>From: steve_at_...
>I note that the example appears to transfer AP even when the
>winners don't get criticals. Was this prepared for Herowars
>rather than Heroquest?
First, I'll admit that I have a bias here, I looked over the article before it was published, and gave Brand a few comments.
It was prepared for HQ. I think when he says that they "get 8 HP back" he simply means that the opponents lose 8 AP. "Back" meaning something like "Gaining back lost ground." I agree it could have been clearer, but the meaning of the other information doesn't change one way or another.
>Incidentally, in the example of the tarshites and the hoplars,
>why wouldn't the skirmishers bid really high (with almost a
>mastery advantage) to try to finish the fight? I know my
>players would try to bid high, and I've had to start saying
>that the archer can't bid high unless he's doing something that
>is potentially risky (holding fire until the charging wolf is
>at point blank range) rather than something with little risk
>(shooting at fleeing peasants while hiding in a defensive
>position.)
First, the latter part of your statement is confusing - of course they have to do something risky to bid that high. How's that controversial? That's in the rules, and precisely the sort of thing that the article was getting at.
Why wouldn't the Tarshites bid everything? Well, the only reason to bid everything was if they thought that they'd lose their advantage. Which is a potentially valid concern as the example shows. But in fact, unless the skirmishers were sure that the hoplites in question were fast, it's actually tactically more sound to do what they did. Yes, they risk getting into melee, but that risk is actually less than bidding high, not knowing the speed of the hoplites (which may, in fact have been less, the example doesn't say).
People really underestimate the value of bidding low when you have the advantage. When bidding everything, one bad roll (and we all know how often this happens in HQ), means that you're done. So it makes tactical sense to bid lower. In the example in question, going with the all out attack gives about a 10% chance of outright failure. Going as is, that's reduced to about 5% given the marching abilities being about equal.
Yes, if you see cavalry charging, and you know that you can't run faster, then it makes sense to go all out before they close. But when the odds of the opponent being able to change the tactical situation are only about even at best, small bids still make the most sense.
Now, as I've said before, that doesn't mean that players won't bid large. They will, because it's dramatic to do so. But in the example, what's to say that the skirmishers are not being played by the narrator? In which case, the example is perfectly in character for your players playing the hoplites bidding all of their AP on an important bid to try and change their situation.
I'm not seeing where the problem is with either the example, or your players play. Again, you may want to reiterate to them the advantages of lower bids, but I don't see a problem with dramatic action on one side of the encounter.
Remember, too, that if you make sure that the opposing side has more AP, then things have to go longer. A good way to do this is to give them a number of lower ability opponents. Make the AP pool opposing the players about four times what the heroes have. That should make for a reasonably long conflict, no matter how dramatic the players go.
Mike
Powered by hypermail