Hello there,

I have been following the discussion under the topic problems with the routing/fleeing mechanism

where I found the suggestion to resolve the attacks of multiple ordered units attacking a single target simultaneously

to avoid several advantages for the retreating unit in such a case.

There is another problem where this would help:

The Lannister Commander Gregor Clegane is according to the figure in GRRMs books of course a frightening opponent

and hard to be captured so a Capture Rate of 4 seems appropriate.

But this gives his unit the abilities of a virtually undestroyable tank (especially in scenario 2 where he is red rank).

1. Only red rank units are able to capture him but with a very limited chance even in case of flanking.

2. If he is in a house or wood he cannot be captured. He can break engagements without having to fear the parting blow

except when engaged by red rank unit.

3. So it seems the only way to keep him from doing whatever he wants is to force him to retreat, but this does not really limitate

his motion because he does not have to rally after retreat

I feel that such strong command units spoil game balance.

A simultaneous resolution of multiple attacks would improve this balance.

Gregor and his like would still be hard to catch, but there would be a more realistic chance to get him if you can apply the hits from multiple attacks

Moreover I feel that command units with only the commander left are generally to strong:

For instance : A commander without troops should not be able to attack at all, but still have ZOC and can give orders.

As a tradeoff the unit cannot be engaged at all. An attempt to capture is an attempt to capture, not an engagement

With these modifications You would have to handle Your commander unit with much morec care and not as assault force.

Especially when the commander unit has no other figures left You have to keep it behind the lines to concentrate on their job

and that is ordering an rallying the fighting units.

What is Your understanding of the role of commander units ??

Should they be army killing super heroes on top of their ability to rally and order multiple units and their card-specific advantages ??

Keeping in line with the spirit of the Song of Ice and Fire books the boardgame is based on, I would say that commanders would never be content with issuing orders while standing safely back and let others do the fighting. So I wouldn't agree with your idea that lone commanders can never engage or be engaged.

As for resolving multiple attacks simultaneously: I feel it is too drastic a change in the rules, especially as a means to subvert annoyances with the retreat rule (think of the diminished value of counterattacks or fighting that takes place in a huge clump with multiple possibilities for engagement depending on the flow of battle). I think that people have been looking at "morale" results in the wrong way perhaps feeling that "a result" is supposed to be always a positive result for the attacker. In real medieaval battles the line of battle would wax and wane opening up new spaces and new oppurtunities to gain the upperhand. I think this is nicely represented in the retreat rules. Remember, if they have their retreat hexes blocked a retreating unit can take some massive hits. Also, many battle objectives focus on gaining victory through other means than unit destruction (I mostly play pitched battles and not the skirmishes).

As for "the Mountain that Rides", he really is that strong and fearsome a fighter in the books. If you really want to tone him (and other commanders) down it might be an idea to see their capture rating as "hit points" that they recuparate at the end of a turn. This eliminates the need for resolving multiple attacks simultaneously. I will be sticking with capture rules as you can find them in the rulebook, though.

All in all, I think the Battlelore based rules of BoW are pretty balanced. They provide quite some depth without the need for a massive rulebook like other "more hardcore" wargames.

Well, thoemi, you called it. Good job. And coordinated attacks do level the playing field in an excellent and semi-elegant way.

Myself, I haven't been playing with coordinated attacks. Seems to me like it would increase the likelihood of insta-killing units that fall victim to it, subverting game mechanics like counterattacks.

A simple solution to unkillable commanders is simply to not require them to be killed all in one go. Let them have hitpoints equal to their capture rating. Use order tokens or whatever is convenient to mark inflicted hits. This houserule requires Jaime Lannister's unit ability to be revised too, I've simply ruled that whenever he inflicts at least one hit on a commander, he inflicts an additional one.

Konrad von Richtmark said:

I have used a similar house rule with hit points for commanders, but I like coordinated attacks better. They are still very limited, as you can almost never order more than 3 units at a time. And then your 3 units have to all attack the same target, giving up a lot of dice and attacks in the process, not to mention giving up that 3 unit attack card. Also, 3 blue units add up to 7 dice and it's not hard to whiff against a red unit with 7 dice. I've actually seen the whiff more frequently than the hit in the 4 or 5 times I've ever seen 7 or more dice get rolled.

But, since many games are objective based, it is a necessary rule to move the Mountain or Robb Stark or even Rickard Karstark off an objective, which was nearly impossible and still very unlikely, even with the commander hit points house rule.

The basic flaw with your thinking below is the scope of what each figurine represents. In reality, each command unit would probably be stronger than 3 or 4 individuals, as are represented on our little hexes. There are probably hundreds of soldiers involved in some of these battles being depicted here, but rather than having a one-to-one ratio, the figurines probably represent, say, 20 cavalry members per cavalry figure, or something like that.

So, the Mountain would not be unaccompanied, per se, just because his is the only figure remaining in that command unit.

Consider this - when your command units of archers, for instance, is reduced to one figure, it still has the same number of attack die as when there were more figures on the hex. Could one individual archer hope to do the same amount of damage as a full complement of them? No, it means that that one figurine represents probably a few more than one individual.

-oo-

thoemi said:

Meineymoe, you should try out the "optional" enhanced rules from the FAQ. Among other things, they add reduced strength units and coordinated attacks, which make battles against the "invincible" commanders much more interesting, IMO.

meineymoe said:

Units like the mountain and greatjon only move one space. Sure they hurt when they hit but IMO its not that hard to make them irrelevant to the battle. Id be more afraid of Robb's red cav or actually even rickards blue cav.

isawatsuke said:

True, but sometimes, you have to move a unit off an objective. A coordinated attack is your best chance to do that.

And, just FYI, according to the latest Errata, Greatjon, the Lord of the Dogs is always blue, not red as he is printed sometimes in the scenarios.