[Fwd: Questions from Glorantha list]

From: Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur>
Date: Mon Jan 16 06:08:49 2006

buserian_at_juno.com wrote:
> On a side note, I sent you a message/email on boardgamegeek some time
> ago, did you get it?

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?

>
> Sheesh, I hadn't even considered options like this!
>
> One factor of White Bear & Red Moon that I missed in the Dragon Pass
> "upgrade" was the concept of "wounds" -- each superhero could take up to
> 5 wounds, at which point they died. Only certain units could deal them a
> wound, and I know it involves some bookkeeping, but it was linked to the
> dismemberment of the superheroes (a la Tada and his Grisley Portions),
> and it is a concept I'd love to explore bringing back.

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