Board Games Feeds

by hat_eater

Hi, I just received the Big Break board game as a birthday present but unfortunately the rules are missing form the otherwise pristine condition set.

Bit of a kick in the teeth really as I would love to get going on this game - I have fond memories of the TV game show from the 80s, with the antics of cheeky Jim Davidson and his stoic sidekick John Virgo bringing snooker to the masses and entertaining the nation on a Saturday night.

So, if anyone has a copy of the rules they could either send to me, or maybe scan in and email to me it would be very much appreciated. I could send a fiscal remuneration via Paypal as a token of goodwill.

Many thanks in advance

Ben Finch
p.s. (Pot as many balls as ya can!)

by andywatkins1963

I like the game and I like the principle of 8 sided dice but the actual examples in the game are pretty poor. About the cheapest looking 8 sided dice i have ever seen.

Has anyone tried making their own 8 sided dice for the game?

I don't suppose anyone is aware of a company selling after purchase extra dice of a higher quality for this game do they?

Andy

by Nicholas1024

I played a quick game of WOTR against myself using the online java client (yeah, I do it quite a bit), here's what happened. (I should probably note that: when I play against myself, I play both sides as realistically as possible. So I don't reinforce shadow strongholds because I know the FP is going to attack them soon... unless it's obvious from the board that that's the plan.

Turn 1:
Shadow gets 4 eyes. Ugh. Anyways, the SP sends Isenguard to war and brings out Saruman this turn, whilst the FP sends the elves to war and plays Phial of Galadrial (not that it would ever be needed) The fellowship is still resting in Rivendell.

Turn 2:
Shadow gets much better dice this time (only 2 eyes). After sending Mordor to war and grabbing the Witch King, he starts mustering with the Voice of Saruman like crazy, getting plenty of units to descend on Rohan. The Free peoples, meanwhile, send the fellowship forwards successfully twice, and muster Lorien to full strength (1/4/1).

Turn 3:
Not much in the way of musters for the shadow this time, but plenty of army/character dice. So, the shadow sends the witch king and a mordor army towards Gondor, sacking Osgilath without a casualty, and besieging Minas Tirith. Meanwhile, North dunland meets up with south dunland, and heads to the gap of rohan. Meanwhile, the FP, retreats the fords army into helm's deep in anticipation of an attack, and sends Lorien towards Moria, besieging it, and capturing it on the last die of the turn! (Shadow saw it coming, but didn't have the necessary dice to do anything about it.) To comfort himself, the shadow sends his massive Minas Morgul army down on Minas Tirith, and the Dol guldor army towards an empty Lorien (doesn't quite make it this turn) but much to his frustration, MT barely holds out, with just one regular left, but the shadow is out of action dice! Fellowship did nothing this turn.

Turn 4:
FP draws "A day and a night", two army dice, a palantir, and a character die. Plus, Minas Morgul is empty. Hm....

Shadow starts by finishing of Minas Tirth, claiming his first two VP's. The FP starts by sending Rivendell down towards Moria, and Dol Amroth down towards Pelargir. Shadow starts mustering the S&E's to war to finish off Gondor.

Free peoples use an elven ring to move the Rivendell army into Moria (completely stacking that into a 2/3/2 stronghold), whilst pushing the 4/0/0 Pelargir + Dol amroth army down into West Harondir.

Shadow responds by sending the S&E's to war.

So, the Pelargir army marched through a day and a night, to sack the empty Minas morgul, and leaving the shadow with two army dice, three palantirs, and an elven ring, but no elites in the area! So, after mustering what forces were there (a 10/0/1 army... not really enough), the shadow goes into a desperate siege with the elven ring, and plays deadly strife. He needs 4 hits to continue the game (which would allow him to mop up the severely undefended Gondor, Rohan, and Lorien with ease... the 10 VP's needed), but less than that would send him crashing down.

FP rolls 3 hits.

Shadow rolls.... 1 hit.

So, a Turn 4 Free peoples Military Victory, without a single companion coming into play, and the Free peoples having twice as many VP's as the shadow did! The places the shadow was busy mustering (S&E's some, but mainly Isenguard) never came into play, whilst the Free peoples mustered to maximum effect, and snuck right past the shadow's defenses.

Note:
I think winning this type of solo victory isn't nearly as satisfying as doing it against a real opponent, mainly because you always have to ask the question... "would a real opponent have made that mistake? Or would he have guessed what I was up to?". When you're playing against yourself, the absolute "best" play is obvious, but the best play given what knowledge that the other side has available? Not so much. Still though, it's definitely better than nothing.

Most valuable Player(s):
It's a toss-up between the elves and Gondor. Both were equally crucial to the victory, but I'll give the edge to Gondor, because it tied up a bunch of the shadow's action dice in addition to capturing that second stronghold.

by residue

Sorry, couldn't find this info anywhere, but is there any intel on wheter this game has a publisher? How far is this game in the design process?

by rattinox

I'm looking for recommendations for books on the Philadelphia Campaign; I generally trust older sources rather than 21st Century "scholarship". Guess I'm a curmudgeonly bastard about such things!

by darkeldar70

hi to all i want to make my game mat with a real photo ,now any one can help me??

1-how i can find aerial photo with great definition
2- how can i make it in the right size
3- wich type of material can i use to print(pvc-vinil)
thank you

by apatheticexecutioner

The Madness card restricts the investigator to no more than four clue tokens. Power Tokens may be used as clue tokens or can be spent to increase stamina or sanity, depending on which Dark Pact card he possesses.

An investigator can have some combination of clue tokens and power tokens that exceed five, because there has been no indication how that power token is to be used; but it seems logical to suppose that the moment that investigator began attempting to use power tokens as clue tokens, to help seal a gate, for instance, and that use brought the total to five, it would not be allowed.

An investigator has four clues and one power token. That investigator closes a gate. He converts the power token into a clue token to seal.

I ruled that it couldn't be done, and Zoey became fairly useless at that point.

Brian

by tarheel

Howdy again. Just goofing off with variants for people to enjoy as they please. In this case, I present a "Knight," more as a generic Knight as opposed to the specialized Paladin. I wanted it to be different, so tried not to replicate Paladin skills and wanted the focus on more sterotypical knight traits that would translate into game terms. The Lance and horse charge is self-explanatory, but its a potentially lethal skill to use, so I had to give it a drawback (You go galloping into battle recklessly and gallantly, and you may come back with a nub...) The Knight's Challenge, represents the Knight leading the attack, to defend the other heroes from potential harm and to increase his own personal glory and reknown. The Knight Errant represents the Knight searching for Quests that will further his own fame in the realm. I did not give him a 'horse skill' for balancing reasons and so as not to duplicate the Paladin skills. Lets just say that he is in such heavy armor, and less dexterous than our friend the Paladin.

The picture has a distinctly 'evilish' tone, but its the only decently fantasy and sufficiently 'cool' picture I could grab off google image search to fit the box.

Well, try it out and enjoy!

by elgin_j

The Third Servile War was fought between Rome and Slaves led by the escaped gladiator, Spartacus. This is a variant that allows players to contest the Campaign between Spartacus and Rome, starting with the battle at Mt. Vesuvius .

In order to ensure balance and a close-fought campaign a handicap is offered to each side dependent upon their respective starting hand of Command Cards. Wherever one player has less than the other they should fight the battle as pre-determined but, at the end, the difference in starting hands will be added as a handicap to determine the campaign score. This is done to ensure both sides remain competitive throughout the war without unduly influencing the actual result of each battle.

For example, in the battle at Mt. Vesuvius, where the Slaves start with 6 cards and Rome with 4, the Roman player will 2 bonus banner points once the battle has been concluded. Importantly this will not alter the result of the battle itself, and the winner on the day remains the victor, yet it may result in the loser taking greater strategic benefit from a defeat than their opponent does in victory. Banner results, including handicaps, should be tallied up after each battle, concluding with Silarus, with the higher score determining the ultimate winner.

This campaign has been playtested by Sam and myself, with each of us playing both sides. The final scores of these campaigns resulted in a 38-32 win for the Slaves the first time, and a 36-36 draw the second time. The full session reports and individual battle results can be found at the following links:

Servile War - Round 1

Servile War - Round 2

Perhaps the most interesting element to this campaign is the possibility of winning outright without ever winning a single game, particularly in the case of the Romans. This will offer an interesting additional element to the game as it is important not just to win battles but to win them comfortably, in order to create and maximise a buffer. In turn, it is ensures that a single catastrophic defeat can overturn successive close-fought victories in determining campaign footing - as is the case in actual warfare.

I hope you find this enjoyable.

by Original_CorPse

Hey Guys,

I've recently come across a copy of Hammer's Slammers by Mayfair games.

The modular board for the game can be laid out in a number of ways. Many of the map features... roads, rivers, water, town hexes, etc., are very similar to their Ogre/GEV counterparts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to know that these details were influenced by the wildly popular Ogre.

Here's a picture for reference...


I haven't measured the hexes, but they seem to be the same size as the classic maps we're used to.

So, has anyone played on this map? Or would anyone like to... curious to know.

--cP

by elgin_j

Regular Vassal users will know that Sam and I are renowned as much for our bitterly fought battles as our vituperative conversation during. Recently we fought a 7-battle Servile War campaign with he as Rome and I the Slaves, ultimately resulting in a glorious victory to moi. Well, I promised him (and you, my friends) that we would rematch with opposing sides and below you can read the results.

You can find our previous campaign [thread=Third Servile War]here[/thread] and I highly recommend you read it if you haven't yet as it was bloody good. Anyway, as a quick refresher, here are the unique rules that we created in order to achieve balance throughout the campaign:

In each battle the player with the least cards would receive bonus banners for each card he found himself short in comparison with his opponent. So, for example, in the first battle, where the Slaves have 6 Command Cards and Rome 4, the Romans would receive an extra 2 bonus points at the end, regardless of the result. This would not change the victor in each given battle but it does mean that, in theory, a player could lose a battle and walk away with a slight advantage overall. Much like real warfare...

So, without further ado, Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears - as the glorious legions of mother Rome put the rebellious slave dogs to the sword...


Mount Vesuvius - 73 BC

The greatest slave revolt against Rome was led by a gladiator named Spartacus. He was a Thracian slave, trained as a gladiator by his owner, Lentulus Batiatus, at a gladiatorial school near Capua. Spartacus escaped with 78 fellow gladiators...

The battle began sub-optimately for the Slaves as they were only able to assault the lone leader in the form of Glaber. It appears that they hadn't bothered to sharpen their swords prior to battle, though, as only a sole auxiliary fell to the warriors and, in turn, they were weakened. Nonetheless, the inability to bring reinforcements to bear left one camp undefended and this was soon pillaged and razed to the ground, taking the Slaves into a clear lead.

Then the cat-and-mouse game began and a lack of robust leadership by both forces saw tit-for-tat skirmishes with little benefit for either side. The Roman auxiliary were weakened but they in turn managed to fend off assaults by Warrior hordes and even take down a couple. All the while Rome was able to manoeuvre its light units in order to defend the remaining camps and bolster their position.

The pivotal moment came when Glaber found himself isolated from the remaining Roman forces and surrounded on all sides by Slave infantry. Unfortunately Spartacus was to make a blunder as he charged in critically weakened Warrior hordes and in the battle backs 2 units fell to Roman swords while not a single Roman fell in combat. The battle then ended with a strike at the remaining Medium infantry and, unlike to ignominious cowardice of the last round, this time Glaber was the hero of the hour...



Final score: 5-3 to Rome. With the handicap bonus, this was revised to 7-3 and the Romans took away a 2 banner advantage.

Campaign score: 7-3 to the Slaves.

Previous Campaign: Last time the Slaves won 5-1, revised to 5-3, so this was a dramatic turn around to a battle that traditionally goes to Spartacus.


Mount Garganus - 73 BC

Spartacus was an able strategist, and he knew that his rag-tag army could not expect to defy Rome indefinitely. Spartacus planned to escape from Roman territory over the Alps, and headed north through Apulia. He divided his ever-growing army and placed his lieutenant, Crixus, a Gaul, in charge of 30,000 German and Gallic slaves...

Crixus seemed to know what he was about this time around and immediately led his warrior hordes into battle in the first turn, splitting the Roman line, routing the war machine and destroying an Auxiliary. The Romans then immediately copied and countered this assault and they in turn wiped out a Warrior horde and weakened others.

Then began a near interminable game of manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre, with both sides seeking to gain and press an advantage. Although the Romans reached Mt. Garganus and looked to turn the Slave flank they were quickly repulsed by a Double Time charge and only by the grace of the gods did Gellius survive unscathed.

Bloodied, but enraged, the Romans struck back and the game was left teetering in the balance with both armies within a whisker of victory. Advantage went to the Slaves, though, when their Auxiliary repulsed the Mounted Charge of a leader led Roman Cavalry and, in turn, their Warriors wiped out Gellius' Auxiliary, despite the desperate use of a 1st Strike...



This time we played the battle correctly and, much to my chagrin, Sam managed to not only win but significantly reduce the enviable advantage I had secured at Mt. Vesuvius.

Final score: 6-4 to the Slaves. With the handicap this was revised to 7-4 to the Slaves.

Campaign score: 11-10 to Rome.

Previous Campaign: Last time Rome won 6-5, revised to 6-6, so this was a solid performance by the Slaves, although Rome still carried the narrowest margin of superiority as the armies prepared for battle at Picenum (and I prepared to get whomped in what is invariably the one-sided battle that follows)...


Picenum - 72 BC

Following the defeat of his lieutenant Crixus, Spartacus continued north for the Alps, passing through Picenum. Two Roman armies moved against him...

Foolishly, Consuls Gellius and Lentulus were arrogant and vain men with little military wit, and they appeared to learn nothing from their previous battles. Intent on securing glory for themselves they chose to split their forces and quickly found themselves faced by Slave host occupying the heights with their secret weapon.

Spartacus chose to be bold and decisive in this battle and quickly launched an attack on the Roman left. Although Lentulus quickly identified the danger and issued orders to counter the threat his troops proved to be inadequate for the task and were quickly ripped apart as the Slave Warriors revelled in blood lust. Seeing his legions cut down about him Lentulus chose to lead from the front and valiantly charged into battle. The shock of the cavalry charge at first dented the Slaves’ line but quickly their forces re-adjusted and difficulty turned to defeat as Lentulus was cut down and the Romans quickly began to flee the battlefield...



Final score: 8-3 to the slaves. With the handicap this was revised to 8-4 and a crushing victory to Spartacus.

Campaign score: 18-15 to the slaves.

Previous Campaign: Last time the Slaves won by the same score line so this was another solid performance by the Slaves. They had managed to overturn the early Roman advantage and for the first time the campaign had swung in their favour.


Mummius’ Defeat - 72 BC

In the autumn of 72 BC, Marcus Licinius Crassus was chosen by the Senate to lead the war against Spartacus’ slave army. Crassus assigned two of his legions to his deputy, Mummius, and gave him the task of harassing the flank of the slave army

The battle started with the Roman right peppering the Warriors lurking in the wood line and, impressively, inflicting casualties on both. Inspired by the example, the Slaves in turn advanced their lights in the centre and peppered the Roman line with ranged weaponry. They lacked the Roman training, though, and despite darkening the skies with their missile fire casualties were light.

Deciding to ignore the threat of Spartacus on the left Mummius advanced his infantry on the right, seeking to engage the Warriors in the forest. Lacking discipline the Warriors chose to burst from their sanctuary and both sides clashed, inflicting minimal casualties. Both sides postured, seeking an advantage, and that came when one group of Warriors cut down the legionnaires guarding their leader and Mummius’ fellow commander found himself wiped out along with his cavalry.

Sensing the momentum had swung in their favour the Slaves continued to press and battled to pierce the Roman lines. The loss of their leader had shaken their resolve, though, and they chose to hide behind their shields, reluctant to fight back. Desperate for a breakthrough before superior forces joined the fray Mummius’ assaulted the centre, seeking to raze the Slave camps. As the Slave lights fought to defend their base Spartacus chose his moment to emerge from hiding and wipe out all remaining resistance. Mummius survived the battle but his troops had proven pitifully inadequate...



Final score: 5-3 to the Slaves, revised to 5-5.

Campaign score: 23-20 to the Slaves who were unable to increase the advantage any further.

Previous Campaign: Last time the Slaves won 5-0 so although the Romans found themselves sorely disappointed in their inability to press for a win this was ultimately an acceptable result for them, albeit begrudgingly; the Slaves' disappointment in failing to win more comfortably was palpable.


Bruttium - 71 BC

Spartacus retreated through Lucania into Bruttium and toward the sea. He encamped at Rhegium where he attempted to gain passage to Sicily with the help of some Cilician pirate ships...

Tragically, Spartacus was to be betrayed by the treacherous pirates and as they sailed into the sunset he found his army pinned him against the coast by the vanguard of Crassus’ forces. Intent upon starving the Slaves into submission, they erected a 30km wall and ditch and repelled two Slave attempts to break though. Spartacus, though, was not to be undone in his moment of glory and, with food and morale running low, he sought one last time to save his valiant men.

Spartacus once again chose a bold and aggressive posture and his infantry quickly advanced towards the ramparts. Despite the advantage of position the Romans proved woefully inadequate at first, failing to spot the danger to their position and reinforcing their defences. As the Warrior vanguard burst over the wall the Romans sought to flee their lights from the threat and trust to their training to absorb the initial charge. The Auxiliary guard who had first raised the alarm of the advance fought valiantly against overwhelming odds but was quickly defeated with few casualties to the Slaves.

It appeared that morale was ebbing across the Roman army and the Commander began to fear, for the first time, that the legions were simply not up to the task. Fate is a fickle mistress, though, and as they trusted to their aggression to overwhelm their foes the Romans found that they were not yet done and the tactical situation shifted in their favour. The Slaves continued to advance, desperate to break the blockade and escape to freedom but the Romans were not now to be undone and as both sides wearied the brave Slave warriors were cut down to a man. Not to be undone, the Light Bowmen who had valiantly blocked the left flank, preventing the slaves from sneaking past, managed to wipe out his Light Cavalry foe in hand-to-hand combat and the Romans had secured themselves a notable victory.



Final score: 6-1 to Rome, revised to 7-1 after the handicap. After the handicap revision this became 6-6 and thereby prevented the Slaves from increasing their advantage.

Campaign score: 27-24 to Rome who had once again managed to create a slight advantage.

Previous Campaign: Last time the Slaves won 6-4, revised to 6-5 and so this battle enabled Rome to re-establish an advantage after three defeats.


Camalatrum - 71 BC

After Spartacus escaped the Roman siege in Bruttium, the Gallic section of his slave army moved separately under the command of Cannicus and Castus. Marcus Licinius Crassus was now in a race, not only with the enemy, but also with his rival, Gnaeus Pompey. The Senate had recalled Pompey and his army from Spain to reinforce Crassus. However, Crassus felt he had nearly won this war, and now wanted to complete it before Pompey could arrive and steal any of his glory...

The battle started cagily with both armies jockeying for an advantageous position. The moment seemed to come when with a great cry Spartacus bellowed orders across his armies with a well-timed Counter Attack and his units advanced to assault with fire in their bellies. Confident that the charge could be repelled Marcius awaited the Slaves, ready to mete out pain and death. Then, in a moment of inspiration, the Slaves auxiliary wiped out the Roman auxiliary in a single attack and with that Marcius’ position turned from strong to desperate. Despite a well-timed shift of momentum to chop down the Slave light cavalry with a First Strike the Roman left was quickly eradicated, culminating in the death of Marcius.



Finding his once strong position to be tenuous, Crassus sough to lure the Slaves forward by occupying the Slave camp. Identifying the threat Cannicus led his infantry into the fray, grievously wounding many of the lights and leaving them on the verge of rout. With the battle all but lost the lights valiantly sallied forth in an effort destroy the equally weakened Slave lights, but to no avail. The Slaves warriors quickly descended upon them and the battle was over...



Final score: 6-3 to the Slaves. No adjustment for handicap.

Campaign score: 30-30 and the campaign was tied leading to the ultimate battle.

Previous Campaign: Last time Rome won 6-3, with no revision, so Sam had won both times as both sides with the same score (this is not a battle I traditionally perform well in, having never won against several different opponents).


Silarus - 71 BC

Spartacus found his army trapped between the armies of Marcus Licinius Crassus to his front and Gnaeus Pompey, approaching from the rear...

Crassus, wary after defeat at Camalatrum, feared to advance his legions on the Slaves occupying the bluffs and instead sought to pierce the weak enemy flanks. An early assault on the forces defending the ramparts was rebuffed and in turn the Romans advanced laterally, seeking to out-manoeuvre their foes. Despite much success with their missile weapons the Roman lights were unable to pierce the Slave defences and the Warrior hordes proved the Roman match as they mirrored each movement. Realising that success would only lay in luring them from the heights, Crassus offered a slightly weakened line in the hopes of a Warrior charge.

The temptation proved strong to the Slaves and with a cry the charged from their positions, intent on slating their bloodlust. After many hours of waiting the first unit fell, a weakened Warrior who, bloodied and weary from an early combat, fell beneath a Roman first strike. In turn, they were cut down yet Crassus smiled, confident in his forces ability to counterattack to victory. Then, disaster - a largely ineffectual attack on the Roman horse, light on casualties, resulted in the death of the Roman commander and suddenly the momentum of the battle had shifted.

Rallying his troops, Crassus exhorted them on and with a mighty cry they clashed their shields and cut down the Warriors, their leader included. The battle was on a tightrope and, with courage in their hearts, a single unit of Warriors continued the Slave attack, wiping out a Roman legion and their cavalry support. With that the Slaves seemed assured of victory but, as light faded on the battlefield, Crassus, in the ultimate compliment to his foe, ordered forward his remaining cavalry to cut down the weakened Slave flank.

Victory on the field on battle went to Rome but, as night fell, the remaining Slaves fled the field, never to be caught by the pursuing Roman forces. Spartacus, too, escaped the field, never again to challenge the bloodied but unbeaten Rome...



Final score: 6-5 to Rome - revised to 6-6 with the handicap. In a sporting gesture, Sam offered the 1d Leader Check against the Slave leader, as he had been offered the roll against Spartacus previously, although this time the Commander was to escape with his life.

Campaign score: 36-36 and a stalemate; the 2d LC proving, in my opinion, the key banner in the final battle that allowed the Slaves to claim the 5 they needed for a draw.

Previous Campaign: Last time Rome won 6-4, revised to 6-5, so this was almost identical in both campaigns. Once again, the obvious difficulty in assaulting Warriors on hills resulted in a Roman player reluctant to advance with purpose, preferring instead to tempt the Slaves down.


Conclusion:

The lead changed 4 times during this campaign, with the early Roman led pegged back and then overturned by the Slaves, with the Romans once again moving clear after the midway point. At the end, though, both sides entered the battle even, although in reality this gave the Slaves a one-banner advantage.

Playing through for a second time I am inclined to suggest that this campaign is as close to balanced as it is ever likely to, with the Slaves perhaps having the advantage in their ability to win several battles by significant margins. Nonetheless, the largest win went to the Romans at Bruttium, and the pivotal battles in the campaign proved to be the closely-balanced ones as the failure of both sides to win any comfortably ultimately prevented a clear victory.

Again, I hope you enjoyed this and I leave you with another affectionate compliment to my favourite C&C gaming companion...

Sam - you are still crap!

by K_Yellow

Does anyone have any general rules about this?

Do does anyone play differently with 2-player, 3-player and 4-player games?

Obviously, each player will get fewer turns with the more players. But, what about strategy?

by ldsdbomber

soooooooo close this time
playing the expansion in a 2P game, managed to build 16 buildings in total, helped by the Carpenter and a "good year" event card that gave white dice, and despite some tough enemies including the last year dragons, missus built a very large early lead only for me to surge past in the end and win 58-56 with a spare block of wood on hand for a tiebreaker.

I doubt we will break 60 anytime soon, but at least we are now getting to 45 and past fairly regularly

good strategies, well, we are trying all the new role cards and different building rows, but the Inn-Market and military strategy (not the Embassy) seem to work very well, stocking up the church row with gold late on if you can. Love the lookout tower and crane buildings as well

by RJ Lee

In Solo Rule 3.1, a portion of the DRV's SAMs are set up in advance of the game using the SAM Deployment Tables at the end of the rules, which limit the placement of SAMs to certain specified hexes ("Specified SAM Hexes") depending on the date of the scenario. For example, in 1965, setup-phase SAMs must be placed in or around eight Specified SAM Hexes.

However, the remainder of the available SAMs are activated during the raid (per Solo Rule 3.2). If a SAM is activated, Rule 3.2.2 contains a table describing where to place it. For example: "Place the counter in any allowed hex within 5 hexes of a detected US flight."

Question: does "allowed hex" refer to any hex in which a SAM site may be placed according to Rule 27.62 (i.e., any land hex within 1 hex of a railroad or urban hex, or in a highway hex, and not adjacent to a ridgeline hexside)? Or is does it refer only to locations on or around the Specified SAM Hexes?

The use of the term "allowed hex" rather than "set up hex" leads me to suspect that they are not limited to Specified SAM Hexes. But there is a paragraph at the end of Solo Rule 3.2.2 that confuses me: "The first time a [Specified SAM Hex] is referenced to place a SAM, put a strike through it on the Planning Map. The second time put a second strike through it to cross it off. After the second SAM is place[d] do not use that hex again for the remainder of the raid."

From a simulation standpoint, if the Specified SAM Hexes reflect known locations to the U.S. planners, I guess it would be more realistic to limit in-raid placement of SAM sites to those locations. But from a gameplay standpoint, this seems awfully limiting and seems to give the "solitaire opponent" significantly less flexibility than a human opponent. (Also, it would be a pain to have to keep track of all of the Specified SAM Hexes for the entire duration of the game.) I'm inclined to play with the broader definition of "allowed hex," but I'm unsure about what to do with that paragraph about "crossing off" Specified SAM Hexes.

Any thoughts welcome...

by maida_16

Does anyone have an idea whether daysofwonder would post a card-for-card FAQ for this expansion? thanks!

by Ryan Kirk

Hi guys, I've had this game for the last few months and have been reading lots of rule clarifications and tutorials here in that time. Today I finally pulled the thing out and played through S1. It went pretty well, all the reading paid off and I didn't have too much trouble remember most things. There were a few confusing points that I couldn't figure out though and I thought you guys might be able to help:

1)In S1 there are a number of arrivals from offboard. The rules specify that in the Rally Phase you prepare these groups offboard. But I couldn't find any reference to when they actually enter the board. Do they enter following the Rally Phase, or at the beginning of the Movement Phase? If they enter at the beginning of the Movement Phase, do they expend MF entering the first on-board hex they appear in?

2)I understand how ELR works, but it doesn't seem clear to me on the Scenario Card which units it applies to. For example in S1 The first group of Germans is listed with an ELR of 3, does this same rating also apply to the other groups that enter from the other side of the board? If it doesn't, does that mean those groups cannot suffer a reduction from ELR? Likewise, does the American ELR of 5 apply to the groups of American reinforcements as well?

3)I read the extended thread on broken units in melee. This is one thing I messed up, I failed to rout away or eliminate a defending unit prior to the Advance Phase and it ended up locked in CC. I now understand that this is impossible. But I am still wondering if a MMC ends up broken in a melee by outside fire, is it able to rally in the next turn, or is rallying off limits in melee?

by hadsil

FRANCE Planning/Beginner/Optional

Adds Negotiate Card

You have the power to surrender. Before cards are revealed in any encounter, you may use this power to play a Negotiate Card onto either side of the encounter. If the side you played reveals an Attack Card, the main player may use either card to play during the encounter after cards are revealed. If the side you played reveals a Negotiate, the main player is entitled to double compensation or his opponent pays twice the penalty for failure to make a deal.

History: Boasting of great culture and strength, the French like to meddle in other people’s affairs because they know what’s good for them. They shake their heads in disgust at others who cannot comprehend the Great Art that is surrendering to victory.

FLARE

Planning
Wild: As main player, before cards are revealed you may give up the encounter. Your opponent wins the encounter, and you collect compensation.

Planning
Super: You may play a Negotiate onto both sides of the encounter. The players must try to make a normal deal when cards are revealed except no one may offer a colony. The double penalty for failing to deal applies to both sides.

Commentary: This is a combat power from Jack Reda’s website. The Power is from the site; the History and Flare are mine. On Jack Reda’s website the power is called Meta-Compromise. I didn't like that name and hit upon France as a joke. I changed a few words of the power description for personal aesthetics, but the power is the same. According to the power, yes, France can use the power upon himself as main player. I don’t see it as making France too powerful. A player who revealed an Attack Card for whom France played a Negotiate Card is not forced to use it, even if he’s going to lose the encounter anyway. The player may not want compensation cards such as if he’s desperate for a new hand.

Before Fantasy Flight produced Cosmic Encounter I created my own power called Human, different than what Fantasy Flight has. France would have a Do Not Use With for my Human power because part of Human's power is that his opponent cannot use Negotiates. To avoid confusion with Fantasy Flight's Human I moved the restriction from the "power card" to this commentary. There is no conflict between France and Fantasy Flight's Human.

Gerald Katz
Don’t forget to tip the Butler!

P.S. I alphabetically passed Ford, which is a power from my Presidential series. However, it is a Lucre power. You can discard an Artifact to force another player to lose all his Lucre to the bank.

by Binko

It looks like my company will be sending me to Athens Tennessee for two months starting Aug 9th. The deal is that I get to fly back to Calif every other weekend.

But I should have plenty of time on my hands for ASL if I can find a nearby opponent. Any players near Athens? What is the nearest big city with an ASL club?

by clig76

Have you guys noticed that a lot of newer games (dungeon twister, dungeonquest, ravenloft, etc) are including solo play? Being a solo gamer I love it when games come out with true solitaire rules (not fanmade). Anyway, I hope this continues with as many games as possible.

by Kalidor

As an old player, (pre-release through Good & Evil or thereabouts) I have decided I want to get back into Warlord CCG.

I think it'd be great for my group to have 6-8 decks of varrying factions built ready-to-play. (And balanced enough against each other).
I've heard that the new sets do this thing well.

So, instead of building decks from tons of old cards I have (and there are...tons of them), I thought it'd be smarter to just get the new 4th edition Adventure Paths.

I plan on buying a couple of them when my gaming budget kicks back in, but thought I might find a trading partner here to jump-start my plan.

I am looking for the new Phoenix Interactive Adventure Paths. Any of them, currently, as I haven't ordered any new product yet.

They don't need to be sealed, but complete is a must.

I have many things available for trade and would consider stuff not specifically marked "for trade" as well.

Can anyone help me out?

Thanks in advance!
Justin