Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Runewars» Forums » Variants

Subject: Assigning damage to the opponent rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Marcin Mościcki
msg tools
Where is Ishtar's nipple??!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the most often made criticism I hear for this game is that during the battles players assign damage to themselves instead of to the opponent. It's also the easiest to fix. Has anyone tried it? What do you think about it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TTorres
United States
Roseville
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Haven't tried it, but remember that you're obligated to assign the new damage to a unit that's standing, and damaged, before you can spread it out to undamaged or routed units.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this would give more power to the early initiative units, and would kind of make useless some of the abilities like the Archer's Crack Shot ability (where the Elf player chooses).

I guess you could try it, but I personally think those who complain about it are those who haven't grasped the strategy involved in having to decide which of your units to damage (or, especially rout).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
schizoferret wrote:
One of the most often made criticism I hear for this game is that during the battles players assign damage to themselves instead of to the opponent. It's also the easiest to fix. Has anyone tried it? What do you think about it?


What is there to "fix"? What is the problem?

You would drastically alter the balance of the more powerful units (unfavorably) if you allowed the opponent to assign his routs to your powerful units (which usually go late, and it only takes a single rout to take them out of the battle) and his damage to your weak units (which normally only take a single hit to kill, and so your force could be decimated with relatively little damage).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick G.
United States
Glenshaw
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Does your religion have lightsabers? Nope? Didn't think so.
badge
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals." Agent K. Oh my what he would think of people had he known about what the internet would become.....
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
schizoferret wrote:
One of the most often made criticism I hear for this game is that during the battles players assign damage to themselves instead of to the opponent. It's also the easiest to fix. Has anyone tried it? What do you think about it?


What is there to "fix"? What is the problem?

You would drastically alter the balance of the more powerful units (unfavorably) if you allowed the opponent to assign his routs to your powerful units (which usually go late, and it only takes a single rout to take them out of the battle) and his damage to your weak units (which normally only take a single hit to kill, and so your force could be decimated with relatively little damage).

I actually have to agree with david.
I believe that the reason you assign the damage you receive(in most cases) is for balance reasons.
Thematically this can be explained by saying you always put cannon fodder in the front. :-D
I see what you are saying about letting the opponents assign damage.. but this would lead to many balancing issues.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
corkysru wrote:
Thematically this can be explained by saying you always put cannon fodder in the front. :-D


But actually, you usually lead with your large units, because you can take several hits on them and then they are healed at the end of the battle. One of the main tactics is to try to end the battle with your large units wounded, but not killed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
schizoferret wrote:
One of the most often made criticism I hear for this game is that during the battles players assign damage to themselves instead of to the opponent. It's also the easiest to fix. Has anyone tried it? What do you think about it?


Perhaps your friends commonly complain about that, but I've honestly never heard this raised as an issue about the game until just now. I don't have any problem with the player assigning his own damage personally.

From a flavour point of view you might be thinking "it doesn't make sense, my armies would point their weapons at the units they want to kill first!" If a flavourful explanation is what you want, how about this: the defending player is commanding his armies to put the units HE wants in front of your weapons. You have to go through them before you can get to the ones you really want (unless he chooses the ones you would have chosen anyway, in which case how lucky that the ones you want to kill are right here!)

This is also, incidentally, why damaged or standing units MUST take damage before fresh or routed ones. Those units are already "in the thick of battle" (previously damaged unit) or are at least "not in the process of running away" (standing unit.) If you've ever played one of the Total War games, you'll have a feel for how units that are close by, or at least not moving the other way, have a tendency to be considered a greater threat than those that are far away and/or already leaving the battlefield.

Edit: As an aside, if this issue is a flavour concern rather than a mechanics concern, I think it's worth noting that it's almost always better to invent fluff that fits the rules before inventing rules that fit the fluff. Unless you're playing an RPG, which Runewars is not.
2 
 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.