Jump to content

Borgopolis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    83

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Borgopolis

  1. Posted

    Personally, I don't like how the runes work in Runewars either.

    They feel anticlimactic and simply dull. There's nothing thrilling about gaining another rune,

    therefore I've been playing my own variant for a while.

     

    Without going into all the changes let me just say that in my version Runes can be discarded to play another Order Card during a season.

     

    ( in short : each player plays one order in any given season ( as per the official rules )

    then they can discard 1 rune to play another Order Card in that season … and if they have more runes and are willing to spend them they can play another Order Card .. etc.

     

    How do you gain so many runes ? Simple : Runes are generated in area's which had a battle in it and can be spent by the player controlling that rune at any point in the game AFTER the battle. Areas can have more than one rune in it this way if a player is saving them up for some reason.

    Note : succesfully making an alliance with a band of neutrals also counts as a "battle" ( of sorts ) and generates a rune in that area.

     

    There's more, but I can't go into all the details here…

  3. Posted

    I'm NOT arguing that BR can hurt you if you've lost areas in the meantime.

    I know that.

    I'm arguing that BR hurts you when you have NOT LOST any areas and you have built IMPROVEMENTS.

    So you have IMPROVEMENTS + Bountiful Harvest and you end up with LESS

    1 + 1 = minus two in this case.

    It doesn't make sense. It's not logical.

     

  4. Posted

    sigmazero13 said:

     

    The card could be called "Happy Fields of Foo-Foo Land" or "Doom to All Inhabitants of the Land" and it wouldn't have any impact on how the card was played.

     

     

    Yes, that's right, but if the cards would have that kind of unintuitive titles I'd be calling it poor design.

    The title is supposed to give you a HINT or a CLUE as to what it does, but .... you can ideed give it any title you'd like like ... " kjghvkuygfd" ... 

     

    If " Bountiful Harvest" isn't supposed to MEAN or INDICATE anything, like you're implying, why did they call it that way then ?

    Why didn't they call it " Uncle Sam threw a lot of Horse and Pig manure on the fields this year, or did he ... ? "

     

  6. Posted

    sigmazero13 said:

    Agreed.  My guess is, it's in the rules because it became an issue at playtesting.  I can't imagine a rule like that just being added arbitrarily, unless some problem arose with it.

    OK, I'm willing to accept that.

    Just tell me how it is a problem.

    If there is a problem with playing the cards " right away", I think that problem is still there when you play the cards during your next turn.

  7. Posted

    sigmazero13 said:

     

    DarkElf said:

     

    sigmazero13 said:

     

    The Bountiful Harvest isn't really any different than playing the Harvest without the Supremacy bonus.  How is it any less "intuitive" that a resource development doesn't net you the extra resource when playing Harvest orders out-of-sequence?

     

     

    Because it's called BOUNTIFUL Harvest and it actually may REDUCE your Food Resources.

     

    It could just as easily reduce your food resources if your opponent took some of your Food land away, also.  How is that any different?

     

     

    That's completely different.

    We're not talking about losing resourcesdue to losing an area to an opponent.

    We're talking about losing resources due to something that should give you a boost.

    sigmazero13 said:


    DarkElf said:

     

     


    sigmazero13 said:

     

    The Bountiful Harvest isn't really any different than playing the Harvest without the Supremacy bonus. How is it any less "intuitive" that a resource development doesn't net you the extra resource when playing Harvest orders out-of-sequence?

     

     

    Because it's called BOUNTIFUL Harvest and it actually may REDUCE your Food Resources.


    More than once I've had this happen to me or my opponent. The title of the card is just flavor. It doesn't necessarily imply it must be a good effect.

     

     

    So you're saying the Title doesn't mean or imply anything at all ?

    Let's agree to not agree.

  8. Posted

    broken said:

    Are you actually building the resource developments?

    Certainly.

    A quick view and count at the start of the game tells you what resources you can (probably) take within the first year ( year and a half) and if my count comes up short just 1 resource to get for example 4 or 6 Stone I'll build my Home Stronghold in a Home area containing Stone and build the Resource Improvement there.

  9. Posted

    sigmazero13 said:

     

    The Bountiful Harvest isn't really any different than playing the Harvest without the Supremacy bonus.  How is it any less "intuitive" that a resource development doesn't net you the extra resource when playing Harvest orders out-of-sequence?

     

     

    Because it's called BOUNTIFUL Harvest and it actually may REDUCE your Food Resources.

    I think it's more intuitive if (supposedly ) positive effects give positive effects rather than negative effects.

  10. Posted

     broken said:

     

    You aren't required to play by the rules in the rulebook, but I don't think it's justified to demand a rationale for each one.

     

     

    I'm not asking a rationale for each rule I come across just for those that strike me as "unnecessary". ( or wrong )

    I'm sure the designers use rationale when they're designing the game.

    They should have a reason to make this rule. I'm just saying I don't see it and I'd like to hear the why of it as I don't see anything broken if we could use Tactics cards as soon as we get them just like anything else in the game.

    So, I'm just interested to hear why Tactics Cards were made an exception.

  11. Posted

    broken said:

     

    Because it's in the rules?  Do you need a reason other than that?

     

     

    Actually ... yes.

    Because it is a rule doesn't make it a good rule ... and a necessary rule.

    I could be convinced of the rule if they gave me a reasonable "why", but I don't see that.

     

    I play a Strategize and draw 2 tactics cards and I can't play them this turn ?

    Come on ...

  12. Posted

    mateooo said:

     

     

     


    5) Bountiful Harvest, the Fall Season card that lets you adjust your dials based on areas you control. When this happens, do you get the bonuses from your developments? We've played NO, but then we get screwed by what seems to be a beneficially intended card. What about the exploration marker that increased a hex' resource? The card does not mention developments, just areas you control. But when you've recently harvested and gained all that plus your dev bonuses, the Bountiful Harvest doesn't seem so bountiful when it causes you to then LOWER your dials

     

    ANSWER) You may NOT use developments when the Bountiful Harvest card is resolved. This includes ones that provide resources.
     

     

     

    You build a development so that the AREA produces one more resource when you play the HARVEST+Supremacy Order Card.

    Yet, when you get a BOUNTIFUL HARVEST, the same AREA produces one less resource ???

    That's counterintuitive and counterproductive.

    My guess is Corey's answer is "no" simply because we would need a newly worded Bountiful Harvest Season Card if ruled otherwise.

    mateooo said:

     

     

     

    7) The rules say you cant use a tactics card the same turn you draw them. What does a turn mean? Sounds like the same part of the season to me. Also, does taking a tactics card from another player (as the result of a tactics card) constitute "drawing a tactics card"? For example, I attack someone, and play a tactics card that lets me steal 2 random tactics cards from them. Can I play those 2 cards this turn?

    ANSWER: A "player's turn" is defined as any time before, during or after resolving his order card. Therefore if he drew a tactic when resolving his order card, he could not use the tactic until the start of the next player's turn (if timing allows it).
    "Drawing cards" includes any time that you gain new cards and add them to your hand. If you steal cards from an opponent, you may not play them until the current player's turn is over.

     


     

     

     

    I find this another strange and unnecessary ruling.

    Why exactly can't you use Tactics cards as soon as you get them ?

    Is there anything broken if you could ?

    You can use units as soon as you get it, so why not Tactics cards.

    Reinforcement lets you put units in play and potentially use them the same turn.

    The Flute of Possession potentially allows you to move neutral units into an area you control and use those same units during the same turn with an order.

    So, why can Tactics Cards not be used immediately ? Why this IMO unnecessary restriction ?

  13. Posted

    sigmazero13 said:

     

    I'm not entirely convinced the Lord Commander card "needs" it.  The +2 to all battles in Rune Token territories is pretty big already

     

    Whether the Lord Commander card "needs" a second is debatable, the reason I think it needs a second ability is because

    1- the other title cards each have two uses as well

    2- I don't like "one use" special cards

    it's exactly the fact that you get multiple effects out of the Title Cards that makes them earntheir place in a Strategy game IMO.

    "One use" is just too straightforward IMO and becomes "old" very fast.

     

    One of the cards I like the most for example is the Rally Cry Tactics card, simply because it is so versatile.

  14. Posted

    The Epic variant states that the fake Runes are not used, which I prefer anyway but this leads me to the following questions.

    Why was this not anticipated with Runewitch Astarra and the Lord Commander Title card ?

    Runewitch Astarra's Special Ability lets her look at Rune tokens in her area or adjacent areas.

    Obviously, this ability is completely useless when playing without fake Runes.

    The Secondary Ability of the Lord Commander Title card has a similar "look" effect, which becomes useless as well when playing this variant.

     

    Some might call it an "oversight", but I feel this is just too blatant to be a simple oversight.

    Any Chance these two cards could be redone and be added to the first expansion ( a la TI3) ?

     

    In the meantime I set the House Rule Department at work which came up with the following alternatives

    1- Runewitch Astarra :

    Instead of taking an Action ( Move, heal, Train ) you may move a Rune Token from the area in which you currently reside to an adjacent area.

    ( she is a Runewitch after all )

     

    2- Lord Commander Title Card second ability :

    When resolving a Conquer Order you may draw one Fate Card. You may use this card to replace one of your Fate Cards drawn during this season's battle. Discard this card at the end of this turn if it wasn' t used.

     

     

  15. Posted

    Bleached Lizard said:

     The only amendment I might make is that a player may spend additional influence before each card draw to draw an additional card for that monster.  What do you think?

    So, you're paying 1 influence per neutral unit up front for the diplomacy attempt , allowing you to draw 1 Fate card for each neutral unit

    and may add additional influence to draw 1 additional Fate card per 1 additional influence spent for (a) neutral unit(s) of your choice ?

    Sounds good to me.

  17. Posted

    sigmazero13 said:

     

    He didn't mention either way about playing Rally Cry mid-battle on those units, though.

     

     

    Since Rally Cry specifically states that you can play it "during battle" I assume that's an automatic Yes.

     

    This card has become a very versatile one.

    You can use it to surprise an attacking foe or to change the outcome of a battle and anything in between.

  19. Posted

    Asylur said:

     

    Has anyone else tried letting people get their objective card before choosing starting location? 

     

    I haven't tried that but I definitely would not oppose to it as it adds strategy to the game in place of randomness.

    What I do however before starting locations are chosen is set-up the neutral units on the board ( so that you get a better view of what is where ) and maybe more important : assign the cities to the board.

    Playing as the Elves , for example, being close to one of the cities where you can rally Pegasus Riders is certainly something to take into consideration

    Whereas the undead like to be in the neighbourhood of a city where you can rally Necromancers...

  21. Posted

    This is the same as what I posted on the BGG-forum

    **********************************************************

    After reading posts from Kaiwen Zhang and Bleached Lizard about a more " interesting" Diplomacy mechanic, the following idea popped up in my head.
    I think it could actually be a very good variant, so I'd like to post it here.

     

    First : what's viewed as somewhat lacking in the diplomacy mechanic ?
    1- Convincing a mighty dragon is just as easy as convincing a lowly Razorwing.
    2- Convincing a group is just as easy as convincing one unit.

    The new mechanic should thus scale diplomacy difficulty so that it is
    1- more difficult to lure a Dragon unit in than a Razorwing.
    2- more difficult to convince more units than fewer units.

    The Variant Mechanic works surprisingly simple and effective :

    When you move units into an area containing neutral units you have two options :
    1- Fight them ( as per the official rules)
    2- Try Diplomacy on them

    When you try Diplomacy you must pay exactly 1 Influence for each neutral unit in the area and draw the same amount of Fate cards.

    Meaning, if there's just 1 neutral unit you must pay 1 Influence and draw 1 Fate Card...
    If there are 4 neutral units you must pay exactly 4 Influence and draw 4 Fate cards ...
    So, the more units in the area, the more influence you'll have to use to get them to listen to you.

    Then you'll play 1 Fate Card result ( using the corresponding unit type result ) on each neutral unit to indicate how they react to your diplomatic efforts.

    When using Fate Cards for diplomacy purposes the icons on the Fate cards have a different meaning

    "Blank" result : you succesfully ally 1 unit (of the corresponding unit type.)
    Base 40% chance to ally Triangle and Round units.
    Base 30% chance to ally Rectangle Units.
    Base 20% chance to ally Hexagon Units.
    Basically, the worst result you can get in combat, a "blank", is the best result you can get in Diplomacy.
    This means it's easier to get Sorcerers and Beastmen to join you than Dragons and Giants.

    "Damage" result : this neutral unit (of the corresponding unit type) attacks you ( after the diplomacy part is finished completely )
    base 13.32% chance to be attacked by Round units.
    Base 26.64% chance to be attacked by Triangle Units.
    Base 33.33% chance to be attacked by Rectangle Units.
    Base 39.96% chance to be attacked by Hexagon Units.
    So, it's more likely that Giants and Dragons will attack you than Sorcerers.

    "Orb" result : this neutral unit (of the corresponding unit type) retreats.
    base 40.% chance that Round units retreat.
    Base 20% chance that Triangle, Rectangle and Hexagon Units retreat
    Wizard type units flee twice as often as the combat oriented types.

    "Flag" result : this neutral unit (of the corresponding unit type) is unaffected by your diplomacy and stands his ground.
    You'll have to fight this unit after Diplomacy is finished to try to control this area or you'll have to retreat.
    base 20% chance to be unaffected by diplomacy and stand their ground : Hexagon Units.
    Base 16.65% chance to be unaffected by diplomacy and stand their ground : Rectangle Units.
    Base 13.32% chance to be unaffected by diplomacy and stand their ground : Triangle Units.
    Base 6.66% chance to be unaffected by diplomacy and stand their ground : Triangle Units.
    Dragons and Giants will stand their ground and force the opponent to fight them or retreat more often than lower units like Razorwings.

    An example to finish off.

    You send a Sorceress into an area containing a Dragon ( Hexagon unit), a Hellhound ( Rectangle Unit), a Sorcerer ( Round unit) and Razorwing ( Triangle unit)

    Since there are four Neutral Units in the area you have to pay 4 Influence to try Diplomacy on them.
    You work through the units one by one, starting with Initiative 1 units, then initiative 2 units and so on

    Sorcerer and Razorwing are both Intitiative 1 units and you decide to start with the Razorwing.
    You draw Fate Card 22 which shows a "Blank" for Triangle meaning the Razorwing allies with you.

    Then you Draw for the Sorcerer : Fate card 2 : which shows an "Orb" for round units , meaning the Sorcerer withdraws.
    The player to your left decides what area the Sorcerer withdraws to following the normal retreat rules.

    Then you draw for the Initiative 3 unit Hellhound : Fate Card 1 : which shows a "Flag (2)", meaning the Hellhound is unaffected by your diplomatic efforts and will stand his ground.Ignore the number (2) for Diplomacy.
    You'll have to decide at the end of diplomacy whether to attack him or retreat.

    Finally you draw for the initiative 4 unit, the Dragon : Fate Card 8 : which shows a "damage (3)" result, meaning the Dragon attacks you (at the end of Diplomacy) ( again, ignore the number (3) for diplomacy).

    So, the situation is set :
    the Sorcerer has withdrawn and the Razorwing is now your ally.
    You decide to retreat from the area so you don't have to fight the Hellhound but before you can retreat you will have to fight the Dragon.
    Line your Sorceress and your Razowing up for Combat against the Dragon and resolve as normal.
    If any of your units survive the battle they can withdraw as normal.

    Even though this makes a rather lengthy post, this system is quite simple really and provides a "more interesting" diplomacy game IMO.

  23. Posted

    Just a word of advice.

    Don't make this to be more than it really is.

    For most units in the game it won''t impact their ability at all whether they are on offense or defense.

    The unit who's creating the most issues is the Berserker, simply because his ability involves a conditional sacrifice cost.

    No other unit has a similar ability.

     

    Overall, I like the fact that the offense gets a ( slight ) advantage for a change, makes gameplay that more interesting.

  24. Posted

    Asylur said:

     

    Thanks for the update.  It is a 180 from the previous reply, but I am glad he mentioned that.  I do think this is the simpler way to run things and hopefully will be kept a consistent way in future resolution questions!

     

     

    I agree that this is going to make the timing of everything a lot clearer and easier

    but I'm afraid this 180 will cause quite bit of confusion

    sigh ... Just when I was buying into the whole simultaneous thing ... :)

  25. Posted

    I think the rules make sense as they are.

    When you attack you can go over the 8-unit limit, when you defend you don't -> this is to stimulate offense.

    Keep in mind Defense already has the advantage of winning Strength ties and having Strongholds to help out ( that's 5 strength for zero units )

    So, a Necromancer can use its ability on defense but if the army goes over 8 units he has to kill the surplus units off.

     

    I'm quite sure it's a balance issue as well.

    Imagine an Undead Stronghold with about 4 Necromancers and 4 Reanimates guarding it -> that's strength 13 already.

    Imagine having 2 or 4 more Reanimates pop-up. Strength 15 - 17 , anyone ?

    How are you ever going to have a serious chance of dislodging that ?

    My point : allowing the undead to go over the 8-unit limit on defense would give them a too strong advantage that the other races don't have.

×
×
  • Create New...