure but wouldn't you move your initiative marker only AFTER having performed the action (i.e. the attack)? That way you would first move your opponent's marker forward during battle and then after the battle move your own to pay for the attack . So your own marker would stay on top and you retain the initiative for one more action. I think that's what the rules actually suggest. Yes, that is the case. Moving your initiative marker happens in the Advance Initiative step, which is after the Action Step. The chosen action is resolved in the action step. So if you executed an order card that started a combat you would not move your initiative marker to pay for the order card until after the combat is resolved. If the effect of a combat card moves an initiative marker, obviously the marker is moved as the special effect is resolved. So if both of the markers would end up on the same space after the combat, the current player should have his on top as his marker was moved last. IE, after the combat. Yes, as I think over your opinions, you are right. Initiative token of the active player is moved after the action (for example a battle) not before it. But yet I wonder when (if ever) may occur that strange situation (mentioned in rules) , when the initiave token of an active player ends up BELOW his opponents's token? "If both players’ markers are on the same space, there is only a change of initiative in the unusual situation where the current player’s initiative marker is below his opponent’s marker in that space." (p. 15)
  2. I have one ToI base game, one DotF, one Normandy and one Map pack. As to the optimal map size of a normal scenario I would incline to use 8-9 map boards. Sometimes you need bigger space, so 12 map boards would come handy, but I think that less (used map boards) sometimes means more. As for now I used maps bigger than 12 map boards only twice (one with 15 map boards and one with 16, but yet have to test those scenarios). But I think that using a bigger map (i.e. more map boards is not so much matter of money for buying neccessary map boards/expansions), but rather a space problem (if you do not lay the map on a floor of course ). Usually using bigger maps should be associated with using more units (and so with a tendency for maybe a multiplayer scenario). But in certain cases, like the one Klaus mentioned, and if you want to desigh that specific scenario more thoroughfully, bigger map is the right way. But using a bigger map and balancing it properly with number of engaged units and tuning its playability is in this case more difficult that in case with 9-12 map boards scenarios. So I´m rather inclined to use 9-12 map boards and rather use greater map variety with Map pack map boards or additional map boards (from a given expansion), but in some special cases I would not hesitate to use bigger maps (though usually I would be satisfied with up 16 map boards )
  3. Thanks, Dam. Your answers only confirmed my intuition .
  4. Hi, recently I encountered following situations a questions: a) In case of spaces on the Initiative track like "Spaceport victory" or "Imperial victory", do I understand it correct, that if someone's initiative token reaches that space, then immediately its effect kicks in. For example if during a battle as an effect of combat card Imperial player manages to move Chaos initiative marker on the very last space (= Imperial victory space), then Imperium would immediately win and battle does not resolve anymore, even if Chaos player could kill the Emperor during it? b) Suppose I am the player with initiative. I perform some attack order and my initiative token is put (ends) one space ahead of the token of my enemy. The battle ensues. During it I manage to move the initiative token of my enemy one space forward. And now the question? How are now the initiative tokens placed? That of mine enemy over mine or contrary? If it is the first case, may I do another action, or am I forbidden to do anything because it is that rare situation when my initiative token is UNDER my enemy's, and therefore I can not do anything. Thanks for your answers.
  5. Hello, I would appreciate a clarification of the following problem: There are 2 Agenda cards (Treaty with Isles/with South) which bypass need for paying a gold penalty for playing Greyjoy/Martell cards in your deck, when you select another House (than these 2). However, if you use any of it, each of your opponents needs to collect 5 less power to win (but minim. 10). In a melee game or in a duel, it is clear that the "new pensum" is 10. But how it is in a team game - 2 team, 2 players in each team. If one player in team A plays one of these 2 agendas, how many power does the team B need to collect? 25 = (30 - 5) or 20 = ( 2 * (15 -5))? And another question: Are these agendas worth playing? Does not their penalization overweigh their benefit? Thanks for answer.
  6. Lebatron said: I have found the LOS rules from Conflict of Heroes: Storms of Steel to basically be the same thing but give better examples and are more clear about levels of elevation and such. But really what you should be doing is using common sense. If you can see no reason why LOS would be blocked then just because the rule maker forgot to include your particular cituation into account does not mean you can't fire. Afterall if there is one thing all these different games should be agreeing on is LOS. Use the same judgement you develope from one game and apply it to the next. If the rules say LOS is not possible, and in another games rules LOS is possible and you know it's possible, then just accept that designers sometimes get it wrong or forgot to include something. If you don't own Conflict of Heroes you can get the PDF from their website to check out the LOS rules I'm referring to. Thanks for the suggestion, Lebatron, but as I can see, we do not solve my problem here, so the best way is to relay it to the TOI game authors (which I yesteraday did ). After receiving the answer from them, I will let you know about a result.
  7. Kingtiger said: Kubis said: But why is plateau effect in the rules? I thing that this rule is unnecessary! Why simply not to use rule for blind hexes? Because when you are actually on a plateau but away from the edge you can't actually look over the edge and see the immediate surrounding area below... But I do not see any difference if the only blocking hex (which has the level 2) is adjacent to my hex or if he is situated few hexes away. How much hexes will then be blinded behind this obstacle (if we agree that LOS is possible)? a) only 1 due to elevation difference equal to 2 or b) 2 as it would imply in a case with level 1 hill hex and another level 1 blocking hill hex There is some inconsistency there regading this case of determining and a plateau effect rule? Maybe the best soultion would be ask the authors of the game
  8. Hello all, recently we solved with friends following problem: Unit A is located on a level 2 hill hex. Between unit A and another unit B (which is located on a simple level 0 hex) are no other obstacles except one level 2 hill hex. This "obstacle" hill hex is not adjacent to the hill hex, on which is located unit A (so it is not a case for a plateau effect) and moreover unit B is located 3 hexes behind this obstacle hex. My question is do these units see each other? If not, then why? It is not a case of a plateau effect. If they do, then why? How does this example differ from a plateau effect rule, except a fact that those two level 2 hexes are not adjacent, but there are several hexes between them? Or should we use normal rules regarding blinded hexes? Thanks for your feedback.
  9. Thanks Hefsgaard for your answers, which seem very consistent But yet your answer to my question a) ii) - i.e. combination of No surrender and Extreme heat cards with a disrupted unit - does not seem to me right. In the No surrender card is specified that... "Your squads can not be destroyed via suppresive attacks". But a factor of a heat is not by my opinion any kind of a suppresive attack, so in this case I would also be inclined to destroying such a (disrupted) squad.
  10. Rosy, I have to admit that in my question a) was mentioning Valar a little bit redundant and confusing, but you grasped my point As to answer b) I forgot that characters (when Valar is played) have possibility to be saved, unlike for example Wildfire assault, so then its only question of played duplicates and saving effects. a) Am I correct, that if more plot cards of the same title are played simultaneously, their effects are cumulative (but not always)? For example: There is one plot that enables players to have one additional military challenge during a challenge phase. So that more such played plot cards increase the number of avalilable military challenges, OK? But what about for example playing 2 Wildfire assaults? Do player choose 6 chars or only 3 chars (there is a preposition "up to 3" in its wording), so do these effects cumulate or not? b) If I would like to cancel some plot effect, I suppose that on the card it should be mentioned as a cancelling a plot effect, or is a plot effect supposed a normal triggered effect? Thanks for explanation.
  11. Hello, I would need an explanation regarding these situations: a) There are Valar morgulis (killing all characters) and Power of blood (protecting characters with a noble crest from being killed) plots in play. During resolving plots in a plot phase, it is clear that all "noble" characters are automatically protected. Suppose that player A has 4 characters in play (2 nobles (with a noble crest) and 2 other (normal)). His opponent (player B) makes a successfull military challenge (agaisnt the player A) with a claim value of 2. Does the player A have to choose only the non-noble characters as casualties (because those noble ones can not be killed) or may he choose any characters he likes, even those 2 nobles, which cannot be killed? A similar situation would occur, if there was Wildfire assault plot card in play (together with Power of blood and without Valar). May a player target (choose) characters, which are protected in some way from a damage, as casualties, or does he have to choose only those "non-protected"? b) If there are 2 Valar morghulis plot cards in play (during one round), does it mean that also characters with duplicates are killed with certainty. Thanks for your feedback.
  12. Hello, recently we encoutered following 2 problems. a) If a player has No surrender operations card (i.e. his squads do not rout) or he uses one card from leadership deck (something like Never give up..(Hero deck ?)., which has the same effect for one round), how are resolved following situations: i) This player has one his squad in a disrupted state and this squad survives an assault attack but has to retreat. Is this disrupted squad destroyed (as an effect after retreat, i.e it routs) or is it saved from routing due to No surrender op. card? ii) In play is the Extreme heat weather card (which states that disrupted squads automaticaly rout). What happens, if one squad of a player with Desperate defenders card becomes disrupted with this weather card in play? Will that squad rout or not? b) How high (as to a level) is considered a forest hex? Is it supposed to add 1 more level to a level of a hex on which it is situated? I ask because of checking the LOS between units in these situations : i) Both units are on level 1 hill hexes. The only blocking terrain beteween them is a level 0 hex with a forest hex. Do these units see each other or not? ii) If a forest hex is placed on a level 1 or level 2 hex (and it is marked i n some way to notify that it is on a hill hex), then does it block LOS for units only on the same level as is the hex with the forest or also even to those other who stand higher? (the same problem asi i question i)) c) One part of rules regarding LOS of units on different elevations confuses mi a little (page 24, the paragraph above the title "Blocking higher elevation"): "Also, when dealing with varying unit elevations, a hill the same level or lower than the unit on the higher elevation is also considered blocking terrain for the purpose of determining blind hexes." Consider a following situation: Three hexes in a line. First (border) hex has level 2, the other hexes have level 1. On both border hexes there are units. Do these units (those on la border evel 1 hex and those on level 2 hex see each other, if there is between them one level 1 hex or not? I would think, that they do, but regarding the above mentioned rule they can not. Thanks for your feedback.
  13. Sorry for the mystification, it was not intended. Somehow I exchanged the role of an attacker and defender. Dam is right with his arguments.
  14. I think that for an attack you do not have any additional units beside your hero. On the other hand, for you to able to attack an enemy, the enemy must have in the target area at least one his unit (I do not remeber by now the exact rule page number). So you can not attack enemy hero, who is alone in the area (a coexistence battle is an exception). But if you consider drawing only 2 hero cards (and possible some other via Lead by example card), you will have quite limited possibilities, as being an attacker (who do not choose about an active/passive role).
  15. Thanks castertroyt for your feedback. Your explanation to my question e) really surprised me . I thought that it worked out only backwards (i.e. when the initiative token of the other player pass for the second time over some "event" spaces. But I could not imagine that it would also work out forward, although now it seems to me more realistic.
  16. Here follow several unclarifications, which I met during recent games: a) Moment of an activation of the hero's special ability: At which exact moment are activated abilities of these heroes: Fulgrim's "conversion" ability and Magnus's bombardment ability? The written timimig "at the start of battle" or "when the hero X enters battle" means amoment BEFORE drawing combat cardsor a moment AFTER drawing combat cards? Those abilities reduce a number of opponent's units, so that they could influence a numberod drawn combat cards. b) Fortification and Dorn's marines. Is area with fortification token (received via Fabricator General hero ability or viaReinforce order) considered fortification? What if in such an area is also present RogalDorn with at least one his marines - may they count their rank 1 higher (or is thisability allowed only in "real" fortifications)? c) Does Mortarion's or Dorn's (decreasing/increasing marines rank) ability activate BEFOREor AFTER drawing combat cards. In other words, may this "change" of rank influence number of drawn combat cards? d) Coexistence battle (Chaos = defender, Imperium = attacker). If all Imperium units in that battle have to rout, what will happen? As an attacker they have to stay in origin (= target) area. Are they eliminated or is only placed an Imperium routed token to that areaand those Imperial units survive? e) Coexistence battle and change of initiative. It is a change of initiative step. The Imperial initiative token has overtaken the Chaostoken. Imperium player is still current player. One coexistence battle is resolved during which the Chaos initiave token is moved 2 spaces forward, so that is now closer to the endthan the Imperial one and is placed on the "Event phase" space. What happens now? Is there another change of initiave step (because the Chaos initiative marker has overtaken the Imperial one)? Then another coexistence battles might occur. But who is nowthe current player: Chaos or Imperium? This situation occured at the end of game on the Vengeful spirit. In one area Horus with 3marines, in the other area Emperor, General and Dorn with 3 Custodes and 2 marines. Last event card was drawn (Titans stride the earth), which enabled another battle betweenheroes. But current player had to choose whether he will fight or not. If Chaos were the current player, he would not fight, while if Imperium was the case, the battle wouldsurely follow. Thanks for your answers.
  17. Hello, just a few more questions: a) The Civil war game variant (from PotS expansion). I do not know whether I understood it clear. Rules say that all players use a common (shared) single discard/dead pile. Does it mean that that there is one shared discard pile deparated from a shared dead pile or that there is only one shared pile, that is used for both discarded and killed cards? b) If a card can copy an ability of another card, like the plot card "Good for gender" (which allows copy "when revealed" ability of another revealed plot card in game), would this copying work, if the copied ability was on the card that says "House X only", and I would play different House? c) Is there a possibility to use something like sideboard in Magic card game? For tournament, I mean. Some 10-15 cards which you could have in reserve (not in your deck) and use them in dependence against what Houses(s) you will play. Thanks for your answers.
  18. Klaus, I think that you should be able to send PM via an "envelope" icon in the list of your friends, if you are logged in. At least I did it so. I will send the campaign to you during this day. Look forward to it!
  19. Thanks again, Ktorn, for your comprenhesive explanations (mainy in the redirecting challenges question).
  20. Thanks you all for your answers (and to Ktorn for his detailed insight ). Yet few more questions: a) Military challenge. My opponents bloks with one character but I manage to lower this blocker's strength to 0. Is this challenge supposed opposed or not? b) What is meaning of a strange symbol appearing like laying number 8 on cards like Pentosh Guildmaster (Targaryen charactre) or Forever burning (Targaryen event)? c) Ability of Crown Regent (title): Redirect one challenge. Is the only restriction here (as to a legal target) possibilty to declare challenge against a given opponent? Example: 3 players game. I have the title Crown regent. Opponent A declares a military challenge against me. As I have all characters knelt I use the Regent's ability to redirect the challenge against Opponent B. So unless either of Opponents A or B has that plot card that forbids declaring military challenges among them (or if Opponent A has a title that would support Oponent B), this redirecting is normally legal, OK? d) And one more questions to redirecting challenges: like Lord Commander, Crown regent titles or when using Supports features of the titles: Is this redirecting declared after declaring a type of chalenge or after also attackers are declared? Are always Stealth, Deadly, Renown abilities applied to the new target (i.e. to opponent to whom it is redirected)? Claim should be applied to the former target (except Lord Commander title), OK?
  21. I think that these special initiative cards (dedicated to particular combat unit) have meaning only in campaign. Usually it should be some bonus/benefit that can not be managed (received) via combination of operations cards or so. It should be something really specific or unique. However, because in my campaign there were engaged several different combat units and I was lazy to design a specific initiative cards for each of them , I designed rather a thematic special initiative cards, which describe certain effects and can be assigned to any participated nation (one side or its enemy) by the need. But if you have one or two such combat units, it should not be a problem. Maybe it could be even interesting to have more (special) initiative cards for one combat unit and a player would have to choose between them before begining of a scenario? (for example some relating to effectivity of an assault, another for fast recovery or partial immunity to suppresive attacks, etc...).
  22. There are some questions still unclear to me: a) Plot card Rule by decree saying "player with the most cards (in hand) has to discard down to 4 (cards)". What if there are more players having the same (most) number of cards. Do they flip a coin about who will be the target or does the first player determines the player who will discard? b) Timing of Ambush ability. Ambush ability says "Any phase: you may play this card by paying its cost in influece instead of gold". I am not sure, whether I may play such cards (supose I have a character card with ambush ability): i) during the challenges (after enemy declares attackers) in his challenge phase or during my challenge phase ii) in the dominance phase (at the begining) so that the strength of this character would be counted in when determining dominance c) The Bran Stark ability relating to revealing new plot cards is only valid to MY plot deck (not to any opponents plot deck), OK? If I use it, I suppose that the effect of my previous plot card (played this round) is stil valid (is not canceled)? d) Are there some cards which can destroy/discard locations? (For example to deal with enemy Bear Island (Stark location)) Thanks for your answers.
  23. Artemis said: Scammer said: Thraka said: To gain control of an objective location do you need to just pass a guy through that hex, or does he need to stop in that hex and wait for status phase? Pass on through. You are wrong. When you want to take control of an objective then one your unit has to stay on that hex during the status phase. Sorry, there should be naturally Command phase instead of Status phase in timing for checking control over an objective.
  24. Scammer said: Thraka said: To gain control of an objective location do you need to just pass a guy through that hex, or does he need to stop in that hex and wait for status phase? Pass on through. You are wrong. When you want to take control of an objective then one your unit has to stay on that hex during the status phase. Then you may add there your control marker and THEN (in the next round) you may normaly use that unit for another action (it is not needy for retaining control over that objective). Capturing an objective by only passing through the given hex would be too much easy, do not you think? And precise quotation from rules, page 14 "A player is said to “control” an objective if he has previously placed one of his control markers on that hex, or if he is now capturing the hex by having at least one friendly unit in it. A player that captures an objective should place one of his control makers on that hex, removing any enemy control marker that may be present. A player retains control of a hex as long as his control marker remains on the hex. It is not necessary for the capturing units to remain in the hex in order to retain control of the objective."
  25. I would like to add some my thoughts to this debate: Someone may feel that FFG is ignoring (overlooking) our expectation (demands) for another TOI expansion (this time probably from Russian environment) and he deduces from it that FFG "deflects" from their support of TOI. But I do not think that a quality of any game can be measured by a number of its (released) expansions. Look, someone wrote in this forum, that he does not need any TOI expansions, because he can make do with a base game (expansions in fact only added some new map tiles, several card decks, and miniatures). I think that if an interest of TOI-players (buyers) is decreasing, it is not caused because of not yet published Russian expansion or old version of TOI scenario editor. TOI is a scenario based game. Without new scenarios its value fades. But do not tell me, that with its status quo (i.e. the base game, 2 expansions and additional map pack) you are not able to design whatever scenario from WW2. Look at the scenario database, how many new scenarios had been added during last halfyear? Surely not so many as earlier. What could be the reason? Prevailing rather a passive role of players who sit and wait, till FFG or someone else serve them another portion of scenarios? And if this portion does not come, they start criticizing FFG that they neglect them. Hey, I do not want to accuse any of you, no matter whether you uploaded here your scenarios or not, but rather emphasize the fact, that if WE TOI-players feel that FFG (maybe) has not a tendency to add (design) new additions to TOI, so why not let OUR OWN community fill in the gap. TOI is designed as a tool, not as a final product. We have been given that tool and with it we can create (re-create) scenarios from WW2. So why not to do it? Do you think that all battles from WW2 theatre have already been proccessed as scenarios? I do not think so. So let us create them as scenarios. Use our own custom rules (if official ones are missing). For example KlausFritch created a table(s) with stats for many WW2 units and vehicles belonging to different nations and surely you could find there other files (scenarios) with custom/advanced rules. Do you think that the current version of the scenario editor does not support TOI expansions? Yes, you are right. But why not to improvize? Take a digital camera and take a snap of your battlefield (you will then have an .jpg file as a map). In any text processor you can create (write) a structural "template" of whatever "complicated" scenario file. Add both these things together and you have a scenario with all needy components :-). Once again I repeat that I do not want to accuse anyone (neither any TOI player, nor FFG). I only want to emphasize that a level (quality) of TOI is made from the greatest part by its players community. If players and fan scenario-designers lose interest in creating new scenarios, then the game will be left to a mercy or un-mercy of its publisher, who can perceive it (rightfully) as a game which they can "put to ice".
  • Create New...