Jump to content

LongDarkBlues

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LongDarkBlues

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Pennsylvania, United States
  1. LongDarkBlues

    Can the Roc Warrior choose to ignore the support?

    I agree that makes more sense, it's just something I think could use a bit of clarifying in the flying rules. It's really not a huge issue, but if this game's going to be robust enough for organized play - and ongoing expansions - I think refining the rules to be as sharply written as possible is essential!
  2. LongDarkBlues

    Can the Roc Warrior choose to ignore the support?

    It's a little weird, in that your own unit is the reason you're taking damage from a retreat, though, since without the Rock Golem the Roc Warrior would be fine. I assume that is the ruling as well, but it'll be nice to have it clarified. Well, consider it like you try to run away because you are shot in the back, but you have your dumb friend standing in your way. Yeah, but that's also how support works, too
  3. LongDarkBlues

    Can the Roc Warrior choose to ignore the support?

    It's a little weird, in that your own unit is the reason you're taking damage from a retreat, though, since without the Rock Golem the Roc Warrior would be fine. I assume that is the ruling as well, but it'll be nice to have it clarified.
  4. LongDarkBlues

    Can the Roc Warrior choose to ignore the support?

    I'd argue that it doesn't move at all, because it's supported. In this example: If the Chaos Lord rolls Terrify for 2 retreats on the Roc Warrior, according to Derek's note here, the Roc is "forced to retreat into a hex that contains an enemy unit" but "he can retreat through that hex instead" thanks to Flying. So, since the Roc can move through that hex, the Roc Warrior now "is forced to retreat into a hex that contains a friendly unit" and therefore "the Flying unit is supported and ignores all retreats." I'd argue that, going by that previous ruling, the Roc Warrior is supported, and takes no damage, because he doesn't have to retreat in the first place, and so ends his movement in the same unoccupied hex he started in. In a related question, has the issue of a flying unit retreating through a hex with an enemy flying unit come up? There's nothing written to imply it would work any differently, but it seemed germane to the discussion. Edit. here's a few rules notes in exploring this: Support: "A friendly unit is supported if it is forced to retreat into a hex occupied by a friendly unit. While supported, a unit ignore all retreats; ignored retreats do not cause any damage." Retreats: "If a retreating unit would be forced to retreat into an adjacent hex containing a friendly unit, it becomes Supported. The retreating units ends its movement and ignores all remaining retreats." Flying: "A unit with Flying can retreat though hexes that contain other units, as long as it ends its movement in an unoccupied hex. Any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal." OK, so the Roc Warrior isn't supported until it is in a hex adjacent to the Rock Golems, in this case the same hex as the Viper Legion. But, it can retreat through hexes containing enemy units as long as it ends it's movement in an unoccupied hex, which with 2 retreats it can't, UNLESS it doesn't move in the first place because it would have moved into a hex occupied by a friendly unit and therefore ignores ALL retreats retrocatively. So I think this question really comes down to how retreats deal damage: in one cumulative step accounting for all factors related to the retreat, or on a hex-by-hex basis as the unit moves while retreating? If the Rune Golems are preventing the retreat by occupying the hex (as per Flying), aren't they also occupying the hex when it comes to Support? One read would be that Flying is essentially nullfied because the Roc can't end its movement in an unoccupied hex and so it never moves through the Viper Legion to become adjacent to the Rock Golems in the first place, and therefore takes 2 damage for unresolved retreats. Another read is that the Roc retreats its first hex through the Viper Legion and then retreats the second hex into the space occupied by the Rock Golems and is therefore supported and ignores all retreats and takes 0 damage. Or a read somewhere in the middle - The Roc retreats its first hex through the Viper Legion and then retreats the second hex into the space occupied by the Rock Golems and is therefore supported but cannot end its movement there, and takes 1 damage for unresolved retreats before it became supported. And what if the Chaos Lord also rolled a Morale result in addition to Terrify, and we were talking about 3 retreats here - there's an unoccupied space the Roc Warrior can move into past the Rock Golems, but since support isn't optional for Flying units, isn't the Flying unit forced to retreat into a hex occupied by a friendly unit and therefore become supported? If it was 3 retreats and there was an empty hex between the Viper Legion and the Rock Golems the Roc Warrior would definitely be supported, right? Or, is there a disctinction being made between 'moving into' and 'moving through' in terms of becoming adjacent? Edit 2. After some consideration, perhaps the intention of the Flying retreat and support rule is something like: "If it would end its movement in another unoccupied hex, a unit with Flying retreats through hexes occupied by enemy units. If not, any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal. If a unit with Flying would be forced to retreat into, or through, an adjacent hex occupied by a friendly unit, it is only supported if the hex it is currently moving through is unoccupied."?
  5. LongDarkBlues

    What are your thoughts on the scenario cards?

    You know, I really don't think I'd write it off to the luck of the draw - the faction banners seem powerful enough to be worth using a command card to order a single unit to retake them - +2 VP (and -1 earned VP to your opponent) is powerful enough that you can, essentially, abandon the other VP available on the board and still win if you hold the faction banner for your side. Most scenarios have two neutral 1 VP banners, and the faction banner scenarios have 1 neutral VP banner and 1 faction banner - if you take one of their two neutral banners and are gaining 2 VP from it, at worst they are going to stay even with you in VP per turn - even the slightest contest over the other 1 VP banners is enough to easily tip the game in your favor - the only reasonable way to proceed is for both armies to put the majority of their forces in a position to fight over the 2 VP banner. And if your opponent only has 1 VP banner, even moreso. I think it's fine to have a battle that focuses on a single point sometimes, but I don't think that style of play takes advantage of what makes Battlelore so much fun. I'll be curious to see how banner factions are viewed once organized play begins.
  6. LongDarkBlues

    What are your thoughts on the scenario cards?

    We aren't really wild about the faction banners - they are so valuable that they tend to make the flow of battle a bit too predictable. Very few VP conditions can hope to be as reliable as a 2vp hex, so focusing on any other vp goal seems like a bonus instead of a requirement, and since holding a 2vp hex is usually (always?) also depriving your opponent of 1vp at the same time, the games featuring faction banners seem to give little reason to do much with the lanes of the board that don't feature the banner, which makes for a huge melee, but seems a bit uninteresting on a tactical level.
  7. LongDarkBlues

    Siege Golem?? Counter Attack???

    That is how I would interpret it, yes - I don't think they can counter attack.
  8. LongDarkBlues

    New faction announced!

    YES!!
  9. LongDarkBlues

    Expansions...

    The best reason to use the Viper Legion, as far as I'm concerned, is they are the only way for Uthuk to use some Command cards as intended - having a well-rounded army of Archers, Infantry, and Cavalry is rewarded by the game's design. They are the least effective units, sure, but somebody has to be, right? Generally, though, I find Poison is hardly worth removing unless it's on a Legend unit.
  10. LongDarkBlues

    Expansions...

    Still not on the boat, as per yesterday's update, so we can probably stop hoping that it was secretly on the boat for the last 4 weeks to slip in at the end of Q1 - hopefully we'll get a new estimated date soon! As eager as I am to get my hands on the Army Packs, it'd be kind of fun if they came out alongside the Reinforcement units, too, just to introduce all that stuff to the game at the same time.
  11. Oh yeah - I'm ordering those 5 new packs the instant they are available. I'm still checking the Upcoming page twice a day, waiting for any kind of change. I noted that both the Dragon and Giant are listed before the Army Packs when sorted by 'expected by,' despite being marked as Q2. My fantasy is that the first 4 of them hit the store the same day (especially since a Q1 release of the Army Packs seems rather unlikely, considering there's only 3 weeks left in the quarter and it's not yet marked as 'on the boat' which is 4-6 weeks on its own). Still, you know, fingers firmly crossed.
  12. LongDarkBlues

    Razorwings arriving!

    An all neutral army would be a lot of fun - might get a little fussy on the Lore deck side of things, but definitely fun.
  13. I don't hate it - I used to play in junior tournaments a million years ago - I just bristle at the idea that it's the ideal form of anything. After being away from it and playing other things for a few decades, I was playing with my father-in-law for a stretch last year and I couldn't get over how surprisingly inelegant so many of the rules were, so I did a bit of digging into the history of chess rules - it's pretty interesting reading, in terms of thinking about game design. I suppose I'm glad I've played it as much as I have, but I'll also be glad to never play it again, too - adapting a strategy to optimize the statistical outcomes of a chain of moves in BattleLore provides a lot more interesting decision-making to me than the plotting out of 'if I do this, then you'll do this, then I'll do this, then you'll do this' of Chess.
  14. Off topic, but I find the lauding of Chess as the ultimate mechanical game to be wildly overblown - it's full of clunky unbalancing additions that were tacked on over the years that are now taken as inarguable (castling, pawn upgrading, double pawn movement from their starting positions, queen maximum movement, etc.), and that an absence of randomness somehow makes a game intrinsically more strategic - maximizing and minimizing variables to favor your side and knowing how to take advantage of unexpected success or compensate for unexpected failure, are things that require a strong command of gaming strategy that chess can't really approximate (also, if you've never played without stripping out those additional rules, you should really give it a shot - pawns are vastly more interesting when miscalculating with them wastes them instead of turning them all into queens). It's a great game with simple rules that offer a ton of strategy that has endured amazingly well, but holding it up as the pinnacle of strategy while all modern creations fail to meet its glorious perfection is so regressive. Modern games might not have it's conservative austerity or widespread accessibility, but I find them to be generally more demanding in terms of interesting strategic decisions - chess is a fascinating shifting puzzle, but it's certainly not the final word on strategy mechanics. Fluff-wise, how can anybody not love demonic super-babarians?
×