Does the Use of a Fourth Order Marker Upset Balance?

[Marsman]

With large armies movement and activation come into play big time. Some people use X as a fourth order marker when playing 650+ point armies. Does it affect play balance in ways such as upsetting melee vs range balance, or give too much power to specific units?

[Drumline3469]

I've never had that problem. We've gotten to the point where X is equivilent to a 4th marker no matter what. I don't think we've come across an instance where it made any difference.

[jdtenor]

I never been crazy about using "X" as 4th because it takes away the surprise factor of not knowing where one of the moves are but I did like GaryLASQ house rule of using "X" as a wild marker works good in case one of your moves gets killed or for change in strategy especially when being attacked from two fronts, I implamented it into my house rule & everybody loves it & it makes the surprise factor a little better, but it does take away on initiative because you can place your "X" on a caracter that might not survive getting attacked 1st, & if you go 1st or survive you use your "X"

[reapersaurus]

As I'm seeing it this morning, it really doesn't do ANYTHING except remove the strategic decoy X Marker, and hurt units that have a onec-per-round ability (at this time, only Alistair MacDirk that I know of - and my Grammaton Cleric ;) )

Otherwise, there's no difference between getting 4 turns in a round, or 3 turns, if both opponents get it equally.

The only other impact it would have would be when the scenario uses Rounds as a timer (which isn;t usually the case when big armies are waging war - I'd think it's usually Kill Em All).

I mean it's not like you're getting "more turns!" since the game is simply one person takes a turn, then the other.
There'd be no difference if people had 6 turns per round - only less initiative rolls getting between the turns.

[Marsman]

What I mean is that you can stack more order markers a card without really hurting your other capability; and melee frequently can rush ranged, thereby almost eliminating a ranged figure's advantage.

[Ryougabot]

The only place it comes into play is in the OVEREXTEND ATTACK. This rule states that it can only be used once per round. Making the rounds have more turns will hurt this ability slightly, but statistically would have no impact on the rest of the game.

[reapersaurus]

What I mean is that you can stack more order markers a card without really hurting your other capability; and melee frequently can rush ranged, thereby almost eliminating a ranged figure's advantage.How does it affect ranged/melee balnce in any way?

They can currently rush ranged just as well. Stack 3 Order MArkers to represent the "rush".
Of course, the ranged unit can just as easily stack all 3 Order Markers on it.

In fact, the only REALLY way for a melee unit to "rush" a ranged unit is IN-BETWEEN rounds, by going last in Turn 3 and first in Turn 1 after winning inititive.

So while it may seem counterintuitive, it seems clear to me that using the X Marker as a 4th turn actually DECREASES the chances that melee will have to rush ranged, thereby making ranged a bit stronger. :shock:

[LilNewbie]

My group really enjoys using the X-Marker as a wildcard as described above. It adds some extra flexibility to activation of units without breaking the delicate balance of the order markers.

Newb.

[reapersaurus]

well, actually, it takes away flexibility, since there is now more time in between rounds (and inititive rolls).

Further, it removes the strategic component of the decoy marker.

I'm curious - what advantage do people think there is in using the X Marker?

More turns? Cause that doesn;t work - it just re-arranges how often you roll for initiative - everybody gets just as many turns, as long as the Rounds aren't tracked for some scenario purpose.

[LilNewbie]

There is still only three active turns in a round the way we play. The x-marker can be used to replace a 1,2 or 3 marker. The x-marker still functions as a decoy but seconds as a wildcard. Adding an extra turn can and will change the dynamics of the game. Not that I would be opposed to trying it out as long as everyone at the table agrees on the change.

Newb.

[reapersaurus]

Ah - WILDCARD - I get it now.

Yes, that would add flexibility, and still provide a decoy. Make the tough decisions less agonizing, but you're right.

[Roufus]

It would change lava field damage rolling by making it happen less often...

[DoesntCompute]

We use the X as a wildcard that can replace any other turn marker. While I like it, it does take away a little bit of the strategy. A person can put the X on a backline/support unit so that if it gets charged, it can move out of the way. Having the X as a wildcard makes it nearly impossible to pull off surprise manuevers on an opponent who is paying attention.

[Xotli]

We've been experimenting with Caravaggio's order marker rules (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=94&highlight=order+markers). In conjunction with this, I offered a rule that you could surrender 3 order markers to be able to move with the unit of your choice. If that means you don't have enough order markers to finish out the round, tough (you lose those turns). If you don't have at least 3, you can't do it.

This is primarily to ease the kid into using order markers, since it was the one official advanced game rule we never used, so now he thinks using order markers sucks. But, I dunno ... it might be okay as a general rule. (I haven't done it yet myself, but I'm not sure if that's because I haven't wanted to risk going that low on order markers or if I've been looking at it like a handicap rule.)

[Grungebob]

With large armies movement and activation come into play big time. Some people use X as a fourth order marker when playing 650+ point armies. Does it affect play balance in ways such as upsetting melee vs range balance, or give too much power to specific units?Using the x as a 4th order marker does nothing to help games with larger armies and so is of no real value. All it will do is slightly spread the initiatives out and mess with a couple of abilities. For a couple of years players have mentioned this use of the X as a 4th and it really makes no sense to me at all.

[geddy lifeson]

My wife and I started playing a few different ways to add more turns into the round. We started using a cup with an extra set of order markers in it, therefore you could essentially have and extra 1,2,3 turn or screw yourself with double X's. After having your opponent pummel you while you repeatedly drew the double X time and time again, we made X turn 4.

The way we play is after you place your 1st 4 markers you roll for initiative and draw your extra turn in initiative order and then place it on the card of your choice. It makes it interesting to have the double attack turn and makes it harder to figure out what to do each round as you need to guess where your opponent may double strike. The big key is noticing where the original turn markers lay before the fifth goes down.

We also play the "normal" way but like to change things up with new rules.

[Jandars_Hope]

We don't use the X marker purely because it doesn't really do anything in our games. We don't look at each others markers anyways and we have them laid flat down not standing up!

[Venandier]

Definitely no. I always use X as #4, and if i've got 6+ army cards, I may even have two X's and when it comes to the X's turn, choose one to go and then the other can go the next turn. Works great.

[gorillanator]

Definitely no. I always use X as #4, and if i've got 6+ army cards, I may even have two X's and when it comes to the X's turn, choose one to go and then the other can go the next turn. Works great.

That sounds like it would work pretty well.

[GaryLASQ]

We don't use the X marker purely because it doesn't really do anything in our games. We don't look at each others markers anyways and we have them laid flat down not standing up!
huh? you mean down flat with the numbers face up? i'm confused.

i foget who first mentioned the x-wild idea way back when on HS.net but i've been playing it that way ever since. in fact, my strategies have started relying on it which is probably a bad thing for when i have to play the regular way.

as pointed out before...adding more turns per round makes no sense to me either. i don't see how it helps in the slightest. all it does is stretch out certain things that only happen once per round (AE drop, Alastair extended attack, Lava Field damage, etc.)

[gorillanator]

The only place it comes into play is in the OVEREXTEND ATTACK. This rule states that it can only be used once per round. Making the rounds have more turns will hurt this ability slightly, but statistically would have no impact on the rest of the game.

You mean it isn't going to have impact on letting figures stay 3 turns on lava then move on the last order marker? Or not have an impact on having to wait an extra turn to roll for airborne elite?

It would also allow players to for example move Taelord more easily with a squad of Minions/snipers. With three order markers a player would have to choose which to put 2 order markers on and which to put 1 on but with 4 markers one would be able to move both units twice and keep the minions/snipers in range of Taelord's aura and move farther down the board.

[Gambit]

yes but this advatage is for everyone