Rule Questions:

1) Hero's league title says you can trade in rewards for runes once a turn... what exactly is a turn? one season or one year? Im assuming season but....

ANSWER: A player's turn is when he is resolving his order card during a season. Therefore, a player could use this up to 4 times per year (once per season during his turn).

2) , tactical retreat says "cancel a battle". Does that mean that the attacker, if he was mobilizing, could use his supremacy bonus to battle in another zone? Cancel battle implies that the battle never happened. I assume the activation marker remains.

ANSWER: Although the battle was cancelled he still may not start another battle.

3) The "Bound by honor" objective says that if all triangle units are allied to players you can discard the objective to gain one dragon rune. Last night I was playing and suddenly the triangle neutral units all were defeated. There was no city to place triangle units on the table.

So was the objective accomplished or not? Is it impossible to accomplish the objective? If so does the player just stick with his impossible objective. It would seem that it is still possible because contrary to other cards (giants and dragons) the card doesn't say that if it's impossible to achieve you get to discard it.

ANSWER: Yes, you have technically completed this objective if there are 0 triangle units in play.

4) When you attack an area that contains only an enemy stronghold, do you conduct battle? ie if you have the humans, and you have knights, or undead with necromancers, do you get to draw fate cards and possible get special results that give you tactic cards or reanimates?

also, does sending units into an empty enemy homeland constitute a battle? do you conduct all the steps of battle? including drawing fate cards and possibly gaining tactics cards and reanimates as discussed above

ANSWER: Whenever you enter an enemy area (even an area with 0 units), it starts a battle. This includes moving into an empty enemy home realm and an area containing only an enemy stronghold. I will add this to the next FAQ.

5) Bountiful Harvest, the Fall Season card that lets you adjust your dials based on areas you control. When this happens, do you get the bonuses from your developments? We've played NO, but then we get screwed by what seems to be a beneficially intended card. What about the exploration marker that increased a hex' resource? The card does not mention developments, just areas you control. But when you've recently harvested and gained all that plus your dev bonuses, the Bountiful Harvest doesn't seem so bountiful when it causes you to then LOWER your dials

ANSWER) You may NOT use developments when the Bountiful Harvest card is resolved. This includes ones that provide resources.

QUESTION 6: How many tactics cards can you play that say "play at the beginning of battle."? For example, at the beginning of a battle when I am attacked, can I play lightning, then blackmail, and then tactical retreat to do 4 damage, make my oppenent lose 2 in fluence and 2 tactics, and then retreat my guys to safety?

ANSWER: You may play any number of tactics cards at the start of battle. The only problem with you example is that tactical retreat and blackmail can only be used when you are DEFENDING.

7) The rules say you cant use a tactics card the same turn you draw them. What does a turn mean? Sounds like the same part of the season to me. Also, does taking a tactics card from another player (as the result of a tactics card) constitute "drawing a tactics card"? For example, I attack someone, and play a tactics card that lets me steal 2 random tactics cards from them. Can I play those 2 cards this turn?

ANSWER: A "player's turn" is defined as any time before, during or after resolving his order card. Therefore if he drew a tactic when resolving his order card, he could not use the tactic until the start of the next player's turn (if timing allows it).
"Drawing cards" includes any time that you gain new cards and add them to your hand. If you steal cards from an opponent, you may not play them until the current player's turn is over.

Great, I'll add these to my thing. #4 is interesting (I got a similar response) as it kind of reverses a previous ruling, in which Corey said that entering an "empty" enemy homeland does not constitute a battle. But the change is nice in that it's consistent now for all enemy realms.

With regards to the "turn" questions, though, I can't help but wonder why those questions came up. A Player's Turn is defined pretty clearly on page 15 of the rules

mateooo said:

You build a development so that the AREA produces one more resource when you play the HARVEST+Supremacy Order Card.

Yet, when you get a BOUNTIFUL HARVEST, the same AREA produces one less resource ???

That's counterintuitive and counterproductive.

My guess is Corey's answer is "no" simply because we would need a newly worded Bountiful Harvest Season Card if ruled otherwise.

mateooo said:

I find this another strange and unnecessary ruling.

Why exactly can't you use Tactics cards as soon as you get them ?

Is there anything broken if you could ?

You can use units as soon as you get it, so why not Tactics cards.

Reinforcement lets you put units in play and potentially use them the same turn.

The Flute of Possession potentially allows you to move neutral units into an area you control and use those same units during the same turn with an order.

So, why can Tactics Cards not be used immediately ? Why this IMO unnecessary restriction ?

Because it's in the rules? Do you need a reason other than that?

broken said:

Actually ... yes.

Because it is a rule doesn't make it a good rule ... and a necessary rule.

I could be convinced of the rule if they gave me a reasonable "why", but I don't see that.

I play a Strategize and draw 2 tactics cards and I can't play them this turn ?

Come on ...

You aren't required to play by the rules in the rulebook, but I don't think it's justified to demand a rationale for each one.

DarkElf said:

The Bountiful Harvest isn't really any different than playing the Harvest without the Supremacy bonus. How is it any less "intuitive" that a resource development doesn't net you the extra resource when playing Harvest orders out-of-sequence?

It's a development. Developments only give you their benefit when you get the Supremacy bonus... period. It would be MORE "counterintuitive" to have Bountiful Harvest give you that one single development bonus, but ignore the rest.

broken said:

I'm not asking a rationale for each rule I come across just for those that strike me as "unnecessary". ( or wrong )

I'm sure the designers use rationale when they're designing the game.

They should have a reason to make this rule. I'm just saying I don't see it and I'd like to hear the why of it as I don't see anything broken if we could use Tactics cards as soon as we get them just like anything else in the game.

So, I'm just interested to hear why Tactics Cards were made an exception.

sigmazero13 said:

Because it's called BOUNTIFUL Harvest and it actually may REDUCE your Food Resources.

I think it's more intuitive if (supposedly ) positive effects give positive effects rather than negative effects.

DarkElf said:

It could just as easily reduce your food resources if your opponent took some of your Food land away, also. How is that any different?

More than once I've had this happen to me or my opponent. The title of the card is just flavor. It doesn't necessarily imply it must be a good effect.

Are you actually building the resource developments?

broken said:

I do when a certain resource isn't close to my home, as a way to supplement it, but I don't rely on them as gamebreakers.

broken said:

Certainly.

A quick view and count at the start of the game tells you what resources you can (probably) take within the first year ( year and a half) and if my count comes up short just 1 resource to get for example 4 or 6 Stone I'll build my Home Stronghold in a Home area containing Stone and build the Resource Improvement there.

Maybe the limitation on tactics card use is just to limit their power. The right card or two at the right moment can be brutal as is.

Agreed. My guess is, it's in the rules because it became an issue at playtesting. I can't imagine a rule like that just being added arbitrarily, unless some problem arose with it.

sigmazero13 said:

That's completely different.

We're not talking about losing resourcesdue to losing an area to an opponent.

We're talking about losing resources due to something that should give you a boost.

sigmazero13 said:

So you're saying the Title doesn't mean or imply anything at all ?

Let's agree to not agree.

sigmazero13 said:

OK, I'm willing to accept that.

Just tell me how it is a problem.

If there is a problem with playing the cards " right away", I think that problem is still there when you play the cards during your next turn.

broken said:

I always play by the rules because the Bible tells me so.

DarkElf said:

No, it's not completely different. In both cases, Bountiful Harvest could "hurt" you rather than help you.

The point is, it's a development. Developments ONLY TRIGGER during the Harvest Supremacy. Bountiful Harvest is not Harvest Supremacy - thus it does not trigger. It's as simple as that.

DarkElf said:

Yes, I'm implying exactly that. The title is a nice bit of flavor, but has no impact on the game at all. The only exception would be if a card makes reference to another card by title. But even then, the title itself isn't important other than as an identifier.

The card could be called "Happy Fields of Foo-Foo Land" or "Doom to All Inhabitants of the Land" and it wouldn't have any impact on how the card was played.

The point is, Corey's ruling is really not surprising, as it goes with what the rules say about the matter anyway. If you don't like it, house rule it. I certainly won't play with such a house rule, as I think it weakens the impact (even if just a little) of the Harvest supremacy bonus. The whole purpose of the Harvest supremacy bonus is that you get... BONUS STUFF!

sigmazero13 said:

Yes, that's right, but if the cards would have that kind of unintuitive titles I'd be calling it poor design.

The title is supposed to give you a HINT or a CLUE as to what it does, but .... you can ideed give it any title you'd like like ... " kjghvkuygfd" ...

If " Bountiful Harvest" isn't supposed to MEAN or INDICATE anything, like you're implying, why did they call it that way then ?

Why didn't they call it " Uncle Sam threw a lot of Horse and Pig manure on the fields this year, or did he ... ? "

I agree, it would be silly to have such stupid titles. My point is, though, that inferring "I should get a bonus because it says "Bountiful" in the title" is just as silly - it implies nothing of the kind. That was my point about the "losing food" bit.

If you PLAY a Harvest Card, you can choose not to do it if it would hurt you (such as by losing an area prior to resolving your order, for instance).

If this card comes up, you MUST resolve it, though. IE, if in Summer, you choose to Harvest, and lose 5 food to other players in the meantime, you could simply choose to not resolve your order card, and not lose the food. If Bountiful Harvest comes up, though, your "Bountiful Harvest" ends up being more of a famine.

The title might suggest a "flavor" of what the card is doing, but it implies nothing about bonus granting or anything other than what the TEXT of the card says. Getting hung up on "A Bountiful Harvest should never hurt you" is not really helpful, because it can just as often hurt as help for several other reasons as well.

I'm NOT arguing that BR can hurt you if you've lost areas in the meantime.

I know that.

I'm arguing that BR hurts you when you have NOT LOST any areas and you have built IMPROVEMENTS.

So you have IMPROVEMENTS + Bountiful Harvest and you end up with LESS

1 + 1 = minus two in this case.

It doesn't make sense. It's not logical.

It's called bountiful harvest because once you reset your dials, you gain one food. It's meant to be beneficial, and usually is. It may not be. As Sigmazero pointed out, why doesn't it make sense that Bountiful Harvest would lower a dial that was previously raised by a development, but it DOES make sense that a Harvest without the supremacy bonus would lower a dial that was previously raised by a development?

DarkElf said:

I still fail to see the difference. A loss is a loss, it doesn't matter where it comes from. You are saying it's unfair that you aren't getting a bonus, really. The Development is a BONUS, not a standard harvest result. This situation is still is no different than playing the Harvest order WITHOUT the Surpemacy bonus.

Well, if you wanted to still gain the benefits of developments with "bountiful harvest" it would nt make sense that you could get more ore, tactics, or influence... 3 things you can also get with developments.

Harvest orders and Bountiful Harvest are terms that are confusing, because by HARVESTING it is possible to LOWER your available resources. They probably would be better described as REASSESSING SUPPLIES (like Game of Thrones). But thats the game. If it makes you happier, just play that developments count with Bountiful Harvest, and then you can also harvest tactics and influence.