SFR, Inc. Forum Index SFR, Inc.
Forums that relate to SFR products
 
 Watched TopicsWatched Topics   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Half-turn start
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7885
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:26 am GMT    Post subject: Half-turn start Reply with quote

I think the idea of the player going first,
having a half turn (which cliff has mentioned)
might have some merit.

I'm thinking that a half turn is one march only for the first player.

The opening of the game is where you catch allot of armies in the wrong place...
and sometimes defenseless.

I had an alternate concept,
that is starting all the units unplaced on army cards...
roll the terrains...
and then do the army placement.

Since the horde must go to the home...
that rule would need to be adjusted as well.

This would be more like what a commander would do...
sending the armies to the most strategic zones,
instead of...

"poof"...you are magicians facing a melee onslaught...defend.

The beginning of the game to me dictates the game.

END
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drachenwurfel
uncommon
Stockholder



Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Posts: 970

germany.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:41 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats a good Idea too
_________________
All gone
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shoesan
uncommon



Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 641
Location: PA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually think that is a better idea. It should speed up the game a little bit in that players don't have to take a turn or two re-deploying forces to react to the random terrain rolls. Perhaps the person that goes first has to place an army first, then the second player places all three (only placing two is the same as all three), and then the first player places his remaining two armies, and goes first.
_________________
Shoe
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1403

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:55 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suggested this idea months ago.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10794
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:55 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

stormywaters wrote:
I suggested this idea months ago.
I was curious why my name was attached to it as I was just repeating.

Note: the actual suggestion doesn't match the thread title.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
chuckpint
White Dragon
SFR President
Site Admin



Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 9169
Location: Evanston, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:35 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fixed the title of the thread.

There is more to how you redeploy at the end of your first turn than just the terrain facing. Sometimes you end up redeploying because you don't like the other armies at the terrain (in games with 4 players especially). If you place first, even knowing the terrain facing may not be enough for you to want to stay. After all, unless you go last, you don't know for sure what other armies will be at the terrain. There are games were I'm sure it's an advantage to go last because of that.

Shoe's suggestion has some merit to fix that problem, but I'm not how well that would work in a 4 player game. BTW, you always place your home army at home, so you really only have to decide how to place the other two armies. Unless you mean that you can place any army any place?
_________________
You can never have too many dice.
First Place at the first ever Daemon Diceâ„¢ sealed starter tournament.
Battlefest tied for first GenCon 2012
Single Race Champion GenCon 2008-2009, Sealed Box Champion GenCon 2007,2009,
My collection is 21,500 Dragon Diceâ„¢, 20,000 Daemon Diceâ„¢, and others (too many to count).
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
shoesan
uncommon



Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 641
Location: PA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:07 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, that is what I meant. You have to declare the Horde, as it is the one that determines terrain and who goes first. Maybe the horde should be required to go to a specific terrain (any non-home terrain), but the other two could be placed as the owner saw fit.

I agree that even using this army placement method doesn't ensure you wont have to regroup (making one big army is still going to be a legitimate tactic), but regardless of who places armies where, it at least ensure you don't put your magic army on a 5 melee face when you know you are going last!

Another interesting idea is, what if you limit the number of health you can put in one army... the whole game long? Say, 2/3. So, in a standard game, all game long you can never have more than 24 health in any one army. If your army is at 24, you obviously cant promote or bring back dead to that army either (or Feralize there). It would be good incentive to keep armies closer to 18-20 points.
_________________
Shoe
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dburkley
rare
Director



Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1200
Location: Hillsborough, NJ

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:20 pm GMT    Post subject: Half Turn Start Reply with quote

I see three ideas being discussed:
1. Restrict the player who goes first to only one March on his initial turn.
2. Determine Initiative, select Frontier terrain, roll terrains, then place armies as in a multiplayer game (even with 2 players), with the Home Army already committed to home terrain. 1st player places the first army, alternating placement between players. Start play as normal (ie: no half turn).
3. Determine Initiative, select Frontier terrain, roll terrains, then place armies as in a multiplayer game (even with 2 players), but the person that goes first has to place an army first, then the second player places his Horde and Campaign armies, and then the first player places his remaining army. Play starts as normal (ie: no half turn).

Have I summarized these correctly?

I believe going with option 1 would encourage the player having the Initiative to choose the Frontier terrain instead of going first. It would also disable most (but not all) strategies that depend on being the 1st player. That is a significant game changer in my mind to raise the yellow flag. It would still be worth playtesting, or trying out as a game format, to see the impact more clearly.

Options 2 and 3 are interesting, as both would change the set-up of the 2-player game to the format of the multi-player game. More time would be spent on the opening set-up (which may not be a bad thing). I think these two options are worth some playtesting.
_________________
Daniel Burkley
US National Champion (DEXCON 2007, 2009, 2010)
World Champion (GENCON 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014)
Battlefest Champion: DEXCON 2008, 2011, GENCON 2009, 2010 (co-champion), 2011, 2017)
"No Magicians": GENCON 2008
"Single Race": DEXCON 2008, GENCON 2010, 2011, 2014 (co-champion), 2017
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: Seattle, WA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:32 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont have any fresh ideas. To be honest I dont mind the random start myself.

Which ever way this goes, its fine by me I am not hating the idea of change.

I might suggest keeping the rules the same except during the terrain roll, instead of moving 7 to 6, just divide the number by 2 rounding down. This stops the devils game, stops somewhat of the mages getting trampled, though the only real issue is magic will be a slight easier to come by.
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Raven's Hollow Games
dragonsteed
Retailer



Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 55
Location: Peralta, NM

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:50 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the idea of starting player haveing one march has alot of merit.

I am a bit surprised by the repeated statements of preventing the magic army from getting trampled turn one. In many discussions I have read many oppinions state that magic is grossly overpowered. Now the much debated topic is protecting them in the first phases of the game. I think there should be risk assosciated with the placement of your armies. I think a wise player minimizes this risk by selecting terrains that are likely to roll what they need.

The game now allows you to select homeland terrains with varying faces, with the Battlefields expansion. My store has been testing the proposed idea of giving up maneuvers to bring in a minor terrain. With the idea Chuck presented, of only rolling the minor terrain when you give up maneuvers, they have a much greater value in game.

I think that the idea of putting a cap on army numbers allowed after game start, only adds confusion to the game. I also feel it is unrealistic that a commander of armies could not marshal his troops where he wanted.
_________________
Raven's Hollow
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10794
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:29 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raven's Hollow Games wrote:
My store has been testing the proposed idea of


I would ask that your store (and lots of people) test both the idea of a single march the first turn and of turning two faces when unopposed (not just at a terrain alone, but really unopposed)
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Skawilly
rare
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: Seattle, WA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:25 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

You got it boss.

So the current idea as I get it that your looking into is...

Horde rolls as normal
Winner chooses to go first OR the frontier as normal
First player gets only one march (vs 2 marches <-----this is the ONLY change)
2nd player chooses the terrain as normal

Is this correct, Mr. Wiggs?
_________________
Will
"There is more philosophy in a bottle of wine than all the books in all the world" - Some random wine cap -
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:38 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would largely agree with Raven's Hollow's considerations above.

Hetero- vs. homogeneity in army construction is low- vs. high-risk gambling. Think of portfolio diversification. If you isolate your mages and bank on a low terrain roll, you are risking finding them in melee and possibly losing them. If you mix up which dice you place where, you are hedging against loss but recognizing that if you do get that Magic face on the terrain, you don't have half an army's worth of mages ready to go. I see no reason to change a rule to mitigate potential for loss on a high-risk/high-reward investment.

I will also repeat strenuous objection to capping army point totals in-game. We accept limitations during set-up that are not revisited during play in many, many games when the initial restriction suggests a more balanced start (and it makes sense: If you don't put any forces at a terrain, then we're not fighting over that, are we?). Shoehorning similar restrictions into the course of play just to band-aid a conceivable problem with far more elegant solutions is bad design. Asking players to stop and recalculate with every reinforcement slows down the game. Such a hurdle could even impact army construction as players seek flexibility, and create other problems.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1403

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:45 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
I will also repeat strenuous objection to capping army point totals in-game. We accept limitations during set-up that are not revisited during play in many, many games when the initial restriction suggests a more balanced start (and it makes sense: If you don't put any forces at a terrain, then we're not fighting over that, are we?). Shoehorning similar restrictions into the course of play just to band-aid a conceivable problem with far more elegant solutions is bad design. Asking players to stop and recalculate with every reinforcement slows down the game. Such a hurdle could even impact army construction as players seek flexibility, and create other problems.


If this is the case, then something else has to change within the game. The way the game works, it rewards turtling. You will roll larger numbers of saves against damage, you will roll more maneuvers and more damage, and you will have higher magic totals.

Saying "but then you only get one march" doesn't cut it. One march is enough for several Lightning Strikes a turn, or a pile of Finger of Death, or Flash Floods on both other terrains with other spells mixed in, or any number of other configurations. One march is enough to rain 40+ missiles down on any army from a Tower, or at least an adjacent army without a Tower. The game is all about rolling big numbers, and the best way to do that is put all your dice in one pile.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:15 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

stormywaters wrote:
If this is the case, then something else has to change within the game. The way the game works, it rewards turtling.


Yes. And I, among others, have proposed solutions addressing just that aspect of gameplay. This is getting fairly circular rather quickly.

The point was that the in-game cap is not a pretty correction, whereas others that have been suggested might well be. We understand that there is a problem and likely what the problem is. Are you after a list that gathers all the proposals so far in one place? We can try to do that.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1403

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:38 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
Are you after a list that gathers all the proposals so far in one place? We can try to do that.


Absolutely. I apparently missed a very large discussion, since I don't recall seeing any other solutions to turtling being proposed. I'm excited to see some ideas to get that problem under control.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7885
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:01 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I was curious why my name was attached to it as I was just repeating.


Someone may have suggested the idea...
but I read it first from Cliff's post...
so I simply wanted to mention Cliff's name as not to take any credit for the idea.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
One That Was
dragonmount



Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 25

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:57 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

In an effort to stay within topic bounds, I would have to say that the half turn start does have it's merits, but I also think that it may be a solution to a problem that will not be simply fixed by this suggestion.

From what I am gathering (And forgive me, I have not been on here for a few weeks, so I'm bound to have missed something) it seems that the Half Turn is being proposed to solve an ongoing gameflow problem, where the initial turn is crippling, and that it snowballs downhill from there to make it very difficult for the second turn player to recover.

I want to say that from my view this is not necessarily the case. As Raven's Hollow said, the Battlefield expansion has solved some problems regarding strategic terrain choices that previously were not present, and the proposed changes with Minor Terrains also helps out to mitigate some follow up issues with someone dominating strategically chosen terrain (As well as make it more attractive for Minor Terrains). At least in play test.

Furthermore, Black Magic dominates in recovery, and any other race that has access to revival magic makes it so that the army can quickly pick up any losses it may get from an initial turn loss...Go to reserves for a turn and recover (If applicable).

So ok, The half turn fix makes it so that any race that doesn't have access to red, blue, or black magic (Or happens to be Feral, Swampstalkers, or Treefolk) can in fact recover better from a domination in the initial round. But it also means that any race that is designed to dominate in melee or Missiles might suffer severely, because the first turn is crucial for those armies.

I guess in a nut shell what I'm trying to say is, Yeah, the half turn idea seems like it could be a good fix. But it will also, inevitably, create other problems. That's a given, of course. Any significant change is bound to make someone unhappy, or create an unexpected problem. I am just voicing the ones I cane see right now. Take it as you will...hopefully it will give some better insight to this discussion.
_________________
Raven's Hollow
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
One That Was
dragonmount



Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 25

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:01 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, and on a side note, since it came up in discussion, I am very interested in hearing about these other solutions to the "Turtling" problem that Stormywaters and AC are talking about. As far as I could tell, the restriction on army placement was the only proposed idea for that issue that was worth noting (The others seem to have just dropped out of discussion), and in a mechanics sense it would seem to work well. But as AC said, it *would* complicate the game further and muddle the matter for at least a few months to a year until everyone gets used to doing it (If it were to be implemented)

So hopefully there will be (another) topic about that discussion somewhere soon.
_________________
Raven's Hollow
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7885
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:13 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
, I am very interested in hearing about these other solutions to the problem


"Turtling" is just a stlye of play,
and I don't feel it's a problem.

I have ways to beat the turtle.

Ken.. current worlds champion actually has left a sole unit to protect an 8th face,
and it really shows how weak magic is...
as there are not many spells that can do much on a cantrip level to a rare unit...
so turtling might prove to be overkill and perhaps players just need to break out of that style of play, rather than pen in some rule.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group