The River The River

Forums

Search
Forums » BattleLore - English » ignoring flags = bold
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
kookoobah
Member

User Pages
Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2008
ignoring flags = bold Sun, 27 July 2008 18:12
ok, from reading extensively on the intarweb, i found out that when a unit can ignore flags, it is automatically bold,and can battleback.

similar, but not identical is the ambush card which allows a unit to battleback before an enemy unit attacks, EVEN IF it could not battleback normally.

i was just curious why this wasnt explicitly stated in the rulebook. or was it and i just missed it?
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Sun, 27 July 2008 18:21
I haven't read the rulebook in awhile, but I think it is just implicit in there - something like units if a unit may ignore a flag and doesn't leave its hex being the two conditions for a battle back, but certainly the way the rules read it didn't lead me to believe that being able to ignore a flag was equivalent to being bold. If a second edition comes out, probably should make that more clear.

[Updated on: Sun, 27 July 2008 18:22]

      
ColtsFan77
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3313
Registered:
February 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Mon, 28 July 2008 00:34
Not sure if this is explicit enough. Page 26:
"A unit that has the capability to ignore a flag rolled against it in battle is a Bold unit.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Mon, 28 July 2008 05:20
That's right, it is explicit that any unit that may ignore a flag is considered bold, and then later the rulebook explains that in order to battle back a unit must A) be bold and B) not vacate its hex. The part that could (but doesn't need to be) more explicit is that lore cards, as well as landmarks and support can lead to ignoring flags (or possibly some future mechanic as well?)and therefore cause a unit to be bold.

[Updated on: Thu, 31 July 2008 04:36]

      
kookoobah
Member

User Pages
Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2008
Re:ignoring flags = bold Mon, 28 July 2008 12:23
thanks CF. i have no idea how you manage to memorize the rulebook like that, but i am thankful nonetheless.
      
ColtsFan77
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3313
Registered:
February 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Mon, 28 July 2008 13:52
kookoobah wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 05:23

thanks CF. i have no idea how you manage to memorize the rulebook like that, but i am thankful nonetheless.

Very Happy

I think it was Einstein who said:

"A smart man is not one who knows all the answers but where to find the answers."

Of course, I am not smart because I have been searching for the exact quote and source for like 10 years. So for all I know, I made it up, and forgot.
      
kookoobah
Member

User Pages
Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2008
Re:ignoring flags = bold Tue, 29 July 2008 18:12
ok, i figured out why it was so confusing. in the morale effects summary, it says being Bold has the EFFECT of allowing you to ignore one flag. same thing with being Frightened, it has the EFFECT of forcing you to retreat 2 hexes per flag rolled against you.

the truth is the opposite. being able to ignore one flag has the EFFECT of making you Bold, and being forced to retreat 2 hexes per flag rolled against you has the EFFECT of making you Frightened.

semantics, semantics. i know. Very Happy
      
FelixPhantasm
Member

Posts: 84
Registered:
January 2008
Re:ignoring flags = bold Tue, 29 July 2008 19:39
What did Einstein say about the imbalance of the Cleric lore cards? Razz
      
ColtsFan77
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3313
Registered:
February 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Tue, 29 July 2008 19:58
FelixPhantasm wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 12:39

What did Einstein say about the imbalance of the Cleric lore cards? Razz


"The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while." - Einstein

I think this clearly shows that the advantage held by the Cleric deck will be balanced in the future when DOW adds more Lore cards. How can you argue with a genius?
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Tue, 29 July 2008 21:33
In the future? Very Happy
      
kookoobah
Member

User Pages
Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2008
Re:ignoring flags = bold Wed, 30 July 2008 07:03
A little rules lawyering:

eric says
2006-12-06 05:34:22
Effect of Mists of Terror against Dwarves and other bold units (FAQ entry)

When the Mists of Terror (and other cards that make a unit Frightened) are played against a unit that is bold, such as Iron Dwarves, the effect work as follows:

No flags can be ignored, regardless of the unit's Bold status or nature. Any flag rolled forces the unit to retreat and check for panic losses.

However Bold targets with no flag rolled against them remain Bold and capable of battling back.


Ok. Here we go: "A unit that has the capability to ignore a flag rolled against it in battle is a Bold unit." from p.26

Therefore, if flags cannot be ignored under Mists of Terror, the unit is no longer Bold. So shouldn't it be that the unit cannot battleback anymore?
      
ColtsFan77
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3313
Registered:
February 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Wed, 30 July 2008 12:42
Your answer is below the text you copied from the Compendium.

Question: I encountered a situation that I can't find an answer for. Mists of Terror is played and a supported (i.e. Bold) unit is then attacked. A flag is rolled, but the Bold unit's retreat paths are blocked, so the Bold unit loses a figure and remains in his hex. In this situation, does the Bold unit get to Battle Back?

Answer: Yes, the unit would then be able to battle back after taking the casualties caused by the flag it could not ignore.

So to answer your question, if the unit was forced to retreat because it could not ignroe flags, then it was already in a position that it could not battle back (because it vacated the hex). But if its retreat was blocked and it was originally Bold, then it could battle back (because it is bold and did not vacate the hex).
      
kookoobah
Member

User Pages
Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2008
Re:ignoring flags = bold Wed, 30 July 2008 13:15
hmm. so.. losing the capability to ignore a flag does not remove bold status?

yes, yes, i know i'm nitpicking but my brother isnt home and i have no one to play with. ^_^
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Wed, 30 July 2008 18:44
kookoobah wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 05:15

hmm. so.. losing the capability to ignore a flag does not remove bold status?


At work, so I hope this post helps rather than muddies: While any mechanic that allows a unit to ignore a flag makes that unit bold (and to a degree of the number of flags that can be ignored), from the ruling on Mists of Terror, the converse is not the case, that removing the ability to ignore the flags removes the status of bold. It appears that support, inherent boldness, etc. is/are still in place making that unit, which normally would ignore flags, bold. Now through the play of a card such as Mists of Terror, the flags cannot be ignored, but the Boldness requirement for the battle back is still there.

Anyway, having this all spelled out in one place sounds like a good idea, assuming that blanket rulings can be made and it isn't a case by case situation (which I don't think is the intention of the game designer).

Quote:

yes, yes, i know i'm nitpicking but my brother isnt home and i have no one to play with. ^_^


Wink
      
kookoobah
Member

User Pages
Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2008
Re:ignoring flags = bold Thu, 31 July 2008 02:22
toddrew wrote on Thu, 31 July 2008 00:44

kookoobah wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 05:15

hmm. so.. losing the capability to ignore a flag does not remove bold status?


At work, so I hope this post helps rather than muddies: While any mechanic that allows a unit to ignore a flag makes that unit bold (and to a degree of the number of flags that can be ignored), from the ruling on Mists of Terror, the converse is not the case, that removing the ability to ignore the flags removes the status of bold. It appears that support, inherent boldness, etc. is/are still in place making that unit, which normally would ignore flags, bold. Now through the play of a card such as Mists of Terror, the flags cannot be ignored, but the Boldness requirement for the battle back is still there.

Anyway, having this all spelled out in one place sounds like a good idea, assuming that blanket rulings can be made and it isn't a case by case situation (which I don't think is the intention of the game designer).

Quote:

yes, yes, i know i'm nitpicking but my brother isnt home and i have no one to play with. ^_^


Wink



that's pretty logical, given that frightened and bold are independent of each other as well. though it is a little less intuitive than frightened and bold. at any rate, even without official ruling, i'll take toddrew's word as gospel.

my only problem is now explaining this if it ever comes up in a game. my group of friends require... erm.. a narrative explanation as to why things happen, (they lose a figure when they retreat and cannot because they run into the swords of the units behind them) and a not a simple case of "the game designer said so", or in this case, "toddrew said so" Wink
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:ignoring flags = bold Thu, 31 July 2008 04:31
kookoobah wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 18:22

...at any rate, even without official ruling, i'll take toddrew's word as gospel.


Careful there Wink


Quote:

my only problem is now explaining this if it ever comes up in a game. my group of friends require... erm.. a narrative explanation as to why things happen, (they lose a figure when they retreat and cannot because they run into the swords of the units behind them) and a not a simple case of "the game designer said so", or in this case, "toddrew said so" Wink


Not sure if this will help, but what I enjoy most about BattleLore is the story that the board ends up telling. It is usually not until the last banner is taken that what that tale is becomes clear though.

I don't view the rolls of individual dice as telling what has happened, but rather the complete battle of a particular unit is probably the smallest I break it down - and a complete turn more likely. There are continuous circumstances affecting the condition/morale of the forces on the board and each smaller action contributes to the final tally. Forces become depleted in a variety of ways (running into a suddenly not so friendly blade behind one being but one of those ways) through each confrontation, in my reading of the game. The dice results tell the step by step deterioration of each side quantitatively, but it is up to the players' imaginations to "see" the action unfolding.

Ugh, that was a lot of abstract blah, blah - again, not sure if this helps, but here is an example of what I think I'm talking about.

And, yeah, never a good explanation: Because toddrew says so. Laughing

EDIT: almost forgot, quick rationale of the example in question: even under the influence of a terror striking straight from the depths of hell and blackening heart and hope, the gallant knights stood fast and struck back...

[Updated on: Thu, 31 July 2008 17:11]

      
    
Previous Topic:painted! all of them!!! done!!! 379 of them!
Next Topic:BL varient ideas
Goto Forum: