The One Ring
http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/

shooting phase - remove casualties after phase (SBG)
http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16189		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  bigfruits [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:  shooting phase - remove casualties after phase (SBG)
ive only played sbg a few times but it seems that the priority roll is too powerful to be decided on a random roll.
winner of priority gets to charge, shoot and kill first and divy up the hand to hand combat.
maybe a way to make priority a little less powerful is to handle the shoot phase a little differently (i believe 40k is done this way)

the side that wins priority shoots first as normal. all kills get a chance to shoot back and are removed after the shooting phase. (you can turn the figs around to keep track of who is dead)

other than making heroic shooting worthless, what other issues would you come across playing this rule? would anything become unbalanced?
Author:  hithero [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Thats where Heroic Move, Shoot and fight comes in, to change the order of things. Priority is a 50/50 matter and so does not unbalance a game - use your Might points. I've been playing for several years and priority has not been an issue for concern especially where shooting is concerned where a dozen archers are unlikely to cause more than 1 or two casualties.
Author:  Durin's Folk [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:07 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree with hithero, priority is powerful, but not unbalanced. The randomness of priority also makes the game interesting. In the later stages of the game when priority is important, everything gets exciting. You need to win priority to save yourself from getting crushed and fail to get priority. Then jsut when your opponent thinks you were down, you pull out your last heroic action you had been saving for just this moment. Besides, in the early stages of the game you don't want priority, this way you can counter your opponents moves. There's nothing more daunting (and more exciting), then watching your plans to counter get thrown away by winning priority.

It is the randomness of priority that prevents one army from completely dominating the entire game. And heroic actions help to balance the game when priority seems unfair ::cough:: bad dice rolls.
Author:  whafrog [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Most of the time I find myself hoping to NOT get priority, since once the other side moves I get to respond and mess up his plans :) Priority is definitely handy after a cavalry charge, or to prevent *being* charged by the Spider Queen, but overall you can get as much benefit without it as with.
Author:  wibls [ Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Priority rolls are not unbalanced in that everything is "even", but I don't think that's what he was getting at. It's too powerful a thing to be left up to chance; and so it greatly diminishes strategy as a factor in the game. I don't necessarily agree, I just think that's what he's getting at.

Priority is a very powerful element, and so it is odd that it's left to chance. But I think that the power of priority is much more easily seen in the movement phase. The shoot phase is only minorly affected by the priority roll.
Author:  gaarew [ Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
wibls wrote:
It's too powerful a thing to be left up to chance; and so it greatly diminishes strategy as a factor in the game.


Well, wouldn't that apply to using dice then too?

:roll:
Author:  bigfruits [ Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
i wasn't saying priority is unbalanced. just too powerful to be decided on a 50/50 roll.

i think in small games priority is alot more important. a well rolled shoot phase could wipe out half of the enemy archers before they can return fire.
i could also see a small army of all mounted rohan unable to charge for several rounds turn into a disaster as well.

i think with larger games it wont be so much of a problem.

but importance of priority aside, why doesnt the shooting happen simultaneously like many other games? is it to speed up the game? can you see any problems or rules conflicts this rule would create?
Author:  Nurin [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:25 am ]
Post subject: 
That's a house-rule we've used too, using the phases in sections as a 40K game for example. Priority makes move, then other player(s) moves (in order of their rolls), then priority shoots, then others, then fight.... Haven't got my rulebook around at the moment, so I'm not completely sure how it really works xD

Though, we only get one fight phase at all per round, where the winner of the fight is the only one who strikes... Each player got their own fight phase usually? =P
Author:  Fishlegs [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Priority is one of the main strategic appeals of the game to me. You have to plan for both eventualities and use of might for heroic actions gives a great strategic element both in game and while choosing your army.

Back when I used to play 40K (nearly 20 years ago) you decided turn order for the whole game by a dice roll. Surely that has a bigger impact?
Author:  whafrog [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Fishlegs wrote:
Priority is one of the main strategic appeals of the game to me. You have to plan for both eventualities and use of might for heroic actions gives a great strategic element both in game and while choosing your army.


Have to agree with that. It kind of pushes you to be bold, yet flexible.
Author:  Flame of the West [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hmm, well If both players use a point of might for a heroic move, as often happens in my games, then it is still a 50/50 roll like the initial priority roll.

So strategically it comes down to how well spread out your heros are, and how you set up your formation to deal with losing a random roll.

Luckily priority seems to only make a big difference when it comes to cavalry and heros.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/