[Fwd: Questions from Glorantha list]

From: buserian_at_juno.com <buserian>
Date: Mon Jan 16 20:05:22 2006

Hey, cjx, is there another name we can address you with? Or at least give me a pronunciation guide? :)

Anyway, responses to three messages at once, for ease.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:53:35 +0000 CJ <cj_at_falster23.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >> 1. Does this apply to Heroes/Superheroes?
> >
> >
> > I always played that it did, and sometimes even played that
> > factors counted. I figured the idea amounted to the counterattack of
> > defenders once the initial attack has been beaten off (although of
> > course the defenders can't lose anyone else so it's not entirely
> > principled) hence heroes et al are as good as they would be in any
> > normal attack.
> By Leadership factors you mean the ! or !!? I always add those last,
> after all doubling etc, as a + to each unit. I can't recall what led me

> to that conclusion, but I think it is specified in the DP rules? I'll
> double check, I may well be wrong?

If you are wrong, then it is the rules that are wrong -- this is CERTAINLY how I have always played it, and if this is not specified in the new Nomad Gods, that was an oversight on my part.

> > 2. is the underlying hex under Wintertop mountain or hills? I've
> > at other sources and can't decide myself
> Mountains based on my knowledge of Gloranthan sources. However, I am
> confused - do you apply combat modifiers for the teraina cioty or
> stockade is in? I normally just calculate losses nd othe modifiers
> the Stockade or Fortification hex type, I don't use the background hex
> type? Am I in error?

Well, the rules state that not all units will necessarily be within a fortress or other structure, so it seems to me that some of them might use the underlying terrain type. BUT, more to the point, I think the rules SHOULD allow for a "doubling" of such defenses. I don't think they state it one way or another, but basically it should be harder to defeat a fortress in mountains than one in open terrain; historically, that seems to be the case.

Thus, to eliminate Androgeous in Wintertop ought to require like a 60 CF result. In other words, don't attack the exiles in a 3-player game if Androgeous is holed up in Wintertop -- s/he is quite unbeatable in that case, unless you use a WMD on him/er.

Oh, wait -- do mountains have any effect on CF values? Probably not, eh? If not, the underlying hex is STILL important for movement -- it takes 3 MF to enter Wintertop, not just the normal 1 MF to enter a fortress hex.

BTW, I think that multipliers should NOT apply successively, in ANY situation, so that two doublings should come out to a x3, not a x4. I think this would/should apply to Sun Dome Templars in defensive doubling, for example.

Furthermore, I would consider a change that made defensive bonuses for structures more like leadership -- an ADDITION to each unit, rather than a multiplier. Thus, a town might give +1 to each unit, a stockade +2, a fortress +3. This makes them BETTER for very weak units (something I do not at all mind), but not quite so devastating when you have a superhero holed up in one.

> > Isn't this exactly what the rules say must happen in most cases --
> > casualties must be chosen from the top down.
> >
> If the CF loss is insufficient to remove the top unit, does one then
> remove the second unit, if applicable or the third, or is there simply
> no loss? The idea of three major units in combat to me dictates that
> they must all be potential casualties?

No -- if you do not have enough CD loss to eliminate the top unit, then you do absolutely nothing. Thus, a stack with a superhero on the top and a bunch of CF 1 units below it that takes 19 CF loss is completely unharmed. This is a rule I dislike, which is why I would either like to see a different Results Table, that allows for Disrupt or Retreat results; or else allow any attacker to apply a Disrupt result if he does more than half the CF loss to a unit, but doesn't have enough to eliminate it completely.



Powered by hypermail