Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Your Things » Your Games




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:04 pm 
User avatar
Has collected at least one unit
Offline
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Posts: 907
Location: Internets the World of Webs
BLANDCorporatio wrote:
MarbitChow wrote:
Note: Fire attacks cannot target individual members of a Squad unless that member is not adjacent to any other member of the squad; the actual squad member hit is determined by the GM. Also, Squads and enemy units that are adjacent to an allied unit cannot be targeted by a Fire attack at all.
Oi, what the boop? Who thought this was a good idea and why?

The people at the "Darkness Rising Opinion Survey" thread did. But Marbit said he'd been trying to find a good way to represent the "Screening" rule, so he didn't just do it for them. This is a way of balancing Archery without having to reduce the damage it does.

If you want, you can ask for a "Sniper" special that you can purchase with AP at Level 4+, which would allow you to pick out individual units.

_________________
"The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:11 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    Nnelg wrote:
    The people at the "Darkness Rising Opinion Survey" thread did.


    None of whom is an Archer.

    And I repeat, why was this considered a good idea? Especially when spells are not screened.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:14 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    Oi, what the fuck? Who thought this was a good idea and why?
    I did, as part of the rules discussion, because I'm attempting to simplify placing orders for large-scale combats.

    I don't want to have to resolve

    "Archers A01-3 target Elven Warrior W01,
    Archers A04-6 target Elven Warrior W02,
    Archers A09-12 target Elven Warrior W03,
    ...
    Archers A30-38 wait a phase and target all remaining stragglers... now for The Archer B Group..."

    plus I've been trying to figure out how to implement a "screen" function, so that other units besides bodyguards could interpose themselves for damage, but without taking away from bodyguards.

    In order to avoid completely nerfing your character, though, I'll also add in the following:
    [Requires Archer, Paragon] Call The Shot (0 AP) - Unit is allowed target individual members of a squad, as well as units that are adjacent to allied units.

    That way, the ability to selectively target is not common, but still available.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:15 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
    Posts: 907
    Location: Internets the World of Webs
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    None of whom is an Archer.

    Um... The guy who said Archers were OP was an Archer. :lol:

    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    Especially when spells are not screened.

    Actually, I agree with you that Shockamancy at least should be like that.

    _________________
    "The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:19 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
    Posts: 907
    Location: Internets the World of Webs
    MarbitChow wrote:
    I did, as part of the rules discussion, because I'm attempting to simplify placing orders for large-scale combats.

    Hey, while we're on this subject, I think we could do with a more loose system for ordering Squads with a PC in them. Something more freeform perhaps.

    Then the player could post "I move to M8 and Attack MS09, telling my squad to concentrate on that one unit."

    _________________
    "The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:25 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    MarbitChow wrote:
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    Oi, what the fuck? Who thought this was a good idea and why?
    I did, as part of the rules discussion, because I'm attempting to simplify placing orders for large-scale combats.


    Ok, stop right there, I think I see the root cause of some problems.

    This game was started with one small squad, versus another small squad. There was a certain dynamic for a game like that, to wit character creation. Casters are the most interesting to play, but if the squad is small and all you have is players, then some players will naturally take it on themselves to be melee tanks or whatever. And in small groups, this group dynamic works by giving everyone something to do.

    Now you want large epic battles in which loads of units are lumped together in depersonalized squads. Meanwhile, you are stuck with "legacy" warrior/archer characters that by right should just be cogs in formations, as opposed to the rare and individualized (so naturally PC material) Casters. There's a new limit to entering the game as caster because of those legacy characters (if all of us were casters, that limit would not be as useful).

    It is tricky to balance legacy characters, true. The game has changed- a lot- in feel.

    "Call the shot"- ok, this fixes the Will situation, thanks. Keep in mind the above though, I think there's some value in that rant. A game with masses of uniform units "favors" the oddballs in terms of playability; those are the casters. But the game didn't start out that way.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:26 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    Nnelg wrote:
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    None of whom is an Archer.

    Um... The guy who said Archers were OP was an Archer. :lol:


    There's another Archer in the game?

    I should stop sniffing glue.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:37 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:52 am
    Posts: 426
    there are 2 in fact. The blue merc with a bow who looks like an indian god. And The xena sprite with a chakram.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:40 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    CroverusRaven wrote:
    there are 2 in fact. The blue merc with a bow who looks like an indian god. And The xena sprite with a chakram.


    Anex was some half-NPC char, wasn't she? Totally forgot about Shiva.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:53 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
    Posts: 907
    Location: Internets the World of Webs
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    There's another Archer in the game?

    Yes, he's Rudy Eye (played by bob the 6th) from the New Batch.

    He's going to be your NCO, (providing you and your stack with a +2 Leadership bonus) so you'd better get familiar with him now. ;)


    EDIT:
    You know, technically speaking, you'd be his NCO, since he's got Leadership, and you only Paragon. :lol:

    (Don't worry, this sort of thing happens all the time in fiction.)

    _________________
    "The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:17 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    Now you want large epic battles in which loads of units are lumped together in depersonalized squads. Meanwhile, you are stuck with "legacy" warrior/archer characters that by right should just be cogs in formations, as opposed to the rare and individualized (so naturally PC material) Casters. There's a new limit to entering the game as caster because of those legacy characters (if all of us were casters, that limit would not be as useful).

    It is tricky to balance legacy characters, true. The game has changed- a lot- in feel.

    "Call the shot"- ok, this fixes the Will situation, thanks. Keep in mind the above though, I think there's some value in that rant. A game with masses of uniform units "favors" the oddballs in terms of playability; those are the casters. But the game didn't start out that way.
    I guess part of the problem is that I haven't made it clear enough that the old game is over. Darkness Rising has concluded. DK - The New Batch started playtesting the 2.0 rules in a small scale, and immediately exposed a host of problems. We've spent weeks discussing those issues, as well as issues with rules we haven't playtested yet. But the vision I see for the game isn't caster ('interesting') vs. military ('cookie-cutter'). Casters are unique by definition, but I think all of the military units that have been created are also unique. I see the breakdown of character types like this:

      There are casters that create and augment units (dollamancers & croakamancers). Cities create military units, and military builds can augment units (leadership, paragon). (Units in these categories are the most influential.)
      There are casters that specialize in damage-dealing (shockamancers). There are units that do that as well - archers and fliers. (Units in these categories are moderately influential.)
      There are casters that specialize in defending (healamancers). There are units that do that as well - heavy bodyguards. (This category is the 'least interesting' from a tactical perspective, since they often have little to do.)
      The game is now introducing units that gather and obscure information: Foolamancers, scouts, Dark Archons. This category may end up being the most influential yet, although I'm going to do what I can to keep it balanced.
    My theory is that just as casters expand their powers by getting new spells, military should expand their powers by getting units under their command. Leadership, Inspiriation, training, mounts, etc. all allow the character to increase their sphere of influence. Bill makes Uncroaked. His value isn't in what he does directly, it's in the units he creates. The same is true for Vinny. Tod can now 'create' advanced-experience spearmen. The archer and the shockamancer are both dealing insane amounts of damage, relative to other units, and if you pair them up with the right unit combos, they can do even more.

    I want to expand the Military role as much as I can, and as Tenebris captures more cities, I anticipate that Military players will take city management upon themselves, and there will be enough complexity there to match what the Casters are seeing.

    Maybe if I opened up the game to allow everyone to play any caster they want, and almost every current melee unit switches to caster, more people would be happy. But in my mind, that runs counter to trying to capture the Erfworld feel. Maybe I should restrict the number of players, so that everyone who does play can be guaranteed a completely unique position. I intensely dislike the idea of turning away anyone who wants to participate, though. I know that I can't make everyone happy. As we add more caster rules, I'll probably allow those who are most dissatisfied with their character choices to switch. The more information I get about what works and what doesn't, the better I can tune the game, which is why I posted looking for feedback. Some provide it in overwhelming quantity; others say hardly anything. I can only work with information I know, so please, continue to provide feedback.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:46 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:29 pm
    Posts: 316
    And then there's Luckamancy that kind of augments units. But the augments are really quickly used.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:48 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user is a Tool! Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:17 am
    Posts: 488
    That makes sure you have stuff to do in battle :-p

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:55 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
    Posts: 907
    Location: Internets the World of Webs
    I think what's needed to make Military units feel more influential is a paradigm shift as to how the players view what is "theirs".

    If one who is playing a Military character defines "His" forces as just his PC, then Casters are going to outclass him every time. Instead, they should try to view the entire Squad that the PC's with as "His" units.

    He'd decide where his Squad goes and what it does. The other players may collaborate, but exactly what the Squad does is ultimately his decision.


    That's why I've been trying to organize our units into semi-permanent Squads led by PCs. It's supposed to be laying the groundwork for future cooperation to work better with more units.

    Instead of all the players collaborating on what individual units do, they should be collaborating on what Squads do. Then the Player in command of that Squad would by himself decide what the orders for each individual unit should be. (Collaboration on individual units' moves should be discouraged, unless PCs are in close enough proximity that it will matter.)

    Casters (other than Dollamancers and Croakamancers) wouldn't be able to do this. They are fragile and provide no bonuses, so it'd be better to give units to an NPC warlord. Casters would just be along for the ride with some other PC's Squad, or would be left in the back ranks to be babysat by NPCs.


    This is mostly a player-based endeavor, though. (But I wouldn't mind getting some help...) The only thing you can really do, Marbit, is to try to get the rules to encourage this cooperation at a tactical level, as opposed to individual one.

    (Which is why I said Players need more "granular" control over what NPCs in their Squads do.)

    _________________
    "The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:28 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    Granular control of the squad defeats the purpose of squads in the first place. Players should be able to say "I do X, my squad does Y" and I process the orders. If I have to process 8+ orders from 10+ players individually, it will take forever to confirm that the orders were carried out correctly, and most players don't submit that level of detail in the first place.

    Players should control their own action, and issue *an* order to their squad each round. That should allow us to process the entire round once everyone's submitted instructions, allowing for quicker combat resolutions, instead of situations like the 2-month Bone Dagron scenario.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:12 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
    Posts: 907
    Location: Internets the World of Webs
    MarbitChow wrote:
    Granular control of the squad defeats the purpose of squads in the first place. Players should be able to say "I do X, my squad does Y" and I process the orders.
    [...]
    Players should control their own action, and issue *an* order to their squad each round. That should allow us to process the entire round once everyone's submitted instructions, allowing for quicker combat resolutions, instead of situations like the 2-month Bone Dagron scenario.

    That's what I meant. As long as it's a finer control than the system you have for Squads led by NPCs. There should be room for at least "I tell my men to concentrate on the enemy Leader", or "I tell squad members A and B to take point, and tell C and D to attack whomever attacks them".

    If we do it this way, we might even be able to start issuing orders by Round...

    _________________
    "The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:39 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    Added Juice cost to Spell Towers. Added Limber / Unlimber to structures w/ Launch. Changed overland and hex move for all siege structures.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:50 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user is a Tool! Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:17 am
    Posts: 488
    Question: Can I charge different spells at the same time?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:11 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
    Posts: 907
    Location: Internets the World of Webs
    MarbitChow wrote:
    Changed overland and hex move for all siege structures.

    Just noticed this one. I don't think Siege needs to be as fast as infantry, just not as slow as it was before.

    An overland/hex move of {6} seems a better compromise to me. That way they'd still slow you down, but not to a snail's pace.


    (Although, it would be nice to have at least one siege weapon that is more mobile... Rams, maybe?)

    _________________
    "The Wizard is Charlie!"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:30 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    Nnelg wrote:
    Just noticed this one. I don't think Siege needs to be as fast as infantry, just not as slow as it was before. An overland/hex move of {6} seems a better compromise to me. That way they'd still slow you down, but not to a snail's pace.
    All player feedback indicated they want siege units to be faster. Siege structures are still slower than mounts, but now they can keep pace with regular infantry.

    Rule tweaks are done. End of discussion.

    Also, since tweaks are done and I *didn't* add any Artisan requirements for dollamancy, players can disregard that comment in the thread.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ] 

    Board index » Your Things » Your Games


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: cypermancer and 2 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: