TYPO on "Ancient Feud" Card

[Kevin]

Part of the Ancient Feud card reads

Feud units must move first each turn (after final rushes).  They cannot use the Indirect Path rule to stay behind a friendly unit and must instead attempt to go around.

This almost certainly should read:

Feud units must move first each turn (after final rushes).  They cannot use the DIRECT Path rule to stay behind a friendly unit and must instead attempt to go around.

Let me know if I'm incorrect here.

[Chad_YMG]

I think that reflects a rules change -- I'm fairly sure that when I first wrote that rule we called it the Indirect path rule because it was the rule that allowed you to choose whether to keep bumping into a unit in front of you or to go around it.  At this point I'd have to look up what the rule is called; I know it by content rather than by name.

The key point, either way, is that a Feud unit has to attempt to get at its target; unless it is completely boxed in by enemy units it will always attempt to do so.

[Niko White]

Chad and the card are both right, at least as far as the rule name is concerned: that rule has always been called the Indirect Path rule.  I think the problem is that technically "using" the Indrect Path rule means taking the indirect path, so the problem with the card is that it should say they must use IP, not that they can't.

[Kevin]

OK, got it.  Thanks, guys!

[ajax98]

To me the Indirect Path rule offered the player (via hypothetical unit commander) the Option of using either the 'move' or 'stay put' to fulfill the Standing Order.

While reasonable, from the view point of a unit commander, and useful from the player's perspective, the rule does have some flaws. (Of which I have addressed in other threads, mainly Rules rewrite.)

For the situation, "Ancient Feud", perhaps the wording wasn't entirely clear.
As it should be considered just like the unit has a "Close" Standing Order with the "Ancient Feud" unit as a Unit Objective. Thus the unit will move to shorten the distance, in number of turns of movement.

The intent was to make clear that no matter what, the units of the "Ancient Feud" will seek any path to Engage one another. In this sense the unit will always move to get access to the opponent.

The only prohibition is the path that leads to an "impossible path" - meaning that path that due to terrain or other objects (to include units) that it is "impossible" to go that direction to fulfill the Mission.

If there is a path, no matter how long, to fulfill the Mission, that is the direction the unit should take. If events along the line portend that a breakthrough (for either side) is about to occur and and the calculation for the number of turns that it would take to move in that direction (ignoring any unit in the way as inconsequential) is shorter, then that is the direction of movement.

If the Breakthrough is by allied units, the assumption is that this will increase the potential for passing through the hole; if enemy then the assumption is that this unit will be fought and defeated to create the hole to move through. Just as a "C" SO with Unit Obj.

So the question that the "Ancient Feud" unit commander needs to ask each turn is: is there a path this unit can move to become engaged to the Objective unit? Any path with the definitive least number of turns of movement is the Order move.

If all paths are blocked, then move to get as physically as close as possible, with respect to an eventual opening along a path with the least number of turns of movement. In other words the unit should not move to a location that is obviously blocked and further away in movement turns just because it is physically closer. That would be a 'stupid' move.

[Kevin]

Thanks, Ajax.

On a related topic, I'm guessing that you're not allowed to limit the speed of a feuding unit.  Correct? 

Presumably any unit which take the shortest rout toward its enemy and says "Yeah right, screw you buddy" when told to attack someone else won't take too kindly to being told it can only move 1.25" per turn (or whatever).

[gull2112]

It would seem to me that what you really want to do ith anciant feud is say that the feuding cards must have a close standing order with the other unit as an objective and leave it at that. No special rules to make them really really really go the extra mile, because that just leads to all sorts of confusion. If a general wants to spend resources to keep them away from each other, he should have that option, it adds a fun tactical variation. I also think that they should be immune to courage tests when engaged with said opponent. But that's just me adding something after the fact.

[ajax98]

Thanks, Ajax.

On a related topic, I'm guessing that you're not allowed to limit the speed of a feuding unit.  Correct? 

That would be correct.

From the Ancient Feud card:
Until the enemy feud unit  is destroyed, feud units may only be given the "Close" or "Short Range" standing orders with the enemy feud unit as the objective and it costs an extra command action to take direct control of them.

This makes the orders 'exclusive' of all others except the two listed with objective. So there would be no Movement Modifiers permitted.

The option of Direct Control is available, rather significant, but with an extra cost.
This makes taking a unit with extra costs inherent into such a battle problematic to being eyed for being chosen just for the extra costs.

Placement of obvious or key units and choice of opposing 'feud' unit can be utilized to create situations where the opponent is forced to burn a number of CAs to keep the feud unit out of harm's way or is disposed to 'writing' that unit off.

[gull2112]

Well Ajax, you're certainly better at actually reading the rule before dashing of a reply. I usually am just going on memory, which for me is a colossal leap of faith, so props to you.

[gull2112]

I think the biggest issue with feuding units is how majorly they can mess with your line. Having a unit suddenly decide it wants to head off at a 45 degree angle really messes up the line. You can usually steer them with other units, but man, what a pain.

[ajax98]

I think the biggest issue with feuding units is how majorly they can mess with your line. Having a unit suddenly decide it wants to head off at a 45 degree angle really messes up the line. You can usually steer them with other units, but man, what a pain.

The simple answer is to spend the 2 CA, take direct control to hold or move backward (at that point putting it 2 moves behind your line), then let the rest of the line move past, hopefully plugging up the gap along the way and put the Feud unit behind and controlled to some better extent as it will move 1st and bubble furiously behind the line.

[gull2112]

Absolutely! But man what a pain! Not saying it is bad or anything like that, but a player should be prepared for it.