Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tyryt 10-03-06, 06:49 PM	So, anyone who has read the latest little article knows that there is apparently a tactical chess-like game called Conqueror beloved by Karns and strategists everywhere. Unless I missed something (and that's entirely possible), it hasn't really been elaborated on. Check out these rules, play a few games, tell me what you think: ------------- Conqueror Play takes place on a 21 by 21 grid made up of hexagonal spaces. Each player takes position on opposite edges with the hexes aligned in columns. Each player recieves 3 archer pieces, 6 infantry pieces, 2 cavalry pieces 2 siege pieces and 2 castles. The flip of a Galifer determines who begins placement of their army first, placement alternating back and forth in the following order: Castles, Infantry, Archers, Cavalry, Siege. Pieces can be placed in any of the first 4 rows of the players side. Each space may only be occupied by a single other piece with the exception of Castles, which may share a space with any other piece. Play begins after the last piece is placed, with the same player who placed first. During each turn a player takes three actions, each piece may only take a single action. Play proceeds until a player destroys his opponents entire army, or both castles, at which point he is declared the winner. If both players siege units are destroyed, and each player still posseses at least one castle that is occupied, the game is a draw. Actions Castles - Immobile. Enemy can not move into an occupied castle space, nor attack units within them. Siege - Move 1 space OR destroy a Castle up to 3 spaces away. Infantry - Move 1 space, killing any enemy pieces in that space OR Brace to become immune to Archers OR Set to prevent Cavalry from moving into them, OR Hustle 2 unoccupied spaces. Cavalry - Move 2 spaces, killing any enemy units moved into or through OR Charge 3 spaces, only the last space may be occupied, killing any piece in that space Archers - Move 1 space OR may kill a non-castle piece 2 spaces away. ------------- That's pretty much it. It should be fairly fast-paced, but with a lot of tactical play in it.
Edymnion 10-03-06, 10:33 PM	Too many multiple abilities, IMO. I would also only put one castle, with the idea being to take the castle. Maybe make it a cross between Chess and Risk. Ooh, or make it more like Stratego, thats a kick-ass game.
beezly 10-04-06, 12:21 AM	Or just make it stratego and be done with it. Because stratego is so the kind of game the Karns would love. And because stratego is awesome.
Lucent 10-04-06, 04:38 AM	You know I actually like these rules, they're simple and easy enough to replicate during gametime without taking up too much extra work. I might use these once my players get to the encounter with the Crimson Ship, since it's captain plays the game.
Tyryt 10-04-06, 11:59 AM	Unlike Chess, in which there is only one key piece to win victory, Castles are immobile. In addition, using two allows for more strategic play (two castles next to one another to provide support, Brelish Defense; Two on opposite sides while only supporting one, Karnath Gambit; etc). As for "too many alternate abilities", Archers have two, move or shoot; Cavalry has two, move or charge; Siege have two, move or shoot; Only infantry has more, two of which are purely 'counter' abilities, and the other two move. Look at a pawn in chess, it can move one OR move two if it hasn't yet moved OR move diagonal if there is a piece in that square OR move diagonal if another pawn moved two to pass it (en passante). I should add that either of the infantries 'stances' last until those pieces take another action. I've been toying with the idea of 'hidden deployment' with each player placing their castles first, then 3 pieces at a time of any kind, but not reveal what is where until they take an action. While we could 'just call it stratego and be done with it', why? Stratego has a host of elements that have nothing to do with Eberron. I mean, we could have just called the main gambling/card-game for it 'poker' as well, but that takes a lot of the fun out of it. In case anyone noticed, there are conveniently 13 pieces in an Army. ;)
Dragonmann 10-04-06, 01:43 PM	First, how does a unit get into a castle Second, does infantry destroy enemy castles they move into. Third, Infantry bracing should be a counter attack type move. If someone takes the piece, both pieces are removed. Personal thoughts, I think the objective should be to occupy all 4 castles on the board. In this case siege units would eliminate units sheltering in castles, rather than the castles themselves. Some game design thoughts: Anything that must be accounted for in another players turn must be indicated. For example, an infantry unit braces against an attack, lay it on its side, or flip over the piece representing it etc. Combine infantry bracing into one action. Reinforcements. No one enjoys when one bad move ruins their chances of winning. Something like, at the end of your turn, for each castle you occupy you get 1 galifar. At the beginning of your turn you can buy infantry for 2 galifars, archers or cavalry for 3, and siege for 4. These new units must enter play in a hex adjacent to a castle you occupy, and count as 1 of your 3 actions. Terrain. For advanced games, each player could get x pieces of terrain to place. Hills, woods, lakes, etc. Each could have some effect. Hills cannot be charged up. Lakes cannot be entered by anyone. Archers shooting at units in woods flip a coin, and only on heads the target is destroyed (roll a D20, 11+)
Tyryt 10-04-06, 06:34 PM	Clarifications -Any unit may move into an unoccupied castle, Infantry or Cavalry will destroy an opponent's castle if they move into it. -A player MUST move one of their pieces or destroy at least one enemy piece each turn. If they can not, that player looses. -A player MUST use all three actions each turn, or as many as possible. -With the addition of these rules, Draws are no longer possible. The first is just a clarification upon movement into castles and what happens to them, while the second is something to ensure that there is action, and it doesn't simply boil down to two players not actually 'doing' anything, and it allows a player who has lost thier siege units to still win. The third clarification is just that, while the fourth is a revision, as draws should no longer be possible, since a player can not simply destroy their opponents siege pieces then camp out in their castles. Dragonmann, those are thoughts I had considered, but I wanted to keep the design simple, but still complex. Adding the whole reinforcement type thing would change it to become more of a defensive game, and not nearly as dynamic. As for the bracing destroying both units, while it could present an interesting sacrifice, I think it's better to simple make the unit 'invincible' to either archers or cavalry. That causes the other player to use more than a single type of unit to take it out, and still allows for sacrificial play. I didn't get into the specifics of what would designate Bracing or Setting as that would greatly depend upon the specific pieces/design that one was using to play with. For the moment, that's not too important other than to state that yes, it should be designated in some way. Occupying all 4 castles would be nearly an impossible task without some reinforcement mechanism, and as I stated above, I didn't want to turn it into a full blown war sim, but more of a strategic puzzle (okay, okay, in Chess you do get to bring pieces back *extremely rarely*). Terrain, like with reinforcements, is an interesting idea, but I had been envisioning instead of anything the players had control of, there being variations on the basic board, simply spaces that could not be entered, and so on, but still a 'standard' set of them instead of simply 'random' based on the whim of those playing. Examples could be the center row of the board is missing, except for one or three spaces, thus making a bridge from one side to the other; a much narrower board, 21 long by 10 wide as a mountain pass, etc. Please play a couple games using the base rules (and clarifications), before suggesting any 'advanced' type of things or alternate rules (unless you can see a glaring ommision somewhere). If you need or want clarifications on rules, please ask away!
OneWinged4ngel 10-05-06, 01:15 AM	Too many multiple abilities, IMO. I would also only put one castle, with the idea being to take the castle. Maybe make it a cross between Chess and Risk. Ooh, or make it more like Stratego, thats a kick-ass game. You are *so* right Edy! Stratego doth kicketh much ass!
ChaoticGood 10-06-06, 09:06 PM	I purchased a Master Set of Heroscape out of a bargain bin last month, purely for the minis. Until now, I had no idea what I ws going to do with the hex-grid terrain tiles... but now, I have my own Conqueror board! I tried setting up a game a last night, and it seemed that a 21 x 21 grid was far too large for a board occupied by only 26 pieces. I reduced the size to a 14 x 14 grid and the game seems to move much more quickly now. Now to figure out something I can use for pieces... Most series of minis have a consistent scale, meaning that any available mounted knights or siege engines would be too large for the board in comparison to approriately-sized infantry and archers. For my test games, I used coins for the pieces. Infantry = Pennies Knights = Nickels Archers = Dimes Siege Engines = Quarters Castles = Half-Dollars New rule: If an Infantry piece captures an enemy tower (occupying or destroying it, depending on the variant of the game you are playing), that piece is "Knighted." This rule works exactly as the "Queening" rule in chess, i.e.: the Infantry may be replaced by any piece of the player's choosing, but the Knight is traditionally the piece most often chosen. (*For my purposes, I didn't really consider the Castle to be a playing piece.) Variant Rule: I rather like the "occupy the enemy's castles" version of the game, but I suggest the following revision to the Siege Engine: instead of destroying Castles, the Siege Engine is the only piece that can attack a piece located in a Castle, but they may ONLY attack a piece that is located in a Castle. (They retain the ability to attack from 3 spaces away, thus allowing them to fire from beyond the range of an enemy Archer defending a Castle.) Just for Flavor: In my Eberron, Aundairans refer to the Archer as a Wizard and the Siege Engine as a Trebuchet, much as some real-world people refer to the chess piece as a "Rook" and others as a "Castle".
Tyryt 10-07-06, 01:05 PM	Yes, I've come to the conclusion that the 21 is a bit big... Taht being said, there should be an odd number of columns, as that keeps the symmetry. That being the case, I think 13 would be perfect for oh so many reasons. :) Destroying/occupying is really the same thing in the end.
gaerfindel 10-08-06, 12:32 AM	Nice rules, Tyryt. They remind me a bit of Klin Zha (http://www.tasigh.org/takzh/), which has long been my favourite choice for imbuing a bit o' 'This place ain't like home" in the minds of my players. (Incidentally, when I played Planescape, the comtemplative, three-dimensional variant of Klin Zha was the game played by the fiends--only they called it The Pit, for obvious reasons...:schemes: )
ChaoticGood 10-10-06, 02:22 AM	Yes, I've come to the conclusion that the 21 is a bit big... That being the case, I think 13 would be perfect for oh so many reasons. :) I had the same thought about board size, but unfortunately it's difficult to replicate a 13x13 hex board with the Heroscape terrain. :(