If I may be so bold...
http://www.posullivandesign.com/content/advanced-song-blades-and-heroes
;)
And I feel quite the opposite: the reaction mechanic makes the game so much more interesting in my opinion.
As for differences between ASBH AND SBH, besides the reaction rule and the expansion of spells, not sure what real differences there are to find intimidating.
But maybe I can now also ask a question:
Already in SoBH I found troops with Q 5+ or 6+ very tough to play. Is the reaction mechanic not punishing these further? Or how does it integrate into the elegance of a SoBH turn? What's your opinion about that?
And I feel quite the opposite: the reaction mechanic makes the game so much more interesting in my opinion.
As for differences between ASBH AND SBH, besides the reaction rule and the expansion of spells, not sure what real differences there are to find intimidating.
I found that reaction rolls worked well, it allowed for movement and actions outside of turn which really affected play. One of my pet peeves with most games is that during your own turn you know where the enemy is and that it'll stay there, with reactions you opposed could move, fire missiles or fight, which mixes it all up. And they're free, failing a reaction doesn't incur any penalties. I was able to move my gang of trollkin at least twice during the game because of a reaction roll.
And I third it! The reaction thing really keeps the opponent involved. Here, I think the "roll the very di(c)e that failed" principle is a good one - so the opponent is hovering over the roll, ready to pounce. More decision-making, more options and more tension.
I'd agree with nervisfr, too, on low-quality troops. If you're using Q5/6 troops, they're probably animals, or not much more than that (e.g. trollkin!). So the Discipline Master trait works really well with a beastmaster-type figure. The Discipline Master can give a pack of lumbering monsters or savage beasts a brief chance to activate efficiently - but they'll typically outrun him in the process of attacking.
OK, you two. Thanks nervisfr & Hobgolin, I guess, that I'll give the reaction roll a chance. That actually made me very curious!
I have bought a PDF of ASoBH and as advertised it's pretty much the same as the original with added reactions and broadened magic system.
I was initially puzzled by the rule around turn over. It used to be explicit (in old SoBH) that a two fail/one success roll allowed the player to take his one success before the turn over. From the rule as written, I inferred that the turn-over happened with the same timing as a reaction - immediately and the phasing player takes no action. The next section in the rules was Reaction - clear enough. Then I expected an explanation of Turn-over - and nothing.
I see this has been clarified by Andrea on Yahoo - the phasing player does take his action - but it's a surprising omission for a ruleset that has had so many iterations.
I have bought a PDF of ASoBH and as advertised it's pretty much the same as the original with added reactions and broadened magic system.
I was initially puzzled by the rule around turn over. It used to be explicit (in old SoBH) that a two fail/one success roll allowed the player to take his one success before the turn over. From the rule as written, I inferred that the turn-over happened with the same timing as a reaction - immediately and the phasing player takes no action. The next section in the rules was Reaction - clear enough. Then I expected an explanation of Turn-over - and nothing.
I see this has been clarified by Andrea on Yahoo - the phasing player does take his action - but it's a surprising omission for a ruleset that has had so many iterations.