A much needed clarification for Special Strikes!

JamesR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:41 am

So while watching several GBHL Youtube battles it came to my attention one absolutely MAJOR flaw to special strikes that I believe needs to be fixed. Please bear with me. (I am by no means claiming the GBHL caused this problem, only that by watching them I noticed it)

On many occassions I have seen the following situations.
Example 1:
James has a Warrior of Rohan with sword fighting Jamie's Wood Elf armed with a normal sword as well.

James - "I'll feint, as I have the lower Fight Value"
Jamie - "I'll Feint too then."

Notice the problem. James feints, thereby gaining the re-roll of 1's benefit as he is already at the disadvantage FV wise. Jamie then only feints as well because James is doing so, otherwise he would risk dropping to a lower FV than the Warrior of Rohan and losing on a drawn combat.

Example 2:
James has a Warrior of Rohan this time armed with an axe vs Jamie who has a Wood Elf with WE Spear.

Jamie - "I'll shield"
James - "Then I'll piercing strike"

Notice again the problem, James is only electing to risk lowering his defense because Jamie cannot strike wounds if he wins. Thereby removing all risk from the special strike, simply by declaring what he will do second.

Now in no way am I addressing any problems with special strikes as currently constructed (in terms of who should be able to feint etc), but instead seeking to clarify an area that has not been previously defined.

What I am proposing is that each player begin the game with two tokens that are the exact same on one side and different on the other (for example both are white on side A, but one is red while the other blue on side B). Whenever a situation as described occurs, both players take one token and place it face down on the table. Once both players have placed their tokens then they reveal at the same time. Thereby keeping all the risk of a "special strike" in play, as you do not know what your opponent will be doing.
The obvious caveat is if one player is going to piercing strike and the other feint then there need be none of this, this is only a solution to situations where one's choice might impact his opponent's own.

Before anyone thinks this is completely unprecedented look at the situation (that rarely occurs), when both players want to expend might to influence opposing dice rolls. Each player in secret writes down how many of their available might points they wish to spend (with a minimum of 1 to a maximum of what they currently have in their store), and reveals together. This prevents the unfair advantage of simply waiting for your opponent to declare what they are going to do.

Any thoughts on this proposed change/clarification?

slaktarn · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:50 am

I just posted in the offical rules section about who declares his special strikes first as there are no reference in the rules about this.
While I have no objection to your proposal, I like it, I have a perhaps simplier one, the player with priority chooses first.
This gives priority a small downside which I think is fine.
Have fun
slaktarn

NarsilReforged · **Joined:** Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:13 am **Posts:** 316

It should be the same as with Heroics. Whoever does not have priority goes first.

JamesR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:07 pm

The player w/o priority makes sense. That'd be a good fix as well.

Stormcrow · **Joined:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:02 am **Posts:** 218

Personally I don't see the issue with this.
Every choice in the game has its pros and cons. If you want to gain the benefit of shielding then you have to be prepared to have the negative effect of your opponent taking advantage of this.

It's just part of how the game works.

JamesR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:42 pm

Stormcrow wrote:

Personally I don't see the issue with this.
Every choice in the game has its pros and cons. If you want to gain the benefit of shielding then you have to be prepared to have the negative effect of your opponent taking advantage of this.

It's just part of how the game works.

My complaint is no mechanic should ever be based upon how slow you are at making decisions. Because I am a faster player and declare I'm shielding and My opponent is slower and then decides to piercing strike solely because I already declared is ridiculous. There's already enough of a drawback to shielding. Don't penalize me further for being the more experienced gamer

Ellorindar · **Joined:** Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:41 pm **Posts:** 111

Ok, if this is a big issue, then there is an easy fix that we employ in WOTR for heroic actions. An easy way of fixing this issue is to do the following: at the beginning of the fight each player takes a moment to consider if they will be using special strikes. If so, each player will declare yes or no, and then roll off to see who declares first. This solves the problem of "reaction" strikes, as with the shielding example above. However, if the GBHL chaps had thought this an issue I'm sure they would have voiced it by now.

JamesR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:48 pm

Idk if they even thought about it. They're not that experienced in the game really, relatively speaking.

I think most people simply accept rule problems without fuss so to speak. It took a while community to decide on Legolas special shot's parameters

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

JamesR wrote:

Idk if they even thought about it. They're not that experienced in the game really, relatively speaking.

Really? How do you mean? James is a relatively new player (although now attends all the tournaments so has a ton of in-game experience) but Jamie's about as experienced as it gets.

JamesR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:39 pm

I don't mean it as any kind of insult. I meant they're not the end all be all when it comes to SBG. I believe you have said before that you've played longer than Jamie. I've played longer than the two of them combined.
But again I was simply responding the the statement that they were basically the gurus of the game, by Ellorindar

Ellorindar · **Joined:** Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:41 pm **Posts:** 111

I agree with you JamesR, they probably haven't realised that it is a problem. It was quite a good observation on your part to notice the problem with striking. You noted a few examples above, are there any other strikes or rule issues to take note of?

Thermo · **Posted:** Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:46 pm

Why we might not be the be all and end all of sbg we do play regularly and attend all the tournaments... And Jamie has been doing that for an awful long time. The reason it isn't an issue if you play regularly is that the mechanic sorts itself out. Usually player with priority is leading the way through the combats and everyone has a chance to be reactive, as with heroics.

To be honest, I think the mentioned solution above would just unnecessarily slow the game down.

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

JamesR wrote:

I don't mean it as any kind of insult. I meant they're not the end all be all when it comes to SBG. I believe you have said before that you've played longer than Jamie. I've played longer than the two of them combined.

Oh they're certainly not the be all and end all but I'd rank Jamie as up there with the most knowledgeable on the intricacies of the rules. Besides, being experienced in something is determined by how often you've done something, not by how long you've done something. James has only been playing for a couple of years but I reckon he's played more games in that time than some people who've been playing since Fellowship of the Ring was released. Also, more pertinently to this discussion, they've both been playing very heavily since the Hobbit rules were released which of course is when the special strike rules were created. As for me, whilst I certainly played my first games before Jamie (having dabbled in SBG when it was first released back in 2001), I only got back into the hobby 3 and a half years ago when he was already a regular tournament goer so he definitely trumps me for experience.

Anyway, getting back on topic. It's an interesting discussion and bizarrely timed as I was thinking about it a lot at the weekend. I played Major_Tom's Gondor army and we had a lot of fights where my Warriors of Erebor (with axes) supported by Laketown Guard were fighting his Fountain Court Guard with shields supported by WOMT with spears. 2v2, both F4, both wounding on 6s. If I piercing strike I've got a 66% chance of increasing my chances of wounding to 5s countered by a 66% chance of increasing his chances of wounding to 5s - an interesting debate. I made my decision on an individual basis based on the combats/model's position but, as I started to gain the numbers advantage, Tom would nearly always say shielding immediately - removing the risk for me. Now, I certainly wasn't waiting for him to say shielding but I must admit at one point I did start to feel like I was getting a bit of an unfair advantage because his decision to shield always came immediately whereas I had to think about mine a little bit. Thankfully I don't think this ever came across to Tom as me trying to gain an advantage (indeed he was very positive about our game in his TOS report) but it does highlight a slight issue.

In all the games I've ever played it's never come up because people are normally playing for the right reasons and don't use this sort of gamesmanship. If you did want to codify it in some way then I would take the lead from the casual way people use Heroics. I haven't got my rulebook to hand but the way it normally works in practice is that the player without priority declares their Heroics, then the player with priority counters, then the player without can counter if they wish and so on until both players are satisfied. The important thing is that you can't take back a declared Heroic based on one declared by your opponent. This would also work for special strikes - the player without priority declares "I'm shielding" so the player with priority declares "well then I'm piercing striking" but that's it - the shielding player can't take it back. This gives the player with priority an advantage in combat the same way they have an advantage in movement and shooting which seems fair enough to me. Come the next turn (or whenever priority has swapped) then the advantage goes to the other player "I'm piecing striking" "then I won't shield" - although of course in this situation the shielding player has less chance of winning the fight against a potentially higher strength enemy so may want to shield anyway.

As I said, it's never come up for me as the vast majority of players play for the right reasons and aren't using strikes as some form of gamesmanship. Still, if it is becoming an issue in your games, simply say that the player without priority declares first and that you can't take it back - that will sort out the issue.

JamesR · **Posted:** Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:09 pm

Again I by no means meant any of it as an insult. Obviously I should have chosen my words more carefully.
And it's certainly possible that it would slow things down a bit. In play-testing it I didn't mind the odd moment here and there. I do hope however GW does clarify this with the new rules FAQ, I'd be ok with the person w/o priority having to declare first. Although it'll still irk me slightly haha.

@Ellorindar - Maybe, but most have been well discussed by other gamers. I believe Dr Grant, pointed out that Bilbo's pony turns invisible when he's wearing the ring.
There's the whole Goblin Prowler with Piercing Strike being able to automatically wound.
Bofur being able to be healed after taking 1 wound and keep his free heroics.
To name a few

Hodush · **Posted:** Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:31 am

I can agree that there is a lot of back and forth and even some disadvantage to whoever picks strikes first. As has been mentioned, good gamesmanship has been enough that it hasn't been too much of an issue, but its not an ideal situation to be in.

I think that whoever has priority should declare first, with no changes allowed. It is simpler if the person with priority goes first, just like they pick combats first and move first. Generally its good to have priority, so I think it would be too negative if the player losing priority decided first - they could be charged and have no moves to make, then be exploited further as the attacker gets a risk free choice and any charge bonuses etc..

We can't be trusted just to say "special striking" as someone will say "no, I meant to do feint, not piercing" if they had both options and lost the roll to win. I would like to see another way of doing it, but I don't think there is any practical, time efficient way of doing so.

The simplest and most effective option will always be this:
both players roll at exactly the same time and declare their strikes or actions as they let go of the dice. EG, piercing or shielding or two hand feint. As long as you both say it within a short time of each other, it will work. If they aren't heard or take too long to say something (that is by the time the dice has stopped rolling), they forfeit any chance to make an action. This would increase the volume of the game, but maybe add a bit more atmosphere or something. Its already loud enough for me at tournaments though, so I'm not a huge fan of suggesting it, but its is the ONLY way it would work in my mind... apart from having cards which you throw down (or hold) when you roll.

As has been talked before, I don't think the special strikes aren't equally balanced, so balance the strikes and it would be much fairer and you can pick and choose before rolling. What I mean is that some strikes I have never seen used, others are frequently used and would be more likely to be exploited by the whoever picks first scenario.

Piercing strike stays at D3 strength, but the opponent should receive a +1 or a reroll. To me this is represented by making a huge, heavy strike with an axe. If they are agile enough, they can deflect the blow or move out of the way, if not they get chopped to pieces.
Bash: is fine except if the basher wins, the opponent should be at -1 or he be at +1, otherwise its too much 50/50 and not enough strategy to even bother. If they go 2h, they still get an extra +1 (+2 max), as they already have a penalty for going 2h or pay for burly in their profile.
Stun is ok, really its a good thing there are only a few of these in game.
Whirl: I would make it half the fight value, round up. As it stands, the witch king couldn't even beat a goblin - it would be more energetic to me if you got 3 on 1, lost the fight and lost 3 guys to it, just like the beserker does at Helms deep.
Feint is ok, maybe 1 or 2, but as it is the most common weapon in the game, I tihnk its fine as is.

A much needed clarification for Special Strikes!

Who is online