Game: Havoc: the Hundred Years War

Image

usagi-san — 2008-09-26T01:26:02+00:00

Fallcon 21 - Havoc game!

Thread: Re: Am I missing something in my set?

DKahnt — 2008-05-05T17:34:17+00:00

Blott wrote:
tool wrote:
If you look at the card for Battle 5, you will see there are no points for second or third place, so no tokens are needed.

What he said...

*Doh*!

Thanks...

Look at me, I'm a newbie!

-DK

Thread: Re: Am I missing something in my set?

Blott — 2008-05-05T17:13:43+00:00

tool wrote:
If you look at the card for Battle 5, you will see there are no points for second or third place, so no tokens are needed.

What he said...

Thread: Re: Am I missing something in my set?

tool — 2008-05-05T17:05:19+00:00

If you look at the card for Battle 5, you will see there are no points for second or third place, so no tokens are needed.

Thread: Am I missing something in my set?

DKahnt — 2008-05-05T16:57:33+00:00

In the rules, it says I am supposed to have 15 victory point tokens.

The it seays to lay out the Battle Cards in numerical order.

THen the small victory tokens are placed with the Battle they relate to.

Well, here are my victory tokens:

3 - Battle 1
2 - Battle 2
1 - Battle 2
4 - Battle 3
3 - Battle 4
2 - Battle 4
4 - Battle 6
2 - Battle 6
6 - Battle 7
5 - Battle 8
3 - Battle 3
8 - Battle 9
5 - Battle 9
3 - Battle 9
1 - Battle 9

So I have no victory points tokens for Battle 5. Is this correct?

Or am I missing something. I've never played it so I am unsure. Thanks.

-DK

Thread: Re: Battle Hand Field Rank reference sheet

Aldaron — 2008-02-10T18:13:50+00:00

Also this one, which breaks down the elements contributing to each hand (kind, color, run) both graphically and in tabular form:

]]>
Also available as a (revised and better for printing) PDF version.

(The PDF version also shows relative likelihoods of drawing the corresponding 5 card poker hands, for comparison.)

Thread: Battle Hand Field Rank reference sheet

Ladislaus — 2008-02-10T18:01:58+00:00

I uploaded a Battle Hand Field Rank reference sheet to the file area:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/30292

This PDF will provide 3 reference sheets after printing a letter-sized paper in landscape mode (11" x 8.5") and then subsequently cutting it twice.

I hope you enjoy it. Good gaming!

Thread: Re: Mathematics of Two-player Havoc

MadHatir — 2008-01-14T07:35:35+00:00

Thanks Yehuda,

Nice thoughtful analysis. We've toyed with some other scoring approaches for the two-player game, but haven't come up with anything better yet.

your pals,
KC and Rita

Thread: Re: Video Review??

MadHatir — 2008-01-14T07:29:51+00:00

Hi,
I don't know of a video review off hand, but I believe there's an audio review still posted at http://thespiel.net/drupal/?q=node/37

Their review of Havoc starts at the 27 minutes, 20 seconds mark in that show. Seems like they had fun with it.

There are also some good print materials here on the Geek and at our website for downloading that have references for things like Havoc hand rankings and a little more on how Dogs of War are used in the game.

And if you ask around, someone you game with may have played it enough to pass the teaching on to you. It's not too difficult to pick up, but learning from a person rather than a rulesheet is easier sometimes.

KC and Rita Humphrey
Sunriver Games
www.sunrivergames.com

Thread: Video Review??

ryanmaesen — 2008-01-11T20:55:40+00:00

I just got this game and haven't completely figured it out yet. I'd love to save some time and find a video review of Havoc. Anyone know of a video review out there?? Thanks!

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

-xXx- — 2007-12-04T18:28:19+00:00

On second thought, there would be much less fuss when using 5 card poker hands or even better, 4 card poker, instead of 6 card hands. The ranking would be less complicated, gameplay would be more tense and in the end, the game as a whole would be more elegant.

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

-xXx- — 2007-12-02T11:48:50+00:00

The reason why there are exactly 17 formations is because that's the amount of 12-point lines which fits on a card. The designer says that he did add 4 card flushes and straights at first but had to cut the amount of options, like he explains here:
http://pdxgaming.blogspot.com/2005/10/daddy-where-did-havoc-...

Instead of adding 4 card straights & flushes, you can also reevaluate straights & flushes by removing some other hands like big house and full house. This also simplifies the ranking:

HIGH
15. 6 card straight flush
14. 6 of a kind
13. 5 card straight flush
12. 5 of a kind
11. quads

MID
10. double trips
9. 6 card flush
8. 6 card straight
7. 5 card flush
6. triple pair

LOW
5. 5 cards straight
4. trips
3. double pair
2. pair
1. high card

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

Crockerdile — 2007-12-02T02:20:45+00:00

I know that the math is more complicated than this, because when you deal out cards, the deck keep shrinking, but look at it this way.You are playing a new solitaire game. You only deal yourself 5 cards. from a standard poker card deck of 52 cards. You are dealt a heart on your first card and the rules of this game says that you MUST try for a heart 4 card straight-flush, or you MUST try to pair up your first card. There are no other choices in this game. Out of the 51 cards left in the deck, there are 6 cards remaining in the deck, if your 1st card is 4 through 10, that can help you get that 4 card straight-flush. (5 cards if your number is 3 or lower/J or higher). So there is a minimum of 5 cards left in the deck that can help you. If instead, you are compelled to pair up the first card you were dealt, then there is only a maximum of 3 cards left that can help you acheive this.

Like I said, the math becomes more complicted, as the cards get dealt out. But those are the begining odds. I can't speak for using a Havoc deck.

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

-xXx- — 2007-12-02T00:43:21+00:00

Crockerdile wrote:
Depends on what those four cards are as to whether they beat a single high card, but each and every one of those 4 card combos are EASIER to draw than any single pair. That's why those hands have no rank in poker. And in the wild west, a "four flusher" perhaps got shot or hung, or at the very least run out of town.

I seriously doubt whether a 4 card straight flush is easier to draw than a pair.

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

Crockerdile — 2007-12-01T21:08:25+00:00

Depends on what those four cards are as to whether they beat a single high card, but each and every one of those 4 card combos are EASIER to draw than any single pair. That's why those hands have no rank in poker. And in the wild west, a "four flusher" perhaps got shot or hung, or at the very least run out of town.

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

-xXx- — 2007-12-01T18:05:20+00:00

OK I see the bar now. If I understand your bars correctly, getting full house is relatively easy but holding a 5 card straight isn't very efficient. That's a rather displaced proportionality.

Anyway, here's an interesting link to poker odds:

http://www.pagat.com/vying/pokerprob.html

Can someone tell me where the following hands would fit in standard poker using a single deck (52 cards) with no wild cards?
4 card straight flush
4 card flush
4 card straight

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

Aldaron — 2007-12-01T14:54:52+00:00

-xXx- wrote:
What are you trying to say?
The relative gap between hand likelihoods is preserved though, isn't it? That's all this shows (I thought): the spots where you could insert hands. Maybe not.

More importantly, I was showing what one has for Poker but you haven't produced for this discussion: the probabilities of the hands you're talking about, given the different pool of cards being used.

Thread: Re: Does this play well as a 2 player game??

Karlsen — 2007-12-01T11:42:55+00:00

It's not exactly new, it is a 2005 game and it now almost the end of 2007

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

-xXx- — 2007-12-01T10:48:06+00:00

Sort of relevant: H:tHYW hand ranks with relative probabilities of those hands (as dealt in Poker) that are Poker hands indicated—the shaded portion of the bar for a given hand corresponds to the entire bar for the hand below.

We know the havoc ranking order. That's not a poker ranking. Poker otoh only plays with 5 cards, 4 suits and 13 cards per suit. If you change any of these variables, the odds of getting a certain hand changes and the ranking order you posted isn't relevant.

What are you trying to say?

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

Aldaron — 2007-11-30T22:39:45+00:00

Thread: Re: Change of Ranking? Addition of 3 and 4 card combos.

-xXx- — 2007-11-30T20:53:50+00:00

I think adding 4 card straight / flush is a good idea for the reasons stated, but 3 card straights and flushes are a bad idea because :

a) That would make for very complicated combos like double straight or flush or a straight with a pair or a flush with three of a kind...

b) You're evaluating the 3 card straight & flush too high. Both are easier to achieve than a pair I think.

4 card straight and flush is still a good idea. This would add only 3 formations for an elegant total of 20 possible combos.

I don't know whether you calculated the odds of the new formations but I think you're off track. Foremost, I noticed that you counted the 4 card flush twice, on spots 15 & 17. I haven't checked the odds but I believe that this is a more correct ranking order. I may have placed the new formations (in bold) a bit too low, but better too low than too high, and it's still better to have a 4 card straight / flush option than no option at all.

HIGH
1. 6 card straight flush
2. 6 of a kind
3. 5 card straight flush
4. 5 of a kind
5. big house (4+2)

MID-HIGH
6. 4 of a kind
7. trios (3+3)
8. 6 card flush
9. full house (3+2)
10. 6 straight

MID-LOW
11. 4 card straight flush
12. 5 card flush
13. triple pair (2+2+2)
14. 5 card straight
15. 3 of a kind

LOW
16. 4 card flush
17. double pair (2+2)
18. 4 card straight
19. pair
20. high card

What do you think?

Thread: Re: Does this play well as a 2 player game??

JacquesDeMolay — 2007-11-30T18:12:31+00:00

Well its great to play if you can get a copy - just why they allowed the game to go out of print so soon after its release, is simply amazing.

Thread: Re: Reprint?

-xXx- — 2007-11-30T15:54:55+00:00

I'm also eager to get the game and hope you won't change the artwork which looks great. I also hope you keep the compact box.

Any plans for a changes when doing a reprint?

I'd advise adding 4 card combinations of straights and flushes, adding three formations (4 straight, 4 flush, 4 straight flush) for an elegant total of 20.

Currently straights and flushes only come in 5-6 card combinations, meaning that they can be out-bluffed by X of a kind combinations.

Thread: Re: Does this play well as a 2 player game??

Hatricvs — 2007-11-30T09:48:21+00:00

Probably more dynamic with more players but, the game does play fine with just two. If anything two player can build up quite a bit of tension and can have a slightly more in depth feel! Well worth playing.

Thread: Re: Does this play well as a 2 player game??

Aldaron — 2007-11-29T23:55:07+00:00

Plays great as a two-player game. In fact, that's one of its great attractions. Unlike most Poker variants, which require several players to start with, this plays very nicely with 2.

Highly recommended!

Thread: Does this play well as a 2 player game??

ryanmaesen — 2007-11-29T23:46:31+00:00

This game looks interesting. Nice artwork, good reviews, but does it play well as a 2 player game or should it really be played with more than 2?

Thread: Re: This game looks and sounds compelling - if you can find it

wwscrispin — 2007-11-29T22:20:22+00:00

Compelling might be a strong word but I do like this game. It is Poker variant that adds enough to the game to make it interesting without playing for money. I picked it up fron Funagain as soon it was released.

I am suprised Funagain has let this slip out of print. I hope they reprint it soon.

Thread: Re: This game looks and sounds compelling - if you can find

Wulf Corbett — 2007-11-29T22:10:43+00:00

JacquesDeMolay wrote:
Anyone have an idea where you can get this?
Dragon & George, Parnie Street, Glasgow

Thread: Re: This game looks and sounds compelling - if you can find

hobb3 — 2007-11-29T21:49:01+00:00

I got Havoc in a trade last month, so I am happy to have it, but before I managed to find a "used" copy, I contacted the publisher and they told me that reprint was not planned. Your best chance is to look for someone who is willing to trade.

Thread: This game looks and sounds compelling - if you can find it

JacquesDeMolay — 2007-11-29T21:32:08+00:00

Anyone have an idea where you can get this? The website for the designer says exclusive Funagaingames, yet, they don't have it. Nothing is posted about when it might be available either.

Image

sikeospi — 2007-11-12T18:10:21+00:00

Close-up of game cover art

Thread: Re: Reprint?

CaptainCaveman — 2007-10-29T18:58:54+00:00

FezAZ wrote:
Any update one year later?

Hi Todd,

Currently there are no concrete plans, but we would like to see this happen in 2008. Sorry I don't have better news!

-Chris

Thread: Session Report

Shade_Jon — 2007-10-28T14:37:27+00:00

Jon 30, Tal 28, Binyamin 24

Tal doesn't play heavier games, and this is one of her favorites. Or it used to be, until she realized that her strategy of always waiting to win the last two battles didn't always mean winning the game.

Binyamin won both the first two battles, but nothing more until we finished the first seven. Tal and I took 2 and 3 of the next battles, respectively. I was ahead in points now, but it came down to the remaining two battles. If either won both of them, they would win the game. If they split, I would still be ahead.

My hand was seriously depleted, so I wasn't in the running for the last two battles at all. Binyamin was convinced that he wasn't going to win either. He had the opportunity to simply not call Havoc at all, basically handing me the victory, since the eighth battle wouldn't be fought and the remaining points wouldn't be enough to beat me. But he didn't. They ended up each winning one battle, which gave me the victory, anyway.

Thread: Re: Reprint?

FezAZ — 2007-10-22T20:50:37+00:00

Any update one year later?

Thread: Mathematics of Two-player Havoc

Shade_Jon — 2007-10-16T21:59:06+00:00

I played two-player with Tal. I took a few moments to look at how the point system of the game works.

Two-player Havoc is zero-sum, like so many other two-player games. The object of the game isn't to win the most points, but only to win more points than the other player. Every point you win is a point not won by your opponent.

In a two-player game, we play that the winner of a round gets the card, and the second player, if involved in the battle, gets the third-place token for that battle.

I counted all of the available points for the game and found that there were 79 points, total. Thus, a victory is 40 points or more. If you play in every battle that has second place points, you're guaranteed at least 13 points.

However, if any battles remain unfought due to the peacekeeper, or if second-place does not score one or more of the battles, the sum total number of points decreases. For each two points lost, the victory requires one less point.

Assuming both players play each battle, each battle is not significant for the number of points won, but for the point differential won between the two players. Thus, the order of significance for the battles is: 7 (9 points), 5 (8 points), 3/8/9 (6 points), 1/6 (5 points), 2/4 (4 points).

Tal wins multi-player Havoc fairly well by passing early battles and winning the last few battles. This doesn't work in two-player, as you can see. You're going to be gaining 8 points in the last two battles even if you lose, so a score of 32 going into the last two battles is already a victory.

That's what happened to me.

(Passing a battle for an extra card, or calling Havoc for an extra card, may be a situationally good play if the draw deck is small and you need a specific card coming up. The entire deck is not that big. You know pretty much what's in your opponent's hand. In our games, practically the entire deck may end up in our hands by mid-game.)

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

facesnorth — 2007-10-05T16:29:38+00:00

Thanks for your assistance with this. I double checked with Captain Caveman and KC, and this has been confirmed as the correct way to play.

Ryan

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

ginn5j — 2007-10-03T22:19:19+00:00

Sure, at the top of the 2nd page of "Running the Dogs" rules supplement, it states "each player may activate up to 2 Dogs that were played during Battle."

Then, starting with the Havoc caller, each player may:
1) Scavenge - discard 1 dog to retrieve something from the battlefield
2) Loot - discard 2 dogs to retrieve something from the discard pile

So, if you activate 2 dogs and your choice is 1 (Scavenge), you will have another opportunity to take the same action when everyone else has taken their turn.

Similarly, in the Havoc rulebook under “Let Slip the Dogs of War”– Activating Your Dogs, each player (starting with the Havoc caller) in order can scavenge or loot until each player with dogs in the battle has activated a maximum of 2.

My understanding works something like ...

There are several rules in effect at this time. One rule is how many dogs can be used by a player during this phase of the game. Another is the order of choosing cards (i.e. the 'loop'). The last is your choice of actions when it is your turn to choose.

The first is each player can use (activate) a maximum of 2 dogs played during the battle.

Next, players (with dogs) choose 1 card and discard the required number of dogs in order from the Havoc caller. This process is repeated until each player has had an opportunity to discard up to the limit (2) or the number of dogs played (whichever is smaller).

Finally, when choosing a card, a player discards 1 dog to choose 1 face-up card on the battlefield or recruits area or 2 dogs to look through the discard pile and choose 1 card.

If you activate 2 dogs, you get 2 scavenges or 1 loot. However, if you scavenge, you wait until it is your turn again to discard the 2nd dog.

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

facesnorth — 2007-10-02T16:17:28+00:00

Jim, I've re-read the rules as well as the updates on the Sunriver site, and my reading is that you can either play 1 or 2 dogs, and depending on whether you play 1 or 2, you can either pick up 1 from the draw deck/recruits/battlefield, or you can search the discard pile for a card. I don't see anything that leads me to believe that you can play 2 dogs and pick up 2 cards from the draw deck/recruits/battlefield.

Has this been officially clarified anywhere by Sunriver? Or is this just how you've interpreted it and/or what you have seen done by other players?

I appreciate the alternative viewpoint, I just want to be 100% sure before I announce the rules change to my friends.

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

ginn5j — 2007-10-01T23:48:11+00:00

facesnorth wrote:
The rules state this takes place "beginning with the havoc caller." Can he only take one at a time, until it goes around the circle, or does he get to use both dogs and take 2 cards right away if he chooses?

Only one at a time if you choose to retrieve a weapon (take a face up card from the battle or a face up card in the recruiting area). When it comes back to you, you may use a 2nd dog to retrieve another weapon.

-or-

You can use both dogs at once if you choose to loot the dead (look through the discard pile and retrieve 1 card).

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

facesnorth — 2007-10-01T22:08:35+00:00

Thanks everyone for your clarifications.

ginn5j wrote:
After ranking the battle hands and distributing the points, each player in the battle can use no more than 2 dogs (that were played during the battle) to retrieve cards.

The rules state this takes place "beginning with the havoc caller." Can he only take one at a time, until it goes around the circle, or does he get to use both dogs and take 2 cards right away if he chooses?

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

Aldaron — 2007-10-01T15:06:26+00:00

The rules on Dogs are a bit confused, but the basic idea is (as I understand it) pretty simple:*

Aldaron wrote:
Dogs can be played like any other card, but before the end of battle you may exclude up to two of them from the final Battle Hand, which may not consist of more than 6 cards. Up to 2 Dogs played as part of a battle (excluded or not) can be used for card retrieval.
* http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1425701#1425701

Thread: Re: bonus cards for all players & other questions

ginn5j — 2007-10-01T10:35:47+00:00

facesnorth wrote:
After many of the battles are resolved, the winner's duties call him to "deal one card to each player." Does each player in the game get a card regardless of whether or not they fought in the battle?

Yes

facesnorth wrote:
Does the Peace card get turned at the start of the Peacekeeper's turn?

Yes

facesnorth wrote:
There is much mention of playing 1 or 2 dogs to retrieve cards, whether in a battle, or while recruiting troops. I would like clarification on whether or not you can use 2 dogs to pickup 2 cards from the battlefield, or does the second dog only allow you the privelege of searching the discard pile for your card instead of the battlefield/recruits area?

At the end of a battle, each dog (up to 2 per player) can be used to retrieve a weapon (card) from the battlefield (all cards played in the battle + the recruiting area). Or, a player can use both dogs to look through the discard pile and select a card (looting the dead).

Another clarification on the dogs -- you can use as many dogs during the battle as you like. They can be used as part of your battle ranking (e.g., 3 dogs and 2 sevens for a full house). After ranking the battle hands and distributing the points, each player in the battle can use no more than 2 dogs (that were played during the battle) to retrieve cards.

During recruiting, you can use dogs the same way. For each dog discarded from your hand, you can take 1 additional card from the recruiting area or draw a card from the draw pile. Additionally, you can discard 2 dogs from your hand to look through the discard pile and take 1 card.

There is a clarification of the rules about the dogs at Sunriver's site:
http://www.sunrivergames.com/havoc/havoc-downloads/

Thread: bonus cards for all players & other questions

facesnorth — 2007-10-01T05:45:38+00:00

Great game, three questions:

After many of the battles are resolved, the winner's duties call him to "deal one card to each player." Does each player in the game get a card regardless of whether or not they fought in the battle? So if you decline to enter a battle, drawing a card, then you can expect an additional card after these battles?

Does the Peace card get turned at the start of the Peacekeeper's turn? It's confusing in the rules, because "Keeping the Peace" is described at the end of the section on "Recruiting Troops" but before "Cry Havoc." I assume it's at the start of the turn, otherwise the Peacekeeper would get one more turn than the other players before a Year of Peace is declared. I saw this asked in another post, but it wasn't answered with any finality.

There is much mention of playing 1 or 2 dogs to retrieve cards, whether in a battle, or while recruiting troops. I would like clarification on whether or not you can use 2 dogs to pickup 2 cards from the battlefield, or does the second dog only allow you the privelege of searching the discard pile for your card instead of the battlefield/recruits area?

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Antecedents?

chesrcat — 2007-04-18T17:45:18+00:00

After Havoc came out, a friend introduced me to Condottiere,
which also has some of the same elements that Mark just
mentioned from Taj Mahal. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/112

Condottiere is also a series of battles (this time playing for
control of countries), and you play out a card at a time and decide
when to quit and walk away. So there's hand management, timing
and some bluffing as well. Your bid is based on points instead
of a poker hand, but it has a similar feel.

If you haven't tried that one I'd say add it to the list. Also,
the Doomtown CCG uses poker hands to solve a lot of issues -
regular card suit and rank is printed on each and every card.

Going back to Taj Mahal, the interestng difference in is that
when you leave the "battle" your cards go with you, so the lead
in a particular "suit" may change once a person drops out.

There are plenty of games that have used some mechanism to get
cards out of the discard pile for later use, so the Dogs of War
in Havoc are similar to those. I don't know of any off hand
where the "fetch" card also has a playable value, but there
probably are some out there.

Hope this helps,
KC

KC Humphrey
Sunriver Ganes

Thread: Re: Public Domain Version

Aldaron — 2007-04-18T14:46:18+00:00

This game is now in the database: 100 Years War

This thread continues here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/162213

Thread: Re: Antecedents?

thatmarkguy — 2007-04-18T03:48:40+00:00

While not necessarily an 'antecedent', the mechanism of card play in Havoc reminded me greatly of Taj Mahal . Like in Havoc, Taj Mahal is a game played over a series of 'episodes', and some degree of hand management is required to know when to withdraw from a losing battle and save your strength to win another day, rather get drawn into an expensive and crippling escalation. Cardplay is similar in format as well, where in each turn you may play a single card (OK, sometimes two cards) to strengthen your already-committed hand, or withdraw and leave most of the spoils of the battle to the player(s) who outlasted you.

I see you don't have Taj Mahal rated (so I assume you've not played it); I would suggest you at least give the game one play, perhaps as much to see what you can learn from it to apply to your own design, as to see enough to make sure your design isn't perceived as 'too similar' to the mechanics of Taj Mahal.

Thread: Antecedents?

Aldaron — 2007-04-17T19:28:15+00:00

I'm curious about the origins of this game. Are there antecedents with similar elements that use regular playing cards? In many ways this game has some of the best elements of Poker without many of the drawbacks (esp. for small numbers of players). I've been toying with a design for such a game on-and-off for a while, and see that there is a direct public domain# copy of Havoc on Pagat* called 100 Years War; but I'm wondering whether there are older games like this that have been around for a while.

# http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/101587
* http://www.pagat.com/invented/100yearswar.html

EDIT: Added link to public domain game in database.

Thread: Re: Battle Winner Becomes Peacekeeper?

chesrcat — 2007-04-03T06:52:27+00:00

Let me know how it works if you try it. Not sure how it would work for multi player (since 3 or more people may be in the Battle), but it would be an interesting idea for two. We're gathering stuff for the next edition of Havoc, so your timing is pretty good on this.

KC Humphrey
Sunriver Games

Thread: Re: Playing Dogs in Battle?

Aldaron — 2007-04-02T18:47:29+00:00

chesrcat wrote:
I'm enjoying reading through all these doggy posts, and it's too bad this idea of "Dogs outside of Battle" has been the single most confused thing about Havoc ever since we released it. Chances are good that this rule will be dropped in the next edition of Havoc.
Why? The rule, as I understand it, is actually quite simple. It's just confusingly written. Why not just:

Proposed Rule wrote:
Dogs can be played like any other card, but before the end of battle you may exclude up to two of them from the final Battle Hand, which may not consist of more than 6 cards. Up to 2 Dogs played as part of a battle (excluded or not) can be used for card retrieval.

Thread: Re: Playing Dogs in Battle?

chesrcat — 2007-04-02T17:46:57+00:00

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I did mean we're considering dropping the "Dogs outside of Battle" feature, not the Dogs themselves. Never.

The real question is whether we can make the rules clear and easy enough to understand that players can use the feature to their advantage. The only times it comes into play are when you want to play a 6 card hand plus use a Dog or two for retreival, OR when a Dog actually spoils a 5 card straight or a straight flush, so you want it on the table but not "in" your battle hand.

Maybe we should just call it something else, like "Dog on a mission" or "Dog off its leash."

So, keep those ideas coming on how to make it easier to explain in the rules. And if you would, kind of track how often you actually use that feature. If it does offer a good benefit, we'll keep it in.

I really appreciate the support of our players. You guys rock.

KC

Thread: Re: Playing Dogs in Battle?

jack208 — 2007-04-02T11:04:58+00:00

Blind Reality wrote:

I would advice against this as it would seriously devaluate the dogs because there would be less ways to use them.

Yes I second this! Without the ability to play them out ouf Battle Hand, it seriously diminishes the ability to bluff using the dogs which is an important element when playing battles.

Thread: Re: Playing Dogs in Battle?

Blind Reality — 2007-04-02T10:55:11+00:00

jack208 wrote:
We need to keep them dogs, KC.

So... pls keep them KC.

I do not believe he wishes to drop the dogs alltogether. As this would cripple this great game beyond recognition. I think they're thinking about dropping the rule allowing dogs to be played out of battle. (correct me if I'm wrong) Besides if they dropped the dogs they could not use the Shakespeare quote "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" anymore.

I would advice against this as it would seriously devaluate the dogs because there would be less ways to use them.

Image

Aldaron — 2007-03-30T14:02:00+00:00

Hand Rank Reference (low, screen resolution; not for printing)

Image

itiswon — 2007-03-23T17:46:40+00:00

rule book of the game

Image

itiswon — 2007-03-23T17:40:10+00:00

havoc and peace

Image

itiswon — 2007-03-23T17:36:47+00:00

back side of the box

Image

rholzgrafe — 2007-01-22T00:58:57+00:00

hholzgrafe's print-and-build card tuckboxes, available in the Files section of Havoc: the Hundred Years War.

Image

jack208 — 2006-10-29T22:58:14+00:00

Image

Ladislaus — 2006-06-22T23:16:57+00:00

The Havoc-side (left card) and Peacekeeper-side (right card) of the Havoc/Peacekeeper card, and a Battle Hand Field Ranks card (center card) between the them.

Image

jmellby — 2006-03-09T06:24:40+00:00

Havoc at Madness Comics