Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Antike» Forums » Rules

Subject: Another slant on the movement question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In another thread, I get the impression that the way movement is supposed to work is that every unit is always moved one by one. And the "defenders" (everyone else with units in the destinations) get to decide unit-by-unit whether there will be combat. To me, this seems vastly inferior to my interpretation from reading the rules (and playing the game), which is this:

The attacker chooses how many units they are going to move at a time. If they choose to move more than 1 at a time, then anyone wanting to fight must fight against the entire group of units moved at that time.

Aside from the mechanical aspect of this (the only part I really care about), the thematics also seem to support this. What army marches in one man at a time? Further, what army, after marching most of its men in peacefully, only to have the last man attacked and killed can only retaliate against the single man that killed its man?

To illustrate the significance of this decision, let me give a somewhat contrived example off the top of my head (I don't have the game in front of me): Suppose player A wants to move 4 units into a neighboring province occupied by two units belonging to player B. The obvious possible outcomes, regardless of movement system are:
1) A=4, B=2
2) A=3, B=1
3) A=2, B=0
But suppose that A's order of outcome preference is 1 (most desired), 3 (somewhat tolerable), 2 (a disaster). B, aware of this preference, has the exact opposite preference. Thus A has no way of even attempting for outcome 1, since B can spoil it on the last unit. It seems much more interesting to me for A to have the ability to say, "I'm coming in with 4. Do you want to lose all your guys or none?" thus putting a little more strategic control into the hands of the attacker.

Is this within the letter and/or spirit of the rules? Am I completely off my rocker? (Which probably won't stop me from playing this way anyway, but I'd like to know nonetheless.) Comments/feedback?

Thanks,

Curt
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you are completely off your rocker!

The scenario you present is nonsensical, but I think it's a bit in error. The defender can only choose to have combat when unit moves in, but the attacker can decide at any time, when to attack. So when I move my last guy in, and you decide it's time to take him out, I can then say, OK let's have at it. Perhaps I need to re-read the rules, but that was my take on the movement rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, you're right. I forgot about the ability for the active player (doing a movement maneuver) to do as much fighting as they want, even with units that have already exhausted their maneuver abilities.

But I will not concede that my example was nonsensical--not even to a fellow Seattlite.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Saari
Finland
flag msg tools
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if the movement happens one by one, the attacker can always declare his or her intention to move in with more; maybe that has an effect on the defender or not.

In some situations making up your mind as you move the men and the fights happen or don't happen might be an advantage. In some situations it might be better to announce out loud the number of guys you're moving.

In either case, I don't see any reason why it should matter mechanically. The guys move one at the time, the rest is diplomacy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It does matter mechanically. I actually replied too hastily last time. The mechanic that I like (sidestepping poorly contrived examples for the moment) is the ability of the attacker to say "I'm coming in with n units, are you fighting or not?" and force the defender decide on the whole batch. That is, the defender can't just fight with one unit, if that is what they perceive is optimal for them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Saari
Finland
flag msg tools
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Saying what you mean makes it easier to understand than foggy examples, I now understand what you mean. Of course, I'll have to disagree.

The way I see it, even if the attacker may move several units at once, I don't see why defender wouldn't have the right to choose "this guy will fight and this guy won't". If attacker can choose how many units to move, shouldn't defender be allowed to choose how many units fight?

The way I see fights in Antike is that neither side can have total control over it. Both sides fight as much as they want and the what's left is what's left.

If it's optimal for defender to fight just one unit, I'd say they can do it, but then again attacker has the option to change the situation. I don't see why attacker should be able to reduce the options of the defender.

Of course, Mac Gerdts has the final word on this, and the way I see it has nothing to do with how you play it. I just wouldn't play it the way you would.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Newman
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
It does make a mechanical difference. If the defender has 2 units, and the attacker moves in 4, but the defender only protests the last unit, then they each remove 1 unit. Now the attacker will have to call another Maneuver action to get rid of the other defending unit, rather than combatting them all at once as the attacker wanted to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blackberry wrote:
It does make a mechanical difference. If the defender has 2 units, and the attacker moves in 4, but the defender only protests the last unit, then they each remove 1 unit. Now the attacker will have to call another Maneuver action to get rid of the other defending unit, rather than combatting them all at once as the attacker wanted to do.


I haven't played Antike yet, but my understanding is that either side can cancel piece for piece any/all units in the same location. There doesn't need to be extra actions used for this at all. Right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Blackberry wrote:
It does make a mechanical difference. If the defender has 2 units, and the attacker moves in 4, but the defender only protests the last unit, then they each remove 1 unit. Now the attacker will have to call another Maneuver action to get rid of the other defending unit, rather than combatting them all at once as the attacker wanted to do.


False.

When a military unit moves into a location combat will occur if the moving player or ANY player with units in the region wishes it. Ergo the moving player can give the locals no choice, and they can pick which locals they give that (lack of) choice to. Similarly the locals can give the moving player no choice.

Where the rules are unclear is when several players have units in an area when an N'th player moves units in. The ambiguity is over what order the potential conflects are resolved in. We play that the active player decides the order of resolution.
 
 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.