Austin Andersen
United States
Berrien Springs
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Important: Units cannot move through Warp Storms,
and a player can create a maximum of one contested area
while resolving an Advance Order
. A player may move any
number of units with a mobilize order, but a maximum of
five units can end their movement in each area." -page 10, LtP

Why is this part of the movement rules necessary? Would it break the game, if the underlined portion was omitted?

I like the Unit Capacities per spaces on the board, and having a maximum number of units that can move in on a space, but I don't see the need to throttle the advance command so only one contested area can be created. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on to the why such a rule exists. I would think the game could potentially be more exciting with out it and that more diverse strategies could exist without this rule. Does it disturb the asymmetrical balance that I'm just not seeing or is there some other reason?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes.

If you can do more than one combat per order, it is a big problem for Eldar. They have a weak ground force and can protect their planets with ships (blocking the voids, so that no legal path exists to their world). Therefore, an attacker must use two advance orders to attack a well positionied Eldar. The first to remove the ship, the second to attack the planet. This gives the Eldar the opportunity to place an order between those two orders.
If you can attack unlimited per order, you just kill the ship and then immediately use the new path to invade the world.

This is also a good defense tactic for other races, although not as important as for Eldar.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott M.
United States
Winter Springs
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I recall this issue coming up early and it had to do with pathing and timing.

IF you created conflict on three worlds in a system and ONE of those worlds was the path entry point into that system and you lost that battle. None of the other battles would be legal.

This then precluded the rules where you had to complete fully one conflict before beginning the next and you had to time your conflicts, thus. 1 Conflict per order, so that there was no ambiguity on which sequence of battles needed to take place before initiating the next to ensure the path and legality of the battle was addressed.

Disclosure: i was a playtester and i still get pathing confused.shake
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule was seen in Starcraft also which has a similar design philosophy when it comes to "attackers advantage"

Both games favor the attacker. If the attacker could contest multiple areas at once, the swing created from one advance order would be way too great.

Also, resolving up to 4(!) battles per advance order would be way, way too much fighting in one turn which would multiply the game length and create intolerable downtime in multiplayer.

So yes, I think the game would break down without this rule, hard
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Courtight
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always beleive the game makers wanted to focus your operations into almost surgical strikes. One of the games challenges is working with a very limited order set and prioritizing what is important. Being able to attack everything in a sector goes against that prioritization.


Also the answers above this are really good too.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark G
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
You could house rule that you could create multiple simultaneous conflicts, with conflicted areas disallowed from being part of a legal path. This would still give the defender a considerable disadvantage as the attacker could, for example, engage two connected enemy worlds in combat and remove what would be a viable retreat option.

Given all movement and retreat rules are complicated enough I'd give it a miss. Our games take long enough as it is :-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benji
Switzerland
Gurmels
FR
flag msg tools
visit us on www.muwins.ch
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dalek5 wrote:
I always beleive the game makers wanted to focus your operations into almost surgical strikes. One of the games challenges is working with a very limited order set and prioritizing what is important. Being able to attack everything in a sector goes against that prioritization.


Also the answers above this are really good too.


I agree - to me it also makes thematic sense. We are in a vast space, simulating large distances between planets. Conducting operations and planning their logistics should be hard. Just throwing out attack orders and hoping that at least one will work as planned would feel completely different. Instead, your army needs to focus on a mission, which becomes harder if you need to chain orders to pull it off, as it should.
3 
 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.