2.6 beta version

Thanks for your patience.

As stated earlier, this is a catch-up version that incorporates all the forum feedback in the 2.4 and 2.5 threads, plus the French 2.4 and some external feedback.

Available here (still haven't fathomed how to post docs):

https://quirkworthy.com/2017/01/22/mythic-battles-version-2-6/

I have read all the comments on the previous threads, and adopted those I thought were clear improvements. Some good ideas I did not adopt because I thought they created other problems elsewhere.

Some thoughts:

Evade or recall or retaliate as talents - I don't see a benefit here, and I do see a lot more text on the dashboards. They are all generic rules that apply to all flyers, all divinities, and all units respectively. Make much more sense to me as a rulebook thing.

Term X or Y isn't necessary in the definitions - always a tricky one. In the end, the definitions are there for the less experienced players, and those wanting precise wordings for debates on details. In both cases, more is better. Whatever happens, it's impossible to fit everyone with a single list, and it's better to have a couple of extra ones rather than leave people floundering for lack of the odd sentence.

Turn sequence - many of the suggestions offered are likely to generate additional FAQs. Whilst they may be cleaner and simpler, they also leave loopholes for debate, and I'd rather avoid these where I can see them coming. Whilst some have suggested that a number of simplifications can be made as much can be left to common sense, it is my experience that gamers lose most of this in the middle of a game, when they start debating the precise meaning of rules

Another turn sequence theme which recurs in various versions is whether a section should be included or taken out. This is another balance issue. You don't want to include everything in a turn sequence or it becomes unwieldy. On the other hand, you don't want people to have to repeatedly refer outside the turn sequence to understand what's actually happening and what their options are. Things that are likely to be forgotten are best included (ending effects, etc).

As with most turn sequences, once you've played a few turns you shouldn't need to refer to them unless you've hit a detail that needs resolving. At that point, having a detailed turn sequence is a big help.

Separate manoeuvre table - yes, most of these are listed in their appropriate places in the turn sequence. However, not all are, and this is a handy reference with everything in one place, which I think will be very useful.

Unit states, and distinguishing not yet entered vs destroyed troops - a simple and intuitive solution I like is to stand minis on dashboards when they have yet to enter, and lie them down when they're dead. I think adding more states than we already have is unnecessarily complex for the little use we make of them. We need to know for troop talents (already done - are they complete or not?), recalling troops (see previous sentence), and using activation cards. You could always bin the dashboard when a unit got destroyed. That's simple too

Thanks!

QW, is the order this is being show to us the final order of the rule book?

I am not sure I understand this :

Quote :

Flying Units: [...] They ignore all terrain effects, including beneficial ones.

So a flying archer do not get +1 range, +1 attack, no los advantage from being on an elevated area ?
This doesn't make sense.

Telgar wrote:

I am not sure I understand this :

Quote :

Flying Units: [...] They ignore all terrain effects, including beneficial ones.

So a flying archer do not get +1 range, +1 attack, no los advantage from being on an elevated area ?
This doesn't make sense.

Realistically it makes a lot of sense: since they're flying, they are already in an "elevated area". Gameplay wise, I'm not so sure.

Yes, flying units ignore all terrain modifiers. I've checked with Benoit and that's what he intended.

@RichC - In terms of sequence, yes this is the sequecne things will be in the book. Barring changing between now and finishing, of course,

Currently you're missing things at both ends though.

The only bit I think looks odd where it is at the moment is the AoW section.

What do you think is misplaced?

Voice of Olympus wrote:

Another turn sequence theme which recurs in various versions is whether a section should be included or taken out. This is another

Ah. Having read beta 2.5, I was going to suggest that in the turn sequence, B and C should be replaced with:
---------------------------------------------

	B: Do any or all of the following, zero or one times:
	Activate a unit (no cost)
	Activate a second (different) unit (costs 1 AoW card)
	Take two cards from the top of the deck (costs 1 AoW card)
	Look through the deck for a card (costs 1 AoW card)
	Evade (costs 1 AoW card)
	These can be done in any order, except that the second activation must of course occur after the first.

---------------------------------------------
Then, after D, describe the activation sequence. This means that all actions that can be taken in a single turn are listed in one place, and the activation sequence only needs to be described once. But possibly I'm revisiting something that has already been rejected ?

Something for your consideration, I would suggest thinking through ordering the rules this way. Subsections remain the same. Thinking through this if you are going to play the game, you need the main objective, setup of the game, how it plays and then specifics. I will explain individual moves below.

Rules Hierarchy
Setting up a Game
Sequence of Play
Actions (1)
Art of War Cards (2)
Manoeuvres

Talents (3)
Game Terms & General Rules (4)

1. Moving Actions after Sequence of Play. This is mainly what you are doing during the turn sequence of the game and logically follows explain this right after explain the order that you take the actions.
2. Art of War Cards and the Manoeuvers are basically the same thing as far as a section goes they explain what you can do with the AOW cards and how the behave.  I would not have these before actions because Actions are the meaty decision points of the turns. Use of the art of war cards is more abstract to a new players strategy so I would want them to understand the turn structure and what they are doing in sequence of play and the actions before moving on to more in-depth and more loose use of the AOW cards.
3. The long lists of things that help a person understand the game would be more helpful at the end as a reference.
4. I would move the Game Terms to the end. It does make sense to me that you need to understand the terms before you can play the games but starting off with dictionary type entries may confuse people that are trying to understand the game. You currently have to read through 4-5 pages before you ever get into the game, which can be a bit intimidating. This game is great because it is simple to understand and hard to master. To me it makes more sense to explain what they are doing and then defining terms than it does to go through the terms first when they will not yet understand the application.

I understand more is coming and I think most of it will fit well in after the use of the AOW cards and before the Talents. Will look more into the content as I have time. I still agree with Can from post 2.4 that the turn order could be simplified to avoid redundancy and give an idea of the framework first then apply the specifics, but I get what you are trying to do with it as well. (see his post he worded it well)

I'd really like to see the talents that can be used with powers explicitly called out in each talent description. It would be a very simple addition that would remove any chance for confusion. Something like:
Talent Name (Powered)
Talent description

I'm sure there is a better descriptive word to method to show this...even an icon or something like a bold * would work.

The other benifit of something simple like an * is that it is small enough to fit on the unit and draft cards. Anything that improves your ability to at a glance understand the many different units' full functionality is a win.

Have you guys thought about changing the Leader talent? skies made some good points in this thread: https://agoodplace.forumactif.com/t143-some-first-gameplay-impressions-5-sessions

I've talked to both Benoit and Leo several times about troops (including about the suggestions on that thread) and they're very happy with where troops are now. As they have probably played MBP more than anyone else, I'm inclined to take their words for it

Voice of Olympus wrote:

I've talked to both Benoit and Leo several times about troops (including about the suggestions on that thread) and they're very happy with where troops are now. As they have probably played MBP more than anyone else, I'm inclined to take their words for it

Is there any chance we could get Benoit to start a thread with Design Notes? It would be neat to get some insight into the choices made streamlining the 2012 edition of Mythic Battles. I was inspired to pick up a copy and was shocked to find the original had a hand limit and power resource for upping stats and activating powers. This kind of information makes polls like "Should there be a hand limit?" seem less out of the blue.

I can ask him

Orword wrote:

Does Mighty Throw work for ranged attacks?

I asked this and the reply was yes. It works for all attacks a unit makes.

These are precise. I like the wording. My only critique would be in agreeing with the separation of the gameplay explanation and the term definitions. However, it could just as well be listed in the front as in the back. I guess if their is a clear indication at the beginning on what page to find gameplay then it wouldn't matter if the terms went before it. Many other games such as Laws of the Night had terms in the front of the book. Just something which is really just a personal preference, I guess.

Also, where are the new versions of recruitment points when recruiting? I suggest that the main rules list the cost for skermish play and refer players to the scenario instructions for the other options.

Yes, Mighty Throw works for all attacks.

Putting these game terms at the front is, as you say, something we see in some other games and not others. I like them at the front as people skim past them and so they know where they are when they need them.

The intro will tell people a bit more about navigating the book, and there will be a contents page (and possibly an index if I'm feeling masochistic).

Skirmish is going to be the first scenario, and so will be in the skirmish book.

A few of the items I caught/had questions for:

Definition of Game Terms:
1.       “Destroyed: A unit that has lost its last miniature (troops) or has had its Vitality reduced to zero or less. Miniatures representing destroyed units are removed from play. Pairs of activation cards belonging to destroyed units may be used as art of war cards.”

Last sentence should clarify that troop activation cards can’t be used as art of war cards. Without reading the exception later on in the rules, this reads like you can use troop activation cards as AoW. The “destroyed units are removed from play” also doesn’t feel like it applies to troops since they can be recalled and remove from play feels like a term that’s represents a more permanent state.

2.       “Pass: when a player chooses to draw a second card instead of having the option to activate units.”

Perhaps change end to “… activate or recall units” to encompass step D1 as well.

3.       “Range: a stat that denotes the maximum distance (in areas) at which the unit may make an ATTACK. Range 0 is the area the unit is in. See page XXX. Also, the distance (in areas) between units.”

The “See page XXX.” should be moved to after the last sentence.

4.       “Talent: an ability that aids a unit in battle. Talents are not unique. The names of a unit’s talents are listed on its dashboard or troop card, and the complete rules are on page XXX.”

Change “,and the complete rules are on page XXX.”  to simply say “See page XXX” for consistency with all the other see page usage.

5.       “Troops: … As long as 1 miniature remains, the unit continues in play…”

I feel this should read the unit continues to be in play.

6.       Deployment Zone should be added as a game term.

Setting up a Game:
7.       For Recruit an Army, step 3c, it is not clear what happens to this bonus omphalos card. Is it shuffled into the deck? Does it go into the player’s hand? If it goes into the player’s hand, does it count against the 6 starting cards?

Also, I know the rules state that you only get a starting omphalos card if can’t afford something, but is it possible (or at least has it been considered) for a player to spend 1 RP towards an omphalos card even if there are units they can buy? This came up for me in the PnP where a player either had to choose going with a 3 RP unit and no troops, or spend all 3 RP on troops and unnecessarily inflating their deck.

Actions:
8.       I question the need to break down actions into both types and families. Why not just stick to the actions being characterized as either Simple or Complex? Reorganizing them further into three different families doesn’t help to make things clearer. As a result, the ENTER action feels shoehorned into the moving action family, despite movement effects not impacting this action (as far as I can recall anyway).

9.       The second sentence on flying units ignoring obstacles when making an ATTACK is out of place, since this section references to moving. Some may disagree, but I feel the Unit Types should be a whole separate section that details every benefit that unit type gets rather than spreading it across multiple sections.

Talents:
10.   “A talent’s numerical modifiers (such as the +1 Offence in Archer) only affect a unit’s stats. They do not modify powers.”

This needs to be reworded slightly. The first time I read this, I read it as talents with numerical modifiers are turned off completely when using powers (i.e. Torment doesn’t work when attacking with a power). Perhaps rephrase it as: “A talent’s numerical modifiers (such as the +1 Offence in Archer) only affect the target unit’s stats. They do not modify the effects of powers”

11.   Many talents list ATTACK as a requirement. ATTACK is defined as a simple action in the game terms. Does this mean that units who use an activated power to attack can’t use these talents? (i.e. Can Ares not use Mighty Throw when he uses Ares’ Wrath, since it’s not an ATTACK action but technically a maneuver?)

Misc. items:
12.   Will there be a troop card/dashboard breakdown section detailing their anatomy?

Atapoti wrote:

10.   “A talent’s numerical modifiers (such as the +1 Offence in Archer) only affect a unit’s stats. They do not modify powers.”

This needs to be reworded slightly. The first time I read this, I read it as talents with numerical modifiers are turned off completely when using powers (i.e. Torment doesn’t work when attacking with a power). Perhaps rephrase it as: “A talent’s numerical modifiers (such as the +1 Offence in Archer) only affect the target unit’s stats. They do not modify the effects of powers”

Actually, I just realized I am still not quite sure how Torment and a Power works... (with the current wording)
Torment affects the target's unit defence (which is a stat) so does it means you can apply it for an attack Power ?

I still believe, the rules would be clearer with a symbol (or table) to state if a Talent can be used in conjonction with a Power. It will be easier to check in the rules (during play for instance) than to refer to the introduction paragraph and the talent's exact description.

Atapoti wrote:

I feel the Unit Types should be a whole separate section that details every benefit that unit type gets rather than spreading it across multiple sections.

A general comment : The rulebook is not a novel, it is a text that can be read in any order and will be when you are looking for a specific clarification. As such, I think it is a good thing to 1/refer to other parts for additional informations (see page XXX) and to 2/repeat some rules (but you have to be consistent). Sometime (often) it is more useful to repeat a single sentence rather that to refer to the page with that rule.
Just to say that some rule may not be "out of place" if it is in another place also...

Atapoti wrote:

7.       For Recruit an Army, step 3c, it is not clear what happens to this bonus omphalos card. Is it shuffled into the deck? Does it go into the player’s hand? If it goes into the player’s hand, does it count against the 6 starting cards?

Also, I know the rules state that you only get a starting omphalos card if can’t afford something, but is it possible (or at least has it been considered) for a player to spend 1 RP towards an omphalos card even if there are units they can buy? This came up for me in the PnP where a player either had to choose going with a 3 RP unit and no troops, or spend all 3 RP on troops and unnecessarily inflating their deck.

If a player can recruit, he has to recruit. A player cannot choose not to recruit and instead take an Omphalos card.

Omphalos cards gained by this mean are shuffled into the deck.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

Yes, flying units ignore all terrain modifiers. I've checked with Benoit and that's what he intended.

OK so I guess it means a flying's unit stats already include the elevated area modifiers (as the LoS is already covered in "Flying units ignore obstacles when making an ATTACK at Range 1+"). It also means that a flying unit do not go for "cover" (+1 def) when over a forest for instance. So flying units are actually weaker against range attacks than terrestrial units. Should it also means that there is no LoS obstacles when attacking a flying unit ? (it's a reflection, the rulebook doesn't state this at all)
Can you double-check the intent here ?

PS: I am the only one annoyed when copy-past'ing from the beta rulebook to the forum ?

@Atapoti - thanks for joining the discussion! You raise some great points. I'll come back to the detail when I've finished the bit I'm adding at the moment for 2.7