Peter Shafer
United States
Hedgies Hang
flag msg tools
designer
"It is a pity we so often succeed in our endeavors to deceive each other." -Empress Irene
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems like I read this in the rules, but have been searching for about an hour and am now rulebook blind. Anyone confirm this? Mainly concerned if that leader was D'arc, because +1d is a lot.

Oh and also, your ally can NOT move your troops, even if you gave them permission to, correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastien Castano
France
Montpellier
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearmad wrote:
Seems like I read this in the rules, but have been searching for about an hour and am now rulebook blind. Anyone confirm this? Mainly concerned if that leader was D'arc, because +1d is a lot.

D'arc gives his bonus in all the battles she is involved. She doesnt need to be the leader. You cumulate also all the Lord's Battle traits during a combat (if you play with the Political Expansion). So with D'arc and 2 other lords with combat traits you can get +1 Dice, +1F to the sum of the rolls, and cancel a malus if you're attacking a fortified village.
The biggest steamroll is D'arc and a teutonic lord with 4 Teutonic knights while the grand master is elected and the Fearless trait. 4 dice and +5F when attcking whistle


French Rulebook wrote:

Si plus de 2 joueurs sont présents dans un village, certains peuvent
décider de combattre ensemble contre d’autres joueurs présents.
Dans ce cas ils regroupent leurs forces, et c’est le joueur qui a le plus
de Points de Combat (6.2) qui décide la répartition des pertes et qui
contrôle les éventuels prisonniers. Une telle alliance de circonstance
peut être rompue à tout moment, même en plein milieu de la bataille !


Meaning that the army with the most combat points is leading and decides for attribution of losses, prisoners etc. This should answer your question about leading. Even if you have no Lords, you still lead if you have more troops.

Dearmad wrote:

Oh and also, your ally can NOT move your troops, even if you gave them permission to, correct?


No, but it would be a very nice variant! Thanks for the idea!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I AM Not A Number
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Gunzilla wrote:
Dearmad wrote:
Oh and also, your ally can NOT move your troops, even if you gave them permission to, correct?


No, but it would be a very nice variant! Thanks for the idea!

Your ally cannot move your troops at the movement phase but he can declare an attack with them with your permission, or defend with them with your permission.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastien Castano
France
Montpellier
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
iamnan wrote:

Your ally cannot move your troops at the movement phase but he can declare an attack with them with your permission, or defend with them with your permission.


And this is true even for non allied players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Shafer
United States
Hedgies Hang
flag msg tools
designer
"It is a pity we so often succeed in our endeavors to deceive each other." -Empress Irene
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent. I thought that might be true- as the theme tends to rightly guide the rules in this game, which I like a lot!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Samberg
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Off topic:

Gunzilla wrote:
The biggest steamroll is D'arc and a teutonic lord with 4 Teutonic knights while the grand master is elected and the Fearless trait. 4 dice and +5F when attcking whistle


Don't think so small There is still room for improvement. Add the Holy Lance for another +1F to the total, and maybe a Royal with his/her guards for the same effect. -> 4 dice +7F = 11-19F in a single round! Woot, Woot!
Edit: One more: If one of the Lords has the Persuasive trait, 1 Man at Arms changes sides to you before the battle.

...got to try and pull it off one glorious day.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gab Pal
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
The best games ingeniously blend Euro and Ameritrash styles
badge
THE CAKE IS A LIE !!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iamnan wrote:
Gunzilla wrote:
Dearmad wrote:
Oh and also, your ally can NOT move your troops, even if you gave them permission to, correct?


No, but it would be a very nice variant! Thanks for the idea!

Your ally cannot move your troops at the movement phase but he can declare an attack with them with your permission, or defend with them with your permission.


Where is this stated in the rulebook or by the game designer?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastien Castano
France
Montpellier
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MordredPendragon wrote:
Off topic:

Gunzilla wrote:
The biggest steamroll is D'arc and a teutonic lord with 4 Teutonic knights while the grand master is elected and the Fearless trait. 4 dice and +5F when attcking whistle


Don't think so small There is still room for improvement. Add the Holy Lance for another +1F to the total, and maybe a Royal with his/her guards for the same effect. -> 4 dice +7F = 11-19F in a single round! Woot, Woot!
Edit: One more: If one of the Lords has the Persuasive trait, 1 Man at Arms changes sides to you before the battle.

...got to try and pull it off one glorious day.



Aaaaaarghh!!!!!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastien Castano
France
Montpellier
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mad Scientist wrote:
iamnan wrote:
Gunzilla wrote:
Dearmad wrote:
Oh and also, your ally can NOT move your troops, even if you gave them permission to, correct?


No, but it would be a very nice variant! Thanks for the idea!

Your ally cannot move your troops at the movement phase but he can declare an attack with them with your permission, or defend with them with your permission.


Where is this stated in the rulebook or by the game designer?


As long as they're troops of different players in the same village, they canfight together.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gab Pal
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
The best games ingeniously blend Euro and Ameritrash styles
badge
THE CAKE IS A LIE !!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gunzilla wrote:
Mad Scientist wrote:


Where is this stated in the rulebook or by the game designer?


As long as they're troops of different players in the same village, they canfight together.


Yes I agree in that they can defend together.
But if I recall the rules say an army can't attack without a lord from their family.
I believe it states; Defend Only.

So does this mean (keeping in mind turn-order) that if an enemy chooses to attack/battle first then lordless army can defend with any allies. But if your ally chooses to attack/battle then lordless army in question can't take part?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastien Castano
France
Montpellier
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mad Scientist wrote:


Yes I agree in that they can defend together.
But if I recall the rules say an army can't attack without a lord from their family.
I believe it states; Defend Only.

So does this mean (keeping in mind turn-order) that if an enemy chooses to attack/battle first then lordless army can defend with any allies. But if your ally chooses to attack/battle then lordless army in question can't take part?


We would need an official confirmation, but for me Lordless armies can also join an attack provoked by a Lorded army. The game is more dynamic like that. And if they could ally "Lordlessly" in defense, why could they not do that in attack as well?
To me, the minimum of 1 Lord is needed in the attacker side, not in each army that want to ally in the attacking side.
Again, this is only my point of view, and it might not be the one of the designers, but it works just fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gab Pal
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
The best games ingeniously blend Euro and Ameritrash styles
badge
THE CAKE IS A LIE !!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Official confirmation would be great.
I just re-read section 6.0 in rulebook, it is a bit of a grey area.
Yeah I agree that it would seem logical that if at least one allied lord is present that it should be enough to defend or attack within that village.

Though rules also say that if families ally in battle that the one with the highest SP decides casualties and who takes takes prisoners.
Does it seem logical that a lordless army should dictate which troops die, over an army with a lord?

Hope someone official will post in here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Denneborg Michael
Germany
Aachen
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I would say, even if they are allied, they need a Lord to lead them into battle. As a lordless army they can only defend themselves.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gab Pal
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
The best games ingeniously blend Euro and Ameritrash styles
badge
THE CAKE IS A LIE !!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
denne wrote:
I would say, even if they are allied, they need a Lord to lead them into battle. As a lordless army they can only defend themselves.


Yes, that is certain either way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Wolf
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
denne wrote:
I would say, even if they are allied, they need a Lord to lead them into battle. As a lordless army they can only defend themselves.


This, an army needs a leading lord for any battle decisions, so in the example if the lordless army was attacked another army WITH lord might join the fight to help it defend. They may however not join a battle between two other armies even though an ally is involved.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sdric
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mb
CJWF wrote:
denne wrote:
I would say, even if they are allied, they need a Lord to lead them into battle. As a lordless army they can only defend themselves.


This, an army needs a leading lord for any battle decisions, so in the example if the lordless army was attacked another army WITH lord might join the fight to help it defend. They may however not join a battle between two other armies even though an ally is involved.


I do not agree,
I think that you do not need a Lord to be in an defensive alliance.
Only if your are on the attacking alliance side you need a Lord to join the alliance, attack and continue to attack.

Example :
In case of a siege, an ally can go inside the fortification even if no Lord is present inside the fortification.


Player A besiege the city of Player B. B has no Lord inside is city but some Troops. Player C want to help to defend the city and come with his own troops.

If Player B (Lordless) cannot help Player C, that means Player A can attack player C first without Fortification bonus and then Player B.
Ruling that forbid player C to go inside the Fortification even if Player B allows it.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Wolf
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know if I understand exactly what you are saying. An army without noble can always defent itself when attacked. But they won't risk thwir lives for anything else unless told so by their lord.
Still another lord can decide to help them with his army when they are being attacked and if I recall correctly he can enter a besieged fortress/FC directly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sdric
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mb
Quote:
I don't know if I understand exactly what you are saying. An army without noble can always defend itself when attacked. But they won't risk their lives for anything else unless told so by their lord.
Still another lord can decide to help them with his army when they are being attacked and if I recall correctly he can enter a besieged fortress/FC directly.


So you are saying that
- an army with a Lord can help an army without a Lord to defend
But
- an army without a Lord cannot help another army to defend

Meaning if Player A is in the same village that allied Player B&C. B has a Lord , C do not have a Lord.
Then if Player A attack B, C cannot join
But if Player A attack C, B can join.

That seems odd to me especially if C is inside Fortification and B not yet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.