Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Medioevo Universale» Forums » Rules

Subject: GX - Rules: Combat Round Question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Schedar Marchetti
Italy
flag msg tools
I am learning the giochix rules. I have a question about the combat round.
It is written that the active player can use its combat round to
1) perform a full movement
2) pass

What happen if a player start the combat phase with one of its army in the same territory with a barbarian horde? Can he decide to pass, without performing a full movement with that army, avoiding in fact the battle with
the barbarians?

I think not, so I suggest to add the following condition:
2) pass (only if there is no barbarian horde in the same territory as one of its army)

This way a player is forced to resolve all the battles with the barbarians before the end of the battle phase.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Dennis
United Kingdom
Manchester
flag msg tools
mb
You are correct, a battle must be fought with the barbarians during the combat phase.

However, if you have other movement or battle options during that phase, you can resolve those before conducting the barbarian battle if you like.

That means you can move reinforcements into the territory contested with barbarians (and then fight) if you wish.

You are also right, you can’t pass, end your combat phase and avoid the battle.

Page 16 of the (English) rulebook has this under the heading ‘Battles’:

‘When two opposing armies meet in a territory, a battle begins. Battle consists of one or more battle rounds with dice rolls:’

Hope this helps!

Edit: added rulebook quote
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Broglia
Italy
Torino
ITALY
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shatners_Bassoon wrote:
You are correct, a battle must be fought with the barbarians during the combat phase.

However, if you have other movement or battle options during that phase, you can resolve those before conducting the barbarian battle if you like.

That means you can move reinforcements into the territory contested with barbarians (and then fight) if you wish.

You are also right, you can’t pass, end your combat phase and avoid the battle.

Page 16 of the (English) rulebook has this under the heading ‘Battles’:

‘When two opposing armies meet in a territory, a battle begins. Battle consists of one or more battle rounds with dice rolls:’

Hope this helps!

Edit: added rulebook quote


I apologize but I think the answer is not correct see rules pag. 17:

"after battle results, if there are still opposing armies, the
attacker may choose to start another battle, to flee or to
surrender (see FLEE and SURRENDER paragraphs)." no coexistence is possible between armies and barbarians...

A Battle immediately follows the Full Movement if units meet an enemy in the same Territory (or Sea
Zone). Barbarian Armies are always considered enemies and must be dealt-with first. Battles with other
Players’ Armies happen at the discretion of the active Player.

Note: Starting a battle against any barbarian horde is always mandatory.


See also pag. 20 : "MULTI-BATTLE
If there are three or more opponents in the same territory, for
example, two or more players (only if they are allies), and maybe a barbarian horde (note: this last sentence is true only if the barbarian horde is the attacker)
the active player (or barbarian) chooses who attacks. The active player can also engage in battle against several opponents, but one at a time."

The question "What happen if a player start the combat phase with one of its army in the same territory with a barbarian horde?"
is not a correct question because it's a situation that can doesn't exist.
The only situations where player's armies and barbarian hordes "coexist" is due to empire cards, and the barbarians horde are considered that player's units to all effects, and disappear at the end of the turn (Marauder card n°65).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Dennis
United Kingdom
Manchester
flag msg tools
mb
In the case of multi-battles I agree with you. The active player chooses the order of who fights who, but if one of the armies is a barbarian horde, they battle first.

The barbarians and players armies can be co-existing in a territory at the start of the combat phase:

If the 1st player moves barbarians into a territory occupied by a player’s armies during the events phase, the opposing units are co-existing there until the combat phase since no battles occur outside the combat phase.

The technology ‘nation’ which can be used at any time, can move barbarians into co-existence with players armies. Again, battles are only resolved in the combat phase.

During a rebellion check, a barbarian horde is placed in a territory containing a player’s army units. The battle is resolved in the combat phase.

When barbarians fight is discussed here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2073056/barbarians-starting...

Mandatory combat is discussed here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2069452/mandatory-combat

J
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Broglia
Italy
Torino
ITALY
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thanks for the explanation unfortunately the rules are badly organized and lack clarity, and should be rewritten as soon as possible, as they are written now, it's practically impossible play. Moreover, information about the game with 6 + players has not been written anywhere on the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Dennis
United Kingdom
Manchester
flag msg tools
mb
Yeah I agree that there's been a few questions that have been raised by myself and others on here regarding the rules. They are a bit rough around the edges but, considering the scope of the game, I think they aren't too bad... I think a lot of the grey areas have come from translation issues.

I've certainly seen a lot worse in other games!

Fortunately, Michele has been pretty active on here to clear up any rules for the GX version and Nicola has done likewise for the prototype rules.

I understand that a cleaned up version of the rules may be in production but I've no idea when we would be likely to see that. These forums have been very useful, I'm fairly confident in the games we've played that we're playing the game as intended and it all works fine.

In the meantime, this is a good place to start for collected rules clarifications:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2087810/gx-rules-clarificat...

As far as 6-10 players is concerned, I don't see that there would be any extra rules needed to govern the larger player count? Just to be sure that every kingdom neighboured another one.

Hope this helps.

J
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Broglia
Italy
Torino
ITALY
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shatners_Bassoon wrote:
considering the scope of the game, I think they aren't too bad...


Considering the price of the game, I think they are very bad...

Shatners_Bassoon wrote:
I think a lot of the grey areas have come from translation issues.


I assure you that, unfortunately, even the GX rules in Italian present a lot of grey areas, moreover the prototype rules are even worse...

Shatners_Bassoon wrote:
I understand that a cleaned up version of the rules may be in production but I've no idea when we would be likely to see that.


I hope to see as soon possible a new version of the rules because those published do not do justice to the components (and price).

Shatners_Bassoon wrote:
In the meantime, this is a good place to start for collected rules clarifications:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2087810/gx-rules-clarificat...


I apologize again, but I do not buy a 300 + € game and then have to work to fix the rules, I want rules that work.

What amazes me the most, is the incompleteness of the Prototype manual, I saw Nicola play the game for years (in the various conventions) and I do not understand how it was possible to publish incomplete rules ...

Shatners_Bassoon wrote:
As far as 6-10 players is concerned, I don't see that there would be any extra rules needed to govern the larger player count? Just to be sure that every kingdom neighboured another one.


It was enough to write on the rules the set up for + 6 players and that the rules were not changed.
Two lines only...

my 2 cents
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Dennis
United Kingdom
Manchester
flag msg tools
mb
No need to apologise, I basically agree with you about the rules.

I had a good read through of the GX rules and took some notes so that I could teach the other guys in my group. When I did that, I sought clarifications on here and was pleasantly surprised to get my questions answered by the (GX) game's designer. There was only a handful of questions when I look back over this forum

Otherwise, there's been a few points that have come up for group discussion, but nothing that has lead to wholesale alterations in how the game is played.

We're pretty confident that we've got a comprehensive ruleset now and have thoroughly enjoyed playing it.

Is it the best rulebook I've seen? No, not by a long shot.

Have I had to seek clarifications? Yes, but that's not unique to this game, check out the rules forums on any of the games on BGG. Most games, even those from publishers a lot bigger than Giochix, produce FAQ's and errata's.

Is the game unplayable? No, it works pretty well, actually.

As far as the prototype rules are concerned, I've had a look at them a couple of times. Others on the MU forum are of the opinion that there is a deeper and more involved version of the game in there. But, I've not been able to get through a full reading of them yet without being bamboozled by the number of random dice rolls for stuff - stuff that I'm never going to remember. So, yeah another working of the prototype rules is a must before I give them a go.

J



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Éric Hupin
Canada
Hudson
Québec
flag msg tools
Ciao Marco, Hello John,

Our group was on the lookout for a game that could accomodate 7-10 players.
In the case of MU, I can only speak for myself, but price was no object in order to make a dream come true. I am guessing that like everyone else in the room, we all have day-dreamed about devising our own game.

However, in this case, being a French-speaker, I have been on the receiving of the non-existing rulebook, as well as the error-filled player screens and technology boards. It was a double-whammy of google-translation from Italian to English and then to French. Nevertheless, even though I have paid dearly for the game, I did work and still am working to make this game fully functional, learning Italian on the way.

Thus I would be really interested in your input as to what parts are missing, as these will hit me sooner than later.

Yesterday, being history freaks we have played an initiation game with the Prototype and were overwhelmed with its complexity (although we are a bunch of semi-autistic engineers). At first, I thought we should devise advanced combat rules. Today, I think we should rather work on a simplified version of the game, upon which we could add-on at will.

A recurring question is, why have they made two games instead of one? Indeed... Personally, I would have made one outstanding map, instead of two very good ones. And then, a basic beginners game. And then a historical variation (Prototype) as well as an advanced one (Giochix).

Anyway, I have translated the Prototype rulebook in French and then applied the corrections and clarifications provided by Nicola into the Italian rulebook. Now, before moving on to the English one, I would be most interested in your feedback regarding the Prototype in order to improve it. Criticism is good as long as it is constructive... so if you had any specifics, I am all ears...

Regards and thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Dennis
United Kingdom
Manchester
flag msg tools
mb
Hi Eric,

From memory, the rules issues that I brought up on this forum were mostly concerned with movement, barbarians and captains.

I don't think the rules are clear regarding the exhaustion (of MP's) of means of transportation, multiple moves by army units and origin territories of moving units. It's all bit confused.

Likewise, it's not clear when exactly battles occur between player factions and barbarians.

Also, there was a question regarding competing captain levels, and how they were balanced against each other.

All of these questions were given a clear and official ruling on here by Michele as far as I'm concerned.

There were other points raised:

The exact timing during combat of various decisions - troop assignment, siege engine targets etc.. I think this was cleared up and the play aid, combat step by step (in the files, at version 5 now, I think) is really well done and comprehensive. We refer to it all the time.

Timing of purchases and whether they could be used instantly was another one that sticks out in my mind as well as the reverting of territories to barbarian control and the subsequent fate of any assets left there.

In addition, there have been other minor points, exact workings of specific cards, technologies etc..

As I've said earlier in the thread, overall I think the rules are ok. Not brilliant, but ok. I think the rules forum here has been very useful and I'm not confident at all that we'd have been getting it 100% right had I not got involved on here. So, maybe that's an indictment of the rulebook? However, as I've also said, I've seen worse!

I play a lot of RPG's, so I'm used to heated debate over interpretation of rules! The sage advice monthly errata and FAQ for D&D runs to pages and pages of clarifications and explanations. That's why I think the issues here are relatively small beans!

Why are there 2 sets of rules?

Honestly I've no idea? It's certainly a new one for me! I don't know why the prototype rules are in such a developmental stage, considering how long the game has been in development. If I were to take a guess, I'd say that time and fulfilling the game to backers required a step in from the publishers to complete a more comprehensive set of rules. I'm not convinced by the prototype rules, but understand that they are a work in progress. Eventually, a combination of the 2 using the prototype side of the board could produce something epic!

Overall, I've really (like really) enjoyed playing this game. I, like many others had some concerns during the KS campaign but I'm really happy that I backed it. It's old school, and that's its real strength for me - it's different to other games in my collection. It's also my only 10 rated game.

The only downside is that it's a big, lengthy game. So, opportunities to play it are harder to come by than for other games, and god knows if I'll ever get 10 players together - ever!

J

 
 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.