> Hey All,
> Chris, that glorantha-board-bounces_at_rpglist.org address is showing up
Grrr. Sorrt about that, don't know why it happens. I don't get duplicates of my own messages.
> > > > > Also, it has occurred to me JUST NOW that the support rules are a
> > > > > whacked, too. You have to have support in a chaparral hex, even
> if you
> > > > > just end your movement there, right. So that means you have to
> bring an
> > > > > entire herd of cattle with you _just to sleep overnight in a hex_
> > > > > you move on? Sounds like myth dictating game rules, which is not
> > > > > the best way to do things. Maybe support should be rethought just
> a tad.
> > > >
> > > > I always thought so :-) I just don't know quite how!
> > >
> > > My current thought is that support isn't required until the second
> turn a
> > > unit remains in the same hex? Maybe?
> > Too difficult to keep track of. Individual players can easily have a
> dozen or many more stacks
> > in chap.
> Yeah, I figured as much, especially given the nature of this list -- lots
> of people here don't like bookkeeping if it can be avoided.
> How about this, then, it's a bit simpler -- at least in how you think
> about it, if not in actual practice:
> If a stack ends its movement in chaparral without support, it is NOT
> disrupted. If it does not obtain support by the end of the next turn, it
> is disrupted as normal. Basically, giving stacks one extra turn. Keeping
> track of it is easy -- if a stack BEGINS its movement in chaparral, it
> must end the movement/turn with support or it is disrupted. No
> bookkeeping required then -- it is entirely a matter of where it begins
> and ends movement:
> BEGIN END EFFECT
> normal any No effect
> chaparral normal No effect
> chaparral chaparral Units disrupted
Actually that sound reasonable.
> Would that be better?
> > > > I quite like simplifying it as well to one table. Any thoughts on
> > > > the new table would look?
> > >
> > > Nope. Well, OK, some thoughts. Basically, I see two options:
> > >
> > > 1. Make the table more like it was in WB&RM, more like the Missile
> > > Table, actually -- static results based on the missile factor and die
> > > roll. But maybe replace "1 unit eliminated" with "3 CF eliminated" or
> > > like.
> > >
> > > 2. Allow the attacker to spend some of the CF loss to cause other
> > > than elimination, rather than having any set results.
> > I'd like to see missile fire more effective, but keep the table
> Can you elaborate on why it is _important_ to keep the mechanics of
> missile fire different than the mechanics of melee/spirit magic/physical
> magic? Chaotic magic being different is fine, because Chaos is different.
> But how is missile fire inherently different than melee, spirit magic, or
> physical magic? If anything, I'd expect to see spirit magic have a
> different table, since its effects have been envisioned as being as much
> psychological/magical as they are actual physical damage effects.
1 missile factor should be "better" than 1cf. if 1mf = 1cf then missile guys have no chance. Maybe if there was a scale of 1 missile factor = x cf. But the roll should still be made before melee rather than combined into one roll with CFs (otherwise no point in having 2 separate factors). Also if cf heavies are to be equally vulnerable to missiles as cf lights then I don't see how this can be done via same table as melee.
> > I really don't like the
> > idea of "xcf eliminated" rather than 1 unit elimed. Heavy military
> > units are relatively more
> > vulnerable to missiles than light units in RW history, they
> > shouldn't be harder to elim by
> > missile fire in the game. In fact this is one of the bonuses already
> > existing for missile fire.
> A good point, I wasn't aware of this.
> > I think that ordering stack for melee should take place _before_
> > resolving missiles. Missile
> > causalites should be selected top down. If this elims any of the
> > stacks commited to melee it is
> > too late to call up replacements into the melee units. Also makes
> > bison decide whether to risk
> > his 6cfers on top of that stack attacking sable (shields the rest
> > from melee counter attack, but
> > makes them front line missile targets).
> This is a great option to explore, it has a nice simplicity to it, and it
> helps to streamline the rules. Given that spirit magic can already select
> targets at will, I would say that the order of a stack should be set
> before ANY combat happens. I would even say that perhaps Chaos magic
> ought to select from the top down, or perhaps the attacker has to select
> one of the chits at random, and CAN'T control the Chaos creatures enough
> to tell them which units to eliminate. (I really like this idea!)
Random chaos elim sounds good.
> > Debatably sun domers should get some missile defence bonus if
> > stacked on top.
> Why should they get any more bonus than the Marble Phalanx, Full Moon
> Corps, or anyone else? I would rather see certain units require one extra
> "1DD" result to effect, and define those as "elite forces" or something
> like that. Thus, 1DD would have no effect, 2DD or 1DE would disrupt that
> unit, 3DD or 2DE would eliminate the unit. I think WB&RM had some concept
> of elite units, if it didn't I think Dragon Pass could stand to. It would
> be useful in regular contests, too, if the Results Table is liberalized
> -- an elite unit could choose to retreat rather than be disrupted,
> representing its superior ability to deal with defeat and stay organized,
> as well as their superior armor, weapons, and magic.
'Cos Sd get defensive nonus against cf? berhaps they are well drilled in anti-missile tactics? I dunno. I'd rather have no bonus for SD (I'm not convinced they should have it now I think on it) than have a long lits of elite forces.
> I would still want a Forced Back result on the table as well -- my
> thought is that it goes in this order of severity:
> Disrupt in place
> Disrupt and Force Back
> Elite units would have the following:
> Disrupt in place OR Retreat (defender chooses)
> Force Back (no disruption)
> The only "rule" for force back is that the units that are forced back
> MUST move to a hex outside of enemy ZOC if possible, otherwise they can
> choose which hex to back into.
> Still not sure of the best way to do this except to apply different
> amounts of CF loss to cause different effects, but that doesn't seem very
> satisfying. I am NOT advocating any return to the old CRT tables, mind
> > Bison should definately loose their missile defense bonus, and Llama
> their vulnerability.
> Llama have a vulnerability? I don't recall that...oh yeah, that pesky die
> roll modifier. Yeah, I could see getting rid of that.
> Another thought about Chaos magic -- in keeping with the nature of Chaos,
> I long ago suggested that any Dragon Pass side that allied with Chaos
> ought to get the -1 Chaos modifier, like in Nomad Gods. This would not
> apply to the Lunar Empire if its only Chaos ally is the Crimson Bat
> (since that is part of the battalia), but any side that allied the Hydra
> or Hungry Jack would be subject to this modifier. I still think this is
> the case. (Note that, despite the poor choice of coloring, neither
> Delecti, the Tusk Riders, or the Giants are Chaos creatures!)
I hate the -1 chaos modifier. I would never use it. Role play the other players disgust in multiplayer games. And have their bull parts revolt and any furthe drawn from spirit pool be hostile. -1 to all rolls is a killer. There should be some insentive to allying Malia when desperate.
Ditch the chaso modifier !
> I also think that, if they are used in combat, Chaos units MUST be fed.
> Chaos magic is far too powerful sometimes, especially when the hydra has
> many heads. My thought is that if the defending stacks do not contain
> enough units to completely feed the Chaos unit's hunger (i.e., not enough
> of them exist to completely satisfy the results of Chaos magic),
> attacking units must be eliminated instead. If there aren't enough
> attacking units, the Chaos unit is eliminated. Basically, take the
> existing Crimson Bat rules and apply them in a reduced fashion to all
> units with a negative MgF.
No it'd make the crimson bat less unique and make more book keeping.
Although I do like fun like giving a chance that a herd in a broo attacked stack spawns more broo on a roll of (say 1/2) :-) (Was this in tRD?)
Hopefully only one copy of this has appeared - Chris
Powered by hypermail