Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Saltlands» Forums » Rules

Subject: Raider Movement question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Colin Taylor
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

Just finished reading the rule book, in preparation for my first game. Pretty clear overall, and just had one question.

On p25, under Raider Movement, it talks about how to move a Raider if it can/cannot reach a player. Then after that, in a separate paragraph, it says:

Saltlands Rule Book wrote:
In the case the flipped Damage Card has +3 Movement instead of damage, the Raiders can take 3 extra steps, but do not attack players. If a Raider can not reach any players (e.g. a Truck surrounded by Dunes), it does not move at all.


Are these 2 sentences intended to be connected? So if, with the additional movement, it can't reach a player, it doesn't move at all? Or are they unrelated, i.e. a Raider will move as close as possible, as it would with the normal movement cards?

It is unclear to me. On the one hand, I think they must be related, as there are already rules on what to do if a Raider cannot reach any players (move as close as possible). But on the other hand, I think they must be unrelated, as the example given (stuck in Dunes) seems like an odd one to use. Is the second sentence trying to say "If a Raider cannot move closer to any player, it doesn't move at all"?

Thanks,

Colin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Nottelling
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Quote:
If a Raider can not reach any players (e.g. a Truck surrounded by Dunes), it does not move at all.


I think this means that if a raider couldn't possible become adjacent to a player even with an infinite number of movement (ignoring items and other raiders -- as if the map were just empty) then it shouldn't move. The example given is that if a Truck is totally surrounded by dunes, a terrain it can't traverse, it shouldn't move.

So, there are these cases in Raider movement:

1) The raider couldn't possible get to a player with infinite moves on an empty map, so it doesn't move.
2) The raider can move adjacent to a player, therefor it does so with the lowest amount of moves possible.
3) The raider can't move adjacent to a player, therefor the raider moves as close to the nearest player as possible taking the lowest amount of moves to do so. When working out 'closeness' to a player, ignore any raiders or pickups on the map, but take terrain into account for the raider being moved.
4) The raider is already as close to a player as it can be, therefor it doesn't move.

Regards.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drozdy András
Hungary
Budapest
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Kevin!
Exactly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Taylor
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, so nothing to do with the +3 movement, then. Just reads odd when you put both sentences next to each other in a separate paragraph. That implies that you read them together, as if they cover a topic, i.e. that a Raider would take the +3 movement, unless it couldn't end up next to a player (like it was some sort of super-move that they would only undertake if it left them adjacent).

And to be clear, a Raider will move, even if the distance to the player INCREASES as the crow flies, as long as the route distance goes down, correct? I could see a situation where a Raider and player are separated by a line of dunes. They start just 1 empty dune hex apart, but the Raider has to take a circuitous route, and its movement leaves it 2+ hexes apart, but closer along the actual required route. The Raider WILL move then, right?

Thanks,

Colin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Nottelling
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Yes. That is my understanding.
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.