On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:11:09 -0000 "Chris Ward" <cw67q_at_udcf.gla.ac.uk>
writes:
>
> > Chris, that glorantha-board-bounces_at_rpglist.org address is showing up
again.
>
> Grrr. Sorrt about that, don't know why it happens. I don't get
> duplicates of my own messages.
Actually, I didn't get a duplicate this time, so I will henceforth shut up on this subject unless I do. :)
> > Keeping track of it is easy -- if a stack BEGINS its movement in
chaparral, it
> > must end the movement/turn with support or it is disrupted. No
> > bookkeeping required then -- it is entirely a matter of where it
begins
> > and ends movement:
> >
> > BEGIN END EFFECT
> > normal any No effect
> > chaparral normal No effect
> > chaparral chaparral Units disrupted
>
> Actually that sound reasonable.
:)
> > > > 1. Make the table more like it was in WB&RM, more like the
Missile Fire
> > > > Table, actually -- static results based on the missile factor and
die
> > > > roll. But maybe replace "1 unit eliminated" with "3 CF
eliminated" or the like.
> > > I'd like to see missile fire more effective, but keep the table
separate.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on why it is _important_ to keep the mechanics of
> > missile fire different than the mechanics of melee/spirit
magic/physical
> > magic? Chaotic magic being different is fine, because Chaos is
different.
> > But how is missile fire inherently different than melee, spirit
magic, or
> > physical magic? If anything, I'd expect to see spirit magic have a
> > different table, since its effects have been envisioned as being as
much
> > psychological/magical as they are actual physical damage effects.
>
> 1 missile factor should be "better" than 1cf. if 1mf = 1cf then
> missile guys have no chance.
> Maybe if there was a scale of 1 missile factor = x cf.
That is specifically what I was suggesting.
> But the roll should still be made before
> melee rather than combined into one roll with CFs (otherwise no
> point in having 2 separate
> factors).
Oh, absolutely -- just like Spirit Magic and Physical Magic are rolled for separately. My hope is that we can eliminate a rule and a table, not mush everything together -- "OK, let's see, I have 6 Missile Factors, 17 CF from melee, 8 CF from physical magic, and 23 CF from Spirit Magic -- I roll a 6, given the 1 MF = 3 CF rule, you lose 66 CF." No, I don't want to see that!!!!!
> Also if cf heavies are to be equally vulnerable to missiles as cf
lights then I don't see
> how this can be done via same table as melee.
What about if you combine it with the idea of elite units, that are harder to eliminate by missile fire? I know, I know -- I'm just replacing one rule with another. But I am still eliminating a table.
> > > I think that ordering stack for melee should take place _before_
> > > resolving missiles. Missile
> > > causalites should be selected top down. If this elims any of the
> > > stacks commited to melee it is
> > > too late to call up replacements into the melee units. Also makes
> > > bison decide whether to risk
> > > his 6cfers on top of that stack attacking sable (shields the rest
> > > from melee counter attack, but
> > > makes them front line missile targets).
> >
> > This is a great option to explore, it has a nice simplicity to it,
and it
> > helps to streamline the rules. Given that spirit magic can already
select
> > targets at will, I would say that the order of a stack should be set
> > before ANY combat happens. I would even say that perhaps Chaos magic
> > ought to select from the top down, or perhaps the attacker has to
select
> > one of the chits at random, and CAN'T control the Chaos creatures
enough
> > to tell them which units to eliminate. (I really like this idea!)
>
> Random chaos elim sounds good.
>
> > > Debatably sun domers should get some missile defence bonus if
> > > stacked on top.
> >
> > Why should they get any more bonus than the Marble Phalanx, Full Moon
> > Corps, or anyone else? I would rather see certain units require one
extra
> > "1DD" result to effect, and define those as "elite forces" or
something
> > like that. Thus, 1DD would have no effect, 2DD or 1DE would disrupt
that
> > unit, 3DD or 2DE would eliminate the unit. I think WB&RM had some
concept
> > of elite units, if it didn't I think Dragon Pass could stand to. It
would
> > be useful in regular contests, too, if the Results Table is
liberalized
> > -- an elite unit could choose to retreat rather than be disrupted,
> > representing its superior ability to deal with defeat and stay
organized,
> > as well as their superior armor, weapons, and magic.
>
> 'Cos Sd get defensive nonus against cf? berhaps they are well drilled
in anti-missile tactics? I
> dunno. I'd rather have no bonus for SD (I'm not convinced they should
have it now I think on
> it) than have a long lits of elite forces.
I was thinking it could be indicated on the counters in some simple fashion, either by some sort of "sash" (like a diagonal bar of color running from top middle to right middle), or by something in their CF.
And I am not convinced about the Sun Dome Templars getting that special defensive bonus, either. At least, not as the only units that get it. Other elite units ought to have similar bonuses, like the Marble Phalanx and the Full Moon Corps, the Dragontooth Runners, etc. But I do NOT like Defensive Doubling -- makes them too difficult. I'd rather give all elite units of this nature a "defensive bonus" of +2 or something like that, applicable to melee and missile fire (if missile fire is combined onto the regular combat table).
> > Another thought about Chaos magic -- in keeping with the nature of
Chaos,
> > I long ago suggested that any Dragon Pass side that allied with Chaos
> > ought to get the -1 Chaos modifier, like in Nomad Gods. This would
not
> > apply to the Lunar Empire if its only Chaos ally is the Crimson Bat
> > (since that is part of the battalia), but any side that allied the
Hydra
> > or Hungry Jack would be subject to this modifier. I still think this
is
> > the case. (Note that, despite the poor choice of coloring, neither
> > Delecti, the Tusk Riders, or the Giants are Chaos creatures!)
>
> I hate the -1 chaos modifier. I would never use it. Role play the other
players disgust in
> multiplayer games. And have their bull parts revolt and any furthe
drawn from spirit pool be
> hostile. -1 to all rolls is a killer. There should be some insentive to
allying Malia when
> desperate.
>
> Ditch the chaso modifier !
:) Well, it was intended to make sure that anyone allying with Chaos knows that they are being bad. I suppose there are other ways to do it as well, but the Chaos modifier certainly covers it! Dave Cheng (I think) once suggested using a 2d6 results table, rather than 1d6, to get a better curve of results and prevent random extreme bloodshed from happening quite as often as now. If something like that was used, a -1 modifier becomes MUCH less devastating.
> > I also think that, if they are used in combat, Chaos units MUST be
fed
> > Chaos magic is far too powerful sometimes, especially when the hydra
has
> > many heads. My thought is that if the defending stacks do not contain
> > enough units to completely feed the Chaos unit's hunger (i.e., not
enough
> > of them exist to completely satisfy the results of Chaos magic),
> > attacking units must be eliminated instead. If there aren't enough
> > attacking units, the Chaos unit is eliminated. Basically, take the
> > existing Crimson Bat rules and apply them in a reduced fashion to all
> > units with a negative MgF.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> No it'd make the crimson bat less unique and make more book keeping.
The Bat would still have to be fed twice per week whether it was used or
not. How would this involve more bookkeeping? I have a -2 factor, you
have only one vulnerable unit, so I immediately have to select one of my
own units to feed the hydra's other head or it will rampage away (and be
removed from the game). I understand you might not like this idea (though
it makes a nice optional rule, and a good incentive to not mess around
with Chaos unless you are very serious about it), but I don't understand
how it could involve any bookkeeping.
>
> Although I do like fun like giving a chance that a herd in a broo
> attacked stack spawns more
> broo on a roll of (say 1/2) :-) (Was this in tRD?)
I do like something like this, if there are spare broo counters available. But, it has less meaning in a Dragon Pass game, where the only herds are the Grazer horse herds. Now, it would be nice to make a hundred or so sheep and cattle counters for use in DP scenarios...
Cheers,
Steve
Powered by hypermail