Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Fief: France 1429» Forums » Rules

Subject: Two Rules Questions (English Edition) - Crusades and Three-Way Battles rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gabriel Cross
South Africa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have recently acquired this game and am really keen on it. I plan to get those mini's someone else posted about to replace the standees. I've unfortunately played the game once only and had a great time. I'm very keen to play it more.

Unfortunately, as many people have already remarked in the forums, the rules to this game are sometimes a bit unclear. There are quite a few ambiguities in the rules and there seems to be some confusion in the forums between the French and the English rules. I have read through most of the rules' threads searching for an answer to my two questions but I haven't been able to find any mention of them. For the record, I speak only English and am referring here to the English rules (to the extent that that makes a difference). I would be most grateful is someone (hopefully someone actually involved in the production of the game rather than just a fellow player) could assist me with the following:

1. In the Crusades expansion, the rules state that when a crusade takes place it occurs over two rounds - first the initial invasion of the Holy Lands and then Saladin's Revenge. Does that mean that in the crusade phase of the round that it was called, you play out the first round of the crusade and then you (immediately) play out the Saladin's revenge round or does it mean that you play out the first round only and then you start a new whole round of the game (i.e. beginning with the "Here ye, Here ye" phase, etc) and then, in the crusade phase of that second game round, you play the second round of the crusade (Saladin's Revenge)? I am guessing it is the latter but would appreciate confirmation on this.

2. This is a slightly trickier question that I am surprised I haven't seen anywhere on the forums (though perhaps I just missed it). Can there ever be a 3-way (or for that matter 4-way, 5-way or 6-way) battle? If so, how is it resolved?

For example, players A, B and C each have a Lord with an army and they each want to take a certain village. They each, in turn order, move their Lord with his/her army into the village (A moves first into the initially unoccupied Village and so controls it). In the Battle phase, player A declares a battle. None of the players want to support or ally with any other. A, B and C each have pretty big armies and so each of them thinks that they can ultimately win the battle. In A's turn in the Battle phase he rolls his battle dice according to the strength of his army. Do B and C each (independently) roll their own battle dice as well? If so, how are hits resolved? Could each of A, B and C declare which army receives their hits after rolling their dice? Could they each split their respective hits between their two opponents? Are B and C forced to ally even if they don't want to? The rules don't say that A must declare who he is fighting when he decides to start a battle but I guess the situation could be easily resolved if that were the rule (and that he could only choose one opponent). But that seems to me like a poor solution since so few games allow for 3-way combat and I think that it would be cool if all three armies could fight each other. Obviously at any point during the battle one of the players could decide to join forces with another and then the normal rules would apply where those forces are combined and the higher strength player in the alliance decides where received hits go and who takes captives.

One could also make it that A had the option, when he declares a battle, to declare the battle against B or C or both simultaneously. If A chose to fight only B then presumably C could choose to join forces with either A or B in the battle or to stay out of it and wait for his turn to declare (or not to declare) a battle. Perhaps C could also choose to join in the battle (even though it is still A's turn to declare the battle), but not on B's side - just as a third force (with all players' splitting their hits between the two other armies as I have suggested above).

The situation, if it is allowed, does lead to some slightly difficult situations but none I think that couldn't be resolved if the player's played fairly and didn't take it all too seriously. For example, if a 3-way battle took place, initiated by A, and then A's forces were wiped out, would B and C continue to fight each other (in the absence of a truce)? If not, which of them would capture A's Lord?

Has anyone come across this situation before? I would be interested to hear the official rules on this but if it isn't allowed, I may nevertheless make some house rule for them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thierry Mattray
France
Nantes
flag msg tools
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
StupidGabe wrote:


1. In the Crusades expansion, the rules state that when a crusade takes place it occurs over two rounds - first the initial invasion of the Holy Lands and then Saladin's Revenge. Does that mean that in the crusade phase of the round that it was called, you play out the first round of the crusade and then you (immediately) play out the Saladin's revenge round or does it mean that you play out the first round only and then you start a new whole round of the game (i.e. beginning with the "Here ye, Here ye" phase, etc) and then, in the crusade phase of that second game round, you play the second round of the crusade (Saladin's Revenge)? I am guessing it is the latter but would appreciate confirmation on this.


Yes, it's the latter.

StupidGabe wrote:


2. This is a slightly trickier question that I am surprised I haven't seen anywhere on the forums (though perhaps I just missed it). Can there ever be a 3-way (or for that matter 4-way, 5-way or 6-way) battle? If so, how is it resolved?


When a player initiates a battle, he must choose 1 targeted opponent. Then others players in place can come to renforce either side.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Cross
South Africa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules state the following:

"6.0 Phase 6. Battles
In turn order, Players may declare a Battle in each Village where they and opposing Players have Troops. ...

If three or more Players have Troops in a Village, some may decide to fight together against other opposing Players. They combine their Troops and the Player with the most Strength Points (6.2) decides which Troops take hits and which Lord takes Captives. Allies may betray each other anytime during the Battle, even switching sides mid-battle!"

The second question I ask above is basically, what if the players don't decide to fight together but prefer to "go it alone"? The rest of the Battle rules refer always to "both sides" to the battle and so don't take into account battles with three (or more) "sides", so presumably 3-way battles are not allowed. However, they are not expressly prohibited and I for one think they would be fun. One would just need to clarify that hits can be split between opposing non-allied forces and how battles would end.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Wolf
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It really doesn't make much sense to fight a 3-way battle. There is always one enemy you'd prefer winning. It also makes more sense theme-wise as an army can only approach one enemy army at a time. The third party might decide to join the battle but normally fights on one of both sides. You can always betray your ally afterwards... devil
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Cross
South Africa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tontione wrote:
When a player initiates a battle, he must choose 1 targeted opponent. Then others players in place can come to reinforce either side.


Thanks! I suspected as much.

I do think 3-way battles would be fun though but I get that it creates some complications.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Cross
South Africa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, so to be clear, if A, B and C each have armies in a village (as per my example) and A wants to fight both of them, A would, in his turn in the Battle phase, declare a batter in that village and choose which opponent he will fight (lets say it's B). B asks C to help him in defense but C says "no" so B fights without support against A. A proceeds to wipe out B's army after a battle round or two and takes few casualties himself. Presumably, it still being A's turn, A could now declare a battle against C in the same village and fight against him? (C would no doubt regret not having helped B earlier in the round since they might have fared better had they joined forces but it's too late for that)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luke
Italy
Castelbellino
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gabriel it's correct. It's still A's turn which may then decide to resolve the battle against C, which would in turn regret not helping B beforehand.
1 
 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.