You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We discovered a major issue in game play today. If one side of the battle loses more troops than the other side, the remaining troops actually get more attacks in than their opponents in melee, simply by the nature of having a shorter lineup. This is unbalancing because it can lead to 2 or more attacks from one hero before the other hero can attack back. Not sure how to resolve this...
"Wait, how come that guy gets to attack again, he just attacked me?" ... If there are only 3 heroes left, and the other side has 6 guys left, they will attack 2x often as their opponents if we strictly adhere to cycling through the lineups.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
make sure that there are not more than 2 sides. If 4 players, make 2 teams of 2.
when a player is attacked it is immediately their turn. That player can choose which hero to play next: either the one that was attacked, or the next hero in the lineup.
We played this way today, and there was no perceived problem despite a lopsided win.
We discovered a major issue in game play today. If one side of the battle loses more troops than the other side, the remaining troops actually get more attacks in than their opponents in melee, simply by the nature of having a shorter lineup. This is unbalancing because it can lead to 2 or more attacks from one hero before the other hero can attack back. Not sure how to resolve this...
"Wait, how come that guy gets to attack again, he just attacked me?" ... If there are only 3 heroes left, and the other side has 6 guys left, they will attack 2x often as their opponents if we strictly adhere to cycling through the lineups.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: