No Consequence for Supporting Army?

[arabprince 3]

Hello,

 

Pretty sure I read the rules clearly enough and I understand it perfectly well..but it still seems odd to me. I am referring to the affect of a battle on a supporting army. As far as I understand an army/unit may support a battle for either side (attacker or defender) and even after the battle, the same army/unit can support a battle in the same area within the same turn (since the support token stays even after the battle). No matter the outcome of the battle, nothing happens to the supporting army/unit. This just seems odd to me.

 

Shouldn't the supporting army have some sort of risk? If the side they are supporting loses, shouldn't they suffer some kind of consequence. One thing I've read on this board a lot is "think if this was real life...what would make sense" and this method works almost every time (game is very well designed ). However, from reading the rules, it doesn't seem like if (example) Lannister supports Baratheon in a battle against Greyjoy. Even if Baratheon loses, Lannister isn't routed nor suffers casualties. If you think about this in real life...if one side loses, both the main army and the supporting army would be routed/suffer casualties.

 

What do you guys think..have I read the rules wrong and a supporting army DOES IN FACT suffer some sort of consequence? If I am right, do any of you have any gripes with this? Seems like it takes away any risk from the supporting army. I guess the risk is in the attacker/defender counting on support.

 

Thanks

[The Professor 216]

Arabprince,

Your comments make perfect sense. As a career Air Force officer, there are countless examples of units supporting others in combat which meant the difference between and among a victorious breakthrough, holding the line, and despite the best intentions, a humiliating defeat. However, as it's a game, sometimes mechanics trump reality. I would be interested in hearing a variant you propose to make it more realistic.

Cheers,

Joe

[williamames3 50]

The other problem is Fun>Realistic while I do agree with your points and think it would be far more realistic to have supporting armies suffer routes and causalities. I also think it would discourage supporting altogether and the idea of keeping allies in the game. As is there isn’t much benefit to support other players armies other than to maintain alliances.

 

If you make supporting a risk to your forces you will probably see less people participating in it. Diplomacy and alliances is one of the main aspects of the game I think implementing a penalty would only serve to weaken the game as a whole.

[Limbo2 0]

One consequence I can think of is that your support might anger the player who holds the Iron Throne token.  Next time it comes to break a tie - if you go against the wishes of the Iron Throne you might lose influence or have some of your units taken in a Wildling attack...