what's so cool about common squads?

[Jotun]

I just started buying extras of commons and now they seem like they'll be fun to play. I think I know basic stuff about commons. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

If I have 3x Minutemen then I'll have 12 dudes on the board. I place an order marker on the card and then I have the option of moving any four minutemen. Whenever one of them dies I place that guy on one of the 3 minutemen cards. When four have died, I remove that card.

So with that said, will there ever be a time when it matters which of the three cards I put an order marker on since I can move any 4?

And lastly, are there any tactics regarding commons that I should be aware of?

Thanks

[ASmiles]

It shouldn't matter which card you put the marker on. You can set aside any extra cards and simply play with one card only. Whenever you put a marker on that card, you activate X number of figures (x will vary based on which common you are using). The only time you will activate less than x figures is when there are less than x figures left on the board.

[LilNewbie]

Using your example of the 4th Mass

1. You only need one card for all of your 4th Mass. (The reason behind this point is that in the 2nd Ed. rules they clarified that you must fill up a common card with casualties before adding casualties to another card. Hence, the extra cards become extraneous.)
2. When an order marker is activated on that card you can move and attack (with the same ones moved) any 4 remaining 4th Mass you control.
3. Casualties are placed near the card and when you get to less then 4 left you can only activate what remains on the board when you activate the squad.

Newb.

[pistonh]

Actually I think you should play with more than one card if you draft more than one of the same common squad. I find when using only one card sometimes people forget how to add right toward the point limit.

Also with one card, you can sort of "fudge" on the order marker placement. Think about this - let's say you play with only one Venoc Viper card but 6 Vipers. Now you place order markers 2 & 3 for a round on that one card. During turn 2, one Viper dies. Now it's your turn 2. You use 3 Vipers. During an opponent's turn 3, you lose another Viper and put him on the card. During your turn 3 you use 3 Vipers.

Now let's say you use 2 cards. You put order marker 2 on one card and order marker 3 on another card. Same thing happens - during turn 2, you lose 1 Viper and place him on the card with order marker 3. Now on your turn 2 you use 3 Vipers since that card has no Vipers killed. Now on turn 3 another Viper dies and according to the rules you must place that on the card with the other - which is card with order #3. Now it's your turn 3, you may only move 1 Viper since 2 are already on the card.

So that's moving 3 vs. moving 1 - somewhat of a big deal. Now you may ask, "Why put the order markers on separate cards?" Well sometimes it is advantageous in certain situations. Also it kind of relates to the "You snooze, you lose" rule. In the last game we played, a player accidentaly put a figure on a card with his only order marker for those common squads, leaving the other card with no order markers blank. Able only to move 3 figures instead of 4. That resulted in him not being able to take a glyph, which cost him the game.

It's kind of rules lawyery, but makes a difference to some.

[Eclipse]

I'd love to know what situation it's advantageous to place order markers on seperate cards....?

[AgentX-127]

It's kind of rules lawyery, but makes a difference to some.Yeah, that's so rules lawyery that HASBRO refined the rules in the 2nd edition so that all that gobbledy-gook no longer applies.

Sorry, but you are spreading disinformation.

You have to put all the destroyed figures on one card.
You can't spread them across cards like you are saying.
If you have 3 Vipers left on the board and a turn marker on a Vipers card it doesn't matter anymore which card the markers or the dead vipers are, you still get to use all 3.

(Oh, Welcome to the boards, pistonh!) :D

[lonewolf]

It's kind of rules lawyery, but makes a difference to some.Yeah, that's so rules lawyery that HASBRO refined the rules in the 2nd edition so that all that gobbledy-gook no longer applies.

Sorry, but you are spreading disinformation.

You have to put all the destroyed figures on one card.
You can't spread them across cards like you are saying.
If you have 3 Vipers left on the board and a turn marker on a Vipers card it doesn't matter anymore which card the markers or the dead vipers are, you still get to use all 3.

(Oh, Welcome to the boards, pistonh!) :D

AgentX is right.....this is the advantage of using commons. If you had to put the order marker on each card and keep track of which units are associated with that card, there wouldn't be an advantage.

--Lonewolf

[DoesntCompute]

Also with one card, you can sort of "fudge" on the order marker placement. Think about this - let's say you play with only one Venoc Viper card but 6 Vipers. Now you place order markers 2 & 3 for a round on that one card. During turn 2, one Viper dies. Now it's your turn 2. You use 3 Vipers. During an opponent's turn 3, you lose another Viper and put him on the card. During your turn 3 you use 3 Vipers.


It isn't fudging anything. That is how you are supposed to play commons. Each activation you may move ANY 3 vipers.

[K/H_Addict]

if i have 3x minions, when 3 die, can i disperse them among the 3 cards or what? Not that it matters, because i only use one card for each unique, no matter how many i use...

[LilNewbie]

No you can't disperse them among the 3 cards. Second Ed. rules states you must fill up a common card with casualties before placing any other casualties on a new card.

Newb.

[netherspirit]

No you can't disperse them among the 3 cards. Second Ed. rules states you must fill up a common card with casualties before placing any other casualties on a new card.

Newb.

Dang, you beat me to it again! Only I was going to be a little more cynical and say something like this...

:rtfm: :P

[LilNewbie]

You? Sarcasm?

:D

Newb.

[pistonh]

No you can't disperse them among the 3 cards. Second Ed. rules states you must fill up a common card with casualties before placing any other casualties on a new card.

Newb.

Then why would the rules even mention that there might be a situation where more than one card would be used? That relates to my second example. Isn't the point of the "You snooze, you lose" rule to capitalize on weaknesses? If you had the choice of attacking a figure with 5 life and 4 wounds or a figure with 5 life and no wounds, which one would you attack? The one that's easier to kill right? If someone isn't paying attention and places a figure on a squad card with an order marker you may only move the number of figures silouhetted on the card minus one for each figure placed on it.

Let's say you play with 2 squads of minutemen using 2 seperate cards. Since you don't believe in placing order markers on seperate cards you place order markers 1 & 2 on a single card. That leaves the other card blank. On the first turn, you lose a minuteman. You aren't paying close attention for some reason or another and you inadvertenly place the figure on the card that has the order markers on it when you actually had intended to place it on the blank card. You don't notice until your turn. Now according to the rules you are only able to use 3 minutemen that turn. You snoozed, you lost. That results in a missed attack opportunity that could have killed an opponent's figure that was about to take the objective of the scenario. This causes your opponent to win instead of his last figure dying.

Now imagine if this had been a serious tournament game for a prize. Or even just a cutthroat game between smack-talking friends. A major deal when you're talking win or lose situation. Both of those rules are there for a reason. I find that sometimes I win games simply because my opponent has been "snoozing" more than I have with powers, number of dice rolled, etc.

It's sort of the same way like in Chess where when you take you hand off a piece that has moved, the move is final.

[pistonh]

Sorry guys, maybe I am incorrect. I re-read the rules and it says you don't have to keep track. But when I asked this question of Hasbro after the 2nd ed. rules came out they replied the way I exampled. Hmm...

[LilNewbie]

If you used only one card per common unit it's a moot point. After they clarified the rule about common casualty placement, most people just use one card for playing. But for sake of argument, let's go with your example. Depending on the person's experience with the game, it would be nice of another person in the game to remind him of the situation so he can fix the bad placement. If it is a cutthroat, then he is SOL. It all depends on how you want to play the game (friendly or hyper-competitive). At the GenCon tourney, most people were using 1 card per common squad to save room and it's not necessary to use more than one card now due to the ruling in the Second Ed.

Newb.

[Eclipse]

It's unnecessary and a pointless advantage. When I win, I want to win due to superior strategy, not because of rule technicalities. There's simply no reason a board game requires cutthroat tactics...

[Cavalier]

It's unnecessary and a pointless advantage. When I win, I want to win due to superior strategy, not because of rule technicalities. There's simply no reason a board game requires cutthroat tactics... :?: huh? Can you elaborate on what you are refering to?

[Eclipse]

It's unnecessary and a pointless advantage. When I win, I want to win due to superior strategy, not because of rule technicalities. There's simply no reason a board game requires cutthroat tactics... :?: huh? Can you elaborate on what you are refering to?

Just taking advantage of things like which card they place their defeated figures on or even when they don't take advantage of bonuses available to them.. I just think there's a big difference between outthinking someone and taking advantage of their ignorance.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

and it's not necessary to use more than one card now due to the ruling in the Second Ed.

Newb.
Perhaps as coasters? :shrug:

[Skeletor]

if i have 3x minions, when 3 die, can i disperse them among the 3 cards or what? Not that it matters, because i only use one card for each unique, no matter how many i use...

Wait wait wait

You can use more then one Unique squad of the same type in your Army?

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

nope.

[LilNewbie]

Minions=Minions of Utgar=Common Squad. Perhaps you are thinking of something else.

Newb.

[pistonh]

Maybe the multiple card thing is there just for point counting purposes. Victory points at the end maybe?

I guess we should blame it on Hasbro. If they made the rules clear enough in the first place they wouldn't even need a 2nd ed. rules re-write. It's not right making people scramble around finding the "latest" rulebook. I bet one day we'll all be talking about the 11th edition...

[LilNewbie]

Nah. It's on the website for a free download and all game systems revise their rules as time goes on. So far the Second Ed. has held up well. Any new rules come out in the expansion boxes and so far they have fit seamlessly into the game system without much of a problem. The extra cards are for helping in pointing out armies and so other opponents can have them in their army too.

Newb.

[Eclipse]

Yeah, the only thing the 2nd Edition rules did is clarify some of the things for the more excessive players. It answered questions like, "what if I jump off a 30 height cliff?" and other questions that don't really come up until you have several Mastersets and lots of units.

[nater]

but if you had X amount, wouldnt you have to run some numbers to get a certain Point amount for drafting?

[Cavalier]

but if you had X amount, wouldnt you have to run some numbers to get a certain Point amount for drafting?Could you restate the question? I'm a bit confused.

[Eclipse]

You have to know that 3 squads of Snipers is 300 points, yes. That's just simple multiplication on the cards. We actually pick using multiple cards for point purposes, but then stack them all together when playing. That way it's easier to see your total points, but still takes up a smaller space on the table.

[sigmazero13]

Just taking advantage of things like which card they place their defeated figures on or even when they don't take advantage of bonuses available to them.. I just think there's a big difference between outthinking someone and taking advantage of their ignorance.
I have to admit I disagree on one thing - in may cases, I DON'T think it's a "big difference".

Often, the line between "outthinking" someone and "taking advantage of their ignorance" is very thin. Take chess, for example. If your opponent makes a very poor tactical move, and you captilize on it, are you outthinking them, or taking advantage of their ignorance? Or both? The line is very fuzzy.

Exploiting "loopholes" or slight rules nuances may be one thing, but if someone SHOULD know the rules, and fails to notice this or that, then part of outthinking them IS to take advantage of their ignorance.


If you mean this in the sense of "a veteran should not exploit ever corner-case rule against a newbie" I would probably agree, though - that's just poor form.

[Eclipse]

Honestly, I'm willing to make my full knowledge of the rules available to my opponent at any time. If they're not rolling for height, remembering to use frenzy, or forgetting about ability or glyph bonuses available to them, I'll usually remind them before they roll.

If they put themselves in a poor position or fail to notice my own positioning or take into account the abililties of my units, that's an ignorance I have no problem taking advantage of. Outpositioning and stacking the luck factor in my favor require genuine strategic thinking and are the skills I feel should determine the winner.

I realize that it's unlikely my opponent is likely to grant me the same favor and I'm essentially handicapping myself, but it's just how I prefer to play. It's just a game and it's meant to be fun. I personally don't take any enjoyment out of witholding information in order to win. When I win, I prefer to do so against an opponent who never made a mistake in following the game mechanics, but was simply outmanuevered and beaten.

My rule of thumb: If the game were on a computer instead of a table, and the computer would probably handle this automatically for you, then it's not a factor I care to win with. But that's just my feeling on the matter.

[sigmazero13]

Honestly, I'm willing to make my full knowledge of the rules available to my opponent at any time. If they're not rolling for height, remembering to use frenzy, or forgetting about ability or glyph bonuses available to them, I'll usually remind them before they roll.

If they put themselves in a poor position or fail to notice my own positioning or take into account the abililties of my units, that's an ignorance I have no problem taking advantage of. Outpositioning and stacking the luck factor in my favor require genuine strategic thinking and are the skills I feel should determine the winner.

I realize that it's unlikely my opponent is likely to grant me the same favor and I'm essentially handicapping myself, but it's just how I prefer to play. It's just a game and it's meant to be fun. I personally don't take any enjoyment out of witholding information in order to win. When I win, I prefer to do so against an opponent who never made a mistake in following the game mechanics, but was simply outmanuevered and beaten.

My rule of thumb: If the game were on a computer instead of a table, and the computer would probably handle this automatically for you, then it's not a factor I care to win with. But that's just my feeling on the matter.
I guess it depends on what they are doing. Reminding them to do something they are entitled to do by rule is one thing. However, at the same time, telling them they made a poor tactical decision is quite another. If someone moves and forgets to shoot, I'll probably tell them. If somone moves, and doesn't move their full movement allotment, I'm not going to say anything - they may have done it on purpose, but in any case, they DO need to pay attention to their own tactics.

I hope that makes sense :) I agree that if it's a "rule" thing, I'm not going to let my opponents ignorance "break" a rule. But I'm not going to tell him he made a stupid move, either :P

[Jotun]

My usual opponent is very keen on strategy, and every once in a while he's say, "You know, you could move that guy to get a height advantage." I appreciate it, and I think it makes the game more fun for him because it raises my skill level closer to his. He rarely makes dumb mistakes.

[Eclipse]

I'll rarely to almost never comment on tactical desisions. The only thing I'll mention is if someone has Marcus and only moves the Romans 4, or something where I think they might be forgetting or unaware of something. I'll only make tactical comments when people are first playing and probably don't understand the rules like engagement and height, but I don't comment on where they move or who they attack, as that's actual strategy. I only comment on things like "don't forget your height bonus" or "I think you're within Raelin's Aura" when I see they seem to have forgotten the dice they're entitled to or when they haven't used a power like Mindshackle or Frenzy that they should always roll for and have probably forgotten.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here :D

[pistonh]

I understand what you guys are saying about being a good sport. But if you don't take advantage of the "you snooze, you lose" rule, and that either makes or breaks the game for you, you guys wouldn't care? Lots of things turn out dramatically differently on little mishaps. That's why I figure the rule is there in the first place.

In another thread there's a question whether figures with the disengage ability are able to move through friendly figures if the figure is engaged. Now according to what I'm hearing here, it should be trivial on whether you let the guy move through or not. I'm trying to say why argue some rules and not others when they all could potentially sway the outcome of the game? If someone uses one card and gets to move 3 Vipers every turn instead of potentially 2 it would make some kind of impact on the game, competitive or otherwise. That's why I say use more than one card.

[Eclipse]

But if you don't take advantage of the "you snooze, you lose" rule, and that either makes or breaks the game for you, you guys wouldn't care?

Nope, I wouldn't care one bit. The reason is, if I'm taking advantage of "Snooze you lose" rules, then I probably shouldn't have won in the first place. Being good enough to win against an opponent who never makes a game mechanics mistake is more important to me than winning any single round of a board game. I play for fun first, to improve myself second, and to win third. Correcting my opponent on mechanical errors ensures #1 and #2, even if it may cost me #3. I think it's a fair trade.

[Aranas]

....I play for fun first, to improve myself second, and to win third. Correcting my opponent on mechanical errors ensures #1 and #2, even if it may cost me #3. I think it's a fair trade.
Very well said! 8)

Even worth a sig...


Aranas

[Jotun]

[quote]I play for fun first, to improve myself second, and to win third.
I had to go to college to do that. :(
I wish I knew I could just play Heroscape.

[jumpman_14]

Actually I think you should play with more than one card if you draft more than one of the same common squad. I find when using only one card sometimes people forget how to add right toward the point limit.

Also with one card, you can sort of "fudge" on the order marker placement. Think about this - let's say you play with only one Venoc Viper card but 6 Vipers. Now you place order markers 2 & 3 for a round on that one card. During turn 2, one Viper dies. Now it's your turn 2. You use 3 Vipers. During an opponent's turn 3, you lose another Viper and put him on the card. During your turn 3 you use 3 Vipers.

Now let's say you use 2 cards. You put order marker 2 on one card and order marker 3 on another card. Same thing happens - during turn 2, you lose 1 Viper and place him on the card with order marker 3. Now on your turn 2 you use 3 Vipers since that card has no Vipers killed. Now on turn 3 another Viper dies and according to the rules you must place that on the card with the other - which is card with order #3. Now it's your turn 3, you may only move 1 Viper since 2 are already on the card.

So that's moving 3 vs. moving 1 - somewhat of a big deal. Now you may ask, "Why put the order markers on separate cards?" Well sometimes it is advantageous in certain situations. Also it kind of relates to the "You snooze, you lose" rule. In the last game we played, a player accidentaly put a figure on a card with his only order marker for those common squads, leaving the other card with no order markers blank. Able only to move 3 figures instead of 4. That resulted in him not being able to take a glyph, which cost him the game.

It's kind of rules lawyery, but makes a difference to some.
Waaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiit..... almost....... nope I'm lost.

[Codeman]

Actually I think you should play with more than one card if you draft more than one of the same common squad. I find when using only one card sometimes people forget how to add right toward the point limit.

Also with one card, you can sort of "fudge" on the order marker placement. Think about this - let's say you play with only one Venoc Viper card but 6 Vipers. Now you place order markers 2 & 3 for a round on that one card. During turn 2, one Viper dies. Now it's your turn 2. You use 3 Vipers. During an opponent's turn 3, you lose another Viper and put him on the card. During your turn 3 you use 3 Vipers.

Now let's say you use 2 cards. You put order marker 2 on one card and order marker 3 on another card. Same thing happens - during turn 2, you lose 1 Viper and place him on the card with order marker 3. Now on your turn 2 you use 3 Vipers since that card has no Vipers killed. Now on turn 3 another Viper dies and according to the rules you must place that on the card with the other - which is card with order #3. Now it's your turn 3, you may only move 1 Viper since 2 are already on the card.

So that's moving 3 vs. moving 1 - somewhat of a big deal. Now you may ask, "Why put the order markers on separate cards?" Well sometimes it is advantageous in certain situations. Also it kind of relates to the "You snooze, you lose" rule. In the last game we played, a player accidentaly put a figure on a card with his only order marker for those common squads, leaving the other card with no order markers blank. Able only to move 3 figures instead of 4. That resulted in him not being able to take a glyph, which cost him the game.

It's kind of rules lawyery, but makes a difference to some.

What are you saying? It can't make a difference. Hasbro has already stated you have to fill up one card at a time. You can't spread out your wounds/deaths between cards. You would only play with one card no matter how many squads you have. There is no reason to have a second or third on the table - the cards are generic as long as you have at least one sqaud member left that single card is good. No one gets confused with point values.. if they did... I don't think having the extra cards around would help them! I fail to see your point, please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

[Dumb Dwarf]

Wow lots of interesting things being said here. First off, Pistonh I understand where you are coming from. In games with a time limit points can matter a lot. However I think the rule was more designed to allow a player to limit points lost, I can spread my dead Venocs among the three cards rather than surrendering a card. However, the reasoning behind that rule is no longer an issue because that rule has been changed, and for the better if my opinion counts for anything.
Eclipse one thing you said a few posts back bothered me, sorry I am new to the boards and cant really quote. But it ran along the lines of you will remind opponents of what their cards can do, but not yours. In my experience newer players have a harder time remembering the cards, and are often shy about asking what they can do. If my opponent bunched up his Arrow Gruts when charging my Murphy, I would probably remind them about his shotgun attack. Otherwise I might be taking advantage of this "snooze and lose" rule. :) Just because I will remind them of what my cards can do, doesn't mean I am tipping my hand, but it helps them see possibilities.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse one thing you said a few posts back bothered me, sorry I am new to the boards and cant really quote. But it ran along the lines of you will remind opponents of what their cards can do, but not yours. In my experience newer players have a harder time remembering the cards, and are often shy about asking what they can do. If my opponent bunched up his Arrow Gruts when charging my Murphy, I would probably remind them about his shotgun attack. Otherwise I might be taking advantage of this "snooze and lose" rule. Smile Just because I will remind them of what my cards can do, doesn't mean I am tipping my hand, but it helps them see possibilities.

If someone asks me about the powers, stats or rules of any of my units I will explain it to them without question. I'll also almost always "preview" my army before the game starts and explain what powers they have when playing against a new player. I will never, ever suggest that they made a bad move or remind them of what I can do in order to give them the opportunity to rethink their strategy.

The problem with doing that is that you're not giving them the freedom to make mistakes and learn anything on their own. If you don't allow somone to bunch up units near Murphy, no one will ever see what Murphy is truly capable of. Also, making movement suggestions really robs the opponent of his ability to make sacrfices, feints, and other tricks that might surprise me. I also feel that suggesting moves can lead to some hostilities when I win. My opponent can feel manipulated and tricked into moving in a way that proved more beneficial to me than my "suggestion" implied.

Again, I have a simple rule of thumb: If Heroscape were played on the Computer instead of the table, there are a lot of things that would be automated for me. Number of dice rolled, order of events, and automatic special abilities would all happen mechanically without input from the user. Any rule that the game "should" handle automatically I should remind my opponent of. Anything in the game that would require user input I won't meddle with.

[pistonh]

I hear what everyone is saying but the interpretation of the rule is still a fuzzy area. I never mentioned in my example that you could place casualties on whatever card you wanted. That's why they "clarified" the rule in the first place. What I was trying to get at was about number of figures moved per order.

Take a squad card with 4 figures like the Microcorps. Now if you played with only one card, if no figures died, you get to move 4 per order. If 2 figures died, they'd be placed on the card, and you could only use 2 per order.

Now take it that you use 2 cards. That's 8 figures total. Now if no figures died and you placed an order on one card you get to use 4. If 2 figures died, according to the rules you must place them on the same card. That leaves one card with 2 figures on it and one card blank. Now it's another turn and you place an order marker on the blank card. You get to move 4 since there's no dead figures on the card. Now it's yet another turn and you unintentionally place an order marker on the card with 2 dead figures on it. Now according to the rules you would only get to move 2 because 2 are already dead. That's 2 instead of 4. If you played with only one card, you'd get to move 4 all the time regardless of how many figures died. That would throw the "you snooze, you lose" rule out the window in this case because you could never unintentionally place an order marker.

OK now lets say a promo figure was so rare it was going for like $100 on eBay. You've been looking for this figure for a long time to no avail. One day you're playing a regular old game. Except this time whoever wins the game gets the promo piece. Good sportsmanship aside, you'd all risk losing the game over a technicality where your opponent was potentially moving and attacking with more figures than they were supposed to? If you take 2 extra figures over a period of 12 turns that's 24 extra attacks!

I thought the "clarification" over placing dead commons was to resolve the min-maxing advantage during victory point calculation at the end of game, but it doesn't seem to address gameplay issues clearly enough.

[ChaosChild]

First, 3 Microcorp Agents per squad.

Second, Let's say you have 2 squads of the agents and you are using 2 cards. At the start of the turn you place all your order markers on one card. When an agent dies you place it on the card without the order markers. When you play with one card(to save space),you are still using both cards. You just don't see the second one. It is given that you are placing the destroyed figs on the other card.

If for some reason that you have an order marker on a card with 2 destroyed agents but, you still have a card that is empty, you can still move 3 agents because you can move any figures that are pictured on the card. Which in this case is the 3 agents. So, you can move any 3 agents on the battlefield.

I hope that is clear.

[pistonh]

First, 3 Microcorp Agents per squad.

Second, Let's say you have 2 squads of the agents and you are using 2 cards. At the start of the turn you place all your order markers on one card. When an agent dies you place it on the card without the order markers. When you play with one card(to save space),you are still using both cards. You just don't see the second one. It is given that you are placing the destroyed figs on the other card.

If for some reason that you have an order marker on a card with 2 destroyed agents but, you still have a card that is empty, you can still move 3 agents because you can move any figures that are pictured on the card. Which in this case is the 3 agents. So, you can move any 3 agents on the battlefield.

I hope that is clear.

Sorry -3-, didn't have the card in front of me.

That is very clear - and that is exactly what I am getting at. In your example you place the order on a card that has 2 figures dead, but you get to move 3 - that's where the "fudging" comes in. Now since you don't differentiate between cards, you get to move 3 as long as you still have 3 on the board.

Now if we actually did differentiate cards, you'd only get to move 1 since the order is placed on the one with 2 dead. If you placed it on the blank one you could move 3. That's where "you snooze..." comes into play. You "snoozed" and put the order on a card that let you move one when you intended to move 3. Aha! That's a "fudge" of 2 figures. Are you starting to see the point? That's where things get fuzzy without another rule "clarification."

If I let my opponent do that to the point where I lose a game where a Sir Hawthorne was up for grabs (since I don't have one and desire it, where maybe my opponent does), I'd be sorely dissapointed.

[Su_Nan]

Maybe Pistonh is pushing the you snooze you lose tactic so badly he cant win any other way.

From what i'm reading you want to have your opponent have that oppurtunity to screw up. You want to have every advantage possible that can be given. Its actually quite annoying how you push the same idea over and over again trying to argue about using multiple cards for commons when it is in fact, not the way its written. And I bet that most of the players on this board play heroscape because they love the game and not to win every game based on other players mistake. If you want that Pistonh, by all means play that way, but as a person who loves this game as much as most of us do, i want to play against a good opponent even if i have to help a lesser one become good.

I don't know if you're 2 card common idea is meant as a way to exploit your opponent into making mistakes, but from what is written, i believe in three large posts, that you would like to have your opponent make a mistake rather than playing the way hasbro made it.

Sounds way too much like my brother who not only loves it when you make a mistake but cries like a baby when he loses.

[ChaosChild]

pistonh, please read page 16 of the 2nd ed. rulebook. As long as you have an order marker on a common card that does not have all the figures destroyed, you may move any of the fig pictured.
That is the benefit of the squad being common.

[pistonh]

Well I hope you invite me to your wedding since you love the game so much, lol.

All I'm saying is I'd use the tactic if something important were at stake. Wouldn't you? If you love the game so much and didn't have Sir Hawthorne and had the opportunity to use the "snooze" rule to get one, wouldn't you?

Please try to read entire posts. It's easy take things out of context.

[pistonh]

pistonh, please read page 16 of the 2nd ed. rulebook. As long as you have an order marker on a common card that does not have all the figures destroyed, you may move any of the fig pictured.
That is the benefit of the squad being common.

But on that very same page they mention actually using more than one card. If they wanted to be really clear, wouldn't they just come out and say, "Only use one card for all common squads."? Wait... that would make sense. If you guys say things are printed on the cards and in rules for a reason, why mention having more than one card? That's how I interpreted it.

[pistonh]

pistonh, please read page 16 of the 2nd ed. rulebook. As long as you have an order marker on a common card that does not have all the figures destroyed, you may move any of the fig pictured.
That is the benefit of the squad being common.

Forgot to mention that you already am proving my argument.

[Waterclown]

There's no way you can just use one card to stand for multiple commons. It doesn't make any sense...How do you determine the cost of your army if the costs are associated with cards - not the pieces? For example, you are using a map which accomodates a lot of pieces in the starting zone. In this example pretend you can use maybe 15 vipers. If you only use 1 card to represent them you should only have to pay 40$ but that wouldn't make sense...

Each card clearly states how many pieces are associated with it. You can't put integral numbers of squads on single cards. I don't see what the confusion is here...Someone 'splain this to me please?



!Viva la boobyshackle!

[Su_Nan]

Well I hope you invite me to your wedding since you love the game so much, lol.

All I'm saying is I'd use the tactic if something important were at stake. Wouldn't you? If you love the game so much and didn't have Sir Hawthorne and had the opportunity to use the "snooze" rule to get one, wouldn't you?

Please try to read entire posts. It's easy take things out of context.

No. I believe in being honest and just.

But hey if you don't use the commons squads advantage over unique squads then don't by multiples.

Most of the time people who play for high stakes aren't idiots. And just for kicks, i do in fact have a Sir Hawthorne.

Lastly, YOU DON'T LOVE THE GAME?

[ChaosChild]

The only reason people use one card is to save space on the table (the other cards can be placed in a stack under the one you use for reference). It has no effect on the gameplay. Once you understand that there is no reason to split up order markers between the cards on common squads, there is noreason to have all of their cards spread out on the table.

[Su_Nan]

There's no way you can just use one card to stand for multiple commons. It doesn't make any sense...How do you determine the cost of your army if the costs are associated with cards - not the pieces? For example, you are using a map which accomodates a lot of pieces in the starting zone. In this example pretend you can use maybe 15 vipers. If you only use 1 card to represent them you should only have to pay 40$ but that wouldn't make sense...

Each card clearly states how many pieces are associated with it. You can't put integral numbers of squads on single cards. I don't see what the confusion is here...Someone 'splain this to me please?



!Viva la boobyshackle!

Its called a brain, use it. You buy the three cards and THEN use one card to represent them. If what you described is true then you can draft unlimited numbers of units for that squad.

But hell if hasbro says that the way its supposed to be thats the way its suppose to be.

:rtfm:

And if that doesn't work

:rtfm: again.

[Waterclown]

I think the bottom line is that commons are the best way to win in the game. No matter how silly the unique heroes' powers and costs become, there's no substitute for a couple of common squads to be reigning down great vengence and furious anger on your opponents...

Don't get Mindshackled into thinking that the unique's are the best. That's just Hasbro's way of making yo buy more stuff. Common's are the way to go - no matter how many cards you use. Who's with me?






!Viva la boobyshackle!

[pistonh]

Ha! That's all true Su_Nan. I'm getting a little carried away. I too believe in being honest and just in my play, but you have to admit, you can't trust others to be the same to you all the time - especially when there are as many cheaters out there to screw you as there are honest ones. And I do indeed get boners over games too, I'm not a hater.

I just see it as if we let a fuzzy point like this slip through, it could mean common squads would be the end-all ultimate figures in the game - both in cost and usefulness/technique. Makes for a one-sided approach to the game.

[pistonh]

The only reason people use one card is to save space on the table (the other cards can be placed in a stack under the one you use for reference). It has no effect on the gameplay. Once you understand that there is no reason to split up order markers between the cards on common squads, there is noreason to have all of their cards spread out on the table.

Alas, but placement of order markers is relevant when you incorporate the "you snooze" rule, as explained in my examples. Let's make it simpler: if you place an order marker on a card that has ALL figures destroyed, you get to move none. See my point?

[Su_Nan]

Ha! That's all true Su_Nan. I'm getting a little carried away. I too believe in being honest and just in my play, but you have to admit, you can't trust others to be the same to you all the time - especially when there are as many cheaters out there to screw you as there are honest ones. And I do indeed get boners over games too, I'm not a hater.

I just see it as if we let a fuzzy point like this slip through, it could mean common squads would be the end-all ultimate figures in the game - both in cost and usefulness/technique. Makes for a one-sided approach to the game.

Cheaters make it way too hard to be just and honest.

As far as commons being the easy kill all squad that they are, try taking 20 plus common squads attacking one single member of the tagawa samurai with Finn and thorgrims aura with raelin backing him up with hatamoto helping out too with all three experience markers. That would be 7 attack and 8 defense with a 50% chance to roll a shield. Unstoppable.

Or how about Q9 repeately attacking with his gun. Or how about DW8k attacking an infinite amount of times killing all twenty in a single turn. And if you read other posts you know some people have actually done that.

The point is that common squads are not that strong, about 2 or 3 attack and defense dice. Uniques have special regeneration abilities or defense abilities that keep them alive and have generally better atttack and defense, say around 4 or 5.

What ever you think is errelevant. Hasbro made this game balanced.

[ChaosChild]

The only reason people use one card is to save space on the table (the other cards can be placed in a stack under the one you use for reference). It has no effect on the gameplay. Once you understand that there is no reason to split up order markers between the cards on common squads, there is noreason to have all of their cards spread out on the table.

Alas, but placement of order markers is relevant when you incorporate the "you snooze" rule, as explained in my examples. Let's make it simpler: if you place an order marker on a card that has ALL figures destroyed, you get to move none. See my point?

Yes, but if you are paying attention you would never put figures on the card with the order markers until that was the last card left. When you play with one card, that is assumed and you don't have to worry about making a mistake.

[Waterclown]

There's no way you can just use one card to stand for multiple commons. It doesn't make any sense...How do you determine the cost of your army if the costs are associated with cards - not the pieces? For example, you are using a map which accomodates a lot of pieces in the starting zone. In this example pretend you can use maybe 15 vipers. If you only use 1 card to represent them you should only have to pay 40$ but that wouldn't make sense...

Each card clearly states how many pieces are associated with it. You can't put integral numbers of squads on single cards. I don't see what the confusion is here...Someone 'splain this to me please?



!Viva la boobyshackle!

Its called a brain, use it. You buy the three cards and THEN use one card to represent them. If what you described is true then you can draft unlimited numbers of units for that squad.

But hell if hasbro says that the way its supposed to be thats the way its suppose to be.

:rtfm:

And if that doesn't work

:rtfm: again.

I was giving a counter example that doesn't make any sense to make a point that 1 card should be used to represent EACH common you use. So either you (a) totally missed it (b) totally agree with me (c) have a silly, fake asian handle (d) !Viva la boobyshackle!

[pistonh]

Yes, but if you are paying attention you would never put figures on the card with the order markers until that was the last card left. When you play with one card, that is assumed and you don't have to worry about making a mistake.

But assuming you don't have to worry about mistakes is taking the "snooze" rule out of the game. If that's the case why don't we just remove the height rule too? I figure the rule must be there for a reason, or why mention it?

[Su_Nan]

Since you didn't specify that you were NOT being serious then everything will be taken as serious. When typing on the internet you can't interpret sarcasm.

And on more thing.

:wtf:

[ChaosChild]

Yes, but if you are paying attention you would never put figures on the card with the order markers until that was the last card left. When you play with one card, that is assumed and you don't have to worry about making a mistake.

But assuming you don't have to worry about mistakes is taking the "snooze" rule out of the game. If that's the case why don't we just remove the height rule too? I figure the rule must be there for a reason, or why mention it?

I have explained it the best I can. You keep play the way you are because you are not playing wrong. You are just making something simple, complicated.

[pistonh]

Su_Nan, if you want to play the numbers game let's say I do draft 20 commons versus your uniques.

Now 20(cards)x4(figs each)=80(figs) or =80(attacks). Now going by your example of 2 atk, 3 def that would mean 80(atks)x2(dice per atk)=160(potential skulls) = that's alot, and more than enough to take down an army. Also if my attacks are ranged, and assuming I take the first turn, your samurai's counterattack ability would be worthless.

[Uprising]

Su_Nan, if you want to play the numbers game let's say I do draft 20 commons versus your uniques.

Now 20(cards)x4(figs each)=80(figs) or =80(attacks). Now going by your example of 2 atk, 3 def that would mean 80(atks)x2(dice per atk)=160(potential skulls) = that's alot, and more than enough to take down an army. Also if my attacks are ranged, and assuming I take the first turn, your samurai's counterattack ability would be worthless.


Very situational scenario laid out. The ONLY way your getting anywhere close to 80 ranged attacks is with the Aubrien Archers man, otherwise that scenario fails.

[pistonh]

Very situational scenario laid out. The ONLY way your getting anywhere close to 80 ranged attacks is with the Aubrien Archers man, otherwise that scenario fails.

But you do admit it IS possible to have that many. Also there is a flaw in Su_Nan's hypothetical army too - it's developed around that one samurai. If I ignore the samurai and take out the other figs first, taking into account attrition to my army, I'd probably still have enough to finish the samurai off last.

[K/H_Addict]

Yes, but if you are paying attention you would never put figures on the card with the order markers until that was the last card left. When you play with one card, that is assumed and you don't have to worry about making a mistake.

But assuming you don't have to worry about mistakes is taking the "snooze" rule out of the game. If that's the case why don't we just remove the height rule too? I figure the rule must be there for a reason, or why mention it?

No. The "snooze" rule comes into effect more than just commons. Suppose i am attacking you with height advantage, but forget and roll anyways. I snoozed, i lost. Sucks for me.

Suppose your Charos is enganed with my Sir Denrick. You move your charos out of engagement to go attack someone else, and catch me off guard and i forget my disengagement. You just kept yourself 2 extra life because i wasn't paying attention.

Suppose when setting up armies, i forget to place my Agent Carr in my starting zone. You now have one less figure to worry about.

Suppose when placing order markers, i look at them backwards and place the 3 on Alsiatir when i meant to place the X on him. I now just wasted a turn.







All because of lack of attention.

[pistonh]

Yes, but if you are paying attention you would never put figures on the card with the order markers until that was the last card left. When you play with one card, that is assumed and you don't have to worry about making a mistake.

But assuming you don't have to worry about mistakes is taking the "snooze" rule out of the game. If that's the case why don't we just remove the height rule too? I figure the rule must be there for a reason, or why mention it?

No. The "snooze" rule comes into effect more than just commons. Suppose i am attacking you with height advantage, but forget and roll anyways. I snoozed, i lost. Sucks for me.

Suppose your Charos is enganed with my Sir Denrick. You move your charos out of engagement to go attack someone else, and catch me off guard and i forget my disengagement. You just kept yourself 2 extra life because i wasn't paying attention.

Suppose when setting up armies, i forget to place my Agent Carr in my starting zone. You now have one less figure to worry about.

Suppose when placing order markers, i look at them backwards and place the 3 on Alsiatir when i meant to place the X on him. I now just wasted a turn.







All because of lack of attention.

EXACTLY! You are actually agreeing with me whether you intended to or not (I could say "You snoozed..." if you didn't). If the "snooze" rule comes into play in all those examples, why not here with the common cards? Thank you.

[K/H_Addict]

In the rule book, it is implied that you are placing dead figs on empty cards. You'd have to be a complete idiot if you place dead figures on the card you are using to activate them. If you are using 3x Venocs, it is implied via the second edition rules that as they die, they fill up empty cards first, thus always allowing you to move 3 figs, until you no longer have 3 figs left to move.


This game is targeted at 8 year olds. You are making it much more complex than it needs to be.


I'm going to bed, so have fun while i snooze (pun intended).

[pistonh]

Haha! Good pun. Yeah placement is implied, but complete idiots do exist and I'm sure some play the game. Yeah it is targeted at 8 year olds, but how old are you and I? If we were all 8 and none of us were complete idiots that didn't understand everything is implied, there'd be no need for an FAQ on any of the rules at all. Why don't we just "imply" everything in the rulebook? You can't just make exceptions where/when you want them or where it benefits you the most. Then why have rules at all? You must all play by your own rules if that's the case...

[Waterclown]

i thought the rules were for Canadians...We should be allowed to play however we want. Who are you to tell me how I need to play? Here's what I think of your rules..

:-0 <========8









!Viva la boobyshackle!

[Taelord]

Common squads are awesome because they are common. Every likes commons. Uniques are given too much hype.

[pistonh]

Word.

[zombie prime]

i say that the rule has been stated: dead commons fill up empty cards first.


Also, if in your games you don't allow a person to move max common figures when there are enough on the field to do so then i know 1 person that i will never play with.

with that said, play as you see fit. That is why people make house rules.

[Uprising]

Very situational scenario laid out. The ONLY way your getting anywhere close to 80 ranged attacks is with the Aubrien Archers man, otherwise that scenario fails.

But you do admit it IS possible to have that many. Also there is a flaw in Su_Nan's hypothetical army too - it's developed around that one samurai. If I ignore the samurai and take out the other figs first, taking into account attrition to my army, I'd probably still have enough to finish the samurai off last.

Sure, that many attacks is possible. I would say the most I've done in one turn is probably 9 :( . 3 Venocs frenzied 3 times................and didn't kill anything. Double :( :(

[Eclipse]

Wow... threads like this almost make me wish Heroscape WAS played on a computer. :(

[Revdyer]

I'm glad you said "almost," Eclipse. <smiling>

[pistonh]

Yeah. I'm sure if they made a computer game, they'd screw something up and it wouldn't be the same as playing with real players.

I'm not picky over who'd I'd play with. I'd play with anyone as long as they didn't blatantly cheat. But I also see nothing wrong with healthy debate over an issue like this.

The rules for common army cards clearly mention having more than one card. I'm sure if the designers wanted to imply stacking cards or using one card for multiples, they'd clearly state their intentions. It would say something like, "Your Army may include two or more of the same Common Army. You only need to use one Army Card to represent all of your figures." It however, does not. Not only that, but in every paragraph of the Common Army Cards rule, they explicitly mention using more than one card (3 times). In addition, under the Action 2 and Life rules they have vauge descriptions on how many figues you're allowed to activate and use per order marker. A technicality arises when you put all 3 of the rules together. One could even "imply" that you're able to move figures that have already been destroyed as long as the card isn't already filled up. Or one could argue that if you used one card for multiple commons, once you've filled up the card with 3-4 casualties, it fills up the card, and thus you can't place any more order markers on it. Add on top of that the "snooze" rule and then who the hell knows what's going on? That's all I'm getting at.

Shouldn't we be asking Hasbro to clear this up once-and-for-all? Instead of implying or assuming things? You all may not think it a big deal when someone moves 4 instead of 2, but I do. I'm sure there's some things that may be trivial to me but a big deal to you guys also. I don't see the need for flaming or buddy-buddy gang ups over a simple rule debate.

[Revdyer]

pistonh, I had the same qualms as you have expressed about using one card (or a stack of cards) for multiple commons. I had qualms until I had played many games using the stacked cards. Functionally it is exactly the same in every way as using multiple cards spread out. The only way it would ever possibly be different is the strange case of someone mistakenly placing a movement marker on a partially filled card when they still had an empty card (all figures still in the game). No mentally normal person would ever do that. If they mistakenly did, I'd point it out to them, since that would be the sportsmanlike thing to do.

So, seriously, I have to ask; in real life, have you had troubles with using one or stacked cards to represent multiples? Or is this just speculation on your part?

I ask this most respectfully, because I have, simply, never run into any situation where it made any difference whatsoever.

Thanks.

[johnny139]

What's so cool about Common Squads?

To quote Seinfeld, "SWARM, SWARM, SWARM!!!"

[Codeman]

pistonh, I had the same qualms as you have expressed about using one card (or a stack of cards) for multiple commons. I had qualms until I had played many games using the stacked cards. Functionally it is exactly the same in every way as using multiple cards spread out. The only way it would ever possibly be different is the strange case of someone mistakenly placing a movement marker on a partially filled card when they still had an empty card (all figures still in the game). No mentally normal person would ever do that. If they mistakenly did, I'd point it out to them, since that would be the sportsmanlike thing to do.

So, seriously, I have to ask; in real life, have you had troubles with using one or stacked cards to represent multiples? Or is this just speculation on your part?

I ask this most respectfully, because I have, simply, never run into any situation where it made any difference whatsoever.

Thanks.

I had it happen to me at Gen-Con, only I did not have a stack of cards ( I only play with one out ). Since I play an Orc army with bonding, all my markers are on my gruts. When my opponent and his friend killed off my 3rd grut, you would have thought they won the lottery. I did not understand this until I went to take my turn, and they both chimed in unison and told me I had to forfeit my turns since I had my markers on the grut card. Then they wanted to know if I had another card. After some discussion they did let me continue with my remaining Orc grut units. I’m not sure either one really believed me, but we did finish the game.

[Jormi_Boced]

pistonh, I had the same qualms as you have expressed about using one card (or a stack of cards) for multiple commons. I had qualms until I had played many games using the stacked cards. Functionally it is exactly the same in every way as using multiple cards spread out. The only way it would ever possibly be different is the strange case of someone mistakenly placing a movement marker on a partially filled card when they still had an empty card (all figures still in the game). No mentally normal person would ever do that. If they mistakenly did, I'd point it out to them, since that would be the sportsmanlike thing to do.

So, seriously, I have to ask; in real life, have you had troubles with using one or stacked cards to represent multiples? Or is this just speculation on your part?

I ask this most respectfully, because I have, simply, never run into any situation where it made any difference whatsoever.

Thanks.

I had it happen to me at Gen-Con, only I did not have a stack of cards ( I only play with one out ). Since I play an Orc army with bonding, all my markers are on my gruts. When my opponent and his friend killed off my 3rd grut, you would have thought they won the lottery. I did not understand this until I went to take my turn, and they both chimed in unison and told me I had to forfeit my turns since I had my markers on the grut card. Then they wanted to know if I had another card. After some discussion they did let me continue with my remaining Orc grut units. I’m not sure either one really believed me, but we did finish the game.

Yeah, that was your 2 vs 1 game:)

[Codeman]

Yea... Like they say "all is fair in war".... However I didn't expect to play in a team tournament :shock: Anyway it's over and I had a good time... that is what I went to Indiana for ( It sure wasn't to share a room with you guys) :lol:

[Su_Nan]

I've never run into a problem like this for common squads. It just always seemed like common sense that no matter what card you put the order marker on you should get to move that number regardless to what card its put on. Using multiple cards should just be a way of tallying your casualties. The difference is that they are common and not played the same way as uniques.

What I believe is that hasbro just thought that we all had common sense and thats why the rules are foggy.

Is it a problem with their assumption or our failure to comply?

[ChaosChild]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

[pistonh]

Yeah see that's all I was trying to get at. When a bunch of us play we all use multiple cards just to rule out any potential arguments that might arise in case someone got bitter about a situation they were in. I play more with strangers than people I've known, or played the game with before because of the attendance factor at the gaming club I play in.

And the GenCon situation above is an example where a clarification would really help. I know it doesn't really matter much when playing friendly games, but in a tournament setting some players might get bitter if all of their planning, hard work, and playtime was thrown out the window on a technicality. You all mention the satisfaction you feel when your superior strategy is what ultimately defeats your opponent. Wouldn't you be peeved if all of that was for naught when your opponent undermines your tactics through the use of gray areas in the rules? Now what if the people at GenCon weren't as forgiving as they were, and you ended up missing out on an opportunity to snag the next wave of expansions before they were released? That's why I'd prefer not to prematurely interpret the rules.

[ChaosChild]

There is no gray area in the rules about this. The 2nd ed. rulebook states that you use a card for each squad.

If you understand that, you can go back and read why people use only one card. Simply to save space.

[pistonh]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

But the rules so eloquently state how the cards should be used.

On page 14 under the "Life:" rule it states, "When all figures on an Army Card have been destroyed, the Army Card is out of play. Do not reveal any Order Markers that are on that card for that round of play. On future rounds, you can't take any turns for that card."

On page 16 under the "Common Army Cards:" rule it states, "Your Army can include two or more of the same Common Army Card." It then goes on, "If a common Army Card already has a destroyed figure on it, you must fill up that card first, before placing the destroyed figure on an empty card."

Now to "fill" a card such as the Venoc Vipers, it only takes 3 figures. If you're playing with one card to represent 6 Vipers, it would be filled with only 3 figures. So if an order marker was placed on that card you wouldn't be able to take any more orders with it once the 3rd one was placed. Now if you were playing with 2 cards, if you had the order marker on the card that was filled, you wouldn't be able to take that order. If you had the order marker on the blank card, you'd be able to use 3 on the board. Sure the rules mention you don't have to "keep track" of which figures belong to which card, but I thought that was more directed at matching up the "exact" figures with "exact" cards like the casts/poses of the figures in regards to the "fill" aspect. So it would make the game easier so you wouldn't have to have like a "This is the red team/blue team" of Vipers and use/fill each card accordingly. See what I'm getting at?

[ChaosChild]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

[pistonh]

There is no gray area in the rules about this. The 2nd ed. rulebook states that you use a card for each squad.

If you understand that, you can go back and read why people use only one card. Simply to save space.

Like I stated before, assuming this is the case is taking the "You Snooze, You Lose" rule out of the game. People make mistakes and if someone placed a marker on a card that was filled - they snoozed. Fact.

[ChaosChild]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

[pistonh]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

So... You'd help an opponent potentially defeat you in the last round of the finals in a tournament where a prototype Master Set was the prize? Weak.

[Su_Nan]

There is no gray area in the rules about this. The 2nd ed. rulebook states that you use a card for each squad.

If you understand that, you can go back and read why people use only one card. Simply to save space.

Like I stated before, assuming this is the case is taking the "You Snooze, You Lose" rule out of the game. People make mistakes and if someone placed a marker on a card that was filled - they snoozed. Fact.

Actually you are wrong since the card that the order marker was put on is not in play, but instead used FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF PUTTING DEAD FIGURES ON, and not for using order markers.

[Su_Nan]

So... You'd help an opponent potentially defeat you in the last round of the finals in a tournament where a prototype Master Set was the prize? Weak.

I believe its called good sportsmanship

[pistonh]

That's called lame where I come from. That's like giving your fiancee up to another guy just because he intends to marry her.

[pistonh]

Actually you are wrong since the card that the order marker was put on is not in play, but instead used FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF PUTTING DEAD FIGURES ON, and not for using order markers.

If the card "isn't in play" how are you allowed to place destroyed figures on it? That doesn't make sense.

[ChaosChild]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

So... You'd help an opponent potentially defeat you in the last round of the finals in a tournament where a prototype Master Set was the prize? Weak.

Well, I guess you are done with reason since you have resorted to name calling. I am done here.

[pistonh]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

So... You'd help an opponent potentially defeat you in the last round of the finals in a tournament where a prototype Master Set was the prize? Weak.

Well, I guess you are done with reason since you have resorted to name calling. I am done here.

Be reasonable. I don't recall calling anyone names...

[pistonh]

How come no one has ever thought to themselves, "Hey, this is actually a really good question. I wonder what Hasbro has to say?" I'm out here backing up my viewpoint with literal quotes from the rulebook where everyone else is using assumptions and drawn conclusions through interpretation of the rules. That's not right.

[ZODGILLA!]

If you you run a big army, say 8oo points or larger, and use more than one "rack" of order markers to control your troops with, then the extra cards might (and probably will) be in play.

[Revdyer]

Its not the rules that are foggy. The rules say to use a card for each squad.

However, as I tried to explain and what RevDyer so eloquently stated, there is no reason to spread out your order markers on multiple common cards of the same type(yet). Therefore, you only need space for the card that the order markers go on. The cards that the destroyed figs are put on are not seen.

After you play a few games this way, you will realize that only one card is needed. If you see a player using a card for each and spreading out his order markers, help him.

So... You'd help an opponent potentially defeat you in the last round of the finals in a tournament where a prototype Master Set was the prize? Weak.
Yes, I would help that person, and I wouldn't not consider it weak but honorable. I guess that is where we really disagree.

[Eclipse]

That's called lame where I come from. That's like giving your fiancee up to another guy just because he intends to marry her.

Well, first of all, those two things are nothing alike. Second, if your fiance would even consider agreeing to marry the guy you should kick her to the curb immediately. We don't exactly live in an era where you club your mate over the head and drag her back to the cave by her hair anymore. If you're still "fighting" for someone you have no business being married.

Again, this is the kind of thread that reminds me why I don't usually bother with tournaments. There's simply no reason something as trivial as a boardgame should be played with such cutthroat attitudes, and I have no interest in anything that fosters such behavior.

[Revdyer]

Eclipse, I hope you can tell from my previous posts that we share a similar attitude toward what games are all about. Let me assure you that the Dallas tournament (and I think by far and away most HeroScape tournaments) are not at all cut-throat events. If you have a chance to attend or participate in a HeroScape tourney; please do so. You will (most likely) enjoy it and the people there. The "win at all cost" people are few and short-lived in this community.

[Eclipse]

I actually went to the Tree Town Tourny last October. It was a lot of fun and I met a lot of great people, had a lot of fun. In the entire tourny, there was only one match where I felt that "win at all costs" attitude that takes all of the fun out of the game. It was uncomfortable, but hardly something that reflected negatively on the tournament as a whole. It's just a shame because that match had some of the wildest moments, but there was no way to laugh and enjoy them.

I fully plan to attend future tournaments, but I also recognize that this is a game that still has a very immature tournament structure. As long as Hasbro avoids running tournaments themselves, the tourny scene for Heroscape will evolve at the whims of its fans. It may very well continue to be a fun experience, but I still hold a bit of caution on the matter. I've seen FAR too many unofficial tournament structures that turn vicious, and cutthroat. There's been several games where I've walked away from the online community entirely (Pokemon the games, not the cards being the most notable) and play only within my circle of friends who can still enjoy the game without tearing the spirit of it apart.

So far I've been very impressed with all aspects of Heroscape. The people I've met, the games I've played. The units Hasbro releases continue to fit within the game without driving it into a narrow range of worthwhile options. That said, it is really important that the community keeps it's purpose in mind. Otherwise it can easily slip into the same kind of elitist behavior that drives most other games into the ground.

[Revdyer]

Well, since we're talking to each other, Eclipse -- I agree with you about the danger of elitist tournament attitudes. I'm not at all sure whether Hasbro getting involved will help or hinder that. In many ways I think that a non-company aligned tournament environment might be better, not worse.

I do not look for the day of the "professional HeroScape player." If it comes about, I won't be there, that's for sure. (because of skill and attitude)

Keep enjoying your life and your gaming.

[Eclipse]

I agree with you about the danger of elitist tournament attitudes. I'm not at all sure whether Hasbro getting involved will help or hinder that. In many ways I think that a non-company aligned tournament environment might be better, not worse.

I completely agree. I actually don't think there's much of a chance for a friendly, company aligned tournament structure. I just think it's important that the community realizes just how much power they have to shape the spirit of the game as long as Hasbro keeps it's hands off it.


Keep enjoying your life and your gaming.

Likewise :D

[kenjib]

So... You'd help an opponent potentially defeat you in the last round of the finals in a tournament where a prototype Master Set was the prize? Weak.

When there is something at stake is the time when a person's true character is revealed. It doesn't really mean all that much to be a good sport when you have nothing to lose by doing so.

You seem to be very concerned with the technicalities of the rules. In that case, the "snooze you lose" rule is only referenced in the rules when talking about applying bonuses to attack rolls. It doesn't say anything specifically about placing figures on army cards at all. lol. Even so, I consider something like "you snooze you lose" to put the responsibility of remembering everything on both players, not just the person who benefits. It is there in the case of honest mistakes, not intentional oversights. It is there for those cases where everyone forgets to apply something until after it has already taken place. The real reason why this rule is in place is because sometimes there are mistakes that happened a turn back, or with some other following events because of which the move can not be "fixed" without screwing up things that have happened since even worse.* When this is and isn't the case can be hard to adjudicate so in a set of concrete rules for a game they have to make a rule like this to keep things from getting really messy and arbitrary at the table. In my opinion, knowingly allowing a rules mistake to occur without attempting to correct it just so you have an advantage sure sounds like cheating to me - and I really don't care what game we're talking about. I would consider it cheating in any game.

I wouldn't want a prototype Master Set that I won using a cheap technicality like that anyway, because every single time I pulled it out I would just be reminded about how I won it and then I would not feel very good about myself. Why would I even want something that makes me feel that way? I would much rather pull it out and think about how well I played and how I won using a combination of superior skill and luck. ymmv

* Example: P1: "I forgot to roll my height die last turn. Look it would have been a shield and I would have lived! Here - Syvarris is still standing right here then." P2: "Well if that was the case I would have attacked him again instead of your grut, so let me move them back and start my turn over. Your grut is back over here now. But wait, I moved him too, now where was he before he moved?" P1: "Oh and then my guy took a disengage from your guy for moving the other way, which he wouldn't have done, so that's another grut that's still alive. Darn I don't remember where he was standing though. Was it here or here?" P2: "I don't know."

[Revdyer]

Nicely illustrated, kenjib. I believe the older version is "Do unto others whatsoever you would have done unto you." I believe you can find this injunction in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Bai'hai, and a whole bunch of other religious and secular ethicists.

[pistonh]

I never said I would use the rule to my advantage in a tournament or even in a game at all. What I'm trying to say is "play it safe" and use multiple cards so an issue would never come up. I said I was someone who would be pissed if my opponent underhandedly won a tournament, and the prize, I worked so hard for to win, through a technicality such as this. Not that I would be the one to use it. I even tried to appeal to you all by presenting a hypothetical situation in which you would be the victim of such a situation. Your general response was that you would let the "cheater" win. What if we all didn't fight for what we thought was right in anything in life? Where would we be?

Sure, many of us are good sports, but many are not. Not all live by the "do unto others..." philosophy. Why give these players another loophole to exploit? If I were one of these shady players, and someone let me use only one card where the case may be that I must use more, I'd use it to my advantage. My view is if that my opponent uses one card where I'm using more, the advantage is with them. Most of you admit that I am not playing "wrong" this way. But also admit that it is not "wrong" to only play with one card. So which is the "right" way? That's the gray area.

I quite enjoy this friendly debate, but so far I haven't seen an argument convincing enough to make me believe that I should otherwise play with only one card.

Maybe HeroScape tournaments so far have been friendly and sportsmanlike, but I'm sure it will not always be that way. That doesn't mean you still can't enjoy them when they get competitive. It's evidenced by the still strong turnouts for games that have been around alot longer. That is why I see the need for an official clarification on this.

[Eclipse]

Except you're the one pushing the strict enforcement of multiple cards for the sole purpose of using it to your advantage. You're leaving an opportunity for your opponent to make a rules mistake for the sole purpose of exploiting it. That's the difference here.

[pistonh]

Except you're the one pushing the strict enforcement of multiple cards for the sole purpose of using it to your advantage. You're leaving an opportunity for your opponent to make a rules mistake for the sole purpose of exploiting it. That's the difference here.

Not the case. I'd rather enforce it to make sure no one gets the chance to exploit such a situation, whether they intended to or not. Even if it may mean that if I inadvertently placed an order marker myself on one of my cards. I never said I wouldn't impose the "snooze" rule upon myself. When a situation isn't universally enforced, that's where the fudge begins.

[Revdyer]

Maybe HeroScape tournaments so far have been friendly and sportsmanlike, but I'm sure it will not always be that way.
I hope they can be that way far into the future. Why are you sure they will not? The people I've met so far indicate they are going to be "friendly and sportsmanlike". Whom have you met at a tournament to contraindicate that?

[pistonh]

Well like someone else posted before about having to go back and re-take turns. Fudging with rolling too many/too few dice over a couple of turns impacts the game in a major way. That was exemplified in the situation where a character may or may not have survived a round. That changes the game dynamic dramatically. The designers solved such a situation by adding the "snooze" rule. Therefore making "mishaps" a part of the games mechanics as explained in that post.

The very same impact occurs when you use/order/activate too many/few figures. What I don't see is allowing something to happen in one situation, and not another. According to that previous example, you guys wouldn't rewind the game and let the opponent roll that extra defense die - if they forgot to - under the attack rules, but then you would let them rewind and move that extra one figure - if they forgot to - under the common card rules. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Eclipse]

Except you're the one pushing the strict enforcement of multiple cards for the sole purpose of using it to your advantage. You're leaving an opportunity for your opponent to make a rules mistake for the sole purpose of exploiting it. That's the difference here.

Not the case. I'd rather enforce it to make sure no one gets the chance to exploit such a situation, whether they intended to or not. Even if it may mean that if I inadvertently placed an order marker myself on one of my cards. I never said I wouldn't impose the "snooze" rule upon myself. When a situation isn't universally enforced, that's where the fudge begins.

The difference is what you believe to be the "situation". You believe someone placing a figure on a card with an order marker is a mistake to be capitalized on. I see it as improperly following the rules of removing defeated figures. You see the "you snooze your lose" rule as an opportunity, I see it as an unfortunate, but necessary result of a game not ruled by a machine and therefore subject to human error. Strictly enforcing multiple cards does nothing other than leave room for a rule to be incorrectly followed, which can be later exploited.

[pistonh]

The difference is what you believe to be the "situation". You believe someone placing a figure on a card with an order marker is a mistake to be capitalized on. I see it as improperly following the rules of removing defeated figures. You see the "you snooze your lose" rule as an opportunity, I see it as an unfortunate, but necessary result of a game not ruled by a machine and therefore subject to human error. Strictly enforcing multiple cards does nothing other than leave room for a rule to be incorrectly followed, which can be later exploited.

That is also how an unscrupulous opponent sees the "situation." What should be asked is, "What is the 'official' definition of the situation?" here. I feel that it is "safer" to use multiple cards since there is no official clarification yet, because it eliminates any doubts or questions that may arise about how many figures a person is allowed to use per order (using the literal wording of the rules as they currently stand).

What I don't understand is why you are trying to label me as the "cheater" here where Hasbro is clearly the one to be pointing fingers at, with the fault in their rules. You all believe using one card is the official ruling based only on hearsay or for the sake of "saving space," when the wording of the rules, as they exist now, clearly states physically using more than one card on multiple occasions.

[Revdyer]

I would certainly never call you a "cheater," pistonh. I do, simply, find you untrusting of other players and that makes me feel sad for you.

[pistonh]

The difference is what you believe to be the "situation". You believe someone placing a figure on a card with an order marker is a mistake to be capitalized on. I see it as improperly following the rules of removing defeated figures. You see the "you snooze your lose" rule as an opportunity, I see it as an unfortunate, but necessary result of a game not ruled by a machine and therefore subject to human error. Strictly enforcing multiple cards does nothing other than leave room for a rule to be incorrectly followed, which can be later exploited.

It is not improper to place defeated figures on a card that has an order marker on it. The "Life:" rule states that. The same rule also states that once a card with an order marker on it is "filled up," you may not reveal any more order markers on that card. Cards in the game are singular items. You can not say that one card is actually, in reality, 2. When playing with one card to represent 2, how is someone to know which card you intended to place an order marker on? It should not be assumed. And I feel it should not be allowed to let "float" between cards. I mean if you let that happen, why not let it float from a Viper card to a Knights card? The rules state that everything that applies to single Master Set games also applies to multiple set games. You wouldn't let a player move his order marker from card to card during the turn if there were no such thing as commons, would you?

[Revdyer]

Again, it is your lack of trust in other people's honesty and good intentions that marks the difference between us. I am sorry your world is so dishonest and self-serving. I really am.

[pistonh]

I would certainly never call you a "cheater," pistonh. I do, simply, find you untrusting of other players and that makes me feel sad for you.

I'm glad you are open-minded at least. I don't feel bad of my trustless view myself. I don't see it as a weakness or anything to be sad for. If I play an opponent and there are house rules in effect I'd no doubt play by those rules (even if one was stacking). It is however still my view that cards do not stack, much like powers. Just trying to explain the points behind my view. I'd love to play a friendly game sometime if we run into each other in the future.

...as long as I'd have a big enough table so you wouldn't have to stack cards, lol. :lol:

[Eclipse]

And I feel it should not be allowed to let "float" between cards. I mean if you let that happen, why not let it float from a Viper card to a Knights card? The rules state that everything that applies to single Master Set games also applies to multiple set games. You wouldn't let a player move his order marker from card to card during the turn if there were no such thing as commons, would you?

If there was no such thing as commons, no. But there ARE commons. The problem is, defeated figures are allowed to "float" between cards. A turn is allowed to "float" between cards as well. The instant these two things were allowed, which card within a set of commons an order marker is placed on became completely irrelevant.

[ChaosChild]

Pistonh, when you play with multiple common squads of the same type, do you place all your order markers on one card or do you spread them out on multiple cards?

[Eclipse]

What I don't understand is why you are trying to label me as the "cheater" here where Hasbro is clearly the one to be pointing fingers at, with the fault in their rules.

I'm actually not trying to label you a cheater at all, I'm simply aware that your view of things leads me to believe that you will choose victory over sportsmanship, which completely changes how the game plays for me.

Here's an example: I go to a tournament and pull out my units. Setting things up, I stack my common cards for efficiency's sake. My opponent then demands that a separate my stack. Mechanically, this changes nothing, however to me, this immediately gives me the following information:

- This person is playing to win at all costs
- This person will exploit any mistake I make. At this point, distractions such as friendly conversation are gone as I have to pay attention to every rule I may miss.
- This person MAY try to cheat. At this point I start counting the number of dice they use and the spaces they move.
- The next hour of this game will not be fun for me, win or lose. If I win, I'd rather have spent the last hour playing a fun match, if I lose, it's not likely I respect my opponent enough to be impressed or to enjoy losing to a superior player.

And that's the whole problem. When I sat down I was looking to have a fun game against a unique opponent, but rather than relax and enjoy the game, I had to be tense and precise in order to win. I had to watch every move and probably take twice as long to do anything just so that I could fully double check for things I may have missed. It's just not very fun to play that way as far as I'm concerned and if I had to play that way for the majority of a tournament, I'd rather just pack up and go home. Not much is worth a wasted day of free time as far as I'm concerned.

[Revdyer]

Eclipse, I do believe you can come and play at my house any time you want to. (even though I'm not quite sure where you are located)

[Eclipse]

Thanks! It's probably a bit out of the way, but if you're ever in Rochester, MN, feel free to look me up! :D

[Revdyer]

Well, what a remarkable coincidence! Three of my ex-wives happen to live in Rochester, so I'll be there around Christmastime...oh, wait, that's an alternate reality...I've only had one wife and I'm still happy with her here in Arkansas...oh, well. You can still come to our house.

[Aranas]

Well, what a remarkable coincidence! Three of my ex-wives happen to live in Rochester, so I'll be there around Christmastime...oh, wait, that's an alternate reality...I've only had one wife and I'm still happy with her here in Arkansas...oh, well. You can still come to our house.
:) :D :lol:


You got me there!


Aranas

[Revdyer]

<smile> Well, the parson has to have some fun, doesn't he? <grin>

[LilNewbie]

<smile> Well, the parson has to have some fun, doesn't he? <grin>

Parson? You mean Alan Parsons and his LASER project?

:D

Newb.

[Revdyer]

No, I meant Parson Weems and his simplistic and patriotic biographies, especially the one about George Washington.

[LilNewbie]

Ah...I can see where the two can be confused....

;)

Newb.