Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: inevitability rule discussion

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,379

    Default inevitability rule discussion

    Moving this here, so we don't pollute the master-thread

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    An inevitability already punishes/rewards certain cards more than others. To me, Ossa + Jacob’s abilities being used defensively are avoiding fights and that should be punished. ...
    My thinking is exactly the acceptance here. If I'm new to the errata project and play a game and I see this rule (to avoid stalemates we have an inevitability rule) I might think "good idea". However, in a game with MV vs. Oldin when your wall took 2 wounds and you decide to do a great turn with Ossa + Stormmage to kill several units you WILL not accept the Oldin player to wound your wall follow up by 2x besiege the walls. I'd feel cheated and I would immediately question the whole Project. A rule like this MUST be soft and trigger only in the cases it's supposed to trigger


    I also don't agree on the "ease of use" argument, as in my opinion including any "offensive action" not triggering the rule is much more easy to track


    At the beginning of your turn, if the opponent player has not

    1) destroyed, wounded or rolled a dice to wound an enemy card, using an attack, ability or event, you may place a wound marker on a wall

    2) if the opponent didn't attack an enemy card during his turn, you may place a wound marker on a wall

    Now obviously the text of 1) is "more" than 2) but is it complicated? I think there are way way more complicated things - our warden ability is 3x more complex. Now once you understand it, the rule becomes much more easy and consistent in 1) than 2) during the games

    1) takehome: "do something to harm an enemy card in any way and you are good" -> which includes EVERYTHING no exception
    2) takehome: "attack an enemy card, but "instead of attacking does not count", event's don't count, unless it's an attack and we have the whole discussion about "is affected" by the attack.

    It's not only Ossa, Jacob, FireDrakes, Stormmages, Etch (on enemy wall), Elein, FireBeast, Eaters, Nikuya Na and so on
    It's also Trample and Satara which often leads to no attack with the unit during this turn (summon unit, trample that 1 life common, lacking target to attack with this unit)
    It's also glacial shift, lightning strike, besiege the walls and so on

    I'd be so pissed if I use glacial surge + glacial shift, then trample down 2 enemy units to swarm the opponents wall and then one of my ice walls receives a wound marker cause I didn't attack ("You didn't avoid a stalemate" <- the intend of this rule). Here you might have even setup torgan to shoot at one of the opponents units but since you got 2x 2/2 trample your turn get's worse due to dice distribution -> rule affects your planning even on offense -> not intended at all!

    -> 2) does modify the game in an unnecessary amount, THAT WE HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR. 1) is really not complicated and kicks in on the turns where it's justified!
    Last edited by jwalker; 11-07-2018 at 06:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,352

    Default

    After reading this my vote is for option 1, I agree that it is easier to explain that anything you do to try to wound/destroy an enemy card is good enough.

    If you try nothing to attack an enemy card then you will get a wound.

    I can imagine someone complaining that they have attacked because they used greater burn or burn, and me having to explain that it is not an attack etc etc...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lcanela View Post
    After reading this my vote is for option 1, I agree that it is easier to explain that anything you do to try to wound/destroy an enemy card is good enough.

    If you try nothing to attack an enemy card then you will get a wound.

    I can imagine someone complaining that they have attacked because they used greater burn or burn, and me having to explain that it is not an attack etc etc...
    Thanks Icanela for your feedback! I'm very interested in the rest of the communities opinion on this - this was not meant to be a two person only discussion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    204

    Default

    My opinion:

    Sometimes, the game is interesting even if nothing is immediately attacked or wounded.
    So for me the rule should translates the following idea:
    "if nothing evolves during 3 (or more?) turns it's a draw."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    454

    Default

    I agree that option 1 is better for stalemates and easier to understand when applying. I'd also put "destroyed, discarded... etc." an enemy card so that "Into Darkness" is covered.

    In my opinion I think a stalemate rule should only be enforced if you do absolutely nothing on a turn. I'm fine with the strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent, as long as every turn you are at least making magic. If you don't place a wall, play an event, build magic or even move on a turn, then I'd enforce a rule. However, for the purpose of choosing between those 2 options, I'd choose number 1.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    My first stab at a shorter version of the rule is "removal effect"
    - destruction is removal
    - discarding is removal
    - therefore, whatever tends toward either such as an attack or a card effect that can wound is also removal

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    204

    Default

    I think this rule has side effect.
    You can force your opponent to attack
    - by playing a lot of wall ex: TO
    Or
    - if you wound opponent walls
    Ex: with Oldin:
    You play all your walls in a second row + beseige the wall and your opponent is forced to attack you otherwise the inevitability rule will kill him faster than you
    + you can repair walls with architects.
    Last edited by Batou31; 11-08-2018 at 09:40 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batou31 View Post
    I think this rule has side effect.
    You can force your opponent to attack
    - by playing a lot of wall ex: TO
    Or
    - if you wound opponent walls Ex: with Oldin:
    You play all your walls in a second row + beseige the wall and your opponent is forced to attack you otherwise the inevitability rule will kill him faster than you
    + you can repair walls with architects!
    So first of all a small summary why we designed the rule like this and then an overview about our experience in about 60+ Games including Oldin.


    - The original idea was to solve the classical "stalemate" or "draw game" problematic
    - You cannot design the rule, that drawing or playing cards does count - reason are cards like superior planning (you play one to get the other) or Father Benjamin (draw him as last card, ditch him into draw, repeat).
    - The wound mechanic is relatively soft and does allow you to easily "take" the penalty for some turns

    Originally I was against an anti stalemate rule, as for me it was rarely a problem. I also didn't want a rule implemented that does affect the game too much otherwise. However, once we played this rule, the "mild" side effects actually made the game more fun and fluent, as it's a mild motivator to actually attack during a turn, to avoid the wound. Still we play plenty of setup rounds.

    In game experience
    You normally take 1-2 wounds on your starting wall, just because you might take one turn to build magic or you can't attack in the early rounds, but that's actually not bad for the game, as you tend to protect the wall then with an early common. Also a 1/2 unit banging on the opponents wall without reaction (opponent arranging his hand for 2-3 turns) feels much more rewarding for the attacking player. But finally with all the many games we played the rule did only affect a minority of the games and when it did, it felt totally fine for us. It's a much softer rule than "magic walls" or other attacking rules, but it does do it's job, it forces action - we have much less slowly and painful noone whant's to do the first step games, as one player immediately realizes, that he will suffer more of a wait out and initiates action.

    regarding your questions:
    yes for Oldin this rule is pretty nice, but normally you can't just not attack him anyways, as he will otherwise tear down your walls. With magic drain gone and no gror bomb (gror + 2x Heroic feat) possible I would have no problem with your proposed style of wall placement. I can just ping your walls and force you to summon. Don't forget - the opponent is the one to choose which wall takes the wound. For Mugglugg and Torgan the rule is actually a double edged sword, as the opponent can clear your minor walls much easier if you don't attack for 2-3 rounds.
    -> it really takes long to kill all enemy walls JUST by waiting out

    @architects That is true, but we are fine with that. We tried the Oldin/Bolvi games and they are both not terrible good at running away doing nothing. If the opponent is forced to do something, then yes vs. Oldin it's a strong action starter. But that was always the case vs. both GD, as they otherwise go hard on your walls. With Oldins MD gone, there is little "gain" in waiting it out.

    @CC are you sure it's really that long? Looking at other rules, this is relatively short. I'm worried we need to immediately FAQ the rule to explain what "removal effect" is. And since this would be a general rule change, we don't have space problems. On the other hand, we need to make sure, that IceGolems are not valid targets - so that would be sweet to include.

    @Kburg Yes Discard can/could be included, but would not be a big deal if not, as the few cases when it triggers are actually "not even trying to attack" turns. There is "into darkness" + no attack, "Gorgon discard" + no attack, "Talia/Taculu" deciding not to attack (a FK cultist for example) and discarding a unit at the end of the attack phase. Still I agree, for consistency discard should be included

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    @Jwalker, it's about what can be remembered. I don't want a rule that feels like you'e memorizing something for a test. The list doest not feel like a SW rule. The hallmark of SW rules are short and succinct rules, e.g. three moves (except first turn, maybe the only exception in SW rules), three attacks, etc. WArden ability is not comparison. Background rules are different than abilities. Background rules are extraodinarily simple, that's one of the reasons SW became so popular. Abilities are allowed to be complex (although this became a common criticism of most of the late summoners).
    Last edited by commandercool; 11-08-2018 at 10:14 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    204

    Default

    You want to solve the draw game problematic, but why?
    In chess for example, draw exists.
    If the end of a match is only "Elien" vs "Elien" and no one has any card to play i would rather declare a draw.

    In this case, the inevitability rule gives victory to the player who has killed the last enemy unit... why /why not?

    The inevitability rules creates new axis of winning that can be used easely.
    First consequence, it gives more importance to walls and encourage to play them in the second or fisrt row, because in case of "draw position" the winner will be the one having the most HP in wall + Summoner. I don't know if it's a good idea.

    It changes the game deeply.

    Why don't you accept draw?
    Last edited by Batou31; 11-09-2018 at 06:05 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •