What does everyone think about making decisions have less of an "all or nothing" feel?

A few examples:

You can still attack even if you dialed up a charge, but wound up engaged, you just don't hit as hard.

You aren't stopped when you hit terrain on accident, you just slow down a little.

This is one I'm not so sure about, but I kinda like the idea of a "pile in" mechanic. If you miss your charge by a fraction of an inch you can maybe get a panic or a stun to push your unit that little bit extra into combat.

Do you think hurts the decision making in the game too much? I'd like to hear ideas.

I like the precision aspect of the game, personally. And if you soften the rules a little, what keeps you from softening them more? For example, missing a charge by a milimeter hurts, but if you give a 1-2 mm cushion, then landing at 2.4mm becomes the new heartache, so what keeps you from extending it to 3 mm?

It depends on what rule you're talking about.

I've wanted to adjust the rules to remove what I call "rock-scissors-paper" decisions: ones where you know your opponent can do the same thing on multiple initiatives (usually charge), and if you fail to guess which initiative he's going to do it on correctly, you get punished, usually by having your action fizzle. As I mentioned elsewhere, I would like a "Stand" action (prepare for an attack) for most infantry units, so that if you anticipate being charged, you can counterattack during the charge. This still gives your opponent your opportunity to do something unexpected and possibly clever, but removes the head games from the game.

Most other rules I don't really think need softening.

13 hours ago, Xelto said:

As I mentioned elsewhere, I would like a "Stand" action (prepare for an attack) for most infantry units, so that if you anticipate being charged, you can counterattack during the charge.

Quote

This still gives your opponent your opportunity to do something unexpected and possibly clever, but removes the head games from the game.

Legitimately, if this had been the way the game were designed, I would not have played it.

I don't really understand wanting to remove half the game from the game.

36 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

At six points and sucking up your champion slot, I don't consider that a good alternative to poor game design.

If it really comes down to it, I could get by with giving the Reanimates an initiative-9 melee attack, as they were the unit I always seemed to end up losing the coin-flip guessing games with early on. That would do about the same thing, without needing a new icon made.

47 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Legitimately, if this had been the way the game were designed   , I would not have played it.

For my part, I got burned so often early on that if I hadn't been doing testing, I would have quit the game over this one specific issue.

Yeah, I think my biggest problem with what @Hepitude describes (and @Xelto) is that I don't get to play as much as I'd like. This means that 1) I don't have the practice to understand my best options for either avoiding those situations or dealing with them, and 2) they make a bigger impact because the one time I get to play in a 2-week period, I get my face smashed in my missing charges are incorrectly guessing what my opponent will do.

If we had a weekly game night with lots of opportunities for games, these experiences wouldn't sting so much, and I'd be able to learn to adapt to them better. But even without that, I have won my fair share of charges and guessing games, and it just feels so good when you get it right!

I would side with @Tvayumat on this one. The fog of war and botched dials (like selecting ranged attack with your archers, and then having no target) is one of my favorite parts of the game. I wouldn't want to take that away.

Admittedly, in the heydey of my local scene (San Antonio at the time) we briefly had a VERY healthy community of 30+ with at least 10 regular weekly players.

When you can play a LOT the charge/countercharge mechanic becomes a matter of reading your opponent. Is my opponent a trickster? Is he a "play it safe" statistician? What does he/she think of me? These questions, when made relevant through gameplay, are the beating heart of tactical battle games.

Some of the absolute most amazing moments, clinch wins, and unbelievable turnarounds have happened because one player was able to read the other and counter-punch when least expected. The Fog of War made Runewars into a game of skill. One you have to actually practice actively, and not just theorycraft (though obviously form follows theory).

This also means that with a meagre and starved play group, it can easily be frustrating. Personally, I'd NEVER balance a game around having no players.

15 minutes ago, Glucose98 said:

I would side with @Tvayumat on this one. The fog of war and botched dials (like selecting ranged attack with your archers, and then having no target) is one of my favorite parts of the game. I wouldn't want to take that away.

My suggestion wouldn't take that away. If you select "Stand", but your opponent doesn't charge you, that's a botched dial.

"Stand" isn't intended to stop bluffing or fog of war. It's intended to stop cheesy gain-advantage-through-rules-abuse guessing games. If I plan to have my unit hold their ground, they should be able to do so whether the attack comes at initiative four or at initiative five.

I am definitely not wading into the details of this thread, but I'll drop in to say I agree with most of the others here; I'm not personally interested in any attempts to remove the "just hit" or "just missed" from the game or removing any of the head games. The head games (guessing what your opponent will do and dialing the correct counter) in particular are part of what make this game better than the others; without them, I could just go play Warhammer.

1 hour ago, Xelto said:

"Stand" isn't intended to stop bluffing or fog of war. It's intended to stop cheesy gain-advantage-through-rules-abuse guessing games.

Gain advantage through rules abuse?

What exactly about "playing the game better than your opponent" is rules abuse?

USING the rules and being better at using the rules is PRECISELY the way a player is meant to gain advantage over their opponent. It sounds like you want(ed) a vastly more predictable game. I'd caution that this is more like many other games whose victor is determined in list building rather than during gameplay.

Quote

If I plan to have my unit hold their ground, they should be able to do so whether the attack comes at initiative four or at initiative five. 

Nothing in the game mechanics prevents this, though. I gather from the response to File Leader that you don't like paying an opportunity cost for your preferred playstyle (6 pts and a champion slot) but this game is fundamentally all about choices and opportunity cost, and those mechanics allow people to vary their armies quite a bit. Furthermore, I think this is already worked into the design space. Units with late initiative attacks and high defense would be ideal for receiving charges.

What the game needs is a delay token that any unit can use.

When you would activate, instead gain a delay token. At initiative 10 a unit must spend it's delay token to activate to perform its dialed action without a modifier.

Fixes the major balance problem I have with this game where cavalry in particular are exceptionally good because they have movement earlier than other unis, later than other units, further than other units, and hit harder than other units. No more of this I can charge you, you can't charge me, and I can charge you after you have opportunity to attack nonsense that can make infantry redundant for a whole turn.

53 minutes ago, Qark said:

What the game needs is a delay token that any unit can use.

When you would activate, instead gain a delay token. At initiative 10 a unit must spend it's delay token to activate to perform its dialed action without a modifier.

Fixes the major balance problem I have with this game where cavalry in particular are exceptionally good because they have movement earlier than other unis, later than other units, further than other units, and hit harder than other units. No more of this I can charge you, you can't charge me, and I can charge you after you have opportunity to attack nonsense that can make infantry redundant for a whole turn.

You would end up with large numbers of units all trying to activate at the same time with a delay token. Wouldn't "fix" dial chicken at all but probably exasperbate it

7 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

USING the rules and being better at using the rules is PRECISELY the way a player is meant to gain advantage over their opponent. It sounds like you want(ed) a vastly more predictable game. I'd caution that this is more like many other games whose victor is determined in list building rather than during gameplay.

Poor wording on my part. Substitute "Abusing sloppy game design" for "Abusing the rules" in what I said.

Quote

I gather from the response to File Leader that you don't like paying an opportunity cost for your preferred playstyle (6 pts and a champion slot) but this game is fundamentally all about choices and opportunity cost, and those mechanics allow people to vary their armies quite a bit.

File leader isn't the answer. The problem is that the situations I'm talking about—one of your units is facing an opposing unit who is in total control of the situation, which can do a 'clever move' to cause your unit to lose its activation, unless your unit also does its own clever move (in which you risk losing your activation if the first unit didn't do a clever move)—doesn't happen every game. Probably not every other game. In most games there are enough other units on the board that can influence the situation that 'clever moves' come with more risks than just being a simple guessing game.

It does, however, happen often enough that everyone here should be familiar with the situation.

I don't mind losing the game because I got outplayed. I don't mind losing the game because of bad luck. But I hate losing the game because I lost a guessing game. And yes, I've had multiple games where I ended up conceding early after one of my high-cost units lost the guessing game and got mangled bad enough that I didn't stand a realistic chance of winning. They're really memorable events, but not the fun type of memories.

Winning because I took advantage of a loophole isn't precisely satisfying, either, since I'm taking advantage of the design, not outplaying/outlucking my opponent. I've done it, since it's part of the game, but that doesn't mean I think the loopholes are any better when I win with them.

Bringing this back to File Leader: there are builds that can use it effectively. But if all you're using it for is insurance, it's expensive insurance for a situation that doesn't come up all that often. And when it does work, all that ends up happening is that the guy charges at the initiative he normally would do it at, instead of delaying, so it's not much of a net gain. You're more likely to lose a game because you didn't buy something else with the points/upgrade slot than you are to win because you had your insurance handy.

58 minutes ago, rebellightworks said:

You would end up with large numbers of units all trying to activate at the same time with a delay token. Wouldn't "fix" dial chicken at all but probably exasperbate it

I disagree but admittedly I haven't actually played a game with the rule.

The key part is if you delay you don't get to charge because of canceling the modifier. Delay can really only be used for attacking a unit after it charges and attacks you (so file leader still has utility as that triggers before the charger attacks) or pushing up the table with a late move so you aren't forced to move into range of a charge or ranged attack that occurs after all your movement options have expired. I can see delay being used a lot in early turns but I don't see a problem with that. The players start alternating activations just like ties at any other tie in initiative.

Once units are at that distance where charges can occur that charger won't want to delay because then they wont get an attack off but allowing the defender to delay an attack prevents units like oathsworn from charging at an 7 and attacking again next turn at a 3, which with a few upgrades can easily wipe out a unit with very little risk. The defender could also delay a flanking infantry unit so when the oathsworn charge in the flanking unit can bump the side. The flanker won't get an attack that round but is then in a good position for next round.

Delay would also give ranged units a bit of a buff. Always seemed silly to me that a group of cav could wait until arches have passed their shooting initiative to do a 4+2 move and then charge at a 3 before archers can shoot next turn. Thematically it makes more sense to me that the archers can just wait until the cavalry are in range and mechanically I think they need the buff. Now you have a bit of back and forth with delaying moving units and shooting units. Controlling how you delay and with how many units becomes a bit of strategy of its own.

Unintended consequences of delay include thinks like aggressive music upgrades that would allow units to charge. So maybe a delayed unit doesn't get any upgrades when it activates?

You want delay to cancel modifier and upgrades?

I'll pass on ever using it.

Theme is great and all, but shouldn't get in the way of solid game mechanics. Otherwise we'd all be running hundreds of archers until firearms get invented. One of the best aspects of this game is limited timing windows on unit activation. It makes decisions and choices have real impact. Being able to dictate whenever you want X unit to do Y action at your convenience would make for a dull game. Now, this is all my opinion after all.

11 hours ago, Xelto said:

My suggestion wouldn't take that away. If you select "Stand", but your opponent doesn't charge you, that's a botched dial.

"Stand" isn't intended to stop bluffing or fog of war. It's intended to stop cheesy gain-advantage-through-rules-abuse guessing games. If I plan to have my unit hold their ground, they should be able to do so whether the attack comes at initiative four or at initiative five.

So, how is that different from selecting attack, other than resolving the attack after the charge?

17 hours ago, Xelto said:

My suggestion wouldn't take that away. If you select "Stand", but your opponent doesn't charge you, that's a botched dial.

"Stand" isn't intended to stop bluffing or fog of war. It's intended to stop cheesy gain-advantage-through-rules-abuse guessing games. If I plan to have my unit hold their ground, they should be able to do so whether the attack comes at initiative four or at initiative five.

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

So, how is that different from selecting attack, other than resolving the attack after the charge?

It mostly isn't, actually. Except that you're capable of hitting back at later initiatives.

Look at this thematically for a moment. The commander shouts out, "Here they come, boys! Get ready!"
So the boys get their spears/clubs/swords out, swing wildly... then put their weapons away.
And then the enemy arrives. Who they don't swing at.

This doesn't really make sense.

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

Now, there's been a lot of people disliking my idea. So how about a different approach, that solves the same problem?

Give Reanimates, Rune Golems, Darnati Warriors, Berserkers, and possibly a few of the heroes a late (initiative 8 or 9) melee attack, in addition to their current one.

Does this work for people?

(I would have included Carrion Lancers and Scions on the list, except that their dials are full, and with an initiative 5 attack, they've got less need for a late-turn one. Spearmen already have an initiative-7 attack. And, in case it needs to be said , I don't think that either this or my original idea is a good idea to make part of our community errata at the moment. It's too much of a change for the early stages. I'm mostly talking in theoretics at the moment, with the possibility of bringing the topic up some time down the road.)

29 minutes ago, Xelto said:

It mostly isn't, actually. Except that you're capable of hitting back at later initiatives.

Look at this thematically for a moment. The commander shouts out, "Here they come, boys! Get ready!"
So the boys get their spears/clubs/swords out, swing wildly... then put their weapons away.
And then the enemy arrives. Who they don't swing at.

This doesn't really make sense.

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

Now, there's been a lot of people disliking my idea. So how about a different approach, that solves the same problem?

Give Reanimates, Rune Golems, Darnati Warriors, Berserkers, and possibly a few of the heroes a late (initiative 8 or 9) melee attack, in addition to their current one.

Does this work for people?

(I would have included Carrion Lancers and Scions on the list, except that their dials are full, and with an initiative 5 attack, they've got less need for a late-turn one. Spearmen already have an initiative-7 attack. And, in case it needs to be said , I don't think that either this or my original idea is a good idea to make part of our community errata at the moment. It's too much of a change for the early stages. I'm mostly talking in theoretics at the moment, with the possibility of bringing the topic up some time down the road.)

Most infantry have a later swing speed than most movement (and thus charge options).

ie quick moves for cavalry that can charge are generally low initiative counts (3-4 usually at speeds 1-2) (a very few have truly late turn options)

heavy hitting infantry attacks are typically initiatives 5 (reanimates) or 7 (Spearmen)

The choice is simple: If you think your opponent plans to short charge you this round, use a later imitative attack to get your licks in, or in the case of reanimates, maybe bet the farm on your fastest activation to increase defense, and then counterattack the next turn.

If you think the opponent might long charge, later initiative, use a fast initiative movement to thwart them.

I may be in the minority, but I like the rock, paper, scissors choice your face each turn. If you know you’re going to be charged before you can act, dial in your melee and take it. More importantly, have a unit on your flank to react to that. Have it dial in a later charge so it can hit the 1st charging unit in the flank. That type of interlocking defense and planning is what attracted me to the game.

I certainly appreciate that some folks may appreciate a more “skirmish” feel to the game where each unit’s actions are more independent and which therefore reduces some of this planning. I think of Song of Fire & Ice as a comparison. Movement is super flexible (I would argue too flexible, but that’s just me 😉 ) but not entirely free-form as in most skirmish games. It certainly make the game more accommodating to new players and those who want a more intuitive experience.

1 hour ago, sarumanthewhite said:

I may be in the minority, but I like the rock, paper, scissors choice your face each turn. If you know you’re going to be charged before you can act, dial in your melee and take it. More importantly, have a unit on your flank to react to that. Have it dial in a later charge so it can hit the 1st charging unit in the flank. That type of interlocking defense and planning is what attracted me to the game.

I certainly appreciate that some folks may appreciate a more “skirmish” feel to the game where each unit’s actions are more independent and which therefore reduces some of this planning. I think of Song of Fire & Ice as a comparison. Movement is super flexible (I would argue too flexible, but that’s just me 😉 ) but not entirely free-form as in most skirmish games. It certainly make the game more accommodating to new players and those who want a more intuitive experience.

I agree with you and I do really like the harsh decision making involved in Runewars.

The issue is, it is pretty punishing for new players and doesn't always make intuitive sense if the new players thinks they're stepping into a pure miniatures game. I think of Runewars as a miniatures game with board-game rules and as I said, I like this a lot. However, I think it would be nice to have a more "traditional" skirmish style set of rules for new players or just if you're in the mood for that. That's why I was looking for tweaks that would make the game more intuitive.

3 hours ago, Xelto said:

It mostly isn't, actually. Except that you're capable of hitting back at later initiatives.

Look at this thematically for a moment. The commander shouts out, "Here they come, boys! Get ready!"
So the boys get their spears/clubs/swords out, swing wildly... then put their weapons away.
And then the enemy arrives. Who they don't swing at.

This doesn't really make sense.

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

Now, there's been a lot of people disliking my idea. So how about a different approach, that solves the same problem?

Give Reanimates, Rune Golems, Darnati Warriors, Berserkers, and possibly a few of the heroes a late (initiative 8 or 9) melee attack, in addition to their current one.

Does this work for people?

(I would have included Carrion Lancers and Scions on the list, except that their dials are full, and with an initiative 5 attack, they've got less need for a late-turn one. Spearmen already have an initiative-7 attack. And, in case it needs to be said , I don't think that either this or my original idea is a good idea to make part of our community errata at the moment. It's too much of a change for the early stages. I'm mostly talking in theoretics at the moment, with the possibility of bringing the topic up some time down the road.)

Xelto, what do you think of the idea of giving each unit an attack action if their dial is canceled? Something like "if you cannot perform your action you may instead perform a melee attack using half your dice (round down)."

That way, clever play is still rewarded, but you don't feel quite as punished by having guessed wrong. It also wouldn't require modifying any dials.

I think you’re certainly onto something for newer players or those that want a more-forgiving, skirmish-style approach. It could be a default set of actions any unit can take place instead of it’s current dial or something. Some of the options may be:

1) Attack at -1 dice (maybe let the opponent choose the die or something)

2) Shift 1 forward or 1 backward (but not sideways)

3) Reform (up to 45 degrees left or right)

4) ...

We certainly don’t want to remove the planning aspect of the game, but as you stated, if we could make it more forgiving for newer players, they may not feel quite so bad if they make the wrong choice...

Good discussion topic... 👏

3 hours ago, Hepitude said:

Xelto, what do you think of the idea of giving each unit an attack action if their dial is canceled? Something like "if you cannot perform your action you may instead perform a melee attack using half your dice (round down)."

I'm not really warm to it. I've made arguments in the past for things like it in the past, but the counter-arguments raised have moved me away from it.

Quote

That way, clever play is still rewarded, but you don't feel quite as punished by having guessed wrong.

Before I respond to that, b ased on the phrasing people have used when responding to me, I'm fairly certain that, while some people understand fully what I mean by "rock-scissors-paper" and "guessing games", that a number of other people aren't. So, just to see if I can clarify this, let me give a couple quick examples. This is, to me, a rock-scissors-paper situation:

This, to me, is not:

The difference being that in the first example, it's two units separated from the remainder of combat in some way. The spearman, having initiative, controls the situation. His most likely action is an initiative 4 charge. So the most likely response from the Darnati is an initiative 4 melee, counterattacking after the charge. But the spearman can mix things up by charging at initiative 5 instead, preventing the counterattack. Of course, the Darnati can charge at 4 instead. Only if the spearmen aren't mixing things up, that action is wasted.

It's not strategy, it's a guessing game. It's like rock-scissors-paper where the Daqan player can only throw rock and paper, and the Latari player can only throw rock and scissors. Rock is a perfectly safe choice for Daqan, so it's what he's probably going to do, so rock is probably the best choice for the Latari player, but that means... (and on and on)

But in the second example, it's possible that the Ventala to the side will dial in an initiative 4 ranged attack. This means that, while the spearman can try a surprise delay-to-initiative-5 move, it comes with more risks. Will the Ventala fire? At range 4, that's a single die only, so maybe, maybe not. If the spearmen charge on initiative 4, the Darnati have to take a morale-1 test if the javelins fly, and who knows, if they don't charge first and the Ventala do fire, there's the possibility that an unlucky morale test will give the spearmen an immobilize or stun before they can attack.

In short, in the second example, there's still a guessing game going on, but it becomes more about calculated risks instead of "Can I pull off a fast one?" I like the second situation; it's what I think makes the game what it is. I just want some way to remove situations like the first one, but without messing up most of the game.

So, moving back to the question of allowing cancelled charges to give you a partial attack: I think that being outmaneuvered should be fully punished. And the number of times that a charge is going to be cancelled because of being outmaneuvered far outweighs the number of times that you're going to fail in a pure guessing situation. So no, I don't recommend doing it. The potential damage outweighs the potential good, in my opinion.

Quote

It also wouldn't require modifying any dials.

Well, that's the reason I said that I wouldn't recommend any of my solutions in the reasonably near future, as well, and am mostly talking in theoretics here. Disappointing, but sometimes reality is rough.

Especially disappointing because, based on the way the Ardus thread has gone, a second, late-turn attack for him might be a great solution for the minor buff people want to give him. But, once again, I think that practicalities mean that it's not the solution for him.

3 hours ago, Xelto said:

I'm not really warm to it. I've made arguments in the past for things like it in the past, but the counter-arguments raised have moved me away from it.

Before I respond to that, b ased on the phrasing people have used when responding to me, I'm fairly certain that, while some people understand fully what I mean by "rock-scissors-paper" and "guessing games", that a number of other people aren't. So, just to see if I can clarify this, let me give a couple quick examples. This is, to me, a rock-scissors-paper situation:

This, to me, is not:

The difference being that in the first example, it's two units separated from the remainder of combat in some way. The spearman, having initiative, controls the situation. His most likely action is an initiative 4 charge. So the most likely response from the Darnati is an initiative 4 melee, counterattacking after the charge. But the spearman can mix things up by charging at initiative 5 instead, preventing the counterattack. Of course, the Darnati can charge at 4 instead. Only if the spearmen aren't mixing things up, that action is wasted.

It's not strategy, it's a guessing game. It's like rock-scissors-paper where the Daqan player can only throw rock and paper, and the Latari player can only throw rock and scissors. Rock is a perfectly safe choice for Daqan, so it's what he's probably going to do, so rock is probably the best choice for the Latari player, but that means... (and on and on)

But in the second example, it's possible that the Ventala to the side will dial in an initiative 4 ranged attack. This means that, while the spearman can try a surprise delay-to-initiative-5 move, it comes with more risks. Will the Ventala fire? At range 4, that's a single die only, so maybe, maybe not. If the spearmen charge on initiative 4, the Darnati have to take a morale-1 test if the javelins fly, and who knows, if they don't charge first and the Ventala do fire, there's the possibility that an unlucky morale test will give the spearmen an immobilize or stun before they can attack.

In short, in the second example, there's still a guessing game going on, but it becomes more about calculated risks instead of "Can I pull off a fast one?" I like the second situation; it's what I think makes the game what it is. I just want some way to remove situations like the first one, but without messing up most of the game.

So, moving back to the question of allowing cancelled charges to give you a partial attack: I think that being outmaneuvered should be fully punished. And the number of times that a charge is going to be cancelled because of being outmaneuvered far outweighs the number of times that you're going to fail in a pure guessing situation. So no, I don't recommend doing it. The potential damage outweighs the potential good, in my opinion.

Well, that's the reason I said that I wouldn't recommend any of my solutions in the reasonably near future, as well, and am mostly talking in theoretics here. Disappointing, but sometimes reality is rough.

Especially disappointing because, based on the way the Ardus thread has gone, a second, late-turn attack for him might be a great solution for the minor buff people want to give him. But, once again, I think that practicalities mean that it's not the solution for him.

I’m confused by your phrasing. Do you mean to suggest that Rocks-paper-scissors isn’t a guessing game?

I am also not going to spend a lot of time digging in to each post in this thread, but a lot of these suggestions seem to take away some of the things that make Runewars unique.

If you come up short on a charge, you should have the consequences (especially since you can measure!). You'll know if it's definitely in, definitely out, or too close to tell. If it's too close to tell, you either decide to do it knowing you might fail, or do something else.

If you dial in a charge but get charged first, then your opponent outplayed you. You can see the board state, reference the dials for their units, and know it's a possibility when you set your dials. You have all the information you need to make a decision. If you don't think your opponent will do it and they surprise you, then nicely played on their part.

If you hit some terrain, that's on you as well. It doesn't move -- you know where it is, what your units can do and how big they are. Like charging -- if you think it's too close to tell, either accept that you might hit it or don't do that move. This can also be solved with some maneuvering practice and play experience.

These are core design elements of the game that make it what it is. Take those away, and it's a different game.

As far as the rock-paper-scissors discussions -- yes, there are turns and activations where it feels like you have a guessing game against your opponent. It's not fun to guess wrong, and feels great when you guess right. Two points about this:

1. You are guessing with full information when you set your dials. You know the initiative, the runes and what all the units on the board can do and when.

2. The guessing game situations are arrived at through prior decisions -- so they are a direct result of strategy.

On 1/23/2019 at 3:29 PM, Xelto said:

Before I respond to that, b ased on the phrasing people have used when responding to me, I'm fairly certain that, while some people understand fully what I mean by "rock-scissors-paper" and "guessing games", that a number of other people aren't. So, just to see if I can clarify this, let me give a couple quick examples. This is, to me, a rock-scissors-paper situation:

    

On 1/23/2019 at 3:29 PM, Xelto said:

It's not strategy, it's a guessing game. It's like rock-scissors-paper where the Daqan player can only throw rock and paper, and the Latari player can only throw rock and scissors. Rock is a perfectly safe choice for Daqan, so it's what he's probably going to do, so rock is probably the best choice for the Latari player, but that means... (and on and on)

This imaginary game state, which does now have elements of a guessing game, was arrived at through strategy decisions. From the point of view of the Latari player, let's consider the prior turn. Spearmen are somewhere in front of me. I know a certain range of where they can end up. They could move one forward or sideways, or two through four forward. What do I think they will do? And if that's what I think they'll do, how do I put my Darnati in a position where I have the advantage? If my goal is to fight the Spearmen next turn, and they'll have initiative, maybe I want to be at range one so I win the charge on initiative three. But if I am at range one, and they know I can win the charge, they could dial in the initiative seven attack with hit mod -- do I want that to happen? Or they could rally and defense up to soften my charge. Maybe instead of trying to close to range one, I actually dial in a late march plus shift, hoping to catch them off-guard by just colliding so I can swing with a modded attack next turn. But then I know that they have options -- they can swing earlier (and can knock my threat down with a decent roll), rally and defense up to absorb some of my hit if they just want to hold me up, or take the losses from my swing and attack on seven, but likely with only one tray left. In some of these scenarios, the Darnati can probably gain the upper hand, but they would have had to take a different approach to the turn you are illustrating. All these decisions are informed by the rest of the game as well, and both players' overall plan of how to win.

Of course, maybe I don't want my Darnati going head-to-head with the Spearmen anyway, so maybe I should have done things on prior turns that allowed me to try to outmaneuver them.

I know you were just trying to illustrate a point with a visual representation of what you mean, and I am not trying to pick apart your setup -- I know it's not meant to represent a real game state. My point is that when the game gets to a point of guessing, you can't separate that from strategy because that's how you got there. In your example, my response would be that the Daqan player made the better decisions leading up to this turn, and the Latari player made decisions that got them to a spot they don't want to be in, so that's why the Darnati ended up on the bad end of a guessing game.