Your Move Games

General Discussion => Player Requests => Topic started by: Kevin on October 17, 2010, 01:08:49 PM

Title: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on October 17, 2010, 01:08:49 PM
Could "shaken" please apply to engaged attacks only?

Having my pila nerfed on top of the regular attack nerfage gets tiresome, and you get a weird effect where if the Roman moves to 1 inch away from the dark elf then the dark elf charges the pila is fine but if the dark elf moves to 1 inch away from the Roman then the Roman charges the pila is nerfed.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: ajax98 on October 17, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
 :)
I was waiting for some body to notice that. Something about being 'too close for comfort'.

I've been finding that the auto nerf 'shaken' is very powerful and downright annoying.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 18, 2010, 11:45:20 AM
Change the Pila Attack to the end of the movement phase and, Voila, all fixed.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Torrg on October 18, 2010, 03:34:10 PM
I agree with Hamilcar, but I would worry about there being a "special" attack that is outside of the combat phase and any complications this may bring to the surface.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 18, 2010, 03:41:08 PM
Sure, the worry is valid.
If it's only Pila, and the Pila rules are clean and clear, this should not be a problem.
Or change Fear/Shaken to only apply to engagements and not to pre-engagement missile attacks... but why shouldn't it!?!?

Regardless, the Pila using unit is FRing the fearsome/terrifying creature.  They should suffer the effect even when throwing.  Are you less terrifying because I hadn't gotten there yet, or is this the point... Fear is on the mind of the beholder... not in their sword.
If they SEE the fearsome enemy and plan to charge, they should suffer the effects.
What's the problem.
Logically, this is sound.
Too bad if it makes your play tougher.
What's all the whining about :-)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Torrg on October 18, 2010, 04:23:34 PM
Sure, the worry is valid.
If it's only Pila, and the Pila rules are clean and clear, this should not be a problem.
Or change Fear/Shaken to only apply to engagements and not to pre-engagement missile attacks... but why shouldn't it!?!?
Again, I agree with you. I would believe that all attacks (ranged or other) would be "Nerfed" because a creature is feared or terrifying. Why is it only engaged? It takes fearsome creatures to a new level YMG maybe did not want, but why wouldn't someone with a bow shut his eyes and have knocking knees when firing at Trolls or Undead Giants.

That is until a faction with 2/3's of the units causing fear came out in the DE.

But thats just me
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on October 18, 2010, 06:09:22 PM
I'd argue that if something really scary is on the way in, then the men channel Stan's uncle, yell "It's coming right for us!" and throw their javelins/pila the very best they can. The best chance for an individual to survive is through a very good throw.

Once engaged, individuals within the unit are reluctant to get anywhere near the scary killing machine, and realize that their best chance of survival is by hanging back a bit and letting others do the primary fighting/dying.  Hence they hit with fewer dice (and, if they're really scared, they hit weaker).

Thus Hamilcar, if you want to talk "logic" rather than "whining" it makes sense not to nerf the ranged attack.

Your suggestion to change the order of play so that pila (and javelins) happen pre-combat phase would work fine.

Battleground tries to eliminate the sequence of play mattering.  e.g. if two units are both on Close they're both considered charging regardless of who made the final rush.  Why, then, do the men bravely throw their pila at full accuracy when the enemy unit moves last, but hesitate when they do?  If the thing is truly that scary, and on the way, and the men are somehow irrationally unaware of what will result in their individual survival, then shouldn't their ranged attacks (from 3.5" or less at least) always be nerfed?
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 18, 2010, 08:25:08 PM

Honestly I think the right plan is probably just to change Shaken and Afraid from general to engaged modifiers, because it is much more elegant and portable than changing how javelins work.  Also, making javelins fire in the movement and command phase would require us either to stop them from causing rout checks, or to allow the possibility that someone routs from javelins before getting to fight a round of combat, and takes the free hits.  Both of these seem bad to me.

The only reason not to do this is that accursed Wave of Terror card from the Undead deck, but it already needs errata so as not to make the opponent's whole team Shaken, so I'm increasingly of the opinion that we should just re-write it to have pre-change functionality.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on October 19, 2010, 05:00:37 AM
I'm ambivalent about this.  I think Fearsome was historically too expensive for what it did and now is about right, but I also don't like modifying attacks below three dice when unnecessary.

I definitely agree that Wave of Terror can't make units Shaken -- I thought we already made that errata?
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 19, 2010, 10:04:40 AM
@Kevin and Niko,

It makes total sense to apply the effects to only engaged.  This handles MANY of the issues very cleanly.  A sound solution for which I have no debate.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 19, 2010, 12:25:01 PM
I'm ambivalent about this.  I think Fearsome was historically too expensive for what it did and now is about right, but I also don't like modifying attacks below three dice when unnecessary.

I definitely agree that Wave of Terror can't make units Shaken -- I thought we already made that errata?

We did.  I meant that the only reason to leave Afraid/Shaken as general modifiers is that card, and if we have to errata it anyway, we could easily errata it more.

I do agree with Kevin that having fear/shaken apply to javelins creates an unfortunate turn order issue, which is something we generally try to avoid.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Torrg on October 21, 2010, 05:53:20 PM
I'd argue that if something really scary is on the way in, then the men channel Stan's uncle, yell "It's coming right for us!" and throw their javelins/pila the very best they can. The best chance for an individual to survive is through a very good throw.
While I laughed at that episode and I thought about not replying... Kevin I really respect your opinion but this is wrong. If you have ever stared down a barrel and had to well. It is extremely hard and you never, never forget pulling that trigger.
But lets take this from a different way. I recently read an article about why countries after WWII studied why certain tank crews had the lion share of the kills in units. You would think the kills would be spread out evenly but they don't. One or two crews in a company are usually responsible for most or all of an individual action results. So what happens with the rest? They miss. Why? I want to answer by asking does anyone know why so many bullets are fired but their are so few casualties? I think in Vietnam it was estimated that about 5,000 rounds were fired for each "confirmed casualty" then this argues clearly against what you write. Soldiers suffer fear, ranged or engaged it's how they overcome it that makes the difference.

Now, I had my little therapy session and I'm good (nurse can I have my Xanax and Valium). So from a game standpoint it is clearly better to have fear only vs engaged, it is clean. I fully support this. But I think if YMG want more accuracy it should involve ranged attacks as well (I could argue against magical suffering it though).
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on October 21, 2010, 06:11:45 PM
Quote
I'd argue that if something really scary is on the way in, then the men channel Stan's uncle, yell "It's coming right for us!" and throw their javelins/pila the very best they can. The best chance for an individual to survive is through a very good throw.

Yeah, if we're going to use real life as a basis then in fact the exact opposite happens.  People don't say "Oh.  That weird big gray thing with flappy ears, tusks, and a tentacle hanging from its head is scary.  I'd better take my time, aim careful and make sure to kill it because if it gets ear me, I'm gonna be really scared."

What they really say "SWEET ZUES'S BUNGHOLE, WHAT IS THAT THING!?  OH-GOD-OH-GOD-OH-GOD ITS COMING AT ME!!"  (throw)  "AH CRAP WE JUST PISSED IT OFF!!  I'M GETTING THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!"
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Torrg on October 21, 2010, 09:42:25 PM
Yeah, if we're going to use real life as a basis then in fact the exact opposite happens.  People don't say "Oh.  That weird big gray thing with flappy ears, tusks, and a tentacle hanging from its head is scary.  I'd better take my time, aim careful and make sure to kill it because if it gets ear me, I'm gonna be really scared."

What they really say "SWEET ZUES'S BUNGHOLE, WHAT IS THAT THING!?  OH-GOD-OH-GOD-OH-GOD ITS COMING AT ME!!"  (throw)  "AH CRAP WE JUST PISSED IT OFF!!  I'M GETTING THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!"

Hannibal summed up in 35 words what I stumbled through in over 200. uuummm What Hannibal said.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 22, 2010, 09:05:18 AM
If there's a desire to make Fear apply to range, then all range must be considered.  If I have archers or a war machine with 21" range and I fire at the Fear inducing unit, should I suffer?
If I have Pila with a 3.5" range on stand and fire, should I suffer?
If I use Javelin during a FR, should I suffer?

If it applies to one should apply to all?  For the sake of mechanics, Fear has never applied to missiles.  Javelin/Pila during FR is considered pre-contact missile fire, so it isn't affected.

But if we want to draw on realism, then it should relate to proximity.  If any change is considered, consider Fear having a "zone of control", if you will.  I might say 5" for the sole sake of affecting being targeted by missile troops (and spell casters), nothing else.

When I started playing BGFW last year, I was told the goal was to keep the rules clean and easy.  IMHO, this begins to add complexity which gets cumbersome and annoying.  I would vote to let Fear only affect engagements and let missile fire happen with no ill effects.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: lazyj on October 22, 2010, 09:29:56 AM
As one of the primary agitators for the Fear rule to be made stronger a while back, I am most comfortable with limiting it to engaged. I originally was looking for a simple and clear little adjustment so that things that were scary felt that way. But above all I don't want to bog down the game with endless little things exceptions to established rules.

So is there consensus that Ranged attacks (including anything that uses the Javelin / Pila rule) are not susceptible to the Shaken modifier? That would mean the updated rule text should be something like this (changes in bold):

Quote
2.2 Fear Checks
Your unit takes a Fear Check on the first round of engaged combat against a unit with the fearsome or terrifying keyword. Some command cards or unit abilities might call for fear checks at other times. Like rout checks, each unit can take only one fear check per phase, and the rest don’t carry over.

A unit that takes a Fear Check (pass or fail) gets the Shaken penalty (3.2.3.1.2) on all engaged attacksfor the rest of the turn. If the unit fails the check it also gets the Frightened penalty (3.2.3.1.2) on all engaged attacks for the rest of the turn. By the next round, the fear is assumed to have passed, and the unit fights normally unless it needs to take another fear check on that turn. If the unit didn’t need to take the check at all (because it was immune to the Fear) it doesn’t take any penalty.

Note: Because the shaken, frightened, and penalties apply only to engaged attacks, and routing units never attack, you don’t need to roll fear checks for units that already failed rout checks this phase. You also never need to apply shaken or Frightened penalties to any ranged or spell attack.
...

3.2.3.1.2 Shaken and Frightened
A Shaken or Frightened unit is afraid enough of the enemy that its attacks are less effective, but not so afraid that it has turned to run away. Usually, conditions occur as the result of a Fear Check  (2.5).  A Shaken unit gets  (-1) -0/-0. A Frightened unit gets (-0) -1/-1. These penalties, stack if appropriate. These penalties are never applied to any ranged or spell attack.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: lazyj on October 22, 2010, 09:39:42 AM
Incidentally, after we clarify this whole ranged / engaged part, I'd love to address the fact that as currently worded, fear causing creatures take the penalty against other fear causing creatures.

So technically the Ancient Red Dragon takes a fear test against Skeleton Trolls? Hmmm... probably not the intent. It's not nearly as big an issue for me as it could be, but it would be worth discussing later.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on October 22, 2010, 10:24:35 AM
Quote
As one of the primary agitators for the Fear rule to be made stronger a while back, I am most comfortable with limiting it to engaged.

Yeah despite my comments earlier I also think limiting Fearsome to an Enaged modifier is probably good.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on October 22, 2010, 10:27:42 AM
Quote
As one of the primary agitators for the Fear rule to be made stronger a while back, I am most comfortable with limiting it to engaged.

Yeah despite my comments earlier I also think limiting Fearsome to an Enaged modifier is probably good.



Quote
Incidentally, after we clarify this whole ranged / engaged part, I'd love to address the fact that as currently worded, fear causing creatures take the penalty against other fear causing creatures.

From the rulebook:  Units don’t need to make fear checks against units that aren’t any more scary than they are. For example, if two fearsome units (or two terrifying units) become engaged, neither makes a fear check. Fearsome units do need to make checks against terrifying units as normal.

So your wish is granted...   ;D
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: lazyj on October 22, 2010, 10:43:59 AM
I'm not sure the latest edition of the rules has this clarification? Maybe I'm just missing it.

Anyway, I don't want to de-rail too much the main focus of this thread which is "fixing" ranged attacks and fear interactions.

added
You know, I just realized that v3.0 of the rules lists the Engaged and Ranged modifiers separately, and true to form they do not include the Frightened / Shaken rules in the Ranged combat modifiers. So by rule... this is a non-issue?
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 22, 2010, 11:03:09 AM
You are correct, sir.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on October 22, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
It's in the special rules section:

7.7 Fearsome and Terrifying
During the courage phase, if a unit became engaged with a fearsome or terrifying unit this turn, it must make a fear check (2.5,) with the normal consequences for failure.

(it says 2.5, but the Fear checks are in section 2.2)  Which is:

2.2 Fear Checks
Your unit takes a Fear Check on the first round of combat against a unit with the fearsome or terrifying keyword.

A unit that takes a Fear Check (pass or fail) gets the Shaken penalty (3.2.3.1.2) for the rest of the turn.

And for completeness, here's 3.2.3.1.2:
3.2.3.1.2 Shaken and Frightened
A Shaken or Frightened unit is afraid enough of the enemy that its attacks are less effective, but not so afraid that it has turned to run away. Usually, conditions occur as the result of a Fear Check (2.5). A Shaken unit gets (-1) -0/-0. A Frightened unit gets (-0) -1/-1. These penalties, stack if appropriate.

So functionally, its something that will only affect pila/javelin attacks as they're they only ranged attacks that happen when you're engaged.  But this is a pretty easy fix because they can just say its only affects engaged attacks.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 22, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
7.4 Javelin Rule
Some units carry javelins or other ranged weapons that are launched as the unit charges.
The free attack is made at the start of the combat phase (or before free attacks if the javelin unit pinched an enemy unit and
it routs) and is treated like a normal ranged attack, e.g. only range attack modifiers are used.

...before free attacks if the javelin unit pinched an enemy unit and it routs...
This could only take place during the Pre-Combat Courage phase, which infers the missile attack is pre-contact.

...and is treated like a normal ranged attack, e.g. only range attack modifiers are used.
This is self explanatory and answers all questions.  It is not influenced by Fear.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 22, 2010, 04:26:16 PM
7.4 Javelin Rule
Some units carry javelins or other ranged weapons that are launched as the unit charges.
The free attack is made at the start of the combat phase (or before free attacks if the javelin unit pinched an enemy unit and
it routs) and is treated like a normal ranged attack, e.g. only range attack modifiers are used.

...before free attacks if the javelin unit pinched an enemy unit and it routs...
This could only take place during the Pre-Combat Courage phase, which infers the missile attack is pre-contact.

...and is treated like a normal ranged attack, e.g. only range attack modifiers are used.
This is self explanatory and answers all questions.  It is not influenced by Fear.

It should, I suppose, say "only ranged and general" or "ranged, not engaged, modifiers" or the like.  General combat modifiers, which is where Fear effects live at the moment, apply to all combat.  (That's also where the yellow/red modifiers apply, so if fear didn't apply to javelins, neither would those.)

Currently Javelins can happen one of two times: either in the combat phase before any other attacks, or in the precombat courage phase if and only if they pinch someone who routs.

Again, we could change fear effects to be engaged only modifiers, which would be my favored way to change it so they don't apply to javelin attacks, but then we'd need to further errata Wave of Terror, or make it worse.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on October 22, 2010, 04:26:42 PM
Quote
...before free attacks if the javelin unit pinched an enemy unit and it routs...
This could only take place during the Pre-Combat Courage phase, which infers the missile attack is pre-contact.

Except that free attacks comes after Fear checks, so the unit would be shaken.


Quote
...and is treated like a normal ranged attack, e.g. only range attack modifiers are used.
This is self explanatory and answers all questions.  It is not influenced by Fear.

Except that Frightened/Shaken is not a ranged or engaged modifier.  It is a general modifier, just like being int he Yellow/Red.  And to incur a Fearsome check is you to be engaged during the M&C phase.


Now don't get me wrong, I agree with the intent that its probably too much for Fearsome to apply to Javelins/Pila.  Its just that currently, under the rules, it clearly does.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on October 27, 2010, 01:47:11 PM
I do agree with Kevin that having fear/shaken apply to javelins creates an unfortunate turn order issue, which is something we generally try to avoid.

We don't always avoid it, however -- the Orc global command card that costs a command action (I'm at work, don't have it on me) is much better when two lines meet on your turn than on your opponent's.

I'm torn on this...the simplest thing to do (rules-wise) is to let Fear work on javelins.  You become shaken/afraid before the combat phase and the javelin attack happens during the combat phase so by then it's affected you.  I also think that's realistic.  The turn issue can be flavor-spun, perhaps not in a way that is completely satisfying.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 27, 2010, 02:16:40 PM
@Hannibal and Niko:
Thanks.  I stand corrected and solidly converted.  By the rules, as you've shown more accurately then I, Fear should apply to Javelin/Pila.
So be it.  Thanks for setting this straight.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on October 27, 2010, 04:23:53 PM
How about making "shaken" an engaged-only modifier while keeping "frightened" as both?

That way, the Undead Wave of Terror card functions as it always has.

I'm not bothered by the chance that the Romans blow a fear check and get nerfed across the board.  The annoying part is knowing that your brave Extraordinarii are guaranteed to get 6 dice, down from 8, no matter what.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 27, 2010, 04:32:01 PM
How about making "shaken" an engaged-only modifier while keeping "frightened" as both?

That way, the Undead Wave of Terror card functions as it always has.

I'm not bothered by the chance that the Romans blow a fear check and get nerfed across the board.  The annoying part is knowing that your brave Extraordinarii are guaranteed to get 6 dice, down from 8, no matter what.

That doesn't exactly work because currently if you blow the fear check you get both Afraid and Shaken, rather than one or the other, so Afraid is currently just (-0) -1/-1, though that would be an easy tweak.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Torrg on October 27, 2010, 08:05:04 PM
For my clarification
Fear is applied to both Range and Engaged attacks? While I agree in theory and I am in favor of fear = range, do the Dark Elf unbalance this?
Against an army like the Undead where you would face maybe 4 units with the  Fear attribute (Insert Andrew Gross's Army here, and they were large targets) that was bearable as it was over 1300 points in units, and left weak core units as filler. Now with the release of the Dark Elves which have 8 fear/terror causing units (for 2000 pts you could choose 6 Highblood Blades, 2 Standard Bearers and 4 Pain Touch). I can take a whole army of fear causing units and ensure my opponent is A(-1)0/0 and cause multiple dice rolling checks for an additional A(0)-1/-1 each turn while I close.
Or worse Have the DE take 2 Dusk Lords, 2 Coven, 3 Levy and 1 Slave, This army can stand on the back edge of a board and shell out A(10)7/7 attacks at 21". At an average of 3.5" movement for infantry, this equals at least 6 turns of devastation rained down (add the fact I would have up to 20 command cards in my hand at this point and added A(3)6/6 from the coven once at close range and this should decimate any advancing balanced army as it tries to close and would be almost immune to range attacks in return. So I should have 40 attacks at (10)7/7 and at least 1 turn at close range of A(28)6/6 (these can have CC's played on them too). Against a 2/2 defense this is upwards of 38 wounds inflicted before the lines meet...OUCH.

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl - Fredrick the Great
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on October 27, 2010, 08:28:06 PM
Torrg,
This would only apply if the unit engages and has missile at the same time, a la Centaurs, Pila, Javelin.
Not for standard missile troops as there's no engagement to trigger the Fear check.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 27, 2010, 11:00:59 PM

Afraid (and Shaken) are general combat modifiers (they're listed on that section of the card and in that rulebook section) so they apply to both ranged and engaged attacks.

But that's not the same as saying Fear works against shooting; virtually all of the time it won't.  Afraid and Shaken come up if your unit needs to take a Fear check, which normally happens in the pre-combat courage phase if you engaged a Fearsome or Terrifying unit this turn.  So most of the time, if you're shooting at a Fearsome unit, Dark Elf or Undead or whatever, you're not taking the Shaken or Afraid penalties.

There are two exceptions, which caused this debate in the first place: if you've got Javelins or a Javelin variant like Pila or Centaur Cheats, you take the Fear check before you throw, so you'll have whatever modifier on the free ranged attack as well as on your engaged attack.  And if you're facing an Undead player and they play Wave of Terror, all of your units make a fear check that phase even if you're just taking ranged attacks.

So I think the answer to your implied question is no, Fear isn't usually a problem for ranged troops and the Dark Elves are as vulnerable to shooting as any other 3/1's.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Torrg on October 28, 2010, 12:50:57 AM
Oops, Thanks for the clarification  ;D
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on October 28, 2010, 10:06:00 AM
I'm still scratching my head at the thought  of Centaurs being shaken by Dark Elf infantry units.   ???   :P
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on October 28, 2010, 12:09:28 PM
Quote
I'm still scratching my head at the thought  of Centaurs being shaken by Dark Elf infantry units.

Because they're afraid of being captured and thrown in the Dark Elf circus.   ;D
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 28, 2010, 12:57:33 PM
Because they're afraid of being captured and thrown in the Dark Elf circus.   ;D

I was going to say it was a magical glamor developed over centuries of dominating and intimidating the poor slaves, but I'm going to go with this one, because it is hilarious.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on October 28, 2010, 12:59:23 PM
Quote
I'm still scratching my head at the thought  of Centaurs being shaken by Dark Elf infantry units.

Because they're afraid of being captured and thrown in the Dark Elf circus.   ;D
If this is the case, wouldn't Umenzi Giant War Elephants be refusing to take the field against the Dark Elves?  As would the Ravenwood Bear Packs.  Geez, we could go on and on with this!
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: ajax98 on October 28, 2010, 01:07:39 PM
Scenario contest?
Dark Elf Circus Hunt!
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on October 28, 2010, 01:23:31 PM
Quote
I'm still scratching my head at the thought  of Centaurs being shaken by Dark Elf infantry units.

Because they're afraid of being captured and thrown in the Dark Elf circus.   ;D
If this is the case, wouldn't Umenzi Giant War Elephants be refusing to take the field against the Dark Elves?  As would the Ravenwood Bear Packs.  Geez, we could go on and on with this!

Bear Packs are already afraid of Dark Elves.  Heck, even dinosaurs (except the T-Rex) are afraid of the purebloods!
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: gull2112 on October 28, 2010, 06:21:51 PM
 

Quote
If this is the case, wouldn't Umenzi Giant War Elephants be refusing to take the field against the Dark Elves?  As would the Ravenwood Bear Packs.  Geez, we could go on and on with this!

You're thinking Barnum & Bailey. A Dark Elf circus is a totally different show. Lash Mistresses were originally Dark Elf carnies (carnie being a double entendre with the latin root carne, or flesh).
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: gull2112 on February 02, 2011, 07:48:07 PM
The problem I always had with Fearsome is the one turn time limit. I know this was done to avoid having to do any book keeping, and bravo that. but it is a severely limiting factor.

I would prefer just marking the card with an "F" by the combat stats and saying that it stays until the unit is out of that combat. This would be consistent with the rule about a unit not being able to turn to face an enemy who is engaged on its flank i.e. if you start combat in an off-balance state, then you remain off-balance through the entire combat.

A simpler and more fun solution in my opinion is that if a unit is charged by a fearsome unit and fails the fear test, it routs. There are  no other penalties or effects for fear. Furthermore, it is only if you are Final Rushed by a fearsome unit that you must test in the following pre-combat morale phase. You are fine if you Final Rush the fearsome unit.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hamilcar on February 03, 2011, 11:00:37 AM
That last part is a wonky thing to deal with... If they FR you test, if you FR you don't. 
The point of the system is accounting for the simultaneousness of battlefield occurrences.  If it came down to who was moving, I'd be back to playing 40K (what a bloody NIGHTMARE!)
I am a BIG fan of how Fear is handled, especially in v3 rules.  It's minor enough not to unbalance the game and major enough to make players consider how to deal with it.  The lack of Fear resistant units is a bit of an issue for me, but I do understand its inclusion later in the rules has growing pains.

Having units route if failing the Fear check... well, if the Dark Elves aren't problematic enough, that would surely send them over the top.  If any army should have had so many Fearsome units, it should have been the Undead.  But that's a whole other thread.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 06, 2011, 06:44:10 PM
Figure I'd transfer my thoughts on Fearsome/Terrifying here from the uber-thread that developed from Kevin's ideas.  Let me explain the philosophy behind my idea:

I really liked Fearsome when the rules were first changed.  But at that time it really only affected a few big guys.  Usually you're not going to have more than 1-2 of those guys (unless you took the 5 Ogres + Giant M&M build, which had its own problems). It really fit and it really helped out most of the units that were Fearsome as they were usually Large and with high Pow but mediocre attacks and Off Skill.  These types of 'big meanies' simply felt underpowered already and this gave them a much needed boost.

But like many things, what is fine at 1-2 units get abusive when you spam them.  And a DE player has to go out of his way not to spam Fearsome.  Now you have a whole line of them with Fearsome.  None of them are Large.  None of them have the "must drop 2 CCs to play a single CC on the unit."  None of them have an absurd Pow 7 that ratchets up the cost (although many DE do have Offense & Pow 6/6, which does get pricey).

So now things that were okay start to unbalance.  You lose 1-2 dice on the charge turn, no big deal.  You lose 5-7 dice across your line and that starts to matter.  Worse, you have to check every time you charge these guys.  And while that's not a huge thing, it personally frustrates me to pinch a unit and have the pinching unit always lose an attack.  Or have a unit rout & rally, then when I charge it I lose that attack to Fearsome again.  That one could be a game changer. 

For example, say I have a unit that grinds down your fearsome unit.  Your unit routs but doesn't die.  Let's say its in the red and my unit is either in the red/yellow.  Your unit rallies, but I charge next turn.  You have -2 dice, but because you're Fearsome my unit suffers -2 dice (if Yellow) or -3 dice (if Red).  That's just wrong.

A smart person would ask "yeah, but how often does that happen?"  Well, again, when you're fielding 1-2 Fearsome units, not often.  It's what Niko would call a 'corner case.'  And he'd be right, which is why it wasn't a big deal before.  But when the whole line is Fearsome, this moves from 'corner case' to 'uncommon, but often enough to be frustrating.'  I've played 3 games with the DE since they were released, and its already come up once.  And with the Lord of Dusk's auto-rally ability, I think 1-in-3 occurrence ratio is not criminally far off.

So to summarize, in my opinion, the 'always (-1) -0/-0' on:

'big meanies' = good

'average line guys' = ungood.


Now Kevin has a solution, wherein a unit has a half-pass/fail option.  It works, but feels . . . clunky.  Also, and this is entirely secondary, it doesn't have the right theme.  What I think works is to link the 'always -1 attack' to some stat in a way to back-construct that correct theme.  That feels cleaner to me, but it'll also avoid that example I presented above.  So how about this:

Fearsome:  When a unit becomes engaged with a Fearsome creature, the unit rolls a Courage check.  If the unit fails it is Frightened [(-1) -1/-1] for that turn.  If the unit passes, but the Fearsome unit has more unchecked Green boxes than the unit, the unit is Shaken [(-1) -0/-0] this turn.  Units that do not take Courage checks or automatically pass Fear checks cannot be Shaken.

Terrifying:  When a unit becomes engaged with a Fearsome creature, the unit rolls a Courage check.  If the unit fails it is Frightened [(-1) -1/-1] for that turn.  If the unit passes it is Shaken [(-1) -0/-0] this turn.  Units that do not take Courage checks or automatically pass Fear checks cannot be Shaken.


This accomplishes the idea that if you go up against 'big meanies' like Trolls or Ancients, you're probably going to suffer the -1 attack.  However, as they take damage, they become much less scary.  A badly wounded Hill Giant isn't as frightening as before, and the guys charging in have a "c'mon lads, let;s finish him!" attitude.  By contrast, an Ancient Dragon or Hydra is always frakking scary.  When the men see them howling and lashing out in pain-filled rage, they're thinking "Umm, I think we just pissed it off..."

This'll also prevent the Dark Elves from automatically removing an attack across the whole line, which is Kevin's point.  The Dark Elves will need to weaken most units before they can accomplish that as they will usually have the same number of Green boxes.  And the units where they have less are usually lighter, less reliable troops.

The one place this falls flat is cavalry.  Low boxes is a defining feature, and at the moment I simply don't have a definite idea on this one.  Basically fearsome units will always strip an attack of cavalry and fearsome cavalry will never strip away an attack from non-fearsome units.  I'm okay with fearsome units spooking regular cavalry, as animals are relatively easily spooked (especially horses).  With Fearsome cavalry, maybe we just have an exception that they need only to equal the number of Green boxes to trigger the auto-Shaken.  I dunno.  If people really like the idea, then we can hammer it out.  But if folks think I'm way off base with this idea, well then there's no need.   8)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: gull2112 on March 06, 2011, 08:07:11 PM
I like your general idea, and your solution is accurate and precise, if a bit wonky itself, which you admit. My less wonky option would be that fearless work like it used to, and terrifying work like the new fearsome.

Or,

Since it is what causes the whole problem, remove the "fearsome" keyword from a number of the DE units. Off the top of my head I'd say only the Lords of Dusk, Drake Riders, and Dusk Lancers should keep their fearsome key word, and the rest should lose it and get a cost reduction, of say 25 points.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: BubblePig on March 06, 2011, 08:42:24 PM
First of all, you don't want to give me a 25 point discount on DE line units. Second, I can't make the rest of my point because I need to change my pants.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 06, 2011, 11:31:50 PM
I like your general idea, and your solution is accurate and precise, if a bit wonky itself, which you admit. My less wonky option would be that fearless work like it used to, and terrifying work like the new fearsome.

Or,

Since it is what causes the whole problem, remove the "fearsome" keyword from a number of the DE units. Off the top of my head I'd say only the Lords of Dusk, Drake Riders, and Dusk Lancers should keep their fearsome key word, and the rest should lose it and get a cost reduction, of say 25 points.

Re-writing the fear rule again is vastly superior to re-writing half a faction.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 12:00:29 AM
Quote
My less wonky option would be that fearless work like it used to, and terrifying work like the new fearsome.

But that puts us back to the problem that Fearsome on a lot of the 'Big Meanies' was just a waste.  It was a big enough problem to be revised the first time, and I think the idea is worth keeping that a Giant or a Dragon is scarier than an Ogre or a Slave Taker without delving into the realm of terrifying.

Quote
Quote
Since it is what causes the whole problem, remove the "fearsome" keyword from a number of the DE units. Off the top of my head I'd say only the Lords of Dusk, Drake Riders, and Dusk Lancers should keep their fearsome key word, and the rest should lose it and get a cost reduction, of say 25 points.

Re-writing the fear rule again is vastly superior to re-writing half a faction.

Yeah I'm with Niko here.  That's a more radical suggestion than Kevin's tweak to Witching Hour and I'm against just that.  The change you suggest isn't "here's a tweak" it's "here's a whole different faction."

And even if we went with that, it's just punting the problem.  Let's say YMG decides to do a faction of, say, demons.  It's conceivable they would justify having their whole line of Fearsome units.  At which point we're going to have to solve this problem all over again.  So hey, why not solve it now? ;D
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: BubblePig on March 07, 2011, 01:40:56 AM
If my vote counts for anything, for the record, I am for thoroughly exhausting rule revisions and even re-revisions before changing the printed cards.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 03:39:02 AM

First: I'm not convinced the Shaken rule is particularly overpowered in the Dark Elf army.  Note, for example, that all of the proposed "broken" Dark Elf lists only have it on the three units that people think might have other problems (Lashmistress, Dusk Lord, Coven.)  None of the line units in Ron's 2x4 or Kevin's challenge army even have it because they're the cheapo spear dudes, who aren't fearsome.  That said, I can see how it might be annoying.  Losing the raw number of dice you lose on engagement with a Highblood line is demoralizing, and it is a pain to keep track of all those damn lost dice.  In addition, we didn't change points costs at all when we rebalanced fear (because the idea was fear was initially underpowered, and charging DEs extra for new fear would make them stack up poorly against the older fear-causing units.)  Now, given all prior fear causing units were Large, maybe we should have up-costed DE fear and basically decided that undercharging for old fear would make up for Large being more of a liability than expected, but that never occurred to us, in part because it is an ugly, kludgy fix.  In addition, a few earlier Large units are fine to good (Tree, Ogres, assorted dinosaurs and dinosaur-like lizards, BODAF.)  But perhaps I digress.  In any case, my point is I'm agnostic on the DE Shaken issue; I don't think it's broken now, but I also don't think getting rid of it would seriously gimp the faction.  I'm amused that people single it out because it was a part of a suite of abilities designed to make playing against the Dark Elves feel spooky and uncomfortable; I'm glad it worked from an artistic viewpoint, but I think it worked too well! :P

Regardless, I think Kevin's point about creating a dumb turn-order issue is well taken with regards to pila/javelins, which is why I very much support Fear penalties not applying to ranged attacks.  This is a very easy fix - moving all the fear-based penalties from the General to Engaged modifiers section fixes it.

I'm agnostic on the issue of Shaken, but leaning towards just removing the damn thing entirely and going back to the old Fear rules.  (Note I don't think there's a compelling reason to do this for your tournament Kevin; given how few Fearsome DE units seem to see serious play, and how rare Fear is in other factions, I think it's not worth extra errata to keep up with and I can't imagine we'll get out a new rulebook until AvP at the earliest.)  As I said, I don't think it gimps the DE Fearsome/Terrifying units and it seems like it'd remove some player frustration.  And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of the "bad" Large units like the poor Trolls, let's be honest.  They still suck even with Shaken.  What Shaken seems to have done is make the Large units that were already ok a bit better, without doing enough to help the bad ones.  Alas.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 11:53:18 AM
Quote
First: I'm not convinced the Shaken rule is particularly overpowered in the Dark Elf army.

I don't think its broken, I just think its frustrating as heck.  And if its balanced but no fun, then its not worthwhile.  I'm really focusing on the other side of this:  the not-tournament army.  That's the army I've been playing and playing against lately, as we break in the Dark Elves around here.  That army has lots of lashmistresses, blade dancers, and highbloods.  And all sides have agreed that its just a really annoying thing.


Quote
I think Kevin's point about creating a dumb turn-order issue is well taken with regards to pila/javelins, which is why I very much support Fear penalties not applying to ranged attacks.  This is a very easy fix - moving all the fear-based penalties from the General to Engaged modifiers section fixes it.

Yeah I'm taking that one as a given and plan to incorporate it in our games.


Quote
I'm agnostic on the issue of Shaken, but leaning towards just removing the damn thing entirely and going back to the old Fear rules. . . .As I said, I don't think it gimps the DE Fearsome/Terrifying units and it seems like it'd remove some player frustration.  And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of the "bad" Large units like the poor Trolls, let's be honest.  They still suck even with Shaken.  What Shaken seems to have done is make the Large units that were already ok a bit better, without doing enough to help the bad ones.

I think that's totally the wrong approach.  The 'bad' large units really, really need this ability.  The old Fearsome was . . . let's go with "lame."  Sure its not going to make the bad ones suddenly competitive, but if it brings them a little closer to respectable for non-tournament games, I say let's do it.


What about a simpler progression:

Fearsome: when this unit becomes engaged, enemy takes test unless pinching/flanking the Fearsome unit or the fearsome unit is in the Red.
Fail test:  (-1) -1/-1
Pass test:  no affect

Fearsome + Large:  when this unit becomes engaged, enemy takes test unless pinching/flanking the Fearsome unit or the fearsome unit is in the Red.
Fail test:  (-1) -1/-1
Pass test: (-1) -0/-0

Terrifying:  when this unit becomes engaged, enemy takes test.  (i.e. even if pinching/flanking or unit is in Red).
Fail test:  (-1) -1/-1
Pass test: (-1) -0/-0
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: BubblePig on March 07, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
None of the line units in Ron's 2x4 or Kevin's challenge army
Gonna have to claim both of those, and give Kevin a co-producer on the challenge army ;)

I don't think its broken, I just think its frustrating as heck.  And if its balanced but no fun, then its not worthwhile.  I'm really focusing on the other side of this:  the not-tournament army.  That's the army I've been playing and playing against lately, as we break in the Dark Elves around here.  That army has lots of lashmistresses, blade dancers, and highbloods.  And all sides have agreed that its just a really annoying thing.
Lots of lashmistresses, blade dancers, and highbloods? That sounds expensive, how many points per side?
If the DE are balanced with regards to fear, why are we even having this discussion? If everyone in your group is agreed that they are balanced but annoying to the point where it is no fun, why isn't that faction just getting left in the box? Let's fix the broken stuff first, which has nothing to do with fear rule IMO.


I'm agnostic on the issue of Shaken, but leaning towards just removing the damn thing entirely and going back to the old Fear rules. . . .As I said, I don't think it gimps the DE Fearsome/Terrifying units and it seems like it'd remove some player frustration.  And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of the "bad" Large units like the poor Trolls, let's be honest.  They still suck even with Shaken.  What Shaken seems to have done is make the Large units that were already ok a bit better, without doing enough to help the bad ones.

Am I missing something here? I thought the outcry was about the pila interaction which everyone agrees on, and that most everyone was more or less OK with the status quo on fear otherwise.

What about a simpler progression:

Fearsome: when this unit becomes engaged, enemy takes test unless pinching/flanking the Fearsome unit or the fearsome unit is in the Red.
Fail test:  (-1) -1/-1
Pass test:  no affect

Fearsome + Large:  when this unit becomes engaged, enemy takes test unless pinching/flanking the Fearsome unit or the fearsome unit is in the Red.
Fail test:  (-1) -1/-1
Pass test: (-1) -0/-0

Terrifying:  when this unit becomes engaged, enemy takes test.  (i.e. even if pinching/flanking or unit is in Red).
Fail test:  (-1) -1/-1
Pass test: (-1) -0/-0
Simpler? Yes. Simple? No. Also, making fearsome units not fearsome on the flank would only seem to make sense for units comprised of only one creature, and most or all of those are terrifying anyway taking away the flavor I think you are trying to incorporate here.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on March 07, 2011, 01:00:16 PM
I'd go with keeping the current fearsome rule set for units that are both LargeColossal AND Fearsome/Terrifying.  I like that and I think it's totally fair.  Simply remove the shaken status from DE line units, or any similar line unit type that may pop up in the future.

Lots of lashmistresses, blade dancers, and highbloods? That sounds expensive, how many points per side?
If the DE are balanced with regards to fear, why are we even having this discussion? If everyone in your group is agreed that they are balanced but annoying to the point where it is no fun, why isn't that faction just getting left in the box? Let's fix the broken stuff first, which has nothing to do with fear rule IMO...

...Am I missing something here? I thought the outcry was about the pila interaction which everyone agrees on, and that most everyone was more or less OK with the status quo on fear otherwise.
Thing is, you can have an army consisting of 7 Highblood Blades and 1 Halfblood Slavetaker for under 2000 points.  You'll have a perfectly viable army consisting of above average line units with a swift flanker.  Not only is this army perfectly viable (if a bit boring), but the entire line is fearsome.  That means that if your opponent did not bring any fearsome dudes to the party, your opponents charge turn is going to be totally nerfed.  Factions lacking fearsome dudes like Hawks, High Elves, and Dwarves (minus Longbeards, which cost a ton) are going to be totally hosed across the board.  That is what many here consider to be a problem.  And as I've stated elsewhere in the Skeleton/Fear discussion, having to roll a fear check for quite a handful of non-fearsome units against a regular line unit doesn't make much sense to me. 
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 07, 2011, 01:30:11 PM
Quote
I'd go with keeping the current fearsome rule set for units that are both LargeColossal AND Fearsome/Terrifying.  I like that and I think it's totally fair.  Simply remove the shaken status from DE line units, or any similar line unit type that may pop up in the future.

This seems fair, and it's good to err on the side of keeping things simple.

I'll go one step farther, however, and say the "Terrifying" units should keep the "shaken" modifier even if they're not large/colossal.  (This would apply to the Coven and to the Lord of Dusk.)

It would be simplest to do this via a slight rewording of the fear rules, so that "Shaken" was a result of the fear check that gives (-1) -0/-0 while "Afraid" would give (-1) -1/-1.  (Currently "afraid" gives (-0) -1/-1 and stacks with shaken.)

Don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I'd word it as something like.

Quote
If the unit fails its fear check, the unit is afraid and receives a modifier of (-1) -1/-1 on engaged attacks this turn.

If the unit passes its fear check, and the unit it is engaging is Terrifying, or Fearsome and Large/Colossal, the unit is shaken and receives a modifier of (-1) -0/-0 on engaged attacks this turn.



By the way, I really liked Hannibal's green box thing from a flavor standpoint, but worry about "rules creep." (And it's the sort of rule seems (a) ripe for people forgetting and messing up and (b) likely to slightly slow the game down as people have to pause & count boxes.)

Kevin
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on March 07, 2011, 01:37:50 PM
I'll go one step farther, however, and say the "Terrifying" units should keep the "shaken" modifier even if they're not large/colossal.  (This would apply to the Coven and to the Lord of Dusk.)
OK, I see the sense in that.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 01:59:01 PM
Quote
Lots of lashmistresses, blade dancers, and highbloods? That sounds expensive, how many points per side?

Not in one army.  We have played more than one game.   :D


Quote
Simpler? Yes. Simple? No.

I'm not afraid of some complexity, especially if it adds to the game. 


Quote
Also, making fearsome units not fearsome on the flank would only seem to make sense for units comprised of only one creature, and most or all of those are terrifying anyway taking away the flavor I think you are trying to incorporate here.

Abomination, Treant, Earth Elemental, Hill Giant, Dragon are all single guys.  Trolls, Zombie Trolls, Skeleton Trolls, Ancients are 2 to a card, easily falls into the same category.    But beyond that, flanking isn't about tackling one individual guy, it's about them not getting that charge bonus.  There's no bellow and roar and whipping claws/tails/teeth that give the enemy unit pause.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 02:02:57 PM
Hey, twin posting!   ;D


Quote
If the unit fails its fear check, the unit is afraid and receives a modifier of (-1) -1/-1 on engaged attacks this turn.

If the unit passes its fear check, and the unit it is engaging is Terrifying, or Fearsome and Large/Colossal, the unit is shaken and receives a modifier of (-1) -0/-0 on engaged attacks this turn.

Yeah I like this.  And I agree with Kevin that Terrifying should be not linked to large.  And if we have a whole line of Terrifying units, well we can at least include that into the design philosophy.


Quote
By the way, I really liked Hannibal's green box thing from a flavor standpoint, but worry about "rules creep." (And it's the sort of rule seems (a) ripe for people forgetting and messing up and (b) likely to slightly slow the game down as people have to pause & count boxes.)

Yeah, I basically had the same thought.  Neat but a little too tweaky, which is funny because I was trying to come up with an alternate idea because I thought yours was a bit tweaky.   ;D
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 02:06:30 PM
It pretty much offends me to have the function of one ability be tied to another :P  Especially if you're talking about a change that's being made not because of balance issues but because some players find it a bit annoying.

One frustration I'm having with many of these proposed rules changes is that a lot of the options presented add very serious complexity.  This one isn't hugely complex on the surface, but it feels very fiddly, which has many of the same issues.  If you don't know the background of the discussion it is going to feel arbitrary and difficult to remember.  Imagine reading over the rulebook five years from now as someone who just got the game: "wait, so my fear ability works differently if the guy is large?  What kind of sense does that make?  And how am I easily going to remember that in play?"  It's effectively issuing errata to those specific cards, even if it technically isn't, because it creates something important about them that isn't helpfully listed on the card.

I think your fix for Fear would be fine as a house rule if your play group finds the full Highblood line to be irritating with the Shaken die; there's nothing wrong with house ruling from time to time, after all.  But in terms of official rules, I'm strongly in favor of clear, transparent, universal changes, which means in this case I'd want to change the Fear rule for everyone or not at all.

Also, I was thinking about it, and it's easy to think "well large units suck" because the Trolls are the first Large unit a lot of people met and they frankly do.  In fact, though, I'm pretty sure large guys aren't not notably "worse" than other units on average.  I mean, by their nature they are, in most factions, not units you're going to take all the time, because they tend to have profiles like (5) 5/7 1/x which makes them good against heavily armored tanks but kind of a waste against 3/x's, and are easy to shoot at, so you're presumably going to leave them in the box if you're going up against High Elves (unless they're one of the (x) 6/x ones in which case they can be solid.)

In fact, of the actual Large/Fearsome units they're the only one that I can think of that's a complete dud.  Dragons are pretty lame I suppose but that's because they're so beastly expensive, and I suppose managing the Earth Elemental usually isn't worth the trade-off.  On the other hand, some Large units are great, solid dudes who are faction lynchpins: Ogres, Abominations/Skeleton Trolls, and Ancients come to mind.  Many of the rest are respectable and I put them in my armies when it seems appropriate with no regrets: the Tree, Hill Giant, Giant War Elephant, and Triceratops Herd are all like this.  There are relatively few large/colossal units that aren't on that list, and most of them are locked on Close and otherwise awkward to control.  Even among those, things like the T-Rex occasionally shine, and the poor Zombie Trolls would be a pretty solid blocker if they weren't in-faction with Zombies and Abominations, some of the best blockers ever printed.  And even guys like the Earth Elemental, who is usually pretty lame, can sometimes be used to good effect, like combining the EE with Skirmishers.

Basically, at the end of the day, I remain unconvinced Shaken needs to or should go, but I'm increasingly not buying the "large guys need it!" argument, because there are so many large guys who don't.  The bad large dudes seem to be Trolls, where I pretty strongly believe the regeneration is just overcosted, some of the redundant ones in the M&Ms, which isn't surprising given how many large dudes they have, and that's...really about it.  So I think whatever fate the Shaken rule has, that fate can pretty easily be shared by everyone involved.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 02:10:40 PM

Welp that was like 3 replies while I was typing and my post is an excellent blocker, being, as always, a giant wall of text.  That said, both Kevin and Rush, I just want to emphasize what should be the key point of my post: all these changes to Fear do, in fact, represent a lot of rules creep.  Old Fearsome was extremely simple; new Fearsome is only slightly more complex.  All these conditionals are an order of magnitude moreso, and, aside from the admittedly liberating fact that we're considering rules changes pretty openly these days, I'm not sure what the point actually is.  We have two simple rules (old fear and new fear) of which either seems, to me, to be acceptable.  If the DE line units are too annoying, given all the large guys who I was perfectly happy to take under the old rules, I'm pretty convinced just dropping shaken is by far the most elegant solution.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 02:25:06 PM
Quote
It pretty much offends me to have the function of one ability be tied to another  :P


I find that a rather arbitrary offense.  I see no reason why they couldn't be linked at all.  In fact, to me it makes perfect sense:  big + scary = scarier.


Quote
Especially if you're talking about a change that's being made not because of balance issues but because some players find it a bit annoying.

Well, I think I misspoke a little earlier, by being reflexively cautious of bagging on the DE.  I think a whole line of auto-Shaken presents some problems.  I think that a rule that was good on big baddies is probably no good on line units.


Quote
One frustration I'm having with many of these proposed rules changes is that a lot of the options presented add very serious complexity.

I fail to see how these add any more complexity than Lasmistresses, Blade Dancers, Spells, Javelins, Flying, Skirmishers, mercenary rules or any number of things that get added.  I find it dwarf-planet-sized ironic that the guy who wrote the DE is taken aback by any additional complexity.   ;D


Quote
In fact, of the actual Large/Fearsome units they're the only one that I can think of that's a complete dud.  Dragons are pretty lame I suppose but that's because they're so beastly expensive, and I suppose managing the Earth Elemental usually isn't worth the trade-off.  On the other hand, some Large units are great, solid dudes who are faction lynchpins: Ogres, Abominations/Skeleton Trolls, and Ancients come to mind.  Many of the rest are respectable and I put them in my armies when it seems appropriate with no regrets: the Tree, Hill Giant, Giant War Elephant, and Triceratops Herd are all like this.  There are relatively few large/colossal units that aren't on that list, and most of them are locked on Close and otherwise awkward to control.  Even among those, things like the T-Rex occasionally shine, and the poor Zombie Trolls would be a pretty solid blocker if they weren't in-faction with Zombies and Abominations, some of the best blockers ever printed.  And even guys like the Earth Elemental, who is usually pretty lame, can sometimes be used to good effect, like combining the EE with Skirmishers.

You've just listed units that rarely get play out here because they're basically too expensive for what they do.  Zombie Trolls, Giant Catapult, Trolls, Ancients, Treants, Triceratops Herds, Hill Giant, Dragons, Earth Elementals, all the larger guys suffer from a simply sub-par combination in some way.  Most games they stay in the box unless someone is deliberately doing something wacky.  The Fearsome rules really helped out the fact that they had some large flaw (mediocre Off Skill, only Green-Red boxes, etc).


Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 07, 2011, 02:32:26 PM
My preferences would rank...

top)  shaken only if enemy is terrifying or fearsome + large
middle) "old" fear rules (no "shaken")
third) new fear rules (always shaken)

IMO the first option is a nice move in the direction of balance at fairly minimal complexity.  But really, there are a number of things which, to me, are higher priority at this point than the fear rules, and I'm with whatever is decided.

(The one thing I care about a good deal is that javelins/pila not get double-hosed, and everyone seems on board with that.)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
The Dark Elf complexity is written on the cards.  "Large + Fearsome = special alchemy" would be buried in the rulebook.  Rulebook complexity is way worse than card complexity!  It makes the rules more intimidating, and hides important things in places that players don't see them.  It strikes me as amusing that we're at a stage where everyone is rightly pleased with UvulaBob's rulebook at least in part because it is shorter, but one major reason the 3.0 rules are so large is that there are so many clarifications that people wanted (again, rightly) put in.  With rulebooks you often have a conflict between being comprehensive and being concise at the best of times, and adding lots of strange corner case rules that have to live in the rulebook just makes this even harder.

If we were reprinting either the Dark Elves or all the large dudes so that we could put the exception on the back, it'd be far less offensive to me.  (I'm not even gonna talk about all the flanking things, which clearly add complexity.)

I think you're flat wrong about Ancients, Trikes, and Trees, who I'm very happy with and are good units.  The Tree especially is a standout.  Earth Elementals are locked-C "5 move units, none of which have ever been "always take" units.  The Hill Giant is great when he works right but pays a lot of points for a powerful ranged attack that costs command actions to use, so a lot can go wrong there.  The Giant Catapault is similar; he pays a large surcharge for being competent both in melee and at range.  (The GC was also the broken unit back in the day and the first set of rules changes was specifically focused on making it not an always take superunit, so calling that one a problem is pretty silly.)  Of your list, in fact, only Dragons and Trolls I would say are actually overcosted.  The rest are all perfectly fine in the right circumstances.  Much like lots of other elite units that don't happen to have the Large keyword, like High Elf Scorpions, Ravenwood Bowmasters, any of the Hawk elites, Death Knights, Celestial Guard...and so forth.  I'd argue that elite units like that, by and large, aren't supposed to be the kind of units you want to take all the time.

I've said this before and no doubt will again, but it is really important: not every Battleground unit should be one you think about throwing into a generic 2000 point army designed to fight whatever.  Role-player units have a really important place in a game where, in the vast majority of cases, you build your army in response to the terrain and the opponent's faction.  We don't want units that are always useless, but we also don't want every unit to have to be so well-rounded that there's no skill in picking a good list for the circumstances!

(That said, one thing I've had on my radar for a while is that the current metagame for Battleground makes attack skill a lot better in a vacuum than strength is, because 3/x's and 2/1s are a lot more popular than x/3s and x/4s.  That hurts the large guys, but no more than it hurts, say, Bearkin or Dwarven Battleaxemen or any other 5/6 or 5/7 guys.  And while it's a concern for faction design and access as a whole, it doesn't make the x/6 and x/7 dudes any worse against Orcs, Dwarves, or Lizardmen, so they should still get plenty of outings.  Also, the way to fix that is to make more factions with x/3's, not tinker with the rules.)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on March 07, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
Don't get me wrong Nikko, I absolutely love the addition of shaken to the fear rules.  It feels totally right.  My objection was fearsome applied to what many players perceive to be normal line unit types.  

If I had it my way from strictly a game play perspective , I'd remove fearsome from the High Blood Blades.  It's just too easy to field a line where the majority of units is fearsome with that being allowed.  Keeping it for units like Lashmistress, Highblood Duskblades, etc... would be acceptable because

A) they are not core units, and are more uncommon
B) they are a bit more costly and you would cut down on the percentage of fearsome line units in an army because of that.

However, I know that changing text on unit cards that are already in print is a poor move because we already have a bunch of errata for existing factions.  Making shaken apply only to large + fearsome units is the easiest way to fix this in my mind right now.  There could very well be a better solution.  But the bottom line with me is that fear/shaken is totally fine.  We just need to be careful which units we give this ability to.

EDIT:  OK, so I was typing that while Nikko was composing his wall of text - LOL
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 03:15:31 PM

I think there are lots of reasons not to give Fearsome to core line units in the future, not the least of which is it was supposed to be a cool thing about Dark Elves, and having another faction do that would kind of undermine it.  I wouldn't remove it from the Highblood Blades because all the Highbloods having Fear and all the Purebloods having Terror is basically the core of the faction flavor.  On the other hand there's actually no compelling reason to have the HBB's be Core given that Highblood+ Dark Elves are supposed to be pretty rare.  Not sure I'd make that change if we were reprinting the faction either, but I'd think about it.  On the other hand, I think the issue's not big enough to make errata very appealing; sure, the 7 HBB + Slavetakers army is technically legal, but it's pretty bad; likely someone takes it once, their opponents get annoyed, but win, and they never take it again, heh.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 03:21:53 PM

Hm, I had at least three hands in that previous post.

Anyway, to the rest of the thread: I think there are non-offensive ways to make Large units better as a class, mostly involving adding rules to the actual Large keyword.  One easy option would be to give Large units an impact hit in the same way Cavalry get one; that would be significantly better because that impact hit already lives on the combat modifiers card so players get a reminder without having to flip open the rulebook!  There are various other modifiers that we could do the same thing with.  In fact, I dunno why this didn't occur to me, but renaming Shaken to "Broken Charge" or something and making it a rule that applies to the Large keyword is also an option.

Overall, though, my real hang-up is that I just don't see where y'all are coming from with "Large units suck."  Some Large units are certainly rare picks, but...lots of units are rare picks.  A few Large units even actually do suck, but...a few other units also suck.  If we're going to change the rules for Large units to buff them, to me, the first point is establishing that they actually need it!  Again, being useful in some circumstances isn't the same as sucking assuming they're a good pick in the circumstances where they shine.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
Okay, I surrender. 

I had a reply, but it's no use.  I'm not going to get into a wall-of-text argument with you, Niko.  I think you're wrong but I've seen you when you plant your feet like this and I don't have the energy to devote to banging my head against said wall.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: gull2112 on March 07, 2011, 03:59:46 PM
Allow me to play devils advocate and agree with Niko. I think the fear thing is a cool effect and adds flavor to the DE. It is simple and straight forward. If anything needs to be nerfed on the DE its the Lord of Dusk, but I'm not even suggesting that.

On the same vein, the DE aren't overpowered because of their fliers. Yes they're effective, but they're not TOO effective.

It is still way too early to be crying foul. Give it another year of tournament play and see if people haven't found ways to overcome all the "unfair" advantages. IMHO there is no need to tweak at this point. :P
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 07, 2011, 04:12:00 PM
Meant to put in my post this:

Quote Kevin:
Quote
My preferences would rank...

top)  shaken only if enemy is terrifying or fearsome + large
middle) "old" fear rules (no "shaken")
third) new fear rules (always shaken)

I agree 100% with Kevin on this one.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 07, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
I'm with BubblePig on that one.  A 25 point discount is huge.  :)

I think my favorite approach is Niko's idea of removing shaken from Fear and attaching it to Large.

We "fixed" Fearsome for two reasons.  The first is that we felt like it was a bit too "all or nothing" (-1/-1 is great, but most of the time it's a blank) and the second was that Large/Fearsome units (before the DE you got Fearsome because you were large and for no other reason) were a bit overcosted due to the drawbacks of Large.

I like/love the flavor of the Dark Elves having lots of fearsome guys, but I do think that it's unfortunate that you end up with your whole line shaken against them, and if the Dark Elves have a problem it's that they're too good rather than not good enough.

It made sense at the time to address the Large/Fearsome problem on the Fearsome side but maybe the right approach would be to solve it on the large side?  Fearsome could remain exactly the way it was, but Large units could gain an impact hit and cause (-1)0/0 on the charge.  This would also mean that you don't get shaken when you hit a unit on the flank, which in turn would mean that only one pinching unit was ever shaken.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 04:43:22 PM

I agree 99% with Chad, though would want to test extensively to see if an impact hit would break the Ogres.  Other than that I don't think any current Large guys super worry me with +1 impact hit and a slightly weaker Shaken.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on March 07, 2011, 04:47:17 PM
It made sense at the time to address the Large/Fearsome problem on the Fearsome side but maybe the right approach would be to solve it on the large side?  Fearsome could remain exactly the way it was, but Large units could gain an impact hit and cause (-1)0/0 on the charge.  This would also mean that you don't get shaken when you hit a unit on the flank, which in turn would mean that only one pinching unit was ever shaken.
I think you'd have to make points cost adjustments across the board if large units get an impact hit.  Logically it makes sense, but game play-wise it's probably something that should have been done since the beginning.  Most of those large guys will have an offensive power of 8 (and some a 9!) on the charge so you are practically guaranteeing an extra point of damage on the first turn.  While that may cool, wouldn't it sort of upset the points balance?  In addition to that, we already have a few large/colossal dudes that get impact hits and this would steal some of their thunder, so to speak (har har).  Those impact hits are part of what sets things like Elephants and the Triceratops Herd apart IMO.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 07, 2011, 05:24:25 PM
At the moment every large unit is fearsome, so tying shaken to large rather than to fear is equivalent to what was being talked about, but a more elegant way to word it.  (In the ideal world I'd still like to see shaken also caused by terrifying units, but am cool either way on that.)

I'm extremely leery about giving a free impact hit to big guys.  As others say, that's basically a free point of damage on the first turn of combat which the opponent can do nothing to prevent.  That's an extremely powerful "fix" for a category of units that overall is OK. 

Large units can move through many pieces of terrain faster, they all hit hard, nearly all go 5" or more (Of course, like other 5" movers, they fight sightly less well for their points relative to 3.5" movers.)  Sure, they're relatively vulnerable to spears (though my experience is that spearmen will put on a few points of damage and then die horribly, and that the best way to kill a large unit is to nail the one next to it and then pinch), and can be targeted by heavy artillery even if they have an allied twerp in front.  But as Niko says, you don't need every unit to be viable in every scenario.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 07, 2011, 06:03:23 PM

Terrifying units are kind of like Fearsome in that only the very few Terrifying DE units wouldn't get Shaken by virtue of size.  There are only two, and only the Lord of Dusk really benefits from Shaken; the Coven are so fragile in melee that even if the enemy blows the Terror check entirely they'll often mangle them within 2 turns.  (Indeed, this happened to me twice against Ron at TotalCon.)

I only brought up the impact hit because the situation with large guys reminds me a lot of the situation with early cavalry, where they're sometimes fine but often felt a bit underpowered; the early cavalry fix was to add the impact hit and the +1 effective defense against shooting, which makes cavalry feel about right now.

I don't mind the large guys as is, as I've said, but it seemed like several people in the thread were thinking they sucked, and were looking at solutions that increased rulebook bloat.  If I were to test a large unit buff, it'd be an impact hit.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 08, 2011, 01:34:24 PM
I think you'd have to make points cost adjustments across the board if large units get an impact hit.  Logically it makes sense, but game play-wise it's probably something that should have been done since the beginning.  Most of those large guys will have an offensive power of 8 (and some a 9!) on the charge so you are practically guaranteeing an extra point of damage on the first turn.  While that may cool, wouldn't it sort of upset the points balance?  

It would definitely have to be tested (and I think Niko's exactly right on the prime suspect for "too good") but the logic at the moment is that large units are overcosted so a free boost would bring them into balance.  It's basically like what we did with cavalry -- they were too vulnerable to missile fire and their charge wasn't as good as we wanted (especially for heavy cavalry) so we gave them +1 defensive skill vs. ranged attacks and an impact hit.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 08, 2011, 02:20:27 PM
It would definitely have to be tested (and I think Niko's exactly right on the prime suspect for "too good") but the logic at the moment is that large units are overcosted so a free boost would bring them into balance.  It's basically like what we did with cavalry -- they were too vulnerable to missile fire and their charge wasn't as good as we wanted (especially for heavy cavalry) so we gave them +1 defensive skill vs. ranged attacks and an impact hit.


My thought is this:  why go through that hassle, when we have a solution already in place that has been tested?  I mean, if we're considering a bump for Large guys, the current auto-Shaken Fearsome works great. 

Giving them an impact hit would almost certainly be too much because as Kevin said it's going to be basically a free point of damage.  (and Chad I distinctly remember you scolding me, rightfully, that 1/2 a pt of damage was a massive bonus.   ;) )  For most guys its going to be an auto-point because of overkill but even on the weediest big guy it'll be 5/6 of a point again Def 2/2 guys.

By contrast, when facing an enemy with Off (5) 5/5, the auto-shaken results in -1/3 of a point inflicted if the Large guy is Def: 1/3 and -2/9 of a point inflicted if the Large guy is Def 1/4.  This is assuming the enemy passes the Fearsome check, which is usually a safe bet.

With the auto-Shaken the net change is either 1/3 or 2/9 of a wound and that felt about right.  So if you increase the net change to 5/6 or 1 point, it's going to go way too far.

Further I think an extra impact hit will have unintended ripple effects.  Umenzi GWE doesn't need another impact hit, for example.  If Niko is correct that most the big guys (Treants, Ancients, etc.) are fine then this will overbalance them.  By contrast, the auto-shaken has a diminishing net effect the 'bigger' the guy gets.  It really helps the 'runt big guys' who have Def 1/3, which are the ones who are in most desperate need of it.

The only drawbacks to doing it this way is

 1) Niko's revulsion at having rules that is buried in the rulebook, which I don't get.  There are lots of modifiers buried in the rulebook.  Cavalry units don't state on their card that they get a penalty for being shot at or an impact hit.  Heck, Large itself is a keyword.  I don't see how its any more intimidating to put in the Large and/or Fearsome keyword section this linkage.  I mean, if a unit has the Fearsome or Large keyword, players are going to have to look that up anyway.

2) Niko revulsion at having bonuses that link between two keywords.  I can see that its not entirely elegant, and its not.  In a perfect world, Chad would have a Flux-Capacitor-equipped-DeLorean to foresee this problem and create different gradients of Fearsome to allow for some units to auto-Shaken and some units to not.  (Also if he did, he probably would've shorted Real Estate bonds between 2005-2008).  But alas he doesn't, and so we're trying to make do with the most elegant solution that achieves the desired result, which I strongly feel this does.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 08, 2011, 07:39:11 PM

I just want to point out that moving shaken to being associated with Large rather than Fearsome is fine with me because it's not a linkage anymore; that'd go on the combat card easily and non-confusingly.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 09, 2011, 05:55:35 AM
Rereading my original comment (in light of the responses to it) I can see I spoke badly.

My thought was that shifting "shaken" to Large rather than Fearsome seems like a no-brainer.  If we decide that large units still need something else, we could test giving them an impact hit.  I agree that it's likely too much.  (We normally charge about 20 points for an impact hit, on the assumption that it will do about a point of damage.)  It could be that we ditch shaken and give them the impact hit if we need something in the middle.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 09, 2011, 09:19:49 AM
(http://My thought was that shifting "shaken" to Large rather than Fearsome seems like a no-brainer.)

So..ummm...I guess that means that this thread is resolved and this becomes a new erratum?

My only question would be would (fearsome) Dark Elves be shaken when they encounter a large (and fearsome) unit.  I'd guess no, since no fear check is rolled when both units are fearsome, but we'd need to be careful on how the rule is phrased.

Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 09, 2011, 11:41:15 AM
Quote Chad:
Quote
Rereading my original comment (in light of the responses to it) I can see I spoke badly.

My thought was that shifting "shaken" to Large rather than Fearsome seems like a no-brainer. 

 :o  Umm... okay... 

I think Kevin & I are used to debating each other, which becomes the email equivalent of Verdun.  Chad...are you using forum aikido on us...?   8)

So to clarify, the idea is:

Large:  if fearsome, then enemy units are auto-shaken.

Terrifying:  as fear, but -1 on the test?


Quote
If we decide that large units still need something else, we could test giving them an impact hit.  I agree that it's likely too much.  (We normally charge about 20 points for an impact hit, on the assumption that it will do about a point of damage.)  It could be that we ditch shaken and give them the impact hit if we need something in the middle.

It'd be worth looking at.  My opinion is a few units aside (Trolls) the shaken helps them enough (or very close). 


Quote Kevin:
Quote
My only question would be would (fearsome) Dark Elves be shaken when they encounter a large (and fearsome) unit.  I'd guess no, since no fear check is rolled when both units are fearsome, but we'd need to be careful on how the rule is phrased.

To keep it simple, I'd go with your interpretation.  Fearsome cancels out Fearsome, so the "auto-shaken" modifier that kicks in because of Large never gets to happen.  It may seem kinda wonky, but probably the easiest solution.

And it makes a certain sort of sense:  the Fearsome for Dark Elves becomes as much a defense as anything else.  They're dark elves, they don't cower before lumbering unwashed ogres like the inferior races...
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 09, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
Actually, I'd go with the simplest change.

When a Large unit charges a non-Large unit, all units it charges are shaken that turn.  A Colossal unit causes all non-Colossal units it charges to be shaken that turn.

Fear goes back to being what it used to be -- nothing if you make the check, -1 to skill and power if you fail.

Fear is irrelevant to shaken (which might need a new name), so DE units get all shook up.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 01:15:39 PM

I agree with Chad; my only question actually is did you mean, Chad, that it goes back to the full (-1) -1/-1 if you fail?  That seems right, as otherwise Fear is actually worse than originally (though granted by a tiny amount) which doesn't seem correct!
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: BubblePig on March 09, 2011, 01:37:13 PM
I like this but suggest that terrifying also get thrown into the mix:
When a Large unit charges a non-Large unit, all units it charges are shaken that turn.  A Colossal unit causes all non-Colossal units it charges to be shaken that turn. When a Terrifying unit charges a non-Terrifying unit, all units it charges are shaken that turn. Shaken does not stack with itself.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 01:38:48 PM

But the only terrifying non-colossal units are Dusk Lords and Covens, and they almost never charge anyone.  That seems a lot more complex for not a lot of reason.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 09, 2011, 01:39:36 PM
You're right -- I'd forgotten that the -1 attack was always in there and just got made automatic.

Yes, I think that would work -- Fearsome remains as it always was, but large units cause smaller units to become shaken when charged.  That way if you fail your fear check when hit by a large unit you get a total of (-2)-1/-1.

This helps specifically with one of the biggest problems I see with Large units -- how crushed they get by spears.  We want spears to be good vs. Large units, but the combination of being relatively easy to damage with missile fire often means that if a large unit has to mix it up with spears it has a good chance of going into the yellow right away and if it routs that's often the game right there.  I'd like it to be possible for a large unit's general to have a hard decision about whether to spend the extra time avoiding the spears or to crunch through.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 09, 2011, 01:41:17 PM
I agree with Niko on not adding in Terrifying, other than the way it already works with Fearsome.

If you get charged by something scarier than you are, you take a fear check (at -2 if it's two classes scarier).
If you get charged by something bigger than you are, you get -1 attacks that turn.

That's pretty clean and I think not too hard to explain.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 02:26:29 PM

A bit complicated by the fact that right now Fear/Terror works even if they aren't charging you.  And I thought Terror was at -1?  Though -2 would be cool, IMO.

Did you intend to imply we should switch Fear to be a "when charged" bonus to match?  It's actually kinda interesting IMO...
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Chad_YMG on March 09, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
I really need to get more sleep -- or else re-read rules carefully before I comment on them.

I hadn't intended to suggest a change to the Fearsome rules but actually I kind of like making it contingent upon being charged.  It seems a lot scarier to be charged by something scary than to hit it on the flank or the rear or if it's standing still.

I used to to karate tournaments and it was definitely easier to maintain full offensive concentration when you were charging someone else, even if you knew he was going to try to strike back, than when you were the one getting charged.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 09, 2011, 02:37:05 PM
Quote
I hadn't intended to suggest a change to the Fearsome rules but actually I kind of like making it contingent upon being charged.  It seems a lot scarier to be charged by something scary than to hit it on the flank or the rear or if it's standing still.

I'm gonna say this is a Bad Idea.  Everything else in BG is dependent on your order, not who is charging.  I think making this exception would be a bad idea. 

Unless of course you're saying that fearsome would only kick in when on Close, and if you're on Hold it doesn't apply.  Which would be okay, but I still think a Dragon is scary whether he's charging you or whether he's sleeping.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 03:18:14 PM
I really need to get more sleep -- or else re-read rules carefully before I comment on them.

I hadn't intended to suggest a change to the Fearsome rules but actually I kind of like making it contingent upon being charged.  It seems a lot scarier to be charged by something scary than to hit it on the flank or the rear or if it's standing still.

I used to to karate tournaments and it was definitely easier to maintain full offensive concentration when you were charging someone else, even if you knew he was going to try to strike back, than when you were the one getting charged.

These were my thoughts, yeah; in addition, it'd probably help a bit further to balance DE S&S (no fear checks if you're holding.)

And yeah Hannibal, I meant it as a charging bonus like cavalry charge etc; not contingent on turn but on orders/engagement with front.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 09, 2011, 03:26:56 PM
I was right about to say what Chad said--"charging" is not dependent on turn order.

I do like the charging rule a lot!

So is the current consensus:

Something bigger than you charges you:  you get (-1) -0/-0 automatically.   
Something scary charges you:  Make a fear check and get (-1) -1/-1 if you blow it.

------------

The only loose end I see is that at the moment, units which have absolute bravery don't lose any dice  (For example: most undead, Dwarven Longbeards, Ravenwood's Aspect of Wolverine card, Umenzi Berserkers.)

If it were me I'd say that units which don't have to roll fear checks are immune to being shaken.  i.e.
 
Quote
Something bigger than you charges you:  you get (-1) -0/-0 automatically unless your unit is immune to fear.
Something scary charges you:  Make a fear check and get (-1) -1/-1 if you blow it.

But if people would rather keep it simple I'm cool with that.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 03:37:26 PM

I think having most immune-to-courage guys lose the die for being charged by a large dude is fine.  At this point we're talking about a momentum/reach thing (it's quite hard to engage something barreling towards you that has longer arms than your weapon!) and the courage IMO shouldn't help.  We're also talking now about a buff to Large rather than a "fix" for Fear.  I think the current Shaken rules combined with Dark Elves highlighted that the "fear is weak" sentiment was based less on Fear and more on problems with Large guys.  Since it's stopping being a Fear rule, I don't see any reason immunity to Fear/Courage should help.

It might be worth writing the Longbeards out of it specifically because they seem to be immune to Fear at least in large part because they've got a monster slayer type flavor, but I'm agnostic on that point.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 09, 2011, 03:41:04 PM
Well if we're basing (-1) -0/-0 on the aspect that the dude is bigger with longer reach (yay, old phalanx rules make a comeback!), then it makes sense to affect everyone. 

And it's also simpler.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 03:43:33 PM
Well if we're basing (-1) -0/-0 on the aspect that the dude is bigger with longer reach (yay, old phalanx rules make a comeback!), then it makes sense to affect everyone. 

And it's also simpler.

Obviously I agree but I never play Dwarves (bad Orcs!) and I know lots of Dwarfy people love their Longbeards a lot, so I didn't want to be a total jerk about it.

(Might as well keep people guessing after all!  ;D )
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Hannibal on March 09, 2011, 03:51:29 PM
Quote
Obviously I agree but I never play Dwarves

Just thumped me some Dark Elves with Dwarves last Friday.  (Of course, that has more to do with my opponent being stoned than my tactical acumen)


Quote
and I know lots of Dwarfy people love their Longbeards a lot, so I didn't want to be a total jerk about it.

(Might as well keep people guessing after all!  Grin )

Well, the shaken rules have been around for awhile and we haven't heard a chorus of "my Celestial Guard/Knights/other 400+ pt unit just suuuucks now!" so I think it'll be fine.

Frankly, I think people will more likely understand that a Large unit makes it harder for you to engage it than "Those Celestial Guard?  Yeah they get the willies against Slavetakers..."
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 09, 2011, 03:59:54 PM
OK then, so the consensus is:

Quote
Something bigger than you charges you:  you get (-1) -0/-0 this turn.
Something scary charges you:  Make a fear check (at -2 if it's terrifying and you unit isn't fearsome) and get (-1) -1/-1 this turn if you blow it.

Works for me!

One request, though:

Can we please call the (-1) -0/-0 modifier something other than shaken? Maybe "outreached?"  Otherwise lots and lots of players who aren't on the message boards will wonder how "shaken" works with fearless units.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on March 09, 2011, 04:47:09 PM

It might be worth writing the Longbeards out of it specifically because they seem to be immune to Fear at least in large part because they've got a monster slayer type flavor, but I'm agnostic on that point.
I think The Beards should keep the attack die because after all, Dwarves are used to fighting enemies that are larger than them  :)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 06:30:11 PM
OK then, so the consensus is:

Quote
Something bigger than you charges you:  you get (-1) -0/-0 this turn.
Something scary charges you:  Make a fear check (at -2 if it's terrifying and you unit isn't fearsome) and get (-1) -1/-1 this turn if you blow it.

Works for me!

One request, though:

Can we please call the (-1) -0/-0 modifier something other than shaken? Maybe "outreached?"  Otherwise lots and lots of players who aren't on the message boards will wonder how "shaken" works with fearless units.


I assumed a different name was more or less a given :)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: BubblePig on March 09, 2011, 06:51:32 PM

But the only terrifying non-colossal units are Dusk Lords and Covens, and they almost never charge anyone.  That seems a lot more complex for not a lot of reason.
A. the change is merely one of quantity not quality
B. Coven charge plenty
C. I was suggesting it before it was clarified that:
     fear gives (-1)-1/-1 not (-0)-1/-1
     neo-shaken (overborne?, trampled?) is a reach issue
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Niko White on March 09, 2011, 07:57:08 PM

Fair enough, I guess I just mostly meant that the issue seemed unlikely to come up often, and didn't seem likely to make them too good.

I think Terror is probably fine with the -1 die on fail, especially if it is/becomes -2 to the check.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: ZiNOS on March 10, 2011, 02:07:29 AM
Why not call this ability reach?

And it is very flavoursome for the Dwarves to not be affected by this (reminds of AD&D modifiers for the dwarves :) ) but  then it gets very complicated. It sure can be used as a house rule but posting more errata? Nah....

my $0.05
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on March 10, 2011, 08:27:14 AM
Quote
Why not call this ability reach?

Because the condition affects the opponent.  Hence, "outreached."

Hey, just a little reminder that I'm still hoping that these conditions are made engaged-only modifiers, so that pila/javelins don't get double-hosed.  I think everyone was on board with that, but let's not lose it in the shuffle as the new rules are codified.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Dave-SWA on April 02, 2011, 11:35:27 AM
OK, I am working on the tournament rules clarification document with Kevin.  He suggested I look up this thread.  As I read the whole thread, I think something mistakenly slipped into the dialog.

My basic understanding:

But it seems somehow a -2 modifier is being mentioned here and there for Terrifying units.

Is this the final, clearly agreed-upon decision?  I think this is a bad idea.

My hunch is Chad mistakenly typed -2 when he meant -1 in his March 9 2011 post.  But then some other folks took the idea and ran with it.

For the record, I also don't like weakening Fear checks by having them only when the fearsome unit is charging.  I think there should be a possible effect for troops being ordered in against a fearsome unit, even if that unit is already locked in combat.  With a successful courage roll, there is no effect.


Here is what I am writing into the rules addenda document:

2.2     Fear Checks
     Fear checks are now only required when charged by a fearsome or terrifying unit. 
     If your unit fails a required fear check, it is “Frightened” and gets a (-1)/-1/-1 penalty for the remainder of the turn.  A unit that passes the fear check suffers no penalty.
     A unit that normally “Passes all Courage Checks”, “Passes all Fear Checks” or has no Courage level number is immune to the Frightened penalty.
     Frightened penalties only modify engaged attacks, not ranged attacks (including javelins & pila).
     The concept of a unit being “Shaken” (3.2.3.1.2) has been removed from the game.

Outreached – New Rule
     If a unit larger than your unit charges you, you are “outreached” and get an automatic (-1)/0/0.  This penalty is in addition to any Frightened penalty that unit may suffer.  The outreached penalty only modifies engaged attacks, not ranged attacks (including javelins & pila).


However, I would like to lobby to retain that any unit entering combat with a fearsome or terrifying unit be subject to the fear roll. 

I'm totally OK with only being "outreached" when charged. 
But, can we come up with a better term than "outreached"?

-DC
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Dave-SWA on April 02, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
New request.

Can a forum moderator please move this entire thread out of the "Player Requests" to the "Rules" section?

It took me quite a while to find it.

Thanks,
-DC
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: UvulaBob on April 05, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
I'm not the best Rules Designer Guy in the world, but is there a reason why we can't do this:

Quote
Reach
A unit that charges a unit smaller than itself gains (+1) 0/0 against the unit it charged for that turn. 

I know the idea is that a unit should be penalized for being charged by something bigger than it rather than a larger unit getting a bonus for charging something smaller. And I get that those are two very different things. But the concept of Reach seems more intuitive than the concept of Outreached. Is it worth using such a weird phrase as "outreached"?
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on April 05, 2011, 05:23:46 PM
Breaking with all previous rules and venturing into fully known territory, not to mention tossing a huge amount of back-and-forth into the trash, for the sake of a prettier word seems a bit excessive, no?

That said, I don't think anybody is married to the word "outreached"  that was an off-the-cuff suggestion to replace "shaken" now that it has nothing to do with a unit's fear (or even it being immune to fear).  If you have a better word, fire away!
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Zelc on April 05, 2011, 05:26:10 PM
Is there any way to consolidate the large creature rules with high ground?  Large = 10', Colossal = 20'?
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on April 05, 2011, 05:31:56 PM
Quote
Is there any way to consolidate the large creature rules with high ground?  Large = 10', Colossal = 20'?

One would assume that being taller is already accounted for in the creature's stat bar.  Since after all 95% of the time it'll be towering over a normal-size opponent.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: UvulaBob on April 05, 2011, 05:39:15 PM
Breaking with all previous rules and venturing into fully known territory, not to mention tossing a huge amount of back-and-forth into the trash, for the sake of a prettier word seems a bit excessive, no?

That said, I don't think anybody is married to the word "outreached"  that was an off-the-cuff suggestion to replace "shaken" now that it has nothing to do with a unit's fear (or even it being immune to fear).  If you have a better word, fire away!

I can't think of a better word, though! It's why I want to come up with something completely new to define the word I can think of. What's wrong with that?  :)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on April 05, 2011, 05:51:18 PM
Quote
Is there any way to consolidate the large creature rules with high ground?  Large = 10', Colossal = 20'?

One would assume that being taller is already accounted for in the creature's stat bar.  Since after all 95% of the time it'll be towering over a normal-size opponent.
I'm also thinking that there are a few exceptions to this, like The Abomination which is essentially a field of... stuff.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: wulfgar61 on April 06, 2011, 09:22:38 AM
For the record, I also don't like weakening Fear checks by having them only when the fearsome unit is charging.  I think there should be a possible effect for troops being ordered in against a fearsome unit, even if that unit is already locked in combat.  With a successful courage roll, there is no effect.


I agree with this point.  Fearsome and Terrifying was made stronger with the the shaken/afraid distinction and instead of simply correcting for that the new rules seem to take it completely the other way and nerf it even from its original version. 

Was it always considered to powerful and if not why not leave the check on engagement?
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: wulfgar61 on April 06, 2011, 10:04:47 AM
And to clarify I would rather whatever change occured it apply to both being changed and charging.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on April 06, 2011, 11:06:14 AM
Wolfgar, feel free to spend an afternoon reading back posts.  But here's the short version of the history, since you asked why.

About a year ago, there was no "shaken" condition.  "Fearsome" meant you roll a fear check, which gave (-1) -1/-1 if you blew it, and no penalty if you passed.  At the time, the sense of the room, was that large units typically weren't worth their cost. 

At the time, all large units were fearsome, and all fearsome units were large.  Thus, it was decided to improve large units by making fearsome more powerful--making the -1 die always apply ("shaken").

...Then, shortly after this came out, the Dark Elves, who were fearsome but not large, appeared.  And again, the sense of the room was that the Dark Elves were a bit too good compared to other units of their price.  Compare, for example, Highblood Duskblades with High Elf Swordsmen:  they have identical hit points and morale, and do identical damage to each other, but the High Elf Swordsmen will lose that die on the critical first turn.

Thus, we decided to make the -1 die factor in with large rather than fearsome as a way to help the big guys while keeping Dark Elves in balance. 

The "Charging" thing was Chad's suggestion.  It gives better flavor, again helps nerf Dark Elf stand-and-shoot armies, and prevents the pure silliness that results when your guys rout an opponent, charge into it as it rallies with 1 red box left, and lose a die because they're afraid.

I personally like the new fear rules a good deal.  Again, feel free to read all the old posts.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: wulfgar61 on April 06, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
I have read the old posts and didn't really see a lot of discussion around the change from engaged to charging.  I saw Chad's comment, but again still didn't feel that was an overwhelming endorsement of the change.

With the new rule (see below) you have in effect nerfed the fear rule from its original state for even the big guys.  I guess that is what is most confusing to me.  If the original change to fear was to help big guys out how does limiting its use by half but given their opponent -1 die when it is used help them out?

So the original rule gave them a shot at the -1/-1/-1 regardless of who attacked. 

Now they have a gaureenteed -1/0/0 and a shot at -2/-1/-1 but only on their charges.  I don't believe this is actually worse than the original rule for the big guys and don't believe I am the only one who feels that way.  So my hope would be that the issue isn't fully closed just yet.

Its still not clear how this helps the big guys even by nerfing the fear rule that was originally thought to be too soft for them. 
2.2     Fear Checks
     Fear checks are now only required when charged by a fearsome or terrifying unit. 
     If your unit fails a required fear check, it is “Frightened” and gets a (-1)/-1/-1 penalty for the remainder of the turn.  A unit that passes the fear check suffers no penalty.
     A unit that normally “Passes all Courage Checks”, “Passes all Fear Checks” or has no Courage level number is immune to the Frightened penalty.
     Frightened penalties only modify engaged attacks, not ranged attacks (including javelins & pila).
     The concept of a unit being “Shaken” (3.2.3.1.2) has been removed from the game.

Outreached – New Rule
     If a unit larger than your unit charges you, you are “outreached” and get an automatic (-1)/0/0.  This penalty is in addition to any Frightened penalty that unit may suffer.  The outreached penalty only modifies engaged attacks, not ranged attacks (including javelins & pila).

Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Zelc on April 06, 2011, 11:37:44 AM
Well, large units would most likely be on a Close standing order anyway, right?  So the only time the new rule hinders them is if 1) they get flanked, 2) they were just rallied, or 3) the rare times they're not a Close SO.  Remember units are considered charging if they become engaged (on their front?) with a Close standing order even if it's on your opponent's turn.

Also keep in mind a unit with 12 Courage will fail fear checks in the green only 25% of the time.  A guaranteed (-1) -0/-0 with a shot at (-2) -1/-1 most of the time is much better than a shot at (-1) -1/-1.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: RushAss on April 06, 2011, 12:03:56 PM
With the new rule (see below) you have in effect nerfed the fear rule from its original state for even the big guys.  I guess that is what is most confusing to me.  If the original change to fear was to help big guys out how does limiting its use by half but given their opponent -1 die when it is used help them out?

So the original rule gave them a shot at the -1/-1/-1 regardless of who attacked. 

Now they have a gaureenteed -1/0/0 and a shot at -2/-1/-1 but only on their charges.  I don't believe this is actually worse than the original rule for the big guys and don't believe I am the only one who feels that way.  So my hope would be that the issue isn't fully closed just yet.

Its still not clear how this helps the big guys even by nerfing the fear rule that was originally thought to be too soft for them. 

As long as you don't let your big guys get flanked this actually is helpful for the big guys.  And losing an attack die on the charge is big.  Zelc nails it below:

Also keep in mind a unit with 12 Courage will fail fear checks in the green only 25% of the time.  A guaranteed (-1) -0/-0 with a shot at (-2) -1/-1 most of the time is much better than a shot at (-1) -1/-1.

Yup, and I think that's the point here.  The charge turn is the single most important turn for damage and penalizing an enemy on that turn is always a significant help.
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: jhenke on January 23, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
OK, second post in freaking forever (in one day even) as I try to get my mind back into the flow. I was also an early proponent of the shaken idea (if memory serves).

I like the changes suggested here over all, but I really need to play it out (I assume you all have as it's a very old thread); since much playing has happened since the last post here, I assume it's all agreed to and in the new rules online.

I'd suggest instead of "overreach" you go with "overrun". A larger mass with weight will plunge further into an enemy rank in my mind. Reach has nothing to do with it...weight, impact, and displacement come to my mind...maybe even "trampled".

That's all I have to add so late to this thread. :)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on January 23, 2012, 02:47:15 PM
Welcome back!  A whole lot has happened in the last year, including new rules.

Below is a link to a google document which tracks every approved rule change.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K96P5uSvfX3KDDnEuJmyw4IP1Tlv0i-rpsdvoyhrBR0/edit?hl=en_US

At the moment the term is outreached.  Remember, the rule reflects the little guys having a less good attack, not the big guy hitting harder (which "overrun" or "trample" would suggest).
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: jhenke on January 23, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
Thanks for that link Kevin! :)

The word choice isn't super important to me in the end, it just becomes a keyword for a state in truth. I mean it could even be as simple as disrupted, scattered, whatever. LOL. Don't really care.

Bookmarking that link and reviewing the changes... :)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: Kevin on January 23, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
And in other news, check out the Championship Tournament thread in the "Conventions" section, in case you're in the area or willing to travel.  :)
Title: Re: Fear (shaken) rule request
Post by: jhenke on January 23, 2012, 05:03:31 PM
Going to check now. :)

Probably can't get anywhere anytime soon, but still have to see what's going on with everyone.