No, sorry. I'll check there again...
> I'm confused -- if it's a three-player game, you should get Androgeous if
> the Lunar and Sartar players have their super-heroes. Or do you mean that
> it's a 2-player game, and the other player allies Androgeous? If that is
> the case (and I don't have my rules to check, admittedly), yes, that is
> one thing I'd change.
Sorry, I meant that apart from having the Exiles in the three player, I've never had Androgeous.
> Whew, for a second I thought you were tarting to augment the attacking
> superhero with his Great Speaking Voice 3W3 or something. :)
I'm a bit fazed to say that while I'm a runequest/glorantha collector, I've never played a game of HW or HQ and don't really understand it at all. I think I prefer RQ2 :-)
>>So, in short, I'd love to hear some other options! Instead of doubling, >>maybe half again? Why should the counterattack be increased at all? Is >>there a better way?
Yeah, I liked that idea as well. At least you knew much more where you were upto and what you had to do to kill the b*gger(s) rather than relying on lotsa luck.
> Rather than just changing the rule outright, what I'd rather do is make
> this a stated alternate rule OR simply allow many units to prevent this.
> Thus, a normal melee stack would be subject to this "pick and choose"
> rule for magic. Any stack that had leadership, or was stacked with any
> kind of magician, would be defended against this, and so any picks from
> the stack would have to be from the top down.
>
> This keeps within the existing rule, but modifies it in (to me) a logical
> way, allowing leadership and powerful magic to be the factors that
> prevent this.
That's nice - I like it. I'd like the playtest it to make sure but it fits with what makes sense (ha - in Glorantha?!)
> Similarly, you might ALSO say that if the attacking stack contains a hero
> (or maybe just a superhero), a dragon, or certain other powerful melee
> units, and the defending stack does not, then the attacker can also pick
> and choose at will. This is a change that makes some combats more
> dangerous, true, but it also has a nice reciprocal logical feel.
It's already pretty hard given you lose terrain benefits. Maybe allow the terrain benefits but allow the attackers to choose in that case?
> This would all add a chart to the rules, of course, to indicate how
> casualties are selected depending on who is in the attacking stack and
> who is in the defending stack. But the rule is intuitive and simple
> enough that it would be second nature by the end of the first game in any
> case.
...
> I have my own list of rules issues I'd like to address. Some other time,
> when I have more time.
Go on - out with them. Before the list goes away ;-)
Rob
Powered by hypermail