Beta version 2.3

On my blog as usual:

https://quirkworthy.com/2017/01/03/mythic-battles-beta-v2-3/

Thanks

Changes include:

a new setting up the game section

adding divinity as a collective term for god and titan

Small, but important edits in wording for turn sequence to allow/disallow permutations of play as intended

Do you think adding how Titans reduce your RPs to the "Recruiting an Army" section would be beneficial?

They won't.

I had a cunning plan to avoid that potentially confusing process.

We add 6 points to all the army RP sizes.

We make gods and titans worth 6RP + whatever modifier they would otherwise apply. So, Zeus is 6RP, Hera is 4, Atlas is 8, Typhon is 10.

That makes it simpler all round

Ahh, nice! Yeah, it's definetely clearer.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

I had a cunning plan to avoid that potentially confusing process.

We add 6 points to all the army RP sizes.
We make gods and titans worth 6RP + whatever modifier they would otherwise apply. So, Zeus is 6RP, Hera is 4, Atlas is 8, Typhon is 10.

That makes it simpler all round

+1 DEFINITELY better!

It does not only make it more simple, it also gives a better indication of how strong Gods and titans actually are.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

We make gods and titans worth 6RP + whatever modifier they would otherwise apply. So, Zeus is 6RP, Hera is 4, Atlas is 8, Typhon is 10.

I like this solution. By the way, I think it is awesome that you are letting us see the drafts and offer feedback.

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but I am afraid some people might think a Mighty Throw happens during the first assault and then argue that their unit shouldn't take damage (since they were thrown).

Something else:

Rulebook wrote:

1) Place the board(s) required by the scenario in the middle of the table.
Add any 3D terrain elements, omphalos, and other tokens or miniatures
shown on the scenario map.

What do you mean by shown on the scenario map?

Rulebook wrote:

Each player then deals themself 3 random cards from their shuffled deck.

Wouldn't each player draws be clearer?

Rulebook wrote:

7) Resolve 1 complex action, then immediately end the unit’s activation
(go to C1). A unit that is taking a complex action is treated as having no
talents and only powers described as detriments during their
activation.

The last and only powers described as detriments during their
activation might be a little confusing.
We might need a new term to describe a power that is good to the unit (benefit?). This way you could simply say "A unit that is taking a complex action is treated as having no
talents and benefits during their activation, but detriments still apply."

I kind of find it wierd talking about detriments and benefits as powers... One would hardly call a detriment a "power".

How about having "Power" and "Penalty" as two different concepts instead of "powers that benefit" and "powers that detriment".

And the iconography for both in the dashboards should be different.

1.

Quote :

"Keyword: an important word or phrase with a specific game meaning, often used by other rules. Keywords are always written in bold, like this: unit."

On my opinion, this definition is not needed.

2. Pass : this is when a player chooses not to take a turn. Instead, he draws 2 cards from his deck. (What I modify is underlined)

3.

Quote :

Draw : to take the top card from your deck.

Looking at pass, you can also draw 2 cards, not only one. Looking at the definition of Deck : "the face down pile of cards that a player can draw from", I am not sure Draw is needed in the glossary. As an exemple, discard is not in the glossary and not needed I think.

4.

Quote :

Detriment : a power that is bad for the unit. They are the only type of power that remains in effect when the unit makes a complex action.

I don't know if the Atlas' power Bearer of the Heavens is a detriment but it is not always bad if you are looking for fast cycling.
That definition could be modified to : "a power that a unit can't negate (control, or something like that). They are the only type of power that remains in effect when the unit makes a complex action."
The term of detriment should also be modified as it is not always negative.

5.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

Biel wrote:

3. During an ATTACK, Monster slayer talent allow to reroll up to 2 dices. May you clarify if thoose rerolls can be used during only one assault, or divided during 2 assaults ? Only during the first assault ? 2 dices per assault or 2 dices per ATTACK ? May we reroll only one die but 2 times ?

3) Good point.

Still need clarifications.

6. Setting up a Game : wich player chooses first the side where he will deploy his army ?

7.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

We add 6 points to all the army RP sizes.
We make gods and titans worth 6RP + whatever modifier they would otherwise apply. So, Zeus is 6RP, Hera is 4, Atlas is 8, Typhon is 10.

Good idea, but don't add 6RP to the army size of the three friendly players in 3v1

Sorry for double post.

8. Activation card is not in the Glossary.

9.

Quote :

Leader talent : [...] If the friendly unit does not belong to the active player then it may be activated immediately by discarding one of its activation cards. This Leader activation does not count towards the maximum number of unit activations allowed for the turn.

I am really not sure it's a good idea.

In 2v2, Athena's owner can activate 6 units in one turn !!! 3 leaders owned by Athena's owner (Athena have leader) plus 3 ~allied troops. Fast cycling ?

Furthermore not counting an ~allied troop activation towards the maximum number of unit activations allowed is not immersive. Instead of our troops, we will try to activate ~allied troops with the leaders of our army.

And it makes leader really stronger in 2v2 games than in 1v1. So are unit's RP still balanced if they are drafted in 1v1 or 2v2 ?
Exemple, is Hector's Bravery still a good power in 2v2 games ?

I suggest you could modify Leader talent in that way : "At the beginning of your First Action Phase, before you activate a unit, you can search your deck for an activation card of a troop you owned and that is in the same aera of one of your unit with the leader talent. Then, in order you want and one by one, you must activate that troop and that unit with leader talent, without discarding an AoW card for thoose two activations."

I think it's more immersive, the troops are following their leader. And when the fight is coming, Heroes with Bolster talent can go first too motivate their troops, Heroes with Phalanx talent can send their troops first too give the final blow helped by their followers, etc...

Sneak Attack
This unit gains +1 Offence as long as a friendly unit is in the same area.

Is this the same area as the attacking unit or the unit being attacked?  In the instances of ranged attacks (and you can melee attack into adjacent full areas) it's unclear.

Detriment could be called "curse" most of the time isn't it a curse?

You could call a curse every power that activates in an unwanted way. Any effect produced by a power that has not been activated by the owner. Could also be called a side-effect?

Hi QW when do you think we can expect a french version of the rules. Sorry I can't find the thread if this was discussed before.

To make things clearer, you could simply place the word (curse) after the description of the effect in the dashboards. Or even make a symbol to represent this kind of powers that are uncontrolled and always aply. You could divide powers that have both things (good and bad things) in the description and transform it into a power AND a curse, or even say that some curses are activated when you activate certain power.

Lots of good points as usual

Some specific replies below:

Detrimental powers will have an icon to denote this on the dashboards so it's clear.

@kordo - when we've gone through this version and have ironed out the main problems, then we'll put up a new French version. It's being re-translated and checked against this as we go along, so it won't be much behind.

@Biel - I haven't changed Leader, this is how it's always worked. It's actually quite hard to get it to happen more than once though, in the middle of everything else that's going on in a battle.

In most scenarios the armies start off table, so there is no deployment order necessary. The lead player takes the first turn and moves on whatever units he wants.

@orword - a scenario map is the map for that scenario. Every scenario needs to explain where the entry areas, omphalos, 3D terrain, etc are set up.

I read the V2.3 and the main change I see compared to the games I played is the "recruit an army" section (If I understand well).
It will be a little bit tricky for me to explain it in english but let's try: in that version, recruitment is always clockwise, with the lead player beginning to draft his divinity and after everybody chose the divinity then the second player begins to recruit other units. Is it correct?

Until now, I always played according to the rules of the beta version given during the KS:
Recruitment in a 4-player Game
Each player has a budget of 8 Recruitment points to spend during their draft. The first player is determined randomly (highest result on a die roll). Starting with the first player, each player chooses a God. The draft is made in a “Z” form, by alternating each side.
So the player sitting across from the first player chooses their God second, then the player allied
to and sitting next to the first player, and then the fourth and final player.
Recruiting Units (Heroes, Monsters, Troops)
Then, starting with the fourth player, each player chooses a unit, in turn, going in the opposite direction from the one used to choose the Gods. They repeat this process, changing directions each time until 8 points are spent by each player (the cost is indicated by the unit’s Cost icon). Player 1 and Player 4 draft two times when it gets to them.

Is it a changing in the draft process? If yes, why?

I'm not changing this process, simply defining one core rule that can be modified, if necessary, by a scenario. The core book should not contain every possible permutation of player numbers and teams. That belongs with the specific scenario that uses them.

In fact, the way a 4 player game works depends on the order the players are seated in. If they are seated alternately, as intended, then clockwise is fine for choosing divinities. Once they have their divinity then the order would be reversed, but still round the table. Around a table (either clockwise or anti-) is far simpler than a Z form.

At the time I did those diagrams (h-t-t-p-:-/-/-cpc.cx/hLk) , are they still relevant?

I hope not. They make my head hurt.

Coming back to "Leader":

Biel wrote:

9.

Quote :

Leader talent : [...] If the friendly unit does not belong to the active player then it may be activated immediately by discarding one of its activation cards. This Leader activation does not count towards the maximum number of unit activations allowed for the turn.

I am really not sure it's a good idea.

In 2v2, Athena's owner can activate 6 units in one turn !!! 3 leaders owned by Athena's owner (Athena have leader) plus 3 ~allied troops. Fast cycling ?

We played Leader by counting the activation of a teammate troop as our second activation, but I think the actual rule (don't know if it's a changing or a clarification) is better. It makes troops a little bit better, and we see in another topic that most of us find troops not powerful enough, so...
And the idea that we could activate 6 units in one turn with Athena is exciting That would be so hard to conclude that it is the kind of feat that we talk during centuries And I like it!

Nevertheless, thinking about that, I have one question: can we activate a troop unit more than once a turn thanks to Leader? (I activate one Leader during my turn, that finishes his turn on the teammate's Amazons area -> he searches through his deck for the AC and plays them, then I activate a second Leader and do the same. The Amazons shot twice during my turn!)

Voice of Olympus wrote:

I hope not. They make my head hurt.

I could understand that my diagrams make your eyes bleed, but to the point of a headache...

Voice of Olympus wrote:

I'm not changing this process, simply defining one core rule that can be modified, if necessary, by a scenario. The core book should not contain every possible permutation of player numbers and teams. That belongs with the specific scenario that uses them.

In fact, the way a 4 player game works depends on the order the players are seated in. If they are seated alternately, as intended, then clockwise is fine for choosing divinities. Once they have their divinity then the order would be reversed, but still round the table. Around a table (either clockwise or anti-) is far simpler than a Z form.

I do agree that Z form is less easy to follow than "around the table".
And I just have to put in my head that even the "classical" game mode is now treated as a scenario, and will have (I guess) its scenario page in the scenario book.

But if every game mode is treated as a scenario (a good thing according to me), I find that the "recruit an army" section is then too precise. When will this core rule be utilized?
Can't you just explain that each player will choose not more than a divinity and will have a pool of RP depending on the scenario that will be spent as such (excerpt from V2.3.):
"a. Each time a player gets a turn to choose, they must select a single unit to recruit.
b. When a player chooses a unit for their army, they reduce their remaining RP by the unit’s RP cost and take the corresponding dashboard or troop card.
c. If a player cannot afford any of the remaining units, then all their remaining RP are converted to omphalos cards: 1 card for each unspent RP.
d. If a player has no Recruitment Points left, the other players continue choosing units in order, skipping the player whose recruitment has ended.
e. Continue clockwise around the table as many times as are needed for all players to spend all their RP"

@Peps: a good question about activating the same allied unit twice. Currently there's nothing stopping you. If you could pull it off, that might be another of those instances which you'd talk about for centuries

I think the core recruitment will be used a fair amount. Certainly it seems useful to have a normal version, on which other versions can be based.

I'd much rather explain the core of the rules in the main book and just have to explain what was different, than have to repeat the whole thing in every scenario.

We can always reduce it later if we find it redundant.