Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Crown of Roses» Forums » Rules

Subject: Heir charges against Henry VI or Margaret rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Benjamin Hamdorf
Germany
Bonn
NRW
flag msg tools
When an heir charge is performed against the young king or his mother, can their respective host blocks be used to soak up the damage?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes. See the posted FAQ as this is answered there. Basically, Attached Blocks can absorb losses for any Host that is not /also charging/.

-K
co-developer, CoR

Benjamin Hamdorf wrote:
When an heir charge is performed against the young king or his mother, can their respective host blocks be used to soak up the damage?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Hamdorf
Germany
Bonn
NRW
flag msg tools
Thanks for the quick response. Now, while it is mentioned in the rules and the FAQ that attached blocks can soak up damage, I had found nothing about the reverse situation: a host block taking the damage.

But I do understand you correctly in that an attached heir block can be charged separately? Or would I have to charge the host noble block and hope for the damage to carry over? In case of the former, an heir charge in the opening round of combat would carry less risk than usual - only two dice would be rolled against you and you would still get the chance to damage a potentially powerful host noble before the first line combat roll.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I am pretty sure that host blocks cannot soak for their attached blocks, only the reverse is true (according to the FAQ).

And yes, you can charge attached blocks ("any block").
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Hamdorf
Germany
Bonn
NRW
flag msg tools
In that case, does Henry need to be part of the main force in a battle as the most senior heir present? If so, that would make him extremely vulnerable, as he would be eliminated after only two hits.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
The FAQ states:

Quote:
each Player with arriving reinforcements must bring in at least a single Leader Block.


and then

Quote:
You must also bring in a more Senior Heir or higher Ranking Noble if one is available


As always, Henry causes trouble, since he is a senior heir but not a Leader (his host block is). The implication, as I read it, is that Henry's host and Henry himself has to enter if they are a Reinforcement and cannot be held back (I think the point of this clarification is to void a tactic of holding important blocks in Reserve). In such a case Henry will be a possible target of a charge, and vulnerable.

There are ways around this, the Lancaster player could make sure Henry does not fight in the first round (making sure he is a reinforcement and not a starting force). Also remember that only enemy heirs can charge. Finally, the Lancaster player probably will not cry if he loses Henry since he's such a liability as King (but obviously that is not official Lancaster policy).




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SAC can clarify, but if the HOST is not charging, then the general rule of "associated losses" still applies. The FAQ deals more with the situation where a HOST charges and the question arose whether an attached block could take losses from a charging Host. The answer to that is "no".

Otherwise, Attached and Host Blocks can always share damage, so killing Henry is not quite /that/ easy.... (though I agree that often Lanc. may /want/ him to die :-> ).

SAC, can you clarify/comment?

-K
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
After re-reading some rules I now retract my statement that a host cannot soak for his attached blocks.

Quote:
In general, all Blocks fight individually in Combat, though Attached Blocks...may be allowed to suffer associated losses if their Host Block incurs Step Losses (20.5.3).


First sentence of 20.4.3, the general rule on Attached/Hosts in combat which I knew very well. However, the very last sentence of 20.5.3, fourth paragraph says that:

Quote:
If a Noble has an Attached Block in the Main Force (i.e., not as
a Reserve), hits applied to the Noble or its Attached Block may be taken as a Step Loss by either, according to the controlling Player’s choice.


I think that information ought to be included in 20.4.3, the place where you will first look for info on how to deal with attached blocks (at least where I did).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
20.4.3 can be amended easily enough to recite: "... though Attached/Host Blocks ... may be allowed to suffer associated losses if their Host/Attached Block incurs Step Losses (20.5.3)".

-K

Delirium_EU wrote:
After re-reading some rules I now retract my statement that a host cannot soak for his attached blocks.

Quote:
In general, all Blocks fight individually in Combat, though Attached Blocks...may be allowed to suffer associated losses if their Host Block incurs Step Losses (20.5.3).


First sentence of 20.4.3, the general rule on Attached/Hosts in combat which I knew very well. However, the very last sentence of 20.5.3, fourth paragraph says that:

Quote:
If a Noble has an Attached Block in the Main Force (i.e., not as
a Reserve), hits applied to the Noble or its Attached Block may be taken as a Step Loss by either, according to the controlling Player’s choice.


I think that information ought to be included in 20.4.3, the place where you will first look for info on how to deal with attached blocks (at least where I did).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen A. Cuyler
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kevin is correct. However, we should add that to the FAQ - also, since Henry and Margaret are not actually on the battlefield, neither one should be able to charge at all. Don't want Hank committing suicide - he was crazy after all, but he couldn't lift a sword (it was too heavy for him).

-SAC
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Delirium_EU wrote:
Henry's host and Henry himself has to enter if they are a Reinforcement and cannot be held back


Is my interpretation correct regarding the implications for Hank of the FAQ clarification that heirs must always enter as reinforcements?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Its in there"...in the rules, that is. The charge rules explicilty prohibit Henry nad QM from being able to charge, so no need to add that to the FAQ .

re: Bjorn's other comment. I do not think Heir's /must/ enter, only if they are the new leader. Henry, who can never lead, /CAN/ be kept off map in the Reserves...making him safe from Charges, but you lose the combat dice from him (and...poetically, you "lose" the chance that York might actually kill him :-> ). As for QM, there is little benefit to keeping her guards from the battlefield, as her being eliminated does not cost you much (as she comes back)....but, if the Lanc. player really wanted/needed her for some reason he could keep her in Reserves, too.

-K

callsignthumper wrote:
Kevin is correct. However, we should add that to the FAQ - also, since Henry and Margaret are not actually on the battlefield, neither one should be able to charge at all. Don't want Hank committing suicide - he was crazy after all, but he couldn't lift a sword (it was too heavy for him).

-SAC
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
It does make sense that Henry should be exempt from the rule. I propose that you alter the FAQ text to reflect that if it is indeed the case:

Quote:
You must also bring in a more Senior Heir or higher Ranking Noble if one is available
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Bjorn,
I see the confusion...even though 10.3.3 is clear that Henry cannot lead, the statement in 20.4.1 that the "most senior heir" must be the leader is causing confusion. Think we just need to say in 20.4.1 "(exception: Henry VI)" after the "most senior heir' part.
Henry has no CR and can't lead, so there was the assumption that "most senior heir" in 20.4.1 clearly meant one of the Heirs that /could/ lead...but definitely better if we make it more explicit.

-K

P.S. Not going to bother adding it to the FAQ, as once my schedule clears some in mid-January we'll push the updating living rules to GMT and just make all the changes in the living rulebook.

Delirium_EU wrote:
It does make sense that Henry should be exempt from the rule. I propose that you alter the FAQ text to reflect that if it is indeed the case:

Quote:
You must also bring in a more Senior Heir or higher Ranking Noble if one is available
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
That's great, really looking forward to those living rules!
 
 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.