Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

War of the Ring (First Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: rules questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ralph Mazza
United States
Peoria
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Some questions I came up with that I didn't see answered in the Faq (which for me is being cut off at the Combat section).

1) Mustering Nazgul: Can the Shadow player really muster 2 Nazgul with a single muster die? The FP player can muster 2 Leaders with a single die, but Nazgul are far more powerful and useful than a mere leader. In the books the defeat of the Nazgul on the way to Rivendell took them out of the action for some time. But this rule seems to suggest that Nazgul can be regenerated pretty painlessly...easier to replace a fallen Nazgul than a fallen Uruk-hai...?

a) If this is true, is there any reason for the Shadow player to not simply max out his Nazgul as soon as Sauron is at war? Seems pretty painless, for a mere 2 muster dice get 4 Nazgul...

b) How does this play out in the game. It seems awfully questionable to me (I'd have been tempted to make a single Nazgul cost 2 dice not the other way around). What am I missing?


2) Moving after victory: If you use a Character die to attack with an army, and the army wins, do you have to move at least 1 leader into the space along with your advancing army after the battle? The rules do not say you do so on the one hand the answer would seem to be no.

However, the rules DO say you have to move a leader with the army if you used a Character die to move (as opposed to attack). Since my preference is for consistantly applied rules with few exceptions (much easier to remember) there is certainly a precedent for such a requirement.

If the answer is, in fact, no. That you do have to move the leader when using a character die to move, but not when using a character die to attack, can someone explain the rational behind this. If one is going to write an exception into the rules, there ought to be a good reason for it. I'd like to know what that reason is before house ruling away the exception and possibly breaking something.


3) I think I managed to piece together how the different settlements work (though it would have been nice to have a central summary of all of this rather than spread around in different sections) but I'm looking for confirmation that I've got it.

a) Fortification: cannot muster, when region is attacked (fought like a field battle) the attacker hits only on a 6 for the first round only. Captured together with the region. Cannot heal corruption. Enemy capture has no political effect. Companions can not activate political counter. No Victory Points.

b) Town: can muster, no effect on combat. Captured together with the region. Cannot heal corruption. Enemy capture activates and advances political counter. Companions can not activate political counter. No Victory Points.

c) City: can muster, when region is attacked (fought like a field battle) the attacker hits only on a 6 for the first round only. Can heal corruption. Enemy capture activates and advances political counter. Companions can advance political counter. Captured together with the region. One Victory Point.

d) Stronghold: can muster, when region is attacked in a field battle has no effect on combat. Must be captured seperately from the region using the Siege rules (attacker hits only on a 6 every round, lasts only 1 round unless attacker downgrades an Elite each additional round). Can heal corruption. Enemy capture activates and advances political counter. Companions can advance political counter. Two Victory Points.


BTW: Having enemy capture of towns effect the political track but Companions entering a town not, is another example of the sort of special cases and fiddly rules that this game is full of. I see no reason not to apply both effects evenly to all settlements, or neither to towns. Much cleaner and easier to remember that way.


4) Stronghold questions:

a) Do you get the victory points for a Stronghold just for capturing the region (even if the stronghold is still in enemy hands)? Or do you have to capture the strong hold itself? The latter makes more sense and seems to be what the last part of section 7 is saying. But the description of a stronghold in the map terrain section very clearly indicates that the victory points are for the region just for containing the stronghold.

b) In order to capture a strong hold do you have to actually move units into it or do you capture it automatically with the Region if there are no defenders / survivors? The rules seem to indicate that this is the case but I'm hoping not since it would be yet another special case and the rules have enough of those already.

Towns, cities, and fortifications are very clearly just map icons that modify the features of the Region and have no seperate existance themselves. The Stronghold, however, is a wierd Icon/seperate space hybrid. Its a seperate space in that units can occupy it seperately from the region and it must be captured seperately from the region. But its not truly a seperate space if the answer above is that you can capture it without needing to move into it.

My preference for consistant application of rules with as few exceptions as possible wants the strongholds to completely be treated 100% like an entirely seperate space contained entirely within the region space. Moving into the stronghold would then be 100% consistant with the normal movement rules requiring an army or character die, an advance after combat (from a victorious siege) or a retreat from combat (retreat into the stronghold just like a retreat into any space.


5) Political Track confirmations:

a) If a nation's unit is attacked its counter is BOTH flipped to active AND advanced a space on the track by the same attack.

b) If a nation's unoccupied town is captured, the same...both activated and advanced.

c) If a nation's unit occupying a town is killed and the enemy advances, then the political counter is activated and advanced TWO spaces (one for the battle one for the captured town).

d) The instant that a nation enters the "at war" box the very next action die spent can be used to muster or attack or cross borders. It does not wait till the next turn to take effect.

yes?


6) Declaring the Fellowship: More a strategy question than a rules question. Looking for reasons to declare the Fellowship to be somewhere other than a city/stronghold or event card location...are these good reasons or foolish? Are there others?

a)Declaring the fellowship in order to get out from under a flock of Nazgul an effective strategy in the game even if you can't reach one of the above locations (in order to force the Shadow player to use a die to flock them back)... or does tipping your hand about direction give away more than the temporary escape gain you.

b)Declaring the fellowship to "teleport" past a shadow stronghold rather than risk a Hunt draw if revealed.


7) Using all of the hunt tiles: When all of the hunt tiles are used, the rule says to return all eye and numbered tiles but not any special tiles. Does "numbered" include 0 tiles? Are there any standard tiles that don't have either a number or an eye on them? If the first answer is yes, and the second answer is no...then why doesn't the rule simply read to return all "Standard" tiles but not any special ones? The specific reference to numbered and eye tiles makes me feel I'm missing some crucial distinction.


8) Hunt Odds: Another strategy question. Has anyone done a hunt odds calculation including rerolls? It seems to me that if the Shadow player keeps 3 Eye dice in the hunt box and 3 Nazgul flocking around that they're pretty much going to nail the Fellowship every round (mostly) and nearly certainly if it moves 2 or more spaces. Is that the way the game is meant to go? Are you typically drawing 1-2 Hunt Tiles every round?

Are there good reasons for the Shadow player to not do this...seems fairly inexpensive on the surface given the Shadow's dice advantage. Am I underestimateing the number of things the Shadow needs to do on a turn?



9) Special Hunt tiles: Am I correct that there are essentially 4 states for the Special Hunt tiles to be in?
i) out of the game because the card was never played
ii) in play but not yet in the hunt cup because the fellowship isn't in Mordor (where do you put these to signify this...are they open to inspection later?)
iii) in the cup because the card has been played and the fellowship is in Mordor.
iv) out of play because its been drawn and used and is now discarded.

a) is the flavor text for what each of the Special Hunt tiles represent in the rules just that...flavor with no in game effect? Any reason that flavor text wasn't added to the tile? Any reason it shouldn't be added manually with a pen?


10) Companion Counters: Is there any other use for the companion counters other than to randomly draw a casualty from the Hunt? If not, what is the advantage to using these counters rather than simply mixxing up and fanning out the Companion Cards themselves?


Thanks in advance

Ralph


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:rules questions
1) Mustering Nazgul: Can the Shadow player really muster 2 Nazgul with a single muster die?

yes

a) If this is true, is there any reason for the Shadow player to not simply max out his Nazgul as soon as Sauron is at war?

don't try taking MT with 9 Nazgul and 3 orcs

b) How does this play out in the game. It seems awfully questionable to me (I'd have been tempted to make a single Nazgul cost 2 dice not the other way around). What am I missing?

the total cost in dice. There is only one character/blue die face on SA dice, and so you may well not roll any in a turn. This means whatever Nazgul are mustered [at a cost in combat units] cannot move to where they are needed, for example the leaderless slaves of Rhun and Harad.

2) Moving after victory: If you use a Character die to attack with an army, and the army wins, do you have to move at least 1 leader into the space along with your advancing army after the battle? The rules do not say you do so on the one hand the answer would seem to be no.

no indeed, eg. Saruman attacking Fords of Isen

However, the rules DO say you have to move a leader with the army if you used a Character die to move (as opposed to attack). Since my preference is for consistantly applied rules with few exceptions (much easier to remember) there is certainly a precedent for such a requirement.

rules consistency was the designers' watchword

If the answer is, in fact, no. That you do have to move the leader when using a character die to move, but not when using a character die to attack, can someone explain the rational behind this.

there was a reason in this game for not moving into a space which you attack, therefore post-attack movement was considered optional advance after combat.

a) Fortification: cannot muster, when region is attacked (fought like a field battle) the attacker hits only on a 6 for the first round only. Captured together with the region. Cannot heal corruption. Enemy capture has no political effect. Companions can not activate political counter. No Victory Points.

merely 1st round combat effect, nothing else

b) Town: can muster, no effect on combat. Captured together with the region. Cannot heal corruption. Enemy capture activates and advances political counter. Companions can not activate political counter. No Victory Points.

basically just a muster point, but no retreat onto an enemy town or town with enemy control marker.

c) City: can muster, when region is attacked (fought like a field battle) the attacker hits only on a 6 for the first round only. Can heal corruption. Enemy capture activates and advances political counter. Companions can advance political counter. Captured together with the region. One Victory Point.

combines protection and town, and worth 1VP. Let us forget this "Captured together with the region" thing, as non-stronghold settlements are part of the region. Can stack 10, which can make them stronger in defence than Strongholds.

d) Stronghold: can muster, when region is attacked in a field battle has no effect on combat. Must be captured seperately from the region using the Siege rules (attacker hits only on a 6 every round, lasts only 1 round unless attacker downgrades an Elite each additional round). Can heal corruption. Enemy capture activates and advances political counter. Companions can advance political counter. Two Victory Points.

notably 5 units can retreat inside before combat. Characters [except flying Nazgul] cannot enter or leave stronghold spaces besieged by the enemy, except by event.
Moving characters must stop on entry to enemy-controlled stronghold. Any characters appearing in an enemy-besieged stronghold space are considered inside the walls.

BTW: Having enemy capture of towns effect the political track but Companions entering a town not, is another example of the sort of special cases and fiddly rules that this game is full of. I see no reason not to apply both effects evenly to all settlements, or neither to towns. Much cleaner and easier to remember that way.

control implies occupation, which one man cannot acheive by himself.

4) Stronghold questions:

a) Do you get the victory points for a Stronghold just for capturing the region (even if the stronghold is still in enemy hands)?


no

Or do you have to capture the strong hold itself? The latter makes more sense and seems to be what the last part of section 7 is saying. But the description of a stronghold in the map terrain section very clearly indicates that the victory points are for the region just for containing the stronghold.

strongholds and regions are separate when controlled by different sides. The 2VP is for the stronghold.

b) In order to capture a strong hold do you have to actually move units into it or do you capture it automatically with the Region if there are no defenders / survivors? The rules seem to indicate that this is the case but I'm hoping not since it would be yet another special case and the rules have enough of those already.

the locations effectively merge when only one side has combat units present, so they are no longer two locations, but one.

Towns, cities, and fortifications are very clearly just map icons that modify the features of the Region and have no seperate existance themselves. The Stronghold, however, is a wierd Icon/seperate space hybrid. Its a seperate space in that units can occupy it seperately from the region and it must be captured seperately from the region. But its not truly a seperate space if the answer above is that you can capture it without needing to move into it.

in wargame design generally it is acknowlegded that walled city spaces, which are spaces within spaces, cannot be perfectly defined in relation to all the other rules of the game. However they are no conflicts or problems with this effect in WotR.

My preference for consistant application of rules with as few exceptions as possible wants the strongholds to completely be treated 100% like an entirely seperate space contained entirely within the region space. Moving into the stronghold would then be 100% consistant with the normal movement rules requiring an army or character die, an advance after combat (from a victorious siege) or a retreat from combat (retreat into the stronghold just like a retreat into any space.

no they wouldn't! You could try to create such a definition but failure would be almost certain, as this has occured in every other wargame with this type of map location. You would need to square your new rules with every possible outcome of every rule or event. But don't let me stop ya.

5) Political Track confirmations:

a) If a nation's unit is attacked its counter is BOTH flipped to active AND advanced a space on the track by the same attack.


yes

b) If a nation's unoccupied town is captured, the same...both activated and advanced.

yes, because all towns are within their nation's boundaries.

c) If a nation's unit occupying a town is killed and the enemy advances, then the political counter is activated and advanced TWO spaces (one for the battle one for the captured town).

yes

d) The instant that a nation enters the "at war" box the very next action die spent can be used to muster or attack or cross borders. It does not wait till the next turn to take effect.

YES

6) Declaring the Fellowship: More a strategy question than a rules question. Looking for reasons to declare the Fellowship to be somewhere other than a city/stronghold or event card location...are these good reasons or foolish? Are there others?

its current space has SA strongholds, Nazgul and/or combat units in it, making any dissimilar space attractive, or is adjacent to same, such that an event could move them in. Because you can declare into Morannon or Morgul before the next Fellowship phase.

a)Declaring the fellowship in order to get out from under a flock of Nazgul an effective strategy in the game even if you can't reach one of the above locations (in order to force the Shadow player to use a die to flock them back)... or does tipping your hand about direction give away more than the temporary escape gain you.

all players know the direction at game start and this deosn't vary: its the Rivendell-Orodruin axis.
Stage 1 is Rivendell to either Lorien via Moria or maybe the High Pass, OR the Gap of Rohan. Stage 2 is Lorien or Gap to Morannon or Morgul, with high corruption demanding a detour via Edoras or MT, or just possibly Helms Deep. Or even Pelagir, though this would be more of a retreat to collect themselves prior to entry of Mordor, and would imply passive Southrons.

b)Declaring the fellowship to "teleport" past a shadow stronghold rather than risk a Hunt draw if revealed.

So put more dice in the Hunt box.
The Balrog gets them in Moria anyway.

7) Using all of the hunt tiles: When all of the hunt tiles are used, the rule says to return all eye and numbered tiles but not any special tiles. Does "numbered" include 0 tiles?

yes

Are there any standard tiles that don't have either a number or an eye on them?

no

If the first answer is yes, and the second answer is no...then why doesn't the rule simply read to return all "Standard" tiles but not any special ones? The specific reference to numbered and eye tiles makes me feel I'm missing some crucial distinction.

eye tiles only are returned to the bag on entry to Mordor. Numbered tiles are use-once outside Mordor, blue/red tiles are use-once as they are only used inside Mordor. Eyes are used inside and outside, with different rules pertaining to each moiety.

8) Hunt Odds: Another strategy question. Has anyone done a hunt odds calculation including rerolls? It seems to me that if the Shadow player keeps 3 Eye dice in the hunt box

how? you can only keep "at least" 3 in

and 3 Nazgul flocking around that they're pretty much going to nail the Fellowship every round (mostly) and nearly certainly if it moves 2 or more spaces. Is that the way the game is meant to go? Are you typically drawing 1-2 Hunt Tiles every round?

rerolls are considered according to presence/absence only. One nazgul or all nine give just one reroll.

Am I underestimateing the number of things the Shadow needs to do on a turn?

I daresay we can all say this is so, in general terms.

9) Special Hunt tiles: Am I correct that there are essentially 4 states for the Special Hunt tiles to be in?
i) out of the game because the card was never played


yes. A bad situation for the owner.

ii) in play but not yet in the hunt cup because the fellowship isn't in Mordor (where do you put these to signify this...are they open to inspection later?)

stacked next to the Hunt box ready for introduction to the bag. Yes you are not denied inspection.

iii) in the cup because the card has been played and the fellowship is in Mordor.

yes

iv) out of play because its been drawn and used and is now discarded.

yes

a) is the flavor text for what each of the Special Hunt tiles represent in the rules just that...flavor with no in game effect?

yes

Any reason that flavor text wasn't added to the tile?

like Coke advert video, the countersheet is language-neutral because it is used worldwide

Any reason it shouldn't be added manually with a pen?

not at all, it was this way in the test. A Shelob graphic would have been nicer than a d6 graphic

10) Companion Counters: Is there any other use for the companion counters other than to randomly draw a casualty from the Hunt? If not, what is the advantage to using these counters rather than simply mixxing up and fanning out the Companion Cards themselves?

none I can think of
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Talarius Dunedain
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Hellboy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:rules questions
aforandy wrote:
10) Companion Counters: Is there any other use for the companion counters other than to randomly draw a casualty from the Hunt? If not, what is the advantage to using these counters rather than simply mixxing up and fanning out the Companion Cards themselves?

none I can think of


Because the backs of the Companion Cards have identifying artwork on them of the characters, making the companion cards necessary to do a random draw.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Talarius Dunedain
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Hellboy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:rules questions
Talarius wrote:
making the companion cards necessary to do a random draw.


D'oh!

I meant to say companion *counters* here, not cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:rules questions
Talarius (#53704),

if the Ringbearers are on top of the Fellowship card stack, you could specify a card position underneath them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ralph Mazza
United States
Peoria
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Re:rules questions
the total cost in dice. There is only one character/blue die face on SA dice, and so you may well not roll any in a turn. This means whatever Nazgul are mustered [at a cost in combat units] cannot move to where they are needed, for example the leaderless slaves of Rhun and Harad.

Ahh, so the cost really isn't the same 2 for 1 character die for Nazgul and Leaders because the character die is more expensive for the Shadow (being rarer). Cool.

Is it safe to say then that the FP player will generally roll more Character icons on a turn than the Shadow player despite the SPs greater number of dice?




no indeed, eg. Saruman attacking Fords of Isen

Hmmm. Would have been much cleaner if the rule had been "if you use a character die to move an army (including move after combat) at least one of the leaders must accompany the army"

That way you have 1 rule that applies in all situations rather than having it be one way when you use a character die to move an army and a different way when you use a character die to attack with an army.

It would seem to me that if that if Saruman is the primary reason not to require leaders move after attack that it would have been better to just have this be a feature of Saruman himself (i.e. built into his Orthanc restriction on the card) then to have two completely different rules.

That's what I meant by consistant application and avoiding exceptions. Its just one more thing to have to keep straight during play. No doubt it will get easier with practice, but it does make the learning curve steeper than it would otherwise need to be.




rules consistency was the designers' watchword

Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that, but this game still has a metric buttload of exceptions and special cases.

Don't get me wrong. I can see reasons for most of them for purposes of emulating the books. No doubt if the game wasn't based on the books but was just a generic fantasy setting like Runebound alot of these rules would have been much more streamlined. Getting an accurate emulation required some of the special cases.

But there are a few places where I don't think the special cases were necessary and they could have been consolidated.




combines protection and town, and worth 1VP. Let us forget this "Captured together with the region" thing, as non-stronghold settlements are part of the region. Can stack 10, which can make them stronger in defence than Strongholds.

Actually, the captured with the region thing is pretty important. Part of my earlier comments about the clarity of the rules is precisely because things like this are not outlined specifically anywhere.

On page 6 of the rules the three types of settlements are described "in detail". No where on this page does it suggest that capturing a stronghold is different from capturing a city or a town. It indicates that the stronghold gives a strong defensive advantage, but it doesn't say "Strongholds are unique in that they must be captured separately from the region they are in, while towns and cities are considered part of the region itself and are not separate from it"

In fact, nowhere does it say this. The reader is left to piece this together for themselves from page 14 and 15. It is HUGELY important to the strategy of the game to know that strongholds are captured independently of the region and cities, towns, and fortifications are not. This should have been noted explicitly since common sense would say "of course you can siege a city...happened all the time". I'd bet money that somewhere out there someone trying to learn the game without the benefit of Boardgame Geek will be playing using the siege rules for cities.




BTW: Having enemy capture of towns effect the political track but Companions entering a town not, is another example of the sort of special cases and fiddly rules that this game is full of. I see no reason not to apply both effects evenly to all settlements, or neither to towns. Much cleaner and easier to remember that way.

control implies occupation, which one man cannot acheive by himself.

I'm not sure I follow you. I wasn't suggesting taking control of the settlement using a character. If you read that again I was indicating the effect of towns on the political track.

If an army captures a stronghold, that moves the political track
If a companion moves into a stronghold (with the right icon), that moves the political track

If an army captures a city, that moves the political track
If a companion moves into a city, that moves the political track

If an army captures a town, that moves the political track
If a companion moves into a town, that DOESN'T move the politica track.

See. Yet another exception to have to remember and keep straight. Much easier if armies and companions have the same effect on the political track when entering a town. Either the army should be able to capture the town without moving the track, or the companion should be able to move the track when entering the town.

Much cleaner.




a) Do you get the victory points for a Stronghold just for capturing the region (even if the stronghold is still in enemy hands)?

no

Cool, that makes much more sense.

Although I will point out that page 4 reads "Symbol indicates that the REGION is worth 2 victory points because it INCLUDES a stronghold" emphasis mine.

This quite easily can be interpreted to mean that its the region that provides the VPs, and the specific use of the word "includes" suggests that control doesn't matter. Since no matter who controls it, its still included in the region.

More clear would have been "Symbol indicates that the region is worth 2 victory points if the stronghold is captured"




b) In order to capture a strong hold do you have to actually move units into it or do you capture it automatically with the Region if there are no defenders / survivors? The rules seem to indicate that this is the case but I'm hoping not since it would be yet another special case and the rules have enough of those already.

the locations effectively merge when only one side has combat units present, so they are no longer two locations, but one.

That would have been an effective way to word it in the rules. Something to the nature of "If the region and the stronghold are controled by the same side treat them together as a single space."

Its important to make things like this explicit. Important principals of the game should not be left to be derived but should be outright stated.




in wargame design generally it is acknowlegded that walled city spaces, which are spaces within spaces, cannot be perfectly defined in relation to all the other rules of the game. However they are no conflicts or problems with this effect in WotR.

Well, we're not talking wargame design. We're talking a game that is supposed to appeal to a broader audience of LotR fans who may or may not have a veteran wargamer background as you and I do. The rules should be written to that audience. Not to the grognard audience, and that means minimizing special cases and exceptions.

The conflict or problem comes when learning how to play. Because the stronghold is NOT treated simply as a regular space, and because the rules that explain how the stronghold is to be treated are not compiled and summarized all in one easy to understand place, the game's accessibility is diminished.

This is likely quite invisible to you after 50 games played, but most non grognard types aren't going to play the game if they can't figure out the rules quickly and easily.




My preference for consistant application of rules with as few exceptions as possible wants the strongholds to completely be treated 100% like an entirely seperate space contained entirely within the region space. Moving into the stronghold would then be 100% consistant with the normal movement rules requiring an army or character die, an advance after combat (from a victorious siege) or a retreat from combat (retreat into the stronghold just like a retreat into any space.

no they wouldn't! You could try to create such a definition but failure would be almost certain, as this has occured in every other wargame with this type of map location. You would need to square your new rules with every possible outcome of every rule or event. But don't let me stop ya.

What makes you say that?

Picture. The strong hold is a seperate space which uses the siege rules to attack it and has a different stack limit.

You already have rules for retreating from a field battle to another adjacent space. If you're in a region containing a Stronghold, the stronghold is clearly an adjacent space and thus you can retreat into the stronghold using the ordinary already existing rules without need for an additional special "retreat into the stronghold rule".

You already have rules for taking control of a region after defeating all of the defenders by advancing after combat with some or all of the attackers. So if you've just defeated the garrison of the strong hold you simply advance and capture it the same as you would a city or down using the ordinary already existing rules without need for an additional special "merge the two into 1 space if both controlled by the same side" rule.

There are only 2 differences to game play that would occur by treating the stronghold as a full fledged independent space.

1) an attacker couldn't capture an undefended stronghold simply by taking the region. He'd have to also move to take the stronghold separately. I suspect that empty undefended strongholds are pretty extremely rare so the situation wouldn't likely come up anyway. But if it did, it simply means an extra army move to take the stronghold.

2) Defenders in a region with a stronghold wouldn't have a free choice at the moment of attack to decide to go for a field battle or retreat into the stronghold. Under the ordinary rules you can only retreat after the first round of combat. One could make a special "pre combat retreat" rule, but why.

Just leave it. Defenders now have to make the strategic decision to defend either the stronghold or the region. Since the stronghold is completely inside the region, no one can attack it without going through the region, so it would be perfectly safe to put the army in the Region...it would just have to suffer a round of field battle before retreat. Or the defender could move them into the stronghold, leaving the enemy the ability to move uncontested through the region. A strategic choice slightly different than the one now, but no less valid.

In fact, such a situation would be a fine emulation of the book since defending the region, suffering a round of combat and then retreating into the stronghold is exactly what the defenders of Helm's Deep did (in the book, not the movie)


If you have some reason as to why this wouldn't be 1) perfectly functional, and 2) require fewer special rules please share.




b)Declaring the fellowship to "teleport" past a shadow stronghold rather than risk a Hunt draw if revealed.

So put more dice in the Hunt box.
The Balrog gets them in Moria anyway.


I'm not sure what you mean here. I was asking if this would be an effective strategy for the FP player:

The current undisclosed route of the Fellowship will pass through a stronghold. If you wait until you get revealed you'll get nailed with a Hunt Tile draw.

If you declare the Fellowship voluntarily you can pass through the stronghold without triggering a draw.

So it would seem (from reading) that this would be a good reason for the FP player to declare the Fellowship, even if he doesn't have enough progress to actually reach a stronghold.




eye tiles only are returned to the bag on entry to Mordor.

...really?

I thought eye tiles were also returned to the bag when the bag was exhausted.


Let me ask this a different way.

When the bag is exhausted do you recycle all of the Standard Hunt tiles (and no specials) back into the bag? Or are there some Standard tiles that don't get recycled.

This is a seperate issue from when Mordor is entered.



rerolls are considered according to presence/absence only. One nazgul or all nine give just one reroll.

Ahh you're right. I missed the one "or more" part of that rule. Thanks.



like Coke advert video, the countersheet is language-neutral because it is used worldwide

Ahh, good reason. But yeah an icon of Shelob would have been pretty cool.



Talarius adds:

Because the backs of the Companion Cards have identifying artwork on them of the characters, making the companion cards necessary to do a random draw.

Good point.



Thanks for all the answers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Hope
United States
Woodside
California
flag msg tools
badge
Likes: Mountains, Tundra Turn-offs: Serpents, Marsh
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:rules questions
Valamir (#53773),

It says in the Hunt rules that all # and Eye tiles get put back in the mix if you run out of tiles (whether inside or outside of Mordor)--the Mordor reseeding is a special event which only adds back the Eyes and the special tiles.

I don't see any need for a leader to be forced to move into a space after battle if you used a character die to activate the army for battle--and I think this would get just as fiddly as (or moreso than) the rule you're complaining about. Instead of "The leader MUST move with the army if it moves because of a Character die" you'd have "Some portion of the army (including at least one leader in the battle) MUST advance into the defending space IF a Character die was used to activate the army for battle". I think that's worse, not better.

On the strongholds being their own spaces--don't forget all the crazy Event cards which would then have to be modified. Would the Woses allow you into an unoccupied MT if there was an Orc army outside? Would mustering go in the stronghold, or the region outside? It's going to add up to a LOT of extra move dice if every stronghold requires you to move out into the region to start campaigning, or moving into the stronghold to occupy it (albeit this would usually happen after a siege). I think the way the rules are is pretty clean/tight (except for the VP comment you make which is a big oversight if that's really how the rules read).

And as far as the complexity level of the rules and the need to appeal to a broader audience--that decision is up to the designers and the publishers. I'm not interested in criticizing them for not simplifying rules enough for the masses. I'm interested in playing a game that interests ME, a market of one. Do you think that towns SHOULD be a place where companions can advance the political track, or that if an enemy army occupies it it SHOULDN'T? I don't have a strong feeling either way, but the way the designers have done it makes some sense to me. And that's what I care about.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Hope
United States
Woodside
California
flag msg tools
badge
Likes: Mountains, Tundra Turn-offs: Serpents, Marsh
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Whoops
To clarify the useful part of the above post:

It says that ONLY the REGULAR hunt tiles get put back in the mix if you run out (obviously this is only different in Mordor after the special tiles have been added/used). I believe that #s and Eyes are the only results on those tiles, and on one of these threads (I believe the one labeled "Hunt tiles") there's a list of them which you can check. Note that "0" counts as a number.
 
 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.