[Fwd: Questions from Glorantha list]

From: Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur>
Date: Tue Jan 17 00:00:41 2006

buserian_at_juno.com wrote:
> 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.

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!

> 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.

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.


Powered by hypermail