Motivations rules questions

[irish1983]

I realized today that under Duty "stand your ground" has two vastly different versions one in the rule book and one in rising conflict. The one in rising conflict seems pretty ridiculous (unless im missing something). Can you group activate with using interact and then maneuver? If so how is being in 8" of the enemy army commander and them moving directly away from the enemy hoarding 4-6 markers that if not removed by killing them =4-6 moral auto lost have anything to do with standing your ground.

 

[EvilDave]

You can do that, and ya it doesn't have much to do with standing your ground. However, that assumes your opponent leaves their commander with their SoI extending over your unactivated troops. Not the best move, given your motivation.

 

[irish1983]

You can do that, and ya it doesn't have much to do with standing your ground. However, that assumes your opponent leaves their commander with their SoI extending over your unactivated troops. Not the best move, given your motivation.

No they can just walk up into it and then interact last in a round. Then if they win initiative its over.

My group has been thinking of requiring the infantry to perform the interact individually and not allow group interact to claim the markers. We had a three turn game that ended at the start of turn 3 because my opponent moved 6 pelegarth just inside my commander's 8" SOI and they all claimed markers. Then he just won the initiative roll and I lost (I started with 7 moral). The motivation needs to be tweaked. I think it's bad game design in it's current incarnation. Like you said it has absolutely nothing to do with holding any kind of ground either. maybe if they had to forfeit their maneuver and then interact to claim the marker that would be much better? It's not like any other motivation (which usually require atleast control or some kind of roll to claim).

 

[EvilDave]

Ya, they can do that too. But again, you can premessure and make sure your commander doesn't get left where your opponent's move can put them within the SoI. Even if it does occur you still have the rest of the first turn to try to kill the marker holders, and all of the second turn to drop your opponent's morale before the game ends.

 

[irish1983]

Thats not what really happened. The first turn no one did anything but close the distance. Then second turn I killed a great wing by pulling it into base with my cavalier (who by itself did kill his target) and gutters (who had to chase it after it hurt the cavalier and disengaged straight back). I am naturally going to support them with Ooroth and he put up sting field. Opponent moves the rest of his force up and pelegarths end their round with acting to collect marker. Opponent wins initiative for round 3 and activates pelegarth and game is over (some stuff died in the previous round obviously). Hadross doesnt move fast enough in any case to dictate engagements they are a defensive house. Its not a balanced motivation, its badly designed. You need to think about what the other motviations other house get to pick from. They all require you to move up and hold or kill. If you saying I should have just held Ooroth back and not used my commander or any leader to support my line because its very possible and likely a situation like mentioned above can happen that is bad game design. It's not as bad as say kill points in 40K (Kill 10 terminators you get 1 point, Kill ten guardsmen you get a point), but it's not balanced within the other motivations.