Revive Glyph Mayhem

[happyjosiah]

Okay, here's what happened in a game I played last night. We were playing "capture the flag" but you didn't have to bring it back, just occupy the other team's space. I had foolishly not left enough defense to guard my flag. My only hope was to revive a guy and place him in my starting zone, a couple spaces from the flag. I moved my first minion and stepped on the glyph. I rolled a 20 (YAY!) and placed a minion a couple spaces away from the flag. At this point, I scratched my head. Can I move the minion I just revived? I have only moved one minion, and not yet attacked. It would be really nice to fly him onto the flag space to guard it. (Flag spaces were NOT part of the starting zones, but you could stand on it to prevent its capture). My opponent, seeing what I was thinking about doing, decided, yes, I could do that. I agreed, but we weren't positive. THEN, it got really dicey. He still needed to roll for his revival. He rolled 2 19s and brought back two armocs. He asked where he could place them and I said "any starting zone" to which he promptly put them both engaging my minion. Is this allowed? We decided it was. Seeing no other choice, I flew my minion to the flag anyway. Double disengagement. 2 Skulls. Ouch.
SOOOOO....
1) Can I move a minion I just brought back?
2) Can I place revived figures engaging other figures also just revived? If so, in what order should the rolls happen?

[Cavalier]

Okay, here's what happened in a game I played last night. We were playing "capture the flag" but you didn't have to bring it back, just occupy the other team's space. I had foolishly not left enough defense to guard my flag. My only hope was to revive a guy and place him in my starting zone, a couple spaces from the flag. I moved my first minion and stepped on the glyph. I rolled a 20 (YAY!) and placed a minion a couple spaces away from the flag. At this point, I scratched my head. Can I move the minion I just revived? I have only moved one minion, and not yet attacked. It would be really nice to fly him onto the flag space to guard it. (Flag spaces were NOT part of the starting zones, but you could stand on it to prevent its capture). My opponent, seeing what I was thinking about doing, decided, yes, I could do that. I agreed, but we weren't positive. THEN, it got really dicey. He still needed to roll for his revival. He rolled 2 19s and brought back two armocs. He asked where he could place them and I said "any starting zone" to which he promptly put them both engaging my minion. Is this allowed? We decided it was. Seeing no other choice, I flew my minion to the flag anyway. Double disengagement. 2 Skulls. Ouch.
SOOOOO....
1) Can I move a minion I just brought back?
2) Can I place revived figures engaging other figures also just revived? If so, in what order should the rolls happen?I would say that 1) you cannot move a newly revived unit and 2) you should place the revived unit in your starting zone.

:edit: But just reading the card, I see that it does say any starting zone...hmm

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10007/glyphsturla.jpg

[happyjosiah]

It definately IS ANY starting zone. This has been discussed before.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

HJ, you get to decide which starting zones revived figures are placed. You stepped on the glyph.

1) I believe you should be able to move a revived common figure. As long as you have not activated the full number of figures in that squad. It works well with the strategy involving commons and their flexibility.
2) Not understanding the rolls first question...

[Cavalier]

HJ, you get to decide which starting zones revived figures are placed. You stepped on the glyph.

1) I believe you should be able to move a revived common figure. As long as you have not activated the full number of figures in that squad. It works well with the strategy involving commons and their flexibility.
2) Not understanding the rolls first question...

Ah, yes, HEH has a point. As the 'roller' you determine where they are placed.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

HJ should be rolling for all revivals as well. Unless he house-rules it differently.

[Eclipse]

Looking closer, it seems you get to roll for your opponent's figures and YOU get to decide where they are placed. I've never played it that way (or much at all), but that IS how its worded.

As for moving your figures... I'm on the fence. On one hand, it makes sense in the way that common figures are played (select one, move it, repeat for each figure on the card, then attack), but on the other hand, it seems like a situation generally frowned upon in the rules. The other means of ressurection (Water Clone, Zombies Rise Again), don't allow you to make use of newly ressurected figures until you place a fresh turn marker on them. My guess is this is a situation not originally planned (it is pretty rare), and if the question were asked, the designers would say, no, you can't move that figure.

[TyG17]

I would think of the minion coming back as having "summoning sickness" and cannot move. I mean if you came back from being dead it would take you a while to take in your surroundings.

[netherspirit]

Looking closer, it seems you get to roll for your opponent's figures and YOU get to decide where they are placed. I've never played it that way (or much at all), but that IS how its worded.

As for moving your figures... I'm on the fence. On one hand, it makes sense in the way that common figures are played (select one, move it, repeat for each figure on the card, then attack), but on the other hand, it seems like a situation generally frowned upon in the rules. The other means of ressurection (Water Clone, Zombies Rise Again), don't allow you to make use of newly ressurected figures until you place a fresh turn marker on them. My guess is this is a situation not originally planned (it is pretty rare), and if the question were asked, the designers would say, no, you can't move that figure.

The reason you can't use the figures that come back for Water Clone and Zombies Rise Again is because of the timing of the power's activation.

Water Clone takes the place of an attack, you roll for all the ones that are in play at the time you choose to Clone, so you can't roll for the newly cloned ones. Since it took the place of the attack, your turn is over after cloning.

Zombies Rise Again takes place after an attack that resulted in a destroyed figures. So the Zombie(s) comes back and your turn is over, there isn't an opportunity to use it after that...and it says they can't attack right on the card. :)

I think that you would get to move the Revived Minion, because its still the move portion of your turn and you would get to choose which ther Minions you want to move after rolling for all the Revives. There is nothing in the rules to indicate otherwise. Do what the rules say, not what they don't.

They don't say there is a "summoning sickness"
They do say you can move any or all figures of an army card.
They do say you can move them in any order.

I think the only thing that can usurp this is if you are required to choose which figures are moving before you move the first one, but I don't think the rules indicate that you have to do that...

[Cavalier]

Looking closer, it seems you get to roll for your opponent's figures and YOU get to decide where they are placed. I've never played it that way (or much at all), but that IS how its worded.

As for moving your figures... I'm on the fence. On one hand, it makes sense in the way that common figures are played (select one, move it, repeat for each figure on the card, then attack), but on the other hand, it seems like a situation generally frowned upon in the rules. The other means of ressurection (Water Clone, Zombies Rise Again), don't allow you to make use of newly ressurected figures until you place a fresh turn marker on them. My guess is this is a situation not originally planned (it is pretty rare), and if the question were asked, the designers would say, no, you can't move that figure.


The reason you can't use the figures that come back for Water Clone and Zombies Rise Again is because of the timing of the power's activation.

Water Clone takes the place of an attack, you roll for all the ones that are in play at the time you choose to Clone, so you can't roll for the newly cloned ones. Since it took the place of the attack, your turn is over after cloning.

Zombies Rise Again takes place after an attack that resulted in a destroyed figures. So the Zombie comes back and your turn is over, there isn't an opportunity to use it after that...

I think that you would get to move the Revived Minion, because its still the move portion of your turn and you would get to choose which ther Minions you want to move after rolling for all the Revives. There is nothing in the rules to indicate otherwise. Do what the rules say, not what they don't.

They don't say there is a "summoning sickness"
They do say you can move any or all figures of an army card.
They do say you can move them in any order.

I think the only thing that can usurp this is if you are required to choose which figures are moving before you move the first one.

nether has spoken. So let it be written; so let it be done!

:wink:

[daevablacc]

I agree w/ Nether on this one.

[Eclipse]

I completely agree with your Nether in what the rules state. My point was that every other revive power requires a new order marker to use the returned figure, with the most recent power outright stating so. I think it's likely that when Sturla was created, they didn't anticipate the "return of the activated squad" concept and that if asked, the designers would likely rule that the figure can't move. However, I can't argue that the rules state anywhere that the figure is not able to move, and I'd agree that with the current rules they should be allowed to move AND attack for that matter. I just also see this as one of those situations that's likely to change if someone asks Hasbro. ;)

[netherspirit]

I completely agree with your Nether in what the rules state. My point was that every other revive power requires a new order marker to use the returned figure, with the most recent power outright stating so. I think it's likely that when Sturla was created, they didn't anticipate the "return of the activated squad" concept and that if asked, the designers would likely rule that the figure can't move. However, I can't argue that the rules state anywhere that the figure is not able to move, and I'd agree that with the current rules they should be allowed to move AND attack for that matter. I just also see this as one of those situations that's likely to change if someone asks Hasbro. Wink


My point was that those powers require a new order marker to use the returned figure because of the timing of the ability (or in Zombies' case because it says so right on the card).

I think the way moving common squads works, you would get to move and attack with the newly revived Minion. Moreso for that reason than for the reason that the rules don't say that newly revived figures can't be moved.

You could be right and they didn't anticipate this but I like to give the creators the benefit of the doubt that they are smarter than me. :D

[happyjosiah]

I get to pick! Brilliant! Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. True, I did know that TECHNICALLY I was supposed to roll for everyone, but we usually let people roll for their own (with massive curse too) just because it is more fun that way. You are more attatched to your own figures. I get it now. The "roll in what order" question is now meaningless. I asked it becuase I thought each person got to pick where to place them, and it could make a difference what order they were placed in.
I am voting for getting to move the common though as well. Thanks everyone!

Oh, and as long as we are on the subject of this glyph, I might as well ask a couple more ridiculous questions that have never come up (and likely never will).

In the official rules about starting zones, if you take an army that has too many figures to fit, you lose the extras. So I might, for example, only be able to fit 7 blade gruts instead of 8, when I draft 2 squads. If I later step on this glyph, do I roll for even the ones that didn't fit? I am thinking no, because it says "destroyed this battle" and they were never really in the battle.

Secondly, imagine this situation. All the starting zones are full at the beginning of the game. I drop my airborne elite. Now, there are more figures than fit in the starting zones. If four figures get destroyed, it is still possible for all starting zones to be full and yet there are dead characters with nowhere to revive to. What should we do about this?

[Dennys]

Figures not in starting zone are not in play.

As far as I read the AE, they can drop out of the starting zone as long as they satisfy the adjacency rules.

[Ketch]

I agree with Nether,
As for HJs last questions,

If there is no place to revive to, you don't get revived.
This is consistent with just plain losing units that don't fit.

One thought though, you could use this to your advantage.
Lets say there was only 1 spot left on the starting zones
Since you roll, and you pick the order, you could roll for your own first, if you got 1 back, there would be no room for your opponents.

If having both starting zones full with AE dropping early and destroyed figures was rare... then having 1 spot left and reviving a unit has got to be insanely rare.

As for reviving, it does say destroyed this battle, we would have to go with meaning that it was destroyed, not removed for any other reason.
That being said, I really think it would be BETTER if you could get those units back that you were never able to place.
I never liked the starting zone restriction to begin with.

[happyjosiah]

Figures not in starting zone are not in play.

As far as I read the AE, they can drop out of the starting zone as long as they satisfy the adjacency rules.

That isn't what I asked.


I agree with Nether,
As for HJs last questions,

If there is no place to revive to, you don't get revived.
This is consistent with just plain losing units that don't fit.

One thought though, you could use this to your advantage.
Lets say there was only 1 spot left on the starting zones
Since you roll, and you pick the order, you could roll for your own first, if you got 1 back, there would be no room for your opponents.

If having both starting zones full with AE dropping early and destroyed figures was rare... then having 1 spot left and reviving a unit has got to be insanely rare.

As for reviving, it does say destroyed this battle, we would have to go with meaning that it was destroyed, not removed for any other reason.
That being said, I really think it would be BETTER if you could get those units back that you were never able to place.
I never liked the starting zone restriction to begin with.

Agreed, these are highly unlikely to happen. And I'm not really a fan of the starting zone rule either, but oh well.
I like your logic about them not being able to revive for the same reason you lose units that don't fit at the start of the game.

And yes, it would be NICE if you could get back ones that were never there, but I also think the wording implies that you cannot.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Great reasoning, Nether.


I think it's likely that when Sturla was created, they didn't anticipate the "return of the activated squad" concept and that if asked, the designers would likely rule that the figure can't move.
I believe it was totally anticipated. That's the beauty of grabbing those glyphs - game-changing situations.

[Revdyer]

We were playing a three person game the other week and I got to the Revive glyph. I got to revive one opponent's figure and place it smack in the middle of the very populated starting zone of the other opponent. For the first time, I really appreciated the wicked glory of the glyph. (I still lost, but it was a hoot!)

[Ketch]

You know... in a game with more than 2 players, reviving your opponents Braxus might not be all that bad...

just from what Revdyer said, placing that brute in someone start zone with all there little squads would be hillarious.

[GaryLASQ]

I think the only thing that can usurp this is if you are required to choose which figures are moving before you move the first one, but I don't think the rules indicate that you have to do that...this is something the rulebook should clarify for other reasons besides the Revive glyph. [thread jack warning]

the book does not say anything about declaring which common figures are activated before movement begins. it would help if there was a glossary that defined the term "activated" which is mentioned only in the short blurb at the end of the Master Game Guide when talking about common army cards.

this makes things more flexible with deciding which figures to attack with if the full number of figures haven't moved.

for instance, i have 5 Blastatrons but only move 2 of them. without having to first declare which 4 figures i'm activating then i have only activated 2 so far. i must attack with the 2 i've moved. but i can still choose which 2 of the other 3 to also attack with. this can be interesting if the first Blastatron shoots at an opposing figure that is engaged with one of the unmoved Blastatrons. it may influence a decision on whether to attack with the engaged Blastatron or not (opting to attack with a different unmoved one) depending on if the opposing figure is destroyed or not.

[Revdyer]

I think the only thing that can usurp this is if you are required to choose which figures are moving before you move the first one, but I don't think the rules indicate that you have to do that...this is something the rulebook should clarify for other reasons besides the Revive glyph. [thread jack warning]

the book does not say anything about declaring which common figures are activated before movement begins. it would help if there was a glossary that defined the term "activated" which is mentioned only in the short blurb at the end of the Master Game Guide when talking about common army cards.

this makes things more flexible with deciding which figures to attack with if the full number of figures haven't moved.

for instance, i have 5 Blastatrons but only move 2 of them. without having to first declare which 4 figures i'm activating then i have only activated 2 so far. i must attack with the 2 i've moved. but i can still choose which 2 of the other 3 to also attack with. this can be interesting if the first Blastatron shoots at an opposing figure that is engaged with one of the unmoved Blastatrons. it may influence a decision on whether to attack with the engaged Blastatron or not (opting to attack with a different unmoved one) depending on if the opposing figure is destroyed or not.

Your point is well stated, GaryLASQ, but is exactly why I think you should not be required to state beforehand which units in toto you are moving that turn.

[happyjosiah]

That is a GREAT point, Gary. Right now, I let that kind of stuff slide because I guess it is okay under the rules right now. However, if activation of common squads was required before movement, that would stop any revived units from acting.

[daevablacc]

Even w/ the common squad activation issue, what if it's a unique squad that I get a guy back from the activated unique squad?

I would say that the way the rules are written now, if you hadn't moved the max number of figures (unique or not) that you could move a newly revived figure.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Even w/ the common squad activation issue, what if it's a unique squad that I get a guy back from the activated unique squad?

I would say that the way the rules are written now, if you hadn't moved the max number of figures (unique or not) that you could move a newly revived figure.
Well you'd have to allow unique squads if common squads were permitted in this Revive situation.
It's funny, all the games I've played with Revive, such an event has never occurred.

[Eclipse]

Even w/ the common squad activation issue, what if it's a unique squad that I get a guy back from the activated unique squad?

I would say that the way the rules are written now, if you hadn't moved the max number of figures (unique or not) that you could move a newly revived figure.
Well you'd have to allow unique squads if common squads were permitted in this Revive situation.
It's funny, all the games I've played with Revive, such an event has never occurred.

Same here, which is sorta why I suspect it may have been missed. But, play with what the rules say, not what they don't as the saying goes :D

[GaryLASQ]

Your point is well stated, GaryLASQ, but is exactly why I think you should not be required to state beforehand which units in toto you are moving that turn.i agree. i like the added flexibility of common squad activation not being pre-determined before movement begins. but it would be nice if the book said something about it one way or another; especially since it uses the term "activates" only once in the whole book when briefly talking about Common Army Cards on the last page.

perhaps it should say something like this...

Figure Activation: Activation occurs one figure at a time up to the number of figures on the Army Card being played. Once a figure starts to move it has been activated. If it hasn't moved, a figure becomes activated when it starts to attack. If a Common Squad Army Card is being played, and the player's army has two or more of the same card, the player is not required to first declare which figures he or she plans to activate before the first figure is activated.

now it's a matter of interpreting "starts to move" and "starts to attack". players could be strict or relaxed about this. for instance, does moving a figure start the moment you pick it up? (like touch-move in chess.) does attacking start the moment you declare an attack (aka, target a figure) or is it the moment you roll the combat dice or D20 (or Chomp a small or medium squad figure :) ).

these subtle details matter more and more as new special powers are introduced, like the Nakita Smoke Powder for example. it now makes a difference if activation of an unmoved figure happens when the attack is declared versus when the dice are rolled.

the rule book does say that attacking begins when an attack is declared. but i have seen numerous times where a player declares it and then changes their mind before any dice have been rolled. all this "activation protocol" only really matters for multiple common squads however.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Even w/ the common squad activation issue, what if it's a unique squad that I get a guy back from the activated unique squad?

I would say that the way the rules are written now, if you hadn't moved the max number of figures (unique or not) that you could move a newly revived figure.
Well you'd have to allow unique squads if common squads were permitted in this Revive situation.
It's funny, all the games I've played with Revive, such an event has never occurred.

Same here, which is sorta why I suspect it may have been missed. But, play with what the rules say, not what they don't as the saying goes :D

In defense for both our opinions, I do better understand what the designers meant when they said playtesting glyphs is more time-consuming than trial-running units.
With so much time spent playtesting glyphs, they had to have run up against the discussed situation?!?

[Aldin]

I'm in complete agreement with the main line of reasoning here. Just one more support piece... if your first fig in a squad steps on the move glyph you immediately get that bonus for the other members of the squad - fully consistent with what is being said here.

Also, while I do not believe you must declare which figures you are going to move before you move any, I do believe you have to declare which figures have moved before attacking (though you wouldn't have to declare who they are attacking).

~Aldin, who "moved" zero

[ZODGILLA!]

I'm in complete agreement with the main line of reasoning here. Just one more support piece... if your first fig in a squad steps on the move glyph you immediately get that bonus for the other members of the squad - fully consistent with what is being said here.

Also, while I do not believe you must declare which figures you are going to move before you move any, I do believe you have to declare which figures have moved before attacking (though you wouldn't have to declare who they are attacking).

~Aldin, who "moved" zeroI agree with the practice of moving zero. "Activation" occurs when the order marker on a card has been turned over. Movement is not over until the number of figures on the "activated" card have either moved a number of hexes or have been given the order to "stand" thus moving zero.

[GaryLASQ]

I agree with the practice of moving zero. "Activation" occurs when the order marker on a card has been turned over. Movement is not over until the number of figures on the "activated" card have either moved a number of hexes or have been given the order to "stand" thus moving zero.ok. but here's a question. do you feel you must tell your opponent, before you start attacking, which figures moved zero? (remember, all this only really makes a difference with multiple common squads.)

i vote "no", you do not need to declare this because it doesn't say anywhere in the book that you are required to do so. it also doesn't define the word "activate" (which was the point of my previous post). without a definition you can't say for sure that activation begins when the order marker is revealed. nor can you say the whole squad is activated at once, as opposed to activating one figure at a time as each one starts to move or, if not moved, starts to attack.

another way of saying it is "the number of figures on the card are activated when your order marker is revealed. but in the case of common army cards, exactly which ones are activated can remain a mystery to your opponent. it will become apparent to your opponent as movement and attacking takes place."

[ZODGILLA!]

ok. but here's a question. do you feel you must tell your opponent, before you start attacking, which figures moved zero? (remember, all this only really makes a difference with multiple common squads.)Yes, that is what we use. The turn is sequential, linear, nothing happens simultaneously.

i vote "no", you do not need to declare this because it doesn't say anywhere in the book that you are required to do so. it also doesn't define the word "activate" (which was the point of my previous post). without a definition you can't say for sure that activation begins when the order marker is revealed. nor can you say the whole squad is activated at once, as opposed to activating one figure at a time as each one starts to move or, if not moved, starts to attack.

another way of saying it is "the number of figures on the card are activated when your order marker is revealed. but in the case of common army cards, exactly which ones are activated can remain a mystery to your opponent. it will become apparent to your opponent as movement and attacking takes place."On your turn:

Reveal action.
The order marker is what activates the card, the card activates the number of figures on the card.
Reveal action ends.

Move action.
I then choose one at a time out of my remaining seven figures which will be active for the turn.
Move figure A four hexes.
Move figure B nine hexes on the road.
Move figure C one hex into the water.
Point at figure D and declare, "She stands."
It is at this point that I have chosen which figures were "activated" for the turn.
Movement action ends.

Attack action.
Activated figures attack.
Attack action ends.

With this I am only sharing what we use in our group, and am not implying that it is the best way to interpret this subject.

:emptystar:

[Aldin]

Only the units that "moved" are eligible to attack (unless they're zombies). No fair getting a "free look" on how the results of earlier rolls come out before picking which units to activate.

~Aldin, who had this actually come up in the latest NorCal tournament

[Revdyer]

I agree with the practice of moving zero. "Activation" occurs when the order marker on a card has been turned over. Movement is not over until the number of figures on the "activated" card have either moved a number of hexes or have been given the order to "stand" thus moving zero.ok. but here's a question. do you feel you must tell your opponent, before you start attacking, which figures moved zero? (remember, all this only really makes a difference with multiple common squads.)

i vote "no", you do not need to declare this because it doesn't say anywhere in the book that you are required to do so. it also doesn't define the word "activate" (which was the point of my previous post). without a definition you can't say for sure that activation begins when the order marker is revealed. nor can you say the whole squad is activated at once, as opposed to activating one figure at a time as each one starts to move or, if not moved, starts to attack.

another way of saying it is "the number of figures on the card are activated when your order marker is revealed. but in the case of common army cards, exactly which ones are activated can remain a mystery to your opponent. it will become apparent to your opponent as movement and attacking takes place."

If my opponent asked me, "Which ones are you moving this turn?" I would be loathe to say, "I'm not going to tell you." Maybe I could do that, saying, "You'll just have to watch and see." or even, "I don't know yet." But I think I'd probably go, "That one and that one and this one and that over over there." without even thinking about it, thus making the question quite moot.

[GaryLASQ]

Move action.
I then choose one at a time out of my remaining seven figures which will be active for the turn.
Move figure A four hexes.
Move figure B nine hexes on the road.
Move figure C one hex into the water.
Point at figure D and declare, "She stands."
It is at this point that I have chosen which figures were "activated" for the turn.
Movement action ends.

Attack action.
Activated figures attack.
Attack action ends.

With this I am only sharing what we use in our group, and am not implying that it is the best way to interpret this subject.the part i bolded above is what i would not always want to do. it is unnecessarily restrictive. things happen during the attack and i suddenly may not want to attack with figure D but instead go with E which also has not moved. as far as my opponent knows, i had planned to use E all along.

i'm starting to beat a dead horse so i'll leave it at that. :)

[Eclipse]

You know, this is kind of a funny thread for me. When I first got the game we played that when attacking with squads you had to declare ALL of your attacks before you rolled for any of them. So you would have to decide beforehand if you were going to have two members attack the same figure and risk losing your other attack if the first destroyed. Its not how the game is played, but it did really reduce the damage a ranged squad could cause. Might be fun to play that way again to see what I think. In any case, sorry for the sidebar, back to the regular discussion.

[daevablacc]

We always declare which units are attacking (not who they are attacking) before beginning to attack. Obviously the figures who moved will be attacking. If less than the number allowed by the army card were moved, we declare which of the stationary figues will be attacking as well.

EDIT: I have always wondered what the official rule on this was, though.

[Revdyer]

daevablacc (man, is that hard to type) I do not think any official rule has ever been stated about declaring who is attacking among non-moved common multiple squad members.

[jcb231]

I agree w/ Nether on this one.

As do I.

[jcb231]

I get to pick! Brilliant! Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. True, I did know that TECHNICALLY I was supposed to roll for everyone, but we usually let people roll for their own (with massive curse too) just because it is more fun that way. You are more attatched to your own figures. I get it now. The "roll in what order" question is now meaningless. I asked it becuase I thought each person got to pick where to place them, and it could make a difference what order they were placed in.
I am voting for getting to move the common though as well. Thanks everyone!

Oh, and as long as we are on the subject of this glyph, I might as well ask a couple more ridiculous questions that have never come up (and likely never will).

In the official rules about starting zones, if you take an army that has too many figures to fit, you lose the extras. So I might, for example, only be able to fit 7 blade gruts instead of 8, when I draft 2 squads. If I later step on this glyph, do I roll for even the ones that didn't fit? I am thinking no, because it says "destroyed this battle" and they were never really in the battle.

Secondly, imagine this situation. All the starting zones are full at the beginning of the game. I drop my airborne elite. Now, there are more figures than fit in the starting zones. If four figures get destroyed, it is still possible for all starting zones to be full and yet there are dead characters with nowhere to revive to. What should we do about this?

These kinds of discussions are exactly the reason I hate small starting zones. I think they are just completely arbitrary and ridiculous. The point value is in the game for a reason....a player shouldn't be penalized because they use their 500 points for 40 Roman Legion figures instead of three or four heroes. My group NEVER plays with limited starting zones. We usually build large enough zones to fit any army, but on the rare occassions we don't we just slap another row or two of hexes on each player's area.


With so much time spent playtesting glyphs, they had to have run up against the discussed situation?!?

Assume nothing. :-) Remember the Deathreavers incident? How in the name of all that is holy could someone play with the Deathreavers for more than five minutes and not see that they could scatter like mad by attacking each other? Somehow Hasbro missed a wording issue that was, literally, the first thing I thought of when I read the card, and I know I'm not alone. That was such a ridiculous oversight that I found it hard to believe it was a mistake until they posted it in the FAQ. I thought surely nobody could miss something that glaring. Yet they did. Nobody's perfect, and Heroscape playtesting misses quite a bit...hence the need for a FAQ and constant rules questions. Heroscape is far far better than most games at least.

daevablacc (man, is that hard to type) I do not think any official rule has ever been stated about declaring who is attacking among non-moved common multiple squad members.

No rule has been stated that I know of, and I'm quite grateful for that. The element of surprise is one of the best parts of this game.

[Revdyer]

I'm not so worried about the surprise element, as, more simply, that the results of one attack might well determine who I want the next attack to come from.

[Rÿchean]

Start zone limitations are there to encourage HERO-scape, not swarm-scape.

[Revdyer]

I thought that was what Major Q9 was for <grinning from sad experience>.

[Homba]

I think that you would get to move the Revived Minion, because its still the move portion of your turn and you would get to choose which ther Minions you want to move after rolling for all the Revives. There is nothing in the rules to indicate otherwise. Do what the rules say, not what they don't.

They don't say there is a "summoning sickness"
They do say you can move any or all figures of an army card.
They do say you can move them in any order.

I think the only thing that can usurp this is if you are required to choose which figures are moving before you move the first one, but I don't think the rules indicate that you have to do that...

I totally agree with this. It is all the rules require. Adding more requirements is adding an additional layer of (your own) rules.



..."the number of figures on the card are activated when your order marker is revealed. but in the case of common army cards, exactly which ones are activated can remain a mystery to your opponent. it will become apparent to your opponent as movement and attacking takes place."

Totally agree. All the rules require. Don't add additional rules (unless you prefer your own house rules).



These kinds of discussions are exactly the reason I hate small starting zones. I think they are just completely arbitrary and ridiculous. The point value is in the game for a reason....a player shouldn't be penalized because they use their 500 points for 40 Roman Legion figures instead of three or four heroes. My group NEVER plays with limited starting zones. We usually build large enough zones to fit any army, but on the rare occassions we don't we just slap another row or two of hexes on each player's area.

I also agree with this. IMO it is not necessary to rely on start zone limits to mitigate "squad-scape." Certain figures, and scenario design, can accomplish this to an acceptable degree (just like the power of ranged figs can be mitigated by scenario design). Squads are powerful, I just don't think limited start zones should be THE primary tool used to mitigate squads. If some people prefer to use it as a tool, fine, your experience may lead you to a different conclusion. But I, personally, don't accept restrictive start zones as a necessary requirement for game balance. My preference is for biggggg start zones.

H

[Rÿchean]

If some people prefer to use it as a tool, fine, your experience may lead you to a different conclusion.

Just to be clear here: "some people" = the game designers

The way you say it, you make start zone restriction sound like a house rule when it is as fundamental to the game as drafting and army deployment.

Lets say you get a swarm of zombies and Sudema and you add hexes to the back of your start zones, so much so that where once the AE could have shot anybody in your start zone from a certain spot on the battle field but now they cant reach that the edge anymore. Soulrazor for example, is supposed to be a ruthless, cutthroat map. If you add 3 deep hexes to the back all the sudden you got room to move, area to run; area that isn't supposed to be on the map. I am afraid in competitive play the start zones are there for more than just mitigating swarmscape. Balance in maps are achieved by providing a somewhat equal opportunity. When hexes are added, increasing the size of a map, it affects the balance of that map. If units are allowed to spill forward out of the start zone, it affects the game.

My experience has lead me to the original conclusion, the one Hasbro reached before they released the game. Start zones restrictions are necessary.

[markwars]

If some people prefer to use it as a tool, fine, your experience may lead you to a different conclusion.

Just to be clear here: "some people" = the game designers

The way you say it, you make start zone restriction sound like a house rule when it is as fundamental to the game as drafting and army deployment.

Lets say you get a swarm of zombies and Sudema and you add hexes to the back of your start zones, so much so that where once the AE could have shot anybody in your start zone from a certain spot on the battle field but now they cant reach that the edge anymore. Soulrazor for example, is supposed to be a ruthless, cutthroat map. If you add 3 deep hexes to the back all the sudden you got room to move, area to run; area that isn't supposed to be on the map. I am afraid in competitive play the start zones are there for more than just mitigating swarmscape. Balance in maps are achieved by providing a somewhat equal opportunity. When hexes are added, increasing the size of a map, it affects the balance of that map. If units are allowed to spill forward out of the start zone, it affects the game.

My experience has lead me to the original conclusion, the one Hasbro reached before they released the game. Start zones restrictions are necessary.

You know what Ry....I think that house rules like these are what cause lots of figures to be perceived as too strong or too sucky or whatever. It's fun to create scenarios on our own, but it sometimes unbalances certain units. It would be nice if Hasbro could release a handbook of sorts for scenario creation. I mean I would love to read what the designers have to say about issues like this. It would also be nice to have numbers to shoot for...ie. how many start spaces should be alloted in a 500 point game...and a 1000 point game....and so on.

[Homba]

I get what you're saying Rychean. I've got no quarrel with any established map's start zones, and complying with the limit. I wouldn't be whining to add on to a start zone in a tournament setting using these maps. It's certainly part of the rules, and in a tournament the rules must be interpreted uniformly.

You'll admit that all of the officially (ie- by the designers) published scenarios are made with a maximum of 1 MS (are there any using 2?). The start zones are relatively small by necessity, because the map is small. Not necessarily because the designers believe that it is necessary to combat "squad scape." So to the extent that you're claiming this, I definitely disagree.

I would think - I would insist - that the designers have confidence in the price they have given each unit. They don't think squads are unbalancingly strong, or they would have priced them higher to offset this, or priced heroes lower. If you're arguing that the designers offset too-strong squads not through unit price but through start zone rules (which don't always come into play), I disagree. Relying on start zone size seems to be going outside of the usual mechanism used to regulate the relative strength of the units: their price. I doubt I have any disagreement with the designers on this.

If I designed a new scenario, I would make big start zones. I haven't played on a 1MS map in a long time, so there is plenty of space. I understand that on a "postage stamp" 1 set map, the start zone rule is going to be a consideration. That's fine. Me personally, when I'm building building 2+MS maps, I'm not going to arbitrarily limit the size of the start zones. I'm going to make them big. I don't think it "fixes" anything to restrict start zone size. I would even allow extending the back of a start zone by exactly the number of hexes needed to place all of your units if you want to field 40 Orcs or whatever, and there are not enough spaces. I would also allow the other side to extend back their start zone by exactly the same amount, if desired, just to keep things even.

H

[LilNewbie]

No point system can take into account every single possiblity. Limiting start zones adds balance back to situations where someone could break down that system. Grant it, in friendly games allowing someone to go over the starting area a little is perfectly fine.

Newb.

[tsukifu]

It would be nice if Hasbro could release a handbook of sorts for scenario creation. I mean I would love to read what the designers have to say about issues like this. It would also be nice to have numbers to shoot for...ie. how many start spaces should be alloted in a 500 point game...and a 1000 point game....and so on.

I haven't looked at all the official scenarios--and only actually ever played one only once--but the official starting zones seem to average in the 15-20 pts. per hex range. So a 400 pt. army would get a roughly 24-hex starting zone, and presumably a 1000 pt. army could be allotted 50-60 hexes. That's a lot, but still a lot less than the theoretical maximum (25 squads of Reavers/Gruts=100 hexes).

I'm personally opposed to the idea of the starting zone limit (feels like limiting a car's speed and its rpm's). On the official scenarios, it strikes me that when more limited starting zones are used, it has more to do with proximity (to goals or opponents) than with some urge to limit numbers, but that's total speculation. One of the racing maps, I know, has a starting zone that's something like 25 pts. per hex, pretty high. I like to assume that this is to move the starting line back, in effect, but maybe not.

[Homba]

No point system can take into account every single possiblity. Limiting start zones adds balance back to situations where someone could break down that system.

Good luck trying to get Craig & Rob to admit they've unbalanced the game in favor of squads (I doubt they believe that) and time-traveled back to the 1st Edition Rules to insert the start zone limit rule as a tweak to game balance.

You assume that the designers would agree that "using lots of cheap squads" = "breaking down the system." You can assert that, but it's speculation. There's no evidence.

My assertion is at least equally valid: The designers don't believe that HS is skewed/unbalanced in favor of squads. They are confident in their accurate pricing of each and every unit (accurate as possible given the varying terrain, etc, in which units can be employed). They didn't use the start zone rule to impact game balance, because game balance is fully contained in unit pricing. Start zones are small in official, published scenarios because the maps are all made with 1 Master Set. The start zone rule is there not to tweak game balance, but to answer the obvious question, "What if I have more figures than available start zones?"

On bigger (2+MS) maps, people should feel free to set start zones big enough to contain 40+ figure armies without worrying that they're skewing game balance or disregarding the designers' intent. There's no such evidence. Sure, if you specifically want to prohibit swarm armies because you find them distasteful, limit your start zones. But don't feel "obligated" to by baseless assertions that "small start zones are the designers' way of prohibiting swarm armies."

H

[Tiberius]

Right, I dont think the game is unbalanced toward squads with squad killer pieces out there like Q9 or Braxas or Nilfiem or Dund. Need I go on?

[Snotwalker 8000]

I'm in complete agreement with the main line of reasoning here. Just one more support piece... if your first fig in a squad steps on the move glyph you immediately get that bonus for the other members of the squad - fully consistent with what is being said here.

Also, while I do not believe you must declare which figures you are going to move before you move any, I do believe you have to declare which figures have moved before attacking (though you wouldn't have to declare who they are attacking).

~Aldin, who "moved" zero

I agree. We ran across this situation in our games last weekend. Before the attack phase, that player has to declare which 3 or 4 squaddies will be doing the attacking that turn if none of that type moved... "which 3 figures of your 9 remaining Aubrien Archers moved 0 this turn?..." then start declaring attacks.

[markwars]

One point that I feel is worth making...

At the February 2006 DFW tourney we allowed armies with extra figures to occupy the empty space behind their start zone. If memory serves me no Squad Driven army made it to the Semi-Finals.

[daevablacc]

I guess we'll start playing that you can attack w/ different commons than you moved if you want to. That is all the rules require now that I look at it. It isn't a bad thing either, now that I've had time to think it over.

As far as starting zones go, I think that it is just like all other scenario rules. They don't have to be a particular size. You just have to deploy w/in the given deployment area and not outside of it. So when we play, we typically build huge starting zones by declaring the first 3 rows of each end of the map as the deployment zone. According to the rules, there is no wrong or right number of starting zones. But once they have been declared, you may not place outside of them. To imply that all scenarios must have a certain ratio of points to deployment spaces is a house rule, not part of the actual rules.

If there's one thing I've learned about Heroscape, it's that as Netherspirit says, don't follow rules that aren't actually in the rules. There's nothing wrong w/ house rules of course, but when trying to follow the rules Netherspirit is totally right.

Revdyer, sorry my name is hard to type :P

[Revdyer]

It's not your fault, daevablacc that my fingers, having typed "Dave" so many times in over forty years want to do that with the first four letters of your screen name. :)

[LilNewbie]

No point system can take into account every single possiblity. Limiting start zones adds balance back to situations where someone could break down that system.

Good luck trying to get Craig & Rob to admit they've unbalanced the game in favor of squads (I doubt they believe that) and time-traveled back to the 1st Edition Rules to insert the start zone limit rule as a tweak to game balance.

You assume that the designers would agree that "using lots of cheap squads" = "breaking down the system." You can assert that, but it's speculation. There's no evidence.

My assertion is at least equally valid: The designers don't believe that HS is skewed/unbalanced in favor of squads. They are confident in their accurate pricing of each and every unit (accurate as possible given the varying terrain, etc, in which units can be employed). They didn't use the start zone rule to impact game balance, because game balance is fully contained in unit pricing. Start zones are small in official, published scenarios because the maps are all made with 1 Master Set. The start zone rule is there not to tweak game balance, but to answer the obvious question, "What if I have more figures than available start zones?"

On bigger (2+MS) maps, people should feel free to set start zones big enough to contain 40+ figure armies without worrying that they're skewing game balance or disregarding the designers' intent. There's no such evidence. Sure, if you specifically want to prohibit swarm armies because you find them distasteful, limit your start zones. But don't feel "obligated" to by baseless assertions that "small start zones are the designers' way of prohibiting swarm armies."

H

I've never tried to assume what the designers are thinking or how they feel about their system but from my experience in miniature gaming any point system is breakable and designers place restrictions on how units are recruited to help maintain a balance in the system. Look at almost every miniature game and you will see some sort of limitation on purchasing units. These limits represent a lot of different factors (economical, historical, etc.) abstracted to simple limits on how many are available, how they are introduced into a game, etc. One of those limits in HS is start zones. I agree that bigger boards, which generally allow for bigger armies, should have bigger start zones. The size of those start zones and the rigidity of those start zones are entirely up to the people involved in that game. I believe the official HS maps are balanced towards a range of points for armies and the start zones help maintain that balance. Just my .02.

Newb.

[Cavalier]

I guess we'll start playing that you can attack w/ different commons than you moved if you want to. That is all the rules require now that I look at it. It isn't a bad thing either, now that I've had time to think it over.


Did I miss something? I beleive that this is incorrect. You may only attack with the units that moved this turn (including thos that moved 0), the only exception to this that I know of is the zombies.

[Rÿchean]

One point that I feel is worth making...

At the February 2006 DFW tourney we allowed armies with extra figures to occupy the empty space behind their start zone. If memory serves me no Squad Driven army made it to the Semi-Finals.

Your memory does serve, I guess...UPC played 2 sets of Romans and 2 sets of 4th mass. Not exactly squad scape.

If you will remember lilwis 5x4th mass army (I know you will never forget) She finished the day at 3-1 and just missed the semis based on strength of opponent. She placed 5th in tourney and could have very easily been in the final 4.

And of course then there is wisinger who won our 34 person Oct tourney with no heroes. :twisted:

[Homba]

I guess we'll start playing that you can attack w/ different commons than you moved if you want to. That is all the rules require now that I look at it. It isn't a bad thing either, now that I've had time to think it over.


Did I miss something? I beleive that this is incorrect. You may only attack with the units that moved this turn (including thos that moved 0), the only exception to this that I know of is the zombies.

You're right Cav. You must attack with the figures you move.

The outstanding question is whether:

you have to identify the figures that moved zero (and attack only with those figures),

*or*

you're not required to identify the figures that moved zero, so you can shift around between figures advantageously when making your attacks.

I'm going to look at the rules...

H

[daevablacc]

Oh, OK. I would say you do have to identify all of your figures as being "moved" before going to the attack phase. We will keep playing as we have been I guess. Thanx for the correction. :D

[AgentX-127]

I've never tried to assume what the designers are thinking or how they feel about their system but from my experience in miniature gaming any point system is breakable and designers place restrictions on how units are recruited to help maintain a balance in the system. Look at almost every miniature game and you will see some sort of limitation on purchasing units. These limits represent a lot of different factors (economical, historical, etc.) abstracted to simple limits on how many are available, how they are introduced into a game, etc. One of those limits in HS is start zones. I agree that bigger boards, which generally allow for bigger armies, should have bigger start zones. The size of those start zones and the rigidity of those start zones are entirely up to the people involved in that game. I believe the official HS maps are balanced towards a range of points for armies and the start zones help maintain that balance. Just my .02.

Newb.Hear, hear!

[jcb231]

My two cents on starting zones....

I agree, for the most part, with Homba. I don't think that starting zones in official scenarios are small for any reason other than the fact that those maps are made with one Master Set and the odd expansion. I think it's really that simple, and the starting zone rule was created simply to answer the inevitable question of "what if my guys can't fit on the starting spaces?"

I don't think it's unbalancing to the game to create starting zones for all players that are sufficiently large enough to field the maximum number of figures purchaseable with the chosen point value. 400 points is 400 points....if I for some reason want 40 Blade Gruts or Deathreavers with that army cost there shouldn't be some arbitrary restriction that says I can't have them. As long as the point value for the game is not exceeded there shouldn't be a cap on taking "too many" figures anymore than there should be a restriction on taking "too few" figures.

Obviously, allowing folks to "spill over" the edges of a previously agreed-upon start zone has the potential for abuse and should never be done. I also hesitate to expand the starting areas so that they are CLOSER to the other players. Instead, I feel players should all agree that the map has sufficient starting space for the point value BEFORE the match begins...and if not, determine how best to expand each start area AWAY FROM each other to allow for full sized armies. I can't even fathom how this could unbalance a standard kill-em-all scenario....if all players are given the same amount of breathing room in the back lines how does anyone benefit more than anyone else? I suppose certain special situations could require smaller start zones but I think those situations are probably few and far between....most scenarios would seem to allow for backwards expansion of starting zones with no ill effects.

[Homba]

I can only find one relevant entry in the 2nd Ed. Rules, nothing in the Hasbro FAQ.

p.16:
Common Army Cards: (special rules)
You don't need to keep these figures separate (that is, keep track of which figures belong to which card). For example, if you're using two cards worth of Blade Grut figures, each order marker placed on either army card activates any 4 of them.
(Emphasis added.)

Now you have to try to interface this statement for common squads with the "On Your Turn" list of actions on p.9 (1: Reveal Order, 2: Move, 3: Attack), where it's unique heroes and unique squads being discussed... tricky.

From only the pp. 9-14, it does not appear that you have to designate which figures moved (if some moved zero). But keep in mind, these rules are addressing unique units, where designating who moved for the purpose of who may attack never becomes an issue.

A possible key is the word "activates" on p.16 (quoted above). This is the only case of the use of this word. It does not appear until p.16. (Please check me on this). When you give an order to a common squad (using the 4-figure squad Blade Grut example), it "activates any 4 of them."

At this point, my thoughts start doubling back on themselves. I don't know what to decide. We aren't told exactly what "activates any 4 of them" means. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made:

Liberal Interpretation:
4 figures get activated. You reveal which were activated as you move and/or attack with them. You can move any 4 (including one that gets revived mid-move) but you don't have to say which 4 before you move. You do NOT have to designate which, if any, move zero. Then you attack with the figures you moved, and (if less than the squad size and other unmoved figs are available) with other unmoved figures, for a total number of attacks up to the squad size (4 in the case of Blade Gruts).

Compromise Interpretation: (Aldin's)
4 get activated. You can move any 4 (including one that gets revived, mid-move) but you don't have to say which 4 before you move. You have to designate which, if any, move zero. Then attack with those you moved.

Restrictive Interpretation:
4 get activated. This means you designate which 4 (not applicable to uniques, but applicable to multiple commons). This means you can't move or attack with a figure that is revived mid-move, because he couldn't have been one of the 4 activated. You attack with the 4 figures you designated as "activated" after the order marker was revealed.

I'll backtrack a bit on this one. Though I think either the Liberal or Compromise Interpretation is more likely to be correct, I think only Craig and Rob can answer this one. I'm not going to suggest I can tell you their intent based on the tiny amount of info we have to go on. I don't think there's much wrong with any of the three arguments. Depends on a lot of subjective interpretation, including (but not limited to) what weight to attach to the word "activated." A clear example could establish the designers' intent, but we have no example. Can anyone prove from the text why any of the above arguments fail, or why one is markedly superior?

H

[tsukifu]

Cavalier wrote:
daevablacc wrote:
I guess we'll start playing that you can attack w/ different commons than you moved if you want to. That is all the rules require now that I look at it. It isn't a bad thing either, now that I've had time to think it over.


Did I miss something? I beleive that this is incorrect. You may only attack with the units that moved this turn (including thos that moved 0), the only exception to this that I know of is the zombies.


You're right Cav. You must attack with the figures you move.


What might be confusing to new players is that the 2nd Edition rules, unless I'm mistaken, don't actually say that you have to attack with the same figures you move. Of course, we all know you must (except when specified), but that's a bit of an oversight. I bet there are people out there playing that wrong.

I'm way for the liberal interpretation on this one. The move phase is to get figures in position. Any figures you don't move are theoretically already in position, and ready to attack if you want them to. I feel we should be able to change our attack strategy as we go, depending on how the success of the initial attacks made by a common squad. Even with a unique squad, we may choose not to attack or to attack a different figure on our second/third attack, depending on how the initial attacks went. There's a freedom of choice built into the process, and I would hope that this would extend into areas where it doesn't seem to be specifically disallowed. [/i]

[GaryLASQ]

What might be confusing to new players is that the 2nd Edition rules, unless I'm mistaken, don't actually say that you have to attack with the same figures you move. Of course, we all know you must (except when specified), but that's a bit of an oversight. I bet there are people out there playing that wrong.newbies have posted about this very question a number of times and then stated they had been playing it wrong. the rulebook definitely needs to elaborate on what activate means along with a couple of examples that deal with multiple commons.

i'm all for the liberal interpretation as well (which i've already mentioned now for the fourth time ;) )

when it comes to the startzone issue, hey, it's in the book. end of story. if you want to allow spill-over in your games then that IS a house rule.

[daevablacc]

Compromise Interpretation: (Aldin's)
4 get activated. You can move any 4 (including one that gets revived, mid-move) but you don't have to say which 4 before you move. You have to designate which, if any, move zero. Then attack with those you moved.

I think this will be the correct interpretation. :grandfather:

[Homba]

This is vitally important to know how to do right, so let's send it in.

Here's a draft of the question. Please give your comments. I'll revise and send it.

Do I need to include the stuff about the revive glyph? It seems to unnecessarily muddy the water. When we get our basic answer, we'll know the answer to the revive glyhp question, right? (Only in Interp. 3 would you not be able to move the revived fig (provided, of course, it wasn't your last mover who stepped on the glyph)).

--------------

Dear WOTC:

This is a question formulated by the Heroscapers.com community. We would appreciate your help in getting the designers' answer on this.

The question regards how to move and attack with common squad figures. For this question, assume the presence of 2 squads of 4th Mass. Line (a total of 8 figures). An order marker is used for the Mass. Line. Is Interpretation 1, 2, or 3, correct? An illustrative example follows the descriptions of the three interpretations.

Interpretation 1 (most flexible):
a. 4 figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You reveal which figures are active by moving and/or attacking with the figures.
c. You need not designate which figures, if any, "move zero spaces."
d. You may then attack with the figures you "actually moved" one or more spaces, and -- if you "actually moved" less than 4 figures -- then with any "zero move" figures (which could be any among the original 8 not "actually moved"), the total number of attacks not exceeding 4 (4 being the squad size for the Mass Line).

Aside: :shock: That is hard to write out clearly. Does it adequately convey the interpretation? Anyone care to try simplifying it?

Interpretation 2 (less flexible):
a. 4 figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You only reveal which figures are active by moving each figure.
c. You DO have to designate which of your total 4 moved, if any, "move zero."
d. Then attack with those figures moved and designated "moved-zero."

Interpretation 3 (least flexible):
a. 4 figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You IMMEDIATELY (before moving) designate which 4 are activated.
c. You attack with the 4 figures you designated as "activated" after the order marker was revealed.

EXAMPLE:

There are 2 squads of Mass. Line on the field (8 figures).
4 of them (A, B, C & D) are in range of only Target Y.
The other 4 (E, F, G & H) are in range of only Target Z.

Under Interp. 1:
An order is given to the 4th Mass.
Player elects to move none of the 8 figures.
Player fires at Target Y with A, and destroys Target Y.
Player fires at Target Z with E, F & G. E misses, F wounds and G destroys Target Z.

Under Interp. 2:
An order is given to the 4th Mass.
Player elects to move none of the 8 figures, but designates that A, B, E & F "moved zero."
Player fires at Target Y with A, and destroys Target Y. B's shot is wasted.
Player fires at Target Z with E & F, wounding Target Z.

Under Interp. 3:
An order is given to the 4th Mass.
Player immediately designates that A, B, E & F are active.
Player elects to move none of the active figures.
Player fires at Target Y with A, and destroys Target Y. B's shot is wasted.
Player fires at Target Z with E & F, wounding Target Z.

(End example.)

Aside: I realize examples 2 & 3 are similar in result. But we'll get the info we need on the process. It's possible to create a more detailed scenario where designation of movers "pre-move" -- or "as-moved" -- is pivotal, but I don't think it's necessary to describe such a scenario to get the procedural info we need.

We have found little guidance in the rules.

On p.16 of the 2nd Ed. Rules:
Common Army Cards: (special rules)
You don't need to keep these figures separate (that is, keep track of which figures belong to which card). For example, if you're using two cards worth of Blade Grut figures, each order marker placed on either army card activates any 4 of them.
(Emphasis added.)

We have to try to interface this statement for common squads with the "On Your Turn" list of actions on p.9 (1: Reveal Order, 2: Move, 3: Attack), where it's unique heroes and unique squads being discussed.

From only pp. 9-14, it does not appear that you have to designate which figures moved (if some moved zero). But these rules are addressing unique units, where designating who moved for the purpose of who may attack never becomes an issue.

The answer seems to depend on a lot of subjective interpretation, including what weight to attach to the word "activates" on p.16, and what weight to give the absence of required designation on pp.9-14.

We have derived the three possible interpretations, and want to know which is the designers' intent, or if there is a fourth alternative that we've missed.

Thanks,

Homba for the Heroscapers.com Community.

----------

[ZODGILLA!]

I think movement should be included in your examples, but otherwise very well done.
Perhaps "A" could move and be subjected to a wound from a passing swipe. I feel that movement is important to the problem of timing, and that's what this is, a timing issue.

[Homba]

I think movement should be included in your examples, but otherwise very well done.
Perhaps "A" could move and be subjected to a wound from a passing swipe. I feel that movement is important to the problem of timing, and that's what this is, a timing issue.

ZOD, do you think the movement aspect, and the ordering of the procedure is handled well enough in the three Interpretations? When we're told which of the three Interpretations is correct, it will answer any possible question about the movement, even though the examples give no move examples. Are you afraid that lack of a movement example will hinder the effective answering of the question?

I tried to come up with a scenario where it made a difference in advantages you could gain under each interpretation due to the movement designation differences. I can't find any move differences in Int1 and Int2 - only diff in those two is in flexible attacking potential due to not declaring (Int1) or declaring (Int2) which figs move zero (note there is NO attacking potential difference in Int2&3, because in both Int2&3 all your active units are declared before you start attacking).

There IS a difference between Int1&2 and Int3 in moving.

Example:

You have 8 Knights of Weston in play. You want to accomplish 2 objectives with this order marker. Your primary objective is to engage (move adjacent to) enemy Figure X with one of your Knights. You feel it is critical that you accomplish this. Your secondary objective is to get a KoW to the Defense Glyph - you'd like to do this, but feel it's less important than engaging Figure X.

Four of your KoW (all of whom are engaged with other enemy figs, and have to disengage to get to Fig X) are in move range of Fig X, but not of the Defense Glyph. Your other Knights are in range of the Defense Glyph, but not of Fig X.

Under Int1&2, you can disengage your knights one by one until one survives the leaving swipe and engages Fig X. You'll have 4 chances at this. If you succeed on or before the third chance, you can walk another KoW onto the Defense Glyph.

Under Int3, you don't have that flexibility. You'll have to decide immediately which knights to activate. Maybe you'll activate 3 Knights that can reach Fig X, hoping one will succeed, and activate one that can move to the Defense Glyph. Or maybe you'll feel it's so critical to engage Fig X, that you'll ignore the Defense Glyph and designate all 4 KoW in range of Fig X as your active figures. The point is, you don't have the flexibility to "wait and see" like you do under Int2&3.

---------

So it breaks down like this, with a nice symmetry:

Int 1: Flexible Move, Flexible Attack

Int 2: Flexible Move, Inflexible Attack*

Int 3: Inflexible Move, Inflexible Attack*

*As we all know you don't have to declare all targets prior to attacking in HS (you get to declare each target as you go along), so there is always at least that flexibility in attacking.

So I guess this movement example needs to get in there too? What do yall think? I will try to condense it all considerably...

H

[ZODGILLA!]

I think you covered my concerns nicely with the new example.

I welcome your efforts to clarify the rules, and feel that you make a great mouthpiece for this site. Your very thorough posts are well thought out and well written.

Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.

[Homba]

That is very kind of you, ZOD - thanks.

There are so many people here who contribute so much to the community, across the whole spectrum of things 'Scape. I enjoy trying to do my bit among those of us who like chasing the loose ends of the rules.

I hope some more people will comment on this issue. It will probably take me a few nights to get the email in order. I will post successive drafts as I proceed. Will aim to mail it by later this week.

H

[daevablacc]

Sounds good Homba. I like your breakdown of flexible/inflexible. I agree that a movement example would be good b/c we need to know in case our first mover could move on a face down glyph, which if it were range or movement boosting could affect which of our remaining units we would wish to move or activate for attacks.

[Augray]

Dear WOTC:

This is a question formulated by the Heroscapers.com community. We would appreciate your help in getting the designers' answer on this.

The question regards how to move and attack with common squad figures. For this question, assume the presence of 2 squads of 4th Mass. Line (a total of 8 figures). An order marker is used for the Mass. Line. Is Interpretation 1, 2, or 3, correct? An illustrative example follows the descriptions of the three interpretations.

Interpretation 1 (most flexible):
a. 4 figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You reveal which figures are active by moving and/or attacking with the figures.
c. You need not designate which figures, if any, "move zero spaces."
d. You may then attack with the figures you "actually moved" one or more spaces, and -- if you "actually moved" less than 4 figures -- then with any "zero move" figures (which could be any among the original 8 not "actually moved"), the total number of attacks not exceeding 4 (4 being the squad size for the Mass Line).


I will be shocked if this isn't ruled as the correct interpretation.

[happyjosiah]

We have people on both sides of this who "will be shocked" if it isn't ruled their way. We will just have to wait and see.

[Homba]

Here is an organized draft, edited for style, etc.

Please pick it apart in every way.

*

Dear WotC:

This is a question formulated by the Heroscapers.com community. We would appreciate your help in getting the designers' answer on this:

What is the exact procedure for moving and attacking with common squad figures when multiples of that squad are present?

For this question, assume the presence of two, four-figure squads (in the examples, Knights of Weston or 4th Massachusetts Line), a total of eight figures. An order marker is used for the squad. From the available Rules, we have derived three possible Interpretations, each with a unique impact on play. Is Interpretation 1, 2, or 3, (described below) correct? Two illustrative examples follow the descriptions of the three Interpretations. The first example shows the differences in moving under each Interpretation. The second example shows the differences in attacking under each interpretation.


Interpretation Descriptions:


Interpretation 1 (Flexible Move / Flexible Attack):

a. four figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You reveal which figures are active by moving and/or attacking with the figures.
c. You need not designate which figures, if any, "move zero spaces."
d. You may then attack with the figures you "actually moved" one or more spaces, and -- if you "actually moved" less than four figures -- with any "zero move" figures (which could be any among the original eight not "actually moved"), the total number of attacks not exceeding four (the squad size for the Mass Line). As always, these attacks are made in an order of your choosing.
Interpretation 2 (Flexible Move / Fixed Attack):
a. four figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You only reveal which figures are active by moving each figure.
c. You DO have to designate which of your total four moved, if any, "move zero."
d. Then attack with those figures moved and designated "moved-zero." As always, these attacks are made in an order of your choosing.
Interpretation 3 (Fixed Move / Fixed Attack):
a. four figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You IMMEDIATELY (before moving) designate which four are activated.
c. You attack with the four figures you designated as "activated" after the order marker was revealed. As always, these attacks are made in an order of your choosing.
---


EXAMPLE: Impact on Movement

You have eight Knights of Weston figures in play. You want to accomplish two objectives with this order marker. Your primary objective is to engage (move adjacent to) enemy Figure X with one of your Knights. You feel it is critical that you accomplish this. Your secondary objective is to get a Knight to the Defense Glyph - you'd like to do this, but feel it's less important than engaging Figure X.

Four of your Knights (all of whom are engaged with other enemy figs, and have to disengage to get to Fig X) are in move range of Fig X, but not of the Defense Glyph. Your other Knights are in range of the Defense Glyph, but not of Fig X.

Under Interpretations 1 & 2, you can disengage your Knights one by one until one survives the leaving swipe and engages Fig X. You'll have four chances at this. If you succeed on or before the third chance, you can walk another Knight onto the Defense Glyph.

Under Interpretation 3, you don't have that flexibility. You'll have to decide immediately which Knights to activate. Maybe you'll activate three Knights that can reach Fig X, hoping one will succeed, and activate one Knight that can move to the Defense Glyph. Or maybe you'll feel it's so critical to engage Fig X, that you'll ignore the Defense Glyph and designate all four Knights in range of Fig X as your active figures. The point is, you don't have the tactical flexibility to "wait and see" that you have under Interpretations 1 & 2.


---


EXAMPLE: Impact on Attacking

You have eight 4th Massachusetts Line figures in play. You want to destroy two enemy targets.
Four of your Mass. Line (A, B, C & D) are in range of only Target Y.
The other four (E, F, G & H) are in range of only Target Z.


Under Interpretation 1 (flexible attacks):

An order is given to the Mass. Line.
Player elects to move none of the eight figures.
Player fires at Target Y with A, and destroys Target Y.
Player fires at Target Z with E, F & G. E misses, F wounds and G destroys Target Z.
Under Interpretation 2 (fixed attacks):

An order is given to the Mass. Line.
Player elects to move none of the eight figures, but designates that A, B, E & F "moved zero."
Player fires at Target Y with A, and destroys Target Y. B's shot is wasted.
Player fires at Target Z with E & F. E misses and F wounds Target Z.
Under Interpretation 3 (fixed attacks, same as Interpretation 2):

An order is given to the Mass. Line.
Player immediately designates that A, B, E & F are active.
Player elects to move none of the active figures.
Player fires at Target Y with A, and destroys Target Y. B's shot is wasted.
Player fires at Target Z with E & F. E misses and F wounds Target Z.
---


We have found little guidance in the rules.

On pg. 16 of the 2nd Ed. Rules:


Common Army Cards: (special rules)

You don't need to keep these figures separate (that is, keep track of which figures belong to which card). For example, if you're using two cards worth of Blade Grut figures, each order marker placed on either army card activates any 4 of them.
We tried to interface this statement for multiple common squads with the "On Your Turn" list of actions on pg. 9 (1: Reveal Order, 2: Move, 3: Attack), where it is unique heroes and unique squads being discussed.

From pgs. 9-14, it does not appear that you have to designate which figures moved (if some moved zero). But these rules are addressing unique units, where designating who moved for the purpose of who may attack never becomes an issue.

The answer seems to depend on subjective interpretation, including what weight to attach to the word "activates" on pg. 16, and what weight to give the absence of required designation on pgs. 9-14.

We have derived the three possible Interpretations, each with a unique impact on play. We want to know which is the designers' intent, or if the designers intend a fourth alternative.

We eagerly await the designers' answer. Thanks for your assistance.

Homba, for the Heroscapers.com Community

[daevablacc]

It looks good to me.

[ZODGILLA!]

Brilliant!

I hope at some point in time they realize the game has "phases" and the rules need to take that into account. The reveal action, the move action, and the attack action are just three of the many phases in a turn. Much of the confusion that occurs with rules interpretation is due to this oversight.

[GaryLASQ]

i agree the idea of phases should be layed out in the rule book with Special Powers that reference the "move phase" and "attack phase" using these nouns, rather than using action words like "moving" and "attacking" to reference presumed phases.

thanks again Homba for sending the email. i'll take the reply from WOTC with a grain of salt until i also see it on the Hasbro FAQ. at that point i'll know we "got through".

[Homba]

I'll mail this draft tomorrow night unless any comments between now and then suggest actionable changes. Thanks for the feedback.

H

[daevablacc]

Thanx bunches Homba. Looking forward to seeing the results. The last ruling we got from WOTC they said they got from the game designers so hopefully they will do the same w/ this one.

[Homba]

I mailed the question tonight.

[Homba]

A response is in:


Response (Brandon) 02/09/2007 11:50 AM

Hello [Homba],

Interpretation 2 (Flexible Move / Fixed Attack):
a. Four figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You only reveal which figures are active by moving each figure.
c. You DO have to designate which of your total four moved, if any, "move zero."
d. Then attack with those figures moved and designated "moved-zero." As always, these attacks are made in an order of your choosing.

This interpretation is correct. You may activate figures one at a time by moving them, but before you are able to attack, you must designate any figures that activated and Moved Zero for the squad.

Good Luck and Game On!

Brandon.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

Well, well, well!

Since there was no indicia of a Designer decision here, I shot back the following just now:


Customer [Homba] 02/09/2007 12:44 PM

Brandon, thanks for the reply.

Will you or supervisor Chris L. please confirm for me that this answer came from the Heroscape Designers (Craig & Rob) after their consideration of the issue (and is not simply the opinion of yourself or anyone other than the Designers)?

In addition, can you tell me when this clairification will appear in the Official Heroscape FAQ at Hasbro.com? If you do not know when, will you please ask the Designers and let me know?

Thanks,

Homba, for the Heroscapers.com Community

If this stands, I admit I'm a little surprised. I guess I secretly wanted #1 "Flexible Move/Flexible Attack" because I just like maximum tactical flexibility in a wargame. But I honestly didn't see one of the Interpretations as being better than another, because we had such scant information. I can totally see #2 being the designers' intent (as it apparently is). We've had it confirmed that you can indeed "move zero," so why wouldn't you have to touch the piece and designate that? HS is simple like that. The thing dragging down #1 is that it seemed somewhat anti-HS in its shifty complexity. But it wouldn't have surprised me for a second if Craig had decided to go with it (if it wasn't actually his original concept - or if the original concept had never been fully extended to answer this question), being another of those situations where he wasn't really tied to one interpretation by the existing rules and conventions of HS.

I'm happy it wasn't #3, I know that.

Will report back the next reply. Would be cool if we got some insight on the Hasbro FAQ updating.

H

[tsukifu]

Not a good ruling, I think. It robs commons of some of their inherent power, and part of the beauty of the game is in the flexibility built into the actively changing landscape of the attack phase. I don't understand how removing some of that flexibility could be a good thing.

If I don't move any figures, I have to announce before attacking which ones I'm going to attack with. I don't like that at all.

[Homba]

Yep, tsuikfu, I can't disagree. :cry: But simultaneously, it sorta makes me happy :) to have a small blow struck against common squads (ESPECIALLY the ranged commons, ehem 4th Mass). If you think they have bang-for-the-buck second to none in 'Scape (SquadScape anyone?), then they just got taken down a notch.

I think the common squads (generally) are a tad overpowered for the price. I doubt Craig agrees however, and if he secretly does agree, he'll never admit it.

It'd be interesting if he did secretly agree, and took this measure to knock the commons down a notch. Maybe he'll tell us in his Memiors. Better hope you outlive him.

H

[daevablacc]

Thanx mucho homba! I am personally pleased w/ the ruling as I like for there to be some planning required in my wargames.

[Homba]

I received this reply to my challenge. Of great interest.

Response (Trevor K.) 02/09/2007 01:22 PM

Hey there Bryan! Just so you know, I did talk to Craig about this one and that is exactly where the answer that Brandon gave you came from. I have no clue if this is going to be introduced into the FAQ file, or if it is, when that would happen. I have passed this information onto the designers as I said, and the best way to know when the FAQ is updated is just to keep checking back at heroscape.com.

In the future, you probably shouldn't expect an answer from the designers for every question. I understand that you are huge fans and love the game, but in order for us to provide answers in the framework that we've established, we're just not able to provide you answers directly from the designers each time. They're here to make the game, we're here to answer questions about it! However, know that if it is a game mechanic or ability question, I do forward the question and our answer on to Craig at the same time we answer you. If something is wrong, he'll let me know and I'll update the answer that we give to you guys accordingly. This may not be the type of interaction you're used to, but this is how we're doing it now.

But again, that being said, I don't want you to expect a response given by them to us, and then to you for each question you may have. It's very possible that we will make mistakes; it's possible that the designers will overturn something that they have said before. Hopefully you and all the other avid fans of Heroscape can appreciate how the process works and forgive us if these types of things come up in the future. Good gaming!

Trevor
Senior Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

I am going to write him back, explaining essentially that when he gets an email deemed a Scapers Community email, he can rest assured that his staff need not waste time sending us an answer, because it is ambiguous or otherwise so unclear that only the designers can answer it. Can we flesh this out a bit through some discussion? Am I on target here? Do we need to have certain Community contacts that WotC recognize as legitimate so that every lurker here doesn't start sending in their own "Official Community questions?"

I am generally a bit put off and dissatisfied by his elaboration. It is not condusive to us being confident in the answers we receive.

H

[GaryLASQ]

hey, i like what i'm seeing in regards to communication with WOTC. sounds like they understand we desire carefully thought out answers to questions about game mechanics (hopefully by someone who has played the game more than once) and that such questions/answers are forwarded to the designers. cool beans.


c. You DO have to designate which of your total four moved, if any, "move zero."ok, what do they mean by "designate". this is not necessarily the same thing as "declaring to your opponent(s)". it sounds like that's what is meant.

i'll continue to "designate in my own mind" and let my opponent go on thinking i attacked with the move-zero figures i had planned to attack with all along. :)

[netherspirit]

Response (Trevor K.) 02/09/2007 01:22 PM

Hey there Bryan! Just so you know, I did talk to Craig about this one and that is exactly where the answer that Brandon gave you came from. I have no clue if this is going to be introduced into the FAQ file, or if it is, when that would happen. I have passed this information onto the designers as I said, and the best way to know when the FAQ is updated is just to keep checking back at heroscape.com.

In the future, you probably shouldn't expect an answer from the designers for every question. I understand that you are huge fans and love the game, but in order for us to provide answers in the framework that we've established, we're just not able to provide you answers directly from the designers each time. They're here to make the game, we're here to answer questions about it! However, know that if it is a game mechanic or ability question, I do forward the question and our answer on to Craig at the same time we answer you. If something is wrong, he'll let me know and I'll update the answer that we give to you guys accordingly. This may not be the type of interaction you're used to, but this is how we're doing it now.

But again, that being said, I don't want you to expect a response given by them to us, and then to you for each question you may have. It's very possible that we will make mistakes; it's possible that the designers will overturn something that they have said before. Hopefully you and all the other avid fans of Heroscape can appreciate how the process works and forgive us if these types of things come up in the future. Good gaming!

Trevor
Senior Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast


I am going to write him back, explaining essentially that when he gets an email deemed a Scapers Community email, he can rest assured that his staff need not waste time sending us an answer, because it is ambiguous or otherwise so unclear that only the designers can answer it. Can we flesh this out a bit through some discussion? Am I on target here? Do we need to have certain Community contacts that WotC recognize as legitimate so that every lurker here doesn't start sending in their own "Official Community questions?"

I am generally a bit put off and dissatisfied by his elaboration. It is not condusive to us being confident in the answers we receive.

I think he responded exactly the way I would have to your question, only he did it nicer.

The green text in the email is great! Why the need to keep pushing?

[Revdyer]

I, for one, am certainly ready to give the questioning of the process a rest. Let's ask our game questions and give the new system a chance to work for a while, taking at face value the statements from WotC that they understand how important the game is to us. I'm satisfied that they want to do a good job for us. I hope that they will.

[Augray]

I, for one, am certainly ready to give the questioning of the process a rest.
Maybe not quite yet.

Let's ask our game questions and give the new system a chance to work for a while, taking at face value the statements from WotC that they understand how important the game is to us. I'm satisfied that they want to do a good job for us. I hope that they will.
I agree.

I have a sinking feeling that this particular issue (move and attack) is not over, though.

[GaryLASQ]

Let's ask our game questions and give the new system a chance to work for a while, taking at face value the statements from WotC that they understand how important the game is to us. I'm satisfied that they want to do a good job for us. I hope that they will.
I agree.i agree also for two reasons. 1) the email from Trevor and 2) the answer Craig gave Truth in the interview. you can tell Craig knew that question was coming and had a prepared answer.

I have a sinking feeling that this particular issue (move and attack) is not over, though.the fat lady sings when it shows up on the Hasbro FAQ.

[Homba]

the fat lady sings when it shows up on the Hasbro FAQ.

This is my main complaint.

We're stuck in a situation in which we can't get a good answer: WotC tells me they're going to just give us answers without consulting Craig, but send the mail on to Craig. However, the updating of the Hasbro FAQ is so inconsistent as to be practically nonexistent. We have ONE recent incidence of an update of the FAQ.

No one will contradict that when this community comes up with a question where there's either widespread disagreement or admittance that it's ambiguous and not knowable from the existing rules, that any answer a WotC rep. gives us on his own is (1) irrelevant, and (2) condescending (more and more, IMO, especially after this mail). We don't care what they say (it has been 95% wrong!). Why not just send our once-or-twice monthly question on to Craig, and get back to us when it's resolved?

It isn't as if we bombard them with questions. I understand they probably field hundreds of HS questions, but these are presumably answerable from the existing rules and FAQ. If a question comes in under the aegis of our Community, why shouldn't it be treated differently? It is a win-win, mutually beneficial situation after all. Who can deny that our community has contributed to filling big holes in this game's rules? If I am Craig, this is a great thing. The thread that provoked this question and answer discusses a BASIC Heroscape issue that has been unknowable and widely played wrongly since WAVE 1. A just now, we learn the correct process, the correct process is established for the game of HS. We're providing an editing and quality control service that the mighty Hasborg has been unable or unwilling to provide Craig & Co. This role has been a hallmark of this community since .net. We, taken as a whole, are a full -- and irreplaceable -- participant in the development and refinement of our beloved game.

We're now told that WotC is going to send us answers without first consulting Craig. That's worthless to us. We are left in the dark about anything further, except that the mails will be passed along. My request to ask Craig about the FAQ update process IF IT ISNT KNOWN TO WotC was answered with a "we have no idea how this works." If they can pass along our mails, they can get us an answer on this. But someone doesn't give a darn. I think Craig does care. I just think he needs to take some additional steps to clarify things further.

Where is the update for Laglor's non-stacking in team play? It's been more than a month or two since that question was answered by Chris D. via Craig, and there's no Hasbro FAQ update.

Maybe there is no organized process for updating the Hasbro FAQ. Maybe it's like a net with holes. Some things stick, some drift off into oblivion.

Why is the FAQ so disorganized? It has become quite long. All yall who tout the "simple elegance" of Scape should admit that either the game is not so simple after all, or it attempts too much with too few rules to result in such a massive FAQ. Why can't we be given the courtesy of a "recent updates" section at the top of the FAQ, listing the dates of recent updates within. Saving us from having to eyeball through the whole thing looking for a new update. It's absurd. And absurdly unappreciative to the people who are instigating the clarifications (us) to leave us scrounging for unannounced needles in a haystack.

I guarantee you, passive acceptance of the word from above will get you nowhere. After all we've been through, the answerer of this question had the knowing gall or unknowing obliviousness to include nothing indicating that the designers had made the decision. I had to pull teeth to get that from them, so we could be satisfied. Acceptance will get you going backwards. If not for agitation, who knows where we'd be. Craig says he reads the forums, I hope he reads this. I hope everything's updated tomorrow, and yall can all claim this post wasn't necessary - that none of them are. I care less if it was or wasn't the impetus for any specific change. I'm telling you without the momentum maintained by posts like this and others in the community, shining a spotlight on the various inadequacies and simple remedies, we'll die a slow death. The natural condition of any object is repose. The day we quit pushing, quit caring, quit challenging for a better way, is the day Scape's doors will begin their slow close.

With that happy thought, I leave you. And I ask for your vote next November. Cheers!

H

[Augray]

The thread that provoked this question and answer discusses a BASIC Heroscape issue that has been unknowable and widely played wrongly since WAVE 1.
We'll see about that. I don't think this is over.

[jcb231]

I, for one, am certainly ready to give the questioning of the process a rest.

Cheers to that.

[Homba]

It's a nice day for a double-dose of 'Scape love from WotC and Craig. My hotmail account is like a box of chocolates lately. I hadn't checked it for a few days, I open it on Valentine's Day and find these:


Response (Trevor K.) 02/09/2007 06:20 PM

Hey again [Homba]! I was reading over the Heroscapers boards before I left today (yes, I read the boards, and all of our games would be so lucky to have fans as dedicated as the group there :) ) and I saw your post with my reply. It was in no way my intention to put you off or to shake your confidence in our service. I was just trying to give you guys a clearer view of the process as it stands now.

We are aware that contacts we get form Heroscapers have a pretty high chance of being FAQ worthy, and as I said, I pass complicated mechanic and ability questions to Craig at the same time we supply an answer. We leave it to him to decide if it goes in the FAQ or not at a later date. You stated that you were going to craft a reply to my previous message, and I look forward to it, but that doesn't change what I stated earlier. I respect the community your group has formed and the love you all have for the game is something I wish all players could experience, but the processes I mentioned before will still apply to heroscapers contacts. I'm not saying your questions aren't valid or don't deserve attention, I'm just saying those questions go through the same process, just as it would if it was a question from a huge fan who doesn't happen to be part of your community. Again, I hope you and the other scapers can understand why the process has to be this way.

Trevor.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

I appreciated this. It takes the edge off when a special effort is made. Very confidence-building. As was this, except moreso, because it puts the fact to the sentiment:


Response (Trevor K.) 02/12/2007 01:14 PM

Hey yet again [Homba]! Here's one of those updates I talked about. When Craig forwarded us the answer to the multiple common squad issue, there was apparently a bit of miscommunication or interpretation between us, and while the difference in details was small, the overall outcome of how it affects squads seems to make quite a bit of difference. Here's how activating the squad with multiple instances of the same squad in play would actually work:

a. 4 figures are activated by the order marker.
b. You reveal which figures are active by moving and/or attacking with the figures.
c. You need not designate which figures, if any, "move zero spaces."
d. You may attack with the figures you "actually moved" one or more spaces, and/or -- if you "actually moved" less than 4 figures -- attack with any "zero move" figures (which could be any among the original 8 not "actually moved"), the total number of attacks not exceeding 4 (4 being the squad size for the Mass Line).

When you move, you would move any figures you want up to the number of figures listed on the Army Card. Once you are done moving, you can now attack. Obviously, you can also only attack with up to the number of figures listed on the Army Card, but any figures that moved that turn would take up one of those (for lack of a better word) "Attacking Slots". So if you have the Mass 4th (4 figures per card), and you move 2 of them. Once you start to attack that turn you may attack with the 2 that you moved, as well as ANY OTHER 2 Mass 4th figures that would have moved 0 spaces. You do not have to decide before you start to attack which figures are attacking, since the outcome of the first few attacks may dictate who, or what the other figures are attacking.

This again gives common squads a huge tactical advantage, but the answer above is basically word for word from Craig, so hopefully there won't be any more confusion on this. Good gaming!

Trevor.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

So it is Interpretation One: Flexible Move/ Flexible Attack. Maximum Tactical Flexibility Goodness. Multiple commons haven't lost their luster.

Augray, very prescient. Now which stock fund is going to blow the lid off this year?

I assume T.K. will spot this post. I will also write him back to thank him. The one thing I'd like to spotlight is getting:

a "Recent Updates" list at the top of the Hasbro FAQ,
-- with the date and a one-line blurb of the update topic
-- (why not?) jump-linked to the update down in the body of the FAQ

...so we don't have to sift through it blindly trying to find something new. If this can be conveyed to Craig, or whoever controls the Hasbro FAQ, that would be brilliant. It's quite a small thing (it would take a few seconds), with quite a big impact, so I'd think they'd jump at the chance to get the big props. It's also just a basic quality issue.

Three Cheers,

H


Whew, hard to get in today! Popular site!


Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: User admin_phpb1 has already more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in /home/admin/public_html/community/db/mysql4.php on line 48

Warning: mysql_error(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/admin/public_html/community/db/mysql4.php on line 330

Warning: mysql_errno(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/admin/public_html/community/db/mysql4.php on line 331
phpBB : Critical Error

Could not connect to the database

[Homba]

Whew, a triple post! Site hickup. Where's the sanitation engineer?

H

[daevablacc]

Thanks Homba & WotC! :bowdown:

[tsukifu]

Wow, that's great all around. A good ruling and a really patient, thorough response from WotC and Craig. Thanks to Homba and to Trevor.

[Revdyer]

I am impressed at how professional the WotC people have been with us, even when we have been at our most prickly.

[Homba]

A little more interesting information:

I mailed T.K. back essentially reiterating what I said in the post above. Here is that mail and his reply.

Customer (Homba) 02/14/2007 10:18 PM

Trevor, thanks for your mails. I had been away from my email for a few days.

I hope you read my post here, where I notified the Community of your responses:
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=#216423

I appreciate the special effort you made to mail me about my concerns. That was unexpected, and I was impressed by it.

Thanks also for the clarification from Craig. That seems to prove that "the system is working." My personal goal is a working conduit to Craig for answering these questions, and it seems I can rest easy now.

The Hasbro FAQ is my last real concern, as I noted in my linked post. As I said there, the one thing I'd like to spotlight is getting:

a "Recent Updates" list at the top of the Hasbro FAQ,
-- with the update-date and a one-line blurb of the update topic
-- (why not?) jump-linked to the full update text down in the body of the FAQ

...so we don't have to sift through this very long FAQ line by line trying to find something new. If this can be conveyed by yourself to Craig, or to whoever controls the Hasbro FAQ (if Craig does not), that would be brilliant. It's quite a small thing (it would take a few seconds), with quite a big impact, so I'd think the responsible party would jump at the chance to get the big props and do a real service. It's also just a basic quality issue.

If you would pass that request along, I, and the rest of us, would be very greatful.

Thanks,

(Homba)


Response (Trevor K.) 02/15/2007 08:59 AM

Hey there (Homba). I'll definitely pass that along. I'm also working on updating our KB system so that it has many of the questions and answers we've received from Craig that aren't quite yet in the FAQ. It won't be as official as the FAQ of course, but hopefully it will be a start and provide some useful information. But again, I'll definitely pass along your ideas on the FAQ and hopefully we'll see some movement on that at some point in the near future. Good gaming!

Trevor.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

So we'll see about the Hasbro FAQ (fingers crossed). The "KB system" of Wizards' must be FAQish. I will look around on their site and/or ask TK for more info, and ask TK to post here when it goes live, or to let me know.

H

[Will T]

"KB System" would be WOTC's Knowledge Base. Some organized database of questions and answers that allow their support people to record the answers that they give out. It helps them to ensure they give out the same answers everytime no matter who answers the phone. It may or may not be in a format that is presentable to the public, but most likely is "for internal use only."

[Homba]

Knowledge Base. Ok. Sounded to me like he was implying or stating that it (or the HS info therein) would be available to the public in some form...

"It won't be as official as the FAQ of course, but hopefully it will be a start and provide some useful information."

Dunno. That's how I took it, that they'd take what Craig sends them and put it up in a FAQ, which presumably would be more current than the more slowly updated Hasbro FAQ.

H

[Revdyer]

Knowledge Base. Ok. Sounded to me like he was implying or stating that it (or the HS info therein) would be available to the public in some form...

"It won't be as official as the FAQ of course, but hopefully it will be a start and provide some useful information."

Dunno. That's how I took it, that they'd take what Craig sends them and put it up in a FAQ, which presumably would be more current than the more slowly updated Hasbro FAQ.

HWell, technically, it is "available to the public in some form..." You just have to call them for it, so it is pretty indirect. I think the "useful" means to them as they answer our queries.

[ZODGILLA!]

Mad props to Homba for working so diligently on our behalf.

Trevor K. rockets to the top of my respectometer! To have gone out of his way to make us feel heard, and also to ease our concerns about the process, now that is what I call customer service! Great job WotC! :up:

[Homba]

My inference was correct. (Sometimes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut!)

Customer (Homba) 02/15/2007 03:45 PM

Thanks Trevor. May I ask, when you say work on your Knowledge Base to provide some useful information, I took that to mean - in the context of our conversation about updating the Hasbro FAQ - that you meant to post the Heroscape answers on a webpage people could freely access, an advance FAQ probably more current than the Hasbro FAQ (until the later was updated)?

Did I understand this right, or do you mean something that is just available over the phone, or for WotC internal use only?

Cheers,

H

Response (Trevor K.) 02/15/2007 05:13 PM

Hey there (Homba)! The Knowledge Base that we have is a just a collection of information that can be searched by customers. Here's a link:

http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php

It's basically a search and e-mail tool, and you've used the e-mail part to contact us. Currently if you search for Heroscape you'll receive 6 very basic questions and answers concerning Heroscape, and almost all of those point to the Hasbro site or the Heroscape.com site. There is the one link that points directly to the Heroscape.com FAQ. What I'm thinking of doing is creating a single KB (Knowledge Base) answer that contains information that Craig has given to us (such as the squad movement issue we just settled) that doesn't yet appear in the errata. It would be a similar format, with question and answer, and would have the information that Craig has provided. Now, it won't be an official FAQ, but it will be a place where people can go to possibly find answers to some complex rules questions that aren't covered in the FAQ.

So that's my plan anyway and I hope to get it up and going pretty soon. I also passed your suggestion concerning an "updated" section or entry in the FAQ to Craig, so perhaps you'll see some traction on that in the future as well. If you have any other questions about the process, don't hesitate to let me know!

Trevor.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

[GaryLASQ]

....So if you have the Mass 4th (4 figures per card), and you move 2 of them. Once you start to attack that turn you may attack with the 2 that you moved, as well as ANY OTHER 2 Mass 4th figures that would have moved 0 spaces. You do not have to decide before you start to attack which figures are attacking, since the outcome of the first few attacks may dictate who, or what the other figures are attacking.....
So it is Interpretation One: Flexible Move/ Flexible Attack. Maximum Tactical Flexibility Goodness. Multiple commons haven't lost their luster.as it should be.

the rulebook deosn't say you must declare ahead of time which figures are activated when using multiple commons, so i don't see why some players were making that assumption in the first place. i guess the problem was the rulebook says hardly anything at all about how to use multiple commons and lacks examples. hopefully the new "Master Set 2: SotM" rulebook will spend more time explaining Common Army Card usage since it looks like it will contain both uniques and commons in the same box.

the good news to come from all of this is that the lines of communication with WotC are now wide open. thank you Homba for sticking with this and thanks Trevor for the added level of customer service. my faith is restored.

[happyjosiah]

Good to know. And therefore, as this all began, when moving a common unit onto the revive glyph, revived units of the same army card may also be moved. Cool!

[Eclipse]

Good to know. And therefore, as this all began, when moving a common unit onto the revive glyph, revived units of the same army card may also be moved. Cool!

You mean squad figure, right, not common unit?

[GaryLASQ]

heh. yes that's right. HJ's original question has nothing to do with whether the squad figure is unique or common, because his question only relates to the move phase.

i think it started when i mentioned how far into a turn you can go (part way into the attack phase) before knowing for sure which figures end up being activated, when using multiple commons and not moving all of them during the move phase.