On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:14:38 +1100 Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > I like that idea, very much, though of course I'd want it to be
10/20, or
> > 12/24, for consistency with normal changes when disrupted (i.e., some
> > factor of 2).
>
> Perhaps a rule which says each SH can go berserk 2 (or 3 or ?) times
> each game. Then there's some skill in deciding whether to "use up" one
> of the times or not.
Too much bookkeeping. And, I forgot that superheroes can't be disrupted.
Hrmmm.
>
> > Also, try to get access to 2 or 3 WMD units (Crater Makers,
Cragspider,
> > Ethilrist and the Hound, etc.), then hit the superhero with them in
> > successive turns, hoping that eventually he'll fail his heroic
escape.
>
> SH are immune to the WMDs and save 3 units. So, at least, you're always
> going to be up against SH+3. Unless you dragon :-)
Ah, I forgot that as well. Yes, superheroes are too powerful, IMO.
>
> > ALTERNATELY, for superheroes and heroes both, give them a decreasing
> > escape roll. The first time they are killed, give them a 3/6 or 2/6
roll
> > as normal. The second time they are killed, the roll is reduced to
2/6 or
> > 1/6. The third death for a hero is permanent, as is the fourth for a
> > superhero.
>
> Mmm. That's a good thought! It would take almost no rule changes/new
> tables. I'd like to playtest it but it's got a lot of potential.
Some bookkeeping, but I don't find it too egregious.
>
> > Doesn't solve the problem of killing them, but limits how many times
you
> > have to do it.
>
> Good in conjunction with other (potential) rule changes.
>
> BTW, is anyone else totally unhappy with Hungry Jack? I've only ever
> seen it come on the board once, and that was in a 28 turn game with the
> obvious winner totally bored. Any suggestions on how to get it working?
If I ever had a hand in redesigning the game, I would just leave it out.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:22:18 +1100 Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > I'd prefer
> > a change that allowed for a combination of these results. Maybe a
> > two-pronged rule:
> >
> > 1. Attacker can decide to apply CF to disrupt units, at a rate of 1/2
CF
> > loss or something like that. (Defender can refuse this option, and
force
> > the attacker to kill his units instead.)
>
> Not sure what you mean by 1/2CF loss? Wouldn't the latter bracketed
> comment just mean that the defending superhero stack will stick the SH
> on top and go for the kill option everytime, knowing that there's
little
> chance of it happening (given return from the dead and all)? The
> advantage with the attacked deciding is that the defender has to comply
> - yes, they can put the superhero on top but there's now much higher
> chance of other units below the superhero being effected (SH can't be
> disrupted of course).
That's a good point -- the guy with the superhero would always disagree. OK, here's my solution -- the attacker DOES decide, BUT he has to make the decision BEFORE rolling the dice, whether to go for a kill or a disrupt. If he picks the wrong one for the die roll he gets, well, no general is perfect.
> You'd have to introduce a new rule whereby the
> counterattack wouldn't be doubled in such a type of attack, or at the
> very least, that the disrupted units couldn't take part in the
> counter.
Well, any change of this nature would have to be accompanied by changes to the defensive doubling rule.
>
> > 2. Defender has the option to retreat double the CF of units rather
than
> > having them eliminated. Again, the other player (in this case, the
> > attacker) can refuse this option, and force the defender to take
> > casualties instead.
>
> Getting complex... Double which CF - attackers? Before terrain or
after?
Whatever CF loss was ROLLED, the defender would double that, and apply it
as if it was a normal elimination, but the units would retreat instead.
>
> > This gives a little more interaction between players -- the battle
> > becomes, to an extent, a negotiation between the attacker and the
> > defender.
>
> I like that part
>
> > Alternately, replace the normal results table with something that
more
> > resembles the missile fire table. (For best results, find a way to
use a
> > single table for both types of combat!)
>
> Hmmm....
:)
Steve
Powered by hypermail