Two Battle Cards Proposals for battles involving Alexander the Great

Discussion of the upcoming Battle Card system for TRIUMPH!
Post Reply
Lembit Tohver
Levy
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:15 pm

Two Battle Cards Proposals for battles involving Alexander the Great

Post by Lembit Tohver » Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:24 pm

Both Levy and I found that the Alexandrian Macedonian Army list did not fully reflect the flavor of this time period, especially in historical Normal size Triumph battles (which I have been posting). So Levy first proposed these cards and I have modified them to what I think is a better reflection the Triumph Game system for this period of history. For your consideration:

Sub-Commander:
Select one stand that is beyond command distance from the General's stand as a sub-commander's stand. The Sub-Commander will get 1 or 2 CPs to use (Roll a 6 sided die, 1-3 = 1 CP, 4-6= 2 CPs) that he can use for a formation or stand that is within 8 MU of the stand (this is reduced to 4 MU if the formation/stand is not in LOS). The Sub-Commander can use these CPs as if a General within the distances noted above. The Main General’s must expend 1 CP to play this Battle Card.
Timing: Play at the start of player’s turn and only lasts for the turn.
Cost: 1 for free 1 BP per additional card in non-historical battles. Historical Battles will need to have an amount dictated.

Lead from the Front
Alexander was known to lead from the front and was considered a great warrior and inspired his troops. To represent and encourage this, Alexander gets an additional +1 in Combat (total of +2). Anytime that Alexander’s stand has to fallback, evade or panic, roll a die. If the result is a “1”, Alexander has been seriously wounded and the stand is eliminated (Companions taking him to safety).
Timing: For the entire game.
Cost: 1 BP for both Regular and Grand Triumph non-historical battles.
User avatar
Dekelia
Levy
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:34 pm

Re: Two Battle Cards Proposals for battles involving Alexander the Great

Post by Dekelia » Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:24 pm

Lembit Tohver wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:24 pm
Sub-Commander:
Select one stand that is beyond command distance from the General's stand as a sub-commander's stand. The Sub-Commander will get 1 or 2 CPs to use (Roll a 6 sided die, 1-3 = 1 CP, 4-6= 2 CPs) that he can use for a formation or stand that is within 8 MU of the stand (this is reduced to 4 MU if the formation/stand is not in LOS). The Sub-Commander can use these CPs as if a General within the distances noted above. The Main General’s must expend 1 CP to play this Battle Card.
Timing: Play at the start of player’s turn and only lasts for the turn.
Cost: 1 for free 1 BP per additional card in non-historical battles. Historical Battles will need to have an amount dictated.
I think this is a bit to complicated for a small quick play game. The version of this that I ended up liking is a little different, though I haven't gotten to try it yet.

Distributed Command:
Select a stand to be a sub-commander (same restrictions as Grand Triumph). That commander has a command range of 8MU (4MU if not in LOS). If this is selected, the general has a command range of 12MU instead of 16MU.

I like this version because it is simple and has a total command area of about 2/3 of the normal 16MU command radius but with the advantage of being able to split the army. It should be noted that David Kuijit and Rod has both expressed serious trepidation with this. I would use this for historical scenarios only as it probably has some bad implications in a tournament environment.

Lembit Tohver wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:24 pm
Lead from the Front
Alexander was known to lead from the front and was considered a great warrior and inspired his troops. To represent and encourage this, Alexander gets an additional +1 in Combat (total of +2). Anytime that Alexander’s stand has to fallback, evade or panic, roll a die. If the result is a “1”, Alexander has been seriously wounded and the stand is eliminated (Companions taking him to safety).
Timing: For the entire game.
Cost: 1 BP for both Regular and Grand Triumph non-historical battles.
I'm not sure this is really needed for a 48 pt game. I added this for Grand Triumph for Issus because, frankly, they needed help to have a chance. It is also so risky putting your commander in combat, which seems even more true in Grand Triumph, so I felt like I wanted a push to use Alexander how he led historically. I also think that the added chance of dying for the commander stand makes this too risky to ever use (I didn't have that in mine). That might be good if it was a decision to use this capability in the fight. In other words, if you take the extra +1, you also take the risk. Makes it a gamble decision at each combat. I know David and Rob don't like micro-level decisions but maybe because it is the general it works, and could be fun.

For 48pts, I think the +1 combat that the general already gets covers this pretty well.
Lembit Tohver
Levy
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:15 pm

Re: Two Battle Cards Proposals for battles involving Alexander the Great

Post by Lembit Tohver » Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:59 pm

Dekelia wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:24 pm

I think this is a bit to complicated for a small quick play game. The version of this that I ended up liking is a little different, though I haven't gotten to try it yet.

Distributed Command:
Select a stand to be a sub-commander (same restrictions as Grand Triumph). That commander has a command range of 8MU (4MU if not in LOS). If this is selected, the general has a command range of 12MU instead of 16MU.

I like this version because it is simple and has a total command area of about 2/3 of the normal 16MU command radius but with the advantage of being able to split the army. It should be noted that David Kuijit and Rod has both expressed serious trepidation with this. I would use this for historical scenarios only as it probably has some bad implications in a tournament environment.
How many CPs does this commander have. You need to define that.



Lembit Tohver wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:24 pm
Lead from the Front
Alexander was known to lead from the front and was considered a great warrior and inspired his troops. To represent and encourage this, Alexander gets an additional +1 in Combat (total of +2). Anytime that Alexander’s stand has to fallback, evade or panic, roll a die. If the result is a “1”, Alexander has been seriously wounded and the stand is eliminated (Companions taking him to safety).
Timing: For the entire game.
Cost: 1 BP for both Regular and Grand Triumph non-historical battles.
Dekelia wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:24 pm

I'm not sure this is really needed for a 48 pt game. I added this for Grand Triumph for Issus because, frankly, they needed help to have a chance. It is also so risky putting your commander in combat, which seems even more true in Grand Triumph, so I felt like I wanted a push to use Alexander how he led historically. I also think that the added chance of dying for the commander stand makes this too risky to ever use (I didn't have that in mine). That might be good if it was a decision to use this capability in the fight. In other words, if you take the extra +1, you also take the risk. Makes it a gamble decision at each combat. I know David and Rob don't like micro-level decisions but maybe because it is the general it works, and could be fun.

For 48pts, I think the +1 combat that the general already gets covers this pretty well.
Thar makes Alexander in a normal game just regular. He was daring and lead from the front which spurred the companions to greater aggressiveness. You need the higher chance of a breakthrough with him, but at a cost as I have detailed. IMHO my Battle Card provides that Historical flavor to the regular game. It would be used with Grand Triumph as well along with the Companion's Support Battle Card that was suggested earlier.
User avatar
Dekelia
Levy
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:34 pm

Re: Two Battle Cards Proposals for battles involving Alexander the Great

Post by Dekelia » Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:00 pm

Lembit Tohver wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:59 pm
Dekelia wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:24 pm

I think this is a bit to complicated for a small quick play game. The version of this that I ended up liking is a little different, though I haven't gotten to try it yet.

Distributed Command:
Select a stand to be a sub-commander (same restrictions as Grand Triumph). That commander has a command range of 8MU (4MU if not in LOS). If this is selected, the general has a command range of 12MU instead of 16MU.

I like this version because it is simple and has a total command area of about 2/3 of the normal 16MU command radius but with the advantage of being able to split the army. It should be noted that David Kuijit and Rod has both expressed serious trepidation with this. I would use this for historical scenarios only as it probably has some bad implications in a tournament environment.
How many CPs does this commander have. You need to define that.
No, I specifically don't want to get to that level of detail. This is just a way to determine if they are "in command" or if they need another point. In normal "centralized" command structure, it is all based on how far from the general they are. They are sending out runner or whatever. With a centralized command structure, they are in command at 16MU. With the "distributed" command structure, they are "in command" as long as they are near enough to one of the two commanders, however, since they've given up some of the apparatus of command, any given commander, including the general, don't have quite the range as they would otherwise. 48pt Triumph is super aggregate, which makes it play quick and still represent the battle. The more you have to keep track of, it starts to eat into that. I'm trying to make a simple rule that maintains the flavor and feel of Triumph while representing that decentralized command structure.

I just got done trying it for the first time, and funny enough, it had no effect at all. It just turned out that the way the game played out and the way the terrain was set up, they mostly stayed together anyway, lol.
Post Reply