Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Crusader Rex» Forums » Rules

Subject: Sallying in round 3 after declining in round 1 and 2 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mike Cook
United States
Stafford
Virginia
flag msg tools
I have read the FAQ and it answers a lot of questions, but was wondering this:

If there's a battle and 3 Saracens try to relieve 2 Saracen blocks that are besieged by 4 Frank blocks. The Saracens inside the castle decline to sally on Round 1.

Say the fight continues to round 3, and now there's only 2 French blocks left. Can the 2 units inside the caste now sally out on Round 3?

Thanks!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Stone
United States
Northern VA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Stonewall wrote:
I have read the FAQ and it answers a lot of questions, but was wondering this:

If there's a battle and 3 Saracens try to relieve 2 Saracen blocks that are besieged by 4 Frank blocks. The Saracens inside the castle decline to sally on Round 1.

Say the fight continues to round 3, and now there's only 2 French blocks left. Can the 2 units inside the caste now sally out on Round 3?

Thanks!



Yes. As an aside, I'm answering based on v2.0 of the rules and with the aid of some of the attachments on BGG. I've found one or two of the attachments indispensable as the combat rules for CR are very weak leaving a myriad of questions like yours open.

But I digress. In your question, the 3 Saracens relieving the besieged blocks results in a field battle. In v2.0 of the rules under Sallying (6.55) it says

"Sallying blocks cannot retreat. They may withdraw to the castle on their combat turn, and must withdraw after combat round 3 if they haven't won the field battle.

Some blocks may sally while others stay in the castle. Such blocks may sally to join a field battle at the beginning of a later combat round."

Although the rule is stated in less than crystal clear terms I think it makes two points regarding your situation. 1- The units may sally on a later round (in your example 3rd) at the beginning of the round, and 2 - If the Frank blocks are not eliminated or caused to retreat in round 3, then the sallying blocks must withdraw to the castle (i.e., they may not retreat). Although not covered in this rule, I'm also pretty sure that if the Franks survive round 3 the three relieving Saracens must retreat and they may not withdraw into the castle. I see this as conceptually the Franks are between the two groups of Saracens preventing the one group (relieving)from getting into the castle and preventing the other (sallying) group from getting away from the castle and out of the city.

I find this an enjoyable game but it took me awhile to plow through several combat related issues just like you are doing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
In v2.0 of the rules under Sallying (6.55) it says

"Sallying blocks cannot retreat. They may withdraw to the castle on their combat turn, and must withdraw after combat round 3 if they haven't won the field battle.

Some blocks may sally while others stay in the castle. Such blocks may sally to join a field battle at the beginning of a later combat round."

In version 1.4 of the rules, Sallying blocks can Retreat on a subsequent Combat Turn to that in which the Sally occurred. The Retreat must be to an adjacent friendly town/city only. They may also Withdraw back into the Castle ( as an alternative to Retreating ).

[ Advised for those still using the 1.4 rules . ]
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rich Stone has it spot on. The rules were changed from 1.4 to reflect a more realistic scenario where the sallying blocks would not be able to break through and therefor not be able to escape either.

I would recommend using the recent version of the rules even if you have the first edition as it balances out a lot of the play issues, problems and lack of balance and I haven't found anything in the first rulesets that make it a better playing game. In saying that I have and play both versions especially as I don't mind an unbalanced game as it creates a challenge. I

The reason game designers update their rules is to reflect feedback and play testing to iron out the problems so unless there are dramatic changes to a ruleset that totally change the feel of a game I would suggest that logic dictates using the most up to date rules would give you less problems. Columbia games work this way where the updated rules are designed to supersede and replace earlier versions.

I have found the new version is unbalanced toward the crusaders but it is far more balanced than the first version. The new version allows early success for the saracens but the crusaders are able to overpower toward the latter years, and the secret to this if you are the crusaders is to avoid retreating into your castles for siege unless it is one of the castles that can be supplied by sea.

Either way have fun its a good game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mr Richards,

As previously discussed ( at some length ) some time ago ; playing the 1st Edition game with 2nd Edition rules is not recommended !

[ Play balance was not only altered by the newer rules, but those newer rules rely to some degree on several new / revised units ( with revised strengths ) and also ( to a minor degree ) a revised Map-board. ]

You state you do not like the play balance with the new rules, yet you suggest their use with the older version of the game whereby the play balance would be even worse due to the new and revised blocks...

[ If you like some of the new rules in version 2.00, then use some of them as optional rules for the 1.4 version. To use them in their entirety however, is not sensible. ]

Note that when Columbia Games issued the newer rules , they came with an updated game. I doubt very much that it was ever intended that the 1.4 version of the game was to be played with the 2.0 rules.

[ Updated rules are OK to use with a game if there is no newer game version produced at the same time as ( or before ) the said update. ]
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The version is irrelevant when looking at the specific original question.

I verified this by email with the designer some time back. That was their intention, however I agree with you Edwin; You can play the game however you want and with whatever rules you want, you can even make up your whole new set of rules. Regarding the question, the V2 rules are what was intended by the designer.

No further correspondence will be entered into with you regarding this aspect Edwin.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"You state you do not like the play balance with the new rules, yet you suggest their use with the older version of the game whereby the play balance would be even worse due to the new and revised blocks..."

I can't see this as logic, if V1 favours saracen and V2 favours Franks then logic would dictate that V2 rules would move toward creating some balance????

Having played both versions in many combinations I would suggest this is actually the best play balance approach.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shaynerichards72 wrote:
The version is irrelevant when looking at the specific original question.

Correct. However, given the quoted reply to that question, I gave the full details of the 1.4 rules, in case the player was using those rules.

Quote:
you can even make up your whole new set of rules.

True, but that's going a trite too far I think...

Quote:
Regarding the question, the V2 rules are what was intended by the designer.

So JT ( or Columbia Games ) "cocked up" when compiling the Version 1 rules then ???

[ If so, this is a good example of where an optional Rule could be added. ]


Quote:
No further correspondence will be entered into with you regarding this aspect Edwin.

Whether to end or continue a discussion is a mutual thing Mr Richards.

[ Quite frankly, your "silence" would be greatly appreciated considering some of the comments made by you in our previous "discussions" ! ]
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I can't see this as logic, if V1 favours saracen and V2 favours Franks then logic would dictate that V2 rules would move toward creating some balance????

Possibly ( presuming your statements re play balance are correct ).
The 2.0 Rules however, ( as stated before ) rely on new / revised blocks. The absence of these blocks will affect the play balance also ; and not necessarily favorably.
All things considered, as I have no wish to purchase the 2nd Edition of the game ( for a variety of reasons ), I have no wish ( either ) to obtain the 2.0 Rules.

Quote:
Having played both versions in many combinations I would suggest this is actually the best play balance approach.

That's your choice to make ( in your circumstances )...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Cook
United States
Stafford
Virginia
flag msg tools
I may try to go to 2.0. I just don't think I've exhausted 1.4 yet.

However, the big turnoff is the play balance. Every time I think this game is awesome and great, I play again and Saracens wipe the board in 4 turns.

On a lighter note, it seems in my last game, where I got drubbed and no crusaders made it to the board, that King Guy came back to life 3 times.

Is there anyway to keep him from respawning so much?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Edwin

V2 DOES NOT rely on new blocks, Other than strength changes and rule changes there was a only ONE frank block added (and incidentally ONE frank block removed). Yes this will affect play balance but that was the whole intention as by general consensus and By the publisher and developers admission, yes V1 not only had problems but was stated as being "Broken". They stated that they were unable to fully "fix" the game with rule changes alone and needed to tweak some strength areas.

Considering that version one is broken and heavily favours the saracens then wouldn't you want to unfavourably upset the play balance?

I am curious as to why you are so set against playing or getting V2? if its a money thing I'll post one out to you. You are making a lot of judgement calls and critique of a game you don't have and are determined not to have and that is interesting to say the least.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Stonewall wrote:
I may try to go to 2.0. I just don't think I've exhausted 1.4 yet.

However, the big turnoff is the play balance. Every time I think this game is awesome and great, I play again and Saracens wipe the board in 4 turns.

On a lighter note, it seems in my last game, where I got drubbed and no crusaders made it to the board, that King Guy came back to life 3 times.

Is there anyway to keep him from respawning so much?


Hi Mike, yes it was even stated by the designer and publisher that the game was officially broken due to the play balance.

In saying that I often enjoy playing unbalanced games to give one side a greater challenge, or allowing a new player to take the easier side, it still makes for a fun game.

If you want a more balanced game I would suggest one of two things. The cheapest method is to download the latest rules (V2) and use them with your current game. There were generic rule changes to help with balance and also some changes to some of the block strengths to also help. While there is one extra frank block added there was one taken away as well but there is nothing that would prevent you from playing the V1 pieces with the latest ruleset and this would correct play balance to a large degree. There is nothing specific in the new rules that would preclude this from being possible (I have played it this way many time as have many others - check the forums for some suggestions).

If you love the game and cost is not a factor I would suggest getting the new version. The map and labels are a lot nicer. The designer and publisher realised there were play balance concerns and a quick look at the forums here and on Columbia games highlight the extent that players believed that to be the case, which is why the game was considered broken and was updated quite early on in the piece.

I guess the third option is to play with someone who isn't very good at it and let them be the saracens. LOL.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
V2 DOES NOT rely on new blocks, Other than strength changes and rule changes there was a only ONE frank block added (and incidentally ONE frank block removed). Yes this will affect play balance but that was the whole intention as by general consensus and By the publisher and developers admission, yes V1 not only had problems but was stated as being "Broken". They stated that they were unable to fully "fix" the game with rule changes alone and needed to tweak some strength areas.

As I don't have the 2nd Edition Game ( or Rules ), I will reluctantly have to accept the above comments as correct ( if they are truly supported elsewhere ).
Usually I would want to verify this for myself... I note however, that you are on record at Columbia Games forums, that you feel that the 2nd Edition Game ( and Rules ) are still unbalanced. That, in of itself, does not endear me to make a purchase...

Quote:
Considering that version one is broken and heavily favours the saracens then wouldn't you want to unfavourably upset the play balance?

I take it you mean unfavourably (sic) towards the Franks here...


Quote:
I am curious as to why you are so set against playing or getting V2?

It's mainly the lack of a viable FTF opponent actually...

Quote:
if its a money thing I'll post one out to you.

That's a trite insulting... I can muster the equivalent of greater than Aus.$ 400k ( without selling anything ), so money is NOT an issue !

Quote:
You are making a lot of judgement calls and critique of a game you don't have and are determined not to have and that is interesting to say the least.

See earlier answer/s herein.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Edwin,

There are a few forums on this site for this game that have reviews and comparisons of the games. Worth the read for anyone interested in the game and wanting to decide which version to get or if to upgrade.

From all reports and reviews I have come across V1 was favouring the Saracens. While I believe that V2 favours the Franks at the moment I have been able to find anyone that is willing to agree with that so don't let that turn you off V2. I think the only reason that I find this is that the game encourages people to hold up in their castles and I never do this with Franks unless they are supplied by sea, as they are stronger in the field and the attrition wears them down.

Try playing solo if you have a lack of FTF, it is a great way to play many of the columbia games titles. I have played them solo many times and have some tips and tricks if you want to give it a go.

I am planning on touring (performing in) the UK (I have citizenship) in the coming years, I'm happy to drop by for a game, but your shout on the beers.

Sadly in Australia 400K doesn't by much anymore and its getting worse. The comment was not meant as an insult but was said with some tongue in cheek because you know I couldn't go a whole post without a little dig.

I really do suggest having a go at playing solo. It changes the dynamic of the game and the strategy as you can see the strength of the opposition and many times it actually makes for a better game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
While I believe that V2 favours the Franks at the moment I have been able to find anyone that is willing to agree with that so don't let that turn you off V2.

Umm, I think you mean unable...

Quote:
Try playing solo if you have a lack of FTF, it is a great way to play many of the columbia games titles. I have played them solo many times and have some tips and tricks if you want to give it a go.


I have drawn up my own Solitaire rules for this game, but have not playtested them yet... One day...


Quote:
I am planning on touring (performing in) the UK (I have citizenship) in the coming years, I'm happy to drop by for a game, but your shout on the beers.


Thanks for the offer, but I will pass.

Quote:
Sadly in Australia 400K doesn't by much anymore and its getting worse.


I think you mean buy...

Quote:
The comment was not meant as an insult but was said with some tongue in cheek because you know I couldn't go a whole post without a little dig.


Noted.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The typos prove that the message can still be conveyed even with over zealous auto correct and trying to type into a phone.

Try and get around to playing solitaire, its well worth it. You should be able to play it that way without having to draw up rules.

I would go as far as saying that most of Columbia games titles are actually better games as solitaire. On the other hand some solitaire games like Field Commander are not great as solitaire games but excellent as two players. They basically are a gimmick to get sales IMHO.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Mosso
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
I have just purchased the game(Crusader Rex). I would like to try it solitaire as I don't get to play it very often 2 player.
Is there any solitaire rules that would work well with this game or any Columbia game? I have Hammer of the Scots, Richard III and Texas Glory also.
Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
epmosso wrote:
Is there any solitaire rules that would work well with this game or any Columbia game?

I've never seen any solitaire rules per se for them. I've only heard of people simply soloing both sides to watch the history unfold, like many wargamers do with many 2-player wargames.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

I have a simple set ( of sorts ), based around the 1.4 rules ; but they are untested to date...

[ In truth, they are not that much different in format from the type of game you would get from following the advice given above by "russ" !
I would recommend you proceed on the basis he has suggested and make up your own set of Solitaire rules when you are used to the playing format. ]
 
 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.