Challenge IV, Category C explained. RULES THREAD

[SkaForHire]

You guys are good at answering rules questions, thank you. This is good, because I will be gone all weekend next week, and again a little later on in the challenge.

As for guerrilla builds... this is what I propose:

Leave the current system in place this week, and move to the changed point system next week that I posted with the only difference being only the winning counter MOC gets 3 extra points.

Starting next week: All cities have three weeks of counter time. Any zone deeply in enemy territory (More than two zones deep in all directions, including water) would have two weeks of counter time. Any zone in the "Special victory condition" area of the Desert King would also get two weeks to counter, since these are worth a lot at the end.

Special rule: Failed Countered territories can immediately be guerrilla attacked the next week by the team that lost the territory. This gives the old team a second chance to get a valuable territory back.

The only other way to bring down the impact of Guerrilla MOCs that I can think of is limiting the number of target squares, and saying that once a side had reached its target number for the week, additional builders must attack the same zones -- but this might create much stronger guerrilla attacks.

Also, I think that perhaps Petraea might need to be Guerrilla proof...

Thoughts? We can make a final decision on these changes tonight.

[Bregir]

I second your thoughts, Ska.

Further, you have created a great challenge - and you handle our (endless ) constructive feedback and infinite questions to perfection.

I think the delay idea is great, and can be explained both storywise and rules-wise.

[Jacob Nion]

So there can still be as many counter builds for a square as the defending team can come up with?

I can live with your changes. Well thought.

How could petraea be guerilla attacked as long as it stands neutral?

[Kai NRG]

Sounds good to me Ska, except not sure about this:

Special rule: Failed Countered territories can immediately be guerrilla attacked the next week by the team that lost the territory. This gives the old team a second chance to get a valuable territory back.

Can't say I really like that. If a team is concerned about not losing a square they're not touching, they should put some muscle towards getting a few squares around that before hand! Or at least, they should have some sort of disadvantage the second time around.

So there can still be as many counter builds for a square as the defending team can come up with?

I believe the final verdict was that when voting to decide whether the guerrillas or counters won, the voter first picks their favorite counter(s) and then matches those up against the original(s). So even if it were 13 counters to 3 originals (probably not going to happen!), the vote would be 3 to 3.

[Jacob Nion]

Sounds good to me Ska, except not sure about this:

Can't say I really like that. If a team is concerned about not losing a square they're not touching, they should put some muscle towards getting a few squares around that before hand! Or at least, they should have some sort of disadvantage the second time around

Didn't thought about that. Not sure how to deal with that.

I believe the final verdict was that when voting to decide whether the guerrillas or counters won, the voter first picks their favorite counter(s) and then matches those up against the original(s). So even if it were 13 counters to 3 originals (probably not going to happen!), the vote would be 3 to 3.

I guess we'll have to see how that works. But nonetheless I think it won't be realistic that thwre are more counters than guerillas. Players will be too busy.

[Kai NRG]

I guess we'll have to see how that works. But nonetheless I think it won't be realistic that thwre are more counters than guerillas. Players will be too busy.

Well, there actually are more counters for example for Lord Dan's guerrilla. But I certainly agree that there's not likely to be a huge margin.

[Garmadon]

You guys are good at answering rules questions, thank you. This is good, because I will be gone all weekend next week, and again a little later on in the challenge.

As for guerrilla builds... this is what I propose:

Leave the current system in place this week, and move to the changed point system next week that I posted with the only difference being only the winning counter MOC gets 3 extra points.

Starting next week: All cities have three weeks of counter time. Any zone deeply in enemy territory (More than two zones deep in all directions, including water) would have two weeks of counter time. Any zone in the "Special victory condition" area of the Desert King would also get two weeks to counter, since these are worth a lot at the end.

Special rule: Failed Countered territories can immediately be guerrilla attacked the next week by the team that lost the territory. This gives the old team a second chance to get a valuable territory back.

The only other way to bring down the impact of Guerrilla MOCs that I can think of is limiting the number of target squares, and saying that once a side had reached its target number for the week, additional builders must attack the same zones -- but this might create much stronger guerrilla attacks.

Also, I think that perhaps Petraea might need to be Guerrilla proof...

Thoughts? We can make a final decision on these changes tonight.

It might be a good idea to give the cities the same amount of counter time that the square is worth (one week for a square worth only one, two for one worth two, etc.) Since the attackers would have to come up with the two or three guerrilla's the same week (Ok, they could hypothetically take a few weeks to build it, but I don't think we will be seeing that a whole lot) and the idea is not to have five times as many counters for a guerrilla attack I think this would work well. Then anyone who made a guerrilla against Petraea would need to give the counters four weeks to respond - that certainly ought to be enough

... our (endless ) constructive feedback and infinite questions...

I'm afraid that's about right!

[Bregir]

Ska, can you do a "final" write-up of the guerilla deadlines?

I am a bit confused with all the (excellent) suggestions from you and others.

Much appreciated.

[Maxim I]

I still think every territory worth more than 1 point should be off limit for Guerilla's. It is up to the winner of the Warzones to pick cities as battle locations.

I mean sieging a city is not really a guerilla but is more a warzone (sorry Kai for picking your guerilla to show my point).

Also it is a good idea to make the losing team (when a counter didn't win) be able to guerilla the lost square asap.

So I don't agree with you Kai about the need to conquer the squares around important zones so we can't lose a place. Look at our map, we have 5 or 6 isolated places. If we need to secure all spots around them, we have to conquer 40-45 squares first...

Edited March 15, 2015 by Maxim I

[MKJoshA]

If I post a guerrilla build, do I need to link it anywhere else? I see the thread for past guerrilla builds, but obviously new ones don't go there.

[SkaForHire]

Ska, can you do a "final" write-up of the guerilla deadlines?

I am a bit confused with all the (excellent) suggestions from you and others.

Much appreciated.

I will have to do it tomorrow... a bit behind schedule over here with real life. But, any Guerrilla attacks this week will be grandfathered into the original rules. beyond the limitations on how many builders can attack one space.

If I post a guerrilla build, do I need to link it anywhere else? I see the thread for past guerrilla builds, but obviously new ones don't go there.

Just to the cat c thread.

I still think every territory worth more than 1 point should be off limit for Guerilla's. It is up to the winner of the Warzones to pick cities as battle locations.

I mean sieging a city is not really a guerilla but is more a warzone (sorry Kai for picking your guerilla to show my point).

Also it is a good idea to make the losing team (when a counter didn't win) be able to guerilla the lost square asap.

So I don't agree with you Kai about the need to conquer the squares around important zones so we can't lose a place. Look at our map, we have 5 or 6 isolated places. If we need to secure all spots around them, we have to conquer 40-45 squares first...

I don't agree with the not being able to take a city. However, if a city is being taken through guerrilla action, then the guerrilla action MOCed should represent something worthy enough to take a whole city. There should be a lot of bribes or maybe an act of sabotage of a major structure, or a defense regiment.

I didn't really want to say this, but I am not sure if Kai and Garm were really in the spirit of the rules with their attack on Ras-El-Akhen (k12)

As per the rules "The guerrilla action would be something to affect that area. It could be repairing a war-torn village, conducting a raid, a spy job, a hostage rescue, a mission to sabotage the other side, recruiting, anything that is not directly a battle between two sides. The builder would create this MOC, and then prepare for others to “Counter” it."

I would suggest that at least Garm's was evident that there was direct combat between two sides.

So, I hate to be one to call foul, especially since both builders have taken so much time to make their mocs, they coordinated an attack on the final day, and it was a good story. IT is just, I am not sure that this attack can really be considered guerrilla. Perhaps we let you two refocus this to a warzone?

Edited March 16, 2015 by SkaForHire

[Kai NRG]

I agree with Ska about the cities. As for our attack, yes, that is an excellent point that makes complete sense. As it stands, Garmadon's guerrilla I agree does not fit the rules. (Mine on the other hand could be considered amassing supplies and as such I don't see any problem with it.) However, how does this sound; instead of attacking Ras-El-Akhen, we're attacking a major grain supplying outpost. Without the grain outpost, the city will succumb quickly to our forces. Does that sound like it fits the rules?

Sorry for cutting it so close, somehow we did seem to miss that part! In the future we'll of course be more careful to stay away from such grey territory!

Two other things - is it permissible to guerrilla anywhere in an opponent's territory? I kind of assumed that your team had to be touching it. (That would mean the attacks against J15 need to be relocated at least).

Second - there have been seven guerrillas against Ulandus this week. Have we decided on the "no more guerrillas against a team than half the members that team possess"? I believe there's one too many against us (there are thirteen against us). If that's the case, I'd suggest that the one posted latest in time (MKJoshA's) should be deferred to this week.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Kai NRG

[MKJoshA]

I understand if my guerrilla build gets moved to this week due to the Ulandars crying foul My only request would be that I get to choose a different square for it to be against.

[Maxim I]

I agree with Ska about the cities. As for our attack, yes, that is an excellent point that makes complete sense. As it stands, Garmadon's guerrilla I agree does not fit the rules. (Mine on the other hand could be considered amassing supplies and as such I don't see any problem with it.) However, how does this sound; instead of attacking Ras-El-Akhen, we're attacking a major grain supplying outpost. Without the grain outpost, the city will succumb quickly to our forces. Does that sound like it fits the rules?

Sorry for cutting it so close, somehow we did seem to miss that part! In the future we'll of course be more careful to stay away from such grey territory!

Two other things - is it permissible to guerrilla anywhere in an opponent's territory? I kind of assumed that your team had to be touching it. (That would mean the attacks against J15 need to be relocated at least).

Second - there have been seven guerrillas against Ulandus this week. Have we decided on the "no more guerrillas against a team than half the members that team possess"? I believe there's one too many against us (there are thirteen against us). If that's the case, I'd suggest that the one posted latest in time (MKJoshA's) should be deferred to this week.

I suggested to my team members to wait a week, but they were so eager to post it I had to go with them :p

Wait a minute, J15 is next to I15 (Stedor), so I am not so sure why J15 should be relocated?

Also, If I was correct, you could guerilla everywhere you want. Only when picking a warzone you had to pick a zone next to your territory.

[Bregir]

I agree with Ska about the cities. As for our attack, yes, that is an excellent point that makes complete sense. As it stands, Garmadon's guerrilla I agree does not fit the rules. (Mine on the other hand could be considered amassing supplies and as such I don't see any problem with it.) However, how does this sound; instead of attacking Ras-El-Akhen, we're attacking a major grain supplying outpost. Without the grain outpost, the city will succumb quickly to our forces. Does that sound like it fits the rules?

Sorry for cutting it so close, somehow we did seem to miss that part! In the future we'll of course be more careful to stay away from such grey territory!

Two other things - is it permissible to guerrilla anywhere in an opponent's territory? I kind of assumed that your team had to be touching it. (That would mean the attacks against J15 need to be relocated at least).

Second - there have been seven guerrillas against Ulandus this week. Have we decided on the "no more guerrillas against a team than half the members that team possess"? I believe there's one too many against us (there are thirteen against us). If that's the case, I'd suggest that the one posted latest in time (MKJoshA's) should be deferred to this week.

Either we limit the maximum guerillas allowed against one faction, or we make provisions that a guerilla attack can always be countered. (eg. if there are noone else to counter a build (within reason - we shouldn't be too rigid), any builder can counter it, regardless of whether this builder already have a counter up.)

Alternatively, an extended deadline could be given for the last guerillabuilds to be uploaded.

Limiting the number can be quite hard to manage, and sort of defeat the freeform of the wargame, although I definitely understand you concern, Kai.

However, I think Ulandus have been unlucky this time - it is unlikely that the same distribution of guerilla attacks will happen again. (I will petition the High Council to be more balanced in it's attacks - or at least focus a bit more on the DK areas! )

(Alternatively, each faction has to have an even number of guerilla's against each opposing faction +/- 2. But again, it defeats the freeform a bit.)

Just a few thoughts.

[Kai NRG]

I agree with Bregir's options.

...Wait a minute, J15 is next to I15 (Stedor), so I am not so sure why J15 should be relocated?...

You're right; I meant K19. I could be wrong anyways, though!

[SkaForHire]

I agree with Ska about the cities. As for our attack, yes, that is an excellent point that makes complete sense. As it stands, Garmadon's guerrilla I agree does not fit the rules. (Mine on the other hand could be considered amassing supplies and as such I don't see any problem with it.) However, how does this sound; instead of attacking Ras-El-Akhen, we're attacking a major grain supplying outpost. Without the grain outpost, the city will succumb quickly to our forces. Does that sound like it fits the rules?

Sorry for cutting it so close, somehow we did seem to miss that part! In the future we'll of course be more careful to stay away from such grey territory!

Two other things - is it permissible to guerrilla anywhere in an opponent's territory? I kind of assumed that your team had to be touching it. (That would mean the attacks against J15 need to be relocated at least).

Second - there have been seven guerrillas against Ulandus this week. Have we decided on the "no more guerrillas against a team than half the members that team possess"? I believe there's one too many against us (there are thirteen against us). If that's the case, I'd suggest that the one posted latest in time (MKJoshA's) should be deferred to this week.

I agree about yours, as I said, Garm's is the one that breaks the spirit of the rules there, because it is clear that this is an attack on a fortification that is occupied by the enemy. I am not sure a grain silo would have walls like that. My comprimise is that you both decide that this is a different zone, and we play it out as a GA. That way, a Victory point location is not taken by MOCs that might kinda sorta not be legal as a GA. Does that make sense? I Agree that yours alone could easily be "gathering supplies for war" but I dont want Garm's to be DQed since he worked hard on it.

As to the next point -- I finally get what you mean, I misread before, I thought you meant stacking GA builds in one zone, you meant too many zones. Ok. Well, I think Bregir's suggestion is the best. See below.

I understand if my guerrilla build gets moved to this week due to the Ulandars crying foul My only request would be that I get to choose a different square for it to be against.

I think this is a good compromise. We will count yours for next week, just edit the square you want.

Also, If I was correct, you could guerilla everywhere you want. Only when picking a warzone you had to pick a zone next to your territory.

That is correct, anywhere in enemy territory. (The idea here was that most of these would be subterfuge, sabotage, spies, and the sparking of rebellion, along with supply, counter-espionage, counter-sabotage, arrests, assassinations, etc... None of these have to be in close proximity to the battle front)

Either we limit the maximum guerillas allowed against one faction, or we make provisions that a guerilla attack can always be countered. (eg. if there are noone else to counter a build (within reason - we shouldn't be too rigid), any builder can counter it, regardless of whether this builder already have a counter up.)

Alternatively, an extended deadline could be given for the last guerillabuilds to be uploaded.

Limiting the number can be quite hard to manage, and sort of defeat the freeform of the wargame, although I definitely understand you concern, Kai.

I think this is a good way to go about this. That any amount of builds over half of the total number of builders in a faction can A)be countered by any member who wants to make a second counter attack and b) will have a two week counter deadline. I will randomly draw which GAs will have the extended deadline, and fall into the "you can counter this build, even though you already countered another this week" category (someone figure out a better term for this status. )

OVerload! maybe that is what we call them," overloaded GAs!"

[MKJoshA]

I think this is a good compromise. We will count yours for next week, just edit the square you want.

Ok, can you change it to G13 then?

[Garmadon]

I agree about yours, as I said, Garm's is the one that breaks the spirit of the rules there, because it is clear that this is an attack on a fortification that is occupied by the enemy. I am not sure a grain silo would have walls like that. My comprimise is that you both decide that this is a different zone, and we play it out as a GA. That way, a Victory point location is not taken by MOCs that might kinda sorta not be legal as a GA. Does that make sense? I Agree that yours alone could easily be "gathering supplies for war" but I dont want Garm's to be DQed since he worked hard on it...

Thanks Ska, that should work (I'll check with Kai about which square to choose). Sorry about that though, it was the first thing that came to mind after seeing Kai's (that's what happens when you forget to double-check the rules before building! I hadn't even thought that it wasn't really a guerrilla before you mentioned it )

OVerload! maybe that is what we call them," overloaded GAs!"

! Certainly an appropriate term!

Edited March 16, 2015 by Garmadon

[Kai NRG]

We'll switch to H5, if that's alright.

[Maxim I]

We'll switch to H5, if that's alright.

Wait a minute, how many time do we have now for the te counterbuild? 2 weeks or only 1 week?

[Kai NRG]

Wait a minute, how many time do we have now for the te counterbuild? 2 weeks or only 1 week?

I don't see why you'd have two. (You - as a team - certainly don't need two!)

[Maxim I]

I don't see why you'd have two. (You - as a team - certainly don't need two!)

Well, we figured out we had 2 weeks as Ras-El-Akhen was a 2 point territory So if Ska tells us now we only have time till Sunday, we will have to start MOC'ing for it

[Kai NRG]

Well, we figured out we had 2 weeks as Ras-El-Akhen was a 2 point territory So if Ska tells us now we only have time till Sunday, we will have to start MOC'ing for it

I didn't realize you would have two weeks for a 2 point territory?

...Starting next week: All cities have three weeks of counter time. Any zone deeply in enemy territory (More than two zones deep in all directions, including water) would have two weeks of counter time. Any zone in the "Special victory condition" area of the Desert King would also get two weeks to counter, since these are worth a lot at the end... [emphasis mine]

Plus it's three anyways. As far as it goes, our team has received the full quota of 6 guerrillas and we're still planning on countering all of them this week. I don't see why you should complain.

Edit: And, it's a moot point. We changed very early in the week, you still have plenty of time to change your plans a little!

Edited March 17, 2015 by Kai NRG

[Maxim I]

I didn't realize you would have two weeks for a 2 point territory?

Plus it's three anyways. As far as it goes, our team has received the full quota of 6 guerrillas and we're still planning on countering all of them this week. I don't see why you should complain.

Edit: And, it's a moot point. We changed very early in the week, you still have plenty of time to change your plans a little!

I am not complaining, I already made my counterbuild this week (Welcome to Everlast). I just will have to wake up my teammates