[Fwd: Questions from Glorantha list]

From: Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur>
Date: Tue Jan 17 04:23:12 2006

buserian_at_juno.com wrote:
> Steve _me_ Steve, or Steve _someone else_ Steve? Because I never ran one.
> Daniel has run several, however.

Damn - Sorry Steve. Daniel was in my mind but the fingers had a mind of their own...

>>Nice - I quite like that. Although I must admit that, LoTR/TTT was a 
>>cracking example of how hard it should be to attack fortifications with
>>a superhero and heroes (quickly). Whether it should be so much harder 
>>than open ground is a good question!

>
> Not sure I follow this. Who was the superhero, and who were the heroes
> (in Two Towers, anyway)? And actually, I'm not even sure I can think of
> any in Return of the King, either. IMO, none of the individuals in LotR
> are superheroes -- that is reserved for the likes of Turin Turambar and
> other great heroes of earlier times. But I digress. :)

And in digression, I consider the main non-hobbit characters on their way to herodom - if not already being considered as ones. In re-thinking it, you're right that none of them are superheroes - there probably aren't any in that age. But I still consider the nature of an attack on fortifications, with (IMHO) heroes defending, with the desire to quickly overcome, good banda-fodder for thinking about attacking a DP fortress (yes, OK, they're much bigger and cities and...and...and... ;-) I'd better stop there.

>>How about a rule that instead of attacking to destroy you can attack to
>>purposely disrupt. In this case, the attacker's CF total is doubled or 
>>half-again. It stays with the current rules mostly and doesn't need 
>>another results table.

>
> Well, the problem with this is that you still have to select one or the
> other, when in reality it is actually pretty common for some troops to
> die, some to retreat or reform in a disorganized fashion, etc. I'd prefer
> a change that allowed for a combination of these results. Maybe a
> two-pronged rule:
>
> 1. Attacker can decide to apply CF to disrupt units, at a rate of 1/2 CF
> loss or something like that. (Defender can refuse this option, and force
> the attacker to kill his units instead.)

Not sure what you mean by 1/2CF loss? Wouldn't the latter bracketed comment just mean that the defending superhero stack will stick the SH on top and go for the kill option everytime, knowing that there's little chance of it happening (given return from the dead and all)? The advantage with the attacked deciding is that the defender has to comply - yes, they can put the superhero on top but there's now much higher chance of other units below the superhero being effected (SH can't be disrupted of course). You'd have to introduce a new rule whereby the counterattack wouldn't be doubled in such a type of attack, or at the very least, that the disrupted units couldn't take part in the counter.

> 2. Defender has the option to retreat double the CF of units rather than
> having them eliminated. Again, the other player (in this case, the
> attacker) can refuse this option, and force the defender to take
> casualties instead.

Getting complex... Double which CF - attackers? Before terrain or after?

> This gives a little more interaction between players -- the battle
> becomes, to an extent, a negotiation between the attacker and the
> defender.

I like that part

> Alternately, replace the normal results table with something that more
> resembles the missile fire table. (For best results, find a way to use a
> single table for both types of combat!)

Hmmm....

Rob