Right, but I’m not doing the move now. If it’s a waste to search the deck I won’t bother - although from my perspective this feels like throwing my game to prevent someone else from winning. I’m feeling like I’ve lost either way as I’m too far behind but this again is probably not quite understanding the rules? Realistically I’m not sure of a path to victory for me here as the people’s favour seems unlikely to happen now so… just explaining my thinking… why should I be worrying about who is the overall victor?
Although I’m happy to campaign if it will help our understanding of how it works!
Targeting the site is the point, right? Yes, it’s compulsory. That’s 1 defence die. Targeting the usurper must add 2 more, optionally targeting the pawn adds 2 more, and merely allows you to move the pawn since he has no favor to burn. The mountain subtracts 1 attack die. GeeBizzle has the option to use horse archers, which will subtract another 3 attack dice.
Neither banner can be targeted, so I have ignored that line for now.
Does that all line up with your intent?
5 defence dice and 4 warbands vs. 8 (or 5) attack dice and 9 Warbands. Looks optimistic to me. I’d say about 1 in 4 chance of success, assuming GeeBizzle uses the horse archers and you are willing to sacrifice all your Warbands.
You can choose to use less than all of your Warbands.
And preferably also what you think it all adds up to in defence and attack, so I know we’re on the same page. Against bandits you are looking at 1 defence die and 1 defending “warband” per site targeted. I think Longbows are the only relevant battle plans. The only reason to use less than all your warbands is to reduce the number skulls you might roll on attack, which I would only do as long as I could still guarantee victory.
OK, so this would mean you are pitting 2 defence dice and 2 bandits (potentially 0-4 on dice, +2 for bandits, for 2 to 6 defence) against 3 attack dice with 2 warbands (potentially 1-3 on dice without sacrifice, up to 6 attack with losses). So your odds of winning are not 100%, and even if you do win, you probably won’t have any force left to actually take the sites.
I think there must be some misunderstanding here.
You are not compelled to put any more of your winning force on the sites than you want to. But winning without a surviving force is pointless. To guarantee a win, you need to guarantee 7 attack and at least 2 survivors in your force, which means… I don’t know, a lot more warbands.
Some attack calculations
14 attack dice guarantees 7 attack with no sacrifices, but 1 in 6 will die to skull rolls, so say 2 losses. 7 warbands would be 8 dice, minimum roll of 4, 3 sacrificed to win, 4 left to occupy. Maybe more efficient against a poor defence roll? I’m not sure. But 2 warbands sounds wrong.
OK, that’s also fine. Just so we are clear - you have a ton of warbands and could easily guarantee a successful campaign against the bandits. I was questioning the use of only 2 warbands to do so, not the merits of campaigning at all.
To make a citizenship offer, you need to be a bit more specific. What are you offering? At a minimum, I think you need to offer a relic.
Also, don’t forget that Blue is currently set to win, and your current turn is passing the buck to Red to prevent that from happening.
