Small World of Warcraft - Available now! Small World of Warcraft - Available now!

Forums

Search
Forums » BattleLore - English » Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1628
Registered:
May 2004
Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Mon, 10 December 2007 17:03
Was looking through the commander landmark and found the following odd :

"An enemy unit occupying your stronghold or standing next to it DOES NOT GAIN the stronghold's boost to Morale."

Obviously have no qualms with the enemy next to it aspect. But if an enemy does occupy the stronghold (and thus the owner loses the special effect - a command card), it seems the above indicates that an enemy troop IN the Stronghold is not bold. Is that correct (even though all the other landmarks do allow that) ??

Also if there is an enemy in the Stronghold, does the original owner's troops that are NEXT to it still able to get the benefits of the Stronghold landmark ? Based on the text in the Stronghold text on page 68 in the rules, it would seem to indicate that is the case as well.

Lastly, it seems the Stronghold is the ONLY landmark that is outside the normal rules in that it is placed in a square with a unit in the square (not sure about Ramparts - don't have the specialist cards with me - and thus maybe it's a trait for all commander landmarks perhaps?!?) Alas I missed that (since I was looking at the beginning of the landmark section - page 63-64 = which doesn't state that). Wonder how many other people might have missed that!!

Cab

[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 17:04]

      
Willange
Member

User Pages
Posts: 39
Registered:
November 2007
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Mon, 10 December 2007 18:38
I have no idea on your third question, but I think you're right about the first two. Although my brother and I will probably make a house rule going against the second one. I think that if you take their stronghold they lose one command, you get nothing, and they can be bold whilst retaking it. That last one about them being bold even when you've taken their stronghold is the one that I think is really dumb. Like I said before we'll probably make a house rule about that one because otherwise it'd be to hard to hold on to the enemy stronghold.
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Mon, 10 December 2007 18:49
Caboose wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 17:03

Lastly, it seems the Stronghold is the ONLY landmark that is outside the normal rules in that it is placed in a square with a unit in the square... Wonder how many other people might have missed that!!

Well I missed it too. Shocked
It also took me some time to realize that both players can have a Stronghold in play, as opposed to Lore Master Landmarks...
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1628
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Mon, 10 December 2007 19:58
William Lange wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:38

I have no idea on your third question, but I think you're right about the first two. Although my brother and I will probably make a house rule going against the second one. I think that if you take their stronghold they lose one command, you get nothing, and they can be bold whilst retaking it. That last one about them being bold even when you've taken their stronghold is the one that I think is really dumb. Like I said before we'll probably make a house rule about that one because otherwise it'd be to hard to hold on to the enemy stronghold.


William, I agree about the enemy NOT being bold while taking the Stronghold, since the "general" landmark rules usually allows the occupant (be it enemy or owner) of the landmark square to be bold. (Note I put "general" in quotes).

Obviously the owner is the ONLY one to be able to use the special power of the landmark. No question there. But is the Stronghold "special" power is allowing the owner to still be bold when next to it as well when occupied ?!? Rules seem to say Yes, and that just doesn't seem to make sense.

Also is the Stronghold the exception to the rule of occupant (more so for the enemy) being bold??

Cab
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1628
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Mon, 10 December 2007 20:03
dbc- wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:49

Caboose wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 17:03

Lastly, it seems the Stronghold is the ONLY landmark that is outside the normal rules in that it is placed in a square with a unit in the square... Wonder how many other people might have missed that!!

Well I missed it too. Shocked
It also took me some time to realize that both players can have a Stronghold in play, as opposed to Lore Master Landmarks...


Dbc, I would have included yours in the post above, but wanted to bring out something that might have been missed as well. Notice there is a different section in landmarks called "Commander's Landmarks" and includes the Rampart as well.

I believe Ramparts are usually included in the scenario if at all and I don't believe there is a specialist card that allows one to place them. But should I be wrong and if there is a specialist card that allows it (I know there is an Archer Stake card), do those also get placed in a square with a unit on them as well ??

Cab

[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 20:04]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Mon, 10 December 2007 21:38
Funny, all of the above came up in a game this morning. I think I'm pretty clear on all the mechanics involved with the Stronghold. The only one I don't have a large degree of certainty on is whether the Stronghold placement is restricted to the third or fourth row like other landmarks. I can't recall exactly where I got the impression that it was not restricted by row, just wondered what everybody else thought (though I think this is one of the questions asked of DoW by ColtsFan).

[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 21:38]

      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1628
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Tue, 11 December 2007 02:50
Well I've asked about it in the past because I had seen in the rules about the enemy getting no benefits of it. And that seemed odd, based on reading a few pages ahead about the fact that landmarks made the occupant bold, etc.

And unless I see otherwise, I would think the 3rd or 4th row placement would still apply. If it didn't, I would think that in the Stronghold section, they would have stated something to the fact of "place it in ANY occupied square in ANY row on your side" (or something to that effect). And usually you have some unit in the 3rd or 4th row (even if using CtA). So I don't think that would be hard to do - of course it would restrict on where you could place it though.

As for Bold for enemy in Stronghold, ALL of the other landmarks state it is Bold for ANY unit. ONLY the Stronghold states it is for a friendly unit that gets bold. So it seems that perhaps that was the intention - to not allow the enemy on a Stronghold to be Bold. If that is the case (and I'm just sounding this outloud), the owner does lose a command card due to enemy's occupancy. And thus would make it EASIER for the owner to remove the enemy if it was NOT bold due to being in a landmark and get back it's cc card. Sure the owner would be down a choice of a cc card for a turn (or a few, depending if one selects the only card for that section), but was that the REAL intent for a Stronghold ??

And to make matters worse (or for a good laugh), look at the Healing Pool. One section states if the unit battles it cannot use the healing pool's power. But in the special section, it states if you order a Weakened unit to move onto the Healing Pool, it is immediately restored to its maximum number of figures. (bold added) Okay, which is it - immediate or not?? Also it states no combat restrictions (Likewise with Magic Pentacle) - so thus is it still a max of 2 dice in/out too ? The statement for the 2 landmarks would seem to indicate No!! Very very confusing since all the other landmarks state the combat restrictions.

Cab
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Tue, 11 December 2007 14:51
Caboose wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 18:50


And unless I see otherwise, I would think the 3rd or 4th row placement would still apply. If it didn't, I would think that in the Stronghold section, they would have stated something to the fact of "place it in ANY occupied square in ANY row on your side" (or something to that effect). And usually you have some unit in the 3rd or 4th row (even if using CtA). So I don't think that would be hard to do - of course it would restrict on where you could place it though.


Now I remember why I thought (think Wink ) no row restrictions on the Stronghold: The bit about placing the "Lore Master's Landmarks" in the third or fourth row of an unoccupied countryside hex does not get stated along with the rest of the overarching rules concerning landmarks in general (namely: Movement restrictions, combat restrictions, block los, etc.), but after the header "Lore Master's Landmarks". Originally I thought that the Stronghold also came under the category (say it again, everybody) "Lore Master's Landmarks", seeing as how the Commander is a Lore Master and all. However, the way the Player's Guide is set up (which still leaves plenty of room for ambiguity, so if all this I'm laying out ends up being a lot of hot air, surprised I will not be), after the overarching rules for Landmarks are set out (and then followed by being broken by the majority of the Landmarks Laughing [see later comments in this, what is turning out to be, twistingly neverending post]), the Guide then breaks the Landmarks into three seemingly separate categories: (one more time with feeling now:) "Lore Master's Landmarks", "Commander's Landmarks", and "Creature's Lairs".

In both the "Lore Master's Landmarks" and "Creature's Lairs" sections the third or fourth row restriction and empty countryside hex restriction are explicitly given. In the "Commander's Landmark" section, and then under the "Stronghold" section is where the condition that the Stronghold tile must be placed on an occupied countryside hex. No row restriction is found in that same section. Now, I do think it would've been nice to be explict that there are no such row restrictions (if, in fact, that is the case Very Happy ), but it seems to me that it is DoW's style (at least in BL) to not tell one if there is not a restriction or deviation from previously set forth rules. So to me, the question is: Is the row restriction a blanket restriction for all Landmarks, or is it a restriction for "Lore Master's Landmarks" and "Creature's Lairs" but not for "Commander's Landmarks". I think the intent is for the latter, but clearly from the lengths I've just gone to show why I feel so, it is not clear cut.

Quote:

As for Bold for enemy in Stronghold, ALL of the other landmarks state it is Bold for ANY unit. ONLY the Stronghold states it is for a friendly unit that gets bold. So it seems that perhaps that was the intention - to not allow the enemy on a Stronghold to be Bold. If that is the case (and I'm just sounding this outloud), the owner does lose a command card due to enemy's occupancy. And thus would make it EASIER for the owner to remove the enemy if it was NOT bold due to being in a landmark and get back it's cc card. Sure the owner would be down a choice of a cc card for a turn (or a few, depending if one selects the only card for that section), but was that the REAL intent for a Stronghold ??


I think so, yes. It is difficult to overrun and control an enemy's stronghold, and I think the mechanics reflect that.

Quote:

And to make matters worse (or for a good laugh), look at the Healing Pool. One section states if the unit battles it cannot use the healing pool's power. But in the special section, it states if you order a Weakened unit to move onto the Healing Pool, it is immediately restored to its maximum number of figures. (bold added) Okay, which is it - immediate or not?? Also it states no combat restrictions (Likewise with Magic Pentacle) - so thus is it still a max of 2 dice in/out too ? The statement for the 2 landmarks would seem to indicate No!! Very very confusing since all the other landmarks state the combat restrictions.


"No combat restrictions" is the statement of the combat restrictions for both the Healing Pool and Magic Pentacle (or maybe I miss your intended statement here). I do find it a bit confusing that in the Player's Guide the overarching rules are set forth for landmarks and then four out of the eight mentioned landmarks (or five out of nine, if one counts the Secret Passages as two separate landmarks Wink ) break those rules (albeit explicitly stated that they do so). I think it is written this way to establish a situation where if a tile is known to be a landmark, player's can expect it to behave a certain way, unless it is stated specifically otherwise. And, I think that's a good way to go about it for a game that intends to expand and expand and expand...


[Updated on: Tue, 11 December 2007 15:05]

      
Willange
Member

User Pages
Posts: 39
Registered:
November 2007
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Wed, 12 December 2007 18:51
I agree that the Healing Pool one is a bit weird. I guess you just use whichever one you want at the moment. Very Happy It makes the most sense to me that it would be immediate. If not that makes the Healing Pool pretty weak. Then, that could be the intention since the Priest has the most level-related cards. Maybe they made the landmark super weak to balance the Priest.

*Topic drift*
By the way, am I the only one who thinks lvl 2 warrior is pointless? He has an awesome landmark and good lvl 1 capabilities, but I don't see lvl 2 as being worthwhile at all.

[Updated on: Wed, 12 December 2007 18:52]

      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1628
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Wed, 12 December 2007 19:33
William Lange wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 10:51



*Topic drift*
By the way, am I the only one who thinks lvl 2 warrior is pointless? He has an awesome landmark and good lvl 1 capabilities, but I don't see lvl 2 as being worthwhile at all.


Well there are only 2 Warrior Lore cards that are level dependent - Cry Havoc (if level 2 or more, get +1 dice / level) and Beserk (+1 dice / level). But also both do allow for additional items (Cry Havoc allows lore symbols to hit, Beserk - bonus strikes are rerolled for more possible hits) even if one has level 1 Warrior.

Also I seem to recall there was a specialist card that was dependent on the Warrior level, but I don't recall it's name at the moment.

Thus I wouldn't say it is weak, but there isn't much benefit (basically +1 more dice for the 2 above cards) for a level 2 warrior.

Cab
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Thu, 13 December 2007 00:56
William Lange wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 10:51

I agree that the Healing Pool one is a bit weird. I guess you just use whichever one you want at the moment. Very Happy It makes the most sense to me that it would be immediate. If not that makes the Healing Pool pretty weak. Then, that could be the intention since the Priest has the most level-related cards. Maybe they made the landmark super weak to balance the Priest.



I'm at home now, and I'll check the rule book to be sure I'm saying this correctly, but the "immediately" part, I believe, is just in there to tell when the healing action occurs and tile is removed during the course of the turn, if it is chosen to be used to heal. A wounded unit may be ordered onto the healing pool and choose not to heal. If it does that, it will be allowed to battle (and with an unrestricted [by the pool] amount of dice). Something that I initially lost track of was that a unit must have been ordered to use the pool. I.e. if a unit during an opponent's turn is forced to retreat upon the pool it may not use its healing power at that time.

(I do have a couple of questions about the healing pool that I had forgotten about until this thread: Would a unit that had been ordered but did not initially move onto the healing pool be allowed to heal if during the course of follow-on actions or battle backs ended up on the pool be allowed to heal at that point? The text seems to suggest that the healing occurs during the movement phase, but does not explicitly say so. If it is the case that a unit may be healed in this fashion, would a goblin unit that is retreating many hexes and has its path intersect the pool be allowed to heal as it passes through? [Yes, it came up, otherwise I wouldn't be asking Laughing ] I'll try to remember to ask these in a better thread, but wanted to get them down before I become enraptured in another game and forget all about them again...)

Quote:


*Topic drift*
By the way, am I the only one who thinks lvl 2 warrior is pointless? He has an awesome landmark and good lvl 1 capabilities, but I don't see lvl 2 as being worthwhile at all.


I am sure you are not the only one, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's pointless. For one, as Caboose pointed out, King's Allies may only be played with a level 2 or 3 Warrior. Of course, the card is much better served with a L3 than a L2 Warrior, as is much the case with the other points, and thus your impetus for the original proposition Wink The most valid reason for taking a level 2 Warrior that I can come up with is that for whatever reason no other levels will be used on the other lore masters aside from the Commander (say for example the resulting wc would be: L3 Commander, L2 Warrior, L1 Creature), and one wanted the flexibility of beginning the game with 2 lore tokens and two lore cards and having the option of holding three lore cards during the game. This would also give the benefit of having increased potency when playing Cry Havoc! and Berserk. While that last bit is not a high probability reason to do so, it is certainly not without a point Wink

But, yeah, in general, I can think of many better uses of a lore master level than bumping a Warrior up from L1 to L2 - unless one's goal is L3 Very Happy
      
Willange
Member

User Pages
Posts: 39
Registered:
November 2007
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Thu, 13 December 2007 01:45
So if I order a wounded blue infantry onto the Healing Pool and DON'T battle I can heal instead of the battle? Immediately?
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Stronghold Landmark (Commander) question Thu, 13 December 2007 04:32
Immediately Razz Wink (added the wink, to be sure my intended mood was captured Smile )

[Updated on: Thu, 13 December 2007 04:38]

      
    
Previous Topic:Cavalry pursuit
Next Topic:Battlelore replacement dice
Goto Forum: