Jump to content

Staurty

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Staurty

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chorley, Lancashire, United Kingdom
  1. All I've finally got a copy of the rulebook and I'm reading through character creation. One of the things that I'm really keen on is creating a droid character. They seem to really offer a lot of free range to make whatever I want. However, if i'm understanding the character creation rules correctly, then I'm going to need to spend an immense amount of experience just to get some decent starting stats. They get more starting EXP to do this, but it doesn't seem to be enough to have reasonable stats and still be able to invest any points in skills and talents. I'm not after anything OP, but just getting a single stat up to 3 uses up a LOT of the available points. I understand that droids are intended to be, in many ways, inferior to organic beings, often designed around only being proficient at a single task, but I still expected them to be a little balanced with the other races. If this is the full intention of the rules, and droids are meant to be picked only for the RP goodness they bring, then I'm ok with that, but it's not quite what I was expecting. Am I missing something? Are droids actually just as good as everything else and I just need more experience to figure it out?
  2. Your question is a little confusing You cannot retreat into territory which is owned by another player. RULEBOOK, PAGE 21: "The retreating units must retreat to one empty adjacent area (i.e., one containing no enemy units or enemy Power tokens) or to a friendly area." Even though you have made an alliance with another player, with regards to the rules they are still considered an enemy. Alliances are just verbal agreements between players and don't effect the rules at all. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'remove the drives'.
  3. I agree that the rules are presented really well and I like the way that the reference guide works. What about the rules themselves? To me it seems to be streamlined enough compared to AH that it should be easier to pick up, but without loosing the flavor and complexity enough to be considered a 'dumbed down' version. While it seems that it should also be quicker to play, that will depend on how often certain things crop up and how quickly the doom track actually progresses. The limited Mythos deck should at least limit the game time by a certain degree. What are people's thoughts? Is it too early to judge without having actually played it yet?
  4. If there are routed units on a spot with a power token, and you attack but are defeated, the power token will stay in place. Power tokens are only removed if land changes from ownership of one player to another. If the attacker has lost the battle then there the land never changed owners. This is the same if you are attacking non-routed units on a power token
  5. I like the idea in principle, actually having the influence of the house characters visible on the board. I had an Idea like this myself where, when you formed an army (or fleet) you placed a token of some kind with a number on it with the army, and then placed one of your house cards face down with an identical token on top, to show that it is assigned to that army, but no-one would know which house card was assigned. The token doesn't count as a unit so doesn't effect supply. You still use house cards in all battles. If an army/fleet is the attacking/defending force then you MUST use the assigned house card. For smaller battles involving single units, you choose between the cards left in your hand. House cards still get discarded at the end of battle, as normal and a new house card must be assigned to armies afterwards. I chose that method because it doesn't change the way that the game works as much, only adds flavor to house card selection and guessing which house card is where. The problem I can see with your method is partly the complex issue of handling the sea units, but more so that stronger house cards can be used repeatedly, so a strength 4 card can stomp across the board with impunity until they meet another high strength card, and even then might not be removed from the board. The main game uses 'discarding after use' to make using the stronger house cards a more tactical decision that must be carefully weighed. Use to early and you might need it again later. Give your method a go and see if there are balance issues. If there are, you might need to do something to tone down the power of the higher strength cards or make them easier to destroy.
  6. EDITED: I streamlined my suggestion a bit Ok, to start, this could surely only work with more than 6 players. I'm mostly basing it on what popped into my head when I saw this 9-Player version of the game. One thing I love about the GoT books is the notion of the various houses 'declaring for' the different kings, and switching sides at opportune moments. This is done well enough in the standard game with simple verbal agreements but when you get up to 9 players I think you could add something more robust. Also lets more than 1 out of 9 players win. What I keep thinking about is a system where you can, before acting out any order, 'declare for' another player. You then become their bannerman and your win condition becomes making sure they become king. Of course the 'winner' of the game is still whoever becomes king, but the bannermen get a kind of 'silver medal'. You aren't tied into your alliance and can declare for someone else at any time. You can even declare for yourself to escape an alliance and try to make it on your own. It should be noted that, after your declaration (and braking bonds with the previous alliance), the other player is under no obligation to accept you, so you could burn your bridges and then end up left high and dry. I can think of a couple of restrictions straight away. You can only declare for someone higher up on the Iron Throne track There is a limit to how many bannermen a player can have (1 or 2?) The main advantage to declaring for someone else would be to have a chance at being included in a victory when there is otherwise no hope. Having a powerful ally should also give you a chance to get back on your feet for a chance to go for it alone later. There should also be some disadvantages to encourage players to break alliances. My main though is that, if you are a bannerman, and you get 7 castles, you don't win, as your win condition is now to let your 'liege lord' win, so you would have to break the alliance and declare for yourself to get the win. Also, I quite like the idea that if positions on the Iron Throne track change, so does the pecking order within the alliance. That way you can usurp the top-spot within an alliance by voting higher than them. (promotes internal squabbling). To help retain their position, the 'leader' within each alliance should settle ties within their alliance for voting. Other than that, you still follow the same rules. Only your win-condition changes. No sharing land with allies as that gets complicated when you change sides no using each others ships Allies can still attack each other, refuse support etc. I know this one sounds strange but the books have plenty of instances where bannermen who have declared for the same king squabble among each other. It is up to the leader to keep his men in control. When I visualize this I imagine making little banners for each house and literally flying another houses banner above your house screen to show who's side you're on. The main thing I'm not sure on is exactly how to balance the win condition. I want there to be some kind of disadvantage to being in an alliance. I can't think of a good way to do this within the game as being on the winning team is still winning, even if you only got a 'partial victory' for being a bannerman. My only thought on doing this is some kind of material gain outside of the game, with less for bannermen than the victorious 'king' FOR EXAMPLE, you could play for a pot of real-world money. Not my personal style, but you could play for rounds of drinks after the game etc. If a player wins on their own it's winner-takes-all. If they had bannermen then they have to give them a cut (about 1/4 value each). They still take the lions share in any case, but every time they accept a new ally, their cut reduces, and the bannermen will have a reason to try and take the top spot to get the larger share for themselves.
  7. It does seem like this game would make it easier to spot that there is no cylon, with the way that skill checks work, so maybe it is best left out, but that's why I figured you would need a SoC style penalty for not uncovering all the cylons at the end. That way a canny cylon could act very human and create a false sense of security, and only influence the game very slightly so that the game leans towards a narrow victory, that is swiftly taken away when they reveal their loyalty right at the end. This is a tactic which doesn't work in the basic game as the human players know for a fact how many cylons there will be. However, without having played the game myself yet I can't say how easy it is normally is for the human players to get a strong victory. Is it usually pretty close to the wire? I guess I could invest in the game and give it a try. If I find it too easy to detect 'no cylons' then we could go for adding more cards from the destiny deck on each skill check, but again this could only really work in larger games. Plus this would only add to the difficulty for human players, especially as most of the time you would still end up with the full complement of cylons. As a side note, I do quite like the notion of scaling the likelyhood of cylons based on how well players are doing at the sleeper phase, but I would still like there to have potentially been some cylons up to that point. Those rules were of course made for a two player game though, where the presence of a cylon makes a huge difference to the human side, so having one from the start would pretty much guarantee failure.
  8. Hello This may have been raised before, but here goes I am interested in the BG game and I am a fan of the way the traitor mechanic works in Shadows over Camalot. One of the parts that I like the best about the SoC traitor system is that there is always a chance that there is no traitor and the players could spend half the game looking for a traitor only to find out that there wasn't one. Does anyone think that this kind of thing could be worked into BG? The way I'm proposing to do it would be to simply make the deck as described in the rules, and then add two more 'You are not a Cylon' cards. After the second set of loyalty cards are dealt out there will be two spare cards left over. These are put into the box without looking at them so no-one knows how many cylons there will be. By potentially reducing the number of cylons, this coulds make it too easy for the human players so, like SoC, there may have to be some penatly for not uncovering the cylons. For example, at the end of the game, for each un-revealed cylon (not in the brig), the lowest resource is lowered by one/two, in a final act of sabotage. That way a narrow victory could be turned into a sudden defeat if there was still one or more cylons hiding. This works great with SoC, but BG is a very different game, so it may not work at all. Has anyone tried anything like this, or are there any experienced players who might be able to predict what kind of effect this is likely to have (good or bad)?
  9. How about mixing the matches a bit with Stark/Tyrell, Greyjoy/Baratheon, Lannister/Martell Does that sound any more balanced?
  10. It's actually hidden away in the rules for ports. You can also consolodate power on a port, as long as there are no enemy ships in the connected sea area. While this can be quite useful I don't personally like the idea of leaving a ship in the port just for the occasion where the GoT card is drawn. If you're miltary power is pretty good and you think you can spare a unit or two to babysit ports, then it's fine, but I often find myself needing every unit I can muster to be pulling its weight in the field.
  11. To expand on this, while there are other subtle advantages to ports, the MAIN reason use use them is when you own a land area with a port, but another player owns the sea area outside. If you wanted to build some ships of your own to re-take the land, and there were no ports, you wouldn't be able to do this. You would be completely unable to build ships until the other player vacated the sea region. Ports stop you from being able to completely block another player in by simply puting 1 ship on each sea area. Also, while you only have one or two ships, and are waiting for the opertunity to march out and re-take the sea, you can keep raiding the ship/fleet that the other player has left in the sea. This stops them from supporting any attacks on your land areas. Alternatively, you could put on a support order and assist another ship in attacking that sea area against your opponent. Using ports is, of course, also pretty risky as you could loose a few ships if you loose the land area, so I only use if necessary. My personal beleif is that a ship in port should be able to support it's own land area to help reduce this problem, but they do need a weakness to balance out the benefit.
  12. Resolve the card when it is that card's turn to be resolved, which would be after the card from deck 1 is resolved. This does create the interesting scenario that you have already done the 'moving the wildling threat token' step, so, in theory, if the card you get after shuffling has a wildling symbol on it, then it is ignored. Do other people play it this way, or does anyone move the wildling threat token again if the second card has the wildling symbol?
  13. I agree with the above posts. Being supported by yourself is still being supported. With regard to the other interpretation that 'all non-Baratheon ships' would somehow just refer to the non-Baratheon ships on your side, this is more than slightly silly. The card negates the combat strength of ALL of the non-Baratheon ships involved in the combat (including supporting ships), on both sides. You are correct that this card represents Salador being a pirate and doing pirate things, i.e. raiding other player's ships. Your friend is ALSO correct, that, as a pirate, his loyalty isn't all that dependable. That is why he effects the ships of ALL non-Baratheon players, not just those supporting your enemy. He's sworn to Stannins, so he won't raid his ships, but that won't stop him raiding the ships of Stannis' temporary allies.
  14. 'Ship Transport' can only be used for Marching and Retreating This means that, in your eample below, units at sunspear cannot Support the battle at winterfell. This also means that, if the units at sunspear had been given a Raid order, they could not have Raided winterfell. For the question of Tides of Battle Skulls, the rules don't say it exactly, but I would use the same principle as casualties from Sword icons. Casualties from Sword icons are only taken from the units that were defeated in combat and have been forced to retreat, not from Supporting units. For example, I get attacked by the Lannister player and I only have a single footman at that location, but I have two additional footmen with a Support icon nearby, so they add their support. The Lannister player uses the Gregor Clegane house card and I play a weak card with no Fortification icons. I am defeated. As the Gregor Clegane card has three(!) sword icons I take three casualties from my retreating units. As I only have one retreating unit it is removed. I do not also remove the two supporting footmen. Gregor's extra two swords have been wasted. I would apply the same logic and say that skull icons can only cause a casualty from the units (attacking or defending) that are actually present in the battle, not suporting units. If there are no unts left to remove, the skull icon is wasted. This could happen because, for example, Mace Tyrell was used and removed the only unit that the opponent had before the skull can come into effect. T
  15. I concur You CAN attack with a siege engine on its own, but it will have a strength of 0 against anything but a castle, so it won't be useful most of the time. Also, when someone then retailiates your seige engine will be a sitting duck and will probably get destroyed. The rules make it very unwise to have a seige engine operating without a lot of support, but nothing prevents you from doing it.
×
×
  • Create New...